Saddam Hussein has been taken into custody.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:52 pm

P.S.: I don´t give three shits what you think of U.S. policy, but you must tip your collective caps to the U.S. Army, which captured this guy in a flawless operation, with no shots fired. These guys -- the past, present and future veterans of this war -- clearly are the best and bravest this country has to offer.
 
 
 
 AMEN!

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:58 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-12-15 08:10, pk500 wrote:
 
 Now, if Bush plays it cool with our allies around the world, this could help the U.S.´ tattered image as a rational world power. Right now, the rest of the world sees us as Atilla and the Huns, part II. But even-handed diplomacy -- which the Bush Administration has yet to show -- could help mend fences with our allies.
 [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 15-12-2003 08:11 ]
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Don´t count on that happening. The unilateralist posture plays well to his political base, some of which are making noises about Syria again.

TheMightyPuck · Post by **TheMightyPuck** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:28 pm

I gotta chime in here on the political mumbo jumbo. This is why I hate the republicrats. All they can think about is "What does this mean for my team?". It´s not like we just traded Kobe Bryant plus two draft picks for Saddam and one WMD to be named latter.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:43 pm

The thing is, as PK pointed out, this is a victory for Iraq more than us. I don´t think the new Iraqi government could have real closure with Saddam missing. Now, with him captured and his sons dead, they can soon close an awful chapter in their history. You can be on either side of the aisle politically and appreciate that.
 
 The interesting thing about a public trial, however, would be that Saddam likely has a lot of embarassing info about our support of him during the Cold War. He was our main weapon against the Iranians throughout the 80s. That has nothing to do with his guilt in the slaughter of his own people, but still, some of that could be aired during the trial.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:45 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-12-15 12:28, TheMightyPuck wrote:
 I gotta chime in here on the political mumbo jumbo. This is why I hate the republicrats. All they can think about is "What does this mean for my team?". It´s not like we just traded Kobe Bryant plus two draft picks for Saddam and one WMD to be named latter.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 That´s why I hate politics and religion. They both cloud up peoples minds.
 
 I believe in God and independent thinking. I don´t need a party line or a church body to school me up on their way of thinking.
 
 God gave me a mind of my own to figure out who´s full of s*** and who´s shoveling it.
 <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">

RiverRat · Post by **RiverRat** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 5:16 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-12-15 12:43, Brando70 wrote:
 The thing is, as PK pointed out, this is a victory for Iraq more than us. I don´t think the new Iraqi government could have real closure with Saddam missing. Now, with him captured and his sons dead, they can soon close an awful chapter in their history. You can be on either side of the aisle politically and appreciate that.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 I would agree with that. BUT ...
 
 It is a victory for us in that now we have more options going forward. It would have been absolutely unthinkable for us to pull out of Iraq with Saddam still unaccounted for, for the reasons that PK stated. We said we were going to do it, and we did it, which is great. But because we said we were going to do it and made such an effort, we HAD to be successful at nearly any cost, or we would have no credibility as a military threat to anyone in the Middle East.
 
 Now that we have him, options open up as to how long to stay, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. Options are always a good thing.
 
 In an ironic twist, this may actually be unhelpful for Bush long-term. There was no way in the world I would ever have voted in 2004 for a candidate that wanted to get out of Iraq without regard to Saddam´s whereabouts. Now, that issue is off the table. If a lot of other folks feel the same way, Bush may ultimately have lost a card in this game.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 5:53 pm

Good points, River. I didn´t mean it didn´t have value to us. Just that, strategically, I don´t think Saddam was doing much for the Iraqi resistance other than not getting caught. We´ll have to wait and see if this really has much effect on the terrorist attacks.
 
 But I think it will make it easier for the Iraqis to set up a new government. They won´t have to look over their shoulders for Saddam and his sons.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 6:15 pm

Anyone who thinks the capture of Saddam will lead to a quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is kidding themselves.
 
 The U.S. is in Iraq for the long haul. We will "own" the country for the next 10 to 20 years, until the Iraqi government is well established, and will have a significant military presence there until then and even afterward.
 
 Hell, the U.S. still has a significant military presence in many countries it helped liberate during World War II nearly 60 years ago, in much less volatile parts of the world.
 
 What is going to make Iraq any different, considering the Middle East is the world´s powder keg? None.
 
 Saddam´s capture accelerates no timetables. It doesn´t give us a lot more options. It simply makes a very tough job of nation-building a bit more stable and hopefully a bit easier.
 
 Again, I hate to continue pimping this, but I strongly recommend reading the columns of New York Times´ foreign affairs correspondent Thomas L. Friedman about the Middle East and particularly Iraq. The guy didn´t win the Pulitzer Prize for nothing -- his objective analysis of the situation there is brilliant.
 
 www.nytimes.com
 www.thomaslfriedman.com
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 15-12-2003 14:16 ]

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 6:42 pm

Friedman is a pompous ass, with an inflated sense of self-importance. Unfortunately, he has a podium with the NY Times column.
 
