Frank StaheliJihad in the Ascendancy?
Conservative talk show hosts claimed prior to the November 2006 elections that the terrorists were rooting for the Democrats to win. It turns out that there is now evidence that these claims are true.
Of course the reasons that Jihadists wanted Democrats to win the elections is not due to any greater love of the terrorists for American Democrats over Republicans. Rather it is due to the greater likelihood that Democrats would effect a pull-out of America’s troops from Iraq, signaling to the Jihadists yet another victory of Islamism over a world superpower.
Islamists see debate in America as a sign of weakness. What I think is even a greater sign of weakness is the inability of either camp to recognize and appreciate what their opponents bring to the debate.
If, in our debate, we can’t show the terrorists that we are united against terror, the likelihood of the next attack being within our borders becomes much greater.
December 25th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
I hope we can unite around a figure other than George the Stupid. George is not Winston Churchill; or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Or even George Patton. Bring me a good world-wide police force to handle individual acts of terror. Not the war power of the United States against a nation that never attacked us. Saudis and folks from Pakistan. We first have to obey our own law. Like the Constitution. And the international laws of treaties. And the war clause of the constitution. And Due Process of Law. George the less has violated them all. And we’re to……unite around whom? For what? His trial, George’s trial, I hope. Ed Firmage
December 26th, 2006 at 6:29 am
Why would the jihadists want the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq? That is absurd. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is the greatest recruiting tool they could ever imagine. The IRAQIS certainly want us out of their country, but we are not at war with the IRAQIS, right? We “liberated” them from the evil Sadam Hussein. Now they are “free” to live their lives in “democracy”. No, Frank, I’m afraid you still don’t get it.
1. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Not a single one of the 9/11 attackers was an Iraqi.
2. In order to punish al Qaeda, we invaded Iraq.
3. In response, al Qaeda came to Iraq and fomented an insurgency, which has been quite effective.
4. As a result, we are now bogged down in an insurgency AND a civil war between sectarian tribes who have hated each other since the dawn of time.
5. Al Qaeda has us right where they want us. They can’t “invade” the U.S. like the Cubans did in “Red Dawn”…they don’t have the airlift, helicopters or paratroopers.
When will you right-wing knuckleheads finally get it right…the great PNAC neocon experiment was a dismal failure.
December 26th, 2006 at 9:19 am
GK,
I recently read comments by Stephen Hayes, who has studied a great deal of the intelligence that has been coming from Iraq, and his claims are that there is a remarkable deal of evidence that Saddam had relations with al Qaeda.
Is Hayes credible?
December 26th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Frank, the 9/11 Commission found no cooperation between Saddam and Osama, even after looking over the classified files. They hated each other.
Have you considered the possibility that Al Qaeda wanted Americans to invade Afghanistan, and deliberately provoked us on 9/11? Their theory was, they could do to the USA what they did to the Soviets. They probably didn’t know that President Bush already wanted to invade Iraq, and would use 9/11 as an excuse.
Iraq is a tremendous drain on our country’s military and financial resources. If we continue to occupy Iraq, we’re tied down, can do little in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda gains recruits. If we pull out, they declare victory. The irony is that very few Al Qaeda soldiers are in Iraq, they have the Sunni insurgency and the Shia militias doing almost all the fighting for them.
December 26th, 2006 at 10:15 am
I have considered the al Qaeda provocation, and have written about it here.
It wasn’t clear in the Hayes Imprimis article, but I don’t think Hayes was referring to th e 9/11 commission. Here’s how he put it: “In the three and a half years since the war began, the U.S. Government has collected more than two million ‘exploitable items’ from Iraq…payroll logs, audio and video tapes, strategy memos between senior Iraqi regime officials..and computer hard drives of top Iraqi ministers”.
From what you know if him, is Mr. Hayes just another neocon who is trying to cover his tracks, or is there actually something to what he says?
December 26th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Hayes writes for The Weekly Standard and is Dick Cheney’s biographer. I’ll believe the 9/11 Commission over him any day!
December 26th, 2006 at 10:37 am
The jihadis would effect the pull-out that the majority of the population of THE PLANET wants, and from a situation that never should have been allowed to occur. Yea let’s deny ourselves the credit that we truely deserve for winding this fubar down.
