What's that you say, there's no Saddam/al-Qaeda connection? But Steve Hayes promised! And Doug Feith! Dick Cheney! Um.
« Long Brewing | Main | Mississippi »
I'm Shocked
11 Mar 2008 05:35 pm
Comments (44)
Al Qaeda in Iraq is not the same Al Qaeda that attacked us on September 11th. Why, oh why, can't we get better trolls?
One might also note that HRC claimed such a link in her 2002 Senate speech supporting the war authorisation resolution.
Why, oh why, can't we get better trolls?
Amen to that. This is a big-time blog now, thus a troll upgrade is in order. These lazy-ass, Al-Qaida = Al-Qaida in Iraq conflations just don't cut it anymore.
It found "no operational links". Not "no connection" whatsoever (or, as Warren Strobel lies to us "no Saddam-al Qaida links").
What meaningful distinction is this supposed to telegraph? Were they friends on MySpace or something?
Also, what the other commenters said. Man, I remember when "Posted by Al" was your assurance of some quality hackery. Sad.
Al Qaeda in Iraq is not the same Al Qaeda that attacked us on September 11th.
What is this supposed to mean? AQI pledged allegience to main AQ several years ago.
AQI pledged allegience to main AQ several years ago.
What is this supposed to mean? If my pickup team pledges allegiance to the Boston Celtics does that mean we'll have 50 wins this season?
AQI, like AQ and like many other organizations, does not like the USA. That does not mean they are as capable, organized or (especially) dangerous as the "real" AQ, and we should not necessarily start or continue wars based on the fact that a bunch of angry Iraqis "pledged allegiance" to a terrorist group. Their capabilities and threat levels should be evaluated independently of the name they adopt, much like my pickup team's skill should be evaluated independently of whatever name we chose for ourselves
Al's sophistry/obfuscation skills are indeed getting rusty.
there's no Saddam/al-Qaeda connection
I'll let Hitchens know as soon as he sobers up. Oh nevermind.
"AQI pledged allegience to main AQ several years ago."
Yeah, but it was well after the 911 attacks. They were independent organizations at the time of the attacks. And al-Zarqawi certainly wasn't using the Al Qaeda brand name at the time. Nor was he allied with either Hussein or bin Laden. On top of that, al-Zarqawi is now dead. The current AQI cannot be plausibly linked to those who attacked us on 911. Yeah, they're all assholes, but that doesn't mean they're associated.
Suppose there's a bunch of hoods in Peoria that want to impress people with how bad-ass they are, so they call themselves the Crips. If I take them out, I'm making progress on the LA gang problem, right?
AQI is part of the "real" Al Qaeda just like your local McDonald's is part of the "real" McDonald's. Do lefties really still not understand the decentralized, 'franchise' nature of Al Qaeda at this late date? Zarqawi, the late head of AQI, was one of Osama's henchmen in Afghanistan prior to relocating to Iraq (while Saddam was still in power). Al Qaeda world HQ gives instructions to AQI, and other local franchises. It also directs recruits to its local franchises, and sends managers from HQ to assist. Up until recently, it directed recruits to Iraq; now that that market has been doing poorly for Al Qaeda, HQ is directing recruits to Pakistan instead.
Zarqawi, the late head of AQI, was one of Osama's henchmen in Afghanistan prior to relocating to Iraq (while Saddam was still in power).
No he wasn't. The two barely interacted, and hated each other's guts. Jeez, check your facts before you post. What a disgrace.
I'm making progress on the LA gang problem, right?
Hell yeah! Fighting them here so you don't have to fight them over there. Or something.
Man, I remember when "Posted by Al" was your assurance of some quality hackery. Sad.
It IS sad. I've been tracking Al's decline for some time. He used to be one of the giants.
In particular, his "'no OPERATIONAL connection'. Not 'no connection'" statement is particularly stupid and depressing. Obviously the United States had far more "connections" to Al Qaeda of the type Al suggests than Iraq did. Let's bomb the Ronald Reagan library!
In the past he would have come up with something far better than that. He really used to make hackery into an art. Now he's just another cretin like Fred.
Fred needs to show that some operational links existed between AQ and AQI, links that made AQI a real danger to the US, before I'll believe his BS.
To clarify, the report of the report didn't suggest Saddam was a nice or terrorist-unfriendly guy / regime:
The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.
Al/Fred-style hackery is of a piece with the usual Just Say Something style of the tighty-righties in the media. It's just a cue for another tighty-righty to nod in agreement. Making sense isn't needed.
Saddam was actually good for Iraq. Period.
No one that I know of is arguing that Saddam was "good" for Iraq. There is a case to be made that on many measurable standards, the life of the average Iraqi was better before the invasion & occupation -- but to many people, to even raise such a question means that one is praising Saddam.
Was Saddam good for Iraq? Obviously not, but he may have been better than the alternative. We chose the Baathists because the Iraqi people had elected the Socialists. I'm not really sure the Socialists would have run the country more humanely, fairly or effectively. It's kind of a "two dead ends and you still have to chose" kind of choice. Staying away from that place has always been the wisest choice. England's experience should have clued us in, but nobody ever learns from history.
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
Fred - if someone puts up an "Al Qaeda in America" sign in front of your house, does that mean that Al Qaeda actually exists in America?
Or is it just that some copy cat group has realized that Americans are so terrorized by a name that they decided to use it?
prior to relocating to Iraq (while Saddam was still in power).
Just because repeating it fourteen thousand times doesn't make it any less embarrassing for the wingnuts: Zarqawi's al-Tawhid group joined up with Ansar al-Islam in de facto Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. In truth, the badlands where they were based was beyond Kurdish capacity to control them, but Bush decided not to do anything about them.
AQI is part of the "real" Al Qaeda just like your local McDonald's is part of the "real" McDonald's. Do lefties really still not understand the decentralized, 'franchise' nature of Al Qaeda at this late date?
Bullshit analogy, of course.
In various cities, you will find outfits trading on the KFC name as '[state] Fried Chicken'. (McD's is just better at defending its trademarks.) This is the more accurate model these days: ideological homage, where the allegiance is as strong as the hole-in-the-wall Arkansas Fried Chicken's commitment to fry chicken.
You can argue that Al-Q pre-2001 was more of a franchise operation -- though the closest analogy is venture capital and consultancy -- but as usual, Fred is full of shit.
(Today, at least, we got the sense that Al and Fred are on the same trolling mailing list, when they came up with the same factoid within seconds of one another. I'm curious as to how the 'house troll' phenomenon works. It can't pay too well.)
To Guyx. There is a huge difference between operational links and certain other types of association. You could see a spy from the USSR and one from the US meet for dinner in Prague (both still undercover) but that does not mean that they were planning an operational venture.
Does anyone believe that diplomats or CIA operatives or defense attaches never speak to mid or lower-level officials from Iran? Or Cuba? Come on, messages are sent back and forth between 'enemies' all the time, to diffuse a misunderstood situation, to try to outsmart an enemy operative to get information from them, to secretly plan summits and high profile negotiations.
If you were either Hussein or Al Queda, wouldn't you want to know what the other was up to?
Operational links are different. The CIA had operational links with Bin Ladin during the Afghanistan war against the USSR. The Soviets had operational links with Hanoi during the Vietnam war. Operational means hard support for a joint action or endeavor, either in financing, planning, or executing.
This is precisely why we need to be in Iraq for 100 years: so we can find one.
Pinochet was actually good for Chile. Period.
Don't forget Hillary in that list of folks who claimed a Saddam 9-11 connection.
Oh, and by the way, it was not just Hillary making that link in her Senate floor speech in favor of authorizing Bush to make war on Iraq. As late as 2007, she defended the vote on the ground that "as a Senator from New York who lived through 9-11," she needed to vote to go after ... Saddam.
Wasabi is actually good with sushi. Period.
You forgot to list Christopher Hitchens in the OP Mat. He's like the douche bag in chief for this view outside the administration.
Also, to the people in the thread quibbling about any form of terrorist involvement - we get it. Nobody is denying that the Hussein regime was awful, and that it had other awful associations, but let's keep our eyes on the prize of why this concept of 'operational ties' is important. It's not just something that's made up, it’s about linking back to the original justification of the war which was the threat posed by leakage of the supposed WMDs to al Qaeda cells. So, as bad any sympathetic association with, say, Palestinian terrorism is, the idea that Iraq posed a threat to international peace and security was directly contingent on proving that it not only had these active biological and nuclear programs, that Colin Powell was talking about, but that it was working with al Qaeda cells who may have the decentralised capability to deploy them in another attack against the united states. Without that operational nexus between Iraq and al Qaeda - the case that was actually made for the war does not exist. That is why this report is important, not as some apologia for Saddam - so some demented leftist can say he was a saint.
