Pentagon: Saddam Hussein's Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda

JaserST4 said:
I'm sorry that the term Operation Iraqi Freedom isn't enough of a clue.
Click to expand...

Clue to what? The reason we went to Iraq?

Oh sorry I forgot, after no WMDs were found, no links to al Qaeda, we went in to 'free' the Iraqis.

I also remember the implications made by Cheney that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Maybe thats my problem, I should just forget what they said before when ever they come out with a new story.
 
Clue to what? The reason we went to Iraq?

Oh sorry I forgot, after no WMDs were found, no links to al Qaeda, we went in to 'free' the Iraqis.

I also remember the implications made by Cheney that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Maybe thats my problem, I should just forget what they said before when ever they come out with a new story.
Click to expand...

No WMDs were found is the only accurate thing in that post. There were others that believed that WMDs/Iraq threat were real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts&feature=related

The very report cited in the article in the OP says opposite what the OP title does. CNN isn't anything like authorative.

The report, titled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents," finds that:

• In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia." At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.
• Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.

• Beginning in 1999, Iraq's intelligence service began providing "financial and moral support" for a small radical Islamist Kurdish sect the report does not name. A Kurdish Islamist group called Ansar al Islam in 2002 would try to assassinate the regional prime minister in the eastern Kurdish region, Barham Salih.

• In 2001, Saddam's intelligence service drafted a manual titled "Lessons in Secret Organization and Jihad Work—How to Organize and Overthrow the Saudi Royal Family." In the same year, his intelligence service submitted names of 10 volunteer "martyrs" for operations inside the Kingdom.

• In 2000, Iraq sent a suicide bomber through Northern Iraq who intended to travel to London to assassinate Ahmad Chalabi, at the time an Iraqi opposition leader who would later go on to be an Iraqi deputy prime minister. The mission was aborted after the bomber could not obtain a visa to enter the United Kingdom.

• The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The Pentagon study finds, "Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime."
Click to expand...

verbatum from the report said:
The Iraqi Perspectives Project. In September 2003 the Commander,
United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), asked the Joint Advanced
Warfighting Program (JAWP) at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)
to help develop the operational and strategic lessons from OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM
(OIF) from the perspectives of former senior Iraqi decision-makers. By creating
a historical narrative of the events surrounding OIF, interviewing captured
prisoners, and reviewing translations of enemy documents and media archives,
IDA researchers were able to report on the inner workings-and sometimes delusional
behavior en masse-of the Saddam Hussein regime.
For this paper, the JAWP Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) research
team screened more than 600,000 original captured documents I and several thousand
hours of audio and video footage archived in a US Department of Defense
(DOD) database called Harmony. As of August 2006, only 15 percent of the captured
documents have English translations. evertheless, a user can search all of
the documents by their cataloging descriptions, i.e., by topic, key concepts, and
date, all of which are in English.
Click to expand...

A PDF of the report can be read here (assuming the facts are relevent to you):http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

As for the goals changing I ask:
-Was Iraq being a sponsor of terrorism given for our action or was it that Iraq had operational links to AlQ given?

-Was providing for Iraq being self governed and it's people enjoying freedom given as a mark for success at the the beginning of OIF?

-Were we told when OIF began that it would take longer to achieve such freedom then many estimated?

-Was it asserted that Iraq was involved in 9/11 when OIF started?

I mean by the PRESIDENT which is being alleged to have lied or changed the goal, etc.

As stated before, Operation Iraqi Freedom seems to be terminology lost to the discussion. And to help check your answers to the above questions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DvIDuk1498

"This campaign may take longer, and be more difficult than some predict, and helping Iraqis create a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment."

"We have no ambitions in Iraq except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to it's own people."

Now having the answers, do you wonder what you really know about the situation or what has been repeated to you so often you just THINK you know about the situation.

..............bring on the 'enlightened' and 'progressive' hosility in lieu of discussion.
 
Clue to what? The reason we went to Iraq?
Oh sorry I forgot, after no WMDs were found, no links to al Qaeda, we went in to 'free' the Iraqis.
I also remember the implications made by Cheney that Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Maybe thats my problem, I should just forget what they said before when ever they come out with a new story.
Click to expand...
That's the problem with discussing it with you guys. You pretend WMD was the only reason for the invasion, when you point out that it wasn't you claim that the story changed. When you point out that it hasn't you say no WMD was found. Cognitive dissonance at its' best!
 
You pretend WMD was the only reason for the invasion
Click to expand...

It was the main one given.

George Bush and Tony Blair were explicit that the decision to invade Iraq rested on what Bush called a "single question". This was the allegation that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear weapons of which it had to disarm.

