Whip it out, Prez!

Testosterone-oozing Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol is Alpha mad that the rest of us haven't accepted his Saddam-was-Osama's-girlfriend reportage:

The Bush administration has shied away from engaging the issue of Saddam and his terror ties. This is both foolish and unmanly.

Snap! But fear not -- Kristol quickly reassures us that "The president is neither."

Link via Public Diplomacy Press Review.

Comments

[theCoach]

Matt,
I fear your lack of obsequiousness towards Bush will trouble many Reason regulars.

Get with the program and perhaps you too can enjoy lucrative contracts writing copy for TCS.

[Bush Sucks Donkey Balls]

Considering the fact that his mom Gertrude Himmelfarb probably had a quite massive wang, Bill Kristol is probably one of the most testosterone oozing public intellectuals on the seen.

[John]

In fact, some of these documents have already been the subject of media reports:

(1) A 1992 internal Iraqi Intelligence memo lists Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset in "good contact" with the Iraqi Intelligence section in Damascus. The Defense Intelligence Agency told 60 Minutes the document is authentic.

(2) Another internal Iraqi Intelligence memo, this one from the mid-1990s, reports that a Sudanese government official met with Uday Hussein and the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service in 1994, in order to set up meetings between bin Laden and Iraqi Intelligence in Sudan. According to the Iraqi document, bin Laden was "approached by our side" after "presidential approval" for the liaison was given. The former head of Iraqi Intelligence Directorate 4 met with bin Laden on February 19, 1995. Bin Laden requested that Iraq's state-run television network broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda; the document states that the Iraqis agreed to honor this request. The al Qaeda leader also proposed "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia; there is no Iraqi response provided in the documents. When bin Laden left Sudan for Afghanistan in May 1996, the Iraqis sought "other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." The IIS memo directs that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement." Pentagon analysts told the New York Times that the document appears authentic.

3) Another set of Iraqi Intelligence documents were recovered by two journalists scouring the bombed-out headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service in Baghdad. The documents, taken from the IIS accounting department, show that on February 19, 1998, the Iraqi Intelligence Service had finalized plans to bring a "trusted confidant" of bin Laden's to Baghdad in early March. The following comes from the Telegraph's translations of the documents:

The envoy is a trusted confidant and known by them. According to the above mediation we request official permission to call Khartoum station to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him.

A note at the bottom of the page from the director of one IIS division recommends approving the request, noting, "we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden." Four days later, on February 23, final approval is granted. "The permission of Mr. Deputy Director of Intelligence has been gained on 21 February for this operation, to secure a reservation for one of the intelligence services guests for one week in one of the first class hotels."

Well, Matt perhaps you might want to enlighten everyone on why these things Kristol is claiming are untrue rather than making pithy and meaningless comments about them? You don't accept them and think Kristol is full of it, okay that is fair enough. Why? What among these claims is wrong? Please enlighten the rest of us.

[John]

I guess what pisses me off about this post is that Welch in saying "the rest of us haven't accepted his Saddam-was-Osama's-girlfriend reportage" is acting like Krystol is expecting everyone to believe him for no other reason than he says so when in fact, Krystol has what appear to be some pretty compelling facts in his article. Is it too much to expect Welch to take Krystol on his own terms and respond to what he says rather than just dismissing it because I guess Welch says it is not true?

[Akira MacKenzie]

OK, you can argue the merits of the alleged Saddam/Osma Connection and dubb one "foolish" if the evidence irrefutablly points that way?

But unmanly??? What the frak does gender or machismo have to do with any of this? It would be like me saying that Creationists aren't just idiots, but "flaming queers!"

Then again, most evangelicals hate gays and lesbians, and homophobia can be an indicator of latent homosexual tendencies....

[zach]

These kind of comments speak to my fear that Bush was re-elected due to a nationwide gender identity crisis.

[John]

Akira,

All Kristol is saying that Bush needs to get off of his ass and not be afraid to argue his point. Is the use of the word "unmanly" the best choice of words? Probably not, but who cares. The interesting thing about the article is the evidence Kristol presents, which Welch blythly dismisses.

[James Feldman]

Hold the phone: you mean to tell me that over the course of 13 years, we can prove that al-Qaeda met three times with representatives of the Iraqi government? And that we can also prove that the Iraqi government covered the hotel bill?

Why, that's almost as much of a substantive connection as the meetings between Texas state officials and energy industry representatives with representatives from the Taliban when President Bush was Governor of Texas.

John, it isn't that what you are saying is untrue (that I know of). It is that it is meaningless, and more than that, that after all that was said by the President and his associates that coming up with three actual meetings is a pathetic failure to vindicate their claims.

[John]

James,

1) A 1992 internal Iraqi Intelligence memo lists Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset in "good contact" with the Iraqi Intelligence section in Damascus

Good contact implies more than one meeting and in fact implies continuous contact. I thought Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other?

According to the Iraqi document, bin Laden was "approached by our side" after "presidential approval" for the liaison was given. The former head of Iraqi Intelligence Directorate 4 met with bin Laden on February 19, 1995. Bin Laden requested that Iraq's state-run television network broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda; the document states that the Iraqis agreed to honor this request. The al Qaeda leader also proposed "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia; there is no Iraqi response provided in the documents. When bin Laden left Sudan for Afghanistan in May 1996, the Iraqis sought "other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." The IIS memo directs that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

Bin Laden was broke when he was kicked out of Sudan, but magically turned up with millions in Afghanistan and was able to bankroll the Taliban. This is also the time in which we now know Saddam got the oil for food scam up and running. Doesn't this memo create a pretty good circumstantial case that Bin Laden may have gotten his money from Saddam? He got it from somewhere and no one knows where. Saddam is a pretty good candidate.

A note at the bottom of the page from the director of one IIS division recommends approving the request, noting, "we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden." Again I thought Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other? Apparently not. Further this shows the contacts continued after the 1992 meeting listed above. Bin Laden had the ability to strike the U.S. and Saudis but no money. Saddam had money but no means. Is it so prepostorous to beleive that one bankrolled the other?

There were a hell of a lot more than three contacts as you suggest. Further, it does not take a million meetings for Saddam to bankroll bin Laden. Exactly what evidence are you expecting to find?

[SR]

Setting aside the question of authenticity (I wouldn't trust the DIA to authenticate its own cafeteria menu at this point) the above documents are almost completely mutually exclusive, e.g., if (1) is true then (2) and (3) are almost certainly false, etc. For example, if bin Laden is a "good contact" of Iraqi Intelligence, meaning (in your own words) "more than one meeting and in fact implies continuous contact", then why would Iraqi Intelligence need "presidential approval" and the intervention of the Sudanese government in 1995 just to talk to the guy? And why would they need "new channels" to talk to bin Laden merely because he moved to Afghanistan? And again, in 1998, Iraqi Intelligence allegedly had to get official permission to bring an associate of bin Laden's to Baghdad to be able to convey a message to bin Laden. Generously assuming all three documents are genuine, the only way they can be reconciled is to say that Iraqi Intelligence showed interest in trying to contact bin Laden through a series of arm's length dealings, which is a far, far cry from proving that Iraq financed or substantially assisted in the 9/11 attacks.

[SPD]

John,

If these documents could be corroborated and lend credence to the floundering "invade Iraq to defeat al-Qaeda" argument for war, why weren't Bush and Co. tripping over themselves to make these overwhelmingly public?

When, exactly, were (are) they saving this damning evidence for?

Question: Wasn't Bin Laden being bankrolled by various members of the Saudi royal family (too)? So, when do we invade Riyadh?

[Jason Ligon]

I was under the impression that there was no substantial evidence of a connection between the two. If there is evidence out there, I can only say that the left is doing a hell of a lot better than the Administration in the PR race.

[R C Dean]

I was under the impression that there was no substantial evidence of a connection between the two.

Then you were suckered. The Saddamites and AQ were quite well acquainted, thanks. Google around a little - "Saddam al Qaeda connection" for example.

If there is evidence out there, I can only say that the left is doing a hell of a lot better than the Administration in the PR race.

Damn straight. Clinton was such a master at massaging the media that he spoiled us; the Bush administration is notably inept at getting a message out.

[Ammonium]

We all know that Saddam-was-Satan's-Girlfriend (or is it boyfriend?)

If there's some proof that Satan is Osama -- neither is seen above very often -- then Kristol is right.

[slightlybad]

The Weekly Standard has been reporting that there is a huge backlog of Iraqi intelligence documents that have yet to be translated. Apparently the ones that got priority related to WMD (yeah, that worked out). The U.S. is getting to some of the others now, and apparently the Iraqi Army ran several camps in Iraq training terrorists/insurgents/guerillas/whatever, mostly from North Africa. Yemen and Sudan mostly, I think. The guys were members of groups that are affiliated with Al Qaeda

You've got to consider the source, and I obviously can't vouch for the truthfullness, but it seems consistent with Saddam's record of destabilizing other Middle Eastern states. The ironic thing at this point is that the administration can't really use it because so many people have accused them of lying in order to tie Saddam to Al Qaeda.

[bb]

RC, does the fact that Saddamites and AQ were well acquainted mean anything? US officials have met with Russian/Soviet officials thousands of times. So what? Does that alone prove anything more than they met?

[Charles Oliver]

"A 1992 internal Iraqi Intelligence memo lists Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset in "good contact" with the Iraqi Intelligence section in Damascus."

So why two years later, was a Sudanese government officials trying to arrange a meeting between OBL and Iraqi intelligence?

[Warren]

WK has been spectacularly wrong about absolutely everything. Why isn't this guy homeless by now?

[Phil]

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,590,000 for saddam al qaeda connection. (0.33 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,470,000 for saddam al qaeda no connection. (0.33 seconds)

This pair of results ________________ RC Dean's post.

a) proves
b) disproves
c) renders irrelevant

Also, damn that dastardly leftist 9/11 panel!

[Vanya]

Isn't this whole argument a side show at this point anyway? 99% of Americans agree that Saddam was a bad guy, whether or not he and Osama were bosom buddies or hated each other. Bush's popularity issues with most Americans are based on the perception that he conducted the occupation in an inept and incompetent way creating a dangerous and chaotic situation in the Middle East that could have been avoided. Proving Saddam's putative ties to Bin Laden does not address the insufficient troops, the lack of planning, the lack of an exit strategy and continuing inability to create stability in the center of Iraq. War Hawks like Bremer are attempting to make themselves look better at Bush's expense by talking about precisely these issues. So Krystol is either politically tone deaf or engaging in misdirection.

[Rich Ard]

d) is not relevant because Google drops the word "no" in a search and searching the simple string 'saddam al qaeda no connection' returns the same amount of results as 'saddam al qaeda connection'.

[vanya]

To summarize my previous post - the reason Bush refuses to back up the Weekly Standards "heroic" reporting is because other than historians and a few hundred rabid bloggers on opposite sides of the spectrum no-one else a this point really gives a sh*t about a Saddam-Bin Laden connection.

[Phil]

"Or I suppose I could actually look at the search results myself instead of mouthing off.".

[linguist]

That the Iraqi bureacrats referred to bin Laden as "the Saudi opposition leader" certainly gave me pause. Interesting.

[scott]

coach-

I fear your lack of obsequiousness towards Bush will trouble many Reason regulars.

Hmm... I am mostly a "lurker, but just looking at who I consider to be "regulars"...

thoreau
Jennifer
ken schultz
Hakluyt
stevo darkly
Joe(boyle)
rick barton
smacky
pro libertate
gaius
kevrob
RCDean
linguist
Herrick(and his balls...)
Douglas Fletcher
Eric the .5b
Warren
Dave W.
fyodor
dhex
Akira

Not to mention the somewhat "less than 'regular'- but still memorable(to me)" contributors like-

twba
MNG(mr nice guy)
zach
lowdog
TWC(The Wine "Connie sewer"-- I ain't lookin it up!- but some of us who had Prodigy definitely remember "Dangermouse"...)
rich ard
larry a
Rhywun
Jeff P.

Actually, I see only one person of all those named above who could even possibly considered 'obsequious toward Bush'-- "Hi, RC!"

Please name the other 'many Reason regulars' that a abject 'BDS sufferer' like yourself feel all us 'true libertarians' should be troubled by...

(FYI, my Pres. votes in order:)
1984 Reagan
1988 Abstain(voted the rest of the card, left the top blank...)
1992 Marrou
1996 Browne
2000 Browne
2004 Peroutka

[Ruthless]

Bill Kristol's daddy, Irving... now there was a mensch.

forfend

[Mark B.]

Here's what's missing from the documentation cited above:

1)Any real evidence that substantial cash was being channeled from Iraqi sources into Al Qaeda;

2)Any real evidence that arms or other material support were being delivered to Bin Laden from Iraqi sources;

3)Any real evidence that Iraqi and Al Qaeda operatives or officials engaged in close cooperation and planning (asking for "anti-Saudi propaganda broadcasts" hardly counts);

4)Any real evidence that Bin Laden reciprocated Saddam's interest in closer intelligence communication.

Absent this, all you have is a record of sporadic, unsystematic contacts, none of which lends any support to the idea that Saddam was a kingpin of Islamic terrorism. I think Saddam would certainly have liked to have made more use of existing terror organizations to further his regional goals, but there isn't a shred of hard evidence to link him to 9/11 or any other major international Al Qaeda attacks.

[jpe]

If this "news" were from anyone but the Weekly Standard, it might be intriguing.

[Lazlo]

Phil, the search you actually want is:

saddam "al qaeda" +"no connection"

About 162,000 results, all of which would also be showing up in the "connection"-only results...for whatever the hell that's worth.

[zardoz]

All this blather about whether there was a "connection" is pointless. Who cares? We have "connections" with North Korea, doesn't mean we support them. What does matter is what fruit that connection bore, and according to Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice and the rest of the Rat Pack, we were guaranteed some WMDs would be on display if only we invaded Iraq. Yep, lots and lots of them, and remember "we know where they are". What a gyp.

And what about other, more tangible evidence of a connection, like bank records? For anything to happen, such as weapons, intelligence or uranium to be sold, money must change hands. Is it feasible that nowhere are there existing records of large wire transfers through Swiss banks to people acting as fronts for either Saddam or OBL? Are we to believe that everyone involved here paid each other with suitcases of good Western money, begging to be stolen by underlings? I don't buy that.

I guess WK figures when you can't make your case anymore, the best thng to do is to impugn someone's masculinity.

[Les]

But I thought it was unmanly to vocally support a war and the military when you're a young man and at the same time do everything possible to avoid combat and/or substantive military service in that war.

[io1029]

Phil:
A bit late, but:

Results 1 - 10 of about 5,100,000 for saddam is your mother. (0.30 seconds)

This proves that _____________________.

a) You need to learn how to google.
b) RC Dean was trying to get you to educate yourself.
c) Saddam is your mother!
d) All of the above

[gibbon1]

"Then again, most evangelicals hate gays and lesbians,"

Nah, most evangelicals are pathetically guilt ridden about sex period.

"and homophobia can be an indicator of latent homosexual tendencies...."

Not that there is anything wrong with that. The main problem with homophobia is that homo's throw the best parties, so it means you miss out.

[Pro Libertate]

Scott, I must protest. I'm willing to be obsequious toward Bush. . .for ONE BILLION DOLLARS. Therefore, I should be added to the list of people willing to be obsequious toward Bush under certain conditions.

[Garth]

WAH! I didn't make Scott's "regulars list" WAH!

Does that make me a lurker?

[Oblate Spheroid]

I'm just a lurker here, but it seems like the real point is being missed. Whether or not Hussein's gov't. was involved in 9/11 is completely irrelevant. The real question is what was that gov't likely to do in the future. That's the basis for determining whether or not to remove it from power. The war is about preventing another 9/11, not exacting a pound of flesh for the last one.

If these documents are authentic, then it's plausible that Hussein and Bin Laden would at least have the potential to cooperate with each other. To think that these two would not take advantage of the opportunity to further their own ends by using each other as long as is convenient regardless of their philosophical differences is naive to the point of deliberate stupidity. Such vermin would have no problem crawling into bed with the Devil himself, much less each other.

Ultimately, the question becomes "Would you bet your life that Saddam and Osama wouldn't use each other?"

It seems like a lot of folks on this board would be very happy to have a President who would take that bet and roll the dice with all our asses....

[joe]

Oblate,

Number of dead asses is over 2100 - approaching 9/11 levels. And that's just the Americans, and that's just the deaths.

Starting a war is never the "safe thing" - it's the biggest crap shoot in the world.

[Oblate Spheroid]

Agreed, Joe. Unfortunately, we simply cannot tolerate something worse than 9/11. Al-Qaida and others of their stripe can do precious little without at least the tacit support of a nation. Therefore, it seems the best strategy is to deal with those nations most willing to help/use them (e.g., Iran, Syria, etc.). The longer we take to do this, the worse it will be.

The loss of one American is too much for me, but, from a wider perspective, if a country of 300 million is unwilling to risk the lives of 2100 in its own defense, how long is that country going to survive? I guess I'd rather lose 2100 than 21,000 or more.

[Garth]

Oblate,

Are you really of the opinion that our invading Iraq, killing thousands of Iraqis (including many innocents), and unleashing sectarian violence there has made us safer? Given that there were no Iraqis involved in any terror attacks against us in the past, and no significant connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda previously, that seems a stretch. It seems more likely that we are now less safe given the many thousands who have a new, personal reason to be angry with us.

You might reply that you believe that Saddam could have posed a threat in the future. Why would that be? For a decade after the Gulf War he posed no threat to us (periodic shooting at our boys enforcing the no-fly zone hardly counts). Is it not more likely that he would be more concerned with saving his own skin and that of his regime than enrage us? Just tell me what his motive would be and I'll consider it.

I suspect that SH's posturing over WMD was about maintining an illusion of strength to impress his populace and to keep his neighbors at arms length. Or maybe he's just an asshole (well whatever, he is an asshole nonetheless)

[rob]

"periodic shooting at our boys enforcing the no-fly zone hardly counts" - joe

Didn't you just get done bemoaning the loss of life to US soldiers as a reason we shouldn't be in Iraq?

Yep! "Number of dead asses is over 2100 - approaching 9/11 levels. And that's just the Americans, and that's just the deaths."

Doesn't this seem contradictory to you?

While I suspect that you are right to "suspect that SH's posturing over WMD was about maintining an illusion of strength to impress his populace and to keep his neighbors at arms length," it certainly makes it a lot more reasonable to invade Iraq if that's what he keeps claiming. It wasn't Bush that lied on this one, it was Saddam. At least that's what you seem to be saying, and I'd agree.

"Starting a war is never the "safe thing" - it's the biggest crap shoot in the world." - joe

Well, then we won that crap shoot in a matter of days. It's the foreign policy aspirations of the current administration to occupy Iraq until it has been re-built into a reasonably decent, democratic place that has created the majority of casualties. By your logic, we should have gone in, leveled the place and left the Iraqis to clean it up when we were done. I guarantee THAT would create even more enemies than what we've done.

So maybe, just maybe, it makes sense to re-biuld what we've destroyed. Look at how well it worked in Germany and Japan...

[rob]

Woops! I totally misconstrued Garth's post as belonging to joe. My bad!

[Ken]

John seems to have disappeared once the value and authenticity of his "evidence" was challenged. We have a guy who writes for the college newspaper around here, a fellow who, like Kristol, cups Bush's balls on a regular basis, who wrote one day that it was now known, thanks to the Weekly Standard, that Saddam had definite Osama ties! How amazing, what a scoop! The Bi-Partisan 9/11 Committee examined tons of evidence that the average person cannot see and it had plenty of Republicans on it, and they found "no actionable link" between the two, but the Weekly Standard found the 'real' truth! The fact is that there are hundreds of CIA and intelligence analysts sending many memo's a day to folks higher up, which are then examined and the vast majority unsubstantiated and then safely ignored. This is the kind of 'evidence' people who deeply and dearly want to see GW correct (they should ask themselves, why do I want to see him so correct? Is that normal or intelligent, to want so badly to see any person or party as correct?) point to. But all the Middle East experts and intelligence experts who have no dog in this fight are agreed: there was no link to speak of and GW and folks like Kristol blew this up for some bizzarre reason...