Richard, we’re suckers, or we wouldn’t have elected bush or bush the lesser to 7-11 clean-up. I don’t think we let Al Quesadilla drive our invasion of Afghanistan. The fascinating history, is that some South American country had successfully negotioated an Oil pipe-line set-up, and the Cheney folks didn’t want to see this resource heading off anywhere but into thier own pockets. Perhaps you remember, before september 11, 2001, the parties held in Crawford, TX, where the Afghan visitors were offered either gold, gold and more gold…or…bombs, bombs, and more bombs. Or perhaps you’ve connected Karzais previous incarnation as an Oil Company muckety-muck. Further back still was Cheney’ research into the oilfields of the ‘Stans’.
My feeling is that they’d all rather have been left alone, rather than face-off with the fiery-wreck that is the worlds only remaining super-power. But no, my needs for everything, all the time, and at a cheap price, come first and formost.
Again, thank you, Mr cheney.
December 26th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Frank, you’re kidding, right? “Is Hayes credible?” Hayes is a charter member of PNAC, fer crissakes…he’s an unabashed Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld worshiper, a veritable Knight of the Neocon Round Table…he will NEVER admit they were wrong about Iraq, about preemptive war, about Bush’s miserable “freedom agenda”, about “making our own reality”…NONE of it! He is about as credible as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:11 am
I suspected as much regarding where his loyalties lie, but had only heard of Hayes from the Imprimis article I linked to above. If any of you have time, it would be helpful to me to have an analysis of the specific items that he discusses regarding the Iraq/al Qaeda ties.
If anyone has time, here’s the link again.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Frank, an awful lot has been written about the deliberate misinformation the Bush administration fed to Congress and the public in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. The 9/11 Commission Report is just one source. I also recommend NYT reporter Frank Rich’s bestseller, The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina.
Stephen Hayes gets his misinformation via a rogue Pentagon intelligence operation that was set up by Douglas Feith in 2002. According to Paul Pillar, who was the CIA’s national intelligence officer for the Middle East from 2000 to 2005 and in charge of coordinating all intelligence assessments on Iraq, “the intelligence community never offered any analysis that supported the notion of an alliance between Saddam and Al Qaeda.” (pp. 187-188 of Rich’s book).
Notice how, in his speech, Hayes falsely conflates the post-invasion cooperation between former regime elements and terrorists with pre-invasion “intelligence” cooked up by Feith.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Nobody wants to touch the 800 lb. gorilla, that the war in iraq is for israel, and it failed, and only a wider war will satisfy likud pyschopaths. It is clear that even liberal democrats understand that they can’t remain in power and expect to win in the next election if they don’t continue the war for israel.
We’ll be in iraq until well into the next presidency, no matter who wins. I’m sure along the way the smoking gun to attack iran will miraculously appear.
If it was for oil in addition, it wasn’t about getting it, but denying it to the rest of the world, the prices increase adds this up, no matter the reserves, the price is up and big oil gets rich as does anyone holding their paper.
December 27th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Richard,
I read some of the reviews on Amazon for “The Greatest Story Ever Sold”, and I’m somewhat concerned by the tone of it that Frank Rich might compromise himself a bit by some sort of axe he appears to want to grind.
In my internet wanderings, I read a critique of Hayes that I found at Media Matters. In my opinion, the MM piece seems to be a simplistic gloss-over of the book, using a handful of critiques (some of specious origin) that don’t begin to address the details that a book would provide.
So I checked out the book “The Connection” from the local library and have begun to read it. I have decided that the issue is much more complicated than it at first appears. And I will continue to study the issue.
Both sides look at issues through their own-colored glasses, but it doesn’t make cavalier dismissal of one’s opponents any less disconcerting to me. I have come to believe that to state, for example, that Hayes is Cheney’s biographer is less than a solid argument for discounting everything he says.
December 28th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Frank, I suggest you look at the bottom line. The Bush administration would like nothing better than to pin the blame for the 9/11 attacks on Saddam. Over a period of five years, with the full resources of the United States Government at their disposal, they have not been able to do it. They have Saddam’s files, they have the CIA, the FBI, the DIA, the NSA, you name it. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF COOPERATION BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA.
December 28th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Frank,
For the purpose of debate, I will reconstruct your post.
Premise: “the terrorists were rooting for the Democrats to win”
Premise: “Islamists see debate in America as a sign of weakness.”
Conclusion: “If, in our debate, we can’t show the terrorists that we are united against terror, the likelihood of the next attack being within our borders becomes much greater.”
Premise #1 - I disagree. There is a great deal of evidence that attacking Iraq has inspired more terrorist.
Premise #2 - Also disagree. I open debate and free speech are MUCH MORE threatening to the terrorist. I think you are invoking the canard that democrats are not as good at preventing terror. The facts do not bear this out. There have been fewer attacks during democratic administrations.
Conclusion: Invalid since I don’t accept #1 or #2…yet. But id you can prove them, I am willing to listen and reconsider your conclusion.
Sorry, thats how I was raised. I’m stubborn that way.
December 28th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Premise #1 is more that “terrorists wanted the Dems to win because the Dems are more likely to bring the troops home.” So I think you’re disagreeing with the wrong premise, which your disagreement (”attacking Iraq has inspired more terrorist”) I agree with by the way (if that makes sense!).
Premise #2 - I didn’t intend to say that Democrats are not as good at preventing terror, but I can see how you reach that conclusion from my short post (a longer one is linked to above at Serving Iraq that I hope explains it better). My main point is that I hope we do stand together against terror so that we don’t look vulnerable to internal attack.
Hope that helps.
December 29th, 2006 at 7:59 am
Premise #1: The Dems want the Dems to win that there may be cessation to the war madness of recent years. Therefore the Dems are sympathetic to the terrorists. Is this the barrel we should be suspended above? I don’t think so.
Premise #2: Islamists, Muslims and other People of Faith, see the debate in the United States as a sign of Sanity. George the Lessers’ attempt to create a new reality from lies has severely damaged us and the expression that Peace is our real objective is a heartening indicator that we are recovering our wits.
December 29th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Now we’re getting somewhere Frank,
Premise #1: So if you agree that, â€attacking Iraq has inspired more terroristâ€, why would the terrorist want the Dems “to bring the troops home”?
While I don’t think your argument follows the way you meant it, in reading the post again it really ‘feels’ like you are trying to argue that the American people have made a mistake by putting the Dems in power. Is that a fair interpretation?
Unless you are really just trying to say we need to appear united in our ‘war on terror’ , but that means agreeing with the Republicans general approach to fighting the ‘War on Terror’. But if you agree that “attacking Iraq has inspired more terrorist” then we wouldn’t want to continue Republican policy would we? …Assuming anyone even knows what the ‘War on Terror’ is, which I certainly don’t at least from listening to republican try to describe it.
So lets try another argument.
Premise #1: The war in Iraq has made us less safe rather than more safe.
Premise #2: There have been more terror attacks (and attempts) worldwide since the Republicans have taken power (9/11, London Madrid, Iraq)
Conclusion: The Republicans should ‘unite’ behind the Democrats strategy for fighting terrorism since they have failed miserably by any objective measure.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:18 am
The argument that Al Qaeda cares about domestic US politics is just silly. Their position is that our so-called democracy is a sham and our talk of freedom is pure hyprocrisy. The rest of the world is inclined to agree with them. Let’s face it, the majority of votes went to Al Gore in 2000. Then the Decider decided to ignore the Constitution and any other law he didn’t like. Now he’s planning an escalation of the war in Iraq against the will of Congress, the Pentagon and 89 percent of Americans.
The thing about Al Qaeda is they are focused close to home, on the Saudi monarchy and on Mubarak’s regime in Egypt. The USA is the “far enemy” and useful only as a means to an end. When we see alleged Al Qaeda communications that echo GOP talking points, its reasonable to wonder about the true source.
December 29th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Cliff,
I went back and re-read my post to find what gave you the impression that my point was “that the American people have made a mistake by putting the Dems in power”. It may have been this statement:
There is much to be said about the duplicity of George Bush and Dick Cheney, and it will be very healthy to at sometime hold this conversation, but I think we need to wind the Iraq thing down before dealing with that issue. This view takes away the possibility of impeachment, but I don’t see how it would preclude them from being investigated further (and if necessary being tried as war criminals).
I am actually hopeful (but not optimistic–I hope the two words are not synonymous) that the Democrats will effect positive change in 2007. I hold no particular love for the Republicans, nor (especially) the sloppy way the Bush administration is bringing our Iraq occupation to a conclusion.
It wasn’t my original premise, but your current premise #1 (we are less safe) is palatable to me. I think we should have done more to protect our borders than we have done.
My first impression about your premise #2–there have been more large scale attacks, but fewer against the US (USS Cole, Kenya, Tanzania, Dahran Barracks happened before Bush).
And at this point, I am willing to try your conclusion, although, as I said, I will be surprised if there is much difference.