"Boogie To Baghdad"
As far as i am concerned, there was one main reason Iraq was a serious threat to the United States. It's why Saddam Hussein had to go, and it's why Iraq needed to be turned into a U.S. friendly democracy.
The reason was, in the words of Richard Clarke, "Boogie to Baghdad." Byron York wrote about it in his most recent column:
In case you donÂ’t remember, 'Boogie to Baghdad' is the phrase that Richard Clarke, when he was the top White House counterterrorism official during the Clinton administration, used to express his fear that if American forces pushed Osama bin Laden too hard at his hideout in Afghanistan, bin Laden might move to Iraq, where he could stay in the protection of Saddam Hussein.
ClarkeÂ’s opinion was based on intelligence indicating a number of contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq, including word that Saddam had offered bin Laden safe haven.
ItÂ’s all laid out in the Sept. 11 commission report. 'Boogie to Baghdad' is on Page 134.
i checked, skeptical person that i am. Here's the relevant quote from the
Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States:
In February 1999, [CIA assistant director for collection, Charles] Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage. [Richard] Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who 'may have offered him asylum.' Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be 'virtually impossible' to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared. Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and 'Pak[istan's] intel[ligence service] is in bed with' Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: 'Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.' Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight. Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.
Interesting.
We wanted to send a spy plane over Afghanistan, but Richard Clarke was afraid (probably with good reason) that the Pakistanis would tip Osama off, and he'd get spooked and leave Afghanistan.
Please note what Richard Clark did not say:
He did not say, "At least we don't need to worry about Osama going to Iraq, because as everybody knows, Osama and Saddam hate each other, Osama being a religious fundamentalist, and Saddam being a secular infidel."
The argument that Saddam and Osama would never have cooperated is not only factually incorrect, it's naïve. People who hate each other form partnerships all the time. Look at most marriages. No, seriously, what about Hitler and Stalin, Stalin and Churchill, Herzog and Kinski, Bill and Hillary, Ungar and Madison, Owens and McNabb?
The whole WMD argument is a red herring. The administration thought it was their "ace in the hole" when they were trying to make the case before the U.N. Now the anti-war movement thinks it's their "ace-in-the-hole." i never bought into the WMD argument, either way.
The flypaper argument is similarly weak. It's only a part of the puzzle. Alone, it makes a poor justification for the war. The main reason we needed to get rid of Saddam, and make Iraq into an ally instead of an enemy, was "Boogie to Baghdad."
The advantages to both parties would have made a Saddam-Osama partnership inevitable, especially after we kicked butt in Afghanistan. Therefore, it was a strategic necessity to remove the possibility of that partnership. We achieved that goal, and that's a fact that people tend to forget.
Posted by: annika at
06:31 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 688 words, total size 4 kb.
1
There was a laundrylist of reasons to bust a cap in So'damn Insanes ass. Ultimately the nation and the worlds interests are served by a stable mideast, and So'damn was the punk of the month. I mean, where were we going to make our point? Iran? Saudi?
One does what one can.
Posted by: Casca at November 21, 2005 08:46 PM (qBTBH)
2
Geopolitical location was key to Iraq being the target. They are smack dab in the middle of everything there, and Saddam gave us the perfect excuse to do him. He dared Bush to do him.
Betcha he still can't figure out that Rice and Rummy and Bush are not Sandy Burglar and Hillary and Bill. Well, maybe he can; he had a lot of time in the rathole to consider the difference.
Posted by: shelly at November 22, 2005 02:58 AM (6mUkl)
3
Thank you Shelly and Casca,
It's so plainly obvious why Iraq was geopolitically perfect for a campaign to bring stability and hope to the Middle East, and it's so very refreshing hearing it from someone else.
It's frustrating seeing the left pigeon-hole themselves into complete ignorance by speaking out against it. It's tatamount to giving the insurgency, Al-Qaeda, and terrorism the green light to continue their campaign of violence when what they really need to see is a solid American stance on the issue. They need to see America facing down extremism with the tenacity of a wolverine. The left is so counter-productive it makes me sick.
What alternatives did the left give us? Oh that's right, none. We would have been sitting here at home doing nothing to combat radical islam, allowing it to fester until the threat was too large to face down. The Middle East was the problem, and Iraq is the starting point for bringing about change there. Every other country there was absolutely out of the question in terms of military action, Iraq was it. Period.
