Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda
deanesmay
One of the odder political phenomena I've noted in the last year is that certain people seem to think that "Saddam had probable ties to Al Qaeda" means the same thing as "Saddam was behind 9/11."
I don't know, am I the only one smart enough to notice that those two are not the same thing? We do not and never have had much evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11, nor has our government ever seriously claimed such a thing. But we've long had evidence--evidence which has only grown with time, by the way--that Saddam's regime had friendly, cooperative ties to Al Qaeda.
I find myself wondering why so many people can't tell the difference. Claire notes yet another conflation of these two different propositions, this time by Tom Brokaw of all people.
It's kind of annoying, isn't it? But then, we do live in a world where certain elitist wags try to tell you that "70% of Americans believed that Saddam was behind 9/11" even though no poll ever (ever) showed any such thing.
I don't know, am I the only one smart enough to notice that those two are not the same thing? We do not and never have had much evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11, nor has our government ever seriously claimed such a thing. But we've long had evidence--evidence which has only grown with time, by the way--that Saddam's regime had friendly, cooperative ties to Al Qaeda.
I find myself wondering why so many people can't tell the difference. Claire notes yet another conflation of these two different propositions, this time by Tom Brokaw of all people.
It's kind of annoying, isn't it? But then, we do live in a world where certain elitist wags try to tell you that "70% of Americans believed that Saddam was behind 9/11" even though no poll ever (ever) showed any such thing.
misleadclaim last year that a high level Iraqi intel agent meet with an Al-Qada leader in Prague, but then tried to back off that statement a few weeks ago by saying that he "never said that."While he never actually said, "I am 100% positive" that those events took place, he might as well have because the insinuation was clearly there. Now, he is a politician, and knows how to take both sides of the issues, so I'll give him that, but if he tries to deny that he didn't try to link the two together (9/11 and Saddam) to justify the war, he can
go fuck himselfjust forget it. That dog won't hunt.No, he didn't try to link Saddam and 9/11 together. Your dog won't hunt (actually I think it's been stuffed). I was salavating to hear the Adminstration link Saddam and 9/11. I wanted it so bad I could taste it. But they never did.
Next time you accuse someone of deceit, remember, it could just be that they were wrong, or even that you are wrong.
In this case, its you.
Yours,
Wince
Then your allies in the partisan press, the cable channels and talk radio do the heavy lifting of innuendo and whispering campaigning, then the story gets recycled back to the main stream media, then the administration does absolutely noting to deny the speculation and let the public draw the wrong conclusion but it helps your case and allows you to deny it saying it later on even though your silence gave the notion tacit approval.
What exactly could Cheney have said in response to that question other than what he actually said?
I'm curious.
Problem is, the White House has said them both at different times — declaring the former today and the latter back in March of 2003, on the eve of the invasion:Insert punchline here about Cheney shooting off mouth and hitting foot (which had previously been inserted into said mouth).
I'm just saying.
When one mentions Sylvester Stallone, most people think of one of the various Rocky movies, even though he has done a variety of other movies.
When one mentions Van Gogh, people can be forgiven if their minds immediately picture a starry night, or even if they think about a missing ear, in spite of his many other works.
When one mentions Al Qaeda, most people remember the attacks on New York. Al Qaeda has been responsible for many other attacks, but it was that one that made their reputation solid. In fact, it was that one portion, against New york, that cemented Al Qaeda in the minds of most of the western world, so much so that I often think the attack on the Pentagon was lost in the background.
Ask anyone who served, or who knew someone who served, on the USS Cole, or the American Embassy in one of a few African countries, or who lived in Khobar Towers, and they will remind you that Al Qaeda was a threat long before 9/11.
Iraq had links to Al Qaeda. It doesn't mean that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, any more than Mozart's mother had anything to do with the composition of The Magic Flute. It can be argued that the opera would never have been written if Mozart's mother had not supported his training, though she never advised him on how to write opera. In the same way, it could be argued that Bin Laden and company could never have done their most infamous work without the support of Hussein, even though it is unlikely that he ever advised them on the best method of attacking Americans. But that implied link is the only one between 9/11 and Iraq.
I should note here that, although I make reference to artist in the comparisons above, this should in no way imply that I consider Al Quadea artistic in their work. It could imply, though, that I have a better understanding of creativity than of destruction, and so I use that with which I am familiar to make the point.
If it is demonstrated that Saddam's regime aided Al Qaeda, how exactly does that not "aid[ed] the terrorist attacks"?
If you were to note that it is an overly broad statement, a "catch-all" if you will, I would not disagree.
However, the grammar is that flexible. If a clause notes "including x, y and z", it does not correlate that all "nations, organizations, or persons" matched all qualities listed in the associated clause. Nice try, though.
Depends on what the meaning of "is" is, right Jon?
;^)
I've found at least one poll that does seem to show such a thing:
link
Unfortunately, it only presents results, not the hard data of all the poll questions and their results, and I don't know where I'd be able to find such data. But if the question asked was the one shown on that page — "Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?" — then the results it presents (between 40% and 50% of people surveyed answering Yes) may indeed be accurate. I wish I knew where to find real poll data (including methodology and actual numbers) on that question...
Good to see you here in the new Deans's World! I've been awaiting your arrival.
As for Saddam and 9/11: He didn't seem exactly broken-hearted about it, but I don't know that he was involved in planning it, nor did I ever think he was. I did think he was dangerous enough that I didn't want him around any more as dictator. The younger Bush finally finished the job that the elder Bush wussied out on.
I don't think Arafat was necessarily involved in planning it either. He put on a show for the Western audience of how sorry he was, while trying to cover up the fact that his "Palestinians" were cheering and passing out candy to celebrate the deaths of 3000 infidels.
As for who was to blame for those deaths: Ever since that day, I have never forgotten that the majority of the terrorists who hujacked those planes came from neither Iraq, nor "Palestine", nor Iran, but from... ...time to wake up, Mr. President. We are at War. Your "Religion of Peace" buddies may smile a lot at diplomatic conferences, but they have a knife ready to plunge into your (our) back at any moment. We are at War.