Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 6, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

SADDAM AND OSAMA....So do I really need to link to yet another report telling us that Saddam Hussein did not, in fact, have any serious relationship with al-Qaeda? We all know that already, right?

But here it is anyway. Warning: not safe for work. The story includes a mug shot of Doug Feith.

Kevin Drum 12:29 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

"The story includes a mug shot of Doug Feith."

--Damn it, Kevin, don't get our hopes up like that.

Posted by: ajl on April 6, 2007 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sad to say that Doug Feith went to my high school (he was in my brother's class). Unfortunately, not even the superior educational assets of dear old Central High could do much for the "stupidest man on the face of the earth."

Posted by: Bob on April 6, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the work warning, Kevin. I completely agree that no one should look at Doug Feith's picture unadvised. Appropriate talismanic protections must be obtained before viewing.

However, my page loaded without the picture. There's just a blank space even after refreshing. Perhaps Firefox has incorporated evil influences protection?

Good Easter to you, Marian, Inkblot and Domino!

Posted by: clio on April 6, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Saddam had a serious relationship with Rumsfeld. That is why he had to be hanged by the neck until he was dead.

Posted by: Brojo on April 6, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

I feel sorry for those poor analysts in the CIA and DoD. They are going to feel the wrath of making Cheney look bad.

I can only imagine that one punishment will be forced to read Norman Roger's posts over and over again.

Posted by: NSA Mole on April 6, 2007 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo: "Saddam had a serious relationship with Rumsfeld. That is why he had to be hanged by the neck until he was dead."

Yes, and they got Saddam, too.

Posted by: Kenji on April 6, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

I believe the correct internet phrasing for that is "not safe for lunch."

Posted by: diddy on April 6, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Levin's site has links to original documents in the press release.

Highly recommended, especially appendixes.

Posted by: Ein on April 6, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

If you set the bar a bit lower than "serious" and "card-carrying al Qaeda terrorists only" the results tend to change.

From the Washington Post article:

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

Oh, "other terrorist groups." I guess that's okay, then.

Posted by: elmendorf on April 6, 2007 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

elmendorf on April 6, 2007 at 1:05 PM:

I guess that's okay, then.

Apparently so.

No...I mean really, it's okay...

Posted by: grape_crush on April 6, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Intersting that this was an above-the-fold front page headline in the Washington Post a couple of days after Fred Hiatt's atrocious editorial accusing Pelosi of trying to become a "shadow President."

No she's not, but Fred, here's a perfect example of why most of us long for a shadow President, or anything other than the idiots, liars, and fanatics now inhabiting the White House.

Posted by: Virginia Dutch on April 6, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

No one who had ever opened a book about the Middle East thought that Saddam had affiliations with Islamic groups before the war. Anyone saying otherwise was either an administration hack, or a "national secutiry expert" from one of the think tanks (AEI, Brookings, Hudson, Heritage, etc.) which are part of the neo-con propaganda efforts.

So what was the media's excuse for reporting "Saddam ties to al-Qaeda, Bush says" without, ever, a second qualifying sentence, "but everyone who ISN'T a paid shill for the Administation, neo-cons, or Israel knows this to be false"?

What was the media's agenda?

Posted by: luci on April 6, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, "other terrorist groups." I guess that's okay, then.

We invaded Iraq based on contacts with terrorist groups not involved with attacking the US?

I'm sorry - what point is it you're trying to make, here?

Posted by: DH Walker on April 6, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

They just want to call the cops.

Uh, what's not serious about calling the cops? They are, you know, the people who actually investigate crimes and catch criminals.

Posted by: Stefan on April 6, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

For one thing, the ringleader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing went to Iraq after the job was done.

I'm curious - do you think we should have invaded Germany since Mohammed Atta was operationally linked to the Hamburg cell of Al Queda? Does the fact that Terry Nichols spent time in the US after the Murrah Federal Building bombing mean that the US should invade the US? Or do you not know what the term "operationally linked" means?

