Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Monday, March 10, 2008

Pentagon-Backed Study: No Link Between Saddam’s Regime And Al Qaeda

McClatchy, last seen reporting on the devastating impact declining violence has had on Iraqi gravediggers, nails what will be the liberal spin on a new report from a Pentagon-backed study which shows no “direct operational” connections between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda.

The problem, of course, is that “direct operational” connections don’t rule out indirect connections such as giving al Qaeda terrorists aid and tolerating al Qaeda’s existence within Iraq both of which happened under Saddam.  It also doesn’t mean that Saddam wasn’t supporting international Islamic terrorism in general, albeit not necessarily through al Qaeda:

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam’s regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East , U.S. officials told McClatchy .

Al Qaeda is not the beginning and end of Islamic terrorism.  There are hundreds of Islamic terror groups out there, and that Saddam supported any of them at all is the important point to take away with this.

Saddam supported terrorism.  Period.  Trying to obfuscate that fact by saying he didn’t support al Qaeda “directly” is like saying that Charles Manson is an ok guy because child molestation didn’t happen to be among his crimes against society.

Also, McClatchy tries to spin this apparent lack of a “direct” connection between Saddam and al Qaeda into evidence against al Qaeda being in Iraq at all:

As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq . “The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims,” he said. . . .

Sen. John McCain , the presumptive GOP nominee, mocked Sen. Barack Obama , D-Ill, recently for saying that he’d keep some U.S. troops in Iraq if al Qaida established a base there.

“I have some news. Al Qaida is in Iraq ,” McCain told supporters.

Of course, the fact that al Qaeda is in Iraq now is the absolute truth.  Before his death by an American bomb, the most dangerous terrorist in Iraq was Abu Zarqawi, who ran a group called “al Qaeda in Iraq” and pledged his fealty to Osama bin Laden.  We can quibble about whether or not Saddam supported al Qaeda “directly” (again, he did support the group indirectly), but there’s no arguing against the fact that we’re fighting al Qaeda in Iraq now.

And precipitous withdrawal from Iraq now means handing the group a massive military and propaganda victory.

Comments

Avatar for Hannitized

Saddam supported terrorism.  Period.  Trying to obfuscate that fact by saying he didn’t support al Qaeda “directly” is like saying that Charles Manson is an ok guy because child molestation didn’t happen to be among his crimes against society.

We worked with the Palestinian government to work towards peace between them and Isreal, does that mean we support terrorism?  We gave the Taliban money so that they could stop growing poppy.  Does that mean WE support terrorism?

I mean, give me a break here.  We all know Saddam hated the Jews, but that is not anything that was endangering OUR freedoms.

Right wing spin.

Hannitized on March 11, 2008 at 10:12 am

Some people assume that there are no Jewish people in America.

Saddam didn’t do anything to endanger “OUR” freedoms. Just the Jews. Just Israel’s. One of our allies. The freest and most successful Middle Eastern country. A small patch of dusty desert land that has been made to bloom with abundant life. Who cares about them? It isn’t “OUR” freedoms (assuming you’re not a Jew, Christian, or American).

Uh huh. So much good will assumptions made by the left for the murderous dictator.

Very telling.

likwidshoe on March 11, 2008 at 10:16 am

1. Hindsight is 20:20, if it is a liberal report against Bush it is even better than that!
2. Bush had to deal with the available information THEN, not now.
3. While Al Queda was mentioned before the invasion, I do not recall the Administration ever making that a cause for invasion in presenting their case to Congress and the United Nations.
4. Nonetheless, it was quite fortuitous that when we went into Iraq that Al Queda decided to make that their battleground against the Great Satan, taking pressure of our homeland as being their target, and we were able to kill a bunch of those murderous thugs.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on March 11, 2008 at 10:32 am
Avatar for Hannitized

Who cares about them?

We do care, thats why we negotiate peace on behalf of them.  Your dishonest.

Further, if we REALLY, REALLY care, Likwid.  Why don’t we invade Palistine???

Give me a break.  That was a terrible argument.

Hannitized on March 11, 2008 at 10:38 am

Anyone who says that Saddam didn’t endanger our freedoms is not only dishonest, he is willfully stupid.

likwidshoe on March 11, 2008 at 10:40 am
Avatar for Hannitized

One of our allies.

How many of our Israeli allies are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Youre making this all too easy.

Hannitized on March 11, 2008 at 10:41 am
Avatar for Hannitized

Anyone who says that Saddam didn’t endanger our freedoms is not only dishonest, he is willfully stupid.

Easy to say, hard to prove. 

Please provide evidence and support your statement with facts.  I bet you cant.

Hannitized on March 11, 2008 at 10:43 am
Avatar for Hannitized

And what ever minor threat existed in Iraq at the time, the threat is looming and becoming greater now that we have removed Saddam.

Anyone who disagrees with that is not only dishonest but is willfully stupid.

Hannitized on March 11, 2008 at 10:45 am

The problem, of course, is that “direct operational” connections don’t rule out indirect connections such as giving al Qaeda terrorists aid and tolerating al Qaeda’s existence within Iraq both of which happened under Saddam.

They don’t rule it out but the problem has been that this so called indirect aid has never been proven either. A day may come when such claims are disproved as the direct support claim apparently has and then we can move on to even more general and probably more irrelevant claims. The claim that Saddam sponsored and assisted terrorist groups has never been in dispute, just the specific claim that he assisted Al Qaeda...which he didn’t.

Of course, the fact that al Qaeda is in Iraq now is the absolute truth.

There’s probably some guy named Saddam living in America which means I can make the true claim that Saddam is living in America. The Al Qaeda that attacked on 911 is not the Al Qaeda that exists in Iraq. This point has been brought to your attention previously.


"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*

MikeAdamson on March 11, 2008 at 10:59 am

Oh brother.


"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*

MikeAdamson on March 12, 2008 at 03:48 pm

They don’t rule it out but the problem has been that this so called indirect aid has never been proven either.

Not true; the recovered documents have been translated, and have been available for some years:

http://www.nysun.com/article/29746


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on March 12, 2008 at 04:30 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.