Senate Intelligence Committee: No connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda

[MarchHare]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/5328592.stm

The Intelligence Committee is a bipartisan body consisting of eight Republicans and seven Democrats, and is chaired by Republican senator Pat Roberts.

There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.

[...]

It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.

The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.

Link to the full report: http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

The report also added that "Postwar findings indicate that almost all of the major assessments in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq’s WMD programs were wrong."

So based on this bipartisan report, which states quite bluntly that the Hussein regime had no connection to al-Qaeda and further emphases the lack of WMD programs in Iraq, is it possible for anyone to continue to support the casus belli? At least with Afghanistan, there were established ties between the Taliban and AQ; the Iraq war, on the other hand, just seems like a colassal waste of life for no proper justification.

[Bobblehead]

Where have you been MarchHare?

[Azure]

Well no kidding. I think that has been established for a long time.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Hussein was quite fond of providing moentary incentives for Palestinian suicide bombers.

I don't really recall anyone on this site (regulars) claiming he did have formal ties to Al-Qaeda. Other than the fact that Al-Zarqawi was seeking medical treatment in Baghdad, I don't recall this ever being in question here. In fact, I remember distinctly discussing the reasons why Hussein and bin-Laden likely despised each other.

Al-Qaeda isn't the be all and end all of terrorism. Hussein supported terrorism and that can't be refuted.

[Flame On]

So do Iran and in one form or another many regimes around the world, your point?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flame On

So do Iran and in one form or another many regimes around the world, your point?

The point was that the original poster's statement doesn't wash.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well no kidding. I think that has been established for a long time.

You better tell Tranny that. I think he still part of the 38 percent that believe there is a link between al Qaeda and Iraq.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The point was that the original poster's statement doesn't wash.

Well, as I read what he's saying it goes something like this:

1. A link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq was part of the justification the administration used before going into Iraq.
2. No such link exists.
3. The administration made false statements to justify a war that was clearly less urgent than they pretended.

I'm curious: which part of that "doesn't wash"? Looks pretty cut-and-dried to me. The only point that is under any debate is no. 1.

[MarchHare]

Hussein was quite fond of providing moentary incentives for Palestinian suicide bombers.

And how exactly are Palestinian suicide bombers a danger to the US?

Other than the fact that Al-Zarqawi was seeking medical treatment in Baghdad

Which is absolutely meaningless, since the CIA reported two years ago that al-Zarqawi's medical treatment in Iraq was done without the knowledge or cooperation of the Hussein regime.

Hussein supported terrorism and that can't be refuted.

Whether or not that's the case, the Bush administration sold the American public that Hussein was an ally of AQ and was an "immenent threat" to the US. Many disputed that claim at the time, and now a report issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee confirms that the admin's justification for the war was bull****. T'is a shame it's 3.5 years too late and over 2000 Americans and countless Iraqis have died needlessly in the meantime.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You better tell Tranny that. I think he still part of the 38 percent that believe there is a link between al Qaeda and Iraq.

I don't need to tell Tranny anything.

I'm sure he can reason properly, and if he still believes Al Queda and Saddam had a link, he'll provide the evidence.

[transplant99]

nm...just not worth it.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, as I read what he's saying it goes something like this:

1. A link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq was part of the justification the administration used before going into Iraq.
2. No such link exists.
3. The administration made false statements to justify a war that was clearly less urgent than they pretended.

I'm curious: which part of that "doesn't wash"? Looks pretty cut-and-dried to me. The only point that is under any debate is no. 1.

It was PART OF the justification.

Not all, and frankly not a major part.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

It was PART OF the justification.

Not all, and frankly not a major part.

So the WMD was the major part that sold you?

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

It was PART OF the justification.

Not all, and frankly not a major part.

True, the major justification had already been ruled out. This was the back up justification and it too didn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The point was that the original poster's statement doesn't wash.

What part of it didn't wash? He's just quoting the committee results so either you know more than a bi partisan committee or maybe you dispute that his link actually goes anywhere? Or maybe that the committee actually exists?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So the WMD was the major part that sold you?

Seems like it was also the bigger part used by the anti-Iraq war crowd as well.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So the WMD was the major part that sold you?

Here we go again.

After the Gulf War UN weapons inspectors documented and cataloged large numbers of chemical weapons, missiles and sundry other items which the Hussein government was forbidden to possess as part of the surrender. The inspectors were charged with overseeing the dismantling and destruction of this arsenal. Stay with me here, because this is ignored every single time I post it....prior to these catologued items being completely destoryed Hussein expelled the inspectors and spent the next few years playing the stall game before allowing them back in prior to the current conflict. Upon their return in country, the remaining arsenal was unaccounted for. I'm sure Saddam probably just continued with the destruction though.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flame On

True, the major justification had already been ruled out. This was the back up justification and it too didn't stand up to scrutiny.

Ruled out by who?

Back-up justification? Hardly.

It was down on the list quite considerably but since I guess its OK to allow a guy in violation of 17 UN Security Council resolutions to systematically compensate the families of suicide bombers in Israel since these bombers were not a threat to America (see March Hare post above). He'd been getting passes for years, I guess we should've given him one there too like March Hare does.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Ruled out by who?

Back-up justification? Hardly.

It was down on the list quite considerably but since I guess its OK to allow a guy in violation of 17 UN Security Council resolutions to systematically compensate the families of suicide bombers in Israel since these bombers were not a threat to America (see March Hare post above). He'd been getting passes for years, I guess we should've given him one there too like March Hare does.

Where it was on your list has little to do with where it was on most American's list. The perception was that Saddam was involved with 9/11 and this was enough justification to attack.
Most people who followed the situation knew this to be a lie. The other falsehood that Saddam had WMD was also up for review, but there was little evidence that this was the case, so after the first lie, I didn't trust Bush. Well actually I never trusted Bush from the getgo, but that's just me.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Ruled out by who?

Back-up justification? Hardly.

It was down on the list quite considerably but since I guess its OK to allow a guy in violation of 17 UN Security Council resolutions to systematically compensate the families of suicide bombers in Israel since these bombers were not a threat to America (see March Hare post above). He'd been getting passes for years, I guess we should've given him one there too like March Hare does.

So the war was all about violating UN Security Council resolutions? That's what made the war not only necessary, but so urgent that diplomatic means were pointless?

Wow. If that's so, I can think of a list of countries that had better watch their backs. Good thing the UN has good old America watching its back and enforcing its resolutions. Now if they'd only pay their dues.....

The fact is, the war was sold to the public on two grounds: specifically that Saddam was known to possess WMDs, and that given 9/11, immediate war was necessary to disarm him. To sweeten the pot, Cheney made numerous remarks about linkages between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, most of which have been shown to be untrue. The UN resolutions barely made it into Bush's State of the Union address--which, if you remember was all about some intelligence about aluminium tubes that had already been discredited.

Look--nobody thinks Saddam was a good guy--what people question is the urgency of this war--why did it have to happen immediately, and why were the contingencies so poorly thought out? Why was there never a real exit strategy?

In other words, why did Bush blunder into a war with a weak enemy that posed no immediate threat to anyone, thus depleting the US' military might on what turned out to be a predictable wild goose chase? Wouldn't that military might be useful now, as Iran is brazenly rattling their sabres, knowing the US is helpless to do anything about their nuclear ambitions?