Do the Democrats Still Deny that Al Qaeda has a strong presence in Iraq?

Question

How will they respond to the latest NIE??
Obama denied al qaeda was in Iraq last week.

Answer 1

Libs and Dems are mistaken..there were extensive ties long before we invaded.

“THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda.”

So declared CNN Anchor Carol Costello in an interview yesterday with Representative Robin Hayes (no relation) from North Carolina.

Hayes politely challenged her claim. “Ma’am, I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken. There’s evidence everywhere. We get access to it. Unfortunately, others don’t.”

CNN played the exchange throughout the day. At one point, anchor Daryn Kagan even seemed to correct Rep. Hayes after replaying the clip. “And according to the record, the 9/11 Commission in its final report found no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.”

The CNN claims are wrong. Not a matter of nuance. Not a matter of interpretation. Just plain incorrect. They are so mistaken, in fact, that viewers should demand an on-air correction.

But such claims are, sadly, representative of the broad media misunderstanding of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post, regularly chides the Bush administration for presenting what he calls fabricated or “fictive” links between Iraq and al Qaeda. The editor of the Los Angeles Times scolded the Bush administration for perpetuating the “myth” of such links. “Sixty Minutes” anchor Lesley Stahl put it bluntly: “There was no connection.”

Conveniently, such analyses ignore statements like this one from Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. “There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.” Hard to believe reporters just missed it—he made the comments at the press conference held to release the commission’s final report. And that report detailed several “friendly contacts” between Iraq and al Qaeda, and concluded only that there was no proof of Iraqi involvement in al Qaeda terrorist attacks against American interests. Details, details.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16456_Body_of_Evidence&only

On June 25 2004, the NYT briefly re-entered the land of reality when it spectacularly reversed itself. In a front page story, it said:

'Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq. American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization...The new document, which appears to have circulated only since April, was provided to The New York Times several weeks ago...
[my emphasis]...
'The task force concluded that the document "appeared authentic," and that it "corroborates and expands on previous reporting" about contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden in Sudan, according to the task force's analysis...The document, which asserts that Mr. bin Laden "was approached by our side," states that Mr. bin Laden previously "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative," but was now willing to meet in Sudan, and that "presidential approval" was granted to the Iraqi security service to proceed....this view ends with Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan. At that point, Iraqi intelligence officers began "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location," the document states...The Iraqi document itself states that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."'
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001294.html

Answer 2

Yourself? You at residence in America? You're great. What if Bush had been to mention "Al Qaeda is at complete stength and an inland assault within the USA is anticipated."? It might best reason pointless havoc among the general public, how might it difference some thing for the bigger? You would not be at any much less threat. You can't inform in which they might strike. Of direction it might be ridiculous to completely suppose some thing a central authority says. They are looking to hold their nation's humans with them, do not forget? But that's the way it has been because the begginning. Since a leader in a cave generally as soon as stated to his tribe "No, Ug accidently fell off the cliff, see?" You can best watch and vote towards him subsequent election.

Answer 3

I didn't think Democrats deny Al Qaeda is in Iraq. I also don't think Obama thinks that. Do you have a link? And are you sure he wasn't saying Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the war?

Answer 4

The Dem's? Look at the sleep in circle jerk for tonight after giving our troops till Sept for the report. Just keep under minding them. Can they do anything try supporting our troops while there in the war..Complain when they get home.How about enforcing our laws after your amnesty bill failed By the will of the USA citizen.Obama for the illegals an against our troops great deal>Obama & Billery sitting on the stump both hands in our pockets while sitting on there rumps.There campain slogan.

Answer 5

al-Queda would have ZERO presence anywhere if Bush had finished the job in Afghanistan. But instead he let Bin Laden and other senior al-Queda get away, withdrew our troops and opened up a big-ol can of worms by invading Iraq on false pretenses.

Once he destabilized Iraq it created a breeding ground for terrorists, and because he had let al-Queda off the hook they were able to take advantage of the situation in Iraq to build up their organization, attract new recruits, etc.

I can only believe that Bin Laden must regard George Bush as a gift straight from Allah. Think of it - a small terrorist organization was able to successfully attack America on it's home soil while it's President IGNORED many warnings.

Then, that same president invaded al-Queda's host country, but after rooting around for a month, left with al-Queda still intact and their senior leadership unaffected.

Meanwhile, that same president began an expensive, irrelevant, poorly managed and ill-conceived war SOMEWHERE ELSE, which had the fortuitous side-effect for al-Queda of creating a custom-made recruitment area and training facility so that the senior al-Queda leadership could expand their influence while hunkering down safely and peaceably a great distance away.

And, the same president would then chase his own tail for years, unable to find and eliminate the al-Queda senior leadership - finally giving up and downplaying the whole effort when he realized how inept and stupid Bin Laden was making him look.

Heck, Bush almost makes ME believe that Allah has been pulling strings for Bin Laden!

Answer 6

Al Qaeda is not in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. Al Qaeda (a.k.a Al CIADA) is a CIA creation for the purpose of empowerment of the Zionist warmongers that have taken over our Federal Government and our mainstream media.

Answer 7

do Republicans still deny that Al Qaeda WASN'T in Iraq prior to our invasion? Do Republicans still deny that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11? Do Republicans still deny that this invasion and occupaation has created more terrorists than ever before???

Answer 8

There is a group in Iraq that claims to be Al-Qaida, but it is unclear whether there are any formal ties between this group and what is conventionally thought of as Al-Qaida which is currently holed up in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

The problem is, this organization did not exist in Iraq untill after our invasion.

Answer 9

I, for one, won't deny it. I will deny that they had NO presence at all BEFORE we went to war there, though. We actually created the problem there that we were supposedly fighting. That is why I have opposed the war from the beginning. It is like burning your house down to keep it away from arsonists.

Answer 10

It is strictly political.

Hasn't anybody noticed that the Dems took Congress by promising to get out us of Iraq, then 'oh gosh darnit', somehow haven't done anything to get us out of Iraq?

That is because nobody in their right mind truly believes that leaving Iraq would be beneficial.

They have managed, however, to push through all sorts of favors for their union buddies. No problem there.

Go Pelosi. Really. Please go Pelosi.