Yesterday, I was drawn into a prolonged and painful argument over the question — to my mind solved five years ago, but apparently not to others — of Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties with al-Qaeda.
Thankfully the discussion ended shortly before midnight, but just in case discontent is still simmering out there, here’s something I’ve been meaning to link to for a while. It’s a brilliant essay by Thomas Hegghammer on the history of Saudi jihadism, which the U.S. should’ve studied closely before and after 9/11, but of course never did.
Incidentally, the invaluable West Point CTC study I linked to yesterday shows conclusively that Saudi militants have provided by far the largest contribution to the Iraqi insurgency, in terms of both money and bodies blown up. Talk about a nexus.
It’s my opinion that the evidence presented in the comment section to the prior post, was indeed an honest portrayal of the facts.
I believe it to be a bit low, to both dismiss the evidence with the wave of a hand as well as depict myself as a “flat earther”. I expected a more reasoned response.
One point worth mulling over. Those within the intellegence community who support the view that the Hussein regime gave up on international terrorism, have a very difficult time explaining the nexus between Saddam and the Palestinians, and Abu Sayyef terrorists in the Filipines.
It is wonderfully easy to dismiss facts out of hand, but the same can’t be said in refuting them.
Re: Ray Robison and the “secret Saddam-Qaeda dossier”:
“Less than two weeks into the project, and with only 600 out of possibly a million documents and video and audio files posted, some conservative bloggers are already asserting that the material undermines the official view.
On his blog last week, Ray Robison, a former Army officer from Alabama, quoted a document reporting a supposed scheme to put anthrax into American leaflets dropped in Iraq and declared: ‘Saddam’s W.M.D. and terrorist connections all proven in one document!!!’
Not so, American intelligence officials say. ‘Our view is there’s nothing in here that changes what we know today,’ said a senior intelligence official, who would discuss the program only on condition of anonymity because the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, directed his staff to avoid public debates over the documents. ‘There is no smoking gun on W.M.D., Al Qaeda, those kinds of issues.’
(…)
“Intelligence officials had serious concerns about turning loose an army of amateurs on a warehouse full of raw documents that include hearsay, disinformation and forgery. Mr. Negroponte’s office attached a disclaimer to the documents, only a few of which have been translated into English, saying the government did not vouch for their authenticity.
Another administration official described the political logic: ‘If anyone in the intelligence community thought there was valid information in those documents that supported either of those questions — W.M.D. or Al Qaeda — they would have shouted them from the rooftops.’”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/politics/28intel.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1218111266-GY4XK70XpHUR2NMoZfaRSw
Shall we change the subject? Please?