"IRAQ WAR" by Yossef Bodansky:Is This Book Credible?

[ralph124c]

I just finished reading this book…it is quite well written, but it isnot footnoted, and he (Bodansky) doesn’t supply references. However, the main points of the book are these:
-Saddam Hussein maintained close ties with Al Queda, OBL, and other terrorist goups (including Abdul Ni
dal). He furnished financial aid, weapons, and training facilities
-Hussein had a massive chemical/biological warfare effort, and these facilities have yet to be discovered
-Hussein arranged with Syria to harbor terrorist leaders, and receive weapons and biological warfare agents
-the Saudi-based islamic terrorists are well established in post-war Iraq, and are getting stronger
-the Shia and Sunni factions have put aside their differences, and regard the US occupation forces as the common enemy
As I say, it s impossible to check his sources, so I don’t know what to make of his claims. However, his conclusions (for the USA) are quite disturbing:
-the US forces wil be subjected to continual attack
-Baath and saudi sympathizers within the new Iraqi government will sabotage any new democracy that tries to emerge.
Anybody care to comment? How credible is this guy?

[guinnog]

@ralph124c

I just finished reading this book…it is quite well written, but it isnot footnoted, and he (Bodansky) doesn’t supply references. However, the main points of the book are these:
-Saddam Hussein maintained close ties with Al Queda, OBL, and other terrorist goups (including Abdul Ni
dal). He furnished financial aid, weapons, and training facilities
-Hussein had a massive chemical/biological warfare effort, and these facilities have yet to be discovered
-Hussein arranged with Syria to harbor terrorist leaders, and receive weapons and biological warfare agents
-the Saudi-based islamic terrorists are well established in post-war Iraq, and are getting stronger
-the Shia and Sunni factions have put aside their differences, and regard the US occupation forces as the common enemy
As I say, it s impossible to check his sources, so I don’t know what to make of his claims. However, his conclusions (for the USA) are quite disturbing:
-the US forces wil be subjected to continual attack
-Baath and saudi sympathizers within the new Iraqi government will sabotage any new democracy that tries to emerge.
Anybody care to comment? How credible is this guy?

Sure. Not very.

Next.

John

[Squink]

Published June 15, 2004
That seems kind of late to be holding to “Saddam had a massive chemical/biological warfare effort.” It was pretty obvious by Thanksgiving 2003 that he had no such thing.

[PatriotX]

Maybe he neglected to provide sources for a reason.

[Avenger]

Pfft, people are always criticising poor Georgie and Tony for not finding the weapons of mass destruction despite all that intelligence that proved that Iraq had them.

But you leftie-media influenced commies overlook the obvious conclusion that Saddam must have discovered some ultra-secret technology which enabled him to make them invisible.

How else would a “massive chemical/biological warfare effort” remain undiscovered up until now??
Oooh, I think I’ve been reading Free Republic too much recently, I’m going for a lie down now…

[elucidator]

Cuba. Bolton found out, now he has to go. The direct tie between Marxist atheists and Muslim fundamentalist fanatics is too obvious to need explanation. I could tell you more, but then I’d have to shoot myself.

[jimmmy]

As you have written it, this it is true:
-the US forces will be subjected to continual attack

–the Saudi-based Islamic terrorists are well established in post-war Iraq, and are getting stronger
I would quibble with this as I am not sure that Islamic terrorists are “Saudi-based”. One of the biggest problems in Iraq today is that the Islamic terrorists are (now) Iraqi based.

–Hussein had a massive chemical/biological warfare effort, and these facilities have yet to be discovered
The U.S. representatives The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), responsible for searching have said, on the record, that there are no WMD in Iraq and officially gave up looking in January – tho Bush said as much in October.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm

-the Shia and Sunni factions have put aside their differences, and regard the US occupation forces as the common enemy
This is totally false, as there is an element of Sunni factions that seems to be specifically targeting Shia’s, especially in mosques in order to ignite a civil war. Several Shia militant groups are forming to “protect themselves” from these Sunni groups

-Hussein arranged with Syria to harbor terrorist leaders, and receive weapons and biological warfare agents
There are other people (neo-cons) who believe this, notably Dennis Miller. I have seen no convincing evidence of it.

–Baath and saudi sympathizers within the new Iraqi government will sabotage any new democracy that tries to emerge.
If you believe the Washington Post, Fox News, the NYT and WSJ what is sabotaging the Democracy trying to emerge is a political infighting and turmoil between Shia Parties, Kurdish Parties and trying to bring Sunni’s into the process … rather than Baath and Saudi secret agents.

[Quartz]

@ralph124c

I just finished reading this book…it is quite well written, but it isnot footnoted, and he (Bodansky) doesn’t supply references. However, the main points of the book are these:
-Saddam Hussein maintained close ties with Al Queda, OBL, and other terrorist goups (including Abdul Nidal). He furnished financial aid, weapons, and training facilities

This is well known.

-Hussein had a massive chemical/biological warfare effort, and these facilities have yet to be discovered

At one time he had them - he used chemical weapons against Iran - but whether he had them in the run up to GWII is another question entirely.

As for the rest of it, well, I haven’t read the book.

[Mtgman]

@Quartz

@ralph124c

I just finished reading this book…it is quite well written, but it isnot footnoted, and he (Bodansky) doesn’t supply references. However, the main points of the book are these:
-Saddam Hussein maintained close ties with Al Queda, OBL, and other terrorist goups (including Abdul Nidal). He furnished financial aid, weapons, and training facilities

This is well known.

This is a suprise to me. How are you defining “close ties”? And what facilities were these? Any instances of correspondence between Saddam and OBL that you would care to cite for the record?

Thanks,
Steven

[PatriotX]

@Mtgman

This is a suprise to me. How are you defining “close ties”? And what facilities were these? Any instances of correspondence between Saddam and OBL that you would care to cite for the record?

Thanks,
Steven

As you well know, this will come down to a game of semantics. Close meaning the decade’s worth of failed attempts to broker some meaningful cooperation.

It is well know that Hussein provided support and bases etc to terrorists. Specifically, I’m talking about the Mojahedin-e-Khalq. The MEK took part in the brutal suppression of the Kurds in '91 that so many Americans are fashionably upset about these days. They supported the '79 hostage taking in Iran, they’ve been behind the murders of Americans and were involved in attacks on US forces before Baghdad fell.

Yet, this terrorist group recieved fundraising help from Team Bush here in the US and was allowed to hold a convention in the DAR’s Constitution Hall recently where several members of Congress came to express their support. This is the same group implicated in the Oil4Food scandal.
Incidentally, I was there

Hard to hear much of an uproar about them from attack-Iraq-Bush-backers though. Maybe it’s because Saddam Hussein’s terrorists who killed the Kurds are “good terrorists.”

Who knows?

[Mtgman]

@PatriotX

As you well know, this will come down to a game of semantics. Close meaning the decade’s worth of failed attempts to broker some meaningful cooperation.

Possibly. My goal was to get Quartz to do a little first-hand research to see what the evidence behind the claim of “close ties” actually was. I haven’t met very many people who have actually done the first-hand investigation versus deferring to pundits or admin officials who still claim this “close ties to terrorists, particularly AQ and OBL” position. As with xtisme, once people start reading the actual source material they begin to question the widely accepted viewpoint on this issue.

Asking the question of an idealogue would certainly be fruitless, but I have no reason to believe Quartz is an idealogue. I’m just gently prodding for a bit of first-hand sleuthing and some citations of the claim, not necessarially for my own edification, but in the manner of a friendly “Are you sure? Have you double-checked the facts behind that statement before you put your own signature on that dotted line?” reminder. Often this is all it takes for a good-faith debater to go back and examine the evidence before re-engaging on this topic.

Enjoy,
Steven

[PatriotX]

Fair enough.
You have your reasons even when they’re inscrutable a mortal like me.

Here’s this piece that may prove beneficial:

Report of an Inquiry into the Alternative Analysis of the Issue of an Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship(pdf)
(from the press release)
“The report demonstrates how intelligence relating to the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship was exaggerated by high ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the Administration’s decision to invade Iraq when the intelligence assessments of the Intelligence Community did not make a sufficiently compelling case. The Intelligence Community’s analysis of the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship as a relatively weak one was as definitive as reliable reporting would permit, and their conclusions were subsequently supported by the 9/11 Commission and the Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq.”

[Quartz]

@Mtgman

This is a suprise to me. How are you defining “close ties”? And what facilities were these? Any instances of correspondence between Saddam and OBL that you would care to cite for the record?

I don’t know about OBL but Saddam [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/9/200733.shtml]used to reward the families of suicide bombers, and sheltered Abu Nidal until Saddam had him killed.

For a stunningly one-sided commentary, look here but the claims are footnoted and cited.

Or you could look here but some people don’t consider blogs citable.

I could go on, but it’s all a quick Google away

[elucidator]

Newsmax…Weekly Standard…National Review Online…reportedly…presumably…Salman Pak! Sweet Jeebus, Salman Pak!..and last but not least, the diva of deranged, Laurie Mylroie!!

A Child’s Garden of Misinformation.

[Mtgman]

From one of the footnotes and citations on the Hussein and Terror site. Specifically footnote 22, regarding the evidence of an Iraqi/AQ connection with regards to 9/11 being tested in court. The original CBS news story says

The judge ruled against them by default in January after they failed to respond to the lawsuits brought on behalf of two of the trade center dead.
…
Baer said lawyers relied heavily on “classically hearsay” evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, and defectors’ descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists.

A Law.com analysis of the case has the following additional info to offer.

Baer then turned to the standard of proof required against the Iraqi defendants under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e), which states that “No judgment by default shall be entered by a court of the United States … against a foreign state … unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.”

Without a 2nd Circuit case expressly defining the meaning of the phrase “evidence satisfactory to the court,” Judge Baer noted that other courts hold conflicting views about the appropriate standard. And while some courts have required “clear and convincing evidence,” Baer sided with those judges who have applied a more relaxed standard, which he said is “a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for plaintiff.”
…
He reviewed the testimony of Woolsey and terrorism expert Dr. Laurie Mylroie on alleged links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaida, including whether lead hijacker Mohammed Atta met with a high-ranking member of Iraqi intelligence in Prague before Sept. 11, and whether Saddam Hussein ran a hijacking training camp in Salman Pak, just outside of Baghdad.

“Although these experts provided few actual facts of any material support that Iraq actually provided, their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue, provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda,” he said. “In particular, Mylroie testified about Iraq’s covert involvement in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and about the proximity of the dates of bin Laden’s attack on the U.S. embassies and Hussein’s ouster of weapons inspectors.”

So he picked a deliberately low standard of evidence and then, based on evidence he himself called hearsay, rendered a default judgement. This is an embarassingly low standard of evidence, especially without a defense counsel to challenge it. Had there been a defense counsel, they probably would have done as Senator Levin did. When we look at the Frontline interview with Laurie Mylroie

There’s evidence tying the plotters in the September 11 attack to Iraq directly. Above all, Mohammed Atta, who piloted the plane that first hit the Trade Center tower – and that was a key figure in the conspiracy in the U.S. – met repeatedly with Iraqi officials in Prague.

This statement is in direct conflict with the report of Atta’s actions in Prague where there was report of one(1) meeting. Not repeated meetings, one(1) meeting. According to Czech Minister of the Interior

“As for the details of their contact, these are under investigation and I would like to remind you in this moment that neither I nor anyone else from the Police of the Czech Republic or intelligence services of the Czech Republic will not give you any more detailed information about this contact and his stay and travelling in the Czech Republic until further investigation of all facts, which we need to investigate.” [editor’s note, this is the end of the statement made by the Minister of the Interior. It was made on 26, Oct 2001. The Czech Ambassador to the UN had this to add on Feb 24th 2003] From the 26th October, 2001 my mission did not recieve any further information or statement regarding this matter.

17 months after the report of the meeting was made there was still no additional information forthcoming about it or other meetings from the Czech intelligence or police services.

Senator Levin’s report(PDF) has this to say about the matter.

With respect to the Atta issue, the SSCI report states that the CIA judged that, despite the initial Czech report, “other evidence indicated that these meetings [between Atta and al-Ani] likely never occurred.” [Emphasis added] The report goes on to say that FBI analysts “agreed with the CIA assessment and had no further information suggesting or disproving that the meetings had taken place.” The report concludes that “no additional information has emerged” to suggest that Iraq contributed to al Qaeda attacks, which indicates that, since the January 2003 IC report, there has been no additional information challenging the IC’s judgment that the meeting apparently did not happen. The 9/11 Commission also concluded that “[t]he available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting.”

I realize that at the blog and soundbyte level it looks like a solid case, but the original source documents are there for the reading and they tell a very different story.

@Quartz

I could go on, but it’s all a quick Google away.

Therein lies the problem. I love Google, but they just provide information, not analysis. The Google summaries of hits don’t always tell the whole story. Read a bit and you’ll find that the cute picture of the article about the court case on the Hussein and Terror site cuts off right before the screen shows the quote I included above about the evidence being hearsay.

I hope you don’t take this post as picking a fight with you. I’m not trying to do anything of the sort. I’m trying to show you that the guys who are writing these sites are not your friends. They aren’t interested in giving you the full story, they’re pushing their own view. I have no doubts that you are intelligent enough to read a judge’s statements and determine if that particular case should be considered definitive or if it was not a good examination of the facts of the matter. I also have confidence in your ability to read a one and a half page memo from the Czech Ambassador and see that there was no evidence, a la CSI, of the meeting between Atta and Iraqi Intelligence. Just one Minister’s statements in a news conference and it was unsubstantiated for over a year and finally the CIA and FBI called bullshit on it. Take a few extra minutes to read the source material for blogs or sites like the Hussein and Terror site before putting forth their info as fact.

Enjoy,
Steven

[elucidator]

Steve, the Google Juggernaut. Just the sort of closely reasoned, well researched and decorously polite post I might have done, if I wasn’t so lazy and easily…ooh! Shiny!

[Mtgman]

I used Google exactly once in composing that post. Finding the law.com commentary. The rest comes either from the sources in the Hussein and Terror.com site, the parts of the cites that they don’t mention, or from links in this thread like PatriotX’s link to Sen. Levin’s report.

This is exactly why the Hussein And Terror.com site is so misleading. It selectively quotes the source material and gives the impression that it was a fair representation. Little could be further from the truth. The greatest irony is that all one has to do is read the actual links off of the HusseinAndTerror.com site to see that the main site is not a fair rendering of the facts at hand.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Frostillicus]

@ralph124c

-Hussein had a massive chemical/biological warfare effort, and these facilities have yet to be discovered

Considering that we’ve had 150,000+ troops in Iraq for over two years now, those facilities must reeeaaaally be well-hidden. And considering the reward for turning over this information to the Americans must be sky-high, Saddam’s “henchmen” must reeeaaaally be loyal to the big lug.

[Squink]

From the intro to chapter one of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction’s report to the president:

As war loomed, the U.S. Intelligence Community was charged with telling policymakers what it knew about Iraq’s nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs. The Community’s best assessments were set out in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, a summation of the Community’s views. 1 The title, Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, foretells the conclusion: that Iraq was still pursuing its programs for weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Specifically, the NIE assessed that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program and could assemble a device by the end of the decade; that Iraq had biological weapons and mobile facilities for producing biological warfare (BW) agent; that Iraq had both renewed production of chemical weapons, and probably had chemical weapons stockpiles of up to 500 metric tons; and that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) probably intended to deliver BW agent.

These assessments were all wrong.

[jimmmy]

@jimmmy

-Hussein arranged with Syria to harbor terrorist leaders, and receive weapons and biological warfare agents
There are other people (neo-cons) who believe this, notably Dennis Miller. I have seen no convincing evidence of it.

Some further info - just last Night the CIA’a ISG posted an addendum on the Internet:

*WASHINGTON Apr 26, 2005 — Wrapping up his investigation into Saddam Hussein’s purported arsenal, the CIA’s top weapons hunter in Iraq said his search for weapons of mass destruction “has been exhausted” without finding any.

Nor did Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, find any evidence that such weapons were shipped officially from Iraq to Syria to be hidden before the U.S. invasion, but he couldn’t rule out some unofficial transfer of limited WMD-related materials. *
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=704510

These are the people first hand charged with finding the weapons.