For those counting, this is at least the sixth confirmation of this. ABC News led the way with three reports from captured AQ and captured IIS guys immediately after the invasion. (h/t Amy Proctor)
The political rhetoric says that these camps were not in Saddam’s Iraq but in the Kurdish north. What that ignores is that the camps were certainly not at all allied with the Kurds, but against them, and were acting with Saddam’s help.
Politicians often try to point to Senate Intelligence Committee reports claiming there were no ties etc., but these reports are:
- Political reports not intelligence reports.
- The Senate Intelligence Committee is not an intelligence agency any more than Feith’s Office of Special Plans was an intelligence agency
- The claims of no ties in the Senate Intelligence Committee reports were based on a single interim DIA officer’s testimony-not an intelligence investigation and subsequent conclusions
- believe it or not….there has NEVER been a conclusive investigation done by ANY of the 16 intel agencies into whether or not there were AQ camps in Iraq prior to the invasion (read the political reports carefully, and you’ll see this)
For a complete listing of the govt reports on AQ ties to Saddam’s regime, please read this
My point here is that no one has really looked into this matter, but politicians have been happy to cherry pick it and push a false idea until it’s accepted.
Every few months there’s more and more evidence leaking out that Saddam’s regime had closer ties with Al Queda than the Germans and Italians did with the Japanese (think about it, were there Japanese training camps in Bavaria and Tuscany? Were German and Italian troops in training camps in Japanese held Indochina?
By and large the news media let the world down by not adequately looking into either the Bush Administrations or the UN claims about WMD in Saddam’s Iraq, and now they’re doing it again by not (FIVE YEARS LATER) examining a question that’s only been reported on by politicians and not by intelligence agents. So the American people and the world are left to look at the videos themselves as ABC, NBC, CBS, even Fox just won’t report on the connection and adequately describe it. We’re letting politicians, professional lawyers trained, professional liars and spinmeisters) tell us what is real and what is not depending more on their political needs than on what is fact. Why does the media parrot the political distortions rather than the truth?
See author page
You could have video from the surveillance cameras at the airport showing Saddam Hussein dropping off the 9/11 hijackers, his fingerprints on the steering wheel of the car and his DNA on the cigar butt in the ashtray and you would STILL have Dems insisting that Saddam and Al Queda had nothing to do with one another.
These same delusionist Dems in denial will disbelieve EVERY word that the Bush Administration says and believe every word the terrorists say, but ONLY when it affirms the “war for oil,” “US foreign policy is to blame” lines of deluional thinking.
The video is a good find. But it will be instantly dismissed by the Dems with their hands covering their ears, closing their eyes and shouting “la la la la la la la” so they can’t hear.
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 08/12/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day so check back often. This is a weekend edition so updates are as time and family permits.
Thank you for this info and Video.
I along with another FReeper posted a video at youtube titled Salman Pak: The Saddam/Iraq-Al Qaeda connection short
The long version of the video was made in two parts since youtube only allows their videos to be 10 minutes at length.
Part 1
Part 2
Nice summary of reports at that other link. (You could’ve included your own work as an appendix!)
Richard Miniter provides some details of the relationships between AQ and Saddam in 6 pages in the appendix of his book, “The Shadow Wars” (2004). The belief that there was no relationship is another example of, “If you say it often enough, it will be true” (or not true, in this case).