Saddam Was Trying to Capture Zarqawi
The Bush administration repeatedly made the presence in Iraq of Abu Musab Zarqawi a pretext for invading the country and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. They implied that he was a client of Saddam and that Saddam had arranged for hospital care for him.
Newly released documents from the captured Iraqi archives show that Saddam had put out an APB for Zarqawi and was trying to have him arrested as a danger to the Baath regime!
' However, one of the documents, a letter from an Iraqi intelligence official, dated August 17, 2002, asked agents in the country to be on the lookout for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and another unnamed man whose picture was attached. '
Update: This is the original pdf document as released by the USG. It is at Blackvault.com but does not appear to be listed any longer at the original Ft. Leavenworth site. (Update 9/9/06).
The September 29, 2002 Denver Post paraphrased Cheney, "He said the evidence presented against Iraq will be long and persuasive, including more details of a relationship between Hussein's forces and the al-Qaeda terrorist network."
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/16/2006 08:51:00 AM
|
Facebook
8 Comments:
It's all so frustrating.
Well now.
One would have to laugh if one weren't so busy crying.
Add to this something the host of this site and those who regularly comment probably already know- but just in case:
After being informed by Generals on the ground (in 2003 and the attack on the ground) that the march to Baghdad had to slow down as the resistance was quite different than expected and supply lines would be in danger, Rumsfeld and “We don’t do body counts Tommy Franks” declined- to put it politely.
The following is an excerpt:
"One of the most critical moments of the meeting came when General Franks indicated he did not want to be slowed by overly cautious generals concerned about holding casualties to a minimum, though no one had raised the issue of casualties. To dramatize his point, according to one participant, General Franks put his hand to his mouth and made a yawning motion."
Lies, a lack of caring about human life, an air of superiority, and mocking the death of others, rarely win the "hearts and minds" of anyone.
Does anyone still seriously believe that questioning this "war" gives "aid and comfort" to anyone?
The world knows, and certainly the Iraqi's know. Whatever God one believes in, or if logic and reason is one's God, they all require a certain allegiance to facing reality as it is on this earth.
We are quickly becoming (or have already become) mere foot- soldiers (soldiers, taxpayers, and every citizen) in this "Bushrano" mob.
Apologies to the Soprano creators and all mafia dons. While they may have written about such greed and the actual ones been this greedy- none would have been this ignorant.
I didn't have good place to park this...I suppose the AlQaaeda Big Lie is close enuf
Hot off the presses..
Helena Cobban's done such fine blogging, I'll let her tell you
Major new article on the pro-Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are two of the most important thinkers in the "realist" school of US foreign-policy analysts. Mearsheimer is the Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Walt is the Academic Dean at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where he holds the Robert and Renee Belfer Professorship in International Affairs. These two men are not, as you can see, fuzzy-headed liberals who are marginal to the mainstream of policy discourse in the United States.Now, they have a major new article in the upcoming issue of the London Review of Books on the power and detrimental role that the pro-Israel lobby in Washington has played over the years. (The LRB piece has no footnotes. But you can access a fully documented, PDF version of the longer article from which it was excerpted, if you click here. 211 endnotes, many of them very lengthy, to document just 48 pages of text... These guys are empiricists after my own heart!)Here is some of what they argue in the LRB version:
Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides. Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.
And this:
Continue reading"Major new article on the pro-Israel Lobby
The Middle East Policy Journal also has an interesting piece, related..
The New Ivory Towers: Think Tanks, Strategic Studies and “Counterrealism”
Leila Hudson
She overdoes the Wohlstetter thing but good nonethess. My mentor as undergrad IR/Securities studies was also an Albert and Roberta protege - a year or two behind Wolfowitz in fact
He turned out OK
For months, Stephen F. Hayes
of the Weekly Standard and the WSJ editorial page have insisted there are is a whole trove of documents that will vindicate the NeoCon belief that Saddam had WMD and some role in 9/11.
I assumed that "suitably screened" authorities would pick only documents that favored these views. After all, what is intelligence for?
Your source states:
"The documents, the first of thousands expected to be declassified over the next several months, were released last night via a Pentagon website at the direction of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte."
Should we presume that Negroponte selects and releases the documents with an arms-length, scholarly dispassion?
Please, your comments on this:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html?mode=printsfh
Juan, the right-wing blogs are claiming some of these documents prove a relationship between Al-Queda and Saddam and are beginning to gloat about it. You might want to check these out, such as Michell Malkin's blog, if you can stomach it.
Given their track record, I am not one to believe them, but I'd like to get your opinion on what they are saying.
Mr. Cole
I hope we can look forward to an in depth report from you on the released Iraqi documents. Since, as it states in the linked article, many are in Arabic with out translation, it would be very informative to get that translation through you.
I'm already reading the reports from certain conservative blogs as to what these documents say regarding "proven" ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Needless to say, I'm not entirely trusting of these views.
I look forward to whatever light you can shed on this matter.
I think this is damning evidence that the Bush administration's claims that Iraq was a threat due to its possible al-Qaeda links, was completely bogus...
Unfortunately, not many Americans really care about the BEFORE was scenario any more... Everyone is obsessing about the AFTER scenario wherein even some Democrats want to position themselves to the RIGHT of the current chickenhawks... Yes, Madam Clinton, I am talking about you.
I have previously asked why two claims made by BOTH the Clinton AND Bush administration have not yet been challenged by the lapdog press:
Claim 1. Saddam tried to kill Bush Snr. during his visit to Kuwait in April 1993. If this was a real Iraqi plot, how come we have not learned more about this after torturing and killing so many Iraqis?
Claim 2. A HIGHLY-placed Iraqi source claimed Iraq still had WMD. If this source was Hussein Kamel, then why do the UN transcripts of his interview in Jordan say EXACTLY the OPPOSITE? If you have seen the originals emailed across the world by Glen Rangwalla BEFORE the 2003 invasion, you must join the head-scratchers club as to how Bush could have claimed this without LYING?
Now we have Question #3 - If Iraq was working to destroy al-Qaeda, then WHY did the Bushiites keep claiming otherwise? Doth not thyne reckless disregard for truth constitute a LIE?
But wait, WE just chased al-Qaeda out of Tal Afar. We are WINNING!
Riiiiiight.
Mr. Cole:
Can you translate any of the Arabic handwriting on this document? If so, please post that translation.
Do you disagree with the translation summary provided by the military? Why?
Finally, what leads you to the assumption that this document is some sort of an "APB" by Iraqi intelligence? The military translation indicates that this is an internal memorandum of the Saddam Fedayeen. This is a militia organization, not Iraqi intelligence.
Thank you in advance.
Post a Comment
<< Home