50 Comments

1. mezzrow:

Well then, first. Welcome to the new site, Richard.

Thanks for making us think.

Jun 23, 2008 - 3:51 am 2. programmer:

The new site looks great.

Jun 23, 2008 - 4:01 am 3. Dick Gonzalez:

“Iraq is threatening to become a regular country. And that’s not the sort of news many newspapers are interested in.”

Sorry Richard, but the facts just don’t fit your narrative. But you’ve been wrong at every single step of the war, so why change now?

You’ve been predicting victory ever since you stopped writing as if it had already been achieved. In between these predictions, of course, your analysis has always focused exclusively on the potential benefits, never on the actual, mounting costs.

I notice you’re still writing about the conflict as if it didn’t cost anything, so you need not mention it. Alice in Wonderland indeed.

How many different ways are you going to try and spin this?

Today’s dodge is that Iraq is “threatening to become normal.” Why the circumlocution?

Is Iraq normal? Of course not. Is it becoming normal? Not by any relevant measure. But, yes, it is “threatening” to become normal, that much is undeniable.

There are more than 2 million Iraqi refugees. What is the plan for them? When they return, will the Baghdad neighborhoods that have become exclusively Sunni accept Shia and vice versa?

Threatening, indeed.

Jun 23, 2008 - 4:10 am 4. Richard Fernandez:

I’m still learning working out some of the Interface issues. Please bear with me.

Jun 23, 2008 - 4:12 am 5. ADE:

R

You haven’t vanished, but I’ll always listen to the cat.

Keep up the magnificent work,

ADE

Jun 23, 2008 - 4:20 am 6. Manny C:

Let’s see what the RSS feed looks like

Jun 23, 2008 - 4:22 am 7. Manny C:

Looks good! Although it appears as though the first blockquote segment is formatted somewhat differently from the rest.

And let me also be the first to commend you on your ironic first post

Except this vanishing cat has reappeared…

Jun 23, 2008 - 4:24 am 8. larry:

Dick, there is less violence in Iraq than most American cities, shall we abandon Washington and LA?

I see the left is still holding up the quagmire story line. Aren’t their arms getting tired. No, because it is a pretty empty storyline at this point.

Jun 23, 2008 - 5:19 am 9. David Brussat:

As a new reader of your blog these past few weeks, I obviously am impressed by its comprehensive assessment, especially on Iraq. (Ignore “Dick Gonzalez”; people like him are trembling in their boots. Enjoy his displeasure!)
I am displeased by the sans serif font at your new location. Is that mandatory? The serif font of your old blog was refreshingly elegant and, as is the case with serif type, easier to read. I can only wonder why, with competition growing among blogs, sans serif is gaining in popularity. It is certainly a matter of style - the desire to appear “cool” - at the expense of reader comfort. Oh well.

Jun 23, 2008 - 5:24 am 10. Pajamas Media » Belmont Club: Now a Pajamas Xpress Blog!:

[...]  Read the rest at Belmont Club [...]

Jun 23, 2008 - 5:25 am 11. Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Monday Highlights:

[...] A forgotten tragedy. Oh, and update your feed reader, Richard moved. [...]

Jun 23, 2008 - 5:36 am 12. Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e23v1:

[...] A forgotten tragedy. Oh, and update your feed reader, Richard moved. [...]

Jun 23, 2008 - 5:40 am 13. CPT. Charles:

A good start. I’ve long wanted to comment on your other site; I’ll do my best to add positively to future discussions here.

Thanks to all your past efforts. Press on, Richard.

Jun 23, 2008 - 5:48 am 14. Richard Fernandez:

Suppose one wanted to know which world one were in: the one described by Dick Gonzalez or another, in which Iraq was actually going to become a viable country? With each new piece of news we modify our opinion of the probabilities. The longer the run in “bad” news, the less probable it is that things are going to turn out well. But by the same token, the longer the run in “good” news, the less likely it is that the true situation is disastrous.

From the point of view of forming public perception, what the scaled back network coverage of Iraq will do is reduce the sampling rate of the “good” news after an intensive sample rate of the “bad” news. Since there have been only 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage in 2008, and assuming the “good” news trend continues, there will be only about 360 weekday minutes of positive coverage compared to the 1,157 of weekday minutes in 2007. While that doesn’t affect what world we are really in, it may alter what world we were perceives ourselves to be in.

I’m going to predict that a run of good news won’t last indefinitely because emergent events will create complications in the future. Such as for example a future emphasis, not on Iraq but on Lebanon and Iran. It’s like running a business where a new set of problems arise from your very success. Good news always spawns bad news in that way. What would be interesting to measure is whether the number of weekday minutes rises when those future crises develop.

Jun 23, 2008 - 6:17 am 15. Insufficiently Sensitive:

Congratulations on the shift to PJM, and may it be a long and successful run for you and Pajamas both.

Faster, please, to the descent of the river by MSM.

In other news:

There are more than 2 million Iraqi refugees.

The Party line of this week, last week, last year, bla bla bla. Your source please?

Jun 23, 2008 - 6:26 am 16. Nancy Gee:

Love the picture. How very stern and principal’s-office looking. Thanks for sharing.

P.S. Do we get notified by e-mail of updated automatically?

Jun 23, 2008 - 6:32 am 17. Monty Walls:

Like the new site, as one of the ancient lurkers, might I suggest comment numbers next to the comments. Make checking a thread later easier.

Jun 23, 2008 - 6:51 am 18. F:

Wretchard:

I’m one of those people who give up old things with difficulty, but it looks to me as if giving up your old location for this one will be no problem. Congratulations on the move. Keep the keen commentary coming, and thanks.

Fred LaSor (F)

Jun 23, 2008 - 7:00 am 19. fred:

Richard,

I really like the new site. Great move. Hope everything works out well.

Jun 23, 2008 - 7:01 am 20. Anthony (Los Angeles):

Welcome to PJM, Richard! I loved the old Belmont Club, and look forward to your writings here.

(BTW, the RSS feed seems to be broken. Clicking the link returns an error from Feedburner.)

Jun 23, 2008 - 7:44 am 21. Mark:

Wretchard wrote:

“Suppose one wanted to know which world one were in: . . . .”

Who knows why the subjunctive endures. Someday its remaining vestiges will fade away, like the Cheshire Cat. In the meanwhile, it’s good to see its appearance, even in a usage that inevitably clunks a bit.

Like David B., I find the sans serif unappealing. At least the comments font has a times roman default.

Whoever follows President Bush will have a hard act to follow, especially if the meme about Iraq morphs to one of “success follows competence, constancy and cojones.”

Having written that, I can no longer protest my wife’s accusation that I dwell in an alternate universe.

Jun 23, 2008 - 7:44 am 22. njartist:

Congratulations on your move.

Jun 23, 2008 - 8:08 am 23. NahnCee:

Major major major bummer — no notifying follow-up e-mails???

Jun 23, 2008 - 8:51 am 24. Michael Hoskins:

Re: Tower of the Winds.
During my middle years I made a move from engineering to the University. My mentors, both, began the orientation by telling me that the first and formost thing to remember was that universities exist for the care and feeding of faculty. Students (young) are simply camoflage. I lasted two years before the I began to question my sanity and returned to the world.

Funny thing is, we all knew it was a fraud at the first time around.

Jun 23, 2008 - 9:11 am 25. always right:

Thanks for your time and effort on The Belmont Club. I was very interested in reading the posting and the discussion there, but most of the time I knew the stuff was too deep for me to make intelligent comments.
Congratulations on your move.

Now back on topic, no matter what happens next, we could all be proud of what had been achieved by both the Americans (with the coalitions) and the Iraqis. Indeed the Cheshire Cat may have the last laugh.

Jun 23, 2008 - 9:16 am 26. what is "occupation":

Dick Gonzalez: There are more than 2 million Iraqi refugees. What is the plan for them? When they return, will the Baghdad neighborhoods that have become exclusively Sunni accept Shia and vice versa?

Great question Dick…

What of refugees….

Let’s start with the palestinians… they can settle in areas of the west bank, gaza or jordan

Now how about those pesky Jews? there were more than 600,000 of them tossed out of the 20 out of 21 arab nations in 1948?

So can we have “peace” or a settlement when refugees have to be resettled? Or is there some law that refugees can be required to “get over it” and SETTLE down elsewhere?

Refugees are a part of the human story, they happen…

and the majority of them get over it, with the exception of the “palestinians” (and Islam) who still cling to the notion that every inch from the river to the sea is theirs forever, no exceptions… (islam teaches that lands that have become “islamic” are forever islamic period.

Jun 23, 2008 - 9:35 am 27. Roderick Reilly:

It is said that “History is written by the victors.”

Is that true any longer? A few years from now, when Iraq’s oil industry is humming along, it’s status as an intellectual leader of the Arab world being restored to pre-Sadam glory, it’s people no longer living in daily fear, will the whole debacle still be viewed by the chattering classes as a quagmire and another American humiliation? I think we know the answer.

Iraq will still have corruption and some banditry a few years from now, and it’s main ethnic and tribal groups will be squabbling, especially in what will be a circus of a legislature. Sour leftist and paleo-conservatives will focus on those negatives as “proof” that Iraq was a waste of our time, despite out own penchant for earmarks for bridges to nowhere, organized crime cartels, and “no-go” housing projects. They wouldn’t recognize a thriving-if-flawed society if they tripped over it.

Jun 23, 2008 - 10:56 am 28. section9:

Nice to see you here, Richard.

I suspect that it will be some ten years before people look back on Bush’s decision to stick with Petraeus’ plan in 2006 as the decisive moment in the War on Terror. When all appeared black, Bush made a bid for victory. It does him no good with present day writers, of course, but we will have won the war, so history will smile on him in the end.

Jun 23, 2008 - 11:11 am 29. Michael Hoskins:

oops,
comment in wrong place…

Jun 23, 2008 - 11:29 am 30. sisyphus:

Yes, Mr. Gonzalez, if only we’d eschewed actually enforcing those UN resolutions and the evil BusHitler had not lied about Iraqi WMD. We coulda/shoulda/woulda actually had enough troops to find Osama with the side benefit that AlQaeda would have surely capitulated. Or maybe if the moonbats and traitorous NY Times were not actively encouraging terrorists and instead supported their own country, we would have been much more closer to winning the global war on terrorism.
I’m sure that the wonderful leadership of the Urkel Lightworker Carter Redux will quickly bring the Islamofascists to their senses and we can all sing Kumbaya and Imagine. Why have preconditons to speak with despots anyway? So nice that our presumptive new POTUS exhibits such statesmenship and diplomatic skill that we can anticipate a peace dividend and drawing down of the enormous resources wasted on our warmongering military. Afterall, the Arabist State dept. and Condi Rice have been doing such a crackerjack job settling the Palestinian question and persuading the mad mullahs of Iran to behave themselves. But I suppose it will grand enough if BHO pleases moron.org and the exalted Dinnerjacket. At least then Mr. Gonzalez and his ilk will at last be mollified?
Will America wake up in time to send a strong message that the liberals are clueless in running our government? Higher taxes, more regulations, nationalization of oil industry, more AGW BS, mass legalization of illegals, more USSC justices who want to legislate/interpret constitution and ever evolving and more in line with Euroweenie concerns, pacifism and road to capitulation to jihad and sharia? Yes, that’s the ticket.

Jun 23, 2008 - 1:02 pm 31. RW:

Rikard, we hardly knew ye (at the old site) but congrats on joining the army in the pajamas. And it’s nice to see the face of the unknown replicant or are you human?

Okay congrats on joining the pajamas family. We plan to stay here a while with you.

And remember no matter what, the surge has failed.

Jun 23, 2008 - 1:48 pm 32. Fred:

Apparently the talking point making the rounds on the Left nowadays is that the Surge in Iraq has failed. They haven’t provided us with the metrics of battle or political reality to substantiate this, but I’m sure Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will have a teleconference with George Soros and they’ll come up with something. They’ll pass it on to Obonga so he can use it too.

Jun 23, 2008 - 2:03 pm 33. Lilith:

Section9: I suspect that it will be some ten years before people look back on Bush’s decision to stick with Petraeus’ plan in 2006 as the decisive moment in the War on Terror.

You mean the decisive moment in the Occupation of Iraq, if an occupation can be said to have a moment of decision. The Iraq War was finished in May of 2003 (”Mission Accomplished”), a clear Coalition victory. The War on Terror is up that-a-way, towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, back where Obama wants to shift our focus when he accepts the job opening for War Czar on 1/20/09.

Jun 23, 2008 - 2:26 pm 34. Old USA Chief:

Well done. All the best on your new affiliation. You start many of our days with a rousing discussion.

Thanks

Jun 23, 2008 - 2:50 pm 35. DCGamer:

I sure hope that is subtle sarcasm, Lilith, because I find it difficult to believe that an intelligent person could write such words. Can I infer from your words that you are not in favor of the “Occupation of Iraq?” (It’s so important in your mind that you had to capitalize it?). Are you then opposed to the Occupation of Kosovo? the Occupation of Germany? the Occupation of Japan? the Occupation of South Korea? the Occupation of England? the Occupation of Spain? the Occupation of Italy? the Occupation of Diego Garcia? (etc.etc.)

Regarding Afghanistand/Pakistan, do you honestly believe that the al Qaeda terrorists limit themselves to Afghanistan and Pakistan? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, you might find them in Iraq also? How about Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Palestine? Syria?

Furthermore, do you think we should only concern ourselves with the al Qaeda terrorists? How about the Hamas terrorists of Palestine? the Hezbollah terrorists of Lebanon/Syria/Iran? the Fatah terrorists of Palestine? the Islamic Brotherhood terrorists of the whole Middle East? (etc. etc.)

You sound just as clueless as the man you hope will replace Bush in January. Are you really looking forward to Jimmah Carter’s second term?

Jun 23, 2008 - 2:57 pm 36. Mad Fiddler:

Thanks for a website with text that can be read by eyes older than puberty. Some sites have gray text on a gray background, or white text on black, or light blue text on flourescent red. These cause seizures, I’m quite sure.

At the risk of feeding the troll, I would ask Mr. Gonzales what the cost might have been had Bush simply let Saddam continue with the daily, hourly, weekly, constant repeated violations of the ceasefire that had suspended the active hostilities of the first Gulf War in 1991.

I’ve seen several careful analyses of the single attack on the World Trade Center (September 11, 2001) estimating total costs on the order of a trillion dollars within the first year after the attacks. These include the initial attack —
• lives lost immediately, insurance benefits to victim beneficiaries
• construction costs of the buildings & structures
• loss of income from so many acres of the highest-revenue producing commercial rental space in the country
• equipment, records, business disruptions to the companies located in the WTC
• loss & replacement costs of hundreds of rescue, fire, police vehicles and equipment, buses, taxis and privately-owned vehicles
• the extended recovery effort for victim remains (I know there were hundreds of firefighters and professional rescue workers and police who volunteered their time for this. It doesn’t mean there was no cost…)
• the extended forensic analysis
• cost of transport of rubble and crushed vehicles, etc.

… and the cascade of resulting costs and expenditures —
• lost revenues to airlines from millions of passengers abandoning air travel
• the cost of enhanced passenger & baggage inspections at hundreds of airports
• the loss of business for travel agencies, hotels & resorts, vehicle rental services
• unemployment and other services for folks laid of as a result of the stresses on various related industries, etc.

Oh, and the millions of dollars pissed away by the Democratic Senators and Congresscritters, with all the thousands of aides, secretaries, researchers and interns, setting up the Kleig lights, cameras and microphones to hold thousands of hours of testimony trying to pin the blame on George Bush for everything bad that ever happened in the history of the world. Small potatoes.

A trillion dollars for ONE terrorist incident. That’s a thousand times one billion dollars, or One MILLION times a MILLION DOLLARS!

Remember, Saddam had been violating the ceasefire (from Gulf War I) for ten years, and that President Clinton had sent U.S. and Coalition forces into Iraq on Six DIFFERENT Occasions during his two terms Deep into Iraq to bomb, strafe, and attack Iraqi military forces. How much did THOSE military assaults cost? How’s come Nobody on the Left EVER questioned or criticized Clinton for sending U.S. military forces to attack Iraq?

Morons.

Jun 23, 2008 - 3:09 pm 37. Lilith:

DCGamer: Can I infer from your words that you are not in favor of the “Occupation of Iraq?”

Indeed you may infer that.

Are you then opposed to the Occupation of Kosovo?

Not only am I opposed to the Occupation of Kosovo, but I disagree with the three month bombing campaign that preceded it. We went to war to divide a country, when our stated goal in Iraq is to unite a country.

Regarding Afghanistand/Pakistan, do you honestly believe that the al Qaeda terrorists limit themselves to Afghanistan and Pakistan? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, you might find them in Iraq also?

There wasn’t any such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq in 2002. There is now.

Furthermore, do you think we should only concern ourselves with the al Qaeda terrorists? How about the Hamas terrorists of Palestine? the Hezbollah terrorists of Lebanon/Syria/Iran? the Fatah terrorists of Palestine? the Islamic Brotherhood terrorists of the whole Middle East? (etc. etc.)

You can create a whole shopping list of things for a World Policeman to do, but I don’t think we should be the World Policeman. But we can set guard dogs on our own property line.

Jun 23, 2008 - 5:35 pm 38. John Samford:

“Is Iraq normal? Of course not. Is it becoming normal?”

Yes, it is. Your mistake is applying the wrong criteria to Iraq. If you had said, ‘Is Iraq becoming westernized?’, then your answer would have been correct.
By the standards that matter for the future (suffrage, education, economic, etc) Iraq is very much ahead of the curve in the ME.
Is Iraq LA.? No, their per capita murder rate is too low. 12.0 to 12.6

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

Iraq 12 per 100,000 according to interpol. Ranking #6, BTW.

This puts it behind Louisiana at 13.0 per 100,000.

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#usa

Same source.
So by your logic, should the USA withdraw it’s troops from Louisiana? I’m positive that the good citizens of La. would not mind that a bit. After all, Louisiana has been occupied for a LOT longer then Iraq. The Iraqi’s haven’t had time yet to really appreciate the horror, fear and loathing those words “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you” bring.
If the US government is feeling an itch to withdraw troops, may I suggest that Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, etc. are better places to start then Iraq.
Is it time to move from Red state/Blue state to Red Country / Blue country? Vermont and Montana think so.

Philadelphia’s murder rate is 25.6 per 100,000. Over twice that of Iraq.
The ongoing civil war here in the USA is MUCH more violent then the one just concluded in Iraq. It’s just not as spectacular. Kill 20 people with a car bomb or a suicide bomber and the MSM is all over it. kill 20 people one or two at a time with drive by shootings and it’s ignored. Those murdered are just as dead.

Jun 23, 2008 - 6:00 pm 39. Jim in Virginia:

Lilith- congratulations. Almost verbatim from the America Firsters in 1940. Are you a Pat Buchanan fan, a Ron Paulian, or an Obama supporter?
We put up guard dogs for the first week after 9-11- no air traffic. Period. That was fun.
Guard dogs, to do their job properly, would shut off world trade. But Globalization is yet another evil we can do without, right?

Jun 23, 2008 - 6:18 pm 40. Willie G:

Ah, Wretchard/Richard (I’ll stick to the latter if you insist, but the former has SO much more panache!) ’tis a far, far better thing you do than you have ever done before. Welcome to your new home!

Lilith - Of course there was no “Al Quaeda in Irag” prior to 2003. Saddam was in charge and he insisted on having a monopoly. Once he was gone, there was room for the “new” organization - same old folks, though.

As far as being the world’s policeman, well, you’re right. It’s a dirty thankless job that doesn’t pay for squat. Neither does being a cop anywhere else. But it does have its’ rewards and every now and then you get one up on the bad guys. So a lot of us think it’s still worth doing. You’re welcome to disagree, of course, but please just stand back and let us do our job…it works better that way.

Jun 23, 2008 - 6:31 pm 41. zaphod:

Lilith: It’s called “The War on Terror” for a reason. We haven’t limited ourselves to simply waging war on Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is only part of the problem. Saddam supported terrorism which made him part of the problem as well. And so we waged war aginst him. It wasn’t a distraction from the “real” War on Terror to go into Iraq. It’s called choosing your battlefield.

Even if we limited ourselves to fighting against Al Qaeda, they haven’t always been in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Fighting them there only doesn’t make very much sense.

Jun 23, 2008 - 9:55 pm 42. Dave:

Okay, having ceased fire elsewhere, will now shift fire to pajamas media coordinates.
Been a while since I have adjusted fire, have not forgotten how it is done.

Looks like that while there was no Al Queda in Irag, Iraq is where Al Queda promises to be defeated in detail.

I wonder who is opposed to that result?

Jun 23, 2008 - 10:08 pm 43. davod:

“There wasn’t any such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq in 2002. There is now.”

Yes but the recent Senate(Democratic part) Intelligence Committe report says the following about the Admistrations stance prior to the war:

Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

Statments that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,”

Statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

Jun 24, 2008 - 12:50 am 44. Edmund Jenks (MAXINE):

Richard - Welcome:

Miss your editing, welcome your writing.

I noticed through reading many of the responses to the article here … Facts (Still) Do Not Matter To The Left.

We do know this from the behavior of Barack Obama, if it serves political ends, Obama will jettison ANY position … he may actually develop a war-footing if backed into a wall, just ask the crowd “under” the bus.

You are right about the cat.

Jun 24, 2008 - 6:47 am 45. Against All Authority » Blog Archive » The smile remains:

[...] The smile remains …one of all — and the one which may be the most loosely specified in the end — was whether US forces in Iraq could operate against hostile… [...]

Jun 24, 2008 - 8:43 am 46. ForNow:

Hi Wretchard/Richard.

I suppose it would sound funny to go on using the username “Wretchard” when everybody knows your real name, but it was a terrific username, especially for the kind of posts that you write, serious, often sad, without pomposity. I also liked the cat icon by your comments. Also I liked the small Georgia font but if people have trouble reading it then maybe you could bring it back but a bit larger. The dark-gray non-serif font makes commenters’ words look like leaf fragments ready to blow away, or to be scattered by cats. Also I liked the (blah blah, etc., etc.)

Anyway, again, congratulations.

Jun 24, 2008 - 10:52 am 47. honestjoe:

Hello, and congratulations on your new site.

I’ve been a long time lurker (about 2 years) and have often read post that connect Iraq with 9/11 or at least to some if not “the” terrorist which is why we had to invade in order to defend ourselves from a potential attack from terrorist in and/or aided by Iraq.

But the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation, the FBI program of voluntary interviews and numerous other post-9-11 inquiries, together comprising probably the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history—chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people — has turned up no evidence of Iraq’s involvement; nor has the extensive search of post-Saddam Iraq by the Kay and Duelfer commission and US troops combing through Saddam’s computers.

The intelligence community (CIA, NSA, DIA, etc) view, confirmed by the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, is that there was not a cooperative effort between the two and that Saddam did not support the 9/11 attacks. According to this view, the difference in ideology between Saddam and al-Qaeda made cooperation in any terrorist attacks very unlikely (Saddam Hussein did not trust Islamic extremists and had often worked against them, while Osama bin Laden had called Saddam Hussein an “infidel” a number of times).

Though its true Iraq had (by coincidence) been killing OBL’s religious enemies since January 1998 such as the killings of internationally respected clerics have been attributed widely to Iraqi government agents by Shi’a clergy in Iran, international human rights activists, the U.S. and other governments. For example;

According to a report submitted to the Special Rapporteur in September 1999, one of al-Sadr’s sons, Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr, was arrested along with a large number of theological students who had studied under the Ayatollah. Nineteen followers of al-Sadr reportedly were executed toward the end of 1999, including Sheikh Muhammad al-Numani, Friday imam Sheikh Abd-al-Razzaq al-Rabi’i, assistant Friday imam Kazim al-Safi, and students from a religious seminary in Najaf. But it was only a coincidence that the victims were also enemies of OBL as ultimately the Senate Report confirmed the CIA’s conclusion that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two.

Yet, both parties in the House and Senate intelligence committees have through their investigations proven with incontrovertible evidence that there was support for the 9/11 terrorists;

“Our investigators found a CIA memo dated August 2, 2002, whose author concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government. On September 11, America was not attacked by a nation-state, but we had just discovered that the attackers were actively supported by one, and that state was our supposed friend and ally Saudi Arabia.”

“We had discovered an FBI asset who had a close relationship with the terrorists; a terrorist support network that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went through the Saudi Royal family.”

According to U.S. intelligence reports the Saudi government played a direct role in funding 9/11 and Saudi Arabia has an active role as a player in the nuclear black-market. Also the U.S. State Department’s 2000 Human Rights Report shows Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship that makes Iraq under Saddam Hussein look like Disneyworld.

The Treasury and State Departments have catalogued the Saudi government’s decades of support for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

The hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar received money from Saudi Arabia’s royal family through two Saudis, Omar Al-Bayoumi and Osama Basnan. Newsweek bases its report on information leaked from the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry in October.[Newsweek, 11/22/2002; Newsweek, 11/22/2002;
New York Times, 11/23/2002; Washington Post, 11/23/2003]
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/23/internat…ast/23TERR.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A…anguage=printer

later even more connections between them and both entities are revealed. [US Congress, 7/24/2003 pdf file] http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creport…port_errata.pdf

“The money moved into the family’s bank account beginning in early 2000, just a few months after hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi arrived in Los Angeles from an Al Qaeda planning summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, according to the sources. Within days of the terrorists’ arrival in the United States, Al Bayoumi befriended the two men who would eventually hijack American Flight 77, throwing them a welcoming party in San Diego and guaranteeing their lease on an apartment next door to his own. Al Bayoumi also paid $1,500 to cover the first two months of rent for Al Midhar and Alhazmi, although officials said it could be possible that the hijackers later repaid the money.” [Newsweek, November 22, 2002; US Congress, 7/24/2003 pdf file]
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creport…port_errata.pdf

MSNBC claims that “members of the Saudi royal family met frequently with bin Laden—both before and after 9/11” [MSNBC, 9/5/2003] , and many Saudi royals and bin Laden relatives are being sued for their alleged role in 9/11.
http://www.emjournal.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sept030.html

Saudi Arabia has transferred $500 million to Al Qaida over the past decade, according to a report prepared for the United Nations. The report said prominent Saudi charities, supported by leading officials and companies, continue to finance groups deemed as terrorist by the European Union and the United States, but regarded as legitimate by the kingdom.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/W…udis_01_03.html

After funding the hijackers the Saudi agents decided they needed to travel to Las Vegas where they would meet up with the rest of the Bin Ladens and fly out of the country while American air space was on shoot to kill lock down after 9/11. (According to FBI documents, the Las Vegas charter (Ryan 441) was the one paid for by either the Saudi Royal Family or Osama Bin Laden) And many of the passengers who were escaping on the flight were ALREADY WANTED by the FBI for questioning BEFORE 9/11 and also had several connections to the 9/11 terrorist! For example:

The son of the Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan. Sultan is sued in August 2002 for alleged complicity in the 9/11 plot. [Tampa Tribune, 10/5/2001] He is alleged to have contributed at least $6 million since 1994 to four charities that finance al-Qaeda. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003]
http://web.archive.org/web/20011108145853/…GA3F78EFSC.html
http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm

Khalil bin Laden. He has been investigated by the Brazilian government for possible terrorist connections. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003]
http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm

Abdullah bin Laden and Omar bin Laden, cousins of bin Laden. Abdullah was the US director of the Muslim charity World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). The governments of India, Pakistan, Philippines, and Bosnia have all accused WAMY of funding terrorism. These two relatives were investigated by the FBI in 1996 (see February-September 11, 1996) in a case involving espionage, murder, and national security.
http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm

Remarkably, four of the 9/11 hijackers briefly live in the town of Falls Church, Virginia, three blocks from the WAMY office headed by Abdullah bin Laden. [BBC, 11/6/2001]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm

Saleh Ibn Abdul Rahman Hussayen. He is a prominent Saudi official who is in the same hotel as three of the hijackers the night before 9/11. He leaves on one of the first flights to Saudi Arabia before the FBI can properly interview him about this. [Washington Post, 10/2/2003]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A…anguage=printer

Akberali Moawalla. A Pakistani and business partner of Osama’s brother Yeslam bin Laden. In 2000, a transfer of over $250 million was made from a bank account belonging jointly to Moawalla and Osama bin Laden.(see 2000). [Washington Post, 7/22/2004]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic…-2004Jul21.html

Khalid bin Mahfouz. In October 2001, the Treasury Department identified the Muwafaq Foundation, largely endowed by Khalid bin Mahfouz, as an al Qaeda front that had funneled millions of dollars to bin Laden. Some families of the 9/11 victims have named Mahfouz and dozens of prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family, in a lawsuit that accuses the Saudis of funding the 9/11 terrorists. Bush administration officials stated that they would seek to have the suit dismissed or delayed.
[New York Times, November 28, 2002]

