On Saddam’s Order

National Review ^ | 3-26-08 | Mark Eichenlaub

[ikez78]

The Iraqi tyrant didn’t “just” aid anti-American terrorist groups; he explicitly ordered them to attack.

By Mark Eichenlaub

Links. Ties. Operational links. Sponsorship. These terms have vastly different meanings to different members of the media when they discuss relations between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the al-Qaeda network. This became clear yet again last week when news outlets reported on the Department of Defense-sponsored Iraqi Perspectives Project (all five volumes of which are now available here). The vast majority of news reports focused on a single sentence that was incorrectly taken to mean that no ties, links, relations or connections of any sort existed between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the al-Qaeda movement.

[ikez78]

This piece is based on comments with mainstream press "journalists"

[ikez78]

PING

[jveritas]

Mark

Excellent article.

[highlander_UW]

Highly unlikely the MSM will pick up and run with this story...it doesn’t fit with their meme.

[arderkrag]

Links. Ties. Operational links. Sponsorship. These terms have vastly different meanings to different members of the media

And to different members of the general public. For example, I see it this way:

Link - Group A has interacted with Group B, maybe positively, maybe not.
Ties - As Link, but contact is frequent.
Operational Links - Operations are similar: using the same tactics, fighting with the same weapons, same organizational structure, etc.
Sponsorship - direct funding and support by Group A of Group B, or vice versa.
(I might be wrong on some of these.)

The press intentionally muddles the meanings of these words to indice confusion. Confusion leads to panic. Panic means more people read papaers and watch news.

[ikez78]

Good points arderkrag. I discussed them with them and pretty much told them as much. I said they should put all the specifics out there and let readers decide instead of just making that decision for them.

Joseph,
Thanks. Still gonna do something on al Qaeda being in Iraq prewar using your work. There is a lot on that topic from al Qaeda docs and Saddam’s docs.

[PGalt]

OUTSTANDING! Thanks, Mark.

[griswold3]

Word?!!? Just Words!?!!!

[arderkrag]

Eh?

[griswold3]

Just saying you can frame the argument on your own terms with ‘words’...

[Ben Hecks]

Outstanding. Thanks for the ping. More evidence that Saddam was actively involved in terrorism is contained in this 2006 article by Stephen Hayes:

http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=11990&R=EC0D16975

[arderkrag]

Well, yes...I’m still confused as to whether you’re agreeing with my earlier post or disagreeing.

[griswold3]

Sorry, I totally agree with you.

The MSM always frames the argument and tells us what is important, or at least tries to. It’s their business.

[arderkrag]

Yep. Most journalists honestly go into journalism to try to change the world around them, not report the actual story. Thus they frame stories to fit their mold of success.

[jveritas]

Mark

This will be great.

[tomnbeverly]

Those inflicted with BDS are the only ones that can’t see the correlation between Saddam and Terrorists. Islamic Radicals were willing to launch suicide attacks against Amrican cities at the request of Saddam Husseins government. George W. Bush ensured that never happened.

The correct way to frame the debate is to make the Liberals state that they trusted the tyrant.

[marron]

Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al-Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al-Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.

EIJ formed the nucleus of Al Qaeda, and the head of EIJ is Bin Ladin's second in command, he may be in fact the operational leader of Al Qaeda. Which means that the constant drumbeat that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda is not only not true, it is the opposite of the truth.

Bin Ladin's inner circle was riddled with people who were on Saddam's dime.

Saddam's Iraq was Terror Central. He used terror as a tool of state power, sending his intel officers to supply, fund, and coordinate the actions of the various supposedly free-lance operations we usually consider "Al Qaeda". If "Al Qaeda" is understood to be a collection of ad hoc terror groups who admire Bin Ladin, the term may have some use, but Saddam's intel used these groups as if they were his own.

[Steve_Seattle]

The MSM has its story and it’s sticking to it.

[ikez78]

yes, already emailed back and forth with a few of them. they still revert back to “saddam” wasn’t a threat. they will stand next to a brown wall and tell you it isn’t brown with a straight face. too bad these people wont’ seriously engage.

[Steve_Seattle]

Many years ago, liberal Democrat Sen. Eugene McCarthy made this comment about the press, and it's still true today: "The press is like a flock of birds sitting on a wire. They sit and sit and sit, and when one flies off in a certain direction, all the others follow." Nothing I've seen in the past 30 years contradicts that. Newsrooms are like echo-chambers; a newsroom full of liberal Democrats is an atmosphere where the conventional liberal wisdom is never questioned, but constantly reinforced. This coupled with their arrogant assumptions that they are both unbiased and smarter than everyone else, makes them almost impervious to facts which do not fit their worldview.

Thus, when Obama purports to "open the discussion about race," a discussion that has actually been going on for more than 50 years, the libs in the MSM all applaud him for his pioneering courage. Everybody else just scratches their head and says, "Haven't we been here before?"

[SoldierDad]

Obama reference?

[potlatch]

Thanks for the ping ikez. I think Hillary is looking at something lower - perhaps a child. Look at the man on the far right as he is looking in the same direction.

AND, can anyone tell me why this computer shows everything so dark that I have to lighten it and yet the colors are bright and pretty?? The resolution is set where it told me to set it.

[swmobuffalo]

Bump

[potlatch]

SORRY ikez78 ! I posted the graphic to the wrong thread. Trying to play catchup too fast, lol.

[SoldierDad]

All I can say is “WOW”!!! I’m downloading the five volumes of the report so I can read it in it’s entirety. All the better to be armed against the Sheople who keep trying to tell me that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

[SoldierDad]

Didn’t realize just how long it would take to download all five volumes, but it will be worth it.

[1035rep]

Bttt

[Steve_Seattle]

In all honesty, those reporters should concede that Clinton and Gore and all the other Dems were also wrong about saddam, because they made essentially the same claims as Bush throughout the Clinton years and even into the Bush administration. But they get a pass so that the Dem reporters can lie about Bush.

[ikez78]

Yep

[ikez78]

Yep

[r-q-tek86]

Thanks, Mark.

[Milligan]

Wonderful! What a feather in your hat! National Review!
http://www.partnersinrhyme.com/soundfx/crowd_sounds/crowd_home-run_wav.html

[Milligan]

Wonderful! What a feather in your hat! National Review!
http://www.partnersinrhyme.com/soundfx/crowd_sounds/crowd_home-run_wav.html

[CutePuppy]

Thank you very much, Mark and Joseph.

A wonderful "thing happened on the way to the Forum"...

Operation Iraqi Freedom has not only removed the Middle East tyrant and most prolific butcher of Muslims in the world, but also removed the Financier-and-Launderer-in-Chief and dismantled big part of financing network of the worldwide jihadist / mujahid terrorist activity...

At the same time, all the while we are (and need to "stay the course") in Iraq, we have effectively restricted the originally planned and still preached by al-Qaeda "Worldwide Jihad and Caliphate" to much more limited " 'Worldwide' Jihad in Iraq" and reduced the initial bragging and demands by leadership of al-Qaeda to whining about their losses and trying to generate some semblance of support for their activities in hot spots elsewhere in the world.

Whether by original design (President Bush stated early on that "Iraq is a central front in the War on Terror") or not, this transformed "the war" militarily into relatively limited regional engagement which we could win with limited resources and are winning brilliantly, along with the "hearts and minds" in the region. We came in as liberators and protectors and our presence is and should be continued there in this role (Murthas, Kerrys, Reids and Pelosis notwithstanding).

Your work on prewar docs and follow-up materials is essential to understanding and justification not only of current efforts and events but also for possible future "preemptive" actions, if necessary, even if "unilateral".

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

bttt

[BenLurkin]

Bump

[Marine_Uncle]

If one has watched the past two days on the PBS Frontline, "Bush's War", one will see how cleverly the L/MSM are making it look like the reasons to go into Iraq where wrong.
As usual. The L/MSM really have won the war on what the public will perceive as being the whole truth. As for as 99.99% of the world's population goes, there where no WDM's in Iraq.
We few obviously know otherwise.

[griswold3]

Yes. If you watch BHO’s speeches you become increasingly aware of his skills as an attorney. He can make you believe what he wants to. Like a spengoli, it’s really creepy to watch unless you have no frame of reference.

[SoldierDad]

BHO does have good oratory skills. However, he’s just an empty suit, the same as HRC. They tell people, “yes, I have a plan for that”, but never state any details for their plan.