Article

2003-11-15 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-11-15 12:51:43 AM|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Umm Dan, this is rather long. We need to respect Fred's bandwidth. If it's more than a screenful or two we should post the highlights and refer people to the link. We don't want to force Fred to knock over another bank :-)

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-15 1:02:41 AM|| 2003-11-15 1:02:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 You're right, I didn't know that it was going to be this big. Is there any way that I can chop it down now that it's posted?

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-11-15 1:08:35 AM|| [http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2003-11-15 1:08:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Hi Dan and Steve. I'm sure Fred will be along soon to decide how to use this article. It's important work and Dan I'm always glad to see your analysis.

My question would be, are the new travel warnings and embassy closings in Sudan related in any way to this leak? My guess is that things could get uncomfortable for some of the thugs-in-charge there...

Posted by Seafarious 2003-11-15 1:17:16 AM|| 2003-11-15 1:17:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 No probs Dan, I get long-winded myself :-)

It is good work and helps to further the issue that the old media wants to ignore -- just how deep was Saddam with al-Q? Too bad the NYT isn't running this down.

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-15 1:22:50 AM|| 2003-11-15 1:22:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Hehehe.

You'd be quite surprised to see what some very enterprising FReepers discovered that the NYT was running back on November 5, 1998:

Link.

But then, me and my fellow FReepers always did have too long of an attention span.

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-11-15 1:26:33 AM|| [http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2003-11-15 1:26:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I always pictured the relationship between SH and AQ as being similar to the leaders of various Mafia families...didn't like each other but would have meetings from time to time to discuss territory, "business issues", and in general, keep an eye on each other. There is no way they could avoid interacting...how else could they determine "the price of AK-47's in Peshawar?"

Posted by Seafarious 2003-11-15 1:29:49 AM|| 2003-11-15 1:29:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Also like different mafia families, they had a common enemy - the cops.

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-11-15 1:31:55 AM|| [http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2003-11-15 1:31:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Um Fred could you keep this whole article up just a little while longer? Drudge linked to it and has been overloading weekly standard's site. it'd be nice to have a second place to quickly look at it ;). Oh and I'll be waiting for Murat to claim this doesn't mean Al-qaeda was involved in Iraq.

Posted by Val 2003-11-15 1:40:53 AM|| 2003-11-15 1:40:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 VAl, Murat won't right on this subject. There's just no way he can spin this one. Dn, you should also mail this to someone like Shawn Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. Or just someone at Fox News. That is, if you haven't already. :)

Posted by Charles 2003-11-15 2:12:20 AM|| 2003-11-15 2:12:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 I just heard about this article and Rantburg's still the only place I've been able to access it.
Kudos to Fred and Rantburg.
I'm still not fully awake and my brain's not working on full RPM yet, but can someone explain why Bush and Cheney said not just a couple weeks ago that there hasn't been any direct link between Hussein and Al-Queda shown, or Iraq and 9/11, if this analysis is accurate? Anyone?
Without looking at the original document, it seems that they've connected a lot of dots in that regard.

Posted by Baltic Blog 2003-11-15 4:40:30 AM|| [http://balticblog.blogspot.com] 2003-11-15 4:40:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 The Administration continues to deny the connection because they don't have the "concrete" proof that the loony left requires. Intelligence sources and interviews don't cut it. And this is a battle that the Administration doesn't need to fight. The American people, overwhelmingly, believe that there is a connection.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2003-11-15 6:25:58 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2003-11-15 6:25:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 What Chick said. Besides which think about the fact that its still an ongoing investigation/war. We don't want to burn sources and methods, and thereby blind us to their next move.

The administration knows a lot more than we do. And can't tell us, because telling tells the bad guys as well.

Posted by Ben 2003-11-15 7:04:56 AM|| 2003-11-15 7:04:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Just in time for the Sunday shows...but where is the demand for an investigation into the LEAK?

