Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiExhaustive Review Finds No Link Between Saddam and Al Qaeda
WASHINGTON - 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.
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.
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, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.
He and others spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because the study isn't due to be shared with Congress and released before Wednesday.
President Bush and his aides used Saddam's alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam's secular dictatorship.
Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited multiple linkages between Saddam and al Qaida in a watershed February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council to build international support for the invasion. Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence.
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.
The new study, entitled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents", was essentially completed last year and has been undergoing what one U.S. intelligence official described as a "painful" declassification review.
It was produced by a federally-funded think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, under contract to the Norfolk, Va.-based U.S. Joint Forces Command.
Spokesmen for the Joint Forces Command declined to comment until the report is released. One of the report's authors, Kevin Woods, also declined to comment.
The issue of al Qaida in Iraq already has played a role in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, mocked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, recently for saying that he'd keep some U.S. troops in Iraq if al Qaida established a base there.
"I have some news. Al Qaida is in Iraq," McCain told supporters. Obama retorted that, "There was no such thing as al Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade." (In fact, al Qaida in Iraq didn't emerge until 2004, a year after the invasion.)
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.
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.
However, the U.S. intelligence official, who's read the full report, played down the prospect of any major new revelations, saying, "I don't think there's any surprises there."
Saddam, whose regime was relentlessly secular, was wary of Islamic extremist groups such as al Qaida, although like many other Arab leaders, he gave some financial support to Palestinian groups that sponsored terrorism against Israel.
According to the State Department's annual report on global terrorism for 2002 - the last before the Iraq invasion - Saddam supported the militant Islamic group Hamas in Gaza, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, a radical, Syrian-based terrorist group.
Saddam also hosted Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, although the Abu Nidal Organization was more active when he lived in Libya and he was murdered in Baghdad in August 2002, possibly on Saddam's orders.
An earlier study based on the captured Iraqi documents, released by the Joint Forces Command in March 2006, found that a militia Saddam formed after the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the Fedayeen Saddam, planned assassinations and bombings against his enemies. Those included Iraqi exiles and opponents in Iraq's Kurdish and Shiite communities.
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, however, according to the earlier study.
The new Pentagon study isn't the first to refute earlier administration contentions about Saddam and al Qaida.
A September 2006 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Saddam was "distrustful of al Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qaida to provide material or operational support."
The Senate report, citing an FBI debriefing of a senior Iraqi spy, Faruq Hijazi, said that Saddam turned down a request for assistance by bin Laden which he made at a 1995 meeting in Sudan with an Iraqi operative.
ON THE WEB
Earlier report from the Iraqi Perspectives Project
© McClatchy Newspapers 2008
35 Comments so far
Show AllWhat about the links between Wally Hilliard and al Qaeda?
Item: 43 says "you have to keep repeating it, over and over, so people can accept what I say".
I say it's the same 'ol story that "if you keep slinging S**T against a wall, a lot of it will stick"
Item: the only way articles of impeachment will work is to apply them to 43;ChainKnee and ChonDoh. (but then, Peelowsi would become Pres, and she doesn't want it. Can't much blame her. Who in their right mind would want to inherit THAT!
Big deal!!! It won't stop all the loyal 'Bushie's' from repeating the same lie over..over..and over again!
I get so sick of hearing that lie Bush told I feel like banging my head against a wall and pulling my hair out!
But, the whining from the Republican's continues. I think it will be their last gasp on their death beds! Saddam Hussein was
responsible for 9/11!!!
Mike Corbeil: I had no idea that what I posted would have that result, and I apologize.
Won't happen again, and thanks for the educational
update. The sentiment remains.
Again, my apologies.
The worst part is that the terrorists running our country make Al Qaeda look like the amateurs they are. This administration is engaged, without much opposition, to the Saddamization of the U.S.
Gestalt:
Surely you jest, which country's population are you referring to? The US American people you referred to as once basically decent people, in actuality, were always avaricious, self-absorbed, antienviromental concretist minded, back stabbing lunatics!
The moron voters who helped the most inept and corrupt administration
in our history to steal two elections, and then credit them for
protecting our country by igniting this fire in the Mideast deserve credit
for the current situation there, including the al Quida presence.
That may be so but a majority of americans still believe that WMD's were indeed found in Iraq
" Vince Lawrence March 11th, 2008 6:58 pm
NOSHITNOSHITNOSHITNOSHITNOSHITNO...
Thank you very much"
YES, "THANK YOU VERY MUCH", V.LAWRENCE, FOR MAKING THIS PAGE NOW UNREADABLE!
