Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 62 (147393)
10-05-2004 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
10-04-2004 11:20 PM


Rumsfeld doubts Saddam-Laden link
Indeed. This is particularly timely:
Rumsfeld doubts Saddam-Laden link
.
.
.
In front of an audience in New York, Mr Rumsfeld was asked about connections between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.
BBC NEWS | Americas | Rumsfeld questions Saddam-Bin Laden link
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 10-04-2004 11:20 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-05-2004 10:00 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 32 of 62 (147410)
10-05-2004 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
10-04-2004 6:59 PM


Why am I reminded of that scene in Robocop?
Yeah, but that one was much cooler, and in the end all of the greedy bastards as well as the robot were blown to pieces.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 10-04-2004 6:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 62 (147440)
10-05-2004 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Primordial Egg
10-05-2004 2:30 AM


Re: Rumsfeld doubts Saddam-Laden link
I've been exposed as a commie raghead lover. When Rumsfeld said of Saddam and Al-Qaeda:
to my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two
What he actually meant to say was:
I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between al-Qaida and Iraq
all of a sudden.
Rumsfeld: Iraq/al-Qaida remarks 'misunderstood' | World news | The Guardian
Glad that's cleared up then.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-05-2004 2:30 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nator, posted 10-05-2004 10:19 AM Primordial Egg has not replied
 Message 36 by Loudmouth, posted 10-05-2004 12:10 PM Primordial Egg has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 34 of 62 (147444)
10-05-2004 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Primordial Egg
10-05-2004 10:00 AM


Re: Rumsfeld doubts Saddam-Laden link
I wonder where ThingsChange and Paisano are?
Very quiet these days, those two, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-05-2004 10:00 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 35 of 62 (147482)
10-05-2004 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
10-04-2004 6:09 PM


Hi Crash,
One of the fascinating (to me, anyway) aspects of the entire WMD/UN inspections regime issue you raise is the appparent lack of any discussion anywhere as to what was in it for Hussein (I mean, allowing the inspectors back in). He'd quite clearly been playing a shell game during the entire course of inspections (just what the "pea" was he was shuffling around is another interesting question) until he booted UNSCOM out the first time in Dec 1998. He finally agreed in 2002 to accept a much more intrusive inspection regime under UN and IAEA control - after four years of utter silence when nobody knows what was going on inside Iraq - under threat of military action. I think it's interesting to speculate on why then? I find it difficult to accept that it was only through fear of war with the US - he'd been defying everybody and their brothers for a decade, after all. A couple of possibilities come to mind:
1. He truly didn't have anything to hide either because the UNSCOM inspections had been successful (if so, why did he kick 'em out in the first place?) or because, during the four-year hiatus, he'd gotten rid of the whatever was left on his own initiative (possible, but why?).
2. He'd eliminated the remaining evidence one way or the other because he was getting desperate to get the sanctions lifted without losing the ability to re-establish his R&D and production once he was given a clean bill of health - a case impossible if the US invaded.
3. He was led to believe that the new inspection regime would be pro forma, or at least no worse than the previous one - a dangerous assumption, but possibly justified by his prior experience with UNSCOM.
Basically, I believe Hussein was running a gambit, another throw of the dice. I think he was hoping to keep the capability to reinivgorate his chem/bio program as he wished after everybody got off his back. There's an interesting CIA report entitled "Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions 1 January Through 30 June 1999" which I think is available on line that you might find interesting. In it, it states:
quote:
We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox [1998] to reconstitute its WMD programs, although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely. The United Nations assesses that Baghdad has the capability to reinitiate both its CW and BW programs within a few weeks to months, but without an inspection monitoring program, it is difficult to determine if Iraq has done so.
Note that this is NOT the infamous, and justly criticized, CIA NIE that was used to justify the "Use of Force" Congressional resolution. This assessment was published in June 1999. In addition, there's evidence that Hussein - even under the new inspection regime - continued to play games. See, for example, the CRS report Iraq: U.N. Inspections for Weapons of Mass Destruction from Oct 2003.
quote:
The U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conducted over 750 inspections at 550 sites. These inspections seemed to benefit from strengthened authorities under the new U.N. resolution, new technologies, a better relationship between UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and pressure from the threat of military strikes. Nonetheless, most observers agree that Iraqi compliance was superficial and oriented to facilitating the process of inspections, rather than on providing cooperation in substantive matters. In addition, new practical, technical, and political challenges arose. There were allegations that not all actionable intelligence was shared with inspectors and that the threat of war increased pressure on inspectors to produce some definitive knowledge and helped politicize their investigations. Many alleged that Iraq might have hidden weapons activities in dual-use facilities over the last four years, thus complicating inspections. Ultimately, judging Iraq’s compliance may have relied less on thresholds of evidence, than on assumptions about the effectiveness and utility of inspections at that point in time. (emphasis added)
In other words, even WITH the new, intrusive inspections, there was substantial doubt that Hussein was being, hmm, completely forthcoming. You might find this Carnegie Endowment for Peace report, WMD In Iraq: Evidence and Implications interesting. It's a bit long, and I personally don't agree with all of their conclusions (to put it mildly), but it provides an excellent overview of the state of play in intelligence and the WMD issue prior to and leading to the Iraq War.
Oh, and to prevent Moose from suspending me for being off-topic, I never thought or agreed with the contention that there was any substantive linkage between Iraq and Al Qaeda. As our friend RAZD so eloquently and bluntly puts it - that was a lie from the git go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 10-04-2004 6:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 10-05-2004 12:13 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 39 by Loudmouth, posted 10-05-2004 12:23 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 62 (147485)
10-05-2004 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Primordial Egg
10-05-2004 10:00 AM


