Even the libs now admit AQ was in Iraq pre-war...

[Judge]

For all those who've so long argued they weren't - the evidence is now so overwhelming even the libs on the Senate Intelligence committee had to admit it. From Jocelyn:

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report includes this conclusion at the end of a terse section on the Bush administration's claims about Saddam's prewar terror ties:

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.

Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi's presence in the country.

Regarding postwar information collected by the U.S. intelligence community, the report reads:

Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq.

These conclusions should not be surprising. In his book At the Center of the Storm, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet provided a number of details concerning the safe haven al Qaeda members received in Saddam's Iraq. For example, Tenet wrote that two of Ayman al-Zawahiri's top operatives, Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, received safe haven in Baghdad. Tenet says that there was "concern that these two might be planning operations outside Iraq."

The first report on the uses of prewar intelligence published by the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 2004 also found that Zarqawi freely roamed around Iraq and Saddam's goons must have been aware of his presence. The authors of the Butler Report, the British government's investigation into prewar intelligence, found roughly the same. Even other al Qaeda members have, on occasion, been open about the relationship between Zarqawi, other al Qaeda operatives, and Saddam's regime in prewar Iraq.


BAM!

[Powerman]

Bummer. I thought you were going to show an operational cooperation between Saddam and OSB and AQ as was suggested for a reason to invade.

The last major report put out on this subject acknowledged the fact that there were contacts in the past, but that Saddam had no working relationship with AQ. Again, as was suggested as a reason for invasion. Bush himself has backpedaled on that intel and admits Saddam had no working relationship with AQ.

Come back when you have something new, or at least if it old, make it interesting.

[KEVWYO]

What was the difference between Zarqawi/Iraq pre-invasion and post? Saddam. Zarqawi and friends may have been tolerated but they also knew Saddam would've whacked them all had they got out of line. So if you want to say AQ/Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to April '03 ... OK .... whatever ...but the question is: was AQ/Zarqawi a functioning terror group within Iraq? No.

[Frenchy]

I've also heard that we had Arabs here, pre-9:11...

[ZenMachine]

Judge, you might want to watch this. This is the former head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA and also head of the renditions program. In the middle somewhere he states that Bush had a plethora of chances to kill or capture Zarqawi in the year before we invaded Iraq. If he was such a threat and the option was there why didn't he pull the trigger?

YouTube - Conversations With History - Michael Scheuer

[Judge]

Actually if you understand that LIBS wrote the report, it does clearly indicate that, however Tenent alludes to it even further in his book: "Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet provided a number of details concerning the safe haven al Qaeda members received in Saddam's Iraq. For example, Tenet wrote that two of Ayman al-Zawahiri's top operatives, Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, received safe haven in Baghdad. Tenet says that there was "concern that these two might be planning operations outside Iraq.""

The first step is to get the libs to admit that AQ was in Iraq - which they denied for years (don't you remember all the reasons listed, maybe by you even, about how the SH would never tolerate, much less assist the AQ???), the next step is to get them to admit why they were in iraq. With the increasing info coming out, history will validate SH being one of the key supporters of terrorism.

Originally Posted by Powerman

Bummer. I thought you were going to show an operational cooperation between Saddam and OSB and AQ as was suggested for a reason to invade.

The last major report put out on this subject acknowledged the fact that there were contacts in the past, but that Saddam had no working relationship with AQ. Again, as was suggested as a reason for invasion. Bush himself has backpedaled on that intel and admits Saddam had no working relationship with AQ.

Come back when you have something new, or at least if it old, make it interesting.

[Powerman]

Ya, I guess it is hard for the libs to admit they were wrong. Never figured them and Bush have so much in common.

[Judge]

Why?? This guy has a history of inconsistent statements and tacit support for AQ's strike - rationalizing it as an acceptable response to US 'atrocities'.

It's interesting, in his first book he documents a number of areas in which Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cooperated, but they were deleted in later editions. Wonder why???