In September 2002, Tony Blair stated, in an answer to a parliamentary question, that “Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction…”

At a press conference on January 31st 2003, George Bush again reiterated that the single trigger for the invasion would be Iraq’s failure to disarm: “Saddam Hussein must understand that if he does not disarm, for the sake of peace, we, along with others, will go disarm Saddam Hussein.”

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression...given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond? The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11 world.-Colin Powell's speach to the U.N


There were no WMDs, no links to al Qaeda, no involvement in 9/11 and yes the administration including Cheney did imply that Iraq had links to 9/11.

I still contend the reasons we invaded are obvious, Israel and oil. Although the more investigating I do the lesser in importance oil becomes. Just look at a map, look at the people who promoted and instigated the war Israel and it's protection was the main reason.
 
That's the problem with discussing it with you guys.
Click to expand...

Which guys, guys that don't believe whatever the latest line if administration BS is?

That is a problem, if only it were the good old days when bogus stories like the Gulf of Tonkin incident or The U.S.S Maine would hold up.
 
From Bush's 2003 state of the Union...

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.
Click to expand...

This is also the speech he lied about Saddam getting uranium from Africa.
 
codepink3.jpg
 
Of course Iraq had WMD. SecDef Rumsfeld pin-pointed their exact locations during a TV interview:

"STEPHANOPOULOS: And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: …We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
 
Which guys, guys that don't believe whatever the latest line if administration BS is?
Click to expand...

What line would that be?

I wonder why, in the face of factual presentation, people will show a willingness to believe what has been presented to them as false. What manner of person can show enthusiasm for such behavior? Oddly enough despising such behavior at the same time as practicing it. Who do these folks think they are fooling?

The motivation in this discussion seems to have come down to people with the same condition described above getting together and repeating the rhetoric they have commonly swallowed and willfully ignoring the facts presented.

......enthusiasticly doing it....odd display indeed.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2770242&postcount=162 no comment right?
 
Your link is to WMDs. Nobody is claiming WMDs were found. However WMDs weren't brought to the fore by Bush, first used to justify military action by Bush, or only being discussed as fact by Bush. The truth is that they were ALL wrong. The links in the post I linked to present just that.
Here they are again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZl...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ...eature=related

Saddam made a fatal mistake by first using such weapons and then insinuating that he was able to make more, and better weapons of mass destruction. Presumably to do what Some Dumb Ill leader in N. Korea is doing, get CLOUT. Saddam's bluff got called.

Now to claim someone being wrong has lied is quite a stretch. The list of Democrat 'liars' is FAR longer in both names and timeline. I don't believe they lied, I think they believed what they were saying because Saddam WANTED others to believe that to seem potent and formidable.

Now what about the link I gave, http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...&postcount=162

............comments?
 
Ok I'll comment

Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.
Click to expand...

Of all you posted this was in reality probably one of the main reasons we invaded.

He was also paying $25,000 dollars to the familys of suicide bombers in Israel.

His fictional WMDs could not reach us , but they could reach Israel.

We invaded Iraq to protect Israel.

Cheney made these following remarks today:

Heading into a meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres, Cheney said the U.S. was dedicated to doing all it could to advance the peace process. He said the administration also was "actively involved in dealing with the threats that we see emerging in the region — not only threats to Israel, but threats to the United States as well." (in a pigs *** the threats are to Israel not us)

It was clear that Cheney was referring to Iran. Peres was more specific, saying declarations that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made against Israel cannot be ignored.

Late Sunday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Cheney that Iran's military buildup "is endangering the stability of the region and the entire world" and that no option should be taken off the table concerning Tehran's nuclear program, according to a statement from Barak's office.

Were going to have to fight Iran for Israel next. Are they ever going to pony up some troops and money? Then again why should they, they've got us fighting their battles for them.
 
I thought we were discussing Iraq?

Now too often I have met terms laid out by others in a debate only to have them fail to reciprocate. The comment initially challenged was:
Nate45 said:
Clue to what? The reason we went to Iraq?

Oh sorry I forgot, after no WMDs were found, no links to al Qaeda, we went in to 'free' the Iraqis.

I also remember the implications made by Cheney that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Maybe thats my problem, I should just forget what they said before when ever they come out with a new story.
Click to expand...

Factual presentation was made to rebut the assertion. Rather then substantiate the assertion a counter challenge was made, then met, and the initial challenge brought up again.

Now, instead of substantiating the assertion your back on the Zionist thing. How is that assertion to be held as credible when you won't substantiate or conceed your others?

Either concede the point and move on or substantiate your assertion. As said already:
I wonder why, in the face of factual presentation, people will show a willingness to believe what has been presented to them as false. What manner of person can show enthusiasm for such behavior? Oddly enough despising such behavior at the same time as practicing it. Who do these folks think they are fooling?

