• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Pentagon finds no link between Iraq and alCIAda

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
US Commanders: al-Qaida in Iraq to Stay

Darnit.
I'll tell you what's needed, same as was needed from the start, this is just picking our guys off of an escalator.

300 000 more groundtroops, it CAN be supplied, fuck them up.

If i'm not mistaken this 450k force was what the military suggested but the GW admin refused, because they knew where the weapons were, so instead of stabilizing Iraq they thought, oh wait, i forgot what i was going to say.

It's obvious but i've got a migraine the size of Oregon (comparable to Finland).

I should know better than to ... ummmm... pee?
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
It appears that initial articles written were based on the Executive Summary and not much else from the Pentagon report.

Page 65:
One question remains regarding Iraq?s terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam?s statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United tates, the answer is yes.

In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Saddam?s ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam?s ?coercion? toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting (1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats, (2) the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and (3) organizational relationships and ?outreach programs? for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.
Pages 34-35 of the report also details Saddam funding of the terrorist group "Army of Mohammed".
Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision...

The agent reports (Extract 25) that The Army of Muhammad is working with Osama bin Laden. ?

A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that ?this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.?
Page 42:
Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-Iraqi non-state actors was
spread across a wide variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic
terrorist organizations. For years, Saddam maintained training camps for foreign
"fighters" drawn from these diverse groups. In some cases, particularly for Palestinians,
Saddam was also a strong financial supporter. Saddam supported groups
that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad,
led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally
shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I am telling you that there were not even INDICATIONS of such a link even PRE WAR, everyone knows that, i'm awaiting palehorse to come in and back me up on this because he KNOWS that too.

It was NEVER presented as a fact even, hardly mentioned at all except in passing and always proceded with some excuse, it had NOTHING to do with the invasion nor was it EVER presented as part of any reason to invade.

It is completely irrelevant to the case of evidence that was handpicked before the invasion because it was not part of it.

It sure was spewed through the media centrals and right wing fanatic sites fast enough to make one believe it was, but it wasn't.

There are still people out there who believe Iraq was a war in retaliation of 9/11, i promise you there are. Now i'm probably the most freedom loving chap you'll ever meet but these people are CLEARLY not bright enough to vote.
"Such a link?" What specific kind of link out of the 8 Fern listed are you talking about?

If you're talking about an operational iink, we agree. If you're using an operational link to employ as a blanket term to imply there were no links at all, we disagree. Saddam did have links to AQ but like any group or anything he couldn't control utterly and completely, he wouldn't work with them. It's the same reason Saddam's Iraq was somewhat sectarian. Saddam wanted complete power/control and neither OBL or an Iraqi imam was going to share that power/control with him.
There was no link, NONE, not ONE of ANY kind.

In fact, there is PLENTY of proof to the opposite (SH had a force to FIGHT the militant extremists as a whole and Al Quaida especially), also known before the war, SH abhored the AQ and they weren't even in contact with him before the US invasion.

Son, you have fallen victim of your own stupidity, i'm afraid i can't help you more, move along.
The documents say otherwise. You're conflating having no "operational" links with having no links at all.
 

ultra laser

Banned
Jul 2, 2007
513
0
0
They need to just admit that we're at war simply because Bush wants to be at war. That's all there is to it.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,979
1
0
Let's just say: no links that were of concern or consequence to the U.S and its allies, and be done with it. Only a fool would fail to understand that this is what is implied by using the phrase "no links".
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Let's just say: no links that were of concern or consequence to the U.S and its allies, and be done with it. Only a fool would fail to understand that this is what is implied by using the phrase "no links".
Goals of one of the groups that Saddam was providing funding and support for - Pg 35:

Information available to us is that the group is under the wings of bin
Laden. They receive their directions from Yemen. Their objectives are the
. 83 same as bIll Laden...

A later note84 lists the group's objectives, among them:
? Jihad in the name of God.
? Striking the embassies and other Jewish and American interests anywhere
in the world.
? Attacking the American and British military bases in the Arab land.
? Striking American embassies and interests unless the Americans pull
out their forces from the Arab lands and discontinue their support for
Israel.
? Disrupting oil exports [to] the Americans from Arab countries and
threatening tankers carrying oil to them.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: Queasy

A later note84 lists the group's objectives, among them:
? Jihad in the name of God.
? Striking the embassies and other Jewish and American interests anywhere
in the world.
? Attacking the American and British military bases in the Arab land.
? Striking American embassies and interests unless the Americans pull
out their forces from the Arab lands and discontinue their support for
Israel.
? Disrupting oil exports [to] the Americans from Arab countries and
threatening tankers carrying oil to them.
[/quote]

Interesting, but nonetheless he wasn't very successful in his goals which I think is what we ought to be looking at.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Queasy
It appears that initial articles written were based on the Executive Summary and not much else from the Pentagon report.

Page 65:
One question remains regarding Iraq?s terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam?s statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United tates, the answer is yes.

In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Saddam?s ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam?s ?coercion? toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting (1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats, (2) the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and (3) organizational relationships and ?outreach programs? for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.
Pages 34-35 of the report also details Saddam funding of the terrorist group "Army of Mohammed".
Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision...