People posting in pages like these here at CD should NEVER post links or text
the length of which is so LONG that it FORCES the horizontal scrollbar to be
necessary when: a) forcing horizontal scrolling is being forced for absolutely
no reasonable purpose; b) vertical scrolling usually, by far, is en masse; and,
c), we can very simply break links or URLs and text that's too long up over
multiple lines. The very latter is also a nuisance, but far less.
Anyway, that damn long 'NOSHITNOSHITNOSHITNOSHITNOSHITNO...' killed any interest
I might have had in the contents of this page.
HOWEVER, I had read the article prior to reloading the page to have this comment
text box appear, so the article proves, imo, to be very pro-Israel and -Zionism,
repetition of more LYING propaganda to try to DECEIVE readers in terms of what the
real situation is between Israel and Palestine, calling Hamas and other Palestinian
resistance fighters committing acts of terrorism against Israel, etc., etc., ALL LIES.
It's true that some Palestinian resistance fighters commit some rocket and suicide
attacks in Israel and that this has killed a relatively very FEW Israelis, while also
relatively very few, but more, were only injured; but why this is happening is what
McClatchy and other news, deceit media people constantly work at trying to COVER UP.
The ONLY TERRORIST in this case is the not the occasional Israeli or a small group of
Israelis, but the state, govt of Israel; the only really serious terrorist presence
in the whole region for that matter.
With all the article writer's bla bla bla about Saddam Hussein having worked with
rights resistance fighters, like Hamas, etc., it's clear to me that the article may
very likely be intended for the purpose of trying to whitewash the criminality of the
war of aggression without justification on Iraq, as well as to cover up Israeli govt
reign of hell on earth upon humanity.
Given that that apparently is all from the so-called 600-page report, based on it that
is, it therefore seems to me that it's an extremely bogus report and a complete waste
of taxpayers' dollars. After all, we've long known Saddam Hussein and Al Qa'ida
relations were non-existent, and that he had no WMD that could be found, with these
being now known for several years already.
It seems more of a report aimed at trying to deceive the U.S. electorate into supporting
a continued war, while whoever is elected or appointed Pres. in November will likely
enough use different wording than the Bush-Cheney administration has employed. It'll be
easy to speak differently on this matter, while deceiving the USA into really supporting
continued war upon Iraq and Afghanistan.
Like with the criminal war of aggression against the former govt of President Slobodan
Milosevic, the U.S. presidency changed, words about that war context have also been
different, even very, but the crime has been continued and is now well beyond being only
a war of aggression, for it has now disregarded the UN resolution calling only for the
govt of Serbia to respect Kosovo as a self-governing province of Serbia. It's been now
and criminally separated from Serbia altogether. A war of aggression launched by Schmuck
Clinton and the Dem. Party sided much with this, and then continued by a new presidency of
a RP kind, etc.
Words of the next U.S. presidency will likely change, but the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan,
and more, WILL CONTINUE; because U.S. voters can't bring themselves to elect only valid
candidates, rejecting them whenever they run.
Obama's well enough quoted in this article on the topic of Al Qa'ida in Iraq, but he still
promises, by the written words of his policy proposals, to [definitely] continue the war on
Iraq. His verbally spoken words say the contrary, though only somewhat, for not totally;
while his written policy proposals have been certainly very thought-out and proofed, so we
can most rely on what these really say. And that can be implied or explicit meaning, the
only important need being to understand what those words really say; and they clearly and
strongly indicate that if he's elected, then he will definitely be working, wittingly or
not, on continuing the war on Iraq (or Middle East, really), and the other wars and major
crimes of the U.S. govt.
In any case, it is a very LOUSY article; it's too full of bs propaganda.
if w/o any condescension you can see the general USA public as a diverse collection of basically decent people which has become an otherwise disastrously self-absorbed collection of politcally-naive children, you can then also see the USA's ruling clique as a hideous gaggle of adult-perverted child abusers.
few on this site are politically naive children. most, here, are politically-mature adults with enobled instincts.
so how do we explain that a come-lately gang of perverted thugs has managed, in a short 7yrs, to almost irretrievably hijack what remains of decently-intended democratic government - while simultaneously rendering the electorate no more politically capable of assertive opposition-to-the-abuse than a nursery of fearful, drooling, goo-goo eyed infants?
given what's happening, and given that there's scant realistic hope of 'change' via present major candidates/public discussion/average citizen political maturity, the analogy is hardly overdrawn.
will Obama's message of hopeful change, if he's elected, snap USA'ers out of their childlike miasma? Not likely, since he's not really building a conscious citizen movement for specifically-named, needed changes -- he's just making people feel good about an image of change, which'll be all-too-easily dispensible, after the election.
