Say Anything Blog

...the general wisdom.

The general wisdom is that all the terrorists share the same agenda: destruction of both Israel and the US.  What we have here is dueling reports, which only differ on the degree of cooperation between Saddam and Al Qaeda.  Of course, those who would deny that connection will want to believe this report, and those who think that all terrorists are connected at the hip will believe the earlier report.  How many connections does it take to cause terrorist activity, and how much terrorist activity is acceptable?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

r108
Obviously saying that Saddam is involved in terrorism is safe. Just like saying that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and countless African countries are. The incorrect info here is the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam. There ain’t any besides they might share contempt for certain groups. The Iraq war relied on a false mandate appropriated with lies from 9/11 and the al Qaeda connection.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

This report says that there weren’t that many connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, not that there were none.
Your tired talking point about the “false mandate for war” has been discredited many times in many ways, Sparkie; you can stop chewing on it now.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

R108
Like I said, the fact that they hate the same groups of people is not the type of ‘connection’ that was originally alleged.
Pitchfork?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

I’m not opposed to war. I am opposed to war when it is brought about by lies issuing from an office that has previously housed convicted Isreali spies. Obviously that bothers me.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

This part is interesting:

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

I suppose they are referring to Hezbollah and Hamas here, but it would be interesting to know which groups these were.

Like I’ve said a dozen times or more, Saddam was uninterested in linking up with al Qaeda, because he was interested in controlling his own terrorist networks, rather than contributing to the reputation of a competitor. 

Cheney was way off base on his remarks about Zarqawi.  It’s pretty much accepted wisdom that until the invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi and bin Laden were in competition with each other.  Funny how often people use the lack of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda as evidence that Iraq and Zarqawi (who just happens to set up camp in the capital city of a totalitarian regime, like it was a no-entrance-fee national park) had no relationship.

Zarqawi was in Iraq, as a guest of Saddam Hussein, before the Iraq war.  Do you think they just played cards or something?
You focus(probably just to start an argument, in your usual fashion) on some of the factors that you don’t like, as a justification to oppose a war that is obviously called for.  We need a solid ally in the ME, Saddam needed to be deposed, and now the focus of worldwide terrorism is in Iraq, instead of in the US.  No matter how much you hate Israel(if you really do), the presence or absence of Israelis is not even relevant here.  Obviously, the US and Israel share a common goal of peace in the ME and an end to Islamic terrorism.  Isn’t that obvious, or have you not gotten the attention you need today?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Like I said, the fact that they hate the same groups of people is not the type of ‘connection’ that was originally alleged.

What I actually wrote was that they shared the same agenda: destruction of both Israel and the US.  What part of that didn’t you understand?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108...Zarqawi may or may not have been Saddam’s guest but he wasn’t a member of al Qaeda.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

r108
Pitchfork?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

From BBC News:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm

It names Zarqawi as a leader of Al Qaeda.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Zarqawi may or may not have been Saddam’s guest but he wasn’t a member of al Qaeda.

Mike A,

Could you please direct me to the quote where the President or a representative of his administration said that the war on Islamist terrorism was directed exclusively at al Qaeda, or that the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was predicated on his (Saddam’s) ties to al Qaeda?

I realize that this position has been favored by the cognescenti of the Left for some time… a sort of halfway point between the dynamic determinism of the Bush administration and the willful indifference of Mr. Bush’s Democratic predecessor.  However, in the end it still amounts to nothing but wishful thinking.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat: This is due to what I call “the parsing of terrorists”, where some are more or less harmful or threatening than others.  It is a ridiculous position, but the lefties think it makes them look intelligent, or something.  In other words, we should only fight some of the terrorists, and leave the rest alone(until they attack us, of course), or negotiate with them nicely.  Their reasoning seems to be that since 9/11 was done by Al Qaeda, then the only terrorists we can justifiably fight are Al Qaeda.  Thus, it was wrong to go after Saddam, even though all the reasons for fighting Milosevic were present with Saddam, times ten.  It’s pretty convoluted, and pretty ridiculous, IMO.  It’s just another way of weakening the US at the expense of the terrorists.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

That should be: “...to the benefit of the terrorists.” Sorry.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108...please read this paragraph from the BBC story”

He first appeared in Iraq as the leader of the Tawhid and Jihad insurgent group, merging it in late 2004 with Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network.

Was Saddam in power when Z joined al Qaeda? No so please stop.

Bat One...I’m not debating with the Administration, I’m merely pointing out r108’s error which reappears with disheartening frequency. Such as this:

Zarqawi was in Iraq, as a guest of Saddam Hussein, before the Iraq war.  Do you think they just played cards or something?