The agent reports (Extract 25) that The Army of Muhammad is working with Osama bin Laden. ?

A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that ?this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.?
Page 42:
Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-Iraqi non-state actors was
spread across a wide variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic
terrorist organizations. For years, Saddam maintained training camps for foreign
"fighters" drawn from these diverse groups. In some cases, particularly for Palestinians,
Saddam was also a strong financial supporter. Saddam supported groups
that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad,
led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally
shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.

Yeah the summary or leakers with agendas.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Fern


So they found "no direct operation" link between Saddam & AQ? I thought that was well known and old news?

Fern
Apparantely you don't read some of the apologist's threads around here.
I think some of us read "differently".

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

While the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links, they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.
In the first paragraph above we see the "official" conclusion is that they found no "direct operational link", later the author "modifies" this to the absolute "no links".

I think theoretically we could have many types of links:

1. Direct operational links
2. Financial links (general monetary support)
3. Info/intel links (generally providing intel/info)
4. material/supplies links (providing food/weapons etc)
5. knowlege/tech asistance links (how to make explosives etc)
6. Communication links (meeting/talking - which has been confirmed)
7. Other support links (I'm tired of listing so I'll lump a bunch together - providing safe houses, medical treatment, transportaion etc).
8. No links

So, if we have a scale of "links" from #1 - 8. Number 1 being the worse, and number 8 the best, the author (like the OP) just managed to take a statement of "no operation links" and turn it into "no links". We just went from no #1 all the way to #8 - they flew from one side of the scale to the complete opposite side in a blink of the eye. Hardly acurate.

What to make of this statement?:

Other documents indicate that the Fedayeen Saddam opened paramilitary training camps that, starting in 1998, hosted "Arab volunteers" from outside of Iraq . What happened to the non-Iraqi volunteers is unknown..
Or this one:

they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.
Or:

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 . However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.
I notice in this paragraph links to terrorists groups were acknowleged. I also notice the word "primarily" is chosen by the author. He didn't say "exclusively". I.e., some undefined amout of terrorist support that had nothing to with "enemies of his regime". What did it have to do with?


And the author writes this?

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," he said.
Are we to conclude that there are no AQ in Iraq now and GWB is incorrect? Finding no operation links back before 2003 in no way means that there are no AQ in Iraq now.

IMO, the article is poorly written at best. At worst, the author is intentionally distorting the finding of the report. I'm often surprised how people can read the same article and come away with such different interpretations.

No, Sadam had nothing to do with 911 as far we know, but he was involved with terorism at various levels.

This hints at the spin to come (or perhaps fortells of the apparent spin in the article):

The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of Bush's decision to invade Iraq to advance their own familiar arguments.
BTW: Don't confuse my post with any effort to argue the merits, or lack thereof, of invading Iraq, It's more a comment on this article, specifically, and in general the habit of people to interpret information to suit their agenda.

Fern
Let's cut through the BS and the parsing of sentences and get to what the point really is:

The Bush Administration - post-9/11 - kept claiming an Iraq-Al Qaida relationship to IMPLY that Iraq was a threat vis-a-vis terrorist acts on U.S. soil. By using the still-raw emotions of U.S. citizens in the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush Administration was able to bamboozle America into an invasion of Iraq.

You now want to argue picky little points that have nothing to do with the big picture here. For Christ sake, get a little intellectual honesty.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
11,959
3,194
136
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Fern


So they found "no direct operation" link between Saddam & AQ? I thought that was well known and old news?

Fern
Apparantely you don't read some of the apologist's threads around here.
I think some of us read "differently".

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

While the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links, they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.
In the first paragraph above we see the "official" conclusion is that they found no "direct operational link", later the author "modifies" this to the absolute "no links".

I think theoretically we could have many types of links:

1. Direct operational links
2. Financial links (general monetary support)
3. Info/intel links (generally providing intel/info)
4. material/supplies links (providing food/weapons etc)
5. knowlege/tech asistance links (how to make explosives etc)
6. Communication links (meeting/talking - which has been confirmed)
7. Other support links (I'm tired of listing so I'll lump a bunch together - providing safe houses, medical treatment, transportaion etc).
8. No links

So, if we have a scale of "links" from #1 - 8. Number 1 being the worse, and number 8 the best, the author (like the OP) just managed to take a statement of "no operation links" and turn it into "no links". We just went from no #1 all the way to #8 - they flew from one side of the scale to the complete opposite side in a blink of the eye. Hardly acurate.

What to make of this statement?:

Other documents indicate that the Fedayeen Saddam opened paramilitary training camps that, starting in 1998, hosted "Arab volunteers" from outside of Iraq . What happened to the non-Iraqi volunteers is unknown..
Or this one:

they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.
Or:

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 . However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.
I notice in this paragraph links to terrorists groups were acknowleged. I also notice the word "primarily" is chosen by the author. He didn't say "exclusively". I.e., some undefined amout of terrorist support that had nothing to with "enemies of his regime". What did it have to do with?


And the author writes this?

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," he said.
Are we to conclude that there are no AQ in Iraq now and GWB is incorrect? Finding no operation links back before 2003 in no way means that there are no AQ in Iraq now.

IMO, the article is poorly written at best. At worst, the author is intentionally distorting the finding of the report. I'm often surprised how people can read the same article and come away with such different interpretations.

No, Sadam had nothing to do with 911 as far we know, but he was involved with terorism at various levels.

This hints at the spin to come (or perhaps fortells of the apparent spin in the article):

The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of Bush's decision to invade Iraq to advance their own familiar arguments.
BTW: Don't confuse my post with any effort to argue the merits, or lack thereof, of invading Iraq, It's more a comment on this article, specifically, and in general the habit of people to interpret information to suit their agenda.

Fern
Let's cut through the BS and the parsing of sentences and get to what the point really is:

The Bush Administration - post-9/11 - kept claiming an Iraq-Al Qaida relationship to IMPLY that Iraq was a threat vis-a-vis terrorist acts on U.S. soil. By using the still-raw emotions of U.S. citizens in the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush Administration was able to bamboozle America into an invasion of Iraq.

You now want to argue picky little points that have nothing to do with the big picture here. For Christ sake, get a little intellectual honesty.
oh geez have a heart shira, don't take away the only arrow the apologists have left in their quiver.;)

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Queasy
It appears that initial articles written were based on the Executive Summary and not much else from the Pentagon report.

Page 65:
One question remains regarding Iraq?s terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam?s statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United tates, the answer is yes.

In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Saddam?s ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam?s ?coercion? toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting (1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats, (2) the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and (3) organizational relationships and ?outreach programs? for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.
Pages 34-35 of the report also details Saddam funding of the terrorist group "Army of Mohammed".
Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision...

The agent reports (Extract 25) that The Army of Muhammad is working with Osama bin Laden. ?

A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that ?this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.?
Page 42:
Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-Iraqi non-state actors was
spread across a wide variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic
terrorist organizations. For years, Saddam maintained training camps for foreign
"fighters" drawn from these diverse groups. In some cases, particularly for Palestinians,
Saddam was also a strong financial supporter. Saddam supported groups
that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad,
led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally
shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.
Yeah the summary or leakers with agendas.
And who sponsored the report in the first place? That's right, the Bush administration's Pentagon. Hmmm. I wonder what agenda they might possibly have?

Everybody has an agenda Cad. It is no surprise that opponents of the invasion and occupation will focus on facts that best highlight the deception used by the Bush administration to ramrod America into attacking Iraq. It is also not a surprise that the report's authors, understanding full well the highly political environment they work within, would document every little tidbit that might help rationalize the attack. The net result is a clear conclusion -- no material connection between Iraq and al Qaida -- with sufficient background noise for the apologists to keep blowing smoke.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,931
3,446
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
And who sponsored the report in the first place? That's right, the Bush administration's Pentagon. Hmmm. I wonder what agenda they might possibly have
Hah, what insanely contradictory this position is from the topic title, which asserted these reports showed "no link between Iraq and alCIAda". Now you?re saying they do show that link and that it was cooked up by Bush.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
And who sponsored the report in the first place? That's right, the Bush administration's Pentagon. Hmmm. I wonder what agenda they might possibly have
Hah, what insanely contradictory this position is from the topic title, which asserted these reports showed "no link between Iraq and alCIAda".
Hmmm. Assuming I've correctly parsed your insinuation from this disaster of grammar, let me offer you one little hint: I didn't write the OP.


Now you?re saying they do show that link and that it was cooked up by Bush.
Really? Where did I say that? Please provide the quote.


I get that you're eager to pick a fight, but kindly do it with something I actually said. Thanks.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,931
3,446
126
Everyone can read your previous post. If that wasn?t your assertion, then my mistake.
 

NoShangriLa

Golden Member
Sep 3, 2006
1,653
0
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: bamacre
It is also not surprising to see none of the Bush apologists acknowledging this thread.
:laugh:
They were too busy licking their chops to realize that they being lies to, and now they are hiding in their caves licking their wounds from being duped by their beloved administration.

America Fuck Yeah!

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Queasy
It appears that initial articles written were based on the Executive Summary and not much else from the Pentagon report.

Page 65:
One question remains regarding Iraq?s terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam?s statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United tates, the answer is yes.

In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Saddam?s ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam?s ?coercion? toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting (1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats, (2) the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and (3) organizational relationships and ?outreach programs? for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.
Pages 34-35 of the report also details Saddam funding of the terrorist group "Army of Mohammed".
Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision...

The agent reports (Extract 25) that The Army of Muhammad is working with Osama bin Laden. ?

A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that ?this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.?
Page 42:
Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-Iraqi non-state actors was
spread across a wide variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic
terrorist organizations. For years, Saddam maintained training camps for foreign
"fighters" drawn from these diverse groups. In some cases, particularly for Palestinians,
Saddam was also a strong financial supporter. Saddam supported groups
that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad,
led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally
shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.
Yeah the summary or leakers with agendas.
And who sponsored the report in the first place? That's right, the Bush administration's Pentagon. Hmmm. I wonder what agenda they might possibly have?

