Gateway Pundit goes off on one about a report in McClatchy Newspapers about Al Qaida’s operations in Iraq. The reporting is quite interesting, but also rather clumsy, especially in the passage the Pundit takes offense at:
…As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq. “The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims,” he said.
The rest of the piece pretty much makes the point that Al Qaida wasn’t operating in Iraq before the war. That’s only technically true; the two sides did meet on several occasions to discuss cooperation, though it’s not clear whether their shared aims or natural antipathy would have won out. But in any case the article is making a reasonable point until it hits the above quote, where it apparently just goes nuts.
Here’s the thing, though. Al Qaida in Iraq (‘AQI’) is not the same as Al Qaida. AQI was created as a direct result of the American invasion of Iraq by people not blind to the value of the Al Qaida ‘brand’. That decision appears to have been one-sided; AQI decided that they were Al Qaida first, and negotiated with the Al Qaida leadership after. In fact to this day it’s not clear how much of a link there is between the two organizations. Certainly they have (some) shared goals, and shared sympathies. But to say that they are the same entity is a case that can be made, but for now at least not proven.
So the McClatchy piece, or at least this paragraph, is startlingly clumsy, and quite possibly wrong. It is not, however, nuts.
18 Comments
“The rest of the piece pretty much makes the point that Al Qaida wasn’t operating in Iraq before the war. That’s only technically true; the two sides did meet on several occasions to discuss cooperation”
Thank you. No further questions your honor.
Perhaps I was too subtle; there is no evidence, so far as I know, that Al Qaida was *operating* in Iraq. In the past people have tried to suggest that the two sides had *nothing* to do with each other, and that’s certainly not true, but the amount of contact seems to have been no more extensive than, for example, Donald Rumsfeld’s. When it comes to *operations*, however, that appears to be solely an invention of the current President. And even that’s questionable, given that AQI <> AQ.
Now, where did I leave that … Oh here it is.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/saddam-al-qaeda-links-in-photos-and.html
Well I was pretty confident in my opinion, but now that I’ve read a document of officially uncertain provenance* translated by some bloke on the internet, I realize what a mistake I’ve made.
(*”The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available.”)
Here’s my favorite comment from the thread.
“It’s cute, guys, but putting your fingers in your ears and sing LALALAICANTHEARYOULALAL is not going to help you explain away everything posted here.”
I agree, that’s why I don’t deny that there was contact between the two organizations – in fact I’d be amazed if there wasn’t. That doesn’t make any of the documents describing that contact true or not. But there’s a difference between contact and operations, and an even bigger gap between that and knowing support.
“and an even bigger gap between that[operations] and knowing support.”
Less of a gap. Knowing support would be intelligence, monetary support, and possibly some training facilities. These are the things that are documented. It wouldn’t have been much of a step from money to supply them with a biological or chemical weapon.
Operational contacts would be ordering Al Queda to go do something or attaching a unit to an Al Queda cell. These are hard to imagine actually happening.
I’m dubious about the ‘documented’ bit – we have thousand and thousands of documents generated in an area and at a time when we know almost anything was up for sale, including any version of the truth you wanted. The actual truth may well be in there, but I don’t know how it will be recognized (and I’m damn sure a few bloggers aren’t going to manage it).
Perhas I should move on to why it hardly matters anyway…
Considering the amount of chemical, radioactive and biological weapons supplied by the US to Iraq over the years, one could say Marty’s interpretation of “links” would more than include the US on the level of “cooperation” “justifying” preemptive war (love that term: going to war to prevent war; it’s so 1984-chic). Perhaps by this “logic” Marty would concede Iran had plenty of reason to form a “coalition of the willing” to invade, say, Orlando Florida.
I say to Marty let us cling to our SUVs, our 3 billion a week check we have to write, our 7 to 1 troop casualty-to-wounded rate, our Vietnam-style stagflation until the situation takes care of itself and our standard of living is tied with that of Albania and the fact that we’re one terrorist attack away from a police state making us also adopt Albania’s Soviet-era government as well. Oh, and let’s not forget the lies still flogged to justify the biggest policy blunder since the attack on Fort Sumter in 1861. Will you be happy then, Marty?
Of course, didn’t you know we had an executive order written up to abrogate the constitution before GW took office? We’re just waiting for the operation the CIA has planned for this summer to cancel the elections and take over. OBL is actually in up state New York just waiting for the go ahead.
I even already have my brown shirt.
I found it most interesting when posibly unconstitutional actions by the government were first uncovered after 9/11 that many senior Republicans talked about the Constitution not being a suicide pact. I agreed then and now that it isn’t, but only because I thought that it was an ideal greater than any individual, greater even than the nation itself in some respects. My impression was that it wasn’t enough to be a nation defined by geography or currency, that some higher ideal was involved. Trading in that ideal for some safety* seemed antithetical to what I thought Republicans, and indeed most Americans, stood for. It appears I may have been too idealistic.
(*Please help me avoid the Franklin quote!)
The whole “Constitution as suicide pact” theme would be better fleshed out in a longish essay with good research. In particular the specific charges against the Bush administration would need to be examined and dealt with as would the myriad of programs and agencies for which there is no warrant contained in the Constitution. Not the least of these is No Child Left Behind.
Incidentally, have you been following the DC Gun Ban case?
Comparing No Child Left Behind (a minor policy blunder) with the Military Commissions Act (a breech of fundamental democratic tenets of the first order) is a ethical depth so low I think you have managed to surprise even me, Marty. Congratulations.
Nick, actually No Child Left Behind is part of our plan to allow Halliburton to take over the entire education system.
Marty, I’d be very interested to read that essay if you had the time
As it happens I don’t think the ‘charges against the Bush administration’ would need to be examined, though; it was the administration that was making this defense, which I might charitably phrase as “We’re not saying what we did was unconstitutional anyway, but even if it might look like it, it isn’t because the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact”.
Now whether the Constitution was breeched or not, that argument is dismaying beyond words. It’s on a par with Bush’s statements about taking a promise to defend the American people; that’s clearly a desirable thing, but his oath was to defend the Constitution. There’s a reason why it’s done that way.
Oh, and I’m aware of the gun case, but haven’t really followed it – it seems to be quite routine, in that you have two sides arguing over an issue that has been chewed over endlessly already. So I don’t think there’s anything to ‘follow’, I’m just waiting to see the result.
Yeah, I’ll put that on my list right next to the history of the twentieth century I want to write.
“it was the administration that was making this defense, which I might charitably phrase as …” Thing is, I don’t know the administration was arguing that way. Some people outside the administration may have, some in the administration may have. I also don’t know whether any particular action was unconstitutional or if the actions people are outraged by are unconstitutional or if there was a minor or major breach. Were they part of the administration’s war powers as granted by the Congress’ authorization of force?
That’s why this needs to be researched and not just hashed out in the comments on a blog.
On the other hand, more than half the budget of the federal government is consumed by unconstitutional spending.
Paul, your assertion, “I thought that it was an ideal greater than any individual, greater even than the nation itself in some respects”, is right on: it’s the ideal of protecting the idea of a Democratic Republic that’s supposed to be the basis of presidential power. A Democratic Republic is more than, better than, a Nation. Sometimes the Republic must be protected from The Nation. I feel like the administration, with its hyper-muscular (I would call it abuse) of executive power, is eating away at the notion of a Republic in favor of a mere Nation. We begin to resemble other nations like China when we have greater and greater power concentrated in the hands of people like Cheney and Bush.