"A Pentagon-sponsored study of captured Iraqi intelligence archives has been unable to find a single operational link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden or his al-Qaeda network, reports the McClatchy newspapers.
The study will be released this week and is expected to refuel debate over the US justification for invading Iraq. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once described evidence for links between the two as "bulletproof." • Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell also cited several links—which turned out to be based on misinterpreted or bogus intelligence—in a key 2003 speech to the UN to build support for the invasion. The study exhaustively trawled through 600,000 Iraqi documents captured by the US. The finding were sifted through a lengthy process of declassification before they could be shared with Congress. The
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. He and others spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because the study isn't due to be shared with Congress and released before Wednesday."
Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/29959.html
Of course, this isn't new. Here's the report in the Washington Post in 2004:
"The Iraq Connection Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
By Walter Pincus and Dana MilbankWashington Post Staff Writer, Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
"Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."
[skip]
As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."
Senator Barack Obama warned against going to war in Iraq. He showed exceptionally good judgment, while Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were either willfully uninformed, or just plain lying.
This report proves that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the lot of them lied to the American people to gain support to go to war in Iraq.
Why these people have not been impeached is still a mystery to me.
This country got its knickers in a twist over Bill Clinton's famous "I did not have sex with that woman," and yet accepts the fact that BushCo. lied to get Congress and the American people to accept his illegal and immoral war.
Bush is a criminal far worse than Clinton.
The American people are dupes of the first order for being taken in by the lies of Bush, Cheney, et al.
And the US media are even worse. They are supposed to be a check on this sort of unchecked power and use of propaganda.
BushCo. and the American media failed the American people.
It is time for a change.
7 comments:
Let me begin by saying that I have been critical of the Bush administration on many things, including the war. But one thing I've been sure of, though, is that in fighting terrorism Bush has always done what he thinks is best for the country.
I'm not going to dispute that the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq was tenuous at best, and coinicidential at worst. But your assertion that the administration knew all this back when they were building the case for war and intentionally lied about it is absurd at best and partisan crap at worst. Simply put, we weren't there and all the information has not come out yet. It will be up to history to decide on the Bush presidency, as the information will not come for decades.
And as for the following:
Why these people have not been impeached is still a mystery to me.
Article II of the Constitution: "The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The case has yet to be made that Bush has done so.
Bush is a criminal far worse than Clinton.
Again, this requires commission of a crime. Clinton did break the law, and was impeached (but not convicted), and was disbarred over the matter. Bush has yet to reach this level. If he does, I'll be back to apologize.
Finally, trying to use this to prop up Senator Obama's clearly lacking foreign policy experience by citing him in this discussion is a sign this is more a hit piece than a discussion. It may be "time for a change", but trying to boost your candidate this way isn't a change.
Let me begin by saying that I have been critical of the Bush administration on many things, including the war. But one thing I've been sure of, though, is that in fighting terrorism Bush has always done what he thinks is best for the country. --Patrick
What Mr. Bush “thinks” and what is in reality best for the country are not the same. His “thinking” got us into a disasterous war that is costing the American taxpayers billions of dollars, with very little return for their precious tax dollars spent. What have we to show after 5 years of carnage in Iraq? Why did he not resolve this the way he resolved the problem with nuclear weapons and North Korea?
I'm not going to dispute that the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq was tenuous at best, and coinicidential at worst. But your assertion that the administration knew all this back when they were building the case for war and intentionally lied about it is absurd at best and partisan crap at worst.--Patrick
As late as last April, Cheney was again insisting there absolutely was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. That’s less than a year ago.
Either the Cheney, as part of the Executive Branch, is woefully and scandalously uninformed not to have known this fact by spring of last year when the Pentagon itself had reported it, or Mr. Cheney continued to lie about the connection to justify the war. Which is it? Is it partisan crap that Cheney kept pushing the Al Qaeda/Saddam connection?
updated 6:57 a.m. ET, Fri., April. 6, 2007
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.
Bush is a criminal far worse than Clinton.--Shaw Kenawe
Again, this requires commission of a crime. Clinton did break the law, and was impeached (but not convicted), and was disbarred over the matter. Bush has yet to reach this level. If he does, I'll be back to apologize.--Patrick
It is against our laws to torture. Bush tortures. He broke the law. I'm sure it would be considered more than a misdemeanor to deceive the Congress in order to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and that was no threat to us.
PS. Clinton was not permanently disbarred. He has his license to practice law again.
Finally, trying to use this to prop up Senator Obama's clearly lacking foreign policy experience by citing him in this discussion is a sign this is more a hit piece than a discussion. It may be "time for a change", but trying to boost your candidate this way isn't a change.--Patrick
Why would a Republican care whether or not Obama has foreign policy experience? George W. Bush had none when he was elected, and that didn’t dissuade the Republicans from falling in love with him as a potentially great leader. But he really is a bad example to bring up, since his lack of not just foreign policy but knowledge of the Middle East has been catastrophic for the US and the world, so we don’t want to repeat that mistake.
What Obama has is intelligence, good judgment, and the ability to bring people of all persuasions together. He really would be a uniter, unlike the guy who’s in the WH now.
And this just in from ABC News:
ABC's Jonathan Karl:
The Bush Administration apparently does not want a military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.
It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online.
Asked why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."
Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive...."
I think the official meant to say "...too politically embarrassing."
It is against our laws to torture. Bush tortures.
You're lacking evidence again. And if you're referring to waterboarding, that was an approved method, therefore not illegal no matter your opinion on the matter.
IEither the Cheney, as part of the Executive Branch, is woefully and scandalously uninformed not to have known this fact by spring of last year when the Pentagon itself had reported it, or Mr. Cheney continued to lie about the connection to justify the war.
I don't have the answer. Again, that's something that will come out after Bush is long out of office.
What Obama has is intelligence, good judgment, and the ability to bring people of all persuasions together. He really would be a uniter...
Maybe if you spent more energy talking about Obama and his plans rather than wasting your energy trying to make the case that Bush is a war criminal, you could get Hillary bumped out and we could get this down to a straight-up race. Because if I remember correctly, the Republican nominee is John McCain. (I roll my eyes when I say that)
PS - I know Clinton got his license back. I don't think he's worried about that anymore.
PPS - When January comes, the President-elect, whoever it is, will get a serious education. If Obama does win, it will be interesting to see if the election promises change when he gets all the facts.
Patrick,
You need to get in touch with Senator McCain immediately and tell him he's wrong about the laws governing waterboarding and torture. Apparently he doesn't have the same information you have, and he should. He's hoping to be the next president.
Senator John McCain's letter to Michael Mukasy on his confirmation as US Attorney General:
We are pleased that the Senate voted to confirm you last night as Attorney General of the United States. As you take office, we strongly urge you to immediately receive briefings on the CIA interrogation program and to publicly declare that the technique known as “waterboarding” is illegal.
We appreciate your acknowledgement that waterboarding is “over the line” and “repugnant.” As we have previously noted, waterboarding, under any circumstances, represents a clear violation of U.S. law. In 2005, the President signed into law the so-called “McCain Amendment,” a prohibition on cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment as those terms are understood under the standards of the U.S. Constitution. We expressed then our strong belief that a fair reading of this legislation outlaws waterboarding and other extreme techniques.
Whether or not the Administration took a contrary view, it is incontestable that such techniques are outlawed by the 2006 Military Commissions Act. Indeed, during the negotiations that led to the MCA, we were personally assured by Administration officials that waterboarding was prohibited under the new law.
We expect that you will reach the same conclusion. Given your recognition that the President cannot waive congressionally mandated restrictions on interrogation techniques, it is vital that you publicly declare waterboarding illegal. By doing so, our nation can finally put this issue behind us.
We must do so. We support a robust offensive to wage and prevail in the war on terror. But as we confront those committed to our destruction, it is vital that we never forget that we are, first and foremost, Americans. The laws and values that have built our nation are a source of strength, not weakness, and we will win the war on terror not in spite of devotion to our cherished values, but because we have held fast to them.
Congratulations on your confirmation as Attorney General. The scenarios you previously described as hypothetical are no longer so, and you now have the benefit of full access to classified programs and memoranda.
We urge you to acquaint yourself immediately with these matters and take the opportunity to make clear that waterboarding is illegal and can never be employed. We look forward to working with you and the Department on this and other matters.
Article II of the Constitution: "The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The case has yet to be made that Bush has done so.--Patrick
I think in addition to deceiving the country into war with Iraq, Bush should be impeached for his complicity in the Scooter Libby scandal.
The Founding Fathers were exceptionally clear on the question of what should be done if a president abuses his privilege to pardon an associate, or by extension to commute the sentence of an aide.
James Madison, who is rightly referred to as "the father of the Constitution," wrote extensively about the times in which impeachment would be necessary.
"[If] the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty."
Madison's Virginia compatriot, George Mason, who was an even more ardent advocate of impeachment, was similarly concerned about abuses of the power of the president to keep the law from touching his associates.
The man now remembered as "the father of the Bill of Rights" feared that a future president might attempt to shield himself by preventing the prosecution or jailing of an aide who could testify to the president's involvement in a high crime or misdemeanor.
Mason suggested that impeachment would surely be in order were a president to attempt "to stop inquiry and prevent detection" of wrongdoing within his administration -- as the Bush White House did with its use of executive privilege to undermine congressional investigations of the politicization of federal prosecutions.
Equally, the thoughtful founder suggested, impeachment would be in order were a president to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" -- as Bush has essentially done with the commutation of the sentence of his own former counselor and the chief of staff of his vice president.
Mason said at the time of the Constitutional convention, that: "No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued."
His point was that, if a president could not be impeached, he could not be held to account. To neglect the demand of that accountability, especially in moments when abuses became clear, Madison suggested "might be fatal to the Republic."
Indeed.
You know, I don't think we're ever going to agree on this one. It's simply argument and counter argument ad nauseum. And in another year, Bush will be gone. So rather than continue this back and forth, I will point out that at this point, it's unlikely that Bush will be impeached and that, in the end, he will leave the office and retire from public life. And I'll content myself with history judging him.
Also, I don't think McCain wants to hear from me any more. I've already given him shit, and will likely continue to do so for as long as he is a candidate, not to mention what I will do to a President McCain. And hopefully I will get the opportunity to do the same to Senator (or President) Obama as well.
Post a Comment