If there's any real hope remaining for the USA as a government of, by and for the People, we progressive, seeming cognoscenti will have to ask deeper questions about the nature of Political Virtue and about the troublesome the capacity of average people to be easily hypnotized against such Virtue by the most obvious kinds of scoundrels.
So far, this kind of deeper probing, on this site,at least, is not adequate to the task at hand.
The democrats deserve Spitzer.
If they had even 1 percent of the aggressive backbone that the repubs have they would be blasting them for going after Spitzer when Bush comitted far greater crimes but oh no.
No--they say nothing.
because going to prostitutes is so much worse that
wars, torture etc.
Except when a republican does it of course--for them, whether its straight or gay its ok.
This also just in ... the Earth is not, in fact, flat. And it orbits the sun, not vice versa.
But we are definitely on the verge of impeachment proceedings ... against Spitzer.
This is such a ridiculous story. That anybody is still looking for a link between terrorism and pre-invasion Iraq just boggles the imagination. Even Saddam Hussein was baffled as to why the administration was looking for a link. We remember when he appeared on television in a lengthy speech denying any such link and specifically denying any weapons of mass destruction program. We believed he was telling the truth. The man had nothing to gain or lose from telling the truth. The only liars in this whole affair are George Bush and Dick Cheney and the mainstream press which according to the old adage; if you repeat it enough, it must be true". I remember my brother and I were sitting in the living room listening to George Bush and we looked at each other and said, "This man who can barely read and write beyond the third grade is getting ready to drag millions of people into a fiasco". And there will be lots of greedy, racist, frauds, behind to help him shape his delusions. Sure enough, we were right.
SRD
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html
Next week we will fund a $100M study to find out if the sun rises everyday.
My, what a surprise! No connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Now I suppose Bush and Cheney will have the Pentagon researchers shot at dawn or something.
This story is still unreported in MSM papers - including Mclatchy news.
i fully support the extraordinary rendition and subsequent waterboarding of george w. bush and dickless cheney.
(hey... it's not like i threatened them with anything illegal)
Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda???? NO SHIT, SHERLOCK....
How about a study that finds no link between the Bush Administration and MORALITY OR HONESTY
vancent wrote: Cpl Edward Chung, not Chin, son of TV Anchor Connie Chung.
Please provide quantitative data for this. A Google search shows no relationship between Cpl Chin (in the photo) and Connie Chung.
Exhaustive Review Finds No Link Between Conquests and Oil
Prestigious Washington think tank, The American Enterprising Heritage Institute, released findings today that prove that the conquests of Afghanistan and Iraq ...
Yes, impeach Dems for their adultery-related crimes, but don't impeach the chimp and Darth for war crimes. Par for the course in the good ol' U S of A.
Junior and Cheney lied, hundreds of thousands of people (including children!) died, millions more displaced. No impeachment.
Gov. Spitzer(D) of New York admits to spending $4K on a prostitute. He has 48 hours to resign or impeachment proceedings will begin.
I give up on this country. There is nothing left worth trying to save. I can't get the hell out of here soon enough.
Did you hear that America? No Link! N-O L-I-N-K!
Expect gas bags like Christopher Hitchens to still postulate that Al Queda & Saddam were in cahoots, even though said review disputes that. After all, they've built up a profitable living in the punditocracy spewing their b.s., so why stop now even though the facts and popular opinion has now turned against them. What must continue to happen is laughter at the Al Queda / Saddam lie, it is the best retort.
About this article, well, duh.
"exhaustive review finds no link between shrub and actual facts."
CORPORAL-you do a disservice to this country by rubbing the flag like that, even worse than burning one on the street in my point of view. I hope he got discharged for that disgusting display!
Really? Like I haven't known this for 5 years or more!
Now would somebody please pass this info along to all FOX News viewers, rush limpdick and cheney. Oh, and ABC, NBC, CNN and CBS.
BTW, saw a great bumper sticker the other day - Would somebody please give bush a blowjob so we can impeach him!
This pentagon-sponsored study is one more example of the Republican party wasting more taxpayers money in a week than Lyndon Johnson wasted in a year.
In 2002 it was globally acknowledged that Saddam Hussein brutalized or destroyed any terrorist group that came into Iraq, irrespective of the group's idealogy.
No further study was needed to confirm this.
A Enduring, Made for TV, Military Moment
Cpl Edward Chung, not Chin, son of TV Anchor Connie Chung.
And Hillary was stupid enough to go along
These capital crimes were aided and abeted by our Congress. By the time the American taxpayer gets through paying for this catastrophy we won't have a pot to pee in.
Weapons of mass destruction. Al Quaida links. Two little lies that are going to cost the American taxpayer trillions of dollars and all those lives. And to think they impeached a president recently over a blowjob.
so how many reports stating these very same facts need to be studied before impeachment?