Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted

[Doremus Jessup]

The Weekly Standard is not the fringe it is a well respected well connected weekly magazine, which not only follows policy but foments policy through their indepth analysis, and that great unattributed bullshit quote which the left uses regularly says it all: "and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do," now run along now back to prison planet and there readership that gets laughs even at anti-war rallies.

Of course their articles back-up the "story," they were the loudest drum-beaters leading up to this fiasco. It's Neocon propaganda at it finest. Feith-based intelligence.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Of course their articles back-up the "story," they were the loudest drum-beaters leading up to this fiasco. It's Neocon propaganda at it finest. Feith-based intelligence.

So facts are propaganda now? Good to know.

 

[Doremus Jessup]

So facts are propaganda now? Good to know.

Fury over Pentagon cell that briefed White House on Iraq's 'imaginary' al-Qaeda links | Usa | North America | International News | News | Telegraph

Fury over Pentagon cell that briefed White House on Iraq's 'imaginary' al-Qaeda links
By Julian Coman in Washington
Last Updated: 11:40pm BST 10/07/2004
A Senior Pentagon policy maker created an unofficial "Iraqi intelligence cell" in the summer of 2002 to circumvent the CIA and secretly brief the White House on links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'eda, according to the Senate intelligence committee.
...
After the September 11 attacks, tension had grown between Pentagon officials and CIA agents, who suspected the Department of Defence of relying too heavily on dubious testimony from Iraqi defectors in order to justify a war against Iraq.
...
After the publication in June 2002 of a cautious report by the CIA entitled Iraq and al-Qa'eda: A Murky Relationship, Mr Feith passed on a written verdict to the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that the report should be read "for content only - and CIA's interpretation should be ignored"....
...
In particular, Pentagon officials insisted that more should be made of an alleged meeting between the September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi official in Prague in April 2001. The CIA judged reports of the meeting not to be credible, a verdict vindicated on Friday by the Senate committee report.

I tend to trust the CIA more than those that were goose-stepping towards Iraq.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Fury over Pentagon cell that briefed White House on Iraq's 'imaginary' al-Qaeda links | Usa | North America | International News | News | Telegraph


I tend to trust the CIA more than those that were goose-stepping towards Iraq.

The brief should have been read for content only and the interpretation should have been ignored so what's your point?

 

[Doremus Jessup]

The brief should have been read for content only and the interpretation should have been ignored so what's your point?

He was telling them to ignore the CIA's interpretation bcuz they had been critical of all of the stories from the full of sh!t defectors. Ahmed Chalabi ring a bell?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

He was telling them to ignore the CIA's interpretation bcuz they had been critical of all of the stories from the full of sh!t defectors.

Where did it say that?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Where did it say that?

Bottom line, Saddam was harboring terrorist members of AQ as is proven by the case of Abdul Rahman Yasin.

 

[Doremus Jessup]

Where did it say that?

After the September 11 attacks, tension had grown between Pentagon officials and CIA agents, who suspected the Department of Defence of relying too heavily on dubious testimony from Iraqi defectors in order to justify a war against Iraq.
...
The CIA's investigation of links between Iraq and al-Qa'eda was almost the only aspect of the agency's intelligence-gathering to escape severe censure in the 511-page report. Sen Rockefeller, the senator for West Virginia, said: "Our report found that the intelligence community's judgments were right on Iraq's ties to terrorists. There was no evidence of the formal relationship, however you want to describe it, between Iraq and al-Qa'eda, and no evidence that existed of Iraq's complicity or assistance in al-Qa'eda's terrorist attacks."

I bolded the whole thing this time so you won't overlook it.

Bottom line, Saddam was harboring terrorist members of AQ as is proven by the case of Abdul Rahman Yasin.

One dude does not = "members."

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Doremus Jessup
One dude does not = "members."

And if that one dude had multiple personalities...

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I bolded the whole thing this time so you won't overlook it.

I suggest you read the dissenting opinions in said report:

For the past two years, rather than to pursue our oversight roll to insure that some of the key findings and recommendations of these reports and others were enacted, this Committee’s usefulness as an oversight body and as a key element in our national security apparatus has been consumed by a rear-view mirror investigation pursued for political ends.

