From today's Washington Post:
Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War
A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.
Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."
Well of course they were disputed. Almost all intelligence is disputed. If we knew things about our enemies with 100% certainty, why would we need intelligence services?
And who would dare question the word of Tariq Aziz? No way he would ever say anything untrue, would he?
So two things are going on here. First, this is another example of cherry-picking conflicting intelligence with the benefit of hindsight. Second, it's selective reading of disputed intelligence by Democrats who want to gain partisan advantage in upcoming elections.
More from the Post:
...Democrats compared the administration's public statements with newly declassified intelligence assessments to build their case that efforts to link Iraq to al-Qaeda were willfully misleading.
In a classified January 2003 report, for instance, the CIA concluded that Hussein "viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat." But one day after that conclusion was published, [Democrat Senator Carl] Levin noted, Vice President Cheney said the Iraqi government "aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."
It's possible Saddam Hussein could have "viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat" and a) given them some support to buy them off, and/but b) supported terrorist groups outside Iraq. So the contradiction alleged by Levin and the Post does not exist.
From an excellent article at The Weekly Standard website, by Thomas Joscelyn, some rebuttal:
Rules of Evidence
A new Senate report on Iraq and al Qaeda ignores everything which gets in the way of its conclusions."...beyond the obvious political gamesmanship, there is little merit to this posturing because there is little serious analysis in the Senate report: Far from providing the definitive word on Saddam's ties to al Qaeda, the report is almost worthless."
....
"...neither Abu Zubaydah's nor Al-Masari's statements are given any weight by the committee. Nor did they bother to examine who it was, exactly, that Zarqawi was working with in Iraq. Not that any of this matters, of course. This reports was never really about investigating the relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda."
"It was about giving certain senators more ammunition against the president."
The Democrats want to ignore all the pre-war statements from Democrats about the threat posed by Iraq. They want to ignore the fact that Iraq was listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by the Clinton administration for eight years. They want to ignore the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. They want to ignore any evidence that suggests Iraq pursued WMD and had ties to terrorist organizations. They want to claim the Bush administration just made it up. It's this Democratic revisionism, not the good-faith belief that Iraq was a threat, that is "willfully misleading".
More:
The Strata-Sphere
Thomas Joscelyn
Here are links to searchable verions of the Senate committee reports from Captain's Quarters
Update: Here's some evidence of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection from 1999, before Rove Bush was even in the White House.
I checked out the list of links on this subject on google news. I knew I'd find someone like you trying to shovel this BS. Georgie and crew lied and misrepresented. Get over it. Stand up tall and admit proudly that you believe in lying for the cause of letting King George do what he wants to do even if he has to lie to the public to get support for it. Be a proud sociopath, darn it!
Comment by Jim S — September 9, 2006 @ 12:34 pm September 9, 2006
Jim,
We knew some empty-headed BDS sufferer would chime in, regurgitating the usual substance-free Angry Left talking points. Thanks for playing along.
Comment by The Editors — September 9, 2006 @ 1:07 pm September 9, 2006
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!!!!!
Good ol' cognative dissonance - it never melts.
You just can't accept that all you Rabbling Rightwing idiots have been proven wrong, wrong, wrong - time after time after time. From the endless failures of laizzez faire capitalism to the senselessly conceived and implemented "War on Terror," from the most un-American colonialism and creation of aristocracy, to the most un-Constitutional selective assaults on the equality of the Estates and the Rights of the American citizenry, every single initiative the Right has taken has led to failure and misery.
And history marches on. Not one great, positive event, movement, or victory can be attributed to people of your ilk - to conservatism and conservatives.
Not one.
Come 2006, it's bye.
Come 2008 it's bye, bye.
Congratualtions, it took you idiots a record time to disgrace yourselves before the Republic and the entire world. Just as it was for the anti-war conservatives of a couple generations ago, just as it was for the commie witch-hunters who fought a purile political battle that was long over for generations, it's time to say goodbye and good riddance - see ya' in another couple generations, it's back to the dark woods of paranoid, insecure, ignorant, stupidity for you.
Idiots.
JMJ
Comment by Jersey McJones — September 9, 2006 @ 5:53 pm September 9, 2006
JMJ,
Your comment is entirely off topic, but we'll allow it because it demonstrates so well the pathetic state of the Adolescent Angry Left today.
Unless you count the American Revolution, the Emancipation Proclamation, and Reagan's defeat of the Soviet Union and the ending of the Cold War. Thanks for visiting and commenting, JMJ.
Comment by The Editors — September 9, 2006 @ 7:48 pm September 9, 2006
I do not have the time to retrieve material from myself and other conservative Republicans - some of it from before the Iraq war began - making similar claims as this "liberal" Senate report.
But here is a House floor speech delivered on Feb. 23, 2003, by the true-blue conservative Congressman John Duncan, Jr. (R-TN).
Congressman Duncan was 'Right' then, and he is Right today.