Everybody has an agenda Cad. It is no surprise that opponents of the invasion and occupation will focus on facts that best highlight the deception used by the Bush administration to ramrod America into attacking Iraq. It is also not a surprise that the report's authors, understanding full well the highly political environment they work within, would document every little tidbit that might help rationalize the attack. The net result is a clear conclusion -- no material connection between Iraq and al Qaida -- with sufficient background noise for the apologists to keep blowing smoke.
:roll: Obviously the Administration had an agenda, as did the people whining about it who pushed for something like this report. MY statement about "agenda" had to do with the LEAKERS within the Pentagon who have consistently tried to leak skewed information during the Bush administration. And the sad part about all this is the press is more than willing to lap up the leaks without doing enough checking/research.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: Obviously the Administration had an agenda, as did the people whining about it who pushed for something like this report. MY statement about "agenda" had to do with the LEAKERS within the Pentagon who have consistently tried to leak skewed information during the Bush administration. And the sad part about all this is the press is more than willing to lap up the leaks without doing enough checking/research.
ROFL. Yes, Cad, it's quite obvious what you meant by agenda. I was merely pointing out the other side of that coin, that both sides have agendas. (Though I am a little confused about why you're whining about "leakers" in this case. The report is available to the public and was due to be published on the Internet until the empire realized it documented, yet again, that the emperor's wardrobe is, shall we say, a bit revealing. I'm just thankful there are still a few brave people who love this country enough to stick their necks out and expose bits of BushCo malfeasance.) Cheers!
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: Obviously the Administration had an agenda, as did the people whining about it who pushed for something like this report. MY statement about "agenda" had to do with the LEAKERS within the Pentagon who have consistently tried to leak skewed information during the Bush administration. And the sad part about all this is the press is more than willing to lap up the leaks without doing enough checking/research.
ROFL. Yes, Cad, it's quite obvious what you meant by agenda. I was merely pointing out the other side of that coin, that both sides have agendas. (Though I am a little confused about why you're whining about "leakers" in this case. The report is available to the public and was due to be published on the Internet until the empire realized it documented, yet again, that the emperor's wardrobe is, shall we say, a bit revealing. I'm just thankful there are still a few brave people who love this country enough to stick their necks out and expose bits of BushCo malfeasance.) Cheers!
Psstt. the initial "reporter" stories were BEFORE it was made public. THAT is what I was talking about with the "leaker" portion. Sheesh.
Oh, and I have no doubt you like the leakers in these cases because they usually only leak the "bad" for Bush stuff to get the story to jump before the actual truth comes out which is too late to change some people's perception of the issue.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: Obviously the Administration had an agenda, as did the people whining about it who pushed for something like this report. MY statement about "agenda" had to do with the LEAKERS within the Pentagon who have consistently tried to leak skewed information during the Bush administration. And the sad part about all this is the press is more than willing to lap up the leaks without doing enough checking/research.
ROFL. Yes, Cad, it's quite obvious what you meant by agenda. I was merely pointing out the other side of that coin, that both sides have agendas. (Though I am a little confused about why you're whining about "leakers" in this case. The report is available to the public and was due to be published on the Internet until the empire realized it documented, yet again, that the emperor's wardrobe is, shall we say, a bit revealing. I'm just thankful there are still a few brave people who love this country enough to stick their necks out and expose bits of BushCo malfeasance.) Cheers!
Psstt. the initial "reporter" stories were BEFORE it was made public. THAT is what I was talking about with the "leaker" portion. Sheesh.
I got that. So what? As I already said, the report "was due to be published on the Internet." So what if it got leaked a bit early?


Oh, and I have no doubt you like the leakers in these cases because they usually only leak the "bad" for Bush stuff to get the story to jump before the actual truth comes out which is too late to change some people's perception of the issue.
Yeah, that's the problem. It's not that the Bush admin does anything wrong, oh no. It's just that damn librul media always publishing those damn librul facts ... before the White House propaganda mill can properly suppress or spin them. Boo frickin' hoo. I'm afraid BushCo newspeak -- i.e., your so-called "actual truth" -- is a bit too whitewashed for my taste. I'd like some idea of what actually happened instead of some Polyanna Bushworld fantasy. But that's just me, your mileage may vary.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,159
0
0
Here's another perspective and an examination of the initial leak and subsequent press coverage. I've bolded one paragraph in particular -- sorry for the article length. Interesting coverage regardless:

Weekly Standard
March 24, 2008
Pg. 18

Saddam's Dangerous Friends

What a Pentagon review of 600,000 Iraqi documents tells us.

By Stephen F. Hayes

This ought to be big news. Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda's second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq's former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.

The study was commissioned by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, and produced by analysts at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded military think tank. It is entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents." The study is based on a review of some 600,000 documents captured in postwar Iraq. Those "documents" include letters, memos, computer files, audiotapes, and videotapes produced by Saddam Hussein's regime, especially his intelligence services. The analysis section of the study covers 59 pages. The appendices, which include copies of some of the captured documents and translations, put the entire study at approximately 1,600 pages.

An abstract that describes the study reads, in part:

Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam's use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime."

Among the study's other notable findings:

*In 1993, as Osama bin Laden's fighters battled Americans in Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group to join the battle there.

*For more than two decades, the Iraqi regime trained non-Iraqi jihadists in training camps throughout Iraq.

*According to a 1993 internal Iraqi intelligence memo, the regime was supporting a secret Islamic Palestinian organization dedicated to "armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests."

*In the 1990s, Iraq's military intelligence directorate trained and equipped "Sudanese fighters."

*In 1998, the Iraqi regime offered "financial and moral support" to a new group of jihadists in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.

*In 2002, the year before the war began, the Iraqi regime hosted in Iraq a series of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi jihadist groups.

*That same year, a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) issued hundreds of Iraqi passports for known terrorists.

There is much, much more. Documents reveal that the regime stockpiled bombmaking materials in Iraqi embassies around the world and targeted Western journalists for assassination. In July 2001, an Iraqi Intelligence agent described an al Qaeda affiliate in Bahrain, the Army of Muhammad, as "under the wings of bin Laden." Although the organization "is an offshoot of bin Laden," the fact that it has a different name "can be a way of camouflaging the organization." The agent is told to deal with the al Qaeda group according to "priorities previously established."

In describing the relations between the Army of Muhammad and the Iraqi regime, the authors of the Pentagon study come to this conclusion: "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda--as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."

As I said, this ought to be big news. And, in a way, it was. A headline in the New York Times, a cursory item in the Washington Post, and stories on NPR and ABC News reported that the study showed no links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

How can a study offering an unprecedented look into the closed regime of a brutal dictator, with over 1,600 pages of "strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism," in the words of its authors, receive a wave-of-the-hand dismissal from America's most prestigious news outlets? All it took was a leak to a gullible reporter, one misleading line in the study's executive summary, a boneheaded Pentagon press office, an incompetent White House, and widespread journalistic negligence.

On Monday, March 10, 2008, Warren P. Strobel, a reporter from the McClatchy News Service first reported that the new Pentagon study was coming. "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." McClatchy is a newspaper chain that serves many of America's largest cities. The national security reporters in its Washington bureau have earned a reputation as reliable outlets for anti-Bush administration spin on intelligence. Strobel quoted a "U.S. official familiar with the report" who told him that the search of Iraqi documents yielded no evidence of a "direct operational link" between Iraq and al Qaeda. Strobel used the rest of the article to attempt to demonstrate that this undermined the Bush administration's prewar claims with regard to Iraq and terrorism.

With the study not scheduled for release for two more days, this article shaped subsequent coverage, which was no doubt the leaker's purpose. Stories from other media outlets tracked McClatchy very closely but began to incorporate a highly misleading phrase taken from the executive summary: "This study found no 'smoking gun' (i.e. direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda." This is how the Washington Post wrote it up:

An examination of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents, audio and video records collected by U.S. forces since the March 2003 invasion has concluded that there is 'no smoking gun' supporting the Bush administration's prewar assertion of an 'operational relationship' between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist network, sources familiar with the study said."

Much of the confusion might have been avoided if the Bush administration had done anything to promote the study. An early version of the Pentagon study was provided to National Security Adviser Steve Hadley more than a year ago, before November 2006. In recent weeks, as the Pentagon handled the rollout of the study, Hadley was tasked with briefing President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. It's unclear whether he shared the study with President Bush, and NSC officials did not respond to repeated requests for comment. But sources close to Cheney say the vice president was blindsided.

After the erroneous report from McClatchy, two officials involved with the study became very concerned about the misreporting of its contents. One of them said in an interview that he found the media coverage of the study "disappointing." Another, James Lacey, expressed his concern in an email to Karen Finn in the Pentagon press office, who was handling the rollout of the study. On Tuesday, the day before it was scheduled for release, Lacey wrote: "1. The story has been leaked. 2. ABC News is doing a story based on the executive summary tonight. 3. The Washington Post is doing a story based on rumors they heard from ABC News. The document is being misrepresented. I recommend we put [it] out and on a website immediately."

Finn declined, saying that members of Congress had not been told the study was coming. "Despite the leak, there are Congressional notifications and then an official public release. This should not be posted on the web until these actions are complete."

Still under the misimpression that the Pentagon study undermined the case for war, McClatchy's Warren Strobel saw this bureaucratic infighting as a conspiracy to suppress the study:

The Pentagon on Wednesday canceled plans for broad public release of a study that found no pre-Iraq war link between late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al Qaida terrorist network. . . . The reversal highlighted the politically sensitive nature of its conclusions, which were first reported Monday by McClatchy.

In making their case for invading Iraq in 2002 and 2003, President Bush and his top national security aides claimed that Saddam's regime had ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

But the study, based on more than 600,000 captured documents, including audio and video files, found that while Saddam sponsored terrorism, particularly against opponents of his regime and against Israel, there was no evidence of an al Qaida link.

An examination of the rest of the study makes the White House decision to ignore the Pentagon study even more curious. The first section explores "Terror as an Instrument of State Power" and describes documents detailing Fedayeen Saddam terrorist training camps in Iraq. Graduates of the terror training camps would be dispatched to sensitive sites to carry out their assassinations and bombings. In May 1999, the regime plotted an operation code named "Blessed July" in which the top graduates of the terrorist training courses would be sent to London, Iran, and Kurdistan to conduct assassinations and bombings.