I know Z was based in the north of Iraq and beyond Saddam’s normal reach...did they ever meet? I don’t know. I admit it’s a minor point but I wish r108 and Mr. Cheney would get it right.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

From the WP article today:

“We don’t seem to be making much progress pulling together intelligence on links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,” Wolfowitz wrote in the Jan. 22, 2002, memo to Douglas J. Feith, the department’s No. 3 official.

Using Pentagon jargon for the secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, he added: “We owe SecDef some analysis of this subject. Please give me a recommendation on how best to proceed. Appreciate the short turn-around.”

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeA: You just gave a perfect example of what I previously described as “parsing terrorists”.  Thank you.

Once again, you make a distinction without a difference.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I know Z was based in the north of Iraq and beyond Saddam’s normal reach…

An absolute dictator who didn’t control his entire country?  Not so credible.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

MikeA: VP Cheney and I(if I may put myself in such distinguished company) have it right; parsing meaningless details isn’t going to change that.  Given the chance, those terrorists will kill you and yours just as quickly as they will kill all the other “infidels”, regardless of your sympathy for, and defense of, them.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108
Large pitchfork?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

MikeA: When it comes right down to it, I will admit that I give the benefit of the doubt to our elected officials; while it seems you give the benfit of the doubt to the terrorists.  This is exactly the weakness to which I referred in the other comment thread, the weakness that invites attack.
At the very least, you choose to absolutely believe anyone who says something that supports your position, and subject any information that disagrees with your position to extreme skepticism.
I do the same, with the attitude that it’s better to do more to combat terrorism, or even possible terrorism, than to do less.  I think it’s irresponsible to do otherwise.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108...just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean that others don’t. If you want to say that al Qaeda is merely part of the terrorist threat then fine or if you want to say that Iraq is at the centre of the GWOT then fine and if you want to say that Saddam was a brutal dictator worthy of removal then fine but stop trying to manufacture links between al Qaeda and Saddam because the evidence doesn’t support you.

You said this

We need a solid ally in the ME, Saddam needed to be deposed, and now the focus of worldwide terrorism is in Iraq, instead of in the US.

Just stop at this point because then you don’t need any al Qaeda/Saddam connections at all and I don’t have to nag you about points that you advance that don’t have any basis in reality and that, according to you, are immaterial to your larger argument anyway.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

R108
Feith is not an elected official. Your bullshit accusation about MikeA or anyone defending his stance siding with terrorists is a bullshit lie. You got nothing. That’s why you are franticly posting whatever you can dream up… You are ignoring proof and you are lying. Sad.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

At the very least, you choose to absolutely believe anyone who says something that supports your position, and subject any information that disagrees with your position to extreme skepticism.

Actually, I have been known to change my position when confronted with the facts whereas you tend to find reasons why the facts can’t be trusted...it’s called making the evidence conform to one’s theory.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Hilarious...it’s funny because it’s true.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Being called a liar by an admitted liar and troll is actually a compliment.  Thank you, Sparkie!

Save America; boycott the MSM.

MikeA: As long as you have posted here, your position on our presence in Iraq has gone unchanged, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.  That is the subject of this thread, and of my comments, not a general statement about your reasonableness.  Once again, focus on the niggling details, and ignore the big picture.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

The decision to invade Iraq, as Bush stated prior to the invasion, was not due to links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Please show me where Bush stated that Saddam and Al Qaeda were working together?

We invaded Iraq for several reasons, not limited to but including the following:

- support for terrorists
- breaking terms of cease fire
- UN resolutions
- WMD

If you want to say that al Qaeda is merely part of the terrorist threat…

Once again, you misstate my position; what I said was that there are many terrorist threats, and Al Qaeda is one of them; no “merely” in my writings.  You made that up.  I see no reason to differentiate between terrorist groups, since they share a common agenda.  I don’t know how I can state this any more plainly, so maybe you just don’t want to get it.  You attempt to use your parsing of terrorists and niggling arguments over insignificant details to bolster your argument that we should never have gone into Iraq, and since we did, we should leave immediately, since we shouldn’t have gone in there in the first place.  For all the reasons I have enumerated over the months we have discussed this, I absolutely disagree with you.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Once again, you misstate my position; what I said was that there are many terrorist threats, and Al Qaeda is one of them; no “merely” in my writings.  You made that up.

I didn’t say you said it, I said “if you want to say...”. Do you understand the difference or is this another distinction without a difference to your mind?

I see no reason to differentiate between terrorist groups, since they share a common agenda.

Which is fine but I’ll repeat that just because you don’t get the difference doesn’t mean that others don’t and that the difference is unimportant.

You attempt to use your parsing of terrorists and niggling arguments over insignificant details to bolster your argument that we should never have gone into Iraq,

I have no doubt that you believe this but in fact what I am doing is correcting your contention that Saddam had significant connections to al Qaeda...which is the topic of this thread because that is the subject matter of the declassified report the WP covers in its article that I linked when I began this thread.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

SY

The decision to invade Iraq, as Bush stated prior to the invasion, was not due to links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

I agree that a number of reasons were advanced but the alleged links were a selling point and continue to serve as such in some minds.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Robert108, your BBC link was from 2005.  Long before then, Zarqawi had thrown his lot in with al Qaeda (cleverly renaming his group to maintain some brand independence).  The general understanding was prior to the invasion of Iraq that Zarqawi was acting independently and in competition with bin Laden, though no doubt under the watchful eye of Saddam’s secret police.

That said, and in agreement with Bat One, I think the relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda was overplayed from the start, but is irrelevant to the question of whether fighting Saddam was addressing the problem of world terrorism.

Carrick: What you said.  I have never had any doubt that going into Iraq was the right thing; I supported it at the end of the Gulf War, and so am of the opinion that our presence there is long overdue.  IMO, the situation there at this time is due to the failure to secure the country in 1991, combined with the Clinton failure to address terrorism in any meaningful way during the Nineties.  I don’t “parse the terrorists”, nor do I engage in nitpicking about who was where when.  The overall threat of terror needs strong action, period.

I agree that a number of reasons were advanced but the alleged links were a selling point and continue to serve as such in some minds.

That has nothing to do with the overall war on terrorism in the world; people are certainly free to hold their own opinions, at least in this country.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I didn’t say you said it, I said “if you want to say...”. Do you understand the difference or is this another distinction without a difference to your mind?

Since I never said it, no, I don’t “want to say...” OK?

I have no doubt that you believe this but in fact what I am doing is correcting your contention that Saddam had significant connections to al Qaeda...which is the topic of this thread because that is the subject matter of the declassified report the WP covers in its article that I linked when I began this thread.

You are right, of course.  As in my first comment, I disagree with your contention that this particular report represents any “general wisdom”.  In fact, my contention that it goes against the “general wisdom” on the topic, even if not in every detail.  Your contention seems to be that since this report says that the contacts between AQ and Saddam were “fewer than previously believed”, that they aren’t significant, and I disagree with that contention.  I don’t agree that we can all go to sleep now, since there was nothing significant going on between AQ and Saddam.  It doesn’t change anything, even if this report is true and accurate, to which I don’t agree.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

It doesn’t change anything, even if this report is true and accurate, to which I don’t agree.

Okay.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

I know Z was based in the north of Iraq and beyond Saddam’s normal reach…

Mike A,

As I recall, Saddam’s reach was just fine when it came to using poison gas on northern Iraqi Kurdish villages.  Or am I mistaken?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

True in late 1980’s, not so true when Z was in northern Iraq circa 2001...at least that is my impression.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

True in late 1980’s, not so true when Z was in northern Iraq circa 2001...at least that is my impression.

You would certainly like to think so, but why, I don’t understand.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

The only thing I would like is for you to lose the perception that my criticism of your government equals support for the terrorists...but if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

What I said was that you seem to want to give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt, but want to assume our President and his administration is lying.  That’s what I actually said, not what you said.
If you are a self-appointed critic, then be an equal-opportunity critic.  Subject the terrorists to the same skepticism as everyone else.  Understand?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

You said what I would like to think and I told you what I would really like. If you could give an example of me not subjecting the terrorists to the same skepticism then I might understand...I have no clue what you’re talking about at present.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeA: As usual, you state your interpretation of what you think I believe in a dismissive way.  I don’t perceive that criticism of our govt(by anyone) equals support for the terrorists.  I never said that, so it is dishonest of you to put that on me.
What I find in your writings is a fairly consistent bias against our President and his administration.  You seem to assume the worst about them, but remain neutral toward the terrorists, asking for proof that they intend us any harm, in some cases.  Clear now?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I don’t perceive that criticism of our govt(by anyone) equals support for the terrorists.

Then I will disabuse myself of that notion. I can’t recall anything I’ve written that could be construed as “neutral” toward the terrorists but I will go on the record as being opposed to them and believing that terrorism is a serious problem that must be addressed.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

I will go on the record as being opposed to them and believing that terrorism is a serious problem that must be addressed.

Cool.

Save America; boycott the MSM.