As you point out, in 1998, Clarke believe that Al-Qaeda and Iraq were linked. By 2001, he was certain that they were not. The contention of the right is that he changed his mind, and that therefore, he's inconsistent. But in fairness, a lot of CIA guys changed their minds over that same three-year period as well. It's possible that this is simply a result of gathering better intelligence over time.

As you point out, Clarke still stands by his decision to bomb the aspirin factory. That seems logical to me. If the CIA told me that Osama bin Laden was making chemical weapons in an aspirin factory, and that by the way, Osama is linked to Iraq, I would respond, "OK, bomb the factory." If they then said, "no wait, Osama and Iraq aren't linked after all," I would respond, "who cares? Osama's still making chemical weapons. Bomb him." In other words, the fact that he still believes in bombing doesn't imply that he still believes in an Al-Qaeda/Iraq link.

You raise an interesting point, but isn't it possible to stand by one's decision given the information one had available in 1998, and have come to a different view by 2001? (the same is true about supporting the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, but to grant in hindsight that the lack of WMD's undercuts the original decision)

What I find frustrating about the Bush Administration is that they will almost never admit an error. Since everyone does make mistakes sometimes, how can one have confidence that they really believe what they say?

Probably was incorrect. I hope someone asks him that.

Come on, Dan, are you really trying to equate the remote destruction of one building in the Sudan with the invasion of Iraq?

Perhaps if Bush launched a missle or two into Iraq to destroy the infamous "mobile bioweapons trucks" and Democrats objected to that, perhaps this would be a valid retort. Hell, Rummy said they knew exactly where the weapons were, why didn't they launch such an attack? Even I might have supported that.

It seems crystal clear to me that Clarke is not blaming Bush simply for taking action against Iraq, but rather the means by which he has chosen to act and the manner in which it had been represented to Americans and our allies.

Josh Yelon:

Clarke has not mentioned the al-Shifa attack since his media debut, nor has he been asked about it to the best of my knowledge. Sandy Berger stands by the decision to attack al-Shifa and defends it at length in his book. In addition, I am somewhat perplexed by the claim that various intelligence officials changed their mind in this regard over time. Certainly I would argue that there is more evidence now for an al-Qaeda/Iraq connection.

More to the point, the whole idea that al-Qaeda was making chemical weapons at al-Shifa was based in no small part on the fact that the people connected with the plant were said to be meeting with the father of the Iraqi VX program. So it isn't as though the link in this particular instance is some kind of a trivial or after-the-fact point.

Rick Heller:

I freely allow that one may change their views between 1998 and 2003. However, if that is in fact the case then I think that someone who was a key architect in the al-Shifa attack that first made talk of a linkage between the two public knowledge should at the very least be asked why he believed in the link then and what factors led him away from that conclusion. Certainly it would be of educational value to those individuals like myself who are still sincere enough to believe in such a conclusion.

More to the point, there is the issue of Mr. Idris to consider. If we were wrong in blowing up his plant, then his request for compensation is an entirely reasonable one.

As for the willingness of the current administration to admit mistakes, I would concur to a certain degree but would simply point out that if one believes that the decision to attack al-Shifa was wrong then a similar point could be made with regard to the refusal of the previous administration to pay compensation to Mr. Idris for his business losses. On the other hand, if Mr. Idris is indeed one of bin Laden's frontmen who was working with him to produce chemical weapons then that refusal is entirely understandable.

Vesicle Tracker:

"Come on, Dan, are you really trying to equate the remote destruction of one building in the Sudan with the invasion of Iraq?"

Not at all. My position is simply that if Iraq was working with al-Qaeda to make VX, presumably with the intention of using it against us, less than 5 years ago that I would definitely consider it somewhat noteworthy to mention when charging that a US-led invasion of Iraq would detract from the war against al-Qaeda as far as articulating an intellectually consistent position goes. I think you are making a category mistake here.

"Perhaps if Bush launched a missle or two into Iraq to destroy the infamous 'mobile bioweapons trucks' and Democrats objected to that, perhaps this would be a valid retort. Hell, Rummy said they knew exactly where the weapons were, why didn't they launch such an attack? Even I might have supported that."

Such bombing campaigns were carried out quite extensively throughout the 1990s, Operation Desert Fox being among the most recent major campaign. That, however, was not what I was attempting to argue.

"It seems crystal clear to me that Clarke is not blaming Bush simply for taking action against Iraq, but rather the means by which he has chosen to act and the manner in which it had been represented to Americans and our allies."

In the media interviews that I have seen, Clarke has blamed Bush for focusing on Iraq rather on al-Qaeda. If the two were in cahoots (as Clarke evidently believed in 1998), then that criticism would ring somewhat hollow, yes?

You ask "why he believed in the link then and what factors led him away from that conclusion."

I suspect that what happened is that they simply spent three years looking, and found nothing. The CIA is a competent organization. If after looking for three years they haven't found anything, there's probably nothing.

As such, I suspect that if you ask him to supply a single piece of evidence proving the absence of a link, he won't be able to. The best he'll be able to say is, if there were a link, we would have found it by now.

Josh Yelon:

"I suspect that what happened is that they simply spent three years looking, and found nothing."

Clearly he thought they found something if he believed that al-Shifa had to be taken out to keep bin Laden from getting VX precursors with Iraqi assistance. Does he believe, as various conservative critiques have claimed, that the al-Shifa strike was simply the results of bad intelligence? If that's the case, then why is Berger so adamant after 5 years that the strike was justified when he could have simply wiped his hands of the whole situation? Does he feel that the original 1998 US indictment of bin Laden, which alludes directly to the rationale for the al-Shifa attack, is therefore in error and should be revised? All of these are questions that need to be asked.

"As such, I suspect that if you ask him to supply a single piece of evidence proving the absence of a link, he won't be able to. The best he'll be able to say is, if there were a link, we would have found it by now."

Some (myself included) would argue that more than enough evidence exists for such a link simply on the basis of open source documents. Can we infer from this that the reports of the head of the Iraqi VX program meeting with bin Laden's flunkies is inaccurate? Does Mr. Idris work for al-Qaeda? If not, then at the very least we owe him compensation for the destruction of his plant.

The reason I raised this issue is because Clarke's charges against the administration are extremely serious and unless he plans on backing away from any justification of the al-Shifa strike as having deprived al-Qaeda of VX capabilities as was claimed back in 1998, then he has some extremely serious credibility problems with regard to claiming that an attack on Iraq diverted attention away from al-Qaeda.

Actually, you know, I think none of this is that important.

A lot of liberals think that Bush should have done more against terrorism pre-sep 11. A lot of conservatives think Clinton should have done more. The obvious truth is that both should have done more. Hindsight is 20/20.

As such, I think that most of what Clarke says isn't that exciting. It proves that there was somebody high in the administration pushing the administration to do more. So what? At any given time, there's probably a thousand people pushing any given administration in a thousand directions. After the fact, an administration can be faulted for not listening to one of those people, but realistically, the president can't do everything every advisor tells him to do. So he made a mistake on this one.

I think the only thing that's particularly damning in his report is his description of the events after September 11. In particular, the assertion that he wanted to go after Iraq instead of Al-Qaeda, and that he had to be talked into going after Al-Qaeda. If it's true, it's bad.

- Josh

"more than enough evidence exists for such a link simply on the basis of open source documents."

Is there a website that has a compilation of these pieces of evidence?

Of course, it would be interesting to see discredited pieces of evidence too, because such pieces of evidence could justify the war - if they weren't yet discredited at the time of the start of the war.

I have always thought that saddam was worth the effort to oust him, regardless of any linkage with al queda. I came to that conclusion in 1991, based on what I knew about him then. The passage of time and events have reinforced my opinion.

Saddam was a malevolent force all by himself.

Dan;

Perhaps I'm missing something, but wasn't it found in the end that the Sudan pharma plant was not making VX nerve agent? Meaning that the intelligence on this was faulty. Citing Berger’s failure to admit this proves nothing, and you know it. But doesn’t this also call into question the alleged association of Bin Laden and Iraq to make VX there? Just because intelligence thought at the time that there might be an association does not of course constitute proof of same.

You mention in your reply to Josh regarding an Iraq/Al qaeda link that “enough evidence exists for such a link simply on the basis of open source documents.” A basic question that arises, however, is how strong are these alleged links? Because “links” are easy to find if you look hard enough and broaden your definition enough. Just so I understand your position, however, what do you think is the strongest link?

Because you know we committed an awful lot of lives, money and attention to this, so I’d like to see what link/s you have accepted that you think justifies this.

Without denying the necessity of rebutting Clarke, I think the whole faux incident reflects on a deeper problem with our political culture - and the ability to run a war in that culture - than anything else. That is intended as a non-partisan remark. But it is not clear that the Democrats stand to gain by transforming the election into a referendum on Bush's veracity and forthrightness versus Kerry's or Bush's conduct of the WoT versus Clinton's.

"I have always thought that saddam was worth the effort to oust him, regardless of any linkage with al queda."

You know, of all the things that conservatives say about the war, this is the only one that makes sense to me. I do think there was good reason to remove Hussein, just on general principles. I also feel the same way about a lot of other dictators, for instance, Mugabe.

The problem is, killing a dictator is easy. Heck, it only took us, what, three weeks to destroy the republican guard? The hard part is rebuilding. Fail to rebuild, and usually, local warlords take over. I never felt that Bush was ready to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to really rebuild a nation. I believe that events in Afghanistan and Iraq have reinforced this belief.

Recently, I've seen conservatives rooting for the collapse of Iran's government on various blogs. I can't help but think "not now! wait six months!" We really can't stabilize another nation right now. We just don't have the troops.

+++A lot of liberals think that Bush should have done more against terrorism pre-sep 11. A lot of conservatives think Clinton should have done more. The obvious truth is that both should have done more. Hindsight is 20/20.+++

Difference is that Clinton had 8 years to do it. And never once did he act in any way that did anyone any good. For cripes sake, he was offered Osama's head on a platter and he REFUSED! Bush had only been in office for 8 months. And from what I understand, the administration had been working on a plan to strike at al-Qaeda prior to 9/11. Unlike Clinton, who never actually had any intention of going after al-Qaeda, Bush DID intend to go after al-Qaeda. Eight months, however, isn't exactly enough time to wage a War on Terror. Not like he could go on tv on January 21st, 2001 and declare a War on Terror. For God's sake, some newspapers were still working on doing their own recount of the Florida ballots!

+++I believe that events in Afghanistan and Iraq have reinforced this belief.+++

You're kidding, right? They just voted on a new constitution in Iraq, and it's been only a year. Amazing. Some people think reconstructing a country takes as much time as it does to wait at a Burger King drive-through, and if it doesn't happen that quickly, then that's a sign that it's a catastrophic failure. How many YEARS were we in Germany and Japan after World War II? I know we were in Japan for SEVEN YEARS. And weren't we in Germany for TEN years? Reconstructing a country is not something that happens overnight. But as far as Iraq is concerned, despite the impression that the media presents, it's going fairly well. Yeah, there's resistance from terrorists and Baa'thist hold-outs, but there was resistance in Post World War II Germany, too. Doesn't mean the situation isn't improving. But, surprise, surprise, infrastructure getting rebuilt, hospitals getting repaired, and schools being built don't make the headlines. Terrorist attacks do. So you only see the negative in the news, not the positive.

As for Afghanistan, that's hardly fair. That country was barely above the Stone Age BEFORE we got there. Naturally it'll take a pretty damn long time to build an 8th Century BC country into 21st Century AD standards. But despite it all, progress IS being made.

but there was resistance in Post World War II Germany, too

Urban legend. Number of documented deaths of GIs from hostile action after German surrender?

And from what I understand, the administration had been working on a plan to strike at al-Qaeda prior to 9/11.

Don't you think they'd have mentioned this, say in rebuttal to Clarke? For whatever reason, it's clear that Iraq interested Bush more than Al Qaeda for all but a few weeks of his Administration, if that.

There's no contemporary way for militant and faith-based Radical Islam, as is, to influence or "rule the world" except either via a cataclysm or cataclysms that essentially destroys American and Western, or non-Islamist, STATE POWER AND CIVILIZATION, thus allowing surviving Islamic nations to rise; or else via GLOBAL GOVERNMENT/OWG, where "great state/power" ambition is achieved via GLOBAL ADMINISTRATION and GLOBAL APPROPRIATIONS! Just as the Failed Left PC proclaims to resist US expansionism, or imperialism-based warfare and American empire whilst covertly working to achieve empire, Radical Islam similarly resists an American-led UNIPOLAR WORLD WHILE INVERSELY WORKING TO ACHIEVE SAID [GLOBAL] UNIPOLARITY! The Failed Left resists war while working to induce war, hence Radical Islam, an Islam and Muslim-centric movement which by definition is anti-Christian and anti-nonIslam or anti-nonMuslim, cannot be working for America or america interests BUT CAN, HOWEVER, BY DEFINITION AGAIN DOGMATICALLY OR REASONABLY WORK AGAINST AMERICA OR AMERICAN INTERESTS, AND REGARDLESS IF THESE INTERESTS ARE ISLAM-CENTRIC OR NONISLAM-CENTRIC IOW, RADICAL ISLAM IS THUS THE PERFECT PROXY OR MERCENARY MEDIUM FOR THOSE WITH VIOLENT OR NON-VIOLENT, ANTI-AMERICAN OR NON-AMERICAN, INTERESTS! By this logic flow it is hence nearly impossible for one to argue Osama Bin Laden or Radical Islam, etal. is working for Bush-, GOP-, or American-specific interests unless the former are genuine fakes andor politicized traitors-double agents to their causes! Far more likely and realistic Osama, etal. are regional or extarregional proxies or mercenaries for the cause of organized entitities, networks, andor international state(s) whom have no qualms using violence or destructive militarized actions to support their agendas! It is also likely and realistic that a wide-ranging CONSPIRACY EXISTS since it is highly doubtful, even unconscionable, that any rational organization or state would singularly and wilfully risk internicine warfare, exclusive of self-suicide, against BOTH the world's NO.1 MILITARY POWER AND HYPERPOWER THE USA, AND THE WORLD'S NO. 2 GREAT BRITAIN, BOTH OF WHICH BY THEMSELVES ARE SINGULARLY CAPABLE OF DESTROYING RADICAL ISLAM IN ANY FORM, OR UNDER ANY PROTECTION, ANYWHERE AROUND THE WORLD! Unless Osama and Radical Islam are desperately suicidal, the attack on 9-11 can be righteously labeled the "PEARL HARBOR" or initial strike of an offensive, including but NOT limited to Radical Islam, whose aim is the per se geopolitical defeat, iff not also the per se militarized destruction, of the United States of America! I'll say it again - only the FAILED LEFT, to include still COMMUNISM-CENTRIC RUSSIA and still COMMUNIST CHINA, has both everything to gain, or everything to lose, by short-term or long-term failure to impose [Communist-controlled/managed] SOCIALISM and SOCIALIST OWG upon a free and capitalist America! My answer to those who claim "Bush did it" is that yes, its generally or generically possible for Bush, as with any politician or human being, to have conspired for 9-11 against his own country, but to do so for the sake of Republican ideology is not only UNLIKELY, BUT MORE IS UNNECESSARY! Republicanism, Rightism , and Capitalism already rule, had ruled long before and despite the Cold War, and prevailed or won both the Cold War and the ideological war against Leftism-Socialism-Liberalism - Bush, Incorporated companies do not and did not have to kill 3000 people on 9-11 or wage war against two Islamic nations, or those to come, just for the sake of getting richer or holding an advantage over non-Bush companies! The "FAD" of Communism and Socialism should've ended long, long, LONG AGO!

Josh Yelon:

"A lot of liberals think that Bush should have done more against terrorism pre-sep 11. A lot of conservatives think Clinton should have done more. The obvious truth is that both should have done more. Hindsight is 20/20."

I tend to concur. However, my comment in this regard isn't about the administration's credibility or lack thereof in preparation on dealing with al-Qaeda pre-9/11. My comment was specifically triggered by the fact that Clarke is now arguing that Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, which I think requires at least some explanation given that a connection between the two provided most of the rationale for an attack that he specifically advocated to the president. At the very least, I think he deserves to clarify his position in this regard. On the other hand, if al-Qaeda was in cahoots with Iraq as the 1998 indictment states, then Bush wanting to go after them is entirely understandable.

"Is there a website that has a compilation of these pieces of evidence?"

cough cough

That is one of the things that I have endeavored to do on this website ever since the summer of 2003 when I first started writing for Winds of Change. Go into search engine and type in either my name or the phrase "special analysis" and see what pops up. Many of the analyses are quite lengthy, but at the end of the day I think it makes a very compelling case that there was an active alliance between the two parties.

"Of course, it would be interesting to see discredited pieces of evidence too, because such pieces of evidence could justify the war - if they weren't yet discredited at the time of the start of the war."

Most of the discredited evidence lies squarely in the area of WMDs. Collin Powell's presentation to the UN in February 2003 laid out three specific justifications for war: WMDs, terrorism, and human rights abuses. A good chunk of the WMD argument has more less fallen flat on its face, though based on press reports of interrogations with captured Republican Guard commanders amongst other things I tend to think that our intel boys thought the exact same thing that Saddam Hussein and his generals were with regard to their weapons programs and stockpiles, though this is still in dispute. The al-Qaeda link, however, which was for me and I suspect to many other Americans one of the foremost rationales for war, I think has held up rather well, which is why so many of the attempts to debunk it are going to lack serious intellectual credibility for those of us who follow such things. The fact that a former chief of Indian intelligence who opposed the war is corroborating at least some of these claims now helps to bolster the credibility of the argument even more in my mind.

Vesicle Trafficker:

"Perhaps I'm missing something, but wasn't it found in the end that the Sudan pharma plant was not making VX nerve agent? Meaning that the intelligence on this was faulty."

That very much depends on who you ask. Mr. Idris claims that this was all a huge misunderstanding, abeit one that left quite a few people dead in the process. No traces of the precursor compound in question were discovered on-sight, but Berger and his colleagues have argued that they acted on the basis of solid intelligence, including their assertion that Mr. Idris is one of bin Laden's front men and that the plant in question did have ties with the Iraqi government. The crux of their argument is essentially that there may have been no precursor at al-Shifa but that they nevertheless did the right thing by taking the plant out and thereby inflicting a great deal of logistical damage to al-Qaeda's nascent chemical weapons program.

"But doesn’t this also call into question the alleged association of Bin Laden and Iraq to make VX there? Just because intelligence thought at the time that there might be an association does not of course constitute proof of same."

Intelligence did a great deal more than think that there was an association - it is explicitly mentioned in the original US indictment against bin Laden, which means that the Justice Department believed that they had enough evidence to prove that there was both a non-aggression pact between al-Qaeda and Iraq as well as that the two had agreed to join projects together, including weapons development.

"You mention in your reply to Josh regarding an Iraq/Al qaeda link that 'enough evidence exists for such a link simply on the basis of open source documents.' A basic question that arises, however, is how strong are these alleged links? Because 'links' are easy to find if you look hard enough and broaden your definition enough. Just so I understand your position, however, what do you think is the strongest link?"

That depends very much on your worldview. In all honesty, I believe that there are people who would deny any evidence of such a connection even if bin Laden and Saddam were videotaped performing lewd sex acts on one another. My own view would be that the strongest links between the two are the following:

• Repeated reports that Abu Wael, a member of Ansar al-Islam's ruling council, was a member of the Iraqi Mukhabarat.
• The mysterious lack of a known terrorist group with which to associate with Unit 999's Saudi battalion.
• Abu Musab Zarqawi. Everything about the man's involvement with Saddam Hussein stinks in my opinion to high heaven, from the day he showed up at an exclusive clinic in Baghdad, to him meeting with members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad in Baghdad, to him going on to try and mastermind a series of chemical weapons plots against multiple targets in Western Europe. If you want a pre-war imminent threat, that's one right there IMO. Even a former Indian intelligence chief has recently come out to claim that Zarqawi was in cahoots with the Iraqi Mukhabarat.
• Repeatedly corroborated reports from low to mid-level Iraqi Baathists stating that a fair number of the initial foreign jihadis who fought alongside the Iraqi military during the war were members of al-Qaeda.
• Post-war cooperation between the Baathists led by Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri and Ansar al-Islam as well as in the Army of Mohammed (Jaish Mohammed).
• Abu Mohammed al-Ablaj's rather blunt admission to al-Majallah on how the terrorist network regards Saddam Hussein.
• The fact that al-Qaeda was more than willing to work with the nominally Christian despot of Liberia kind throws the whole "ideological disagreements" meme out the window.

There's more, but I think that that's enough for right now. If you want more information on this with a genuinely open mind, I recommend going back into the analyses and you should hopefully see the best case that I can construct (or rather, reinforce, since most of this isn't anything more than a logical expansion of what members of the administration have been saying for some time now) in this regard unless you want to raid Langeley for me.

"Because you know we committed an awful lot of lives, money and attention to this, so I’d like to see what link/s you have accepted that you think justifies this."

I concur. Hopefully looking back into the Winds of Change archives will help you to draw the same conclusion that I did in this regard.

"The fact that a former chief of Indian intelligence who opposed the war is corroborating at least some of these claims now helps to bolster the credibility of the argument even more in my mind."

I must have missed this. DO you have a link to some more information?

Deroy Murdock has written a piece for NRO that outlines many of the Iraq/terrorist links including a Clinton appointed Federal judge that gives it legal precident. You can add these to Dan's extensive list.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp

"Clinton-appointed Manhattan federal judge Harold Baer ordered Hussein and his ousted regime to pay $104 million in damages to the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, both killed in the Twin Towers along with 2,790 others. "I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, 'by evidence satisfactory to the court' that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda," Baer ruled. An airtight case? No, but sufficient evidence tied Hussein to 9/11 and secured a May 7 federal judgment against him."

The individual's name is B. Raman and he's a former member of the Indian cabinet secretariat who wrote up a lengthy piece implicating Pakistani-based jihadi organizations in the Ashura Massacre.

Some notable highlights:

"On June 20, 1994 Ramzi Yousef and al-Zarqawi, at the instigation of the Iraqi intelligence, caused an explosion at Mashad in the Iranian territory adjoining Pakistan which killed a large number of Shias. Zarqawi, along with the late Riaz Basra, the leader of the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ), the militant wing of the SSP, helped the Taliban in the capture of Kabul in September, 1996.

"The LEJ subsequently helped the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the massacre of the Hazaras (Shias ) of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden never liked Saddam, whom he looked upon as an apostate because of his secular and socialist policies, and the proximity of the LEJ and al-Zarqawi to Saddam's intelligence agency created differences between them and bin Laden.

"Despite this, the LEJ joined bin Laden's International Islamic Front (IIF) for Jihad Against the Crusaders and the Jewish People after it was formed in 1998 and has remained loyal to bin Laden."

That's a pretty firm admission of ties between Zarqawi and the Iraqi Mukhabarat from someone who was definitely in a position to know, given his former status within the Indian government. And as I said, this guy opposed the war in Iraq.

As for AQ-Iraq links, wouldn't the DCI's October 2002 letter to the Senate Intel. Committee detailing reports of such connections be pertinent here? It's obviously public.

But there are much more fundamental factual and logical problems with some of Clarke's claims, that don't depend at all on AQ-Iraq issues. To simplify let's just stipulate no AQ-Iraq ties -- despite common sense and the evidence -- since the Iraq operation clearly had other justifications beyond a particular current level of AQ involvement with Iraq.

First, he doesn't appear to provide any substantiation of the allegation that Iraq was/is any sort of meaningful distraction from an anti-terror campaign. This charge is not logical on its face -- even though everyone seems to treat it as such -- and moreover absolutely requires extensive specific documentation. What's the definition of distraction, what are the precise anti-AQ milestones we would have reached by now without the Iraq war? Ovbiously he doesn't mean military or law enforcement resources, leaving only intel. Noting there aren't enough Arabic-language analysts won't cut it -- that's been true forever. Which AQ attacks could have been prevented had fewer analysts worked on Iraq -- exactly, no more b.s. generalizations.

Second, there's no public evidence of the administration's "obsession" with Iraq pre-9/11. The only notable Iraq development was State's "smart sanctions" concept, which was sort of unavoidably lame given the irresponsible or weak positions of key UNSC states like France and Russia and front-line states like Jordan and Turkey, and in any case was merely a return to conscious containment management -- not some bold initiative that seemed to take up much of anyone's time (even State's).

Third, how does Clarke explain the Iraq-obsessed administration getting "distracted" by Afghanistan immediately following 9/11? Well, if Clarke's right, then he only magnifies Bush's accomplishment: even though Iraq-obsessed, Bush managed to quickly take more effective anti-AQ action than Clarke (the "hawk" in the Clinton days) had ever proposed over several years.