A separate set of documents presents, according to the Pentagon study, "evidence of logistical preparation for terrorist operations in other nations, including those in the West." In one letter, a director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) responds to a request from Saddam for an inventory of weapons stockpiled in Iraqi embassies throughout the world. The terrorist tools include missile launchers and missiles, "American missile launchers," explosive materials, TNT, plastic explosive charges, Kalashnikov rifles, and "booby-trapped suitcases."

The July 2002 Iraqi memo describes how these weapons were distributed to the operatives in embassies.

Between the year 2000 and 2002?? ??explosive materials were transported to embassies outside Iraq for special work, upon the approval of the Director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The responsibility for these materials is in the hands of heads of stations. Some of these materials were transported in the political mail carriers [Diplomatic Pouch]. Some of these materials were transported by car in booby-trapped briefcases.

Saddam also recruited non-Iraqi jihadists to serve as suicide bombers on behalf of the Iraqi regime. According to the study, captured documents "indicate that as early as January 1998, the scheduling of suicide volunteers was routine enough to warrant not only a national-level policy letter but a formal schedule--during summer vacation--built around maximizing availability of Arab citizens in Iraq on Saddam-funded scholarships."

The second section of the Pentagon study concerns "State Relationships with Terrorist Groups." An IIS document dated March 18, 1993, lists nine terrorist "organizations that our agency [IIS] cooperates with and have relations with various elements in many parts of the Arab world and who also have the expertise to carry out assignments" on behalf of the regime. Several well-known Palestinian terrorist organizations make the list, including Abu Nidal's Fatah-Revolutionary Council and Abu Abbas's Palestinian Liberation Front. Another group, the secret "Renewal and Jihad Organization" is described this way in the Iraqi memo:

It believes in armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests. They also believe our leader [Saddam Hussein], may God protect him, is the true leader in the war against the infidels. The organization's leaders live in Jordan?? ??when they visited Iraq two months ago they demonstrated a willingness to carry out operations against American interests at any time."

Other groups listed in the Iraqi memo include the "Islamic Scholars Group" and the "Pakistan Scholars Group. "

There are two terrorist organizations on the Iraqi Intelligence list that deserve special consideration: the Afghani Islamic Party of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad of Ayman al Zawahiri.

This IIS document provides this description of the Afghani Islamic Party:

It was founded in 1974 when its leader [Gulbuddin Hekmatyar] escaped from Afghanistan to Pakistan. It is considered one of the extreme political religious movements against the West, and one of the strongest Sunni parties in Afghanistan. The organization relies on financial support from Iraq and we have had good relations with Hikmatyar since 1989.

In his book Holy War, Inc., Peter Bergen, a terrorism analyst who has long been skeptical of Iraq-al Qaeda connections, describes Hekmatyar as Osama bin Laden's "alter ego." Bergen writes: "Bin Laden and Hekmatyar worked closely together. During the early 1990s al-Qaeda's training camps in the Khost region of eastern Afghanistan were situated in an area controlled by Hekmatyar's party."

It's worth dwelling for a moment on that set of facts. An internal Iraqi Intelligence document reports that Iraqis have "good relations" with Hekmatyar and that his organization "relies on financial support from Iraq." At precisely the same time, Hekmatyar "worked closely" with Osama bin Laden and his Afghani Islamic Party hosted "al Qaeda's terrorist training camps" in eastern Afghanistan.

The IIS document also reveals that Saddam was funding another close ally of bin Laden, the EIJ organization of Ayman al Zawahiri.

In a meeting in the Sudan we agreed to renew our relations with the Islamic Jihad Organization in Egypt. Our information on the group is as follows:

It was established in 1979.

Its goal is to apply the Islamic shari'a law and establish Islamic rule.

It is considered one of the most brutal Egyptian organizations. It carried out numerous successful operations, including the assassination of [Egyptian President Anwar] Sadat.

We have previously met with the organization's representative and we agreed on a plan to carry out commando operations against the Egyptian regime.

Zawahiri arrived in Afghanistan in the mid-1980s, and "from the start he concentrated his efforts on getting close to bin Laden," according to Lawrence Wright, in The Looming Tower. The leaders of EIJ quickly became leaders of bin Laden's organizations. "He soon succeeded in placing trusted members of Islamic Jihad in key positions around bin Laden," Wright reported in the definitive profile of Zawahiri, published in the New Yorker in September 2002. "According to the Islamist attorney Montasser al-Zayat, 'Zawahiri completely controlled bin Laden. The largest share of bin Laden's financial support went to Zawahiri and the Jihad organization."

Later, Wright describes the founding of al Qaeda.

