New Report: “Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism”
by Mark Noonan on March 16th, 2008 at 04:52pm
Our leftwing friends leaped with glee on the leak about this report - because the leak had that the report was all about how Saddam wasn’t connected to al-Qaeda. This was a false leak - the report doesn’t say that. What it says (page ES-1) is that no “smoking gun” was discovered showing a direct connection between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda. This is a far cry from the leaked assertion that Saddam had nothing to do with al Qaeda. Further undermining the series of lies the left has spread about Saddam and terrorism, the report notes that Saddam’s regime had strong ties to various Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations - the left assuring us endlessly that Saddam’s allegedly secular regime was the sworn enemy of Islamic fundamentalism, and thus Saddam would never have cooperated with al Qaeda.
The report has some other interesting facts:
1. In 1999, the top ten graduates of Saddam’s terrorist training were dispatched to London, on call at a moment’s notice to conduct terrorist operations around the world.
2. Saddam’s terror masters stockpiled weapons (via “diplomatic pouch” to Saddamite embassies) in Romania, Greece, Austria, Pakistan, India, Thailand, Czech Republic, Turkey, Yemen, Azerbaijan, Lebanon and the Gulf States.
3. As war impended in 2002, Saddam’s terror masters concerned themselves with how to dispose of these terrorist weapon stockpiles in nations likely to come in to the anti-Saddam coaltion.
4. Saddam’s intelligence service developed high tech car bomb technology as early as 1999.
5. Saddam’s intelligence service developed means of smuggling suicide vests past checkpoints.
6. Saddam’s intelligence service developed means of producing IED’s as early as August of 2001.
7. There is a memo dated September 22, 2001 listing highly educated, Baath party members who are designated for suicide terrorist actions.
8. An August 2002 memo indicates that Saddam’s intelligence service will set up suicide training for non-Iraqi suicide volunteers during the summer vacation period.
9. A 1993 memo detailing Saddam’s support for Fatah, Palestine Liberation Front, Force 17 (a Palestinian terror group), Renewal and Jihad Organization, The Palestinian Abd al-Bari al-Duwaik, Islamic Jihad Organization, Islamic Ulama Group, The Afghani Islamic Party, Jam’iyat Ulama Pakistan.
10. A 1993 memo showing Saddam providing training for terrorists from Palestine, Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Eritrea and Morrocco.
11. A 1993 memo showing that Saddam wanted to use his trained terrorists to kill Americans bringing humanitarian assistence to Somalia.
12. A September, 2001 memo showing Saddam wanting to work with Islamic radicals to undermine the Kuwait government.
13. A 2001 memo showing that various Palestinian terror cells were at Saddam’s disposal as a quid-pro-quo for Saddam’s support for Palestinian terror groups.
14. A January, 1988 memo showing Saddam providing $2.5 million to the terrorist Abu Abbas (who was later found dead in Saddam’s Iraq right before the start of the liberation).
15. A pre-9/11 memo from 2001 showing Saddam’s agents carrying out deliberate attacks on American aid workers.
16. A July, 2001 memo showing a direct interest by Saddam’s regime in working with the bin-Laden affiliated terror group, The Army of Muhammed.
What we have here is a complete demolition of the leftwing narrative about Saddam vis a vis the terrorist threat we faced, and still face.
Saddam was not “boxed in”; Saddam was more than willing to work with Islamist groups; Saddam was preparing for conflict long before 9/11 - in fact, if you look at some elements of Saddam’s program, it is a clear parallel to al Qaeda…foreign fighters recruited for “martyrdom” operations and then set out to do their master’s bidding. The report cleverly notes that the best way to look at Saddam’s regime and bin-Laden’s terrorist group is like the differences between the Cali and Medellin drug cartels - competitors, but with a shared interest in thwarting US attempts to stop their activities.
The critics can keep their head in the sand, if they wish, but when President Bush stated that Saddam’s Iraq was a growing threat, he was speaking the absolute truth. Taking out Saddam’s regime has greatly reduced the ability of terrorist’s to strike at us and thus made the United States, and the world, a safer place.
Click here to create an account on Blogs For Victory and post comments!
March 16th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
So Mark now you’re throwing the Pentagon under the bus? I thought you conservatives were “pro” military. I guess any agency that doesn’t go along with the Republican’s fantasy world is deemed an enemy now.
Spin it anyway you want, the report is very clear, NO tie between Saddam and AlQaeda. The final rationale the Republicans had for this needless war has finally been put into the grave.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
NiP,
What the heck are you trying to say?
I’m agreeing with the report - it is an excellent and well-documented report on Saddam’s ties to terrorism, including relationships with al Qaeda and al Qaeda-affiliated groups. The report pretty much says the exact opposite of what the left claims it says.
Have you the courage to read it?
March 16th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Ofcourse Mark ,thats right. A report that says no relationship means there was a relationship. Also day is night night is day up is down left is right.
Give it up I’ve read it already. listen to what this person had to say about the report…..
“Foreign Policy Analyst Olga Oliker at the Rand Corporation research organization says it would not have made sense for Saddam to support groups like al-Qaida that were dedicated to overthrowing secular governments like his own. And she says many other reports, both before and after the U.S.-led invasion, have come to the conclusion that he didn’t support those groups.
“I think what’s news about it or what’s interesting about it is that it is an additional report by a U.S. government agency that refutes an assertion that was made by people in the Bush administration,” said Olga Oliker. “It would be really hard to find something that does support what members of the administration had said.”
March 16th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
What the Left says Mark? Try everybody and every news organization outside of the Republican echo chamber is saying the same thing. Even your beloved Faux News has said the same thing, although like good conservatives the did try to cushion the blow a little. Give it up Mark the failure of the Bush Presidency and the conservative experiment on government is complete.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Mark, on your logic, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia where the connections are far more ‘direct’, shall we say.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
NiP,
Flabbergasting! Just amazing that you won’t read the report and entirely ignore the points I’ve pulled out of it.
How terrible it must be to be so locked into hatred that you won’t even consider the possibility of changing!
March 16th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
bongo,
Read the report - Saddam had far more connections than anyone in the Saudi government did or does…just because most of the actual terrorists were Saudi doesn’t mean Saudi Arabia was deeply involved…did you even pause to note that Saddam was providing terrorist training for non-Iraqi terrorists? Including Saudis?
No, I guess not - can’t have your worldview shaken…must, must, must believe that BUSH LIED!!!!….
March 16th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
The bottom line here is that Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al, lied to the American people to sell their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. They told US lies about WMD. They told US lies about Saddam and 9/11. They continue to tell US lies about why we stay in Iraq.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
NiP,
To put it bluntly - shut up; you’re embarrasing yourself here.
Read the report.
I am easy with accepting apologies…but right nowyou’re just putting yourself more and more into “Bush hating idiot” as a catagory.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
JD,
Read the report. Like NiP and Bongo, you’re really just making ourself look like a fool.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I don’t think they know how to read, Mark.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Harsh words about me Mark but that still doesn’t make the report say what you want it to.
You’re not only fighting reality, you’re also fighting the 9-11 Commission as well as this report.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Although you like to draw your own conclusions - 16 of them in fact - you neither link to a location where the entire document can be viewed or downloaded, nor point to which pages/parts you’re drawing your conclusions from.
Would you care to post a link? I have to confess, I haven’t read the entire thing, but I’m certainly willing to before I comment on it directly.
Link please.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Oh… never mind, it’s linked, it’s just that the link is apparently banned from “my country”
March 16th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
A report that says no relationship means there was a relationship. Also day is night night is day up is down left is right.
Remember, you’re talking about a guy who to this day maintains that we were not sold the Iraq war on the basis of WMD and that we did, in fact, find WMD. Basically, Noonan’s a guy who seems to go out of his way to find the wrong position and defend it to the hilt. Which is why he can somehow find that the Pentagon’s report says the opposite of what it actually says–and then get all upset that you don’t agree with the points he wants you to find (and also gets upset when people call him dishonest for, well, doing stuff like this).
