# Sadam had strong Al-Queda ties **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 15, 2004, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486 "2004-06-15T15:52:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Legolamb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4491bb/32.png) [@Legolamb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Legolamb)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/61 "2004-06-16T14:47:56Z")
**PunditLisa** , but the 9/11 Commision say that [Bush and Cheney are either wrong or lying](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20040616/ap_on_re_us/sept_11_commission) about ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. And wait… don’t they have access to the same intelligence reports? And aren’t they supposedly independent (i.e without an agenda beyond seeking the truth) and therefore infinitely more trustworthy and honourable than someone who may be looking to use this to get his administration reelected? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/62 "2004-06-16T14:56:57Z")
> [@PunditLisa](#): > > His word is good enough for me because I think Dick Cheney is an honorable man. Your reasoning is backward. _First_, you see if someone is telling the truth (and, if not, \*why \* not). _Then_, you use that conclusion to decide if he’s honorable or not. Unfortunately, we know Cheney was still not telling the truth as recently as yesterday. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/63 "2004-06-16T16:35:57Z")
I’m waiting for **Punditlisa** to let us in on the whoosh. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/64 "2004-06-16T16:38:37Z")
I lived in Denmark for a few years. Media coverage sucks. Even with the internet one couldn’t possibly get near to the level of saturation we have here. But if Rune wants to argue from a point of ignorance, so be it. As for the whole, “We need Danes more than they need us”, well…Denmark is a very proud country. They have gone from being a very powerful European nation to a tiny, helpless, well-run welfare state. Such is life. I do wish Rune would do a little more research, and perhaps take into account the various viewpoints expressed here instead of digging in his little heels. An open mind would be helpful. Danes are such a wonderful people, and this fella is giving them a bad name. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/65 "2004-06-16T16:55:37Z")
The report is only preliminary, but you can read it [here](http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/16_06_04_hearings.pdf) > [@](#): > > We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States … There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship … Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq. are the relevent bits. Didn’t Dick Cheney read the memo? ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/66 "2004-06-16T17:06:20Z")
> [@Tapioca Dextrin](#): > > The report is only preliminary, but you can read it [here](http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/16_06_04_hearings.pdf) > > are the relevent bits. > > Didn’t Dick Cheney read the memo? They’ll be heaping this whole thing on Tenet soon enough. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/67 "2004-06-16T17:45:56Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > They’ll be heaping this whole thing on Tenet soon enough. Is there room on the pire for [one more?](http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/index.html%5B/url) > [@](#): > > In response, a senior administration official traveling with President Bush in Tampa, Florida, said, “We stand by what Powell and Tenet have said,” referring to previous statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet that described such links. Looks like the Rummy team is fighting back from their recent fall from grace. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/68 "2004-06-16T18:07:09Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Yes I know you want to focus on Al-Queda. I’m just saying I can’t really get worked up about (false or not) allegations of links between Saddam and Al-Queda since there’re plenty other terrorists to pick from whom Saddam actively supported. Of course you don’t care if the attack was in our national interests- you’re not an American. > [@](#): > > Birds fly. Dolly Parton sleeps on her back. Politicians exaggerate and lie. So what else is new? Not all lies are of equal consequence. Lies that lead to the deaths of thousands of people are some of the very most serious kinds of lies. Lies that cost hundreds of billions of dollars are some of the most serious kinds of lies. Lies that thwart the American electorate’s right to deny consent to the government are some of the most grave kinds of lies. In contrast, most truth mangling done by politicans does not rise to any level near the lies that are alleged against the GWB Admin. As much as I hate analogies, consider that just as a lie about an opion on property tax reform issues and a lies that lead a nation into war are both lies, both a swimming pool and the Pacific Ocean are bodies of water. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/69 "2004-06-16T18:18:31Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > There is not only little doubt, there is substantial evidence that Hussein was _not_ a player on the world terrorism stage following the first Gulf War. A review of all the “terrorist associations” compiled by the U.S. government in the months prior to the occupation turned up: > one anti-Iranian group that were sheltering in Iraq, but not being funded to launch raids into Iran (whom the U.S. initially proposed enlisting as active agents against Iran, after the invasion)… I think that at some popints Hussein did fund the MeK. We know that recent presidential advisor Richard Perle decided to help fund this terrorist group in January 2004 despite US laws against aiding such terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/70 "2004-06-16T18:27:11Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > But on top of that, the belief that terrorism is undeterrable actually forms the basis of the current administration’s _preventative war_ security strategy. Yay! down with newspeak newspeak must die > [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > Obviously, one cannot claim that, on the one hand, deterrence is no longer effective in current world affairs – thus justifying the preemptive invasion of Iraq – while simultaneously claiming that terrorists can be deterred by strong military action – thus justifying the preemptive invasion of Iraq – without stumbling over the fact that these two arguments contradict each other. Allow me to humbly point out that this is not at all obvious as it apears that this is a widespread practice done everyday. But a great summation. > [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > Anyway, my point is that one can’t argue that terrorism is both deterrable and undeterrable at the same time, and use both arguments as justifications for the invasion of Iraq. It’s embarassingly bad form to do so. I’d be embarassed to do so anyway. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/71 "2004-06-16T21:26:38Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > > [@RTFirefly](#): > > > > Congress voted to authorize Bush to make war on Iraq > > Well there were other governments involved besides the American, as a Dane perhaps I can be excused for thinking “we” are we-the-Danes or at least we-the-coalition. And it’s possible to agree with your government’s direction if not reasoning. Well, you folks had your reasons for joining in the war, but it was happening with or without you; it was a US creation, with sort-of UN authorization. So the US and UN reasons are determinative of why the invasion/occupation happened; if your nation had other reasons for convincing yourselves of why helping out would be a Good Thing, that may say something positive about Denmark, but it says nothing about what motivations drove the invasion. > [@Rune](#): > > > [@RTFirefly](#): > > > > Oh, come on. How were things in Iraq last June? How are they now? Is Iraq safer now than it was in June 2003? Are we more in control of things? (If not us, does anyone else have control?) Is there any evidence at all that Iraq is closer to deciding its future peacefully now than it was a year ago? > > It has a long way to go. But just two small recent improvements. The new Iraqi interim prime minister of Iraq seems like a capable man. UN voted unanimously for the new Iraq resolution. Bremer seemed like a capable man, too. The new Iraq resolution was the seventh Iraq resolution passed by the UNSC since Saddam’s statue was toppled. Have any of them **not** been unanimous? I don’t see that this tells us anything significant. **PunditLisa** , back in 2000, I had a great deal of respect for Cheney, dating all the way back to the Ford administration. I figured he’d be one of the ‘grownups’ who would steady this administration. Boy howdy, was I wrong. But it’s one thing to have been wrong then, and another thing to retain one’s illusions about Cheney, given his track record of the past three and a half years. He has been the one who has consistently made the most outrageous unsubstantiated claims about WMDs (especially nukes), the Iraq-terrorism connection, and who knows what else. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/72 "2004-06-16T21:28:47Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > I’m waiting for **Punditlisa** to let us in on the whoosh. Yeah…That was what I was thinking too. The first clue was the “Cheney’s got access to intelligence that I don’t” line…which is of course a direct paraphrase of the sort of lines we were being fed before the invasion of Iraq to back up the claim that Saddam must have WMD because the Administration says so. And the statement “His word is good enough for me because I think Dick Cheney is an honorable man” was, of course, completely over the top…And, no doubt a reference to the “But Brutus is an honorable man” speech from Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”. Excellent, whoosh, **PunditLisa**! ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/73 "2004-06-16T21:48:57Z")
Has [the poll the CPA took of Iraqis in May](http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/cpapoll_files/frame.htm) been linked to here? It has now. Some things to note, in terms of things getting worse over there: 1. Confidence in the CPA has gone from 47% in November to 11% last month. 2. Confidence in Coalition forces is in the same ballpark. 3. 81% of Iraqis think better of al-Sadr than they did 3 months earlier, with half of those thinking “much better” of him. 4. 23% of Iraqis support Allawi; 63% oppose him. (With al-Sadr, it’s 67-29 in favor.) 5. Only half of Iraqis feel safe in their own neighborhoods. 6. By 64-14%, Iraqis feel recent events, including Fallujah and the al-Sadr uprising) have made Iraq more unified. 7. Coalition forces are seen as occupiers by 92% of Iraqis, and as liberators/peacekeepers by 5%. 8. By 61-29%, most Iraqis feel nobody will get punished for Abu Ghraib. Of the 29% that feel somebody will get punished, over half think only ‘the little people’ will get punished. And on it goes. Remember, this is the CPA’s own poll. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/74 "2004-06-16T22:57:43Z")
Also of note: pollsters reported that many more people who were approached and asked to participate in the polling refused to do so. This probably means something important, and I probably have no idea what. (53% of **Elucidator** had no clue, 23% responded that it was all Bush’s fault, what was the question again?, 14% said J Lo’s butt, 13% were distracted by a shiny object.) ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/75 "2004-06-16T23:32:45Z")
Man, new Rummy bullshit. We’re no better then the hostage takers. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5226957/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5226957/) ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/76 "2004-06-16T23:36:30Z")
From the article I just linked. > [@](#): > > Pentagon officials claim it’s entirely lawful to hold prisoners in secret if they pose an immediate threat. But today, nearly one year after his capture, he’s still being held incommunicado. And > [@](#): > > Pentagon officials still insist Rumsfeld acted legally, but admit it all depends on how you interpret the law. I bet these guys could find a an interpretation of the law in which sawing a prisoner’s head off is legal. :rolleyes: “We need to show them we mean business” or some such crap. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/77 "2004-06-16T23:41:27Z")
A couple people have asked for a cite about Bush refusing to attack Zarqawi’s bases in Kurd controlled Iraq because that might hurt his chances to get a war going: > [@](#): > > NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger. > > In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide. > > The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House… [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/) ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/78 "2004-06-17T04:27:54Z")
I want to expand on a point I made earlier, that further shows just how much the neocons in the administration are ignoring earlier statments, plugging their ears, and yelling “la la la la la la”. > [@](#): > > In response, a senior administration official traveling with President Bush in Tampa, Florida, said, “We stand by what Powell and Tenet have said,” referring to previous statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet that described such links. So they are still pinning the reasoning for the war on what Powell said. Even though Powell himself had this to say on the topic to meet the press: > [@](#): > > ‘It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading,’ Mr. Powell said in the interview, broadcast from Jordan. ‘And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.’" So, they should have at least been honest and said > [@](#): > > We stand by what Powell and Tenet have said, as long as what they said matches with what helps our position…on the other hand, we completely disagree that other things they have said have never actually been said. Even though there is ample evidence in the liberal media that such things have been said. We don’t have a VCR, therefore tapes of such statements don’t exist in our world. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/79 "2004-06-17T05:04:50Z")
[…don’t confuse me with the facts!](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20040617/pl_nm/security_commission_cheney_dc) > [@](#): > > \*\* A White House official said Cheney’s assertion, which he repeated this week, that the ousted Iraqi leader had long-established ties to al Qaeda, were based on “facts.” > > “Hell no!” another administration official said when asked if Cheney would retract his statements after the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks found no evidence that Iraq (news - web sites) aided al Qaeda attempts to strike the United States. \*\* “Hell no”? These people are clearly immune to evidence or reason. The sooner we’re rid of them the better. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/80 "2004-06-17T05:54:10Z")
I’ve been waiting for the Press Secretary to make th etranscript available @ [www.whitehouse.gov](http://www.whitehouse.gov) . I assume that Dr, Josh wouldn’t run with it if it weren’t credible: **[June 15, 2004 Press Gaggle](http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:v6_JqaccKisJ:www.talkingpointsmemo.com/+%22Saddam+Hussein+had+long-established+ties+with+al+Qaeda%22+associate&hl=en)** **Q** Can I ask about Vice President Cheney, because yesterday he repeated what is a very controversial claim. He said that Saddam Hussein had long-established ties with al Qaeda. Does the President believe that Saddam Hussein had long-established ties with al Qaeda? **MR. McCLELLAN** : We certainly talked about the ties with terrorism between the – between the regime that was removed from power, and we talked about those ties prior to the decision to remove that regime from power. So that was well-documented. Secretary Powell went before the United Nations and talked about some of those ties to terrorism, as well. And Zarqawi is certainly a senior al Qaeda associate who was in Iraq prior to the decision to go in and remove the regime from power. **Q** There’s also al Qaeda in the United States. That does not mean the United States is cooperating with those members of al Qaeda. Just by the presence of someone does not mean there’s a cooperation. **MR. McCLELLAN** : But, remember, we’re talking about an oppressive regime that was in power in Iraq that exercised control over that country. And go back and look at what we documented, Norah. We documented all this, and I think that’s what the Vice President was referring to. **Q** So today you’re saying the President does agree there were long – **MR. McCLELLAN** : We stand by what we’ve said previously, in terms of the regime’s ties to terrorism, yes. And I think that’s what the Vice President was referring to. **Q** The President said there were no ties in the run up to the war. **MR. McCLELLAN** : No, Helen, that’s a mischaracterization. There were clear ties to terrorism between the regime – **Q** He said there were no ties with al Qaeda. **MR. McCLELLAN** : – certainly supporting suicide bombers in the Middle East. **Q** Are you repudiating what the President said? **MR. McCLELLAN** : No, I think you’re talking about September 11th. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486.md?page=5)