Comment by Aakash — September 9, 2006 @ 10:30 pm September 9, 2006
What you and this website are throwing around doesn't represent the mainstream conservative view. This is a clear example of the the extreme fringes of the Republican party trying to pass themselves off as a majority. Most mainstream conservatives like myself would not bow down and kiss the adminstrations butt over an obvious mistake. We realize this country was not founded to support sycophants and brown nosers. Unfortunately, with the two party system we have today the Democratic party will have substantial gains in the midterm elections.
Why don't you just sit down and shut up. Bush made a mistake now accept it.
Comment by B — September 10, 2006 @ 2:34 pm September 10, 2006
It is amazing how the conservatives now Slander their own packed Congress now that the truth has surfaced
about Saddam wanting nothing to do with the terrorist, that comes under the heading of "bearing false witness against one's neighbor. George Bush lied about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction, then
about Sadamm himself.
Sadamm was a creep no doubt, but I keep telling people that he only did to other tribes what they would have done to his tribe if they were in power.That's the way they operate.
I want to address another lie a person mentioned above. This thing about Reagan bringing down the
Soviet Union. Did the Republicans ever hear of a brave man named Gorbachev? I don't think so because they never bring his name up when they talk about the liberation of Eastern Europe. I rebuke their claims. The Pope himself acknowledged Gorbachev who was a wonderful man and did what no Republican could ever do. It was Gorbachev who put his life in danger to bring this about. That and the prayers of people all around the world at the time it was happening. Then the little spiritual dwarfs
rushed in and tried to claim they did it.
Daniel Springhill.
Comment by Daniel Springhill — September 10, 2006 @ 2:54 pm September 10, 2006
B,
We haven't claimed to represent anyone. But who left you in charge of defining the mainstream conservative view? You're doing a really poor job.
Nowhere on this site will you find a claim that President Bush has made no mistakes.
Daniel,
Gorabachev's aim was to preserve the Soviet Union under communism. Reagan's aim was to end it. Reagan's aim prevailed.
On Iraq, the evidence does not show President Bush lied about Saddam or WMD.
Comment by The Editors — September 10, 2006 @ 4:54 pm September 10, 2006
I'm sorry to disagree with you, Gorbachev's aim was to bring the soviet union into alignment with the Western world. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia.
In January 1987, Gorbachev called for democratization: the infusion of democratic elements such as multi-candidate elections into the Soviet political process. In June 1988, at the CPSU's Nineteenth Party Conference, Gorbachev launched radical reforms meant to reduce party control of the government apparatus. In December 1988, the Supreme Soviet approved the establishment of a Congress of People's Deputies, which constitutional amendments had established as the Soviet Union's new legislative body. Elections to the congress were held throughout the USSR in March and April 1989. On March 15, 1990, Gorbachev was elected as the first executive President of the Soviet Union.
This Man was no fool and knew that this process could cost him his life and inprisonment. Remember this was an impossible task in front of him. He took it one step at a time and accomplished it.
Republicans like to pretend that because Regan stood on the Berlin Wall and said Tear this wall down that somehow all of the Russians started jumping to become Democratic. Either that or because he called them and Evil Empire they somehow couldn't sleep at night so they woke up the next morning and petitioned to become Democratic. But all of this is nonsense and I feel embarrassed for Republicans when they make this claim.
Concerning the other part about Bush and lies, I don't believe I called him a liar, however withholding facts from a report to your fellow citizens for the purpose of getting them in a war mode is really the same thing as lying.
Daniel Springhill
Comment by Daniel Springhill — September 10, 2006 @ 10:53 pm September 10, 2006
Daniel Springhill, comment #7: "George Bush lied about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction, then about Sadamm himself."
Daniel Springhill, comment #9: "Concerning the other part about Bush and lies, I don't believe I called him a liar..."
Comment by The Editors — September 11, 2006 @ 7:53 am September 11, 2006
Thank you for correcting me, I did call him a liar and probably shouldn't have used that term but since I did I'll stick to it. Meanwhile there is something much more important I would like to speak to all of you about...
It is apparent to me that none of us should be focused on Left or Right about this War. We should focus on the next election. Why?
We have a much bigger problem at the door right now than war on terror. There are columns of ice 20 stories high collapsing in Antarctica at an unprecedented rate, unanticipated by our scientists. They have come to realize that the ice caps gaining mass with snow is not the same as ice itself. It takes centuries to create ice this massive and only decades for it to melt.
No one wants to hear it. It’s probably depressing to read that a Crusade against terror will mean nothing in a couple of years. The Sun’s wrath will be totally unforgiving.
Those billions of dollars wasted on this latest war campaign to introduce democracy to Iraq which already had a system of democracy in the mid 1950’s and got rid of it, has been a huge waste of money and effort. Besides, we are all more at risk of death on our own city streets at night than by the hands of some foreign extremist.
However, the Ice caps are melting and the Trillions of dollars given to the Military Industrial Complex the last few years should have been spent on hydrogen vehicles and new technologies that have been available for years now.
Bush scrapped the hydrogen vehicle plan he promised during his campaign. It sounded good for getting votes and the good-oil-boys won again.
But the ice caps aren’t waiting. We better get some real leaders next election, people who are truly informed and have real focus.
This isn’t about hysteria; I’m talking about reality, right now during the hottest year on record. The 10 hottest years have all been recent and this one broke the record halfway through the year. Wake up folks, Antarctica is melting Big Time. The Polar Bears are turning to cannibalism to stay alive. Read the signs and don’t elect leaders who can’t. This is up to us now.
Our lives and our childrens are in the balance. Scrap this foolish war. Only a fool fights in a burning house. As for the fear-mongers and crusaders, let me hear all your clever negating feedback.
Daniel Springhill
Comment by Daniel Springhill — September 11, 2006 @ 1:16 pm September 11, 2006
Wow, lotsa cut and run terror appologists commenting here.
George lied? Funny, last I looked, most every democrat who had the exact same knowledge George had strongly suggested we take Saddam out now before he became a threat- Kennedy said it, Kerry said it over and over, Clinton, Madeline not-so-albright said it repeatedly. I have a nice long list if you'd like I should publish it here for your edification? Only a dimwit or a person who couldn't care less about suffering Iraqi and Kurds would suggest that leaving Saddam in power was the right thing to do- only a terror appologist would suggest that the war on terror didn't include taking out one of the world's most feared terrorists- Saddam- don't beleive he was a terrorist? Just ask the 100's of thousands of people he murdered and mutilated for life.
Comment by Matt — September 11, 2006 @ 6:07 pm September 11, 2006
You mean to say that everybody had been given the same report that George's team had put together for them to asses the situation. The report was slanted.
I'm no terror apologist. Let me say this.
This is not a war on Terror, regardless of how many times our Corporate Owned Media has told us it is. This is a War brought about by One man, George Bush, regardless of how noble his intentions are.
Keep in mind the Kurds and other tribes would have done the same to Saddamm and his tribe if they would have been top dog. They've done it back and forth for centuries.
If you care so much for suffering Iraqis as you say then how come you don't speak out to your fellow countrymen about how we started down this road with Desert Storm. Look at the monstrous thing our country did. 60,000 or more children perished after we blew their bridges and power stations. There was no uncontaminated water or refrigeration in a huge desert Metropolis, any way for medicine or food to get in. They died from disease, drinking their own sewerage. Who are we to call names.
Here's something else;
Our leader George Senior and all of his Generals knew that the Geneva Accords strictly forbid any nation to destroy the infrastructure of a major city in time of war. Those who do so are deemed War Criminals.
But of course we don’t have to worry because no one is big enough to bring any U.N. Sanctions against us. Funny how our Corporate Owned Media never mentioned the children that died during and afterward nor did they ever mention anything about War Crimes.
This war is plain wrong, haven’t you tortured those people enough yet? Your fear mentality only makes enemies for your future. People who never hated you are being given excellent reasons to. Your fear mentality took our country half way around the world to fight a Third World People that didn’t do a dammed thing to you. You are killing people because of what you think they are thinking of doing to you. How many hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians have died because of your crusading attitude.
Here's something for you to mull over, go to Google and type in (Democracy in Iraq, mid 1950's)
Read their history and see how our CIA derailed
their first shaky democracy which brought Saddam's party into power and eventually Saddam himself.
Daniel Springhill
Comment by Daniel Springhill — September 11, 2006 @ 11:47 pm September 11, 2006
No Daniel- it IS a war on terror-= enough said
Comment by Cottshop — September 12, 2006 @ 3:43 pm September 12, 2006
You may choose to call it a war on terror, but you are wrong.
The conservative right is a frightened group of armchair warriors who have used our tax dollars and our brave troops to try to carry out their self-righteous indignation.
It is people like you who vote these mentalities into leadership.
And I know that this is way beyond your realm of understanding,
but it is that very same mentality that brought the Trade Towers down. You go around the world teaching people that they better get their hands on nuclear weapons if they don’t want to be bullied by your frightened mentality.
I don’t need or want Bush’s protection from the things you and your kind fear. If you ever Learn to Leave People Alone, you might be able to sleep safely at night. Take up a new Crusade;
Start using our tax dollars to make our streets safe from our own people and while your at it try and get “Kelo” reversed, you know the stacked conservative Supreme Court decision to allow the rich to grab our citizens’ property and move them off in the name of economic development.
The supreme court was stacked strong enough to get Bush into office the first time, he then stacked it stronger before “ Kelo” was ever decided, so don’t claim this was a liberal decision in any way, shape, or form.
D.S.
Comment by Daniel Springhill — September 14, 2006 @ 8:53 am September 14, 2006