Timesobserver

Anya, I have written about this a few times elsewhere. We simply didn't know if Saddam had those WMD or not. He broke resolutions and lied to U.N. weapons inspectors. We also have a few people, including a former Saddam air force general, saying that Saddam shipped them to Syria.

And as it turns out, it wasn't propaganda, but the truth that Saddam had some very strong links with al-Qaeda. They worked together and Saddam allowed them to use Iraq as a training area. In fact, we discovered that Iraq had a huge terrorist black market going on under Saddam.

I'm not saying we should have gone in guns blasting, but we needed to find out what was happening in Iraq once and for all.

Because of this topic created by NoMoreRepsDems, I wrote an editorial about the propaganda used by the Bush Administration. Sadly, this isn't the first administration or world government, to use propaganda to sell the public a war. However, it shouldn't be an accepted practice by the American people.

We need truth and accountability from our elected leaders.

__________________
Like what I have to say? Go to: The Times Observer

anya

Hmn, well I never believed the propaganda that Iraq was training or had anything to do with Al Qaeda training camps. Bin Laden went in the huff because he was not allowed to be the leader of the first war into Iraq. He hated Saddam and given that Saddam would have known he wanted to get rid of his regime, I find it highly suspect that he was allowing any of Bin Laden's ilk to train regardless of any papers that were found.

All I have heard since the war here in the UK was that intelligence was that the only way Al Qaeda would start operating in Iraq was if the US invaded it. This has not changed to my knowledge.

As regards weapons of mass destruction which could reach our shores in 15 mins, this was never accepted by the press or myself here before the war, simply because of the refusal to give any kind of evidence which in any way was accountable.

There has already been a lot of trouble here about this after the war about allegations by the BBC's Andre Gilligan, that he was told by David Kelly that the situation about Iraq's weapons was 'sexed up' before the war.

David Kelly committed suicide over this. There was then an enquiry into this as below.

“Lord Butler finds that more weight was placed on the intelligence than it could bear; that the Joint Intelligence Committee’s neutrality and objectivity were strained by the dossier process: and that the Joint Intelligence Committee chairman must be a person beyond influence. He finds that ministers misrepresented the quality, quantity and certainty of intelligence judgements to Parliament and the public.”

“He finds that crucial caveats were dropped and he finds that the 45-minutes claim, the core of the dispute between the BBC and the government, should never have been in the form it took, leading to ‘suspicions that it had been included because of its eye-catching character’.”

Dyke told “Channel Four News”: “If you go back to the very beginning, Dr Kelly told Andrew Gilligan the document had been ‘sexed up' and one of the examples of it having been ‘sexed up’, the most significant example, was the 45-minute claim.

"Here, we are told today ... that the 45-minute claim should not have been in the document without a set of caveats, caveats that were there in early drafts and disappeared. The question is who took out the caveats? And it appears Butler doesn’t tell us and nobody is owning up. The BBC was perfectly right to report Dr Kelly’s allegations, Dr Kelly’s concern.

Full report BBC vindicated on charge that government "sexed-up" Iraq dossier

The hurry for the war was created by this 45 minuted ability Saddam was supposed to be on the brink of having. Regarding whether he had any weapons that was always guesswork.

So I do not buy that either of these issues were credible reasons for us going to war and were wrong propaganda.

Timesobserver

Anya, in the Iraq study report that made headlines that said that there was no smoking gun between Saddam and al-Qaeda, it did state that Saddam allowed training camps and worked with al-Qaeda. If you click here, it will show some parts of the report that mentioned the connection. You'll also find a hyperlink to the actual report.


To be honest, I've never heard of bin Laden wanting to be the leader of the first Iraq war. I would imagine that President Bush would have stated this for the build up of this Iraq war. I would love to see a link to this if you have it. It sounds interesting.

To be honest, I wasn't so sure about the 45-minute missile attack either. However, we have to remember that besides the American government, we had other governments and the U.N. that had the same information: That Saddam broke resolutions, he had weapons and we had no idea what he really had.

After 9/11, America and the world simply couldn't sit around waiting for another attack. We had to find out what these people were planning and who might give them aid and support.

Going into Iraq to find out the truth was a great move. However, I personally believe military use shouldn't have been considered until at least a year after the U.N. inspectors had enough time to do a proper search.

__________________
Like what I have to say? Go to: The Times Observer

anya

Yes, well there are always going to be people trying to prove this. It appears that he did indeed have some terrorist groups in his country but not the people generally considered to be Al Qaeda. My belief is that the term Al Qaeda was used to pull at the strings of Americans who were still feeling 9/11.

All I have ever heard here is that before the war our intelligence said that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq and the most likely way to get it there was for the US to invade Iraq. Here is a link to 5th Feb 2003 when the BBC claim a leaked report claims there is no link beween Iraq and Al Qaeda
BBC NEWS | UK | Leaked report rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda link

and here is the most recent I could find on the matter. I think it concerns the report people were talking about in the link you gave me.

'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 issue of al Qaida in Iraq already has played a role in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Sen. John McCain , the presumptive GOP nominee, mocked Sen. Barack Obama , D-Ill, recently for saying that he'd keep some U.S. troops in Iraq if al Qaida established a base there.
"I have some news. Al Qaida is in Iraq ," McCain told supporters. Obama retorted that, "There was no such thing as al Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade." (In fact, al Qaida in Iraq didn't emerge until 2004, a year after the invasion.)'


The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of Bush's decision to invade Iraq to advance their own familiar arguments.
While the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links, they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.
However, the U.S. intelligence official, who's read the full report, played down the prospect of any major new revelations, saying, "I don't think there's any surprises there."
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 .
He wanted to be in charge of getting Iraq out of Kuwait. He believed that this was a job for Muslims to do.
Not if his interest was in stirring the feelings of people in the US into believing that the people responsible for 9/11 were in Iraq working with Saddam

'August 2, 1990-March 1991: Bin Laden and Saudi Government Clash Over First Gulf War

After Iraq invades Kuwait (see November 8, 1990), bin Laden, newly returned to Saudi Arabia, offers the Saudi government the use of his thousands of veteran fighters from the Afghan war to defend the country in case Iraq attacks it. The Saudi government turns him down, allowing 300,000 US soldiers on Saudi soil instead. Bin Laden is incensed, and immediately goes from ally to enemy of the Saudis. [Coll, 2004, pp. 221-24, 270-71] After a slow buildup, the US invades Iraq in March 1991 and reestablishes Kuwait. [Posner, 2003, pp. 40-41] Bin Laden soon leaves Saudi Arabia and soon forms al-Qaeda ((see Summer 1991)). '
Entity Tags: Osama bin Laden
Context of 'Early 1980 and After: Bin Laden Serves as Middleman between Saudi Intelligence and Afghan Warlords'


Who else said this was so? I don't remember the UN saying it believed it to be true. If my memory serves me correct they wanted more time so that people would have a chance to find out the truth.

The 2003 Iraq war did not have UN backing.

anya

For some reason the fact that I have replied is not showing Timesobserver. This is just so that you know I have replied!!

discoman

There were Al quida Terrorists training camps in Iraq.

Timesobserver

Actually, Anya, al-Qaeda was training in Iraq. The report that I did direct to you, (The Iraqi Perspectives Project Primary Source Materials for Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents) it did state:

“At times, these organizations (Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network) would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust.”

And it also said: “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."

Now, what's really interesting is that Ramzi Hashem Abed, an al-Qaeda terrorist, said during an investigation that he and other terrorists trained in Falluja.

According to Globalsecurity.org, Saddam did refuse to declare all of the removal of the WMD programs to the U.N. This, and other information, were given to the U.S.

Since al-Qaeda pushed us into a world of terrorist threats, I think we had every to find out what Saddam had or didn't have once and for all. It would have been foolish to hope that he didn't have any of these weapons or supporting terrorists.

P.S. Anya, don't worry about the delay in replying. I think there was a problem with this forum, because for an hour it wouldn't let me reply to you either!

__________________
Like what I have to say? Go to: The Times Observer

Timesobserver

Anya, I meant to tell you that I thought the article on bin Laden wanting to lead the war during the first Iraq one was really interesting. I had forgotten about that. I saved the link. Thanks!

__________________
Like what I have to say? Go to: The Times Observer

anya

Yes, I did go and I've been back to have another look. Is that you site?

I forgot to give you the link for what I wrote it is
Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam, al Qaida - Yahoo! News dated 2 days after your article.

It is 'The new study, entitled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents", was essentially completed last year and has been undergoing what one U.S. intelligence official described as a "painful" declassification review."

and it seems to disagree with the study you are talking about. I am still wondering if they are the same one...like I said it says

'The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of Bush's decision to invade Iraq to advance their own familiar arguments.'

Obviously I do not have the time, nor indeed the interest to read the 506 page document, so I am left still unconvinced.

I know Saddam always said he was not involved with Al Qaeda and given as I said he was hated by Bin Laden it still strikes me as somewhat strange if he was.




These dates seem to be in 2005. I have no argument that Al Qaeda were alive and working in Iraq in 2005. This is a pretty bazzare interview to me and though I have read it at least 5 times, I missed the training in Falluja every time, though I saw Falluja mentioned.
Saddam was being his usual self and refusing to allow weapons inspectors in, though if my memory serves me correct he had started to allow them in. Again if my memory serves me correct the reason the US was not prepared to wait for this to be finished had apparently something to do with the time of year and the weather ...doubtless because it was so important to get in as there were wmd's ready to reach Europe at least in 45 mins.



How many people need to die for 9/11? Why is it that each time some are killed more emerge. Surely a better way to sort out the problem would be to look at the cause.

Were we given false information to go to war with Iraq. In my opinion very definitely yes. wmd's. 45 mins weapons, and there is still now no proof that Saddam was working with Al Qaeda. If there is not now, how could ther have been then.

If we had bombed Ireland whenever they bombed us, we would never have solved the problems in Ireland and we would still be being bombed and there would be no Norther Ireland.

Timesobserver

Yes, Anya, that is my blog that I directed you too. I thought it would be easier if you read the quotes from the report then actually reading 500 of it. And thanks for stopping by. I hope to see you again on there.

Anyway, even though Saddam wasn’t crazy with bin Laden, it doesn’t mean their groups didn’t work together. Sure, as I wrote in my editorial that you saw, no one is saying that the two played poker every Tuesday night, but they had common goals and worked together. After all, politics make strange bed fellows.

Regarding Ramzi Hashem Abed and al-Qaeda in Iraq during the Saddam days, it reads:

Abed: Our Ansar Al-Islam military camps were in Halabja.
Investigator: This was in the days of the previous regime?
Abed: Yes.
Investigator: And now?
Abed: Now, there is nothing. They were all scattered. The training area was in Falluja.

About Saddam allowing the U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq, you are right, but even Hans Blix said that Saddam and his leaders were giving the inspectors the run around and refused to show them certain areas.

I do agree with you that the inspectors should have had more time. Hopefully, I must disagree with you on two points: I don’t believe we were lied to about Iraq’s WMD or its connections with al-Qaeda or other terror networks.

Is there a better solution than fighting terrorists and foiling their plans? I would like to hear it. However, the mentality of the enemy is very different from just about any America has ever encountered before. Our enemies seem to have the mentality that dates back a couple hundred years ago. They have said either we follow their version of the Koran or die by their sword.

When our enemies don’t want peace, but pieces of Americans scattered in the streets, flashing a peace sign and telling them to respect diversity isn’t going to stop them. I’m all for other ways of finding peace with them, but that doesn’t mean we should foolishly stop going after our enemies and preventing their attacks on innocent people.

__________________
Like what I have to say? Go to: The Times Observer