One not on the flight or wanted but is important to note; Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar had been making monthly transfers, $130,000 in all, to an FBI informant in counter-terrorism specializing in Arabic terrorist “Al Bayoumi” who assisted and funded the two hijackers who were based in San Diego.["FBI Looks at Saudi's Links to 9/11," Los Angeles Times, November 23, 2002]

I could go on but to some it up, because of 9/11 we have declared a war on terror while at the same time failing to hold those most responsible “THE SAUDIS” who according to U.S. intelligence reports played a direct role in funding 9/11, has an active role as a player in the nuclear black-market plus the U.S. State Department’s 2000 Human Rights Report shows Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship that makes Iraq under Saddam Hussein look like Disneyworld yet we attacked Iraq. Why?

Jun 24, 2008 - 10:23 pm 48. Mark:

Honest Joe provides good links to Saudi complicity in anti-US terrorism. Why, then, did the US invade Iraq? The result of the invasion provides the rationale, does it not? Sunni-AQ supporters in the Mideast find themselves to a great extent in disarray, dillusioned, decimated, dishonored. Shia extremists, ditto, especially in Iraq. In retrospect, hitting the Sunni-Islamist fellow-traveller Iraq, a weak link, broke two impressive chains. The chains may re-link. But surely one cannot seriously ask why we attacked Iraq. It was the weak link.

Jun 25, 2008 - 12:28 pm 49. honestjoe:

Mark,

Thank you for your reply, your input is most appreciated even though I don’t agree.

The reason I don’t agree is because how can we and our government that’s been intent upon using the terrorist attacks to carry out the invasion of Iraq, prevent bringing to justice those who’ve been established as being directly responsible for it?

Saudi’s “OPEN” support includes financial backing for minority Sunnis because of the civil war between them and Iraq’s Shiite majority. Before that the Sunnis were getting the money from private donations such as extremist Wahhabi mosques and the Bin Laden family which is an immensely wealthy family intimately connected with the innermost circles of the Saudi royal family.

So why are we doing nothing to combat the real terrorist the “SAUDI’S”! Who warned Cheney that they were going to supply the Sunnis with advanced weaponry and cash (to buy more) if we sided with the Shiites. There has been evidence that they had been funding them from the beginning.

U.S. intelligence reports and the U.S. Iraq Study Group report as well as Iraqi intelligence reports said Saudis are funding Sunni Arab insurgents and the money is used to buy weapons, including Strelas, Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back the Sunnis if the United States pulls out of Iraq, according to a senior American official.

The official said the king “read the riot act” to the vice president when the two met in the Saudi capital, Riyadh.

The New York Times first reported the conversation saying Saudi support would include financial backing for minority Sunnis in the event of a civil war between them and Iraq’s Shiite majority.

Asked about the meeting, a senior Saudi official - who spoke on condition he not be named - ruled out using terminology such as “warning” or “threatening.” He said, “I believe the Saudi position was clear, that things might deteriorate or drift in Iraq, and then the kingdom will find itself forced to interfere.”

Saudi Arabia believes the Iraqi government is not up to the challenge and has told the United States that it is prepared to move its own forces into Iraq should the violence there degenerate into chaos, a senior U.S. official told NBC News.

The Saudis’ primary concern is the Sunni population of Anbar province, the senior U.S. official. The official said the Saudis had informed Washington that they were considering a plan to send troops into the province if Bush’s plan failed.

The Saudi’s are mad as hell at “US” turning the government over to people who are known to be Iranian agents like Ahmad Chalabi, Al-Jafari, Al-Hakim and Al-Maliki!

This has caused many Sunni Saudis concern and outrage over the single handed give away in Sunni Iraq to Shia Iranian interests while demonizing and sabre rattling against Tehran.

If, indeed, the Iranians are funding, arming and training Shiite militias (who are responsible for 4% of American military deaths in Iraq and 5% of injuries inflicted on American military in Iraq) who COMBINED with the Taliban are responsible for 9% of TOTAL American military deaths and 8% of TOTAL injuries inflicted on the American military. For which we are threatening military action against Iran. Then doesn’t it logically follow that we should be threatening military action against Saudi Arabia which has been funding the Sunni insurgency (who is responsible for 91% of TOTAL American military casualties and 92% of TOTAL injuries inflicted on the American military) an insurgency that has killed far more Americans than the Taliban and Shiite insurgency COMBINED?

Doesn’t it logically follow that we should be threatening military action against Saudi Arabia which has been “OPENLY” funding the Sunni insurgency, an insurgency that has killed far more Americans than the Shiite insurgency?

Especially when according to U.S. intelligence reports Saudi Arabia has an active role as a player in the nuclear black-market!

According to Mohammed Khilewi, first secretary at the Saudi mission to the United Nations until July 1994, the Saudis have sought a bomb since 1975; they sought to buy nuclear reactors from China, supported Pakistan’s nuclear program, and contributed $5 billion to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program between 1985 and 1990. While the U.S. government vocally opposes the development or procurement of ballistic missiles by non-allies, it has been very quiet in Saudi Arabia’s case, considering the fact that it possesses the longest-range ballistic missiles of any developing country.

In his 2003 Naval Post graduate thesis titled “Is Saudi Arabia a Nuclear Threat?”Steven R. McDowell writes:

Now that the CSS-2 missiles are nearing the end of their lifecycle, the Saudi regime may choose to replace them. During a March 11, 1997 interview with Defense News, Saudi military chief of staff, Lt Gen. Saleh Mohaya stated [referring to the Saudi's CSS-2 ballistic missile inventory], “The [Saudi Arabian] oil kingdom is now considering replacing or refurbishing the desert missile force.”

Early in 2006, the German periodical Cicero reported that satellite imagery obtained by Germany’s secret service indicated that Saudi Arabia has set up in Al-Sulaiyil, south of Riyadh, a new secret underground city and dozens of underground silos for missiles. TPMcafe has also picked up on this item

According to some Western security services, long-range Ghauri-type missiles of Pakistani-origin are housed inside the silos.

The Ghauri missile has a range of 1,500 kilometers, while the CSS-2.
missile has a longer 2500km range.

The East Wind’s modified range/payload (5) of 2,500 km/2,000 kg (conventional load) brings many countries within striking range, including Israel, the former Soviet Union, and Iran, though the missiles are said to be targeted on Tehran and other Iranian population centers, rather than Israel.

It seems that Saudi Arabia has replaced its aging Chinese missiles with North Korean/Pakistani “Ghauri” missiles, albeit with 1000km less range, they have essentially modernized their missile fleet.

Leaders of Hezbollah, the Iranian- backed party trying to overthrow the Lebanese government, have recently visited the Saudi king in Riyadh, according to officials who attended the meeting. And Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi chief security adviser, has met with his Iranian counterpart, Ali Larijani, in Riyadh and Tehran to try to stop Lebanon’s slide into civil war.

“The only hope is for the Iranians and Saudis to go further in easing the situation and bringing people back to the negotiating table,” said Radwan al- Sayyed, an adviser to Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

“It is true, whoever governs will decide Lebanon’s political direction,” said Muhammad Fneish, a senior Hezbollah member who said he recently attended a meeting with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

“Saudi Arabia and Iran are near an agreement,” said Toufic Sultan, a former leader in the main government-aligned Druse party who has maintained close ties to Saudi officials.

“The United States is the first to be blamed for the rise of Iranian influence in the Middle East,” said Khaled al-Dakhil, a Saudi writer and academic. “There is one thing important about the ascendance of Iran here. It does not reflect a real change in Iranian capabilities, economic or political. It’s more a reflection of the failures on the part of the U.S. and its Arab allies in the region.”

“It was necessary to create an enemy to justify the failure of the American occupation in Iraq,” Talal Salman, the editor-in-chief of as-Safir, a Lebanese newspaper, wrote in a column this month. “So to protect ourselves against the coming of the wolf, we bring the foreign fleets that fill our lands, skies and seas.”

Iran has found itself strengthened almost by default, first with the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to Iran’s east, which ousted the Taliban rulers against whom it almost went to war in the 1990s, and then to its west, with the American ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, against whom it fought an eight-year war in the 1980s.

“I disagree with Iranian policy, but you have to give the Iranians credit,” said Abdullah al-Shayji, a political science professor and head of Kuwait University’s American Studies Unit. “You have to appreciate that they have an agenda, they’re planning for it, they seize the opportunity, they see an American weakness and they are capitalizing on it.”

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Kuwait rarely rebuffs its ally, the United States, partly out of gratitude for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But in October it reneged on a pledge to send three military observers to an American-led naval exercise in the Gulf, according to U.S. officials and Kuwaiti analysts.

“We understood,” a State Department official said. “The Kuwaitis were being careful not to antagonize the Iranians.”

If America withdrew from Iraq and a Sunni-Shi’ite war took off, the narrative of the long war would inevitably change. It would go from Islam versus the West to Islam versus itself and we would reap dividends in the long run.

Redefining the war on terror as essentially the product of ancient feuds within Islam immediately shifts the argument onto terrain favorable to the West. As it stands now our being in Iraq unites the Muslim world against “US” while both sides are using “US” our children and our resources.

Jun 25, 2008 - 5:47 pm 50. life is good pajamas:

[...] Logan, the CBS correspondent in Baghdad, had something to say about a war which was vanishing …http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/06/23/the-smile-remains/Did you watch the Baby Borrowers? The teens and I watched the Baby Borrowers tonight on NBC, and I’m [...]

Jun 29, 2008 - 9:06 am

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.