As noted in an earlier comment, I'd guess every Clinton and Bush person and other reasonable person would agree, ruefully, that more should have been done pre-9/11, even though the odds of stopping that particular operation are tough to assess ("enough blame to go around"). Until now, there's been a pretty admirable avoidance of cheap-shot finger-pointing by all sides. Clarke's rather demeaned himself and his public service while simultaneously inviting more scrutiny and less polite commentary regarding his own central role in a saga that from a strict bottom-line perspective was a massive failure.

"cough cough That is one of the things that I have endeavored to do on this website..."

Egg on my face. My apologies, I only started reading this blog a few days ago, I was unaware that you were working on this. I just read your analysis of the Feith Memo - informative. Speaking of which, I'm rather pleased I found this blog. As a liberal, I've been looking for a conservative blog that makes sense. So many of them are irrational. This blog, and Oxblog, seem to be exceptions.

After reading it, I agree that there was a very low-level cooperation between AQ and Iraq. It seems there must have been some sort of negotiated truce, in which Al-Qaeda didn't blow up any buildings in Iraq, and in exchange, Iraq didn't go on seek-and-destroy missions targeting Al-Qaeda operatives. It appears, after further reading, that the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, the ex-national coordinator for counterterrorism, and british intelligence all pretty much share this viewpoint.

Glad to hear that you're enjoying Winds of Change, though I imagine that more than a few folks would take issue with the "conservative" label on this one. We tend to proud consider ourselves as the bastard child of the Weekly Standard and The New Republic amongst other things.

As far as the Iraq/al-Qaeda connection goes, I would encourage you to continue reading through this site's archives in this regard to see whether or not the specific claims made by administration officials like Powell stand up under scrutiny. If they do, then regardless of any other intelligence failures with regard to Iraq, the administration can hardly be accused of making this stuff up out of thin air.

Dan;

Thanks for taking the time to respond at length to my query. You have clearly spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and I respect your conclusions.

I cannot possibly fact check all the items you list as possible connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Some standout as iffy, though, like the fact that Al Qaeda members fought along side Iraqis in the war. Well, the war brought them there!

What is most striking about these links and associations however is whether they had any impact at all on Al Qaeda's operations. Isn't that the key question? Was Saddam attacked to punish him for associating with Al Qaeda, or to remove an important source of their support? Because I would say that Al Qaeda seems to be doing just fine without Saddam.

On the scale of associations with Al Qaeda, where do you think Iraq ranked, prior to US invasion? After? And how does this compare to their association to many other countries around the world? I've seen no one claim that Iraq had an especially strong or necessary association with Al Qaeda or Bin Laden. Which once again begs the question: Why did it become Priority #1 in the War on Terra?

Invasion of Afghanistan to eject the Taliban seems to have fulfilled all the major purposes of the "Bush Doctrine": It removed a regime that was clearly one of the major sponsors of Al Qaeda (Saudi's being #2 probably), and sent "The Signal" to other countries who might do the same.

Even with a long list of "associations" there is no way that Iraq can be placed in a similar category. And since Bush utterly failed to convince most of the world and half this country that this is the case, trying to fit Iraq into the Bush Doctrine or The War on Terror is like trying to shoehorn an elephant into a phone booth. Without support and consensus, therefore, invading Iraq can only be classified as a failure. That Saddam is gone is good. But as a battle in the War on Terror, it must rank as one of the great blunders of modern history.

Vesicle, you indirectly raise a very good issue that I need to think and write about a bit.

You say: "Without support and consensus, therefore, invading Iraq can only be classified as a failure." I think there's a good point there, in that we not only have to win militarily, but politically as well (and as Vietnam shows, it's possible to do one without the other).

But what role does the dedicated opposition - who work hard to delegitimize the war - play in shaping that support and consensus?

A.L.

A.L.

Your question does seem to be the logical extension of my assertion regarding the role that support/consensus for the war could play in its outcome.

But I also find this type of question very troubling, because it can essentially be interpreted as a not-so-thinly-veiled effort to stifle opposition to the Iraq war.

To answer, however, I would first like to say I do not think "dedicated opposition" is equivalent to "delegitimizing". The War first needs to be legitimized before that can be undone, and I would argue, as I have, that there is good reason to argue that this has not occurred.

So if that is the case, how can opposition to an act whose legitimacy is in doubt negatively effect the outcome any more so than entering into this act to begin with? I would say that Iraq is doomed to fail as an act of the "Bush Doctrine" precisely because it seems clear, to a large fraction of the world, that it does not itself clearly conform to the stated principles of this philosophy. If it fails to deter future terrorism as predicted this cannot be the fault of those who argued this point to begin with (us Anti-Iraq war zealots!). It is a failure to apply the administration's own policy consistently. And I view that as potentially more damaging then having not invaded Iraq.

Furthermore, support for the Iraq war does help legitimize it as a "Battle in the War on Terra". Since in the opinion of many this case has not been made, supporting the war boils down to supporting random acts of US aggression as a policy. This has serious negative implications.

It is disingenuous to interpret "opposition to the Iraq war" with "opposition to the Iraq peace", but war supporters often intentionally do this. Failing to recogngnize this distinction only pollutes the argument.

I am a very strong proponent of establishing a stable and strong democracy in Iraq, given the current situation. That's not what most Iraq-war opponents are angry about. Things might turn out OK in the end, although maybe not, but I hope they do.

My opposition is to the Bush administration and the manner they sold, and are still trying to sell, this war. It seems patently dishonest and false, and has raised such serious questions about both their methods and motives that they must be held accountable for.

VT - they are troubling to me too. I'll try and write something more extensive today or tomorrow.

A.L.

Rob,

I'm not sure your take on Kucinich's influence over the Dem primary field is accurate. All the front-runners (Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark), have stated quite clearly their plans would be to continue supporting a strong US role in "post-war" Iraq. Kerry has even proposed an increase to troop strength there, realizing that pulling out will create a fertile ground for fundamentalism to take root and threaten a burdgeoning democratic government. Their position on this has been consistent and unqualified.

Clinton-appointed Manhattan federal judge Harold Baer ordered Hussein and his ousted regime to pay $104 million in damages to the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, both killed in the Twin Towers along with 2,790 others. "I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, 'by evidence satisfactory to the court' that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda," Baer ruled. An airtight case? No, but sufficient evidence tied Hussein to 9/11 and secured a May 7 federal judgment against him.

Considering that Saddam wasn't allowed to put on a defense, and that the plaintiff's "expert" witness was nut-case Laurie Mylroie (who is among those repsonsible for Bush's inattention to Al Qaeda pre-9/11), that's not much.

What's more, I haven't found on Google, but recently read, that the Zarqawi in the hospital story has no corroboration and is based only on the say-so of a Chalabi associate. (And is therefore dubious.)

I respect a lot of what Dan writes here, but the corroborated connections between Saddam and AQ are more like the occasional contacts of two different organized crime gangs than any sort of operational cooperation. All evidence shows that Osama and Saddam hated each other.

VT,

You could be right about the "front runners" showing serious support for winning the peace, but both Kerry and Edwards did vote aginst the $87 billion, which I have to interpret as a bow to the more extreme parts of their party, which evidently they considered to be significant in the primaries. Even Carol Mosley Braun (!) criticized them for that move.

Leaving presidential politics aside, it isn't clear to me how exactly we pro-war types are supposed to classify our political opponents, or estimate their relative numbers. Surely the lunatics are a minority, but how can anyone determine how much of a minority, or how important? The NRA represents a fairly small "minority" of gun owners, but I wouldn't take that to mean that they are politically insignificant or that their positions should not be subject to criticism. Surely the street marchers are only a small fraction of the broader anti-war/anti-Bush movement, but if they are the driving force, are they not fair game? And if they aren't the driving force, how can I determine that?

Vesicle Trafficker:

I appreciate you taking the time to participate in this debate.

