A Pentagon sponsored study to be released on Wednesday concludes Saddam Hussein had no operational links to bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist group. This is the second government report in as many years to disprove one of President Bush's rationals for invading Iraq in March 2003 (the second reason being disarming Iraq of WMD).
While the study exhaustively shows no direct operational link between Iraq and al Qaida, it does show links to other terrorist groups in the Middle East. However, none of those groups had anything to do with the attacks on 9/11.President Bush and his aides used Saddam's alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam's secular dictatorship.
Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited multiple linkages between Saddam and al Qaida in a watershed February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council to build international support for the invasion. Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence.
This report will do zilch to convince those in the GOP Fantasy World that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Instead it will probably do just the opposite and convince them even more so that Saddam was a terrorist supporting dictator, which he was-- just not the one responsible for the 3,000 dead innocent people upon our soil.
2 comments:
Why were al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad and Northern Iraq before the invasion?
Why do people continue to insist that Saddam didn't have WMD when he used them on his own people?
Why is it so hard for people to understand that bad guys associate with other bad guys? Terrorists assist other terrorists.
If Bush erred in invading Iraq based upon the reasons you cite, then numerous American law makers, former Presidents, leaders of foreign countries and multiple intelligence agencies around the globe, made the same mistake.
If it was flawed intelligence, fine. That would be another part of Clinton's legacy, since he cut the funding for the CIA.
Just because there's 'no direct operational link' doesn't mean it doesn't exist, Chris.
How ironic is that now, ten years later, the very same people who argued over the meaning of the word 'Is,' are hell-bent on truth telling?
Kent, any links to back up your claim that bin Laden's people were in Iraq before our invasion? People don't continue to insist Saddam didn't have WMD. We know he did because we are the ones who gave them to him. Where do you think he got the gas he used on his own people? From Ronald Reagan. What people are insisting is that Saddam was disarmed after the first invasion in 1991. Why is it so hard to believe that Bush trumped up charges of WMD and al Qaida links to justify his invasion. I believed him, but now I realize that I was wrong.
"If Bush erred in invading Iraq based upon the reasons you cite, then numerous American law makers, former Presidents, leaders of foreign countries and multiple intelligence agencies around the globe, made the same mistake."-- Yes I totally agree but saying it's all Clinton's fault is ridiculous.
I've never argued over the meaning of "is." You must be confusing me with someone else.
How ironic it is that now, 20 years later, the very same people who supplied Saddam with WMD, money and intelligence, are also the ones saying that he was the most dangerous man on earth and are now hellbent on hiding the truth.
Post a Comment