PDA

View Full Version : GOP Led Senate Intelligence Committee - Report


Secretariat
09-08-2006, 05:01 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report

Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
5 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq. The report also newly faults intelligence gathering in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion.

Released Friday, the report discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.

As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi."

.....

A second part of the report concluded that false information from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam group led by then-exile Ahmed Chalabi, was used to support key U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq.

It said U.S. intelligence agents put out numerous red flags about the reliability of INC sources but the intelligence community made a "serious error" and used one source who concocted a story that Iraq was building mobile biological weapons laboratories.

....

According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime."

It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

In June 2004, Bush defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. "Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida," the president said.

The report concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or had ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

....

"The report is a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with al-Qaida," said Sen. Carl Levin , D-Mich., a member of the committee

....

What an absolute waste of men and women and money lost in this fiasco. And as late as August they continue with the lies, even when their own GOP brethern in the Senate sign off on this report.

46zilzal
09-08-2006, 05:05 PM
they will just "make up" a new reason anyway.

Let's see what is the REASON this week?

JustRalph
09-08-2006, 05:08 PM
I see you got today's email :sleeping:

Secretariat
09-08-2006, 05:10 PM
I see you got today's email :sleeping:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

How about the Associated Press article JR? No response I see.

kenwoodallpromos
09-08-2006, 07:32 PM
Democrats say they signed the war resolution because they were fooled by Bush's lies?
Here is an excerpt of a speech by a Senate Demo who voted for the resolution:
"Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. ****But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack."
-John Kerry (he voted for the resolution). Who's fooling who?

Tom
09-08-2006, 09:14 PM
So what is new here, Sec?
What was not already known?

ljb
09-08-2006, 09:56 PM
So what is new here, Sec?
What was not already known?
Probably everything in the article by most of the rightys on this board. Some still don't know it, inspite of Sec's generous donation of time needed to post the data. :D

JustRalph
09-09-2006, 08:35 AM
you guys don't get it. stuff like this doesn't interest us anymore. We know who the enemy is. It is you and your kind. We don't even care anymore. Redeploy the Marines to the coast of the Democratic Underground. String up those leaders of the hate machine. Be careful.........where you tread.........

ljb
09-09-2006, 09:01 AM
you guys don't get it. stuff like this doesn't interest us anymore. We know who the enemy is. It is you and your kind. We don't even care anymore. Redeploy the Marines to the coast of the Democratic Underground. String up those leaders of the hate machine. Be careful.........where you tread.........
Jr,
Stuff like this never interested you guys. It is truth and as i have stated numerous times here. Reality bites you dudes in the arse. :lol:

Tom
09-09-2006, 12:28 PM
Ljb, read my lips - we don't care. Iraq/Sadaam was always a threat and we did the right thing. Notiing new in the report, just being brought up by Sec because you libs, 5 years later, still have no clue and no plan to combat terroism. Like Kerry, you guys are still sitting unable to move. You have a mid tern election coming up and not one alternative suggestion on any major topics - not a thing except negative about Bush. Your whole platform is we are not Bush, but you guys have zero, nadda, to offer. You guys are pathetic losers, with nothing positive to say about yourselves. So you sling mud,. Bring up old news.

:lol::lol::lol:

Secretariat
09-09-2006, 05:53 PM
Ljb, read my lips - we don't care. Iraq/Sadaam was always a threat and we did the right thing. Notiing new in the report, just being brought up by Sec because you libs, 5 years later, still have no clue and no plan to combat terroism. Like Kerry, you guys are still sitting unable to move. You have a mid tern election coming up and not one alternative suggestion on any major topics - not a thing except negative about Bush. Your whole platform is we are not Bush, but you guys have zero, nadda, to offer. You guys are pathetic losers, with nothing positive to say about yourselves. So you sling mud,. Bring up old news.

:lol::lol::lol:

Tom, when 40% of the people still beleive in polls that 911 and Hussein and Al Queda are connected then this is not OLD NEWS, but very relevant information needed to edcuate people who've been duped.

As to combating terrorism, you admitted in a previous thread that terrorism worldwide was expanding. So much for the failed GW approach. The Dem plan has always been well stated. Get those responsbile for 911 - Bin Laden and Zawahari and get out of Iraq. Right now the Taliban is growing in Afganistan because GW did not finish the job. Control the poppy fields. They've grown to all time levels in Afghaninstan helping to fund Al Queda under GW. So much for the money trail GW promised to deal with. This was an issue years ago blamed by Gen. Myers on the British not controlling the poppy fields. What's his excuse now? And GW has got to stop being so gutless and challenge Pakistan to bring in Bin Laden if as CIA chief Goss says he is in Pakistan.

Tom
09-09-2006, 11:03 PM
Sec said:
As to combating terrorism, you admitted in a previous thread that terrorism worldwide was expanding. So much for the failed GW approach.

As opposed to the smasing success of the Clinton plan. Watch ABC tommorrow and Monday for the "new" developments, since you still belive he is not responsible.

kenwoodallpromos
09-10-2006, 12:42 AM
" you admitted in a previous thread that terrorism worldwide was expanding. So much for the failed GW approach."
Bin Laden claimed he attacked because we were in Saudi Arabia. We got out. Bin Laden claimed he would only attack red states. Some of the plane targeted for liquid explosives were headed to blue states.
I get it. Does everyone else?