Posted on 03/11/2008 5:56:52 AM PDT by jdm
A new study commissioned by the Pentagon has reviewed over 600,000 documents captured in the invasion of Iraq, and the analysis shows no evidence of operational ties between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda. It did find operational ties and more between Saddam and other terrorist groups, however, which will likely be lost in an avalanche of I-told-you-sos:
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terrorist network.
The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam’s regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy Newspapers. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.
The new study of the Iraqi regime’s archives found no documents indicating a “direct operational link” between Hussein’s Iraq and al-Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.
The study found, though, that Saddam Hussein turned Iraq into a state sponsor of terrorism, including for groups with “global” scope. Saddam had openly bragged about some of his activities. He made a great show of paying $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, for instance, and at one point held a convention for international terrorists in Baghdad.
McClatchy reporter Warren Strobel also includes a strange passage in this report:
As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al-Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq.
“The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims,” the president said.
That has little to do with pre-war intelligence. Not too many people dispute that AQ has an active presence in Iraq in the post-invasion period, mostly because AQ keeps reminding people of it. The argument which the Pentagon report addresses is whether AQ existed in Iraq before we invaded, or whether they entered Iraq as a consequence of the invasion. Clearly, the Pentagon report believes it to be the latter.
As this report makes clear, though, Saddam sponsored terrorist groups outside of Iraq as well as conducted terror inside Iraq with his own security forces. He made himself into a malevolent force in the region, and he represented a threat to American and Western interests in the region. Had we let the sanctions regime collapse — which was what was happening when we invaded — Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs and would have continued in his ambitions to make himself the leader of a unified and hostile Arab state.
The best post mortem I can offer is that I will agree with the loons we should not have invaded Iraq. WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED IRAN INSTEAD.
—Anybody that shares that sacrificial logic should put their own children on the chopping block for the next terror attack ...—
—Use some logic stop all the emotional blather you sound like a liberal.—
Pot, meet kettle.
Do these moronski’s remember that it was SoDamn Hinsane that paid palestinian suicide bombers in Israel $25,000 each?
sorry this was for you not me... lol...
Here let me spell it out real simple.
Bush and the Iraqi invasion.
1. 911 happened.
2. The President was told by all the worlds leading intel agencies that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD.
3. The President went to the U.N. Numerous times in 2001 and 2002 and begged them to take action against Saddam because we could no longer trust this madman in a post 911 world.
4. U.N. failed to give any real help. Saddam kicked inspectors out and shut down negotiations.
Decision time... 18 months have elapsed and you are no closer to containing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in a post 911 world.
Trust that the madman will not employ the same tactics as Al-Qiada. Risk management says that potentiallly hundreds of thousands of Americans will die.
or
Take him out.
The rest is history. Thank you Mr. President for saving so many of us, even the ignorant ones.
MURRY MOM~!!! WHERE YOU BEEN AT BABE???
we miss your horsesh*t ~!
I agree - there is no logical answer!
I want the borders enforced too. But none of the prospects for president seem keen on the idea.
There was nothing emotional in what I said it is a fact if you are going to make decisions that are going to get Americans killed after you have been warned (911) that there is an enemy that intends to Kill you... then may your decisions only effect the ones that you love not the ones that I love.
Logic not emotion...
“Had we let the sanctions regime collapse — which was what was happening when we invaded — Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs and would have continued in his ambitions to make himself the leader of a unified and hostile Arab state.”
I think it’s abundantly clear that Iraq will never be unified. If that were possible we’d have left a long time ago.
LOL Murry sounds like Cindy Sheehan.
“I think it’s abundantly clear that Iraq will never be unified. If that were possible we’d have left a long time ago”
I think Iraq was unified in May 2003, When we stood down the augmentation forces and I was sent home, it was.
It was the invasion of foreign fighters and Al-Qaida that sparked the insurgency during the power vaccumn of 2003, it got worse in 04, 05, 06 because of mismanagement and the political climate here in America at that time.
It got better in 07,08... because of the elected government and the security offered by the surge....
Hopefully we don’t blow this opportunity to salvage success by doing something completely retarded like removing the troops ...
The bottom line...Saddam didn’t deserve to get the benefit of the doubt.
And now that 'Woodstock' is Syria.
Thank you for your perspective, and I believe you are correct. In fact, my SIL was in Afghanistan for the elections and everything was quite orderly, if only too briefly.
My bigger concern, even though I know you’re right and that we should not pull out, is for the troops and their families. The long assignments are taking a terrible toll and I understand from a post last week that they are necessary from a practical standpoint. Still, the wear and tear on their families tugs at my heart.
Amen to that; deployments are absolutely too long. Management in this long term conflict definately has posed its challenges, the Navy augments more now and there are many different fronts that the people really never hear about so its a diverse challenge overall.
I think the army is trying to increase its recruiting goals, however, long term basing plans are most likely the solution. Eventually the violence will subside and the country will return to some form of normalcy at that point having a couple of bases in the country will allow for a ready contingent of forces and at the same time solve the training and security concerns of the Iraqi people.
Basing was the solution and reason for success of the Marshall plan and like I said it will inevitably be the reason for success in Iraq.
As long as we don’t do some really retarted drastic political expeidient thing here like elect Obama to PULL THE TROOPS OUT.
I hope your last comment doesn’t turn out to be a premonition.
MurryMom
Has the man in the white suit come around to confiscate your shoe laces? We’re worried you might do something to hurt yourself
OMG so Saddam and Osama were.... ewwwww....
The bomb maker, Abdul Rahman Yasin, of the WTC 1993 bombing was an Iraqi who fled back to Iraq afer the bombing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.