As reported in William Safire’s latest op-ed piece, titled “Clear Ties to Terror” (scroll to bottom, free subscription required):
The article goes on to describe what this Saddam-sanctioned Al Qaeda cell has been reportedly doing in the way of producing and distributing poisonous chemicals, most notably cyanide and ricin (which is warhead-deliverable).
Presumably, Powell has all of this information in pocket.
Does this change the paradigm within which we should evaluate the question of whether or not the U.S. should go to war with Iraq? Many debaters have hung their hats on the credo that Saddam has no associations with terrorists. Is that credo now (or soon to be) blown out the water?
They’ve been ineffectually yoinking on this Saddam/bin Laden link for over a year, and still all we see is BS and innuendo: Ricin warheads, cyanide handcream, bridge for sale, cheap. If these dudes smuggled Ricin from Iraq to Algeria, why the hell were the Algerians manufacturing it from seeds in a London flat ? Where’s the logical consistency in these stories, or isn’t that needed because terrorists are all madmen ?
If this is real or even plausible, why wouldn’t the administration be taking it seriously? I’d suggest that there are a lot more people with better objective judgment than William Safire, and some of them are even in the State Department. Safire is a world champion pouter when he isn’t Arab-bashing.
Sorry, it’s just that all the innuendo has been flying so thick since 9/11 that it’s not possible to logically discount it all through careful research. At some point one must rely on one’s gut feelings. If we grant that right to the president, and Colin, surely we can grant it to ourselves ? Besides, if Safire wants to tell wild tales and get us all primed for war, the burden of establishing truth rests with him, not me.
I understand … I certainly am doing the same thing.
Safire did at least cite the work of other journalists researching the Iraq-Al Qaeda link, as opposed to just pulling accusations from thin air. I tend to think that there’s something there – I’ve had a hard time shaking the feeling that there’s another big shoe to drop before potential war with Iraq commences.
Bordelund, regardless of what it may seem at first, the Safire op-ed doesn’t really show anything. Let me explain…
First, the ‘about-face’ of Powell should not be construed as due to some new evidence, finally he has been convinced, etc.: being an important member of the administration, it is only logical that now, as the inspection deadline draws near, the administration “circles the wagons.” Powell, who has been outside of the Wolfie-Rummy-Condi circle, tried his best: in Aug/Sep, he managed to get his boss to relent and accept the UN resolution and inspections; now that it is coming to the crunch time, he needs to reign the dissenting opinion in, and get on the bandwagon. He is a military man, and will listen to orders; he did what he could, at the time, but now is not the appropriate time for such dissent. In order for the administration to appear credible, all have to speak in one voice. So I don’t think his “change of heart” is particularly significant…
The Safire article offers much in the way of innuendo, and precious little proof or evidence. In fact, much of it seems contrived: Iran and Iraq both funding an al-Qaieda cell in Kurdistan to “assassinate” opposition Kurds? Considering that this is a dictatorship we are talking about: why doesn’t Saddam just go in and kill the opposition Kurds himself? Why spend money, deal with two different enemies (Iran and bin Laden) and create such an elaborate scheme (a “terrorist poison lab”), when all he has to do is send in the SSO? Presumably, the SSO already knows who these “free Kurds” are, so it should be a fairly easy job…
As for the assertions of al-Qaieda members being in Kurdistan; sure, why not? It is very highly probable that there are a few Arab al-Qaieda members there; after all, there was a strong religious faction within the Kurds that has been opposed to Saddam for quite a while. However, those operatives that would be in the country, among the Kurds, are not going to be supporting Saddam; the people that support al-Qaieda, by and large, are Islamic ideologues. Saddam and his ilk are anathema to them, as are we and Iran (being Shi’a based); there might be some small argument in the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, but they went down that road in Afghanistan, with poor results. In the event of an invasion, who would these al-Qaieda leftovers fight? Well, they would try to support the Kurds, but the Kurds would be supporting us against Saddam… Makes for tricky allegiances, but most likely any al-Qaieda found in that situation would pretend to be Kurd and hope to ride it out. As for al-Qaieda supporting Saddam, or vice versa: that would be a pretty tough one to prove, as there is almost visceral hatred, especially from the al-Qaieda side.
Would Saddam use any al-Qaieda personnel to his advantage? You bet: given the opportunity, he would love to play them off against the Kurds, to create even more factionilization among them. Would the al-Qaieda members allow it? Probably not, and if Zarqawi really is involved, he is much too clever to let Saddam take him for a ride. The whole scenario doesn’t really make much sense, which is probably why the CIA discounted it before (and they probably still do).
Now, take this paragraph as a sterling example of investigative reporting:
Let’s see: two reporters interviewed “captured terrorists”; where is the interview, and what did they find out? No quotes anywhere, or links to said interviews; just how did this non-existent(in the article, at least) reporting “erode” anything? There is simply no corroborating information whatsoever; and if this article is bad, you should see the one he wrote on 24 September 2001. Dear God… Another quote, from the earlier article:
“Arab Afghans” running around in LandCruisers with Katyusha rocket rails presumable strapped to them (even if they were Toyota pick-ups, they are too small to carry rocket rails as used for those type of rockets)? And they were somehow “infiltrated” into the free zone? Though this does conjure up some amusing images (“And what model LandCruiser is that exactly? I haven’t seen that option before - do you get the sunroof and A/C with it, too?”), it is absolutely ludicrous: the Iraqis don’t have to “infiltrate” anything into the Kurd zone, as it is already riddled with double agents, informers, and Ba’athist sympathizers. And how do you hide a bunch of these guys in Katyusha-equipped Land Cruisers - as they allegedly tried to assassinate a key opposition member, they must have figured out some way to get close to him, right? I figure hiding behind the bushes would be out, but…
In all, neither op-ed contains a whit of evidence or proof, and both are totally unsubstantiated. He does not even give any link between this information and Mr. Powell; though he infers it -
Mr. Safire at no point shows us that Mr. Powell has in any way seen this drivel, much less that he actually believes any of it.
I hope that no one would change their perspectives for or against the war based on this weak editorial; it does not report any new information, provides no evidence, and is logically suspect. In short, it is sensationalist journalism; Mr. Safire should be ashamed. Hell, I feel bad that I spent what time I did reading it…
Note that Safire is citing the work of other journalists in today’s op-ed piece. If Safire’s not credible on his face, perhaps the works of Jeff Goldberg (New Yorker) and C. J. Chivers (NY Times) lend a little more weight. Both men interviewed Al Qaeda terrorists (under Kurdish guard) in northern Iraq to research their own articles.
And, in case my last post wasn’t strong enough: most of what the article states is, indeed, “categorically implausible.” And not even logical, by any standard: he is using his forum as a way of spreading baseless conjecture and innuendo. No doubt about it; read his first article, and if you don’t come away with a sense of disbelief, well, then, I don’t know what to tell you. If you can find one item in either article that sounds “plausible,” let me know: I won’t belittle you, as you may not understand, but I will be certainly glad to clarify for you. Come on, LandCruisers with rockets on top??? Man oh man…
Article by Mr. Chivers here: don’t see anything whatsoever to support Safire’s claims. Matter of fact, kind of destroys what he says in his op-ed:
Although there are some mentions of possible al-Qaieda links, they are pretty much in agreement with my contention that they have nothing to do with Hussein. But believe what you like…
Man, without even opening this thread I knew what the responses were going to be.
When Powell was disagreeing with the administration, he was the hero of the left on this board. The sole man of principle, the beacon of integrity and truth in an otherwise despotic administration. All hail Colin Powell, the voice of reason.
Now he comes out and says that the inspections are a failure, and Saddam has clear ties to terrorist groups and al-Qaida. And wouldn’t you know? Just like that he goes from being honest Colin to being just another evil toady of the Bush administration.
There is simply no amount of evidence that will convince you people. If the Bush administration laid photographs of weapons plants on the table, you’d claim they were doctored. If they paraded an ex-patriot from Iraq who had first-hand knowledge of recent WMD programs, you’d claim it was a setup.
Those of us who think Saddam is a danger that has to be stopped can point to agreement from the entire Bush administration, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, 77 out of 100 Senators, Hans Blix, Richard Butler, and dozens of other major foreign-policy heavyweights on both the right and the left (Thomas Friedman, Christopher Hitchens, Kenneth Pollack, etc). The media is also falling in line. Such heavy conservative toadies as the Guardian, the Independent, and The New Republic are all on our side.
You guys have France and Germany, both of whom have a huge vested interest in seeing Iraq NOT invaded, and one half-insane pedophile ex-inspector who accepted $400,000 from an Iraqi to make a pro-Saddam film. But you’re all so certain you’re right that you won’t even listen to new evidence anymore without jerking your knees and assuming it’s all lies.
These threads are pointless. The war is going to happen soon enough, then I’m guessing there will be mountains of evidence showing that you guys are flat out wrong, and the Bush administration is right.
I don’t know why you dishonestly keep on pretending that Bill Clinton has argued for invasion or that all 77 senators necessarily do so either. There are various shades of support for the Bush policy. And note that analysts like Pollack who do support invasion have criticized the way in which Bush has gone about pursuing his Iraq policy. And the Guardian??!! They have been strongly critical of Bush.
And note that Safire is arguing against the CIA here. What kind of great evidence is he talking about that the CIA is not convinced?
“You guys have France and Germany, both of whom have a huge vested interest in seeing Iraq NOT invaded, and one half-insane pedophile ex-inspector who accepted $400,000 from an Iraqi to make a pro-Saddam film.”
What about the New York Times?
What about Brent Scowcroft?
What about Russia,India,China?
What about one third of senior military US officers according to Time?
What about the Libertarian Party and the Cato Institute?
And incidentally the “huge vested interest” argument doesn’t make any sense. If that was all France and Germany were concerned about the US could simply give them a guarantee that their economic interests would be respected by a future Iraqi government.
Bullshit. You have no idea what you are talking about. The ruthless bastards who committed the attacks of 9/11 must be terminated with prejudice. If there was evidence to the effect that Iraq was involved with, supportive of, or harboring these motherfuckers, I would be fully supportive of eliminating them by any means. They are not. You are utterly pathetic to try to belittle people who do not support the impending war by suggesting this. If there is evidence, show it now and get support. If there is war, he better turn up mountains of evidence, or all of our asses will be in the sling. Hell, they will be anyways. Get your war on!
I have little doubt that some connection between Iraq and Al-Queda exists. I have no doubt whatsoever that a connection between Saudi Arabia and Al-Queda exists. Its a real good bet that a connection between Iran and Al-Queda exists.
Its like 6 degrees of Bin Laden. Of course there is somebody in Iraq with ties to Al-Queda, how could there not be? There are people in America with ties to al-Queda, so flippin’ what!
Al-Queda loathes all secular governments, and Iraq is way up thier list. Are we then to assume, given some nebulous connection between two entities, that Iraq controls Al-Queda? Are we to believe that Saddam gives them thier marching orders? Well, then, if thats the case, with the US threatening war with Iraq for months…why hasn’t Al-Queda rushed to assault America with all these terrible weapons that Goddam Saddamn has given them?
Because he didn’t. Because he knows any alliance with Al Queda is temporary at best. Because he knows he will be blamed if anything happens to the US. He’s lucky Iraq doesn’t manufacture pretzels!
Sure he’s evil. That doesn’t mean he’s stupid. If the man has such a festering hatred of the US and possesses all these horrible weapons that he is simply dying to put in terrorist hands…how come it hasn’t happened? What’s he waiting for?
Could it be that as evil as he is, he isn’t stupid enough to provoke a war he cannot possibly win?
The US has nothing substantial. There will be no “news” in upcoming days. The administration is just going to package up a few chickenshit violations and tenuous connections and try to pretty it all up with a lot of smoke and mirrors and fear mongering. Sadly, it will work. Americans are morons, and they will buy it. I’m not surprised that Powell has been brought on board for this latest scheme. I’ve always thought he was a bit of a sell out.
Is it the contention of the OP that we should support going to war with Iraq on the basis of a column by William Safire?
It seems to me that if Powell has definite information to back up his charge, and if, as Safire claims, it is the Kurds who have supplied a good deal of it, then there shouldn’t be any bar to releasing that fact by the government. Surely, saying that the “Kurdish sources” (Safire’s words) have given us the following definitive information … blah, blah, blah … couldn’t “compromise” anything. After all, Safire claims that the Kurds have been telling him and anyone who would listen that Al-Qaeda is there.
The risk of compromise of intelligence and the possible killing of sources is legitimate but so is risk of the killing of members of our armed forces in the case of a war. I don’t see a lot of evidence that these relative risks are being weighed and balanced. I have trouble believing that is isn’t possible to sanitize any of the supposed definite “smoking gun” intelligence that the administration claims in order to let the public in on the reasons for this seemeing rush to war.
