Senate Report Contradicts Administration Intelligence Claims
By Greg Miller
LA Times Staff Writer

5:53 PM PDT, September 8, 2006

Washington — The Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday said it had found no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaida or provided safe harbor to one of its most notorious operatives, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- conclusions contradicting claims by the Bush administration before it invaded Iraq.

In a long-awaited report, the committee determined that the former Iraqi dictator was wary of al-Qaida, repeatedly rebuffed requests from its leader, Osama bin Laden, for assistance and sought to capture al-Zarqawi when the deadly terrorist turned up in Baghdad.

The findings are the latest in a series of high-profile studies to refute some of the Bush administration's key arguments for invading Iraq, mainly that the Saddam regime possessed stockpiles of banned weapons and had cultivated ties to terrorist networks. Presenting these since-discredited allegations as fact, President Bush and other high-ranking officials argued that Saddam's government posed an intolerable risk in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The 356-page report is certain to fuel election-season debate over the administration's foreign policy as Bush is seeking to shore up support for the war in Iraq through a series of speeches that cast the conflict as central to winning the larger war on terror.

White House spokesman Tony Snow on Friday described the report as "nothing new."

"It's, again, kind of re-litigating things that happened three years ago," Snow said. "In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had, and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on."

In one of its main conclusions, the report said that "postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein 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."

The report's disclosures include a classified assessment by the CIA last year that Saddam's regime "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."

The committee said U.S. intelligence agencies "accurately characterized" bin Laden's intermittent interest in pursuing assistance from Iraq but were largely wrong about Saddam's attitudes. The dictator, according to the report, was so wary of the terrorist network that he "issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qaida."

Democrats seized on the findings to accuse the Bush administration of distorting the threat Iraq posed.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the chamber's intelligence committee, accused the White House of pursuing "a deceptive strategy of using intelligence reporting that the intelligence community had already warned was uncorroborated, unreliable, and in critical instances, fabricated."

The report is based largely on documents recovered from Iraqi facilities in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion in March 2003, as well as interrogations of Saddam and other Iraqi officials captured by coalition forces.

As a result, it represents the most thorough comparison to date of prewar suspicions with evidence subsequently collected. Much of the information was unavailable to U.S. intelligence agencies and policymakers before the war.

The report's publication was marked by political wrangling within the Republican-controlled intelligence committee, with two GOP members -- Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska -- breaking ranks to vote for conclusions drafted by Democrats.

In a statement, Snowe cited the "obligation of our government to learn from these horrific mistakes" and complained that the intelligence committee "once noted for its bipartisanship, has become marred by partisan feuding." Hagel was not available for comment.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., the committee chairman, objected to findings he said overstated the influence of the Iraqi National Congress -- an Iraqi exile group led by Ahmad Chalabi that had close ties to the Bush administration and has been accused of funneling prewar misinformation about Baghdad's weapons programs to U.S. intelligence agencies and news organizations.

The committee devoted 207 pages to an analysis of the INC, concluding that it "attempted to influence U.S. policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors."

Another section focused on the erroneous prewar estimates by the CIA and other agencies that Baghdad had stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions and was pursuing the development of nuclear arms.

But the report's most significant new information focuses on Baghdad's alleged ties to al-Qaida.

Vice President Dick Cheney and other senior administration officials persistently have touted intelligence reports suggesting a relationship between Saddam and bin Laden. But the Senate report contradicts many of those assertions.

The report affirms, for instance, that al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad for about seven months in 2002. But Hussein was initially unaware of his presence in the country and later ordered his intelligence services to capture al-Zarqawi, according to the report.

The attempt was unsuccessful, and al-Zarqawi escaped to Iran. He also hid in areas of northern Iraq beyond Saddam's reach. After Saddam was overthrown, al-Zarqawi led the deadly insurgency against U.S. forces before he was killed by a U.S. air strike in June.

The committee's report also dismisses a claim repeatedly cited by Cheney that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta in Prague, Czech Republic, in April 2001. That claim has bolstered public perceptions that Iraq was linked to the Sept. 11 attacks.

But postwar evidence indicates no such meeting occurred, the committee found, citing Atta's travel and cell-phone records obtained by the FBI, as well as information from the Iraqi agent alleged to have attended the meeting.

The report casts similar doubt on assertions that Iraq had provided chemical and biological weapons training to al-Qaida operatives or allowed terrorist organizations to practice for attacks on aircraft at a facility south of Baghdad known as Salman Pak.

Despite reports of repeated contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida, the committee said U.S. intelligence has been able to assemble evidence of only one meeting -- a 1995 encounter in Sudan between bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officer Faruz Hijazi.

In postwar debriefings, Hijazi said Saddam had instructed him to "only listen" and not negotiate or offer support to bin Laden. He said bin Laden "requested an office in Iraq, military training for his followers, Chinese sea mines and the broadcast of speeches from an anti-Saudi cleric."

Hijazi said he "immediately rejected" virtually all of the requests, offering only to consider the one on broadcasting anti-Saudi speeches.

Overall, the document portrays Hussein and his underlings as alarmed by U.S. accusations linking him to al-Qaida. At one point, the report said, Saddam was warned by the director of Iraq's intelligence service "that U.S. intelligence was attempting to fabricate connections between the (Iraqi intelligence services) and al-Qaida" to justify an invasion.

The Senate report also offers new theories as to why Saddam's regime was unable to convince U.N. inspectors before the U.S. invasion that it no longer had stocks of illegal weapons.

A recent CIA analysis concluded that Saddam was stunned by the aggressiveness of weapons inspections after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and he ordered the covert destruction of undeclared weapons and documents. In the process, Saddam destroyed the records U.N. inspectors sought a decade later when putting pressure on Iraq to account for its illicit weapons.

"The result was that Iraq was unable to provide proof when it tried at a later time to establish compliance," the report said, citing the CIA study.

---

Further proof of our priorities.

And I agree with your sarcasm...



Apparently this old/tired "news" is new again, and some have wasted the last few years of their lives trying to "prove" this -- but to what end? NO SHIT! :rolleyes:

Why can't these "brainiacs" come up with a solution, rather than some cause/blame, to the problem??

Typical.

While the Dems are looking to be sure there are no WMD's to be found in Iraq just to embarrass our president, at least AMERICA -- under Bush's leadership -- is 1) liberating a country from its dictatorship, and, 2) doing all it can to curtail further terrorist strikes against us.

On which side do you feal safer?

As a RECENTLY FORMER Republican, I feel safer in Bush's hands. I'm no whiner and moaner, which is how I perceive the "other side". I don't look for HOW THE OTHER SIDE FUCKED UP rather than HOW TO IMPROVE THINGS. That's just horseshit. And whoever buys into that is just a dumbass, IMHO.

You either make things better, or you don't. But to resort to "he couldn't make things better" doesn't mean that YOU did or can. Please. :rolleyes:

So just out of curiosity since you placed emphasis on RECENTLY FORMER (and if you don't mind sharing)...what are you now?

Apple

hey jGeoff, if you're no longer a partisan warrior, are you still carrying the banters for the ideology?

This report means nothing. Bush Cheney and Rummy will continue to lie and allow Hallibirton to steal money, and the winghole sheep will believe whatever lies they are told.

I consider the "Republican/Democrat" labels as one thing only: How you tend to vote.

Ideology, however, isn't so clear cut. I've always considered myself moderate altho until just the past election I've always voted Republican. Last election I "threw my vote away" and voted for a 3rd Party. :p

None of this should matter, tho. Neither side is 100% right. Hell, half the time both sides are wrong! It's more of a lesser-of-two-evils thing for me at this point.

Boy, are you brainwashed...talk about 'winghole sheep'!!



Fact is, Haliburton had a far closer relationship with the Clinton Administration than it does with Bush. The fact that Cheney used to work for them plays no role in the current presidency.

Do your homework, dontom, if you want to be taken even close to seriously.

Apple

What ever happened to the DonT that used to show some degree of intellect in his discussions and posts?


Don Cardi

Does that mean Nader, or are there other "3d Parties" in the US?

"Much of the information was unavailable BEFORE the war."

And included in the Senate intelligence report was this paragraph:

"Indeed, the nature of the question of whether or to what extent Iraq was linked to terrorist organizations, including al-Qa'ida, does NOT lend itself to an on-the-ground fact finding investigation as easily as the WMD case. One is NOT able to search Iraq for the presence of links to al-Qa'ida as one can search for the presence of WMD and the industrial facilities capable of producing WMD."


So basically, I interpret that as meaning that the Senate Intelligence Committe investigation of Iraq having links to Al Qaeda and terrorism was not an accurate investigation because there was no hard physical evidence that could be investigated to make this committee come to a conclusion one way or another.

"The committee did, however, examine documents uncovered in Iraq and new intelligence collected, including Intelligence Community debriefs of detained Iraqis and al-Qi-ada members as a basis of postwar with which to judge the Intelligence Community's prewar assesments about Iraq's links to terrorism."


The only solid evidence that they had to go off of in this investigation regarding if Iraq, Al-Qaeda and Saddam had any ties was on the word of detained terrorists and on the word of Saddam himself.

Gee, this kind of information coming from a terrorist and dicatator makes me feel a whole lot better because we know what kind of standup people Saddam and Al Qaeda terrorists really are. :rolleyes:

Don Cardi

I consider the "Republican/Democrat" labels as one thing only: How you tend to vote.

Ideology, however, isn't so clear cut. I've always considered myself moderate altho until just the past election I've always voted Republican. Last election I "threw my vote away" and voted for a 3rd Party. :p

None of this should matter, tho. Neither side is 100% right. Hell, half the time both sides are wrong! It's more of a lesser-of-two-evils thing for me at this point. [/b][/quote]So true!

Here's an example:

What ever happened to the DonT that used to show some degree of intellect in his discussions and posts?


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]Did that actually exist?

I think it was kind of like a Bigfoot sighting...I thought I caught a glimpse of something, but in reality, it never existed.

Much like any combinations of the words "Dontomasso" and "intellect."

Cheers,
Double-J

What ever happened to the DonT that used to show some degree of intellect in his discussions and posts?


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]Did that actually exist?

I think it was kind of like a Bigfoot sighting...I thought I caught a glimpse of something, but in reality, it never existed.

Much like any combinations of the words "Dontomasso" and "intellect."

Cheers,
Double-J [/b][/quote]Coming from you two I'll take your coments as a compliment. I see that piece of shit Bush used his 9/11 evening address to argue for the failed Iraq war. What a frickin putz. The only thing worse than Bush are the people who follow him.

Actually DonT, I did give you a complment. I specifically stated that you normaly insert some intellect into your posts. Unfortuntley with your very last post you've proved me wrong.

Case in point of how your debates and comments have deteriorated as of late:

It's a shame because there really was a time that I enjoyed debating here with you.

See you over in the GF Trilogy thread.


Don Cardi

DC, you can say what you want but until you admit Bush's Iraq policy and his overall handling of things has been a disaster, you are blind.

WILL YOU PEOPLE PLEASE STOP INSULTING EACH OTHER? Insult the president all you want, make fun of liberals all you want, but PLEASE STOP insulting EACH OTHER!

You take all the fun out of it. :p

Besides, after all, one can only tolerate such subtle insults for so long without responding appropriately. After all, one mass generalization deserves another, no?

I agree, I too miss the days when Dontomasso left for months and never posted. It was the best, most intelligent debates ever! :p

[/b][/quote]JJ, you've obviously misconstrued, or should I say 'purposely' misconstrued what I posted to Don T. So please don't misrepresent what I replied to DonT to support your insults towards him.

There really was a time that Don T would give an intelligent and respectful debate by providing some insight and facts in his posts. And I used to enjoy those posts of his.

So what you are saying is that until I admit to what YOUR opinion is, I am just a blind person.

I've posted many times in the past, especially over the last month or so, how I don't agree with the startegies used in this war. Now if you had taken the time to read those posts, and not have been so 'blind' yourself , perhaps you would understand what my opinions and views are in regards to the way that this war is being handled, and then there would be no reason for you to call me blind because you would have seen that I happen to agree with some of your assertions of how this war is being handled.

Just because I may agree that we needed to go to war does not neccesarily mean that I agree with the strategies that are being used to fight this war.

Case in point......


http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/military-declined-to-bomb-group-of/20060913233809990008?ncid=NW S00010000000001


..... which in my opinion was a ridiculous and frankly a dangerous decision made by those in charge of handling this war.

Now all Bin Laden has to do is make camp underneath a cemetary. This way, his knowing that our military leaders have and will adhere, at least in this case, to these ridiculous rules of engagement , (which by the way our enemies do not adhere to) Bin Laden knows that we'll never catch him as long as he hides under a cemetary!


Don Cardi

don t,

im sure there are lots of ppl who hold multi doctorate degrees in foreign policy with multi doctorates in military strategy who would say ur not worthy of their time nor their breath.

don t,

im sure there are lots of ppl who hold multi doctorate degrees in foreign policy with multi doctorates in military strategy who would say ur not worthy of their time nor their breath. [/b][/quote]Or just regular folks with good old-fashioned common sense. :p

don t,

im sure there are lots of ppl who hold multi doctorate degrees in foreign policy with multi doctorates in military strategy who would say ur not worthy of their time nor their breath. [/QB][/quote]Is this supposed to be in English, or is it Bush-ese? And BTW name two such people with "multi doctorates" as you put it.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. This discussion has gone so downhill, it's unbelievable. DC, you have remained a gentleman and tried to express your views in an intelligent and thought-provoking manner. The rest? Shame on you.

There is no reason to point fingers or lay blame, be it on the government or at one another. We ARE in Iraq, we ARE at war, we have alienated many other nations. Now, what are we going to do about it? I would love to see our forces out of there. Let them all go kill each other, I sometimes think. But after going this far down the road, is it really practical to do that?

I wish I had all the answers. And whoever "wins" the next presidential election has all my sympathy, because I believe they will be in an untenable position.

How did things get so far? All of you know me in here. When did I ever refuse an honest disagreement? Except for this Iraq thing, which will do all of us harm. I believed that then and I believe that now. But, as a reasonable man, I am willing to listen to reason. Sicilian Babe you have made your point. Don C you have made it clear you believe the goals in Iraq are worthy but the tactics may be wrong. As for the rest, I am unsure of what your positions are. So therein lies the peace.

I understand where you're coming from, SB, but I believe we have all the reason in the world to place the blame on the federal government (not each other, I didn't start the war nor did any of my colleagues). We, as American taxpayers, have the right to question executive authority without being deemed "unpatriotic". Just because Bush was elected president, doesn't mean I have to kiss his ass or just accept his actions without raising a fit every time he does something foolish (that's many fits). We, the American people, did him a favor by electing him president, thus we, the American people, have the right to call a foul.

Anymore, it seems when you try this, you are labeled "unpatriotic" or "soft on terror". The White House condones this categorization and of course they do, why shouldn't they? It's playing into their hand nicely. As long as the American public corresponds to their masquerade, no progress will be made in the development of free speech. Bush's strategy for support in getting freedom in the middle east involves taking away the freedom of this country. The freedom-of course-being our first amendment. You must ask questions in order to confirm the current method is effective. Saying an exit strategy would be a "cut and run" strategy only causing chaos in the middle east. It seems to me, there is chaos in the middle east with our brave soldiers there (you've gotta be brave to be in the middle of that shit).

I can't help but notice the growing amount of terror coming out of Washington. Every time Bush defends an action of his, it's because of "terror", he's doing it to protect me and my family. Maybe if he uses enough of his scare tactics, the sheep that follow him will want to stay closer. He's warrant-lessly tapping my phones to "protect me", but for some reason, having the government listen to my phone lines frightens me more than not. Not only does it disable my civil rights, it's falsely incriminating for fradulent crimes I may admit to.

I just didn't think our founding fathers had in mind voiding out the US Constitution during a war time. Our president is doing so in more ways than one.

If Bush is over there "defending our freedom", than how come we still had it when we weren't there? Despite Clinton's imperfections, the loss of freedom wasn't an issue when he was in office (maybe the loss of virginity, but not the loss of freedom). Bush warns us of the dangers, but he's responsible for condemning our freedom, because of the way his political machine works. For now on, I'm going to consider this movement as "offending freedom" (take that how ever you'd like). The loose tie Bush had between Saddam and Al Queda has now been broken by another branch of government, making our move for freedom an offensive move and in no way avenging 9/11.

With troops over there 'offending our freedom', who's going to defend our freedom here at home? With such congressional violations, we know that the Bush administration won't.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sicilian Babe:
[QB] Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Djeesh, I only asked a question you know.

DT - you have shown yourself to be a true man, and one with grace and style.

Tony - I agree with your sentiments. We as Americans have every right to question the actions of our leaders. Not only is it our right, it is our obligation.

As many here know, I am no huge Bush fan. I don't agree with what he's done or many of the actions he's taken. I question his reasoning all the time. And I disagree with this war in Iraq, and feel that he has put our troops in harms way to settle what his father didn't or couldn't. However, this man went to war with a 90% approval rating, so at SOME point the nation agreed with him.

My point was that calling one another names is rather pointless and silly. We're all in this together as AMERICANS and we owe it to our troops to support them and do our best to come up with a way to bring them home. Forget the name calling, and come up with an exit strategy. Be a part of the solution.

What a shame he squandered it. However the underpininings of the 90% approval rating came from the national unity we all had ater 9/11, and it is not incontrovertable that he went into Iraq under false pretenses. The democrats in the congress must share the blame for all this because none of them bothered to read the classified information made available to them, and they acted out of political expediency and fear, which they should not have done.

Now we see the beginnings of the restoration of checks and balances with McCain, Graham and others breaking ranks with the republicans over Bush's wish to tear up the Geneva Conventions, something which was preceded by the Supreme court's courageous decision telling Bush he could not have the kangaroo courts he wanted.