March 16th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Here is the link.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf
March 16th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
The report does establish a connection pre 9/11 to the Jaish-e-Muhammad operating in Bahrain and shows where the government of iraq was a very minor player in the training and planning of suicide attacks. To this date none were carried out that intelligence agencies have reported. Like the reports said similar goals potentially but no smoking gun of alliance. The red brigades in germany were more of a threat than these guys.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
NO OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP MARK!!!!!
There it is Mark.
The report agrees
The 9-11 Commission agrees
Right wing websites agree
Left wing websites agree
Every news organization in the world reporting it agrees
Who doesn’t agree?
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and you.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Diane,
Nice try at downplaying - 10 points for at least addressing substance, minus 1,000 points, though, for ignoringin the obvious - Saddam’s massive links to terrorism which is one of the primary reasons we liberated Iraq.
Tract,
You are the most amazing of them all - you simply will not read the war resolution, the Senate report detailing the amount of WMDs we found in Iraq and, now, this report detailing Saddam’s ties to terrorism…absent any knowledge, you then accuse me of living in a fantasy world because the facts I know don’t agree with the fairy tale you believe.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Thank you Eric
March 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
[...] connected to al-Qaeda. This was a false leak - the report doesn’t say that. … MORE >>Creadit By Fat [...]
March 16th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
NiP,
It doesn’t say that - it says there is no “smoking gun” showing a definitive relationship. It does, however, note that there was a great deal of operational overlap between Saddam and al Qaeda’s terrorist campaigns.
Really, seriously - read the report.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Sure thing, Arctic Fox.
This excerpt is from page 42 of the report:
Saddam’s interest in, and support for, non-Iraqi non-state actors was
spread across a wide variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. For years, Saddam maintained training camps for foreign “fighters” drawn from these diverse groups. In some cases, particularly for Palestinians, Saddam was also a strong financial supporter. Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad,
led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally
shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Mark, give up. You will never be able to break through the shell of determined ignorance that defines Nutsy-is-Putzy.
Remember, to be a radical Lefty is to be determinedly simple-minded. That is how they can cling so desperately to the fantasy that if Saddam was secular, and if S-Q was religious, the two could simply never work together. As Olga says, “..it would not have made sense …”
No but it does apparently make sense to think they would snub each other because they had different secret decoder rings. And note that there is NO proof that there was NO cooperation, just assertions based on the predetermination that it simply would not be acceptable to find such cooperation. It would be in conflict with BDS dogma, therefore it cannot exist. And that seems to be the sum total of their “proof” of a chasm between A-Q and S-H. They don’t think it “makes sense”.
England and Russia were allies in WW II, and Churchill and Stalin loathed and distrusted each other. It didn’t “make sense” to a certain simple-minded way of looking at things, yet it happened.
And alliances like that, on and on and on, have occurred throughout history. Official alliances, covert alliances, convenient alliances, admitted and denied alliances, some of them temporary till one side got what it wanted and then, strengthened, turned on its former ally.
But Olga says “…it doesn’t make sense…”
They have this simplistic concept of MEMBERSHIP in one group, which of course precludes membership in any other, or work with any other.
Those of us grounded in reality know that terrorist groups routinely trade personnel and materiel, as well as information and intel, if they have the same goals. And we know that Saddam and A-Q had the same goals. Your Point # 9 shows Saddam’s supprt for three groups with the word “Islam” (or “Islamic”) in their names, which pretty much shoots down the claim that secular Saddam would never work with Islamic terrorists. As for the other groups, I don’t know enough about them to know which are secular and which are religious.
This infantile insistence on absolute linear memberships, which preclude even working with members of other groups, is just another example of the simple-mindedness needed to be affiliated with the radical Left.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
A quote from the report:
A notable instance of this cooperation was in Somalia in 1993 where Saddam and al Qaeda were mutually involved in fighting the US presence.
Get over it, liberals - Bush didn’t lie; Saddam’s regime was a growing threat and had to be dealt with.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Mark,
I am glad that you started this post. Doesn’t seem as if the MSM has any interest in reporting the truth.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Eric,
None at all - and if you go to my link to the report, you’ll see it described as a report showing no link between Saddam and al Qaeda, even though the report doesn’t say that.
It was leaked last week as a report which said “no link” and that is all the left and most of the MSM cares about…but I defy anyone to read the report and pull out a quote saying that Saddam and al Qaeda had nothing to do with each other.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Almiranta,
In Olga’s defense, I’ll bet she hadn’t read the report when that quote was generated - though as a person of supposed intellect, she should have suspended all comment until she had a chance to read it. I did as much - though I opined when a lefty first brought it up that I’d bet the report didn’t say what the leak claimed - all too often we’ve seen this…apparant leak, usually very misleading, put out by “un named sources” in this or that agency but which does set the terms of the debate.
We’re now trying to play catch up - the truth will out, but it takes longer to tell the truth than it does to tell a lie.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
[...] kkko wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptOur leftwing friends leaped with glee on the leak about this report - because the leak had that the report was all about how Saddam wasn’t connected to al-Qaeda. This was a false leak - the report doesn’t say that. … [...]
March 16th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Mark,
I know the MSM latched onto the “no smoking gun” line and ran with it. I guess the MSM like NIP simply refuse to read the report because it does not support their agenda.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
11. kimberly4victory | March 16th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I don’t think they know how to read, Mark.
But you obviously do, kimberly4victory aka kimberly4bush as you took my name change advice. Smart move.
—————————————
7. Mark Noonan | March 16th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
10. Mark Noonan | March 16th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
19. Mark Noonan | March 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
22. Mark Noonan | March 16th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Why do you still feel you have to justify the U.S. invasion & occupation of Iraq, Mark? Wasn’t it the Christian thing to do? After all, you removed the thug Saddam from power and brought peace and harmony to the citizens of Iraq. What more do people want?
March 16th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
markssein
the spacecowboys agree with you
this saddam dude was a bad earthling
sorry to be so dense
but could you please explain to us extraterrestials?
why the contract your leaders took out on him
is going to cost $3 trillion?
seems like a bad value ???
please enlighten….we’re sure you will…..
in your own inimitable style
March 16th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
LOL, Eric … since when does the MSM have an interest in reporting the truth? They downplay anything that would make the current admin look good. How many used their front page to report Saddam wanted to re-start his WMD program, after the inspectors left? And, he could of, with help from the Oil for Food scam.
I’ve always believed Saddam was working with AQ. I also believe he transfered most of his WMD to Syria. No one, as of yet, can dispute the satellite images of large semis going from Iraq to Syria right before the war started.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Thank you, CO. However, hell may freeze over before I take any more of your advice. LOL. :-) I figured it was time to change my name since Bush ISN’T RUNNING AGAIN.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Deleted - off topic.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Thanks to Eric’s link I’ve read the document, and it does make rather sickening reading, but the sickening fact is that what we in the west define as “terrorism” is more common practice in the middle east owing to Islam’s rather overdramatic teachings.
There are a few things that stand out, however:
Page 41:
This, to me, is a very key paragraph. Saddam dreamed of a Ba’athis super-state with him leading it. That was what he was working towards. He didn’t give a damn about Al-Qaeda’s objectives, aims or dreams, his plan was a Ba’athis superstate comprising Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and, if he could possibly incorporate it, Palestine and Israel too, all with him the guy in charge. You’ll notice that America doesn’t feature in this picture at all, other than if it would get in the way of him achieving his dream.
Page 61:
Another key point. Islam is intolerant of apostate regimes. Saddam’s regime was apostate. It actively prosecuted ANY Islamic faction that didn’t agree with it. Usama bin Laden is a zealot, to him Islam is everything, and the two simply aren’t compatible. Given a common enemy - for example the US - you get an “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” situation, but both bin Laden and Saddam would be hiding secret daggers ready to stab one another in the back the second the chance presented itself. There would be no trust, and only co-operation to a very limited extend against a common foe.
