Stephen Hayes has read the thing, and among the revelations therein contained are:
In 1993, as Osama bin Laden’s fighters battled Americans in Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group to join the battle there.
For more than two decades, the Iraqi regime trained non-Iraqi jihadists in training camps throughout Iraq.
According to a 1993 internal Iraqi intelligence memo, the regime was supporting a secret Islamic Palestinian organization dedicated to “armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests.”
In the 1990s, Iraq’s military intelligence directorate trained and equipped “Sudanese fighters.”
In 1998, the Iraqi regime offered “financial and moral support” to a new group of jihadists in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.
In 2002, the year before the war began, the Iraqi regime hosted in Iraq a series of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi jihadist groups.
That same year, a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) issued hundreds of Iraqi passports for known terrorists.
There is much, much more. Documents reveal that the regime stockpiled bombmaking materials in Iraqi embassies around the world and targeted Western journalists for assassination. In July 2001, an Iraqi Intelligence agent described an al Qaeda affiliate in Bahrain, the Army of Muhammad, as “under the wings of bin Laden.” Although the organization “is an offshoot of bin Laden,” the fact that it has a different name “can be a way of camouflaging the organization.” The agent is told to deal with the al Qaeda group according to “priorities previously established.”
And it’s hard not to agree with his assessment:
As I said, this ought to be big news. And, in a way, it was. A headline in the New York Times, a cursory item in the Washington Post, and stories on NPR and ABC News reported that the study showed no links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
More well-framed background may be found at Karl’s post from yesterday, and please read the rest of Hayes’s piece.
Hayes concludes with a bit of Bush-bashing, though not for the usual reasons:
What’s happening here is obvious. Military historians and terrorism analysts are engaged in a good faith effort to review the captured documents from the Iraqi regime and provide a dispassionate, fact-based examination of Saddam Hussein’s long support of jihadist terrorism. Most reporters don’t care. They are trapped in a world where the Bush administration lied to the country about an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, and no amount of evidence to the contrary–not even the words of the fallen Iraqi regime itself–can convince them to reexamine their mistaken assumptions.
Bush administration officials, meanwhile, tell us that the Iraq war is the central front in the war on terror and that American national security depends on winning there. And yet they are too busy or too tired or too lazy to correct these fundamental misperceptions about the case for war, the most important decision of the Bush presidency.
What good is the truth if nobody knows it?
Indeed.
The dumbest of FDL’s writers (and that’s saying quite a lot), Phoenixwoman, finds Bush suppressing the release of the report because he doesn’t like the conclusions, questions the timing. (h/t MayBee)
With all due respect; Why don’t you wait for the link to the actual document so we can all discuss it’s contents.
It can’t be any worse than trusting the Hayes Hack who has a vested interest (as do many) for justifying the misadventure our grandkids will have to re-fi.
Maybe there’s a good reason why an ‘incompetent whitehouse’ has not promoted the report.
Sorry, ‘cleo, but you didn’t seem to feel the same objections to the initially leaked fictions about the report, did you? I’m willing to bet that Hayes’s version is considerably closer to the truth about the document. But if you find him misrepresenting anything, please let me know, and after verification I will retract.
Fair?
Did you read the article, Semanticleo and, if so, are you saying that Hayes fabricated the quotes from the report he used?
Fair enough.
Guys, I’m pretty sure that you should be able to read the report Hayes references at the link http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf, or at least the redacted copy made available to the public. With the notes and appendices, it comes out at fifty-nine pages or so.
Cleo: Lazy much? Karl’s post had a link to a story that contained a link to the report.
Then there’s the outrageous propositionof googling the title of the report itelf.
Either way get’s you to here.
I screweed up the link, but Pendragon got it out.
I read the thing yesterday.
Cleo: Lazy much?
He is waiting on a government study to tell him what the government study says.
https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=11443#comment-351696
He was waiting on an approved journalist to tell him what it “really says” so he doesn’t have to read it or think for himself. He’s now annoyed that thre are those of us who have questioned those few approved journalists’ conclusions. The “let’s wait for a link” gambit is clearly just dillatory.
Look OBL did not come and use the hot tub at Saddam’s palace, therefore no connection.
Have these reports from Wednesday already been covered?