 He needs to remember that he´s a columnist, not a statesman.
 
 And if he backed this war, the justification of which doesn´t change with Saddam´s capture, Friedman´s analysis is flawed.
 
 Today, Bush talked about Saddam and then immediately talked about his duty to protect Americans in the wake of 9/11, a not so subtle linkage that he and other members of the administration used to manipulate lazy Americans into thinking Saddam was involved in 9/11.

TheMightyPuck · Post by **TheMightyPuck** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:11 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 Today, Bush talked about Saddam and then immediately talked about his duty to protect Americans in the wake of 9/11, a not so subtle linkage that he and other members of the administration used to manipulate lazy Americans into thinking Saddam was involved in 9/11.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 No question about this. Drives me crazy. Why are politicians so afraid to tell the truth. The war on terror and the war on Iraq are/were two different wars. However, the people get what they deserve. Most people´s eyes would glaze over if the media (or the government) would present a well researched exposition regarding the complexities of both situations. In the Executive´s opinion (it would seem), most Americans wouldn´t support a war based on complex technical issues like regional influence, historical ties, power balancing, economics, the state of Israel, religion, state sovereignty and the role of the UN. I think the executive is right. People need to put a face on evil so we get Saddam and Osama.

Sudz · Post by **Sudz** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:15 pm

hiding in a big pile of dirt just like Mr. Peanut.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:18 pm

>>>Friedman is a pompous ass, with an inflated sense of self-importance. Unfortunately, he has a podium with the NY Times column.
 
 He needs to remember that he´s a columnist, not a statesman.<<<
 
 WCO:
 
 Care to point me to a writer who has a better, more objective analysis of the Middle East than Friedman over the last 10 years? I´m all eyes.
 
 Friedman consistently has been the only national columnist to say that liberating Iraq was a good idea but will be a long, hard slog in which we´ll have a significant occupation of the country for at least 10 years. His commentary also seems to be pretty devoid of political rhetoric, unlike partisan idiots like Molly Ivins or George Will. His interpretation of the situation may not always be accurate, but it´s the least clouded by partisan dogma among the national columnists, in my opinion.
 
 Is he a pompous ass because he tries to rise above the slime of partisanship, which is practiced by nearly every other political columnist in America? If so, then he can be as haughty as he wants. I´ll take it.
 
 Plus Friedman actually spends a shitload of time in the region, unlike most U.S. columnists who write from inside the Beltway or from their cushy home offices. He actually talks with multiple sources in the region. I wonder how many times Molly Ivins or George Will have been to the Middle East in the last five years.
 
 If Friedman or his attempts at objectivity don´t match your political persuasion, fine. But I´d like to read your columnist of choice on the topic for some perspective.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 15-12-2003 15:22 ]

RiverRat · Post by **RiverRat** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:36 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-12-15 14:15, pk500 wrote:
 
 ... Saddam´s capture accelerates no timetables. It doesn´t give us a lot more options. It simply makes a very tough job of nation-building a bit more stable and hopefully a bit easier ...
 
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 I have not read the article, but having said that ...
 
 Of course there are more options. The one huge option open to us that was previously not open was that, if we need to do for whatever reason, we can claim victory and get out. I´m not saying we should, or that it is a good option, but I don´t believe that we are so committed to nation-building in Iraq that the committment can withstand any short-term pressure, political or otherwise, to end it.
 
 There is always the possibility that someday we (specifically Mr. Bush or his successor in 2008 or 2004) will cut and run. To do so last week would have required an admission that the job was not complete, as in Gulf War I. Now, the stated foe has been vanquished. Right or wrong, it is now plausible to claim victory.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 8:43 pm

I like Friedman too, because he´s one of the few national columnists who´s fairly non-partisan. He is conservative in many respects, but not a shrill RNC hack like Sean Hannity or a stark raving luatic/calculating propagandist like Ann Coulter. He can be pretty perscriptive but I don´t mind that too much since I think he offers some very good ideas.
 
 As for whether we should actually be in Iraq or not, I was in the not camp, but at this point it doesn´t matter. We´re there, we have to help that country become a stable democracy, and anything less than that will be a complete failure on our part. I think we actually made Iraq part of the war on terror now, because if we wind up beating a hasty exit before the country is able to stand on its own, that would certainly embolden terrorists everywhere. I don´t think now is a good time to conduct an inquiry into our decision to go there with thousands of troops on the ground.
 
 But, here´s what bothers me: where are the WMDs and Al-Queda ties? That was why we were told we were fighting. If we thought there were all these weapons and terrorist connections, and they seem at the very least greatly exaggerated, than heads should roll at some point. I´m not saying Bush himself. I think at some point there should be a formal inquiry into how the intelligence gathering process was politicized to justify war. We used a lot of innuendo and uncorraborated evidence to get popular sentiment for our actions. That´s wrong, whether or not it´s good that we removed a horrible dictator. [ This message was edited by: Brando70 on 15-12-2003 16:44 ]

seanmac · Post by **seanmac** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:01 pm

I respect Friedman´s knowledge of the region, but I have thought from the beginning of the second Gulf War that his position was largely untenable. It´s a staple of American sociology that Americans will not support a war unless it appears to be a humanitarian mission- if the cause seems too self-interested, Americans will balk at the "European" conduct, which is why you get inane statements like "Saddam is worse than Hitler" coming out of president´s mouths instead of something reasonable like, "The United States does not want to see it´s oil supplies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia threatened by regional instability" (we´re talking GW I here). Obviously Friedman is too bright for that kind of thing, but by hitching his optimistic vision for the Middle East to this particular war, fought by an administration that has shown absolutely zilch in terms of knowledge or understanding of the region beyond the fact that it has this black stuff in it that makes SUVs run, he has basically done the intellectual equivalent of attempting to use Sauron´s ring of power for good.
 
 Jackdog-
 "If you hate Bush fine,don´t vote for him. This is still a great day for Iraq and the fight against terror."
 
 It´s a great day for Iraq. It´s a bad day for the fight against terror, just as every day has been a bad day since American troops were sent to Iraq in lieu of being part of a cogent global anti-terrorist campaign.
 
 "The soldiers that I served with wanted to be in Iraq. My brother wanted to be in Iraq. He died there and I was crippled there. When you talk about the soldiers,know this. They have seen first hand what Saddam has done to that country and it´s wonderful people."
 
 I´m terribly sorry for your losses. But to be blunt the soldiers on the ground have primarily seen what two American wars and a decade of UN sanctions have done to the country. I lot of people have been killed by Saddam, he´s a bad guy and I certainly won´t mourn his passing, but the current condition of the country- 13,000 dead since March, widespread violence and anarchy, sporadic essential services, etc, etc are not Saddam´s doing. They´re our doing. People are getting killed in the streets every day, and the fact that it is being done by US soldiers who are not malicious in their intentions doesn´t make Baghdad a less scary place to be.
 
 "I saw the mass graves in the North. I spoke with Kurds who lost entire families to Saddam´s gas attacks. My brother Damon was part of a team that found more mass graves in Mosul. I could go on ,but it won´t matter to those of you that play politics. The soldiers that are fighting this war think its just,thats all that matters to me."
 
 That highlights a central point- the people who suffered under Saddam were primarily Kurds and Shiites, and this has less to do with the evils of any one ruler in particular than with the flawed construction of the Iraqi state by the British in 1917 (who incidentally were also progressive and well-meaning towards the region, while simultaneously very aware of its oil reserves). The place should be three seperate countries, and any attempt to hold them together will either result in one minority segment of the population needing to use force to uphold its power, or for the country to dissolve into civil war a la Yugoslavia, with the difference being that we will not allow that to happen because Iraq, unlike the Balkans, has something that we want. That translates into continued US military presence in the region, which translates into the stretching out of a period of time where US soldiers are easy targets for Islamic militants, which translates into a further degrading of our resources for fighting a global terror campaign.
 
 As for seeing the mass graves and thinking the cause is just, I´m sympathetic to that. I´m a descendent of Holocaust survivors, and a New Yorker who worked in the Twin Towers and had friends and loved ones who were in serious danger on 9/11 (which of course had nothing to do with Iraq). But I´m also a military historian, and I know two things- 1) every soldier fighting for every side thinks that his cause is just. 2) The soldiers are not in a position to have a wider understanding of their reasons for being on the ground.
 
 "We have some of the finest soldiers in the world in the mountains of Afghanistan Pakistan and Tajikistan looking for another rat that hides in caves. Hopefully they find what they are looking for."
 
 Hopefully we do. But even that won´t undo the damage we have done with this invasion; it certainly won´t stop the forces that we have set into motion that are now killing both our soldiers and civilians in Iraq.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:02 pm

I´m not talking about the content of his columns per se. Yes he´s not as overtly partisan as others. But you can see him all the time on television and hear him on radio and his sense of self-importance is ridiculous. He does like to name-drop and I will give him his due that he put in his time as correspondent in that region.
 
 What gets me is him saying on NPR that he does what he does because we need to leave a better world for our children. Um, nobody elected you to be a diplomat or statesman. You´re just a columnist, part of the chattering class that is often better ignored.
 
 And really, he´s been opining about the region for years so either his advice has been ignored or they´ve been followed and it´s still messed up as ever.
 
