Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida (2 Viewers)

[blackadder]

"Captured documents reveal that the regime (of Saddam) was willing to co-opt or support organisations it knew to be part of al-Qa'ida, as long as that organisation's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision." This included, for example, Saddam providing financial support for Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's deputy."

Doesn't this sound like our own strategy with arming and supporting insurgents and former Baathists???

I love the word "ties." It's so vague. "Tied to."

My god the "ties" we've had to people like Pol Pot

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19063

Whatever Saddam was doing, if anything, it makes perfect sense that he was doing it to keep tabs on or control of those groups, who were just as likely to be a threat to his regime as any body else's.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer?

To date there has been not one scintilla of evidence found indicating that Saddam wanted to take part in any attack on the United States or U.S. interests.

 

[dapperdan]

I would say cooperate, finance, lend logistical support. Saddam was more than willing to use terrorist organizations that coincided with his objectives.

On this, and many other threads, the argument has been made that Saddam had zero ties to al Qaeda. Clearly, if these documents are to be believed, that is not the case. It still leaves open to debate whether the Administration significantly overstated their case regarding Saddam's ties to terrorists, in their zeal to remove Saddam. But the is a distinct difference between overstating a case, and complete fabrication.

 

[RebSaint]

I would say cooperate, finance, lend logistical support. Saddam was more than willing to use terrorist organizations that coincided with his objectives.

On this, and many other threads, the argument has been made that Saddam had zero ties to al Qaeda. Clearly, if these documents are to be believed, that is not the case. It still leaves open to debate whether the Administration significantly overstated their case regarding Saddam's ties to terrorists, in their zeal to remove Saddam. But the is a distinct difference between overstating a case, and complete fabrication.

Intention does not comport with reality. It's amazing how many are willing to spin this issue to death. Put another way, your basically arguing that "zero" connection is a fabrication, and that the very tenous links he had with Al-Queda include "intending" to cooperate, fincance, and lend logistical support to Al-Queda somehow justifies the misleading statements the administration made before the war on this issue.

It's spin; you should actually work for the Bush administration, because I admit, it's beautiful work.

Again, it goes back to were the links strong enough to warrant an invasion? No.
And did was the administration misleading about overstating the link between Al-Queda and Hussein? Yes.

 

[dapperdan]

To date there hea been not one scintilla of evidence found indicating that Saddam wanted to take part in any attack on the United States or U.S. interests.

This is not the argument I'm trying to make. There are at least two arguments on the table: 1) whether Saddam directly or indirectly aided and abetted al Qaeda regarding 9-11, and 2) whether Saddam was actively involved with terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, in order to further his own interests, and potentially threaten the U.S. The argument I'm making is a very narrow argument, restricted to argument #2.

 

[RebSaint]

This is not the argument I'm trying to make. There are at least two arguments on the table: 1) whether Saddam directly or indirectly aided and abetted al Qaeda regarding 9-11, and 2) whether Saddam was actively involved with terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, in order to further his own interests, and potentially threaten the U.S. The argument I'm making is a very narrow argument, restricted to argument #2.

And this argument hinges on equating "intentions" with "links" which I think is highly misleading in this context. I mean, we can sit here and come up with a laundry list of global leaders who may have "intentions" of working with various terrorist cells.

 

[dapperdan]

Intention does not comport with reality. It's amazing how many are willing to spin this issue to death. Put another way, your basically arguing that "zero" connection is a fabrication, and that the very tenous links he had with Al-Queda include "intending" to cooperate, fincance, and lend logistical support to Al-Queda somehow justifies the misleading statements the administration made before the war on this issue.

It's spin; you should actually work for the Bush administration, because I admit, it's beautiful work.

Again, it goes back to were the links strong enough to warrant an invasion? No.
And did was the administration misleading about overstating the link between Al-Queda and Hussein? Yes.

Well, first off, the links are only "tenous" if you want to ignore Islamic Jihad, at least according to the report. If you want to include Islamic Jihad as al Qaeda, then the links are not "tenous" at all, they are pretty direct.

I just think it's interesting, as these documents come out, how the picture changes over time. It's going to take time for a more complete picture to form.

 

[blackadder]

Well, first off, the links are only "tenous" if you want to ignore Islamic Jihad, at least according to the report. If you want to include Islamic Jihad as al Qaeda, then the links are not "tenous" at all, they are pretty direct.

I just think it's interesting, as these documents come out, how the picture changes over time. It's going to take time for a more complete picture to form.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11373537/

From Saddam's own lips regarding terrorist attacks against the U.S.:

"This is coming, but not from Iraq."

Some will want to interpolate meaning and assert that he meant he wanted to attack the U.S. by proxy.

But given the lack of a shred of evidence that he engaged in the planning or encouragement of an attack against the U.S. it seems most likely that he meant what he said: that all else being equal terrorists would eventaully attack the U.S. but he would keep Iraq out of it.

 

[dapperdan]

And this argument hinges on equating "intentions" with "links" which I think is highly misleading in this context. I mean, we can sit here and come up with a laundry list of global leaders who may have "intentions" of working with various terrorist cells.

In an odd way, I agree with you. It's virtually impossible, without the passage of time and the benefit of looking back on the history of the relationship with Saddam, to get an accurate picture of what was really going on with Saddam. What we get, and will continune to get, are tidbits of intelligence information that leak out in dribs and drabs, that over the course of time, we'll have to try to piece together. Obviously, this is just a piece of the puzzle. But it's a piece that pretty definitively suggests that Saddam was not the benign dictator that the Headline of this thread suggests.