Re: Rumsfeld doubts Saddam-Laden link
Primordial Egg,
From your article Rumsfeld: Iraq/al-Qaida remarks 'misunderstood' | World news | The Guardian :
In a statement issued several hours after he had told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York that "to my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two", Mr Rumsfeld claimed he had been "misunderstood".
"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between al-Qaida and Iraq," the statement said. "This assessment was based upon points provided to me by [the] then CIA director George Tenet to describe the CIA's understanding of the al-Qaida Iraq relationship."
Mr Rumsfeld's comments in New York, however, were a reversal of the position adopted by many senior Bush administration figures.
So what was that? Was that a "flip flop" or a "mixed message"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-05-2004 10:00 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-05-2004 12:13 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 62 (147487)
10-05-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Loudmouth
10-05-2004 12:10 PM


Re: Rumsfeld doubts Saddam-Laden link
Loudmouth writes:
So what was that? Was that a "flip flop" or a "mixed message"?
He was misunderstood by the liberal pinko media, and you are an evildoer trying to take away our freedoms for trying to suggest otherwise. Obviously.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Loudmouth, posted 10-05-2004 12:10 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Loudmouth, posted 10-05-2004 12:25 PM Primordial Egg has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 38 of 62 (147488)
10-05-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Quetzal
10-05-2004 12:06 PM


Do you believe that Hussein's response was any different than ours would be, if Canada decided to mandate inspectors for our missing WMD's?
I mean, there's a limit to how far you can take your argument. Did anyone expect Saddam to drop his pants and give inspectors free reign of the country? Is that something we would have expected anyone to do, including ourselves?
It's not surprising that Hussein would have tried to play it in such a way as to maintain some clandestine weapons program; whether or not he actually had one, or was just told he had one, is up in the air. After all, the US only invades if you're working on WMD's; if you already have them, you're safe.
At this point, from the lesson of our actions, getting WMD's as soon as possible is in the best interest of every country that doesn't already have them. That doesn't seem like a positive outcome to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Quetzal, posted 10-05-2004 12:06 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Quetzal, posted 10-05-2004 1:16 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 62 (147498)
10-05-2004 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Quetzal
10-05-2004 12:06 PM


quote:
1. He truly didn't have anything to hide either because the UNSCOM inspections had been successful (if so, why did he kick 'em out in the first place?) or because, during the four-year hiatus, he'd gotten rid of the whatever was left on his own initiative (possible, but why?).
  —Quetzal
Saddam kicked out the inspectors so he could continue using torture and killings to intimidate the populace. Inspectors, even if they had already scoured every inch of Iraq, should have stayed in the country for this reason. Increasing pressure should have mounted once these types of activities were discovered. Saddam MAY HAVE removed WMD's because they were a liability. The presence of WMD's did nothing to strenghthen his position in Iraq and were a liability if they were round by the UN.
In my opinion, Saddam was playing a bluff. He was hoping that the THREAT of WMD's would be enough to first keep his neighbors from invading, and secondly to keep the US from invading. If the US or the UN called the bluff all they had to do was invite inspectors in and show them that they don't have WMD's now nor did they in the past 4 years. Saddam never thought ahead on this one.
quote:
Oh, and to prevent Moose from suspending me for being off-topic, I never thought or agreed with the contention that there was any substantive linkage between Iraq and Al Qaeda. As our friend RAZD so eloquently and bluntly puts it - that was a lie from the git go.
This is the whole problem. Bush's case was not that Saddam had WMD's, but that he had WMD's he would give to terrorists which made Iraq a "urgent and grave risk". Without the link to the one group that had the chutzpah to use WMD's, I don't see how this is justified. Saddam has obvious ties to Palestinian terrorists and yet WMD's have never reared their ugly heads in the Gaza Strip nor in the Golan Heights. If Saddam had WMD's and he was willing to give them to terrorists then why didn't it happen over the past 4 years in Israel, a country he hates more than the US? We didn't suffer an intelligence break down, the Bush administration suffered a loss of intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Quetzal, posted 10-05-2004 12:06 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-05-2004 1:02 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 62 (147500)
10-05-2004 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Primordial Egg
10-05-2004 12:13 PM


Re: Rumsfeld doubts Saddam-Laden link
quote:
He was misunderstood by the liberal pinko media, and you are an evildoer trying to take away our freedoms for trying to suggest otherwise. Obviously.
Oh, so when Kerry is misunderstood it is a flip flop, but when anyone in the Bush administration is misunderstood it is because of the liberally biased media. Nice try, but I ain't buying it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-05-2004 12:13 PM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-05-2004 1:15 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 62 (147521)
10-05-2004 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Loudmouth
10-05-2004 12:23 PM


Loudmouth writes:
Saddam kicked out the inspectors so he could continue using torture and killings to intimidate the populace. Inspectors, even if they had already scoured every inch of Iraq, should have stayed in the country for this reason. Increasing pressure should have mounted once these types of activities were discovered. Saddam MAY HAVE removed WMD's because they were a liability. The presence of WMD's did nothing to strenghthen his position in Iraq and were a liability if they were round by the UN.
In my opinion, Saddam was playing a bluff. He was hoping that the THREAT of WMD's would be enough to first keep his neighbors from invading, and secondly to keep the US from invading. If the US or the UN called the bluff all they had to do was invite inspectors in and show them that they don't have WMD's now nor did they in the past 4 years. Saddam never thought ahead on this one.
One of the things which I don't think gets the coverage it deserves is the effect that sanctions had on the people of Iraq. Several high ranking members of the UN, including the then Assistant Secretary General, Denis Halliday, resigned in protest accusing the US and Britain of a deliberate policy of genocide. Madeleine Albright, when questioned about the Unicef report which had 500,000 children dying in Iraq as a direct result of sanctions remarked that "the price was worth it".
Iraq was getting mixed messages about how and when sanctions would ever be lifted. The UN resolution had words to the effect that sanctions would only be lifted when Iraq complied with its disarmament requirements (whatever that means) but subsequent remarks by the US administration, including Clinton, indicated that sanctions would remain until Saddam was gone. Given that you'd have to prove a negative anyway and sanctions would not be lifted while he was in power, of course it was in Saddam's best interests to keep inspections (and therefore sanctions) going for as long as possible, even though Scott Ritter, a member of Unscom, declared Iraq effectively disarmed in 1998. When it was discovered that some of the Unscom inspectors were reporting back their findings to the Isreali governement, then of course it was obvious to all in the Iraqi regime that the inspections were to be a never-ending sham.
From what I recall, the UN resolution called upon all nations to reveal any intelligence they had about weapons to Unscom and then Unmovic, also something that was never done, as Hans Blix himself said. No other nation was admonished for non-compliance with the resolution.
Personally, I don't think there is anything anyone outside the US administration, least of all Saddam, could have done to prevent a war.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Loudmouth, posted 10-05-2004 12:23 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Loudmouth, posted 10-05-2004 5:38 PM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 62 (147524)
10-05-2004 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Loudmouth
10-05-2004 12:25 PM


Re: Rumsfeld doubts Saddam-Laden link
Loudmouth writes:
Oh, so when Kerry is misunderstood it is a flip flop, but when anyone in the Bush administration is misunderstood it is because of the liberally biased media. Nice try, but I ain't buying it.
You're obviously brainwashed. I bet you've got posters of Hitler and Bin Laden on your (toilet) wall.
PE
edit: had to put the 'i' in Hitler
This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-05-2004 12:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Loudmouth, posted 10-05-2004 12:25 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Loudmouth, posted 10-05-2004 5:30 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 43 of 62 (147525)
10-05-2004 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by crashfrog
10-05-2004 12:13 PM


I mean, there's a limit to how far you can take your argument. Did anyone expect Saddam to drop his pants and give inspectors free reign of the country? Is that something we would have expected anyone to do, including ourselves?
Well, in point of fact, yeah. Most of us DID expect Hussein to "drop his pants". Especially if I'm right and it was in his interest to maintain a solid capability. After all, that was one of the key provisos in GHW Bush's cease-fire agreement back in '91. Sort of, "We won't finish kicking your tail off the planet if you open your facilities to UN inspectors." (As an aside, now THERE was a bluff - GHW had absolutely no intention of continuing on to Baghdad. He knew exactly what to expect if he did. I thought it one of the most hysterically funny moments of the debate when Kerry quoted GWB's father's book on that very subject. ) I think Loudmouth is on the money - Hussein really miscalculated our president's desire to go to war. Otherwise he wouldn't have kept playing the shell game under the new inspections (see the CRS report I linked above).
It's not surprising that Hussein would have tried to play it in such a way as to maintain some clandestine weapons program; whether or not he actually had one, or was just told he had one, is up in the air. After all, the US only invades if you're working on WMD's; if you already have them, you're safe.
I'm not so sure this is correct. Certainly, if you have nukes - say backed up by a million-man military like North Korea - you're pretty safe. Probably why every two-bit dictator on the planet's trying to acquire them. However, we quite readily attacked Iraq after they invaded Kuwait - in spite of quite certain and clear information that they had chem and bio weapons (after all, he'd just finished using them fairly extensively against both the Iranians and his own people). I think it's a bad idea to lump all CBR weapons into the too-easily-confused "WMD" category. Also, there is no question he maintained the capability, or the ability to renew the capability quite easily. Those dual-use facilities, for one thing (See the Carnegie report). He was even apparently trying to sneak in some new nuclear capability - something that everyone agrees was thoroughly dismantled after the first Gulf War.
At this point, from the lesson of our actions, getting WMD's as soon as possible is in the best interest of every country that doesn't already have them. That doesn't seem like a positive outcome to me.
I hadn't talked about "positive outcomes", mostly 'cause I'm not sure in my own mind that the Iraqi invasion has generated much positive beyond definitively getting rid of Hussein himself. Which is not a bad thing, after all. However, you're right about one thing - countries like Iran see the difference between a chemical capability which can be snuffed out relatively easily and nukes, which can't be. Iran is playing a very dangerous card - my assessment is they're seizing the opportunity to join the nuke club while the US is stretched too thinly to stop them. If they succeed, then I'd have to say regardless of the final result in Iraq, it was generally a bad thing to go in there. We don't need any new regional superpowers.
Do you believe that Hussein's response was any different than ours would be, if Canada decided to mandate inspectors for our missing WMD's?
Those damn Canadians. Always sticking their noses into other people's business.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 10-05-2004 12:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 10-05-2004 5:35 PM Quetzal has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 44 of 62 (147535)
10-05-2004 1:46 PM


A question for all or any?????
Iraq had every reason to believe that the US supported, or at a very minimum would not oppose, the initial invasion of Kuwait. This turned out to be a misunderstanding that was certainly the equal of Dean Acheson's remark on "Defensive Perimeters".
So, were April Galaspie's remarks simply taken out of context? Did she play a similar role related to China and Taiwan? Did she accurately reflect current US policy?
Is there a real problem that so many high ranking officials continue to make statements (see recent remarks by Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice etal) that send a mixed or ambiguous message to the world in general and to those critical individuals who actually do make history changing decisions?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 62 (147617)
10-05-2004 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Primordial Egg
10-05-2004 1:15 PM


Re: Rumsfeld doubts Saddam-Laden link
quote:
You're obviously brainwashed. I bet you've got posters of Hitler and Bin Laden on your (toilet) wall.
Am I missing the sarcasm here? Pulling my leg perhaps?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-05-2004 1:15 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024