Home > Uncategorized > Anyone surprised by this one?

Anyone surprised by this one?

This just in: No evidence of Saddam-al-Qaida ties

It’s old news to those who’ve been paying attention, and it will probably never sink in for those who haven’t: The Senate Intelligence Committee announced today that there’s no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaida or to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before the United States invaded Iraq.

The revelation, such as it is, comes in a nearly 400-page report on a portion of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation into prewar intelligence and the manipulation thereof. As the length of the report suggests, there is a good deal of new detail here. Among other things, the report reveals for the first time that a CIA assessment in October 2005 concluded that Saddam “did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.”

Dick Cheney and George W. Bush repeatedly argued that there was linkage between Saddam and Zarqawi; indeed, Bush said in October 2004 that “Zarqawi’s the best evidence of a connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida.” The president continued to invoke Zarqawi’s name in suggesting a Saddam-9/11 linkage as late as March 2006 — which is to say, six months after the CIA had concluded that Zarqawi had no relationship with Saddam.

Sen. John Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, says the new report shows how the Bush administration “exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks.”

The committee’s Republican chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts, dismissed interpretations like those as “little more than a vehicle to advance election-year political charges,” and he accused Democrats of trying “to use the committee to try and rewrite history, insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime.” But you can’t “rewrite” history if it hasn’t been written yet, and — as we noted earlier this week — Roberts and his Republican colleagues continue to delay the part of the probe that would shed further light on just how much of the Bush administration’s “duping” was, in fact, “deliberate.”

  1. Bob from San Luis
    September 10, 2006 at 2:53 am

    ” Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

    No, Dave, I am not surprised. I don’t know exactly how I know actions by this administration don’t pass the smell test, but I know that I know they don’t. It is more than mistrust that I feel for the gang in charge of leading the federal government at this time, it is that there seems to be some hidden purpose to their actions. Why is this administration the most secretive we have ever had? Why is it that we defeated two nation’s military might in a shorter length of time than it has taken to catch the one person who was in charge of attacking us on 9/11? Is this being done on purpose? If so, some one fill us in on why, please.

  2. Anonymous
    September 10, 2006 at 3:33 am

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
    Joseph Goebbels

    “See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
    G.W. Bush

    For the life of me I can’t understand why it doesn’t bother people of all political persuassions to see that we as a people have been misled and manipulated into a war. Our intellectual laziness was exploited and our worst fears were used to fan the flames of war. And my own President told me, right on my t.v., that if I wasn’t with him I was with the terrorists. So much for Freedom of Dissent!

    Now, we are stuck in Iraq in a ‘civil war lite’, our once proud military is showing major signs of distress, we are
    spending $8 billion per month and putting it on a national debt that is fast approaching $9 TRILLION, 30- 120 thousand civilian Iraqis are dead, 2667 of our soldiers are dead, tens of thousands are wounded- many with head injuries that will need care for the rest of their lives. We have no exit strategy and anyone who disagrees has their patriotism and sanity questioned and is given some stupid nickname that belongs in 6th grade.

    Enough already. I love my country and I want to trust my government- I really do but my faith has been shaken and no amount of Toby Keith songs or clips from 9-11 will change that.

  3. Rich from Paso
    September 10, 2006 at 5:26 pm

    I think that the biggest and best thing to come out of the president’s speach this week, and totally missed by the MSM with their President admits existance of CIA prisons” header, was the trial by tribunal of
    khalid Sheik Mohammed (the planner of 9-11) and the men behind the bombings of our embassies in Africa and the USS Cole. You can complain about the ABC mini-series or the lack of Osama’s capture all you want, but Bush is finishing what Clinton didn’t finish. The embassy bombings and the USS Cole were the opening acts to the drama that took place on 9-11. They both happened during Clinton’s time in office yet, in the case of the embassy bombings, it was eight years later before the men responsible for the killing of 200 of our citizens were broguth to justice. A huge flaw in the “prosecute the war on terrorism as a law enforcement issue”. Even if you make the claim that the 93 WTC bombers were caught and tried, that’s that, what about these guys? Why is it up to Bush to bring the 1998 bombers to justice? Why couldn’t Clinton have brought them to justice much sooner? Anyhow, that was the biggest point of the speech: no matter how long it takes, you will be broguth to justice. And the MSM media missed it.

    About the Senate report, a couple of things. The “Intelligence Community”, as the report referred to them, was unanimous except for the one State Department analysis cell. It cuts both ways. Who do you listen to? The 99% thatsupports one thoguht process or the lone voice of dissent. Of course, in hindsight, that one voice was right, but at the time decisions have to be made you have to go with the 99%. The report didn’t totally validate Joe Wilson (refered to as “the former Ambassador) but didn’t dismiss it either. It said that some Iraqi agents did inquire about uranium, but the State Dept cell dismissed the importance because the Iraqis already had enough in their inventory (you remember the 1.8 tons of enriched uranium I linked earlier about). Bottom line was the report was a lot of light without heat.

  4. JerryDinAZ
    September 11, 2006 at 3:24 pm


  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: