June 21, 2004

The Missing Link - How did the media miss the results of the 9/11 Commission with regard to the Iraq/Al-Quaeda link?
posted by f8xmulder 20 years ago
  • I was just reading this on Metafilter, and thought it applied nicely to this article.
  • i'm confused. what do you mean, miss? i've been seeing/hearing plenty of coverage of the issue. p.s. hey krebs, i can't see that link?
  • Crap, sorry, the link doesn't work. I don't know why. Try this.
  • The media missed the results the same way Bush boosters found them. Every one takes pieces of what they want to back their argument. Sure there were links between Al Qaeda and Hussein. Just like there are links between me and you, f8x. I know you're there, I see you talking, I'm just not buying what you're selling and I'm sure the feeling's mutual. It's pretty much on record that the same deal went down between Hussein and Al Qaeda. Hussein and Iraq were the biggest secular Islamic state in the middle east. I'm sure even you'll agree that Bin Ladin and his people are pretty much the polar opposite of secular. It's also on record that Bin Ladin wants to get rid of secular islamists as well. On preview: Yeah, Krebs' link on cognitive dissonance fits in there too.
  • I have known contacts with the IRS going back decades. I've even been to an IRS branch office once for information. Therefore I decide U.S. tax policy (not).
  • And why has the media ignored the results of the 9/11 Commission with regard to Pakistan's and Saudi Arabia's al Qaeda links?
  • From the article: Since the Bush administration has never claimed that Saddam had a role in planning the 9/11 attacks, or earlier attacks on the USS Cole, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Khobar Towers bombing, or the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, there is essentially no difference between what the commission said in its staff report, and what President Bush has been saying all along. This is my point. Why has the media been insistent on saying that Bush claimed the connection? And why has the 9/11 Commission's report been used to sell a "No Link" message when in fact there is a link. Surlyboi, we're not talking about degrees of connection. It's whether or not a connection existed.
  • I'd like to know about that as well, homunculus. I've found, in general, the media to be disastrously deficient in all manner of coverage.
  • The US has links with North Korea. Does this mean we're part of the Axis of Evil?
  • My God in heaven... Will someone here besides myself please acknowledge that the headlines got it wrong?
  • Surlyboi, we're not talking about degrees of connection. It's whether or not a connection existed. And therein lies the biggest misdirection of this whole ordeal. Of course Bush and the Iraq backers aren't talking degrees, as it would undermine their entire premise. Because if we were talking degrees, there are countries with much closer and better connections than Iraq. Will someone here besides myself please acknowledge that the headlines got it wrong? Sure, when you acknowledge that Iraq is a misadventure of the highest order.
  • Yes, the headlines got it wrong, you're absolutely right about that. I realize that that's your point, and I had the wrong picture in my head from the reportage I read on the commission. But it's a bit disingenuous for Bush & Co. to claim that they never came anywhere near indicating a link between Saddam and 911. Here's the NY Times response and a CS Monitor editorial from last spring.
  • Will someone here besides myself please acknowledge that the headlines got it wrong? It wasn't wrong, it was misinformation, clearly. Only partially wrong.
  • misinformation as in information that was thought to be correct but turned out later to be incorrect?
  • middleclasstool: yes! That is my whole point. I'm not trying to make a "This war is correct because the headlines were wrong" point with this post. My point was simply to ask why so many headlines simply got it wrong, and what it means...
  • *gives f8xmulder more alka seltzer*
  • From f8x's first link: On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters that after Sept. 11, he passed on to President Bush several warnings that Saddam Hussein was planning terror attacks in the United States, and against U.S. interests abroad. Really?
  • cheney is STILL insisting there are links between iraq and al qaeda. STILL. because he knows things the commission didn't know. at least that's what he says.
  • And yes, I'll agree that Bush sought to link Iraq and Al Quaeda without saying they were explicitly linked. And there is enough info to back up the assertions that a connection, some kind of connection existed; whether it was fostered by either party or more tenuous is, I think, a different issue. What I'm mad about is that the headlines distort what the 9/11 Commission found about the assertions - to claim that there was NO link implies...NO LINK. Finis. Nada. Which is not the case. It simply isn't. surlyboi, I hope that your mindset of "I'll say this if you say that other thing" isn't contagious. It's like agreeing to tell the truth only if the other party does. Is that what liberal ideology preaches?
  • Thankee, homunculus...much better now :-)
  • latest on the issue from time magazine (don't think you need to be registered) "When it comes to describing purported connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam, the Bush Administration sometimes sounds like a teenager carefully delineating the different shades of romance from "seeing other people" to "hanging out" to 'hooking up.' " heh.
  • Okay, let's not play dog-pile on the Republican here, guys. He was saying that the media reported this wrong, not defending the war. He happens to be right in that assessment. It wouldn't be the first time. My wife's a reporter, and she's spent the last five years or so more or less pissed off at the national media, starting with their treatment of Clinton. And we're both liberals, btw. And the two Putin quotes don't necessarily constitute flip-flopping. One's about a planned attack by Iraq on the US (which I question on its own grounds). The second is about international terrorist groups. I'm not saying he's not throwing Bush a bone, but that's hardly a smoking gun.
  • Ok, there is some tiny connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda. A teensy little globule of connection. I hate the smell of desperation in the morning.
  • and here's the lede of the first NYT piece on the commission's findings. the reporter did NOT say there was "no link." read the wording. it's far more nuanced: BYLINE: By PHILIP SHENON and CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS; Mark Glassman contributed reporting for this article. DATELINE: WASHINGTON, June 16 BODY: The staff of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks sharply contradicted one of President Bush's central justifications for the Iraq war, reporting on Wednesday that there did not appear to have been a ''collaborative relationship'' between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The assertion came in staff reports that offer a chilling, richly detailed chronology of the Sept. 11 plot and rewrite much of the history of the attacks. (specifically note the "did not appear to have been" and then the paraphrase of the report's language. that's a reporter being very careful.)
  • What I'm mad about is that the headlines distort what the 9/11 Commission found about the assertions - to claim that there was NO link implies...NO LINK. Finis. Nada. Which is not the case. It simply isn't. Fine it isn't. But it's disingenuous to say that BushCo hasn't done a little misdirection as well. Which you seem to agree upon as well. surlyboi, I hope that your mindset of "I'll say this if you say that other thing" isn't contagious. It's like agreeing to tell the truth only if the other party does. Is that what liberal ideology preaches? No, the liberal ideology teaches that you should at least admit the possibility that you're wrong. All my other tactics I learned from my tenure on the right.
  • so, f8x, is your beef with the HEADLINES as opposed to the COVERAGE? specifically? i'm still trying to figure out what you're upset about.
  • Don't you people get it? If the Liberal Media™ is wrong about something, then the chickenhawks are right about EVERYTHING. ditto ditto ditto
  • *baffled*
  • I hate the smell of desperation in the morning. As someone who used to write headlines to space constraints, yes, you've got that about right, if morning means two, and deadline was at twelve. Just, you know. Pity the copyeditor!
  • OK, *that's* an entirely different issue. PF is absolutely right. a headline must first fit space constraints and is meant to draw the reader into the story, not tell the entire story. so, no, headlines DO NOT tell the story and sometimes, unfortunately, do not correctly reflect the story. can we talk about the room o' puppies now?
  • Why would the NYTimes post misleading headlines?
  • can we talk about the room o' puppies now? Absolutely! They were delicious!
  • I love me some puppies. Puppy breath's great. I also like waffles with powdered sugar and syrup. And I miss the pancake bunny. Poor little guy. We should put him in a roomful of puppies and waffles, that'd be cute!
  • and babies.
  • for those interested, Hierarchy Within Headlines: Layers of Storytelling (please ignore cheesy headshot) and blogrot, the NYT would run misleading headlines for plenty of reasons -- but most likely something really boring like PF said: the damn reporter didn't get his damn story to the damn editor who in turn didn't get it to the damn copy desk by deadline, which left the copy editor WAAAAY past deadline to come up with a one-column, three-line, 36 count head. ARG! brings back too many bad memories. *returns to thoughts of midclass munching teensy puppy bones*
  • Nono, that was surly, he's the puppy eater! I just want them in a room with the pancake bunny and some waffles. Surly eats puppies! GET HIM!!!
  • "No Link" "No Link" "No Link" "No Link" "No Link" "No Link" Just a few examples of the widespread "misinformation" in the headlines. Commission chairman Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, said "we don't see any serious conflicts" between the panel's and the White House's positions. (link)
  • New York Times Retracts Years of Erroneous Headlines. heh. headline humor. *waves finger at surly picking puppy flesh from teeth*
  • It's not just the NY Times, ya'll. No puppies for me, please. I'm all full up with alka seltzer...
  • Am I allowed to post a front page post everytime I'm pissed off with a headline?
  • BTW, i agree with you that headline writers are doing a disservice to readers with many of those headlines. if you read carefully, it is indeed the heads that are the problem. far better heads would be something like Commission finds few if any links of Iraq, terrorists well, that's lousy too, i'm out of practice, but you get the point.
  • Finish that Kean quote, f8x. "We believe ... that there were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq. Al-Qaida didn't like to get involved with states, unless they were living there. They got involved with Sudan, they got involved ... where they lived, but otherwise no,'' Kean told ABC's "This Week.''
  • Furry Puppy Terrorist "Surlyboi" Sought For Questioning
  • New Zealand Blog Administrator Gives World "Don't Go There" Look
  • surlyboi, my intent with this thread is not to prove or disprove Bush or the Commission. But that does seem to be yours.
  • I think we're missing a major point to quibble about. Headlines schmeadlines let's argue about what a "link" is. To me it implies some sort of relationship or association, and from what I've read the 9/11 staff report says the link in question was Al Qaeda flunkies asking Saddam flunkies for training space and being told to talk to the hand. If that's a relationship then I must already be married to that redhead who smiled at me in the grocery store today. The real question is whether Saddam and Al Qaeda had in the past or would in the future jointly plan anything from a nuke on Houston to a bake sale in Marrakesh. So far, the evidence points to not very likely. All this "there (is/is not) a link" misses the point of whether there was a danger of collaboration.
  • No, f8x. My purpose is not to prove or disprove either, but to show that the truth is not in headlines or soundbites and that one can find all the evidence one needs for or against in the same material. The right just needs to stretch a little harder right now...
  • There were "links" in the same way that there were "WMDs" because one shell was found containing sarin; that is to say, just enough to be pedantically correct, and nowhere near enough to justify an invasion.
  • There are several definite links between Kevin Bacon and me. Here is some of the evidence: My old pole vault coach went on a fishing trip in Alaska with Jim Carrey, who was in Batman Forever with Val Kilmer, who was in Heat with Robert De Niro, who was in Sleepers with Kevin Bacon! or A good friend of mine was on Nash Bridges with Don Johnson, who was in Miami Vice with Philip Michael Thomas, who was in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City with Ray Liotta, who was in Goodfellas with Joe Pesci, who was in JFK with Kevin Bacon! Doesn't anyone else see the Wedge/Kevin Bacon link? Kevin Bacon has been linked to Wedge! Kevin Bacon is in material breach! Why hasn't the liberal media reported any of this? Kevin Bacon might possess weapons of mass destruction!
  • To expand on SideDish's point: the copy-editor at a newspaper is the guy who has to stomp on it to make up for the three guys ahead of him in line not having made their deadlines, and also, he's got space constraints on top of his time pressure, and so he's going to pinch whatever nerve's sticking out longest. In this case, it's that nerve has BUSH IS A LIAR printed on it. Too bad, because there's a lot people as just read the headlines, (*raises hand*) not that I er, know any (*drops hand swiftly, giggles nervously*) body like that, all my friends are concerned citizens. So: Bad, and One More Reason to Put Love and Family First and Not Go Into Politics. That said, spooky has hit what I think is the real issue, but there I go editorializing.
  • Headlines schmeadlines let's argue about what a "link" is. To me it implies some sort of relationship or association, and from what I've read the 9/11 staff report says the link in question was Al Qaeda flunkies asking Saddam flunkies for training space and being told to talk to the hand. Flunkies like Zarqawi?
  • vote = f8xmulder As a reporter, if I failed to actually read a report I was writing about, or if I misrepresented the report, I would be in deep shit with my editors. This is regardless of working at a small paper (like me) or the folks in the "big leagues". So there's a bit of nuance reporters didn't seem to get? Tough shit, their job is to make sure they get it right. This is about reporting truthfully and accurately. So the reporters who keep getting this wrong are either A) lazy and never read the full report, or B) selectively quoting to misrepresent the truth. Well, which is it? And where are the editors? Things like this are what destroys reader trust, as people in the industry like to say. Outrage, however, seems to be selective.
  • Things like this are what destroys reader trust, as people in the industry like to say. Outrage, however, seems to be selective. Oh please. The press has given Bush a free ride for four years, or, in the case of Fox, been a virtual propaganda wing for the RNC. Selective outrage indeed.
  • Fuck. I only tuned into this thread to see Miss Iraq/Al-Quaeda.
  • Oh please. The press has given Bush a free ride for four years, or, in the case of Fox, been a virtual propaganda wing for the RNC. Selective outrage indeed. Agreed. I find it funny how "framing the argument" is alright as long as it's going in the right's favor. And Wolof, she's a hottie if you're the kinda guy that goes for those exposed ankles.
  • Example of the right debating-style. Classless Warfare
    Hesiod and Oliver are all claiming that Bill Campenni who wrote this letter to the Washington Times is a liar. Why? Because they believe he says that he was either a witness to President Bush being in Alabama at the time Bush says he was there. They say that's impossible because Campenni was in Pittsburgh at the time flying for another unit, so he couldn't possibly account for Bush's whereabouts during that time. Problem is, they are missing one crucial fact from Campenni's letter: He never claims he served with Bush in Alabama nor does he claim to have been there.
    William Campenni's Washington Times letter
    'Bush and I were lieutenants' George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.
    Remember what the blogger at Classless Warfare said: He never claims he served with Bush in Alabama The hell he didn't. That blog post reminds me of this thread. Why are we debating the merits of newspaper headlines. People are suppose to read the articles.
  • People are suppose to read the _articles_. Would two Op/Eds suffice, instead? How 'bout just the horoscopes?
  • I prefer the comics. and puppies
  • Doesn't anyone else see the Wedge/Kevin Bacon link? This guy sees the bin Laden/Hussein/Bacon link.
  • Is it just me or did Jon Stewart completely kick his guest's ass over this issue tonight? I don't think I've ever seen him so aggressive towards a guest before.
  • I find it funny how "framing the argument" is alright as long as it's going in the right's favor. What is this, Hannity and Colmes? Regardless of partisan circle jerks, reporters are supposed to quote documents in context. It is possible to acknowledge both an Iraq/al Qaeda link and the lack of a link between Iraq and Sept. 11. I could care less about "the left" and "the right". Seriously.
  • Can't be Hannity and Colmes. We actually let people speak. And yeah, homunculus, I saw that. But the guy sorta deserved it. "Iran using mustard gas during the Iran/Iraq war, yeah, that's a theory." Just, wow.
  • Oops.
  • Here, it's not just the headlines...
  • I wonder if there are any government officials in the US that are part of the KKK... I would imagine so. I mean, you can't refute that. So that means that there are links between the US and the KKK. I mean, if coincedence is our evidence...
  • Flunkies like Zarqawi? Come on f8x, we've already talked about what constitutes a link, if we start debating the meaning of flunky all that means is we've gone past the point and right back to meaningless quibbles and bits. p.s. everybody else, stick to the topic at hand (I'm looking at you sullivan) p.p.s. Jon Stewart ripped that guy a new blowhole sewed it back up and ripped it open again.
  • p.s. everybody else, stick to the topic at hand (I'm looking at you sullivan) Topic? Newspaper headlines is a topic? Spooky, my view is this thread is silly. I suggest people go to the 9/11 Commision and read their web site, instead of headlines.
  • uh, yes. newspaper headlines was indeed the topic.
  • Sully, isn't that the problem? Most people aren't going to read the 9/11 Commission. Half of 'em just read the headlines. Which is why headline accuracy is just as important as article accuracy. Which was the point of this topic...
  • From the title, I thought it was about some sort of terrorist beauty pagaent. "Miss al-Qaeda." Imagine my disappointment.
  • f8xmulder, your point is valid but these days it seems like headlines are used primarily as attention-getters and teasers. Bias in a headline (let alone an article), however, should be unforgivable.
  • Most people aren't going to read the 9/11 Commission. Half of 'em just read the headlines. Not to worry, even more of them will just hear about it on Fox.
  • And even more will see it on CNN. Thus the circle of life is complete... And by the way, just saw this. The lieut. in the private militia may have been confused with another guy with a similar sounding name.
  • But remember, the Clinton economy was booming, and there were plenty of funds for things like perjury investigations. No, in all seriousness, that's appallingly little for the 9/11 Commission.
  • But remember, the Clinton economy was booming, and there were plenty of funds for things like perjury investigations. Ok, that made me laugh out loud. No, in all seriousness, that's appallingly little for the 9/11 Commission. Me and the f8xman seeing eye-to-eye, Alert the media! (Just don't let 'em write the headlines. =) )
  • Nyuck nyuck nyuck!
  • So does that link mean we can trust Chalabi again, homunculus?
  • I wouldn't recommend it, especially since this was well before bin Laden declared war on the US. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were still more connected to 9/11 than Saddam was, IMO.
  • Peter Bergen, the author of "Holy War, Inc." has an article on the new link between Iraq and al Qaeda, but you have to pay to read the whole thing: Backdraft: How the war in Iraq has fueled Al Qaeda and ignited its dream of global jihad.
  • homunculus, haven't you noticed that f8xy has moved on to the next talking point?
  • Thanks for that link, homunculus. It is the new Bush doctrine. Screw proof. Screw validation. Screw the U.N. and screw Europe and screw your damn 9/11 commission and screw every hunk of lingering logic and humanitarian reasoning on the planet and screw, finally, the notion that we need to justify our actions to anyone, least of all the dumbass American public, you who've swallowed every lie so far like Jenna swallows her 10th Coors Light. Just plain wow.
  • but it has also opened a new front for terrorists in Iraq and created a new justification for attacking Westerners around the world. Right, because terrorists always needed justification for attacking Westerners... This article, what portion I could read, doesn't acknowledge that terrorism, in its base form, has not changed since even before 9/11. There seems to be this weird belief that once long ago there was such a thing as terrorism but it was mysterious like vapour; it had no real form, no substance, and no direction--it was random, chaotic, unorganized, etc. But then, a polarizing figure came on board and suddenly all terrorists of the world had a keen and observable objective! Not only that, but this figure gave terrorists the excuse they needed to attack the people they hated! Oh, and this figure also provided the impetus to self organize and mutate into a highly evolved cellular organism which was more broadly defined by ideology than ever. Yes, clearly, this war and this president are responsible for the complete mutation of this rash on humanity called terrorism from wild-eyed far-away screaming bumblers into lethal, organized, nano-cellular homicide machines. Clearly, there was such an abundance of goodwill toward Westerners from terrorists before Bush came on board. Today, Al Qaeda is more than the narrowly defined group that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001; Gee, really? Could it be that we know more about Al Qaeda than ever before? Maybe that's why it's more than a narrowly defined group. This statement is like saying the crocodile is more than just a crusty amphibian after it bites your leg off. If someone wants to send me a link to the full article I'll be happy to dissect the rest of it. And Sully, love ya bro!
  • The problem with your disection f8xy, is that it's defined by your particular worldview. What makes your rebuttals any more plausible than the original assertions? It's not that there was an abundance of goodwill toward Westerners befor BushCo took up residence, but there was a hell of a lot more of it than there is now that he's been around to squander it for almost four years. And what about all the goodwill we had from the world right after 9/11? Where did that go? Surely even you have to admit that Bush's hardline stance against anyone and anything that didn't blow smoke up his ass had something to do with that. And Al Qaeda did go from a small, radical group bivvied in Afghanistan to a sprawling network of franchises all due to our incredibly inept romp through Mesopotamia. There was no "Faluja Brigade" before we went into Iraq. There were no terrorist bombings in Spain predicated on trying to get them to pull thier soldiers out of Iraq. And there was a damn sight less kidnapping of various Japaense, Korean, Italian and other citizens of the world before we moved into Iraq. If we had stayed the course in Afghanistan like we were supposed to, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. And... a crocodile is more than a crusty amphibian after it bites your leg off. Then it's the bastard that took your leg. But then, if you hadn't been walking around in the swamp, you probably wouldn't have lost your leg now, would you have?
  • f8x, Bergen may or may not be right, but you're ignoring his premises, that the war in Iraq has given motivation for people who were not terrorists before to become terrorists, and that it has given motivation to existing terrorist groups to coordiante with each other to a degree far greater than before the war. Here's Bergen's website, which has many of his articles. If I see this one elsewhere for free I'll post it.
  • What makes your rebuttals any more plausible than the original assertions? In a way that was part of my point. This guy does no more to convince the other side he's right than I convince you all that I'm right. He's a choir-preacher, and IMHO does a mediocre job of laying out even the semblance of salient, irrefutable points. His generalizations can be countered with more generalizations. but there was a hell of a lot more of it than there is now that he's been around to squander it for almost four years. Let me ask you this: what goodwill are we talking about? The 'goodwill' of terrorists or the goodwill of normal, non-terrorist people? From the first I don't think there ever was any goodwill. From the second--sure, we lost the goodwill of some Anglo-philes with appeasement complexes and a latent anti-American chip on their shoulder, but I can't say I or we as a nation really miss that. We still have support of a far greater multi-lateral coalition than most people want to give credit for. And Al Qaeda did go from a small, radical group bivvied in Afghanistan to a sprawling network of franchises all due to our incredibly inept romp through Mesopotamia. I'm curious: just what did we do to piss Al Qaeda off? If Al Quaeda had nothing to do with Iraq, and our war there was some misguided distraction from the war on terror, who exactly are we fighting? What does a war on terror mean? I seriously doubt it's bombing some camp in Libya, or even Afghanistan. And it's not about catching one guy or another guy. Whether we catch them or not, they'll still be heroes and martyrs and champions for the cause of terrorism, dead, alive, or incarcerated. They still have rallying power, and the mindset that allows onself to be deluded and seduced by such promises as these men give out is not going to be dissuaded by inaction. Had we decided to sit on our hands instead of attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, just where do you think we'd be? Fat and happy and goodwill'd by the French? Yes, I'm sure of it... But then, if you hadn't been walking around in the swamp, you probably wouldn't have lost your leg now, would you have? But of course, when you're trying to catch Gator McClusky, sometimes you have to tromp the swamp.
  • Bergen's premise is flat-out wrong. the war in Iraq has given motivation for people who were not terrorists before to become terrorists You mean the war in Iraq has brought to the surface latent terrorists and terrorist cells. See, it's all in the way you look at things. And forget these heady Time interviews with 17 year olds who joined up to fight the infidels--they're the very models of modern major terrorists -- do you really think they wouldn't have signed onto the great jihad at some point? They fit the profile too closely to not become what they are now at some point. The war in Iraq simply sped up that process... And thanks for the link, homunculus.
  • Well, if I were some seventeen-year-old kid, and somebody invaded my country and everything suddenly went tits-up, if I were watching friends and family die and towns be destroyed in the chaos, if I had some damn occupying force to contend with everyday...well, if someone offered me a chance to join an organization that's fighting to put a stop to it, I gotta say that'd be pretty attractive to me. Yet again, this is a big part of the reason why Bush Sr. decided not to invade Iraq the last time around. He knew how it could destabilize things. He listened to his advisors, who told him what an unholy mess things could become.
  • if I were watching friends and family die and towns be destroyed in the chaos... Actually, the friends and family are dying as a result of terrorist actions, not US actions. Indeed, the US campaign in Iraq was one of the least bloody military encounters, due to extreme care taken by the military not to target civilian areas. Of course, some areas suffered, but on the whole, it was a rather mild affair, comparatively. It's only since the 'insurgents' busted a gut trying to make their religion of peace the world standard that the chaos erupted. Like I said, the 17 year old isn't an anomaly, he's the model for terrorist beginnings...
  • Actually, the friends and family are dying as a result of terrorist actions, not US actions. Agreed, mostly. But if it were me, I'd be more likely to place blame with what caused the escalation in terrorist activity, namely the occupation. "Things were better before they showed up," that kind of thing.
  • Let me ask you this: what goodwill are we talking about? The 'goodwill' of terrorists or the goodwill of normal, non-terrorist people? From the first I don't think there ever was any goodwill. From the second--sure, we lost the goodwill of some Anglo-philes with appeasement complexes and a latent anti-American chip on their shoulder, but I can't say I or we as a nation really miss that. We still have support of a far greater multi-lateral coalition than most people want to give credit for. f8x, f8x, f8x... You've got to stop listening to Rush, buddy. Anglophiles with a latent anti-American chip on their shoulders? Who comes up with that stuff? We lost a lot more than "those we won't miss". And attitudes like that will ensure that we lose more. And your multi-lateral coalition? I defy you to name a country in that group outside of Australia, Italy, South Korea or the UK that's offered more than a token amount of support. I'm curious: just what did we do to piss Al Qaeda off? If Al Quaeda had nothing to do with Iraq, and our war there was some misguided distraction from the war on terror, who exactly are we fighting? What does a war on terror mean? I seriously doubt it's bombing some camp in Libya, or even Afghanistan. And it's not about catching one guy or another guy. Whether we catch them or not, they'll still be heroes and martyrs and champions for the cause of terrorism, dead, alive, or incarcerated. They still have rallying power, and the mindset that allows onself to be deluded and seduced by such promises as these men give out is not going to be dissuaded by inaction. Had we decided to sit on our hands instead of attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, just where do you think we'd be? Fat and happy and goodwill'd by the French? Yes, I'm sure of it... Did you miss the part where I said we should have stayed the course in Afghanistan instead of pissing away our forces on a stupid crusade in Iraq? Looks like you did. I'll reiterate, I'm all for stopping the terrorists. Iraq wasn't where they were. It's where they are now, sure. But that's because we created a breeding ground for them there. Al Qaeda had, at best, a minor foothold in Iraq before we went tromping through there like the careless elephants this administration has made us. Now Al Qaeda has new recruits daily.
  • Continued because I got cut off... Actually, the friends and family are dying as a result of terrorist actions, not US actions. Indeed, the US campaign in Iraq was one of the least bloody military encounters, due to extreme care taken by the military not to target civilian areas. Of course, some areas suffered, but on the whole, it was a rather mild affair, comparatively. It's not just about civilian casualties f8x. There's no black and white cause and effect here. It's also a largely mental thing. We've walked in and humilitaed these people. We've let the worst elements of some of their natures leak out and it's damn contagious. Let me put it to you this way. What if Germany had invaded us during Clinton's second term. They put in a Schroeder appointed viceroy and told you you were under German rule for the next year or so, but in the meantime you'd have to deal with regular power outages and a lack of clean water becuse the power stations and the pumping stations were taken out in the intial German attack to ensure that the resistance would be minimal. Add to that the fact that the less savory elements in your town have decided to take advantage of the relatively security lax German security post invasion and loot everthing they can get their hands on. You'd be pissed, wouldn't you. Would you blame your fellow Americans? Or would you blame the Germans? And would you just sit on your hands and quietly wait for those free elections? Or would you pick up a rifle and fight for your freedom? Actually, considering there are those on the right that already call some of the left, "appeasers", even if you didn't decide to do anything, there are those that would. If Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly went underground and told you to start rebelling against "Those Chocolate Makers", would'nt you want to do something? It's only since the 'insurgents' busted a gut trying to make their religion of peace the world standard that the chaos erupted. Like I said, the 17 year old isn't an anomaly, he's the model for terrorist beginnings... And the biggest difference between that 17-year-old and you is where you both were born. You were fortunate enough to be born in the US, he wasn't. Don't ever forget that. Because there but for the grace of God, goes you.
  • So why are we not hip-deep in Japanese terrorists today, Surly B?
  • Many reasons, not least of which was the fact that we handled post-war Japan a lot better than we handled post-war Iraq.
  • Surprisingly, I don't listen to Rush, and don't like him. I think he's pompous and Michael Moore-ish... I think this is the token support you're talking about... I didn't mean to imply that EVERYONE thinks Afghanistan was a mistake - but there are many who supported the invasion of Afghanistan at first but now think it a mistake. And what makes you say we haven't "stayed the course" in Afghanistan? It's not like we can't chew gum and walk down stairs at the same time here. What if Germany had invaded us during Clinton's second term. Why, was Clinton guilty of some of the worst human rights offenses in the latter half of the 20th century? Did Clinton repeatedly threaten and bully other people groups like the Kurds and Jews? Did Clinton invade Kuwait, or thumb his nose at the UN resolutions against him? Was he bellicose? Your analogy doesn't wash.
  • Answer the question. f8x.
  • Regarding post-WWII handling, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here...Well, there's tons more, but they're all from the same site - you get the picture, I hope. Could it be, surlyboi, that you have been sold a line by the media? This stuff dates back to just after the war. How come it looks exactly like today's crap headlines and news articles? Same newsprint, different year. And yet somehow the Allies managed to pick up both Germany and Japan from the bottom of the pile to become the economic and political leading nations they are today. I don't mind telling you that I find reports of woe and discontent from Iraq to be remarkably similar to these 1946 articles. Makes me wonder about what pipe the media's smoking...
  • What, answer the question that is completely disengenuous to the current situation? How about asking something that is appropriate?
  • No, answer the question. If a foreign occupier had set up camp in your home town, what would you do?
  • Y'know, I wasn't a passionate Clinton fan, but I certainly wouldn't compare him to Saddam Hussein.
  • Do you mind if I add a little som'in som'in to make your question more accurate and complete? Here's the question, in full: "If a foreign occupier had set up camp in your home town and deposed a dictator of long standing, what would you do?" I would be grateful for the deposing, and then I'd want them to get the heck out.
  • And no, I haven't been sold a line by the media. I don't believe 90% of the stuff the media peddles anyway. I've read transcripts and communications from the provisional leaders of both Gremany and Japan Post WWII. Stuff that wasn't covered in the newspapers of the time. (Pick up a few of the more recent issues of Foreign Affairs if you care to read some of them too....) Were there mistakes made in post-war Germany and Japan, but the differences between then and now is then we had people that could tell their asses from their elbows. Now, not so much. Funny how you blame the media and then cite a source that cites the media though.
  • Oh come on sb. You're better than that. The site I cited cites the media for examples of selective and overblown coverage. Citing the media as its own source isn't disengenuous. (sorry for the use of multiple homonyms)
  • How many sites would a site citer cite if a site citer could cite sites?
  • Bergen's premise is flat-out wrong. Maybe, maybe not. I don't hang out with these people so I can't really judge, but I'll defer to people like Bergen and Gunaratna, and even "Anonymous," who are studying them first hand.
  • Anonymous knows his shit.
  • From the article, quoting the book: "There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq," he writes. I dunno. I think the completed Islamic conquest of the globe is probably pretty high on their list of "hope fors"...
  • f8x; they're the very models of modern major terrorists I am the very model of a modern major terrorist, I know my cause is sacred, and I have no time for atheists, My methods are abhorrent, but my goals are Puritanical, And if I die, my martyrdom will always be poetical. (apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan's memory, and to all present.)
  • thank you zed! I haven't heard that in a while, but it's a refreshing take :-)
  • I dunno. I think the completed Islamic conquest of the globe is probably pretty high on their list of "hope fors"... Silly mulder, jihads are for kids... You can't have an Islamic conquest of the globe without recruits. The invasion of Iraq gave him that in spades. Say what you want about how bad Saddam was, but when he was in power all the wanna-be jihadists were pretty damn occupied being dictated to.
  • Silly mulder, jihads are for kids... Mmmmmm....jihads.... ...wanna-be jihadists were pretty damn occupied being dictated to. Except for the ones who took out the Towers, of course. And the Cole. And the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. But yeah, everyone else.
  • Nice try, bud. You know the ones I was talking about. And if you're gonna cop back to the BS story that the wanna-bes in Iraq had something to do with the Cole, the WTC or anything else, this debate ends here.
  • The secret history of Anonymous: The author of Imperial Hubris is unmasked and says he fears for his job at the CIA, not for his life at the hands of Al Qaeda.
  • According to the General Accounting Office (the investigative arm of Congress) Iraq is worse off than when Saddam Hussein was running it.
  • Nicholas Kristoff defends George W. Bush.
    In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed, there's some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies
  • Glenn Reynolds is still trying to peddle Saddam-9/11 links. His reliable source of information is new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. From Salon
    Though he is Shiite, Allawi was once upon a time an active Baathist, a member of Saddam Hussein's political party, and is thought to enjoy much support among the officer corps of the old Iraqi army, and by extension among many former Baathists and influential Sunni. Indeed, there are reports that the reason Ahmed Chalabi, the neoconservative favorite, urged his friends in the White House to dissolve the army last year -- a decision now acknowledged to be the most disastrous of the occupation -- was Chalabi's fear of the support enjoyed by his rival (and cousin -- everyone in Baghdad is related) within the military.
    He also scares the hell out of Chalabi, but that didn't stop the both of them from feeding the White House bogus intelligence about WMDs. Translation: he's a goon and a liar.
    Just as Chalabi did, Allawi, in his quiet way, supplied the requisite quota of misinformation on Saddam's WMD to justify the Bush-Blair war program. The infamous lie about Saddam's ability to deploy biological weapons in 45 minutes that Blair put out in his dossier came from Allawi's organization.
  • More Anonymous: The Threat We Refuse to Get
  • And he's on Charlie Rose (it should repeat tomorrow.) There seems to be a problem with the lighting.
  • And goetter stole my joke upthread there, which I find both offensive and unkind. I may have cracked it a month or so ago, but the fact that he didn't do a thorough search for it indicates his contempt for the members of this community, who work ceaselessly to make the world a better place by compulsively hitting the "refresh" button. Double-joke, buster!
  • I'd hit it.
  • There is evidence of foreign intelligence backing for the 9/11 hijackers. Why is the US government so keen to cover it up? Been following that one homunculus. The reason why is because that would explain why Sibel Edmonds was fired and that the Pakistan government might have set Daniel Pearl up. So the U.S. is giving money to Pakistan which is giving money to the Taliban. Now that makes me feel safer.
  • Speaking of Edmunds: FBI Whistleblower Claims Confirmed
  • Er, Edmonds.
  • Uncovered at last: the al Qaeda/South America connection (or lack thereof, but let's bomb 'em anyway!)
  • I'd hit one.
  • Kinda slow getting that out, weren't they?
  • Um, better late than never?
  • Meh.
  • Osama and Saddam were totally in cahoots. Here is the proof!
  • Mmm . . yes, but it's not exactly a smoking gun. Poppy knew Sheik so-and-so and they went on to hang out with Osama's brother - a connection but nothing that couldn't be inferred from the huge Bush family involvement with the Saudis. Which is actually more of a compelling story IMMO.
  • I haven't read the above articles yet - - but I was just noting today how there seems to be an upswing in the US Media and reports referencing "al-Qaida". I feel like a guinea pig that is being force-fed, again. Earlier today, CNN was running a front page story with the catchy title, "More Blood Will Be Shed" in regards to the capture of Jemaah Islamiyah "terror leader" Abu Dujana. It's nothing new whatsoever, yet they pump it up in blood-letting glory, and manage to tie it to "al-Qaida". *goes off to read the links above*
  • Wow, I really wasn't going crazy after all. *mind spins*
  • Nah, it's not you, SMT. It's the world. Our portion of it, anyway.
  • CIA Rendition: The Smoking Gun Cable
    Under torture after his rendition to Egypt, al Libi had provided a confession of how Saddam Hussein had been training al Qaeda in chemical weapons. This evidence was used by Colin Powell at the United Nations a year earlier (February 2003) to justify the war in Iraq. ("I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these [chemical and biological] weapons to al Qaeda," Powell said. "Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story.") But now, hearing how the information was obtained, the CIA was soon to retract all this intelligence. A Feb. 5 cable records that al Libi was told by a "foreign government service" (Egypt) that: "the next topic was al-Qa'ida's connections with Iraq...This was a subject about which he said he knew nothing and had difficulty even coming up with a story." Al Libi indicated that his interrogators did not like his responses and then "placed him in a small box approximately 50cm X 50cm [20 inches x 20 inches]." He claimed he was held in the box for approximately 17 hours. When he was let out of the box, al Libi claims that he was given a last opportunity to "tell the truth." When al Libi did not satisfy the interrogator, al Libi claimed that "he was knocked over with an arm thrust across his chest and he fell on his back." Al Libi told CIA debriefers that he then "was punched for 15 minutes." (Sourced to CIA cable, Feb. 5, 2004). Here was a cable then that informed Washington that one of the key pieces of evidence for the Iraq war -- the al Qaeda/Iraq link -- was not only false but extracted by effectively burying a prisoner alive.