Time and time again we hear from the liberal cohorts (who seem to relish attacking Bush far more than they do Saddam) that there is no credible evidence linking Iraq and al Qaeda.
Just one response (whether this is of Western, Arabic or whatever origin, it holds good throughout the world.)
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Huh?
How about the enemy of your enemy of your enemy of your enemy? What’s he?
This is not a binary world. It’s subtle and complex. Slogans are not.
I wasn’t aware that Iraq even had an “ancien regime”. Who would it be? The 37-year monarchy, overthrown in a coup? The 5-year republic, overthrown in a coup? The 6-month Arab Socialist Ba’th Party government, overthrown in a coup? The 5-year Arif family government, overthrown in a coup? Or the 35-year Ba’athist Party government, currently in the process of being overthrown in a coup?
Looks to me like the monarchy has seniority.
Let’s see, now… bin Laden has repeatedly criticized the Iraqi leadership, essentially labeling them “infidels” (the Ba’ath Party was/is secular, paying only occasional lip service to Islam - this is precisely the type of government that the al Qaeda types are sworn to crush). So, does that mean that Saddam Hussein is our friend? Or does it mean the bin Laden is our friend? By your logic, it must be one or the other.
How high do you have to be to write that? “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” falls under the category of realpolitik. Fanatics are not known for having large measures of this worldview.
Really, don’t you think it possible that their mutual hatred of the Great Satan would outweigh their antipathy towards each other?
And whence this notion that religious fanatics are incapable of realpolitik? Their fanaticism does not preclude a rational assessment of the best methods of achieving their goals.
Did the Iraqis know in advance of the 911 atrocity? I have no idea. Were they complicit? Again, no idea?
But is it beyond the realms of probability that they might cooperate temporarily to strike a devastating blow at an enemy they both loathe? Of course it isn’t.
BTW that’s such a telling point about the phrase ‘ancien regime’. Quite demolishes my whole argument. Almost as good as ‘I don’t agree with you. You must be high on something.’ I can see that the reputation of SDMB for rational and well-informed debate is in good hands with you guys.
My thoughts exactly and precisely condensed into just the right word.
Aldiboronti, Here is the BBC transcript of the February tape in question. Key lines:
Doesn’t sound too “friendly”, does it? More like “first things first, fellow Muslims - defeat the invader infidels, then the Arab infidels.”
Of course, two bitter ideological opponents would never co-operate just cos it made things convienient.
Oh- apart from Hitler and Stalin. And Nixon and Mao. And pre-revolutionary France and the American revolutionaries. And Reagan and the Afghan rebels. And Lenin and the Kaiser. And Israel and Khomenei’s Iran. And [list continues for nine zillion pages]
Michael and sailor, excellent!
Such cogent thinking has made the liberal cause what it is today.
You have still provided no evidence of the link. All you have presented is an idea that there could be a link. This is ironic since you raised the issue in the first place.
If you think your borrowed slogan is more important than evidence, then you have nothing worth listening to.
This is a far sounder reply than Huh?, and is, in point of fact, difficult, if not impossible, to refute. In short, you are right. My post was ill framed. What I meant to suggest was that the opposed philosophies of Bin Laden and Saddam, the fact that each despises the other, are no grounds at all for positing the unlikelihood of Iraqi complicity in 911. No more, no less.
So - because A hates C and B hates C - A and B are automatically in league?
What if A hates B and C?
I realise it would be absolutely-super-lovely for the Bush administration to find Saddam and Osama hand in hand (particuarly if the WMDs fail to materialise) but there is no credible evidence.