No hype needed:

[rumbleph1$h]

No hype needed:

Saddam, al-Qaida linked

By Victor Davis Hanson

As American casualties mount in Iraq, politicians at home now fight over who said what and when about weapons of mass destruction and the need for going to war. One of the most frequent charges is that President Bush hyped a non-existent link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida ? and that as a result, we diverted our efforts from finishing off the real terrorists to start a new and costly war to replace a secular dictator.

This charge is false for several reasons ? and illogical for even more. Almost every responsible U.S. government body had long warned about Saddam's links to al-Qaida terrorists. In 1998, for example, when the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden, the writ read: "In addition, al-Qaida reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Then in October 2002, George Tenet, the Clinton-appointed CIA director, warned the Senate in similar terms: "We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade." Seventy-seven senators apparently agreed ? including a majority of Democrats ? and cited just that connection a few days later as a cause to go to war against Saddam: " ... Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."

The bipartisan consensus about this unholy alliance was not based on intriguing but unconfirmed rumors of meetings between Saddam's intelligence agents and al-Qaida operatives such as Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. Nor did the senators or the president ever claim that Saddam himself planned the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead, the Justice Department, the Senate and two administrations were alarmed by terrorist groups like Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaida affiliate that established bases in Iraqi Kurdistan.

More importantly, one of the masterminds of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Baghdad to find sanctuary with Saddam after the attack. And after the U.S.'s successful war against the Taliban, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the present murderous al-Qaida leader in Iraq, reportedly escaped from Afghanistan to gain a reprieve from Saddam.

All of this is understandable since Saddam had a long history of promoting and sheltering anti-Western terrorists. That's why both Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas ? terrorist banes of the 1970s and 1980s ? were in Baghdad prior to the U.S. invasion and why the families of West Bank suicide bombers were given $25,000 rewards by the Iraqi government.

Saddam worried little over the agendas of these diverse terrorist groups, only that they shared his own generic hatred of Western governments. This kind of support from leaders such as Saddam has proven crucial to radical, violent Islamicists' efforts.

After Sept. 11, it became clear that these enemies can only resort to terrorism to weaken American resolve and gain concessions ? and can't even do that without the clandestine help of illegitimate regimes (from Saddam in Iraq to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the theocracy in Iran, Bashar Assad in Syria and others) who provide money and sanctuary while denying culpability.

Middle Eastern terrorists and tyrants feed on one another. The Saddams and Assads of the region ? and to a less extent the Saudi royal family and the Mubarak dynasty ? deflected popular anger over their own failures onto the United States by allowing terrorists to scapegoat the Americans.

Yet, for a quarter-century, oil, professed anti-communism and loud promises to "fight terror" earned various reprieves from the West for these dictatorships, who were deathly afraid that one day America might catch on and do something other than shoot a cruise missile at enemies while sternly lecturing "friends."

That day came after Sept. 11. To end the old pathology, we took out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, pressured the Syrians to leave Lebanon, encouraged Lebanese democracy, hectored the Egyptians about elections, told Libya's Moammar Gaddafi to come clean about his nuclear plans, and risked oil supplies by jawboning the Persian Gulf monarchies to liberalize.

The theory behind all these messy and often caricatured efforts was not the desire for endless war ? we removed by force only the two worst regimes, in Afghanistan and Iraq ? but to allow Middle Easterners a third alternative between Islamic radicalism and secular dictatorship. No wonder that wherever there are elections in the Middle East ? Afghanistan and Iraq ? legitimate governments there have the moral authority and the desire to fight Islamic terrorism.

Americans can blame one another all we want over the cost in lives and treasure in Iraq. But the irony is that not long ago everyone from Bill Clinton to George Bush, senators, CIA directors and federal prosecutors all agreed that Saddam had offered assistance to al-Qaida, the organization that murdered 3,000 Americans. That was one of the many reasons we went into Iraq, why Zarqawi and ex-Baathists side-by-side now attack American soldiers ? and why an elected Iraqi government is fighting with us.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbc...11/1110/OPINION

[MadFerIt]

No hype needed:

Saddam, al-Qaida linked

By Victor Davis Hanson

As American casualties mount in Iraq, politicians at home now fight over who said what and when about weapons of mass destruction and the need for going to war. One of the most frequent charges is that President Bush hyped a non-existent link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida ? and that as a result, we diverted our efforts from finishing off the real terrorists to start a new and costly war to replace a secular dictator.

This charge is false for several reasons ? and illogical for even more. Almost every responsible U.S. government body had long warned about Saddam's links to al-Qaida terrorists. In 1998, for example, when the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden, the writ read: "In addition, al-Qaida reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Then in October 2002, George Tenet, the Clinton-appointed CIA director, warned the Senate in similar terms: "We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade." Seventy-seven senators apparently agreed ? including a majority of Democrats ? and cited just that connection a few days later as a cause to go to war against Saddam: " ... Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."

The bipartisan consensus about this unholy alliance was not based on intriguing but unconfirmed rumors of meetings between Saddam's intelligence agents and al-Qaida operatives such as Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. Nor did the senators or the president ever claim that Saddam himself planned the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead, the Justice Department, the Senate and two administrations were alarmed by terrorist groups like Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaida affiliate that established bases in Iraqi Kurdistan.

More importantly, one of the masterminds of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Baghdad to find sanctuary with Saddam after the attack. And after the U.S.'s successful war against the Taliban, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the present murderous al-Qaida leader in Iraq, reportedly escaped from Afghanistan to gain a reprieve from Saddam.

All of this is understandable since Saddam had a long history of promoting and sheltering anti-Western terrorists. That's why both Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas ? terrorist banes of the 1970s and 1980s ? were in Baghdad prior to the U.S. invasion and why the families of West Bank suicide bombers were given $25,000 rewards by the Iraqi government.

Saddam worried little over the agendas of these diverse terrorist groups, only that they shared his own generic hatred of Western governments. This kind of support from leaders such as Saddam has proven crucial to radical, violent Islamicists' efforts.

After Sept. 11, it became clear that these enemies can only resort to terrorism to weaken American resolve and gain concessions ? and can't even do that without the clandestine help of illegitimate regimes (from Saddam in Iraq to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the theocracy in Iran, Bashar Assad in Syria and others) who provide money and sanctuary while denying culpability.

Middle Eastern terrorists and tyrants feed on one another. The Saddams and Assads of the region ? and to a less extent the Saudi royal family and the Mubarak dynasty ? deflected popular anger over their own failures onto the United States by allowing terrorists to scapegoat the Americans.

Yet, for a quarter-century, oil, professed anti-communism and loud promises to "fight terror" earned various reprieves from the West for these dictatorships, who were deathly afraid that one day America might catch on and do something other than shoot a cruise missile at enemies while sternly lecturing "friends."

That day came after Sept. 11. To end the old pathology, we took out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, pressured the Syrians to leave Lebanon, encouraged Lebanese democracy, hectored the Egyptians about elections, told Libya's Moammar Gaddafi to come clean about his nuclear plans, and risked oil supplies by jawboning the Persian Gulf monarchies to liberalize.

The theory behind all these messy and often caricatured efforts was not the desire for endless war ? we removed by force only the two worst regimes, in Afghanistan and Iraq ? but to allow Middle Easterners a third alternative between Islamic radicalism and secular dictatorship. No wonder that wherever there are elections in the Middle East ? Afghanistan and Iraq ? legitimate governments there have the moral authority and the desire to fight Islamic terrorism.

Americans can blame one another all we want over the cost in lives and treasure in Iraq. But the irony is that not long ago everyone from Bill Clinton to George Bush, senators, CIA directors and federal prosecutors all agreed that Saddam had offered assistance to al-Qaida, the organization that murdered 3,000 Americans. That was one of the many reasons we went into Iraq, why Zarqawi and ex-Baathists side-by-side now attack American soldiers ? and why an elected Iraqi government is fighting with us.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbc...11/1110/OPINION

586853528[/snapback]

Here you go again lol. You use a site that is incredibly biased in order to push your biased view. If the facts exist, why do you present it in a way that insults and generalizes "Democrats"? I'm starting to think people like you have no wish whatsoever to give people new threads of thought and perspective, but rather simply to shove your view down people's throats, especially those who disagree with you.

Now again it's not just you, it comes from people on the opposite view as well, who also happen to have very similar characteristics to yourself.

And finally, the article you posted refers to "unconfirmed rumours" and seems to use the fact that Clinton's "Democrat" government also believed the same thing as proof of the link..

Newsflash, why does the fact that many Democrats and Republicans believed the same thing prove it? They were BOTH wrong! The thing is, Bush isn't on the left, so of course the right gets more blame.

It's tiring to even argue with people so deadset on their right/left views. It's like you live in a world of black and white and can't see anything beyond that. I'm not trying to be insulting but.. Come on for christ's sake! Your brain isn't just for knowledge, it's about open thought and enhancing yourself with the thoughts and experiences of others, including those who are different/oppose your views.

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

OMG!!!! ARE YOU KIDDING!!!???!!! CIA memo to president bush 10 days after 9/11 stating that Saddam had no links to the attacks. FBI and CIA have said this year that there is no credible evidence leading to a link between Saddam and Al Qaida. The 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion.

Who cares what previous administrations thought. We are in a war started by this one and it was the responsibility of this administration to get its facts straight before attacking. They didn't, they let their guard down and ignored what didn't support their plans. So rumble and all of those still living in the dreamworld of yesterday, wake up. Our own government has stated that the reasons for going to war were totally wrong. So instead of getting mad or attacking those that thought in the past, get mad at the government that let you down. This isn't about left or right, its about right or wrong.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

al-Qaida wants all secular governments in the Arab world replaced with theocracies (including the removal of the royal family in Saudi Arabia).

Saddam Hussein was a secular leader of a secular party.

It stands to reason that they would hate each other as much as anybody.

True, they may also have had issues with the United States' foreign policy but it would be a huge stretch of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to suggest that they would get over their obvious differences and work together.

It just doesn't stand up to logic.

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

indeed, and it has been said numerous times over and over again, saddam and osama were both of different secular beliefs and hated each other because of it.

[digipoi]

Here you go again lol.  You use a site that is incredibly biased in order to push your biased view.  If the facts exist, why do you present it in a way that insults and generalizes "Democrats"?  I'm starting to think people like you have no wish whatsoever to give people new threads of thought and perspective, but rather simply to shove your view down people's throats, especially those who disagree with you.

586853566[/snapback]

Holy crap! Are you calling my local and largest news agency for the Hawaiian islands biased against Democrats? Even with the fact we have been majorly controlled by Democrats since our acceptance as a United State. We have our first republican governor now, the last time it was over 20 years ago. Even now, she cannot do a darn thing because we are still controlled by Dems. We are a backwards state because of this, our politics are horrible. Why do you think I lean towards the right?

Biased? You people will just throw any ol label out ignoring any type of facts. The Advertiser, biased against Dems? Heh, that is some hilarious ****.

As for the article, I completely agree that there was funding that supported terror given by Saddam. Directly or indirectly, whatever the case Al Qaeda got money. The directive on what the money would be exactly used for is not clear, but that does not matter.

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

Ok well I'm going to write a hypothetical article linking my hypothetical Great Aunt Sussy to terrosim.

My Grandma gives me money my Great Aunt that I never met, cause she died, wanted me to have when I was old enough I take that money, buy an iMac at value village. I take that iMac and sell it on ebay. The dude who bought my iMac sells it to his dad, takes that money and writes a check out to best friend who he owed money. That best friend takes the money and gives it to a fake foundation supposedly helping older people. That fake foundation takes the money and invests it into a gas company which is run by saudis. One of the owners of that gas company's brother is a terrorist.

Therefore, My Great Aunt supports terrorism. Oh yea Democrats suck balls.

[....]

Here you go again lol.? You use a site that is incredibly biased in order to push your biased view.?

586853566[/snapback]

The Hololulu Advertiser?:huh:h: Try a different argument. Hawaii is hardly a haven for Republicans.

/edit....digipoi beat me to it.

[j.nudd]

You're never going to find a totally unbiased news article. Articles are written by people, and there is not a single person in this country that is not influenced about the government in some fashion.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

As for the article, I completely agree that there was funding that supported terror given by Saddam. Directly or indirectly, whatever the case Al Qaeda got money. The directive on what the money would be exactly used for is not clear, but that does not matter.

586856317[/snapback]

Well, if you get into indirect links then the United States also funded Al Qaeda.

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

If you get into indirect links, hell I think just about anyone that uses gasoline has funded Al Qaeda. Yet my house is still here, unlike some of the civilians in Iraq...

[3beanlimit]

rumple usually doesn't have much to say. It's just easier for him to find a Bush apologist on some blog somewhere.

There isn't any ties as far as the two entities being in cohorts.

I would say that the excuses machine is going to be in full swing with Scafie, and other right wing extremists money for sometime.

[raid517]

They are trying to rwrite history. That is what it amounts to. They are trying to brainwash anyone who is dumb enough to listen that it was all really a good idea after all.

Fortunately though, there are less and less people every day who still believe that.

People aren't quite as dumb, or as blind as these guys seem to think.

GJ

[digipoi]

Well, if you get into indirect links then the United States also funded Al Qaeda.

586858049[/snapback]

At one point we did, before all the suicide crap. We cut funding though.

[curme]

If this was true, right-wing pundits wouldn't be whispering it in your ear; Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld would be screaming it from the rooftops!

Wake up people and use your heads!

[digipoi]

Okay, you go first.

[b3n]

Okay, you go first.

586863833[/snapback]

lmao what an irelivant shamefull waste of html and bandwidth for neowin,

and it doesnt make any sense, way to go buddy. :pinch: :p

[raid517]

Erm... The Americans did create Al Quadia..... They did it in the 1980' by importing extremist Arabs from all over the Middle East, into Afghanistan to fight the Russians. Then they armed them, trained them and financed them (and even made some of them very rich) and they even preferred the more extremist factions - because they knew that the very extremist Muslim factions had virtually no fear of death - which the Americans believed made them better fighters. Then after the Russians left, the Americans pretty much sold them out and left them all to rot. None of the promises that were made by the Americans to the Mujahideen while the war was raging were honoured after the war ended. Which essentially left a lot of these guys (including Osama Bin Laden) very very ****ed off.

It is the Americans (or at least the American government) who are responsible for the nightmare we are all living in now.

GJ

[Matt]

Well, if you get into indirect links then the United States also funded Al Qaeda.

586858049[/snapback]

If you use the same logic, the US also pays, indirectly, druglords. We also sold a lot of F-14s to Iraq, i believe, who shortly afterward, became a terrorist harboring state. the difference being the intentions of the donation/transaction, as opposed to saddam, who gave money to osama to fund his agenda. Two nations can be enemies, but sharing a common foe adds a new perspective to who your allies and enimies are.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

If you use the same logic, the US also pays, indirectly, druglords. We also sold a lot of F-14s to Iraq, i believe, who shortly afterward, became a terrorist harboring state.  the difference being the intentions of the donation/transaction, as opposed to saddam, who gave money to osama to fund his agenda.  Two nations can be enemies, but sharing a common foe adds a new perspective to who your allies and enimies are.

586864808[/snapback]

What is your source that Saddam gave money to Osama bin Lauden to fund his agenda. This is exactly the sort of thing the Bush Administration has been looking for but have never been able to find.

My point was that that Saddam's indirect links to Osama are about as clear as the US links to Osama. You cannot use the claim that Saddam had links to Osama to justify the Iraqi invasion any more than you could use it to invade California.

[raid517]

I think the US links to Osama are very much clearer. Look up the history of Afganistan during the Russian occputaion. It was the CIA who hired Osama, trained him and provided much of his funding.

Did they know he would later plot to attack the USA? Probably not. But American history after WWII is littered with short term thinking like this.

GJ