Sunday, December 21
Saddam is not a descendant of the Prophet SAW
via Al-Jazeera comes a story not about Saddam's vanity, but rather of the intellectual wasteland that is most modern Arab theologic inquiry. The egotism of Saddam in trying to attach his lineage to that of the Prophet SAW - especially to that of the martyred Imam Husain AS - comes as no surprise. But the fact that the supposed guardians of the records of the lineage itself are so bereft of any principle that they acquiesced in the first place is beyond outrageous, it verges on the obscene. By removing Saddam's name only now three days after his capture, they reveal themselves to be cowards and liars as well.
The name of Saddam Hussein has been removed from the list of descendants of the Prophet Muhammad.
The head of the union of Ashrafs, Al-Sherif Najeh Muhammad Hassan al-Faham al-Aaraji admitted that the ousted president had been able to cheat despite the great value and honour attached to the line which is guarded in Baghdad.
The Ashrafs guard the Prophet's genealogical tree.
"Saddam had forced the origin experts to falsify his genealogical tree so that it went back to the Prophet," he said.
Sadly, this kind of deliberate historical falsification is not limited to genealogy. As long as the collected hadiths of Bukhari are accorded any kind of respect in this world, the worldwide practice of Islam will remain tainted.
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
3:35 PM |
can liberty be imposed?
an essay in The New Yorker relates a historical parallel to our Iraq adventure - that of French Algieria:
Unlike the French mission in Algeria, Washington’s goal in Iraq is not to prevent the people from governing their own country but to help them to do so. Presumably, the insurgents—about whose politics, allegiances, organization, and objectives shockingly little is known—also want to see Iraqis in power, if not the same ones that Washington might favor. The question “Is America to remain in Iraq?” would ultimately receive the same negative answer from the occupiers as from the guerrillas. But, as the Bush Administration pushes for speedy elections and a speedy exit, Algeria’s example is again worth bearing in mind. In the early nineties, an Islamic fundamentalist party won elections in that country by a solid majority but was prevented from taking power by the secular military, which refused to accept the democratic election of an anti-democratic government. As a result, the country descended into a civil war that is reported to have claimed a hundred thousand lives.
This really is the nub of the question - are we seeking to give Iraq democracy, or liberty? Both are important and idealistic concepts. Democracy is the will of the people, and is more universal a human desire. Liberty is a freedom to dictate the circumstances of your personal life, such that you can achieve the pursuit of happiness (as defined by our American founding documents) and rests solidly upon the First Amendment - freedom of speech and religion.
I am confident that democracy can be imposed, but the outcome is not guaranteed to be liberty. People don't, as a rule, understand liberty as a concept until they actually have to fght for it, to earn it - as our Founders said, the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots. Can liberty be given? I don't think so. It has to be won, not gifted.
I don't doubt that we will succeed in gifting democracy to Iraq. But my prediction is that the result will be a Shi'a theocracy, though unlike Iran the true political clerical leadership of Iraq's Shi'a are more open to the concepts of liberty than the fundamentalists who imposed theocratic rule in Iran were (with the people's democratic blessing).
Ayatollah Sistani will be better than Saddam in all respects - and the true villains remaining on the field are those on the Interim Governing Council who are taking note of Bush's plan to cut and run in time for election 2004, and moving to cement their positions accordingly.
Given a choice between the imposed rule of the IGC and the democratic groundswell of the Shi'a majority, what seems inevitable? Democracy is as desirable, if not more, than liberty, and of the two concepts, only one is within the reach of th emajority of people in Iraq. They will harvest that fruit soon enough.
The Islamic Republic of Iraq is inevitable.
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
3:15 PM |
what's the solution, then?
Yourish has an interesting anecdote about a pair of siblings reunited after six decades. It's a touching story, and brings to mind many similar ones I've read about at the Holocaust museum in Los Angeles (thee only one, unfortunately, I've ever had a chance to visit, though the Boston Holocaust Memorial still takes my breath away with its stark and elegant design, which conveys the sheer human cost of the Holocaust in inescapable, visual terms).
But I confess to being completely mystified by the assertion that follows:
This is why Israel was established. This is why Israel must exist. The one-state solution is not a solution for Jews. The palestinians have never protected so much as a single Jewish religious site. What makes you think they'd care about an old man wanting to see his little sister after 65 years?
I'm sorry but I don't really see the connection between the specific story she relates and why a binational state couldn't exist. Her implication seems to be that hatred must be eternal, and exists for its own sake - which is I guess a point where hyper-semites like Yourish and third-party moderate observers like myself disagree. I think it's about the occupation, she thinks that it's anti-Semitism as a pure force of hatred that is an axiom of the world, completely separate from any other type of hatred directed at ethnic groups and religions since the dawn of human history. This really is a rhetorical impasse that won't be readily bridged.
And let's not forget that Jews have propspered and thrived in America more so than any nation on the earth and through all of history - far more so than Israel - and this is precisely because America has no ethnic or religious identity as its foundation. If Jews can succeeed so spectacularly here, despite America being founded by Europeans whose history of violent anti-Semitism remains far in excess of the collective thuggery the Arab world could ever inflict, then it seems that a binational state is (in theory, at least) not an impossible dream. While others have made persuasive arguments as to why a two-state solution must be an interim goal, I remain fully convinced that the American model is the desirable end point, and that any peace in the middle east needs to acknowledge that ideal as the one worthy of ultimate adoption.
But assuming that there's a special resonance to this story that does support the assertion that a binational state could never work, what's the alternative? It's clear from Yourish's other writing that she is a Zionist in the "settlements must remain in the West Bank" sense of the word, not the tamer lowercase-z "Jews have a right to a homeland" sense (which prety much makes me a zionist too).
Consider what outcomes remain, then, if we accept as axioms that 1. Israel must always be Jewish majority and 2. Greater Israel must be secured. I can think of only one logical policy that adoption of these axioms will require, and it does indeed hinge on a group of semitic peoples being driven into the sea.
Fortunately, Sharon seems to disagree. I'll leave judgement of whether he is sincere or not to experts, but his public acknowledgement that settlements are an obstacle to peace and the Jewish self-interest does indeed seem to be the rhetorical death knell of capital-Z Zionism, and at the hand of a Settler PM, no less.
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
1:00 PM |
Happy Chanukkah
Jonathan Edelstein has a wonderful post from last year about the historical meaning of Channukah. It's also cleverly titled with the name of a folk song sung by Mediterranean Jews, whose culture is undergoing a revival and whose language incorporates elements of Turkish and Spanish among others. There was a piece on NPR recently about this little-known Jewish cultural tradition but I can't seem to find the link..
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
12:32 PM |
Friday, December 19
the wisdom of FDR for right and left
from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" address to Congress in 1941, comes much that is relevant to today's situation of foreign and domestic uncertainty and challenges. There are lessons here for both right and left. On the issue of the national defense and foreign policy, he said:
Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe, Asia, Africa and Australasia will be dominated by the conquerors. Let us remember that the total of those populations and their resources in those four continents greatly exceeds the sum total of the population and the resources of the whole of the Western Hemisphere-many times over.
In times like these it is immature--and incidentally, untrue--for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world.
No realistic American can expect from a dictator's peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion -or even good business.
Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. "Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
As a nation, we may take pride in the fact that we are softhearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed.
We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach the "ism" of appeasement.
[...]
The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy should be devoted primarily-almost exclusively--to meeting this foreign peril. For all our domestic problems are now a part of the great emergency.
Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.
And on the matter of the domestic front, FDR was no less epic in his vision:
Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor in the world.
For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:
Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
Jobs for those who can work.
Security for those who need it.
The ending of special privilege for the few.
The preservation of civil liberties for all.
The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.
These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.
Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate improvement.
As examples:
We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance.
We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.
We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it.
I have called for personal sacrifice. I am assured of the willingness of almost all Americans to respond to that call.
A part of the sacrifice means the payment of more money in taxes. In my Budget Message I shall recommend that a greater portion of this great defense program be paid for from taxation than we are paying today. No person should try, or be allowed, to get rich out of this program; and the principle of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our legislation.
If the Congress maintains these principles, the voters, putting patriotism ahead of pocketbooks, will give you their applause.
I can't imagine a leader in today's time making a similar call for personal sacrifice, which yes does indeed sometimes mean that the government needs more money, not less. But as long as we are bound by conservative ideological doctrine, we remain shackled with one hand behind our back (to borrow FDR's metaphor from the previous excerpt).
The closing ofthe address is perhaps the most important part. The Four Freedoms that FDR enunciated there are still to my mind the bedrock of American supremacy and values, and key to human happiness and liberty in the world:
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want--which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
To that new order we oppose the greater conception--the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.
Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change -- in a perpetual peaceful revolution -- a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions--without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.
This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. To that high concept there can be no end save victory.
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
2:57 PM |
Thursday, December 18
psychological synergy?
when you combine the concepts of "making shit up" and "wishful thinking", you get some amazing prose:
"There is a psychological synergy between the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, so if there is any setback in Iraq it will have a ripple effect in Afghanistan," he said. "Bin Laden and his group will be on the defensive and demoralization may set in."
People who actually know what they are talking about might note that 1. Saddam was an infidel to Osama, that 2, Iraq is thousands of miles from Afghanistan, 3. Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, and 4. the capture of Saddam is if anything a propaganda gift with which to portray America as unduly harrassing your heroic local Arab leader.
Look, it's fantastic we got Saddam. But let's not count our Osamas before they're caught in their own respective ratcaves, ok?
UPDATE: At Eschaton, Thumb also notes: "wasn't the removal of Saddam and his non-secular rule one of Osama's goals, along with the removal of US bases in Saudi Arabia (I wonder how that ever turned out)? Demoralized? Yeah, you betcha."
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
11:43 AM |
Some links on Saddam's history
Given the misery that Saddam has inflicted upon the people of Iraq, justice demands that 
his connection to the US deserves to get a wide airing now that he has been captured. It is uncertain if Saddam himself will try and incriminate the US in his defense against war crimes - though Iran has certainly indicated its intent in that regard. Juan Cole provides a succinct summary of the relationship:
Saddam may confirm what former CIA analysts have been telling reporters for years: that Saddam was an agent of the CIA in the 1960s; that the CIA helped him target Iraqi communists in 1963 during a brief period of Baath rule; and that when the Baath came back to power in 1968, the CIA favored Saddam's clan over a rival Baath leader, ensuring that he was in a position to come to power.
Michael Moore makes a similar point, with much more detail:
We created a lot of monsters -- the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile -- and then we expressed ignorance or shock when they ran amok and massacred people. We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him!
We allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That's how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here's the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate report):
* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.
And here are some of the American corporations who helped to prop Saddam up by doing business with him: AT&T;, Bechtel, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kodak, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM (for a full list of companies and descriptions of how they helped Saddam, click here.
We were so cozy with dear old Saddam that we decided to feed him satellite images so he could locate where the Iranian troops were. We pretty much knew how he would use the information, and sure enough, as soon as we sent him the spy photos, he gassed those troops. And we kept quiet. Because he was our friend, and the Iranians were the "enemy." A year after he first gassed the Iranians, we reestablished full diplomatic relations with him!
Later he gassed his own people, the Kurds. You would think that would force us to disassociate ourselves from him. Congress tried to impose economic sanctions on Saddam, but the Reagan White House quickly rejected that idea -- they wouldn’t let anything derail their good buddy Saddam. We had a virtual love fest with this Frankenstein whom we (in part) created.