The motivation in this discussion seems to have come down to people with the same condition described above getting together and repeating the rhetoric they have commonly swallowed and willfully ignoring the facts presented.
Click to expand...

Over and over the same fictionous assertions are made. They are proven wrong but the false assertions are still held. Why, HOW? Is it the willing suspension of disbelief?

Yes or no.........
-Was Iraq being a sponsor of terrorism given for our action or was it that Iraq had operational links to AlQ given?

-Was providing for Iraq being self governed and it's people enjoying freedom given as a mark for success at the the beginning of OIF?

-Were we told when OIF began that it would take longer to achieve such freedom then many estimated?

-Was it asserted that Iraq was involved in 9/11 when OIF started?

I mean by the PRESIDENT which is being alleged to have lied or changed the goal, etc.

Now I fully expect the truth of the matter to go unacknowledged. I'll have to take it's diligent avoidance as a concession.
 
In order for Bush to convince Americans of the need for a pre-emptive war, he had to make "Danger to America!!!" the central theme of his pitch. So Saddam was made out to have the weapons (WMD's) and also the delivery method (links to international terrorists) to attack the US.

The WMD threat has been proven false. And the links to an international terrorist organization have been proven false. Saddams weak links to various groups were focused on his neighbors in the region, and focused on staying in power.

So, bottom line... the magnitude of the threat was not anywhere close to what we were told. And it certainly did not justify a war.

Bush had the the most current information, the most direct unrestricted access to all the facts, as well as all judgments as to the reliability of the information. He was responsible for what intelligence was provided to the legislative branch. He was responsible for what information was provided to the public. That information was false.
 
You realize the report in the OP directly contradicts your assertion that Iraq only had loose associations with international terrorism don't you.

A good start to a such broad assertions would be discovery. Then to make your assertions based on that rather then to just put it out there and hope it sticks.

The handling at the offset left far too much to be desired, that is for sure. Rumsfeld and Abizaid were not getting the job done, period. And during that time alot of misrepresentations and flat false allegations were made and left undressed because the glaring lack of progress made defense of the work futile.

Now that the stated goals are back on track and leaders are now in place that ARE getting the job done in a marked and undeniable way, those old talking points are losing their impotence and are being shown as false to those willing to look at the facts rather then cling to the mantras.

The assertion that Bush KNEW there were no WMDs but touted them only as a reason for war is thin at best. It takes a very short path of reason that someone announced publicly and repeatedly that they would find something that they KNOW isn't there and therefore WON'T find.

Free shot available...takers?
 
Bruxley

Read the report again. It contrasts Bin Ladens international Al Qaeda network with Saddams regional focus on his very tenous relationships with various groups.

The threat was way over-stated.

The defense of "but Bush didn't know the facts" before he started a war is not exactly a great testimonial.
 
From the report......................

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) the answer is yes.

Extract 34.

"If America interferes we will strike. You know us, we are not the talkative
type who holds the microphone and says things only, we do what we say.
Maybe we cannot reach Washington but we can send someone with an explosive belt to reach Washington."
"We can send people to Washington... a person with explosive belt around
him could throw himself on Bush's car. 107
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

WMDs weren't brought to the fore by Bush, first used to justify military action by Bush, or only being discussed as fact by Bush. The truth is that they were ALL wrong. The links in the post I linked to present just that.
Here they are again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZl...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ...eature=related

Saddam made a fatal mistake by first using such weapons and then insinuating that he was able to make more, and better weapons of mass destruction. Presumably to do what Some Dumb Ill leader in N. Korea is doing, get CLOUT. Saddam's bluff got called.

Now to claim someone being wrong has lied is quite a stretch. The list of Democrat 'liars' is FAR longer in both names and timeline. I don't believe they lied, I think they believed what they were saying because Saddam WANTED others to believe that to seem potent and formidable.
 
Your example from the report was early 90's right around the time of the first gulf war, apparently all bluster. Nothing happened...

Anything more current? What does it go on to say about 2003?
 
As far as dredging up Dem quotes, the ones from the 90's are out of date... you don't start wars on 10 year old information, and the ones from the Dubya years were unfortunately given false information from the executive branch.
 
It says that Saddam's documents from 2003 aren't available or haven't yet been analyzed.

However, the evidence is less clear in terms of Saddam's declared will
at the time of OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM in 2003. 108 Even with access to significant parts of the regime's most secretive archive, the answer to the question of Saddam's will in the final months in power remains elusive. Potentially, more significant documents and media files are awaiting analysis or are even yet to be discovered.
Click to expand...

Are you saying his efforts in internatioanal terrorism DECREASED because no documents are present quoting him otherwise therefore his known efforts are mout? Lack of quotations is your substantiation that he no longer wanted to use said terrorists to attack the US?

Changed his mind?

The report also states:
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.
Click to expand...

Recent no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top