Unfortunately, I cannot verify specific examples of Iraqi/al-Qaeda collaboration with 100% certainty, as I don't have access to the relevant intelligence information, so all I can do is review the reported instances and use my own analytical skills combined with open source information to determine the likelihood of such a collaboration. Anything further than that is out of the question, unless you want to raid Langeley ;)

That being said, my point in noting that al-Qaeda fighters fought alongside the Iraqi military during the war is that according to various reports, these fighters were being given weapons and the like by the Iraqi regime as early as late January to early February 2003, despite that numerous high-ranking Iraqi detainees such as Tariq Aziz have told us that Saddam Hussein fully believed that Franco-German-Russian diplomatic pressure would prevent the US from ever launching an invasion to begin with. Bringing in a large contingent of individuals who allegedly regard you as an enemy according to the conventional wisdom and then providing them with access to a great deal of arms, ammunition, and shelter is in all honesty somewhat difficult to believe if there were not at the absolute least some kind of an understanding or non-aggression pact between the two entities, just as is alleged in the 1998 indictment.

"What is most striking about these links and associations however is whether they had any impact at all on Al Qaeda's operations. Isn't that the key question? Was Saddam attacked to punish him for associating with Al Qaeda, or to remove an important source of their support? Because I would say that Al Qaeda seems to be doing just fine without Saddam."

Al-Qaeda is doing just fine without the Taliban too, but that doesn't mean that we didn't hurt their operations by removing Mullah Omar from his seat of Kabul or destroying their training camps in Iraq. At the time of the US invasion of Iraq, the nation was widely believed to possess WMDs and there were more or less conflicting opinions within the intelligence community over whether the Iraqi government had tried to assist al-Qaeda in producing VX precursors at al-Shifa in 1998. That becomes a definite problem is a post-9/11 world, as I'm certain that you can imagine.

More to the point, al-Qaeda already had its own presence in Iraqi Kurdistan prior to the war with regard to Ansar al-Islam. While Ansar al-Islam existed in territory outside of Saddam Hussein's control, there are various reports by their principle PUK adversary that the Iraqi government supported Ansar al-Islam and that a serving member of the Iraqi intelligence service was a member of the group's ruling council. Ansar al-Islam was the ultimate source of the various chemical weapons plots that were disrupted in Europe between November 2002-January 2003, plots that were launched at the behest of one Abu Musab Zarqawi, a man that both US and apparently Indian intelligence believe also to have ties with the Iraqi Mukhabarat. Combine all of that with the interrogations of various al-Qaeda leaders including Ibn Shaykh al-Libi whose duties included supervising al-Qaeda's chemical weapons labs at Darunta camp in Afghanistan and Moammar Ahmed Yousef, a long-time Zarqawi deputy, as well as several unidentified Saudi al-Qaeda operatives according to CIA Director Tenet. Put all of this together with the case in favor of attacking al-Shifa and there is at the least a very disturbing number of coincidences as well as a clear pattern of behavior with regard to al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime.

One might well argue that had the US not invaded Iraq that Zarqawi would have simply reconstituted his European network and then proceeded to launch another round of chemical weapons attacks. In other words, what happened in Madrid could have involved sarin rather than just C-4. I simply bring that up as a possibility in this regard.

"On the scale of associations with Al Qaeda, where do you think Iraq ranked, prior to US invasion?"

I would classify Iraq as ranking more or less equivalent with al-Qaeda's current relationship with Sudan. In terms of defining where state sponsors rank, here is how I would have set up the hierarchy pre-9/11:

Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia/Iran/Pakistan (or elements within each)
Iraq/Sudan/Georgia
Liberia/Burkina Faso

The Taliban have been overthrown in Afghanistan, but dealing with each of the other 3 had significant political or military problems. Saudi Arabia, in addition to housing Mecca and Medina, could do severe damage to the global economy. Iran at this point still had a reformist government and there was hope that it could be dealt with through negotiation, same goes with Sudan after Hassan Turabi's fall from grace. The US supported pro-democratic initiatives in Georgia that led to Shevardnadze's overthrow and backed Nigerian-led efforts that resulted in Taylor's removal in Liberia. Pakistan was officially a partner in the war on terrorism and had nukes, I'm not too certain with regard to Burkina Faso. That basically leaves Iraq in a category all too its own and even then we gave Saddam a chance to get out the terrorism business when we requested that he extradict Zarqawi in May 2002.

"After?"

The penultimate front in the global jihad. Bin Laden has long desired to entrench the US in a protracted guerrilla war in order to defeat us the same way that he did the Soviet Union. We didn't make the same mistake the Soviets did in Afghanistan, so as soon as we did move in to occupy Iraq the word got out that all al-Qaeda resources were going to be devoted to dislodging the US from it. That would have been true no matter where we hit them, but it was either that or the isolationist "Fortress America" view that didn't seem to work too terribly well during the time period prior to 9/11. The question is whether or not these efforts will be successful in their long-term goal of eradicating the threat once and for all.

"And how does this compare to their association to many other countries around the world?"

In terms of operational contacts, Iran has the most. Saudi Arabia provides the cash and most of the ideological/religious sanction, while Sudan, Georgia, and Iraq were more than happy to host and provide occasional assistance to the terror network (rather like the Axis satellite states in Eastern Europe during World War 2). Liberia and Burkina Faso gave them diamonds and guns, with Taylor being more than happy help them to support the western Muslim rebels in Ivory Coast as well as promoting instability in northern Nigeria. Pakistan is thoroughly split in terms of what actual members of government does on whether they want to kill or embrace the network, but the actual dictator there has become a lot more eager to assist the US since al-Qaeda tried to knock him off.

"I've seen no one claim that Iraq had an especially strong or necessary association with Al Qaeda or Bin Laden. Which once again begs the question: Why did it become Priority #1 in the War on Terra?"

Hopefully this post will be able to answer that to you, or at least understand how reasonably rational individuals like myself are able to come to that conclusion.

"Invasion of Afghanistan to eject the Taliban seems to have fulfilled all the major purposes of the 'Bush Doctrine:' It removed a regime that was clearly one of the major sponsors of Al Qaeda (Saudi's being #2 probably), and sent 'The Signal' to other countries who might do the same."

I would say that the main purpose in getting rid of the Taliban (aside from general principle) was to destroy the al-Qaeda infrastructure in Afghanistan and that goal has been achieved. I am a bit more dubious about "the signal" if for no other reason than that most of the people who would be willing to support the network after 9/11 don't strike me as terribly rational to begin with.

"Even with a long list of 'associations' there is no way that Iraq can be placed in a similar category."

Here again, I disagree, but I suspect that the best I can probably hope for is convincing you that associations did indeed occur as far as the perspective of genuine options goes.

"And since Bush utterly failed to convince most of the world and half this country that this is the case, trying to fit Iraq into the Bush Doctrine or The War on Terror is like trying to shoehorn an elephant into a phone booth. Without support and consensus, therefore, invading Iraq can only be classified as a failure."

The communication gap is actually one of my major pet peeves with the administration, because I think that they have an exceedingly good case but that getting that message out to the general public, let alone to foreign audiences, has been nothing short of deplorable. However, I would argue that all of these difficulties (and there are many) is more or less irrelevant to the question of whether or not Saddam Hussein was aligned with al-Qaeda.

"That Saddam is gone is good. But as a battle in the War on Terror, it must rank as one of the great blunders of modern history."

Respectfully, this particular battle isn't over yet and if the administration is voted out come November 2004 then the responsibility for ensuring a US victory in that battle will fall to Senator Kerry. As Thomas Friedman amongst others have argued, the war in Iraq will only be remembered as an American defeat in the war on terrorism if we let Zarqawi and his ilk win. And I think that you'll agree with me that after we screwed over the Iraqi people in 1991 that we owe it to them to ensure that does not happen.

Andrew,

Saddam certainly wasn't prevented from putting on a defense, he just chose not to. That's common for foreign defendants sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, but it doesn't change the plaintiff's burden of production: they must still show by a preponderance of the evidence that they suffered damages at the hands of the defendant.

I'm not saying it was conclusive or that we need to believe it, just that Saddam got the same due process here that you or I would have gotten, he just chose (quite rationally, of course) to ignore the suit rather than fight it.

Andrew J. Lazarus:

I never stated that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, nor did I ever mean to imply as much.

"What's more, I haven't found on Google, but recently read, that the Zarqawi in the hospital story has no corroboration and is based only on the say-so of a Chalabi associate. (And is therefore dubious.)"

To the best of my knowledge, no intelligence agency on the planet has disputed US claims that Zarqawi was at that hospital in Baghdad. The French and the Germans readily acknowledged it, it was simply a case of they themselves being misled by Shadi Abdallah's claim (which can fairly apparently shown to be more or less bogus) that Zarqawi hated bin Laden. If you do get an online copy of that article, please bring it to my attention as I would very much like to see it.

"I respect a lot of what Dan writes here, but the corroborated connections between Saddam and AQ are more like the occasional contacts of two different organized crime gangs than any sort of operational cooperation."

As I have noted here time and time again, I cannot corroborate or debunk specific pieces or claims with regard to intelligence for the simple fact that I don't have access to it in the first place. With regard to operational cooperation, here again I would refer you to the 1998 indictment which states that the two entities agreed to cooperate on specific projects, including weapons development. The Clinton administration evidently believed that level of cooperation sufficient to justify the attack on al-Shifa and if that was not the case, then perhaps some compensation should be paid to Mr. Idris and those who died in the US cruise missile attack.

"All evidence shows that Osama and Saddam hated each other."

Not true. When asked about al-Qaeda's perception of Saddam Hussein, training chief Abu Mohammed al-Ablaj told the Saudi magazine al-Majallah in May 2003: "Allah has turned to him [Saddam Hussein] with forgiveness. He declared jihad and did not recognize Israel. There is nothing to bar cooperation with a Muslim who has made jihad his course and way for liberating the holy lands."

I would certainly regard this, as well as the information contained in 1998 indictment, as running counter towards your claim in this particular instance. As far as hatred goes, would not al-Qaeda have also hated deposed Liberian dictator Charles Taylor as an infidel? Perhaps, but that certainly did nothing to bar cooperation between the two ...

Via LGF puts an intersting gloss on the matter

Mansoor Ijaz says that would-be whistleblower Richard Clarke blocked efforts to apprehend Osama bin Laden. (Hat tip: Allah.)

Clinton administration diplomatic troubleshooter Mansoor Ijaz charged Monday that one-time White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke blocked efforts to gather intelligence on al Qaeda and torpedoed a deal to have Osama bin Laden extradited from Afghanistan in the years before the 9/11 attacks.

“I was personally asked to brief Condoleezza Rice’s deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on exactly what had gone wrong in the previous efforts to get bin Laden out of the Sudan, to get the terrorism data out of the Sudan, which I negotiated the offer for,” Ijaz told Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends.”

He said he also personally negotiated an deal “to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 2000, using at Abu Dhabi Royal Family as a proxy to get him out on an extradition offer.”

But Ijaz told Fox:

“In each case of things that were involved in the Clinton administration, Richard Clarke himself stepped in and blocked the efforts that were being made over and over and over again.”

Dan;

“…according to various reports, these fighters were being given weapons and the like by the Iraqi regime as early as late January to early February 2003…”

“Bringing in a large contingent of individuals who allegedly regard you as an enemy according to the conventional wisdom and then providing them with access to a great deal of arms, ammunition, and shelter is in all honesty somewhat difficult to believe if there were not at the absolute least some kind of an understanding or non-aggression pact between the two entities, just as is alleged in the 1998 indictment.”

The idea that Bush may have decided long before 9/11 to invade Iraq, and that 9/11 didn’t change those plans, calls into serious question the idea that invading Iraq was central to the war on terror which he arguably wasn’t exactly gearing up for when planning to invade Iraq. Not to fly off the subject but it reminds me of his justifications for a tax cut. When we had a budget surplus, it was “returning the people’s money”. When the deficits returned, it was “stimulating our economy”. Two opposite economic situations, but the same solution? Seems to me the parallels with invading Iraq before and after 9/11 are similar in many ways.

Samuel Berger did stop all efforts to capture Ibn Laden, the Tomahawks attack on Al-Shiffa deserved more the interest of Israel,there were no chemicals other than pharmaceuticals found in the wrecks of the fabric,Ibn Laden escaped,and hundred of thousands Africans were out of medecine for months to come ,causing extreme pain and death within them...Clinton's gift to Africans...Clinton blindly obeyed to the zionist circling around in his administration,wich caused the attacks on US embassys and finaly 9-11,even in the last minute of his presidency ,he gave Mr.Rich the presential grace according him to return to USA even though the bastard had screwed americans.Now since US support Israel evil politics,let's bring Sam Berger under torture,bet he knows a lot better than we think !

Vesicle Trafficker,
Help me out. I'm confused.

Even if I grant you for the sake or argument that Bush wash planning to invade Iraq before 9-11, what are you suggesting that he should have done post 9-11? Call off the invasion? For what, moral purity?

I don't get it....

Vesicle Trafficker:

A good chunk of the rationale behind the administration's case for war (at least as it was understood by the American public) would have pretty much evaporated overnight had Saddam Hussein simply rounded up his erstwhile allies and vocally offered them to the international community on a silver platter. Instead, he chose to keep them around, which is why they are currently shooting at our troops in concert with the Baathists led by Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri.

I would also argue that any nation that is willing to knowingly tolerate al-Qaeda inside its borders after 9/11 should be given the option of either apprehending said individuals or facing the prospect of some form of US action - that's a fairly succinct encapsulation of the Bush doctrine right there.

"True. I wonder whether Al Qaeda would have been more completely destroyed had Bush decided on concentrating our efforts on doing so, rather than pulling back to fight Saddam."

Short of a full-scale US invasion of northern Pakistan, that isn't going to happen. I very much doubt that you or myself would be much inclined to entertain such a venture in the near future. As long as they have sanctuary and a safe harbor in northern Pakistan, they're going to keep coming across the border (which is, to be quite candid, little more than a line on a map) to fight in Afghanistan.

"We’ll never know, but I can tell you that this forms the basis for much criticism of Bush’s War on Terra."

No doubt. The crux of the argument, as I understand it, at least amongst those of us who are actually concerned about winning the war (as opposed to that asinine protester with his atrocious placard about the NYC and the WTC) is essentially one of tactics, yes? I am assuming that were you or Andrew to believe that al-Qaeda was aligned with the former Iraqi government that you would have far less qualms about Bush's decision to initiate military action there, regardless of how you might feel about many of the particulars.

"am impressed by your knowledge of the many bits of information that you cite regarding intelligence information linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. I do not deny that your ability to marshall these facts strengthens your argument. But I see that one major difference between those who believe the link was strong enough to justify the war and those that don’t is their level of trust in the information. How good is this data? How much trust can we place in its accuracy? How useful is it in predicting the future?"

All entirely valid questions. I cannot verify or corroborate open-source information, I can simply cite it, analyze it, and then offer my own perspective on it. But until and unless all of the relevant evidence pro and con is declassified, this probably the best that you're going to get from anyone outside of the US government.

With regard to how good or accurate the data is, my analysis of the Weekly Standard memo was specifically designed to see whether or not the information contained therein was consistent with other bits and pieces of open-source info on the subject. Some of it was, some of it wasn't, and some of it I honestly couldn't say one way or another. However, I am not Mansoor Ijaz or Yousef Bodansky and I don't attempt to sensationalize information or claim things that I don't believe to be true.

As far as future prediction goes, while I do not claim oracle recognizing that al-Qaeda will ally itself with anyone who hates the US, such as deposed Liberian thug Charles Taylor is a definite insight that needs to be driven home rather than viewed through the prism of ideological blinders that a religious terrorist would never cooperate with a secular dictator.

I choose not to comment on the politics of the situation as I am aware of how all of these things turn out. Right now the information flow is still in flux and hopefully it'll all be figured out by the time it gets put into the history books. However, whether or not the administration chose to attack Iraq behind closed doors because of the conjunction of the planets has little if anything to do with whether or not Saddam Hussein had aligned himself with al-Qaeda (the claim that they told the general public). My writings are focused by and large on defending the policies, not the people behind them.

Interestingly enough, I got the opportunity to read a two relevant chapters from Clarke's book that I recommend to anyone with serious interest in the matter - "Delenda Est" and "Right War, Wrong War." It is quite interesting because while there is serious criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war with Iraq, Clarke not only defends the al-Shifa bombing but also completely tap-dances around any Iraqi connection whatsoever, despite the fact that it was the prime rationale for attacking the plant to begin with. Al-Qaeda and the Sudanese government certainly couldn't have produced the kind of VX precursors he mentions in his apologia in the book on his own and one is honestly left with more questions than answers in this regard.

Another point he makes that I found extremely interesting given his credentials is that Ramzi Yousef and Terry Nichols were indeed at the same place during the same days in the Philippines and the implication is that there may yet be something to the conspiracy theory that the Oklahoma City bombing was actually an al-Qaeda plot carried out by Nichols and McVeigh. I was quite dumbstruck by this because while I had seen this reported on the internet, this is the first time I've seen anyone of any high-level credibility reference it. While I'm not ready to put on the tin foil hat just yet, it would certainly be fascinating to hear Mr. Clarke's thoughts on the alleged resemblance between Jose Padilla and John Doe #2.

"Without support and consensus, therefore, invading Iraq can only be classified as a failure."

I think there's a good point there, in that we not only have to win militarily, but politically as well (and as Vietnam shows, it's possible to do one without the other)

I've been thinking about this two: sort of an updated Powell Doctrine. Random thoughts that occur to me: (i) often said Iraq War II was optional as opposed to say Gulf War; I wonder, Powell Doctrine talk during Gulf War I sort of assumed it could be optional; plus not sure the issue is that simple; anyway optional vs. non-optional key issue here, (ii) as viewed from non-US perspective, might put Spain (85% opposing war) in a whole new light, (iii) aren't leaders elected to make the tough, unpopular decisions (think Poland, Italy, Aznar), (iv) Chamberlain vs. Churchill.

I am sure you'll have interesting thoughts.

Dan;

"The crux of the argument, as I understand it, at least amongst those of us who are actually concerned about winning the war...is essentially one of tactics, yes? I am assuming that were you or Andrew to believe that al-Qaeda was aligned with the former Iraqi government that you would have far less qualms about Bush's decision to initiate military action there, regardless of how you might feel about many of the particulars."

I will not argue with this, either. I agree that, short of developing a totally new approach to dealing with terrorism "in the street", we need some way of involving complicit nations. But I don't recall Bush making this claim or argument to Saddam explicity, did he? And it must be applied with clear justification, or it risks being viewed as a simple act of unprovoked aggression. And I would also point out that another prong of attack besides threatening complicit nations with retribution is to enlist the aid of ally nations as well, which is not happening very successfully. But that is a topic for another conversation!

"Yes, I completely agree that a large part of the argument is reducible to a question of tactics. And while normally I bristle at assumptions, I'd say in this case you have made an accurate one. Thank you for reading my posts carefully enough to understand my positions."

You're welcome. I have always regarded dialogue as being better than the usual back-and-forth that all too frequently characterizes these kinds of debates and prevents a real discussion of the issues where, if I cannot at least persuade you that my opinions have some value, I can at least get it to the point where you understand the thought process as to how an individual like myself came to the conclusions that they did and vice versa.

"In addition, I respect your policy about avoiding bringing politics into the discussion. I hope I have not put you off by doing so."

It's not so much that as it is that in my experience people on both sides of these kinds of issues adopt a quasi-tribal mentality in defense of "their side" to the point where any actual debate is lost and the issues at hand become just a backdrop for domestic political rivalries. This in particular applies to Bush, who is to be quite frank a very polarizing figure within American political debate. As a result, I try to steer clear of the whole subject of the man and altogether and instead debate the actual policies that he implemented, since that tends to in my experience remove a lot of the emotional or ideological blinders that I possess every bit as much as the next man. Hope that makes at least some sense.

"However, I honestly do not think it is possible to completely divorce politics from policy on this issue. Fighting terrorism cannot be simply about tactics...it's not a game of Risk. I'm not sure decisions such as those required to fight terrorism can be based on such a pure concept in a Democracy."

I don't divorce politics from policy when it comes to the war on terrorism, but at the same time I don't over-emphasize their importance to the point where every element of US policy becomes part of some sinister domestic political scheme. As far as fighting terrorism in a democracy goes, most of Western Europe got through fighting its own separatist terrorists during the Cold War more or less intact. One might contrast that with the de facto if not soon to be de jure autocracy of modern Russia that is still dealing with the situation in Chechnya after 5 years of a very bloody insurgency. China has had similar problems in Xinjang, which is one of the reasons there are now so many Uighurs fighting with the IMU against the Pakistani military up in Waziristan.

"Maybe on the battlefield, but not in the street. And that is where the War on Terrorism needs to be fought."

I consider the war on terrorism as being a multi-faceted phenomenon with military, law enforcement, ideological, economic, and geo-political spheres to it. All of them have to be dealt with in some form or another, and my own view has been that thus far the first two have been handled exceptionally well. I'll be quite honest and say that I have my reservations about the third, in large part because I don't think that many of the current experts and analysts truly understand the mentality and worldview of religio-ideological fanatics. The economic aspect has been largely left unattended to, which is acceptable so long as it is addressed at some point in the future, and there has been some moderate progress on the geo-political front with respect to at least drawing the much-needed global attention to the situation in Kashmir.

I didn't see Rumsfeld's testimony today because of classes, but I did see former Clinton defense secretary William Cohen who continued to assert a link between Iraq, the Sudanese NIF, and al-Qaeda with respect to the al-Shifa plant and stood by the decision to destroy it. If the claims by Cohen, Berger, and Clarke itself are accurate, I would be more than happy to lose a conservative polemic ("The only thing that Clinton ever did to fight terrorism was lob some cruise missiles at an aspirin factory in Sudan!") and gain the knowledge that we may very well have prevented Iraq from providing al-Qaeda with VX.

"But I don't recall Bush making this claim or argument to Saddam explicity, did he? And it must be applied with clear justification, or it risks being viewed as a simple act of unprovoked aggression. And I would also point out that another prong of attack besides threatening complicit nations with retribution is to enlist the aid of ally nations as well, which is not happening very successfully."

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al didn't detail al-Qaeda's links to the Iraqi government except to say that they existed. At the UN Powell claimed that Zarqawi showed up in Baghdad, the US via a neutral third country asked Saddam to cough him up and the Iraqis refused. I concur that other means than a "one strike and you're out" rule are preferable, but would point out that the US has already applied some measures with regard to Georgia and Liberia.

The Georgian government basically ignored any and all attempts to police the Pankisi Gorge under Shevardnadze. At first the US assumed that this was mere incompetence and offered to provided military training to the Georgian army, only to learn just how deep the rot ran. Ultimately, we ended up encouraging pro-democracy factions within Georgia and the Shevardnadze government collapsed of its own weight. The jury's still out on the new Georgian leader, but he seems a fair sight better than his predecessor.

In Liberia, Taylor's government was already sufficiently nasty that he had two homegrown rebel groups, LURD and MODEL, fighting his thugs. The US stepped up military assistance to nations known to be sympathetic to the rebels and more or less subcontracted Nigeria to help force a peaceful resolution to the conflict that didn't result in the sacking of Monrovia. The situation there is still volatile, but al-Qaeda isn't receiving diamonds pillaged from Sierra Leone or being assisted in formenting discord in the Ivory Coast with the active assistance of the Liberian government.

"As you point out, Clarke still stands by his decision to bomb the aspirin factory."

It really annoys me when people refer to the Al Shifa pharmaceutical factory as an "aspirin factory." It tremendously disparages the importance of the plant to human health.

Based on recollection of various accounts, my understanding is that Al Shifa plant processed and packaged antibiotics (for humans and farm animals) and antimalarial drugs.

Aspirin is an important drug. But malaria is a leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa. And without antibiotics, people and farm animals die (and when farm animals are a significant source of food, people can die from malnutrition).

Call it a pharmaceutical factory. That's what it was.

"If the CIA told me that Osama bin Laden was making chemical weapons in an aspirin factory, and that by the way, Osama is linked to Iraq, I would respond, 'OK, bomb the factory.'"

But if you weren't a lying piece of garbage, I assume you'd want to know whether the plant you just destroyed did actually make chemical weapons, or instead was an important source of pharmaceuticals in a desparately poor country wracked by civil war.

Needless to say, neither Bill Clinton nor anyone in his administration ever saw fit to send investigators to find out the truth.

"Does Mr. Idris work for al-Qaeda? If not, then at the very least we owe him compensation for the destruction of his plant."

Clearly, the evidence is overwhelming that he does NOT work for Al-Qaeda. He's been suing the federal government in court for years, to get compensated for the destruction of his plant!

If there was credible evidence that he works for Al-Qaeda, one would hope he would have been arrested while he was conveniently in a U.S. courtroom!

It would seem that irrespective of the political complexion of the administartions he served, a large number of setbacks in anti-terrorist operations occured on the watch of Richard Clarke.

I think the #1 faulty premise here is that there is any obvious truth available.

This is war time. Truth will be veiled with a body guard of lies. And you don't know who is telling them or why.

Based on actual events my current belief is that Bush attacked Iraq to bring democracy to the Middle East. That saying so might have put him in a better position in America but a worse position with the Saudis et. al. who he had to work with to take Iraq.

Now that Iraq is taken and Bush no longer needs as much help from the despots he can announce his true policy.

But I might change my mind depending on what happens next.

If Bush wasn't lying I'd consider him a bad war time President.

Democracy is being demanded in the ME:

*Insta Pundit On Democracy Demands in the ME 24 Feb 04*

Mark Bahner:

"But if you weren't a lying piece of garbage, I assume you'd want to know whether the plant you just destroyed did actually make chemical weapons, or instead was an important source of pharmaceuticals in a desparately poor country wracked by civil war."

Indeed. However, Berger, Clarke (in his book), and Bill Cohen just yesterday all have basically the same account for the basis and under which they attacked al-Shifa and to this day stand by that decision as well as the pre-strike judgement with regard to al-Shifa. That leaves us in the rather delicate position of either 3 men deliberately lying to preserve their own credibility (especially given the evidence in question against the decision to hit the plant) or there being far more to al-Shifa than is known to the general public. This question has now basically been put on the backburner for nearly 6 years and I don't think that I'm alone in this regard.

"Clearly, the evidence is overwhelming that he does NOT work for Al-Qaeda. He's been suing the federal government in court for years, to get compensated for the destruction of his plant!"

Which he is of course entitled to if there was an erroneous decision was made to blow it up. The 3 people directly involved in the attack contend that this is not the case. So either they are lying in which case they should be exposed or Mr. Idris is. If Clarke truly believes that there is no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda he should be more than happy to assist Mr. Idris's attempts to obtain due compensation for an attack that he was instrumental in ordering. More to the point, by continuing to insist that al-Shifa was tied to al-Qaeda he is in effect engaging in a smear campaign against Idris, which leads me to question his credibility on these extremely important subjects.

"If there was credible evidence that he works for Al-Qaeda, one would hope he would have been arrested while he was conveniently in a U.S. courtroom!"

Not necessarily. Prince Bandar's family, as I understand it, is still running the Washington cocktail circuit despite their known financial ties to the 9/11 hijackers. Yassin al-Qadi, one of al-Qaeda's top financiers, still maintains any number of legitimate business in the US that remain in operation since 9/11.

"Indeed. However, Berger, Clarke (in his book), and Bill Cohen just yesterday all have basically the same account for the basis and under which they attacked al-Shifa and to this day stand by that decision as well as the pre-strike judgement with regard to al-Shifa."

Because they're lying pieces of garbage. If they weren't lying pieces of garbage, they would have sent people immediately to Al Shifa to prove to the world that the plant made chemical weapons precursors.

I agree with Noam Chomsky about virtually nothing. But on this issue, I agree with him: the U.S. actions in this matter were absolutely despicable. And I mean everyone: Bill Clinton, everyone in his adminstration, Democrats everywhere, Republicans everywhere, the press, the public.

"That leaves us in the rather delicate position of either 3 men deliberately lying to preserve their own credibility (especially given the evidence in question against the decision to hit the plant) or there being far more to al-Shifa than is known to the general public."

Yeah, that's always the story. If the government could only tell its secrets, the public would know that the government wasn't really lying. Color me EXTREMELY skeptical.

It walks like a duck. It quacks like a duck. But Sandy Berger, William Cohen, and Richard Clarke say it's an alligator. But they can't tell you why they know that. Just trust them. As Mike Myers says, "Riiigght."

"So either they are lying in which case they should be exposed or Mr. Idris is."

The fact that the U.S. government unfroze Mr. Idris' assets ought to tell you something. (Hint: If you think it's that the government knew he was Al Qaeda, but just didn't want to reveal its secret info, I think you're being a bit too generous to the government.)

"If Clarke truly believes that there is no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda he should be more than happy to assist Mr. Idris's attempts to obtain due compensation for an attack that he was instrumental in ordering. More to the point, by continuing to insist that al-Shifa was tied to al-Qaeda he is in effect engaging in a smear campaign against Idris, which leads me to question his credibility on these extremely important subjects."

Yes, I'm very glad you pointed out this bit of logic. I won't hold my breath waiting for Clarke to clear this matter up; in fact, I won't hold my breath even waiting for anyone in our free press to ask him about the matter.

"Prince Bandar's family, as I understand it, is still running the Washington cocktail circuit despite their known financial ties to the 9/11 hijackers."

Prince Bandar is a prince. And a prince of an important "ally" of the U.S. Salah Idris is a nobody.

"Yassin al-Qadi, one of al-Qaeda's top financiers, still maintains any number of legitimate business in the US that remain in operation since 9/11."

Don't know the man. Here's an article about him:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/10/15/inv.saudi.frozen.assets/

What are your sources that Yassin al-Qadi is "one of Al Qaeda's top financiers"? On his personal stationary, perhaps? ;-)

"Because they're lying pieces of garbage. If they weren't lying pieces of garbage, they would have sent people immediately to Al Shifa to prove to the world that the plant made chemical weapons precursors.

I agree with Noam Chomsky about virtually nothing. But on this issue, I agree with him: the U.S. actions in this matter were absolutely despicable. And I mean everyone: Bill Clinton, everyone in his adminstration, Democrats everywhere, Republicans everywhere, the press, the public."

If they're lying then I fully agree with you, though I would note that them doing so would mean that all 3 of these individuals perjured themselves before the US Congress. These are extremely serious charges to be tossing around, which is why like I said to begin with, Clarke to put it bluntly needs to put up or shut up on this regard given the claims that he made about al-Shifa, Iraq, and al-Qaeda. Otherwise his alleged credibility would seem to dissipate a great deal, as I think you'd agree.

"Yeah, that's always the story. If the government could only tell its secrets, the public would know that the government wasn't really lying. Color me EXTREMELY skeptical.

It walks like a duck. It quacks like a duck. But Sandy Berger, William Cohen, and Richard Clarke say it's an alligator. But they can't tell you why they know that. Just trust them. As Mike Myers says, 'Riiigght.'"

There is also the possibility that some of this information is classified for legitimate reasons. Trust me, I'm the last person to defend the honesty of the Clinton administration officials but at the same time it's either that or 3 high-ranking officials perjuring themselves and if they're lying then they should be prosecuted for it.

"The fact that the U.S. government unfroze Mr. Idris' assets ought to tell you something. (Hint: If you think it's that the government knew he was Al Qaeda, but just didn't want to reveal its secret info, I think you're being a bit too generous to the government.)"

Could be. Or it could also have been trying to reach some kind of an attempt at an agreement to get him to shut up. The al-Shifa attack churned up the flames of anti-Americanism from Khartoum to Peshawar in the Middle East and attempting to buy off or turn Mr. Idris would have been a major propaganda coup in this regard.

"Yes, I'm very glad you pointed out this bit of logic. I won't hold my breath waiting for Clarke to clear this matter up; in fact, I won't hold my breath even waiting for anyone in our free press to ask him about the matter."

That was basically the point of this whole diatribe by yours truly. If Clarke says that there wasn't any link between al-Qaeda and Iraq than he had better be ready to denounce the al-Shifa attack as a mistake. If this is not the case, then he is intellectually inconsistent at best and if al-Shifa was an innocent facility then he certainly owes Mr. Idris an apology for everything that has happened to him. Whether or not the lamestream press picks it up or not is in my view irrelevant in this regard.

"Prince Bandar is a prince. And a prince of an important 'ally' of the U.S. Salah Idris is a nobody."

From what I understand, he has quite a few business connections as well as ties to the Sudanese NIF, with whom the US wants to negotiate with for intel on al-Qaeda now that Turabi's been deposed. That in of itself may be the reason why his assets were released, especially if he's doing a lot of legitimate work for Sudan these days.

"What are your sources that Yassin al-Qadi is "one of Al Qaeda's top financiers"? On his personal stationary, perhaps? ;-)"

Hehehe. Check the Riyadh bombings in retrospect special analysis I wrote up some months ago, that should answer all of your questions.

For all the publicity that Clarke’s comments are getting, the fact that the 9/11 commission did find that the adminstration had just completed prior to 9/11 a plan to go after the Taliban and Al Qaeda has been widely ignored. Details here

http://eyeontheworld.typepad.com/home/2004/03/us_okd_plan_to_.html