WSJ defends discredited claims of Saddam-al Qaeda ‘collaboration.’
WSJ defends discredited claims of Saddam-al Qaeda ‘collaboration.’
Responding to the recently released Pentagon study on the links between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Al Qaeda, a Wall Street Journal editorial claims that the report “buttress[es] the case that the decision to oust Saddam was the right one“:
Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq’s links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.
In fact, as has been widely publicized, the new study “found no ’smoking gun’ (i.e. direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and Al-Qaeda.” Nevertheless, many conservatives have tried to cast the report as a vindication of their wild theories about a Saddam-Al Qaeda alliance. More at the Wonk Room.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
38 Responses to “WSJ defends discredited claims of Saddam-al Qaeda ‘collaboration.’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
They forgot to mention that the Easter Bunny was in on it too.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:13 pmI make a personal choice of not reading the misleading WSJ ever again! Not even when this war, this illegal invazion and occupation is over.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:15 pmEvery single war monger who ‘got it wrong’ will now start to rehabilitate themselves. Their paychecks are at risk - as well as their microscopic reputations for fairness and balance. The road to our ruin is littered with well meaning, but horrendously wrong pundits and experts.
Quick question for you: In your line of work, if you were wrong at least 80% of the time, would you still be employed? I didn’t think so. America! I love it! Heroes are killed and losers are rewarded - I’m looking at you LIEberman!
March 24th, 2008 at 7:15 pmFacts don’t mean anything to these neo-con scum. I really don’t know if they are still knowingly lying or actually are so warped and insane they believe this sh!t they’re peddling. Not that it matters, they have damaged this country to such an extent I don’t know when, or if, we will ever recover
March 24th, 2008 at 7:16 pmClimate Change? Not enough evidence yet…
March 24th, 2008 at 7:21 pmRecession? No clear evidence one way or another…
WMD? We can never be sure…
but…
Saddam’s links to al Qaeda? “far more extensive than previously understood.”
AMAZING!
WSJ’s credibility evaporating? Too early to tell… (and by that I of course mean… inevitable and undeniable.)
Not that it matters, they have damaged this country to such an extent I don’t know when, or if, we will ever recover
And if McInsane gets elected, all bets are off. One scenario I found indicated that the US will be invaded. Our military will be hollowed-out. Our debt service will not be financed. No other nation will trust us enough to assist. All other nations will see a benefit to messing with the bully. I figure we will have to bribe them with trillions or maybe some of our prime real estate to get them to stand with us. The US will fall off the map as a world power.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:23 pmHow come logic does not apply to journalists? Why would a egomanic dictator do business with an opposing force that would jeopardize his position? He wouldn’t.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:24 pmSo, they lied about the connection BEFORE the war and now they’re lying it about AFTER the war. There is only one constant.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:27 pmIf the WSJ Editorial Board Members want to play cheerleader instead of providing information in the public interest, I suggest they contact the President - I’m sure he could loan them some cute outfits and poms - and they could leave the job of journalism to people less interested in “amassing great fortunes” and “covering their negligent asses”.
Everyone would win.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:33 pm“Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq’s links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.”
Let’s change the “were far more extensive”, to “are far more extensive” and it may become accurate.
elk Ida didn’t have but maybe half a dozen members before the US invasion, now their ranks have swelled with the disbanded Iraqi Army, who were, after all, relatively loyal to Saddam Hussein.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:34 pmSo, by tweaking the facts a bit, the Pentagon and the WSJ can be happy now.
As a democratic nation, we obviously can’t stand the sight of McCain. Uniting at the ballot box will go a long way to ensure that we waste no further time away in the 21st Century being forced to chew on stale bread.
We must overpower those voters, by numbers at the ballot box, who long to see McCain run for reelection in 2012.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:35 pmLemme see….who just bought the WSJ? Rupert Murdoch?
March 24th, 2008 at 7:37 pmDo tell.
Neocon’s would justify their own grandmother’s rape if it was in defense of the Iraqi occupation.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:42 pmIn a sense, this site is dependant upon the war in Iraq, but I can’t figure out why!? In the context that the evidence presented, to the Court of the American People, was false, WHY is ThinkProgress.org engaged in an all out debate about HOW FALSE IT WAS? Is this site self-justifying the publication of the (fact of) war in Iraq? Or rather, is the historic mission of our media really to report on PROGRESS, begun by our government? Please get with a plan!!!
March 24th, 2008 at 7:42 pmSpeaking of discredited claims…
From CBS: [referring to the fact there was no sniper fire at the airport, and…]
“But there was no sniper fire either when Clinton visited two army outposts, where she posed for photos. And no sniper fire back at the base, where she sang in a USO show starring Sinbad and Sheryl Crowe.
Referring to the CBS News video, Clinton aides said Monday, it “was not quite as dramatic as Clinton put it.”
“She meant that there was fire on the hillside around the area when we landed, which was the case,” said Clinton campaign aid Lissa Muscatine.
The fire on the hillside was most likely refugees cooking their meals.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:44 pmGosh, you’d think the Wall Street Journal was a Republican rag or something.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pmThe biggest terror link is between the Bush White House and the Pentagon. Bush is the biggest terrorist of the 21st century: over one million humans murdered and buried since this worthless lying traitor stole the 2000 Presidential election. When the babbling insane Bush talks about “gains,” you might think that he is running a chain of cemeteries in Afghanistan and Iraq…
March 24th, 2008 at 7:47 pmEdgeOnIt said In a sense, this site is dependant upon the war in Iraq, but I can’t figure out why!? In the context that the evidence presented, to the Court of the American People, was false, WHY is ThinkProgress.org engaged in an all out debate about HOW FALSE IT WAS? Is this site self-justifying the publication of the (fact of) war in Iraq? Or rather, is the historic mission of our media really to report on PROGRESS, begun by our government? Please get with a plan!!!
March 24th, 2008 at 7:49 pmWhat in the hell are you talking about?
How much longer can democracy survive when its elite media is allowed to lie at will to millions of citizens day after day?
March 24th, 2008 at 7:53 pmEdgeOnIt Says:
Attn troll: this is a progressive news/blog site.
You’re free to stay away all the time.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:54 pmThe Cons will believe a lie before the truth anyday, if it suits them.
Bush/Cheney
March 24th, 2008 at 7:54 pmHague Trials ‘09
March 24th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Lemme see….who just bought the WSJ? Rupert Murdoch?
Do tell.
Recommend (2) | Report Abuse
The WSJ’s editorial page has always been a right wing cesspool, it’s the naked Bear Sterns girl on page 6 when you will know old Rubert has put his stamp on the WSJ.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:10 pm“Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.” …
“Saddam provided training and motivation to revolutionary pan-Arabl nationalists in the region. Osama bin Laden provided training and motivation for vioent revolutionary Islamists in the region. … These similarities created more than just the appearance of cooperation. Common interests, even without common cause, increased the aggregate terror threat.”
March 24th, 2008 at 9:01 pmMore…
“Saddam Hussein was demonstrably willing to use terrorism to achieve his goals. Using this tactical method was a strategic choice of Saddam’s, often requiring direct and indirect cooperation with movements, organizzations, and individuals possessing, in some cases diametrically opposed long-term goals.
An example of indirect cooperations is the movement led by Osama bin Laden.”
March 24th, 2008 at 9:05 pmThis is one of the “new” Republican noise machine mantras which will be replayed until the sheep can recite it and have taken it as gospel.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:21 pmThe WSJ used to be a decent paper. The direction of editorial content has gone to hell with the new ownership of Rupert Murdoch. How soon will it have new, expanded coverage of Hollywood bimbos, girls gone wild, secret sex lives of …?
March 24th, 2008 at 9:25 pmYou guys are dead right on a lot of points but Saddam was arming, funding, training and harboring numerous anti American terrorist groups. Some of them he was giving orders to kill Americans to and some were linked to al Qaeda (EIJ is considered the same as al Qaeda with a different name and makes up 2/3 of al Qaeda’s leadership).
There are plenty of reasons to oppose this costly war and the way it’s been handled and explained. There is no need to overreach on this point. Saddam supported Islamic and other anti American terrorist groups, still doesn’t mean the invasion was necessary.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:35 pmExley:
I thought you were on a meth bender, got off it I see at least enough to drop your crap here. Obviously made you even more brain dead. Again, the terrorists aren’t going to target your trailer, so take off the diaper and get out of mom’s basement and get a job. I’m sick of supporting white trash welfare recipients like you.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:43 pmThe Late POPE JOHN PAUL CALLED BUSH anti-christ …and said the end of days are near and he wished he was younger so he could make a stand against these demonic people ….This was online …The WASHINGTON POST HAD THIS ARTICLE ….online …a word to the wise …
March 24th, 2008 at 10:05 pmI suppose then, by his spurious logic (provided wholly from a grant by the Wall Street Journal), Exley NOW admits that al-Qaeda was started by the United States through the Reagan administration’s CIA.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:17 amSorry, Ex, but you can’t use one quote of the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” variety without applying it in situations you don’t like.
The WSJ editorial board and the pages of lies they print every day are relentless global warming deniers, to the point of absurdity, so it isn’t any surprise when they challenge reality on any other subject, including the war that they fervently supported. The editorial page is strictly an operation being run in collaboration with the Bush propaganda ministry.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:28 am“…provided training and motivation to revolutionary pan-Arabl nationalists in the region. …. provided training and motivation for vioent revolutionary Islamists in the region…was demonstrably willing to use terrorism to achieve its goals ”
exley…please please please tell me that you beleive everywhere in the above sentence you see “…” you couldnt put in “the united states” and makes a correct and true sentence.
wake up my naive friend. there are no good guys.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:39 amwe have armed the fatah party. we’ve armed turks we’ve designated terrorists. we’ve armed shia and sunni death squads that kidnap each other and drill holes in each others heads.
do you deny any of this exlexlia?
March 25th, 2008 at 4:41 amWhen they can’t spin it, they just turn it upside down and pretend nobody notices.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:40 amDenial is such a wonderful thing. I guess the WSJ readers are true “beleivers.”
March 25th, 2008 at 12:53 pmAnd this is before Rupert has bought them!
March 25th, 2008 at 7:12 pmI seriously fkn doubt he said that.
Either way, it is 2008 you retards.
al Qaeda was started 20 years ago.
It merged into a serious group 10 years ago.
In what fkn year are you going to learn the most basic facts about it rather than repeating BS you read on the internet equivalent of a public bathroom wall ?
Saying the Democratic party was started as a racist pedophile ring is supported by just as much evidence as this and contradicted by no less.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:54 amThis is no lie if yours isn’t. And fk anyone who wants to object to only one of these lies.
Can someone on this board please explain to me what they mean by link or connection?
I’d consider funding, arming, training and harboring al Qaeda affiliates (which is what the report says Saddam did) something worth being worried about. Does that mean we had to invade? Of course that’s debate and certainly an argument can be made that something else could have been done but Saddam’s Iraq was recruiting, training and arming thousands of Iraqi and non-Iraqi suicide bombers and terrorists and plotted attacks on U.S. military bases, embassies and naval vessels.
There is nothing “liberal” or “progressive” about dismissing what Saddam was up to out of hand.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:43 pm