Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Eric, you seem to imply that it is impossible to support the troops in Iraq and simultaneously be against the war in Iraq. This is patently incorrect.

I support our troops, no matter where they are deployed to. It is because they are doing their jobs and because our President and politicians sent them there. This does not mean that I am in favor of the decision to go to war in Iraq. I think it was a mistake and the longer we are there the messier it will get. Our military does not belong there and should be reduced in favor of more UN troops.

If Bush and his administration put as much emphasis on capturing Osama bin Laden as they did on going to war in Iraq and toppling the Hussein leadership, bin Laden would most likely be captured or dead right now and not plotting more terrorist attacks. The reasons to go to war in Iraq were faulty and wrong, and have only increased the desire of al Qaeda to kill Americans.

Eric:

As I said before, if all of this is true about Saddam offering Osama refuge if he struck at the west in a high-profile way, why hasn’t this been part of the administration’s case against him? Instead of solid connections of this sort, the firmest link between Saddam and Al Qaeda that they have offered is Zarqawi getting operated on in Bagdad, and there seems to be a good deal of debate over whether or not Zarqawi was still aligned with Al Qaeda or if he’s got his own group of terrorists these days who just have similar goals.

Rather than solely asking why the media does not revisit this information, I think we should be asking why the government has not revisited this information in their press conferences, and offered up the intelligence that originally spawned these things being reported to the press by government officials. Was there a real case for such a offer of sanctuary, or were the facts (for whatever reason) exaggerated?

Eric, you seem to imply that it is impossible to support the troops in Iraq and simultaneously be against the war in Iraq. This is patently incorrect.

…I think it was a mistake and the longer we are there the messier it will get. Our military does not belong there and should be reduced in favor of more UN troops.

Cameron,

I actually don’t think that this is impossible. They should be two separate issues, unfortunately they are often not. I think that by now everyone is aware of who was against the war. The question now is who is for abandoning the mission in the name of defeating Bush?

Again, I understand the opposition to the war ‘in the first place’. Support for the troops means little if it is defined as making sure that the mission, for which so much blood has already been spilled, is aborted in the name of defeating Bush, making sure that the military achieved nothing in the end, and proclaiming Iraq another Vietnam.

If Bush and his administration put as much emphasis on capturing Osama bin Laden as they did on going to war in Iraq and toppling the Hussein leadership, bin Laden would most likely be captured or dead right now and not plotting more terrorist attacks. The reasons to go to war in Iraq were faulty and wrong, and have only increased the desire of al Qaeda to kill Americans.

Or not. There is no gaurantees that with 200,000 troops in Afghanistan that we would have captured Bin Laden. He had plenty of time to go to ground in the beginning. I still haven’t seen clear proof that he isn’t in fact dead right now. I still have a hunch he was turned into dust by daisy cutters at Tora Boro. In which case your argument is moot.

The reasons to go to war in Iraq were not faulty or wrong as I have enumerated numerous times here as well as in the post above. Saddam did have a relationship with Al Qaeda and Iraq was unfinished business which needed to be taken care of post haste after 9/11.

As for increasing the desire of Al Qaeda to kill Americans, didn’t you just say Bush should have been harder on Al Qaeda? Or should our goal be to somehow make them like us?

By the way it’s nice to hear from you finally Cameron.

As I said before, if all of this is true about Saddam offering Osama refuge if he struck at the west in a high-profile way, why hasn’t this been part of the administration’s case against him?

Jarin, are you kidding? This is precisely what liberals and the media are screaming about, that the administration has made too much of these stories. That it should be ignored. Well, they have ignored it. It’s been dismissed.

Instead of solid connections of this sort, the firmest link between Saddam and Al Qaeda that they have offered is Zarqawi getting operated on in Bagdad, and there seems to be a good deal of debate over whether or not Zarqawi was still aligned with Al Qaeda or if he’s got his own group of terrorists these days who just have similar goals.

Does that really matter? Seems like a rather legalistic argument… “that’s not the exact Al Qaeda franchise which attacked us… let’s leave them alone.” This is the primary problem with the liberal argument for prosecuting the ‘primarily’ law enforcement war on terror. Get the Lawyers and the ACLU involved so that all of the terrorists will have their rights under the US constitution. Of course foreign fighters who wear no uniforms, target civilians, and shoot at our troops should be treated as if they were honorable soldiers.

Rather than solely asking why the media does not revisit this information, I think we should be asking why the government has not revisited this information in their press conferences, and offered up the intelligence that originally spawned these things being reported to the press by government officials. Was there a real case for such a offer of sanctuary, or were the facts (for whatever reason) exaggerated?

Yes, perhaps the 9/11 commission will review the reasons why the Clinton Administration exaggerated this threat? Oh wait, didn’t Richard Clark say that they were focused like a laser on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Why then would they have exaggerated this connection themselves?

