Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties (Bush: "whoops!")

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war.

The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

The report comes at a time that Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to excerpts of the 400-page report provided by Democrats.

Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.

White House press secretary Tony Snow played down the report as "nothing new."

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," Snow said. That was "one of the reasons you had overwhelming majorities in the United States Senate and the House for taking action against Saddam Hussein," he said.

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al-Qaida.

The administration, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., top Democrat on the committee, "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks."

The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq "were a tragic intelligence failure."

But he said the Democratic interpretations expressed in the report "are little more than a vehicle to advance election-year political charges." He said Democrats "continue to use the committee to try and rewrite history, insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."

The panel report is Phase II of an analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The first phase, issued in July 2004, focused on the CIA's failings in its estimates of Iraq's weapons program.

The second phase has been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fought over what information should be declassified and how much the committee should delve into the question of how policymakers may have manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.

The committee is still considering three other issues as part of its Phase II analysis, including statements of policymakers in the run up to the war.

-------

-HECK!

Most people pretty much knew that Al Queda and Sadamm were two completly diffrent people with a diffrent ideology. In fact I reckon that Sadamm would have had a great mistrust of Al Queda and wouyld have distanced himself from Al Queda.

The administration knew it, but that didn't stop them from making up a connection, acting on it, donwplaying said connection and playing peek-a-boo with the American people.

-HECK!

Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq. The report also newly faults intelligence gathering in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion.

Released Friday, the report discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.

As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi."

Democrats contended that the administration continues to use faulty intelligence, including assertions of a link between Saddam's government and the recently killed al-Zarqawi, to justify the war in Iraq.

They also said, in remarks attached to Friday's Senate Intelligence Committee document, that former CIA Director George Tenet had modified his position on the terrorist link at the request of administration policymakers.

Republicans said the document, which compares prewar intelligence with post-invasion findings on Iraq's weapons and on terrorist groups, broke little new ground. And they said Democrats were distorting it for political purposes.

A previous report in 2004 made clear the intelligence agencies' "massive failures," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., a member of the committee. "Yet to make a giant leap in logic to claim that the Bush administration intentionally misled the nation or manipulated intelligence is simply not warranted."

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the report was "nothing new."

A second part of the report concluded that false information from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam group led by then-exile Ahmed Chalabi, was used to support key U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq.

It said U.S. intelligence agents put out numerous red flags about the reliability of INC sources but the intelligence community made a "serious error" and used one source who concocted a story that Iraq was building mobile biological weapons laboratories.

The report also said that in 2002 the National Security Council directed that funding for the INC should continue "despite warnings from both the CIA, which terminated its relationship with the INC in December 1996, and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), that the INC was penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including the Iranians."

According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime."

It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

In June 2004, Bush defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. "Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida," the president said.

The report concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or had ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

"The report is a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with al-Qaida," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., a member of the committee.

Levin and Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the panel, said Tenet told the committee last July that in 2002 he had complied with an administration request "to say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said" about the Saddam-terrorist link.

They said that on Oct. 7, 2002, the same day Bush gave a speech speaking of such a link, the CIA had sent a declassified letter to the committee saying it would be an "extreme step" for Saddam to assist Islamist terrorists in attacking the United States.

They said Tenet acknowledged to the committee that subsequently issuing a statement that there was no inconsistency between the president's speech and the CIA viewpoint was "the wrong thing to do."

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said the mistakes of prewar intelligence have long been known and "the additional views of the committee's Democrats are little more than a rehashing of the same unfounded allegations they've used for over three years."

The panel report is Phase II of an analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The first phase, issued in July 2004, focused on the CIA's failings in its estimates of Iraq's weapons program.

The second phase had been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fought over what information should be declassified and how far the committee should delve into the question of whether policymakers may have manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.

Committee member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he planned to ask for an investigation into the amount of information remaining classified. He said, "I am particularly concerned it appears that information may have been classified to shield individuals from accountability."

--------

-HECK!

Wow, righties sure are staying away from this thread, eh?

-HECK!

You know, one thing I'm really getting tired of is this idea that Bush had to investigate everything by himself before he makes a comment on it. If you want to place blame, place it on the people who fed him the information. They're the ones that should have checked their sources before releasing the information to the aides writing the speeches for the President.

How do you think a business works? Do you really think the CEO performs every function in the company? If that were the case, then Marc wouldn't need any staff members on this site because he would be performing all the tasks.

Geez, folks, wake up and smell the coffee.

But there is a strong view that Bush and BLair only saw what they wanted to see. Before the war started Bush and Blair were told that Iraq was not stockpiling WMD and they were also told that Sadamm was not and never would have dealings with Al Queda, they were told this by some of thier own people and by othe experts on the issue. Then Bush recieves some intel from god knows where that says the exact opposite of everything he has been told by investigatirs, spies and experts and uses tht as his basis for war that is crazy.

YOu mentioned the CEO as an example well ask yourself who should the CEO listen to the experts or one bit of intel that as far as can tell nobody was sure where it came from. Another thing is that you blame everyone but Bush but HE made the descion, HE ignored what was sound advice, HE vilified those that opposed his view and like any good CEO HE has to admit that the buck stops with him.

No shiit, Sherlock! Of course, the buck stops with Bush.

But again, that decision is based on intel provided by others whom he either must trust or not trust. If he chose them to be in his administration, then there must be some level of trust present. Certainly others may be trusted more than others. In either case, those acquiring the intel must have had a certain amount of trust in the information they were receiving before passing it along to the President.

Both Blair and Bush must have had equal trust in one or two individuals. But you cannot sit on your ass forever hoping that you're going to receive different intel. At some point a decision has to be made.... and it was made. If the result had turned out differently, we'd all be praising the wonderful intel; but it didn't. C'est la vie.

So Bush trusted the wrong people so the US has a president that is easily led is that what you are saying?

The people Bush should have listend to are the experts like the weapons inspectors but he ignored them, the foreign ambassadors he ignored them, the Arab nations he ignored them, reports from US and UK spies he ignored them, files on bank accounts, e - mails and telephine conversations that showed he had no contact with AL Queda he ignored all of them and simply the type of charcter Sadamm was he ignored that.

But wait at some point a bit of paper ( magically it would appear) landed on his lap it said Sadamm did have links to Al Queda he did not ignore that wonder why.

And you really don't see the problem do you? ask yourself in realtion to issues like Iran, the economy, pensions, education, immigration, helath care, foreign policy ( if Bush has such a thing) etc etc etc who is Bush listening to? is it the smart people, the experts those in the know or is he ignoring them again or the other people thar know sweet FA but hey at least he trusts them.

No, I'm not saying that Bush is easily led. Funny thing is: if this had happened to Kerry, would you be saying the same thing? Hindsight is always 20-20.

I'm not saying Bush didn't have his reasons -- however misplaced (personally, I think George W. Bush entered into a war with Iraq in order to finish his father's (George H. W. Bush) business). But at some point in the process, you have to make a decision. "Indecisiveness can run through a army like wildfire and destroy its will to win."

Everyone makes mistakes -- some more than others. I know of only one entity that is perfect, and Bush is not that entity. But to lay all the blame on one person is ludicrous, if not petty. All shared in the decisions and all must share in the blame as well as the glory.

h@ts, you and lodgebo certainly have it easy -- sitting on your arses in another country and criticizing how the US handles its affairs. Big talk from small people. It's real easy to sit there in hindsight and speak of how someone should have handled the situation or how you would have done it differently; it's another to actually be in the situation at hand and have to make decisions that affect a nation... if not the world.

I'm growing tired of your meaningless banter and criticism. You never provide any constructive criticism -- only destructive, petty ramblings. Maybe one day you'll grow up mentally.

You seem to forget that the UK is as much to blame as the US we have sent troops to Iraq and they have been killed, we have seen an increase in terror threats and have had an actual terrorist attack. So we have as mcuh right to criticse the actions of our leaders and thier allies as anyone else. So unless you are going to talk about the issues as opposed to bad mouthing us keep quit and let the grown up's talk OK pal.

