11 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Last time I checked it seemed that al Qaeda had established a presence in the U.S. too, and Germany, and England, and Saudi Arabia, and so on and so forth.

Just a quick reply to this... I think what the Admin means is that Iraq is providing safe-haven to Al Q in Iraq. That's not the same as Al Q being in the US, England, Germany, etc., as unwelcomed guests. Saudi -- well, that's a whole different story. Just wanted to make that quick point. I know what you mean EK, but I think there's a difference between a cell being in a host country that doesn't want them there and a gov't that may welcome, or even encourage their presence.

11 Feb 2003 | ek said...

If that's what they mean then that's what they should say and then they should provide proof to back that up. To me "al Qaeda has established a presence" is very different from "al Qaeda is being hosted by." By your reading of his statement it would also mean, then, that Iran is a knowing safe haven for al Qaeda. I doubt that Tenet meant to say that.

I thought the bit in Powell's speech to the U.N. about an al Qaeda group operating in Northern Iraq was amusing because it was in the Kurdish controlled region, which is patrolled from the air by U.S. and British planes and effectively out of Hussein's control (it's controlled by the Kurds).

11 Feb 2003 | Tomas said...

It's difficult to believe that there are sound reasons to attack Iraq when more ridiculous than sound arguments for doing so are presented..

11 Feb 2003 | dack said...

Of all the half-assed attempts to connect Saddam with al Qaeda, this is the half-assedest.

11 Feb 2003 | p8 said...

Common people, the link between Al Q and Saddam is absurd.

-Saddam hates Islamic fundamentalism. Saddam spent the last thirty years declaring war against Islamic fundamentalism. He fought a war against Iran in part because of Islamic fundamentalism.
-The iraqis have laws on the books today that provide for an immediate death sentence for proselytizing in the name of Wahabbism (OBL's religion), or indeed any Islam, but they are particularly virulent in their hatred of Wahabs.
-OBL has a history of hating Saddam. He's called him an apostate, somebody who needs to be killed.

Plus if OBL and Saddam are friends, is this a wise move of OBL? Does it help Saddam? I don't think so.

11 Feb 2003 | nathan said...

On andrewsullivan.com a reader comments on the possibility of an Iraq/Al Queda link:

"Note also that Kaiser Wilhelm was positive that reactionary absolutist Russia could not possibly ally itself with regicide-honoring, radical post-Dreyfus France. Wrong. Note also that his Catholic Majesty of France found it easy enough to ally himself with Suleiman the Magnficent against the Catholic Habsburgs. Note also that Cardinal Richelieu found it expedient to aid Protestant Gustavus Adolphus against Catholic Ferdinand. Note also that Adolf Hitler was positive that the capitalist powers' alliance with Josef Stalin could not positively endure."

p8, just because an Iraq/Al Queda connection seems unlikely, don't say it's impossible because of the idealogical and religious, ahem, principles of Saddam and Al Queda, especially since they have shown themselves to be nothing if not pragmatic.

11 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

Well-said overall, EK. I don't know anybody who buys an Iraq-Al Qaeda link other than a few people in the administration who are intent on trying to tie this into the war on terrorism, which otherwise seems to have been forgotten about. Even the CIA and other intelligence agencies don't believe there's a link.

To one particluar comment of yours:

I thought the bit in Powell's speech to the U.N. about an al Qaeda group operating in Northern Iraq was amusing because it was in the Kurdish controlled region, which is patrolled from the air by U.S. and British planes and effectively out of Hussein's control (it's controlled by the Kurds).

This is far beyond amusing. It turns out (article in the LA Times late last week) that the US has known about this base for months and has done nothing about it. If this is indeed an Al Qaeda camp, and the "real" thing we're up to is trying to stomp out terrorism, why would we leave it there? Speculation from intelligence sources in the article is that the administration has let the camp run so it had "evidence" to bring up to go to war with Iraq.

If that's indeed the case, it's frightening to see that the administration would rather preserve a proof point than do what it's supposed to do and what it's stated it will do - act to cripple and disable Al Qaeda at every turn.

If indeed this is an Al Qaeda camp producing toxins that could be used for weaponry, Bush is putting the world at danger by letting it sit there for months while he waits for a chance to use it to drum up support for an invasion of Iraq. I think that is the case whether one supports an Iraq invasion or not.

11 Feb 2003 | p8 said...

OBL wants this war to happen. It's the clash of the cultures. The West vs. Islam. Think of all new the terrorists this will create.

11 Feb 2003 | I hate TLAs said...

I am sitting here trying to figure out what sepratist/militant/relgious group the OBL is...

I get it now, but it's like being at work! Acronyms make me acrimonious!

11 Feb 2003 | Original Jim said...

You imagine people on all sides rubbing their hands with glee.

Dick Cheney will see this as further evidence linking the War on Terror with the War on Saddam.

Saddam will now hope to find new allies amongst the more extreme, militant elements of Islam. Fanatics are always handy during a war.

While Bin Laden (assuming the tape is genuine), looking smugger than ever before simply stirs people up with his talk of Crusaders and Martyrs.

Apparently, everybody is happy.

11 Feb 2003 | Bill Brown said...

I personally find the possibility of war with Iraq worrisome: it's like we're worrying about Mussolini while Hitler's running rampant. Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, to be sure, but he's all about self-aggrandizement. Once he dies, there's going to be a mad scramble to rule Iraq?though he'd probably groom his son as next-in-line for divinity.

The Hitler I speak of is North Korea. These guys are rabid, irrational maniacs. It wouldn't surprise me if they supported terrorists, except I believe that they'd announce it with pride. For them to join the nuclear club would be a serious threat to the entire Asian continent. Yet Bush treats Iraq as the serious threat.

Let me tell you: go after the North Koreans and Saddam will still be there when you're finished.

On a related note, N. Korea Wondering What It Has To Do To Attract U.S. Military Attention from today's The Onion.

11 Feb 2003 | SU said...

(Sing to the tune of "If You're Happy And You Know It, Clap Your Hands")

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

12 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

...

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
Cos it'all the proof I need
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding ain't that easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

12 Feb 2003 | nick said...

from daily kos, a bit of the tape:

taped message believed to be from fugitive militant Osama bin Laden branded Iraq's government on Tuesday as "infidels" but said Iraq's leaders shared his goal of fighting the United States.

[...]

The statement said that Iraq's rulers had "lost their credibility long ago" and that "socialists are infidels wherever they are".

that's not something i'd say about any partner of mine, even if i were a crazy terrorist leader-type. just thought i'd share.

12 Feb 2003 | steve said...

I think the latest amptoon is appropriate.

Cycles weekly so get it while it's hot. I'd link directly to it but the permalink in the znet archives is u-g-l-y.

13 Feb 2003 | curious said...

nytimes editorial made an interesting observation on the motives of both sides and timing... (free registration required):

dowd editorial 02-12-03

13 Feb 2003 | Paperhead said...

It's just a war in search of a justification. The invasion of Iraq has been suggested by members of the current administration and their various advisers ever since the first Gulf War. People like Richard Perle are so keen on the idea that they even switch party allegiances in order to be able to try and promote the war with whoever is in office be they democrats or republicans. Rice wrote in favour of an invasion in the bulletin of the State Department's foreign affairs council in January-February 2000. About consolidating US national interests. Rice's argument was essentially that American values are universal and that everyone in the world wants and aspires to have what the Americans have. Therefore, if the United States went around the world and imposed its values and democracy on everyone in the world, this would give people what they really want. Several of the familiar names around this administration, like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Fibes, John Bolton and others also have very strong ties with the Israeli Likud Party, and have - since the mid-90s - been encouraging the Israeli administrations that Iraq must fall. None of this has anything at all to do with terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, and it most certainly doesn't have anything to do with al Qaida and international terrorism.

13 Feb 2003 | dave said...

I wonder how many osbl tapes the americans have in their possession like time release capsules.Coincidence? France Germany Russia Belgium not supporting war in Iraq.very timely, Osma releases another of his stir up the terrorists propoganda undated tapes.America and Britain want war so bad they can taste the oil.What a bunch of war mongering bullcrap they are unloading on the world any one who believes this whole mess is not oil related should invest in eron stock right away!

17 Feb 2003 | p8 said...

Lying Us Into War: Exposing Bush and His "Techniques of Deceit"

24 Nov 2003 | J Brooks said...

Early perusal of this site sparked thoughts of "here's serious intent', but then I saw a NYT quote.
I read again with interest and realized, after checking with various sources, that this is just another one of those "to hell with the United States and our troops, we must get Bush at all cost!"
What a bunch of swill, but the perfect food for swine gathered at the liberal trough!