The left got us into this mess (read 2 terms of Bill Clinton) by not nipping Osama in the bud when he could have. Instead he just hoped for the best. I'm glad we are now taking a proactive approach in this war on terror and pray that the left does not regain control of the government because that will mean millions of lives will hang in the balance.
Posted by: Rob at November 22, 2005 06:00 AM (wJxri)
4
Wee Kim Wee agrees with all of you.
Wee Kim Wee, former president of Singapore said in a Forbes Magazine article:
Al QaidaÂ’s reason for attacking us was to get us out of the Middle East. Iraq is the key to their plans and that is why they are so desperate to win in Iraq.
Once we are gone from the Middle East Al Qaida will establish a Taliban-type country that encompasses all the oil-producing nations of that region.
That Taliban nation will then cut off the oil supply to the Western World. Millions of us will die starvation as there will be no way to transport food to the people.
Wee Kim Wee says that the Western World cannot rest until every member of Al Qaida is dead. I agree.
Wee's statements are backed up in a recent letter intercepted from Zarqawi. Zarqawi emphasized to his troops that if Iraq is lost their dreams of ruling the Middle East are lost.
Posted by: Jake at November 22, 2005 06:26 AM (r/5D/)
5
Here is another reason Saddam had to go. Saddam had bought off high government officials in the following countries.
Russia
France
Canada
Belgium
Germany
It is no coincidence that these countries were the most vocal in condemning the US for liberating Iraq. Saddam received value for his money. His money also bought him illegal weapons and materials from these countries. Thus Saddam avoided any sanctions the UN put on his country and would continue to do so in the future.
Posted by: Jake at November 22, 2005 06:38 AM (r/5D/)
6
Annika perfectly encapsulates the short game - with the addendum that we may well someday have proof that Saddam was involved in terror attacks inside the U.S. Possibilities include
OKC(according to Jayna Davis),
Flight 800(off Long Island - according to Jack Cashill), and
9/11(pilots may have been Iraqi - according to Laurie Myroie).
Strategically, I respect the neccessity of the long game. I'm 100% behind the "root causes" strategic rationale for invading Iraq.
Defeating Osama ultimately means defeating his movement, which is fueled by an hellish alliance between tribal shame cultures and the "look backwards/anti-progress" aspects of radical Islam.
Posted by: gcotharn at November 22, 2005 11:45 AM (hRTH6)
7
Oh, I forgot the biggest possible Saddam terror attack inside the U.S.: 1993 WTC - evidence being Ramsi Yousef(who also was connected to the Bojinka plot to blow up U.S. passengers planes midflight).
I remember Saddam, after Gulf War I, publicly declaring that he would have his revenge against America. Think about that: Saddam made a prominent, public declaration that he would bring harm to the U.S. For that declaration alone, Saddam deserves to die, all other arguments are moot. We have the right to self-defense.
Posted by: gcotharn at November 22, 2005 11:53 AM (hRTH6)
8
Notwithstanding the attempted assassination of GHWB.
One should also take in the editorial page of today's W$J, which connects Atta to Iraqi Intelligence.
Posted by: Casca at November 22, 2005 03:21 PM (qBTBH)
9
"The argument that Saddam and Osama would never have cooperated is not only factually incorrect, it's naïve. People who hate each other form partnerships all the time. Look at most marriages. No, seriously, what about Hitler and Stalin, Stalin and Churchill, Herzog and Kinski, Bill and Hillary, Ungar and Madison, Owens and McNabb?"
Sorry, I can't buy the main premise or the conclusion. It's like saying the US and China will become strategic military partners next week. Saddam was trying to stay just clean enough to avoid an invasion; GWB had to invent a reason to go in.
I would caution you on pre-emptively dispelling certain opinions as naive; it's a long practiced propaganda trick called 'poisoning the well'.
http://www.constitution.org/col/propaganda_army.htm
Posted by: will at November 28, 2005 06:11 PM (h7Ciu)
10
Rob wrote;
>What alternatives did the left give us? Oh that's right, none. We would have been sitting here at home doing nothing to combat radical islam, allowing it to fester until the threat was too large to face down.
Actually, the Bush Administration actions in 4 years have done more to advance radical islam than any other event or thrust. The 'War on Terror' has a much larger enemy force now thanks to 'W'.
Posted by: will at November 28, 2005 06:16 PM (h7Ciu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
25kb generated in CPU 0.0108, elapsed 0.0704 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0637 seconds, 171 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
