# "Iraq supplied al-Qaeda with WMDs" -- Does this report justify the war? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 9, 2003, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072 "2003-08-09T19:59:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/61 "2003-08-10T11:53:44Z")
Does anyone have a link to the “25 page document…released as US President George W Bush holidayed at his Texas ranch” that cited in the article mentioned in the OP? Specifics make all the difference. “material to build chemical and biological weapons” is very vague. Could be glove boxes, petri dishes and safety goggles. IIRC, the FBI determined that the equipment necessary to carry out the anthrax attacks could’ve been obtained commercially over the internet for several thousand dollars. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/62 "2003-08-10T11:58:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > **Does anyone have a link to the “25 page document…released as US President George W Bush holidayed at his Texas ranch” that cited in the article mentioned in the OP?** Well, duh, what do you think I linked to? What do you think we’ve been talking about? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > **Here’s the report that the news story refers to: [10 Ways the Liberation of Iraq Supports the War on Terror](http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/100days/part1.html)** ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/63 "2003-08-10T12:10:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*Actually, it seems to have nothing to do with the current claim. When Zarqawi’s camp was taken, several weeks before Baghad fell, the U.S. and our Kurdish allies were all over the camp and reported no findings of any connection with the Ba’ath or Hussein. The report at that time was that al Qaida seemed to be using the U.S. protection of the Kurds as a way to have a place safe from both Iraq and Iran to train their agents for exportation to other locales. \*\*But Powell’s report to the U.N. addresses that, specifically: > [@](#): > > \*\*Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein’s controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven in the region. \*\*You may still find this less than compelling, but it is not ex post facto, nor would this assertion lead you to think there’d be a great deal of evidence connecting the camp to the Ba’ath party, not based on the connection Powell described (a senior agent who offered safe haven). > [@](#): > > \*\*They also found (last I had seen reported) no evidence of poisons of any sort. It was strictly a training camp for guerrilla fighters. (There was a flurry of reports at the time of the capture of Sagrat that “recipes” and “residue” of chemical weapons had been found and shipped off to the U.S. for analysis. Four months later, the adminstration is quietly letting those reports die the same ignominious deaths as all the other early reports.) \*\* They haven’t found much evidence of this type of warfare anywhere in Iraq, though we know it existed. My only point was, and is, that if Powell presented a case prior to the war that this connection, for the purpose of providing this type of assistance, existed, then subsequent supporting evidence (such as an operative’s disclosure) is not ex post facto. You may feel that the evidence is not compelling in either case, but it is consistent. Look, the OP report may turn out to be specious, but it is consistent with Powell’s address to the U.N., IMO, to the extent that military intellgience can possibly be–i.e., with something less than absolute precision. Tom, even your first post seems to recognize this (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > \*\*Because, if the administration had this information (_or anything like it_), it should have been presented to the U.N. instead of their “well, there was one guy that was part of al Qaida that visited Iraq a couple of years ago.” \*\*Powell’s address was not at all “there was one guy that was part of al Qaida that visited Iraq a couple of years ago,” and it is consistent with the OP’s report. You seem to now want to have independent evidence (e.g., traces of poisons) to support the disclosure made by the operative before you’ll concede this is not ex post facto. I’m not sure why. As I said, you can believe that the “evidence” in both instances is not compelling, but that doesn’t make the second instance a justficiation after the fact. It’s essentially the same as the justification prior to the war. That’s my only point. And if the report in the OP is bullshit, then the whole thread is pointless. RedFury, I am not at all getting your Wolfowitz point. Please help me see it. And Desmostylus, are you sure that’s the 25-page document previously referenced? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/64 "2003-08-10T12:33:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > \*\*And Desmostylus, are you sure that’s the 25-page document previously referenced? \*\* Good god. Comprehension skills are limited around here. Here’s the whole thing: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/100days/100days.pdf](http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/100days/100days.pdf) (warning, .PDF) The full title is: > [@](#): > > Results in Iraq: 100 Days Toward > Security and Freedom > > Highlights of the Renewal of Iraq > and the End of Saddam’s Regime > > August 8, 2003 For those not wanting the .PDF version, there’s a HTML version which is broken up into ten parts. My link goes to the first part. Links to the other nine parts are _at the bottom of that page._ > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > **Look, the OP report may turn out to be specious, but it is consistent with Powell’s address to the U.N., IMO, to the extent that military intellgience can possibly be–i.e., with something less than absolute precision.** It’s the White House report that’s specious, i.e. “having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious”. And of course it’s entirely consistent with Powell’s report to the U.N., because it just repeats exactly the same bullshit, almost word for word. There’s no _new_ evidence. There’s no _evidence_ at all. :wally ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/65 "2003-08-10T12:37:06Z")
I don’t get it. For almost two years, everyone with any perspective has understood that OBL **hates** Saddam and, since al-Qaeda began occupying areas in the north of Iraq (post-Afhganistan) Saddam hate OBL (if he didn’t already) – don’t get OBL’s support of the Iraqi people confused with his hatred of the dictator. The New Yorker Dec, 2002 – **.pdf format**. \*Like other Middle Eastern rulers, Saddam Hussein has long recognized that Al Qaeda and like-minded Islamists represent a threat to his regime. Consequently, he has shown no interest in working with them against their common enemy, the United States. This was the understanding of American intelligence in the 1990’s. In 1998, the National Security Council assigned staff to determine whether that conclusion was justified. After reviewing all the available intelligence that could have pointed to a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, the group found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship. \* I mean, OBL even lumped Saddam in with the Saud posse. . . [Osama bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein.](http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=592) _Osama bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein. It’s something that any Arab living in a dictatorship and watching state-run television knows, and it’s a fact that would be apparent to anyone who watched the entire al Qaeda recruitment video, and not just the few-second clips shown on American television. In the video, Saddam is seen reviewing a line of Iraqi army officials. Bin Laden’s voice is heard calling Saddam a false Muslim who “only worships the Ba’ath Party”—Saddam’s ruling party in Iraq. He then goes on to compare Hussein to Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd, whom bin Laden despises more than any other Arab leader.”_ Yet I see the same old faces – and, for goodness sake, even some new ones - trying to tell us, actually, the sky is green. Surely you must have some newer material ? Damn, even Sam Stone’s given up on thisa flight of fancy . . . ---
**Author:** ![Eolbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@Eolbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eolbo)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/66 "2003-08-10T12:43:34Z")
The Herald Sun cited in the OP is hardly a reputable source, its a low quality Murdoch tabloid newspaper. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/67 "2003-08-10T12:49:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > \*\*Good god. Comprehension skills are limited around here. \*\*Why don’t you keep your bullshit condescension to yourself? > [@](#): > > \*\*And of course it’s entirely consistent with Powell’s report to the U.N., because it just repeats exactly the same bullshit, almost word for word. There’s no _new_ evidence. There’s no _evidence_ at all. :wally \*\* Yes, genius, and that, by definition would mean that it is not ex post facto, not if the disclosure occurred after the war, not if it is the same evidence that was used prior to the war, and especially not if the operative’s statement is not some bullshit repackaging (which I have conceded I do not know for sure). Talk about a need for enhanced reading comprehension skills. And thanks for the :wally , since it’s so appropriate in this forum. Just more of your shrill, partisan nonsense, which is always preferable to calm debate. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/68 "2003-08-10T13:03:48Z")
What exactly is your point, **Bob Cos**? Is there one? No-one apart from you is arguing any longer about the ex-post facto nature of the justification. Such an argument is entirely irrelevant, because the Administration _hasn’t found_ any ex-post justification. And I love the “shrill partisan nonsense” bit. I’m from another country, but you still think I must be a Dem cheerleader. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/69 "2003-08-10T13:13:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > **What exactly is your point, Bob Cos? Is there one?** Yes, here’s one in particular: your contribution in this thread is discourteous, humorless and shrill. See if you can get your brain around that one. I know this must be hard for you, since you can’t seem to understand an exchange that has taken place since only yesterday, conducted in plain English. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/70 "2003-08-10T13:24:52Z")
I see. You _don’t_ have any argument about the facts. I’m “discourteous, humorless and shrill”. I can live with that. Wave your hands a bit more, maybe the whole thing will go away. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/71 "2003-08-10T13:26:25Z")
You keep saying that, ace, that’ll make it true. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/72 "2003-08-10T14:25:22Z")
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39500-2003Aug9.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39500-2003Aug9.html) **Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence** This just in… ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/73 "2003-08-10T14:44:37Z")
Yep… if you wanna see something hard enough everything justifies it. Nothing that goes against it is relevant. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/74 "2003-08-10T15:21:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > \*\*Well, duh, what do you think I linked to? What do you think we’ve been talking about? \*\* Some sort of an 11 page report-lite on [whitehouse.gov](http://whitehouse.gov) ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/75 "2003-08-10T15:24:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rashak Mani \* > \*\*Yep… if you wanna see something hard enough everything justifies it. Nothing that goes against it is relevant. \*\* Funny you should mention that. Ever heard of the [**OSP**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199309)? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/76 "2003-08-10T15:36:19Z")
**Bob Cos** writes: \*\* > [@](#): > > RedFury, I am not at all getting your Wolfowitz point. Please help me see it.\*\* I’m afraid we’re at a bit of an impasse here, because as I said in my prior post, I find Wolfowizt’s statement to be self-explanatory. Here it is, again: **"I’m not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it"** Note that this is the same man who also said the following in a Vanity Fair interview a couple of months before: [**"the decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons…"**](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2945750.stm) Now, while some might argue that Mr Wolfowitz (unarguably one of this Administration’s most commited hawks and the main arquitech of the Pax Americana plan sponsored by the [**PNAC**](http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)) should be praised for his candor _now_, others, such as myself, would have greatly appreciated his display of honesty _prior to the invasion_. Because when you add those two statements together what do you get? You tell me. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/77 "2003-08-10T15:39:56Z")
> [@](#): > > You may still find this less than compelling, but it is not ex post facto, nor would this assertion lead you to think there’d be a great deal of evidence connecting the camp to the Ba’ath party, not based on the connection Powell described (a senior agent who offered safe haven). It is true that the claim about the agents who “accompanied” Zarqawi to Baghdad is not, technically, _ex post facto_, since Powell mentioned it on February 2. On the other hand, the current report simply repeats that claim–never substantiated–with the addition of putting the words in the mouth of some purported captured member of al Qaida. However, the actual claims that Powell made regarding Sagrat (mislabeled Khurmal in his presentation) have turned out to be false–while the adminstration repeats it in their point 8 of the just released report. Releasing the same apparent lie and attaching it to an anonymous source looks to me as though they are simply trying to drag up new ways to present old lies; adding the “captured informant” is _ex post facto_. The Sagrat camp was encircled and captured very quickly. There were reams of documents discovered regarding their training and organization. If they were there “at the invitation” of the Ba’ath party, (which is not known for its “hands off” approach to control of Iraq), there should be evidence of that connection. None has been presented. Sagrat was not the size of Iraq and the Ansar al-Islam were surrounded by enemies, not friends. If there had been chemical or biological weapon production going on there, it could not have been moved out of the area and some documentation should have remained. None has been found. So the entire section of the U.N. report dealing with Zarqawi appears to have been false, and is now being re-released with a new by-line (attributing it to the purported captive). Iraq certainly used to have chemical (and, perhaps, biological) weapons. The issue is whether they actually did destroy them or simply hid them. The administration would be better off shutting up until they discover the truth, rather than recycling old lies with fresh paint on them. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/78 "2003-08-10T15:48:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*Iraq certainly used to have chemical (and, perhaps, biological) weapons. The issue is whether they actually did destroy them or simply hid them. \*\* I know that Dems and some media have made this the issue, but I don’t see what difference it makes. Either Iraq still had WMDs or they had secretly destroyed them, but without verification of the WMDs’ destruction. Surely American policy had to be based on the former assumption. If it eventually turns out that the latter was the case, too bad for Saddam and the Ba’ath regime. But, we could hardly plan on all WMDs having been destroyed. Anyhow, WMDs speak more to the timing of the attack. The likelihood that Iraq would continue to develop and deploy WMDs was a continuing risk. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/79 "2003-08-10T15:54:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*The likelihood that Iraq would continue to develop and deploy WMDs was a continuing risk. \*\* The risk that Hussein would use banned weapons was very small one according to the CIA. How many $100bn+ wars are justified by very small risks? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072/80 "2003-08-10T16:01:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Surely American policy had to be based on the former assumption. The American policy did not _have_ to require a multibillion dollar war against a country where the war, itself, forced the disruption of the inspections to find out whether or not Iraq had complied. Had the U.S. allowed the inspections to continue\*, Blix would have either found the evidence or demonstrated to the UN that Iraq was deliberately hiding the evidence. We did not need to go to war _at that moment, unilaterally_ in order to stop Iraq from building or exporting weapons of terror. - (A person only slightly more cynical than I am might actually wonder if the administration needed to wage this war specifically to disrupt the inspection process.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-supplied-al-qaeda-with-wmds-does-this-report-justify-the-war/194072.md?page=5)