Saddam Hated Al Qaeda, Tried to Capture Zarqawi

By: Lowell
Published On: 9/9/2006 10:44:12 AM

A new report is out by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and it contradicts pretty much everything the Bush Administration and its lapdogs like George Allens told us to justify the invasion of Iraq.  According to the declassified report:

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."

The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued.

Does knowingly lying to the American people to take the country to war constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors?"  I'll leave that to the lawyers to figure out.  All I will say is that it's a MILLION times worse than the private act Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinky engaged in.

Comments



Wait until the troops find out (David Campbell - 9/9/2006 10:58:08 AM)
Most still believe we invaded Iraq as revenge for 9/11.  Boy. will they be pissed!


How is this being reported on Faux News? (Loudoun County Dem - 9/9/2006 11:14:09 AM)
...Since that and rush are the only news sources the troops are allowed to see.

Are they being 'Fair and Balanced'?



they will brush it aside (chiefsjen - 9/9/2006 11:47:28 AM)
the sad thing is a lot of americans knew this before march 03 -- my husband said it over and over to me  - it shocks me that it takes 3+ yrs for our elected officials to admit it, calling us that knew this all along traitors, appeasers, and worst, terrorists and anti-american.


Bush Continues to Lie About Iraq (hajimasood - 9/9/2006 11:54:53 AM)
According to the New York Times,  ''As recently as Aug. 21, President Bush said at a news conference that Mr. Hussein 'had relations with Zarqawi.’’ But a C.I.A. report completed in October 2005 concluded instead that Mr. Hussein’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor or even turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates,' according to the new Senate findings.''  In response the White House will try to convince the press - and the American people - that the president was not made aware of the CIA report.  which raises the obvious question, how can the american people trust a president who takes the country to war and makes big claims about foreing leaders without consulting his own intelligence people? then again, this white house has claimed that the president's own National Security Advisor failed him with the allegation about Niger yellow cakes.  A more plausible explanation for why the president continues to talk about the alleged saddam-zarqawi ties is that he is lying.  which raises another question: if he lied in this instance, could he also have lied about the phantom wmd? the answerr, according to the latest evidence, is yes. 


Saddam couldn't get Zarqawi because... (Loudoun County Dem - 9/9/2006 12:04:15 PM)
...Zarqawi was operating in the 'No Fly Zone' in Northern Iraq and was indirectly protected by our air power. We had multiple chances to take Zarqawi out before we invaded Iraq but the Bush administration chose not to so they could still claim an Iraq/Al Quida connection.

When we finally did take out Zarqawi we did so with air power exactly like we would have before the invasion (no ground troops were used).

BTW, since we 'turned the corner' when Zarqawi was killed, how much has the situation in Iraq improved? I see we got yet another 'number two' guy this week as well (except we actually got him months ago), meanwhile, Bin Laden is releasing more communications.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!



This is why (KathyinBlacksburg - 9/9/2006 12:07:51 PM)
The fact that some of these "witnesses" were of dubious repute meant that the US couldn't trust what they told us as actionable intel.  But the Bush propaganda machine, and right-wing bloggers, continue to push such garbage as the phony link between Saddam and Zargawi. 

But we know that 1) the US and Britain controlled the no-fly zone, which included the Northern Terrotiries of Iraq, which weren't under Saddam's control.  And 2) under Clinton, the US still kept an eye on Zargawi.

But when Bush came to office, he wasn't interested in terrorism, but rather his agenda (the redrawing maps in the Middle East).  While the Clinton administration kept an eye on Zargawi, Bush only trotted him out to use him as an excuse.  Then, more recently, Bush unwittingly made a "hero" of him among Iraqi insurgents. Nice work, George.

Additionally, it's amazing that such unreliable testimony as that by INC and other unreliable so-called witnesses is now now being trotted out to suggest Clinton actualy had real opportunity to snag OBL.  As Roger Cressey of MSNBC, who was there in the thick of things and worked on Security for three presidents (including BHWB and GWB), has said just this week there was only one unreliable witness in those cases.  That renders a decision to bomb a location not only questionable, but unthinkable.  Still the blame Clinton crowd is at it again.

How much longer will they try to blame Clinton for everything under the sun (and the son, GWB)?  And they talk about accountability!



The Belated Senate Intelligence Committee Report (anitab - 9/9/2006 1:09:20 PM)
Haven't most of us known this for years?  Maybe not in this detail, but the essence, that is, any connection between Hussein and Bin Laden was a fabrication of the Bush Administration.  What I find most telling about the report is how long it has taken to get even this much made public. 

As the New York Times Editorial page said today:  "[Republican Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman] Roberts re-engineered the inquiry into a five-part series and orchestrated the process so that the verdict on the actions of Mr. Bush and his team will now not be rendered until after yet another election season is over this fall." 

Chances are the only way we will ever get the last chapters of this report is if the Democrats control a house in Congress.  Otherwise, there will be always another election season up ahead to "reorchestrate" around.

One more reason we need to elect Jim Webb.



Intel report (libra - 9/9/2006 6:28:39 PM)
anitab,
Spot on analysis of the sorry situation. We *have to* take over at least one house, or we'll never know (or, rather, will never be able to *prove*, in public) just how badly the sAdministration has screwed us.