U.S Senate: Saddam had no prewar Al Qaeda link

[Fishu]

Senate panel finds no prewar Iraq-Qaeda link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein provided no material support for al Qaeda and had no relationship with al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi, despite claims by administration officials including President George W. Bush, said a Senate report released on Friday.

The report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, drawing on a previously undisclosed 2005 CIA assessment, was released as Americans prepared to mark the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States by al Qaeda.

Democrats said it undercut the Bush administration's justification for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, including recent statements by the president himself.


"Today's reports show that the administration's repeated allegations of a past, present and future relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq were wrong and intended to exploit the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks," said Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, the panel's ranking Democrat.

The committee's Republican chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, accused Democrats of presenting a misleading version of the committee's findings.

"The additional views of the Committee's Democrats are little more than a rehashing of the same unfounded allegations they've used for over three years," Roberts said in a statement.

Another Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, used the report to accuse Bush of making a false statements about ties between Saddam and Zarqawi, the one-time al Qaeda in Iraq leader killed by U.S. forces.

At an August 21 press conference, Bush told reporters that Saddam had relations with Zarqawi.

"The CIA's October 2005 assessment that Saddam's regime did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," Levin said.

"The president's statement, made just two weeks ago, is flat-out false," Levin said.

Bush administration officials pointed to supposed links between Saddam and al Qaeda to help justify their case for war before the March 2003 invasion.

The assessment in the CIA report was similar to the conclusion reached by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which found that there had been no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Top officials also told Americans that Saddam posed a threat to his neighbors and U.S. interests because he possessed large WMD stockpiles. But no such weapons were found.

No WMD, no links to Al Qaeda...
Just like everyone said who weren't blinded by the terrorist attacks. Al Qaeda was a threat to Saddam himself too.

When does the senate question Bush about all his lies? They sure were curious about Clinton's alternative relationships.

[storch]

why are people in europe concerned about how we run our absolutely perfect and clearly superior republic?

[1K3]

lol it was obvious from the start.

[Airscrew]

 Saddam had relations with Zarqawi.?

Bill Clinton - I did not have relations with Ms Lewinsky.
Saddam Hussein - I did not have relations with Mr Zarqawi

Lies all lies I tell you

[Fishu]

Originally posted by storch
why are people in europe concerned about how we run our absolutely perfect and clearly superior republic?

Because the spoil of the US politics tends to spill into Europe too. That's why we care.

Originally posted by Airscrew
Bill Clinton - I did not have relations with Ms Lewinsky.
Saddam Hussein - I did not have relations with Mr Zarqawi

Lies all lies I tell you

...but there were evidence suggesting otherwise in the case of Clinton.

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by Fishu
Because the spoil of the US politics tends to spill into Europe too. That's why we care.




...but there were evidence suggesting otherwise in the case of Clinton.

It's about time, We got the spoil of 2 world wars from European politics. Payback is Hell.... besides, we just found a huge oil reserve in the Gulf of Mexico so we may not be in the Middle East to much longer.

[storch]

don't you think we all ought to start driving  7L V10 trucks and use up all the middle eastern crude first?

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by storch
why are people in europe concerned about how we run our absolutely perfect and clearly superior republic?

Because we are so Big and perfect, and their wimmin don't shave under their arms.

[LePaul]

Old news from 2005.

[storch]

Originally posted by weaselsan
Because we are so Big and perfect, and their wimmin don't shave under their arms.

wouldn't that leave armpit hairs in their hamburger patties?

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Fishu
When does the senate question Bush about all his lies?

Even Bush and his posse have been denying the link for a few years now.
What worries me is the polls that showed a majority of Americans believing there is a link, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Even Bush and his posse have been denying the link for a few years now.

Really?

"At an August 21 press conference, Bush told reporters that Saddam had relations with Zarqawi."

[john9001]

<<"At an August 21 press conference, Bush told reporters that Saddam had relations with Zarqawi.">>

i don't care what saddams sexual habits were. he was/is a bad man.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Fishu


When does the senate question Bush about all his lies? They sure were curious about Clinton's alternative relationships.

And what makes you so sure he lied?

Or was it only Clinton and the democrats that were misled.
Cause prior to Bish taking office. They were saying the same thing

Oh and BTW. I beleive it was the october or november right after 9/11 the bush administration said outright that Iraq had no ties to 9/11

Bush is a dork. I'll give ya that much.
But to say he "lied" and did so intentionally is ludicrous.
Makes for good propoganda. But thats about it

Because if he lied about the WMDs then so did Clinton and the Democrats
because they were all saying the exact same things prior to Bush even being elected and the quotes have been produced here to prove it.

What you didnt mention is they found the the Iraqis they were using  for their intel were intentionally providing false information to both the Clinton and Bush administrations reguarding WMDs

So basically all the clowns in Washington on both sides of the isle. Were.....well played for clowns.
And they bought into it hook, line and sinker.

Me personally I didnt need the excuse of WMDs to go into Iraq.
I have always maintained I was for it if the reason "because its tuesday" was given.

There were enough reasons to go into Iraq without the WMD issue
Ranging from protecting out interests in the area (oil) Saddam in power was a threat to the region. And thus a threat to our intrests.
Preventing Germany, France and Russia from getting free drilling rights.
To the various acts of war Saddam commited following Gulf war 1.

Problem is. The average public   Rapidly turning into the "Nation of Wimps" Doesnt have the gonads to to have done what needs tro be done anymore.
Unless that is its done real neat and quick like.

Had Iraq totally stablised within the couple of weeks afte the war. Bush would be hailed as a hero. And none of this conversation would be taking place.
Instead, Everyone from BOTH parties would be scrambling to figure out how to grab some of the credit for it

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by weaselsan
It's about time, We got the spoil of 2 world wars from European politics. Payback is Hell.... besides, we just found a huge oil reserve in the Gulf of Mexico so we may not be in the Middle East to much longer.

No no no.
thats not how its gonna work.
You dont see the grand plan. Its so obvious
We keep sucking the oil out of the ME and everywhere else first.
Run em as dry as we can

Then we tap into these new wells and take advantage of the oil shale.

then WE become the worlds largest supplier:aok

If it aint true. It aughta be