And, just like the mythical Frankenstein, Saddam eventually spun out of control. He would no longer do what he was told by his master. Saddam had to be caught. And now that he has been brought back from the wilderness, perhaps he will have something to say about his creators. Maybe we can learn something... interesting. Maybe Don Rumsfeld could smile and shake Saddam's hand again. Just like he did when he went to see him in 1983 (click here to see the photo).
and an article in the Village Voice points out that the cooperation between Reagan's government and Saddam occurred with full knowledge of Saddam's style of rule:
What did the U.S. do during this war? Ronald Reagan sent Don Rumsfeld (then chair of drug giant G.D. Searle and a former Defense secretary under Gerald Ford) to be a special envoy to Saddam Hussein. Rummy reportedly got along well with Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister, and cozied up to Saddam himself, whom Secretary Strangelove now wants to kill. In reports of Rummy's chats with Saddam, the special envoy doesn't discuss torture or the miseries of the local population. But during that era, Reagan officials talked often with Iraqi officials, and the U.S. removed Iraq from terrorist status, freed up loans for agriculture, encouraged arms trading, and helped out Iraqi nuclear development. U.S. policy on Iraq's use of poison gas was to condemn it formally but cultivate a relationship with Saddam, a counterweight to Iran's mad mullahs. American and European firms, meanwhile, sold Saddam equipment that may have contributed to the manufacture of the gas. According to U.S. government communiqués, Rumsfeld and Tariq Aziz agreed in December 1983 that "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." And Rumsfeld expressed "our willingness to do more" for Iraq in its war with Iran. When the Iranians tried to get the UN to pass a resolution against the use of gas, Reagan told Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick to stall or, if necessary, abstain.
Note that all of this could be used by Saddam in his defense. While I agree that he should be tried in an Iraqi court, it's no coincidence that the Administration is steadfast against the idea of an international tribunal, where all of this sordid history is much more likely to be aired.
UPDATE: Andrew Reeves in comments says, "Catching evil dictators is a great thing, but it would be better if we did not have a policy of working with evil dictators when it seems in Washington's best interests." EXACTLY - which is why we need to stop rewarding foreign policy ideolouges who think this is acceptable with positions of elected power.
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
12:00 AM |
Wednesday, December 17
to the victors
Joe Rospars has a detailed, link-rich post on BlogForAmerica about to whom go the spoils. This, on top of filthy kitchens and dirty meals for our troops (via TAPPED).
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
11:38 PM |
contradictions about Saddam
Surfing the information overload cohering around the captured-Saddam story, I am struck by the contradictions that abound in evaluating what it all means. The political meme emerged on the Sunday talkshows and the pundit print media that the Democrats should simply give up against Bush, delivered without a trace of irony though the message last week was that Gore's endorsement of Dean somehow undercut democracy. If Gore was Dean's kingmaker, does that make Saddam Bush's?[1]
There's also contradiction regarding Saddam's role in the guerilla resistance. He was found sealed into in a hole without a single communication device, yet also had in possession a cache of documents including (reportedly) minutes of a meeting between guerrilla resistance leaders. So naturally FOX News takes this to mean Saddam was coordinating and funding the resistance. However, Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno (commander of the 4th Infantry Division), noting the lack of comm gear in Saddam's hideyhole, suggested that Saddam likely had only symbolic value to the resistance.
Regardless of whether Saddam is a symbol or the guiding hand, his capture would suggest that attacks would decrease. However, another contradiction: Kos points out a whole slew of new attacks, as does Juan Cole, and Riverbend notes that the capture may unite guerilla factions, who can agree on the common cause of sovereignity now that Saddam is moot.
And what about the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? There are reports of jubilation at Saddam's capture, as we would expect - but also pro-Saddam demonstrations around Iraq (and in the US), including recent ones such as in Tikrit that was broken up by US tanks, another in Falluja where some demonstrators were killed by US troops, and another in Mosul (surprisingly) that ended with a truck explosion.
What effect will Saddam's capture have on the ultimate goal of Iraqi democracy? That hinges on how the capture is viewed and processed (politically speaking) by the Shi'a majority population. Juan Cole's wife offers the possibility that Shi'a resistance to occupation will increase, emboldened by the removal of the only force they ever feared. However, Syed Hassan al Naji, the Baghdad commander of Muqtada Sadr's militia "the Army of Mehdi", is quoted by CNN as proclaiming "We will be friends with the Americans because of this." And there's no word on reaction from Ayatollah Sistani, whose insistence on elections remains at odds with the Administration's favoritism of the "temporary" Governing Council - though SCIRI did organize marches in celebration.
My sole interest is in seeing the Administration leverage Saddam's capture towards the goal of Iraqi liberation, rather than domestic political gain. I see some positive signs of this, such as France and Germany's increased willingness to comply with debt amelioration (note that the issue of denial of contracts to those ocuntries was hardly a significant threat to them). But given the morass of contradictory claims and facts, it's hard to see what effect the capture will ultimately have - until it's all within the purview of history rather than news, at any rate.
[1] Saletan argues otherwise in Slate.
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
11:33 PM |
Sunday, December 14
Saddam captured alive
Congratulations to President Bush, and admiring kudos to the American troops that brought Saddam in to account for his crimes against the people of Iraq and the collective interest of all humanity.
Saddam Hussein was a murderous, brutal thug. He tyrannized the people of Iraq for ruthless political primacy and plundered the riches of Iraq - which belong to the Iraqi people - for his private coffers. In so doing he left Iraq destitute, owing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt to foreign nations, and weakened by the sacrifice of its young blood in the pointless and self-defeating Iran-Iraq war. And he wrapped himself in the holy verses of the Qur'an when it suited his secular purposes, to promote his image in the Arab Islamic world.
I rejoiced when Iraq was freed from his rule (though I opposed the war) and I rejoice that he can now be brought to justice. This is a victory for Iraq.
But is it a victory for the American people? Afghanistan remains a haven for the Taliban, who organize attacks against our troops with impunity and remain a haven for terrorist training. Osama bin Laden remains at large and Al-Qaeda has adapted to our tactics. This momentous success in Iraq comes at a great cost to our national security.
It is clear that some Democrats ascribe great wisdom to President Bush on matters of foreign policy. Including candidates for the nomination such as Gephardt, Kerry, and Lieberman, who supported the war on Iraq, and Clark wose sole claim to qualification is that he can "match" Bush on foreign policy gravitas. As Vice President Al Gore said this week when he endorsed Howard Dean, “It was Osama bin Laden that attacked us… so don't tell me that because Howard Dean was the only major candidate who was right about that war, that that somehow calls his judgment into question on foreign policy.”
Capturing Saddam does not prove that Bush's policies have improved our national security. It does not bring justice to the victims of 9-11[1]. It does not increase the safety of our troops, who have to contend with disbanded Iraqi Army guerillas as well as foreign jihadis, whose main goal is to undermine our occupation by targeting our allies.
Saddam's role in the Iraqi guerilla resistance against our troops was likely limited:
But Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which captured Saddam, said the ousted leader did not appear to be directly organizing resistance — noting no communication devices were found in his hiding place. "I believe he was there more for moral support," Odierno said. ... Troops found the ousted leader, armed with a pistol, hiding in an underground crawl space at the walled compound, Odierno said ... A Pentagon diagram showed the hiding place as a 6-foot-deep vertical tunnel, with a shorter tunnel branching out horizontally from one side. A pipe to the concrete surface at ground level provided air.
And the terrorist attacks upon innocent civilians - especially Shi'a - are part of Al-Qaeda v3.0, for whom the status of the "infidel" Saddam is of zero consequence (apart from some US-versus-Muslims propaganda purposes).
We must rejoice for Iraq, but our concern for America remains. And we must not cede the debate on foreign policy with this welcome news. Rather, we must demonstrate how it underscores our point - that we remain less safe - and remember that Saddam's capture changes nothing for our troops in Iraq who remain undermanned and at risk as they pursue their mission.
[1]There was no secret meeting in Prague between Atta and Iraqi officials.
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
2:42 PM |
no secret meeting in Prague
There was no secret meeting of Mohammed Atta with Iraqi officials in Prague. Excerpt:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — A former Iraqi intelligence officer who was said to have met with the suspected leader of the Sept. 11 attacks has told American interrogators the meeting never happened, according to United States officials familiar with classified intelligence reports on the matter.
Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, the former intelligence officer, was taken into custody by the United States in July. Under questioning he has said that he did not meet with Mohamed Atta in Prague, according to the officials, who have reviewed classified debriefing reports based on the interrogations.
American officials caution that Mr. Ani may have been lying to American interrogators, but the only other person reported to have attended the meeting was Mr. Atta, who died in the crash of his hijacked plane into the World Trade Center.
...
The C.I.A. and F.B.I. eventually concluded that the meeting probably did not take place, and that there was no hard evidence that Mr. Hussein's government was involved in the Sept. 11 plot.
That put the intelligence agencies at odds with hard-liners at the Pentagon and the White House, who came to believe that C.I.A. analysts had ignored evidence that proved links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Eventually, the Prague meeting became a central element in a battle between the C.I.A. and the administration's hawks over prewar intelligence.
...
Abu Zubaydah, one of the highest-ranking Qaeda leaders in American custody, told the C.I.A. that Mr. bin Laden rejected the idea of working with Mr. Hussein, a secular leader whom Mr. bin Laden considered corrupt and irredeemable, according to a September 2002 classified intelligence report obtained by The New York Times.
Mr. Zubaydah said that some Qaeda operatives wanted the organization to try to take advantage of Mr. Hussein's hatred for the United States in order to obtain military material or other support from Iraq. But Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, were strongly opposed to working with Iraq, according to the report of Mr. Zubaydah's debriefing, which was obtained from Bush administration officials.
Al Qaeda's leadership "viewed the Iraqis, particularly the military and security services, as corrupt, irreligious and hypocritical in that they succumb to Western vices while concurrently remaining at war with the United States," the report says, summarizing Mr. Zubaydah's statements. "The Iraqis were not viewed as true jihadists, and there was doubt amongst the senior Al Qaeda leadership on the depth of Saddam's commitment to destroy Israel and further the cause of cleansing the Holy Land of infidel influences or presence."
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
2:30 PM |
Thursday, December 11
unelectable
discuss.
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
4:45 PM |
Tuesday, December 9
President 2004
Google Bombs are a legitimate "internal" jihad. Check if it's working...
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
3:08 PM |
conservative Lysenkoism
Two essential posts by Chris Mooney and Kevin Drum on how the GOP establishment is following Soviet precedent in trying to use Science for politics, rather than to draft sound policy.
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
8:59 AM |
did 9-11 really change everything?
Calpundit comments:
If the Bush administration truly believed that 9/11 had changed everything — and if they truly believed that energy independence was a critical part of the war on terrorism — they'd be willing to embrace some distasteful ideas and jettison some of their old ideologies. After all, in the past we could just say that the free market would take care of this stuff eventually, but if we're really fighting a war then we need to fight a war. Right?
Instead, what we got two years after 9/11 was an energy bill stuffed with politics-as-usual horsetrading: ethanol credits for farmers, subsidies to oil and gas firms, and tax breaks for everyone under the sun. Effect on national security: approximately zero.
In the end, energy policy is one of the reasons I don't trust Bush on fighting terrorism: he obviously doesn't think national security is more important than paying off corporate donors and playing political games. So here's the litmus test for hawks: if you think that after 9/11 liberals need to accept the need for a more aggressive military posture to fight terrorism, fine. But you need to be more willing to accept things like green energy ideas, serious conservation programs, and gas taxes, even if these are things you'd normally oppose.
If you aren't, then you're not serious.
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
8:56 AM |
the mushroom harvest is complete, Legolas
The true story of Helm's Deep, revealed. All badger scenes restored.
posted by Aziz Poonawalla
7:11 AM |
Blogdex stats | Technorati Cosmos | Myelin Ecosystem stats | Popdex Citations