sobeton Posted October 6 Report Share Posted October 6 A New C.I.A. Report Casts Doubt on a Key Terrorist's Tie to Iraq By DOUGLAS JEHLWASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - A reassessment by the Central Intelligence Agency has cast doubt on a central piece of evidence used by the Bush administration before the invasion of Iraq to draw links between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda's terrorist network, government officials said Tuesday.The C.I.A. report, sent to policy makers in August, says it is now not clear whether Mr. Hussein's government harbored members of a group led by the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the officials said. The assertion that Iraq provided refuge to Mr. Zarqawi was the primary basis for the administration's prewar assertions connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda.The new C.I.A. assessment, based largely on information gathered after the American-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, is the latest to revise a prewar intelligence report used by the administration as a central rationale for war. Other reports have cast doubt on the idea that Iraq provided chemical and biological weapons training to Al Qaeda, and the report of the Sept. 11 commission found no "collaborative relationship" between the former Iraqi government and Al Qaeda.In the months before the war, George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell were among administration officials who asserted without qualification that Iraq had harbored Mr. Zarqawi and members of his terror group. In June of this year, President Bush described Mr. Zarqawi as "the best evidence of connection to Al Qaeda affiliates and Al Qaeda." But while Mr. Zarqawi was once thought to be closely linked to Al Qaeda, his affiliations are now less certain. Some American and European officials have said there is no clear coordination between Mr. Zarqawi and Al Qaeda, though their aims are similar. In the meantime, Mr. Zarqawi has emerged as an architect of repeated car bomb attacks and as the most active and deadly foreign terrorist operating in Iraq as part of the anti-American insurgency.The C.I.A.'s new assessment states that it could not be conclusive even about his relationship with Mr. Hussein's government. The C.I.A. review, first reported by Knight Ridder newspapers, did not say on what basis the earlier assessment was being softened, and government officials declined to explain on Tuesday.On Monday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld appeared to back away from earlier claims about the close relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. "I just read an intelligence report recently about one person who's connected to Al Qaeda who was in and out of Iraq, and there's the most tortured description of why he might have had a relationship and why he might not have had a relationship," Mr. Rumsfeld told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.Mr. Rumsfeld later issued a statement saying that he continued to believe that there had been "solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members" before the 2003 war and that "we have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq."A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment about any new intelligence assessment. The government officials who outlined its findings represented several different agencies, but all were guarded in discussing it, saying they did not want to add to tensions between the C.I.A. and the White House.One government official said the new report "doesn't make clear-cut assertions one way or another" about whether Iraq harbored Mr. Zarqawi. But officials said that it had established beyond doubt that Mr. Zarqawi spent time in Baghdad in 2002, that from there he ordered the assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan and that he was in contact with members of the insurgent group Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq, the government officials said. 2004 The New York Times Company Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk4 Posted October 6 Report Share Posted October 6 link?just making sure this is not one of those "made up" stories. I think igloo types some shit up on microsoft word and then posts them.nevermind i see the times on the bottom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobeton Posted October 7 Author Report Share Posted October 7 link?just making sure this is not one of those "made up" stories. I think igloo types some shit up on microsoft word and then posts them.nevermind i see the times on the bottom.used my subscription to the times to access the article. you most likely will have to do the same. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/politics/06intel.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk4 Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 got it thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mursa Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 .. I think it's pretty obvious that these Islamic terrorist groups poured into Iraq as in response to what they felt was a Occupation by a foreign invader . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tres-b Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 .. I think it's pretty obvious that these Islamic terrorist groups poured into Iraq as in response to what they felt was a Occupation by a foreign invader .Zarqawi is a terrorist. He was in Iraq pre-war. He is a bad guy who had connections w/ Saddam. I dont think that it is "obvious" that all these terrorists just breezed in after the war. I am not discounting the fact that there was an inflow to disrupt the liberation of Iraq, but lets not pretend it is some noble movement to eliminate occupation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mursa Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 Zarqawi is a terrorist. He was in Iraq pre-war. He is a bad guy who had connections w/ Saddam. I dont think that it is "obvious" that all these terrorists just breezed in after the war. I am not discounting the fact that there was an inflow to disrupt the liberation of Iraq, but lets not pretend it is some noble movement to eliminate occupation.You seem to speak with such certainty ,but yet you have no proof of what you are implying . Saddam ruled with a iron fist a SECULAR SOCIETY !!!!!!!!!! , al-zarqaqui is a islamic fundamentalist , he and other terrorists would've been Eliminated by Saddam . Does that make sence for your now ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missionary Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 Zarqawi is a terrorist. He was in Iraq pre-war. He is a bad guy who had connections w/ Saddam. I dont think that it is "obvious" that all these terrorists just breezed in after the war. I am not discounting the fact that there was an inflow to disrupt the liberation of Iraq, but lets not pretend it is some noble movement to eliminate occupation.It's known that Zarqawi was operating from Afghanistan in the times right before the Iraq invasion after which he setup shop in Iraq. He was in Iraq before the war, but WAY before the war, not immediately before. I actually think this was mentioned during the vice prez debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 You seem to speak with such certainty ,but yet you have no proof of what you are implying . Saddam ruled with a iron fist a SECULAR SOCIETY !!!!!!!!!! , al-zarqaqui is a islamic fundamentalist , he and other terrorists would've been Eliminated by Saddam . Does that make sence for your now ?You have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are talking about....as usual.....You really need to get a litte more informed and educated you useless mental midget......need to get a little more depth and understanding beyond a headline son.....ask the aide on your "special bus" to make a pit stop at the library or book store....plenty of information out there for you to get a little more informed (of course, you will need someone to help you with the big words).....Just wondering why Richard Clarke, one of the anti-Bushies favorite person, recommended hitting Al Shifa in the Sudan (need a hint?).....or why Clarke recommended against U-2 flights in Afghanistan and other ideas because "Bin Laden would boogie to Baghdad" as he quoted (plenty of intelligence as to why the US GOVT thought he would got to Iraq), or why the U.S. Southern District Court in NY included in their 1998 indictment of Bin Laden that he reached an "agreement with the Govt of Iraq.....", or why Hussein gave shelter to one of the first WTC bombers, or Ansar al Islam (give it a rest to if you are going to say it was in an area not controlled by Saddam--his secret police and intelligence services were EVERYWHERE, as you say, he ruled with an iron fist...the group existed in Iraqi lands because Hussein and Ansar al Islam had a common enemy)......or Salman Pak, etc, etc, etc, etc, etcThese are just a few quickies for you, because I know your brain does not have the capacity to handle much, or any, outside a headline vomited by moveon.org.........If you think Saddam, or any secular govt would not have something to do with terrorists group when it suited them, both as a tactical and strategic level, , you once again cemented your status as a mental midget Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mursa Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 You have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are talking about....as usual.....You really need to get a litte more informed and educated you useless mental midget......need to get a little more depth and understanding beyond a headline son.....ask the aide on your "special bus" to make a pit stop at the library or book store....plenty of information out there for you to get a little more informed (of course, you will need someone to help you with the big words).....Just wondering why Richard Clarke, one of the anti-Bushies favorite person, recommended hitting Al Shifa in the Sudan (need a hint?).....or why Clarke recommended against U-2 flights in Afghanistan and other ideas because "Bin Laden would boogie to Baghdad" as he quoted (plenty of intelligence as to why the US GOVT thought he would got to Iraq), or why the U.S. Southern District Court in NY included in their 1998 indictment of Bin Laden that he reached an "agreement with the Govt of Iraq.....", or why Hussein gave shelter to one of the first WTC bombers, or Ansar al Islam (give it a rest to if you are going to say it was in an area not controlled by Saddam--his secret police and intelligence services were EVERYWHERE, as you say, he ruled with an iron fist...the group existed in Iraqi lands because Hussein and Ansar al Islam had a common enemy)......or Salman Pak, etc, etc, etc, etc, etcThese are just a few quickies for you, because I know your brain does not have the capacity to handle much, or any, outside a headline vomited by moveon.org.........If you think Saddam, or any secular govt would not have something to do with terrorists group when it suited them, both as a tactical and strategic level, , you once again cemented your status as a mental midgetWhat an Honor , sheeploo spent about 20 minutes to write a reply (propoganda ofcoarse) for me , when i don't surpase a few seconds . .......... Go post some more right wing propoganda , you herb ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 What an Honor , sheeploo spent about 20 minutes to write a reply (propoganda ofcoarse) for me , when i don't surpase a few seconds . .......... Go post some more right wing propoganda , you herb ! As predicted, nothing from Mursa.... Your continual commitment to stupidity is actually pretty impressive.....propoganda you retard????????.......better check your facts you mental midget (I challenge you).......you really are the ultimate jerkoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mursa Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 As predicted, nothing from Mursa.... Your continual commitment to stupidity is actually pretty impressive.....propoganda you retard????????.......better check your facts you mental midget (I challenge you).......you really are the ultimate jerkoff Your Facts are as factual as Obby's .... try and trick some simply minded Eukaryote like yourself , people like you don't , how should i say it ......."move" me to want to prove you wrong , your a lost case ....just like the 2 out of 5 americans who still believe Saddam & Al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11.take this advice though : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 Your Facts are as factual as Obby's .... try and trick some simply minded Eukaryote like yourself , people like you don't , how should i say it ......."move" me to want to prove you wrong , your a lost case ....just like the 2 out of 5 americans who still believe Saddam & Al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11.take this advice though : You are such a bafoon........to repeat, I challenge you to LEARN the facts.....stop making excuses.....stop ducking the facts......stop trying to spin your way out of getting demolished again......go learn something........Prove what I said was wrong...prove it , or stick your head back in the moveon.org vagina you stapled between your legs and go away ......What a mental midget you are..... ....absolutely amazing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk4 Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 "Just wondering why Richard Clarke, one of the anti-Bushies favorite person, recommended hitting Al Shifa in the Sudan (need a hint?).....or why Clarke recommended against U-2 flights in Afghanistan and other ideas because "Bin Laden would boogie to Baghdad" as he quoted (plenty of intelligence as to why the US GOVT thought he would got to Iraq), or why the U.S. Southern District Court in NY included in their 1998 indictment of Bin Laden that he reached an "agreement with the Govt of Iraq.....", or why Hussein gave shelter to one of the first WTC bombers, or Ansar al Islam (give it a rest to if you are going to say it was in an area not controlled by Saddam--his secret police and intelligence services were EVERYWHERE, as you say, he ruled with an iron fist...the group existed in Iraqi lands because Hussein and Ansar al Islam had a common enemy)......or Salman Pak, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc"Our intel has always been right on the ball. Never failed us before. They way i read these is that our intelligence has very little idea of what went on in iraq before the war. There was probably less terrorists in iraq then say pakistan or sudan or syria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 "Just wondering why Richard Clarke, one of the anti-Bushies favorite person, recommended hitting Al Shifa in the Sudan (need a hint?).....or why Clarke recommended against U-2 flights in Afghanistan and other ideas because "Bin Laden would boogie to Baghdad" as he quoted (plenty of intelligence as to why the US GOVT thought he would got to Iraq), or why the U.S. Southern District Court in NY included in their 1998 indictment of Bin Laden that he reached an "agreement with the Govt of Iraq.....", or why Hussein gave shelter to one of the first WTC bombers, or Ansar al Islam (give it a rest to if you are going to say it was in an area not controlled by Saddam--his secret police and intelligence services were EVERYWHERE, as you say, he ruled with an iron fist...the group existed in Iraqi lands because Hussein and Ansar al Islam had a common enemy)......or Salman Pak, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc"Our intel has always been right on the ball. Never failed us before. They way i read these is that our intelligence has very little idea of what went on in iraq before the war. There was probably less terrorists in iraq then say pakistan or sudan or syria.Don't forget how intel missed Pakistan getting a nuke, or even how intel underestimated Iraq's WMD capabilities prior to the first Gulf War, only to learn after after the much more advanced it was....and there is more...But I am sure there are plenty of intel successes that we have not, and never will, hear about too........BTW--I specifically quoted instances prior to Bush for reason..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk4 Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 yeah with all the "hot-spots" in the world it is almost impossible to know everything. Can not really blame them all that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted October 7 Report Share Posted October 7 yeah with all the "hot-spots" in the world it is almost impossible to know everything. Can not really blame them all that much.I have read a a lot of interesting stuff on our intelligence services and the impact the end of the Cold War had, as well as the swirling political winds blowing at that time....certainly gives perspective as to why their have been mistakes, miscalculations, and failures........I think intelligence reform is one of the greatest challenges and necessities that we face as a country.......and I am not confident the politicans will get out of the way (on both sides), or if we can ever move fast enough to meet the requirements of today's world...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.