Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida

[Universe Prince]

"Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida" is the headline for the article by Warren P. Strobel with McClatchy Newspapers.

WASHINGTON ? An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network. The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime. The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.

Whole thing at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/29959.html.

[Amianthus]

"Operational" being the key word.

There were links, many of them, but none tied directly to terrorist attacks.

[Universe Prince]

Saddam, whose regime was relentlessly secular, was wary of Islamic extremist groups such as al Qaida, although like many other Arab leaders, he gave some financial support to Palestinian groups that sponsored terrorism against Israel. [...] A September 2006 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Saddam was "distrustful of al Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qaida to provide material or operational support."

As best I can tell, there were no links of a nature that would have been sufficient to qualify even as partial justification for going to war against Iraq. I'm not arguing here there were no reasons for the war, just that this particular issue would not have been one of them.

[Christians4LessGvt]

UP just curious, would you support going to war with countries with a link to al Qaida?

[Amianthus]

As best I can tell, there were no links of a nature that would have been sufficient to qualify even as partial justification for going to war against Iraq. I'm not arguing here there were no reasons for the war, just that this particular issue would not have been one of them.

Both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden supported Ansar al Islam - an anti-Kurdish al Qaida offshoot group.

[sirs]

As best I can tell, there were no links of a nature that would have been sufficient to qualify even as partial justification for going to war against Iraq. I'm not arguing here there were no reasons for the war, just that this particular issue would not have been one of them.

Both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden supported Ansar al Islam - an anti-Kurdish al Qaida offshoot group.

Works for me.  Not to mention the plethora of indirect links

[Rich]

>>Works for me.  Not to mention the plethora of indirect links<<

Personally I think this is bunk. There have been strong links documented to Saddam and Al Qaida. Simply because Saddam's own papers don't mention Al Qaida by name doesn't negate prior investigations and the evidence they produced.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The real question is whether the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam was in any way significant enough to justify 4,000 dead American troops, 100,000 dead Iraqis, several million refugees and thousands of people maimed for life and driven insane.

That is a really hard case to make.
There were, after all, no WMD's threatening the USA as reported by Juniorbush's faulty intelligence.

[Universe Prince]

UP just curious, would you support going to war with countries with a link to al Qaida?

That would depend entirely on the nature of link.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"That would depend entirely on the nature of link"

So you supported the US invasion of Afghanistan and
continue to support the NATO operation there?

[Universe Prince]

So you supported the US invasion of Afghanistan and
continue to support the NATO operation there?

Yes.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Thanks UP
A surprise
But I like surprises

[Universe Prince]

I've never been against going after al-Qaeda. They attacked us; they should be hunted down.

[Christians4LessGvt]

ok but I just don't see a true libertarian supporting the US
being in Afghanistan for the extended period we have been there.

but I am happy to see you support the operation
i certainly do

[Universe Prince]

ok but I just don't see a true libertarian supporting the US
being in Afghanistan for the extended period we have been there.

Well, let me put it this way, I do wish we had stuck to Afghanistan and seriously focused on tracking down al-Qaeda, rather than start a second front in Iraq. If we had, I think we would likely be through in Afghanistan by now.