No Saddam link to Iraq al-Qaeda

[kashifsakhan]

Thought i'd post this article here. I wonder what u guys' reactions to the senate report are.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5328592.stm

[Smash255]

Basically the opposite of what bush & Cheney (cheney especially) tried to get the American public to believe in the run up to the War and there after.  Not suprising.

[afleitch]

Is the Pope Catholic? Springs to mind.

[Tender Branson]

Summary:

* Iraq had no WMD (except the ones the US gave him in the 80s)
* There was no Al-Qaida in Iraq before the US-occupation in 2003.
* The war started without UN-approval.

Conclusion:

* An illegal war.

[Speed of Sound]

[sarcasm]WHA?!?!?!?!?! NO. WAY.

But Bush said.....

And...and Cheney said......

But.....but......

Conclusion: Senate must be lying, because this war was justified. Someway, somehow it was, and damnit, we'll find that justification if it takes all term![/sarcasm]

[??????????]

Summary:

* Iraq had no WMD (except the ones the US gave him in the 80s)

Wrong.

* There was no Al-Qaida in Iraq before the US-occupation in 2003.

Wrong

* The war started without UN-approval.

Who cares?

Conclusion:

* An illegal war.

A sovereign nation can declare war on whoever the hell they want if they feel they are justified in their reasons.

[The Duke]

Two years ago when the war was popular, the same committee issued a report that was supposed to be the definitive report on pre-war intelligence.

That report found a clear connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Now that the war is unpopular, the same committee, which virtually identical membership, looks at a set of facts that have not changed in any significant way and finds the exact opposite of what they found just two years ago.

A cynic might say that Senators are trying to hide from their own votes and reports by issuing a self-pardon eight weeks out from the election.

My favorite about face in the report is the total turn around on Zarqawi, where the panel now finds no evidence suggesting Saddam's government knew Zarqawi was in Iraq.  This is total nonsense of course.  Zarqawi stayed in Uday's private hospital and recieved medical treatment there, of course the Iraqi government knew he was there.  It is simply not credible to say otherwise.

By the way, the author of the section on Iraq and Al Qaeda is a man named Eric Rosenbach, a Kerry campaign staffer from 2004.  He was hired by the now rabid opponent of the war Chuck Hagel specifically to re-write history on precisely this question.

[Smash255]

Two years ago when the war was popular, the same committee issued a report that was supposed to be the definitive report on pre-war intelligence.

That report found a clear connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Now that the war is unpopular, the same committee, which virtually identical membership, looks at a set of facts that have not changed in any significant way and finds the exact opposite of what they found just two years ago.

A cynic might say that Senators are trying to hide from their own votes and reports by issuing a self-pardon eight weeks out from the election.

My favorite about face in the report is the total turn around on Zarqawi, where the panel now finds no evidence suggesting Saddam's government knew Zarqawi was in Iraq.  This is total nonsense of course.  Zarqawi stayed in Uday's private hospital and recieved medical treatment there, of course the Iraqi government knew he was there.  It is simply not credible to say otherwise.

By the way, the author of the section on Iraq and Al Qaeda is a man named Eric Rosenbach, a Kerry campaign staffer from 2004.  He was hired by the now rabid opponent of the war Chuck Hagel specifically to re-write history on precisely this question.

Absolute nonsense.  The basic difference was in this report they were allowed to do more investigating (though still blocked in many areas).  the previous report was filled with things they were blocked on investigating and had no access to.

[The Duke]

Two years ago when the war was popular, the same committee issued a report that was supposed to be the definitive report on pre-war intelligence.

That report found a clear connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Now that the war is unpopular, the same committee, which virtually identical membership, looks at a set of facts that have not changed in any significant way and finds the exact opposite of what they found just two years ago.

A cynic might say that Senators are trying to hide from their own votes and reports by issuing a self-pardon eight weeks out from the election.

My favorite about face in the report is the total turn around on Zarqawi, where the panel now finds no evidence suggesting Saddam's government knew Zarqawi was in Iraq.  This is total nonsense of course.  Zarqawi stayed in Uday's private hospital and recieved medical treatment there, of course the Iraqi government knew he was there.  It is simply not credible to say otherwise.

By the way, the author of the section on Iraq and Al Qaeda is a man named Eric Rosenbach, a Kerry campaign staffer from 2004.  He was hired by the now rabid opponent of the war Chuck Hagel specifically to re-write history on precisely this question.

Absolute nonsense.  The basic difference was in this report they were allowed to do more investigating (though still blocked in many areas).  the previous report was filled with things they were blocked on investigating and had no access to.

What exactly is your explaination of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi recuperating in Uday's own personal hospital, then?

[Angel of Death]

I wonder what u guys' reactions to the senate report are.

Welcome to four years ago.

[kashifsakhan]

Summary:

* Iraq had no WMD (except the ones the US gave him in the 80s)

Wrong.

* There was no Al-Qaida in Iraq before the US-occupation in 2003.

Wrong

* The war started without UN-approval.

Who cares?

Conclusion:

* An illegal war.

A sovereign nation can declare war on whoever the hell they want if they feel they are justified in their reasons.

What do you have to back up your claims? And dont give me that freedom crap, try a real arguement this time.

[So the Heroes Fall]

In other news, the sky is blue.

[Boris]

Actually, I believe States was correct in saying that there were members of Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion (the most notable being Abu Musab al Zarqawi). However, they were pretty much stationed in Northern Iraq, where, at the time, Saddam Hussein had little influence thanks to a no-fly zone. However, I believe most analysts agree that Saddam considered Al Qaeda to be competition (and therefore the enemy), not an ally.

[YRABNNRM]

Oh, there definitely was al-Qaeda in Iraq, just the same as nearly every other major country in the world (including the US of A).

[??????????]

What do you have to back up your claims? And dont give me that freedom crap, try a real arguement this time.

I put up a post about a week ago with a dozen or so links discussing WMDs and terrorists in Iraq. Go look there.

[J. J.]

Summary:

* Iraq had no WMD (except the ones the US gave him in the 80s)

Ever hear of Chemical Ali, or Iran-Iraq War.  Actually, our best intelligence asset, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, believed that there were chemical weapons, which are WMD's.  Nukes, no.  Bio, possibly, but no solid intelligence on it.

* There was no Al-Qaida in Iraq before the US-occupation in 2003.

Yes, but there were (probably are) in the US and most allied countries as well.

No, I have never believed the al Qaeda connection, except possibly turning the other way for transit.  I have never believed that Iraq was involved in 9-11.

I have believed that Iraq had supported terrorism and that they had chemical weapons (we have found some, thiough I don't know if there was a greater stockpile).

* The war started without UN-approval.

Who cares.  I second States on this point.

Conclusion:

* An illegal war.

Nope.  Congress authorized it (even John Kerry).

[DownWithTheLeft]

If were going to base decisions on what the UN says, that would make us France.

[The Duke]

Actually, I believe States was correct in saying that there were members of Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion (the most notable being Abu Musab al Zarqawi). However, they were pretty much stationed in Northern Iraq, where, at the time, Saddam Hussein had little influence thanks to a no-fly zone. However, I believe most analysts agree that Saddam considered Al Qaeda to be competition (and therefore the enemy), not an ally.

Zarqawi was not just in the North.  He was in Baghdad.  In Uday's own hospital.  Again, what is your explaination for this?

[Democratic Hawk]

Saddam was a secular Ba'athist, who would have repressed Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. That said Saddam did pose a danger to the Middle East and wider international security and needed to be got rid of

Saddam may have had links to more Pan-Arab, as opposed to Islamic fundamentalist, terrorist groups, however

Dave

[Secretary Polnut]

Saddam was a secular Ba'athist, who would have repressed Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. That said Saddam did pose a danger to the Middle East and wider international security and needed to be got rid of

Saddam may have had links to more Pan-Arab, as opposed to Islamic fundamentalist, terrorist groups, however

Dave

Pan-Arab Terror groups really aren't that popular anymore - the Islamists have taken their place since 1979.

But on topic....


DUH!

[Boris]

Actually, I believe States was correct in saying that there were members of Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion (the most notable being Abu Musab al Zarqawi). However, they were pretty much stationed in Northern Iraq, where, at the time, Saddam Hussein had little influence thanks to a no-fly zone. However, I believe most analysts agree that Saddam considered Al Qaeda to be competition (and therefore the enemy), not an ally.

Zarqawi was not just in the North.  He was in Baghdad.  In Uday's own hospital.  Again, what is your explaination for this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6189795/

That whole trip is apparently under debate and its authenticy questioned. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al Zarqawi, at least according to our brilliant CIA.

[The Duke]

Actually, I believe States was correct in saying that there were members of Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion (the most notable being Abu Musab al Zarqawi). However, they were pretty much stationed in Northern Iraq, where, at the time, Saddam Hussein had little influence thanks to a no-fly zone. However, I believe most analysts agree that Saddam considered Al Qaeda to be competition (and therefore the enemy), not an ally.

Zarqawi was not just in the North.  He was in Baghdad.  In Uday's own hospital.  Again, what is your explaination for this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6189795/

That whole trip is apparently under debate and its authenticy questioned. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al Zarqawi, at least according to our brilliant CIA.

I would have you take note of this section in the story:

But the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, stressed that the report, which was a mix of new information and a look at some older information, did not make any final judgments or come to any definitive conclusions.

“To suggest the case is closed on this would not be correct,” the official said in confirming an ABC News story about the CIA report that the network said was delivered to the White House last week.

So your best evidence in support of your conclusion is a CIA report that explicitly fails to endorse your conclusion?

Boris, I didn't ask how many people agreed with your opinion or what the credentials were of people who agreed with your opinion.  I asked for your evidence.  Present it, please.  Why is Zarqawi's presence in Bagdad, in Uday's own hospital no less, so inconclusive?  And your answer better not be "Because the CIA said so."

[Boris]

Ford, that's the point. My explanation is that the facts are inconclusive on that particular manner. Inconclusive means that Zarqawi could have been there  under the protection of Saddam Hussein (although based upon Saddam's ideology, it doesn't make much sense), or he could have not been. There is no evidence to support your analysis, nor is there any evidence to support mine. Until such evidence can be found, substantiated, and analyzed, then you (and I) cannot use this in favor of our opinions. That's all I'm saying.

However, most other evidence suggests that Saddam Hussein did not actually aid Al Qaeda, although they apparently were operating in his nation prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

[??????????]

The USA did not support the ideology of the Soviet Union yet we still backed them up during WW2. Our common enemy was the Nazis. The same can be applied to Saddam.

[afleitch]

The USA did not support the ideology of the Soviet Union yet we still backed them up during WW2. Our common enemy was the Nazis. The same can be applied to Saddam.

That makes little rational sense. So Saddam was a common enemy? With whom? Well there was one in fact; Iran and quite possibly Al Quaeda (Saddam was not religious enough for them, he was an old-school power crazed Arab nationalist) Now he's been removed, Iraq is now[i/] at long last, a porous base for Islamic extremists.