It's interesting to read all the comments about the U.S. military report that seriously questions any real links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. I'm convenced there weren't any.

But what is more intersting to me is the lack of reporting of the U.S. support for the Iraqi government headed by Prime Minister Al-Maliki of the Islamic Dawa Party, a terrorist organization, headquartered in Iran, which was responsible for attacking the U.S. embassy in Kuwait and 1983 killing American citizens.

Some one from ABC should investigate that terrrorist attack by what became known as the "Kuwaiti 17." Clearly, because of the U. S. military and monetary support of Maliki and his Iraqi regime there are links between the Dawa Party and the U.S. Why are we supporting this terrorist group?

By the way, the comments by earthisnotflat seems to be right on the "money." I would love to see the record of the big energy meeting that took place between the oil giants (Exxon-Mobile, Standard Oil, etc.) and the Bush administration in Texas just before the start of the Iraqi War.

I could be wrong, but I'd bet we would discover that there was a huge concern about Iraq switching from dollars to Euros for the purchase of oil. Oh, that's right, no one can get the record of that meeting because it has been declared "off limits" by Bush because of executive privilege, which the U.S. Supreme court upheld. Very interesting, indeed!

Now that the report is available for all to read, and many have now read and commented, the ABC report and comments by leftists here bely total ignorance. Anyone who reads the 94 page report will come away with 2 very distinct observations. 1. What Saddam did not actually retain of his WMD programs, he told people he still had them. 2. Despite no direct connection to Al Qaeda, Saddam worked with the precursor to AQ and many other terrorist orgs. Anyone who denies these things has not read the report.

A million dead or maimed, five million family members devastated, economic disaster for decades to come, war wounded physically and many more mentally, for money to contractors, ignorance, and hubris of several (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc).

What a price to pay.

When you read accounts of the National security meetings at camp David leading up to the war; I realize there was no conspiracy or "great plan" the Bush/Cheney folks were just stumbling around in the dark, they really believed. God help us!

I went to the Joint Forces Command web site and found no such report. When I put in "Saddam and al Qaeda" link, it came back nothing.

The truth is really important. Produce the whole report and the link.

I would love to read the report but for some mysterious reason I can't seem to download it. ?????

"So, the people who lied"

NO ONE LIED!

Get it through your heads. We made a mistake. How hard is this really to understand?

I think we ought to bring formal charges against all leftists for their "Bush lied" lie.

French told us...

A stabilizing force?

By attacking Iran and by invading Kuwait and by attacking the Kurds within his borders? Nevermind the terrorist training camps inside of Iraq or the harbored terrorists or the payments to "martyr's" families.

Thats some stability.

For anyone who's been paying attention the last 6 years, there is no "NEWS" here. Saddam was a ass but was no threat to the USA. He WAS, however a stabilizing force within the region via his threats and history. Now, thanks to Bush and his administration manufactured war, the region is more of a mess then ever. And what was gained? A trillion dollars debt, thousands of dead American heros, and Iraq a total destroyed mess that the American taxpayers are paying for. Where was ABC News and the rest of the media when all this was being spouted as truth by the administration? News media is now a sound bite collector to be used/misused by those who can. Whatever happened to investigative reporting of truth?

Just because it's fun to shout questions into an echo chamber---
How can your headline say the exact opposite of what the report says? Did you forget to read it? No, wait, you read the executive summary and stopped, didn't you? Nice quality reporting there, ABC...

From Chris Linthwaite,"Hardly surprising. Saddam Hussein was a sunni moslem, and Alqaeda consists mainly of Shia Moslems following the Wahhabi faith based in Saudi Arabia. They hate each other."

You win the prize for the most ignorant in today's blog world. Al-Qaeda is Sunni and Saddam was Sunni. Maybe if the libs would educate themselves a bit about what they try to protest they would actually see the truths. Iraq issues didn't begin with this President Bush, it began with his father and went through the hands of President Clinton. For once I wish the libs would research the countless connections that were claimed by the Clinton administration and the countless references to Iraq's WMD programs as made by the Clinton's administration. If President Bush ever makes even a tenth of what's classified on Iraq available to the public the lib's world would be turned upside-down and inside-out. Hopefully he'll do it right before the election and make the libs realize how ignorant they really are.

Facts don't matter to ABC "news"; spin the story to support their masters in the DNC. It doesn't matter that ABC itself reported the links between Saddam and AQ in the 90s when President Clinton and the senate voted (100-0, if memory serves correctly) for "regime change in Iraq". It matters not to ABC that clinton/Gore/Albright claimed knowledge of WMD in the 90s to support the bombing. To ABC, the term "WMD" was invented by President Bush.
ABC is not news, it is propaganda, just like NBC and CBS. Is it any wonder that 70% of the Americans doesn't trust the mainstream media? The media lies, people die.

ABC and the rest of the MSM are sticking to their template no matter how many links are shown. BTW ABC, where's that Mark Foley indictment?

read in the report copies of Iraqi documents stating that Iraq was the main funder for Afgan Gulbuddin Hekmatyar since 1989. Go read about him on Wikipedia. It states he worked closely with bin Laden in the early 1990's (that is while Iraq was funding him by the way), and He claims he and his forces were responsible for saving Bin Laden in Tora Bora.

No links, nothing to see here.

Just read the report and see that Saddamm and Al qaeda only funded the same groups, had the same goals, and used the same terrorist tactics. But that is ok, as long as Saddamm never habored al Qaeda terrorsts, Whoops, he did that too.
Never mind, there were no links.

Can people read anymore. Obviously No Child Left Behind has been a failure. Egyptian Islamic Jihad is the foundation of Al-Qaeda and any links to that group is links to Al-Qaeda. Spice it, dice it anyway it chews and it comes out the same, there were links to Al-Qaeda. Barack's first name was Barry but changing his name didn't change who he is.
Why don't people just read the report for what's in it, not for what they do or don't want in it?
For those here complaining about the cost of the Iraq War, Obama voted 4 times and $400 billion later for the funding.
Obama, July 2004,"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster,"."It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."

this 'reporting' is positively SHAMEFUL. Page 35 of this report shows and organization with FINANCIAL links to Al Qaeda, that was SUPPORTED by Iraq had a policy of killing Jews, Americans, Soldiers etc wherever they could find them.
But yeah, why post that when you can create a sensation and get morons like: Posted by: Joe MUrphy | Mar 13, 2008 10:09:04 PM up in an outrage about 'war crimes' and any other number of ridiculous claims.
PS. link to this warrant please. Never heard of it and I read German papers everyday.

ABC News has requested and obtained a copy of the Pentagon study which shows Saddam Hussein had no links to Al Qaeda.

It is amazing how the Democrat media chooses to rewrite history as documents come to light that show the opposite of what they report.

Dougster58 comes out and says "Read the report." and proceeds to ignore the most incriminating evidence, just as ABC News did.

MataHarley, jack moss, Tim, and Mark have it right, and right on the money. There were ties between Saddam and bin Laden. There were links between Saddam and bin Laden. The idea that "no direct operational links" becomes "no links" is ridiculous; they are two different sentences with two different meanings. As parts of the report show, there were plenty of indirect links between Saddam and bin Laden.

ABC News should be ashamed of itself for its headline and reporting on this. But they won't. There is no shame for "liberals".

There is no substitute for bypassing journalist headlines by authors with an aversion to reading.

Contrary to many media's headlines, an established relationship of support between Saddam and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (aka Islamic Jihad Organization) is indeed a "direct link". EIJ was led by Zawahiri from 1993 to 1998, when he merged the EIJ with al Qaeda.

Are we to assume that Saddam, afater dealing with Zawahiri's group for so long, suddenly ostracized him for the group name change/merger?

Then there's that pesky detail of documented meetings between Mulla Omar's Defense Minister, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, and Saddam in Nov of 1999. The Maulana is known today for his JUI-F party in Pakistan, and was a founding father of the Taliban under Bhutto's ministry.

Saddams' agreement to aid the Taliban in 1999, via the Maulana, is an indirect link to AQ - as OBL had moved AQ headquarters from the Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996. Money to the Taliban equates to cash available to AQ as well.

One might put the headline into perspective when you read the "Conclusion" Section V... which would be very inconvenient for those who have proclaimed Saddam was not a threat. The last sentence pretty much says it all.

"Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces."

Suggest you all go read it all before forming some less than correct conclusions based on a reporter's headline. Find the full report at http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

There is no substitute for bypassing journalist headlines by authors with an aversion to reading.

Contrary to many media's headlines, an established relationship of support between Saddam and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (aka Islamic Jihad Organization) is indeed a "direct link". EIJ was led by Zawahiri from 1993 to 1998, when he merged the EIJ with al Qaeda.

Are we to assume that Saddam, afater dealing with Zawahiri's group for so long, suddenly ostracized him for the group name change/merger?

Then there's that pesky detail of documented meetings between Mulla Omar's Defense Minister, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, and Saddam in Nov of 1999. The Maulana is known today for his JUI-F party in Pakistan, and was a founding father of the Taliban under Bhutto's ministry.

Saddams' agreement to aid the Taliban in 1999, via the Maulana, is an indirect link to AQ - as OBL had moved AQ headquarters from the Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996. Money to the Taliban equates to cash available to AQ as well.

One might put the headline into perspective when you read the "Conclusion" Section V... which would be very inconvenient for those who have proclaimed Saddam was not a threat. The last sentence pretty much says it all.

"Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces."

Suggest you all go read it all before forming some less than correct conclusions based on a reporter's headline.

You all need to read the report again.

this revelation from page 34? "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision." (The example given in the report is the Army of Muhammad in Bahrain, a group the Iraqi Intelligence Service describes as "under the wings of bin Laden.")

And there is this line from page 42: "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."

Sounds like "links" to me, but then I wouldn't want to upset the script that the left and the MSM have followed up to this point.

If you look hard enough at a guy like Saddam and his regime, naturally you will find connections to anti-West groups of various kinds - Saddam was anti-West, after all. Maybe not Al-Qaeda, but almost certainly something else. For those of you who continue to insist Saddam had links to terrorist groups and had to be taken out, I say, that is not a justification for the action taken by the U.S. in Iraq. There are plenty of world leaders who are anti-American and actively working against American interests, but we don't illegally invade their countries and take down their regimes. This Iraq war was a foolish, tragic mistake by a foolishly incompetent man (men, if you want to include VP Cheney). No one thinks that if US forces remain in Iraq for a few more years, the tribal and religious strife will somehow, miraculously sort itself out. No one, that is, except old-school, intellectually strait-jacketed thinkers like John McCain. This will continue to be a nightmare, sucking down our resources and taking young people's lives, until we elect leaders who are free of this old, "America can't back down because then the terrorists win" mentality. The mentality that says America must use force and might to prevail no matter the rationale, no matter the cost, no matter the disruption to regional and world order, and no matter the corrosive effect on our economy. This is not a contest to see who can be "tougher", to see who has more mettle, more commitment, more persistence. I am quite certain that a decision by a sane, thoughtful leader to end America's involvement in this conflict will not mean the end of America, of its influence, of its standing in the world. America has plenty of effective ways to exert its influence for good in the world, and if terrorists proclaim a "win" when we leave Iraq, I believe they will soon find their "win" to be utterly worthless.

Why are BUSH, CHENEY, RICE and RUMDUM not being arrested and charged with WAR CRIMES??? There is an arrest warrant already out for RUMDUM in Germany..

I see many lines that tie Sadaam to Al Quada. Maybe the rest of you can't read so good.

I am going to love it IF a democrat gets in office and royally screws things up and we get hit by another terrorist attack ... but im sure you guys will come up with some way to blame bush for that as well.

Whether or not Saddam had ties to a terrorist has no bearing on the invasion. Bush lied to cover up the real reason and to appease congress and the American Public. See my post below.

A new Pentagon report on Iraq and Terrorism has the news media buzzing. An item on the New York Times blog snarks, "Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link." The ABC News story that previews the full report concludes, "Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda."

How, then, to explain this sentence about Iraq and al Qaeda from the report's abstract: "At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust"? And how to explain the "considerable overlap" between their activities which led not only to the appearances of ties but to a "de facto link between the organizations?" (See the entire abstract below.)

And what about this revelation from page 34? "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision." (The example given in the report is the Army of Muhammad in Bahrain, a group the Iraqi Intelligence Service describes as "under the wings of bin Laden.")

And there is this line from page 42: "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."

Really? Saddam Hussein "supported" a group that merged with al Qaeda in the late 1990s, run by al Qaeda's #2, and the New York Times thinks this is not a link between Iraq and al Qaeda? How does that work?

Anyone interested in the "strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism" -- that language comes from this report, too -- should read the entire thing for themselves, here.