Toward the end of 1989, a meeting took place in the Afghan town of Khost at a mujahideen camp. A Sudanese fighter named Jamal al-Fadl was among the participants, and he later testified about the event in a New York courtroom during one of the trials connected with the 1998 bombing of the American embassies in East Africa. According to Fadl, the meeting was attended by ten men--four or five of them Egyptians, including Zawahiri. Fadl told the court that the chairman of the meeting, an Iraqi known as Abu Ayoub, proposed the formation of a new organization that would wage jihad beyond the borders of Afghanistan. There was some dispute about the name, but ultimately the new organization came to be called Al Qaeda--the Base. The alliance was conceived as a loose affiliation among individual mujahideen and established groups, and was dominated by Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The ultimate boss, however, was Osama bin Laden, who held the checkbook.

Once again, it's worth dwelling on these facts for a moment. In 1989, Ayman al Zawahiri attended the founding meeting of al Qaeda. He was literally present at the creation, and his EIJ "dominated" the new organization headed by Osama bin Laden.

In the early 1990s, Zawahiri and bin Laden moved their operations to Sudan. After a fundraising trip to the United States in the spring of 1993, Zawahiri returned to Sudan where, again according to Wright, he "began working more closely with bin Laden, and most of the Egyptian members of Islamic Jihad went on the Al Qaeda payroll." Although some members of EIJ were skeptical of bin Laden and his global aspirations, Zawahiri sought a de facto merger with al Qaeda. One of his top assistants would later say Zawahiri had told him that "joining with bin Laden [was] the only solution to keeping the Jihad organization alive."

Again, at precisely the same time Zawahiri was "joining with bin Laden," the spring of 1993, he was being funded by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. As Zawahiri's jihadists trained in al Qaeda camps in Sudan, his representative to Iraq was planning "commando operations" against the Egyptian government with the IIS.

Another captured Iraqi document from early 1993 "reports on contact with a large number of terrorist groups in the region, including those that maintained an office or liaison in Iraq." In the same folder is a memo from Saddam Hussein to a member of his Revolutionary Council ordering the formation of "a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil, especially Somalia." A second memo to the director of the IIS, instructs him to revise the plan for "operations inside Somalia."

More recently, captured "annual reports" of the IIS reveal support for terrorist organizations in the months leading up the U.S. invasion in March 2003. According to the Pentagon study, "the IIS hosted thirteen conferences in 2002 for a number of Palestinian and other organizations, including delegations from the Islamic Jihad Movement and the Director General for the Popular Movement for the Liberation of al-Ahwaz." The same annual report "also notes that among the 699 passports, renewals and other official documentation that the IIS issued, many were issued to known members of terrorist organizations."

The Pentagon study goes on to describe captured documents that instruct the IIS to maintain contact with all manner of Arab movement and others that "reveal that later IIS activities went beyond just maintaining contact." Throughout the 1990s, the Iraqi regime's General Military Intelligence Directorate "was training Sudanese fighters inside Iraq."

The second section of the Pentagon study also discusses captured documents related to the Islamic Resistance organization in Kurdistan from 1998 and 1999. The documents show that the Iraqi regime provided "financial and moral support" to members of the group, which would later become part of the al Qaeda affiliate in the region, Ansar al Islam.

The third section of the Pentagon study is called "Iraq and Terrorism: Three Cases." One of the cases is that of the Army of Muhammad, the al Qaeda affiliate in Bahrain. A series of memoranda order an Iraqi Intelligence operative in Bahrain to explore a relationship with its leaders. On July 9, 2001, the agent reports back: "Information available to us is that the group is under the wings of bin Laden. They receive their directions from Yemen. Their objectives are the same as bin Laden." Later, he lists the organization's objectives.

Jihad in the name of God

Striking the embassies and other Jewish and American interests anywhere in the world.

Attacking the American and British military bases in the Arab land.

Striking American embassies and interests unless the Americans pull out their forces from the Arab lands and discontinue their support for Israel.

Disrupting oil exports [to] the Americans from Arab countries and threatening tankers carrying oil to them.

A separate memo reveals that the Army of Muhammad has requested assistance from Iraq. The study authors summarize the response by writing, "the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that 'this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.'"

We never learn what those "previous priorities" were and thus what, if anything, came of these talks. But it is instructive that the operative in Bahrain understood the importance of disguising relations with al Qaeda and that the director of IIS, knowing that the group was affiliated with bin Laden and sought to attack Americans, seemed more interested in continuing the relationship than in ending it.

The fourth and final section of the Pentagon study is called "The Business of Terror." The authors write: "An example of indirect cooperation is the movement led by Osama bin Laden. During the 1990s, both Saddam and bin Laden wanted the West, particularly the United States, out of Muslim lands (or in the view of Saddam, the "Arab nation")....In pursuit of their own separate but surprisingly 'parallel' visions, Saddam and bin Laden often found a common enemy in the United States."

They further note that Saddam's security organizations and bin Laden's network were recruiting within the same demographic, spouting much of the same rhetoric, and promoting a common historical narrative that promised a return to a glorious past. That these movements (pan-Arab and pan-Islamic) had many similarities and strategic parallels does not mean they saw themselves in that light. Nevertheless, these similarities created more than just the appearance of cooperation. Common interests, even without common cause, increased the aggregate terror threat.

As much as we have learned from this impressive collection of documents, it is only a fraction of what we will know in 10, 20, or 50 years. The authors themselves acknowledge the limits of their work.

In fact, there are several captured Iraqi documents that have been authenticated by the U.S. government that were not included in the study but add to the picture it sketches. One document, authenticated by the Defense Intelligence Agency and first reported on 60 Minutes, is dated March 28, 1992. It describes Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset "in good contact" with the IIS station in Syria.

Another Iraqi document, this one from the mid-1990s, was first reported in the New York Times on June 25, 2004. Authenticated by a Pentagon and intelligence working group, the document was titled "Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals." The working group concluded that it "corroborates and expands on previous reporting" on contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. It revealed that a Sudanese government official met with Uday Hussein and the director of the IIS in 1994 and reported that bin Laden was willing to meet in Sudan. Bin Laden, according to the Iraqi document, was then "approached by our side" after "presidential approval" for the liaison was given. The former head of Iraqi Intelligence Directorate 4 met with bin Laden on February 19, 1995. The document further states that bin Laden "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative"--a comment that suggests the possibility had been discussed.

Bin Laden requested that Iraq's state-run television network broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and the document indicates that the Iraqis agreed to do this. The al Qaeda leader also proposed "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. There is no Iraqi response provided in the documents. When bin Laden left Sudan for Afghanistan in May 1996, the Iraqis sought "other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." The IIS memo directs that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

In another instance, the new Pentagon study makes reference to captured documents detailing the Iraqi relationship with Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law. But the Pentagon study does not mention the most significant element of those documents, first reported in these pages. In a memo from Ambassador Salah Samarmad to the Secondary Policy Directorate of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, we learn that the Iraqi regime had been funding and equipping Abu Sayyaf, which had been responsible for a series of high-profile kidnappings. The Iraqi operative informs Baghdad that such support had been suspended. "The kidnappers were formerly (from the previous year) receiving money and purchasing combat weapons. From now on we (IIS) are not giving them this opportunity and are not on speaking terms with them." That support would resume soon enough, and shortly before the war a high-ranking Iraqi diplomat named Hisham Hussein would be expelled from the Philippines after his cell phone number appeared on an Abu Sayyaf cell phone used to detonate a bomb.

What's happening here is obvious. Military historians and terrorism analysts are engaged in a good faith effort to review the captured documents from the Iraqi regime and provide a dispassionate, fact-based examination of Saddam Hussein's long support of jihadist terrorism. Most reporters don't care. They are trapped in a world where the Bush administration lied to the country about an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, and no amount of evidence to the contrary--not even the words of the fallen Iraqi regime itself--can convince them to reexamine their mistaken assumptions.

Bush administration officials, meanwhile, tell us that the Iraq war is the central front in the war on terror and that American national security depends on winning there. And yet they are too busy or too tired or too lazy to correct these fundamental misperceptions about the case for war, the most important decision of the Bush presidency.

What good is the truth if nobody knows it?

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Here's another perspective and an examination of the initial leak and subsequent press coverage. I've bolded one paragraph in particular -- sorry for the article length. Interesting coverage regardless:
Any such analysis will be ignored, just like the NY Times, WaPo, Boston Globe and the vast majority of the MSM have ignored the actual facts around these documents and the report. Most likely someone in here will come along and sneer at the fact this is from the Weekly Standard as well, as if such an ad hom comment nullifies the article.

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
^^I hope you don't believe that crap. The Weekly Standard? :roll:
Right on cue. ;)

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,529
21,536
136
Originally posted by: shira

Let's cut through the BS and the parsing of sentences and get to what the point really is:

The Bush Administration - post-9/11 - kept claiming an Iraq-Al Qaida relationship to IMPLY that Iraq was a threat vis-a-vis terrorist acts on U.S. soil. By using the still-raw emotions of U.S. citizens in the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush Administration was able to bamboozle America into an invasion of Iraq.

You now want to argue picky little points that have nothing to do with the big picture here. For Christ sake, get a little intellectual honesty.
BUT THEY HAVE A WEEKLY STANDARD EDITORIAL!!!!!?!?!!?! Surely that means their opinion should be just as valid as yours, right?

Guys, it's the same few idiots that try and argue the same sad, hopelessly destroyed points in here time and time again. Nothing you say to them is going to dent the bubble they've built for themselves. Leave them to their stupidity.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,716
6
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Here's another perspective and an examination of the initial leak and subsequent press coverage. I've bolded one paragraph in particular -- sorry for the article length. Interesting coverage regardless:
Any such analysis will be ignored, just like the NY Times, WaPo, Boston Globe and the vast majority of the MSM have ignored the actual facts around these documents and the report. Most likely someone in here will come along and sneer at the fact this is from the Weekly Standard as well, as if such an ad hom comment nullifies the article.

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
^^I hope you don't believe that crap. The Weekly Standard? :roll:
Right on cue. ;)
Gee, the brilliancy of reading a thread and then adding two posts together to make a point :roll:

Please enlighten us as to how or why The Weekly Standard should be or is a respected news publication. Please show also how they are non-bias & have no direct connection to the Bush administration or their agenda.

For the record to those who read this post. This is about The Weekly Standard and their bias or connections to the Bush administration.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY