Sen. Kyl Still Convinced Of Saddam/Al Qaeda ‘Link,’ Says ‘Facts Are Stubborn Things’
Sen. Kyl Still Convinced Of Saddam/Al Qaeda ‘Link,’ Says ‘Facts Are Stubborn Things’
Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank recently took Iraq war architect Douglas Feith to task in his “Washington Sketch” column, noting that Feith blames the Iraq war’s failures on “everyone but himself.” Milbank highlighted Feith’s failed pre-war attempt to link Saddam Hussein with al Qaeda, adding that “the CIA was correct” in finding no such ties.
Milbank’s column did not sit well with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). In a letter to the editor in today’s Post, Kyl took issue with Milbank’s assertion that “‘the CIA was correct’ that there were no links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein,” adding, “The historical record tells a different story”:
In 2002, then-CIA Director George Tenet wrote in a letter to Bob Graham (D-Fla.), then chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, that “our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa’ida is evolving” and “we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’ida going back a decade.”
But Milbank is right. The CIA found no ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. While the CIA did find “contacts” between Iraq and al Qaeda — as Kyl noted — the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in its 2006 report on pre-war intelligence that the CIA said those contacts “did not add up to a formal relationship.”
But like all good conservatives who continue to argue — falsely — that Saddam was in cahoots with al Qaeda, Kyl was bound to get confused. In his letter, Kyl’s Saddam-Al-Qaeda relationship theory gradually weakened as he explained the evidence. First Saddam and Al-Qaeda were directly linked, then they shared associates, then they merely shared goals and objectives, and finally, Saddam was linked just to “terrorists” in general:
In his April 25 Washington Sketch column, “Iraq War Is Everyone Else’s Fault, Feith Explains,” Dana Milbank asserted that the “CIA was correct” that there were no links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The historical record tells a different story. [...]
A March 2008 report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command included information about the relationship between Hussein and Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s second in command: “Saddam supported groups either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the 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.”
Critics of the war in Iraq often try to minimize — if not dismiss — the links between Saddam Hussein and terrorists. As they say, facts are stubborn things.
Kyl’s criticism of Milbank echoes a recent conservative movement to defend theories of a Saddam/al Qaeda “collaboration” after the Defense Department released a report last March confirming “no direct link between late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda network.”
Indeed, facts are stubborn things, especially when they in no way support your disproven theories.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Basing your argument on outdated, repudiated, discredited intel is pretty weak, but then Kyl’s whole cloth crap is the strongest part of his schtick!
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:40 pmBTW, is that the best Rodney Dangerfield impression he can do?
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:41 pmKyl: ‘Facts Are Stubborn Things, I’ll Stick To Myths’
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:43 pmthe kool aid…the kool aid…..our F##king representatives seem to be perpetually on it. The climate of fear oh thats it!
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:47 pmWhen Kyl says “facts are stubborn things” he probably doesn’t realize he’s quoting John Adams (from his defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre), and is just expressing his frustration that the facts won’t yield to his partisan desires.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:50 pmThere seems to be quite a bit of talk these days about the lead up to their invasion.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:50 pmI’m hoping they’ve caught wind of their impending future and are making a desperate but futile attempt at damage control.
There are “contacts” between telemarketers and myself, too. They try to sell me something and I tell them where to go.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:52 pmHerr Kyl wouldn’t know a fact if one crept up in the middle of the night and bit him twice on his tiny dick.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:53 pmShouldn’t the ability to read English be a requirement for a
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:54 pmU.S. Senator, even if they are just Republicans?
There were 935 recorded lies from the administration about Iraq and the urgent necessity for invasion. Does Kyl think it is impossible for Tenet to lie? All the evidence says that he did lie.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:55 pmHe has the intellect of a fence post. Looks like one, too.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pmWouldn’t Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam be legitimately considered a “contact”?
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:01 pmShayne, that’s a good start, but how you gonna mandate that they actually go ahead and read stuff that may challenge their cherished beliefs?
I mean, you can’t really legislate adherence to the reality-based universe, can you?
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:03 pmIraq will “serve as a model for the rest of the Arab world, and stand as a testament to the West’s commitment to a better life for the Arab people.”
- Jon Kyl, 7/26/02
Between his letter to Dana and this lovely little quote of his, he is in deep denial.. Either that or Jon is absent as much as John McCain and is not up on current events.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:03 pmNext he’ll be saying that there were WMDs in Iraq. And Georege Bush is a good president.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:05 pmThere is a whole chapter in Tenet’s book about how he tried to get the neo-clowns to understand that while there were “contacts” between Iraq and Al Qa’ida there was no evidence of “authority, direction or control” of Bin Laden’s people by Saddam.
Someone should remind Kyl that there also were “contacts” between Saddam and Rumsfeld but that doesn’t mean they were partners…at least…I don’t think it means that.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:06 pmMorons are stubborn things too, Senator.
Obviously.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:06 pmWhere is Exley to give us a tortured explanation of why Kyl is right? This topic seems right down his alley.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:12 pmKyl had a tough re-election in 2006. Arizonians are catching on to Kyl’s stubborn nature. Poor Arizona. They have two of the most stubborn Senators around. And both display it most when the subject is Iraq.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:13 pmYeah it’s a dead horse beaten only for the %28 of the country still supporting bush. I was called a commie pinko earlier so they really are digressing back to the stone age. Kind of like that uncle who sits in the corner and mutters to himself, best to just ignore it.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:14 pmKyl & McCain are both idiots who are in lock step with the Republican talking points whatever they may be!!!!
