The Iraqi tyrant didn’t “just” aid anti-American terrorist groups; he explicitly ordered them to attack.
By Mark Eichenlaub
Mark’s done a fantastic job of summarizing the latest 1600page Pentagon report that investigated and documented ties between Saddam Hussein’s regime and terrorists. His article is one that no one should miss (and not just because he mentions me 😉 ). Seriously, this is the overview that the media SHOULD have been reporting for weeks now. Don’t miss it.
All this capability would be meaningless, of course, if there were no intention of using it. The authors make clear that Saddam was willing to conduct anti-American terrorism, saying: “Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.”
Instead of squabbling over who is and isn’t a member of al-Qaeda and what the requirements of a “link” or “connection” are, this report details Saddam’s broad support for (and sometimes direction of) a multitude of terrorist groups targeting Americans and American allies. Based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam’s Iraq did not just use terrorism against America and her allies but took advantage of “the rising fundamentalism in the region” as an “opportunity to make terrorism . . . a formal instrument of state power.” Because of Saddam’s removal, which came at considerable cost in American blood and gold, a “formal instrument” of state terrorism is no longer secretly plotting to kill Americans. The American public deserves to know what a threat was removed for that price.
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
Left wing revisionists commenting on this post in 5, 4, 3, 2…
What???? Saddam was a danger and Iraq wasn’t a paradise??? This can’t be, the MSM said so and all the Liberals said so, and we know they are never wrong. Just ask Steve, he knows everything about all conservatives, and is the world’s authority on all things in Iraq.
Thanks Scott. In hindsight, I should have linked your name to here.
Great job Mark and thanks for the plug! congrats for making NRO.
Thank you Ray. Your American Thinker articles on all this are going to need to be looked at again with this new report in mind because we have a little more context for looking at those dates and documents again.
Great stuff, and oh so well done, Mark. Thank you. Because I, for one, really think this report needs to stay alive and bubbling under the radar until it can serve a higher purpose of education during the general election debates.
Tthe diehard anti-free-Iraq group will continue to discount Saddam’s past, and revive the rallying cry that it was all about a lie – the non-existent WMDs Thus it may be prudent to archive Bush’s speech on Oct 7, 2002 in Cincinnati. WMDs as the reason was a cry invented by the press, and by those demanding UN/NATO blessings. The clear path to an int’l alliance was the 17 violations of the UN Resolutions – a broken promise to the world at large. However it was not, and never was, the only reason.
In a brief time of unified opinions, Congress and the Bush admin agreed upon Saddam’s threat. Excerpts below from the speech that covered many "whereas" reasons.
What’s quite interesting is that the intel provided to the admin on Saddam’s terror links, and mentioned above in this speech, were indeed on the money. Had we been in possession of the Harmony documents then, a lot of the debates on this war would be eliminated.
Now, however, it will take reviving the short term memories of the electorate to overcome years of media indoctrination to revised history.
Yeah Mark, I saw that you noted the confluence of timing between the order by saddam and the internal al qaeda order to do the same thing saddam had ordered. I was hoping somebody else would start making that case. Its not direct evidence, but pretty strong evidence of coordination at a minimum and possibly a command relationship although I believe the former to be the case. I had an article on just that lined up at AT but it got burried under Obamania and stale. Will probably run it on my blog, if I can remember how to log in.
I see "MataHarley" is here, Curt will just let anybody in here hunh? (JK) Seriously, she has developed quite an expertise in this area and should get more attenion from the big bloggers.
Mark, while you’re looking at Ray’s AT stuff, don’t discount the articles he wrote (ahead of most pundits, BTW) about the rifts in AQ and Taliban.
This constant realignment for power within the movement relates to Saddam’s order to keep an eye on all jihad movements in Arab lands (mentioned in the report). He was well aware the players morphed and repositioned, to enhance their benefits and goals.
Thanks guys.
Mata,
The internal disputes between AQ and Taliban maybe have anything to do with the reported offer of asylum given to UBL by Iraq in 98/99?
Mata, do you have a link where all your work on this is available or should I just scroll through the site?
Ray, the confluence of Iraqi wishes and AQ actions is a pattern of coincidences that I’ve never believed was merely coincidental. In fact, I think there’s really interesting one in late summer/early fall 99, but more later. Also, we shouldn’t ignore that the Oil For Food back and forth as well as the inspections back and forth were pos/neg motivators for the regime leadership. The Aziz, Saddam, and others made it very public knowledge that they saw sanctions and inspections as tied together, and we all know how the Oil For Food program was essentially a private cash cow for manipulating diplomacy. Add those two elements to timelines, and the pattern of coincidences becomes far more reasonable imo.
I’m always curious what it will take for opponents of the war to recognize these ties and this relationship? Video? Audio? Documents? AQ detainees, Regime detainees? What?
Printing your piece out Mark to read at work…..just skimmed through it and looks like its going to be your usual good stuff.
So, who lied?
DD, it’s not a "lie," but a series of half truths, half quotes, spin, propaganda, marketing, whatever one likes to call it. Cherry-picking is one tossed about on the left. Thousands of people bought and then sold the bs, but I say the entire pattern of half-quoting, cherry-picking, etc goes back to the person who wrote the "Rockefeller Memo." That’s my opinion. Nothing to back it up.
I should have used the /sarc label. My comment is facetious.
Scot, I have most of my "rift/split" stuff under my Pakistan blog label. Here’s a link to all of them so you can weed thru and get to original story links. Many are based on Ray’s articles.
Plus there is a guy, Lt. Caveman at Ramblings from the Rock, who also has some great stuff on the region in his site, and truly gets the ever morphing characters and alliances in the jihad movement. Ray turned me on to his site as well.
Scott, INRE the OFF UN scandal, Ray addresses that in his book, suggesting that the underground movement already in place in Iraq by the welcome jihadis were the perfect source for Saddam to use for smuggling. You’ll find the bulk of the references in Chapter 3 of Both in One Trench, and a small reference in Chapter 13.
I’d love to see someone from the other side of the debate really hop in on this. Judith Yaphe, Peter Bergen, Steven Simon, Pincus, Isikoff or even Spencer Ackerman or Joshua Marshall.
Geez… how did I miss this one, Mr. Ray! LOL My thanks for your kind words. However, despite all the previous research I had done (starting researching terrorist groups after 911), it was reading your book that gave me the base understanding on how the enemy functions in the region. It’s so much more than a book about ISG/Harmony docs.
So whatever dubious expertise I have acquired, it is because you taught me *how* to think, observe, and connect dots. A handy skill since smoking guns are a rarity in intel… or even in US criminal courts. And my thanks.
But I’m sure Mark and Scott know to defer to your superior familiarity with Saddam’s past over mine.
Man I canjust leave it up to you guys. Man you guys know more about this than my little piece mailing it together here and there from here, The Jawa Report and a few other good blogs that follow the Jihadis. Thanks for all the information guys.
Stix,
Just keep fighting the good fight.
It would be great if we can get all this information to these guys
http://www.conservativeusa.org/megalink.htm#talkshows
Put together some kind of list of main points to hit from all of us that they should be pounding out on the radio, print and tv.
That would be great.
Mark, INRE a 1998/99 offer of asylum in Iraq to UBL.
One notable event that falls in that era is the issuance of the World Islamic Front Statement. That statement made it quite clear that one of the reasons for Bin Ladin’s declared jihad on the west was Saddam’s Iraq and sanctions. This, no doubt, did endear Saddam to the jihad alliance as a comrade in arms.
By 1998/98, the Taliban controlled 90% of the country. When AQ moved to Afghanistan from Sudan in 1996, he and Mulla Omar were not exactly bosom buddies. Took a while for that relationship to warm up. Perhaps the offer of a home base in Iraq came during the more turbulent times of the AQ/Taliban relationship. Not sure.
As time went by, it’s likely that Bin Lade’ns wealthy coffers lent financial aid to the Taliban. A quid pro quo that improved the relationship. A relationship that has now gone sour.
Certainly the Taliban’s forged loyalty was demonstrated after the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa. That’s when the Taliban said OBL had "gone missing", covering his tracks in the country.
I’ve no documentation, but logic questions why Bin Ladin would consider leaving the Taliban’s protection, and seek asylum with Saddam in Iraq. Saddam was under the int’l microscope, busy kicking out IAEA inspectors. Such scrutiny would not be good for a jihad movement with big plans in the works. He already possessed what he needed most from Iraq – contacts to those in power, possible money and perhaps weaponry.
AQ could operate more freely in Afghanistan, as they denied his presence. The bombing of suspected terrorist training complexes is the only overt action I know of by the US at that time. But I would guess Saddam would be recanting his offer of a new home by then. He did not need to open his doors to a “hot potato”.
Geographically, Afghanistan also allowed OBL to draw on the ample Pakistan tribal regions for add’l support. The mountainous border provided lots of holes to hide, and easy passages to slip away. T’wasn’t hard for them to slip into Iraq either. So why move?
Just one girl’s opine.
Mata,
I believe the offer came from the Iraqi side on the asylum. My speculation is that Saddam was so impressed with the al Qaeda attacks he’d seen (no debate on him being impressed) that he offered to take UBL in under an arrangement probably similar to what Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas had. In 1998 Saddam had inspectors in but they weren’t looking for terrorists, they were looking for WMD, and Saddam probably knew that the Clinton administration wasn’t going to invade so why not invade UBL?
bin Laden (if the offer even took place) likely saw an environment where he’d be autonomous still (not under Saddam’s "operational" control) and possibly a better escape route and hiding places from someone trying to kill/capture him.
I can see my work/blog multitasking isn’t doing so well today, Mark. LOL
Actually, we’d be in agreement. I assumed you were speculating an invite from Saddam *to* OBL. And a guessed that he would be inclined to do that because of the overt support for Iraq in the World Islamic Front statement. But by then, OBL had a pretty good gig going for him in Afghanistan.
And it looks like you and I agree that the Taliban home was superior to any home in Iraq.
What I meant about the IAEA inspectors… no they weren’t looking for terrorists. But it’s like holding a bag of weed, and loitering around, rubbernecking, at an accident scene crawling with cops. Why put put yourself under such add’l scrutiny unnecessarily?
BTW, Mark. Forgive me for not mentioning this earlier.
I’ve seen some good analyses popping up here and there of late. But, as I said on my blog, you went the extra mile on yours with your opening and closing paragraphs. Meaning that well deserved, and gently delivered, slap on the wrists to those that like to play word games.
Now if we could just get them to stop playing "what the meaning of is… is" games with definitions of WMD and al Qaeda as the "lone" enemy….
Mata,
Thanks for the compliments.
Much of my angle on the story was to respond to the McClatchy people who me and Scott went back and forth with in their comments sections. He basically conceded that training, funding, arming of al Qaeda took place but that didn’t constitute a link or tie. I told him he was playing word games, being pretty dishonest and that he should just lay out the specific support Saddam gave them and the readers can decide what label to ascribe to that support. Of course he switched subjects and wouldn’t deal with that.
Scott REALLY hammered the guy hard. I think the comments are down now though. I couldn’t see them earlier.
Another excellent piece on the lumbering bureaucracy involved in putting together reports such as the one on Saddam/al Qaeda
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/920aeccx.asp
PBS is now taking and posting comments on their "Bush’s War" special. Maybe you guys can write them a letter and ask why we never hear about the cost of leaving Saddam in power. The war isn’t the current cost vs. no cost. It’s the current cost vs. an unknown cost that included Saddam supporting thousands of jihadis.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/talk/share.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/16/DI2008031602418.html
Just saw the debate with the PBS guy on the WashPost site and this guy is a raging lib. Thinks Congressman should be written about impeaching Bush, poo poo’d Saddam/al Qaeda and is hook line sinker into the whole "Bushlied" canard.
This infuriates me being paid for by our tax dollars.
This guy is a smug jackass who thinks he has all the answers. Unreal. I am reading this and this guy is a real piece of work.
OMG… tried watching that .. what was it, Sunday night? Never seen such a complete compilation of liberal headlines in a video extravaganza in my life! Rather like a "this is your life" of media headlines and attempted scandals since 911.
Odd, tho… they often gave Bush a brush over as a naive dupe, and really went for Cheney’s throat. It’s Cheney’s fault! Alert Phillie Steve….
Then, of course, Colin Powell… da victim! ba BUM! LOL
Being a former sound editor in the film/TV biz, I also had to laugh at the dramatic, minor key "suspense and evil" music that was cue’d all thru the Cheney spots, and some of Bush’s. Little Hollywood tricks to influence the viewer’s interpretations and moods. I, however, have become immune to such nonsense after 17 years in post production LaLaLand. Which, of course, makes me a miserable date to a movie theatre…
Speaking of the Frontline production, just wandered over to Larry Johnson’s "No Quarter", where I go often for bas amusement… They have a posting dedicated to the "Bush Wars" production.
Talk about a story with no plot…
Translation… there’s no substance in the production because there was no substance in the quest.
Thus, alot of waaay disappointed PBS viewers, hoping for that "smoking gun". Not that it stopped the big 11 No Quarters posters from weighing in anyway… Evidently, even a "non story" for the devoted.
A smoking gun? Proof of what? They "inside job" that 9/11 was or something?
"Speaking of the Frontline production, just wandered over to Larry Johnson’s "No Quarter", where I go often for bas amusement… "
Every time I end up over there, I have to go back and re~read all my Anger Management notes.
Well, it might not be those people you mentioned in #16 but so far I’ve had one lib jump on me over at wizbang for linking your work in my semi-daily round up of suggested reads.
I’ve actually talked to Johnson a few times before and he was a helpful decent guy. Can’t really speak for what he’s done at his blog because I haven’t read it too much.
Melissa, care to send us a link to this person jumping on you?
lol, well, it’s *just* Brian, but here ya go:
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/03/26/wednesday-evening-read.php