FYI I have always staed that Sadamm did not have any ties with Al Queda just like the majority of people knew so this is not hindsight this is somwething I have belived all along.

Oh absolute BS from you once again. If you had even bothered to open your eyes and look and read I have already criticized Tony Blair for his role in this fiasco I have even criticized him on this thread you obviously missed that one I guess.

Yes I criticized the US but only when it's due there is nothing I have said that is not relevant try being a patriot instead of a nationalist and accept that there are problems in the US and the government is at fault for some of them. See the thing is that the people we are fighting see the US and the UK as being way to close and as result we all get tarred so things that Bush does in regard to foreign policy ( and this is what this report is linked to) does affect America's closest allies therefore I have every right to comment on Bush and co.

As for what I am doing here well I guess I am reading your posts and reminiscing about my childhood.

Not that long ago, eh?

Well put it this way I am long past my teens wheras I would guess you are probably going to 13 soon right?

You should start your own comedy routine!

Yeah maybe my opening gag could go like this:
Did you hear the one about the President that thought Al Queda top brass used to be best buddies with Sadamm

lodegbo, I've read your posts in this thread and in none of them do you condemn Blair for anything done. In fact, the British are blameless in your eyes. From what I read of your posts, Bush is the only one to blame for all the misery in the world today.

[QUOTE]lodgebo said this in post #8 :
[B]But there is a strong view that Bush and BLair only saw what they wanted to see. Before the war started Bush and Blair were told that Iraq was not stockpiling WMD and they were also told that Sadamm was not and never would have dealings with Al Queda, they were told this by some of thier own people and by othe experts on the issue. Then Bush recieve some intel from god knows where that says the exact opposite of everything he has been told by investigatirs, spies and experts and uses tht as his basis for war that is crazy.


Well I posted the above.

PS the last sentence should have said Bush and Blair as opposed to just Bush.

Understood. I retract my allegations.

Viper1 -

This is a forum. People discuss topics, many of them related to US foreign policy. Telling someone they should stop criticising Bush is as lame an argument as arguments get but funnily enough one that's commonly made by Bush supporters. I understand where you're coming from, I'd find the guy hard to defend too, but if you think he's worth defending then try harder or just quit flogging the dead horse.

Really, h@ts? This is a forum?

I understand people discuss topics. But the operative word here is discuss -- not spend your every waking hour informing the people of the US how lame-brained they must be to have elected Bush as President. When you can learn to discuss, let me know; then maybe we can partake in some meaningful discussions.

I'll try one more: I express my opinion. You argue your point, defend you view etc. If you don't have an argument or a point then skip the post. It's really that simple. Now do you want to discuss something or are you going to continue with this lame - stop criticising my president BS? Can you defend Bush's policy? If so do so.

Can you cease the "cry-baby" crap and discuss topics intelligently? If so, do so.

Here's a question: is it okay for Bush to start wars by cherry picking info, that turns out to be wrong? No mistake here, just pushing through an agenda by ignoring inconvenient facts and intelligence. Do you think Bush should have convinced the US public that war with Iraq was necessary by contriving the connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein? Do any of these things matter to you?

Here's your British sentiment for you:

[From 2004]

In a weekly TV column, writer Charlie Brooker launched into a refrain familiar to anyone who regularly reads The Guardian, the house organ of London's liberal left-wing. Taking on George W. Bush's performance during the recent debates, Brooker dubbed the president a "lying, s******ing, drink-driving, selfish, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, backward, drooling, twitching, blinking, mouse-faced little cheat."

He concluded his ditty with the following paragraph:

"On November 2, [2004] the entire civilized world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"

Well to be fair the drink driving bit is acurate and most sensible people would see drunk drivers as ignorant, dangerouse, selfish and reckless.

True, but do you hold what one did in his younger years as precedent for today? That occurred before he married his wife, Laura; and he hasn't had a problem since. That's a long time since to be considering that as a characteristic of Bush, which incurs that the "drink-driving" happens all the time.

Well?

… waiting for the next anti-Bush/anti-American comment… it's only as natural as a European taking his next breath.