Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Saddam had “no operational ties” to AQ: Pentagon
Hot Air ^ | March 11, 2008 | by Ed Morrissey

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: abledanger; alqaeda; alqaedaandiraq; intel; iraq; pentagon; prewardocs; prewarintelligence; saddam; ties; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-206 next last
To: jdm; jveritas

PING


61 posted on 03/11/2008 7:19:44 AM PDT by Danae (Remember: Obama = Pull out from Iraq. PLAN on voting, or accept responsibility for the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGunLover

Murrymom is our pet liberal. She didn’t need the sarcasm tag, she’s a truther.


62 posted on 03/11/2008 7:21:50 AM PDT by listenhillary (You watch, Hillary will challenge McCain for the R nomination)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68
Thus the folly of the “preemptive” philosophy of warmaking. I like the justification for war with Iraq that it was RESUMPTIVE war. We fought, we made them agree to a cease fire agreement, they broke the agreement; we started the shooting and bombing again.

And a “stockpile” of chemical weapons getting older is not nearly as much a threat as “capacity to produce” a fresh batch of chem weapons. Saddam didn't have “stockpiles” but he definitely had the capacity to produce, the recipe on hand, and the plan to start up production when the UN left.

63 posted on 03/11/2008 7:22:31 AM PDT by allmendream ("A Lyger is pretty much my favorite animal."NapoleonD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jdm; jveritas

The perfumed princes are at it again.


64 posted on 03/11/2008 7:35:20 AM PDT by denydenydeny (Expel the priest and you don't inaugurate the age of reason, you get the witch doctor--Paul Johnson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm
Let's take a walk down memory lane, shall we?

1999 AP Flashback: Saddam has offered asylum to bin Laden

Another Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection

Iraq-Al Qaeda Link Found

65 posted on 03/11/2008 7:39:09 AM PDT by I'm ALL Right! (Dear RNC: Not one Conservative Candidate? Not one "RED" penny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Where are the documents showing Saddam going AFTER Al Qaeda? That is the Left’s excuse, that Saddam “knew how” to shut down the terrorists in Iraq.

So where is the evidence of it?

Or was it a terror campaign where he cut off suspected political prisoners hands and raped and disembowled their wives in front of them at Abu Ghraib and that harshness was sufficient to keep the acts of terrorism down?

Which is it?


66 posted on 03/11/2008 7:44:56 AM PDT by weegee (I hold out HOPE that neither Obama or Clinton will get the office to push thru their Marxist plans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom
The only reason AQ still has any presence in a few provinces is that they are attracted by American soldiers.

Really? How many were in the World Trade Center...oh thats right, it was an inside job by the stupidest President that ever brilliantly stole an election.

67 posted on 03/11/2008 7:45:27 AM PDT by Bommer ("He that controls the spice controls the universe!" (unfortunately that spice is Nutmeg!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68
Why is there a need to prove anything? If the dumb SOB(Headless Hussein) had just complied with the resolutions that were imposed upon him(by a world body, useless as it is) he would still be murdering and maiming his own people and probably others throughout the world. Heck, by this time maybe he could have balanced the Middle East by radiating his neighbors. Good riddance to the Hussein's!
68 posted on 03/11/2008 7:46:01 AM PDT by Rick66 (Don't dislike me cause I live in Massholechusetts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jdm

This is ‘The War on Terror’. It is NOT the ‘War on Al-Qaeda’, and it is not ‘The War to Avenge 9/11.’ Never has been.


69 posted on 03/11/2008 7:49:04 AM PDT by dfwgator (11+7+15=3 Heismans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom

MurryMom

Whether or not what you are saying is true—and I reserve judgment on that—you are in the same position here as someone preaching Lutheranism in 16th century Spain. Prepare to be “flamed” at the stake.


70 posted on 03/11/2008 7:51:18 AM PDT by paleorite ("Oy vey, Skippa-San" The immortal words of Fuji, formerly America's favorite POW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom

see post #65


71 posted on 03/11/2008 7:54:49 AM PDT by I'm ALL Right! (Dear RNC: Not one Conservative Candidate? Not one "RED" penny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: jdm
The event of 9/11 made the removal of Saddam Hussein unavoidable to all who possess the DNA for survival.

Saddam's history, and the preponderance of evidence that he had WMD’s, and could pass these on to Islamic Jihadist surrogates, made his removal absolutely necessary.

The U. S. has removed now two of the world's most dangerous regimes: Al Queda in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

The does not minimize the problems that remain; but these problems are being gradually solved - as is evident from the feverish, and increasingly dispirited, attempt by Al Queda and regional tyrants to prevent this.

72 posted on 03/11/2008 7:55:25 AM PDT by mtntop3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
"Saddam violated all 17 points of the cease fire from 1991 Persian Gulf War."

BINGO! That should have been all there was to it! Game over! And he was attacking the USA during this period by firing upon both British and American planes patrolling the No-Fly Zones.

73 posted on 03/11/2008 7:56:33 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: jdm
Who cares?

A US-occupied Iraq puts a real crimp in the plans of Iran, Syria and rest of the bad guys.

74 posted on 03/11/2008 8:00:20 AM PDT by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Not only the Czechs, but as I recall other intel agencies accepted it. The U.S. government didn't "reject" the story, but rather said they could not independently confirm it.

"Fairy tale?" What are you smokin? There were hundreds of reports of al-Qaeda in Iraq, including many of the guys who actually ESCORTED them around Iraq. Course, can't believe them. They're Iraqis. The intel links that there were al-Qaeda (not just terrorists, which NO ONE denies, except maybe a kook like Ron Paul), are so numerous they couldn't be posted on a page. Stephen Hayes has documented these beyond debate.

The problem with those who disparage a "Wilsonian Crusade" is that they fear it may actually work.

75 posted on 03/11/2008 8:00:23 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: DTA

That “enemy” of AQ not only allowed his top chemical guy to consort with AQ and teach them how to build chem/bio weapons, but AQ leadership was escorted around Iraq at Saddam’s request, according to one of the security guards who did the escorting. Iraq had plenty of AQ and the Supreme Dictator, who managed to assassinate anyone who disagreed with him in any way, seemed to “not notice” them for a decade.


76 posted on 03/11/2008 8:05:10 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom
Bush lied and lots of folks died.

Hi MurryMom. Long Time No Hear From.

You liberals love to use the "Bush lied" line, but I think that you really understand that it is not true. You never seem to be able to point to any particular lie. If you're talking about the WMD, then I guess by extension you are also acknowledging that clinton lied, and hillary lied, and algore lied, and Daschle lied, and Kennedy lied, and EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT LEADER from 1998 to 2002 lied when they made the exact same comments about Saddam Hussein and his WMD programs, his support/sponsorship of international terrorism, the threat that he posed to the region, and the need for regime change in Iraq (an official state policy of the US implemented by clinton but never acted upon). On the other hand, if you're talking about some imagined claim that Bush/Cheney accused Iraq/Hussein in being involved in 9/11, I believe you are not so ignorant or delusional as to actually believe the lie that either one of them ever claimed that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. The bottom line is this: In spite of the banality of many of your posts, I sincerely believe that you are too intelligent to have actually been taken in by the whole "Bush lied..." canards of the left, and you know full well that the "Bush lied..." line is a complete and utter falsehood. So when you knowingly spout the "Bush lied..." nonsense, fully aware that it is not true, what does that make you?

77 posted on 03/11/2008 8:09:27 AM PDT by VRWCmember (The "Bush lied and people died" crowd consists entirely of LIARS or IGNORANT victims of deception.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Bush, Cheney et. al. were all pretty clear: they were not just going after those who had already attacked us, but trying to prevent the next attack! Remember all the “Bush didn’t connect the dots” criticism he received after 9/11?

Too many people have never read the Iraq War resolution. It’s very instructive.

The idea was that we could no longer give our enemies “one free shot” before dealing with threats. And I’m sure that actually ENFORCING the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire, rather than ignoring them like Clinton did, was deemed necessary to show the world that America can and will follow through.

One may argue with the idea of “pre-emption,” but this whole “Iraq didn’t attack us” line of criticism seems to assume that the Bush administration said it did - something the President and others were very careful NOT to say.


78 posted on 03/11/2008 8:12:33 AM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Does Iran have ties to AQ? How about Chavez and venezuela?
A terrorist, is a terrorist, no matter which group they are supporting. Saddam Hussein needed to go. So do the others.


79 posted on 03/11/2008 8:12:38 AM PDT by SueRae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Paging j, paging jveritas!


80 posted on 03/11/2008 8:14:05 AM PDT by romanesq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-206 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson