Intelligence Report Links Saddam, Usama (Alternative Title: "Game, Set, Match") Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein gave terror lord Usama bin Laden's thugs financial and logistical support, offering Al Qaeda money, training and haven for more than a decade, it was reported yesterday. Their deadly collaboration — which may have included the bombing of the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks — is revealed in a 16-page memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee that cites reports from a variety of domestic and foreign spy agencies compiled by multiple sources, The Weekly Standard reports. Saddam's willingness to help bin Laden plot against Americans began in 1990, shortly before the first Gulf War, and continued through last March, the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, says the Oct. 27 memo sent by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.
The Weekly Standard article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp (IIS = Iraqi Intelligence Service) I didn't even know that there were reports of more than 1 meeting between Atta and IIS agents in Prague. I had just heard about the one that probably didn't take place--never knew that the Czechs reported several meetings.
Select from the following responses: 1) Who cares about a link? It's only about WMDs. 2) Conspiracy. It's a Bush administration fabrication to build support for their corporate war. 3) AHA!! This proves, through the transitive property, that Rumsfeld is cozy with al Qaeda! Traitor! 4) Wait here while I go find a rebuttal on commondreams.org. 5) But where are the FLOWERS?! 6) I don't like the guy who posted it, so it must be a delusional lie. 7) Anyone got a shovel for these here goalposts? 8) No comment.
If this is true, it changes my opinions about the war some. However, there's still the WMD lies/exaggerations which tick me off to no end.
I saw mention of this on Fox News. They said the memo was dated late in October, 2003 (forget the exact date.) Which should have activated everyone's bulls*** detector. More neocon lies.
Where was this information back when Congress was voting on the war resolution? It would have passed unanimously. From Ugluk's list, I'm going to say this sounds like a whole lot of #2.
On Saturday afternoons, they have the best news. I mean, CNN is doing pieces on how to deal with carsick children on family trips, and MSNBC is giving us the Ben Affleck episode of Headliners and Legends. I was trying to keep up with the tragedy in Mosul. I swear to God, when they intro'd the piece, they hadn't named the person, only described him, and I said, I bet it's Doug Feith. It was freakin' hilarious. See, my bulls*** detector is the Supremo model. Not only does it detect it, but it points in the right direction.
Jesus, that was quick Here's Ugluk's #4, the rebuttal from commondreams.org. News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate. Why do we allow these anti-American traitors to undermine the morale of the troops like this?
No. 851-03 IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 15, 2003 DoD Statement on News Reports of al-Qaida and Iraq Connections News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate. A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in his testimony before the Committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida. The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the Committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the Intelligence Community. The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence Community. The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions. Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal. -END- Now McCrackhead'll tell us that its actually the DOD whose lying, and that the Weekly Standard, Kristol, and Co. are in possession of the "real truth," which, of course, is the "truth of the moment" that Ian perceives will score him points in the endless, wheel-spinning debates he generates, time-wasting ventures replicated all over the globe by fools just like himself, keeping us from focusing on matters substantive and critical to humans moving forward and leaving the captial-whorefiends behind to wallow and consume each other in their greed, ego and selfishness...
What is funny about this to me, is that in my mind it really makes no difference. Is there any doubt in anybodies mind, that if at some point Saddam Hussein felt it was in his best interest to align himself with terrorists, he wouldn't have, either in the past, or in the future? Everybody is so obsessed with a "smoking gun" they ignore the known pathology of this thug, and the inherint difficulties of maintaining the status quo prior to removing him.
And what would he have done once he was aligned with them? Shared the WMD's he doesn't have? Oh, hang on ... he used to bung the families of Palestinian suicide bombers a few quid now and then. Well there's something that stacks up against the apocalyptic visions conjured up by Bush and Blair of a world in which Iraq was left to be puny and inconsequential some more.
Ah yes, Mr. "72 Hours" McCracken is at it again. "Intelligence Report Links Saddam, Usama" Is this the same kind of "intelligence report" that told the Bushies exactly how many WMDs Saddam had and exactly where there were? Just curious. I am starting to suspect that "Ian" is really Ralph Nader in disguise trying to make neocons look really, really dumb.
Or just given them funding, intelligence and a safe haven. I saw a small amount of Clark on T.V. yesterday, and he said something to the effect that it was a mistake to focus on countries that support terrorism, instead of the terrorists themselves. Do any of you actually believe we have any hope of reducing terrorism without pressuring, with both economic actions and the threat of military actions, the countries that support it?
No, of course not. But the precise nature of our actions should be predicated on a precise, accurate and truthful view of the scale of threat that they pose. And despite the hysterical bleating of the chickenhawk right in both the US and the UK, Iraq posed us no threat worth going to war over. Plus, of course, the countries that really go out of their way to offer funding, intelligence and other support to known, verifiable and virulent terrorist threats tend to be 'allies' of ours like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Are we going to pressure them 'with both economic actions and the threat of military actions' or our blatant commercial self-interests going to hold sway in that instance? Do you believe blowing the shit out of a country on false pretences and then occupying it for years on end is an effective means of achieving the aims you outline?