Posted by john 2003-11-15 7:58:09 AM|| 2003-11-15 7:58:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm glad they proved the link, because it is the truth. I don't get excited because the left is wrong, they are usually wrong.Too many people get excited proving the left wrong.I get excited from the truth. I always believed the right based their decisions on Facts.Lets not Gloat it proves nothing

Posted by Anonymous 2003-11-15 8:40:26 AM|| 2003-11-15 8:40:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Don't beat me up on this.

I think one reason the Bush official line isn't so quick to draw the obvious conclusions (that Saddam and Al Queda are cohorts) is thay they didn't have to. They were able to get the war on without going that route. As a bonus they played the UN like a fiddle and watched it self destruct (thank you France). But then the question becomes why is Bush not eager to link Saddam directly to 9/11, 2/26/93, (4/19/95?) or anthrax. I will answer that with another question - would a solid and undeniable link between the two make leaving Saddam in power after the first gulf war render GHWB a better or worse president. Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that it was a realistic goal to get rid of Saddam at the time, I don't think it was. I'm just sayin'.

And it runs deeper than that methinks. 9/11 represents such a colossal failure of more than just intelligence. It was a failure of government in its most fundamental capacity. And the government is not in the business of advertising itself as a fraud and a failure (still capable of fixing itself). So if the problem can be fixed without completely exposing the fraud, its wise to do so.

And on a completely other (controversial) note. If it is true that Saddam was convinced by the Frogs that we were not serious about invasion, or that they held some sway to prevent/postpone it - and - becuase of this Saddam did not take care to destroy completely his intelligence paper-trail (what a decision that must be!) and we wound up with 9 miles of it (or whatever)... do we owe the French some gratitude? Was this a smart intelligence design - or just damn good luck?

Any thoughts?

Posted by Rawsnacks 2003-11-15 9:47:29 AM|| 2003-11-15 9:47:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 >>can someone explain why Bush and Cheney said not just a couple weeks ago that there hasn't been any direct link between Hussein and Al-Queda shown, or Iraq and 9/11, if this analysis is accurate? Anyone?>>

This is one of those "master narrative" moments.

The White House and everyone in it, including Colin Powell, has said all along that Saddam and al Qaeda ARE "linked." They've said it over and over and over again; they've said it until they're blue in the face.

Before the war Rumsfeld said the evidence of the link was "bulletproof" and George Tenet publicly agreed.

But it didn't "take." The master narrative (a term used by historians, I believe) was heavily influenced by Democratic Party talking points faxed to an elite liberal press. Remember the moment when the entire planet was talking about how Bush "politicized the intelligence"?

As I understand it, that meme originated with the Democratic Party, who chose "politicized the intelligence" as a talking point.

The Democrats did their job well, and the master narrative became "no evidence" & "no link." Even people sympathetic to the war believed that the President himself had said there was no evidence and no link.

When the White House has used the phrase "no evidence" (I don't think they've **ever** said "no link) they have been referring strictly to the events of 9/11. They have no evidence that Saddam specifically planned and carried out the attacks.

Thus when the President recently said "we have no evidence" this line was endlessly quoted out of context. What he really said was that there was "no question" (I think that was the phrase) that al Qaeda and Saddam were linked, but that they had no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

What Cheney said, when asked by Tim Russert whether Saddam was involved in 9/11, was, "We don't know."

I feel the White House has badly mismanaged the culture wars surrounding Iraq. For at least a year now the CIA has been calling Nicholas Kristof at the TIMES practically every week with new leaks about Bush-lied-people-died and the-White-House-politicized-the-intelligence, and the White House responded on the Sunday morning talk shows with clipped, articulate Condi Rice formulations like, "The White House has never maintained that Saddam had operational control over the events of 9/11 . . . . "

Fine, I get it, but a statement like that simply does not have the impact of "Bush lied people died." (And, btw, I love Condi Rice. I'm a fan. But she hasn't made the slightest dent in the master narrative.)

Bush is famous for being a good offensive player, but the White House has been playing defense on this forever.

My guess is that the combination of the leaked Democratic memo from the Senate intelligence committee, the NEWSWEEK trash of Cheney (all based on leaks from State & CIA), and the trip to England finally pushed them into going on the offense.

I'm glad they did, but my guess is it's too late. There's a reason why master narratives are called master narratives: they rule. The people who believe there was "no link" and "no evidence" have been living in the no link-no evidence world for a long time now. They aren't going to be moving to my world any time soon, I don't think.

Posted by Catherine 2003-11-15 10:02:06 AM|| 2003-11-15 10:02:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Excellent, Catherine, excellent.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-11-15 10:38:45 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-11-15 10:38:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Re the comment: "I think one reason the Bush official line isn't so quick to draw the obvious conclusions (that Saddam and Al Queda are cohorts) is thay they didn't have to. They were able to get the war on without going that route."

If 9-11 was Saddam's revenge for the Gulf War, then we know what the anthrax letters were, right? That becomes a no-brainer. The threats were his way of saying "Here's what's next, if you call me on this." So, put yourself in Bush's position. Whatcha gonna do in that situation? Are you going to run around, shouting from the rooftops: "It was Saddam kicked our asses on 9/11, and now he's got a razor to our throats! Please bear with me while I figure out a way to get out of this mess." No. What's he's going to do keep the authorship of 9/11 ambiguous, invent a cover story to knock the anthrax off the front pages, and launch into a giant, high-stakes poker game to rid the world of Saddam Hussein without getting us all killed in the process. And that, my friends, is exactly what happened.

Posted by The Hatfill Project 2003-11-15 12:21:18 PM|| [hatfill.blogspot.com] 2003-11-15 12:21:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 It looks like you published the entire text of the article at least twice in this post. Was that intentional? Could you please post a single, commentary-free version?

Thanks for posting this while TWS is down.

Posted by Michael Pollard 2003-11-15 1:05:18 PM|| [http://www.learnedhand.com/scrutineer.htm] 2003-11-15 1:05:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 You're right and that was completely unintentional.

I'm gonna wait to see what Fred decides to do with this before I post a single version, if at all.

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-11-15 1:08:25 PM|| [http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2003-11-15 1:08:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 This is one of the best Rantburg aticles and comments ever. It should be distributed far and wide (Hello, Mr. Hannity, Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Lileks?). I know Instapundit is already linking here.
THIS is what blogging is for. A lot of Lefties are going to be sore at Al Gore for inventing the internet.

Posted by Edog 2003-11-15 1:11:34 PM|| 2003-11-15 1:11:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 The Hatfill Project> Are you going to run around, shouting from the rooftops: "It was Saddam kicked our asses on 9/11, and now he's got a razor to our throats! Please bear with me while I figure out a way to get out of this mess."

Yes, that's exactly what you are going to do. When a country attacks you, you attack back shouting from the rooftops that they attacked you first. And then no country in Europe whatsoever would have raised an objection, same way they didn't object when you were going after Afghanistan. America wouldn't have needed to go *begging* for support and additional troops as they have been doing now.

If Bush knew of Iraq orchestrating the 9/11 attack and he intentionally kept the "authorship of 9/11" ambiguous, then he's the most catastrophic (and even traitorous) president that the American people *ever* had, diminshing the USA's popularity (and influence and power and safety) worldwide for nil benefit whatsoever.

Stop changing the excuses and justifications for this war with every passing week.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-11-15 1:14:01 PM|| 2003-11-15 1:14:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Dan,

I've posted a single, comment-free copy of the text based on what you posted here.

http://www.learnedhand.com/alqaedamemo.htm

It looks like Drudge has also provided a copy:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash32.htm

Posted by Michael Pollard 2003-11-15 1:40:17 PM|| [] 2003-11-15 1:40:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Aris's comments on The Hatfill Project : "Yes, that's exactly what you are going to do..." Uh, no, Aris. That's not what you are going to do, since it would embolden some of America's enemies into similar attacks on civilians on American soil. Unless you don't care about that...

Aris's comments on the actual article posted, which is a huge blow to the Anti-American protesters out there :

(crickets chirping)

Posted by Edog 2003-11-15 1:53:48 PM|| 2003-11-15 1:53:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Stop changing the excuses and justifications for this war with every passing week.

Pay no attention to the constant media reports and you won't see justifications changing "with every passing week".

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-15 2:04:18 PM|| 2003-11-15 2:04:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 "That's not what you are going to do, since it would embolden some of America's enemies into similar attacks on civilians on American soil"

Oh, yes, saying that Al Qaeda did it wouldn't embolden America's enemies; saying that Iraq helped them do it, would indeed embolden them.

And we shouldn't have said that Germany invaded Poland, because it might have emboldened them to invade more countries.

Whatever. Do you actually *care* about making sense anymore or do you just open your mouth and shallow the flimsiest justifications you can find, whether they make sense or not?

As for the comment on the actual "article" about the top-secret memorandum the newspaper somehow obtained and which mentions other "well-placed" sources, I've not read it yet in its entirety.

From the bits I *have* read, the most I'll say is that these continuous contacts it refers to as efforts to establish communication lines between Iraq and Bin Laden... don't they prove the very opposite, that if anything Iraq was only a *potential* ally to Bin Laden and a very weak connection to the Al Qaeda network indeed.

E.g. when Iraq is asking Sudan to help it establish links with Al Qaeda member, doesn't that mean that Sudan was a much stronger ally of Al Qaeda than Iraq was?

Nobody's in doubt that Al Qaeda has contacts in every single Arab country there exists. But that's not the issue is it? The issue isn't if Al Qaeda members made contact with Iraqi officials, it's whether the organization was receiving actual assistance from Saddam Hussein's regime.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-11-15 2:21:42 PM|| 2003-11-15 2:21:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Didn't Saddam add an Islamic exhortation on the Iraqi flag (in his own handwriting)in a move widely considered cynical right after the Gulf War? Could this have been a (cosmetic) concession Bin Laden required to justify his cooperation with Iraq?

Posted by C. Fahy 2003-11-15 2:26:06 PM|| 2003-11-15 2:26:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 The arrival of the anthrax letters initiated a WMD standoff between the United States and Saddam Hussein. Once you understand that, you understand why we invaded Iraq, why we took such a long time going about it, and why the Bush administration has kept the true rationale for the invasion as fuzzy as possible. It really isn't rocket science, you know.

Posted by The Hatfill Project 2003-11-15 2:40:42 PM|| [hatfill.blogspot.com] 2003-11-15 2:40:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 "We have heard in the news, recently, that American officials think that the source of anthrax is probably the US itself. Is this conclusion or information just a tactic to divert the attention of those who were terrorized to hear that Bin Laden is the source of anthrax, and to hear insinuations to other accusations, that many Americans think that they should not persist in harming the people he cares for, because that would push him to a stronger reaction in this way or by other means? Or have they done this to divert attention from the incompetence of American official bodies in the events of September 11, and they find now that they have achieved their goal and consequently, the act and the actors should be buried?!"

Saddam Hussein
Open letter to the peoples of the United States, Western peoples and governments
October 29, 2001

Posted by The Hatfill Project 2003-11-15 2:50:20 PM|| [http://hatfill.blogspot.com] 2003-11-15 2:50:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 "From the bits I *have* read, the most I'll say is that these continuous contacts it refers to as efforts to establish communication lines between Iraq and Bin Laden... don't they prove the very opposite, that if anything Iraq was only a *potential* ally to Bin Laden and a very weak connection to the Al Qaeda network indeed."

-Several reports indicate that the relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued, even after the September 11 attacks:

31. An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel. The analysis that accompanies that report indicates that the report fits the pattern of Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration: References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained that Iraqi support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by including weapons and money.
37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawiâs procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere. We seem to be dealing with the aftermath of that deal right now. That also jives with press reports of al-Qaeda fighting alongside the Fedayeen during the war.

-yeah, your right, they were never receiving any assistance whatsoever and to this day are not......bwhahaha

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-15 2:56:09 PM|| 2003-11-15 2:56:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Hatfill Project -- not to mention Uday's little letter after 9-11 saying that the "next phase" of the attacks on the US would involve biological weapons.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-11-15 3:02:22 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-11-15 3:02:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Aris :"...shouldn't have said Germany invaded Poland..." - THIS is your response? THIS is the best you can do? hehehehe. It doesn't even make sense, Aris.

Posted by Edog 2003-11-15 3:18:37 PM|| 2003-11-15 3:18:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Edog> *rolls eyes* Grow up. This isn't a pissing contest. And your argument about why you should "hide" Iraq's involvement in 9/11 (if it did occur), yes, it makes about as much sense as the Germany-Poland scenario.

When you have a real reason that justifies a war you state it. You don't use a different reasoning that *doesn't* convince people, and which only makes people from the whole world distrust and dislike your nation. You don't tear apart your allies and cause splinters and internal disputes in every single allied nation.

If you had such a reason and you didn't use it, then you couldn't and shouldn't blame other people one bit if they didn't trust you, if they believed you were lying (or hiding the truth, which amounts to the same thing) about your motivations.

Because if you had such a reason, then these people were *right* to believe the US was deceiving the entire world. They were *right* to say you weren't making sense in your argumentation.

Mind you, I personally don't think the US was lying -- I do think that their reasons in general were what they stated in the general outline at least, the claimed desire to weaken the "terrorist nations" and the so-called "axis of terror".

My own opposition to the war wasn't on the moral, but on the practical level, thinking it was a boneheaded maneuver that wouldn't actually hurt but help the islamofascists. The removal of a minor regional and isolated secular chauvinist with extremely peripheral links to any terrorist -- unlike e.g. the main islamofascist power of Iran, or the Lebanon-occupying, Hezbollah-supporting Syria.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-11-15 5:01:05 PM|| 2003-11-15 5:01:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 The removal of a minor regional and isolated secular chauvinist with extremely peripheral links to any terrorist -- unlike e.g. the main islamofascist power of Iran, or the Lebanon-occupying, Hezbollah-supporting Syria.

Okay Aris... not trying to be cute.. you would support US action against Syria and Iran?

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-15 5:28:30 PM|| 2003-11-15 5:28:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 I just posted this comment at Oscar's entry on this topic:

It was some weeks ago that I came across an entry at some weblog mentioning a Weekly Standard piece that argued a connection between Hussein & the Iraqi government and bin Laden & al-Qaeda. I had thought of a possible response that I could have posted at that entry, but I do not recall at what blog that entry is at.

But since this entry is also about this topic - re: the Weekly Standard and the allegations of Saddam/Osama 'links' - I can post those thoughts here.

Out of many publications, the Weekly Standard has hardly any legs to stand on when it comes to allegations of links to bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

A few weeks ago (probably after I came across that aforementioned entry at that blog), I posted a comment at several blogs regarding entries that I had just posted at my own blog. This is one version of that comment that I posted. (As you can see, that blogger re-posted it in an actual entry.) I just did a Google search, and found that your blog was one of those where I posted [a different version of] that comment [it was at this entry...].

In that comment, I point to my blog entry (it is currently the 8th one down the main page, I think) which deals with Wesley Clark, and points out connections between the general, the Clinton administration, and Osama bin Laden terrorists.

In that blog entry, I also link to a comment that I posted awhile back at one of Patrick Ruffini's blog entries. In that comment, I asserted that out of many regimes and countries (including some that we are allied with right now), the Ba'athists of Iraq have had one of the weakest relationships with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But also, as I indicate at my blog, if you scroll down past the first 10 paragraphs of that comment, you can see evidence of how the Clinton/Gore & Albright administration indirectly worked with Osama bin Laden to finance and support Islamic terrorists (and the neoliberals and the neoconservatives, such as those at the Weekly Standard, staunchly supported these policies). There is a lot more information available on the web - and in other places - about this subject.

These policies helped bin Laden, and they could be one of the reasons why we so far have been unable to find him. Check out the comment that I posted at this entry of Sgt. Hook's from a few weeks ago. That is one idea about where Osama bin Laden may be hiding out right now - I think that that may be one major 'blind spot' in our War on Terrorism.

Posted by Aakash 2003-11-15 5:35:33 PM|| [http://uis.blogspot.com] 2003-11-15 5:35:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 you would support US action against Syria and Iran?

I've said it before that I would have supported either choice more than I supported it against Iraq. Either one would certainly have made more sense to me. Syria supports terrorist groups for certain, occupies Lebanon. Iran is the center of islamofascism in the whole of the Middle-east.

Striking at the secular dictatorship in between, when you can't even be sure that it won't fall to Islamist hands the moment you leave... eh, makes the least sense of all. To me, atleast.

Words about "positioning" yourself for further battles mean nothing when you can't actually *use* said position because you don't have enough troops to both occupy Iraq *and* nation-build *and* expand the front.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-11-15 6:01:04 PM|| 2003-11-15 6:01:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 If you look to see which of the three states' regimes has had the most blood on its hands though, Aris, Saddam's Ba'athists win by a mile. So would I be right conclude that you favour strategic arguments for US wars in the Middle East over humanitarian ones?

Posted by Bulldog 2003-11-15 6:32:50 PM|| 2003-11-15 6:32:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Bulldog> It's not that simple. I'd probably think the humanitarian reasons sufficient if I thought that Iraq can actually be made into a peaceful and stable democratic nation under the present conditions. My continuing fear is that it may eventually fall to civil war between Baathist-controlled Sunni regions and Iran-dominated Shia regions.

As it is, the humanitarian aspects are the only reason I was ambivalent about the Iraqi war, as it didn't make *any* sense to me on the strategic aspect.

If the humanitarian reasons had been the ones primarily put forward, I actually think fewer people worldwide would have objected to the attacks there -- like it or not, the justifications used and the reasons publicly expressed *do* matter in the way the public views an issue.

The justifications publicly used also matter in the future outcome. If you are making a vow to ensure democracy and freedom in Iraq, then more people might trust that'll be the result. If you mainly mention "WMDs and terrorists", then for all we know US will eventually accept a friendly dictator, no matter how brutal.

And not that many people worldwide actually feel WMDs on Iraqi hands as a threat to them personally, even if they believed they existed. But they can empathize (or pretend to empathize) with Iraqi suffering.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-11-15 8:04:32 PM|| 2003-11-15 8:04:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 If Bush had come out and said, "We have evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11" and "We have received communications from Saddam that the Anthrax attacks were an indication of what could happen", that would have been very, very bad.

It would have been a WMD attack by a foreign power inside the US.

It would have necessitated a nuclear response.

Posted by Dishman 2003-11-15 8:51:54 PM|| 2003-11-15 8:51:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 So does this mean the case isn't closed?

Please, say it ain't so Weekly Standard.

Instaquack and the other gullibles who swallowed the Weekly Standard article which didn't even bother to release the actual memo... even though it was purportedly coming from Feith...

Altogether now:

HACKS!

Posted by manyoso 2003-11-15 9:38:53 PM|| 2003-11-15 9:38:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Iraq makes perfect strategic sense. It makes as much sense as the North Africa campaign made in 1942. It's a battle, not the end of the war.

Posted by RMcLeod 2003-11-15 9:55:41 PM|| 2003-11-15 9:55:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Manyoso: I trust we'll hear back from you when the entire memo IS released? This memo is genuine. If it isn't the Weekly Standard no longer exists as one of the most important, and most read, publications in official Washington.

They aren't going to put their necks out for a hoax. And the DoD isn't going to issue a memo like this unless they can back it up.

Liberals bet most of the farm on the "Bush Lied" meme...now comes the payoff and it doesn't look good for those who took that bet.

Posted by RMcLeod 2003-11-15 11:34:00 PM|| 2003-11-15 11:34:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Um, Aakash, your narrative about posts is about as interesting as Sen. Bob Graham's diary...
As for the Crinton/Gore Administration and "neoliberals" (What are those? Is that their new name now? Guess "progressive" wasn't working) getting together to support jihadis and OBL, I could agree but when you decide to add "neocons," meaning those RightWingIdealogues (insert Leftist troll term for warmongers here) at the Weekly Standard into that mix, it's clear that your tin foil hat has gotten way too loose.

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2003-11-16 2:54:59 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2003-11-16 2:54:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#44 Aris:"*rolls eyes* grow up.."
Yeah, THAT'S real grown up.
I've never said we should hide Iraq's involvement (if any). Show me where I said that. You can't.
We should do what's in our best inerest, period, whether that includes hiding facts or not hiding facts or anything else.

Posted by Edog 2003-11-16 3:42:44 AM|| 2003-11-16 3:42:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#45 The U.S. is the top gun, and there is always someone out there waiting to challenge us. Some people "say" they would support us invading on 'humanitarian' principles, but you know they wouldn't. Jealous and envious, some people are being anti-American just for the sake of being contrary. Face it, America is the adult, and most of the rest of the world are bratty teenagers.

Posted by Edog 2003-11-16 3:54:15 AM|| 2003-11-16 3:54:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#46 Four days later, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden issued his now-famous fatwa on the plight of Iraq, published in the Arabic-language daily, al Quds al-Arabi: "For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples." Bin Laden urged his followers to act: "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."
This would be the formal creation of the International Islamic Front, IIRC correctly. CNN has the video up in the "Terror on Tape" section of their website.
Although war was temporarily averted by a last-minute deal brokered by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, tensions soon rose again. The standoff with Iraq came to a head in December 1998, when President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a 70-hour bombing campaign that began on December 16 and ended three days later, on December 19, 1998.

Huh? What war? We're humiliating the Saudis..so they need to kill Americans. Bin Laden says so and the IIRC is created to do so.

Note this comment: "lthough war was temporarily averted by a last-minute deal brokered by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, tensions soon rose again."

What war? Was there a war in 1998? Are they saying that BL's statement was a declaration of war? Something is missing here. Are they saying that the Fatwa was a declaration of war? Soooo. Clinton commenced the Desert fox bombing campaign.....

this is poorly written...I'm confused.

Posted by B 2003-11-16 7:24:15 AM|| 2003-11-16 7:24:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#47 As usual Aris is right and Jennie Taliaferro is one dumb bitch, parroting her right wing masters pablum

Posted by NotMikeMoore 2003-11-18 12:32:46 AM|| 2003-11-18 12:32:46 AM|| Front Page Top

00:32 NotMikeMoore
07:24 B
06:26 B
03:54 Edog
03:42 Edog
02:54 Jennie Taliaferro
01:28 Anonymous
00:03 eLarson
23:34 RMcLeod
23:13 Alaska Paul
23:04 Alaska Paul
22:15 Steve White
21:55 RMcLeod
21:45 Frank G
21:38 manyoso
21:33 Pro Life
21:26 Raj
21:12 Raj
20:51 Dishman
20:35 Charles
20:32 Rafael
20:28 Charles
20:26 Charles
20:04 Aris Katsaris