Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Powell or Bandar? Well, the proof is in....

There is an interesting subtext here. There are quite a few fervent neocons who want to take the war to every feudal corner of the Middlle East. Bush's rhetoric is now adopting many of their tropes. Is it all a ruse? The intertwined dynasties of Bush and Saud seem to suggest that. This one requires a lot gaming.

Isn't revealing war plans to non-citizens illegal? I'm serious; I believe this might be an impeachable offense.

ask a stupid question........

I'm not sure this is really a big deal. For one thing, is anyone suprised Powell wasn't included in the planning? His position was known, the hawks had the president's ear, and they didn't feel like playing nice. It shows an utter lack of good will towards State but nothing we didn't already know. Furthermore, nothing will come of this b/c Powell is in the awkward position of either towing the party line or pretty much resigning. He won't resign, for any number of reasons. At least not yet.

If I understand correctly, Woodward claims this conversation took place in January. The transcript (Woodward's version) shows that in October Rumsfeld acknowledged the remarks.

What is the evidence that the conversation took place in January, as Woodward claims?

If I understand correctly, Woodward claims this conversation took place in January. The transcript (Woodward's version) shows that in October Rumsfeld acknowledged the remarks.

What is the evidence that the conversation took place in January, as Woodward claims?

Patrcik Sullivan, as I told you:
Bush - Prince Bandar bin Sultan 2004.
But you didn't think I was funny...

"I'm not sure this is really a big deal."

If a foreign leader promising to deliver help for an American presidential election is not a big deal, what is? Just as a reminder: most of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (non were Iraqi.) Most of the funding for terrorism comes from Wahabi Saudi Arabia.

And *after the attacks*, the President seals a deal with that country, in order to boost his chances for reelection? What kind of country am I living in? This is high treason, big time. This is solid ground for impeachment. Bush is a treator to the United States, besides having lied and mislead Congress and the American people.

If America does not wake up on this one, it does not deserve honest and decent Presidents anymore. There is nothing my conscience would allow me to write.

"Isn't revealing war plans to non-citizens illegal? I'm serious; I believe this might be an impeachable offense."

We make an exception for those non-citizens who fight with us. (e.g., British and Canadian forces participating in the D-Day landings on Normandy, France on 6 June, 1944)

On 60 Minutes, Woodward said the war plan that they showed Bandar in January was clearly marked "No Foreign," as in "don't show this to any foreigners." I'm not sure if it's exactly impeachable, but it's breaking the rules, that's for sure.

What I'm puzzled by is why the Pentagon would put out the transcripts of the Rumsfeld interviews with pieces missing. Don't they realize that Woodward will expose them for hiding parts of what was said, thus creating even more attention for the controversy?

Viewing a secret war map. What is so wrong with that? Especially when it only involves long-time friends.

Yes, the book likewise says that there was written in big letters NOFORN on whatever they showed Bandar.

More generally, if this any other country, wouldn't Bandar at this point be expelled for "activities incompatible with his status" ? -- we know for a fact that there were indirect transfers to the 9/11 hijackers, and we know for a fact that the Saudi embassy was breaking money laundering rules at their Riggs bank accounts in DC. What does a Bush crony have to do to get kicked out of the country?

Dimmy, they figure that the base will only see the doctored transcripts. And will refer/link those transcripts to others.

As far as I can tell, the cost-benefit ratio to this administration of lying is so good that it makes perfect sense to lie as a first alternative.

"We make an exception for those non-citizens who fight with us. (e.g., British and Canadian forces participating in the D-Day landings on Normandy, France on 6 June, 1944)"

Surprise! The WWII metaphor... In 1944, the US was already at war. The sharing with foreign powers was about how the final attack would come, not about whether the US government was secretely plotting to wage war on the Axis Powers. Isn't that a hell of a difference in terms of truthfullness vis-a-vis Congress and the American people vs. the necessity of some military surprise?

According to Colin Powell himself, Woodward is full of it. Powell says he was involved in developing the plan that was to be shown to the Saudis. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Pete,
We know that CP told falsehoods about WMD to the UN. Yet you seem certain that CP is now truthfully relating "the facts." How can you be so sure?

