What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.72 Comments
- judgeFire, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40It appears to be hard for many to grasp how much Saddam Hussein loathed islamists. He was a very secular leader, who used a number of dirty tricks to keep his people at bay. Now the islamists are all over the place, liberated (sic) by the US invasion. Hopefully they remember to give flowers to the US troops as thanks, as envisioned by the White House back when the campaign began.
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24It also seems Tony Snow thoughts aren't far off with the submitter's.
QUESTION: Saddam Hussein knew they were there. That’s it for the relationship?
SNOW: That’s pretty much it.
And earlier, SNOW: But did they have, you know, a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. You know, were they getting a line item in Saddam’s budget? No.
A better analogy would probably be United States government had a "relationship in a sense" with unibomber Ted Kaczynski because he was "operating" in the US, but the US didn't care to do anything about it.
Standard helix400 disclaimer: The above post was to clarify the issue, not to take sides. I'm not trying to be pro-Bush or anti-Bush here. - gruvsf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21If we allow Tony Snow to define what a "relationship" consitutes, then I can safely say that the CIA and the FBI all had "relationships" with the 9/11 hijackers.
- hasbeen, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25Stop marking accurate stories as inaccurate just because you don't approve of them.
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Clarification #2
"Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi"
I don't think Tony Snow knows about that. - bobcatgrad, on 10/12/2007, -15/+29There are more extremist Islamic fundalmentalists now than ever before. Good job, Bush. Way to piss of the whole next generation of Islamic fundamentalists.
- grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@helix400
That's only part of the conversation. Snow also said this:
"There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country. And I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That’s the relationship."
Apparently, Tony Snow doesn't know about clarification #2. But, he is trying to imply that by Saddam knowing Zarqawi was in the country, he was tacitly approving of his actions. That's a stretch and not really truthful. But, thanks for the clarification. Nice to see someone looking up other segments of a story, even when they don't directly support their comments.
Nice. - Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060912-2.html Is this credible enough?
Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?
MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.
Q There was a link --
MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.
Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?
MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it.
Q The Senate report said they didn't turn a blind eye.
MR. SNOW: The Senate report -- rather than get -- you know what, I don't want to get into the vagaries of the Senate report, but it is pretty clear, among other things, again, that there were al Qaeda operators inside Iraq, and they included Zarqawi, they included a cleric who had been described as the best friend of bin Laden who was delivering sermons on TV. But we are simply not going to go to the point that the President is -- the President has never made the statement that there was an operational relationship, and that's the important thing, because I think there's a tendency to say, aha, he said that they were in cahoots and they were planning and doing stuff; there's no evidence of that.
Here snow says that Bush never said saddam had an operational relationship with al qaeda, a quick google search turned this up though:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
This was on March 17, 2003. - sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15They don't call it a snowjob for nothing.
- mylrea, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15right... he knew the whereabouts of EVERY SINGLE person via a massive chain of modified playstation computers, right? give me a break, just because someone is in Iraq does NOT mean that they are shooting pool with Saddam.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Funny, because a few day ago, he said that the lack of connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda was "old news."
I knew that was a PR tactic. What a slimeball. - gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13i wonder if the neo-cons will deem this inaccurate? who can say...
- stevetures, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Let me get this straight...
"there's evidence that al-qaeda was operating in Iraq; in some cases operating freely."
So when the 9/11 hijackers 'operated freely' shortly before 9/11, does that mean that Bush and al-qaeda are linked too?
Wow, Tony Snow just keeps on piling it on Bush. It must be *so hard* to spin a story. - 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7> chriskzoo wrote: "When Saddam was in power, nobody got into or out of that country without him knowing about it."
Wow! I knew Saddam was a bad guy. But omniscient too?!?! Amazing! - noodlez, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14tony snow reminds me of the old iraqi information minister.
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/ - Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.
And here is another one! - Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Those with no facts can only insult.
- fancypantscz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I really wish this particular Snow report was available to us all BEFORE we invaded Iraq. Regardless of what was actually said or not said, the fact remains that many people were misled. I don't think the white house knows all that much more about the Sadam/Zarqawi ‘relationship’ now than they did before the war. A statement such as this would not have promoted Bush's case for war and that is why it was not made.
We were intentionally misled into an impossible war by the Bush and the media. I could be wrong here but I don’t recall anyone even asking the administration such direct questions about Sadam/Zarqawi.
