Iraq: Saddam had No Operational Links to Al Qaeda

What will Stephen Hayes do now?

An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden’s al Qaida terrorist network. The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam’s regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime. … .. Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida

This has been Hayes’s
contention for years:

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda–perhaps even for Mohamed Atta–according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

In fact, Hayes was the source used by Vice President Dick Cheney over and over
again, with Dana Milbank offering this report as proof, which The
Weekly Standard was proud to tout: "Vice President Cheney . . .
in an interview this month with the Rocky Mountain News, recommended as the
‘best source of information’ an article in The Weekly Standard magazine detailing
a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda based on leaked classified information."

It’s hard to know where to start with these delusions. Except to say that George
W. Bush, along with the Republicans, with a lot of help from Democrats, including
the current Congress who didn’t have the spine to pull the funding, with Obama
and Clinton both complicit in this act, have left us all in the mess of all
messes.

But at least both Democratic candidates for president will begin to withdraw. Obama’s promises to have all troops out are simply words today, as we learned from Samantha Power last week, though he telegraphed this in the Dartmouth debate, where he and Clinton said they wouldn’t promise to be out of Iraq by 2013:

“I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don’t want to make promises, not knowing what the situation’s going to be three or four years out.” – Barack Obama “… .. Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack; it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting. Now, we do not know, walking into the White House in January of 2009 what we are going to find. … ..” – Hillary Clinton

Now, I’ve said for a couple of years now that I don’t think we can promise what Democratic primary voters want, so both of these statements were welcome. However, Obama on the trail has not been truthful, while Clinton has taken the hit for stating the same position for months. That’s been the problem. Clinton simply never made the sweeping promises of her opponents. She simply says she will gather the Joint Chiefs and begin a withdrawal within 60 days, with a goal of two brigades out per month. No doubt that’s why she has more military brass support than Barack, though his military support is real, if smaller. What she’s saying is that it will take time to get out of Iraq, something that has annoyed her enemies to no end. The truth hurts.

But the bottom line is that we are not going to completely leave Iraq in the short-term.
It’s not going to happen. But we will draw down forces if a Democrat is elected
in November, but a full scale pull out is impossible at this point, because
the politics in Iraq are not stable. What we will get from John McCain, however,
is just the opposite. Iraq will become a continual presence in our lives draining
our treasury, prestige and foreign policy focus.

But because the Democratic Congress
has been so ineffectual since 2006 you’ve got to wonder if the voter will ever
trust our politicians to deliver on what they say they will. After all, has
anything really changed in Iraq since the Democratic Congress was put in office
in 2006? For voters who expected more for their trust the answer is sobering. It’s why when Iraq comes up in the general election, Democrats won’t own it anymore.