So, I just linked to a rightwing site with an interesting . . .

[MrModerate]

article on it. Here's the link:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0306/0306iraqterrorist.htm

What's interesting about it is that even though it takes a pretty snide tone about people like us who maintain that Schimpanski's cabal is the most truth-challenged outfit since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant, it nevertheless lays out a mostly-credible series of statements supporting the notion that Iraq was a pretty serious terrorist training ground prior to 9/11. The primary outfit they allude to seems to be “Ansar Al Islam.”

Supposedly, this information – long-suspected by intel wingnuts – has come to light over time, and in particular from the recently released translations of documents swept up by coalition forces over the last few years. The blogger (Sam Wells) quotes four or five other sources, the primary one being W. Thomas Smith, Jr. (whose bio resides on Townhall.com), and who strings the whole story together.

I know, I know – consider the source.

However, this is the first time I’ve read anything attempting to debunk the minimal-terrorist-connections story that didn’t make me think I was going to get sprayed with spittle if I got too close to the monitor. The article seems written with some sort of a journalistic style, doesn’t foam too much, and while strongly partisan, *seems* to be providing a reasonably factual account. If I’d run across it on a site I trusted, I’d tend to believe it, just because it’s not ranting and raving.

So here’s my question – is this whole cloth cut to fit by a competent writer? Was Saddam more involved in terrorism than we ordinarily think? Am I entirely too gullible to even be asking?

[havocmom]

1. Gotta ask: Why would Osama bin Laden want Saddam OUT

if they were already training their people in Iraq? Why would he want the US to invade the place if he had people there?

Answer: Saddam was a tyrant, but he ran a tight, secular ship and bin Laden wasn't getting anywhere with his own agenda in Iraq

Which begs the question: why post RW drivel and bushco enabling tripe here?

:eyes:

[MrModerate]

4. I considered the "RW drivel" issue before I posted . . .

And my question remains -- this has the appearance of credibility, and hence could weaken what I consider an important concept: Bush lied. What debunks this?

I'm not sure I get the link between Bin Laden and the ouster of Saddam. While Bin Laden clearly wants/wanted to stir up hell wherever he could convince people to do so, the situation in Iraq (if the writers of aforementioned drivel are at all correct) was quite favorable. Bin Laden would have no motivation to destabilize Saddam with all those lovely soft targets out there.

[Warpy]

2. Saddam Hussein did offer asylum to a few geriatric

terrorists from Hamas, Hezbullah, and Ansar Al Islam, but he didn't have any use for young firebrands or their training facilities. In fact, there was extreme hostility between the Baathists and any fundie terrorist outfit still in business. They didn't want those people destabilizing thir own country, and they would have. Fundies hated the socialist and secular Baathists as much as the Baathists hated them.

All these right wing stink tanks are underestimating the intense rivalries and antipathies in the Islamic world. The Iraqis would have kicked our asses out of their country a year ago had these not pre existed the invasion.

The wingnuts are desperate to prove any connection existed at all. The only real evidence they have is Hussein's policy of giving Palestinian Arabs whose houses had been bulldozed by the IDF a small stipend so they could find another place to live. If that humanitarian gesture is terrorism, then perhaps the right wing needs a few new definitions.

[boobooday]

3. Why I remain unconvinced.

First, this article says that Osama was unsuccessful in his efforts to get sponsorship in Iraq. They admit that. There is NO evidence that he supported Al Qaeda.

And the reason why Bush isn't touting this so-called new evidence? OH, he's SO WEARY of trying to get his message out through the liberal media filter.

"The answer is simple and unfortunate: Many in the mainstream media have been so successful at debunking any evidence, proof, or substantive facts as they relate to the Saddam-al-Qaida connection, that any new information supporting any facts those of us in-the-know already know will simply be rejected. The new information will be seen as desperate backtracking on old ground."

Why have the MSM been successful at debunking the evidence? Because the evidence is bunk. And basically this guy is admitting that his new evidence is the same old bunk. And look at the vague and tortured syntax: "supporting any facts those of us in-the-know already know" -- WTF? Now he's just speaking Rumsfeldisch.

There may have been some jihadists in Iraq, but Saddam Hussein was not their leader. None of the 9/11 perpetrators came from Iraq. There are bigger training camps in Pakistan, the UAE provided direct financial support, but they are our allies.

Saddam was repulsive but toothless, and this administration is crawling with big fat liars.

What do you find persuasive about it?

[MrModerate]

5. Perhaps my standards have been lowered by . . .

Dipping into the gutter with Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, and other freaks. I really do expect these guys to drool when they talk, and this one seemed fairly rational.

[boobooday]

8. Well, drooling brings in the ratings on radio and TV . . .

But a think tank requires a guy who can take a turd, make it look like a steak, and bring it to you on a platter with a sprig of parsley.

:D

[MrModerate]

9. Yeah, but the think-tank guy makes 200-300K a year, while . . .

The droolers make several mill. Is there no justice anywhere?

[boobooday]

10. LOL

I guess people who can (convincingly?) drool on cue are harder to find than think tank guys! :rofl:

[InternalDialogue]

6. Another link:

The political right benefits from trying to simplify what is an extremely complex issue. My shallow understanding of Ansar al Islam is that it was a Kurdish separatist group established after 9/11 and located in the northern Kurd territories. They were anti-Saddam, not even close to the kind of group who anyone could claim was working with him. Not only were they not in existence at the time of 9/11, even if they were they were well outside the no-fly zone that effectively limited Saddam's control over that area.

I also believe (sorry, no link for this) I have heard that Iranians have used the mountainous area on the border of Iraq for years (since the establishment of the no-fly zone) as terrorist training, because they knew that Saddam had no effective reach into the area.

What I haven't seen yet is any proof that any terrorists whom Saddam allegedly supported were working anywhere inside the no-fly zone -- the only part of Iraq where Saddam physically controlled anything. In other words, they may have been in Saddam's backyard, but only because Saddam's chain didn't reach to the fence.

This linked article explains that though they were initially anti-Saddam, they were eventually infiltrated by pro-Saddam forces, which, in a post-9/11 world could mean a million things. Did Saddam see the invasion coming and hope to eliminate Kurdish opposition to his ouster? Did he anticipate falling from power but hoped to whittle the power of the Kurds to the favor of his Baathist party or the minority Sunnis that would fight for control of Iraq after his removal? Was the infiltration of Ansar outside of his control and the idea of a freelance terrorist in search of a camp and fighters, knowing that once Saddam was gone, terrorists would have the run of the country?

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/ansar_al-islam/

[pinto]

7. Human Rights Watch background on Ansar al Islam, which is

the crux of the article you cite. fwiw - Thomas W. Smith, quoted as the primary source in the article, is from townhall.com, an extreme right wing mouthpiece. As always, I'd take this stuff with a grain of salt. There's an agenda here.


http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm