Today, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on Iraq's ties with al Qaeda based on a CIA assesment dating back to 2005. According to most the headlines this report allegedly shows no ties between Saddam Hussein's Irag and al Qaeda.
But is that really what the report implies ? Or is it just a fnding based on one piece of data..that `flawed intelligence the Senate democrats are so quick to discount unless it serves their political purposes?
As you can imagine, reaction from the members of the committe was pretty much split on party lines.
Senate Democrats are trying to make the case that they were `duped' into supporting the War in Iraq by phony intel and deliberate lies.
"Today's reports show that the administration's repeated allegations of a past, present and future relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq were wrong and intended to exploit the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks," said Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, the panel's ranking Democrat.
Another Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, accused Bush of making a false statements about ties between Saddam and Zarqawi, the one-time al Qaeda in Iraq leader killed by U.S. forces.
At an August 21 press conference, Bush told reporters that Saddam had relations with Zarqawi.
"The CIA's October 2005 assessment that Saddam's regime did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," Levin said.
"The president's statement, made just two weeks ago, is flat-out false," Levin said.
Maybe...but I wonder what Zarqawi was doing in Iraq before and after 9/11, along with Imad Mugniyeh and other al Qaeda figures.
The CIA report was also made before transcripts of tapes made by Saddam were decalssified that show that he was aware of impending attacks on the US..and of course, the senate committee di dnot take the findings of Able/Danger into consideration. or the factthat Ramzy Youseff, mastermind of the first WTC bombing was on the payroll of Iraqi intelligence.
No one, of course has bothered to explain things like Saddam's terrorism training camp at Sal-Pak.Or his attemps to buy uranium in Niger,which the British Butler Report, the 9/11 Commission and the Senate intelligence committe still stand by.
Senator Pat Roberts, the ranking Republican on the committee had a very different take on the report and accused Democrats of presenting a misleading version of the committee's findings.
"The additional views of the Committee's Democrats are little more than a rehashing of the same unfounded allegations they've used for over three years," Roberts said in a statement.
Of course, when you limit your deliberations to a 2005 CIA report on the one hand and look at nothing else while at the same time complaining about `faulty intelligence' it does seem like nothing more than an attempt to play politics and live in denial.
That, by the way, is nothing new with this cast of characters, who were knawing on the same ol' chew toy two years ago.
And of course, there's this little tidbit: Weekly Standard: Intel Report Links Saddam, Usama - U.S. & World
Perhaps we should actually put this to a vote..again. Let's follow the Left's lead, and propose a vote in congress on whether we should just apologize, leave and let Saddam assume power again.Hey,why not?
Here's the awkward thing...Osama and company were just a bunch of subcontractors, and by no means more than a piece of the enchillada of jihad. (weird mixed metaphor...sorry!) And so was Saddam Hussein.
In other words, and to make it even simpler, they were on the same side and had the same enemies.
One of the things jihad's western enablers can't seem to understand it that the jihadis are not going to differentiate when it comes to lavishing slaughter on the infidels. They will just as happily cut off Harry Reid's head as President Bush's.
Think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment