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.
Blogs For Victory 
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.
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?
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.”
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.
Mark, on your logic, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia where the connections are far more ‘direct’, shall we say.
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!
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!!!!….
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.
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.
JD,
Read the report. Like NiP and Bongo, you’re really just making ourself look like a fool.
I don’t think they know how to read, Mark.
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.
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.
Oh… never mind, it’s linked, it’s just that the link is apparently banned from “my country”
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).
Here is the link.
Click to access Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf
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.
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.
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.
Thank you Eric
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.
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.
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.