Saddam and Osama

[Yonivore]

I think the Bush administration long ago gave up trying to tell the truth about the issue of whether or not there was a link between Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist organization; just as it has on so many other issues where it was beaten into submission by a Mainstream Media narrative and bias that refuses to even consider the possibility.

And so, when the Pentagon recently released its 59-page report confirming -- once again -- there were links the media proceeded to misrepresent it -- once again -- with impunity; see here, here, and here.

Steve Hayes, of the Weekly Standard, has obtained and reviewed the report in its entirety. In a post previewing his article in the forthcoming issue of the Standard, Steve writes:

A new Pentagon report on Iraq and Terrorism has the news media buzzing. An item on the New York Times blog snarks, "Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link." The ABC News story that previews the full report concludes, "Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda."

How, then, to explain this sentence about Iraq and al Qaeda from the report's abstract: "At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust"? And how to explain the "considerable overlap" between their activities which led not only to the appearances of ties but to a "de facto link between the organizations"? (See the entire abstract below.)

And what about this revelation from page 34? "Captured do ents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision." (The example given in the report is the Army of Muhammad in Bahrain, a group the Iraqi Intelligence Service describes as "under the wings of bin Laden.")

And there is this line from page 42: "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."

Really? Saddam Hussein "supported" a group that merged with al Qaeda in the late 1990s, run by al Qaeda's #2, and the New York Times thinks this is not a link between Iraq and al Qaeda? How does that work?

Anyone interested in the "strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism" -- that language comes from this report, too -- should read the entire thing for themselves, here.

Steve quotes the report's abstract:

Captured Iraqi do ents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these do ents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

Steve adds in an update:

Just to be clear, the confusion is not entirely the fault of the news organizations. The executive summary says that the evidence did not reveal a "smoking gun (direct connection)" between Iraq and al Qaeda. But, as noted, the report itself offers much evidence that the opposite is true.

Take a look at the report with your own eyes before drawing any conclusions about it.

[JoeChalupa]

Nothing new that I didn't already know. And yes I read the reports.

[Yonivore]

Nothing new that I didn't already know. And yes I read the reports.

I see.

[JoeChalupa]

I see.

As we all should.

[Yonivore]

As we all should.

I'm sorry, I should have finished my sentence.

I see that you fail to see; if, in fact, you're maintaining, after reading this report, that Saddam Hussein wasn't up to his ears in global and regional terrorism and that he wasn't, at the very least, tangentially associated with al Qaeda.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm sorry, I should have finished my sentence.

I see that you fail to see; if, in fact, you're maintaining, after reading this report, that Saddam Hussein wasn't up to his ears in global and regional terrorism and that he wasn't, at the very least, tangentially associated with al Qaeda.

You see what YOU want to see. tangentially associated? That is a far stretch, IMO.

[boutons_]

Yoni's sitll fighting for his horrible, murderous mistake of invading Iraq. Yoni, you lost, you are still losing.

"surrender" Yoni. Even with 5 years of trying, you haven't been able spin Iraq into justification and victory.

And Afghanistan is totally screwed up and uncontrolled, too.

The Army has 600K pages of Saddam docs and the AQ/terrorism links haven't been found. So the Army report has been put on restricted distribution. The Army lies by hiding the truth. If they had found supporting truth, they would have told us about it.

dubya jokes and smirks about the unfound WMD, like the superficial frat-rat jerkoff he is.

[clambake]

a "new pentagon report" pretty much sums it up.

[Yonivore]

a "new pentagon report" pretty much sums it up.

Actually, if you'd looked at it, it was a report on what's being discovered as regime do ents are being translated and analyzed.

[Yonivore]

You see what YOU want to see. tangentially associated? That is a far stretch, IMO.

Did you even read the excerpts are are you just playing dumb? That's the very definition of tangential.

[JoeChalupa]

Did you even read the excerpts are are you just playing dumb? That's the very definition of tangential.

More like genital.

[Yonivore]

More like genital.

That's an hilarious way to bail on the debate. Nice touch, Joe. But, if it were "genital," that'd be a lot more intimate relationship than even the report is willing to assert.

[JoeChalupa]

That's an hilarious way to bail on the debate. Nice touch, Joe.

What bailing? There is no link. End of debate.

[clambake]

i wonder if reports can be "created" and then translated for effect?

[clambake]

besides, fox just reported no link with al qaeda. i say give them time. they'll make sure to crea.....find one.

[Yonivore]

i wonder if reports can be "created" and then translated for effect?

Of course you do. If it supports your side of the argument, it's authentic; if not, it's faked.

[clambake]

Of course you do. If it supports your side of the argument, it's authentic; if not, it's faked.

fox just supported my arguement.

those bas s.

[Yonivore]

fox just supported my arguement.

What? That the reports were "created" and translated for effect?

[Yonivore]

What bailing? There is no link. End of debate.

And there is this line from page 42: "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."

That's a tangential link.

Oh, and by the way, it's a direct link to global terrorist groups.

[clambake]

What? That the reports were "created" and translated for effect?

no, my arguement all along was there is no link to al qaeda. damn that fox.

[Yonivore]

no, my arguement all along was there is no link to al qaeda. damn that fox.

Then, they didn't read the report either. They're as lazy as you.

[clambake]

wow, what should i do? i can't trust fox, so, i should put my faith in the intelligence community that has gotten EVERYTHING wrong?

[Yonivore]

wow, what should i do? i can't trust fox, so, i should put my faith in the intelligence community that has gotten EVERYTHING wrong?

See, I don't have any idea what you heard from Fox...all we have to argue about is your characterization of what was said on Fox. So, care to provide some context?

[ChumpDumper]

I think the Bush administration long ago gave up trying to tell the truth about the issue of whether or not there was a link between Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist organization

Yes, they are now actively seeking to restrict such information by ordering the latest report taken down from the website and forcing the public and media to get via the lightning fast US Mail.

Give me a ing break.

[RandomGuy]

I think the Bush administration long ago gave up trying to tell the truth about the issue of whether or not there was a link between Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist organization; just as it has on so many other issues where it was beaten into submission by a Mainstream Media narrative and bias that refuses to even consider the possibility.

And so, when the Pentagon recently released its 59-page report confirming -- once again -- there were links the media proceeded to misrepresent it -- once again -- with impunity; see here, here, and here.

Steve Hayes, of the Weekly Standard, has obtained and reviewed the report in its entirety. In a post previewing his article in the forthcoming issue of the Standard, Steve writes:


Steve quotes the report's abstract:


Steve adds in an update:


Take a look at the report with your own eyes before drawing any conclusions about it.

While these do ents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network

Yup. Thanks for shamelessly spinning this, yet again.

Your shipment of Fail has been delivered.