Needed: The experts at DU-Did Saddam bankroll terrorists?

[OHDEM]

I know it's an old issue, but some IDIOT opinion column in my local paper really got me going! This idiot claimed that we went into Iraq because of:

1. A mountain of yellowcake. I know that's a lie.
2. Harboring AlQaida. Also an easily debunked lie.
3. Violated ceasefire. I think they did fire on U.S. planes.
4. Saddam bankrolled terrorists.

No. 4 is the big problem. I've checked snopes & factcheck & google. All I can find is right-wing sites using the same terminology "bankrolled terrorists" so I know it's a talking point, but I can't prove it wrong. I'm writing a letter to the editor to debunk this moron's horrible column & I'm hoping someone here has info. I've searched here, but can't find an answer. So frustrating.

Thanks in advance for any info!

Here's the offending piece o'moosepoop: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/kevin_o_brien/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1221035680235460.xml&coll=2

and my anticipated response:

Kevin O’Brien’s opinion column on September 10th titled “Iraq Success Confounds Dems” was offensive & so full of inaccuracies & lies that I hardly know where to begin to address them. I’m tired of hearing the assertion that Democrats want the U.S. to lose in Iraq to gain political ground. The Democrats love their country, Mr. O’Brien, & we love our troops. Republicans want to put the blame for this unnecessary & expensive war on someone else and to divert from the real story. Bush & McCain want to claim victory now before we start to really withdraw troops & clean up this mess they have made.

The fact is, I’m not even sure what “winning” in Iraq would look like since our reason for going in has changed a number of times. Were we looking for WMDs? There weren’t any. Was it to remove an evil dictator? He was & has been executed although I’m not sure it’s a reason to invade a country & change U.S. doctrine. Were we bringing them democracy? Did they ask us to do that? Is democracy even something that can be brought with force? Finally, the idea that bringing “stability” to Iraq is the goal is rather strange since it was our invasion that caused much of the instability in the first place. Is “winning” this war now defined as cleaning up our own mess while attempting to avoid Iraqi civil war? Is that “victory”?

It appears that the Republicans are twisting the facts to suit their definition of “victory” much as they twisted the intelligence to start this war in the first place! I wonder what will happen when we do withdraw from Iraq – a situation that the next administration will be forced to clean up after the Bush & McCain era. Hopefully, we’ll get someone in the White House smart enough to have seen this quagmire coming (Obama) rather than someone who cheered it on with President Bush the entire way (McCain).

O’Brien then sited statistics to show that although over 4,000 of our brave men & women have died in Iraq, it’s really not that many compared to other wars. I’m sure that will bring comfort to the families of the fallen. I’m certain that 1 is too many when it’s your mother or father, husband or wife or child. Republicans love to talk about being “pro-life” but that doesn’t extend to war apparently.

Mr. O’Brien sited a number of “facts” about why we’re in Iraq. I reviewed them on FactCheck.org, a well-respected, non-partisan site to be sure of MY facts. It’s a pity that Mr. O’Brien did not. The only yellowcake in Iraq had been found in 1991, was sealed and guarded since the end of the first Gulf War. There were no WMDs, Mr. O’Brien. There is no evidence that Saddam bankrolled terrorists or was connected with Al Qaida. He actually stopped extremists in his own country. As bad as Saddam was, he wasn’t putting up with anyone else killing his people.

Are you misinformed Mr. O’Brien or is repeating the same misinformation just part of the plan? Like Sarah Palin continuing to repeat her mantra about the “Bridge to Nowhere” when it’s been proven that she’s lying. She was even shown with a t-shirt saying “Nowhere, Alaska” during her gubernatorial campaign. How do we believe anything Republicans say when they’re not just inaccurate, but outright lying about everything from the Iraq war to Sarah Palin’s record?
The worst thing is that Iraq was a distraction from the terrorists that really attacked us on 9/11. Perhaps if we hadn’t wasted time, money & manpower fighting a war of lies we would have caught our real enemy by now. It wasn’t Iraq or Saddam that attacked us on 9/11, Mr. O’Brien, & that particular lie is the most offensive of all. That is the lie that has cost over 4,000 of our brave men & women their lives. Who knows what will happen when we finally leave Iraq? It will probably be quite messy. I guess that’s why the Republicans are so eager to blame Iraq on the Democrats. The truth is that they lied us into war & are now lying us into “victory”.

Any help or criticism is much appreciated.

[ingac70]

1. He gave money to the families....

of suicide bombers in Palestine.

He didn't "bankroll terrorists".

[leeroysphitz]

7. Sadam was handing out novelty over size checks for $25,000 to the families of Palestinian "martyrs".

At least according to western press outlets.

[lapfog_1]

2. Saddam did offer support to Palestinians.

And certain Palestinian terror groups (one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter)... mostly I think he did it to counter the influence that Iran (who Saddam loathed) had with other Palestinian terror groups.

Of course, our friends the Saudis also provide support to those same groups and we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia. And those terrorists were not the ones attacking our Navy or our Embassies nor did they have anything to do with 9/11.

[lligrd]

3. We Bankrolled Saddam And That Is A Fact nt

[20score]

4. What ingac70 said is correct. Here's a link to a BBC story

about it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

[OHDEM]

5. Thank you!

I knew I could count on the knowledgable posters here! I'll update my letter.

Can't thank you all enough! :toast: :hi:

[gopbuster]

6. Hit them back with this....the bottom line is this

CONCLUSION
Life and death decisions are based on the accuracy of intelligence. When intelligence is distorted or exaggerated to support the policies of an administration, it jeopardizes our nation’s security and the lives of the men and women of our armed forces. This report provides compelling evidence of the importance of objective, independent intelligence upon which to base major policy decisions. It demonstrates how intelligence relating to the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high ranking officials in the DOD to support the Administration’s decision to invade Iraq when the intelligence assessments of the professional analysts of the Intelligence Community did not provide the desired compelling case.
The IC’s analysis of the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship as a relatively weak one was as definitive as reliable reporting would permit, and their conclusions were subsequently supported by the 9/11 Commission and the SSCI investigations. Some senior DOD policymakers were predisposed to conclude that there was a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. However, the IC failed to support that conclusion in repeated analyses. An alternative intelligence assessment process was established in the office of Under Secretary for Policy Doug Feith to look at the evidence through a different lens, one that was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. His staff then conducted its own review of raw intelligence reports, including reporting of dubious quality or reliability. Drawing upon both reliable and unreliable reporting, they arrived at an “alternative” interpretation of the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the
44
Administration.
The “alternative” views of the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship were provided to senior policymakers both directly, in briefings and written materials later submitted to Congress, and indirectly, by obtaining the inclusion of questionable raw reporting in IC reports to which policymakers could refer. These intelligence activities, which at times included misrepresenting the IC’s conclusions and criticizing their standards without the IC’s knowledge, went far beyond the normal practices of a policy office.
Misleading or inaccurate statements about the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship made by senior Administration officials were not supported by IC analyses but more closely reflected the Feith policy office views. These assessments included, among others, allegations by the President that Iraq was an “ally” of al Qaeda; assertions by National Security Advisor Rice and others that Iraq “had” provided training in WMD to al-Qaeda; and continued representations by Vice President Cheney that Mohammed Atta may have met with an Iraq intelligence officer before the 9/11 attacks when the CIA didn’t believe the meeting took place.
Major decisions, such as the decision to take this country to war, should not be based on intelligence shaped to support that decision. The professional objectivity and independence required in the assessment of the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship, a major reason given for going to war, were compromised to support a predetermined policy – to present the government of Saddam Hussein as an imminent threat to the security of the United States. Corrective legislation, including better Congressional oversight, is needed. It is the hope that this report will help support these needed changes.


from http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2004/102104inquiryreport.pdf