NationStates Jolt Archive

U.S. Military Concludes No Saddam Link to Al Qaeda
March 11, 2008 9:49 AM

ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: ABC News has obtained a comprehensive military study of Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism. The study, which is due to be released Wednesday, is based on the analysis of some 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces after the invasion. It is also based on thousands of hours of interrogations of former top officials in Saddam's government who are now in U.S. custody.

The headline: "This study found no 'smoking gun' (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda."

Others have reached the same conclusion, but no previous study has had access to so much information. Further, this is the first official acknowledgement from the U.S. military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda.

The study does, however, show that Saddam Hussein did much to support terrorism in the Middle East and used terrorism "as a routine tool of state power." Saddam's government, for example, had a program for the "development, construction, certification and training for car bombs and suicide vests in 1999 and 2000." The U.S. military is still dealing with the fall-out from this particular program.

The report says Saddam's bureaucrats carefully recorded the regime's connections to Palestinian terrorists groups and its financial support for the families of suicide bombers.

The primary target, however, of Saddam's terror activities was not the United States, and not Israel. "The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq." Saddam's primary aim was self preservation and the elimination of potential internal threats to his power.

Source:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/rapidreport/2008/03/exclusive-us-mi.html

One more reason of the invasion of Iraq falls off.
Wouldn't have been easier to say "we want the oil so we go take it"?

Regrettably, this can hardly be considered news.

The only real news is that it's taken so long for the US military to confirm what many of us who were anti-war from the beginning thought: that Saddam was a nasty, brutal piece of work, but a nasty, brutal secular nationalist piece of work with no connection to the nasty, brutal radical Islamists of Al Qaeda. Though those of us with PhDs might be able to muster a teensy bit of sympathy, however, for anyone who's taken years to produce a vast piece of research that states the bleedingly obvious.

Even the 9/11 Comission said this!

The only people who still believe Saddam Hussein had links to Al Quaeda are not going to be swayed by this. Their heads are too far up Rupert Murdoch's ass. :)

Can't settle on a response-

"Welcome to 5 1/2 years ago, US Military-good thing we didn't stage an invasion on that premise!"

"Well, the Catholic Church didn't pardon Galileo until the 20th century, so taken in that light they're quick to come to what everyone else already knew."

"Oh, so this is what it sounds like when the rest of the world collectively says 'D'uh!!!!!'"

Source:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/rapidreport/2008/03/exclusive-us-mi.html

One more reason of the invasion of Iraq falls off.
Wouldn't have been easier to say "we want the oil so we go take it"?
Hey, if we actually had control of all this oil, why am I paying $3.69 for diesel?

Can't settle on a response-

"Welcome to 5 1/2 years ago, US Military-good thing we didn't stage an invasion on that premise!"

"Well, the Catholic Church didn't pardon Galileo until the 20th century, so taken in that light they're quick to come to what everyone else already knew."

"Oh, so this is what it sounds like when the rest of the world collectively says 'D'uh!!!!!'"

I was thinking "There's a reason people say 'Military Intelligence' is an oxymoron."

Is our reputation really that bad that it makes news when we reach a conclusion that the rest of the world reached over 5 years ago?

Hey, if we actually had control of all this oil, why am I paying $3.69 for diesel?

Because if you didn't you'd be paying $7,19.

I don't doubt that most of the US Generals and Analysts had no real doubt about this 5 1/2 years ago. But this isn't "opinion", this isn't "suspicion", or "belief". This is pretty much as close as we're going to get to rock-hard fact.

That takes time. They left no stone unturned, sorted ALL the evidence, and came to the accurate conclusion. Now we can point at anybody who disgrees and just laugh at the morons.

Yeah, at least i can feel vindicated. The interesting thing is that i read on Jane's Defence Weekly about 6 years ago an article on how much Saddam could not stand Bin Ladin and Al Kaida and how much would Bin Ladin have desired Saddam killed.
...
...
...
Mission Accomplished!

Give them a break: most of the top-brass don't seem to have noticed that the Cold War is over yet, so this is actually pretty quick.

Source:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/rapidreport/2008/03/exclusive-us-mi.html

One more reason of the invasion of Iraq falls off.
Wouldn't have been easier to say "we want the oil so we go take it"?

Meh, and they released this after a year or more of hanging him? It's ridiculous.

Give them a break: most of the top-brass don't seem to have noticed that the Cold War is over yet, so this is actually pretty quick.

Hopping off the plane in Iraq, wondering how come the "Russkies" look so brown.....

Give them a break: most of the top-brass don't seem to have noticed that the Cold War is over yet, so this is actually pretty quick.

Hey, some one them might live to see Russia rev it back up, then they will have an excuse for blowing billions, if not trillions, of dollars on "futuristic" fighter jets, submarines,and other nautical vessels. None of which we can really afford or get working.

Georges W. Bush lied?

Who would have thought? :rolleyes:

Hey, if we actually had control of all this oil, why am I paying $3.69 for diesel?

What? You mean Halliburton and Exxon-Mobil would actually give up their record-breaking profits just to give consumers a break?

Source:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/rapidreport/2008/03/exclusive-us-mi.html

One more reason of the invasion of Iraq falls off.
Wouldn't have been easier to say "we want the oil so we go take it"?

Oy vey.

What? You mean Halliburton and Exxon-Mobil would actually give up their record-breaking profits just to give consumers a break?

You apparently don't know anything about oil. Oil prices are set by OPEC, the value of the dollar, demand, refining capabilities and the stock market....Exxon has very little control over oil prices.

You apparently don't know anything about oil. Oil prices are set by OPEC, the value of the dollar, demand, refining capabilities and the stock market....Exxon has very little control over oil prices.

And you missed the point of the statement, which was to refute the "If we went after the oil why isn't gas cheaper?" myth. Even if Exxon could control oil prices, why would they want to change the rate given how much profit it's bringing them in right now? Hell, if they could control prices they'd try to raise it just short of a consumer breaking point.

You apparently don't know anything about oil. Oil prices are set by OPEC, the value of the dollar, demand, refining capabilities and the stock market....Exxon has very little control over oil prices.

And if you can artificially create scarcity by say, throwing a huge producer into such turmoil that they can no longer reliably export in the same quantities they once did, you can cause the price to go up just enough that you can tack a little more on top of it for yourself without drawing too much notice.

Pity they already invaded his country, overthrew his government, defeated his army and killed him.

Pity they already invaded his country, overthrew his government, defeated his army and killed him.

WHo knew? (other than the Bush Administration)

:p

WHo knew? (other than the Bush Administration)

:p

Almost everyone on NSG, for one.

I don't doubt that most of the US Generals and Analysts had no real doubt about this 5 1/2 years ago. But this isn't "opinion", this isn't "suspicion", or "belief". This is pretty much as close as we're going to get to rock-hard fact.

That takes time. They left no stone unturned, sorted ALL the evidence, and came to the accurate conclusion. Now we can point at anybody who disgrees and just laugh at the morons.

Exactly. They didn't want to leave any doubt, so they did a very thorough analysis. Now, anyone who says that there is a link is a rock-hard liar, period. Before, it was a matter of debate, now it isn't.

Hey, if we actually had control of all this oil, why am I paying $3.69 for diesel?

Because of the weakened dollar and speculation in oil markets among investors. In 2000, oil was somewhere between $25 - $30 dollars (U.S.) per barrel. Eight years later, oil is headed toward a projected high of $150 per barrel. This is concommitant with the U.S. dollar losing about 35%-40% of its value internationally. Combine that with speculators artificially maintaining the high-dollar per-barrel price, and you have the present price at the pump for petroleum by-products.

Supply has far out-paced demand, and yet the price of oil keeps rising. This is not a coincidence, folx.

We invaded Iraq because we thought that they had nuclear weapons and were going to give them to terrorists. We still had good reason for invading Iraq though.

First off, the whole world thought he had developed some nuclear weapons. Even Saddam's top officials thought that Iraq was in possesion of nuclear missiles. Especially after Israel found and destroyed a nuclear facility in Iraq. Who would want that person to have nukes and is really pissed at Americans right about now because we won in the Gulf War.

Secondly, if Al-Queda got those nukes they would probaly us them against us. Saddam has supported terrorist groups for years so it wouldn't be unlikely that Al-Queda made their way through.

The oil problem is everybody taking advantage of the increased oil prices elsewhere making their oil only slightly cheaper, but still cheaper than the others. We need to look to Canada and Mexico, as well as the tons of oil trapped in Alaska. Sure, some animals will be displaced, but there are not alot of deer grazing green fresh grass in ALASKA people.

We can't back out of it now because what is important is that we know for sure that they are there now and still shooting at us.

We invaded Iraq because we thought that they had nuclear weapons and were going to give them to terrorists. We still had good reason for invading Iraq though.

First off, the whole world thought he had developed some nuclear weapons. Even Saddam's top officials thought that Iraq was in possesion of nuclear missiles. Especially after Israel found and destroyed a nuclear facility in Iraq. Who would want that person to have nukes and is really pissed at Americans right about now because we won in the Gulf War.

Secondly, if Al-Queda got those nukes they would probaly us them against us. Saddam has supported terrorist groups for years so it wouldn't be unlikely that Al-Queda made their way through.

The oil problem is everybody taking advantage of the increased oil prices elsewhere making their oil only slightly cheaper, but still cheaper than the others. We need to look to Canada and Mexico, as well as the tons of oil trapped in Alaska. Sure, some animals will be displaced, but there are not alot of deer grazing green fresh grass in ALASKA people.

We can't back out of it now because what is important is that we know for sure that they are there now and still shooting at us.

Most of this has already been refuted so many times, I don't even want to bother.

And I have concluded bears shit in the woods. What? Is this not the state the obvious thread?

And I have concluded bears shit in the woods. What? Is this not the state the obvious thread?

Polar bears don't.

*runs*

We invaded Iraq because we thought that they had nuclear weapons and were going to give them to terrorists. We still had good reason for invading Iraq though.

First off, the whole world thought he had developed some nuclear weapons. Even Saddam's top officials thought that Iraq was in possesion of nuclear missiles. Especially after Israel found and destroyed a nuclear facility in Iraq. Who would want that person to have nukes and is really pissed at Americans right about now because we won in the Gulf War.

Secondly, if Al-Queda got those nukes they would probaly us them against us. Saddam has supported terrorist groups for years so it wouldn't be unlikely that Al-Queda made their way through.

The oil problem is everybody taking advantage of the increased oil prices elsewhere making their oil only slightly cheaper, but still cheaper than the others. We need to look to Canada and Mexico, as well as the tons of oil trapped in Alaska. Sure, some animals will be displaced, but there are not alot of deer grazing green fresh grass in ALASKA people.

We can't back out of it now because what is important is that we know for sure that they are there now and still shooting at us.

No.

I think we knew this in 2003.

Canada certainly did. It's why we never followed you into Iraq to begin with.

Canada certainly did. It's why we never followed you into Iraq to begin with.

You would have if Harper had been PM at the time. Thank goodness he wasn't, eh? ;)

You would have if Harper had been PM at the time. Thank goodness he wasn't, eh? ;)

No, we wouldn't have, because we're not crazy enough to give him a majority, and war has to be approved by parliament.

And if we had, well, it might have been time for Québec to finally leave the confederation. There's only so much shit people like me are willing to disregard from the federal govt.

But the point of my post was: Canadian Intelligence and Secret Services were well aware that the invasion of Iraq was based on criminally wrong info and fake "evidence".

Most of this has already been refuted so many times by the US Army, CIA and other america Security Agencies, I don't even want to bother.

Fixed

I think I just lost all anchors to reality...

That was the thing I was most sure about in my life...and now I learn it's not true? LIES!!!

... who gives a shit, we knew there was no link from day one.

Secondly, if Al-Queda got those nukes they would probaly us them against us. Saddam has supported terrorist groups for years so it wouldn't be unlikely that Al-Queda made their way through.
No, I think you're confusing "supported" with "shot at, also gassed a couple of times".

Everyone in the know knew there was no Saddam-Al Quada connection. Even the Bush Administration. They lied, and the sheep in the United States bought it.

Everyone in the know knew there was no Saddam-Al Quada connection. Even the Bush Administration. They lied, and the sheep in the United States bought it.
I think it was more "didn't care about the supposedly reasoning" rather than "actually bought it". Who knows, though.

We invaded Iraq because we thought that they had nuclear weapons and were going to give them to terrorists. We still had good reason for invading Iraq though.

First off, the whole world thought he had developed some nuclear weapons. Even Saddam's top officials thought that Iraq was in possesion of nuclear missiles. Especially after Israel found and destroyed a nuclear facility in Iraq. Who would want that person to have nukes and is really pissed at Americans right about now because we won in the Gulf War.

Secondly, if Al-Queda got those nukes they would probaly us them against us. Saddam has supported terrorist groups for years so it wouldn't be unlikely that Al-Queda made their way through.

The oil problem is everybody taking advantage of the increased oil prices elsewhere making their oil only slightly cheaper, but still cheaper than the others. We need to look to Canada and Mexico, as well as the tons of oil trapped in Alaska. Sure, some animals will be displaced, but there are not alot of deer grazing green fresh grass in ALASKA people.

We can't back out of it now because what is important is that we know for sure that they are there now and still shooting at us.



1. What nukes?
2. Al Quada was never in Iraq until we showed up
3. Just no

this study and report are good things

first of all, we had the documents, its good to look through them to make sure that there was no connection. its embarrassing to find out ...10 years from now... that what we thought was true was not only false but that we had the evidence in boxes the whole time.

now that cant happen.

and it showed me something that i didnt know which is that hussein was not targetting terrorism in israel as i had thought.

http://www.farfromneutral.com/exodus/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/o_rly.jpg

Hey, if we actually had control of all this oil, why am I paying $3.69 for diesel?
Didn't you say this a few years back, and are joking as much now as you were then?

Almost everyone on NSG, for one.
:mad:

I think it was more "didn't care about the supposedly reasoning" rather than "actually bought it". Who knows, though.

That is more like it. Saddam was a thorn in the side for years. When I was living in the UK when Bush was about to take office I told my circle of Brit friends the US would be at war with Iraq within a year of Bush taking office. I also said the UK would be in there with them. They thought I was crazy. I was wrong on one point. Bush waited till '03. That though was most likely because of 9-11.

1. What nukes?
2. Al Quada was never in Iraq until we showed up
3. Just no

So what do you think of the notion that it is better to fight your battles on foreign soil. Iraq is being used as a magnet.

George W. Bush lied? :rolleyes:

What else is on news?

So what do you think of the notion that it is better to fight your battles on foreign soil. Iraq is being used as a magnet.
Actually although many are foreign, the vast majority of all insurgent groups are in fact Iraqi, al Qaeda was just a bunch of unemployed soldiers and public servants until they decided the brand name was a good way to make the group universally known, it doesn't mean Bin Laden is controlling them from his secret bunker in Waziristan, it just means they linked in with an audience by using the name, same thing happened in Somalia, Algeria etc. In reality these groups aren't a centralized coherent organization, they are just local groups fighting over local piles of dirt, nothing new....

So what do you think of the notion that it is better to fight your battles on foreign soil. Iraq is being used as a magnet.

Breeding ground you mean. Iraq and Afghanistan right now serve as live proving grounds for fresh recruits disenfranchised by the lies of "freedom" and "liberty" that America likes to parrot when they can see the reality of it in the form of their "liberation".

The Madrid railway and British tubeway bombings prove that going to war in some other country to "fight terrorism" only serves to exacerbate it.

Actually although many are foreign, the vast majority of all insurgent groups are in fact Iraqi, al Qaeda was just a bunch of unemployed soldiers and public servants until they decided the brand name was a good way to make the group universally known, it doesn't mean Bin Laden is controlling them from his secret bunker in Waziristan, it just means they linked in with an audience by using the name, same thing happened in Somalia, Algeria etc. In reality these groups aren't a centralized coherent organization, they are just local groups fighting over local piles of dirt, nothing new....

LOL! Terrorism franchising.

So what do you think of the notion that it is better to fight your battles on foreign soil. Iraq is being used as a magnet.

i find it disgusting.

and wrong in that it creates more "terrorists" than it kills.

So what do you think of the notion that it is better to fight your battles on foreign soil. Iraq is being used as a magnet.
I think it's tired and obvious bullshit.

As for the report, its content gets filed under N/cross reference S for "No Shit, Sherlock." What is news about it is that, by releasing it, the US military/intelligence are officially stating that they will no longer pretend to support Bush's lies. That is a good thing. The tiny, downtrodden optimist in me wonders if we might take it as a signal to Bush regarding Iran.

Breeding ground you mean. Iraq and Afghanistan right now serve as live proving grounds for fresh recruits disenfranchised by the lies of "freedom" and "liberty" that America likes to parrot when they can see the reality of it in the form of their "liberation".

The Madrid railway and British tubeway bombings prove that going to war in some other country to "fight terrorism" only serves to exacerbate it.

That's why I called the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan "World of Jihadcraft." Because it's simply giving XP to n00b terrorists who then go on to learn real skills and start killing shit elsewhere. Someday, maybe even the U.S.

The Iraq war is one of our biggest chances to kill many terrorists. as the reports say the Anbar proninve fighting has dropped 95%. Anbar province is the biggest part of insugent fighting in all of Iraq.

Leaving could also begin a much larger war. It would be Shiite vs. Suuni. In other words. These are the countries that would be fighting each other.

Suunis: Turkey, Jordan, Syria, East Iraq.
Shiites: Iran,South Iraq.
Kurds: Southern Turkey, Northern Iraq, Northern Syria.
Jews: Israel.

The Shiites would ally with Israel and the Kurds (because Shiites have never done anything against Isael, it will be more likely to ally with them) and be able to fight on equal grounds with the Suniis. The Kurds would declare independant Kurdistan and fight only for the land they want. But still fighting the Suniis. The Shiites would be outnumbered, but with Israel being promised all of Palestein they might attack it. If that doesn't happen then Egypt would more than likely attack them in all the confusion, along with Syria. Iran would be the regional powerhouse along with Israel in the middle east. NOT GOOD.

So what do you think of the notion that it is better to fight your battles on foreign soil. Iraq is being used as a magnet.

Anyone who has the intelligence, foolishness, courage and resources to strike at the US or whichever other country they deem a threat will do so if it's the US that is their enemy. They're not going to go to Iraq, because then they're not terrorising or hurting their enemy anymore.

Anyone who doesn't have the intelligence or resources weren't a threat until they got their oppurtunity in Iraq.

Suunis: Turkey, Jordan, Syria, East Iraq.
Shiites: Iran,South Iraq.
Kurds: Southern Turkey, Northern Iraq, Northern Syria.
Jews: Israel.

The Shiites would ally with Israel and the Kurds (because Shiites have never done anything against Isael, it will be more likely to ally with them) and be able to fight on equal grounds with the Suniis. The Kurds would declare independant Kurdistan and fight only for the land they want. But still fighting the Suniis. The Shiites would be outnumbered, but with Israel being promised all of Palestein they might attack it. If that doesn't happen then Egypt would more than likely attack them in all the confusion, along with Syria. Iran would be the regional powerhouse along with Israel in the middle east. NOT GOOD.



Wait wait wait. Firstly, Turkey has a secular government, so they would probably stay the hell out


Secondly, what is the funniest about your little paranoid delusions of WWIII is that you said that shiites would ally with Israel because they dont have anything against Israel...you know what country is shiite? IRAN. Now, do you really, really want to claim Iran has nothing against Israel? Really?


So, your fantasy of WWIII and Revelations is just that, a deluded fantasy. Leaving Iraq will not cause The Geat War II: The Middle East

Wait wait wait. Firstly, Turkey has a secular government, so they would probably stay the hell out


Secondly, what is the funniest about your little paranoid delusions of WWIII is that you said that shiites would ally with Israel because they dont have anything against Israel...you know what country is shiite? IRAN. Now, do you really, really want to claim Iran has nothing against Israel? Really?


So, your fantasy of WWIII and Revelations is just that, a deluded fantasy. Leaving Iraq will not cause The Geat War II: The Middle East

I didn't say it would start a war I said it might start a conflict. wars don't have to be fought legally. I also said Israel would only fight if it was a worst case scenario. Turkey has already attacked Kurds. They might not fight Iran, but they would defend themselves against Kurdish rebels. Kurds who want Kurdistan and are willing to fight for it. Yes I do know that Iran is Shiite, and I also know that Iran and Israel might not be the best of friends, but they have a hell of a lot of better relations than Syria or Egypt, maybe even Jordan for that matter. Chances are that it would be only a small contained conflict. kinda like gangs attacking other gangs. But with alot more people. A military conflict could happen then and spark off a larger regional war. Just a possibility.