Page 65:
Note the wording here: “If America interferes we will strike”. America isn’t the major target. It never was. Hell, it AIDED Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war. But in common with all the regimes in that area, Saddam resented American interference. Any country, America included, that interfered, made itself “fair game” in Saddam’s eyes.
I’m not trying to make excuses for Saddam. As a matter of fact I do think the world is a safer place with that evil man gone, and I don’t doubt that he was an evil man, and a monster. But I still don’t feel that this justifies invading and killing hundreds of thousands of people. Neither does it justify destroying the American economy and causing a war that has the potential to last decades.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Deleted - off topic.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Giggle with glee, Christian, snicker till you wet yourself. We comment on the misdeeds of the Left, you gloat over what you can find on the Right. Big difference…..
The Bush Administration gave, I believe, 17 reasons to invade Iraq. Only one of them, and not the most prominent one, was the expected presence of WMD—based, of course, on the unanimous agreement of every single intelligence group operating in or near Iraq, including those with the most deeply placed intel and the best histories of accurate information.
Following the invasion, which took place a year after we declare our intent to invade, and months after convoys of semis started to stream across the Syrian border several nights a week, we found only miniscule amounts of WMD—but we found rockets designed to carry WMD, and what we did find indicated that there had been far larger amounts at one time.
Translations of papers found in Iraq have indicated large amounts of WMD at different times, and no proof of destruction of same.
And so on. Yet a radical Lib can claim something over and over again, something that is patently untrue, and feel that if he believes it he is not a liar, while at the very same time calling Bush a liar when he believed the best intelligence available to anyone on the planet.—and which, to this day, has not been proven false. To this day, every single country which provided us with this intelligence stands behind their information.
But a few lamebrains nursing daily on the sour milk of the hate-driven radical BDS Left feel smug in their defiance of their betters—because it lets them hurl more invective, and after all, that’s the only thing that matters to them.
This is why the radical Left has absolutely no credibilty. Or respect. Tract and JD are just the most recently prominent examples of this, but it’s rampant on the far far far goofy Left.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Almiranta said:
Actually that’s completely untrue. Wikipedia mentions:
So all your smugness over things and claiming that only the Right speaks the truth is completely wrong.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I believe Almiranta is referring to documents found as recent as two years ago … not in 2003.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Deleted - slander against the late President Reagan.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Watching the lefties here trying to deny the words of the report with all kinds of rationales is quite amusing. It is as if they think that the hard evidence in this report that Saddam was buddy-buddy with numerous terrorist groups including some of the worst not to mention his building car bombs and IEDs for terrorist use means nothing. Remember, before the invasion he had a standing military so he had no need for those kinds of terrorist weapons nor any of the training camps he hosted in Iraq for terrorists. Deny away, Sadam and his regime worked with, helped, trained, and supported many terrorist groups. The report proves that. So, obviously the left must go into denial mode. Next will be trying to change the subject and then comes the name-calling and personal attacks. So predictable.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Christian, if you would just TRY to be right, every now and then, you might be less annoying.
Maybe. Marginally.
Fox has a pretty decent post, one-sided and biased but at least coherent, till he gets to this: “But I still don’t feel that this justifies invading and killing hundreds of thousands of people..” Except we HAVEN’T killed “hundreds of thousands of people”. It simply has not happened.
Terrorists have flocked into Iraq from other nations and embarked on killing sprees, killing a lot of people. Americans have not killed anywhere NEAR “hundreds of thousands of people”.
There are hysterical claims of Americans killing lots and lots of “civilians”—the numbers are all over the place, but all are very exaggerated, even ridiculous. And no one can tell who is and who is not a civilian. None of the terrorists wear uniforms, some are women, some are women who willfully use their own children as shields and are therefore the ones responsible for their being in harm’s way–there is no possible way for anyone, from any political or philosophical perspective, to know how many have been killed by coalition military, and of those how many are civilian casualties.
Yet the Left throws out this “hundreds of thousands” figures all the time, usually claiming it is “hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS”.
Not so.
And then you claim that I misspoke, when in fact your reference does nothing to refute what I said. You say “The United Nations located and destroyed large quantities …” of WMD. There is no effort to claim that all, or even most, of Saddam’s WMD were destroyed, by the UN or by anyone else.
A “large quantity” could be ten tons—but the total could have been a thousand tons. “Large quantity” is vague and subjective, and not in any way a reference to the total.
Your reference goes on to admit that “The United States and the UK, along with other countries and intelligence experts, asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD ….” and later that they “….hadn’t turned up any evidence of ongoing programs …” but there is no further reference whatsoever to those “large hidden stockpiles”. The fact that they found “no evidence of ONGOING PROGRAMS” is irrelevant to those large stockpiles Iraq “STILL POSSESSED”—and regarding those large stockpiles, there is no evidence they were ever destroyed. Their existence is mentioned, but not their fate—where are they? If they had been destroyed in any documented manner, one would think that would have been referenced, especially by wikipedia, that reference so revered by the Left.
And I NEVER claimed that “only the Right speaks the truth”.
Smug? Sounds like foxy, to me. Wrong, but smug. How typical of a Lefty to use an excerpt that actually supports my contention and claim it refutes it—-and then to smugly accuse me of being smug.
You guys crack me up. As Michael says, it is never long before you give up on trying to support the insupportable and just start calling names.
So predictable……
March 16th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
You said “No proof of destruction”. There is proof of destruction. None were found, so we have to assume it has all been destroyed, since, erm, if there was any left wouldn’t it have been found by now?
You’re employing the famous double negative trick: “just because we’ve not found it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist”. Well, we didn’t find it so can you prove that it DOES still exist? If so, please bring forward that proof.
By inferring that the left can do nothing but lie, you are also inferring that the right is the only faction that speaks the truth. While I’ll admit you never said it in so many words, the inference is there.
As for the casualty lists, by what credible means do you discount organizations who have given estimates, some as high as 89,000? You casually say that it hasn’t happened, but you offer no proof. All you say is that it’s more “lefty lies”. The best credible evidence is from the Iraq Body Count site which puts the total at anywhere between 82,199 – 89,710. Note that NOBODY is attributing that many directly to US forces, that’s a twisting of what’s being said… but the fact remains that since the US went to war it can be proven that at least 80,000 civilians have died, and that IS the civilian casualty list, it does NOT include military casualties either in the Iraq security forces or the 3988 US servicepeople killed.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Deleted - off topic.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:42 am
AF,
Well, we know for absolute certain that in 1998 Saddam held large stocks of WMDs still scheduled to be destroyed under UN auspices - Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out that year, and nothing unearthed since that time indicates that the WMDs the entire world knows existed were destroyed. Ergo, he had them at some point between 1998 and 2003 and that was in direct violation of the 1991 cease-fire and also fully justified those parts of the war resolution which dealt with WMDs.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:49 am
I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/03/re-new-report-iraqi-perspectives.html
March 17th, 2008 at 7:03 am
19. Mark Noonan | March 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Diane,
Nice try at downplaying - 10 points for at least addressing substance, minus 1,000 points, though, for ignoringin[sic] the obvious - Saddam’s massive links to terrorism which is one of the primary reasons we liberated Iraq.
Okay it’s early but I’ll bite [chiefly because at our site we'll be analyzing the 5 year war all day]:
1) And they did absolutely nothing
2) Every foreign government on Terra including your USA does the same thing with weapons in diplomatic pouches because they cannot be searched legally.
3) That’s pretty standard operating procedure.
4) As gleaned from ETA, RB, IRA, PIRA and even La Cosa Nostra.
5) If you mean airport checkpoints consider how lax security was in most of Europe in 1999.
6) Dryer timers wire and Semtex. Two throw away cell phone motherboards a 9v battery and a few capacitors and some Semtex. Where’s the secret in this. That just means that Saddam’s boys weren’t going to the same classes as Hassan Nasrallah’s boys and girls.
7) And yet no agency DSGE, Shin Bet, Mossad, FSB, CIA MI-5 no one has linked the Hussein government with a suicide attack except in payouts to families of those in hamas who killed Jews in Israel.
8: Add him to the list of state sponsors of terror along with the USA or is the School of the Americas closed?
9) Typical Ba’athist politics. Down Down Israel and all that rot.
10) See 8
11) The goal of the Hussein government in the post Gulf War era is to embarrass America abroad at all cost including the taking of American lives. The US CIA knew this as early as 1995 it has been documented to death. The problem is the limited means Hussein had to do this post Clinton.
12) The Ba’athist government felt Kuwait was a blood enemy for being liberated by American forces in 1991.
13) They still have brought no meat to the cookout at this time.
14) Shot in the head by Uday Hussein’s own personal bodyguard [you have to know the secret handshake to get that kind of intel :)] And in this time the US CIA was not concerned at all about Abu Abbas because it was still supporting the Hussein regime in its stalemate against Iran.
15) Some of whom were working for DIA, NSA or CIA and some smart asses at FSB dropped a dime on them because of what was still being cultivated from Hansen.
16) Jaish e Muhammad has done far more inside Iraq since the US invasion than they did before because back in the day all they did was sit in Manama and sip coffee and order escorts to their hotel rooms which were being paid for by Saudi charities that assured the House of Saud nothing else would blow up in the Kingdom.
Iraq has been a state sponsor of terror since 1978 this too is well documented. For nine years of the time between 1078 and the fall of Iraq in 1991 the chief benefactor of the Iraqi regime was the United States of America. On the day the UN discovered that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the form of Tabun nerve gas, Donald Rumsfeld was sitting down to what he would call the “best baked chicken I ever ate,” with Tariq Aziz Saddam Hussein and Qusay Hussein that date was 24 March 1984.
And no Noonan it’s not like Cali and Medellin because all you know about Colombia is what you’ve seen in a few movies. The Middle East is nothing like anything Americans think they can compare it to. You have to go to Jordan and drive from Amman to Aqaba, you have to be the only woman in a tent on the edge of the Rub al Khali. You have to eat with the fishermen of Kharg Island who will feed you for a week for a Michael Jackson CD.
Forget it there’s no point. You and your kind have made their choice just like the foolish kids who strap on suicide vests in Gaza. Pointless.
March 17th, 2008 at 7:14 am
42. Christian Wright | March 16th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Deleted - slander against the late President Reagan.
You mean libel.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:45 am
What it says (page ES-1) is that no “smoking gun” was discovered showing a direct connection between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda. This is a far cry from the leaked assertion that Saddam had nothing to do with al Qaeda.
I disagree - it is not a far cry from “no link”.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Wow, when liberals are backed into a corner they are as vicious as badgers.
They fall back to the typical lies and insults as seen by the numerous “deleted off topic” posts.
I love the “logic” since no WMDs were found we must ASSume they were destroyed before the invasion. No words can describe the utter stupidity of that statement. He/She uses WIKIPEDIA for his “source” with a reference to the UN. UH, the UN has documentation that counts the WMDs destroyed by them vs the known quantities had by Saddam. Guess what, there is a large difference in the totals favoring “weapons unaccounted for”.
They use the “fall back” talking point - “we are no safer now than before”. Questions: how can the disruption (on the total scale we will never know) of the Al Qaeda network, human and financial, not make the US safer than before? The removal of a “government(s)” friendly to Al Qaeda, namely Afghanistan and Iraq where they had sanctuary and training sites available, not make us safer?
The laughable -
“why did we invade Iraq” - with complete disregard for the original cease fire agreement as if it never existed.
“we invaded illegally” - again, with complete disregard for the original cease fire agreement as if it never existed.
“Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc etc. lied to us” (when liberals were saying the same with a very select few not)
“Iraq is worse than before (and cite some ridiculous statistic of electricity and power)” - while knowing that Saddam used power and electricity to keep his people in line
- the liberal BS list can go on and on.
Reality will never touch their minds. They have been fooled into their beliefs by extreme BDS. They will never stop being the complete USEFUL IDIOTS that the leftist government types need them to be.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
This is the truth:
1. Saddam was not connected to 9/11
2. Saddam was not allied with Al Qaeda
3. Saddam was no where close to having an A bomb.
4. Even if Saddam had an a-bomb, he would not have given that diplomatic pressure prize away covertly to islamic terrorists he was not aligned with!
5. We all know he was a bad person and had terrorist friends. But since we parleyed and used some of the same terrorists when it suited our needs, ala Afghanistan, it’s hardly like our hands are clean.
THEREFORE: Your commentary is just more disingenous misleading palaver that is the staple of professional liars like AM talk show hosts. It proves nothing and is basically dishonest and/or misleading. This has nothing to do with your politics Mark, just your attitude towards the truth.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Tiredof Lib BS
You happy that your little friends in Iraq are chumming up to the Iranians? Of course you people had that all figured out, right?, since we all know what geniuses you are. But I’m supposed to be overjoyed we freed some Jew hating Islamic swine agains their will.
As far as I am concerned, the Iraqis deserved Saddam, as well as the Iranians. It’s fun to support war when you keyboard warriors don’t have to worry about a bomb ripping your little world apart. And you get a tax cut to boot so you really are sacrificing it all for the Big Push!
March 17th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
MajorIdiot……
“This is the truth”. From there it was just the usual lib BS.
Uh, rant your BS elsewhere.
Come back when you have something intelligent to say (it will be a looooonnnnnngggggg wait).
The liberal response to terrorists would have been likened to Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam. With Bugs saying, “I dare you to cross this line.” Sam crosses it. Bugs says and draws another, and the process repeats. Similar to the lib response on the Iraq war. They keep changing the lies and targets for “success”. When in their case they have put all their eggs into the failure basket.
Too bad, all the intelligence for the past 10 years does not support the lib talking points that you mindlessly regurgitate.
Big Push?
Okay USELESS IDIOT regurgitate some more BS.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
TiredofHisOwnBullsh**-
“They (liberals) keep changing the lies and targets for “success”. ”
LMAO!!!!!!! OMG that was just the best laugh I’ve had all week. Liberals keep changing the goal post for success in Iraq. LMAOROTF!!!!!!!!!!!
Reverse history much Keefer?
You are just too much of USELESS IDIOT . LOL
March 18th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Hey NIP,
Ever crawl out from under that rock, pull your head out of your (expletive deleted) to see the reality of things? Want to provide proof of your statement?
Obviously not. Nothing is every good in Iraq when it comes to liberals. First is “no plan to win the peace”, the surge moves in then it was “political progress is slow”. - to name the two biggest “arguments” the libs use. They keep changing the targets because they need Iraq to fail that is what they have been running on since the 2004 presidential election. FACT, UNDENIABLE!!!
Revising history? You dolts do not know history, period! You can’t determine if history has been revised because your version of history changes millisecond to millisecond.
In case you were educated in a government school , a millisecond is one-thousandth of a second.
Now, go ahead, reinsert your head and crawl back under your rock. I am sure your exposure to society has had an emotional cost to your mentality.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2008/03/media_swings_and_misses_on_ida_1/
good post and points Mark. My take on the report is above. I’ll have more soon though. The report was neither exhaustive nor a repudiation of Saddam/al Qaeda links. Just said Saddam didn’t have control of them, which noone ever argued to begin with.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
“After the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein’s conventional military had been word down due to sanctions and military defeat but his animosity of the U.S. continued and so he reached out to and supported others who also saw the U.S. as their enemy: “Islamic fundamentalists and related terrorist organizations.”
From 1991 through 2003, the Saddam regime regarded inspiring, sponsoring, directing, andexecuting acts of terrorism as an element of state power.”
Islamic terrorists and Saddam both see the U.S. as the enemy so Saddam helps these guys. What is so difficult to understand about that?