> Is a Saddam Fedayeen (a guerrilla-type
> para-military force not unlike Al Qaeda)
> officer also a member of Al Qaeda? The
> links keep mounting.

The manner in which this allegation has been discredited is truly sad.

Yesterday, the senior administration official said Lehman had probably confused two people who have similar-sounding names.

One of them is Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi, identified as an al Qaeda “fixer” in Malaysia. Officials say he served as an airport greeter for al Qaeda in January 2000 in Kuala Lumpur, at a gathering for members who were to be involved in the attacks on the USS Cole, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Iraqi military documents, found last year, listed a similar name, Lt. Col. Hikmat Shakir Ahmad, on a roster of Hussein’s militia, Saddam’s Fedayeen.

It makes you wonder how Mr. Lehman ever managed to qualify for the 9/11 commission in the first place. Perhaps because he could be counted on to find pathetic intelligence like this and “stovepipe” it directly to the press without first double-checking it out with real intelligence experts.

You’re pretty well-read, Eric. Had you completely missed this story, or did you simply choose to ignore it?

From your 1999 Guardian quote:

Mr Fandy said senior members of the Saudi royal family told him in recent weeks that they had received assurances from the Taleban leader, Mullah Mohamed Omar, that once the radical Islamist movement secured control over Afghan territory, Bin Laden would be forced to leave. “It’s a matter of time now for Osama.” He said Bin Laden would have a strong ideological aversion to accepting Iraqi hospitality, but might have little choice.

I don’t see why you’ve quoted this. Clearly the speculation that Bin Laden would be forced to leave Afghanistan and hole up with Saddam turned out to be totally preposterous. It kind of undermines the whole idea that the offer ever happened at all.

-Cf

As I said before, if all of this is true about Saddam offering Osama refuge if he struck at the west in a high-profile way, why hasn’t this been part of the administration’s case against him?

Jarin, are you kidding? This is precisely what liberals and the media are screaming about, that the administration has made too much of these stories. That it should be ignored. Well, they have ignored it. It’s been dismissed.

No, I’m not kidding. This story, about Saddam offering bin Laden sanctuary, has never been part of the official line from this administration about their connection. Instead they have made their case for Saddam allying with Iraq out of much weaker information… turning (discredited) stories about a single member of his guard also belonging to al qaeda into the purely speculative idea that the two groups were actively working together is an example of the kind of weak case they have made. Nowhere in the statements of this administration have the links been anywhere near as strong as Saddam actively offering bin Laden sanctuary.

Instead of solid connections of this sort, the firmest link between Saddam and Al Qaeda that they have offered is Zarqawi getting operated on in Bagdad, and there seems to be a good deal of debate over whether or not Zarqawi was still aligned with Al Qaeda or if he’s got his own group of terrorists these days who just have similar goals.

Does that really matter? Seems like a rather legalistic argument… “that’s not the exact Al Qaeda franchise which attacked us… let’s leave them alone.” This is the primary problem with the liberal argument for prosecuting the ‘primarily’ law enforcement war on terror. Get the Lawyers and the ACLU involved so that all of the terrorists will have their rights under the US constitution. Of course foreign fighters who wear no uniforms, target civilians, and shoot at our troops should be treated as if they were honorable soldiers.

I don’t see it as legalistic at all. One group is the group that attacked us, Al Qaeda. The other group, while certainly a terrorist group, and with former ties to Al Qaeda, is not Al Qaeda itself. Their relationship to each other is roughly analogous to the relationship between catholicism and the protestantism. (In the sole sense that the latter is a split off of the former due to central differences, I am not trying to raise either Al Qaeda or Zarqawi’s group to the level of religions) While Zarqawi’s group would certainly be worth going after and putting a stop to in its own right, trying to say that it and Al Qaeda are identical just doesn’t seem to be borne out by the facts. Therefor, if we’re trying to reduce Al Qaeda’s capacity for terroristic attacks and bring that particular group to justice, Zarqawi’s group and any administrations aiding them would be, at best, a distraction from our original goals even if justified in the larger context of a war against all terrorists everywhere.

Rather than solely asking why the media does not revisit this information, I think we should be asking why the government has not revisited this information in their press conferences, and offered up the intelligence that originally spawned these things being reported to the press by government officials. Was there a real case for such a offer of sanctuary, or were the facts (for whatever reason) exaggerated?

Yes, perhaps the 9/11 commission will review the reasons why the Clinton Administration exaggerated this threat? Oh wait, didn’t Richard Clark say that they were focused like a laser on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Why then would they have exaggerated this connection themselves?

I would be interested in knowing for certain who the sources for these stories during the Clinton Administration were, perhaps that would shed some clearer light on their motives. However, assuming you’re right and it was the leaders of the administration such as Clarke who exaggerated this connection, I can think of one plausible reason why that might have been the case. Ironically, not to build a case against Saddam, but to build a case against bin Laden and mobilize public opinion against him before he could become a greater threat. This is of course just speculation, and I’m sure that you have your own theories as to why it may have been done.

The manner in which this allegation has been discredited is truly sad.

CF- Dismissed you mean. All it takes is one, ‘probably confused two people who have similar-sounding names’ and that’s the official story?

It makes you wonder how Mr. Lehman ever managed to qualify for the 9/11 commission in the first place. Perhaps because he could be counted on to find pathetic intelligence like this and “stovepipe” it directly to the press without first double-checking it out with real intelligence experts.

Yeah, that 9/11 commission’s findings are swiss cheese, huh? So full of holes. Yep. It’s all a mistaken identity I’m sure. There’s so many ‘John Smith’s’ out there.

Here’s the original Weekly Standard story:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. Shakir, as WEEKLY STANDARD readers may recall, is an Iraqi who was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. U.S. intelligence officials do not know whether Shakir was an active participant in the meeting, but there is little doubt he was there.

In August 1999, Shakir began working as a VIP greeter for Malaysian Airlines.
He told associates he had gotten the job through a contact at the Iraqi embassy. In fact, Shakir’s embassy contact controlled his schedule—told him when to report to work and when to take a day off. The contact apparently told Shakir to report to work on January 5, 2000, the same day September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar arrived in Kuala Lumpur. Shakir escorted al Mihdhar to a waiting car and then, rather than bid his guest farewell, jumped in the car with him. The meeting lasted from January 5 to January 8. Shakir reported to work twice after the meeting broke up and then disappeared.

He was arrested in Doha, Qatar, on September 17, 2001. Authorities found both on his body and in his apartment contact information for a number of high-ranking al Qaeda terrorists. They included the brother of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Hajer al Iraqi, described by one detainee as Osama bin Laden’s “best friend.” Despite this, Shakir was released from custody. He was detained again on October 21, 2001, in Amman, Jordan, where he was to have caught a flight to Baghdad. The Jordanians held Shakir for three months. The Iraqi regime contacted the Jordanian government and either requested or demanded—depending on who you ask—his release. The Jordanians, with the apparent acquiescence of the CIA, set him free in late January 2002, at which point he returned to Baghdad. Then earlier this spring, Shakir’s name was found on three lists of the officers of Saddam’s Fedayeen.

It’s possible, of course, that there is more than one Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. And even if the Shakir listed as an officer of the Saddam Fedayeen is the same Shakir who was present at the 9/11 planning meeting, it does not mean that the Iraqi regime helped plan or even had foreknowledge of those attacks. -weeklystandard.com

Re: the following… I quoted this as evidence that it was not a foregone conclusion among everyone ‘in the know’ that Osama would never ever hole up with the secular Saddam. We don’t know that at all. There is a level of cooperation among thieves. There’s also no honor, but it doesn’t mean there is never any copoperation as the left is trying to allege.

I don’t see why you’ve quoted this. Clearly the speculation that Bin Laden would be forced to leave Afghanistan and hole up with Saddam turned out to be totally preposterous. It kind of undermines the whole idea that the offer ever happened at all.

As it turns out the Clinton Administration didn’t put enough pressure on the Taliban to force Bin Laden out. Maybe no amount of pressure could have done so. It doesn’t follow at all that it is preposterous that Bin Laden would take refuge in Iraq. You are injecting your own bias into the facts. It was reported that the offer happened by multiple news sources and the Clinton administration reported it as well.

Or perhaps nothing really ‘happens’ until we run it through the liberal ministry of truth first? Depending on whether or not they believe it will help or hurt the Bush reelection that day they might approve that little fact.

Also from the May 27th, Wall Street Opinion Journal:

It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the proven al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents. But our sources tell us there is no questioning the authenticity of the three Fedayeen rosters. The chain of control is impeccable. The documents were captured by the U.S. military and have been in U.S. hands ever since.

As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. The four-day al Qaeda meeting was attended by Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were at the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Also on hand were Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. Shakir left Malaysia on January 13, four days after the summit concluded.

That’s not the only connection between Shakir and al Qaeda. The Iraqi next turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested on September 17, 2001, six days after the attacks in the U.S. A search of his pockets and apartment uncovered such information as the phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers’ safe houses and contacts. Also found was information pertaining to a 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific.

After a brief detention, our friends the Qataris inexplicably released Shakir, and on October 21 he flew to Amman, Jordan. The Jordanians promptly arrested him, but under pressure from the Iraqis (and Amnesty International, which questioned his detention) and with the acquiescence of the CIA, they let him go after three months. He was last seen heading home to Baghdad.

One of the mysteries of postwar Iraq is why the Bush Administration and our $40-billion-a-year intelligence services haven’t devoted more resources to probing the links between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda. In his new book, “The Connection,” Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard puts together all of the many strands of intriguing evidence that the two did do business together. There’s no single “smoking gun,” but there sure is a lot of smoke.

