Why do rightwingers keep repeating the lie that there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

Question

When even the Pentagon now admits there never was!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usiraqqaeda

Pentagon report says no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda
Fri Apr 6, 11:46 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) -Interrogations of Saddam Hussein and seized documents confirmed the former Iraqi regime had no links with Al-Qaeda, a Pentagon report said Friday, contradicting the US case for the 2003 invasion.

A two-page resume of the report was published in February, but on Friday the Pentagon declassified the whole 120-page document.

According to the inspector general of the US Defense Department, information obtained after Saddam's fall confirmed the prewar position of the Central Intelligence Agency and Pentagon intelligence that the Iraqi government had had no substantial contacts with Al-Qaeda.

This position was shored up by interrogations of Saddam, the former Iraqi president and other top officials captured by the US-led coalition forces in Iraq, the report said.

FOR THOSE WHO DENY BUSH CLAIMED THERE WAS A LINK:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/


Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 Posted: 6:06 PM EDT (2206 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein's rule, saying Tuesday that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network.

"Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing."

U.S. intelligence officials have said al Qaeda had some links to Iraq dating back to the early 1990s, but the nature and extent of those contacts is a matter of dispute.

Critics have accused the president and other administration officials of falsely inflating the links between Iraq and al Qaeda in the months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

HERE IS THE LINK TO THE FIRST ARTICLE:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1891857.htm

(No longer up on Yahoo News)

SO now, with this ONE LINK to WORLD NET DAILY, a right-wing propanganda website, we are left with the impression that RIGHTWINGERS BELIEVE A FORMER SADDAM GENERAL IS MORE CREDIBLE THAN OUR OWN PENTAGON.

Interesting.

Answer 1

The Bush people want to pretend that the occupation of Iraq is part of the War on Terror. What's the war on terror?
An excuse to keep the military budget at Cold War levels.

Answer 2

I personally believe there was a connection between saddam and the terrorist groups... There are several you know, not just Al-Qaeda.... Remember the Taliban, Hezzbaluah and many more that aren't as well known to us.

Key words: the Iraq government Had "HAD" no "SUBSTANTIAL" contacts with Al-Qaeda

So in the first word "HAD" meaning they didn't before the war, but did after the war? And second "SUBSTANTIAL" meaning they didn't posses enough strong evidence to make a factual judgement, but they did have some less important evidence that al-qaeda had contact with the Iraq government?

I think they need to take a deeper look into this... I think Saddam did have terrorist ties, but keep it so low key and hush, hush that it was to hard to gather enough evidence to say he was in with the terrorists.
I do agree that the Current Administrations jumped a little to quickly than they should have... But I promise we would have ending up going to Iraq anyways, and the good thing would have been that Bush had enough evidence to back up what he has been saying.

Answer 3

FAIR.....
The Bush administration's long-running attempts to link Iraq and Al Qaeda were dealt a serious blow when the September 11 commission's June 16 interim report indicated that there did not appear to be a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, and that there was no evidence that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks.

But if you were watching the Fox News Channel , you saw something very different, as the conservative cable network eagerly defended the Bush administration and criticized the rest of the media for mishandling the story.

On Fox 's Special Report newscast (6/16/04), anchor Brit Hume charged that the media were mischaracterizing the report: "The Associated Press leads off its story on a new 9/11 commission report by saying the document bluntly contradicts the Bush administration by claiming to have no credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11 terrorist attacks." Hume maintained that the AP story was inaccurate: "In fact, the Bush administration has never said that such evidence exists."

In fact, it's Hume that is misrepresenting the AP story-- quoting from the story's lead, but then changing its meaning through an inaccurate paraphrase. The story actually begins: "Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the September 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was 'no credible evidence' that Saddam Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda."

Hume changed the allegation, from Hussein having ties with Al Qaeda to his having ties to the September 11 attacks, in order to knock it down, claiming that the Bush administration never linked Iraq to September 11. But that is not accurate either: Bush's letter to Congress formally announcing the commencement of hostilities against Iraq (3/18/03) explained that the use of force would be directed against "terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." In his "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the U.S.S. Lincoln (5/1/03), Bush declared that the invasion of Iraq had "removed an ally of Al Qaeda."

.........................................

"Liberal concoction" ? Seems more a Bush/FOX concoction....but your (conservatives) lies fit your beliefs better

Answer 4

who particularly cares - the ends on occasion justify the flexibility (on occasion.. yet i does no longer use this as justifiction - in simple terms perhaps an explaination after the reality - like those lies....) yet can anybody particularly remorseful approximately that the US have been given rid of sadam? or made a foothold interior the middle east or distracted the terroists so they are attempting to attack individuals in iraq instead of vacationer lodges? and persons forget that 9/11 became into planned on Clinton's watch (he became into busy getting a blowie i assume...)

Answer 5

Yes I read that report. But hey, As Neville Chamberlain said before WW 2, "There is no proof that Hitler has or will show Hostility toward Great Britian". Bet they felt reassured about that.
Get a grip dude. How about a little common sense.
Now that CNN saw fit to televise wars, and report our troop movements so the enemy can see them on TV also, my guess is there is probably a whole bunch of stuff, not told to the Press or Public. Remember we are trying to win, and tipping off our knowledge base and our plans on TV may not make a whole lotta sense...
Thus the term "Covert Operations".

Answer 6

The only link I can come up with was the desire of Bin Ladin to raise an army to kick saddam out of Kuwait. This is in fact what caused the rift between UBL and the Saudis as they opposed this effort

Answer 7

Who is repeating what. Your link is invalid. Read the article before and the devil is in the details that the Iraqi Gov't was not giving operational support to Al Queda which no one ever claimed.

Let me give you the point for arguements sake. OK Mental Giant you resolved that we should not have made a certain decision 4 years ago, WHAT the F do we DO today?

Peace, Love and Stupidity

Answer 8

This Administration has Attention Deficit Disorder. They forgot that the CIA and others have told them thousands of times that, THERE IS NO LINK. None of them ( Scooter, Rummy, Rove, Condi, Alberto,) seem to be able to remember anything!

Answer 9

That's old news and lies concocted by liberals like you.

Bush nor any other conservative ever tied Saddam Hussein to al Quaeda or 9/11 attacks. Liberals just want everyone to believe that they did.

The case against Iraq had all to do with WMDs if you recall. Never against al Quaeda or 9/11.

Nice try though. Keep reaching, just maybe you'll get there.

EDIT - The news link you provided was an article taken way out of context (a typical left-wing tactic). Here's the full context of what President Bush was referring to:

The full context of the President's quote shows that he was NOT drawing an operational link between al Qaeda and Saddam but was making the point that both posed threats to the world.

QUESTION:
"Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al Qaeda?"

THE PRESIDENT:
"That's a - that is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of something humorous to say. But I can't when I think about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is - I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive."

(President George W. Bush, Remarks In A Photo Opportunity With Colombian President Uribe, Washington, DC, 9/25/02)

No link there, Sparky. Keep trying.

Answer 10

Saddam general: WMDs in Syria
Another former confidant of ex-dictator makes claim, also links Iraq to al-Qaida

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48827