Here is the abstract:

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

SO CAN WE IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW?... AND THEN SEND THEM TO PRISON?

here is why we invaded Iraq: It was about the propping up the U.S. petrodollar. When Nixon decoupled the dollar from the gold standard and did a deal with the Saudis and OPEC to allow oil to be traded only in U.S. dollars, which made the dollar the world reserve currency and that is its value. All nations have to buy oil with U.S. dollars, but we just print dollars to get a free lunch. This con has been going on for 30+ years but Saddam Hussein started taking Euros for oil, which caused the bottom to fall out of the artifically maintained U.S. dollars. Clinton & Bush were determined to put a stop to this, because without the dollar being the standard, the U.S. economy and military would grind grind to a halt and end the American global military power. So Iraq was invaded not because of WMDs or ties to Al-Qaida. The USA immediately forced the sale of Iraqi oil for dollars for a while. Now Iran & Venezuela are selling oil for Euros and Yen, so guess what? The backside has dropped out of the U.S. dollar again, so we need to force these rogue countries to stop doing this and start selling oil with dollars again. But guess what, this isn't going to happen again. The U.S. dollar is being dropped as the world reserve currency, the OPEC nations are diversifying their currencies away from the dollar and if China and a few other creditor nations start redeeming their massive dollar holdings, the U.S. economy is history along with our military funding. We'll have to pay for oil with Euros or Yen instead of the photocopied monopoly dollar. Now you know why Iraq was invaded and why Iran & Venzuela are next. But, its too little too late unless all you citizens are ready to start wearing military fatigues. If we don't, it will take a while, but it will be the end of the American Empire

Read the report. Found it very interesting in how it's couched. Some will read the list of so-called terrorist groups and say "Ah-haa! Gotcha! They're all terrorist groups, just like Bush and Cheney said!" Then you'll take the ball and run with it, shouting "Proof! Proof!" You'll become a sycophant, and you'll drink the Bush-Cheney Kool-aid. Sad. Very sad.

But if you read the report--the entire report--as I have done--and if you know your independently researched ancient and modern history of the Middle East then you'll know and understand that the so-called terrorist organizations listed on pgs 14-15 in no way shape, form or fashion fit into the classic catergory of "terrorist" as defined by the west. What these groups actually was were Iraqi-State controlled organs that were often directly funded by the gov't of Saddam Hussein and almost exclusively targeted Iraqi Exile opposition groups. That is they targeted exile organizations directly hostile the Hussein Gov't. Paralelles exist in every known gov't. Example: The CIA and exile Cuban Groups, which Castro determines are "terrorist' but the U.S. recognizes as "Freedom Fighters," or the RCMP, which disrupts the Quebec Separatist movement in any way they can. Or Isreal and the Mosad. The list could go on and on, but I hope you all take my point, which is Saddam Hussien had absolutely nothing to do with harboring Al Queda or cooperarting with him in any way shape, form or fashion. The dots are just not there.

This causes me some concern. I have to ask the honest question: Why did we start this war? It wasn't because Hussein was sleeping with Al Queda; Hussein was a secularist. It wasn't because Hussein was targeting western interest; he wasn't. So I have to ask again: Why are we in Iraq? After this report, the case cannot be made that it was to search for WMD. Or to promote democracy in general. If no answers can be provided, then the only answer that I can provide is that we are systemically looting the nation of thier oil wealth. And if that is so, then we are conquerors and looters, pure and simple.

Thanks for publishing this report that the administration did not want published. I encourage everyone with half a brain to read it cover to cover. Then seethe. And in November, vote the bums out. Then demand that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfield, et al, be tried under the RICO statures for profiteering and crimes against humanity.

Now that we cordially orchestrated the 'off with his head campaign' for their benefit, the Saudis are happy to pursue their original ulterior motives and keep raising the barrel prices to fund their UTOPIAN SOCIETY without any resistance. Either we cut or drastically reduce the need for oil or we become the servants of these creatures that we created. Yes, it is our fault.

I love that we hire military guys because of their expert judgement about political sensitivity.

The politicians want to fight wars, and the generals want to worry about politics.

Who cares what they call themselves! We've got them concentrated in Iraq and they are not flying planes into tall buildings with a single bound =^^^-> in my neighborhood...yet

Is this the only thing the "government" doesn't want us to see? Only 10 more months of Bush/Cheney et al.

If we were lied to about the reasons for invading IRAQ than how can we believe the official story behind the World Trade Center attacks? Look at all of our freedoms we gave up and also look at who gained from the events of that terrible day. Isn't it kind of ironic how the events of that day were used as a catalyst for invading IRAQ? I think as americans we need to call for a full investigation of this administration and all their "interests" that have profited from this so called "War on Terrorism"!

THEY ALSO DON'T WANT YOU .... to see all the millions they stole.... IMPEACH NOW!

Is there actually an organization that calls itself Al Qaeda? Can you please cite any proof of that?

Of course there is no link between "Al Qaeda" and Saddam because there never was any "Al Qaeda". The name originated in a CIA analyst's mind, and meant: "The base" as in "base directory" on hard disk found in Pakistan.

But don't such simple facts stop the ranting, please. It's so much fun to read.

It's another example of the standard method of operation and utter incompetence with this bunch of clowns in the white house

As a further testament to the utter incompetence of this administration, the act of trying to make this report more difficult to obtain has massively backfired by drawing more attention to the report, which in turn is making it readily available from any number of sources.

Hey, that's kindof like invading Iraq for energy security and almost tripling the cost of oil as a result.

The combination of ignorance and arrogance demonstrated by this administration is simply staggering.

In less than a year, nobody will remember that Bush existed. In fact, I've forgotten him already.

Ain't no link. Never was a link. Everybody knows it.

Dr H J Hiddinga,

I want to see you attempt to prove your below statement.

"Al Quaeda operatives were cloeely aligned with the Baath party in Iraq, including direct contacts with Saddam himself. And the hands of Saddam were wrapped tightly around biological, chemical, and nuclear devices. These are public facts that have been opportunistically forgotten and ignored by journalists and closed minded, intolerant, left wing cretins."

By any reasonable standard Bush will be remembered as the worst president in the history of the nation. Those that voted for him should be rememebered also, as a clear signal that 50% of American voters cannot be trusted to make an intelligent choice. Rove & Cheney know this and that is their only claim to competence.

Ok, I have to point something out here. Once, again, the government is wasting the taxpayers money when they do not need too. CDs in the mail instead of putting it online?? Just how much is the costing us?

Am I wrong? I think not.

Ani,
when you say Obama has no clue what he is talking about in foreign policies what fact do you base that on? On the fact that he had good judgement and opposed the war or on the fact that he wants to try diplomacy rather than force and arrogance?

You go, Bob! Nice info.

You all are being brainwashed against Bush (he's definitely not the greatest president but isn't a complete fool either). First, if you would actually read the full report, rather than just looking at the comments ABC made, you would realize that Saddam had many ties to numerous terrorist groups who sought the destruction of the West. Al Qaeda was not one of them but those mentioned are not to be ignored.
Second, did any of you actually think we removed Saddam from power because of Al Qaeda? How many times must this be repeated? 9/11 = TERRORISTS (AL QAEDA), NOT THE IRAQ WAR. Seriously, the US stands to make the three P's with other countries that have democracies implemented in them (3 P's: Peace, Power and Prosperity). Maybe we went into Iraq on a quest of democritization (despite how hypocritical that really is) or maybe it was for oil or perhaps to stop the minority from ruling over and harming the majority in Iraq. Whatever it was, it wasn't Al Qaeda.
Third, Obama has no clue what he is talking about when it comes to foreign policy and can't stand up to McCain (even though I don't support McCain). He may move you but this is an election where we must pick a candidate who knows the history of the countries we are dealing with, not someone who makes you emotional.

This is just the beginning.

Duh! Was there ever any question? Any American that has any intelligence at all realized that Sadam and Al Qaeda were completely separate issues well before "Operation Iraqi Oil Grab". Unfortunately, George W. Bush & Company, Inc. had a stockholder's meeting and out maneuvered The American People.

To actually read this report and not be astounded at how deep Saddam was in terrorism (car bombs in foreign embassies, suicide vest factories, training Saudi and Egypt Islamic fighters, IED training) one must be intentionally obtuse.

Read the report and make your own decision people. That's all I can say. It doesn't match the "no links to terrorism or al Qaeda" talking point.

Andrea - I appreciate what you are saying. I agree Obama would have saved us a lot of money if he had the chance to vote against the war as he probably would have. I happen to support Ron Paul who is both antiwar and fiscally conservative. People that voted or stood against the war should be rewarded for it. Obama is. However Paul is in a party with people like Rufus. He has no chance amongst that crowd.

George did what he was told to do. He first heard about the WTC on a tv in the hall of the school he was visiting so he said. The he explained lamely, "It's politics". Iraq is too.

So people... esp those of you who have lost sons and daughters out there to this Iraq invasion that your kids gave their lives for... WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS?

Brad, I think that they all promise alot they can not pay for. Like Clinton with the universal health care plan. But I think it is important to be diplomatic and have good judgement. If we were not in this war we would not be in this terrible finacial situation, not to mention the lives lost. People keep saying he was a dictator he had to be stopped. Why are we not in Dafur?
My bottom line is that we have absolutly no business beeing in the middle east. They have fought for 2000 years, what makes anyone believe you can have piece there?

Read the report guys. You will see that there are plenty of examples of Saddamn's links to other terroist groups with the explict motivation to attack countries in the west. Just because they aren't called Al-Qaeda doesn't mean there not dangerous.

Obama was right again when he reminded Maccain that there was no Alquida before the invasion

More on how the Senate voted on Public Law 107-243 (AUMF)

The lone republican that voted No was Lincoln Chafee-R of Rhode Island and the Independent that voted No was James Jeffords-I of Vermont.

We didn't go after Saddam Hussein because of Al-Quaida.

We went after Saddam Hussein because he was an evil dictator raping, pillaging and killing his own people.

We went after Saddam Hussein because he was violating all the United Nations resolutions and sanctions.

We went after Saddam Hussein because he continued to say, and act as though, he was working on weapons-of-mass-destruction.

We originally went after Saddam Hussein because he invaded Kuwait.

It was a mistake to leave Saddam Hussein in power in 1991.

If we had removed Saddam Hussein from power in 1991, we wouldn't be having these problems now.

The real problem is, we weren't brave enough to do the right thing when we had the chance.

We should be brave enough now to do the right thing.

Don't surrender now.

We did the cowardly thing in Viet Nam.

We withdrew, and millions of people died because of our cowardice.

Pursue victory and peace.

Andrea - You are correct Obama did speak in opposition before the war, but has since voted to continue the war. Obama I think will be diplomatic and pragmatic on the world stage which is a good thing. The only problem is that he promises stuff to people that there is no way of paying for. His platform will spend more than any of the other candidates which makes me worry. More borrowing from overseas and higher taxes just stinks. We need to reduce spending!!!

>>es, the report shows that Saddam actively supported terrorists. That's not the point. He was a dangerous dictator who we would all be better off without. But he wasn't an "imminent threat" to the United States. The Bush administration told us that Saddam was about to give his nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda to use on New York City<<

Incorrect. Bush told the UN and the nation we must take down Saddam BEFORE his threats became imminent. That with WMDs, imminent was an unacceptable place to let them be.

The point Dems ALWAYS miss is that 2 days post 9/11 Bush gave the terror host world the needed message that THEY too, would come under US attack for their support of our attackers. He made good on the promise when Saddam refused to come clean. This scared Khadaffi into surrendering his entire WMD arsenal to the US 5 days after Saddam was pulled out of his spider hole.

The Bush doctrine, which took out terror host Saddam, unseated the Taliban, decimated Al Qaeda in and out of Iraq, has been very effective in getting the next wave of terror allies, like Khadaffi, to back off and pick on little tribes they can handle. Like Europe.

Well, the bleeding heart, half-wit liberals are at it again. Either they have NOT read the REPORT or do not understand the REPORT or cherry pick one point and run with it. NO amount of asking you to READ and Understand the REPORT will do any good.

Obama can say: I told you so. Good for him.

Bill - Thanks for the stats. There seem to be a few that didn't by in to this debacle. One republican, must be brave to stand against the rest of the pack.

How do you spell I-M-P-E-A-C-H?

Yes, the report shows that Saddam actively supported terrorists. That's not the point. He was a dangerous dictator who we would all be better off without. But he wasn't an "imminent threat" to the United States. The Bush administration told us that Saddam was about to give his nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda to use on New York City, or at leastthat is the "connection" they tried to get us to believe. That was a lie, as this report (and common sense) makes clear. A war might have benefits in stopping a dangerous man, but it also has costs in death, human suffering, economics, world standing, and blowback (negative national security repercussions). This one wasn't worth the cost, and we knew that going in.

Public Law 107-243 – Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was signed into law on 10/11/02. The Senate votes were as follows:

Democrats voted = 29 YES, 21 NO

Republicans voted = 48 YES, 1 NO

Independents voted = 0 Yes, 1 NO

McCain will keep this report under wraps

You are taking one line. Read the rest of the report. Saddam killed many people and was a training ground for killers.

Well, how about this one Steve. Al Qeada is in Iraq right now. I'm sure Bush must have invited them in with open arms.

Saddam was a kind, gentle person who posed no harm to anyone. He LOVED America. He also loved his own people so much he killed several hundred with poison gas. He would CERTAINLY have no connections to Al Qeada.

Obama was right!.
AQ was not there in Iraq US invasion.

Note to Pelosi and Reid: How do you spell I-M-P-E-A-C-H?

Read the report, you just got played. The report documents 40 pages of indirect support for Al Qaeda by Saddam. Then you got fed one out of context line and made it a PR bonanza. The IIS order to support the Army of Muhamed is more of smoking gun than has ever been exposed. IIS found out AoM was working for Bin Laden, then authorized support for that branch of Al Qaeda since they used a different name and it gave deniability. Claiming that is not proof is like saying Bush didn't invade Iraq, when you have his signature on the orders for the 3rd Infantry Division but don't have his order to Rumsfeld.

Here Rufus, how's this. Once upon a time in 1990 a group of 19 Al-Qaida terrorists were on a bus trip from Syria to Afghanistan and were stopped to let a parade pass in Baghdad. The parade was a tribute to Saddam who was riding in an open air car. As he was going by, he happened to wave at the bus carring the Al-Qaida terrorists. The terrorists waved back. So there my friend is the connection, which is just as credible as your info. Now, call Bush to give him the good news!

Support Our Troops - Not the president! I have a friend in Iraq too. Hates Bush, loves the country. Realizes he was lied to but fills his obligation to country. He makes crap for a paycheck. These troops are underpaid, families left to suffer with bills and when the troops get home they get horrible care. Troopers house is going into foreclosure, no way to come home and fix it. Wife works 2 jobs to makes end meet and half her paycheck goes to a babysitter to work the 2 jobs. And you support a president who supports this? Our troops deserve the 12 billion a month for themselves and their families, for future medical care and to get back on track with bills etc... Our President is a disgrace. Oh by the way Mr President, he ended up dying! Support Our Troops

unreal how stupid these repubs are.

reading into their comments is all it takes to see the nature of their party.
absolutely ridiculous.

IMPEACH NOW

Now that the true facts are out, it is time we brought those two guy to justice. And God will bless America.

Dumber'n a bag of hammers.

"A later memorandum from the same collection85 to the Director
of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance
[from Iraq] to implement its objectives"

Where does it actually state in the document that they received assistance?

It doesn't! Again, a tiny mind at work.

So who is going to pay for the Iraq war debacle? It will only cost trillions and by borrowing from foreign countries to finance our debt will only wreck our government and economy more.

merely proves what most people already knew, bush and cheney are both path. liars and should be impeached, it is very unfortunate that these type of people get into our government and are responsible for killing thousands of americans,

Bet the Bush Adm. is glad this report is out- it proves Saddam WAS involved in terrorism. It would be foolish to wait for another attack, he was a logical first enemy to cross off the list. Does it really matter what terrorist grp. he was involved with? Obviously not. I'm all for avoiding war, but not at the cost of waiting for the next shoe to drop. We took the initiative, no more attacks here to date, right or wrong, its been an effective deterrent. Now lets get back to effective diplomacy / foreign policy. No more madmen "forcing" us to strike. As a Dem., I really hate to side with the Rep., but the far left who benefit from the sacrifices of others are getting way too whiney and show complete and utter confusion about the way the world works- McCain will win for sure, and he has my mod. Dem. vote because he is able to say whats right and do whats right and still be politically effective, i.e. abortion rights need to get dumped from our Dem. platform, McCains got it right, he'll get my vote.

At the same time Bush is trying to show that their is no link between US citizens and their civil rights!