Report: No Proof Of Qaeda-Saddam Link

Senate Committee Finds Hussein Had No Relationship With Zarqawi

(CBS/AP)  There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al Qaeda associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war.

The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

The report comes at a time when Mr. Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to excerpts of the 400-page report provided by Democrats.

Mr. Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al Qaeda. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.

White House press secretary Tony Snow played down the report as "nothing new."

---

Read the Senate committee report on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress.

---

Read the Senate committee report on Iraq's alleged terror links.

---

Warning: These are large files.

---

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," Snow said. That was "one of the reasons you had overwhelming majorities in the United States Senate and the House for taking action against Saddam Hussein," he said.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al Qaeda.

The administration, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., top Democrat on the committee, "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks."

The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq "were a tragic intelligence failure."

But he said the Democratic interpretations expressed in the report "are little more than a vehicle to advance election-year political charges." He said Democrats "continue to use the committee to try and rewrite history, insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."

The panel report is Phase II of an analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The first phase, issued in July 2004, focused on the CIA's failings in its estimates of Iraq's weapons program.

The second phase has been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fought over what information should be declassified and how much the committee should delve into the question of how policymakers may have manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.

The committee is still considering three other issues as part of its Phase II analysis, including statements of policymakers in the run up to the war.

Republican members of the intelligence committee would not comment on the report Thursday, but Democrats, who have been pushing for its release, said it backed up their argument that Mr. Bush's case for war in Iraq was misleading.

Democrats have argued that Chalabi, in his campaign to topple Saddam, fed U.S. intelligence agencies information that exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq's WMD capabilities. Republicans have countered that Chalabi's influence was limited.

[brianp55]

Here's what absolutely baffles me:

When Bush was making his case to invade Iraq before Congress, the U.N., etc., it was obvious to my wife and me that he was lying. We could see it in his eyes and hear it in his voice. It was obvious that Sadaam Hssein was no threat to the U.S. So why are members of Congress (who certainly had much more information at their disposal than I did)and the general public only now beginning to claim that they were deliberately misled?

[alphaa10-2009]

NewsJeff said-- "<b>I feel many voters are tired of GOP griping about Clinton's behavior in office being the fault of 9-11-2001 he was not the president at the time, he had left office January 21st,2001.</b>

Precisely, but many voters also understand a GOP smoke bomb of distraction with Clinton is tacit admission they cannot defend Bush, as charged. Like a prisoner claiming a sudden attack of asthma to escape a court appearance, the GOP is working hard to change the subject of Bush and his appalling incompetence prior to (and after) 911. Talk about anything else, they say, just stop shaking your fist at our boy.

The gnomes producing the Disney Fantasyland special admitted their abundant license with history should not raise objections, since it is mere "drama" and subject to content distortions like any movie treatment of real events. Such drama, therefore, cannot be a documentary. Even more interesting, however, Disney refused to distribute its Miramar subsidiary's Fahrenheit 911 documentary-- though Moore vetted every line of the script for documented accuracy-- in not wanting to seem "partisan", it said. How is it, in the next breath, Disney punted this inflammatory fiction in the spirit of pure partisanship?

If any measure of public endorsement, Moore's F911 was a rousing success with paying viewers and won critical acclaim at Cannes, while this fruitcake of a six-hour attack ad has to be launched at network expense.

[shaeminix]

When well known scholars can go back and research "terrorism" it is very disheartening to see what they are finding. The America we thought we had is not the America we have. Our civil liberties, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution have all gone to the wayside by this govt. because of "terrorism". Many in govt. needs to be tried for treason on various reasons. War is just a game for money and power for them in my opinion from what I'm constantly reading. I no longer listen to TV news whatsoever. They couldn't have accomplished what they have to the American people unless the mainstream media hadn't have helped them. As I type this I realise many will never be tried because there are just too many of you out there. I wish you people in power would become ashamed and sorry and at least try to make most of the things that have happened right again. Help the older people and the children, help the schools & give them freedom to achieve whatever they can achieve. Don't save it just for your elite children. Katrinna was a wake up call to many Americans. They realized that most of us Americans black/white, middle class/poor have been left to fend for ourselves and no one is man/woman enough to save us in this govt. Shame on you all. I would expound on this if given more space. Hopefully people understand how many Americans feel. Especially when they hear about a president saying the consitituion of the United States is just a g.. d.... piece of paper.

[azman80]

Ok, well for every single person in office that fought so *** hard to go to war in Iraq for the intelligence that was given to them, without verifying all of it, needs to step down. Second of all, the persons involved in giving the crappy intelligence to the "smart bosses of the 280 million people in the United States" need to go to jail. How can you have such intelligence that you are so sure about that you would go to war with another country, then find out the information was ***. This is just amazing, that we Americans dealt with so much *** and so many lies, that we still keep these low IQ but good word choosing folks in office. We are to be blamed also for not doing enough to get them out and get the real MEN to run our country in the right direction. These men in office REALLY dont understand how hard this has been for a lot of families that have lost a loved one. They have their millions and their power to worry about everyday, not human lives!!!!!!!

[ronniehm]

This just in: The Senate Intelligence Committee has found no link between Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein. On hearing the news, Senator Rockefeller immediately called for Hussein's release. "Well, they can't BOTH be evil. There's no link," said the Senator as he fell off a turnip truck.

[ronniehm]

NewsJeff, so that's it? Get bin Laden. No mention of anything that indicates you want to win the war on terror. Either you think bin Laden is the entire war on terror or Rush was right. Second, if Clinton is out of the 9-11 equation because Bush was in office when it happened, who do you hold accountable for failing to stop the first WTC attack? (And for goodness sake, use the same logic.)

[long_rider]

Well I guess this great nation has degraded itself to the point where the president can lie to everyone, to start a war, and get away with it.

I hope this poor excuse of a president ruins this country. Then we can rebuild it, and eliminate our current failures, and attitudes towards letting our politicians run wild, and unchecked.

[newsjeff-2009]

I have read a news piece about how Rush Limbaugh is saying that Americans are not interested in winning the war on terror. I think he is very wrong, Americans want Bin Laden brought to justice, they do not want to continue spending money for an Iraq war because Bush wants it. Many Americans want military efforts to go to bringing Bin Laden to justice for the Sept.11,2001. attacks. Second I feel many voters are tired of GOP griping about Clinton's behavior in office being the fault of 9-11-2001 he was not the president at the time, he had left office January 21st,2001. We have lots immorlity that has been going on in America long before Clinton even became a president. All America wants military wise in national security and Bin Laden brough to justice.

[redrose54]

Everyone who now believes the war in Iraq was unjustified and illegal, as illustrated by this report, has a simple choice: vote Democrat in November and then lobby a Democrat-controlled House to impeach Bush and/or Cheney and Rumsfeld.

If Clinton can be impeached for lying about a minor sexual indiscretion, then surely Bush MUST be held accountable for the loss of so many American military lives?

[abbe7]

What about a report on the shutting down of Brewster-Jennings ?

[alphaa10-2009]

The last three years of debate on intelligence about Iraq did resolve that CIA estimates were clearly qualified by professional assessment of the reliability of the data. Testimony indicates that where the CIA evidence ended, these limits were so stated by professional analysts.

If CIA estimates "failed" Bush, it was that agency's refusal to endorse a prescribed Bush doctrine unsupported by clear evidence. Cheney, in particular, simply stated as fact matters which retained strong and reasonable doubt of any reliable basis at all. Cheney became visibly impatient with CIA when he got no ringing chorus of "Amen!" for his pro-invasion rhetoric.

Critical Bush and Cheney assertions about Iraq turn out to have originated with fragmentary or single-source origins which compromised its reliability-- as noted at the time by contributing analysts. Tenet himself stated to congress he was under intense pressure to express solidarity with Bush on administration statements-- statements at odds with those of his own agency. Supporting Bush as a team player, he suggests, ran clearly against the best professional assessment available on Iraq.

With others of his party, GOP Sen. Pat Robertson dismisses the whole affair as "politics"-- precisely the charge his critics say the report now directs at him.

We know there was no link between Saddam Hussein and either Al Queda or 9-11. Bush admitted all of that before. We also know that there were no WMD's. We aren't that big on democracy, either, since we overthrow democratically elected Latin American governments seemingly at whim. Apparently we are there so we can bomb the country to ruins and then enrich Haliburton for rebuilding part of it at an astronomical cost, in order to bankrupt the United States.

[gossimer]

Well, DUH!!! But will "certain" people EVER comprehend this, I doubt it. They've got their heads buried so deep in Bush's BULLSH*T! Wish we could just OUST Bush and his entire regime, send them all - Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc - to an overseas prison, or better yet, give them to the Taliban!

[ronniehm]

You forgot to call him a poopyhead.

[bobgee_1999]

You gotta admire the fact that the staunch defenders of GWBush refuse to let minor things like his blatant incompetence and open corruption sway them from their pre-conceived positons. Impressive as well that GWBush and the Republican-controlled Congress could be this unpopular and despised, despite having their own 24/7 propaganda machine run by Faux News and right-wing radio. Anybody spots that "liberal media bias" I sure wish they'd tell me where I could get some.

[ronniehm]

By the way, the REAL spelling is in Arabic. Osama/Usama is just the closest we can get with our alphabet. How about we just call him Sybil?

[ronniehm]

stevyz, you don't have to guess what Clinton would do if USAMA (wouldn't want to offend him) carried out an attack during his term. It happened multiple times.

[stevyz1]

i think its funny that bill clinton is the only thing left fot the conservitive war mongewrs to attack ...had 911 happened on clintons watch i think we would have USAMA(THE REAL SPELLING) IN CUSTODY...
THIS SO CALLED WAR IN IRAQ ..WE NEED A UN/OR NATO FORCE IN THERE WE NEED TO GET THE REST OF THE WORLD IN ON IT..AND GET OUR BOYS HOME....
THEN FIRE RUMSFELD/IMPEACH BUSH CHENEY THEN TRY THEM AS WAR CRIMINALS ....

[ronniehm]

d1Hawk, you're right. September 10, 2001, George Bush invades Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and go after bin Laden. All airline flights are cancelled for September 11. Democrats would do what?

[ronniehm]

gmac (aka "pal"), Clinton ordered missile strikes in Afghanistan, not Pakistan, in 1998. They missed. The fact that it happened right after he got a bIow job from Monica Lewinsky is not the GOP's fault. Nothing was launched except Bill Clinton. Wag The Dog was a story written long before that incident. And yeah, six years into his presidency, Clinton tried to pass a bill to fight terrorism like the Oklahoma City bombing. It was passed after a few useless things were taken out of it. Yay Bill.

DaveJP, yes I can find Baghdad on a map. Can you find where I said 9/11 was Clinton's fault? I simply said if someone is stupid enough to say 9/11 is Bush's fault simply because it happened during his term and he couldn't stop it, the same would have to apply to Clinton. If it makes you feel smarter to call me ignorant, well, knock yourself out. I'm satisfied that I don't need to tear you down personally to make my point.