The issue of whether Powell was ill-used is far different from that of showing Bandar the goods. If Powell says Woodward is wrong, that may cast some doubt on Woodward's journalism (what a shocker), but has no relevance to the ethical and legal issues surrounding showing a NOFORN document, a war plan, no less, to the representative of a foreign government. Surely, there are members of the Saudi royal family who do not view the US favorably. Surely, the risk of even inadvertant leaks of US war plans represent risks to US soldiers lives.

Long time ago, Congress demanded that leaks of secrey information be looked into. Not specific leaks, but leaks in general. The assumption was that those feckless bureaucrats were the problem. Investigators, however, reached a very different conclusion. It was high level government officials, elected and appointed officials, who were most often involved in leaks. Now days, the sources of the leaks are the same, but the surprise is gone. Rummy has been in Washington for a long time. He "knows" he has the right to use information as he sees fit, regardless of the law or of security rules. Leona Helmsley had it right. Rules (and worrying about the lives those rules are meant to protect) are for little people.

I wouldn't persue impeachment for showing military plans to a foreign leader.

I would prefer that the sharing of war plans be the perogative of the Executive Branch. At the very least knowing about the plans is something like a 'free perk' for being a friendly nation.

To me the larger issue is the complete marginalization of the State Department in this whole operation. Suppose Collin Powell was told about the war before Bandar... does that really change the fact that he had close to zero input? (He and Blair pushed harder for a UN approach, and had partial success.)

The great tragedy of this war isn't just that it was avoidable, it's that there was reasonable, lucid, intelligent advice within the administration. It was dismissed early and often. You can rearrange the timeline, maybe gain or lose a little poetry in the process, but the fundamental idea that we were one Collin Powell away from not crucifying ourselves in Iraq will never change...

I started reading your blog after clicking a link on another site--maybe Calpundit? I am a CIS/Comm student at the University of South Alabama in Mobile, AL. I am also the Opinion editor (soon to be managing editor) of the school newspaper. I just wanted to let you know that your blog is being read in other parts of the country. Though I enjoy your criticism of the current administration, I must admit that I am finding what to me are the vagaries of economic theory and practice to be quite fascinating. I used to tell people that I was more focused on policy that politics, and that economic policy was by far the most important element of any administration. After all, a poor economy limits our ability to deal with trouble, and a good economy has ancillary benefits that affect every aspect of our lives. Reading your entries on economic policy and trends, however, makes me realize how little I actually understand.
Kiril Dickinson
p.s. I know this has nothing to do with the post, but I didn't see your email link. I am from the South, you know. If it's not obvious I don't see it.

I started reading your blog after clicking a link on another site--maybe Calpundit? I am a CIS/Comm student at the University of South Alabama in Mobile, AL. I am also the Opinion editor (soon to be managing editor) of the school newspaper. I just wanted to let you know that your blog is being read in other parts of the country. Though I enjoy your criticism of the current administration, I must admit that I am finding what to me are the vagaries of economic theory and practice to be quite fascinating. I used to tell people that I was more focused on policy that politics, and that economic policy was by far the most important element of any administration. After all, a poor economy limits our ability to deal with trouble, and a good economy has ancillary benefits that affect every aspect of our lives. Reading your entries on economic policy and trends, however, makes me realize how little I actually understand.
Kiril Dickinson
p.s. I know this has nothing to do with the post, but I didn't see your email link. I am from the South, you know. If it's not obvious I don't see it.

The most troubling aspect is it reinforces that the decision to do Iraq was something other than an open decision with careful study of all the pros and cons, the potential pitfalls and alternative strategies. Did Mr. Bush take us to Iraq on a whim? Or are there people outside of government that are doing the think and the planning for this adminstration? Given the apparent lack of planning for post-war Iraq, it seems that the former may be closer to the truth.

Maybe Applebaum's criticism of Powell for not doing more to sell the Iraq war in Europe is misplaced.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28891-2004Apr20.html

More fallout from making important decisions in secret.

So there are two classes of facts. Facts that are true and prove that Bush is baaaad and facts that turn out not to be true, but their inaccuracy is irrelevant to the larger truth that Bush is baaaaad. If I didn't know better, I'd think you guys don't like the President.

"Surprise! The WWII metaphor... In 1944, the US was already at war."

Lawrence is correct. We were still at war with Saddam Hussein from 1991, he had numerous times violated the cease fire agreements. Part of our war plans called for men and material to use Saudi territory. Bandar couldn't have been kept in the dark any more than Winston Churchill could have been in 1944.

Pete,
We like the President. We think his policies are bad for the country, however, and that he practices deception in marketing those policies.

It's funny how the Saudis don't have elections, but they do have a president.

President Bush.

K

Patrick,
If you believe that we were at war with Iraq from 1991 on, then wouldn't you agree that the war on Iraq was unrelated to the war on terror?

If the foreign leader were Blair, I don't think that there would be any problem. The problem is that it was Bandar. Having Powell out of the loop isn't the issue.

Since 9/11, it's been pretty much undiscussed that 9/11 was funded, led, and manned mostly by Saudis -- even though this fact came out within a few days.

There is also lots of eveidence that the 9/11 hijackers and their leaders had connections at high levels in Saudi society. This fact is much less well-known.

In the context of the enormous amount that is known about Saudi involvement in 9/11, the laborious attempt to dig up scraps of evidence that Saddam was involved in some way is just a big hoax. It's sad and frightening if farmers in Nebraska and pharmacists in Tennessee believe that Saddam was involved, but anyone who's in a position to be well-informed who's still arguing that point is either in some kind of hypnotic state or else a big fat liar. (Hi Patrick! Yeah, for saying that I'm a bad person and shit.)

Google "Bandar Bush" and you'll find much more documentation than you want about the Bush-Saudi relationship, Bush favoritism to the Saudis, Saudi involvement in terrorism, Bush weakness on counterterrorism before 9/11, and the weaknesses of Bush's counter-terrorism effort after 9/11. (As well as stuff on less-prominent topics, such as the involvement of the Yemeni honey industry in the financing of terrorism.)

Let me get this straight. We were at war with Iraq from 1991-2003. Halliburton did lots of business with Iraq in the 1990s, while Cheney was its CEO. Ergo, Cheney is tied to terrorism and should be in prison or a cage at Gitmo.

Oh wait, I forgot the bulletproof CEO defense: "I was in charge. I didn't know what was going on."

You know that Powell has denied that Bandar was briefed before himself?

Bat,

You're not using doublethink. Try again.

We were at war during the 90's, because our attack in '03 was a continuation of that war. We were not at war during the 90's, however, or Cheney would be a traitor for dealing with the enemy.

Got it now?

"Patrick,
If you believe that we were at war with Iraq from 1991 on, then wouldn't you agree that the war on Iraq was unrelated to the war on terror?"

Exactly the opposite. Bin Laden has specifically stated that he's attacking us BECAUSE of the presence of American--"infidel"--troops in Saudi Arabia.

"It's sad and frightening if farmers in Nebraska and pharmacists in Tennessee believe that Saddam was involved, but anyone who's in a position to be well-informed who's still arguing that point is either in some kind of hypnotic state or else a big fat liar. (Hi Patrick! Yeah, for saying that I'm a bad person and shit.) "

"It's sad and frightening" that supposedly educated people can't see the glaring connection between Al Qaeda's attacks on us even when bin Laden himself has stated it.

And how stupid would bin Laden have to be to ignore a potential source of funds in Saddam.

Patrick,

Answer Bat's point: Do you believe that Cheney is a traitor?

1. Halliburton under Cheney was enriching Saddam, 2. Saddam was a potential source of funds for Bin Laden that Bin Laden was not too stupid enough to ignore.
---------------------------------
3.Halliburton was enriching Bin Laden

Thanks for the tip on doublethink, Joe, I think I understand. Maybe now I'm ready for the advanced course, the one on double-speak.

Patrick -- Babelfish seems to have confused your statements:

"It's sad and frightening" that supposedly educated people can't see the glaring connection between Al Qaeda's attacks on us even when bin Laden himself has stated it.

And how stupid would bin Laden have to be to ignore a potential source of funds in Saddam."

"Exactly the opposite. Bin Laden has specifically stated that he's attacking us BECAUSE of the presence of American--"infidel"--troops in Saudi Arabia."

Where is the connection you made between Saddam and Osama? They're both subject to the same Hamiltonian function. Is that what you mean? They both breathe air?

9/11 was an operation by Saudis, and Iraqi participation was almost none.

"Patrick -- Babelfish seems to have confused your statements:"

There is indeed quite a lot of confusion here. Such as:

"Where is the connection you made between Saddam and Osama? They're both subject to the same Hamiltonian function. Is that what you mean? They both breathe air?"

Osama and Saddam both wanted American troops out of Saudi Arabia (though not in the way Bush did it). Both had motive, means and opportunity for the several attacks on U.S. interests. This isn't an episode of Law and Order, where the judge throws out all the best evidence because he doesn't want to prejudice the jury.

And why am I not surprised to find that Cheney and Halliburton supposed dealings with Iraq are being misrepresented here:

-----------quote------------
In a July 30, 2000, interview on ABC-TV's "This Week," Cheney denied that Halliburton or its subsidiaries traded with Baghdad. Three weeks later, on the same program, he modified his response after being informed that a Halliburton spokesman had said that Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump traded with Iraq.

Cheney said he did not know the subsidiaries were doing business with the Iraqi regime when Halliburton purchased Dresser Industries in September 1998.

The firms traded with Iraq for more than a year under Cheney, however. They signed nearly $30 million in contracts before he sold Halliburton's 49 percent stake in Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. in December 1999 and its 51 percent interest in Dresser Rand to Ingersoll-Rand in February 2000, the Post quoted U.N. records as saying.
-----------endquote--------

All of Dresser's sales were under the UN's Oil for Food program, approved during the Clinton Admin.

Yes, Patrick, both Osama and Saddam are / were enemies of the U.S. And both breathed air and are subject to the laws of gravity too.

What we've been asking, lo these many months, is whether Osama and Saddam were working together, whether Saddam gave money or materiel to Osama, whether they shared resources, information, or manpower or coordinated their activities in any way, and so on. That's what we weren't able to find.

One thing not on the breathing-air / laws of gravity list of commonalities is Islamic fundamentalism. Saddam was a bitter enemy of Islamic fundamentalism, and Osama hated him as he did Osama. The possibility of tactical cooperation cannot be ruled out, but it is rather unlikely and can't be assumed without positive evidence.

In the case of the Osama-Saudi connection, we already have tons of evidence despite the fact that the Saudis have not been at all good about sharing information with us or letting us do investigations in Saudi Arabia. Google "Bandar Bush" and you will find my site with lots of information.

On the positive side where evidence of a Bin Laden-Saddam link is concerned: it's rather difficult to see how Bin Laden or Zawahiri could ever have imagined that the US withdrawing its troops from Saudi Arabia without invading Iraq could NOT have made Saudi Arabia extremely vulnerable to an Iraqi invasion.

On the negative side: tha famous Zarqawi memo -- waved around so much by the White House -- and its passage: "[America] is looking to a near future, when it will remain safe in its bases, while handing over control of Iraq to a bastard government with an army and police force that will bring back the time of (Saddam) Hussein and his cohorts." Sounds real nostalgic for Saddam, doesn't he?

And, of course, there's the entirely separate but very important issue brought up by -- of all people -- William Safire in a NY Times column the first few weeks after 9-11: did we really NEED to invade and occupy all of Iraq to shield Saudi Arabia from future Iraq invasion while simultaneously withdrawing our troops from Saudi Arabia's Holy Places (thereby depriving Bin Laden of that particular alibi for his attack)? Or would just occupying part of southern Iraq to provide a buffer zone -- infinitely easier, especially given the Shiites' (relative) enthusiasm for us -- have been adequate to do the job?

And where the Bandar/Powell question is concerned: as Timothy Noah points out ( http://slate.msn.com/id/2099197/ ), what Woodward's account really indicates is not just that POWELL was out of the final war-decision loop -- it's that BUSH was. By Woodward's account, Bush never did make a definitive decision to initiate the war -- Cheney and Rumsfeld did it for him:

"The closest Woodward comes to showing Bush making a final decision is when Bush pulls Rumsfeld aside in early January 2003 and says, 'Look, we're going to have to do this, I'm afraid. I don't see how we're going to get him to a position where he will do something in a manner that's consistent with the U.N. requirements, and we've got to make an assumption that he will not.'

"This, Woodward writes, was 'enough of a decision for Rumsfeld.' But according to Woodward, Bush then asked Rumsfeld when his 'last decision point' would be, a question indicating that, in Bush's mind, no final decision had been made.

"We then turn the page and read, 'From their almost daily conversations, Cheney had come to realize that the president had made his decision.' Woodward's use of the word 'realize' is mere source-greasing politesse. A more apt phrase would be 'persuade himself.' Cheney, impatient with waiting for Bush's decision, took matters into his own hands. He called Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar into his office on Jan. 11, 2003, showed him the plans for the invasion, and asked whether he was in or out. Bandar said he wasn't going to commit until he knew the invasion was really going to happen. Rumsfeld, putting Bush's query about his 'last decision point' out of his mind, told Bandar: 'You can count on this. You can take that to the bank. This is going to happen.' Then Bandar asked whether Saddam would be killed; he didn't want in if Saddam would still be around to kill those who'd betrayed him. Cheney answered, 'Saddam is toast.'

"All that was left was for Bandar to be told the same by the president himself. When they met the next day, Woodward writes, Bush simply asked, 'Any questions for me?' Bandar said no, and Bush replied, 'The message you're taking is mine.' But it was Bush's message only because Cheney and Rumsfeld had already told him it was necessary to say so. Then Bush called in his secretary of state, Colin Powell, whose advice he had not sought, and told him we were going to war. That must have been especially sweet for Cheney since by then, Woodward tells us, Powell and Cheney were barely speaking."

Which would certainly explain why Powell wasn't told we were definitely going to war until after Bandar had been -- Bush himself wasn't told it until after Bandar had been. (And, if anyone had any remaining doubts that Bush is playing Gov. LePetomaine to Cheney's Hedley Lamarr, consider his bizarre exercise in question-dodging when asked during his press conference why he and Cheney were insisting on appearing together for the 9-11 Commission's questioning. Did Charlie McCarthy ever make a solo appearance without Edgar Bergen?)

"What we've been asking, lo these many months, is whether Osama and Saddam were working together, whether Saddam gave money or materiel to Osama, whether they shared resources, information, or manpower or coordinated their activities in any way, and so on. That's what we weren't able to find."

So, my crack about "Law and Order" didn't register.

"One thing not on the breathing-air / laws of gravity list of commonalities is Islamic fundamentalism. Saddam was a bitter enemy of Islamic fundamentalism, and Osama hated him as he did Osama. The possibility of tactical cooperation cannot be ruled out, but it is rather unlikely and can't be assumed without positive evidence."

It definitely didn't register.

I would also suggest that that you acquaint yourself with the history of Islamist cooperation with secular Muslims in the face of a common enemy. The 13th century Mongol invasions of Arab lands being apposite.

Patrick, what is the actual evidence that Osama and Saddam were working together? It's possible, maybe plausible, but as far as I know not actual. The "best evidence" you supply is a conjecture, and it is not supported by actual evidence.

In particular, not by anything that outweighs the fact that we have lots of evidence that Osama got lots of support from elsewhere. In other words, we know who Osama was and who supported him, and he apparently wasn't a tool or ally of Saddam.

After the Iraq war started (or shortly before) Osama made a sort of weak solidarity statement. One of Osama's lieutenants may have visited Baghdad, or maybe not. At one point early on S. and O. exchanged messages, without coming to an agreement. One of the hijackers may have met a Saddam rep in Prague, or maybe not. This is thin stuff.

If you say they both live in the same part of the world, both are Muslims, sort of, and both hate the US, that's thin too. As far as I know, that's all there is.

Patrick,

You say that we were at war with Saddam during the 90's; you say that firms owned by Halliburton traded with Saddam, to the tune of $30M, during the 90's; but what you don't do is give a straight answer to a direct question: Do you believe Cheney is a traitor?

"You say that we were at war with Saddam during the 90's; you say that firms owned by Halliburton traded with Saddam, to the tune of $30M, during the 90's; but what you don't do is give a straight answer to a direct question: Do you believe Cheney is a traitor? "

What is so difficult about:

"Cheney said he did not know the subsidiaries were doing business with the Iraqi regime when Halliburton purchased Dresser Industries in September 1998."

Or, about the fact that the two companies were LEGALLY trading with Iraq under the Oil for Food program? With the blessings of Bill Clinton.

"...we have lots of evidence that Osama got lots of support from elsewhere. In other words, we know who Osama was and who supported him, and he apparently wasn't a tool or ally of Saddam."

This is simply invalid logic. That Saddam got support from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan does not rule out support from Iraq. And it is now coming to light that some of the Oil for Food program bribes may have gone to people linked to Al Qaeda.

"After the Iraq war started (or shortly before) Osama made a sort of weak solidarity statement. One of Osama's lieutenants may have visited Baghdad, or maybe not."

Not "one", and not "may have". There were plenty of terrorists harbored in Iraq, including several with ties to Al Qaeda. There was indisputably an airliner in a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak. And the captured commander of that camp has told us Al Qaeda did train there.

Further, two of the men responsible for the first Twin Towers attack have Iraqi ties. Ramzi Youseff had an Iraqi passport, and made several calls to Iraq right before the attack in 1993. The bombmaker (who was on an Iraqi payroll) may still be in Iraq. When Sen. Kerrey queried George Tenet about this man during the Commission hearings, Tenet said he'd have to brief Kerrey privately.

The Philippines expelled two Iraqi diplomats because of their ties to Al Qaeda related terrorist cells. Even the goofy Richard Clarke, in his book, provides a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda; the Sudan pharmaceutical factory.

But all the above is beside the point. Osama bin Laden himself announced he attacked us because of our presence in Saudi Arabia protecting that country from Iraq. End of story. This glaringly obvious fact required that we finally resolve the Saddam problem.

It wasn't my intent to divert the discussion from the topic of the relative importance of Bandar and Powell. I intended the quip only to show how the notion that a state of war existed between Iraq and the U.S. between 1991 and 2003. Still, Cheney's answer isn't completely satisfying. The description that he "modified" his views is silly. He recanted. More importantly (and this is not clear from the quote which Patrick posted), did he learn about the transactions while he was at Halliburton and if so, did he put a stop to them? If he did not learn about them, then I'm curious what he was doing with his time.

Did not the Oil for Food program continue into Bush's term, with American participation?

But back to the state of war: wasn't Gulf I fought under a UN mandate? If so, it would seem that it would be up to the UN to decide whether the war to expel Iraq from Kuwait continued or not.

Again, I'm not that interesting in picking nits. It's just that for me, this one day Saddam's a menace, the next he's a business partner, the next he's a menace, is wholly unconvincing.

So, Patrick, I guess your answer is: Cheney's not a traitor because in the '90's it was legal to trade with a sworn enemy during wartime. Plus, Cheney had no idea what was going on with his company anyway.

That's your story and you're sticking to it, right, Patrick?

Sullivan: "But all the above is beside the point. Osama bin Laden himself announced he attacked us because of our presence in Saudi Arabia protecting that country from Iraq. End of story."

The hell it is. He announced that he attacked us because we had troops in Saudi Arabia's Holy Places -- not that he was doing so explicitly to allow Saddam to invade and rule Saudi Arabia. If he had, he might very well have been shot by one of his own lieutenants. (It's time that we stopped assuming that our opponents are Evil Geniuses. They're not; they're religious nuts -- which, I imagine, is why they focused on attacking the WTC rather than Washington: they assumed that it was the headquarters of the secret Jewish government that REALLY rules America. I very much doubt that many of them wanted to set up Saddam as the head of that Revived Islamic Caliphate they keep talking about.)

Sullivan: "This glaringly obvious fact required that we finally resolve the Saddam problem." I do hope Patrick isn't idiotic enough to take for granted that Al Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups would have ceased from attacking us merely because we pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia and occupied Iraq instead. The question of whether attacking Iraq would weaken terrorist attacks on us still depends on whether Saddam actually was actively assisting Bin Laden. (And, as I say, there is also the separate issue of whether we had to occupy ALL of Iraq in order to permanently protect Saudi Arabia from Iraqi invasion without keeping US troops in Saudi Arabia, or whether we could have done so just by ocupying a much smaller portion of southern Shiite Iraq.)

It is interesting, though, to see that Patrick -- unlike a lot of other Clinton opponents -- really does believe that that Sudan pharmaceutical plant was a terrorist base.

And, by the way, this interminable see-saw wrangle is getting boring, Patrick. You can argue up, down and sideways, but there is no way to get around the fact that the Bush Administration has made one gigantic mistake so far during the War against Megaterrorism: they enormously overestimated the ease with which we could conquer and reform Iraq. If they had not made that mistake, they themselves would have been far more reluctant to get into that war -- and to lie to Congress, the American people and the world about the extent of the evidence for doing so.

My point, Patrick, was that if we ask the question "Where did Osama get his support?" good answers are available and Saddam is very, very far down the queue. In fact, there's no need for Osama to have gotten any support at all from Saddam in order to have done what he did.

The question you insist on asking is "Is there any evidence at all that Osama got any support at all from Saddam?" You have gathered together all the evidence you can find, and some of it is irrelevant and some of it is discredited, and it's not really much. And it's the wrong question anyway.

There's no logic error in my part, but there's dishonesty in your changing the question.

And back to the lost topic: my point was intended just to be that Saudi Arabia is, and always has been the place to look for Osama's support, if you want to know where Osama's support came from. And the privileging of Bandar is very strange, given that the official Saudis have been very uncooperative about the investigation.

"He announced that he attacked us because we had troops in Saudi Arabia's Holy Places..."

No, we don't have troops in Mecca and Medina.

" -- not that he was doing so explicitly to allow Saddam to invade and rule Saudi Arabia."

Who ever claimed he did? But, put your thinking cap on, what would have resulted from our withdrawal from Saudi Arabia with Saddam or his sons still in power?

"... they're religious nuts -- which, I imagine, is why they focused on attacking the WTC rather than Washington..."

Two planes hit the WTC, one hit the Pentagon, and one was headed for Washington when it crashed into a field in Penn.

"...I very much doubt that many of them wanted to set up Saddam as the head of that Revived Islamic Caliphate they keep talking about."

Aren't you the guy who just claimed: "It's time that we stopped assuming that our opponents are Evil Geniuses. They're not."?

"Still, Cheney's answer isn't completely satisfying. The description that he "modified" his views is silly."

That's probably why no one said that. He modified his "response", which is clearly true.

" He recanted. More importantly (and this is not clear from the quote which Patrick posted), did he learn about the transactions while he was at Halliburton and if so, did he put a stop to them?"

Again, it's written in plain English: "In a July 30, 2000, interview ...Three weeks later, on the same program, he modified his response after being informed..."

" If he did not learn about them, then I'm curious what he was doing with his time."

Being the CEO of Halliburton, not Dresser.

"My point, Patrick, was that if we ask the question 'Where did Osama get his support?' good answers are available and Saddam is very, very far down the queue. In fact, there's no need for Osama to have gotten any support at all from Saddam in order to have done what he did."

Yes, I know what you are arguing, and it is still invalid logic. Your syllogism would be along these lines:

1. Bin Laden got financial support from Saudis.

2. Saddam Hussein is not a Saudi.

3. Bin Laden got no financial support from Saddam.

And that is definitely NOT valid.

"The question you insist on asking is 'Is there any evidence at all that Osama got any support at all from Saddam?' You have gathered together all the evidence you can find,"

Oh no, I only provided a few highlights. There's more.

"and some of it is irrelevant and some of it is discredited, and it's not really much. And it's the wrong question anyway."

Good thing George W. Bush isn't as incurious as you.

"There's no logic error in my part,"

Provide me with a valid syllogism then.

" but there's dishonesty in your changing the question."

I was answering YOUR question.

" And back to the lost topic: my point was intended just to be that Saudi Arabia is, and always has been the place to look for Osama's support,"

Obviously not. He had support from Sudan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. He's got cells all over the world (Indonesia, the Philippines, Algeria, Egypt, the U.S. and on and on).

" if you want to know where Osama's support came from."

Or if you've made up your mind without thinking very hard about the evidence.

" And the privileging of Bandar is very strange, given that the official Saudis have been very uncooperative about the investigation."

As Menachem Begin famously said, Saudi Arabia isn't a country, it's a family. Some members of the family have been very useful to us--Reagan got the king to open the oil spigots to deny the Soviet Union oil revenues in the 80s--and some have been hostile to us.

"I do hope Patrick isn't idiotic enough to take for granted that Al Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups would have ceased from attacking us merely because we pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia and occupied Iraq instead."

Yes, that's a pretty stupid conclusion to come to.

I'd written:

"Even the goofy Richard Clarke, in his book, provides a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda; the Sudan pharmaceutical factory."

From which the logically challenged Bruce draws:

"It is interesting, though, to see that Patrick -- unlike a lot of other Clinton opponents -- really does believe that that Sudan pharmaceutical plant was a terrorist base."

Put aside that no one, even Richard Clarke, thinks it was a "terrorist base", and it is still a non-sequitur.

Ah, Patrick...

Me: "He announced that he attacked us because we had troops in Saudi Arabia's Holy Places..."

Sullivan: "No, we don't have troops in Mecca and Medina."

Me: I never said we did. HE said explicitly that he regards ALL Saudi Arabia as a Holy Place and that US troops are therefore intolerable ANYWHERE in it.
___________________________-

Me: " -- not that he was doing so explicitly to allow Saddam to invade and rule Saudi Arabia."

Sullivan: "Who ever claimed he did? But, put your thinking cap on, what would have resulted from our withdrawal from Saudi Arabia with Saddam or his sons still in power?"

Me: I mentioned just that earlier. I also mentioned the fact that it's the strongest evidence that they MIGHT have been in cahoots -- an issue on which I'm still undecided. I also said that the strongest piece of evidence that Al Qaida was NOT in cahoots with Saddam is the fact that the Zawahiri Memo proves that most Islamists still hate Sadaam's guts.
________________________

Me: "... they're religious nuts -- which, I imagine, is why they focused on attacking the WTC rather than Washington..."

Sullivan: "Two planes hit the WTC, one hit the Pentagon, and one was headed for Washington when it crashed into a field in Penn."

Me: I did know that, you know. I said "FOCUSED" on Washington, Patrick. If they had aimed all four planes for Washington -- as any sane bunch of terrorists would have done -- and if they had not made the attack on a day when Bush was publicly known NOT to be in Washington, they would certainly have wiped out much of our government. Instead, they wasted two of those planes on the WTC -- which killed 3000 people, but did absolutely nothing else other than to infuriate the American people and give the government an advance warning that we were under attack BEFORE any of the planes could reach Washington.
________________________

Me: "...I very much doubt that many of them wanted to set up Saddam as the head of that Revived Islamic Caliphate they keep talking about."

Patrick: "Aren't you the guy who just claimed: 'It's time that we stopped assuming that our opponents are Evil Geniuses. They're not.'?

Me: Yep. Which is why I didn't claim that the fact that most of them detest Saddam is proof that they weren't in cahoots with him - it's just an important piece of evidence that they were NOT in cahoots with him.
_________________________________

Me: "It is interesting, though, to see that Patrick -- unlike a lot of other Clinton opponents -- really does believe that that Sudan pharmaceutical plant was a terrorist base."

Sullivan: "Put aside that no one, even Richard Clarke, thinks it was a 'terrorist base', and it is still a non-sequitur."

Me: Then what kind of "link between Iraq and "al-Qaida" does Clarke think it was? When I say "terrorist base", I include any plant that is manufacturing toxins for terrorist use -- which is what Clinton claimed it was. As really should be obvious even to you, Pat.

Online Casino Directory

Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat - It's not the heat, it's the humidity

Ventis secundis, tene/tenete cursum - The winds being favorable, hold the course

Helluo librorum - A glutton for books (bookworm)

Medio tutissimus ibis - You will go safest in the middle (Moderation in all things.)(Ovid)