"as a Senator from New York who lived through 9-11,"
In fairness to the losing candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination, she didn't necessarily have to be invoking a connection between Iraq and 9/11 with that statement. She could have just been acknowledging that the sentiment to retaliate against someone was very strong in NY at the time and so she went along with this.
As opposed to, ya know, actually leading on the issue: reading the intelligence reports and using good judgment based on the evidence at hand.
But again, in fairness to the candidate who was arguably the most prohibitive favorite ever in the history of nominating contests at the outset of this thing and went on to run what will likely go down in history as the worst campaign ever, war with Iraq was polling well at the time.
Shh..... don't listen to what the Baathists in custody have said when they admitted cooperation or were arrested alongside Zarqawi liutenants as documented over and over at www.regimeofterror.com.
Nothing to see there. Just an "unbiased" "exhaustive" report from Senate Democrats who were certainly engaged in an honest pursuit of the truth on a subject they've charged Bush with lying about for years. Why would they change their story now?
The conclusion of this political report was written before the research was even done. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the "findings" you know the Dems had no interest in suddenly vindicating Bush, regardless of what was found or not found.
OK, Squeek, thanks. The point remains that "non-operational" connections of the sort you describe are a lousy justification for an invasion.
Re the claim that AQ/AQI is "decentralized": I've seen that said too, but usually the claim is precisely that this means it isn't taking orders, receiving recruits/managers, etc., from "HQ." I'm not sure how you claim both that it's "decentralized" and that it's being run by a central organizing authority.
I could've sworn this thread was about the Mississippi primary (which you'll concede doesn't matter).
(while (y>0)...cout
Oh yes. That's pretty much what I figured.
We'll try that again:
I could've sworn this thread was about the Mississippi primary (which you'll concede doesn't matter).
(while (y>0)...cout placedoublebrackethere placequotehere Your friends Turdy and Landy say hi Linus. placequotehere placesemicolonhere place closingparenthesishere
Oh yes. That's pretty much what I figured.
Mark, I'm looking at the link you provided with interest. I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand, and will be examining its claims carefully.
At this stage I will only remark on a couple of the aspects of the commentary style that I believe would help the site appear more credible to a sceptic such as myself.
-It's important to clearly demarcate operational links allegedly existing prior to 2003, with extant al Qaeda cells at that time, rather than rely on the use of a narrative about ongoing support which sometimes makes that timeline explicit, but other times leaves it out. Those who support the war from the onset might find the use of narrative to be clear minded, but it hurts the case with sceptics because they certainly don't deny the flourishing of terrorism in Iraq as a consequence the invasion.
-The use of rhetoric by Saddam after his capture or during the invasion, to supposedly expose his inner mind's support for terrorism, is highly dubious. I have no doubt some of these statements will be unintentionally revealing, but it is naive in the extreme to take them at face value. Saddam was a ruthless tyrant, who exploited the sense of Palestinian grievances to encourage pan-Arabist sentiment in the past, and the impetus for him to try to catalyse on the Islamist phenomenon to bloody the Coalition is a given. On the surface, it certainly doesn’t prove he is anything but a gifted propagandist – and accepting it uncritically as evidence that he was an Islamist, when we have a lot of evidence to the contrary, makes me more liable to dismiss other claims made on the site.
Obama wins MS in a landslide -- another state that doesn't count!
[rimshot, laughter]
There, I handled the joke. I can take over from here, Matt.
Bush decided not to do anything about them
Well, he avoided attacking Zarqawi several times before the invasion.
I have set up a site and need ALL OF YOUR help. Especially all of you Atlantic Readers!!!
http://robertethanisatool.blogspot.com/
Click on the link and help me help the blogosphere. I have no idea how to build up things just yet. I will enjoy your input as we move forward.
Let us embrace the technology!!
Will,
Thanks for taking the link seriously. I really don't know anyone in the pro invasion argument who said or will say Saddam had "operational" control of al Qaeda or they had some secret pact to be partners in everything. The troublesome thing is the meetings that did take place (and this report and the 9-11 conflict AGAIN on if it was al Qaeda contacting Iraq or vice versa, something that antiwar crowd doesn't seem too interested in really challenging them on) and we really don't know what happened in those meetings.
Are more terrorists in Iraq now than before invasion? Probably not NOW but there was for a few years after invasion. This topic has way too much politics connected to it.
When discussing if Saddam's regime worked with, assisted, talked to, harbored, etc. with al Qaeda why not just discuss that and leave the case for war, your impression of Bush, etc. at the door? I don't get it. The serious discussion on this topic is nowhere to be found. Maybe Will and others would like to discuss the specifics as mentioned though.
Obviously the problem is that in the world of intelligence, counterintelligence and terrorism, EVERYBODY knows EVERYBODY at some point or another.
They trade weapons, tactics, contacts, IDs, safehouses, whatever.
This was true back in the 70's with the Red Brigades, the PLO, the IRA, the Baader-Meinhoff Gang, the Red Army in Japan, etc. Carlos the Jackal was a Venezuelan educated in Russia who worked mostly for the Arab groups but he had German and other nationalities as associates for many of his operations.
This doesn't mean they have "links" that mean anything in terms of their overall organizational structure or doctrine or strategy.
You can "link" anybody to anybody if you try hard enough. The question is: why are you trying hard enough?
Answer: to bullshit people.
And to call Saddam Hussein's contributions to Palestinian groups as evidence of "support for terrorists" is deliberately disingenuous. Hamas is not a "terrorist" group in anything like the same sense as Al Qaeda. Neither is Hibzallah.
It's the same with Iran. Iran specifically arrested members of Al Qaeda traversing its territory and even offered to provide Al Qaeda captives - including relatives of bin Laden, IIRC - to the US at one point. Today, however, after the Iraq invasion, I've read that Al Qaeda personal are allowed to traverse Iran from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Iraq without interference.
Or it could all be a front. Check out this article from last year:
Al-Qaeda spark for an Iran-US fire
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IF07Ak04.html
It is pretty sad to think that there are this many people out there trying desperately to link Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda. This has been debunked time and time again, and yet this perception does not change. Was the Bush propaganda machine that strong? We invaded Iraq for the oil. Everyone knows this. Bush even admitted as such. So why the al-Qaeda pretense?
When discussing if Saddam's regime worked with, assisted, talked to, harbored, etc. with al Qaeda why not just discuss that and leave the case for war, your impression of Bush, etc. at the door?
Who exactly are you trying to fool here?
It's important to clearly demarcate operational links allegedly existing prior to 2003, with extant al Qaeda cells at that time, rather than rely on the use of a narrative about ongoing support which sometimes makes that timeline explicit, but other times leaves it out.
Indeed - and it is also important to note that SH didn't have control over Northern Iraq in the years preceding the war.
But you're being much too kind here in general - the absence of clear distinctions is deliberate, the use of weasel words to cover your back is pervasive and the goal is clear: to throw enough stuff at the wall in the hope that it will make the 9/11-SH-AQ equation stick forever in the minds of the public. And it worked and continues to work: in 2003 70% of the US public believed in the SH-9/11 link and in 2007 30-40% still believed that SH was personally involved in 9/11.
The number of people posting here who actually know what they are talking about is probably about 3 at most.
How many of you have even seen this report? So far we have an anti Bush journalist from McClatchy's version of the report, which is a Democrat rewording of the DOD actually found.
How about we actually see some testimony from the al Qaeda and Baath detainees. Some people are so opposed to the war and Bush that they will believe anything that reinforces that without even asking.
Have you people on the left really gotten that intellectually incurious?
Comments closed March 25, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It found "no operational links". Not "no connection" whatsoever (or, as Warren Strobel lies to us "no Saddam-al Qaida links").
This report is no different than the 9/11 Commission Report.
Meanwhile, Warren Strobel is the biggest moron on the face of the earth. He writes:
As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq. "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims," he said.
Uh, moron, that's true. The group that is causing the ongoing violence in Iraq today is al Qaeda in Iraq. Not Saddam.
Why, oh why, can't we get a better press corps?
Posted by Al | March 11, 2008 6:07 PM