Optimistic Scenario

Jeff Bone jbone@deepfile.com
Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:12:58 -0600

On Tuesday, Mar 18, 2003, at 13:27 US/Central, James Rogers wrote:

> For all the imagination you apply to other scenarios, you don't think 
> very
> hard about the nature of the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Hang on a sec...  lemme try...


Wow!  There!  I get it!  If I try hard enough, I can IMAGINE a 
relationship between them!

Wow, I feel threatened now.  Not.


GMAFB.  There might've been an Al Qaeda operative or two in Iraq at 
some point.  Maybe even training.  I have NO DOUBT that there have been 
Al Qaeda operatives in the U.S. at some point, maybe even training --- 
does that mean that the gov't of the U.S. is collaborating with them, 
harboring them, funding them, etc.?  Of course not, don't be 
ridiculous.  Mohammed Atta spent time in Germany and France --- does 
that mean they are complicit?  Of course not.

There CONTINUES to be absolutely NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE of a connection 
between the Ba'ath regime and Al Qaeda.  On the other hand, there is 
*significant* credible evidence of connections between the regimes in 
Iran, Saudi Arabia, and even certain parts of Musharraf's gov't in 
Pakistan.  ALL OF THESE places have much stronger ties --- 
historically, ideologically, and pragmatically --- to the group of 
terrorists we're most concerned with.

Using Al Qaeda / the "war on terrorism" as a justification for war with 
Iraq is ludicrous.  There may be many good reasons to try ousting 
Saddam;  that's not one of them.  We're just executing a blueprint Paul 
Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby and others put together in 1990, long 
before Al Qaeda was a concern.  All this crap about Iraq and terrorists 
is just jingo and bullshit.

> Saddam Hussein sells or gives WMDs (along with other weaponry) to Al 
> Qaeda
> and a bunch of other unsavory characters and has for at least a decade.

No credible evidence.

I am willing to be proven wrong.

> Al
> Qaeda is just one of many groups that Saddam Hussein has been providing
> material to.

Say it with me:  no credible evidence.

> Saddam clearly sees doing this as an avenue for waging a proxy
> war.  The US and and a few other countries have been covertly 
> interdicting
> these weapons and materials.

Sure we have, with our buddies --- the grey aliens from Zeta Reticuli!  
(Absurd, of course.  My point:  if you want me to believe these 
assertions, show me the evidence.  Otherwise, you can make up anything 
you want --- but you can't expect me to believe you.)

> The US DoD is intensely interested in shutting
> down the WMD SuperMart, particularly as his capabilities continue to 
> become
> more advanced.

Except, of course, our own.  Problem is, with the course of action 
we're pursuing, we've possession of nukes the prerequisite for not 
being attacked by the U.S.!  Check it out:  NK might have nukes, we 
don't attack.  Saddam probably doesn't, we're kicking the shit out of 
him.  Every nation in the world that is afraid of the American saber is 
now going to --- as quietly and covertly as possible --- race to 
acquire nukes in order to remain safe from the American bully.

> If he'd kept his WMDs inside his own borders and kept to himself, we 
> would
> have ignored him like everyone else.

When exactly (since GWI) has he deployed WMDs outside his borders, 
directly or through his imaginary (in your mind) friends in Al Qaeda?

> Saddam Hussein being an Evil Bastard
> just provides the pretext to solve this problem without delving into 
> the
> covert side of things.

Problem is, it's insufficient pretext for anybody who has half a brain 
and a tendency to like to think for themselves.

This whole botch job would've just gone away --- we would've had the 
world lining up behind us to kick this guy's ass --- if we'd just laid 
our cards on the table when we were called.  Instead, we refused to 
show 'em, claimed the pot, and left the game.  Why?  The only 
reasonable conclusion is that our hand was shit.  And now nobody's 
going to play poker with us.