I suppose nothing should surprise me anymore, but it seems that conservatives are using the recently-released Pentagon report showing (yet again) that there's no Saddam/al-Qaeda connection to prove the existence of such a connection. What's more, they're even telling the truth about the media not paying much attention to the report. Indeed, they're taking advantage of the fact that the media hasn't paid attention to the report to just mislead people about what it says.
« Lieven on McCain | Main | Adams's Accents »
Up Is Down
25 Mar 2008 05:15 pm
Comments (22)
Known fact: the Pentagon is full of liars. So are neocons.
Petraeus is doing his best to get a war with Iran started by claiming Iran supplied the rockets used to attack the Green Zone.
When a military officer currently in service and not on record as opposed to official policy opens his mouth, he's likely lying.
Just because you simply read the abstract and not the actual report, Matt, doesn't mean that other people didnt.
http://www.nysun.com/article/72906
Despicable, but not surprising. They've been pulling this crap for years. This is why I say that conservatism is a bankrupt ideology all the time. Because the core intellectuals of conservatism are intellectually dishonest. Heck, they are downright dishonest.
By the logic of these people, I'm a close friend of George Bush. I have a friend who is high up in the Pakistani Air Force and is a close friend of Musharraf, who is a friend of Bush. Three degrees of separation does not a connection make. My guess is that they could make a similar Al Qaeda- Dalai Lama connection as well. In fact, China is already working on that propaganda. But the people who are pushing this bullshit need to explain why George Bush didn't send me Christmas card this year. After all, we're such close friends.
And don't forget that the WMDs were all transported to Syria. Which we, inexcusably, have not invaded. It's just a bad world.
Just because you simply read the abstract and not the actual report, Matt, doesn't mean that other people didnt.
But, let's face it, Matthew could very well have read the full report and still believe that there is "no Saddam/al-Qaeda connection", no matter how much evidence the report piles up that there is.
The idea that there is "no Saddam/al-Qaeda connection" is an article of faith among people like Matthew. It is a religious conviction. No amount of evidence could ever cause them to change their minds. The report has example after example of connections, but that is pure blasphemy to people like Matthew - not ever to be believed. When your faith is pure, like Matthew's, the actual evidence at hand is irrelevant.
See, there it is. Al being either intellectually dishonest or just a flat out liar. This is why I could never be a conservative or call myself that.
Al being intellectually dishonest? Who would have thought? So has anyone figured out whether Al is for real or just a parody? With Republicans these days, it's getting really hard to tell.
"http://www.nysun.com/article/72906"
For anyone who didn't click through, it's an Eli Lake article stating that there was....no connection between Iraq and AQ
Dude, were you just bluffing, hoping no one would actually read the article? wtf.
o has anyone figured out whether Al is for real or just a parody?
Does it really matter?
I thought the stooge known as Al had left the stage permanently. Normally found at K-Drum's place, now he shows up here. He simply asserts falsehoods again and again and again. A robo-conservative.
Dave, I have read the actual report, and even if one assumes that it represents a honest assessment of Saddam's ties to terrorists (and that's a risky assumption), the picture that emerges is one of Saddam attempting to keep tabs on various groups to determine if they could be of some benefit to him in the future.
Now his ties to Palestinian terrorist groups were pretty extensive, including funding and training, but I honestly don't know if that is any different from what just about every other country in the Middle-East does (including our "allies" in Saudi Arabia).
All Saddam's other contacts with terrorist organizations seem to be in the realm of "who are these people, and can they be of any use to us?" nature. And virtually all of the active coordination with other terrorist groups appear to be limited to targeting those countries and people allied against Saddam at the time of hostilities during the Gulf War, and I dare say, could be considered legitimate military actions.
The report goes on to state that Saddam's goals were secular and completely incompatible with those of Bin Laden and other Islamic radicals. And while he was open to exploring possible collaboration in certain situations, he was under no illusions that these people could be trusted.
So, keeping all that in mind, I must ask the following....How were Saddam's "links" with terrorist organizations much different from our own collaboration with whoever could help us in a given situation? We've supported Islamic fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets, Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese, and dozens of brutal dictators all of the world when we felt we needed to. But no one would argue that we subscribed to their ideology or ultimate goals. When Saddam's attempts to identify potential allies among terrorist groups is viewed through this prism, it's really not that remarkable at all.
William Safire has conclusively and frequently proven (in that esteemed news (or is it propaganda) organ, the NYTimes) that Mohammad Atta met Saddam's intelligence officers in Prague. This story MUST be true since the NYTimes, the esteemed GREY LADY, has never gone back and corrected it as they did with the other lies they published frequently via the esteemed NYTimes crack journalist, the esteemed feisty lying Judith Miller.
I think I have a man crush on Joe.
The consensus of the intelligence community is that there simply was no direct, continuous, or significant operational contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
The same is true of Iran, for the most part.
It's a stretch to even call Saddam's connections with the Palestinian groups as being "terrorist support" - given that the Palestinian groups are nationalist resistance movements, not "terrorists" in the same sense as Al Qaeda. They simply happen to be opposed to an enemy of Saddam's, namely Israel.
The same again applies to Iran. It's support for Hizballah is not support for a "terrorist group", but for a nationalist resistance movement that happens to be opposed to an enemy of Iran.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - for a while, anyway.
If you conflate everybody who uses or supports the use of violence against either Israel or the US as "terrorists", it won't leave too many people on the planet not so labeled.
Natalie Portman, maybe.
Oh, wait, she blew up Parliament in "V".
"By the logic of these people, I'm a close friend of George Bush. I have a friend who is high up in the Pakistani Air Force and is a close friend of Musharraf, who is a friend of Bush. Three degrees of separation does not a connection make. My guess is that they could make a similar Al Qaeda- Dalai Lama connection as well. In fact, China is already working on that propaganda. But the people who are pushing this bullshit need to explain why George Bush didn't send me Christmas card this year. After all, we're such close friends.
Posted by fostert | March 25, 2008 6:07 PM"
Very true. At this point, we might as well just admit that the neocon view of the world follows the same logic as conspiracy theories. The John Birch Society + Trotskyism = neoconservatism.
Fun fact: by the neocon's logic, Bill Clinton has totally checked out my ass (seriously). He checked out my friend, which must mean he checked out me. You're welcome Bill, but I'm still waiting on my tip.
Why do they bother? Does the Pentagon think that this time, they will actually be able to find evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda? This folder packed full of of interview transcripts and travel logs will have a key detail they missed the last five times they tried? "Hey, look, the guy named Mohammed Atta who met with Saddam's guy in Prague might not have been the hijacker, but he was a member of Al Qaeda after all! How about that!"
This, from the NY Sun article, was rich - and indicative of the whole winger argument:
In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia." At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.
So because al Qaeda was in Somalia and Americans were in Somalia and Saddam was taking a look at Somalia - Osama and Saddam were buddies! Case closed!
And then on and on and on about Saddam's links to other terrorirst organizations which weren't, you know, al Qaeda.
Of all the pathetic attempts by the right at post-justification, this might be teh saddest.
dear dave and al.
from the ny sun article: "The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda."
Well regarded al Qaeda expert Richard Miniter interviewed the studies lead author and found that the "no ties" line was added by someone in DC and leaked to spin the story.(PJ media) In fact the study found plenty of evidence and the authors state in the report that Saddam was working with al Qaeda and associated movemnts.
My book Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents examines many of these same documents in detail (and more) in greater historical context. It is quite clear that Saddam was deeply involved in Islamic terrorism and had many connections to al Qaeda core leadership. There is even evidence that he directly influenced al Qaeda and the Taliban and at the very least funded those groups.
http://www.bothinonetrench.com
Robison: Bullshit.
Comments closed April 08, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I've been following this subject on The Weekly Standard blog. Steve Hayes can link Saddam Hussein to Al Quaeda within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. The neocons are all upset that the media are not reporting these links ... the neocons are living in a fantasy world, too bad it took most of America 5 years to figure it out.
btw, the neocons are going apeshit about Obama's military adviser, Gen. McPeak, b/c he stated that Jews in America exert pressure on our govt in regards to Middle East policy. The truth is getting out thanks to Walt and Mearsheimer.
Posted by patrick | March 25, 2008 5:40 PM