Article

2003-04-28 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-04-28 04:35 am|| || Front Page|| [10 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Yes, worse was possible. They could have chosen Baghdad.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2003-04-28 05:31:06|| [radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentevents/] 2003-04-28 05:31:06|| Front Page Top

#2 By the way, to my knowledge, so far there has been no serious mentions of post-war releases (Galloway scandal, possible links w/AQ, involvments w/french, germano intelligence agencies,...) in french media. Apart from short press articles, there is a complete black-out on radio & tv.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-04-28 07:12:12|| 2003-04-28 07:12:12|| Front Page Top

#3 Not to defend the French but the positive quotes from al-Sahaf kind of undermine the credibility of his claims to have succeeded in disrupting the conference with the help of the French.

Posted by Tokyo Taro 2003-04-28 07:15:57|| 2003-04-28 07:15:57|| Front Page Top

#4 These are damning times for the french, their leadership while enjoying this cozy relationship enriched themselves and diminished their entire country in the process. While french citizens lived in relative prosperity the iraqi people suffered under this brutal regime...whats up with the french? Looking the other way while others are tortured and killed, makes you wonder just how valueless this country has become. The rationalizations spun by this group shows an outright moral depravity that is beyond pale.The french leadership is wearing RED Hands, and the french people failing to take action against their leadership are equally culpable. Shame on the french!

Posted by AnonymousLy yours 2003-04-28 08:24:18|| 2003-04-28 08:24:18|| Front Page Top

#5 Tokyo Taro, The Ali quote was my invention. I hoped the "...we will corrupt them all" part would give that away. As we'd expect, the former Iraqi MisInformation Minister would feel obliged to claim he'd achieved the impossible - that is, corrupt the (thoroughly corrupt) French...

Posted by Bulldog 2003-04-28 08:28:25|| 2003-04-28 08:28:25|| Front Page Top

#6 in french media...there is a complete black-out on radio & tv

Anonymous,

Well that goes perfectly with the complete blackout in their newspapers then. They're going for the hat-trick it seems.

I check Le Monde, Liberation, and Le Figaro at least once a day and there has been no mentions whatsoever (that I could find) of these Telegraph reports indicting THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. This would NEVER happen in the US. But it's no wonder so many French have the opinions they have, apparently their own government and media have them on a 'need to know' basis.

Posted by g wiz 2003-04-28 08:31:46|| 2003-04-28 08:31:46|| Front Page Top

#7 these reports are all fairly different in their implications. Galloway scandal is playing itself out in UK, no reason for French (or for that matter Americans) to get involved (of course we are interested in it)
AQ links are a fresh story and of the greatest immediate significance - it trumps the WMD search - if we find links, then the war is retroactively justified, whatever we find in WMD. Which, paradoxically, probably makes it easier to find WMD, since it lessens bargaining leverage of those Iraqis who have info on WMD.
French/German/Russian intel links are most complex issues - since it relates to short and long term issues of how we deal with them, what we want from them in short and long term, relative approaches to different members of AoW, etc. I think we want to think through these issues before pursuing them - and will probably never overtly pursue them in public - it will be a game of leaks and blackmail.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-28 09:29:38|| 2003-04-28 09:29:38|| Front Page Top

#8 You fail to mention that most non-French papers haven't picked up the Telegraph allegations either. Publishing random papers of dubious authenticity without any context isn't exactly what I call fair journalism. French papers tend to be very critical with their own government.
It is decent journalist work to verify sources. Blindly copying Telegraph articles does not qualify.
Btw the Galloway affair is amply reported in Le Monde.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-04-28 09:33:50|| 2003-04-28 09:33:50|| Front Page Top

#9 "Blindly copying Telegraph articles does not qualify. "

So dont blindly copy them - put it in context - explain any valid concerns about the sources - explain that Telegraph is established, but pro-paper etc, then let your readers judge for themselves. When Guardian et al have published anti-US accusations of dubious provenenance, that has been picked up in the US press (maybe not Fox, but certainly in NYT, LAT, NPR, etc)

By the way evidence is there that the documents are of dubious authenticity. From what Ive heard if they are forgeries they are VERY artful. One Iraqi exile formerly in the Iraqi govt confirmed the handwriting of the Iraqi intel official on one of the Galloway documents.
I presume we will soon see similar discussion of the documents relating to Al qaeeda, etc.

I think it depends, like the prewar discussions of WMD-evidence and Iraq-AQ link evidence, on your "bayesian prior" If you think, a priori, that an Iraq - AQ link makes no sense ("a secularist like Saddam could never made common cause with an islamist radical") then your first assumption about a document showing such a link is that its probably a forgery. If, OTOH, you think, a priori, that a Saddam-AQ link makes sense (they're both crazed murderers, with a common strategic interest in overturning the Saudi govt and opposing the US,UK and Israel) then when you see a document that supports such a link, you tend to take it as real, barring any specific evidence (of which I see none, so far) that its a forgery.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-28 09:56:20|| 2003-04-28 09:56:20|| Front Page Top

#10 liberalhawk, a neutral instance is obviously not to be hoped for?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-04-28 10:53:41|| 2003-04-28 10:53:41|| Front Page Top

#11 I've said this before, I honestly don't believe "old Europe" understands America and our version of democracy. Colonialism, hegemony and nationalism they 'get'. And they keep trying to interpret us through one of those colored glasses. And that's why we're so baffled when they misjudge our intentions.

We could have split the world with the Russians and they don't understand why we didn't. (they would have) In fact some think we did. (where did France's tribute $ go anyway?)

Posted by Scott 2003-04-28 11:02:10|| 2003-04-28 11:02:10|| Front Page Top

#12 TGA, I agree with your position yesterday that we should not be petty and punish France for an honest difference of opinion. However, I do not think that "honest difference of opinion" describes Chiraq's motives and actions.

Actions have consequences, and I think it is quite appropriate that France see some consequences of it's actions. If for no other reason than to discourage such actions in the future, from them or others, against us or others.

I think most of the rest of Europe will recognize this, and won't hold it against us. If I'm wrong, I still think it's the right thing to do.

Lynwood

Posted by Lynwood 2003-04-28 11:21:31|| 2003-04-28 11:21:31|| Front Page Top

#13 TGA - 3 possibilities(as examples): theres a 10% a priori possibility that Saddam and Osama are linked, theres a 50% possility, and there's a 90% possibility.

Point 1 - I see no reason to privilege the 50% possibility (as you seem to) as "neutral". We form our a priori views based on the sum of what we know and believe - there is no "neutral" position.

Point 2 - Lets assume for the moment that the French press is has an a priori belief about the possibility of Saddam-Osama links that is somewhere in between the positions i outlined in the earlier posts - lets say a 50% probability - in that context wouldnt there be reason to think that theres an excellent chance that the Telegraph finds are not a forgery, and are newsworthy?

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-28 11:25:45|| 2003-04-28 11:25:45|| Front Page Top

#14 liberalhawk - a few points:
1) Does the Telegraph have a privileged access to the Mukhbarat headquarters. Wouldn't you rather think that this building (or what is left of it) is guarded as heavily as the oil ministry? What do Telegraph journalist have that they can freely sift through top secret Iraqi papers? Did the CIA tell them: "Come on guys, you are much better with the curly scribble, give us a hand?
2) Check what info is actually leaked: France telling Iraq about US war plans in September 2001??? Did the US have a war plan then? And that info the French are supposed to have provided, well I think Saddam could just have logged on to Le Monde or the NYT to find out that he was not the target (yet) in 2001. Another document tells about a meeting of a German guy with the Mukhbarat. He only says, my org wants to work with your org. The information business is rather messy, you can't be too fussy with your sources. Too bad we aren't even told which German intelligence services (Germany has 3) worked for (if he didn't make it all up in the first place for what reason ever). And then we hear about a meeting between a guy supposed to have links with Al Qa'eda and the Mukhbarat. In 1998? You call THAT a link between Saddam and Bin Laden. And what does "link" actually mean? That they talked? Hated each other? Cooperated? With what. When? Where?
Oh we don't know of course. These "papers" (authentic or not) are a bit like these "suspicious substances" the US finds in Iraq, only to find out later that they weren't WMD. Of course you read about the find on page one, not about the fact that the substances were no WMD. And so it goes on and will continue.
So frankly, if the Telegraph publishes things like that that may be worth 5 lines on page 14 in Le Monde unless there is something else to back it up. The "German find" of the Telegraph was actually reported a few hours later by the Deutsche Welle, a program sponsored by the German government. But few German papers ran the story and you can bet the Spiegel would have made a big fuzz out of it.
We can only dream about what we would find if we were getting the privilege to sift through the CIA archives, right? But unfortunately we have to be happy with the morsels some of course very uninterested people throw at our feet.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-04-28 13:43:54|| 2003-04-28 13:43:54|| Front Page Top

#15 TGA - 1 why does the telegraph get them and no one else? Like Le Monde? I dont know, if the other papers (like Le Monde) are being turned away why dont they tell us? I dont know whats going on - as far as i can tell the telegraph is more aggressive about this.

And supposing the US was giving them privileged access - so what? thats not evidence of forgery, just that the US wants to make sure the GENUINE documents are seen first by an outlet that will report it.

I dont know about the French - German intell stuff - I agree the world of intell is murky, and it will take some time to figure out these mean. But at first glance it dont look good, and it does look newsworthy. (including evidence that France interfered with a gathering of the Iraqi opposition)

as for this
"And then we hear about a meeting between a guy supposed to have links with Al Qa'eda and the Mukhbarat. In 1998? You call THAT a link between Saddam and Bin Laden. And what does "link" actually mean? That they talked? Hated each other? Cooperated? With what. When? Where?
Oh we don't know of course."

"Supposed to have links with Al qaeeda"??? the documents, if genuine, indicate that the Iraqis certainly thought he was from al qaeeda. "hated each other" then what were they going to all the trouble and risk to meet for? No, theres no evidence yet that they "cooperated". But that a state that has for years proclaimed its hatred for the US, that cheered on the 12 of September, 2001, and that has supported such terrorists as Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, and Hamas for years dared to even have a friendly meeting with the folks who went on make a smoking hole of the tallest building in my home town is quite enough of a smoking gun for me. I think that most Americans would agree with me. If Frenchmen and Germans insist this is only important if some higher hurdle of cooperation is proved, they will only widen the gulf that exists between us.

Again, as in the case of the veracity of the Telegraph, you are missing context. Just as Europeans and American leftists see the CIA and Pentagon in the context of El Salvador and Viet Nam, we see French and German contacts with the Iraqi regime in the context of the purportedly peace seeking activities of the French and Germans before the war. Even before the war it was said that they wanted to keep us out of Iraq because they had things to hide. It would have been well for them to come clean before the war about these contacts - for now it looks like those pre-war accusations are correct.

I can certainly say that I suspect strongly that if the UN and a Franco-German peacekeeping force were in Iraq now, the Telegraph would NOT have had access to those documents, and the reputation of France and Germany would be preserved, and in all likelihood we would not have seed the documents about Bin Laden either.

At this point UN control over Iraq is out of the question.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-28 14:19:51|| 2003-04-28 14:19:51|| Front Page Top

#16 BTW TGA - you make many references to the CIA- are you familiar with discussion that CIA has sought to suppress some evidence of Saddam-Bin Laden connection, where that evidence also indicated failure of CIA to adequately investigate pre-9/11 (in particular with regard to Atta Muhammed meeting in Prague?)

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-28 14:22:54|| 2003-04-28 14:22:54|| Front Page Top

#17 liberalhawk-again, I'm no more willing than you to defend Iraq here, I just don't take everything at face value that is presented to me under dubious circumstances.
We know that discovering links (or better cooperation) between Bin Laden and Saddam is very much in U.S. interest. But let me put it that way. If I were a Mukhbarat guy I would be damn interested in what al-Qa'eda was up to in 1998. That's the duty of an intell man: be informed.
Now wouldn't you like to know what the CIA had to talk with Bin Laden in that Dubai hospital 2 months before 9/11? Oh no, excuse me, that was leaked by French intelligence in November 2001 and is of course a bloody lie. But let's assume the French didn't make it up, would you think that there is a "link between Bin Laden and Bush"? Or rather some intell gathering?
Al Qa'eda is a foggy global network of terrorists. That it would have avoided Iraq like the plague is not very credible indeed. But as you know Abu Nidal was killed by Saddam so Iraq probably wasn't the most comfortable territory either.
What was presented to us BEFORE the war started about Al Qa'eda and Iraq was less than convincing. I guess I don't have to remind you of that laughable British intelligence report, right?
Would I be surprised if Saddam an Bin Laden had something going together? No. But this little paper here, that little paper there amounts to shadow boxing.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-04-28 14:50:54|| 2003-04-28 14:50:54|| Front Page Top

#18 The quote from Le Figaro merely cites unnamed French Intell Sources. The Telegraph has an actual document. That alone should put them in different categories. And of course again there is context - the US was in the midst of secret war against Al Qaeeda at the time of the meeting alleged by Le Figaro. Iraq on the other hand was facing a common enemy with Al Qaeeda, and such opposition as AQ presented to Iraq seems to be merely verbal.

This little paper is the first tangible evidence presented from inside Iraq of Iraq having a full week long meeting with an envoy from Bin Laden, receiving a message from Bin Laden,and sending a message back, and hoping to arrange a meeting in person. It is VERY important, and the fact that you could dig up an allegation from Le Figaro does not change that.

Now one thing that is frustrating about this conversation (as indeed about the pre-war conversations) is that you go back and forth between challenging the veracity of the document,and challenging its importance. Do you or do you not believe it to be genuine? If genuine it is clearly important - if you think not, Id like to know the basis.

BTW - TGA - as a German, do you happen to think that Iraq gave us a Casus Belli as a supporter of terrorism by its support for Hamas, Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal alone???? Clearly the admin couldnt focus too much on that, for political reasons - I wonder what you and your fellow Germans think?

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-28 15:07:40|| 2003-04-28 15:07:40|| Front Page Top

#19 liberalhawk-Of course I cannot know whether this document is genuine or not. It may very well be. I do not believe though that an innocent Telegraph journalist sifted through some dusty papers, jumped and said: Yippie, I found the link!
Of course the document was provided to him.
Casus belli? We were told that Iraq has WMD which UN resolutions don't allow it to have, and that Iraq could provide these WMD to terrorists who could then attack the US with them. That's what Bush told us on the eve of war. Oh, and the nice side effect would be the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam (which I fully applaud).
Whether this justified a war in March 2003, whether the disarming of Iraq (of WMD we haven't yet found) could have been achieved by other means is another story.
Many Germans will come up with different reasons for this war. I won't detail them here as this will just spark off a new heated debate about things discussed a hundred times here already.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-04-28 15:39:16|| 2003-04-28 15:39:16|| Front Page Top

#20 im not aksing what Bush told us on the eve of war. Bush said in a different context that we had the right to attack any country that harbored or assisted terrorists. That is the context in which this find is important. You seem to set a high standard for Iraqi cooperation with Al qaeeda to prove that this is important.

Very well - there is NO question that Iraq under Saddam supported terrorist groups that have engaged in the murder of Israeli civilians. It is clear, as you and I both know, that Bush could not call that a Casus Belli, becuase then certain (viciouslly Jew-hating) voices in the Arab world would have said that this is a war for Israel. You are a German. Your country has claimed to have learned from its past. Do you consider that Iraq had the sovereign right to fund the deliberate murder of Israeli Jews, without interference by great powers like the United States? My own thought is that for a Germany that still takes its own history as seriously as Germany used to, would see the case closed with knowledge of Iraqi support for Hamas. ANYTHING else - Al qaeeda ties, WMD, is just additional justification. That Germans are still caught up in a discussion of the justification for war is troubling to me.

Im sorry if you find this unsettling or unfair. Ive tried to be calm and rational about this - (believe me I have close friends who are far less friendly to Germany than I am) I appreciate how much Germany has changed, and the efforts of people who have worked hard to make those changes- and I certainly am not troubled that German pacifism would cause Germans to refrain from direct support of us with military force - but nonetheless the point of view expressed by many Germans in the current crisis indicates to me a profound turning away from Germany's moral obligations, and threatens an undoing of much of the work of the past decades.

If you are a TRUE GERMAN ALLY, you will reflect on those things.

I must refrain from further comment, as I must depart for a holocaust rembrance ceremony tonight.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-04-28 16:15:06|| 2003-04-28 16:15:06|| Front Page Top

#21 I came back from one

Posted by True German Ally 2003-04-28 16:22:27|| 2003-04-28 16:22:27|| Front Page Top

#22 "Dubious authenticity" my ass. TGA's wilful blindness in preferring his own self-serving preconceptions to an actual document is everything that's wrong with Olde Europe today.

Posted by someone 2003-04-28 18:11:05|| 2003-04-28 18:11:05|| Front Page Top

#23 someone, in the early Eighties a very respectable German magazine came out with a scoop like no other: "Hitler's Diaries Found: History of 3rd Reich Must Be Rewritten"
2 weeks later this turned out to be a crude forgery. But several historians and "experts" had attested authenticity.
So forgive me if I'm less willing to believe everything a newspaper prints. Especially when there is no uninterested neutral expert to verify the claims. That's all.
Oh, what ever happened to U.S. claims that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger? What about THOSE documents on which the claim was based?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-04-28 19:19:39|| 2003-04-28 19:19:39|| Front Page Top

#24 TGA: those were crudely forged by the French. Notice a trend here?

Posted by someone 2003-04-28 19:24:00|| 2003-04-28 19:24:00|| Front Page Top

#25 What we have here is an indication that a link was being explored by Iraq and Al Quada. Nothing more.This in and of itself is probably not enough to conclude actual conspiracy. As to authenticity, the release seems to be a joint effort between a reporter from the (conservative)Telegraph and a reporter from the (liberal anti-war)Toronto Star. The very fact that the Star would publish this as front page news is proof enough to me they believe it is authentic.

Posted by john 2003-04-28 19:36:11|| 2003-04-28 19:36:11|| Front Page Top

#26 "The intelligence officials offered a tantalizing coda for conspiracy-mongers. They said the "crude forgery" received by U.N. weapons inspectors suggesting the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium from Niger as part of their nuclear program was originally put in intelligence channels by France. The officials wouldn't speculate on French motives."

Unnamed "intelligence officials" accusing France to put something into intelligence channels. Oh please.

You see, those are the murky waters we are all supposed to paddle in. The CIA can't realize a "crude forgery anymore"? Ask for your tax money back.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-04-28 19:40:22|| 2003-04-28 19:40:22|| Front Page Top

#27 Just so you know: there is dead silence in the Gallic press on these issues. On the eve of GW2, the Muslim-puppet government of France closed down over 20 anti-jihadi websites, including the informative, www.aijc.com SAVAGES!

Posted by Anonon 2003-04-28 19:43:40|| 2003-04-28 19:43:40|| Front Page Top

#28 Look how silent the French press is

Posted by True German Ally 2003-04-28 20:19:43|| 2003-04-28 20:19:43|| Front Page Top

#29 TGA,in case you haven't noticed there are no neutral parties in this situation.Personally I believe the documents are real,if not this will soon be known.One of things I do not understand is the people who are willing to dismiss this out of hand(after all the enemy of my enem...).I have stated publically and on the net that any country that supports,protects or provides sanctuary to terrorists that attack/kill Americans or our allies should come under immediate devestating overwhelming attack.This would make our enemies very reluctant to support terrorists.

Posted by raptor 2003-04-29 09:07:21|| 2003-04-29 09:07:21|| Front Page Top

#30 Sorry about that,something wierd going on.

Posted by raptor 2003-04-29 09:17:31|| 2003-04-29 09:17:31|| Front Page Top

10:40 raptor
10:39 raptor
09:38 raptor
09:33 raptor
09:17 raptor
09:11 raptor
09:07 raptor
02:47 R. McLeod
02:38 R. McLeod
01:33 tbn
01:07 tbn
00:54 Bomb-a-rama
00:52 Bomb-a-rama
00:48 Rex Mundi
00:10 Troll
23:54 OldSpook
23:44 mojo
23:35 tu3031
23:07 Anony1
22:58 Fred
22:42 Steve White
22:40 JDB
22:39 Fred
22:38 Steve White