Liberals do not take bombings of US buildings seriously.

If "serious" means "go batshit crazy and incompetently invade a country not responsible without giving a single thought to the consequences", then yes. Liberals aren't 'serious'. We'd rather, you know, find the people actually responsible (Ramzi Yusef, Timothy McVeigh) and hold them accountable. But then you conservatives seem to have a pathological hatred of legitimate accountability, don't you?

Posted by: DH Walker on April 6, 2007 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

As a general question, I'm curious. Do neoconservatives really believe that a country's leader is responsible for everything done by everyone in that country? 'Cause I might have to take Bush to court over the fact that my car got dinged last week. Left a nasty white scrape on my passenger door, too.

But Bush is clearly responsible for this, since it happened on US soil. Or am I missing something in the way neocons think?

Posted by: DH Walker on April 6, 2007 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

For one thing, the ringleader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing went to Iraq after the job was done. Perhaps in the liberal lexicon, such a tie is not considered "serious" blah blah blah

For one thing, the ringleader of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks is now in Pakistan, but Bush hasn't done a damn thing to hunt him down there. Perhaps in the conservative lexicon, such a tie between Osama bin Laden and Pakistan is not considered "serious." Conservatives do not take the 2001 World Trade Center attacks seriously. They just want to blow shit up.

Posted by: Stefan on April 6, 2007 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

The logical country to invade after 9/11 was Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Bin Laden and most of the terrorists were Saudis. The links with Saudi Arabia were far stonger than anything one could fantasize about Iraq.

But I've never seen one of the keyboard warriors call for an invasion of Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: Virginia Dutch on April 6, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

But Bush is clearly responsible for this, since it happened on US soil. Or am I missing something in the way neocons think?

"Think" seems such a big word for whatever it is that they do. "Thoughtlessly react to stimuli" might be a better way to put it.

Posted by: Stefan on April 6, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Froomkins link from Reuters news service:

"An avid baseball fan, Bush also declined to throw out the first pitch of the Major League season this week. Aides blamed a scheduling conflict. But there were suspicions the White House feared he would be booed."

And the media is all over the common knowledge that Bush is an unpopular preisdent.


Posted by: Cheryl on April 6, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

"Think" seems such a big word for whatever it is that they do. "Thoughtlessly react to stimuli" might be a better way to put it.

Everything's ad-hoc with these guys, isn't it? Trying to hold them to the even the loosest standards of consistency and principle is like trying to lift a wheelbarrow-full of jello with your bare hands.

The biggest irony in my mind is how often they accuse liberals of "situational ethics", the only remotely accurate term to describe their apologia.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 6, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Osama Bin Laden gave as his reason for attacking us the fact that american troops were in Saudi Arabia.

These troops were there because Saddam had attacked Kuwait and the Saudis had seeked our protection.

Had Saddam not attacked we would not have been there and 911 would not have happened.

His actions caused 911 to happen

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 6, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

TruthPolitik left out some important steps in his watertight syllogism there: Saddam was in power because he was enabled in the 1980's by the Reagan administration who even sent Rumsfeld to personally meet with him and ensure him that the US would support him in his war against Iran. He thus could not have invaded Kuwait without tacit US support. Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld caused 9/11 to happen. QED.

Posted by: jonas on April 6, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Jonas: You are forgetting that the only reason we supported Iraq as a bulwark against Iran in the 80s was because of the Islamic revolution in 1979; and that wouldnt have happened if not for the repressive policies of the Shah (Rezi Pahlavi), who only took power with the help of the US and Brittain to preserve access to oil in the Persian Corridor at the beginning of the Cold War.

So, clearly, Dwight Eisenhower is directly responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Obviously.

Posted by: DH Walker on April 6, 2007 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

jonas

I doubt that Saddam thought that support for a war with Iran was an invitation to invade Kuwait.

There is huge difference between the two.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 6, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not trying to pinpoint the blame for 911 although had Eve not listened to the Devil it probably wouldn't have happened.

I said Saddam's actions caused our action which caused Osamas. That's a relationship

[further reference to bin Laden as "Obama" will get your comments deleted]

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 6, 2007 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Oh for Pete's sake! Yes Saddam sponsored terrorist groups! Most of them against Iran!

He also gave sanctuary to Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas (Achille Lauro hijack leader). Their actions and movements were severely constrained: remember Abu Nidal's "suicide" (if one can commit suicide by firing a burst of submachine gun fire into oneself), after he made noises about resuming his career?

Posted by: Tom S on April 6, 2007 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

"An avid baseball fan, Bush also declined to throw out the first pitch of the Major League season this week. Aides blamed a scheduling conflict.

Bush was scheduled to cower in the closet that day.

Posted by: Disputo on April 6, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Yes Saddam sponsored terrorist groups! Most of them against Iran!

And now the US is sponsoring those very same terrorists groups.

As someone said previously, we need to invade ourselves.

Posted by: Disputo on April 6, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

[Blatant dishonesty deleted]

Posted by: egbert on April 6, 2007 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

"[further reference to bin Laden as "Obama" will get your comments deleted]"

I actually almost did type in Obama by mistake and then I thought what the heck and went ahead and did it.

But it's not in keeping with the logic of the post and I apologize. Now would you get after that guy that called me a moron and some other names that I don't know the meaning of.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 6, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

then I thought what the heck and went ahead and did it.

The wingnut mentality in all is glory.

In fact, I think that that should be the motto of the Bush admin.

Posted by: Disputo on April 6, 2007 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

Is it just my imagination or does Feith look like Emo Phillips in a suit?

Posted by: Chesire11 on April 6, 2007 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

mr: "Liberals do not take bombings of US buildings seriously."

How about in Oklahoma, jerkoff, or when Ann Coulter calls for blowing up the State Dept? Oh, BTW, take your fucking straw men and shove them slowly up your ass. But don't come back to describe how much you enjoyed it.

Posted by: Kenji on April 6, 2007 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, the report becomes an official log of systemic corruption and misuse of intelligence by this pResident and his administration.

The neocon enablers of the Iraq war said in writing in June, 1997--"it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge."

Poorly conceived, conspiracy-laden, militarily ruinous war of choice,with billions of dollars unaccounted for. Mission accomplished.

Posted by: consider wisely on April 6, 2007 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

As a frequent lurker, very rare commenter, I'd just like to say I'm really enjoying the deletion of blatant dishonesty that's been popping up lately.

Posted by: Ian on April 6, 2007 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's a nice touch to delete the garbage and leave an indictment hanging. Kinda twists the knife in a way that just sending it to the ether doesn't.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 6, 2007 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK

But:

Al-Qaida had a complete operation in Iraq regardless of Hussein's overt interaction with them. Al-Zarqawi had a sattelite operation there that was able to conduct missions. So the point is apt. Iraq under Hussein was a threat because Al-Qaida was there and he was not ridding Iraq of them despite his power to do so or to try to do so. One must assume there was an unspoken approval of them since he was the ultimate dictator of the country with control of a military force that could have removed Al-Qaida easily. So, sorry, Cheney is quite right to consider Iraq a threat just based on Al-Qaida's operation there.

You Regressive-Democrats are the deceitful fools, not Cheney.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on April 6, 2007 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo "The wingnut mentality in all is glory."

You know Disputo You got me thinking , Don't be suprised even us morons have limited cognitive abilities. But is wingnut a deragatory term???

Here's the definition

Wingnut
A nut with winglike projections for thumb and forefinger leverage in turning. Also called thumbnut.

There's also a wingnut tree and I guess a wingnut nut

Well gotta go before they turn the lights on
Later Dude

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 6, 2007 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly