Why the Right is Wrong About Iraq and al-Qaeda
Posted by
tgirsch
In the wake of the 9/11 Commission’s finding that there is “no credible evidence” that Iraq and al-Qaeda ever had a “collaborative relationship” with respect to attacks against the United States, there’s been a great deal of scrambling on the right side of the blogosphere to throw all the tenuous links that have been found against the wall and see what “sticks.” What, specifically, are we hearing about? A statement on Meet the Press, which has since been invalidated by the Administration. A 1999 report that Hussein offered Asylum to bin Laden (an offer that bin Laden rejected, mind you). A 1998 letter that does little more than acknowledge that contact was made between Iraq’s intelligence agency and al-Qaeda. The presence of Zarqawi in Iraq (even though intelligence officials say that Zarqawi operates separately from al-Qaeda, not as part of it).
There are two things that I notice here, one small, and one big. The small thing is that none of these things, even if taken together, in any way contradicts or discredits the 9/11 Commission’s report. The report acknowledges that contacts were made, but that there’s no evidence that a working relationship ever resulted from any of those contacts. Considering that the most recent of these reports is from April of 2003, it ought to be pretty safe to assume that the 9/11 Commission knew about them. If they were as important as the blog-hawks seem to claim they are, you would think that the Administration’s members would have taken pains to point them out when they were being questioned. So it’s reasonably safe to say that the bi-partisan, GOP-controlled commission didn’t consider these links to be indicative of a meaningful working relationship.
But there’s something larger here, something that not many people (particularly on the right) are talking about. It has to do with why the Administration repeatedly made claims linking Iraq with al-Qaeda in the first place, dating back to 2002. You see, back then, we had an active military campaign in Afghanistan, with wide bipartisan and public support. Al-Qaeda was seen (by the public as well as by the intelligence community) as the greatest threat to American security, and it was obvious that Afghanistan — a well-known al-Qaeda haven — would be the logical starting point.
The problem is, the Administration — for whatever reason — decided that Iraq should be the next step, and to most of the public (and the world), this seemed like the Underwear Gnomes at work (Step 1: Invade Iraq; Step 2: ????; Step 3: World Safer from Terror!). So the Administration needed to convince the American people not only that Iraq posed a terror threat, but that Iraq was a more important enemy to fight than any other potential enemy in the war on terror. As such, it was imperative that the Administration convince us that Iraq was actively working with al-Qaeda, actively training them, and actively harboring them.
Even before our invasion, the Administration’s logic on the Iraq issue raised a lot of eyebrows. If WMDs were the big threat, then North Korea seemed like a far more compelling next target, what with them lobbing nuclear-capable warheads over Japan. If terrorism were the big threat, there are half a dozen countries — including several of our “friends” — that jumped out as being more compelling targets than Iraq. So the administration needed both things — weapons of mass destruction and an active and meaningful relationship with al-Qaeda — to frame the war in terms that the American people would accept. Sure, there are more dangerous targets in terms of WMDs, and sure, there are more dangerous targets in terms of terror. But when you combine WMDs with an active al-Qaeda link, now you’re talking about a compelling target.
Everyone (war skeptics included) expected us to find WMDs, but the fact that we haven’t found anything substantial makes the al-Qaeda connection even more critical. And now that the 9/11 Commission’s report has dealt yet another blow to the dubious al-Qaeda claims, the right is absolutely scrambling to do damage control. The best they can come up with is five-year-old reports of tenuous connections that have mostly been dismissed by the intelligence community as inconsequential. But they miss the larger point completely. The idea that Iraq was the “logical next step” in the war on terror — or even an important part of it — has already been completely dismembered, in large part by the Administration itself. Even if a more substantial al-Qaeda connection were found tomorrow, it would do little to vindicate the idea that Iraq was the next most dangerous enemy after Afghanistan.
That argument has already been lost; the only thing that remains to be seen is whether or not they’ll ever admit it, and how much kicking and screaming will it take.
Misc. sources here, here, here, and here,
UPDATE: The Talent Show points out that by the “connection” standards currently being used by the right, the Bush Administration is directly connected with an Iranian spy.
This commentary states the obvious. Unfortunately, that seems to be necessary. Equally unfortunately, you are probably just preaching to the choir but keep it up. Perhaps the truth WILL set us free.
Comment 6/23/2004
Connecting Two Dots
This post at LeanLeft has me thinking. Once the right-wingers have finished parsing the hell out of the words “contacts” and “relationship” so they can prove a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda that doesn’t exist, can we go…
Trackback 6/23/2004
Iraq was the most reasonable second step.
They had UN disapproval, in the form of 17 UNSC resolutions, as opposed to 0 for Iran and North Korea. North Korea has China looming over it - making an invasion simply not credible. Iran is a poor target - even for the US military.
Iraq was a good second step, because we secure military bases for further military action if needed.
The goal of course is that the Iraq example leads to the cooperation of Syria, Libya, and frightens North Korea and Iran.
We will work with China to solve the NK crisis, and the goal for Iran is to utilize the high dissident level to topple the mullahs.
Not exactly a strategy you can pitch in official statements. But it’s clear for anyone who wants to see the truth.
And the ultimate goal is to avoid massive strikes on Muslim countries when they do acquire the means to attack us - which is why the Bush Doctrine is preemptive.
Comment 6/23/2004
TheYeti:
Not exactly a strategy you can pitch in official statements. But it’s clear for anyone who wants to see the truth.
So you concede that the Administration played bait-and-switch with their advertised motives for the Iraq war?
By the way, I don’t suppose you have any, oh, I don’t know, what’s the word I’m looking for? Oh yeah, evidence, that North Korea gives a rat’s ass about what we’re doing in Iraq?
Comment 6/23/2004
I love this site - it keeps me going in the face of the lies I must put up with daily. Do a huge favor for me, though. Go over and make your opinion and facts known at: http://www.slantpoint.com/
Here is where you’ll find all the people planning to vote for Bush, because they won’t do the research you have done. I mean, after all, it’s much easier to believe the lies Rush and Fox News are telling them than to actually read a book or do some web research. tgirsch could have a field day with these folks!
Whatever you do though, don’t criticize their inability to spell or write coherently!
Comment 6/25/2004
Kelly:
If you want to direct them here, fine, but I’m not going to go trolling for hits over there.
Thanks for the positive words.
Comment 6/25/2004
Well, tgirsch, they would be too easy of a target for you anyway. Keep up the good work, though - I’m really enjoying it. It’s like getting into a warm bath after a long hike in cold rain.
Comment 6/25/2004
Kelly take a look at this: http://www.geocities.com/republican_strategist/Iraq-Bin-Laden.html
The Americans from either L or R wouldn’t tolerate a blood bath with NK. Iraq was/is a great strategy to split Iran off from the group so to speak. Its a risk but in the long run would/will pay off if followed through to the end (if yrs it takes). granted that the White House has made comments that Iraq & Bin Laden had a working relationship but thats not the soul reason we went to Iraq. to bad Clinton cut the CIA & FBI funding and put restrictions on what they could intel on..maybe there would have been more to go on.
Comment 7/1/2004
All this whining about WMD in Iraq almost imbecilic. Pull out a map of the MiddleEast/Persian Gulf and determine for yourself the best geographic area for establishing a strong US presence in the midst of Arab/Muslim/World. Add that to the fact that Iraq was shooting at US and British planes daily, failed to comply with cease-fire provisions, yadayada and no strategist worth his salt would not take advantage of the situation that existed at the time. No intelligence agency came forward to dispute the evidence, flawed as it was, that Iraq did not have WMD. Do you think that the French would have held that information back if they had it? Even Gore-the-weenie would have done the same.
Comment 7/16/2004
On the French well YEA! Duh what you know about their invol now unless you think thats all made up also.
Comment 7/29/2004
I know one thing two rightwingers who went after a blogger in comments were wrong about (would have posted it there, but it wouldn’t let me):
We do employ mercenaries in Iraq. Blackwater hired Chileans to work in Iraq. Former Pinochet thugs, no less.
“Private Pentagon contractors are paying soldiers of fortune from Chile and South Africa up to $4,000 per month for stints in Iraq”
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16701
Comment 9/6/2004