Some Phase II Conclusions (particularly #9) Beyond Comprehension Future DOCEX Efforts Dismissed In Order To Buttress SSCI Phase II Report Conclusions as Comprehensive In the ‘Iraqi Links to Al-Qaeda’ section of the Senate Select Committee on Intell…

Among others you’re fighting the two closest to the truth at the key time…and every neighbor of Iraq including Kuwait. By the
“closest” I mean Scott Ritter and Hans Blix both of whom said Hussein ,ultimately, was more honest than George Bush.

By “neighbor” I mean every single Mideast country warned Bush against invasion, saying specifically Saddam was contained in a box and they were NOT threatened. Funny, Rice and Powell are quoted
many times during 2001 saying the same thing when asked, throughout the world to the press and at conferences. Right up until
9/11/2001,that is, when they changed their tune and began to lie.

Clinton blasts 9/11 film, amid report of changes

Spin, spin, spin, you worthless gladhanding used car salesman. Your accomodationist, anything to ……

Back in 1999, CNN carried this news story on their web site:

“Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.”

I realize this isn’t news to any of you. You’ve all seen the same story, in one form or another. In fact, CNN still has the story posted to their site:

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

My question: does anyone know where the sourcing for this specific article came from? Several news outlets carried this same story, but all without attribution. Did Saddam make a public speech? Was asylum offered through an Iraqi ambassador? My question is scholarly, not rhetorical. I’m trying to hunt down where this story originated.

I read the Phase II Accuracy Report yesterday and I didn’t find it near as devastating to the administration as Senator Levine did.

In general however the report was devastating to the Intelligence Community . The basic finding that because of a l….

Well since had Iraqi Intelligence people had infiltrated Zarqawi’s organization and since Saddam knew exactly where they were and since he was supposed to arrest Zarqawi who was wanted on charges by both the US and Jordan and since the terrorist was known to be in Baghdad shortly after he entered the country from Afghanistan and since Saddam managed to kill a lot of other people without any trouble, yes, I think he could have killed Zarqawi if he was afraid of him. After all he killed his own sons in law.

And Ken keep up, most of the evidence supporting this claim came from Clinton. In fact in the 1998 indictment of Osama for the embassy bombings in Africa the US indictment specifically mentions a connection between Saddam and AlQaida. Remember the whole aspirin factory bombing thing?

The hardest thing for me having read so much over the last decade or so is dealing with people who really do not have enough of a grasp of the facts to adequately debate the topic. All they know is what 2 minute blurb they heard from what talking head.

For instance in May 2000, back when Bush and the neo cons were nowhere near Washington, Zinni told Congress that Saddam was our number one threat in the region. Number one. Later he had something else to say of course, but back then when he was a very important and influential person in the acquisition of military information it was his assertion that Saddam was our number one threat.

I think Saddam was a threat, any man crazy enough to make mince meat of a ceasefire, try to kill a POTUS and refuse to comply for years knowing full well what could happen, was a threat.

Hey, he is alive. Maybe you would like to see him back in power filling those mass graves..not me.

And Bush is not distancing himself from anything, he can’t. He is the president, he is the man who made the decision. The rest of them can be just as smarmy as they like, he is stuck with the hand he was dealt.

Personally, I’m having quite some difficulty to plow through the woods of partisanship regarding this issue. I will have more in the coming hours / days -> I want to study this report very carefully myself (don’t forget that this is not just of inter…

And all the neocons can’t explain Bush’s distancing from all
their so-called WMD and Saddam/Osama linkage “evidence” which,after all, might even raise his approval rate a few points if
he cited it. Who’s living the fantasy?

Personally, I’m having quite some difficulty to plow through the woods of partisanship regarding this issue. I will have more in the coming hours / days -> I want to study this report very carefully myself (don’t forget that this is not just of inter…

In the end this report by the Senate was never about investigating the Saddam/Al-Qaeda link, it was all about giving Democratic politicians ammo against Bush….thats it in a nutshell.

……

BTW – not having read the entire Report, I can’t help but wonder what it says about al-Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri’s trip to Baghdad in 1998 (in which he received $300,000, possibly from Saddam Hussein himself), Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s medical trip to…

From today’s Washington Post:

Iraq’s Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War
A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged …

I’m still weeding through this “report”. First impressions I got is that it seems to read as if it were trying to convince me that Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda as if by repeating over and over again I would descend in to a state of…

1. Hearing the Dixie Chicks music without visions of BDS

2. Trusting anything coming out of either house of Congress as thorough, accurate, or impartial.

This latest example is no surprise.

So spoke Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) on “Fox Sunday” on November 14, 2005, who at the time of his trip was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and is now its vice chairman.

Please read the first paragraph once again, digest it (if your stomach can handle it), and consider its immense – if not treasonous – implications.
OR
NOVEMBER 6, 2003 : (MEMOGATE : ROCKEFELLER INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE PLOT TO UNDERMINE THE PRESIDENT AND THE WAR EFFORT IS EXPOSED) It [the plan] centered on duping the panel’s Republican chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, into approving probes that in actuality would be fishing expeditions inside the State Department and Pentagon. The authors hoped to dig up and hype “improper or questionable conduct by administration officials.” According to a staff memo, the committee then would release the information during the course of the “investigation,” with Democrats providing their “additional views” that would, “among other things, castigate the majority [Republicans] for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.” In other words, they would manufacture and denounce a cover-up where none existed. The Democrats then would drag the issue through the 2004 presidential campaign by creating an independent commission to investigate, according to the memo. The plan, made public by Fox News on Nov. 6, went like this: “Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time – but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be [in 2004].” – Democrat Senator Rockefeller’s office memo via Fox News.

Trust a report from a group that includes these people. NEVER