The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: dutch508 on March 14, 2008, 08:49:30 AM
-
From Powerline blog;
by Scott Johnson
March13, 2008
The connection, take 54
<excerpt>
The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes is the man who wrote the book on The Connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. He also wrote the Standard article on "The connection."
The Bush administration long ago gave up trying to tell the truth about the issue, as it has on so many others where it has been beaten into submission by the elite media. And so when the Pentagon recently released its 59-page report confirming Hayes's reportage, the media have been left free to misrepresent it with impunity, as McClatchy's Warren Strobel does here, as the New York Times blog does here, and as the ABC blog does here.
Go to Powerline article for links; http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/03/020031.php
Steve has now obtained and reviewed the report in its entirety. In a post previewing his article in the forthcoming issue of the Standard, Steve writes:
A new Pentagon report on Iraq and Terrorism has the news media buzzing. An item on the New York Times blog snarks, "Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link." The ABC News story that previews the full report concludes, "Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda."
How, then, to explain this sentence about Iraq and al Qaeda from the report's abstract: "At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust"? And how to explain the "considerable overlap" between their activities which led not only to the appearances of ties but to a "de facto link between the organizations"? (See the entire abstract below.)
And what about this revelation from page 34? "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision." (The example given in the report is the Army of Muhammad in Bahrain, a group the Iraqi Intelligence Service describes as "under the wings of bin Laden.")
And there is this line from page 42: "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."
Really? Saddam Hussein "supported" a group that merged with al Qaeda in the late 1990s, run by al Qaeda's #2, and the New York Times thinks this is not a link between Iraq and al Qaeda? How does that work?
Anyone interested in the "strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism" -- that language comes from this report, too -- should read the entire thing for themselves, here.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf
Steve quotes the report's abstract:
Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.
<snip>
I love the way Ace puts it at his Ace of Spades blog;
Shocker: Despite Media's Insistence to the Contrary, New Pentagon Report Does Indeed Find Links Between Saddam and Al Qaeda—Ace
Ace of Spades March 14, 2008
<snip>
I am tired of the Clintonian claims about "no direct operational connection," which sounds an awful lot like "no sexual relations." Well, what does "sexual relations" mean? And what does "direct, operational link" mean? The very language itself screams there was in fact a link by denying only a specific, and quite unifying link and, by implication, allowing for links short of the "direct, operational" variety.
Okay, that kind of link didn't exist -- Al Qaeda and Saddam maintained separate command and control and did not in fact unify their separate terrorist organizations. Did they help each other achieve their joint goals, on the other hand?
The answer appears to be "yes," as it has always appeared.
And yet the media continues blaring "no direct operational link" without pausing to note that gee, there sure are some indirect, non-"operational" links.
<snip>
http://ace.mu.nu/
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
yeah
I just posted the Stephen Hayes blog in the Ammo forum with a link to the report itself.
Bush takes aout a regime that was aiding the group that murdered 3,000 Americans in their own cities and yet the press--comfortable in its own security behind the US military--goes on to impugn that very mission.
It's astounding how much the MSM will lie about something actually beneficial to their own selves.
-
Just like now a study that shows that most teenagers only consider intercourse sex.....................gee I wonder why that is :whatever: