I noticed something in Scruff’s BBC link.
Does that mean Iran is off the hook? That leaves room in the Axis for France!
Man, does this stink! Its the smell of mendacity, Big Daddy.
First, you gotta wonder: just a little while ago, we got an alleged “Osama” tape. It tooks days of expert poring over it, and still the determination of its authenticity was in question.
But this very day, today, mind you, Powell says yeppers, this is the real thing, no doubt about it, absolutely the real thing. Now isn’t that remarkable? What amazing progress has been made in the intervening months! Colin Powell has no doubt whatsoever.
Who’s zooming who here?
Now maybe its the real thing. I don’t necessarily doubt it, truth be known, I got no clue. Osama ain’t the most stable isotope on the periodic table. Who knows?
But the timing…the timing… just plain stinks. Its the most amazing stroke of GeeDubya luck since the 10,000 Jews for Buchanan. On the gripping hand, that one really happened! Somebody is on his side. I hesitate to guess.
Actually, it’s a real shame that we couldn’t (and I’ll admit its YEARS too late) find a way to forge friendship with Saddam. Firstly, it might have been the best way to help the Iraqi people, we would have been in a far better situation to influence him away from some of the atrocities and so forth. Secondly, it would have been a far better position from which to try and get a democratic government going there (admittedly probably only after Saddam kacked it). Third and most important, the religious muslim states have typically been the most malevolent toward us, the secular states have usually been the most beneficial to work with. Saddam’s Iraq is highly secular. My great fear is that whatever we do there, we set up Iran Part Deux where a secular government is superseded by a religious government that is far more hostile and antagonistic to us.
Having said all that, Saddam has certainly proved himself a treacherous bunghole who the earth would be better off without. But Realpolitik intrudes to make us remember there is such a thing as the “greater” of two evils and whoever comes next may be it…
This afternoon, I heard a fellow on NPR opine that the tape is not OBL. Apparently, the voice on the tape mispronounces the names of several people that Bin Laden knows, names that Bin Laden pronounced correctly in tapes in which are verfied recordings of OBL.
Hey dude, just posing a question. Read my OP…“if”…
Story had just broken. Don’t get your frijoles all in a bunch!
How is this a big thing for GW?
I mean, I know everyone is making it out to be a big thing - but why?
It’s not like he even implied some sort of special alliance.
Perhaps some translator/stringer/cub reporter made a mistake that has since been corrected, as it now indicates on the MSNBC site. Doesn’t that seem more likely than that they had it right originally and then censored it at the bidding of their government masters? How is the government going to track down the recordings that now exist of the original broadcast, many of which will be in the hands of people unfriendly to the administration and perfectly capable of understanding Arabic? This is going to have to be the mother of all conspiracies.
You kidding? Just after everybody spends a week telling Colin Powell that he weakest part of his argument was the “terrorist” rap, this plops in his lap? And how? How in the world has he got a transcript in his hand before Al-Jaseera even broadcasts. (Were they witholding it? Why?)
Colin Powell sure thinks its manna from heaven, the way he was talking in front of Congress today, it is the genuine pure-D authentic Shit, and no two ways about it.
There are two major food groups of possible explanantions here. Firstly, some hitherto unsuspected capacity for lightning speed translation, verification and thorough vetting has arised in our intelligence community. Or the other, than Colin Powell is asserting as genuine something he has reason to suspect. Not suggesting he knows it to be counterfeit. Just dubioius as to why he is convinced it is genuine.
“Intelligence” tends to be the rumor that fits one’s preconceptions.
On the other hand, as America eagerly auditions for the role of the Great Satan (at last! the Muslim world can unify around a common goal! Whoppee! Its us!) the connections between terrorist groups and states like Iraq will indeed grow greater. Its quite possible that no one but the US could forge a rapprochment between Saddam and fundamentalist Islam. Have convinced ourselves that a dark prophecy is this mornings news, we are eagerly setting about fulfilling it.
No, I’m asking what does this matter? Osama basically said he wants the Arab world to rise against the US. So what? That’s exactly the sort of thing you’d expect him to say. It doesn’t imply some connection or secret alliance with Iraq in particular.
He acted the exact same way he’d act with absolutely no link to Iraq, so how does what he said even begin to imply he had a connection with Iraq?
I remember listening to the speech, then immeadiately, the newscaster was like “Osama says he has an alliance with Iraq!!!”, and I thought “where the hell did you get THAT from?”
But the same spin was quickly reported by several other reporters.
So, this is essentially a non-issue - Osama is just encouraging people to resist the US - and they’re trying to make a deceptive leap of logic to convince everyone that it’s more than it is. And I guess if you repeat something enough, people will take it as truth.
So, I guess, if they knew ahead of time that the average american was a complete moron and would take anything they threw at them as truth, then it was convenient that they released this at the appropriate time. But really, there’s nothing imcriminating, nothing that makes an al queda-Iraq link - but everyone is acting like Osama came out and said “I’ve been having sex with Saddam Hussein for years! We’ve been making nuclear anthrax together!!!”.
I don’t get it. This is a non-issue, and people are treating it like it’s the Missing Link.
I should make it clear that we’re not in disagreement. I think, at the top, the US government is a bunch of liars, and I don’t trust a word they say without some reasonable confirmation.
I’m just saying that you seem to be also buying into the idea that this is the Missing Link. Sure, you’re mistrustful as to it’s authenticity - and that’s fine - but I don’t understand why you think it’s the Missing Link.
Maybe I blacked out for 2 minutes or something during the speech and missed the part where Osama admitted Al queda had any sort of link to Iraq.
Okay, absent the conspiracy theories, I have to agree that this tape so far looks pretty meaningless.
The possibilities are:
A) It’s Bin Laden, and he’s calling for the ouster of Saddam, because he wants muslims to control all the countries they live in.
B) It’s Bin Laden, and he’s calling for the ouster of Saddam because he’s really in cahoots with him and this is a bit of misdirection to complicate the U.S.'s attempts to build a coalition.
C) It’s an al-Qaida fake.
D) It’s a fake from someone else.
I don’t think we have enough information to draw any meaningful conclusions at all about this tape, so far.
You can’t have it both ways. Osama is public enemy number 1 and is alive making broadcasts. So why the HELL are we not tracking down his sorry ass and removing a proven threat to the US?
Naw, this “genuine” proof is just what is needed to “convince” the world Saddam needs to be bombed. And y’all thought I lived in a country full of blind sheep swallowing propaganda.
Well, China, to buy into your, you’d have to have a relatively up to date, if not excellent, intelligence spy appatatus and some reason to wish for a war between the US and Iraq.
Sure blows that idea, huh?
“buy into your conspiracy theory”
Sheesh.
So how’d Powell get the story before Al Jazeera released it ? I hope he hasn’t gone and burned any of our “intelligence sources” for the purpose of cheap theatrics in front of a few senators.
Can someone explain to me what the phrase “ouster of Saddam” means?
The phrase has been used a few times in this thread by different people. For example, Sam Stone said:
I would have thought that the correct phrase to use in this scenario would be the “ousting of Saddam” not the ouster. The “ouster” is the person who ousts Saddam. Bin laden wouldn’t call for the ouster of Saddam but the ousting of Saddam.
Am I missing something here? Is this one of those weird US/UK variants that I’m not aware of?
An ouster is also an event. The removal of someone from a position of power, or from control of property through force, either legal or physical.
To me the news is that Usama is alive, probably going to strike, and hopes to use the Iraqi people as cannon fodder both to cause civilian casualties and to kill US troops. He is sure that we have no stomach for casualties.
I don’t think Usama wants Saddam ousted immediately. Realistically, best case for Usama, US forces take Iraq killing many Iraqis and US / coalition troops. Sadamm is killed after a long chase and struggle with more bloodshed. Then, in the turmoil, Usama thrives. He loves states of anarchy.
Nobody has established a clear connection between al Qaeda and Saddam. What I see is a union of convenience in hoping Americans die.
Fight for Islam, and against Saddam, right? Obviously, Usama wishes rulers like Saddam did not exist. But, when interests converge - what a maddening contradiction.