 

[cruize]

First I heard of this.

 

[dapperdan]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11373537/

From Saddam's own lips regarding terrorist attacks against the U.S.:

"This is coming, but not from Iraq."

Some will want to interpolate meaning and assert that he meant he wanted to attack the U.S. by proxy.

But given the lack of a shred of evidence that he engaged in the planning or encouragement of an attack against the U.S. it seems most likely that he meant what he said: that all else being equal terrorists would eventaully attack the U.S. but he would keep Iraq out of it.

Again, I'll repeat, I'm not trying to suggest that Saddam had a direct hand in 9-11. Let's take that off the table for the moment.

I am simply saying that, per the report, Saddam did have direct ties with Islamic Jihad, which merged with al Qaeda. A very simple proposition.

It seems to me that his involvement with Islamic Jihad was sort of like putting an attorney on retainer.

 

[RebSaint]

In an odd way, I agree with you. It's virtually impossible, without the passage of time and the benefit of looking back on the history of the relationship with Saddam, to get an accurate picture of what was really going on with Saddam. What we get, and will continune to get, are tidbits of intelligence information that leak out in dribs and drabs, that over the course of time, we'll have to try to piece together. Obviously, this is just a piece of the puzzle. But it's a piece that pretty definitively suggests that Saddam was not the benign dictator that the Headline of this thread suggests.

I don't necessarily buy into this argument here--seems to me that your assuming that over time, suddenly they'll be this large amount of information which will vindicate the administration's misleading propaganda campaign to link 9-11/Al-Queda, etc. with Hussein. This assessment completely belies what every expert in the Middle East said before and after the war: Hussein was a secular ruler; he was suspicious of radical jihadists organizations; the evidence of this "connnection" seems contrived and false; that blog was, as I stated before a beautiful example of spin.

Sorry, but only by using crass reductionist logic can a very tangible link between Hussein and terrorist organizations, especially Al-Queda be made. By this logic the U.S. should invade several other M.E. countries--where leaders and members in the government have a proven, more tangible connection to terrorism. Sorry, its a poor rationale now as it was then to invade Iraq.

Last, I don't think it was the OP's intention to make Hussein out to be a benign dicatator, I think your last point is very misleading too. I don't think anybody here will depict him as less than dispicable.

 

[dapperdan]

First I heard of this.

It was released about a week and a half ago. As I understand it, the Institute For Defense Analysis put the report out quietly on CD Rom only. For whatever reason, they elected not to put the report out on the internet themselves. It took other groups to release the information on the internet, and I believe that it hit the internet last Friday.

 

[dapperdan]

I don't necessarily buy into this argument here--seems to me that your assuming that over time, suddenly they'll be this large amount of information which will vindicate the administration's misleading propaganda campaign to link 9-11/Al-Queda, etc. with Hussein. This assessment completely belies what every expert in the Middle East said before and after the war: Hussein was a secular ruler; he was suspicious of radical jihadists organizations; the evidence of this "connnection" seems contrived and false; that blog was, as I stated before a beautiful example of spin.

Sorry, but only by using crass reductionist logic can a very tangible link between Hussein and terrorist organizations, especially Al-Queda be made. By this logic the U.S. should invade several other M.E. countries--where leaders and members in the government have a proven, more tangible connection to terrorism. Sorry, its a poor rationale now as it was then to invade Iraq.

Last, I don't think it was the OP's intention to make Hussein out to be a benign dicatator, I think your last point is very misleading too. I don't think anybody here will depict him as less than dispicable.

You misunderstand my intentions. I'm not looking to defend this Administration. I'm simply trying to understand what's going on.

But, yes, I do believe that over the passage of time, as more documents are translated and released to the public, we will get a clearer picture of what was going on inside Iraq, inside Saddam's regime. I really don't understand how someone could make a coherent argument to the contrary.

We can try to fall back on what was said six or seven years ago by analysts who were trying to piece together intentions of a closed society and then attribute motives in order to rationalize their conclusions; or, we can piece together a picture of Saddam's closed society based on the actual internal accounts of Saddam's government itself. You are free to believe what you want to believe.

 

[DadsDream]

"No operational link" got turned into "no link" in the media.

Over time, we tend to forget stuff like this as well...

FOX NEWS
Saddam Pays 25K for Palestinian Bombers
Tuesday, March 26, 2002

FOXNews.com - Saddam Pays 25K for Palestinian Bombers - Blog | Blogs | Popular Blogs | Video Blogs

 

[RebSaint]

But, yes, I do believe that over the passage of time, as more documents are translated and released to the public, we will get a clearer picture of what was going on inside Iraq, inside Saddam's regime. I really don't understand how someone could make a coherent argument to the contrary.

Oh, but I think your post did underscore the intention of somehow vindicating the very misleading propaganda campaign in which the administration engaged in before the war.

After all, all of this Monday-morning quarterbacking is about ascertaining whether or not the U.S. was justified in invading vis a vis how much of a threat did Hussein pose.

Unless I'm missing something, are there other classified documents that we're not aware of? And to the contrary, I can't see how anybody could see there would be some large body of information which would reveal that Hussein had this vast network of connections to terrorist cells. I mean, realistically what's left to look at which might be ground-breaking?

I'm pretty sure that any information which would remotely vindicate the case the administration was making before the war would have been released already. Last, just about every government agency/study into the matter has come to the same conclusion: there were little, if any--and very tenous links between radical terrorist organizations and Hussein.