McClatchy: Pentagon cancels release of controversial Iraq report
ABC News: Pentagon Report on Saddam’s Iraq Censored?
ABC News’ Jonathan Karl Reports: The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. 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.
—
It is enough to entice FireDogLake to tell its readers: “the Bush Pentagon moved to suppress a study Bush doesn’t like”
That’s always been my complaint with President Bush, that’s been his biggest failure. He just presumed the truth would come out without pushing it. It will, some day, but by that time the damage done by a hostile news media pushing their own contrary narrative will make the truth meaningless. It’s easier to chant “Bush lied, people died” than to explain how it was all true, in the end. In a free country, the president has the responsibility to sell his ideas and push the facts when the press won’t. He didn’t, and we’re all paying the price for that failure. In a democracy, the war is half won at home.
Here you go, Dan.
Another proof that Saddam’s regime had nothing to do with 9/11.
Thanks, but we already knew that.
Just curious, if by some magic we will be able to open archives from all over the world, how many countries we will find which are NOT involved with some kind of activities supporting their interest oversees? Would Great Britain be there? Spain?
Oh wait , how about our friends Saudis?
Agreed, Christopher. And, MayBee, the White House ought to allow the Clinton’s to release their tax records, I think.
Ha!
Despite the deceptions of Mr Hayes, the report itself is not hard to understand: Page ES-1 (executive Summary-1), Second Paragraph;: “This study found no “smoking gun” (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and Al Qaeda.”
No Direct Connection. This is from the Pentagon’s Report. What would satisfy you guys that Bush was lying through his teeth?
–It can’t be any worse than trusting the Hayes Hack who has a vested interest (as do many) for justifying the misadventure our grandkids will have to re-fi.
– With all due respect, would that “vested interest” be in any way similair to the vested interest of a certain national party to continue to perpetuate the lies it has established in the Liberal press painting Saddam as a innocent victim if an agressive US policy?
– Good luck with your “chickenshit cut and run” stratedgy. Truth like oil in water, given enough time, always rises to the surface.
Hey, I’m still waiting to read that Barret Report – I mean the Democrats panicked and had it deep sixed in an appropriations bill no less.
Sorry, bustard. I’ve read the report, and every point raised by Mr. Hayes is supported.
Don’t you understand, Dan, that unless Saddam Hussein was found to be the spiritual and financial leader of Al Qaeda, there’s no connection at all? All or none, man!
Thanks Dan, so have I, How do you explain the sentence that I quoted? “no direct connection” is not my phrase, it is from the pentagon.
“no direct connectionâ€Â
Watch Sopranos you nimrod.
It depends, I suppose, on what one means by “smoking gun” or by “direct”. It’s disturbing, though, quite frankly, that you would come here to tell a lie with respect to someone else’s credibility.
Sorry to disturb – but I am not lying. I am giving you an exact quote. What one means by “direct” should be pretty obvious. What I said about Hayes was accurate. He says that the media distorted the report. They said exactly what was in the report. I certainly might be unfair to say Bush lied; but according to what the report said Bush’s words at the time were not true.
I hate to disturb you guys by coming here and accurately quoting the report, and am confident that you’ll be happy that I have to leave. (The weather is great in N.Y.C., and I have too get out there)
Sorry, you jackass, but the media has distorted the report, by running with a characterization provided by a leaker that was centered on one sentence in the thing, as though that sentence was all that one really needed to know about it. It was shaping the bafflefield.
And if you think that that one sentence better represents the conclusions of the report than Hayes’s summary, then you are not a liar, but a mental midget.
So the lefties want to argue that the only terrorists we should care about are al’Qaeda? And that we shouldn’t go after any of their supporters, unless those supporters have “direct” links to an attack?
Or are they just desperately dragging the goalposts out of the parking lot, having already removed them from the field?
Well, Dan, it’s an important concept for them, and they’re obliged to defend it.
There is, after all, no direct operational connection between the Democratic National Committee and the New York Times. That won’t stop Pinch and Keller from crucifying any reporter with the temerity to edit a DNC press release for punctuation before reprinting it, but the organizational formalities don’t exist. Maintaining that fiction is so important to them that they have to support similar fictions elsewhere as well.
Regards,
Ric
well, Rob, you know the “real terrorists” are Al-Queda. pay no attention to those other posers.
I’m still trying to figure out where Bush is supposed to have lied. He never said Iraq was in any way involved in 9/11. Nor did he ever say that Iraq and bin Laden’s boys were working together in a coordinated way. Now, they DID say that assorted al Qaeda players were in Iraq (Zarquwi comes to mind), coming and going freely. And it’s clear from the report that had al Qaeda needed any help from Saddam, he most likely would have provided it.
Now, something else that Bush DID say was that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism (they were), that Iraq was in violation of the various UN resolutions and cease-fire agreement from the end of the first Gulf war (it was), and that this entire war on terror was going to take a very long time (he was saying that from the outset and he was right).
The fact is that despite all the Commiecrat and other assorted moonbat witch hunts (aka “Congressional investigations”, “media revelations”, etc) into who said what, when and where to whom as regards to the lead-up to the war, NOBODY has come up with ANYTHING that shows the Bush administration lied about any of this.
Sure, you have the usual barking moonbat suspects like bbustard who parrot the same old phony memes (such as this one) that nearly every other BDS-comsumed douchenozzle does. If it’s not this, then it’s how the e-vil McChimpyBushitler/Cheney/Rove/Halliburton cabal outed Valerie Plame as a “CIA operative” (they didn’t and she wasn’t), or that Bush “stole the 2000 election”, etc, etc.
What they don’t seem to grasp is that if Bush HAD lied, given how these issues have been gone over with an electron microscope by legions of moonbats who would have given their first-born male AND female children, a left nut and a year’s pay to be able to hang ANYTHING that could actually stick to the e-vil Bushco, he would have been impeached long ago.
But it hasn’t happened, and it’s not going to, because he didn’t. And all the wishful thinking and moonbat wet dreams in the world will make it so.
Deal with it.
Beaukoos cool, man.
Maggie, that’s not true.
The REAL TERRORISTS are AmeriKKKa. Just ask Reverend Wright.
– *chuckle*, I seem to find myself asking about similarities this morning….
– Ric – would that lack of “direct connection” by in any way similar to the “lack of direct connection” between the DNC and the Rather/Mapes/Haywood gang?
– One interesting observation is the fact that the Left seems totally uninterested in the simple idea that the various insurgent groups have every good reason to blur, and if possible. hide/cover up the existance of connections between their operations. The less known to the West concerning the organizational tree, the better. Hmmm….Curious that.
I really don’t remember the administration ever saying Iraq was connected to 9/11 oe that Al Qaeda and Iraq were operating in concert. I do remember an argument being made that after 9/11 happened certain nations were no longer going to be given the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions and activities, and that Iraq had reached the end of its rope regarding its activities related to the Gulf War armistice and its agreement to account for and turn over all WMD components.
The link between 9/11 and the Iraq campaign is that 9/11 changed what was considered an acceptable situation by the US. Bin Ladin truly turned out to be Saddam Hussein’s worst enemy.
But that the two were cooperating – allied – no; I do not recall that argument being made.
Live I’ve said before…
it’s getting harder and harder to distinguish the messages issued by Islamic terrorist proxies (with Al Lats’ah different, cool names)…from the Democrat’s proxies’ message.
I’m sure there’s no collusion there, but…(didn’t CNN used to own Al Jazeera?).
Or what cavebear said.
Well done, old man.
Example: The NYC refers to Al’Qaeda in Iraq as “Al’Qaeda in Mesopotamia”. That might be an accurate translation, but it misses the sense, and appears to be more an attempt to mislead a public poorly educated in geography.
(For which we can thank the Democrat’s paymasters in the teachers’ unions.)
– Nancy Pelosi, responding to the electical wire up her ass from the netroots signal yesterday concerning her assertions thet Bushes entire Iraq stratedgy was a failure, on being informed that her statement was based on the false notion of something Genral Patraeus never said, retorted:“…..Well maybe he didn’t exactly say it in those words, but we know full well thats what he was thinking….”
– So from this we may all take it that the collective has finally achieved nervaba and is channeling Cleo…..
“Despite the deceptions of Mr Hayes, the report itself is not hard to understand: Page ES-1 (executive Summary-1), Second Paragraph;: “This study found no “smoking gun†(i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and Al Qaeda.â€Â
No Direct Connection. This is from the Pentagon’s Report. What would satisfy you guys that Bush was lying through his teeth?”
You’ll be good enough to provide a quote where the President ever made such an assertion–you know–the lie.
Fact is, no “direct connection” is required. It’s not a “War on Al-Quaeda,” or a “War on Selected Terrorists,” it’s a Global War on Terror. It’s not about revenge for the attacks of 11 September, that’s just the event hat got the ball moving, it’s about making it clear that the deliberate targeting of civilians for the purpose of coersion is unacceptable, whatever the motivation.
Before you get all soft about “war on a tactic” and otehr tripe, let me point out htat we’ve been very successful in similar, though less contentious and less publicized, efforts against piracy. We’ve also had very good results in other GWOT campaigns in Indonesia, the Philippines, South America….
If the Presidnet beleived, or wanted you to beleive, that there was a “direct connection” there would have been no need for a separate Congressional authorization. The first one would have covered the situation, or he would have claimed it did.
Come back sometime when you don’t know so much that’s not so.
It would seem that the “direct connection” meme is a fabrication of nutroot propagandists to begin with, and who are then the ones actually lying.
The “Mission Accomplished” meme, which, to me, was an obvious statement about an Aircraft Carrier looks similar. I actually groaned out loud when I first heard the Prog spin on it. I even remember where I was at the time.
– Actually in some ways its better that their lies become visable in a liesurely manner. I’d rather watch them bleed slowly from a thousand cuts.
J. Peden wrote:
Indeed. In late 2002, 2003 I remember being flabbergasted at the argument that we couldn’t do anything to Saddam because he “had nothing to do with” the 9/11 atrocity. The lie about the Global War on Terror being the Global War on Only Al Qaeda and Only People Who Had Something to Do With 9/11 is getting very, very old.
The British Navy’s war on slavery also springs to mind.
I’m no longer amazed that the Progs still don’t appear to get the fact that our invasion of Iraq was a strategic move to “fight them there instead of fighting them here” by drawing AQ to a battleground of our choosing. AQ had to oblige.
And it’s even becoming clear to me that we couldn’t have held out anywhere near as well by simply staying in Afghanistan, as Obama and his fellow Prog dhimmis seem to otherwise be so strangely obsessed with – that is, if you listen to only what they say, but which really doesn’t “just happen” to be exactly what Islamofascists would also want, the defeat of America.
By this time it should be clear that Hussein is not merely Barak’s middle name. And have you heard that his screwy “Uncle” apparently wants the same thing? Granted that they both think they would still be left standing, profiting, or even ruling.
Not entirely of our choosing. AQ and affiliates, were fleeing Afghanistan and a common destination was Iraq because of the history of assistance tehy ahd recieved there. Al Zarqawi being the best known example, was only thte tip of the iceberg, and he took teh additional step of re-establishing himself there for operational purposes.
Iraq was a logical next step as a strategic move to cut off not only the safe haven, but also to stem the new operational bases suplementing the logistical and training ones that already existed.
It was in this same time frame that we established Joint Task Force Horn of Africa, becasue that was the next place it was becoming apparent that terrorists were fleeing to but we got there “firstest with the mostest” and so didn’t have the obstacles to overcome, not to mention no hostile regieme to contend with as in Iraq, as were in the Philippines with their long entrenched Abu Sayaaf Group.
#44 We also have the advantage of stationed active duty combat units, as well as, support units on both sides of Iran. So we have that going for us.
Thanks for the further enlightenment. In my still stunted strategery, it looks like we gave our self a seaport, kind of surrounded Iran, and came between Iran and Syria, maybe creating a pincer senario involvng Israel. Oh, not mention stealing the Oil.
. What would satisfy you guys that Bush was lying through his teeth?
This is what has always bothered me about the friendly criticism of Bush and his inability to explain the strategy for the war.
It isn’t about his lack of explaining, in some very good speeches by the way.
The problem has always been that whatever Pres. Bush says is drowned out by catcalls, accusations, and misrepresentations.
I have always understood the importance of Iraq in a war on terror, not as retaliation for 9/11, rather strategic value, picking the battlefield, in the wider goal of preventing future 9/11’s.
I always liked the the particular strategy of having our well armed, trained, and willing military take care of the mofreaks somewhere other than North America against civilians. Iraq was an obvious rathole for mofreaks hastily abandoning Afghanistan.
