That could be true. Evience suggests otherwise. An intelligent man wouldn’t get into a decade long war with Iraq, or think he could just take Kuwait and nobody would stop him.
You’re confusing cunning with intelligence, and he may very well be able to “win.” Saddam doesn’t win by facing down the US or the rest of the world in a direct confrontation. He wins by provoking the US and the rest of the world just enough to make us look like the aggressor to the dim bulbs of the world. He wins by capitalizing on anti-US sentiment, and gaining support and power from the mid-east community.
That’s why he focuses on anti-US rhetoric, and invokes the struggle against Israel. If he turns it into an arab world versus the Western world scenario we have very big problems.
This is beside the point. He is stupid, and we have checkmate against him. He hasn’t followed any of the US resolutions in the past 12 years to which he had to submit in order to retain power, and because of that we’re going to excise him from power.
His particularly egregious error has been to be less than forthright with the UN inspectors. Having his minders intimidate the inspectors, and those they are interviewing, snatching incriminating documents from the hands of inspectors, and blatant lying like when they pretend the scientists are unwilling to talk when in fact they’ve been threatened by death if they do, not allowing the surveillance planes, the phony declarations, etc etc.
These are things that only have advantage if you’re trying to hide something, otherwise why do them? The simple fact is that Clinton probably should have forced the issue back in 1998 when Iraq kicked out the weapons inspectors. Probably accusations of “wagging the dog,” made against him even for the missile attacks played a part in staying his hand.
It has to be done, and it’s going to get done. There’s a lot of diplomatic advantage to be had in posturing as a reluctant warrior and some of our allies are playing this game. That’s all.
The US is not the UN. As a member state, the US has no authority or privilege to decide what UN resolutions are to be enforced, and how they are to be enforced, any more than Tennessee has the option to declare war on Canada if it decides Canada has abrogated a fishing rights treaty.
Further, the US pretence that it regards UN resolutions as somehow sacrosanct is laughable, if one’s sense of humor tends to the cynicly ironic. Do you think for one moment that if the UN passes a resolution opposing a war, Bush will back down? “Hey, I disagree, but you guys are the boss here…”
In a pig’s ass.
All sane warriors are reluctant. And there is little doubt that diplomatic maneuvering is involved. Certainly it has produced a rather tasty paycheck for Turkey, some $4 billion and counting. For the flip side of the same coin, how many “allies” are “posturing” thier support? See any of them rushing to put thier soldiers and thier treasury at our disposal? Spain sitting down to write a check? Italy? Rumania?
If our case is so clear, so deserving of your unswerving support and dedication, why all the lies? If Saddam bin Laden is so utterly madly evil, why, under direct threat of war, is he virtually motionless? For ten fucking years! Why hasn’t he launched his intercontinental drone aircraft armed with nuclear anthrax?
How can any citizen of conscience tolerate being led to war on the basis of lies?
I am with Sam on this. I can’t imagine even if Powell where to show satellite photo’s or signed confessions, that most anti-war people would do any more than try to find some error in the evidence. And if not, would ultimately say it doesn’t matter and is not a reason for war.
Don’t get me wrong. I welcome any evidence that they got to sway some of the lessar skeptics, although I don’t need it.
Since the US is a permanent member on the SC, and the primary enforcer of UN resolutions I would have to ask where you get that assertion.
You also seem to be of the crowd that somehow thinks the US has signed over it’s sovereignty to the UN. Tenessee has done so to the US. In the Constitution it states that individual states cannot declare war. Even if the UN charter said that (wich it doesn’t) the government has no right to sign over sovereignty of the US, so it would be unconstitutional.
And as far as you saying a resolution supported, faught for, and signed by the US is not somehow sacrosanct to them is a bit dissengenuous, don’t you think?
I wonder if a pig’s ass has a corckscrew quality like their other parts.
My argument has nothing to do with any issue of sovereignty or the lack thereof. As a member nation, the US has no privilege or perogative to decide what UN resolutions are to be enforced, and under what conditions. Hence, any treaty concluded with the UN is entirely under its authority. The US cannot, for instance, decide to unilaterally enforce UN resolutions as regards Israels repeated refusal to honor UN resolutions regarding its treatment of Palistinians, any more than it can unilaterally enforce UN resolutions as regards Iraq.
So you are saying that the UN provides no authority or priviledge specifically to the US? I agree. There is already another thread on if the member states have to get permission from the UN to do things, so I will end my part of the unintended hijack here.
“Listen to the MUSTN’TS, child,
Listen to the DON"TS
Listen to the SHOULDN’TS
The IMPOSSIBLES, the WON’TS
Listen to the NEVER HAVES
Then listen close to me—
Anything can happen, child,
ANYTHING can be.”
Well, that certainly settles that! Dare we hope that is your final word on the subject, and that you rest your case (such as it were)?
(Though I suspect that the justly esteemed Mr. Silverstein, who I admired from the first time I snuck a peek at my folk’s Playboy till his untimely recent demise, would not take kindly to having his gentle whimsy pressed into the service of such an ignoble cause.)
You mean when the U.S. and Britain bombed Iraq without U.N. approval in 1994, under the Clinton Administration?
You mean like the almost daily bombings that go on in the No-Fly zones?
You mean like the Clinton Administration’s manoevering around the U.N. over Kosovo, when it became likely that China was going to exercise a veto in the Security Council?
Well, Sam, I suppose I should have included the lines “without indulging in a thunderingly blatant display of sheer hypocrisy.” Sorry if I confused you.
Such trivial concerns aside, as well as petty legalities, of course America can do whatsoever she chooses, a point Scylla felt bound to emphasize.
We don’t care. We don’t have to. We’re the Americans.
Well, seeing as the UN is the international community I don’t quite understand how they could do that.
As for the US blowing off the UN and going in on their own, that would be the ultimate irony, would it not? You know, going in to enforce UN resolutions, while ignoring the one that prevents them from doing precisely that.
Going back to the OP, why should Colon Powell suggest NOW that there is evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link? Wouldnt it have been better to tell the inspectors this at the outset?
The only solid, objective evidence, is that which can be found by UN weapons inspectors, not heresay or fuzzy photos. If the inspectors are in there for the next 50 years looking, well then that’s 50 years that Iraq can not get up to any mischeif.
Where have you been? Hiding in a cave with OBL? Just look around you, all those guys with mustashes could potentially be carrying Saddam Bin Laden’s WOD. In fact, the mustashes could be the WOD! You know, all that secret reseach…
As for giving the inspectors the intel, sure, regardless of when/where/what was found, that’s where it should have gone right away. Then again, if you did that, you’d take away Dubya’s abilty to grandstand, puff out his chest and scream “I’ve got me some evidence that eeevil man in Eirak has nukular weapons!”
And where’s the fun of being Resident if you can’t do that?!
This is conjecture on your part. You may well be correct, but I cannot factually evaluate what you’ve written – I’ve only got Powell’s own public words to factually evaluate.
Conjecturally, I can see a way around both questions you pose:
I think it makes perfect sense for Saddam to have someone else do his dirty work. The spotlight has been bright on his regime for some time … better to have some plausible deniability (or so he thought) when one’s enemies are eradicated.
I reread Safire’s line regarding Iran. He posits that Ansar al Islam is financed by both Iran and Iraq, not that Iran and Iraq are dealing with one another. As for the chemical weapons lab, I don’t think that was set up to battle Kurds. The SSO’s methods would be more direct – but as I put forth above, Saddam may feel it better to let others get their hands dirty.
Ansar al Islam is referred to repeatedly as an “affiliate” of Al-Qaeda. Perhaps they do not represent Al-Qaeda to the ideological letter.
I have heard repeatedly that Bin Laden hates Saddam because he is a secular leader. I’m not sure I buy that as yet. It seems to me that Bin Ladens uses religion as a recruiting tool and as a rhetorical device, but that at heart he is simply power-hungry megalomaniac. Of course, lower members of Al-Qaeda certainly must vary somewhat in their mindsets,m and many may well hate Saddam. Can you recomment any helpful cites that speak more specifically about Al-Qaeda or Bin Laden’s hatred of Saddam?
Hold on, now – it looks as though Zarqawi took advantage of Hussein as well. Zarqawi recieved discreet safe harbor in Baghdad, as well as medical treatment on the QT. Also, it doesn’t appear that Zarqawi is in it to knock off Kurds – his interest seems to be in the chemical weapons safehouse.
No links to the interviews? Safire’s article originally appeared in print – so there would be no hyperlinks. Also, he cited both journalists and their associated periodicals. That’s well good enough, as any reader can look up Chivers’ and Goldberg’s articles themselves based on that information.
“Infiltration” can imply surreptition, but the word can also be used accurately to describe brute penetration. Therefore, the mercenaries were not necessarily hiding. Perhaps it was a quick-moving dawn raid. Safire’s use of the word seems to be in accord with definition 1b here.
In the 2001 editorial, Safire cites a member of the Kurdish resistance (though not by name). In Monday’s editorial, Safire also cites Chivers and Goldberg. He’s not pulling information from thin air.
Additionally, I don’t find that Safire necessarily implies that Powell possessed this selfsame information regarding Ansar al Islam.
Actually, this is only a link to the abstract of Chivers’ January 27th article, but there is a phrase therein upon which Safire is partially balancing his conclusion:
"American official says he now believes Kurdish government’s claim that Ansar has strong links to Al Qaeda …"
The (financial) link to Hussein likely has a separate source from Chivers’ January 27th article (maybe Goldberg’s New Yorker piece?).
It will be very interesting to see if Powell can come up with anything more solid to make the predetermined case for his boss next week. If the aluminum tubes and empty warheads were the best the administration could come up with to support the claim that Saddam is an imminent danger to the world, integrally wrapped up with Osama (remember him? Dead or alive?), then the stuff they haven’t claimed but will now have to may look pretty sad by comparison.
What the UN inspectors find or don’t find has nothing to do with establishing a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
I don’t think there is an integral link at all between Saddam and Bin Laden themselves – but I feel there almost certainly is a tenuous one. I’m gathering that their are elements of Al-Qaeda going off and doing their own thing now and then … not necessarily defying Bin Laden, but remaining active even when Bin Laden is not issuing commands – taking advantage of downtime, if you will.
The problem, it seems to, is this – chemical and biological weapons can exchange hands through these tenuous links, even when many degrees of separation are present. I can see where the Bush administration feels that Iraq is Al_Qaeda’s (and others’) best ultimate source at getting their hands on WMD. Other nations the world over have these weapons, but do terrorists have as good a chance of obtaining them as they do from Iraq?
The question is: how does an invasion prevent Iraq from passing weapons to terrorists? Common sense suggests that invading Iraq will make it more likely to work with terrorists since they will have less to lose. and will be eager to retaliate. Unless you think the attack is going to work instantaneously and finish the regime off on the first day?
So this is an exceedingly poor argument for invasion. In fact it’s a good argument against invasion.
“Other nations the world over have these weapons, but do terrorists have as good a chance of obtaining them as they do from Iraq?”
Why not? What about North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Libya?. Can you explain why these are any less likely to pass on weapons to terrorists than Iraq? The latter four probably have closer ties to Islamic fundamentalists than Iraq.
The bottom line is that the US is going to have to live in a world where nasty regimes have access to unconventional weapons. In fact it has lived in such a world for decades.
That gets into the subject of the Incredible Mutating Objectives, doesn’t it? The war was previously sold to us on the basis of an imminent threat, probably nucular, but that didn’t check out. Then we’ve had regime change, compliance with inspections constituting regime change, upholding UN authority, freeing the Iraqis from brutality, and harboring Al-Qaeda. But we still don’t have a nationally-agreed clear objective in mind, much less an internationally-agreed one.
The point, belabored as it has been already, is that Bush is determined to kill Saddam and will keep flipping through the index cards and poll results until finding a rationale that has the least resistance. He’s still lying about the aluminum tubes, for instance.
[quote…Other nations the world over have these weapons, but do terrorists have as good a chance of obtaining them as they do from Iraq? **[/QUOTE]
Probably easier to get them from somewhere where the heat is off, there aren’t inspectors all over, they can fly in or out, vehicles aren’t under surveillance constantly, isn’t it? It’s easier to get a nuke from Pakistan or covertly from an ex-Soviet officer in central Asia, probably - except those areas are officially “allies”, making them on the side of Good.