Throw your television out onto the street on November 1st and if you want to take that extra step, spray-paint it with the word Impeach. - mt066, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Wow I see it is inaccurate. Even though it is a video of exactly what the title says. Is this a fake video of the press secretary? The 'inaccurate' tag becomes irrelevant when you guys use it all the time. Also, the opinion about Kaczynski is correct, even though it has nothing to do with the "contents of the article being inaccurate," so don't give me that crybaby story either.
- Dweller99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4his entire career - former and current - are about choice of words.
- grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Absolutely correct; thanks for finding the quote.
- pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance of northern Iraq and the Kurds.
- Pickled_Punk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5For you asshats using the term as a pejorative...
Proud ta be one.
Liberal:
# broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
# having political or social views favoring reform and progress
# tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
# a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
# big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
# a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
# free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it is difffernt except saddam had no control over the kurdish region he was in due to the first gulf war.
- grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The one big difference is the Clinton Administration didn't use their assertions to start a full-scale war. There was a lot more at stake when Bush made his assertions of a link.
- Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4
Nice try, I did a fast google search and found a link saying that the information was contained in that indictment too, and then I searched the actual indictment and did not find a single reference to Iraq, or Saddam, I even tried Iraqi. This is what happens when you let the right wing biased websites do your research for you. You come up empty. BTW you inadvertently put a ) at the end of your link, so it comes up not available. http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/indict1.pdf If you have a real source, I would like to see that, and please leave out the commentary copied and pasted from some biased right wing website this time, and just stick to the facts. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"But we are simply not going to go to the point that the president — the president has never made the statement that there was an operational relationship, and that’s the important thing, because I think there’s a tendency to say, Ah-ha. He said that they were in cahoots and they were planning and doing stuff. There’s no evidence of that."
You guys are taking Snow's comments way out of context. He says that there were al-Qaida guys in Iraq, then goes to great lengths to explain that they weren't working with Saddam.
Are you saying there weren't any al-Qaida operatives in Iraq before the war? - hasbeen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Popdmb --
my comment wasn't directed at you. - Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ok, you got the link right but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. This was kicked out of the indictments handed down later as false, so it does not prove your point that the Clinton administration alleged a far more material relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. They said it, and they reviewed the information and determined it was false. That is not the same as continuing to say it like Dick Cheney did again this past Sunday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14720480/page/3/ on Meet the Press, even after the Senate Intelligence Committee debunked it. And like Tony Snow attempted to do, yesterday, which is the point of this whole thread.
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3We're winning... no no.. we're winning... everyone loves the president! It's a peaceful place here! torture? no! we sometimes give larger slices of Chocolate Bavarian to cooperative prisoners sure.... yes yes.. everyone loves each other and loves the president...
- SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK, I'll cite a left-wing source:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130004
You'll see that the original indictment did, in fact, assert such a connection. It was only on a "subsequent (superceding) indictment" that the link was removed.
Despite your slurs about the website link I posted, the document is, in fact, the original draft. Source materials are available to Republicans, too, you know. Sorry about the parenthesis - but my link stands as showing the original document.
So at the very least, what you're saying is that either Clinton made the exact same mistake as Bush -- otherwise they simply asserted the same thing and one of them had the balls to do something about it. I'm comfortable with my position. All of this is old news and certainly not unique to the Bush Administration. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Isn't difference in the title description that the US was unaware of the Unibomber, while Saddam had full knowledge of Zarqawi and Al-Qaida operations in Iraq?
...be gentle on modding me down. I was just asking :'( - Bobski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Terrorist attacks != extremist Islamic fundalmentalists
Thanks for playing, try again next time. - girwen, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1this crap is almost two years old time to bury old news and get on with impeachment!
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Snow's an idiot. His particular brand of "logic" would also tell us that Bush had a relationship with the 9/11 hijackers because they were in the U.S. and their presence here was known.
This administration just... *sighs and shakes his head* - CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Isn't difference in the title description that the US was unaware of the Unibomber, while Saddam had full knowledge of Zarqawi and Al-Qaida operations in Iraq?"
Yes, and that is an significant distinction, if true. - SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why did Clinton make the allegation in the first place?
- Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Clinton didn't a low level appointee did.
- SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Batswag, a presence alone does not indicate a relationship. Bush may have been aware of Al Qaeda operatives working in the US, but they were doing so in an attempt to attack the US. It's not like Bush gave them safe harbor.
