The reason for dismantling his regime at $3T should be looked elsewhere.
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.
Now we know for sure That President Clinton was wrong when he used that as an excuse to attack Iraq, Afghanistan and the Sudan without the consent of Congress or the UN.
The reason for dismantling his regime at $3T should be looked elsewhere.
It wasn’t spinelessness that kept the UN from acting. It was one of two things and probably both. Corruption and/or complicity.
“Bush lied and lots of folks died.”
Clinton lied Serbs died.
LOL Murry, you’re a loon.
Actually, the AQ presence has been under significant attack by those very elements you mention for some time, and are under danger of being driven out of Iraq quite soon. Maybe you haven’t been following progress in Iraq lately (probably because it’s not in your interest to do so), but the Sunnis have been increasingly helpful in assisting the “occupiers” in rooting our AQ (the Kurds have been helping since the onset, and the Shiites are just as likely to be the target of AQ)
I’ll let the “Bush lied” part walk; it’s too stupid (and cliche) to redress at any real length; when you can express yourself in complex sentiments, I’ll reply.
The question should be, who's next?
Posted by MurryMom to Chena
On News/Activism 11/16/2005 10:37:04 AM EST · 63 of 80
I’m a soldier’s mother ...
You have my sympathy. I surely hope your child does not join the thousands of Iraqis and Americans who have lost their lives because of Bush’s sensless and counterproductive war. Please remember that no Americans were being killed by Iraqis before Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. The slaughter will only end when fine parents like yourself finally come to your senses and the Bush war apparatus is expunged from the offices they temporarilyoccupy.
Yes, and actually links have been found. Some of the documents jveritas translated suggested exactly the opposite of what this report says.
After our troops leave, AQ will go back to planning/executing terrorist attacks on Americans around the world, as they have done since 1993.
Or do you think AQ will just leave us alone?
Actually, no, Saddam was an opportunist, and a traditional one. He used religious rhetoric extensively when it suited him, and he was well aware of the religious fervor of the region. Saddam and AQ were natural allies if only in their united hatred of the US and Israel; they may not have liked one another, but they complimented each other’s attempts to undermine the West. Saddam supported many terrorist groups who were fanatically religious. Your assertion is false; Saddam’s secularism never prevented him from utilizing religious terrorists to further his ends.
just remember: Salman Pak
No, he was NOT the “enemy” of AQ. Saddam, like most pragmatic leaders/dictators, used whoever and whatever was useful. AQ was useful to him, and he supported them in various ways.
Like Salman Pak?
So Bush was right. Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism. Nice to finally see it in print.
Bush should have been all over the media with regards to the confirmed 2001-02 Saddam-AQ links. Had he done this, anyone who would have made the claim that he somehow "lied" would have been looked upon as a moron, even by the left. Had he done the same with the WMDs that our troops actually did find, he would have also buried the "Bush lied, people died" argument.
In case any of you are wondering, I am, in fact, insisting that Bush should have been gloating and showy towards the media with these facts. It would be out of character for him, but it would have been effective in defusing the domestic fifth column which seeks our defeat.
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.