Remember this?
"We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization," Vice President Dick Cheney said of Saddam Hussein on NBC's Meet The Press March 16, 2003.
Though there has long been skepticism about claims of a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. That skepticism was reinforced this week with the release of a new Pentagon-commissioned report that coincides with the five-year anniversary of the Iraq invasion that was justified, in part, by allegations of Iraqi links to terrorism.
A US military study officially acknowledged for the first time yesterday that Saddam Hussein had no direct ties to al-Qaida, undercutting the Bush administration's central case for war with Iraq.
The Pentagon study based on more than 600,000 documents recovered after US and UK troops toppled Hussein in 2003, discovered "no 'smoking gun' (ie, direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaida", its authors wrote.
The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of Bush's decision to invade Iraq to advance their own familiar arguments.
While the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links, they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.
However, the U.S. intelligence official, who's read the full report, played down the prospect of any major new revelations, saying, "I don't think there's any surprises there."
Saddam, whose regime was relentlessly secular, was wary of Islamic extremist groups such as al Qaida, although like many other Arab leaders, he gave some financial support to Palestinian groups that sponsored terrorism against Israel.
The full report was scheduled to be released Wednesday in a press conference and made available online. Pentagon officials changed their minds, saying they would snail-mail a copy to reporters who requested a copy of the report.
So: Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda worked together. Truth or not?
Thoughts
Did Saddam Hussein and AlQaeda work together?
Submitted on March 30th, 2008 by AnonymousSaddam Hussein provoked the Kuwait war. The United States protected Kuwait while the master mind OSAMA BIN LADDEN was Saddam Hussein's LIASON. Saddam Hussein was preparing to attack the United States and Israel, remember that OSAMA BIN LADDEN lived in the U.S. for several years, he prepared his terrorist CELLS, Al Qaeda and others by paying cash for their Commercial Aircraft training in the Aviation School in Florida, the training was to learn THE TAKE OFF ONLY, THE LANDING was NOT neccessary, it took several years for Al Qaeda trainees to conquer their mission on 9/11/.
If we did not go to Iraq and Hang Saddam Hussein, we will have a war HERE in our SOIL. Saddam Hussein had a plot with the Home Grown Terrorist throught OSAMA BIN LADDEN.
I understand OSAMA BIN LADDEN's MOTHER still reside in the UNITED STATES. When you are born a Muslim you are ALWAYS a Muslim that goes for the male not the female according to the Quran. Muslim faith does not allow the male to convert to any religion especially Christiany or Judaism. If the conversion takes place,CAUTION the male Muslin has a hidden agenda, our U.S Citizens and Politicians are naive toward this culture and it is very complex to understand this Human Specie, a converted Muslim may appear truthful,sincere,honest,patriotic, in the surface only. REMEMBER THE ISLAMIC WORLD IS HOSTILE AND DANGEROUS TO A NON ISLAMIC. AlQaeda and OSAMA BIN LADDEN ARE creating this HOLY WAR.
As another commenter noted,
Submitted on March 28th, 2008 by AnonymousAs another commenter noted, this is a very weakly written article. Please don't make a habit of this.
Even a modicum of critical thinking about this topic should reveal the following:
1. No credible evidence has ever existed for the Hussein-The Base link.
2. Despite this, all efforts were made by this administration before the invasion to suffuse the public dialog with this error.
3. After the invasion, and during our years-long occupation to date, no credible evidence has been found.
4. There is no part of the executive branch that exercises sustained independent judgment (any part that does is immediately reprimanded and brought back in line).
5. To have the Defense Department (one of the most avid supporters of the Iraq debacle) now muster the effort to produce another (weakly-sourced) report that the false Cheney claim does not add any significance. In fact, it detracts even more from it.
If you were to find several independent sources that was initially skeptical, but has since changed their mind, that would be worth noting.
The Pentagon is not such a source. In their current incarnation, they exist to parrot the administration's talking points. They would never go against the delusional 'wisdom' they receive from the Veep's office.
Re: just a few thoughts
Submitted on March 26th, 2008 by AnonymousA very convincing argument - unfortunately, it was convincingly weak. I'm now more certain that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. I used to espouse the same reasoning you used here, but there are disinct problems. One is that war is never good, especially when you are the aggressor. It's illogical for the US, unsupported by the UN, to meddle in Iraq when Hussein had strong control over such a volatile country, much less when there was no substantial reason. Hussein was distinctly different from Hitler in that he had finally contented himself with what he had and wasn't actively invading countries (sort of an important distinction). The time to invade Iraq had passed -- they could have gone in when he used chemical weapons or when invaded Kuwait, and removed him from power with the support of the world. But they didn't, and now the planet-police find themselves bogged down in another quagmire.
Just a few thoughts
Submitted on March 26th, 2008 by AnonymousFirst of all, I fail to see how it is "illogical" to oust a dictator like Saddam no matter the reasoning originally presented. If he kept the peace with an iron fist, as you say, then it would have been LOGICAL, by that argument, to leave Hitler in power. Or Stalin. Or (pick sociopathic/mass murdering dictor). They "ruled" with an iron fist, but I fail to see the "peace" in knowing you may summarily be killed because you practice the wrong sect of the same religion! Also, as for the availability of basic utilities and civil services, I'm not sure that's exactly accurate; Google reports from servicemen/Iraqis about that, from what I've read most actually have better access now. The problem is that it's not PERFECT, as the U.S. media is fond of claiming the government promised. And as for the debt we've racked up, true we're in debt; however, the "budget surplus" everyone's so fond of pointing out from the Clinton era and comparing to the "bungling" of the Bush administration is a smokescreen. Social Security was actually responsible for that for that, as it's counted as surplus; it's not technically designated for anything and as it's fast running out, there goes that wonderful pile of "petty cash". I'm not saying war doesn't cost money, I'm simply pointing out a something that always gets overlooked. And before you blame it on Bush, I'm pretty sure at least Reagan, if not Bush SR. as well, pointed out and tried to fix SS, while the DEMS haven't done anything. Even though it was supposed to be a temporary fix from the beginning, only one side's really gotten blamed or at least attempted to raise the issue. But rather than do anything about it, everyone just points fingers and rants "NO BUSH! NO WAR! DEBT! RACIST/BIGOT/HYPOCRIT!" without providing more than the stereotypical rants touted by every mass media outlet in the country except fox (who also pull some pretty idiotic stunts).
Not so illogical.
Submitted on March 25th, 2008 by KnightmareIf you'd read the 'Bush and Co' post throughly, you'd realize it draws no direct link between Iraq and outsourcing. Much like Bush encouraged when he repeated Saddam's name so close to 9/11 over and over, your mind has made a false leap of intuition. What the OP does say is that the Iraq war acts like a smokescreen, hiding Bush's domestic policy from national debate.
The invasion of Iraq's cost --with financing and so far-- will reach 3 trillion dollars (according to the Nobel Laureate Economist who testified before congress... his name eludes me.) That number is too large to fathom, so The Nation broke it down to per capita and applied it to Cleveland in its March 31 'The costs of war' issue. Find a library and read this if you want the straight dope on the opportunity costs of this war.
I agree that the country faces an imminent debt crisis due to the sub-prime bubble and unrestrained spending on all levels, not the war in Iraq. The war on Iraq is a distraction, fiscally and politically, from the domestic problems we face. It is a drain on resources that could have been used to confront the very real problems you mention.
FYI: Clinton was center-left on social issues and center-right on business issues. The DLC, which he is a part of, has always been the big business wing of the Democratic party. So I'd say Clinton was a neoliberal, with the same disdain most people talk about neocons with these days. NAFTA and its ilk are the problem-- regardless of which administration ushered them in.
Illogical!
Submitted on March 20th, 2008 by AnonymousHow is the war in Iraq having a direct effect on business outsourcing? Answer: It's not! To say so is to completely disregard any economic (a.k.a. factual) evidence and to just run off at the mouth.
The reason for outsourcing? NAFTA, which wasn't thought up and implemented by a conservative. Bill Clinton ring a bell?
And can you tell me what percent of the federal budget is going towards the war? What percent of the budget is going to health-care and welfare programs? And did you ever happen to consider that the American's debt crisis (not the national debt but the $8000 of credit card debt statically every citizen is in)could be having an effect on the economy?
I am going to go ahead and guess know because what you spewed forth from you mouth was an unintelligible lull in competent thinking, wrought with non-factual haphazard conspiracy theories.
I see stupid people as well, they look a lot like you.
Al Qaida, Try Al-Ciada
Submitted on March 19th, 2008 by AnonymousAl-Qaida was a creation of the CIA in the late 1970s. Saddam Hussein was a CIA asset - the US gave him weapons during the Iran-Iraq War, and to make things even more sick and even, the criminals in the basement of the Whitehouse sold TOW missiles and other weapons to Iran in this same war. I can't imagine anything more evil than funding and supplying both sides of a war. This is not speculation, this is the public record. Google Operation Northwoods and wake up! 911 Was an inside job and there isn't really any serious person confronted with the overwhelming evidence of this than can dispute it with facts - usually they only reply with ad hominem attacks.
Obviously no connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda
Submitted on March 19th, 2008 by AnonymousThose who still believe such a thing are oblivious to the facts. That most Americans believed it at the beginning of the war is not their fault, our government sold us a load of lies. However, anybody who still believes it is definitely living in an alternate reality.
Alternate Reality?
Submitted on March 17th, 2008 by AnonymousI think this question is very relevant and strikes to the heart of the problem. Obviously there were no ties between Iraq and Bin Laden. However, Bush and his cronies made it very clear that Iraq was part of the war on terrorism and sold it to us as a way of getting back at those who perpetrated 9-11. It was a lie, and they should be held accountable as such.
I have seen better...
Submitted on March 16th, 2008 by AnonymousI love this place, but you have to admit, this is one of the poorer quality articles i have ever seen. It's not gonna stop me from coming back here because I love this place. I just feel it wasn't up to the usual high standards you have here.
I think it's safe to say Saddam wouldn't have worked with them because he hated them. He was a dictator, and if he empowers them then they can go off and turn on him like they did with the USA.
Saddam was evil, but no that stupid. Also, I'm not a big fan of these alternate reality questions my self. Interesting to some degree but this isn't what I would call of interest.
PEACE
Roy
Did Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda work together?
Submitted on March 15th, 2008 by AnonymousIf this is not true why did they respond so quickly to the ousted Sunni government? Why have they stayed in Iraq to stand against the now government of Iraq? Is it not a fact that all Al Qaeda are Sunni Muslems mostley from Saudia Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and Pakistan? So I believe there is more to this association then you are seeing at this time.
Same old lie recycled
Submitted on March 15th, 2008 by Bull MooseOsama did not morph into Saddam, no matter how hard the right wingers from the Project for a New American Century try to insinuate he did.
Guess the right wingnuts just sing the same old tune off key again.
Osama did not morph into Saddam no
matter what the clowns at the Project for a New American Century say.
Salman Pak
Submitted on March 15th, 2008 by AnonymousSo was Salman Pak used to train airline stewardess for serving of drinks?
Bush and Co. have their own
Submitted on March 13th, 2008 by AnonymousBush and Co. have their own agenda, which is not public knowledge.
Americans who support the war, need to re-think their priorities.
Perhaps those that support the war have more than enough money to buy whatever they want, but the majority of this country is suffering financially due to the war and many other stupid things the current administration has done.
Job outsourcing/off shoring is killing the American people's lively-hood (CORPORATE GREED NEEDS TO END NOW!), and we just turn a blind eye to it. I don't see anyone talking about that! Perhaps nobody cares about the unemployment rate, or the housing market slump, which is a direct casualty of Corporate American greed.
Nobody gives a darn about the workers, just as long as the shareholders and executives keep getting their $25+ million yearly bonuses.
So those of you who support the war so vehemently, try looking in your own back yards sometime. You may just wake up and your house and car have been repossessed, your job outsourced overseas. Then lets see just how important the war is to you.
I see stupid people.
overall
Submitted on March 13th, 2008 by Anonymousi have to agree about the whole vote independent or green to see some real changes. but , do you think it was right of saddam to torture his people the way he did? do you think they were happy?
Illogical
Submitted on March 13th, 2008 by AnonymousSaddam was a dictator. He was brutal and was one of the more scary leaders of the world. I have no doubt he committed many more atrocities than we'll ever be aware of.
However, it might also be said that, as frightened as his people were of him, he kept the 'peace' with an iron fist. The people had schools, utilities and were fairly certain that they were not going to be blown up or shot at at any given second.
There were at least a dozen other wars that Bush could have created that would have been genuinely helpful. Anyone familiar with the area and the people could have (and did) say that removing Saddam would have been a very bad idea.
Even Bush Sr. was quoted on more than one occasion speaking against the notion.
At any rate, I find it ludicrous that there are people in this country who would willingly sacrifice our country as a matter of pride.
The destruction of this country will come at the hands of power hungry people who divide this country and see no problem with dismantling the rights and freedoms our forefathers fought so hard to win.
We can't live in what-if land anymore. We need to elect adults into office to help pay off the debt that the conservative (now, there's an oxymoron) administration has run up. Vote third party for a true change. If you think your vote doesn't count or you are even considering voting for the "lesser of two evils", make a stand and send that vote to libertarian or green. Let the world know that not everyone in this country are snowed by the rhetoric.