The reason to care goes beyond the prewar justification for toppling Saddam and relates directly to our current security. U.S. officials believe that American civilian Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq recently by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, who is closely linked to al Qaeda and was given high-level medical treatment and sanctuary by Saddam’s government. The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al Qaeda now; Saddam’s files might show us how they linked up in the first place. -opinionjournal.com

You guys didn’t need this much evidence to convict Halliburton of profiteering.

I don’t see it as legalistic at all. One group is the group that attacked us, Al Qaeda. The other group, while certainly a terrorist group, and with former ties to Al Qaeda, is not Al Qaeda itself. Their relationship to each other is roughly analogous to the relationship between catholicism and the protestantism. (In the sole sense that the latter is a split off of the former due to central differences, I am not trying to raise either Al Qaeda or Zarqawi’s group to the level of religions) While Zarqawi’s group would certainly be worth going after and putting a stop to in its own right, trying to say that it and Al Qaeda are identical just doesn’t seem to be borne out by the facts. Therefor, if we’re trying to reduce Al Qaeda’s capacity for terroristic attacks and bring that particular group to justice, Zarqawi’s group and any administrations aiding them would be, at best, a distraction from our original goals even if justified in the larger context of a war against all terrorists everywhere.

Jarin,

So by your reasoning we should only be going after terrorists who we can absolutely prove are working for or with Al Qaeda? I’m sure you would include any of the millions of new recruits who may not have been a member of Al Qaeda at the time of 9/11 but joined afterward in response to our cowboy President’s illegal war?

Eric:

I should kiss you, I just found out that the guardian.co.uk article you linked to in this post contains the very information that I’ve been looking for about the nature of the intelligence regarding the offer of sanctuary to bin Laden!

Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorist operations, said: “Hijazi went to Afghanistan in December and met with Osama, with the knowledge of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. We are sure about that. What is the source of some speculation is what transpired.”-guardian.co.uk

Unfortunately for you, it kind of counters your original point here, since this quote shows that all we really know is that the two met. Apparently the whole concept of him offering bin Laden sanctuary on behalf of Iraq is speculation on the part of the intelligence community that has been inappropriately reported as fact by the media.

Unfortunately for you, it kind of counters your original point here, since this quote shows that all we really know is that the two met. Apparently the whole concept of him offering bin Laden sanctuary on behalf of Iraq is speculation on the part of the intelligence community that has been inappropriately reported as fact by the media.

Jarin: How does this counter the original point? The fact that they didn’t have a press conference afterward? We are talking about the Clinton Administration’s CIA here. Are you saying they lied about Saddam offering sanctuary? Did they make it up? The paragraph you are referring to confirms and affirms that a former Head of Iraqi intelligence and an ambassador to Turkey met with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

That’s not just an email message, or a phone call, or a message sent through an intermediary. That’s diplomatic relations.

So I guess if you’re willing to concede that the two had diplomatic relations…

The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad’s ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam’s most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.

Why was Saddam and Osama talking? They had a common enemy. Read the preceding sentence again.

Since RAF bombers took part in air raids on Iraq in December, Bin Laden declared that he considered British citizens to be justifiable targets.

…Analysts believe that Mr Hijazi offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets. Iraqi agents are believed to have made a similar offer to the Saudi maverick leader in the early 1990s when he was based in Sudan.

Does that sound familiar? *Cough* Russian intelligence.

“After the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, intelligence repeatedly received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing terrorist acts against military and civil targets on the territory of the United States and beyond,” Putin told reporters Friday in the Kazakh capital, Astana, where he was attending a summit of several former Soviet republics.

Eric, I think you’re reaching when you rely on the word of a Taliban leader who defied our warnings to deliver us Bin Laden to prove that Osama would be shipped to Iraq. You’re also reaching when you use an article that features an INC member front and center as a source connecting them.

As for Zarqawi, his connection to Osama is not well understood. Competitor? Compadre? Different intelligence agencies have different ideas. Even the evidence for his convalescence in Baghdad is unclear, because as I’ve heard it, he still has both legs. German sources say he’s closer to Iran.

I acknowledge that a real threat exists from the terrorists armed with WMD, but I think Iraq was not the place of most concern. And military action so far has only made Zarqawi stronger, whether he’s Al Quaeda or not.

In fact, I would pose to you this question: What made Al Quaeda’s 9/11 attack so successful? First and foremost, it defeated our expectations for such an attack. Hijackings committed to create further destruction, not to bargain with the hostages. They used knives, mace, and pepperspray to take over the plane, not guns and explosives.

And when it came down to the actual attack, they didn’t use a truckbomb or a planted charge, they used the hijacked airplanes, something for which neither the military or the FAA had ever adequately prepared for.

As much as we worry about a smuggled WMD, the worst can be achieved simply by using our own infrastructures against us. We have plenty of poorly guarded chemical plants to choose from.

> It doesn’t follow at all that it is preposterous
> that Bin Laden would take refuge in Iraq.

That’s not what I said. I said that it was preposterous that the Taliban was ever going to eject Bin Laden (which is what your quote was alleging) and that it was preposterous to think that Mullah Mohamed Omar wouldn’t defend Bin Laden. The fact of the matter is that Mullah Mohamed Omar was loyal to Bin Laden until the very bitter end of the Taliban regime. He stood up for Bin Laden even under threat of total anihillation by coalition military forces, and may in fact still be out there drumming up support for the Al Qaeda cause.

So, the idea that a wedge could be driven between the Taliban and Al Qaeda is and was, obviously, preposterous.

The story you are choosing to believe was most likely a lie made up by Mullah Omar himself to make the USA think that the Taliban wasn’t in cahoots with Al Qaeda!

Tellingly, the Guardian article quotes Ahmed Allawi, who is now the Prime Minister of Iraq:

Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. “There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden,” he said.

As we know now, the INC’s intelligence has turned out to be almost completely fabricated. So the intelligence that forms the foundation of much of this Guardian article must be called into question. Something tells me that the bulk of the information in the article is from Allawi himself.

In a recent New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh, Allawi is alleged to have been a Baathist hit man in London in the 1970’s. As an INC Washington and London loobyist, he was the man responsible for the infamous 45-minute claim. Is it surprising that such a man would try to create the impression that Saddam and Al Qaeda were in cahoots in an effort to drum up support for invading Iraq?

From your Weekly Standard quote:

It’s possible, of course, that there is more than one Ahmed Hikmat Shakir.

See, that’s where this gets so preposterous. These two men don’t even have the same name!!

Al Qaeda’s man: Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi
Saddam’s man: Hikmat Shakir Ahmad

Also, why the hell would this guy, an Iraqi agent, go abroad covertly without even bothering to come up with a good false name?

Both the WSJ and WS articles you quote go on and on about how Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi had connections with Al Qaeda. But it’s all a smokescreen. The point isn’t whether or not he was in Al Qaeda. The point is whether or not he was working for Saddam. The evidence of that is, well, almost completely non-existent.

Furthermore, even if the Al Qaeda man, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi, was the same Iraqi man, Hikmat Shakir Ahmad, what would that prove?

We know of at least two Americans who have worked closely with Al Qaeda, one of whom (Lindh) met Osama bin Laden personally. We know that at least 19 Al Qaeda operatives were living and working in the USA, even having contacts and interactions with American intelligence security forces. We know of a large number of British and German citizens with Al Qaeda contacts. We know that the Saudi and Pakistani governments and militaries are crawling with Al Qaeda sympathisers and that a great number of Muslim countries around the world have had diplomatic relations with Al Qaeda over the years. The fact that Saddam would have “links” to Al Qaeda is patently obvious, what is not even close to being proven is whether or not these contacts were symptomatic of Saddam providing material support to Al Qaeda. In my mind, unless there is a shred of evidence that Saddam was seriously considering giving WMDs to Al Qaeda, then the whole Al Qaeda/Saddam connection is a non-issue. I wouldn’t care if Saddam and Bin Laden were having afternoon tea every day - if Saddam wasn’t actually on the verge of putting his military power in the hands of Al Qaeda’s bloodthirsty terrorist soldiers, then any Al Qaeda/Saddam connection is insufficient to justify the invasion.

What is truly surprising is that the Bush Administration, after three years of hunting — including a year and a half of unfettered access to Saddam’s intelligence records — have only been able to dig up the pathetic evidence you have been offering.

You guys think you’re looking at the tip of the iceberg, but you’re really just scraping the bottom of the barrel.

-Cf

*bump*

Eric:

The statement about the CIA knowing for certain the two met, but only being able to speculate on the subject of the meeting, undermines your point because it shows that the concept of Saddam offering bin laden sanctuary is just that: pure speculation from the intelligence community. It is our best guess of what might have gone on at that meeting. It is hardly concrete evidence. And since you have now shifted the focus of your arguments against Saddam from the supposed offer of sanctuary to the very existence of diplomatic communication between the two (which you imagine must have been focused on their enemy, the US, equally without evidence), I think you realize that already.

Stephen, I agree that for the uses of terror one does not need a state’s resources to carry out acts of terror. It is the nature of terrorism itself as asymetrical warfare that they must do it ‘on the cheap’. And there are no lack of ways to do that.

I acknowledge that a real threat exists from the terrorists armed with WMD, but I think Iraq was not the place of most concern. And military action so far has only made Zarqawi stronger, whether he’s Al Quaeda or not.

As much as we worry about a smuggled WMD, the worst can be achieved simply by using our own infrastructures against us. We have plenty of poorly guarded chemical plants to choose from.

I think that it will be much harder to try that same trick again domestically. No one is going to believe that the next highjackers aren’t out to kill everyone on the plane and ram it into a building.

More than likely the next attack on US soil will be on the ground, and will involve a conventional means of explosive like the Federal Building in Oklahoma. Many more targets to guard and many more avenues of attack.

We have to be worried about a nation like Iran, and formerly Iraq, handing off WMD to groups like Al Qaeda to smuggle into the US. This is a real danger.

My point is that Iraq was a danger just as Iran is a danger. I will even accept the argument that Iran is more so than Iraq was. But like we have talked about before, there are more tools we can use than invasion. Iraq, in my opinion, was a good candidate for invasion because of all of the preexisting dealings and pretexts for war.

I will accept that you think it was a bad decision. I think that if I had been in charge I might have done basically the same thing as Bush but with a different run up and staging of the conflict. That said, the anti-war voices like Michael Moore are little better than anti-american shills.

—-

CF,

So, the idea that a wedge could be driven between the Taliban and Al Qaeda is and was, obviously, preposterous.

Still, that’s the Clinton administration’s effort to promote their efforts to ‘get Bin Laden’. This is what you wanted us to do with Saddam. Contain him. All that pressure to create a wedge really contained Bin Laden didn’t it?

Obviously the Taliban and Al Qaeda were inseparable in many ways. I believe Bin Laden married relatives of Mullah Omar to cement the ties. My point was not to say that Osama would have been forced out of Afghanistan it was to say that the idea of Osama accepting the hospitality of Saddam is not preposterous.

What’s preposterous is the idea that we need to apply a perverse ACLU/trial-lawyer/legalistic framework to the war on terror. Where we tie our own hands and crawl up our own ass*s to hunt ourselves as evildoers while giving free reign to terrorists. I think it is this aspect of liberal foregn policy which Kerry would prospectively bring that would be so detrimental to our security.

As we know now, the INC’s intelligence has turned out to be almost completely fabricated. So the intelligence that forms the foundation of much of this Guardian article must be called into question. Something tells me that the bulk of the information in the article is from Allawi himself.

Of course they all have ulterior motives, like getting their country back! One argument against invading Iraq was that it was a sovereign country, (vis a vis, an illegal invasion which broke international law), and that if the people of Iraq really wanted democracy they would ask for it, or rise up etc. Michael Moore said something to this effect at the Cannes Film Festival. (I watched excerpts on IFC on dish.) Apparently, they needed to stay in their own country where Saddam can ruthlessly annihilate them or it doesn’t count.

The following quote is an attempted terrorist assasination attempt by Iraqi agents in a foreign country. I’d say that counts as a terrorist act.

His change of allegiance led to Dr Allawi being targeted by Iraqi intelligence. In 1978 their agents armed with knives and axes badly wounded him when they attacked him as he lay asleep in bed in his house in Kingston-upon-Thames.

Jarin, listen to your arguments. You are acting as defense counsel for Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

First, there aren’t limitless ways to do terrorism. There are still ways things can get screwed up, and still security measures they must circumvent.

I doubt, though, that they’ll use a conventional explosive attack on us, at least not in any conventional way. I think they’ll surprise us, exploit our systems to worsen the damage. According to the book The Age of Sacred Terror, Ramzi Yousef and his people were attempting to tip one building into another in order to worsen the damage. The Bojinka plot would have used liquid explosives smuggled onto airlines to blow up several passenger jets simultaneously over the pacific. The Terrorists who did the embassy bombings worked out simultaneous attacks, unheard of to that point. The attackers of the Cole almost sank a billion dollar destroyer with an explosives filled small craft. The 9/11 attackers not only executed near simultaneous attacks, but used our own high technology to destroy or damage landmark buildings on our own soil.

You see the pattern here? This isn’t assymmetrical warfare in the sense of a suicide bomber killing a couple soldiers at a checkpoint. This is assymmetrical warefare in the sense that a handful of their operatives can do in our country what it would take our armed forces to do in theirs. They are willing to trade their lives for ours, and they are willing to kill civilians in a way we aren’t. So every attack will be about demonstrating their superiority as warriors of God, as Jihadists.

Maybe we do have to be worried about WMD handoffs, but I think that’s a questionable venture, because the Rogue nations know that if we trace such weapons back to them, the game is over, and they are in a nuclear war with us.

Let’s say some countries are willing to risk that. Well, there’s a problem. Your people didn’t attack the stronger candidate. You say “Iraq, in my opinion, was a good candidate for invasion because of all of the preexisting dealings and pretexts for war.”

But what about hitting the right country? What about hitting the countries that pose the greatest threat? America cannot afford to waste its military power and credibility on protracted engagements that do not improve its security. That is my basic thesis. Now Michael Moore may be much farther to the left than I, but I seriously doubt he’d consider himself anti-American, and I’ve heard people say that his current work has a strong sense of patriotism to it. The fact that he is a pacifist may gall people like you, but I can understand it, having gone through such a phase myself. He chose to remain a pacifist. Me, I’m closer to Clarke in my estimation of things.

It was a poorly thought out thing to do, getting into this war, simply because we knew we could. To paraphrase Kennedy, we should have been willing to pick the right country to do this with not because it was easy, but because it was hard. We should have been willing to confront Syria and Iran, to at least start the ball rolling on turning the world against them. We should have been willing to completely work out things in Afghanistan before we even entertained the thought of invading another country, because in the end, Afghanistan is a hand tied behind our back. And because we invaded Iraq, our forces now have their legs bound as well. Should we have to answer a military threat from North Korea, China, or any other country, we will be forced to either draft an new army into existence, or abandon other interests to deal with this new threat. That sounds to me like a lousy military position to be in.

What’s preposterous is the idea that we need to apply a perverse ACLU/trial-lawyer/legalistic framework to the war on terror. Where we tie our own hands and crawl up our own ass*s to hunt ourselves as evildoers while giving free reign to terrorists. I think it is this aspect of liberal foregn policy which Kerry would prospectively bring that would be so detrimental to our security.

No, what we need to be doing is keeping our act straight. We don’t need incompetence, we don’t need wasted lives or resources, and we sure as hell don’t need to be losing the moral war against terrorism by vindicating those who paint us as cruel foreign barbarians.

I can’t believe you’re still defending the INC, after all that’s happened. Look, you don’t impose leaders from outside on people, especially not when the exact image you’re wishing to avoid is that of a puppet master. No, you put people there from the communities who represent at least the better side of the places they come from. You let the people know that they will be represented by folks who have served them in the past, and done well by them. You don’t impose people on them who have been gone from the country for thirty years.

You can accuse us of being collaborators and sympathizers of Al Quaeda all you want to, but the honest truth is, we simply don’t like how your people have led us in all these wars. If you think that’s disloyalty, well yes it is, and no its not. It is disloyalty to your causes, but since I never signed up for them, it’s no real betrayal. It is not disloyalty to this country nor a renouncement of our antagonism to Saddam and Osama. Advising patience and prudence on policy towards these people is not advising appeasement, but simply a smarter kind of war.

I guess the question is, where you do your first loyalties lie: with your party, or your country? Would you allow your political fortunes to be lessened, if it meant better things for this country? Or would you ally yourself with your party, even while it’s foreign policy fumbles around in one of the most important confrontations of the 21st century?

Eric:

Since you have clearly set yourself in the position of their prosecutor with your arguments, anyone challenging the veracity of your statements and evidence would be forced into the role of their defense counsel. Pointing this out scores you no points unless you are able to challenge the veracity of the opposing claims.

And, frankly, it seems to me that the case for going to war with someone should be at least as strong as a legal case that would have the potential to put them in jail. If the evidence of the two acting in collusion is not that strong, why the hell are we willing to sacrifice american lives over it by going to war? So what is so wrong with challenging the evidence of their collaboration if it is clearly lacking in substance?

Your final position seems to be one where you have stopped trying to prove their collusion and are merely saying that these are bad men whom no one should challenge the “evidence” against, however speculative that evidence may be.

Eric wrote:
> Jarin, listen to your arguments. You are acting
> as defense counsel for Saddam Hussein and Osama
> Bin Laden.

Jarin wrote:
> Since you have clearly set yourself in the
> position of their prosecutor with your
> arguments, anyone challenging the veracity
> of your statements and evidence would be
> forced into the role of their defense counsel.

Yeah, Eric. That was a low-down dirty blow. You should be ashamed of yourself for such a suggestion, because (presumably) you know it’s not true.

If you actually believe that Jarin (or anyone else on WatchBlog — or, for that matter, in America) is defending Saddam or bin Laden, then I have no choice but to change my opinion of you and conclude that you are either a partisan psycho or a complete moron.

I am sure this is not the case, however. Which is why I implore you to please try to cut back on the “paint-your-opponent-as-pure-evil” rhetorical technique.

I have this idea that this whole WatchBlog scene will be something I will look back on with pride, but not if I am continually defending myself from ridiculous accusations of being a Baathist or Al Qaeda sympathiser.

-Cf

This isn’t assymmetrical warfare in the sense of a suicide bomber killing a couple soldiers at a checkpoint. This is assymmetrical warefare in the sense that a handful of their operatives can do in our country what it would take our armed forces to do in theirs.

The first WTC bombing was with fertilizer explosive. Asymetrical warfare is such because the attackers use unconventional ie non-military methods to attack their enemy. It’s terrorism because it is aimed mainly at civilians.

Now I agree they will be inventive. But the attack is coming. Hell, I’m not so sure it already hasn’t happened. I can’t remember so many refinery explosions and plastic factory explosions. But I’m not a conspiracy theorist so I have to let these news event go.

The sniper attacks would fulfill the protocol of terror when accompanied by massive media coverage. Very effective.