Al Qaeda was in Iraq, according to an assertion by the Clinton administration, and had reached an agreement to work together with Iraq in order to attack the US. That's a relationship. - Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Secondguesser:
You give it up. Clinton stoped making the allegation that couldn't be proven, team Bush continues doing it. - Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Your point here is to prove that Clinton officials asserted a far more material relationship between Bin Laden and Saddam. You wanted to know why democrats didn't complain about that.
You posted a link to the indictment with a sentence that was not contained anywhere in that indictment! No where on that link is that sentence. Check your link, it is not there. You did not read this link, you took the word of a right wing website that the sentence was contained in the link that you provided.
Then you posted a link to a site saying that a very low level appointee had drafted an indictment, and before the year was up, had checked the sources and determined the information was not credible, and removed it. As of Sunday, September 10, 2006 Dick Cheney was still spewing the falsehood that Zarqawi was allowed to stay in Iraq: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14720480/page/3/
And this wasn't even a claim of a more material relationship to begin with, saying that al qaeda had agreed to not bother Iraq is not as material as saying that Iraq had provided training and harbored Al qaeda. - SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yet that low-level appointee filed the suit on behalf of the Clinton Administration (and the thus the US Government). Legally speaking, the Clinton Administration is accountable for that.
- aviazn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@dclowd9901
Actually, what Bush said a few days ago was that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11, not Saddam and Al Qaeda in general. We know there were connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda--just nothing to the extent that suggests a working relationship between them. - Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Can I get a source that the Clinton Administration officials asserted a far more material relationship between Bin Laden and Saddam in 1998? A credible one?
- GeorgeZimmer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3why is it, they anything that seems to cast bush and his whitehouse in a negative light is almost instantly flaged as inaccurate? regardless of the source?
if the white house is no longer a reliable source of information, then what is a reliable source? - thelonegunman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0More video purported by the neocon wankers to be "inaccurate" - you bet your ass its inaccurate: everything the Rovians say is inaccurate or ever-changing or nuanced or just flat-out ***** lies.
- batswag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wasn't Bush, before 9/11, made aware that al Qaida had opperatives in the US? Therefore there was a relationship between Bush and al Qaida.
- SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Meadow. You need to brush up on your reading skills. It is no wonder you are so confused.
The subsequent indictment -- according to your left-wing sources -- says that the claim was removed because it could not be substantiated. This means that the government could not prove it BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
This is not the same as saying it is false. If it were false, then Bill Clinton and Janet Reno should be facing a charge of submitting a false accusation.
Politicians on Meet the Press or in press briefings do not have to tell the truth since they are not under oath. A court filing, however, does have to be true, otherwise it's illegal.
Give it up already. - SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Here's some facts for ya Meadow. The Clinton Administration made the exact same claims that the Bush Administration has regarding an Iraq-Al Qaeda relationship years before Bush came to office.
The Clinton Administration's exact words:
(Source: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/indict1.pdf)
"In addition, Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that Al Qaeda would not work against that government, and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, Al Qaeda would work cooperatively with Iraq."
The Democrats' blanket partisanship on this issue transparent to all. By the time this indictment was filed, we had seen 5 years of Al Qaeda activity, including the bombing of the WTC in 1993, the Khobar Towers in 1996, Bin Laden's 1996 declaration of jihad, and 1995's Operation Bojinka. Stunningly, Bill Clinton was fully aware of the fact that Al Qaeda and Iraq were cooperating on arms development (as the indictment shows). Lest we not forget Saddam's plot to assassinate our former president - an act of war by any standards. All the while, Iraq was not living up to the terms of its surrender in the 1991 Gulf War, leaving the US and Iraq still officially in a state of war.
Subsequent to Clinton's establishing a link between Bin Laden and Saddam, we saw Al Qaeda bomb our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, attack the USS Cole, and attempt to bomb LAX in the Millenium plot.
Need I remind everyone of the dozens of Democrats, including Bill Clinton, that in 1998 asserted that Saddam had WMD as a justification for Operation Desert Fox?
This is why I'm so perplexed at how Democrats can suddenly dog Bush for WMD, claim 9/11 was a conspiracy, and assert "no link whatsoever" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If I were Democrats, I'd be embarassed to even COMMENT on the issue in light of how foolish they now look to a truly discerning individual.
But the public has long forgotten these things, and now Those Who Do Not Know Any Better -- generally Democrats on this issue -- have succumbed to Bush hatred. It's so ironic that in the information age, so much can be forgotten, replaced by political tripe from the party out of power. - hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Wash. Post report in 2005 showing a drastic increase in Terrorist acts since 2001 Bobski the Blind.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html -
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is