This is one of those articles that I really REALLY hope people will read before just commenting on the headline or the quoted sections. In fact, I think it’s one of the best articles I’ve seen on this subject in half a decade. Yes, it’s long, detailed, and forces many readers to question their previously held beliefs about regime ties to the Al Queda terrorist network, but it’s not the typical anti-Bush/anti-war piece or a woohoo-Bush-was-right piece either. It is EXACTLY why: members of the 911 Commission, Sen Intel Com, as well as others (and why every investigation into the subject of regime ties) have called for MORE investigation (while specifically saying the matter should not be closed). Mark’s done a fantastic piece of work here, and it deserves reading.
-Scott
During a series of email and telephone exchanges Matthew Degn relayed to www.regimeofterror.com his vast array of experiences working with intelligence issues relating to the current and former situation in Iraq. Among his responsibilities during his years in Iraq Degn worked as a civilian interrogator attached to the U.S. Army in Iraq before working as a Senior Policy/Intelligence Adviser to Deputy General Kamal and other top intelligence officials with the Iraq’s Ministry of Interior. Degn, currently working on a book about his experiences in Iraq (personal website here), continues to argue against those that feel there was no link between terrorism and Saddam Hussein’s regime based on his involvement with hundreds of interrogations in Iraq and his involvement with many of the Iraqi Intelligence officials with the Ministry of Interior. Degn says that much of the public perception about Saddam Hussein’s regime and terrorism are incorrect.
Degn is currently the Director of the Intelligence Studies Program and a professor at American Military University currently a professor at American Military University whose testimony about events in Iraq has been cited by NPR, ABC News, the Washington Post and elsewhere.
~~~Another reason for conflicting reports that Degn pointed out is both the chain of command in the U.S. government’s many agencies and compartmentalization of information (“need to know”). Degn said he saw firsthand how these two factors led to vital wartime information being “watered down” before it mades its way to official reports and investigations.
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
But, but, but…. Saddam was secular!
Oh, and Bush LIED!
Heh.
Scott,
Saddam had nothing at all to do with 9/11!! Bush said it himself.
oh, right…
Outstanding piece, Mark!
Thanks Scott!
I won’t hold my breath for the mainstream media to start challenging the conventional narrative, but I think it’s important not to lay this baby to rest.
The generally held belief amongst people is that “Bush lied, people died” and that Iraq was an illegal/wrong war based upon “false pretenses”.
And that impression (to speak partisanly, for a moment) – vague to those voters who don’t follow politics but hear the latenight jokes and overall media headlines, and specific to those voters who have been misled and misfed by mainstream news- had direct consequences to the ’08 election.
Thanks for posting Scott.
Excellent analysis and links, Mark. It takes a land-locked mind to believe that Saddam did not employ the global jihad movement as an unofficial state weapon for over a decade. And an equally uninformed mind to believe that AQ is only OBL, Zawahiri and ilk.
As I’ve said many times, it’s rather like an “association” of jihad movements that constantly morph in membership. They may have their disagreements and internal warring, but they have no compunction against bonding together to fight a common enemy.
It’s truly a disservice to history to allow the media to elevate their misconceptions as truth when it comes to Saddam, and Iraq’s place in the global theatre against jihad. But I suspect an uncurious world won’t give a snippet of care to the truth in the long run.
Need to Know.
There are all sorts of things claimed, by all sorts of sources and people, with all ranges of credibility, on the following issues:
1. Did Iraq have the types of WMD which were used to justify the invasion to the world? By this, I don’t mean chemical relics leftover from the years when Reagan and Rumsfeld were best friends with Saddam Hussein and I don’t mean erratic missiles. True, there was mention, in passing, of these weapons, but the centerpiece of the case were things like centrifuges, yellowcake, and biological weapons laboratories. It is not credible to claim that the country (much less the UN) would have gone along with an Iraq invasion justified only by what was ultimately found there.
2. Did Iraq ship WMD to Syria for “safe keeping,” in advance of the invasion?
3. Was there a true working relationship (not simply the harboring of the odd terrorist) between Saddam and the forces of Jihad? Again, no one would have approved an invasion simply based on random, isolated, and vague associations.
Now, there has been much credible and even scholarly evidence offered on this blog to support propositions 1 – 3. Not definitive. Not, in my opinion, anywhere near what should have been required to support a decision to invade Iraq. But, at minimum, worthy of serious consideration and discussion.
But I have yet to hear a credible explanation for the following:
Why did not the Bush administration, itself, make the most major of efforts to advance these arguments? Why did Bush, himself, say, on at least 3 occasions, including at his “exit interview” that the illusion of WMD was owing to “bad intelligence” (the former President’s very own words)? Why did the President, himself, support the proposition that Iraq did NOT, afterall, possess the WMD which were the centerpiece of the justification for the invasion?
Why did the President, himself, not support the claim that the WMD were sent to Syria for “safe keeping?” Why, if the Iraq invasion were justified by the alleged existence of WMD, did the US not invade Syria, to destroy the WMD which were deemed to be such a threat?
Why, if there was even a plausible connection between Saddam and Islamic Jihad, did the President not make this point and make it forcibly? Why did both the President and Condoleeza Rice ultimately repudiate this theory?
The President, as Commander in Chief, was responsible for the well being of the American troops. The well being of the troops was directly threatened by the perception that the war they were fighting was unjustified. This resulted in an erosion of support for their effort, both in the USA and around the world and, more importantly, resulted, I’m sure, in greater donations of money and materiel by Islamic high rollers.
I’d like to see a serious discussion of why it is that the Bush and Rice and other members of the administration basically just kept their mouths shut and let the troops take their lumps, rather than standing up for what they believed to be true, presuming that they did believe 1-3 to be true.
Because they remained silent, my conclusion is that they did NOT believe 1-3 to be true.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Explain, Larry, just how you believe Bush “…let the troops take their lumps…” if you please.
As far as why remain silent on Saddam’s links with the jihad movements? Would you have believed it? Hell… you don’t even believe it after the Pentagon’s Iraqi Perspective Reports based on Saddam’s own records. Just would difference would it make pushing this point against a brick wall like yourself?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry,
I’d love that. I’m glad you offered the challenge. But what I find exasperating on this, is that people have given you answers in the past, and rather than evolve from those previous discussions, you trout out the same exact arguments, almost like a cut-and-paste Larry talking points memo, not showing that you’ve learned something- anything!- from the previous discussion, to bring something new to the table.
After I finish my dinner, I’m going to hunt down the last thread I can remember where you brought this up, and then vacated the thread for family emergency reasons, or something of the sort.
I freely admit that as entrenched as I am with my opinions on this, I’m not beyond a desire to learn new things, even if they don’t jive with my partisan perspective.
I’m willing to learn.
-I believe it tried, but had only one voice vs the voices of a dozen, sometimes two dozen Presidential campaigns; from 2003-2004, and then the Democrats en masse in 2006, and two dozen Presidential campaigns from 2006-2009. That leaves only 2005 for the President to have made his case without massive opposition, and from 2005-2006, he definitely failed.
To be clear, Larry, this article has nothing to do with WMD. It’s about regime ties to the Al Queda terror network, and Bush never ever stopped claiming that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror.
Most of the claims of WMD going to Syria were in Russian convoys. This led to several border incidents w the Syrians, and directly with the Russians. Putin flew to the US and had a summit in 2003 during the invasion because of this (I do have the date. Lemme know if you’d like it). I suppose Bush didn’t want to expand a war that was already more unpopular and more protested than any other war in all of mankind’s history. NEVER before had 8 million people around the globe protested a war weekend after weekend.
Lots of theories re WMD to Syria and elsewhere exist. That convoys went to Syria from Iraq carrying truckloads of stuff is not at all in dispute. It’s even cited in UNMOVIC’s final report in 2005. What that “stuff” was, I can’t be certain, but we know it was “stuff” we wanted, that Saddam didn’t want us to get, and that once in Syria (as well as other places) it was dispersed, dumped, destroyed, and completely disappeared.
Actually, it was Clinton’s FBI and then Bush’s FBI that claimed Al Queda ties to Egyptian Islamic Jihad. However, I’m not sure that Pres. Bush ever said that Saddam has ties to Islamic Jihad in general. He just said (ad museum) that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terror.
They NEVER said that the war in Iraq was not part of the war on terror
I couldn’t agree more, but the President and his admin are but one voice/source for news reporting. January 2003 set in motion over a dozen Democrats running for nomination and then his position. The party leader was anti-war Howard Dean, and each subsequent candidate had to try and be MORE anti-war than Dean to get any campaign pull. Only Joe Lieberman and Bob Graham supported the war. Graham tried to dance for/against it, but failed awfully. Lieberman held his ground, and the left drove him out of the party for it. That meant that every night the Bush Admin would make a claim that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terror, and then the nightly news had to follow with 10 other anti-war Presidential wannabes claiming the opposite. Add to that the time spent actually fighting the war, and I can sort of understand the one-sided perception that was presented.
Bush gave lots of speeches in which he claimed the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. In fact, he’s often accused of overstating that case…not understating it
I would be interested in reading a single transcript of a George Bush speech that involves Iraq from 3/03-1/09, where he does NOT claim that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terror; the war between the United States and the Al Queda terrorist network. If you find such a speech, please let me know. Otherwise, it appears that he was speaking, and you weren’t listening. In terms of WMD, he said that the US didn’t find “stockpiles” of WMD, but did find a WMD threat (like the Duelfer Report said, like the Sen Intel Com investigations reported, and like David Kay said, and like UNMOVIC said in it’s last report.
I wish Scott would learn the virtues of blockquoting. 😉
Larry, I believe this is around the last time the discussion came up (starting, more or less, around comment #14).
@MataHarley:
Let’s not forget how the substance of it was (mis)characterized by McClatchy (leaked summary before the Report was released, then reporting on it without having read the study), which then found other news media piggybacking on McClatchy’s misrepresentation of the Report.
I have a suspicion (and he can set me straight on this, if I’m wrong) that Larry never bothered to even check out the Iraqi Perspectives Project cited here numerous times.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Read @Scott:
My lazy cut-and-paste:
Larry,
I think what you are basing your harsh condemnation of the Bush decision on, is flawed (certainly not 20/20) hindsight, through tinted lens.
Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat, but that we had to act before the threat becomes imminent. If you wait for a smoking gun, then the murder’s already committed, right?
And given all that we know now, I think Saddam did pose a threat to world peace, and that giving him ever more time could only help Saddam. And late-term intervention would have ended up being far bloodier and more costly than what we ended up enduring, thus far, in blood and treasure through preemptive attack against a regime that was irredeemable, as diplomacy had been tried for 12 years, and failed.
@Wordsmith:
Word, here’s another.
It’s from 4/24/09.
Several in depth responses on that thread.
Internal pissing contest here. I won’t post.
Folks, larry sufers from pathological denial of reality. He is not capable of seeing that which does not fit into his political narrative. For him to admit he was wrong would mean a loss of positive self image, and he just cannot allow that. In other words, his ego and sense of worth is involved. His need to feel good about himself and superior to others is that strong. He will NEVER see what he doesn’t want to. That is part of what makes a liberal a liberal.
Remember, he is someone who insisted that obama would govern from the center and that his picks were centrist. He has refused to answer a question I’ve asked him multiple times for the reasons stated above.
Larry, do you think obama is governing from the center and that his picks are centrist? Yes or no?
Answer the question and stop ducking it. YES or NO?
I don’t wanna rip on Larry. His questions here, on this thread, are reflective of points and queries that many people have. More importantly, I think a point he makes (willingly or unwillingly) is that no matter how hard Pres Bush and the admin tried to claim and explain that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is part of the war on terror…intelligent, caring, patriotic people just couldn’t hear the message. Many didn’t listen, and even among those who listened many still didn’t hear it.
Think of it in reverse terms for a moment (this is important, because something like this WILL happen in the next 3.5yrs).
President Obama has a foreign policy crisis. He needs to take military action. The reasoning will be (and let’s face it, we can all imagine a dozen scenarios like this) that the action is against a nation that is aiding Al Queda groups by harboring, training, equiping, and facilitating them. There will be Al Queda groups in the nation taking direct or indirect action against Americans and/or our allies. The nation getting attacked will have been warned X number of times, and Pres Obama will list them. Finally, the need to act will be justified by the presence or forthcoming presence of WMD. So, Pres Obama takes the action. Republicans support it at first, but grumble about the duplicity of Democrats. As the action takes longer (remember, even Kosovo was called “another Vietnam” for a while), some Repubs will begin to run for President-perhaps a dozen or more will “test the waters.” As they do so (starting in just 14-16 months from now), their voices and claims will need to be covered as responses to Pres Obama’s actions (right or wrong, inaction or in action, etc). Does anyone think that the President’s rhetoric will be listened to and/or heard above the crowd of competitors? And if there’s no money shot on TV showing vast warehouses of WMD (an oxymoron metaphor if ever there was one since a WMD negates the need for a vast warehouse by its nature as a wMd), then what will happen to support for the military action? Every President sends men/women to die in battle. Every one. This is not just the most likely scenario, but the top 10 most likely scenarios. History is preamble.
The problem Scott, is that he asks the same questions repeatedly after they’ve been answered multiple times as if they have not. It gets old.
This I do know, even if obama sends our troops to a place where I do not believe they are needed, I will support the effort once boots are on the ground. I did this in the Kosovo and Somalia operations. I rooted for our troops to win…unlike the dems in Iraq and Afghanistan.
openid.aol.com/runnswim; “Why, if there was even a plausible connection between Saddam and Islamic Jihad, did the President not make this point and make it forcibly? Why did both the President and Condoleeza Rice ultimately repudiate this theory?”
Actually, the 9-11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group asked that additional research be done on the subject matter of Saddam Hussein’s government and if it had a relationship with terrorist groups(including those in Al Qaeda). The Bush administration agreed and also asked that additional research be done. They weren’t willing to stop any research into the subject of Saddam’s relationship with terrorists, much less repudiate the idea that Saddam had his Ba’ath military forces operating with them.
One person told me recently that the Bush administration are the only ones who still held any hope on this subject. They are not the only ones by any stretch of the imagination. Not too long ago senator Harry Reid admitted that members of Al Qaeda were present in Iraq prior to the invasion March 2003. Much to the displeasure of many including those who were his most staunch supporters. He led the senate investigation on this topic for nearly four years.
Also, in regards to your claim that WMD was the center piece in the argument for the invasion, I beg to differ. In the 18 months prior to the invasion to remove Saddam Hussein and his Ba’athists from power in Iraq, WMD was not the only thing that was being discussed. In the last 6 months prior to the passing of the authorization for military action in Iraq, what to do with Iraq after Saddam was eliminated assumed the role of being the “center piece” of the discussion.
And terrorists receiving refuge in Iraq was a point stressed frequently during the debate on whether there ought to be military intervention in Iraq or not. It was examined and discussed enough to the point where Congress included in the authorization for military action in Iraq. This was no surprised since most of our allies were assisting us in investigating this topic prior to the war. In fact, their investigations were receiving more similarities to ours than differences even though each of our investigations were independent. Many intelligence agencies and leaders including ours made this point openly and “forcibly” prior to the invasion. I honestly do not know where you got the idea that they didn’t.
The Bush administration did in fact “forcibly” make the case for Saddam and his Ba’athists operating with members of Al Qaeda and other terror groups with the support of many intelligence agencies of our allies. In fact, his quotes on this subject are often being twisted and misconstrued on purpose to make it look like we were being given incorrect intelligence intentionally even though we weren’t.
That’d be an interesting link to post here
btw, if Pres Bush and his admin weren’t pushing the idea that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, then why is it that so many opponents of the war still feel he linked 911 to Iraq when he specifically, repeatedly said there was no evidence of direct collaboration on the attacks?
Sorry Larry, I respect your questions a great deal, but I just cannot see how anyone can feel Pres Bush didn’t try to make the case for regime ties.
Scott, I may agree (on the “rip” point) were circumstances different. But as Wordsmith and Aye Chi pointed out above, it was only two months ago we had the discussions/debate that Larry so kind spirtedly suggests here. Most notably on the McClatchy chain deliberately misleading the public on Saddam and AQ thread, where he chose to engage in the debate he wants today with only one comment.
Again, on the other referenced thread just two weeks earlier in April, we have the same argument from Larry.
My observation of this persistent tack of “why didn’t Bush tell us” BS is that Larry’s beef is not with the truth of Saddam’s links with jihad, and what happened to his ready-to-go bio/chem weapons programs, but with the flaws of the Bush PR mouthpieces that didn’t waste their time trying to convince the Larry W’s of the world that Saddam played unofficial state games witih the bad boys.
Let me ask you this, Larry…. you have someone diagnosed with cancer, so you set about to treat it. Would you rather concentrate your energy focus to the family on the treatment and it’s progress? Or would you rather argue day and night with the family about whether embarking on that treatment was justified? The former is implementing what you feel is best for the patient. The latter is just a verbal quagmire where there is always room for argument, and a moot point as the treatment has commenced.
Point is our intel knew of the Saddam connections with Zawahiri since 1993 and Somalia under Clinton. They were well aware that Zawahiri was a major moving force in AQ since his merge of his EIJ and AQ in the late 90s. They were also aware of the terrorists training camps Saddam allowed with a blind eye. None of this information was “need to know” by the public, and was not released formally to the public until the Iraqi Perspectives Report… a document that examined Saddam’s internal memos and regime that confirmed all that the intel had stated INRE his relationship with the jihad movements.
And it’s a document we have referenced and linked to here over and over in threads in which you, yourself, have participated.
Thus, I stick to my original casual comment labeling your call for a “debate” as pure horse manure. It is just one more time that you wish to complain that the Bush admin handlers didn’t do an effective job of convincing you – Larry W – of the truth… a truth available now in handy/easy PDF form at your fingertips.
BTW: When I was wandering thru some of those old threads, I did happen upon this… your reasons for voting for Obama, in a response to Mike’s A.
In retrospect, the reasoning borderlines on satire… especially #2.
BTW, Larry, as an aside, congratulations on starting your own blog, dedicated to your field of cancer research. Did a breeze thru a couple of times myself.
Scott, here is a URL for the article showing the senate intelligence committee conducted an investigation into whether Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the invasion. I know, it’s nothing new. However, it’s worth pointing out since many people tend to ignore articles like this whether it’s because; they do not agree with the findings, or maybe they’re just sick of politics like I am sometimes.
Like I had said earlier, Reid was one of the people who was leading this committee. He along with many others in that committee admitted, at least in this article that Al Qaeda was in Iraq. There was a thread on this article here on this blog not too long ago actually.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/206xwlcs.asp?pg=1
Of course, they went on to contradict themselves later on many occasions whenever it would benefit them to. Like when they would give a speech about why they do not support being in Iraq militarily. I am not saying that they are the only politicians who do this, but given that many in this committee have quiet a bit more seniority than many in the entire legislative branch, I suppose that it is safe to say they are amongst the politicians who’ve done it the most.
Mata #21:
I think I understand Scott’s comment #17 when he wrote,
Which is why, as exasparating as it is to answer Larry yet AGAIN, with no evolution from previous “discussions”, I told Larry “I’m glad you offered the challenge” about having a serious discussion. Because I think points that some of us make that are never made by the talking heads on the news shows that are seen by millions, can never be brought up enough times for lurkers out there and drive-by visitors who may have stumbled upon this post through Google, or whatever.
Bringing up “Iraqi Perspectives Project” to Larry might be wasted time on Larry; but maybe not on some ignorant soul wandering around out there in cyberspace who stumbles upon Mata’s comment, and out of curiousity actually looks into it for himself, thereby learning more.
One of the things that I am really impressed by is finding some obscure message board forum or blogsite, or comment section to a news article that you’d think no one would ever see and read….and what do I find? A comment by Scott or Mark trying to “set the record straight”.
We may sometimes feel like we’re wasting our time leaving comments where we think no one will ever see it, but it’s not true. Lies, falsehoods, distortions, should never be allowed to stand if we can help it.
Which, btw, is one reason why I always appreciate it when Mata, Aye, and everyone else takes the time to leave detailed, link-rich comments. I may not always say “thank you” or “good job”/”great comment”, but know it’s always appreciated, and yes, others are watching and reading.
You could do a whole blogpost from a single Mata comment.
What is it they say? Every Marine, a rifleman?
So: “Every Mata comment, a blogpost.”
😉
Bush and Cheney relied, in making this claim, that not one American in a thousand knows anything about the mideast.
Anyone with the most superficial knowledge of modern Arab history would know that Saddam and Al Qaida would have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I suggest you try acquiring some knowledge on this subject before falling for this ludicrous assertion.
I repeat: no one with any real knowledge of the Baath party and of Wahabism could possibly imagine an alliance between these people. Don’t let yourselves be suckers for Bush’s nonsensical claim.
@Green Eagle:
Fair enough.
Let’s look and see what people knowledgeable on the subject have to say:
Hmmmm…. it seems that the experts don’t agree with you.
There is an overlying and ever present philosophy at work in the Middle East. That philosophy is: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
You should remember that and apply it often.
That’s great advice. Great advice indeed.
Perhaps you’ll apply it before you wander in here again so woefully unprepared.
I really appreciate the subscribe button on this site and follow the updates via email though I can’t always reply as well as Scott, Mata and others.
Larry, if I can add something about the Saddam, al Qaeda thing. I don’t really know why the Bush admin didn’t reply more forcefully on the topic but there are only a few logical options…and they may all even be possible.
1. They were tired of fighting the press/Dems on the topic and when choosing their battles this argument didn’t make the cut. Considering how difficult it is even for people who spend so much time on this topic it remains incredibly difficult to quantify and explain to someone all of the conflicting evidence and complexity and so perhaps it was decided to not both, I’d call this a mistake.
2. They didn’t know about the evidence. They were repeatedly cited for “cherry picking” evidence on this kind of thing and efforts to go back through classified and sensitive interrogation logs of thousands of detainees for this information would have met some resistance and probably fallen on dead media ears as they have already proven unwilling to hear/see other good evidence. It’s also possibe, as Degn told me, that the people gathering this intelligence were often so many people removed from the actual bigshots in Washington that the information was so watered down or drowned out by the time it got to D.C. that it was unusable which leads to my third possibility…
3. At least some in the admin believed there really was no link and the internal arguments over it let the admin to just leave the topic alone.
See, now… I DO see Larry’s point about the Bush message getting out (or rather NOT getting out), and I do fault the admin for that. I did it in my 2003 book, Iraq’s Smoking Gun, and I continue to think that the Admin should have directly pulled in major political opponents (read also Howard Dean, Terry McAulliffe at the time, John Kerry, etc.) and offered them political capital to gain by supporting the effort to remove Saddam and to succeed in Iraq. If it meant giving away 8yrs of domestic agenda to quell opposition leaders/buy off opposition leaders, then so be it. Instead, in 10/02 the Admin made it the crux of political division for the midterm elections. Dems who supported the invasion, then had to go home, pretend they weren’t, and then (if they wanted to run for President) had to dance. A good specific example is Senator John Kerry. He was a hawk on removing Saddam, then when he declared his candidacy, he went on Meet the Press, and he switched to a dove so he could compete w Howard Dean (the Democratic frontrunner at the time). It worked. Democrats who were still frustrated by the 2000 election, by the 2002 election, by the huge approval ratings of GWB, and more…those people were susceptible to insincere manipulation by Howard Dean. It worked. Now, the real question in my mind isn’t why didn’t the Bush Admin speak up more, but for people who believed Democratic Party leaders that opposing success in Iraq was a good idea…why do those same leaders (after ADMITTING they were insincere) ask them to support success in Iraq?
People who voted for Democrats in 2002, 2004, and 2006 got played. I’m one of them, and now that they have complete, unchecked power, I hold them accountable in a manner of balance equal to the power/responsibility they hold. Why don’t others who got played?
Perhaps the flipside to Larry’s question of, ‘why didn’t the Bush Admin speak up louder’ is why was the proven and admittedly insincere opposition to the war so much louder?
I’d say the Green Parrot could stop at the words, “superficial knowledge” when describing his understanding of the jihad movements… which is not, for his information, confined to the “Arab world”.
And, in fact, despite the warring factions within jihad themselves, they have continually bonded thru history to wage war against a common enemy. One need only look at the most obvious disparity in his elementary argument… the oft cooperating Hamas (Sunni Islamists) and Hezbollah (Shi’a Islamists) against the shared enemy, Israel.
CFR’s Eben Kaplan had a piece out in 2006 addressing this specific misconception by the Green Parrots mental midgets of the world. Kaplan, in fact, documents how they are in collusion with trafficking, sharing of resources and even documented how Hezbollah and AQ went the extra mile when a group, meeting in a terror training camp, worked together as a fighting unit on the 1998 embassy bombing in east Africa.
“superficial knowledge”? Thank you for such an apt demonstration of exactly that, Green Parrot.
And instead of wasting time pulling excerpts and quotes that we have done here over and over and over and… well, you get the drift…. I’ll simply provide the link to all five volumes of the Nov 2007 Iraqi Perspectives Reports.
However considering the Green Parrot’s linkage on his website, I’m not convinced he’ll make the slightest effort to education himself beyond his current sound byte education, and elementary comprehension of the jihad movements around the world.
Sorry, Scott. We part company here. A Commander in Chief does not lead by poll and public approval. He makes a decision based on the best evidence available, then he embarks on insuring that endeavor is successful. He doesn’t decide on a military action, then hold public town halls and debates on the wisdom or justification of it all.
An endless debate over the justification of Saddam’s deposal would serve no purpose and, as you can see in our recent history (since we had them anyway), did little to aid the quest for a free and self-governed Iraq. As you pointed out, there were mixed opinions in the admin and military advisory staff.
Having the WH engage in the “was it justified” debate – which Americans have all rights to have – does not lend credibility to a strong leadership. If you were promoted to a CEO position, how helpful would it be for you to hold debates on whether you were qualified to make a particular decision within that CEOs tasks? I suggest not helpful at all… and would only further muddy your credibility. This is the same analogy I said to Larry… when you decide on a cancer treatment, do you focus on the progress and success of that treatment? Or endlessly argue as to whether that treatment was required and/or merited?
You may also consider that we had to liberate Iraq and seize the very documentation that proved the concerns of the CIC and admin were wholly justified. But there is only one CIC… and Saddam’s own historic records proves that CIC was correct.
Mata, a President shouldn’t decide on policies based on polls, BUT…he/she is still a leader and has to lead the people. To that end, I think he should have offered political capital (ie poll numbers) to Dems to get them to stop their fake opposition to the war. Without that leadership/fake opposition to the war that the DNC provided, there would have been no anti-war movement, and perhaps Saddam could have even been deterred.
Scott, no amount of lip service from the WH and handlers would have stopped a politically driven anti-war movement. In fact, it’s unlikely that any war in our life time, in which the US engages, enjoys 100% support. There will *always* be an anti-war movement as long as we are a free country.
Point in fact, the intel that Bush acted on did not have the needed proof until March 2008, when they released the Iraqi perspective reports (completed in Nov 2007). By that time, you won’t get media cooperation in spreading that around since it tanks their credibility after years of “Bush lied” headlines. You won’t get the Dem Congress members backtracking on their “Bush lied” and “war is lost” rhetoric either… even when they had regained their power… for the same reasons.
In short, the anti-war movement was political in it’s foundation.
Any attempts to offer benefits or political capital to opposing Dems – who were using the war as a method to regain power and control – would merely be viewed as a political payola and emphasized the WH’s need to bribe political opponents for a decision that belongs to the CIC and an act of Congress… as was given via the AUMF.
While I have my major problems with the WH not doing more to support their decisions publicly, I consider this a side show to where the focus needed to be. And that wasn’t battling politically driven opposition… who would always find another issue to nitpick…. but battling the enemies on the battlefield. Let the nation have it’s discourse. Let the CIC focus on theatres of war.
I’m a Viet Nam Combat Vet and all too familiar with how mistreated Americans are when they try to defend our country. Understanding what happened to Palin the last 2 years as Gov of Alaska; the insults, legal battles, degrading of her family, etc. I can sympathize with Bush/Cheney/Rice. I’m sure they had the best of intentions. I wonder why it is we don’t have the same level of hate for the people who behead innocents, bomb markets, bomb churches and declare a state of war exists between America and them (OBL 1998).
What I don’t understand is the “America is the cause of all problems in the world” mind set. When Bush got the perscription drug benifit through, they spit in his face. When Bushs’ African AIDS program saved millions, they spit in his face. When Bush mobilized us after being attacted, they spit in his face. etc, etc, etc… I just don’t know
Green Eagle said; “Anyone with the most superficial knowledge of modern Arab history would know that Saddam and Al Qaida would have absolutely nothing to do with each other.”
The people who wrote the I.D.A. report, the senate intelligence committee report, and the harmony reports from the U.S. military academy have a great depth of knowledge on this subject. And they would beg to differ with your statement.
Ryan, I missed pulling your full comment (the primer to #37 above) out of the spam filter. So here’s it’s reproduction via my email update. So very sorry. Mata
Thank you.
Aye Chihuahua says:
“Osama’s Islamism and Saddam’s Baathism are more alike than you think.” There are similar contemptuous remarks from “Mata Harley” and others.
You guys need to learn something about Gamal Abdel Nasser, Pan Arabism, the United Arab Republic and the origins of the Baath parties. I am sorry to have to inform you that not all muslims are would-be jihadists, and that it is perfectly possible to be a dicatator and a very bad man and still be secular- as for example, Saddam’s hero Joseph Stalin.
“Saddam paid for a massive campaign to build new mosques all throughout Iraq”- Yes, he was good at pandering to the religious right like most dictators, but the Baath government was militantly secular.
The U. S. (Reagan and Bush I administrations) client Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was a self serving manipulator, without any sincere Jihadist tendencies. He wanted power for himself, not for Islam.
” ….a claim from a Ba’ath official who claimed Saddam issued a presidential general order banning wahabism from Iraq.
However, this claim has no reliability.”
Other than its consistency with Baath party policy and practice from its very inception, and other than its further consistency with Saddam’s attempts to challenge Saudi hegemony in the Arab world, which he could not do as long as religion was connected with legitimacy of rule, as it is with the Saudi leaders, who claim direct descent from Mohammed.
I repeat, if you are unaware of the general thrust of political events in the Mideast from the fifties to the seventies, you really cannot understand how irrational your claims are. I’m not trying to educate you in the couple of examples I have given here- the subject is too complicated for that. But you should really try to read a couple of relatively impartial books on the subject before you think you understand these issues.
Green,
You are correct that ALL of Saddam’s moves weren’t in favor of wahhabism but noone is arguing that all of his actions were. We care about the many people (not enough time to cite them all) who have talked about his friendliness with wahhabis coming in from Saudi Arabia starting in the late 90’s and his yearly Islamic conferences.
You just gave an example of your point of view and attempted to claim that counter examples would simply overrule the opposing argument. The real answer is that Saddam was going to be a mixed bag on using religion and would really only allow it to have a strong presence if he was the one controlling it through the state built mosques, etc.
What is it that makes your experiences and points something that override arguments? I certainly don’t see them as that.
I certainly don’t think Saddam was a “devout”, “pious Muslim” (however one wishes to define what that entails) and most likely used religion for political aims (I seem to recall him forcing the genealogy experts to trace his family lineage back to Mohammed) more than “born again” religiosity. Aye and Ryan are correct, however, in pointing out examples of how Saddam expressed a mix of “mosque and state”. This in itself defies the notion that a “secular” Saddam would never align himself with religious jihadis. He most certainly would to achieve shared short term goals and political aims, even if he “didn’t trust them”.
Thanks for the tip, Green Eagle! Any specific ones you recommend? It’s obvious I haven’t looked into superficial knowledge with the kind of in-depth research that you have done.
Any comments on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, btw?
Of course he hasn’t read the Iraqi Perspectives Reports, Wordsmith. Otherwishe he would have realized how his comments of Saddam’s Ba’athist, his Pan Arabism etal were from left field… as if that wouldn’t have been addressed when compiling data and timelines from the Harmony/ISG docs.
And obviously the man thinks he’s the only one on the planet who’s read any thing of the ME’s origins and threads of relationships. I guess some of us have a wider range of reading material, and comprehend better than others…
I thought his point was you had to have superficial knowledge to know the things he knows (comment #27):
@Green Eagle:
No, Aye Chihuahua didn’t say that.
That was the title of the article that I linked which you, undoubtedly, did not read.
Did you read any of the other source materials that were cited for you?
Probably not.
I love the way you dash in here to tell us all how ignorant and superficially educated we are yet you provide no source materials or facts to back those assertions.
Then, when you are provided with information which is directly counter to what you are claiming you ignore it.
Why is that exactly?
Green Eagle said; “You guys need to learn something about Gamal Abdel Nasser, Pan Arabism, the United Arab Republic and the origins of the Baath parties. I am sorry to have to inform you that not all muslims are would-be jihadists, and that it is perfectly possible to be a dicatator and a very bad man and still be secular- as for example, Saddam’s hero Joseph Stalin.”
I am sorry to inform you that not one single soul here ever claimed that all muslims are would-be jihadists nor did one person here ever claimed you couldn’t be secular and bad. Just look at the way secular Americans mistreat Christians, and when a Christian fights back he or she becomes the villain. Not saying Christians can’t be bad, they can be and I would know so from personal experience.
As for the Baath party origins, it doesn’t matter because the party had underwent multiple twists and changes in beliefs since it’s founding in Demascus, Syria back in 1940. If you are implying that being in the Baath party means one must be secular and that he or she may not associate with pan-Islamist at all by any means, then you are wrong. Through the changes that the Baath party have undergone since its inception, the Baath party was not always secular, and it’s followers were not always with the pan-Arab movement started by Gamal Abdel Nasser.
In fact, the party has a long history of deviating from it’s roots. Both the Baath party in Iraq and the Baath party in Syria are not the same as the original Baath party. In fact, since the Baath party in Iraq deviated so much from the roots of the party, this added fuel to the fires of the strained relationship between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Haffez al-Assad’s Syria.
First of all, I did not say OBL’s content and ideology, and the Iraq (not Syria) Ba’athist Saddam elements that were a mixture of both political and religious factions, were “more alike”. What I said is that different factions can and do work together on a common goal.
And if you want contemptuous… let’s start with your first entry here…
You reap what you sow, bubba. You showed up, arrogant and contemptuous from the onset. You will receive the same from me… as well as my questioning – when I feel like wasting my time – of your self-annointed crown as an “authority”. You may wish to remember that “history” also needs to be bolstered by “current events”…. something you are apparently lacking the grasp. The rival factions of the Ba’athist party have been morphing for decades. Try to keep up.
There is no question about Saddam’s relationship with both the political and religious factions of the Iraq (not rivals in Syria) Ba’athists since both elements wielded great power and lofty positions in his intelligence, security and police force. What we can only then question is your blanket assertation that Ba’athists would never have anything to do with OBL and AQ.
This in itself is rather absurd because the real question is, would Saddam… who we already know personally dealt with both the religious Sufi Ba’athists and the political Ba’athists… also turn a blind eye to some differences with other jihad movements (including AQ) to achieve a mutal objective against a common enemy. And for Saddam, that was the advance of his Pan-Arabism.
Considering that Saddam already dealt in some form of harmony with religious elements, and as documented in the report you persist in refusing to read… the Iraqi Perspectives report… that answer is yes. You may also want to pick up and read Ray Robison’s “Both in One Trench”. Robison, an ISG member present as a researcher in Iraq in 2003, published his book in advance of the Iraqi Perspectives report with co-authors. The Pentagon report’s release substantiated his data.
You seem to suffer from a common analytic virus to overstate and misrepresent “Wahhabi” as a catchall term to describe all forms of Islamic militancy. Not only is that an exaggeration and disinformation campaign, the major fly in your ointment is the erroneous foundation that OBL and AQ are actually followers of classic Saudi Wahhabism. In fact, OBL’s content and beliefs incorporate no classic, nor current literature of Wahhabi activism. oops
Instead, OBL/AQ’s ideology follows that of Zawahiri… who was not born of Saudi Wahhabism, but of the radical 1960s teachings of Egypt’s Sayyid Qutb…. which, coincidently is also shared by the radical arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. None of the afore mentioned dabble in classic Wahhabi teachings save those base foundations they share.
In short, you think you hold an apple and cherry, trying to convince us that they taste differently and could never be mistaken for each other even tho they are both red in color. You then insist they are incompatible, and cannot possibly be mixed in a fruit salad.
Problem is, you’re actually holding two apples. And yes, apples and cherries most certainly can be mixed in a salad when it achieves the desired result for the chef.
All that said, the foundations of individual global Islamic jihad movements vary. They are not born of any one sect or beliefs. But they do share the demand that Islamic law and Caliphate reigns supreme. They are more than content to share resources and aid to battle a common enemy, saving the final battle for Caliphate power later in the game.
Clarification of above, since I know Green Parrot will jump on this. The classic and current Wahhabist activism and the jihad theology have morphed into separate factions. The radical Muslim Brotherhood arm, and the Zawahiri brand of morphed “wahhabism” is a different critter. Thus the error of blaming everything on a blanket version of “wahhabi”.
As John Voll says on PewForum:
John Voll is Georgetown U’s professor of Islamic history and associate director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.
Added… some differences between OBL “wahhabism” and classic teachings in excerpts from Natana J. DeLong-Bas’s book, “Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad”.
I don’t even know where to begin. Ever read about what terrorism really is? Then consider the possibility that the U.S were terrorists in Iraq – the bombing of Al Jezeera in Palestine is a fairly symbolic message don’t you think. The Pentagon knew the coordinates. There were no WMD’s found. Who goes to war with another country on a hunch with NO EVIDENCE of WMD’s? and because they don’t “like” Saddam’s regime? Well Al Qaeda don’t like the way the Western world works either, but wait… Iraq had the crap bombed out of it right? Afganistan is a disdant memory and Osama is still running around somewhere, but it’s ok, that doesn’t matter, there is oil in Iraq so we will just kill their children, destroy thier homes, lives, infastructure and watch them burn. It’s no wonder the majority of U.S soldiers that have died there commit suicide.
The Bush administration was a joke. I can’t even be bothered going further with that. I feel sorry for all Americans. How such a great country can be run into the ground so quickly is nothing short of embarassing.
Happy drilling terrorists.
p.s. i like the note underneath “if your comment is caught in spam..” A nice coverup to edit out comments that don’t favour your own opinion…
MataHarley, Here’s Green Parrot to jump.
“Thus the error of blaming everything on a blanket version of “wahhabi”.
I agree entirely that, like seemingly every extreme religious sect or cult, it doesn’t take long before its encouragement of intolerance results in factional splits- like the lunatic argument between “pre-millenial” and “post-millenial” evangelicals.
Nevertheless, it remains a fact that the Baath parties since their founding were committed to secularism, and to opposing Islamist tendencies. Through good times and bad (mostly the latter) they stuck to that principle, and Saddam, who destroyed anyone whom he saw as a potential challenge, would hardly be the person to break with that tradition.
Osama Bin Laden, a well financed threat to secular rulers like Saddam, would have had zero chance of support from the Iraqi government.
And by the way, I am thinking about the radicalization of the previously very peaceful Muslim community in Indonesia in the 1880’s and 1890’s by Saudi Wahabi clerics as an example to suggest that the more mainstream Wahabi beliefs do in the end result in violent promotion of religion.
@wowee:
You really should have stopped right there. Instead, you just had to expose your ignorance and idiocy. What’ll you say next to top that grand entrance comment to FA?
New around here, aren’t you? Actually, editing your comment would only make you look good.
@Green Eagle:
It’s true that Saddam persecuted some Islamic extremists- usually of the Shi’a brand; but it also holds true that he had senior military officials within his regime with deep ties to Islamic radicals; they didn’t suppress all branches of Islam. It remains that Saddam cooperated, trained, and funded both secular and religious terrorists. That’s just factually documented.
The insurgency plan for Iraq included collaboration between Ba’athist officials and Islamic religious fighters. A Sufi sect of Islam also supported the regime. Many Ba’athists did have a religious affiliation to the Sufi/Sunni Islamic sect.
Saddam did feel threatened by Islamists, which is why he worked with those who carried out terrorism outside of Iraq, as well as worked with those who he could manage inside Iraq. It’s similar to the kind of appeasement Saudi Arabia had been engaged in.
Note again all the things Saddam did in the later years to appear more Islamic and religious.
Pick up Ray Robison’s “Both in One Trench”. There’s much more, there.
Forget to take your Clozapine wowee?
Jubuss, this thread is full of idiots. ain’t it?
@ Green dodo
Lesee. Baath party members won’t play with religious nuts…Cuz you say so, and NONE of us have EVER read ANYTHING about the Mideast…. Hmmm.
Syria has been run by the Baath Party for around 60 years…Based upon Nazi’s, and sharing the same hate for Jews, and the same love of power….I guess that connection to Jew-hating Shiites in Iran for the past 20 years is a mirage, seeing as though Iran is run by 12th Imam-believin religious weirdoes.
I will also assume (in light of the VAST historical genius shown here by our interlopers) is the Quo’ran writ in Saddam’s own blood PROVES he was a secularist…Right? Oh wait…Didn’t Sunni-Wahib Al-Q work with the deposed Baathist’s after the invasion? Then tried to start a civil war with Iraqi Shia? I’m sooooo confused.
Hey dork. Nobody here is denying Saddam got into bed with whomever made his dick look bigger, but to claim there was NO working relationship with Wahib-schooled killers EVER, is shear blindness.
Did he ever give homage to Al-Q? No. Did he work with them against the west and Israel? Yes.
We have his own documents telling us he did…Oh wait…when I show them to you, you’ll claim they were faked by Rummy or some other BAD American. (For only an American can be bad)
Oh…And some of us have big giant degrees in Mideast history, and spent time there…One or two of us MIGHT have even lived in Kyrgyzstan, and traveled extensively in that area of the Planet…That person or persons may have even done some time with the State Department under several administrations, most recently in the Sudan in conjuction with the UN, so if I were you, I would STFU about assuming certain things about the posters around here…Pray that someday you know 1/10th of what Mata has already shown you, and that Mr.Smith keeps being so dang nice to you, (in light of your idiocy.)
Books? Lotsa books…Then try 5 to 10 years of actually being there with Moslem’s both radical, and not, to top off the badly written crap that gets passed off as “knowledge” in your circle. After that, read the Quo’ran in it’s original Arabic…a language that over 80% of the worlds Moslem’s DON’T read or speak, yet they are still forced to sound-out in Arabic anyway when “learning” that same Quo’ran. According to the highest jurists in Egypt, and Arabia, (even Qom!) every translation is Hiram. (forbidden and wrong for man to embark upon). But don’t let that stop you. Start with UCLA’s library (it’s online). They have the best translations of all 3 of the main books, by the main 4 “disciples”.
Try not to get hung up on the meanderings and false time-lines of a madman who stole the god of pagans who worshiped a meteorite in Medina, and you’ll be OK.
One more thing. Look up when the Wahib-school actually started. It was a long time BEFORE the Egyptian-boys ever got started.
Patvann,
Yes, I too have lived and worked in the middle east.
For someone who likes to pontificate about others assuming things about you, you sure were quick to assume a lot about me.
There are plenty of people who have worked in the State Department, the Defense Department and in intelligence in this country who have given all of us a thorough lesson in the fact that they know sod all about the middle east, so the fact that you may have worked for the government does not impress me.
What does impress me is your quick resorting to ridicule and contempt to answer what I have to say. I have had enough political arguments in my life that I do not care to waste my time talking to a person with your attitude.
By the way, I learned in the middle east to like and respect the Arabs I worked with. I sense behind your words a lot of contempt for them; this attitude will prevent you from ever understanding what is right in front of your face, regardless of how many degrees you may have, and how many government jobs you have held.