But what about hitting the right country? What about hitting the countries that pose the greatest threat? America cannot afford to waste its military power and credibility on protracted engagements that do not improve its security. That is my basic thesis.

Look Stephen, I don’t think we are that far apart on some things, on Iraq I have a different perspective on why invading was necessary. It was the easier target for many reasons. The main purpose in a strategic sense is deterence. The removal of the Hussein regime is of major importance to the region. I don’t have the heart to go through all of the reasons he was a bad man and leader and a cancer in the heart of the middle east. We had a history with Saddam and a pretext with the ceasefire agreement which he never lived up to.

I think if I were Bush I would have played out the beginning of the war differently, but I have no problem invading and removing him in the end.

Iran is a different country with different conditions. In some ways the mullahs are more stable than Saddam in the sense they are less psychotic. Yet they are more dangerous because they are true believers looking at long term goals of defeating us. In short they are smarter and their power structure less concentrated.

Iran also has a democratic movement we might be able to capitalize on.

We should have been willing to completely work out things in Afghanistan before we even entertained the thought of invading another country, because in the end, Afghanistan is a hand tied behind our back. And because we invaded Iraq, our forces now have their legs bound as well. Should we have to answer a military threat from North Korea, China, or any other country, we will be forced to either draft an new army into existence, or abandon other interests to deal with this new threat. That sounds to me like a lousy military position to be in.

Again, not true. We still have the same amount of troops in Afghanistan. We did not draw down or divert the military from their mission in Afghanistan in order to go into Iraq. This is a nonsequiter.

Should we have to answer a military threat from North Korea or most any other country, we will not have to enstate a draft.

We would be in the same position if we had to answer simultaneous threats from multiple countries regardless of whether we were engaged anywhere.

You let the people know that they will be represented by folks who have served them in the past, and done well by them. You don’t impose people on them who have been gone from the country for thirty years.

That’s rather hard isn’t it? Given that all who could escape the country did so. Saddam purged anyone else who could have led within Iraq over the last thrirty years. Where does that leave Iraqis?

It is not disloyalty to this country nor a renouncement of our antagonism to Saddam and Osama. Advising patience and prudence on policy towards these people is not advising appeasement, but simply a smarter kind of war.

This is precisely the problem with the Kerry/liberal approach at this time. Patience and prudence with Saddam Hussein was not working. You may argue that Saddam was ‘contained’ but the time was right to go in there and take him out.

I guess the question is, where you do your first loyalties lie: with your party, or your country? Would you allow your political fortunes to be lessened, if it meant better things for this country? Or would you ally yourself with your party, even while it’s foreign policy fumbles around in one of the most important confrontations of the 21st century?

I am an American first. But since Bush is not fumbling around there is no conflict. Bush has done what needed to be done. You may not like it and may not agree with it. I ask the same question of you. Is your loyalty to your hatred of Bush overcome your loyalty to the country? Because it is not a small thing to discredit, impeach, and repudiate a President in a time of war without damaging the country. And more importantly damaging the war on terror and emboldening our enemies. This is what the Michael Moore’s will do if they could.

> it is not a small thing to discredit, impeach,
> and repudiate a President in a time of war
> without damaging the country

This argument falls flat on two fronts: First, the “time of war” part is irrelevant since our international reputation is always important. Second, saying “a President” implies that your approach applies to any President, which is silly: When Nixon resigned, our country became a better place.

It is no worse to do so in a time of peace to a President who simply had extramarital affair. Do you not think that the Republican-led impeachment of Clinton gave comfort to the enemies of the United States?

Arguably, if a President is perceived internationally (and to a large extent domestically) as a bad leader who is hurting the country and the world and he is impeached, then perhaps we actually improve our standing in the world and strengthen our hand against the terrorists.

In short, there is no valid argument against impeachment except “The President doesn’t deserve it.” Anything else (“time of war!”) is just a smokescreen.

Same goes for simply voting a President out of office. In a democracy, we have an obligation to vote for the better candidate no matter what is going on in the world. In fact, we vote because of what is going on in the world.

Arguments to the effect that Americans should support and vote for President Bush because it makes America look weak to unseat him in a time of war reflect an ideology that is decidedly and frighteningly anti-democratic.

-Cf

Eric-

I agree with you on this one; Bush has done what needed to be done. And that creates a huge problem for the Democrats when they most assuredly put their party’s thirst for the Whitehouse ahead of the interests of the Country.

WJC was on Tavis Smiley this morning pretty much stating the same thing; that Bush has the big picture right. Clinton’s criticisms centered on the tactics and politics used, mainly the emphasis on the WMD (which is a good hindsight position to take). BUT he agrees with the ending of containment and the putting pressure on the status quo in the Middle East.

Second Audio Down

George, WJC’s agreement with the Bush Administration doesn’t include Bush’s decision to actually order the invasion when he did. My opinion, and that of John Kerry, is pretty much the same.

-Cf