Oh, by the way, remember all those claims about Saddam and al-Qaeda being linked? Absolutely false.
The disclosure undercuts continuing claims by the Bush administration that such ties existed, and that they provided evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Republican-controlled committee also sharply criticized the administration for its reliance on the Iraqi National Congress during the run-up to the war in Iraq.
The Republicans are all saying "old news, old news," of course. But two weeks ago Bush made the claim that Saddam and Zarqawi were linked.
As recently as two weeks ago, President Bush said at a news conference that Mr. Hussein "had relations with Zarqawi." But a C.I.A. report completed in October 2005 concluded instead that Sadddam Hussein’s regime "did not have a relationship, harbor, or even turn a blind eye toward Mr. Zarqawi and his associates," according to the new Senate findings.
Oh what the hell. Lying is only a problem if you don't get away with it. That appears to be the Bush modus operandi. It sure might have been useful to have these before the 2004 elections, though, which is undoubtedly why Chairman Pat Roberts delayed them.
Here's a link to the first report (pdf) about those non-existent links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Here's a link to the one which reports (pdf) on the misuse of information received from Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.
Posted by Linkmeister at September 8, 2006 03:52 PM | TrackBackAbsolutely false?
Not so fast . . .
The Senate report on Iraq and al Qaeda ignores everything which gets in the way of its conclusions . . . or so says The Weekly Standard.
Regardless of one's ideological persuasion, the article bears reading, if only for an alternative view.
Posted by: pixelshim at September 9, 2006 05:21 AMOk, I've read it. I don't believe it. The Weekly Standard has its own backside to cover; it was one of the biggest cheerleaders for war against Iraq and needs to justify its stand. The only thing which surprises me about that article is that Kristol didn't write it, since he's got as much metaphorical blood on his hands as anyone in the neocon camp.
Posted by: Linkmeister at September 9, 2006 08:50 AMSo, who could say these things, and be believable? Or is it impossible to believe that AQ had any (at all) contact with Saddam and his state? The Weekly Standard has defended, and does continue to defend, its stand regularly, it just doesn't apologize for it. They think they were right.
Posted by: Andrew Shimmin at September 10, 2006 09:19 PM