And there dies another foul excuse

[Skybird]

WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

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 . However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.
The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.
(...)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...latchy/2875005

Saddam in bed with Al Quaeda (by definition his lethal archenemy, hehe: Saddam's regime was everything what Bin Laden hates) - was wrong a claim back then, still is wrong a statement today. But I am sure the usual suspects will nevertheless continue to hammer it into our heads how much the two were engaged with each other (and that Saddam was linked to 9/11 anyhow - another of these Iraq-related myths to sell a war of choice as a war of need.

Piece by piece the whole system of lies crumbles down with years passing by.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

What would Sadaam's interest in attacking the US be?

[GlobalExplorer]

He did send money to so called "martyrs" families in palestine, that's what I know. But I am not sure what were is motives in doing it.

But Al Qaida? Only dumbasses for who all muslims are the same believed in that.

[Platapus]

At least we DO know that there is oil in Iraq.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

What would Sadaam's interest in attacking the US be?

My question exactly. Saddam was our best ally in the Middle-East... well, him and Israel, but the Israeli government is weak. By removing him and instating a greenhorn government in his place, we've allowed the terrorists and the radicals to enter the country without much difficulty at all. This is, basically, another version of the Vietnam War. Heard it before, and it's true. Same ****, different day.

[PeriscopeDepth]

This thread took a noise dive IMO.

On a lighter side, what are you drinking Subman? Just plain old Guinness here.

PD

[DeepIron]

WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.
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 . However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

Interesting that this is a "Pentagon-sponsored" study. Not the machinations of some "anti-american, liberal, pinko commie think tank" out to undermine the US Government.

What would Saddam's interest in attacking the US be?

And that, my dear Kapitan, is the question. Why indeed, would Saddam Hussein have WMDs in the first place to use against the US if he had no intentions, nor were his "terrorist" ties to groups who were acting outside the Middle East. One can argue he used chemicals against the Kurds, but that is a far cry from deploying them in a place like NYC.

President Bush and his aides used Saddam's alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001 , terrorist attacks.

Our "intelligence" was good enough, according to some, to find "WMDs" in Iraq, and yet, could have missed this?

[TheSatyr]

Didn't Al Quaeda attempt to assassinate both Hussien and Kaddafi at one time or another?

They were both Secular Leaders...which Al Quaeda hates almost as much as they hate the USA.

[Dowly]

Bravo US intelligence. So, how many official reason there is left that support the invasion of Iraq?

[sunvalleyslim]

I don't believe it was lies that got us into the state of war. But rather very faulty intelligence gathering on our part......

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by sunvalleyslim

I don't believe it was lies that got us into the state of war. But rather very faulty intelligence gathering on our part......

Half correct. It was faulty intelligence that the intel service was demanded by the political top to be produced. I remind in thos context of the "London missile memo". Intel was not asked to find out about the state of things, it was demanded to paint things like politics wanted it to appear like, it was not to describe a situation - it was to create an excuse. So it was faulty intelligence, as you say, but it was faulty intelligence that was ordered for. Let's not forget that this war was planned, wanted and outlined since the early 90s, and already back then put on paper and then waiting for a conservative president being unscrupellous enough to carry it out. A war of choice - not a war of needs.

[Platapus]

The intel was out there. The decision makers choose to interpret it to their agenda.

This is nothing new. Intel is only one of the tools of the decision maker. What I find offensive is that when the decision maker is wrong, he points the finger at intel. Knowing that due to the job, intel is not in a position to publicly defend itself.

Intel, as always, has to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune while continuing to work hard.

Intel can accept never being thanked for their successes. All part of the job
but it is hard to accept the blame for something they did not do.

The average citizen can not, unfortunately, know all about intel. But they need to understand that Intel is being worked by excellent and smart men and women working their best in an environment where the deck is stacked against them.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Platapus

This is nothing new. Intel is only one of the tools of the decision maker. What I find offensive is that when the decision maker is wrong, he points the finger at intel. Knowing that due to the job, intel is not in a position to publicly defend itself.

Intel, as always, has to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune while continuing to work hard.

A-Friggining-men! This' the best post I've seen in a loooong time here.