Thursday, March 13, 2008

Can You Handle the Truth on al-Qaida and Iraq?


On April. 6, 2007, this was reported by AP:

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June,” Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. “As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.”

____________________

Yesterday:

A US military study officially acknowledged for the first time yesterday that Saddam Hussein had no direct ties to al-Qaida, undercutting the Bush administration's central case for war with Iraq.

The Pentagon study based on more than 600,000 documents recovered after US and UK troops toppled Hussein in 2003, discovered "no 'smoking gun' (ie, direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaida", its authors wrote.
George Bush and his senior aides have made numerous attempts to link Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda terror in their justification for waging war against Iraq.

Wary of embarrassing press coverage noting that the new study debunks those claims, the US defence department attempted to bury the release of the report yesterday.

The Pentagon cancelled a planned briefing on the study and scrapped plans to post its findings on the internet, ABC news reported. Unclassified copies of the study would be sent to interested individuals in the mail, military officials told the network.

Another Pentagon official told ABC that initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive". Here is the report Bush and the Pentagon does not want you to see.

Can you handle the truth?


10 comments:

  1. The report that says there were no ties between Saddam and Osama (other than the fact that they hated each other) is too "politically sensitive"
    Admiral Fallon steps down because a story in a magazine that paints him as the lone voice holding Bush back from invading Iran is too politically sensitive. Okay, I get it, any dissent from what Bush wants is politically sensitive. PS is the new PC.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I thought we went in because we were enforcing UN resolutions on Saddam's WMD program...

    ...no, wait, I mean to get alQaida...

    ...um, I mean bring democracy to the middle east, end tribalism and tyranny...

    ...silly me, it was to keep the Persians from establishing regional hegemony...

    ...actually to keep extremism in check...

    ...ahhhhhh, fuck it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excuse me, I mean "region shaping".

    ReplyDelete
  4. BS.
    Let's see, Saddam establishes himself in Iraq to kill Kurds and then Ansar al-Islam establishes itself in Iraq to kill Kurds. Coincidence? I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you hate Bush and Cheney, all that crap's important to you. If not, it's not even news.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's just more background noise.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There was a time I thought the world of Mr Bush.

    Then the reality of performance set in. Now I just disdain his abilities. I'm disgusted by his lack of verasity and the shallowness of his programs.

    Performance counts,
    his has been piss poor.

    But this report is old news, confirmig the worst of GWBush's legacy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. nice posting keep blogging,....
    i am very new in blogging, please and kindly visit my site,..
    thanks a lot...♥♥♥♥

    ReplyDelete