Oh, here's his advice on Iraq: "I think Iraq is finished. We'll just find a way to get out. I frankly don’t think we ever intended to win there. "

On propagandizing for AQ: "he Afghan jihad confronted the theoreticians of democratic Islam with a hard reality. The Red Army was not defeated by a democratic revolution, but by an Islamist revolution grounded, guided, and steeled by God's words as found in the Koran and explained by the Prophet. Driven by their faith, the mujhadein [sic] uses bullets, not votes, to win one for Allah, and by so doing revalidated jihad as Islam's normative response to attack" Bin Laden could have written that...

He's such an expert, when asked in 2004 what were the connections between SH and AQ he replied: "Nothing"

On Legitimizing AQ's struggle: "I think that, you know, we just encountered – America encountered – a brilliant man, and in terms of being a noble cause, it wasn't that many centuries ago that killing in the name of God, or waging war in the name of God, was a major thing in Christianity."

On his expertise on AQ: "I think the 9/11 Commission report, for example, is wrong. The 9/11 Commission report identifies bin Laden and his followers as takfiris, who kill Muslims if they don‘t agree with them. They‘re not takfiris. They‘re just very devout, severe Salafists and Wahhabis." Uh, I think the Iraqis would differ with that.


I zipped thru the tape, was too bored to listen to the whole hour... there was no mention that Bush coulda easily killed Zarqawi. In addition, Zarqawi was not on our 'radar' as AQ until his public assumption of the terrorist group lead in Iraq, so that's again disingenuous. However, in his writings there is no mention of it, only of Clinton's/Clarke's failure to kill Bin Laden.

Thanks for playing.

Originally Posted by ZenMachine

Judge, you might want to watch this. This is the former head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA and also head of the renditions program. In the middle somewhere he states that Bush had a plethora of chances to kill or capture Zarqawi in the year before we invaded Iraq. If he was such a threat and the option was there why didn't he pull the trigger?

YouTube - Conversations With History - Michael Scheuer

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by Judge

Actually if you understand that LIBS wrote the report, it does clearly indicate that, however Tenent alludes to it even further in his book: "Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet provided a number of details concerning the safe haven al Qaeda members received in Saddam's Iraq. For example, Tenet wrote that two of Ayman al-Zawahiri's top operatives, Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, received safe haven in Baghdad. Tenet says that there was "concern that these two might be planning operations outside Iraq.""

The first step is to get the libs to admit that AQ was in Iraq - which they denied for years (don't you remember all the reasons listed, maybe by you even, about how the SH would never tolerate, much less assist the AQ???), the next step is to get them to admit why they were in iraq. With the increasing info coming out, history will validate SH being one of the key supporters of terrorism.

They were AQ. They were always planning something. Show me where SH assisted them in that planning. Show me where AQ was in Iraq for help from SH. You say that Saddam tolerated their presence. So what? Show me where Saddam welcomed them with open arms. That was the argument put forward pre-invasion.

[ZenMachine]

Originally Posted by Judge

I zipped thru the tape, was too bored to listen to the whole hour... there was no mention that Bush coulda easily killed Zarqawi. In addition, Zarqawi was not on our 'radar' as AQ until his public assumption of the terrorist group lead in Iraq, so that's again disingenuous. However, in his writings there is no mention of it, only of Clinton's/Clarke's failure to kill Bin Laden.

Thanks for playing.

Actually it is mentioned, and how would you know if you didn't listen to the whole interview??? Yes Clinton had opportunities to kill bin Laden, is anyone arguing that he didn't? Bush had opportunities to kill Zarqawi as well, as evidenced by this interview.

Also, basing your arguments on Tenent's writing is pretty weak considerig he was a part of the process to cherry pick intelligence for the Bush admin. and sell the war in Iraq. So does he have an interest in misrepresenting the facts to make himself seem blameless? Absolutely. Not exactly a excellent source.