Seems to me, everything’s working out well, so far. If McCain isn’t president, it’ll probably all go in the crapper though.
Fact is, no “direct connection†is required. It’s not a “War on Al-Quaeda,†or a “War on Selected Terrorists,†it’s a Global War on Terror.
No dice, RTO. No Secret Decoder Rings, no connection.
Waittaminute, I thought we weren’t supposed to be afraid of these, um, militants. What does it matter if Saddam was coordinating efforts in face -to-face meeting with AlQ or just letting his people talk with their people, they’re all the victims of white Euro-American colonialism, racism, and fear of the other.
I mean really, why does this report even matter to the transnationals and progressives?
Interesting conversation.
I’ve been railing about this topic for years at http://www.regimeofterror.com. It’s nice to get something new to sink my teeth into for a few weeks and post about.
Thanks, Mark. I’ll have to drop by and take a look around.
[…] was going to write all that, but Stephen Hayes got there first. And Dan Collins, et al ably deconstruct the attempts of those who would insist upon the Preferred Narrative as […]
No problem Dan.
hey, what a bogus right wing hack job of denial. steve hayes=steven hayden? need i remind you that Saudi Arabia supplied the bulk of terrorists and funding for same. And BushCo is in bed with the Saudi royal family.
Reasons for war(s): make money for the military industrial complex. starve the govt. w/ deficit spending for war(s). kill the baby in the bathtub(reduce or remove social security for bulk of lower middle class workers.) And Oligarchy success in Riyahd, Washington D.C., LA, everywhere. Keep the public scared and destitute in order to drive down wages and keep profits high.
Bush/Cheney lied that’s what the report has stated. No connections between rightwing muslims such as Ossama and dictator Hussein. Even if Hussein’s fall isn’t bad, the growth of terror in Iraq and elsewhere due to Bush’s inadequate planning and deficit busting tax cuts is worse. Malignant unconcern for the working people of Iraq and our own military families that are suffering w/o concern by the power elites in our nation. Our grandchildren will be paying for the stealing of funds by this administration (funds that went to politically connected mercenary firms such as KBR, Texas based weapons contractors, etc.)
“Suppressing information it doesn’t like is a hallmark of the Bush family. Kitty Kelley revealed in her book The Family that the official Bush family tree has been severely pruned of several ex-wives and two mentally retarded family members, as acknowledging divorce or any other sort of percieved imperfection is anathema. George Herbert Walker Bush suppressed the Sandia Labs study — the one that debunked key tenets of the conservative anti-public-school tract “A Nation At Risk” — and it wasn’t allowed to see the light of day until Bill Clinton took office. And since George W. Bush is a distillation of all the worst traits of the Bush family, with very few of its better features, this latest suppression shouldn’t surprise anyone.”
The essential truth of this is beyond reproach. I don’t know why you’d want to keep carrying this family’s water, Dan. Name me an example where a BushCo person gave a royal shit about anyone besides their own interests:(Carlyle group, etc.) Granddady walker bush had to be forced during WW2 from continuing to make money off the Nazis in Germany (during WW2 even with his own son signing up for the air corps.; ‘trading with the enemy act”) I am not sure they give a damn about each other let alone the rest of us.
How about that prescription drug plan, dave? Or the middle class tax cuts/rebates? That’d be Dubya, BTW.
Would you like to contradict anything Hayes says in the piece, or are you just going to plead TRUTHINESS!!!?
hayes….hayes….wasnt he the harmony database dude?
that got so totally spoofed by saddams trashbags of “untranslated documents”?
The essential truth of this is beyond reproach
Translation: I believe this is true and if you say otherwise, I’ll cover my ears, run in circles and cry “LALALALALALA!!!!”
Datadave: All Assertions, All teh Time. 100% fact free!
um, well….
oh, that’s from the Executive Summary. (pg ES-2)
Reasons for war(s): make money for the military industrial complex.
I got a chance to get in on the ground floor for a green cheese mine on the moon, dave, we are looking for investors if you want in.
[…] can’t be in cahoots with Shi’ites, secularists can’t be in cahoots with Islamists: Some bloggers are jumping all over Senator John McCain for his supposed “gaffe” […]