Well, this is a damned good question, Bricker. As you probably know, someone started another thread here suggesting an answer but one that I am strongly opposed to. But, it is indeed a very dark time in the history of our democracy. Of course, candidates on all sides have used over-the-top rhetoric and deceptive claims as long as democracy has been around. But, I think the Bush Administration assault on democracy on a number of different levels is really unprecedented (at least in recent times).
In the end, I don’t see any solution other than doing our damnest to educate people and to work for reforms, such as in how the media is regulated, that will allow for a wider diversity of opinions to be easily accessible to the American public. And, to be open to other ideas which I frankly haven’t thought of about how we can improve our democracy.
Actually, Saddam Hussein did have at least one terrorist training camp under his jurisdiction. At Salman Pak people from across the Middle East were trained in various terrorist techniques, including how to hijack aircraft. However, defectors testified that the terrorists at the camp had no connection to al-Qaeda. I understand your point that most nations have sponsored terrorism at some point in recent history and all nations have knowingly or unknowingly harbored terrorists, but your response of “how could they not” in my mind strongly misrepresents Saddam Hussein’s sponsorship of anti-American terrorism, which is of course the form of terrorism that the United States is specifically targeting. Since 1991, Iraq has actively supported terrorist movements against Israel, Turkey, and Iran (Israel and Turkey being key American allies in the Middle East), has attempted to assassinate former American president George HW Bush, and has knowingly sheltered the anti-American terrorists Abdul Rahman Yasin, Abu Abbas, and especially Abu Nidal, who was at the time one of the world’s most wanted terrorists. He knowingly harbored Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, and some analysts even believe that Iraq directly assisted in planning the bombing. After the September 11th attacks, Vladimir Putin acquired intelligence that indicated that Iraq had been planning terrorist attacks on the United States. The comparison to Saudi Arabia is not fair. Saudi Arabia has taken extensive efforts since September 11th to crack down on al-Qaeda and cut its ties with militant groups. There was, in my mind, little hope of convincing Iraq to initiate similar reforms, as their hostility and defiance towards the United States and United Nations has been previously confirmed by its consistent policy to flout the business of UNSCOM weapons inspectors, as well as evade the economic sanctions placed upon it.
Can I have cites for these? In particular the support for terrorist movements in Israel, assuming it is not the charity money that Saddam had in the past donated for the families of suicide bombers and victims of the Palestinian problem.
Assuming that these items would equal “terrorist ties”, do you have cites for the above? And I don’t mean along the lines of conspiracist Laurie Mylroie, eager fanboy Wolfowitz (who spent years trying to concoct some link between Ramzi Yousef, Al Qaida, and Iraq), and similar idiots, please, materials of better quality and improved honesty are required.
Yes, so they say, and so some people make a lot out of. In the words of Putin:
Ostensibly, yes. The Saudis are holding on, but they’re up against a nation where Islamic fundamentalism has, toput it mildly, undue influence. Thanks to the recklessness of Bush, it has been uniformly channelled against America and her allies, not just in Saudi Arabia but largely throughout the region. Although the house of Saud are moderate and internationalist by their country’s standard, they are effectively paralyzed by friendship with the US – don’t expect them to be able to do much. In fact, they really only got moving against terrorists once the pace of the attacks on their soil picked up, thus threatening the Kingdom and family thereof directly. The Saudis are no strangers to civil war, in fact they’ve already been in a civil war thanks to the ideological ancestors of Al Qaida, the Ikhwan. They don’t want to go there again because it is doubtful they would win this time around.
Saddam did eventually cooperate before the US invasion, which is why Bush had to change his message so many times (first it was “he must cooperate”, then “he must disarm”, and so forth until, when WMDs stubbornly persisted in their absence, Bush hinged his attack on an unfortunately worded technicality in a report by Hans Blix).
After all, inspections did achieve a measure of success at disarming Iraq in the past, and why did Bush cut short the excellent work being carried out by Blix and his team? Because it was not finding what was not there, and Bush knew he didn’t have much time left for his war initiative to carry through. It’s the realistic answer, unless you subscribe to the naive idea that not one but several world leaders and their intelligence agencies really had no clue what was truly happening in Iraq. They may have had suspicions, but that is what inspections are for. They spoke with certitude and even told us where the banned weapons and facilities were located, indicating either unimaginable incompetence or an explicit intent to mislead.
UNSCOM was disbanded at the end of the nineties and replaced with the new and improved UNMOVIC. I don’t see much point discussing UNSCOM unless you want to look at older data and the abuse of a UN body for purposes of espionage, something that soured Saddam against the whole idea of UN inspections (which he, however, then re-agreed to host).
Not that Saddam Hussein was a paragon of virtue and innocence, of course, but the Iraq affair was by no means a clean and honest one. The alternative to deliberate misdirection and outright falsehoods is gross incompetence; either seem like pretty good reasons to hold against the current administration. Just think: the evil and bloodthirsty tyrant turned out to be telling more truth than the belligerent champions of freedom and democracy. That is screwed!
“If Bush’s flaws are so blindingly obvious… why is he even in the running?”
In my personal opinion, This one is simple.
Any sitting President should have an excellent approval rating in these times of uncertainty (I’d wager to guess anyone else that did a decent job in office would have as high as 75 percent; what’s Bush have, maybe 50?) Why? Because the American people come together in times of need and disaster like we always have, but not when misled.
When 9/11 happened, I believe that any sitting President would’ve went in to Afghanistan to take out the Taliban, and overthrow the extremist government in that country; And, considering the magnitude of what happened on 9/11, coupled with the strong sense of unity we felt as a nation at the time–is it any wonder that the President had so much support in the days and months that followed?
Now, as I’ve said, ANY PRESIDENT WITH AMERICAN BLOOD IN HIS/HER VEINS (liberal, democrat, republican, conservative, woman, man, independent, etcetera.) would’ve responded with action against such an act, without question.
But any President would not have gone into Iraq, sitting it as a serious and pressing threat with weapons of mass destruction (I’ve been stationed in Korea, and let me tell you they do have a serious Army, and they do have weapons of mass destruction, but they don’ t have oil, and they wouldn’t be an easy country to just roll over like Iraq was); any President would not limit science for personal and religious beliefs; any President would not constantly vote to have the environment squandered at the benefit of special interest groups supporting big business; any President would not have his/her own news network (FOX); any President would not limit freedom (people of same sex can’t marry? Why? Do they harm someone else or infringe on anyone else’s rights in the process? After all, that’s what our laws, legislation, and government are purported to do: protect people from infringing on others rights. Note: read ‘On Liberty’, by John Stuart Mill for a review of the essay that inspired this country’s values), any President would not have taken office under the guise of bringing high moral values to the office, and only later do the people find out the same man had a DUI expunged from his record (One DUI here in Florida is on your record for life! The man with the silver spoon in his mouth since birth had his expunged! And We only found out about the DUI by sheer luck; what else has been expunged that we will never know about?); any President wouldn’t have called countries like N. Korea and China “AXIS OF EVIL”, straining diplomacy and distancing our nation before 9/11 even occurred; Any other President that didn’t do so many things wrong and so few right–republican or democrat—would have a much higher level of support
Internationally, I believe we have lost a great deal of respect and trust in the worldwide community when we went into Iraq without the United Nations and the level of support we had for going for the Taliban in Afghanistan. And if our gain is to create worldwide panic, fear, and an overall distrust and distaste for our current government and its’ people, than perhaps we’ve achieved our goal under President Bush and his policies.
But then, people have been becoming more and more aware of Bush, his failed war, economic incentives (I like to call them giveaway programs for big business; Does anyone remember Marx warning us that Capitalism could fall under the umbrella of Corporate corruption? Actually, he said it would fail, but we must all hope that he and Engels were both wrong about Corporations becoming so big and powerful that they, not the people, would, in the end, dictate legislation and government.), his failure to unify this nation with a leadership more representative of the majority of ‘We The People’, and his failed foreign policy.
So you claim that the director of the CIA never told Bush that the case for Iraqi WMD was “a slam dunk”, is that correct?
And that no US government officials ever held the same belief before Bush? It was something Bush simply made up out of whole cloth, “root and branch”?
Is this really what you are asserting? Because I want to be quite certain that you are claiming that the notion that Iraq had WMD was solely and entirely an invention of George W. Bush.
Not at all. But it is his responsibility…you know, that “accountability” stuff he’s so hot on when its teachers. It is his sworn duty to make tough decisions, that goes with the territory. He failed. This much is clear.
I don’t really care about his excuses, however plausible they may be. Your quote of Mr. Tenet is artful, as the quote of the same conversation has GeeDubya (Praise the Leader!) expressing some doubt on the issue. He had very good reason for a “grain of salt” attitude, he chose to ignore that. He assumed that personal responsibility at that moment! He knew there was reason to be dubious and cautious and he chose to ignore it. From that moment, it no longer mattered what the French thought, what Clinton thought, or what Kerry thought.
And think of the opportunity lost! If Bush had continued to maintain steady pressure, and the UN inspections continued, we would know what we know now. And we would have looked pretty silly.
But we would have demonstrated all that “resolve” that seems to make the Pubbies so allover damp and misty-eyed. We would have further demonstrated that we are a reasonable people who can be trusted. That we when we say that we will exhaust all diplomatic and legal channels before resorting to force, we mean what we say.
Elmer Fudd looks in the mirror and sees Winston Churchill. God help us.
I don’t think all Bush’s supporters are ignorant, and I don’t think all his detractors are informed. I do think that many people support Bush for reasons built on significant factual inaccuracies, and I think that fewer people oppose him for reasons built on factual inaccuracies.
John Mace’s links on the previous page, to supposed factual inaccuracies held by Bush detractors, is actually pretty telling. One of the “inaccuracies” is, according to FactCheck, controversial, highly debated, etc.–namely, whether new jobs in the economy are lower-pay jobs. Read the cite, and you’ll see how heavily Factcheck hedges their bets on that article.
The other “inaccuracy,” that shipping jobs overseas constitutes a large component of job loss at home, doesn’t IMO address the concern. The concern isn’t on a national level, but rather on a local level. If Kerry campaigns in NC on this issue, it makes sense, because in these parts there are a lot of jobs lost to overseas markets. And at any rate, all he says in the ad that FactCheck is addressing is that he’s doing something about the issue, not that it’s a major source of job loss.
Compare these inaccuracies to the ones held by many Bush supporters: it’s a simple fact that Iraq and al-Qaeda don’t have ties to one another. It’s a simple fact that WMDs weren’t used during the war. These are huge issues, and they’re uncontroversial if you’re informed: you don’t need to hedge your bets when discussing them.
Yes, I’d like to see changes in the way we choose our leaders, but not some sort of Academocracy or anything. I’d like to see the electoral college be scrapped: there’s no reason why the concerns of someone in Ohio should be addressed any more heavily than the concerns of someone in California or Wyoming, during or after the election. I’d like to see some sort of replacement of private campaigns with campaigns purely funded by the public. I’d like to see an end to political advertisements, which IMO do more harm to democracy than just about anything else.
I know the sound bite mentality likes to just to have one thing to focus on one thing, but in every speech made to justify the war in Iraq, he posed multiple reasons. The big ones ones were WMDs, UN sanction violations, inhumane dictator, and outlaw regime.
He must have given the Iraq justification speech 50 times.
Saying that it was just about WMDs is oversimplification to the point of dissembling.
But prove me wrong. Show me the text of an address where Bush only mentions WMDs as the Iraqi war justification.
This assumes the “many people [who] support him” do so as a consequence of an informed evaluation of his policies and character. The assertion you took issue with in the OP was an overbroad condemnation of Bush supporters. It is not quite fair to respond with one of your own unless it is your goal to be as divisive as those you are taking issue with. As you noted, there are issues(abortion, appointments, etc.) on which one may support Bush over Kerry, although perhaps still regretting other policies/character flaws Bush posesses, having done a reasonably comprehensive evaluation of his policies and character. “Single issue voters” are just as valid as any others although one may quibble as to the application of the word “reasonable” to someone who views a single issue as so paramount as to drive every use of their franchise. To engage in a bit of hyperbole, would it be reasonable to vote for Pol Pot if he ran as a pro-life candidate?
Personally I feel that democracy, both representative and direct, simply falls victim to the economics of scale and becomes untenable. The cornerstone of democracy is an informed and educated voter. Direct democracy would bog down the voter with thousands of elections per day and would be impractical. On the other hand representative democracy has created a class of professional politicians who, while they may be more informed on the issues and facts of a lawmaking decision, are both a de facto oligarchy and who are motivated to engage in deceptive practices to keep voters. In theory a free press should be able to pierce this deception, but press agents ultimately serve only their own bottom line. “Politician breaks campaign promise, news at 11” doesn’t bring in ratings(although it should, IMHO). A public who increasingly relies on mass media is increasingly likely to get misinformed. This does not make them unreasonable, simply uninformed. c.f. Polls about Hussein/Bin Laden connections or Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Point of these ‘oversimplifications’ that you’re seeing is that without the existence of WMDs and a direct threat to America there was no case for war that the average American would support.
The claim: Iraq poses a grave threat to the security of the US, through the likelihood it will pass on instruments of mass destruction to to terrorists
Elements of the claim:
Iraq has those instruments
Iraq has or will have a co-operative relationship with terrorists
Iraq is non-deterrable in its hatred of the US
There is a real risk of Iraq passing on its instruments to terrorists.
Much discussion has focussed on (1) because it is objectively and irrebuttably untrue. Hence Bush’s case for war collapses, irredeemably.
The rejoinder to (1)'s collapse has been the excuse that the intelligence was bad.
However my post referred only to (2), (3) & (4). Bush did not rely on independent intelligence analysis to support elements (2), (3) & (4). We now know the intelligence did not support those statements.
However to make his case Bush invented those elements, contrary to the advice he was receiving, root and branch. The excuse that the intelligence was bad is not available to excuse the false claim Bush made.
Simplified Leaving aside the question of WMD: Bush falsified the war claim.
Doubtless, had WMD turned up, such protestations would be inaudible in the general din of self-congratulation.
Sanction violations, outlaw regime and WMD are the same one. You don’t get to count it 3 times.
Why didn’t you read and quote my post in full? Do that and it would be apparent I made the very same point. Have a look it at it. See where I used the word “Wrong!” in reference to “WMD.” See that? Well it means it is ‘wrong’ to assert that possession of WMD was the entire case.
As sevastopol noted, you are conveniently picking the one point in the thread of logic where Bush was least out-of-synch with everyone else and with the intelligence community’s assessment. Still, even in regards to the existence of WMDs, there was a tendency to exaggerate what the intelligence community was saying and to eliminate qualifications that appeared in the reports in regards to these weapons. However, most importantly, Bush was unwilling to allow the inspectors to do their work at a time when Hans Blix explained that his view was dramatically changing from initially believing Saddam probably had WMD (because of Saddam’s general cageyness on the issue and because the U.S. seemed to be so sure that he did) to a view that he likely did not…or at least that the U.S. was full of shit on the matter because their intelligence just didn’t seem to be panning out. And he warned the Bush Administration that he would have to report this fact that their intelligence didn’t seem to be panning out.
Finally, here is a page from the New York Times where, at the bottom under “raising doubts about intelligence,” they list the various stories that they did both before and after the war that questioned both the intelligence and, more relevantly, the administration’s use of it. For example, in “A C.I.A. Rival: Pentagon Sets Up Intelligence Unit,” (October 24, 2002) the Times reports
In “C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports” (March 23, 2002 - four days after the war began):
Actually I was referring to the money Saddam gave to suicide bombers, reportedly via Hamas. Saddam was quoted as saying “It’s a disgrace on all Arabs and believers everywhere if they don’t help their Palestinian brothers in their battle.” I tried to find the text of the article online but all I found was part of it posted on a message board. http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=6528
Regarding terrorism against Turkey, I was specifically referring to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which the Council On Foreign Relations, a non-partisan think-tank, accuses Iraq of supporting. http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_ties.php
Upon briefly looking over a relevant archive however, I also want to note that an edition of The Ottawa Citizen from April, 1995, says that the Kurdish Democratic Alliance, a union of political interest groups with ties to terrorism, was “apparently in alliance with Saddam Hussein.”
Although it has never been proven that Iraq has planned or aided terrorist attacks on American soil, Iraq’s continuous support for terrorist movements in Israel, Turkey, and Iran are better documented, and represent Saddam’s closest links to terrorism. The connection between Iraq and the World Trade Center bombing is certainly not verified but I don’t think that it should not be dismissed as a conspiracy. Upon checking my sources I realized that I confused Ramzi Yousef with his accomplice Abdul Rahman Yasin, who fled to Iraq and was apparently given “sanctuary” there after the bombing. Dick Cheney said in January, 2004, that “We’ve discovered since [Iraq was liberated] documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary.” A September, 2003, Newsweek article that noted the tenuousness of the link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein additionally noted that despite reports Yasin has been arrested, “Sources close to the White House say the FBI recently found evidence in Iraq that appears to show Saddam ordered monthly payments and housing for Yasin.” Iraq did not agree to hand him over until about one month before the invasion, an offer which was declined as coming too late.
An August, 1990, edition of The Ottawa Citizen notes that Saddam Hussein had “built up ties with Abu Abbas, architect of the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, and the Abu Nidal organization, allowing both to set up offices in Baghdad.” This CNN article notes that Abu Abbas was captured shortly after the invasion of Iraq by American forces. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.abbas.arrested/
Abu Nidal was based in Iraq until 1983 when he was expelled due to his ties to Syrian intelligence, as well as to American diplomatic pressure. However, an Ottawa Citizen article from January, 1999, reported that Abu Nidal had “moved to Baghdad late last year and obtained the protection of Iraq’s president, Saddam Hussein, according to intelligence reports received by U.S. and Middle Eastern government officials.” Although Abu Nidal was being harbored by Saddam, the article noted that there was no evidence he was collaborating with the regime on issues of terrorism. Interestingly, the article quoted an “official who has watched Abu Nidal for years” as saying that “Osama bin Laden is a student by comparison.” In retrospect, Nidal was probably being overestimated. Abu Nidal fell out with Saddam once again in 2003 and his arrest had already been ordered when he was either assassinated or committed suicide.
In light of Saddam’s record I consider Putin’s highly controversial claim to be credible and I don’t think it’s inappropriate to make “a lot out of” it just because he had no evidence Iraq’s putative plans were brought to fruition. After all, Iraq was already known to have tried similar attacks before. This link reports that “(In 1998) Iraqi diplomat Jabir Salim defects and tells Czech officials that before leaving Iraq he had been given $150,000 in cash to finance a plot to blow up Radio Free Europe’s headquarters.” http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=jabir_salim
I disagree with your opinion that terrorism in Saudi Arabia has become a greater threat since the September 11th attacks. Before September 11th, Saudi Arabia was considered by many to be a state-sponsor of fundamentalist terrorism and I think that its change from this policy is a result of the War On Terrorism. Since the campaign was declared, Saudi Arabia has been under the same constant diplomatic pressure to crack down on terrorism that the Bush administration has applied to governments throughout the Middle East. Pakistan is another good example of a government that once had many ties to militant fundamentalism but has since adopted Bush’s new policy line. I am of the opinion that so far Bush’s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East have met with far greater success than his military efforts. I disagree that the Saudi government is necessarily a moderate group, as its domestic social policies are among the most fundamentalist in the Middle East. However, I think it is a group whose policies on terrorism have been moderated by Washington. Those who view Wahhabism as intrinsically conducive to fundamentalist terrorism should still be concerned about what the Washington Post described as the “multibillion-dollar effort by Saudi Arabia to spread its religion around the world.” I also challenge your claim that terrorism has become more focused against the United States since September 11th. Rather, I think that anti-American terrorists were focused upon the United States and its allies before the war as well as after, and that the new anti-terrorist trend among most Middle Eastern governments can only serve to weaken their effectiveness.
Although I think that America’s attempts to use the UNSCOM weapons inspectors as spies did harm the process, I am certain Saddam was not “soured” to the idea any more than he was before. Saddam’s constant misleading and intimidation of the weapons inspectors, a policy which began long before the first intelligence scandals, was in my opinion far more significant in poisoning the procedure. The first major bombing campaign launched against Iraq in response to defiance towards the weapons inspectors was in January, 1993. Iraq began concealing chemical and biological weapons in 1991 and when the inspectors arrived he did not disclose the location of most of his WMD laboratories. He was able to conceal his stockpiles from the inspectors for four years. They were eventually discovered, not due to the work of the weapons inspectors themselves, but rather, due to a tip from Hussein Kamel Majid, the former head of Saddam’s WMD program, who defected in 1995 and was assassinated for his treachery later that year on Saddam’s orders.
The reason in particular why I think discussing UNSCOM is important is to draw attention to the result of Saddam’s incessant deception and noncooperation between 1991 and 1998. After frequent examples of deceit and obstruction, President Clinton declared in 1998 that, “The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume co-operation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.” In response, he signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act, declaring that it was the official policy of the United States to initiate regime change in Iraq. Clinton did not honor the policy because Iraq chose to bait the United States once more. Saddam again agreed to allow UNSCOM into the country, but then promptly expelled them for good a few days later. That was the fourth time Saddam expelled UNSCOM from Iraq in only one year. After four years unsupervised, Iraq was given yet another chance in 2003. Blix called it Iraq’s “final opportunity” to disarm. Saddam began by saying that inspectors would be given unconditional access to sites across Iraq, but later clarified that the unconditional access would only include military sites. UNMOVIC reportedly discovered that Iraq had “repaired some chemical weapons equipment previously destroyed by the UN, refurbished some chemical facilities and developed casting chambers as part of its missile program that exceeded the terms of the ceasefire agreement.” An editorial in the Ottawa Citizen noted that UNMOVIC found “600 cases of inconsistencies and discrepancies in Iraq’s semi-annual declarations of its weapons-development activities.” Iraq could still not account for 1,000 tons of chemical weapons, 6,000 gallons of anthrax, and 5,000 gallons of botulinum. ElBaradei noted that Iraq “should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs … (but) only a few new such documents have come to light so far …” Iraq was able to provide thorough documentation of only its nuclear weapons program. Although Hans Blix never found any direct evidence for the existence of weapons of mass destruction, he did declare that, “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament which was demanded of it.” I remember reading what in my mind was a rather accurate headline in the March 8th, 2003, Ottawa Citizen: “UN inspector’s report shows how little progress has been made”. The way I saw it, this was nothing but a repeat of the UNSCOM debacle, not a “new and improved” organization.
I remember telling people before the war that Saddam’s recent intransigence was probably for the same reason as his policy of noncooperation between 1991 to 1995. During that period he successfully concealed his chemical and biological weapons program from UNSCOM inspectors. It seems I now have to eat those words, but what I can conclude at least is that up to 2003, for whatever reason, Iraq had never been serious about cooperating with the weapons inspectors and in my opinion probably never would’ve been.
A number of states, several individuals, and many organizations provide support for various Palestinian causes, which are often viewed as freedom fighters rather than terrorists. The direct evidence I have seen is of money being donated via Palestinian organizations to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and others who die in the conflict. Your cite, which is a post on another messageboard (by a guy with the title “Right Wing Attack Machine”!), seems to say as much. As for Saddam’s rhetoric, well I can’t really fault it, nor can I find anything substantially offensive about it. The Palestinians are involved in an apartheid situation and a disenfranchisement repugnant to fellow Arabs and most Muslims, to which they are putting up armed struggle. Lamentable, and a vicious circle, but far from the smoking gun.
Yes, in a regional conflict with his neighbours, one of which was Iran, one of the most significant sponsors of terror in the world. Saddam is rumoured to have sponsored dissidents in Iran, which if anything makes him friendly to the West (and he was – he even adopted the role of pro-Western bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism for a few years). The US similarly meddled not just with neighbours but also with countries across the globe, which gave us, among other things, Al Qaeda; this is small potatoes in the way of evidence, and your cite seems to agree.
Is there any substance to the claim of an “apparent” alliance, and was the nature of the relationship one dedicated to terrorism, or were there other scopes involved? It’s been almost ten years, so the article is outdated and speculative.
So far links to direct and explicit terrorism in Israel, Turkey, and Iran are tenous at best, although you refer to them as Saddam’s closest links to terrorism. On the other hand we know with rather more certainty who actually has carried out terror attacks in Turkey. To continue:
It’s silly speculation by a well-known and acknowledged neo-con hand. In the weeks after 9/11, Laurie Mylroie even asked why on earth everyone was talking about Al Qaeda and bin Laden, when the culprit was obviously Iraq (!). She also argued that Iraq was behind every major terrorist attack suffered by the US, from the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to Oklahoma City. She’s a basket case, beloved by some very dangerous and obsessed people:
Long story short: no reasonable evidence for these conspiracies, in spite of a few dirty tricks attempted by Wolfowitz and company in order to fashion a link between the WTC bombings and Iraq; if you’re in the mood for unreasonable evidence, Mylroie has books full of them, but let’s leave that kind of cagal out of these discussions.
Scratch Ramzi Yousef then, also because there is no case there, and let’s have a look at this fellow Abdul Rahman Yasin:
Since then as you report Cheney has been busy spouting incandescent accusations as is his norm, but you’ll forgive me if I don’t take his word for it, utterly devoid of credibility as it is; your other cite is from “sources close to the White House” – effectively one and the same source ultimately, and not an item of genuine intelligence as far as we can tell. Again, there is not an evident link to terrorism, only unverified claims and speculations.
Last I heard Abdul Rahman Yasin was believed to be at large in Iraq, with a reward for his capture. We may learn more in the future.
Regarding Abu Abbas, I’m not sure what the point is. He didn’t live just in Iraq, but also in Syria, Tunisia, Palestine, and Lybia, and possibly others. Additionally, since he was the general director of the Palestinian Liberation Front – yet another resistance movement in Israel – and since we are talking about events mostly long before Bush’s announcements about harbouring terrorists, there is only the most ethereal of indictments for Saddam’s “terror network”, and, as you point out, no indication that he was collaborating on terror.
Regarding Abu Nidal, or Sabri al-Bana, a mentally deranged Palestinian, it appears that he was killed by Saddam’s people. He did collaborate with Saddam Hussein on matters such as Palestinian resistance, Iranian dominance, and various other regional issues as much as his unstable and psychopathic nature permitted, but that changed in 1980 when he was kicked out of Iraq. It was subsequently in Lybia that he was treated as a royal, and given everything he desired. This fellow is possibly the main reason for the extended plight and ill repute of the Palestinians, and was, if anything, a benefactor for Israeli interests and control in the region. He seems to have faded out for a period, but even solidly pro-Western and anti-terror Egypt seems to have hired him from Lybia, in 1998 (he also did a stint for Syria, and, some suspect, for Israel). See Abu Nidal | Israel | The Guardian
It appears he was being tracked by Iraqi intelligence after he arrived in Iraq following a trip to some Gulf states on a Yemeni passport; he was most likely murdered by Saddam’s intelligence. Although details are hazy, I haven’t read anything to indicate there was any terror collaboration or even safe harbour in recent history. Even if there was, it appears Saddam (like Gaddafi) changed tune pretty quickly, since he had him murdered.
Regarding Jabir Salim, the version of what happened has not been confirmed to my knowledge. At any rate, assuming it is accurate that Iraq was sponsoring an attack against Radio Free Europe (one version claims this matter was about an arms deal) this is not necessarily terror in the conventional sense, but a limited strike to disable an element considered an enemy (they’d set up Radio Free Iraq and a Farsi service of Radio Free Europe). This information comes largely from the Czech press; Czech officials have not commented.
If this is true, it may be the strongest item in support of the terrorist activities of Saddam’s Iraq, but it’s still fairly small stuff.
I can’t remember if he was mentioned, but Zarqawi received medical treatment in Iraq – no evidence of a terrorist link.
It certainly has, and that’s not just my opinion. I had mentioned how US brashness has encouraged anti-American and anti-foreign sentiments in the Arab street. The house of Saud are allies, yes, but they now face increasing difficulties and obstacles from inside their own borders. In fact, they have for a long time – Osama bin Laden and affiliates’ goal is to overthrow the Saud family and set up a more religious regime that will be completely hostile to the outside world, technology, women, and just about everything else. The trouble is that they have a chance of pulling this off if it should come to civil war.
What I said was that the House of Saud “really only got moving against terrorists once the pace of the attacks on their soil picked up, thus threatening the Kingdom and family thereof directly.”
Here is an excellent June 28 2004 article illustrating the situation, by the insightful Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek:
Terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia have not just increased in the last year and a half, they appear to have exploded. And it is only relatively recently that the government started addressing these problems.
So yes, compared to the national average, I would say the house of Saud is considered progressive.
This is a nice Neocon vision, but has only little basis in fact – if it were accurate, then we would have seen serious Saudi initiatives manifest before the stream of devastating attacks they suffered over the last year, since calls from the US to reject extremists and terrorists, and attendant pressure (not to mention bombs), began almost immediately after 9/11. Saudi Arabia, by virtue of its extrememist populations, is still a significant sponsor of terrorism, not just in terms of capital from organizations and individuals but also ideology and know-how. The government is not in any meaningful way a direct contributor, but the country itself has a distinct problem with fundamentalism and most of their policies, traditions, and legislation are locked to encourage such ideologies.
Yes, we must credit the US administration with actually engaging in a measure of dialogue, but this is not an administration with remarkable diplomatic skills; their weapons were economic might and fear rather than any diplomatic engagement, why else do you think that Musharraf, after seeing his neighbours the Taleban fall, quickly offered his help? It came as a surprise if you recall. Musharraf knew his country was a supporter of certain terrorist/extremist programs and ideologies and he didn’t want both India and the US on his case. So he did the smart thing and cooperated, followed by Gaddafi, the great political reinvention of the century. Both have won support and concessions for their troubles, quite extraordinary considering they were pariah states only the blink of an eye ago in historical terms.
You seem to challenge a few items that I never stated. Terrorism has not become more focused against the US, but hostility certainly has – predictably. This will translate to more difficulties and a greater drive to express dissatisfaction through avenues such as terror, if not on US soil – much more difficult to organize – then against US targets elsewhere, as we have seen, and of course their allies. Terrorism has increased drastically in Saudi Arabia following the Iraq affair, that much is clear. There have been anti-terror movements in the Middle East for decades – particularly in Egypt and Syria-- so I don’t see how you can call such tendencies “new”. I suggest a good reading of Zakaria’s article to see exactly what is happening in Saudi Arabia and the pickle that the house of Saud finds itself in.
TokyoTakarazuka, in reference to your post on Iraq’s WMD capabilities, intent, etc., I have to point out that your claims are not compatible with what is actually known, and are suspiciously similar to some of the propaganda the Bush camp employed to drive for war.
Well, according to this timeline, in spite of a few acrimonious incidents, between 1991 and 1997 the following were destroyed under UNSCOM inspections:
over 38,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions
690 tons of chemical warfare agents
over 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals
-more than 400 pieces of production equipment
48 missiles
6 missile launchers
30 missile warheads modified to carry chemical or biological agents
Additionally, “After cross-referencing weapons-making materials found in Iraq with sales records from other countries, UNSCOM inspectors conclude that at least 90% of Iraq’s weapons have been destroyed or dismantled. Chief UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter believes that a good portion of the remaining 10% was destroyed during the First Gulf War, thus leaving only a small fraction unaccounted for.”
And your claim is that inspections weren’t working and would necessarily fail to work even with upgraded technology, teams, and procedures? That is Neocon pro-war propaganda, hardly a fair assessment.
Now, let’s go to 2002, on the same timeline:
The height of honesty! Bringing election campaign dirty tactics to such a delicate matter…
In September, following negotiations with the UN and mediation through the Arab League, Iraq agrees to readmit weapons inspectors. In a fine example of flip-flopping, Bush rejects the offers and plans being prepared, calling it all “a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong UN Security Council action”. This from the guy who couldn’t make up his mind as to whether attacking Iraq should be about WMDs, human rights, democracy, disarmament, regime change, etc. – all cited at one time or another as the driving reason for this noble endeavour. Bush and fellow morons at the White House continue to blast Iraq’s acceptance of UNSC resolution 1284 and of new weapons inspections, which leads one to wonder whether they simply expected Saddam to pack his bags and leave his country rather than at least make the attempt to demonstrate openness and honesty?
After having pushed for a UN solution to the problem – of course we know it was merely a cosmetic strategy – Bush claims, after Iraq just accepted weapons inspections, that "[The world] must rise up and deal with this threat, and that’s what we expect the Security Council to do.”
Which turned out to be precisely the case. The timeline is large and very detailed, so I suggest you go through it yourself from beginning to end, and, if you are new to much of this material, hold on tight to your jaw in order to prevent injury.
There is essentially no support for most of the rubbish that has been forthcoming from this administration (and a couple others) regarding Iraq and its intents and capabilities. Please, let’s move away from these Neocon/Bushite myths once and for all. We may look forward to (hopefully) a peaceful and stable Iraq, but we are certainly not going to rewrite what really happened to get it there (if we can get it there…).
Sorry for the long posts, but I think this discussion indirectly explains how a man of Bush’s record and flaws can be in the running: dishonesty and stupidity are apparently no obstacles to leadership, as long as you have your marketing department and advisors at the ready.
it looks like the third Timeline paragraph above may be labelled incorrectly. “Mid-january 2002” should actually read 2003. Sorry, i think it’s a typo in the timeline.