George W. Bush's presidency: i dont regret a thing

[achilles]

Found this on this week's Economist. I think it provides an interesting perspective on W.


http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=3127865

[DE_Six]

Good article, as usual, from The Economist. Pretty fair to the man.

However, I don't get this one:


His administration exaggerated the case for invading Iraq in another way too, by falsely linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.

Never heard of Ansar al Islam, directly related to AQ and operating in Iraq with Bagdhad's cooperation since december 2002? If anything, I believe it's the WMD case that was exaggerated and the AQ connection that was underplayed.

Other than that, outstanding article.

[achilles]

Good article, as usual, from The Economist. Pretty fair to the man.

However, I don't get this one:


His administration exaggerated the case for invading Iraq in another way too, by falsely linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.

Never heard of Ansar al Islam, directly related to AQ and operating in Iraq with Bagdhad's cooperation since december 2002? If anything, I believe it's the WMD case that was exaggerated and the AQ connection that was underplayed.

Other than that, outstanding article.

You might be right but i think if there was solid evidence on AQ's connections with Saddam Hussein it would have been used to justify the war in Iraq. Bush's rhetoric during his declaration of the deadline that saddam should meet was based on that:

G.W. Bush:

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
full text: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

Check bold, we all know that the core of his parlance was exactly that(apart from WMD). Had he been more specific based on evidence, then the link between AQ and Iraq would have been a very strong card. Yet the administration failed to do so and in that sense i think they exaggerated on that matter. Perhaps evidence came up too late. Keeping that in hand, Bush's stream of claims that "Saddam has WMD and links with AQ, and therefore AQ is due to obtain WMD",more or less collapsed.

So all in all i think the AQ card was underplayed because it couldnt have been done differently, given the lack of sufficient evidence. But i cannot discount the possibility that it was just a miscalculation in the sense that the administration thought that the WMD card would eventually work better.

What is interesting about the article is the apparently objective tone it follows and the implications about Kerry. Assuming that Bush was a failure...does Kerry have what it takes?
I think it was worth reading.

[DE_Six]

So all in all i think the AQ card was underplayed because it couldnt have been done differently, given the lack of sufficient evidence. But i cannot discount the possibility that it was just a miscalculation in the sense that the administration thought that the WMD card would eventually work better.
.

My thought exactly. :|

Although exaggeration for exaggeration, I would have favored the AQ connection rather than the WMD. Easier to justify, since AI were openly there, whereas not finding a WMD was a big risk and a losing gamble, it seems.

[OB Kenobi]

Noticed this thread by any chance?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23233

[Sergei]

G. Bush's "I don't regret a thing" should read "I don't give a damn"

[n4292936]

It should also be pointed out that not only is the AQ-Saddamn connection spurious for the reasons pointed out by Achillies, but for the following reason...
Consider for a moment how likely it is that a secular ruler like Saddam who killed dozens to gain power and then thousands to keep power unchallenged would allow a group like Ansar Islam carve out a small feifdom of Iraqi soil, as a semiautonomous region. I really dont think that Saddam would have cooperated with a group whose ideology is so diametrically opposed to secular bathism the way Ansar's is, and whose ideological relations had once promised to topple Saddam's regime. Meglomaniacs do not share power, they do no colaborate with those outside their control - they crush them.
The need supported the production of evidence, the evidence did not produce the need.

[DE_Six]

Consider for a moment how likely it is that a secular ruler like Saddam who killed dozens to gain power and then thousands to keep power unchallenged would allow a group like Ansar Islam carve out a small feifdom of Iraqi soil, as a semiautonomous region. I really dont think that Saddam would have cooperated with a group whose ideology is so diametrically opposed to secular bathism the way Ansar's is, and whose ideological relations had once promised to topple Saddam's regime. .

But he did. It is not a matter of hypothesis anymore, it is a fact that the Iraqi army provided artillery cover to AI and let them operate freely in northern Iraq;

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.html



While Ansar is gaining strength in numbers, new information is emerging that ties the organization to both Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The Al Qaeda contacts allegedly stretch back to 1989, and include regular recruiting visits by bin Laden cadres to Kurdish refugee camps in Iran and to northern Iraq, as well as a journey by senior Ansar leaders to meet Al Qaeda chiefs in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in the summer of 2000.

A 20-year veteran of Iraqi intelli- gence alleges the Iraqi government secretly

provided cash and training to Ansar, in a bid to destabilize the "safe haven" and weaken armed Kurdish opponents. Any link between Baghdad and Al Qaeda could be used by Washington to help justify toppling Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

And this was known priot to the invasion. I remember it being mentioned in PBS's Frontline: Hunt for bin Laden, merely a year afetr 9/11.
The evidence exists: Saddam Hussein helped, supported and funded an AQ-affiliated group.

Forget the secular nature of the state, Hussein did what he had to do to achieve his goal. Just like CIA-backed Pakistani ISI funded and trained islamic guerrilla even though the US are a non-muslim, secular state.

Further more, later in the 1990s, Saddam Hussein obviously attempted to court the muslim population by building a series of impressive mosques and displaying unusual piety. Nevermind that he comitted apostate by naming one of the mosques after himself and murdered thousands of muslims in the past, he was clearly trying to gain their support. So much for his "secular" state...That was true in 1979, when he was perceived as the barrier between fundamentalist Iran and the Gulf petromonarchies, but things have changed a lot since.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/022103wsj.htm


In a recent speech to the Iraqi people on the occasion of the Day of the Army, Saddam Hussein invoked the name of "Allah" 41 times and used the word "faith" 19. Does this mean that a man long notorious for his militantly secular views has suddenly found religion? It's not very likely. The pious tones suggest that Saddam desperately hopes to reinvent himself, in the public eye, as a devout Muslim.

In 1999, the process firmly took hold with a campaign called Ahlamlalamaniyah, or the Enhancement of Islamic Belief. Saddam imposed restrictions on gambling and public drinking and set up an all-Quran radio station. He gave Muslim clerics a growing share of air time on television and made Islam a compulsory subject in Iraq's high schools. Most visibly, Saddam decided to commit state resources to a major construction campaign -- building mosques. Last year, 30 mosques were completed in Baghdad alone. Ten more are under construction.

I think it is rather clear Saddam Hussein was supporting islamist factions, AI first. :|