Sadly I live in Arizona and have no intelligent representation in Washington D.C.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:14 pmWhere is Exley to give us a tortured explanation of why Kyl is right? This topic seems right down his alley.
Exley is too cowardly to show his face around here, after being proven wrong so many times.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:17 pmI agree with this Senator. We need to go after anyone who had a contact with Saddam and BinLaden. They need to be tracked down and publicly assisnated. I would suggest that we should go after the representatives of a government that supplied shoulder fired ground to air missiles to the groups that became AQ and helped many radical Islamists make their way from Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan into Afghanistan to fight. I suggest that we rendition men responsible for providing chemical weapon precursors to Saddam that were used to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis in terrorist attacks. Yes, Rumsfeld and Cheney are these terrorists and using the same criteria used by Kyle, we know that the evidence is far, far more damning against these individuals. Sentence them to death.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:17 pmLast week I read an article by Kyle in the local paper for a small town in northern Arizona and he basically says that Sadam was a supporter of terrorist groups, and the MSM is too liberal to admit it.
Lying snake bastard.
I will see if I can find the link.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:38 pmHere it is:
http://www.wmicentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19516300&BRD=2264&PAG=461&dept_id=581907&rfi=6
I don’t know how to make it a link, sorry.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm‘Facts Are Stubborn Things’
Sorta like a jackass, except that Kyl has always been admiring the back end.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:54 pmThis man really needs to not quote John Adams.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:35 pmWhen did that happen? It always seemed to me that Exley had no shame, and precious little self-awareness.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:43 pmKyl, like his butt-buddy Cornyn have their koolaide direct injected every morning…
How many times do you have to hit a brain-dead mull (Kyl/Cornyn) in the head with a sledge hammer (facts) before they (ALL the neo-cons) just quit OR go on the Hannity show…(same)??
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 pmThe world needs to know.
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:27 pmMcCain is a war monger.
I hate war. I hate violence.
Nobody should vote for him!
Yeah, it’s really hard to get the facts to jive with the lies you tell.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:27 pmIn a letter to the editor in today’s Post, Kyl took issue with Milbank’s assertion that “‘the CIA was correct’ that there were no links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein,” adding, “The hysterical record tells a different story”
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:31 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Wouldn’t Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam be legitimately considered a “contact”?
Not if he wore gloves.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:33 pmWhat is the matter with Arizona? Both senators are insane. Could somebody who actually does journalism (I know, that’s rare) actually ask about their ties to the”defense” industry? Or as I prefer to call it–the war machine. It’s your money, stupid. Do you really think that Kyl and McCain pay their own money to these people? No, big oil and big war have bought them both long ago. And we are all paying.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:35 pmNeocons are stupid.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
barfly Says:
Exley is too cowardly to show his face around here, after being proven wrong so many times.
When did that happen? It always seemed to me that Exley had no shame, and precious little self-awareness.
When I was outside earlier today, a pig flew right over my head. So, I’m thinking Exley volunteered to go fight in Iraq.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:41 pm“Facts” are stubborn things, Senator?
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:10 pmFascist death-cult loonie-bots welded to their failed ideologies are stubborn things too.
Nothing more dumb than a Republican. Absolutely nothing.
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 pmThe koolaide and the noble lie!!!!!!!!!
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:30 amSome people like Kyl will hold their delusions all the way to the grave.
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:32 amLiberals in Arizona consider Kyl a Nazi.
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 am.
What Senator Kyle meant was:
“Facts are stubborn things in the liberal reality.”
.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:02 pmI have a new name for the likes of Senator Kyle, Lieberman, and their believers…I refer to them as “flatliners“….as in brain dead
May 4th, 2008 at 1:12 amI swear to god my cat is smarter than this guy, and my cat’s pretty stupid as far as cats go. Between the dem primary, the Iran propaganda campaign,gramps McBush getting a free ride from- hell, a paid ride- from MSM (not that I expect much at all from that crowd), and our increasingly dour economic situation, I’m about as frustrated as I’ve been since this whole nightmare started- that is, since the Supreme Kangaroo Court installed Herr Dubya. WTF y’all. It’s a pretty overwhelming feeling of hopelessness for the future, does anyone else out there feel me on that? There’s so much more to add, you know the rest. Any educated progressive could go on for hours just LISTING things that are FUBAR. Something’s got to give, and it’s not gonna be pretty. If we bomb Iran and subsequently enter Bush/Cheney Marshall Law time, shit’s gonna hit the fan, and I’m talking King Kong-size doo-doo and one of those industrial movie-set fans. Sorry for the visual.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:26 pmJust being curious,
If God told Kyl there was absolutely no A-Q/Saddam connection. Would he believe it?
( you know some think that investigations is SCIENCE and not the Lords work and therefore be shunned).
What if God, when speaking to Pat Robertson. When Pat and God speak to each other once a year. If God told Pat there were no A-Q/Saddam connection. Then Pat tells Sen Inhofe and SEn Inhofe tells Kyl. The absence of Science and the truth of hearsay would prevail for convincing Kyl then?
May 5th, 2008 at 1:21 amCaption Contest: The face of a village idiot.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:58 am