Pentagon Report Confirms Saddam’s Regime Supported al Qaida

By 27 Comments

This week opponents of the war were given a treat. They were told-in a single article-based on a single anonymous source-that a report which hadn’t been released said there was never any ties between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the al-Qaida network of terrorist groups. Millions of the war’s opponents were instantly elated with glee at the idea that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war against the al-Qaida terrorist network; that the invasion was completely disconnected from any threat to the United States.

Disregarding the misplaced glee for a moment, let’s face some facts. The report described in the article was finally released to the public, and its contents are almost completely contrary to the leaked “article” that described it beforehand.

In fact, if anything this new study should finally put to rest the false perception that Saddam’s regime was too secular to work with radical Islamic holy warriors, and it should be a genuine wake up call for people who continue to ignore the threat posed by state-sponsors of terror like Saddam Hussein once was.

Let’s take a closer look at this “article.”

“Study: Iraq had no link to al-Qaida
Pentagon finds the ‘bulletproof’ prewar evidence turned out bogus”
March 10, 2008, 11:46PM
WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terrorist network.

-The opening line is false for two reasons. First it describes it as “exhaustive” which typically means complete, and it’s not. In fact the report itself says in every single area of study that more research is needed; i.e. the intelligence has not been exhausted. Second, it claims that there is no evidence of “operational links with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terrorist network,” but in fact the report itself is packed with evidence of operational ties between Saddam’s regime and various groups that are components/participants/elements/members of the network. For example the report confirms that Egyptian Islamic Jihad was supported by Saddam’s regime at a time when 2/3 of the al-Qaida network’s leadership (2/3 of the leadership prior to 2003 was comprised of members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The report is also packed with examples of Saddam’s regime recognizing, supporting, and working with Egyptian Islamic Jihad; i.e. with 2/3 of al-Qaida leadership.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam’s regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy Newspapers. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

-The problem with this statement is that the “other terrorist groups” mentioned were al-Qaida affiliates (or elements of the al-Qaida network) at the time that documents show Saddam’s regime supported them. The “article” goes on to suggest that the operations primarily targeted “Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.” That’s a convenient way of saying that Saddam’s Intelligence Service (the IIS) and the Saddam Fedeyeen (Martyrs of Saddam terrorist group) worked with al-Qaida affiliates in Northern and Southern Iraq to maintain control in areas where his conventional forces lacked such ability. It’s also a very deceitful to say “others he considered enemies of his regime” rather than what the report actually says: targets in France, London, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UN targets, and Americans.

The new study of the Iraqi regime’s archives found no documents indicating a “direct operational link” between Hussein’s Iraq and al-Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report. He and others spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because the study isn’t due to be shared with Congress and released before Wednesday.

-Earlier the “article” mentioned that the report being described hasn’t been released at the time of writing the “article.” That means that the entire declaration-false declaration [that Saddam’s regime had no substantive ties to Osama Bin Laden] is based on a single, anonymous, U.S. official. There is no corroboration, just the word of a single anonymous source.

President Bush and his aides used Saddam’s alleged relationship with al-Qaida, along with Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had “bulletproof” evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam’s secular dictatorship.

-In complete and total contrast to the “article” which claimed. “ Pentagon finds the ‘bulletproof’ prewar evidence turned out bogus” the reality is that the report itself is in fact packed with captured documents supporting the idea that in many cases with many examples and many different groups, Saddam’s regime did cooperate with radical Islamist terror groups, and often those groups were in fact al-Qaida affiliates.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited multiple linkages between Saddam and al-Qaida in a watershed February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council to build international support for the invasion.

-This is true, but (perhaps due to space and word limit constraints) the “article” fails to mention that almost all of the statements Secretary of State Powell made were repeated from the 1998 Clinton Administration indictment of Osama Bin Laden, and they were later repeated again by the bi-partisan and independent 911 Commission.

Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence.

-This is not true, and it is in fact quite the opposite again. Most of Secretary Powell’s statements regarding regime ties to al-Qaida were true, and only a few were found to be incorrect.

As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al-Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq.
“The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims,” the president said.

-This statement has absolutely nothing to do with the report that is the “article’s” subject. The report in question looks at the pre-war relationship between Saddam’s regime and the al-Qaida network NOT the presence of al-Qaida groups inside Iraq four years after the invasion. However, it should be noted that the groups currently in Iraq that are typically referred to as, “al-Qaida in Iraq” are actually a collection of groups that were inside Iraq before the invasion, worked with both Saddam’s regime, and worked with the al-Qaida hierarchy before the invasion. The people who are today’s “al Qaida in Iraq” were radical Islamic terrorists working inside Iraq before the invasion. They just have a common name now.

The new study, titled “Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents,” was essentially completed last year and has been undergoing what one U.S. intelligence official described as a “painful” declassification review. It was produced by a federally funded think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, under contract to the Norfolk, Va.-based U.S. Joint Forces Command.
While the documents reveal no Saddam-al-Qaida links, they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.

-While the “article” claims the captured documents “reveal no Saddam-al-Qaida links” they clearly do in many places according to the report itself rather than the word of the one anonymous U.S. official.

However, the U.S. intelligence official, who has read the full report, played down the prospect of any major new revelations, saying, “I don’t think there’s any surprises there.”
Saddam, whose regime was relentlessly secular, was wary of Islamic extremist groups such as al-Qaida, although like many other Arab leaders, he gave some financial support to Palestinian groups that sponsored terrorism against Israel.

-It’s interesting that immediately after the “article” says, “Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups,” the “article” then tries to fawn off the very fact it previously stated by dismissing Saddam’s secularism as if it prevented his regime from working with Islamic extremists (which the report says the documents show did in fact happen on many occasions).

There’s no reason to believe that the “article” deliberately sought to mislead anyone which was almost completely false. Put simply, now that the report itself is out, and one no longer needs to rely on a wannabe Deepthroat, secret U.S. official as a source. We can all see what the real findings are, and those findings are simple:

  • Saddam Hussein’s regime-secular as it was-worked with Islamic radical terrorist groups, and this is now proven not only by pre-war tidbits of intelligence, but by detainee interrogations and in particular captured documents and tapes.
  • Saddam Hussein’s regime was a state-sponsor of radical Islamic terrorist groups including groups that served as the attack tentacles of the al-qaida terrorist network, and in supporting these operations the Iraqi regime was in frequent contact with terrorist legends and leaders who oh-so-coincidentally were in charge of 2/3 of the al-qaida network’s core.

No ties to al-qaida? That mantra-based in every case on half quotes from various investigations-is now debunked. Yes, there were ties, and they were significant.

However, given the immense-near total disparity between the claims put forth describing the latest volume of the Iraqi Perspectives Project report and the actual contents of that report, it seems that a RETRACTION OF THE ARTICLE IS NECESSARY lest one try to stand on falsehoods so clearly eclipsed by facts that can be found by so simply by just reading the actual report rather than an anonymous U.S. official’s whispers.

More specific details of the report can be found here:

Hot Air
New York Sun
The Corner
The Weekly Standard

Oddly enough, opponents of the war don’t seem interested in reading the actual article and commenting on its specifics (certainly not with entire quotes, but perhaps with half quotes)


27 Responses to “Pentagon Report Confirms Saddam’s Regime Supported al Qaida”

  1. 1

    The Troll

    This side of this story is so woefully under-reported. I posted the article that ran over at the Tank (the NRO blog) it gives a good read to this same point of view. I loved this paragraph summing up what it would take to deny the connections

    You are a Briton returning to England a few years after the American Revolution. You are queried about your time and linkages there. Your response is, “Your Majesty, I have had communications, cooperation and ties with the colonies of Virginia, Carolina, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maryland. But I have absolutely no links to America.”

  2. 2



    rofl, that SO sums it up.

    That’s like an Iraqi Intelligence Service detainee is asked if he ever had any ties to Al Queda, and he says, “Nooooo, I worked with Ansar al Islam, Ansar al Sunna, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and a number of other Mujahedeedn, but I broke off all my ties with Al Queda in 2007, and I’d never work with an Islamic radical. They scare me.”

    Btw, that is almost EXACTLY what Saddam’s successor and former VP/head henchman, Izzat al Ibrahim al Douri told TIME Magazine while running the insurgency from Syria. He actually said he never worked with Al Queda and then admitted to breaking off ties with Al Queda groups in 2007. Um, how does one break off ties if they never had ties?

    Ya know what gets me the most? It’s that so many people actually PREFER to believe that there was no relationship between the two, no close ties, etc., and they’ll deliberately ignore every single investigation that says the matter needs to be looked at more closely. Instead, these people who PREFER to believe there were no ties just take the political talking point of “no ties” and repeat it as if that’s what these investigations actually say.

    The other day, an opponent of the war asked, ‘why doesn’t the Bush Admin come out and show all the “rock solid” evidence we show here?’ That’s frustrating. The information we show here typically comes from the Bush Admin, the military, intelligence agencies, or independent and bi-partisan investigations, and the people who dismiss this evidence are asking why it’s not presented rather than asking, why wasn’t it seen? Why didn’t their preferred politicians explain it? Why isn’t the political opposition being honest? Why is the mass media presenting half truth soundbites rather than the whole truth given in these reports?

  3. 3



    We know why they choose to ignore the facts and instead buy into the hyperbole and it all comes back to Bush. They can never admit that he was right, that his administration was right, that the intelligence was right. There WERE ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda and after 9/11, after 13 years of Saddam giving the world the finger, he was right in taking him out.

