Hussein rejected bin Laden

[Laz]

WAR ON TERROR | U.S. Senate committee releases its findings

Hussein rejected bin Laden

The 150-page report includes criticism of intelligence agencies and the administration.

By WARREN P. STROBEL and MARGARET TALEV
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON | Saddam Hussein distrusted al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, rebuffed requests for aid and tried unsuccessfully to capture a senior al-Qaida operative, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported Friday.

President Bush and other administration officials repeatedly cited Hussein’s alleged ties to radical Islamic terrorists before the March 2003 invasion as one reason to take military action against Iraq.

The 150-page report said the administration’s claims were untrue.

“Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaida to provide material or operational support,” the report said.

The report was released with a second one that said false information from the exile group Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmad Chalabi, was widely distributed in prewar intelligence reports and used to support intelligence assessments about Iraq’s weapons and links to terrorism.

Intelligence officials had repeatedly warned that the exile group was unreliable, but White House and Pentagon officials ignored the warnings.

The committee is headed by Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, who sought Friday to minimize the political fallout of his panel’s findings.

“The long-known fact is that the prewar intelligence was wrong. That flawed intelligence was used by policymakers, both in the administration and in Congress, as one of numerous justifications to go to war in Iraq,” Roberts said.

Democrats charged that the reports showed that the White House had manipulated intelligence to make the case for war to the American people.

“The administration ignored warnings prior to the war about the veracity of the intelligence it trumpeted publicly to support its case that Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the United States,” said the panel’s vice chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat.

The report’s conclusions went beyond the committee’s earlier findings, issued in the summer of 2004, by including criticism not just of American intelligence agencies but also of the administration.

The reports are part of a five-report study that the Senate Intelligence Committee has undertaken into the Bush administration’s use of intelligence before the invasion of Iraq.

The study has left the committee badly divided. Three reports remain classified, including one comparing prewar statements by Bush administration officials with intelligence available at the time.

In the run-up to the war, Bush and his advisers repeatedly sought to link Hussein and al-Qaida, stopping just short of accusing the Iraqi leader of a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

“You can’t distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror,” Bush said on Sept. 25, 2002.

On the same day, Condoleezza Rice, then the White House national security adviser, said: “High-ranking detainees have said that Iraq provided some training to al-Qaida in chemical weapons development.”

The detainee Rice referred to was al-Qaida operative Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who was captured in Pakistan in November 2001. U.S. intelligence officials said that he was tortured by Egyptian authorities after his transfer to that country.

The Senate report says that in February 2002, months before Rice spoke, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that al Libi “was likely intentionally misleading his briefers.”

Postwar information on Hussein’s relations with Islamic extremists came from numerous sources, the report suggests, including seized documents and interrogations of Hussein himself, former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, and a senior Iraqi spy, Faruq Hijazi.

The report, quoting from an FBI debriefing of Hijazi, said that when an Iraqi operative met bin Laden in Sudan in 1995, bin Laden asked that Hussein allow him to open an office in Iraq, give him Chinese-made sea mines and military training, and broadcast his speeches.

“According to Hijazi, Saddam immediately refused,” the FBI debriefing said.

The second report released Friday confirms that the Iraqi National Congress had “an aggressive ‘publicity campaign’ prior to the war to bring defectors to the attention of ‘anyone who would listen.’ ”

Although many committee Republicans dismissed the report’s conclusions as unsupported by the facts, two of them, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, voted for harsher language that Democrats proposed.

The report disclosed that three months after the White House approved continued funding for the exile group’s intelligence collection in July 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency warned that the group “was penetrated by hostile intelligence services,” including Iran’s. It is unclear whether top White House officials were aware of the warning.


http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/15476317.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Stearns and John Walcott of McClatchy Newspapers and Bob Deans of Cox News Service contributed to this report. To reach Warren P. Strobel, send e-mail to wstrobel@mcclatchydc.com.

[Bowser]

It's about freeing oppressed people, Laz. Think about all the good we've brought to Iraq.

Next up, we clean up all the nastiness in Uganda. Just because we're good peolpe like that.

[Laz]

It's about freeing oppressed people, Laz. Think about all the good we've brought to Iraq.

Next up, we clean up all the nastiness in Uganda. Just because we're good peolpe like that.
China ... when do we clean up China?




excited about the new world community we are fostering.

[HC_Chief]

“The administration ignored warnings prior to the war about the veracity of the intelligence it trumpeted publicly to support its case that Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the United States,” said the panel’s vice chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat.

lol, that tool droned on & on about how Saddam was an imminent threat to the US and that it would be foolish to ignore said threat. He even went so far as to state Saddam would have nukes within 5 years (speech given in Oct 2001).

Nah, this ain't just more partisan bullshit. Nope.

[Laz]

lol, that tool droned on & on about how Saddam was an imminent threat to the US and that it would be foolish to ignore said threat. He even went so far as to state Saddam would have nukes within 5 years (speech given in Oct 2001).

Nah, this ain't just more partisan bullshit. Nope.
"The committee is headed by Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican"

"Although many committee Republicans dismissed the report’s conclusions as unsupported by the facts, two of them, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, voted for harsher language that Democrats proposed."

[HC_Chief]

"The committee is headed by Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican"

"Although many committee Republicans dismissed the report’s conclusions as unsupported by the facts, two of them, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, voted for harsher language that Democrats proposed."

Not the report itself, that's not what I'm calling partisan bullshit. It's the handwringing and Monday-morning quarterbacking accompanying the report. Everyone knows prewar intelligence was flawed. Full disclosure is a good thing, but this hypocritical bullshit from people like Rockefeller is annoying and transparent.... just more partisan bullshit.

[Bowser]

lol, that tool droned on & on about how Saddam was an imminent threat to the US and that it would be foolish to ignore said threat. He even went so far as to state Saddam would have nukes within 5 years (speech given in Oct 2001).

Nah, this ain't just more partisan bullshit. Nope.

I bought in to the whole Iraq/Al-Qaida connection thing way back when. It made too much sense no to believe it. Both had aggression towards us, and Iraq had the land and resourses to accomodate AQ. Then came Colin Powell sitting in front of the UN giving all these precise details of what weapons were where, and what they were going to do with them, only to have not a single bit of it proved to be true. Right then is when I stopped believing in some Iraq/Al-Qaida connection.

Now, is Al-Qaida in Iraq? Absolutely. They're here, too. Are the Iraqi Al-Qaida operatives being funded by the Iraqi government? I have no idea.

I guess my point is to ask you why you think the article is "partisan bullshit". Is it just because Rockefeller is quoted in it?

[HC_Chief]

read post #6

[Hydrae]

Not the report itself, that's not what I'm calling partisan bullshit. It's the handwringing and Monday-morning quarterbacking accompanying the report. Everyone knows prewar intelligence was flawed. Full disclosure is a good thing, but this hypocritical bullshit from people like Rockefeller is annoying and transparent.... just more partisan bullshit.


And all the more reason for term limits, IMO.

[HC_Chief]

And all the more reason for term limits, IMO.

I believe the founding fathers would agree as well :)

[Bowser]

read post #6

I think I understand what you're saying. Rockefeller is painting himself to be a douche for standing up and being a yes man to the article, especially given his stance early on. It would appear he's just trying to further his own image.

But the article itself has tons of merit, regardless of who endorses it, "Monday Morning QB" style.

[HC_Chief]

I think I understand what you're saying. Rockefeller is painting himself to be a douche for standing up and being a yes man to the article, especially given his stance early on. It would appear he's just trying to further his own image.

But the article itself has tons of merit, regardless of who endorses it, "Monday Morning QB" style.

As long as something good comes of it, I agree. Hopefully these findings will help to improve our intelligence capabilities. What I take offense to is using these findings to further a psychotic agenda; especially when it is vomited forth by hypocritical douchebags like Reockefeller and Schumer (complete scumbag).

[dirk digler]

Not the report itself, that's not what I'm calling partisan bullshit. It's the handwringing and Monday-morning quarterbacking accompanying the report. Everyone knows prewar intelligence was flawed. Full disclosure is a good thing, but this hypocritical bullshit from people like Rockefeller is annoying and transparent.... just more partisan bullshit.

The only problem I have is even after we knew the intel was wrong Cheney goes on TV and constantly says that Iraq and AQ were connected.

Cheney is a liar.

[jiveturkey]

As long as something good comes of it, I agree. Hopefully these findings will help to improve our intelligence capabilities. What I take offense to is using these findings to further a psychotic agenda; especially when it is vomited forth by hypocritical douchebags like Reockefeller and Schumer (complete scumbag).
But you don't have problem with someone futhering an agenda by using the intelligence in the opposite way?

[dirk digler]

As long as something good comes of it, I agree. Hopefully these findings will help to improve our intelligence capabilities. What I take offense to is using these findings to further a psychotic agenda; especially when it is vomited forth by hypocritical douchebags like Reockefeller and Schumer (complete scumbag).

But if the report went the other way and favored Bush/Cheney you don't think the Republicans would be doing the same thing?

[HC_Chief]

But you don't have problem with someone futhering an agenda by using the intelligence in the opposite way?

At the time, no... everyone was on the same page. After it has been proven false however, then yes, it is more than problematic.

[HC_Chief]

But if the report went the other way and favored Bush/Cheney you don't think the Republicans would be doing the same thing?

?? How would it be hypocritical of the Republicans to use that information as justification?

[jiveturkey]

At the time, no... everyone was on the same page. After it has been proven false however, then yes, it is more than problematic.Cheers then.

I will of course agree with you that Rock-a-smeller is playing the wrong card. Most of the Dems painted themselves into a corner and it's my opinion that everyone should be kicked out of office so we can start fresh. :)

[HC_Chief]

The only problem I have is even after we knew the intel was wrong Cheney goes on TV and constantly says that Iraq and AQ were connected.

Cheney is a liar.

Hmmm, depends on the context of his statement(s). If he's saying Iraq & AQ are related NOW, or as-of the US invasion, then he is not lying. No one can deny AQ has a strong presence in Iraq. If, however, he is trying to asert the connection prior to the invasion, his statements are spurious at best.

[dirk digler]

?? How would it be hypocritical of the Republicans to use that information as justification?

This is what I was really commenting on

What I take offense to is using these findings to further a psychotic agenda;

[HC_Chief]

Cheers then.

I will of course agree with you that Rock-a-smeller is playing the wrong card. Most of the Dems painted themselves into a corner and it's my opinion that everyone should be kicked out of office so we can start fresh. :)

fun to dream eh? I'd love to reanimate the founding fathers... give them the opportunity to lay a serious smackdown on the current set of useless dweebs sitting on their fat asses in DC.

[HC_Chief]

This is what I was really commenting on

:spock:
So if the links were proven <i>true</i> you believe pursuit of military action versus a set of AQ scumbags in Iraq = psychotic?

[dirk digler]

:spock:
So if the links were proven <i>true</i> you believe pursuit of military action versus a set of AQ scumbags in Iraq = psychotic?

I guess what I am trying to say is that this was a republican controlled committe and if they even put in just a little blurb that possibly Iraq and AQ were connected they would running up and down the street saying "I told you so".

It works both ways and both of the parties are guilty of exploiting or misrepresenting the truth.

[HC_Chief]

I guess what I am trying to say is that this was a republican controlled committe and if they even put in just a little blurb that possibly Iraq and AQ were connected they would running up and down the street saying "I told you so".

It works both ways and both of the parties are guilty of exploiting or misrepresenting the truth.

??
Again, defending themselves using intelligence that showed ties between Iraq and AQ is an orange to the dem's "no links ever! we told you so back before the war!" hypocritical and patently false apple.

[dirk digler]

Hmmm, depends on the context of his statement(s). If he's saying Iraq & AQ are related NOW, or as-of the US invasion, then he is not lying. No one can deny AQ has a strong presence in Iraq. If, however, he is trying to asert the connection prior to the invasion, his statements are spurious at best.

CHENEY CLAIMS AL-QAIDA LINKED TO SADDAM
WINS News ^ | 6/14/04


ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had "long-established ties" with al Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.

The vice president offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al Qaida.

"He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al Qaida."

In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

Cheney listed what he described as the accomplishments of the Bush administration in the war on terror, including fledgling democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq; and the decision by Libya's leader, Moammar Gadhafi, to abandon his nuclear ambitions.

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., countered that the Bush administration had "a sorry record in the war on terror." Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, spoke Sunday in a conference call arranged by John Kerry's presidential campaign in anticipation of Cheney's speech.

The State Department said last week it was wrong in stating that terrorism declined worldwide last year in a report that the Bush administration initially cited as evidence it was succeeding against terrorism, Graham noted. Both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department acknowledged.

[dirk digler]

??
Again, defending themselves using intelligence that showed ties between Iraq and AQ is an orange to the dem's "no links ever! we told you so back before the war!" hypocritical and patently false apple.

I agree but that is politics now and both parties do it.

None of these guys have any integrity or honesty inside their body.

[HC_Chief]

I agree but that is politics now and both parties do it.

None of these guys have any integrity or honesty inside their body.

Agree 100% :D

[dirk digler]

Agree 100% :D

I was just thinking the other day we definitely need term limits.

1 6yr term for POTUS
1 6yr term for any member of Congress

Same for Governor and state members

[Hydrae]

I was just thinking the other day we definitely need term limits.

1 6yr term for POTUS
1 6yr term for any member of Congress

Same for Governor and state members


But, then more people would have to be involved in how things are run. :eek:

[dirk digler]

But, then more people would have to be involved in how things are run. :eek:

Do you like that some of the members of Congress have been around forever and are corrupt as hell because of the lobbyists?

[Laz]

Do you like that some of the members of Congress have been around forever and are corrupt as hell because of the lobbyists?

we need to remove the power of money to sway votes.



stopping the high dollar lobbyist could be the best thing we could do for the U.S.

[banyon]

I was just thinking the other day we definitely need term limits.

1 6yr term for POTUS
1 6yr term for any member of Congress

Same for Governor and state members

I think I've made this objection before, but I think that having such a structure might create a class of "super-lobbyists", former Congressmen who, because of their experience, the new, term-limited Congressmen would have to rely upon because of the complexity of the legislation.

(this is already a problem to a limited extent.)

[Hydrae]

we need to remove the power of money to sway votes.



stopping the high dollar lobbyist could be the best thing we could do for the U.S.


Fair tax

Fair tax

:)

[Hydrae]

This brings up an interesting question, which is the begger problem, the long term elected officials or the lobbyists? If you could remove one or the other, which one and why?

[Laz]

This brings up an interesting question, which is the begger problem, the long term elected officials or the lobbyists? If you could remove one or the other, which one and why?
lobbyists .......


power corrupts, money corrupts ....... add the 2 together and you're just asking for corrupt government.


you could actually make the point that if you remove the money from lobbyist that you wouldn't need term limits at all.


I mean if a government official is willing to work his entire life for the people, and not for lobbyist's money, then you would want him in office for as long as possible.

[banyon]

Fair tax

Fair tax

:)

How does the Fair tax address lobbying reform?

[Hydrae]

How does the Fair tax address lobbying reform?

Because most of the lobbying has to do with taxes and tax breaks for various concerns. If you go to a consumption tax, there is a lot less incentive for companies to hire the lobbyists in the first place.

[Hydrae]

lobbyists .......


power corrupts, money corrupts ....... add the 2 together and you're just asking for corrupt government.


you could actually make the point that if you remove the money from lobbyist that you wouldn't need term limits at all.


I mean if a government official is willing to work his entire life for the people, and not for lobbyist's money, then you would want him in office for as long as possible.


Couldn't agree more. It always strikes me as funny how politicians will spend thousands and even millions of dollars to get elected to a position that pays much less than that. Obviously there is other compensations to make this a worthwhile proposition.

[banyon]

Because most of the lobbying has to do with taxes and tax breaks for various concerns. If you go to a consumption tax, there is a lot less incentive for companies to hire the lobbyists in the first place.

I know that tax incentives are a part of lobbying, but I would think the majority of the lobbying effort is centered around where to spend the money in the budgetary process, regardless of how the tax revenues were collected.

[Hydrae]

I know that tax incentives are a part of lobbying, but I would think the majority of the lobbying effort is centered around where to spend the money in the budgetary process, regardless of how the tax revenues were collected.

That is an interesting point and could well be correct. I was honestly just parroting what I read in the book on Fair Tax. Wonder how one would determine something like this.

[go bowe]

lobbyists .......


power corrupts, money corrupts ....... add the 2 together and you're just asking for corrupt government.


you could actually make the point that if you remove the money from lobbyist that you wouldn't need term limits at all.


I mean if a government official is willing to work his entire life for the people, and not for lobbyist's money, then you would want him in office for as long as possible.it's an interesting notion...

why not just go ahead and make all federal elections publicly funded?

federal funds for campaign budget for all serious candidate, with no private money allowed (probably unconstitutional, but intriguing)...

lobbyists would lose their influence insofar as making huge campaign contribution would no longer be an option...

and it will level the playing field as far as middle class guys/gals running against rich guys/gals...

[Adept Havelock]

it's an interesting notion...

why not just go ahead and make all federal elections publicly funded?

federal funds for campaign budget for all serious candidate, with no private money allowed (probably unconstitutional, but intriguing)...

lobbyists would lose their influence insofar as making huge campaign contribution would no longer be an option...

and it will level the playing field as far as middle class guys/gals running against rich guys/gals...

It's worked for the UK for quite some time.

[Laz]

it's an interesting notion...

why not just go ahead and make all federal elections publicly funded?

federal funds for campaign budget for all serious candidate, with no private money allowed (probably unconstitutional, but intriguing)...

lobbyists would lose their influence insofar as making huge campaign contribution would no longer be an option...

and it will level the playing field as far as middle class guys/gals running against rich guys/gals...
in the long run it might be cheaper to have publicly funded elections


definitely capped funds for elections (including private monies)

lobbyists just don't have the publics best interest in mind ... they only care about who's paying them and will do whatever it takes to get the job done.

that isn't a good thing


partisan politics hurts the overall good the government does, but so does special interest group money.

[Nightwish]

:spock:
So if the links were proven true you believe pursuit of military action versus a set of AQ scumbags in Iraq = psychotic?
I would say that this administration's tendency to trumpet the same claims over and over, even in the face of controverting evidence, and maintaining this stubborn, single-minded resolve to take the hard line when the facts don't offer that line much support, would certainly qualify as "psychotic."

[whoman69]

Not the report itself, that's not what I'm calling partisan bullshit. It's the handwringing and Monday-morning quarterbacking accompanying the report. Everyone knows prewar intelligence was flawed. Full disclosure is a good thing, but this hypocritical bullshit from people like Rockefeller is annoying and transparent.... just more partisan bullshit.
The partisan bullshit is the administration pushing forth this notion that the war in Iraq was totally justified and a logical step in the war on terror. Every reason for going to war has been debunked and Cheney goes on national TV stating that with everything he knows now, he would support going to war. They still try to pass of the reasons as being valid to this day.

[Psyko Tek]

does it take a rocket scientist to figure this out

bin laden loved by people and clergy alike

hussien hated by people and clergy alike

hussien controlled his country with an iron fist
is he gonna let "robin hood of the arabs" in to play


****ing think people

[greg63]

This is news???