Simply stated this second series of reports is designed to point fingers in Washington and at the administration. The conclusions in the reports were crafted with more partisan bias than we have witnessed in a long time in Congress. The “Phase II” investigation has turned the Senate Intelligence Committee, a committee initially designed to be the most bipartisan committee in the Senate, into a political playground stripped of its bipartisan power, and this fact has not gone unnoticed in the Intelligence Community.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

And this article sheds some light into the bullshit phase 2 report:

How Bad Is the Senate <br>Intelligence Report?

One dude does not = "members."

This was not just "one dude," he was a high ranking AQ member responsible for building the bomb used in the 1993 WTC bombing.

 

[Doremus Jessup]

I suggest you read the dissenting opinions in said report:

[/SIZE][/FONT]

And this article sheds some light into the bullshit phase 2 report:

How Bad Is the Senate <br>Intelligence Report?


This was not just "one dude," he was a high ranking AQ member responsible for building the bomb used in the 1993 WTC bombing.

Again with the neo-con mouthpieces.

From the article:

... Throughout the 1990s, the Iraqi regime hosted Popular Islamic Conferences in Baghdad, gatherings modeled after conferences Turabi hosted in Khartoum. Mark Fineman, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, attended one of the conferences and filed a story about his experience on January 26, 1993. "There are delegates from the most committed Islamic organizations on Earth," he wrote. "Afghan mujahedeen (holy warriors), Palestinian militants, Sudanese fundamentalists, the Islamic Brotherhood and Pakistan's Party of Islam." Newsweek's Christopher Dickey attended the same conference and wrote about it in 2002. "Islamic radicals from all over the Middle East, Africa, and Asia converged on Baghdad," he wrote, "to show their solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression. . .

Newsweek sent the guy on assignment, but he didn't write about it for 9 years? Seems kind of odd. :roll:

... None of this is a secret, as the press coverage attests. But the authors of the Senate report seem determined to write it out of the history. On what basis do the authors claim that Saddam Hussein was "resistant" to cooperation with Islamists? The finding is sourced to "postwar detainee debriefs--including debriefs of Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz." Well then, that settles it.

But why take Saddam's word for it? This is, after all, the same man who claims that he is the president of Iraq. Even assuming the man isn't a pathological liar, isn't it the case that detainees interrogated by a government fighting a global war on terror might have an incentive to understate their complicity in global terror?

But we should take the word of defectors, some of whom are proven f%cking liars? Give me a break.

There is no mention in the report of Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who admitted mixing the chemicals for the bomb used in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, cited in the July 2004 Senate report as an al Qaeda operation. The mastermind of that attack, Ramzi Yousef, is the nephew of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Two weeks after the bombing, according a July 2004 report issued by the same Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Yasin fled to Iraq with Iraqi assistance. ABC News reported in 1994 that a Baghdad neighbor of Yasin's told them that he travels freely and "works for the government."

His neighbor? Yep, another great witness.

You said "members," I said one guy does not constitute members.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Again with the neo-con mouthpieces.

From the article:

Newsweek sent the guy on assignment, but he didn't write about it for 9 years? Seems kind of odd. :roll:

The guy from the L.A. times filed his story on Jan. 26, 1993 and it probably wasn't as newsworthy a story when the guy from Newsweek was sent but after 9-11 and the lead up to the war it became a big story.

But we should take the word of defectors, some of whom are proven f%cking liars? Give me a break.

You can verify intel you get from defectors if you say comfirm half their story as true through other sources then you can guess that they're not lying and defectors have less of an incentive to lie than detainees.

His neighbor? Yep, another great witness.

It is a proven fact that Yasin was in Iraq and was granted a salary by the Iraqi government, that is not in dispute.

You said "members," I said one guy does not constitute members.

Good for that Yasin is just the tip of the ice berg buddy.

 

[dragonslayer]

I don't doubt, that things have been discounted. Al-Qaeda set off several bombs in Iraq. they were opposed to the secular govenment in Iraq. Osama was the enemy of Iraq. Changing history now does not change the truth.

Now thanks to our invasion, we have Al-Qaida in Iraq.

 

[26 X World Champs]

The Weekly Standard is not the fringe it is a well respected well connected weekly magazine, which not only follows policy but foments policy through their indepth analysis, and that great unattributed bullshit quote which the left uses regularly says it all: "and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do," now run along now back to prison planet and there readership that gets laughs even at anti-war rallies.

PLEASE! The Weekly Standard is THE NEOCON HACK RAG! They are the Project for The New American Century!

Everything you're posting has been debunked and proven false. You're ignoring the debunking as if it hasn't happened and you continue to post the stuff that's been proven untrue!

 

[26 X World Champs]

The CIA report described the "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.So it's not like there was absolute zero contact between the 2 groups either, that's why I am not completely yet closed to the idea that AQ & Saddam may have been working together plus the fact that I don't have the same religious confidence in the infallibility of the US intel services either just because they can't find something doesn't exactly mean it never was.

There's plenty of other clues that made the Bush administration suspect an AQ/Saddam link, here are a few examples just for starters:

What about Abdul Rahman Yasin who detonated the '93 World Trade Center bomb, he's the only remaining member of the plot on WTC, Yasin ran to Baghdad after WTC attacks in '93. (I guess Yasin really wanted a plane to Hawaii but there was only one plane available for Baghdad so he was in a hurry and took that one right? All just a coincidence right?) US forces say they found documents in Tikrit that show that the Iraqi government gave Yasin a house & monthly salary. Yasin is now on the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorist with $25 million reward.

Then how about this hot potato Putin gave Bush? A few days before 9/11 Russian President Putin said he gave a personal warning to President Bush concerning an imminent attack on the USA by Saddam . After this Putin claims to have warned USA several times that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks against the USA before '03 invasion of Iraq.

The leaders such as Bush & the congress had a lot of pressure also from anthrax deaths and not knowing if that came from Saddam or not, it look like government made grade anthrax too. Scott Ritter, leader of inspection team, found some missing prisoner records of Abu Ghraib while investigating if prisoners were used to test Anthrax weapons on. Confronted with the missing documents, the Iraqi government claimed that Ritter was with CIA & refused to cooperate. Scott Ritter also in his book "Endgame:Solving the Iraq Problem" said the inspection team found evidence of a vast terrorist training program directed by M-21 Iraqi intelligence quote "document after document outline an international program of terror"

On November 14, 2001 the PBS frontline show reported that Iraqi intelligence trained 40 Islamic terrorist between 1995-2000 in sophisticated hijacking techniques with a Boeing 747 passenger plane in a terrorist training institute in Baghdad.

The leaders such as Bush & the congress did not want to get stuck with the blame of another 9/11 type of disaster, they knew their heads would roll and everyone was on the hunt too to see who they could hang the blame for 9/11, there were accusations all over the place and the leaders where sweating it out.

It's easy to be an armchair general/politician but real life doesn't work that way folks. For those in the real hot seat and responsible for our protection it was looking clear that they had blown it big time in 9/11. If all you want to do is isolate & pick on this one point that there was no 9/11 Saddam connection, I afraid that looks like a bias deception and a distraction, fairmind people need try to put the whole picture together.

With all due respect everything you've posted here has been debunked!

Please expand your thought process and read "HUBRIS" which explains every claim you're making as made up and exaggerated intelligence. A lot of it were claims made by single sources who later proved to be liars. The Bushies didn't vet the claims and instead "published" them as fact in order to make their case for war. It was all bullshit.

Here's where you can buy this book:

Amazon.com: Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War: Books: Michael Isikoff,David Corn

 

[26 X World Champs]

Feith-based intelligence.

Feith based! I love it! Very smart! Wanna bet the Neocons in this Forum have no idea what you mean?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Bottom line, Saddam was harboring terrorist members of AQ as is proven by the case of Abdul Rahman Yasin.

Stop twisting the truth! This Inspector General's report says there were minor, inconsequential ties between the two but they were NOT COLLABORATING...Why is that so hard for you to grasp? I know why! You do not want this to be the truth so instead of accepting you you're refusing to and instead spreading untruths that have been completely debunked.

YIKES!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Stop twisting the truth! This Inspector General's report says there were minor, inconsequential ties between the two but they were NOT COLLABORATING...Why is that so hard for you to grasp? I know why! You do not want this to be the truth so instead of accepting you you're refusing to and instead spreading untruths that have been completely debunked.

YIKES!

Abdul Rahman Yasin was a known member of AQ who built the bomb in the 1993 WTC bombing, he was given asylum and a salary by the Baathist regime, Saddam was harboring terrorists, why is that so hard for YOU to grasp.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

PLEASE! The Weekly Standard is THE NEOCON HACK RAG! They are the Project for The New American Century!

Everything you're posting has been debunked and proven false. You're ignoring the debunking as if it hasn't happened and you continue to post the stuff that's been proven untrue!

A) Nice ad-hom.

B) The statements made in those articles are factual and have not been debunked.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Abdul Rahman Yasin was a known member of AQ who built the bomb in the 1993 WTC bombing, he was given asylum and a salary by the Baathist regime, Saddam was harboring terrorists, why is that so hard for YOU to grasp.

If you choose to live in a state of denial that's your choice. It does not, however make you anywhere close to right.

Your posts remind me of Reagan's lies and Rove's lies. Repeat the BS over and over and over again and then even the bullsh!tter believes the bullshit.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If you choose to live in a state of denial that's your choice. It does not, however make you anywhere close to right.

Your posts remind me of Reagan's lies and Rove's lies. Repeat the BS over and over and over again and then even the bullsh!tter believes the bullshit.

lmfao, it's not a lie it is beyond refute that Yasin was given safe Haven by the Iraqi government end of story, case closed, thanx for playing.

 

[26 X World Champs]

lmfao, it's not a lie it is beyond refute that Yasin was given safe Haven by the Iraqi government end of story, case closed, thanx for playing.

Yikes! Giving one guy a home is a far cry from a collaborative relationship between Saddam and AQ!

Look, you just go on believing the lie if it makes you feel warm and cuddly but the number of "believers" to your claim dwindle every day even amongst Republicans.

State of Denial is a great book...you might want to read it and Hubris so that you educate yourself on the TRUTH rather than what Rush and Cheney lie to you about....

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yikes! Giving one guy a home is a far cry from a collaborative relationship between Saddam and AQ!

Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show - March 24, 2006 - The New York Sun

Anyways I'm not seeing where a "collaborative relationship," was given as a reason for the war in Iraq in the AUMF it simply states that:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Saddam was harboring terrorists responsible for attacks against the United States, if that was not a justification for war then we inturn had no justification in attacking the Taliban whose crime was also harboring AQ members.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Saddam was harboring terrorists responsible for attacks against the United States, if that was not a justification for war then we inturn had no justification in attacking the Taliban whose crime was also harboring AQ members.

You can't truly believe this dude, it's ludicrous!

There was no justification for this war. It was all fabricated, made up, twisted and connived by Bushies. There were no facts that supported what we were told!

I dare you to read HUBRIS and then debate me. Until you allow yourself to read the truth this is a pointless debate. Sometimes I feel that debating the Neocons in this Forum is like debating with a young child because logic and truth is not a consideration versus what you believe. No matter how many facts are presented you go back and provide links to partisan stories that have no truth in them and you believe the partisanship because you WANT to believe it.

As I've written often wanting to believe it and the truth are not connected when it comes to Neocon arguments about Iraq.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You can't truly believe this dude, it's ludicrous!

There was no justification for this war. It was all fabricated, made up, twisted and connived by Bushies. There were no facts that supported what we were told!

It's not made up it's a fact, Saddam was harboring terrorists who had attacked the United States on our own soil.

I dare you to read HUBRIS and then debate me.
Until you allow yourself to read the truth this is a pointless debate. Sometimes I feel that debating the Neocons in this Forum is like debating with a young child because logic and truth is not a consideration versus what you believe. No matter how many facts are presented you go back and provide links to partisan stories that have no truth in them and you believe the partisanship because you WANT to believe it.

As I've written often wanting to believe it and the truth are not connected when it comes to Neocon arguments about Iraq.

Yada yada yada:

CIA Conspiracy Theorist

CIA and Counter-Terrorism

Summary: Despite what many argue, Arab and Muslim rage at the United States has had very little to do with actual U.S. policies--policies that have been remarkably pro-Arab over the past 50 years. Promoting anti-Americanism is simply the best way Muslim leaders have found to distract their publics from the real problem: internal mismanagement. New U.S. policies or a PR campaign will not change matters.

Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and Editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs. His latest books are The Tragedy of the Middle East and Anti-American Terrorism and the Middle East.

Foreign Affairs - The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism - Barry Rubin

And I doubt you would agree with many of Scheur's views; such as, "be bloody-minded and kill in large numbers, fight without principle (engaging in whatever martial behavior is needed), depend on ourselves, not others, accept that we are at war with Islam, learn to watch others die with equanimity, Coalition-building after 9/11 wasted time and imposed civilized standards," etc etc et al.