PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Senate Says: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties



Hardrock69
09-08-2006, 04:15 PM
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 11 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - There's no evidence
Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts
President Bush's justification for invading
Iraq.


Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.

Republicans countered that there was little new in the report and Democrats were trying to score election-year points with it.

The declassified document released Friday by the 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.

It 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.

The 400-page report comes at a time when 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."

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 said the report was "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.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report

Warham
09-08-2006, 04:30 PM
This news is two years old.

The 9/11 Commission said the same thing in 2004.

blueturk
09-08-2006, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Warham
This news is two years old.

The 9/11 Commission said the same thing in 2004.

Yep. Old news. Who needs a real reason to start a war anyway? Forget about it!

Warham
09-08-2006, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by blueturk
Yep. Old news. Who needs a real reason to start a war anyway? Forget about it!

The main reason for the war was Iraq disregarding multiple UN resolutions dating back to 1991.

LoungeMachine
09-08-2006, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Warham
The main reason for the war was Iraq disregarding multiple UN resolutions dating back to 1991.


Bullshit :rolleyes:

Don't be such a fucking moron for Christ's sake.

You don't invade, overthrow, bomb, imprison, and occupy a country for YEARS over "disregarding UN resolutions, dumbass.

Warham
09-08-2006, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Bullshit :rolleyes:

Don't be such a fucking moron for Christ's sake.

You don't invade, overthrow, bomb, imprison, and occupy a country for YEARS over "disregarding UN resolutions, dumbass.

Sure ya can.

LoungeMachine
09-08-2006, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Sure ya can.


See, that right there is why people in here think you're so stupid.

Nickdfresh
09-08-2006, 07:05 PM
Senate: Saddam Saw al-Qaida As Threat
Friday, September 8, 2006 6:23 PM EDT
The Associated Press (http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=13075291&ps=whiteHouse%2Ccongress%2Celections%2Cgovernment&lang=en)
By JIM ABRAMS

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

Released Friday, the report discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that before 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.

Saddam told U.S. officials after his capture that he had not cooperated with Osama bin Laden even though he acknowledged that officials in his government had met with the al-Qaida leader, according to FBI summaries cited in the Senate report.

"Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden," Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi leader's top aide, told the FBI.

The report also faults intelligence gathering in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion.

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, 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."

———

On the Net:

Senate Intelligence Committee: www.intelligence.senate.gov

Warham
09-08-2006, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
See, that right there is why people in here think you're so stupid.

Gee, Lounge.

Are you referring to the multitudes of political geniuses that frequent this forum, or are you referring to yourself, a man who claims that a certain member who posts pics of gay asses and feces is one of the most 'brilliant posters' here.

Call me dismissive, but I reject your premise.

EAT MY ASSHOLE
09-08-2006, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Gee, Lounge.

Are you referring to the multitudes of political geniuses that frequent this forum, or are you referring to yourself, a man who claims that a certain member who posts pics of gay asses and feces is one of the most 'brilliant posters' here.

Call me dismissive, but I reject your premise.

Say what you will, this is one BRILLIANT comeback.

LoungeMachine
09-08-2006, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Say what you will, this is one BRILLIANT comeback.


Coming from someone known as EAT MY ASSHOLE, I feel a whole lot better now.

Why are all of the closet fags Republicans?

Rove
Mehlman
Gannon
Brian

The list is endless:D

Warham
09-08-2006, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Coming from someone known as EAT MY ASSHOLE, I feel a whole lot better now.

Why are all of the closet fags Republicans?

Rove
Mehlman
Gannon
Brian

The list is endless:D

They probably feel they'll be attacked by liberals who say they support gay marriage, but in reality loathe gays.

Warham
09-08-2006, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Say what you will, this is one BRILLIANT comeback.

You've only seen one of my weaker ones.

I've gotten him on too many occasions to list. :D

LoungeMachine
09-08-2006, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Warham
They probably feel they'll be attacked by liberals who say they support gay marriage, but in reality loathe gays.

probably.

But I'm sure your church will embrace them :rolleyes:

LoungeMachine
09-08-2006, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Warham
You've only seen one of my weaker ones.

I've gotten him on too many occasions to list. :D


You really need this, don't you? :rolleyes:


I'll make sure to check back in around Election Time. :D


Enjoy your many boards, WarOT

LMAO

Warham
09-08-2006, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
probably.

But I'm sure your church will embrace them :rolleyes:

Why is it that liberals are the ones here who attack gays constantly?

Fear?

Warham
09-08-2006, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You really need this, don't you? :rolleyes:


I'll make sure to check back in around Election Time. :D


Enjoy your many boards, WarOT

LMAO

If the Democrats don't take control of Congress, then what?

:D

BigBadBrian
09-09-2006, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
See, that right there is why people in here think you're so stupid.

I don't.

Warham is undoubtedly the most meaningful, articulate, and intellectually astute member that posts in this forum.

Keep up the good work, Warham. :)

Phil theStalker
09-09-2006, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Warham
If the Democrats don't take control of Congress, then what?

:D
Revolution.

Phil theStalker
09-09-2006, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I don't.

Warham is undoubtedly the most meaningful, articulate, and intellectually astute member that posts in this forum.

Keep up the good work, Warham. :)
Shut up.

BigBadBrian
09-09-2006, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Phil theStalker
Shut up.

Great to hear from you again Philly Dilly. :rolleyes:

Nickdfresh
09-09-2006, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I don't.

Warham is undoubtedly the most meaningful, articulate, and intellectually astute member that posts in this forum.

Keep up the good work, Warham. :)

http://www.seanet.com/~rod/images/StuartSmalley.jpg

See Warham, BB gave you an 'attaboy!' You're "good enough, smart enough, and are so special!"

Hardrock69
09-09-2006, 01:13 PM
Gee Warham should be proud.

Coming from BigBadBrucie, I would say an attaboy from an equally sheep-like, head-in-the-sand goober should count the same as giving him an attaboy for breathing.....
;)

EAT MY ASSHOLE
09-09-2006, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I don't.

Warham is undoubtedly the most meaningful, articulate, and intellectually astute member that posts in this forum.

Keep up the good work, Warham. :)

Good God, and you wonder why people find you so irritating...

Nickdfresh
09-09-2006, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Warham
If the Democrats don't take control of Congress, then what?

:D

Um seriously? Do you not honestly think that Bush stays awake at night sweating over this one?

It will probably change the political dynamic of the country, for better or for worse, like it or not.

I don't know Warbot, maybe they'll come to power with a big, fucking phony-ass "Cuntract with America," then callously, and arrogantly violate every bombastic tenet of their program.

I know one thing, they will not go quietly along with the crap that's been going on for the last six years.

DEMON CUNT
09-09-2006, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Warham
The main reason for the war was Iraq disregarding multiple UN resolutions dating back to 1991.

Incorrect. That was a reason used late in the conflict when the WMD story appeared to be false. The Bush Admin. didn't care much for the sanctions before that.

In fact, some consider the invasion to be illegal much like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait

There were no WMDs which means that the sanctions were working even if Saddam was attempting to circumvent them.

No WMD means no threat and therefore no reason for the inva$ion.

Please note Warham's use of the "old news" talking point issued by the Whitehouse when the news of this report broke.

Warham
09-09-2006, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Um seriously? Do you not honestly think that Bush stays awake at night sweating over this one?

It will probably change the political dynamic of the country, for better or for worse, like it or not.

I don't know Warbot, maybe they'll come to power with a big, fucking phony-ass "Cuntract with America," then callously, and arrogantly violate every bombastic tenet of their program.

I know one thing, they will not go quietly along with the crap that's been going on for the last six years.

I'm not too worried, Nick.

The Democrats aren't smart enough to come up with a 'cuntract' to get back into power. All they've got is their six-shooter aimed at Bush, and their out of silver bullets.

FORD
09-09-2006, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I'm not too worried, Nick.

The Democrats aren't smart enough to come up with a 'cuntract' to get back into power. All they've got is their six-shooter aimed at Bush, and their out of silver bullets.

http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

Unchainme
09-09-2006, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by FORD
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

Warpig Just got

http://www.lmalla.com/storage/miscpics/owned.jpg
:).

The democrats do appear to have a decent agenda, Now if they can just get it through to the american people, they could have something..

FORD
09-09-2006, 05:28 PM
actually, that was WarPig who got OWNED. :D

Unchainme
09-09-2006, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by FORD
actually, that was WarPig who got OWNED. :D

SHIT, sorry about that..

Same Busheep rhetoric and all..

BigBadBrian
09-09-2006, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Good God, and you wonder why people find you so irritating...

I don't wonder, and I don't care.

Irritating is good..it makes the liberals think (what little capacity of that they have :eek: )....unlike the the threads the liberals start...in which the rest of you participate in a masturbatory circle-jerk. You're obviously the pivot man. :D

Nickdfresh
09-09-2006, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I'm not too worried, Nick.

The Democrats aren't smart enough to come up with a 'cuntract' to get back into power. All they've got is their six-shooter aimed at Bush, and their out of silver bullets.

Yeah WarBOT, all Democrats are just too dumb, like they mispronounce basic words, and can't debate actual facts, so they resort to retarded generalizations.

Say, so are you and BBB Democrats?

Nickdfresh
09-09-2006, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I don't wonder, and I don't care.

Irritating is good..it makes the liberals think (what little capacity of that they have :eek: )....unlike the the threads the liberals start...in which the rest of you participate in a masturbatory circle-jerk. You're obviously the pivot man. :D

Yeah asshole, we'll debate IQ points anyday.

Finally getting your college degree while pushing 40?

Jesus, you're a fucking retard, when's the last time you had a post that actually debated anything?

BTW, learn to properly use ellipses, idiot.

DEMON CUNT
09-09-2006, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
....unlike the the threads the liberals start...in which the rest of you participate in a masturbatory circle-jerk. You're obviously the pivot man.

Look at BigBland go for the gay sex metaphor.

That's creppy.

Why does he get so upset about the gay pics when he's writting such homo erotica?

BigBadBrian
09-09-2006, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Look at BigBland go for the gay sex metaphor.

That's creppy.

Why does he get so upset about the gay pics when he's writting such homo erotica?

I knew it's something you can relate to.

Nickdfresh
09-09-2006, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I knew it's something you can relate to.

Trying to "relate" to other men now?

Well, relate rhymes with fellate...

Warham
09-09-2006, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by FORD
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

I don't consider generalities a 'plan', FORD.

Warham
09-09-2006, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah WarBOT, all Democrats are just too dumb, like they mispronounce basic words, and can't debate actual facts, so they resort to retarded generalizations.

Say, so are you and BBB Democrats?

Are you kidding? I'd never claim to be in the same party as Howard Dean.

Nick, are you going to cry if the Republicans hold both houses after the elections?

Warham
09-09-2006, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Unchainme
Warpig Just got

http://www.lmalla.com/storage/miscpics/owned.jpg
:).

The democrats do appear to have a decent agenda, Now if they can just get it through to the american people, they could have something..

It doesn't take much to please you, does it?

Nickdfresh
09-09-2006, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Are you kidding? I'd never claim to be in the same party as Howard Dean.

Nick, are you going to cry if the Republicans hold both houses after the elections?

Are you gonna keep crying if Liberals own this forum?

Um, no I won't actually. Will you cry if they don't?

Warham
09-09-2006, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Are you gonna keep crying if Liberals own this forum?

Um, no I won't actually. Will you cry if they don't?

Why would I cry about liberals owning this forum? I've always been a minority around here, and I've been harrassed since day one, but my party ain't out of power. If the R's win this November, you'll all cry conspiracy or some other nonsense.

I can predict it now.

Nickdfresh
09-09-2006, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Why would I cry about liberals owning this forum? I've always been a minority around here, and I've been harrassed since day one, but my party ain't out of power. If the R's win this November, you'll all cry conspiracy or some other nonsense.

I can predict it now.

If you're a Bush supporter, you clearly are a minority.

LOL "Conspiracy?" You mean like half the shit you used to dredge up about "but, but, buuuuut" Clinton before I own3d you on it?

**oh and, there was clearly a time when you were NOT a minority here. I've back-read enough of those threads...

Warham
09-09-2006, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
If you're a Bush supporter, you clearly are a minority.

LOL "Conspiracy?" You mean like half the shit you used to dredge up about "but, but, buuuuut" Clinton before I own3d you on it?

Was that before or after FORD had spawned off all 1,000 or so of his 9/11/BCE conspiracy threads?

You guys are WAY ahead in the score.

I posted one or two times about Clinton 'conspiracies', which I never believed, and I'm supposedly 'owned'. If only you put that much effort into debunking your own kind here.

Good one. :)

Nickdfresh
09-09-2006, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Was that before or after FORD had spawned off all 1,000 or so of his 9/11/BCE conspiracy threads?

You guys are WAY ahead in the score.

I posted one or two times about Clinton 'conspiracies', which I never believed, and I'm supposedly 'owned'. If only you put that much effort into debunking your own kind here.

Good one. :)

Funny, but you only seemed to "disbelieve" them after I called you on it.

You're accusing me of not debunking 9/11 conspiracy threads? Jesus War, you are becoming a seriously weak poster with a very short memory of convenience.

Warham
09-09-2006, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Funny, but you only seemed to "disbelieve" them after I called you on it.

You're accusing me of not debunking 9/11 conspiracy threads? Jesus War, you are becoming a seriously weak poster with a very short memory of convenience.

Sure, you've hit FORD with a few informative posts here and there, which is the only time I usually agree with you, then you fall back into the standard mode here by agreeing with some of the BCE stuff he's posted here.

Nickdfresh
09-09-2006, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Sure, you've hit FORD with a few informative posts here and there, which is the only time I usually agree with you, then you fall back into the standard mode here by agreeing with some of the BCE stuff he's posted here.

Oh fuck you! When have I ever agreed with his BCE crap?

Again, your "flame-as-you-go" style is again showing you to be an empty headed tit-for-tatter.

Nice "flip-flop" BTW. :rolleyes:

Warham
09-09-2006, 10:47 PM
Was it yesterday that he was ranting about the BCE and you said that his post was 'excellent' or some such nonsense.

I don't have flip-flopping down like John Kerry yet.

Nickdfresh
09-09-2006, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Was it yesterday that he was ranting about the BCE and you said that his post was 'excellent' or some such nonsense.

I don't have flip-flopping down like John Kerry yet.

Yeah! Provide the link idiot! Give me the exact quote!

It was today actually, and you are so full of shit that it's actually funny!:D

Warham
09-09-2006, 10:53 PM
So, I was right!

Mmm hmm. :)

Nickdfresh
09-09-2006, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Warham
So, I was right!

Mmm hmm. :)

Um, read the post dumbass.