Senate report on Saddam and al Qaeda: more turtles? — 9 Comments
I’m sorry, but what you wrote makes no sense.
Remember: no one can prove a negative.
It’s not possible to prove that Saddam didn’t have ties with Al-queda. It’s impossible to prove that you are not Hillary Clinton in disguise. It’s impossible to prove that I’m not an alien… etc.
The burden of proof is on those who make the claim. Here, the burden of proof is on those who claim that there was a link between Saddam and Al-queda. No such proof has been furnished.
All the evidence indicates otherwise. Saddam’s regime was secular, and he hated Islamists. The Baathists and Islamists were sworn enemies of each other.
By peddling baseless theories like this, you just give conservatism and republicans a bad name at a time when we conservatives are already suffering from a massive crisis of credibility as far as the public is concerned. You’re doing our cause disservice here.
Well, I guess I am an old-conservative, not a neo-conservative. You know, we old-fashioned folks believe that the truth still matters. What an old-fashioned idea.
“The burden of proof is on those who make the claim. Here, the burden of proof is on those who claim that there was a link between Saddam and Al-queda. No such proof has been furnished.”
The 9/11 commission said that there were links. But, the media/Democrats are determined to rewrite the past.
Rick: I think your logic is faulty. I’m not peddling any theories that important and meaningful links between Saddam and al Qaeda are proven. My point in linking to this piece was simply that taking Saddam’s word that there were none is an absurdity.
I’m sorry Rick, but what you write makes no sense, or at least demonstrates that you didn’t follow the link.
You wrote: “Saddam’s regime was secular, and he hated Islamists. The Baathists and Islamists were sworn enemies of each other.” This is sort of like the “turtles all the way down” phenomenon. A falsehood repeated so frequently it is taken as fact. But, of course, it is without evidence – you yourself offer none, nor have I ever seen any given.
But you say the burden of proof is on those claiming There was a connection between Saddam and Islamic extremists. Fine. Follow the link provided and you come to an article which provides that proof. It lays out several examples of occasions when Saddam’s regime was quite chummy with Islamists.
I’m not sure if there is any proof that Saddam worked specifically with Bin Laden (though there seems to be evidence of joint cooperation with third parties), but it amazes me that people are still rolling out, as proof that Saddam couldn’t possibly have cooperated with Al Qaeda, the old saw that the two groups hated each other.
Maybe they did, but they sure as hell hate us more and they have worked together frequently in the past. And if that’s not enough to convince you, how about their current cooperation in Iraq? It has frequently been noted that the “insurgents” are a mix of former Baathists and party members with foreign (and some native) Jihadists.
They are clearly working together now, why is it so difficult to believe all the evidence showing they worked together in the past as well?
Hell, even Shia and Sunni extremists have worked together many times against the US and Isreal, and we know how much they hate each other.
It is you who is peddling (or maybe just giving another push to) the baseless theory that Saddam and Baathists hated Islamist and wouldn’t work together. It’s a myth.
I was going to comment on Rick’s statement, but Jen beat me to it. A little background here: I’m a US Army vet, an Arabic linguist, and I’ve been to Iraq on several occasions, in addition to other countries in the Middle East (as it happens, I was in Jordan on 9/11). The nature of my job needless to say required me to familiarize myself with the Arab world, its culture, along with Islam. I’d hardly call myself an expert, just an informed layman. I’ve gained my knowledge by asking questions, simple observation, and making friends with people throughout the Middle East and Arab-American friends/coworkers here at home.
I’ve heard similar statements to those Rick made from others, and have come away just as frustrated and angry as I was when I read his statement. Rick’s statement shows that those in opposition to the War on Terror and Iraq are only interested in the most shallow interpretations of Arab culture and presenting them as arguments of why we should/shouldn’t do one action. In other words, Party A hated Party B, ergo they would never work together. This is patent nonsense.
There is an old saying in the Arab world, and no it’s not the more famous “The enemy of my enemy…” yada yada. It is: I and my brother against my cousin, I and my cousin against the world (or the foreigner). That is Arab culture in a nutshell. The default power structure in the Arab world in general, and particularly in Iraq, is the tribe. Saddam, perhaps better than anyone, understood this perfectly, and cynically used it to his advantage. He cajoled, threatened, terrorized, and killed enough to make his tribe the true ruler of Iraq.
Alliances of convenience are frequently made throughout the Arab world, and just as frequently broken. They are made regardless or religious, political, or tribal leanings, and are made when short term mutual interests are involved. That the parties involved hate each other is irrelevant, what matters is the endstate. When he wasn’t trying to exterminate the Kurds, he also made short-term alliances with the KDP’s Mas’ud Barzani to attack their more forceful rival, Jalal Talabani of the PUK. Bin Ladin, it’s true, was openly disdainful of Saddam. Not as well known is that he was equally disdainful of Hasan Al-Turabi, the spiritual leader of Sudan, as well as Mullah Omar of the Taliban. Nevertheless, he took their support because he needed it. Newly declassified documents clearly point to the links of Iraq with Al-Qa’ida, not with 9/11 mind you, but with contacts and offers of support. Such documents don’t fit into Rick’s worldview however, and are easily dismissed by such an “old-fashioned” advocate for the “truth”.
Rick, the only disservice being done here is by you, and the disservice being done is to your own credibility. But hey, as your sneering denunciation of neo at the end of your staggeringly intellectually lazy post demonstrates, it’s always nice to know that my intellect
Whoops, got cut off.
Anyway, as I was saying, it’s always nice to know my intellectual and moral betters will be there to point out how wrong and misguided I am, no matter what my level of experience is.
Jen writes:
I’m not sure if there is any proof that Saddam worked specifically with Bin Laden (though there seems to be evidence of joint cooperation with third parties), but it amazes me that people are still rolling out, as proof that Saddam couldn’t possibly have cooperated with Al Qaeda, the old saw that the two groups hated each other.
Maybe they did, but they sure as hell hate us more and they have worked together frequently in the past. And if that’s not enough to convince you, how about their current cooperation in Iraq? It has frequently been noted that the “insurgents” are a mix of former Baathists and party members with foreign (and some native) Jihadists.
They are clearly working together now, why is it so difficult to believe all the evidence showing they worked together in the past as well?
“Belief” is not sufficient. You don’t go about invading countries, endangering the lives of thousands of troops and millions of civilians, on the basis of “belief”. You need “proof”.
Yes, the Baathists and Bin Ladenists seem to be collaborating now. But that is happening only after the invasion. Thanks to the neocons, whose ill-advised push to invasion has now managed to unite these two groups, of whose prior collaboration before the war no credible indication has been found.
As Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times on September 18: “What torture produces in practice is misinformation, as its victims, desperate to end the pain, tell interrogators whatever they want to hear. Thus Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi — who ABC News says was subjected to both the cold cell and water boarding — told his questioners that Saddam Hussein’s regime had trained members of Al Qaeda in the use of biochemical weapons. This “confession” became a key part of the Bush administration’s case for invading Iraq — but it was pure invention.”
But I guess to you “neo conservatives” the truth has never mattered very much, has it?
Rick, we weren’t discussing the reasoning behind the invasion. We were discussing whether or not Saddam worked with Islamic extremists, and the answer is, demonstrably, yes. Once again, didn’t you follow the link in Neo’s post? These are documented example’s of cooperation. We didn’t make this stuff up.
We weren’t discussing whether or not this provided sufficient justification for war (Or whether, indeed, this was ever part of the stated justification for war), merely whether or not it was true.
What both cjd and I have responded to is the oft-repeated FALSEHOOD that “Saddam and the Islamists hated each other. They would never work together.”
They would, they do, they did. We have offered you far more reasoning and proof of this, than you have offered for the lie that they wouldn’t work together. In fact, you have offered no proof or reasoning along those lines whatsoever.
Read the link and read cjd’s informed response.
If you are using Paul Krugman as a source, the truth probably doesn’t mean much to you, either.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
I’m sorry, but what you wrote makes no sense.
Remember: no one can prove a negative.
It’s not possible to prove that Saddam didn’t have ties with Al-queda. It’s impossible to prove that you are not Hillary Clinton in disguise. It’s impossible to prove that I’m not an alien… etc.
The burden of proof is on those who make the claim. Here, the burden of proof is on those who claim that there was a link between Saddam and Al-queda. No such proof has been furnished.
All the evidence indicates otherwise. Saddam’s regime was secular, and he hated Islamists. The Baathists and Islamists were sworn enemies of each other.
By peddling baseless theories like this, you just give conservatism and republicans a bad name at a time when we conservatives are already suffering from a massive crisis of credibility as far as the public is concerned. You’re doing our cause disservice here.
Well, I guess I am an old-conservative, not a neo-conservative. You know, we old-fashioned folks believe that the truth still matters. What an old-fashioned idea.
“The burden of proof is on those who make the claim. Here, the burden of proof is on those who claim that there was a link between Saddam and Al-queda. No such proof has been furnished.”
The 9/11 commission said that there were links. But, the media/Democrats are determined to rewrite the past.
Rick: I think your logic is faulty. I’m not peddling any theories that important and meaningful links between Saddam and al Qaeda are proven. My point in linking to this piece was simply that taking Saddam’s word that there were none is an absurdity.
I’m sorry Rick, but what you write makes no sense, or at least demonstrates that you didn’t follow the link.
You wrote: “Saddam’s regime was secular, and he hated Islamists. The Baathists and Islamists were sworn enemies of each other.” This is sort of like the “turtles all the way down” phenomenon. A falsehood repeated so frequently it is taken as fact. But, of course, it is without evidence – you yourself offer none, nor have I ever seen any given.
But you say the burden of proof is on those claiming There was a connection between Saddam and Islamic extremists. Fine. Follow the link provided and you come to an article which provides that proof. It lays out several examples of occasions when Saddam’s regime was quite chummy with Islamists.
I’m not sure if there is any proof that Saddam worked specifically with Bin Laden (though there seems to be evidence of joint cooperation with third parties), but it amazes me that people are still rolling out, as proof that Saddam couldn’t possibly have cooperated with Al Qaeda, the old saw that the two groups hated each other.
Maybe they did, but they sure as hell hate us more and they have worked together frequently in the past. And if that’s not enough to convince you, how about their current cooperation in Iraq? It has frequently been noted that the “insurgents” are a mix of former Baathists and party members with foreign (and some native) Jihadists.
They are clearly working together now, why is it so difficult to believe all the evidence showing they worked together in the past as well?
Hell, even Shia and Sunni extremists have worked together many times against the US and Isreal, and we know how much they hate each other.
It is you who is peddling (or maybe just giving another push to) the baseless theory that Saddam and Baathists hated Islamist and wouldn’t work together. It’s a myth.
I was going to comment on Rick’s statement, but Jen beat me to it. A little background here: I’m a US Army vet, an Arabic linguist, and I’ve been to Iraq on several occasions, in addition to other countries in the Middle East (as it happens, I was in Jordan on 9/11). The nature of my job needless to say required me to familiarize myself with the Arab world, its culture, along with Islam. I’d hardly call myself an expert, just an informed layman. I’ve gained my knowledge by asking questions, simple observation, and making friends with people throughout the Middle East and Arab-American friends/coworkers here at home.
I’ve heard similar statements to those Rick made from others, and have come away just as frustrated and angry as I was when I read his statement. Rick’s statement shows that those in opposition to the War on Terror and Iraq are only interested in the most shallow interpretations of Arab culture and presenting them as arguments of why we should/shouldn’t do one action. In other words, Party A hated Party B, ergo they would never work together. This is patent nonsense.
There is an old saying in the Arab world, and no it’s not the more famous “The enemy of my enemy…” yada yada. It is: I and my brother against my cousin, I and my cousin against the world (or the foreigner). That is Arab culture in a nutshell. The default power structure in the Arab world in general, and particularly in Iraq, is the tribe. Saddam, perhaps better than anyone, understood this perfectly, and cynically used it to his advantage. He cajoled, threatened, terrorized, and killed enough to make his tribe the true ruler of Iraq.
Alliances of convenience are frequently made throughout the Arab world, and just as frequently broken. They are made regardless or religious, political, or tribal leanings, and are made when short term mutual interests are involved. That the parties involved hate each other is irrelevant, what matters is the endstate. When he wasn’t trying to exterminate the Kurds, he also made short-term alliances with the KDP’s Mas’ud Barzani to attack their more forceful rival, Jalal Talabani of the PUK. Bin Ladin, it’s true, was openly disdainful of Saddam. Not as well known is that he was equally disdainful of Hasan Al-Turabi, the spiritual leader of Sudan, as well as Mullah Omar of the Taliban. Nevertheless, he took their support because he needed it. Newly declassified documents clearly point to the links of Iraq with Al-Qa’ida, not with 9/11 mind you, but with contacts and offers of support. Such documents don’t fit into Rick’s worldview however, and are easily dismissed by such an “old-fashioned” advocate for the “truth”.
Rick, the only disservice being done here is by you, and the disservice being done is to your own credibility. But hey, as your sneering denunciation of neo at the end of your staggeringly intellectually lazy post demonstrates, it’s always nice to know that my intellect
Whoops, got cut off.
Anyway, as I was saying, it’s always nice to know my intellectual and moral betters will be there to point out how wrong and misguided I am, no matter what my level of experience is.
Jen writes:
I’m not sure if there is any proof that Saddam worked specifically with Bin Laden (though there seems to be evidence of joint cooperation with third parties), but it amazes me that people are still rolling out, as proof that Saddam couldn’t possibly have cooperated with Al Qaeda, the old saw that the two groups hated each other.
Maybe they did, but they sure as hell hate us more and they have worked together frequently in the past. And if that’s not enough to convince you, how about their current cooperation in Iraq? It has frequently been noted that the “insurgents” are a mix of former Baathists and party members with foreign (and some native) Jihadists.
They are clearly working together now, why is it so difficult to believe all the evidence showing they worked together in the past as well?
“Belief” is not sufficient. You don’t go about invading countries, endangering the lives of thousands of troops and millions of civilians, on the basis of “belief”. You need “proof”.
Yes, the Baathists and Bin Ladenists seem to be collaborating now. But that is happening only after the invasion. Thanks to the neocons, whose ill-advised push to invasion has now managed to unite these two groups, of whose prior collaboration before the war no credible indication has been found.
As Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times on September 18: “What torture produces in practice is misinformation, as its victims, desperate to end the pain, tell interrogators whatever they want to hear. Thus Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi — who ABC News says was subjected to both the cold cell and water boarding — told his questioners that Saddam Hussein’s regime had trained members of Al Qaeda in the use of biochemical weapons. This “confession” became a key part of the Bush administration’s case for invading Iraq — but it was pure invention.”
But I guess to you “neo conservatives” the truth has never mattered very much, has it?
Rick, we weren’t discussing the reasoning behind the invasion. We were discussing whether or not Saddam worked with Islamic extremists, and the answer is, demonstrably, yes. Once again, didn’t you follow the link in Neo’s post? These are documented example’s of cooperation. We didn’t make this stuff up.
We weren’t discussing whether or not this provided sufficient justification for war (Or whether, indeed, this was ever part of the stated justification for war), merely whether or not it was true.
What both cjd and I have responded to is the oft-repeated FALSEHOOD that “Saddam and the Islamists hated each other. They would never work together.”
They would, they do, they did. We have offered you far more reasoning and proof of this, than you have offered for the lie that they wouldn’t work together. In fact, you have offered no proof or reasoning along those lines whatsoever.
Read the link and read cjd’s informed response.
If you are using Paul Krugman as a source, the truth probably doesn’t mean much to you, either.