 Oh and BTW, I heard recently, he was involved in some fracas, where after a speech, someone who didn´t agree with some of his takes on Israel came to introduce himself but not pick a fight. Friedman cursed at the man and shoved him. Not the statesmanly image he likes to project.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:18 pm

I´ll post this but no matter what some people read or what I write that I personally saw. Becuse of their politics or hatred of Bush refuse to believe anything that backs up a reason why we went to war with Iraq.
 
 
 
 9/11 Bombshell: Mohamed Atta Trained in Baghdad
 
 A bombshell memo written to Saddam Hussein in 2001 and recently uncovered by Iraq´s new coalition government shows that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta was trained in Baghdad to attack the U.S.
 
 The memo, authored by Iraqi intelligence chief Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, is dated July 1, 2001, and describes the "work program" undertaken by Atta at a base in Baghdad run by notorious Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, reports London´s Sunday Telegraph, which obtained the document exclusively.
 
 If authentic, the document would be the first explicit evidence implicating Iraq in the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, since it makes a direct reference to what appears to be the 9/11 plot.
 
 In one passage, the Iraqi intelligence chief reportedly informs Saddam that Atta had demonstrated his capability as leader of the team "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy."
 
 Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, the paper said. But Dr. Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq´s ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.
 
 "We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam´s involvement with al-Qaeda," he told the Telegraph. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."
 
 In October 2001, two Iraqi defectors told U.S. intelligence that they helped train militant Muslim fundamentalists to overcome U.S. flight crews, using hijacking techniques never seen before 9/11, at a south Baghdad training camp known as Salman Pak.
 
 One of the defectors, Sabah Khodada, subsequently told PBS that he believed the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by "graduates of Salman Pak."
 
 In what could turn out to be one of the greatest intelligence blunders of the post-9/11 era, the CIA and FBI dismissed Khodada and other eyewitness accounts of the hijack training regimen at Salman Pak, though their story was corroborated by satellite photography showing the fuselage of the airliner on which they trained.
 
 The Telegraph report makes no mention of Salman Pak or the accounts from eyewitnesses suggesting the camp may have played a role in 9/11.
 
 
 
 I saw that camp and I talked to Kurds that say they fought with al-Qaeda elements for the last 10 years.
 
 Hate Bush all you want,call him a liar..whatever.
 
 Call me a liar and I say F*ck You! I know what I saw and I know why I was there. I have no reason to lie.
 Why do you think you don´t see soldiers being interviewed when they come back from Iraq?
 
 Nobody wants to hear what they saw or how they feel about fighting the war in Iraq. The media is having to good of a time playing politics.
 
 If some of you out there really care about the troops so much. Turn off your X-Boxes and join up and go help them. If you think its all a lie or morale is low,get off your asses and go see for yourself.
 As someone thats lost a brother and a leg there IMO the war is just.You want to say I am wrong..I say F*ck your opinion until you go and see for yourself.
 
 This thread should have been about the troops and what a great job they did in getting this modern day Hitler alive. But instead politics rears its ugly head.
 
 F#ck politics. And F*ck the people that turn everything into a political debate. No matter how you twist it,Saddam being captured is a very good thing. And the troops did a great job. This is not about Bush, its about the soldiers.
 
 Again............Great job 4th ID!

seanmac · Post by **seanmac** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:19 pm

pk-
 
 "Capturing Saddam -- alive -- is WAY more significant in the long-term view to building a viable nation in Iraq than toppling a statue, for many reasons. One, his capture alive has much more credibility in the Arab world than if he was killed. There are Arabs who still think Uday and Qusay´s corpses were fakes, something out of Dreamworks studios."
 
 There´s truth in that.
 
 "There was nothing fake about the imagery of Saddam looking like a street bum, being checked for lice and mouth sores. That hits home in Damascus, Baghdad, Amman and Cairo -- big time."
 
 True again, although I´m not sure that the imagery of a man who was considered a strong leader in the Arab world given the 21st century equivalent of a parade through the streets of Rome is going to do much to win the hearts and minds of the people in a region where our presence is viewed with suspicion and cynicism.
 
 "Second, Saddam could give us information through interrogation. And I´m not opposed one bit to a bit of "military coercion" -- wink, wink -- to get that information out of him."
 
 Unfortunately, most of the information he could give is of an overwhelmingly embarrassing nature to this administration- for instance, the names of the people who sold him chemical weapons in the 80´s, the advisors who helped him out, the massive Halliburton sales of oil equipment in contravention of US sanctions...that sort of thing. But he´s not going to give us information about the existence of WMDs or of Al-Quieda, because those things don´t exist beyond neoconservative fantasyland.
 
 "That´s all over now, and the Iraqi people know it. They also know that Americans were responsible for the tyrant´s capture. That should help relations between Iraqis and American troops if the American adminstration in Iraq doesn´t get too heavy-handed. And with Bremer in charge, you never know. But there´s hope."
 
 That will last, but not long. Certainly not if Iraqis keep on getting shot by US troops, or if they are subjected to military law for any extended period of time. No matter how bad local rule may have been, no one is thankful for colonial occupation. Every example in history suggests that this reprieve won´t last long.
 
 "Sadly, American troops will continue to die in Iraq at the hands of insurgents. But I believe some of that insurgency will diminish because most of the Ba´ath insurgency is due to devotion to Saddam."
 
 First off I don´t think that the Ba´athists are primarily responsible for the insurgency (I suspect Islamic militants who are a result, rather than a cause, of this military action). But even if they were, the hallmark of organization for insurgency units is self-sufficiency. If the people who are involved in the resistance still feel that they have a reason to resist (and considering the fact that they are likely to be stoned to death as soon as they turn in their arms, they have a pretty good reason), they will fight on, with or without Saddam.

Post by **Jared** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:22 pm

Some reasons I´m not a fan of Friedman:
 
 http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_08_24_a ... chive.html
 
 <blockquote>
 August 20, 2003, NYT
 No Time to Lose in Iraq
 By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
 
 "Everyone has advice now for the U.S.: bring in U.N. peacekeepers, bring in the French. They´re all wrong. There are only two things we need: more Americans out back and more Iraqis out front."
 
 August 31, 2003, NYT
 Policy Lobotomy Needed By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
 
 "Our Iraq strategy needs an emergency policy lobotomy. President Bush needs to shift to a more U.N.-friendly approach, with more emphasis on the Iraqi Army (the only force that can effectively protect religious sites in Iraq and separate the parties), and with more input from Secretary of State Colin Powell and less from the "we know everything and everyone else is stupid" civilian team running the Pentagon.
 
 There is no question that we would benefit from a new U.N. mandate that puts U.S. forces in Iraq under a stronger U.N. umbrella."
 </blockquote>
 
 Another one:
 
 http://www.needlenose.com/pMachineFree2 ... hp?id=P383
 
 <blockquote>
 Tom Friedman, August 24, 2003:
 
 ... this war is about Western powers, helped by the U.N., coming into the heart of their world to promote more decent, open, tolerant, women-friendly, pluralistic governments by starting with Iraq ...
 
 Tom Friedman, June 4, 2003:
 
 The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world.
 </blockquote>
 
 There are other flip-flops and silly things he´s said as well. He is "centrist", but in a way that is swayed a bit much by the waves of public opinion.
 
 And PK: What´s your problem with Molly Ivins? I really don´t care if commentators sound partisan or not. The important thing is whether they´ve got the major facts right and whether their arguments are logical and sound. Ivins is usually on point (though some of her viewpoints I disagree with), and she´s pretty consistent and principled in her stance. But because she has a specific viewpoint and is strong in her stance, people like to vilify her for her "partisan" nature and not for the strength of her arguments.
 
 (BTW, I´m just using her as an example....this goes for a variety of commentators who are deemed "shrill" or "partisan" and are criticized for it, but not criticized based on the strength of their argument.)

seanmac · Post by **seanmac** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:25 pm

Jackdog-
 
 There´s a reason why no one has been taking that memo very seriously.
 
 As subsequent editorials show, this has clearly infuriated the Weekly Standard crowd, who were also hoping to flush administration foxes from the hedges and force them finally to back up the allegations they have made about Saddam and Bin Laden. As someone who co-wrote a book, The Age of Sacred Terror, that argued there was no substantive relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq—a conclusion based on a review of relevant intelligence from when I worked on counterterrorism at the National Security Council in the late 1990s—as well as a series of op-eds in the New York Times and elsewhere saying the same thing, I guess I should be happy that the Hayes piece stirred the pot so little.
 
 Instead, I´m as frustrated as the Standard-bearers.
 
 Why? First, the Feith memo does not prove what it sets out to, and a fuller airing of the issues would bring clarity to a topic that desperately needs it. Second, and more important, the document lends substance to the frequently voiced criticism that some in the Bush administration have misused intelligence to advance their policy goals.
 
 Hayes contends that Feith´s document demonstrates that the relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq "involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda—perhaps even for Mohamed Atta." Yet in any serious intelligence review, much of the material presented would quickly be discarded. For example, one report claims Bin Laden visited Baghdad to meet with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz in 1998, but this is extremely unlikely to be true given how many intelligence services were tracking both individuals´ movements. Countless intelligence and press accounts of Bin Laden´s travels have appeared over the years while the man himself remained only where he was safe: Afghanistan. Hence, another report that has him traveling to Qatar in 1996 is almost as unlikely.
 
 There are also glaring mistakes in the analytic material, though whether the errors were originally Feith´s or Hayes´ is not clear. What is referred to as Bin Laden´s "fatwa on the plight of Iraq" was in fact the famous "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," which spoke of the suffering of Iraqis but only as proof of a U.S.-led global campaign to destroy Islam. If anything, the sense of grievance over events, including the U.S. troop presence, on the Arabian peninsula is far greater. Moreover, some of the material presented in the article insinuates that Iraq staged the Khobar Towers bombing, when two administrations have laid the blame at Iran´s door.
 
 The Feith document does not recount many details of an operational relationship, nor does it illustrate a tie that was ongoing, cooperative, and operational. At best, it records expressions of various individuals´ wish for a better relationship between the two sides—a desire that does not appear to have been consummated. Meetings between Iraqi officials and al-Qaida members began in the early 1990s, and there are reports that Iraq wanted to "establish links to al Qaeda." In 1993, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization´s capabilities through ties with Iraq." But in 1998, the Iraqis still "seek closer ties," and the sides are still "looking for a way to maintain contacts."
 
 There was a lot of seeking and wanting going on, and perhaps there were even meetings. But the fact that meetings occurred has never been the issue—at least not among serious critics—nor has it been disputed that some jihadists lived in or traveled through Iraq. (There were more meetings with Iranian authorities, as well as more terrorists living in or transiting Iran, but that seems to interest neither Feith nor Hayes.) What is disputed is that the meetings went anywhere. It would not be surprising to find out that the two sides had a de facto cease-fire, as has been alleged. But we´re still waiting to see real cooperation in the form of transfers of weapons and other materiel, know-how, or funds; the provision of safe haven on a significant scale; or the use of Iraqi diplomatic facilities by al-Qaida terrorists. The Feith memo mentions a few instances of possible Iraqi assistance to al-Qaida on bomb-building and weapons supply to affiliated groups, but nothing like the kind of evidence that, in Hayes´ words, "is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources."
 
 What does all this say about how Feith and his underlings use intelligence? Hayes says, correctly, that the Feith memo "just skims the surface of the reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda connections." The large sampling provided in his article, he believes, destroys critics´ arguments "that links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have been routinely ´exaggerated´ for political purposes; that hawks ´cherry-picked´ bits of intelligence and tendentiously presented these to the American public."
 
 What Hayes does not seem to recognize is that many of the treasures he imagines hidden in the existing CIA files may be dross or worse and, if presented, they would undermine the " ´Cliff´s notes´ version of the relationship" that he says is provided by the Feith memo. Of course there are more reports. When your intelligence service relays, as it should, everything short of sightings of Bin Laden on the moon, 50 reports of varying quality do not amount to much. The remaining material, many who are familiar with it believe, does not confirm the Hayes-Feith version but points in the other direction.
 
 Not surprisingly, none of the reports in the Feith memo mention the aversion that the Baathist and jihadists felt for one another. Similarly, there is no evidence of the contradictory nature of the intelligence. I would bet, for example, that there are plenty of reports putting Bin Laden in Afghanistan and perhaps a half a dozen other places in January 1998, at exactly the time he was supposed to be in Baghdad—and that would be only the most blatant kind of inconsistency. Attributing a report to a "contact with good access" does not mean the contact´s account is true. Proving a report correct, or sufficiently corroborated to be considered plausible, requires a lot more work. Putting all the disparate pieces together and trying to construct a coherent picture—yes, connecting the dots—is harder still, requiring a mastery of all the material. Of course, raw intelligence has its value, especially if you are worried about an imminent attack, but there is a reason why the intelligence community spends so much time and energy putting out "finished product," the reports that evaluate a significant body of information to get the whole picture right. Those are the reports that policy-makers are supposed to rely on in crafting a strategy.
 
 One thing intelligence analysts do as they evaluate a body of information is keep in mind the context. This is worth attempting in the case of the Feith memo, too, because while much of the material may be new to the public, most of it has been bouncing around the government since well before the invasion of Iraq. That means it has been scrubbed numerous times by analysts and senior officials eager to use it as they made the case for invading Iraq.
 
 After these reviews, it is clear, very little has been found that was solid enough to present in public. Compare the Feith memo with Colin Powell´s U.N. speech, which was preceded by the most thorough evaluation of the intelligence ever conducted by the Bush administration. Remarkably little on the ties between al-Qaida and Iraq made it into that speech. Or compare the memo with the recent remarks of Vice President Dick Cheney, who has all but stopped listing possible al-Qaida-Iraq connections and has given up suggesting that Mohammed Atta met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence official since saying it on Meet the Press in September. (After that appearance, the Washington Post noted that he was arguing a point the FBI and CIA didn´t believe was true.) If top officials had any confidence in these wares, they would still be out hawking them. Why the Feith memo is being sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee is also therefore baffling.
 
 It should be clear now why the Feith document needs a lot more attention: The memo is, Hayes´ declarations to the contrary, cherry-picking—the selective use of intelligence. It lends credence to Seymour Hersh´s reporting in The New Yorker about political appointees ignoring career analysts and dredging out whatever suits them. This is perilous business. Making a judgment about Iraq-al-Qaida ties on the basis of the sections presented by Hayes would be like accepting a high-school biology student´s reading of a CAT scan.
 
 The administration´s use of intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction became a hot issue primarily because of the failure to find any such weapons in Iraq and Joe Wilson´s revelations about the non-export of uranium from Niger to Iraq. Strangely, however, there has been little inquiry into the Iraq-al-Qaida relationship. The press has had a difficult time taking this issue any further since so few reporters have good sources in the intelligence community. In Congress, an effort to push further into the issue in the Senate Intelligence Committee has been stymied by the Republican majority´s refusal to discuss how the political leadership used the intelligence it was provided with. That is a recipe for putting the blame for any Iraq-related blunders on the intelligence community, not those in the Pentagon or White House who may have misread or ignored the intelligence they were given.
 
 Americans were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was significantly more dangerous than any of the other two dozen or so countries that currently possess them because Saddam might on any given day give such weapons to terrorists. The danger was urgent, we were told, because the Baghdad regime had a relationship with al-Qaida. Given the costs the nation has incurred in Iraq, a conscientious review of the issue would seem to be a good investment in democratic accountability. Since neoconservatives are certain they are right about the Saddam-Bin Laden relationship, maybe they´ll join Senate Democrats in demanding a fuller airing.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:34 pm

>>>Oh and BTW, I heard recently, he was involved in some fracas, where after a speech, someone who didn´t agree with some of his takes on Israel came to introduce himself but not pick a fight. Friedman cursed at the man and shoved him. Not the statesmanly image he likes to project.<<<
 
 WCO:
 
 Fine. But you never answered my request to learn of some of the foreign affairs columnists that you read regularly.
 
 Who are the foreign affairs columnists whom you respect?
 
 Take care,
 PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:36 pm

Jared:
 
 First, regarding Friedman. Yes, I acknowledge the flip-flops. But I´m willing to give Friedman more of a pass in that area because it´s very possible that he´s changing his opinion based on interviews with sources in the Middle East and further analysis of the situation.
 
 Again, Friedman doesn´t write from a Beltway office. He doesn´t write based on a partisan point of view like most columnists in this country. He´s not obligated to toe the party line like Molly Ivins, Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity. It´s very possible that he could change his analysis of the region based on developments. After all, the situation in Iraq is incredibly fluid due to the violence, the daily developments in "reconstruction," the reaction of the Arab and European world to that "reconstruction" and mainly due to the lack of a coherent, cohesive U.S. plan to rebuild the country.
 
 So is it possible that a guy who analyzes the situation without turning it into a political football could change his analysis due to developments in the area? I think so.
 
 Yeah, Friedman is on the air a lot. Did you ever think that´s because the guy knows what the f*ck he´s talking about and because he does it without much partisanship? OK, he appears a bit high and mighty at times, I´ll admit. But the guy has won a Pulitzer and knows about as much about the region as any American journalist, so he can strut a lot more than someone who hasn´t been there in ages or never has been there but pretends to know all the answers, such as Bill O´Reilly.
 
 Now, on to Molly Ivins. Ivins simply is Ann Coulter with more writing talent and more respect from the media, for some incredulous reason. She´s a raving, lunatic partisan with minimal talent.
 
 Ivins spends more time criticizing Bush and all Republicans with clever wise-ass remarks than making suggestions about improvements. And her few suggestions always boil down to "more taxes, let the government bail out everyone, government is the answer."
 
 As a registered Libertarian, I consider Molly Ivins to be one of the most dangerous people behind a keyboard in America today. She is stark, raving nuts with a huge agenda-based ax to grind and few suggestions for improvement other than "spend, spend, spend."
 
 Ivins offers no alternative, no analysis of improvement. She bitches and moans and whines from a liberal perspective just like Ann Coulter bitches and moans and whines from a conservative perspective. Neither offer any analysis or solutions, which an interpretive columnist should do. But when you´re a raging partisan like Ivins on the left and Coulter on the right, incessant bitching is enough to satisfy your fan base and appear important.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 15-12-2003 18:49 ]

Post by **Jared** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:50 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-12-15 18:18, JackDog wrote:
 
 9/11 Bombshell: Mohamed Atta Trained in Baghdad
 
 A bombshell memo written to Saddam Hussein in 2001 and recently uncovered by Iraq´s new coalition government shows that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta was trained in Baghdad to attack the U.S.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 I think this is the article that you´re referring to:
 
 [/quote]<A HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... terr14.xml" TARGET="_blank">Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam</A>
 
 I´m a bit suspicious of it. Partially because of it´s content (linking 9/11 and Niger...a little too good to be true). But more because the US Government hasn´t (to my knowledge) acknowledged this memo either. It´s a bit early though (this news was posted yesterday). If the US Government starts trumpeting this as truth, then it´s worth critically examining. If not (and the US Gov´t has every reason to want something like this to be true), then it´s very likely to be untrue.
 
 <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 Call me a liar and I say F*ck You! I know what I saw and I know why I was there. I have no reason to lie.
 Why do you think you don´t see soldiers being interviewed when they come back from Iraq?
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 I don´t think anyone is calling you a liar. And I think everyone here respects the troops and the job they have done. As for interviews coming back from Iraq...I would love to see that. As long as soldiers weren´t censored, that would be great.
 
 <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 If some of you out there really care about the troops so much. Turn off your X-Boxes and join up and go help them. If you think its all a lie or morale is low,get off your asses and go see for yourself.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 I don´t know jack about morale, and anyone that isn´t talking to the troops shouldn´t. As for whether it´s a lie or not...I don´t know. I think that it is, because the evidence for it hasn´t been presented well. But who knows...it could be that I´m wrong.
 
 <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 F#ck politics. And F*ck the people that turn everything into a political debate. No matter how you twist it,Saddam being captured is a very good thing. And the troops did a great job. This is not about Bush, its about the soldiers.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 It is a great thing. And it is about the soldiers. But people are rightly concerned about why troops are there, and when Iraq comes up, they will discuss it. And it´s much better that we discuss these issues rather than ignore them.
 
 But again, congratulations to the troops and it was a great job by them. Very few will disagree with you about that.

seanmac · Post by **seanmac** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:51 pm

Jackdog
 
 “I saw that camp and I talked to Kurds that say they fought with al-Qaeda elements for the last 10 years.”
 
 Did you see anything in those camps that warranted the level of military force exerted in Iraq? For that matter, did you see anything which suggested that the tactic of military occupation of the country was an effective counter to what you saw in those camps? To put in perspective, the United States has spent significantly more on the Iraq invasion than on the entirety of its domestic counterterrorism measures. In fact, most of the recommended actions for homeland defense have died on the vine for lack of funding because of the money going towards the Iraq invasion.
 
 I´m not doubting that you saw things on the ground that made you think this was a good idea. I´m doubting your ability (without attacking you in the least) to bring perspective to what you saw.
 
 "Why do you think you don´t see soldiers being interviewed when they come back from Iraq? Nobody wants to hear what they saw or how they feel about fighting the war in Iraq. The media is having to good of a time playing politics."
 
 There are plenty of soldier´s commentaries to be found all over the place. But again, troop morale has nothing to do with the reasoning for the war. You can´t send soldiers in to fight somewhere, have them say "this is great" and then use that as a justification for sending them in the first place. As for the media playing poltics, their overwhelming failure in covering the military phase of the campaign any better than a state-sponsored television would suggests otherwise.
 
 “If some of you out there really care about the troops so much. Turn off your X-Boxes and join up and go help them. If you think its all a lie or morale is low,get off your asses and go see for yourself.
 As someone thats lost a brother and a leg there IMO the war is just.You want to say I am wrong..I say F*ck your opinion until you go and see for yourself.”
 
 Jackdog- That’s a very understandable sentiment, and I don’t particularly want to argue with you. It’s tremendously unpleasant to suffer the kind of losses you have had to deal with and contemplate the possibility that they were for anything less than pristine reasons. That’s basic sunk cost at work, and it kept soldiers coming home in body bags from Vietnam for a long time.
 
 “This thread should have been about the troops and what a great job they did in getting this modern day Hitler alive. But instead politics rears its ugly head.”
 
 The head of politics is hardly ugly when it connotes coming to grips with actions and decisions that have tremendous human costs. The desire to ignore politics-to simplify things that are complex, to indulge in sentiments like patriotism or vengeance or whatever else instead of treating things in a thoughtful manner-that´s what has been ugliest about the events of this year.
 
 “This is not about Bush, its about the soldiers."
 
 The soldiers did a great job. Kudos to them.
 
 (But you´re wrong, it´s not about the soldiers at all. Soldiers are by their nature a means to an end, not the end itself. The capture of Saddam was about them right up until he was in custody and the cameras started rolling, but at that point, it became about something else, and that something else is a subject very worthy of debate.)
 [ This message was edited by: seanmac on 15-12-2003 18:54 ]

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:12 pm

Yeah the Hersh pieces were eye-opening. Really reminds you that Bush and the neocons wanted war in Iraq before 9/11, not to mention Wolfowitz suggesting hitting Iraq on 9/12/01.