Senate finds no al-Qaida-Saddam link

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

Saddam Hussein rejected overtures from al-Qaida and believed Islamic extremists were a threat to his regime, a reverse portrait of an Iraq allied with Osama bin Laden painted by the Bush White House, a Senate panel has found.

The administration's version was based in part on intelligence that White House officials knew was flawed, according to Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing newly declassified documents released by the panel.

The report, released Friday, 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, President 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 singled out CIA Director George Tenet, saying that during a private meeting in July Tenet told the panel that the White House pressured him and that he agreed to back up the administration's case for war despite his own agents' doubts about the intelligence it was based on.

"Tenet admitted to the Intelligence Committee that the policymakers wanted him to 'say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said,'" Intelligence Committee member Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters Friday.

Tenet also told the committee that complying had been "the wrong thing to do," according to Levin.

"Well, it was much more than that," Levin said. "It was a shocking abdication of a CIA director's duty not to act as a shill for any administration or its policy."

Leaders of both parties accused each other of seeking political gain on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Republicans said the document contained little new information about prewar intelligence or postwar findings on Iraq's weapons and connection to terrorist groups.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., accused Democrats of trying to "use the committee ... insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."

"That is simply not true," Roberts added, "and I believe the American people are smart enough to recognize election-year politicking when they see it."

The report speaks for itself, Democrats said.

The administration "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," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.

Still, Democrats were reluctant to say how the administration officials involved should be called to account.

Asked whether the wrongdoing amounted to criminal conduct, Levin and Rockefeller declined to answer. Rockefeller said later he did not believe Bush should be impeached over the matter.

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 quotes an FBI report from June 2004 in which former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said in an interview that "Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden."

Saddam himself is quoted in an FBI summary as acknowledging that the Iraqi government had met with bin Laden but denying that he had colluded with the al-Qaida leader. Claiming that Iraq opposed only U.S. policies, Saddam said that "if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would have allied with North Korea or China," the report quotes the FBI document.

The Democrats said that on Oct. 7, 2002, the day Bush gave a speech speaking of that 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.

Levin and Rockefeller said Tenet in July acknowledged to the committee that subsequently issuing a statement that there was no inconsistency between the president's speech and the CIA viewpoint had been a mistake.

They also charged Bush with continuing to cite faulty intelligence in his argument for war as recently as last month.

The report said that al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida leader killed by a U.S. airstrike last June, was in Baghdad from May 2002 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 also defended Vice President ####### 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 community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

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

___

On the Net:

Senate Intelligence Committee: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov

Edited September 9, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Heracles 417]

Anyone with a bit of brains knows it was a lot more than """WMD""" and removing sadam.. Ever heard of Iran..

Edited September 9, 2006 by Infidel

[Ana and Dan 0]

What is your point Puff? That the Bush administration lied? That we the American people were deceived? I got news for you Mr. Dragon puppet. In general, the american people don't give a shiza about whether or not Bush lied. Americans are much more concerned with what is affecting them directly in their daily lives...such as when the price of oil goes up and they have to spend over $100 to fill up their hummers.

You want to save the world Puff? Sign this petition to stop the slave camps in the Philippines instead of wasting your time copying and pasting silly articles about how evil Bush is...

http://www.petitiononline.com/44441212/petition.html

Edited September 9, 2006 by Ana and Dan

[Marc and Olga 0]

What is your point Puff? That the Bush administration lied? That we the American people were deceived? I got news for you Mr. Dragon puppet. In general, the american people don't give a shiza about whether or not Bush lied. Americans are much more concerned with what is affecting them directly in their daily lives...such as when the price of oil goes up and they have to spend over $100 to fill up their hummers.

You want to save the world Puff? Sign this petition to stop the slave camps in the Philippines instead of wasting your time copying and pasting silly articles about how evil Bush is...

http://www.petitiononline.com/44441212/petition.html

You know, I find it very disturbing that when a democrat president is caught lying about a personal (albeit immoral) personal "encounter" we spend millions of dollars to try remove him from office.

Yet a republican (and the people he put in their positions) lies to the American to start a unfounded (not based on true and actual facts) war (which incedentially is when the price of gas FIRST went up!) everyone seems to look the other way, scream LIBERAL or STFU...

#######?!

[Fuzzness 2]

What is your point Puff? That the Bush administration lied? That we the American people were deceived? I got news for you Mr. Dragon puppet. In general, the american people don't give a shiza about whether or not Bush lied. Americans are much more concerned with what is affecting them directly in their daily lives...such as when the price of oil goes up and they have to spend over $100 to fill up their hummers.

You want to save the world Puff? Sign this petition to stop the slave camps in the Philippines instead of wasting your time copying and pasting silly articles about how evil Bush is...

http://www.petitiononline.com/44441212/petition.html

You know, I find it very disturbing that when a democrat president is caught lying about a personal (albeit immoral) personal "encounter" we spend millions of dollars to try remove him from office.

Yet a republican (and the people he put in their positions) lies to the American to start a unfounded (not based on true and actual facts) war (which incedentially is when the price of gas FIRST went up!) everyone seems to look the other way, scream LIBERAL or STFU...

#######?!

These people don't even know what liberal means. Stop wasting your time with them

[vartan 0]

Yet a republican (and the people he put in their positions) lies to the American to start a unfounded (not based on true and actual facts) war (which incedentially is when the price of gas FIRST went up!) everyone seems to look the other way, scream LIBERAL or STFU...

One of the only reasons the price of gas has gone up is we can not refine it fast enough..(that and big oil wanting more money) there is way more then enough oil out there to make our gas.. just can't make it quick enough .. therefore demand goes up.. and price does too .. There is much more the the price of gas then the war..

The dollar lost some value .. much of the oil in the world is purchased with the US dollar.. one of our stipulations to Saudi a while back .. so when talking about gas .. know the facts.. war didn't make the price go up. its not cut and dry .. that and we purchase 40% of our oil from venezuela anyways..

[Fischkoepfin 1]

What is your point Puff? That the Bush administration lied? That we the American people were deceived? I got news for you Mr. Dragon puppet. In general, the american people don't give a shiza about whether or not Bush lied. Americans are much more concerned with what is affecting them directly in their daily lives...such as when the price of oil goes up and they have to spend over $100 to fill up their hummers.

You want to save the world Puff? Sign this petition to stop the slave camps in the Philippines instead of wasting your time copying and pasting silly articles about how evil Bush is...

http://www.petitiononline.com/44441212/petition.html

You know, I find it very disturbing that when a democrat president is caught lying about a personal (albeit immoral) personal "encounter" we spend millions of dollars to try remove him from office.

Yet a republican (and the people he put in their positions) lies to the American to start a unfounded (not based on true and actual facts) war (which incedentially is when the price of gas FIRST went up!) everyone seems to look the other way, scream LIBERAL or STFU...

#######?!

The difference is that Clinton lied under oath which is of course the reason that the president made a deal with the 9/11; he only talked to them after they allowed him to testify without taking an oath.

####### indeed.

[Veiled Princess 1]

You know, I find it very disturbing that when a democrat president is caught lying about a personal (albeit immoral) personal "encounter" we spend millions of dollars to try remove him from office.

Yet a republican (and the people he put in their positions) lies to the American to start a unfounded (not based on true and actual facts) war (which incedentially is when the price of gas FIRST went up!) everyone seems to look the other way, scream LIBERAL or STFU...

#######?!

Oh snap!!!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What is your point Puff? That the Bush administration lied? That we the American people were deceived? I got news for you Mr. Dragon puppet. In general, the american people don't give a shiza about whether or not Bush lied. Americans are much more concerned with what is affecting them directly in their daily lives...such as when the price of oil goes up and they have to spend over $100 to fill up their hummers.

You want to save the world Puff? Sign this petition to stop the slave camps in the Philippines instead of wasting your time copying and pasting silly articles about how evil Bush is...

http://www.petitiononline.com/44441212/petition.html

You know, I find it very disturbing that when a democrat president is caught lying about a personal (albeit immoral) personal "encounter" we spend millions of dollars to try remove him from office.

Yet a republican (and the people he put in their positions) lies to the American to start a unfounded (not based on true and actual facts) war (which incedentially is when the price of gas FIRST went up!) everyone seems to look the other way, scream LIBERAL or STFU...

#######?!

These people don't even know what liberal means. Stop wasting your time with them

The very fundamental principal of individual rights and freedom which our American Revolution was about and our Constitution is structured upon are 'liberal'. Infidel in another post actually stated the communism is liberalism (he used the aka term). Where these yahoo's get such notions about political ideologies is beyond me, but I can guess that they limit their exposure to information that has a very narrow and skewed view of the world.

I guess what I'll need to do is find them articles which are critical of Bush's policies that were published in say, The American Conservative - then they might be hard pressed to dismiss it as something 'liberal'.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

What is your point Puff? That the Bush administration lied? That we the American people were deceived? I got news for you Mr. Dragon puppet. In general, the american people don't give a shiza about whether or not Bush lied. Americans are much more concerned with what is affecting them directly in their daily lives...such as when the price of oil goes up and they have to spend over $100 to fill up their hummers.

You want to save the world Puff? Sign this petition to stop the slave camps in the Philippines instead of wasting your time copying and pasting silly articles about how evil Bush is...

http://www.petitiononline.com/44441212/petition.html

You know, I find it very disturbing that when a democrat president is caught lying about a personal (albeit immoral) personal "encounter" we spend millions of dollars to try remove him from office.

Yet a republican (and the people he put in their positions) lies to the American to start a unfounded (not based on true and actual facts) war (which incedentially is when the price of gas FIRST went up!) everyone seems to look the other way, scream LIBERAL or STFU...

#######?!

These people don't even know what liberal means. Stop wasting your time with them

The very fundamental principal of individual rights and freedom which our American Revolution was about and our Constitution is structured upon are 'liberal'. Infidel in another post actually stated the communism is liberalism (he used the aka term). Where these yahoo's get such notions about political ideologies is beyond me, but I can guess that they limit their exposure to information that has a very narrow and skewed view of the world.

I guess what I'll need to do is find them articles which are critical of Bush's policies that were published in say, The American Conservative - then they might be hard pressed to dismiss it as something 'liberal'.

The sources of these notions about political ideologies come from the mouthpieces of the right, such as Rush Limbaugh and particularly Ann Coulter, who wrote an entire book establishing the links between liberals and communists.

For some reason, however, the people who most vocally condemn liberals for their alleged ties to communism, terrorism, and what have you are very unlikely to disclose their sources, thus pretending it was somehow part of common-domain knowledge. Or if they offer reasons, they will point at Michael Moore, who for the right seems to be a mythological person rather than someone real. How many on the right have actually read Moore or watched any of his movies?

The assumption seems to be that there are similarly polarizing figures on the "liberal" side as there are for the right, which is only true to a certain extent because most "liberals" do not consider Michael Moore God or take his arguments at face value nor do most liberals view Al Franken as much more than an entertaining figure. But for the followers of right-wing pundits the lack of similarly polarizing mouth-pieces for liberals seems obscure and impossible. Because if liberals are not brainwashed as suggested by the right press than how can hold on to their beliefs?

[Heracles 417]

The very fundamental principal of individual rights and freedom which our American Revolution was about and our Constitution is structured upon are 'liberal'. Infidel in another post actually stated the communism is liberalism (he used the aka term). Where these yahoo's get such notions about political ideologies is beyond me, but I can guess that they limit their exposure to information that has a very narrow and skewed view of the world.

First of all the suggestion of liberalism was more a figure of speech rather than literally attacking a liberal. My statement was linking left wing (socialist) ideology to communism. Hey, I am not american so I am immune to the BS the left throws out in this country.

PS It's really funny how you suggest I am narrow minded coming from a country that has a living standard 100 times better than any part of CA.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The very fundamental principal of individual rights and freedom which our American Revolution was about and our Constitution is structured upon are 'liberal'. Infidel in another post actually stated the communism is liberalism (he used the aka term). Where these yahoo's get such notions about political ideologies is beyond me, but I can guess that they limit their exposure to information that has a very narrow and skewed view of the world.

First of all the suggestion of liberalism was more a figure of speech rather than literally attacking a liberal. My statement was linking left wing (socialist) ideology to communism. Hey, I am not american so I am immune to the BS the left throws out in this country.

PS It's really funny how you suggest I am narrow minded coming from a country that has a living standard 100 times better than any part of CA.

But... Socialism is not Liberalism is not Communism. I lose track of how many times this has been pointed out.

Also what does "Standard of Living" have to do with being "narrow minded"? Its not like either are 3rd world countries....?

Edited September 9, 2006 by erekose

[almaty 19]

The very fundamental principal of individual rights and freedom which our American Revolution was about and our Constitution is structured upon are 'liberal'. Infidel in another post actually stated the communism is liberalism (he used the aka term). Where these yahoo's get such notions about political ideologies is beyond me, but I can guess that they limit their exposure to information that has a very narrow and skewed view of the world.

First of all the suggestion of liberalism was more a figure of speech rather than literally attacking a liberal. My statement was linking left wing (socialist) ideology to communism. Hey, I am not american so I am immune to the BS the left throws out in this country.

PS It's really funny how you suggest I am narrow minded coming from a country that has a living standard 100 times better than any part of CA.

But... Socialism is not Liberalism is not Communism. I lose track of how many times this has been pointed out.

man, i learn that in high school..

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If investigators don't find any link, then to the Bushies it must mean that a link exists. Remember, the UN weapon inspectors didn't find any WMD. Therefore, so the Bush administration, we need to go in to rid Saddam of the WMD. The inspectors didn't find any even though we knew where they were. Rummy said so.

Gawd that lying bunch at 1600 Penn Ave...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The very fundamental principal of individual rights and freedom which our American Revolution was about and our Constitution is structured upon are 'liberal'. Infidel in another post actually stated the communism is liberalism (he used the aka term). Where these yahoo's get such notions about political ideologies is beyond me, but I can guess that they limit their exposure to information that has a very narrow and skewed view of the world.

First of all the suggestion of liberalism was more a figure of speech rather than literally attacking a liberal. My statement was linking left wing (socialist) ideology to communism. Hey, I am not american so I am immune to the BS the left throws out in this country.

PS It's really funny how you suggest I am narrow minded coming from a country that has a living standard 100 times better than any part of CA.

You came from a country which is considered much more liberal politically than the U.S.. Just what political party did you belong to in Australia?