    I found that part in the article in which they argue about whats in Iraq now as opposed to what the report is about equally confusing. It made no sense with the argument they were trying to make. But hey, any chance to get a dig in at the administration. On that topic check out this excellent post about where the majority of suicide bombers come from. Almost ALL of them are foreign fighters.

  4. 4


    For those who prefer to make up their own mind, you need to go to original sources. Now, the original sources are the 600,000 documents that were read, so the best we can do is a secondary source. But it turns out that if you rely on the tertiary source, you are being lied to by the same media that brought us “Elliot Spitzer, Caped Crusader” otherwise known as “Client 9.”

    The executive summary begins:

    The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents
    uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional
    and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many
    terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States. At
    times these organizations worked together, trading access for capability. In the
    period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex
    and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging
    pan-Islamic radical movements. The relationship between Iraq and forces of
    pan-Arab socialism was well known and was in fact one of the defining qualities
    of the Ba’ath movement.

  5. 5


    Hundreds of thousands dead, millions upon millions displaced, the region in worse shape than ever and you’re parsing the meaning of “exhaustive”.

    You’re an idiot.

  6. 6



    Hundreds of thousands dead

    You bought into the Lancet study and you are calling us idiots? Rofl….

    millions upon millions displaced

    Another KOS talking point that only idiots buy into.

    the region in worse shape than ever

    Puhlease…..Saddam is gone, Libya got rid of its WMD’s, and we now have an ally smack dab in the middle east. Iran has been a problem since Carter allowed it to become one, and its even more of one that your heroes inside the State Dept allowed a bogus NIE to be written.

    The region is in way better shape then its been in a long time.

    Oh, btw…your an ass.

  7. 9



    Salvage unknowingly proves the entire point of my post: reading a headline and seeking political affirmation isn’t the same as looking for the truth. In fact, it’s more like begging to be misled. The poor guy didn’t even make it past the second line in my piece by piece dissection of the propaganda article. Apparently he was so put off by the obviousness of truth that contradicts his preferred gleeful idea that the war was unnecessary that he just took his toys and went home. My guess is that if someone else with a D next to their name, or if some uberleft/anti-Bush site has said Saddam had ties to Al Queda…he’d have believed it with no questions asked. After all, Hillary said it, and you can bet good money Salvage is one of those people who will pull the handle for her in the fall if she’s the nominee.

  8. 12

    Mark E.

    Great piece Scott. I have linked you in a piece I am about to post.
    There is no way Strobel from McClatchy would debate you on this. This is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of drive by journalism. Throw a BS grenade of a story into the MSM’s bloodstream and then run like hell so you don’t have to answer any questions.

  9. 14



    From Mark’s comment there:

    There are repeated examples of Saddam’s regime working with Islamic groups, including Ayman al Zawahiri (now al Qaeda #2) Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Were they not Islamic radicals? What about the Army of Mohammed? Ansar al Islam? The Islamic groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan? The Sudanese and other foreign jihadists? Were they not all Islamists?

    And Jemaah Islamiyah and abu Sayyaf, and others, with ties to al-Qaeda.

    As an aside, I found this interesting, with reference to abu Sayyaf/al Qaeda:

    Aren’t the distinctions of boundaries between terror groups, in some cases, rather blurred? One group getting absorbed/transformed into another? Islamic holy warriors freely migrating from one terror group to another? Affiliation to multiple organizations?

    And let’s not forget that President Bush made it clear, early on, that this war went beyond simply one terror group:

    “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”
    -President Bush in an address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, United States Capitol, Washington D.C., September 20, 2001.
  10. 15



    How much confusion and false spin could have been avoided if the White House and others simply referred to “the Al Queda network of terrorist groups” instead of just “Al Queda”? After all, Bin Laden and the other leaders of Al Queda (most of whom are members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad) are just the core. The name Al Queda even translates as “The Base” or “The Origin/start.” They are a network of terrorist groups not some club with a Girl Scouts of America chain of command. If people looked at the matter as a fight against a coalition of groups, then they’d see the connections perfectly clearly.


    I hope everyone gets a chance to read the report. It’s simply amazing.

  11. 17


    Perhaps this is a fiendish plot by someone in the Pentagon who has it in for Warren Strobel to make him look foolish by getting him to write a story that is the exact opposite of the actual report.

  12. 19

    Brian Miller

    If only all you experts worked for the CIA, or any organization, or had any responsibility beyond arm-chair fumble quarterbacking. Yeah, you all have the truth…..

  13. 20

    Mike O’Malley

    @Brian Miller:

    LOLZ! Given the CIA’s track record perhaps they could substantially improve the CIA’s performance.

    BTW: I personally read captured top secret Iraq Intelligence Service document that demonstrated Saddam’s financial support for the Taliban and instance of Saddam’s informal working relationship with AQ. I also found evidence that Saddam had imported dual use nuclear weapons detonators from a European electronics supplier.

    The evidence suggest that the CIA’s got the CIA’s back, not so much America’s back …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *