935 false statements on Iraq (1 Viewer)

[champ76]

Clinton was wrong too. That's just tells you something about Republicrat foreign policy, not much else.

Do you really think Clinton read the full NIE on Iraq, including the dissent? And as an ex-President, did he get the classified version, because all dissent and caveats were stricken from the public version of the NIE.

Anyway, Bill Clinton always picked his positions according to the prevailing wind, and it was no different here.

As I posted above, this idea that it was so difficult to understand the intel in 2002 is bogus. There were plenty of people who had the same info that were willing to make a different policy recommendations reagrding Iraq.

They were not welcome at the White House because the decsion was already taken, regardless of what intel said. In addition to Paul O'Niells revelations that they were discussion getting rid of Saddam well before 9/11, there is this nice little anecdote from March 2002:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2835.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/timep.saddam.tm/

The decision was made. The policy was set and the facts were set around the policy -- for Democrats and Republicans.

But then, is it fair to publish an article about the administration titled, "935 false statements on Iraq" when many were saying(and believing) the same thing, or, at the very least, should the article point out that their voices and statements were among many, including democrats, former presidents, etc? My goodness, if every time I was wrong about something(which is never on this board, Reb ), I was called a liar, I wouldn't have much of a reputation left.

 

[blackadder]

But then, is it fair to publish an article about the administration titled, "935 false statements on Iraq" when many were saying(and believing) the same thing, or, at the very least, should the article point out that their voices and statements were among many, including democrats, former presidents, etc? My goodness, if every time I was wrong about something(which is never on this board, Reb ), I was called a liar, I wouldn't have much of a reputation left.

Fair is a place you go to see the animals and eat cotton candy...

The article is most likely timed for the election season.

I find nothing really new in the article other than they carefully catalog each and every false statement.

I was one of the guys calling B.S. since 2002, so this isn't really news to me.

To the extent I am somewhat of a cynical idealist, I believe it should not be acceptable for an adminstration to end run CIA and distort intelligence or lie to the publice for a war of choice.

Now, facing this kind of music is just part of the price of the Administration's policy choices.

Do you not think if the roles were reversed that some Republican partisan would fund a similar study and release it on the same timetable for political gain?

 

[DadsDream]

The purpose of going in to Iraq was to overthrow Saddam, move troops in from Saudi Arabia and set up permanent bases and establish a government acceptable to the United States which will facilitate U.S. Middle East Policy for the next several decades. From the perspective of the neoconservatives, it was also to remove one of Israel's implacable foes.

The WMD discussion is a complete waste of time if what you want to do is understand U.S. policy in Iraq. It was an initiating pretext for a policy undertaken for many other reasons, that is all.

Gee, Blackadder, I thought I heard an echo...it's almost like you read my thoughts exactly! LOL!

"Bush took us to war. Clinton didn't."

I'm sure the troops who served in Bosnia, Serbia and Somalia would disagree. After the shining example of backstabbing his generals in Somalia, there weren't too many folks at the Pentagon who were willing to follow ole Bill anywhere.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I'm sure the troops who served in Bosnia, Serbia and Somalia would disagree.

I wasn't aware these were provinces of Iraq... that is what we're talking about right?

Oh wait, that's right, we're just taking random irrelevant shots at Clinton as usual even if it's an apples and oranges comparison that has nothing to do with the discussion.

The man really needs to seek restraining orders for some of the stalking he experiences.

 

[blackadder]

Gee, Blackadder, I thought I heard an echo...it's almost like you read my thoughts exactly! LOL!

"Bush took us to war. Clinton didn't."

I'm sure the troops who served in Bosnia, Serbia and Somalia would disagree. After the shining example of backstabbing his generals in Somalia, there weren't too many folks at the Pentagon who were willing to follow ole Bill anywhere.

DD,

We have threads going back probably years ago where we more or less agreed on why Iraq was invaded, and it wasn't for WMD.

To me the discussion ended in 2003 with Paul Wolfowitz' admission that they simply picked WMD as the most convenient pretext and that a prime motivation was to move bases out of Saudi Arabia:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0305/S00308.htm

Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason...

...There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

DD,

We have threads going back probably years ago where we more or less agreed on why Iraq was invaded, and it wasn't for WMD.

To me the discussion ended in 2003 with Paul Wolfowitz' admission that they simply picked WMD as the most convenient pretext and that a prime motivation was to move bases out of Saudi Arabia:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0305/S00308.htm

Yes, a number of us have always agreed that was the prime reason. The point of debate has been from those of us who thought it was a good idea and those who though it wasn't.

Well, and those who still buy the WMD smoke screen.

 

[champ76]

To the extent I am somewhat of a cynical idealist, I believe it should not be acceptable for an adminstration to end run CIA and distort intelligence or lie to the publice for a war of choice.

Now, facing this kind of music is just part of the price of the Administration's policy choices.

End run? From page 6 of this very thread:


From CIA Director Tenet's letter to Sen. Bob Graham, dated October 2, 2002:

"Regarding Senator Bayh's Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana question of Iraqi links to al-Qa'ida. Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...1007-cia01.htm

Remember Tenet and his "slam dunk" case on WMD. I say, let's be fair, regardless of the animals and cotton candy.

 

[blackadder]

End run? From page 6 of this very thread:


From CIA Director Tenet's letter to Sen. Bob Graham, dated October 2, 2002:

"Regarding Senator Bayh's Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana question of Iraqi links to al-Qa'ida. Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...1007-cia01.htm

Remember Tenet and his "slam dunk" case on WMD. I say, let's be fair, regardless of the animals and cotton candy.

Again, somewhere in this thread I pointedout that Tenet at the top -- a political appointee -- had the authority to also emphasize or de-emphasize intel. Tenet chose to tell his boss what he wanted to hear and de-emphasized dissent.

The rap everyone wants to give the CIA as whole on this is moreso a rap on the informaiton filter that was George Tenet.

IMO, when Tenet said "slam dunk", he was speaking to the idea that they would find a secret reserve of chemical weapons that everyone, including me, believed Saddam would have kept for an emergency. He was referring to the WMD pretext and not the alleged Al-Queda-9/11 connections.

The crucial point was whether or not Saddam would use that WMD against the US or give it to someone who would. I think most objective analysts did not endorse that idea.

What's missing from that letter?

"We have information that AQ members have been spotted in Baghdad." What does that mean? AQ members were in the United States too...

No real guidance was given on what they meant. And where did this info come from?

More on Tenet from Philip Giraldi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Giraldi):

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=10965

And the CIA was "end runned" by the OSP. That office was formed specifically to collect every wild allegation about Iraq, regardless of source, piece togehter a tale and then pump the info out to the media. That operation was deisgned in part to put pressure on or undercut the career analysts at CIA because they generally do not run a PR operation with their analysis or work in progress.

 

['79 Saints]

Good discussion 79, I think we're really talking abou the heart of the matter We disagree, but you raise good and interesting points.

It's not that simple. I don't think the national interest is being served.

Here's where will vehemently disagree. Only a small % of people will benefit. In essence, the United States foreign policy in Iraq will only benefit large oil companies. You, I or anybody else won't benefit. Further, from an energy policy standpoint, it's absolutely silly to open up another foreign source of oil to become more dependent on.

If Iraq becomes peaceful to start the drilling, and the United States becomes more dependen on Iraq for oil. What happens when or if instability returns? Should the United States bail out and/or occupy Iraq just to get the oil flowing? And how will ordinary consumers benefit?

From an energy policy standpoint, it's absolute insanity. And then there's the issue of terrorism--how much "blowback" will take place because of the continued U.S. military occupation? In the process of getting the oil, we'll create more problems with jihadits intent on murdering U.S. soldiers, contractors, and U.S. citizens because the perception will be that the U.S. had/has only interest in Iraq's oil.

It's an absolutely terrible foreign policy from a military standpoint and an energy policy standpoint. And then there's the whole issue of American military sacrifice for such a small interest such as big oil.

Thanks for the compliment, and let me say that you have presented your case(s) in a clear, well-thoughout manner w/o resorting to links to obvious anti-Bush sites (i.e. "The Nation") as so many other "sparring partners" I've had in the past on other debate boards.

But an increased supply of oil would benefit consumers, because it could drive down the price with increased stability in the region.

But the larger issue of oil dependence... we've discussed this before, but ultimately another source of cheap, plentiful, reliable energy is the only way one can wean the world off of oil. Oil drives the world economy, not just the United States.

So yeah, while it does sound like an insane policy of "blood for oil", ultimately the United States is protecting the global interests of at least the Western world -if not the increased demand in the growing economies of China and India.

Therefore, it isn't a "small interest", but rather one of the largest, next to perhaps food or potable water -because, as we have seen with fears of a global recession, what happens is one part of the world has a direct impact upon the United States.

Take a typical 401K an employee: if he or she has investments in precious metals (gold, copper) or raw materials (oil, steel), these types of policies directly impact one's personal investment portfolio... and we haven't even hit on the day traders and so forth.

I know this is really taking this thread on a different track, but that's why I always had a hard time swallowing John Edwards' "Two Americas" spiel... it's more like "216 billion Americas" because so many different people have different interests and different personal economies.

So to say only an elite few would truly benefit from an American presence in Iraq is not quite accurate, because "Joe-six-pack" may have an investment in Halliburton -or a company that does buisness with Halliburton, and he'll benefit from the increased profitability of said company.

I look at the world as being far more complex and far more interrelated than the old "Robber Barons" era of the early 20th century.. and some of the arguments being presented reminded me of that time.

I agree with you basic ideal: we need an energy policy that isn't so dependant on foreign oil -but Americans (heck, most of the developed world) have developed a lifestyle that is dependant on cheap, plentiful energy. Therefore, austerity programs to change said lifestyle would only result in resentment, suspicion that someone "out there" is getting away with a more extravagant lifestyle (next to greed, envy is perhaps the most common deadly sin in the world) and so on.

I guess that's why I figure there will be more wars for oil (or some other economic interest), so the best one can hope for is at least some of one's ideals are carried out in the reconstruction.

 

[champ76]

Again, somewhere in this thread I pointedout that Tenet at the top -- a political appointee -- had the authority to also emphasize or de-emphasize intel. Tenet chose to tell his boss what he wanted to hear and de-emphasized dissent.
The rap everyone wants to give the CIA as whole on this is moreso a rap on the informaiton filter that was George Tenet.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but that was Tenet's job to be that "filter," and woe unto the President who disregards the advice of his chief spook and something bad happens as a consequence. That does not make the people who relied on that advice "liars." That is the only point I want to make.

 

['79 Saints]

I would advise you to read some history. That is not the case. Go back beyond 1967, a year in which, incidentally, it was Israel that attacked Arabs and not vice versa.

Your misinterpration of history aside, even if Israel was completely in its rights to attack the Arabs in 1967, they have no right to colonize occupied land, confiscate land from Arabs or to expel native populations. That is squarely in violation of international law and it helps feed terrorism that endangers Americans.

My position on Israel is exactly the offical position of the U.S. government.

Actually, I have a degree in history/poli sci/English and one of the classes I took was on the Arab-Israeli conflict... you mention the Six Day war... but what about the other wars where the Arabs attacked the Israelis?

Oh, and here's a write-up on the Six Day War: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/67_War.html

Of course, since it is from a Jewish POV, it is suspect...

The "occupied" territories were lost as a result of the war...which is no different that happens to any other nation that loses a war over territory.

Israel has been more than willing to withdraw from the occupied territories under the condition of security.

Just because I take a pro-Israel stance, doesn't mean I'm ignorant of history. Abolishing the state of Israel wouldn't end terrorism...those who advocate terrorism will find another reason to continue to push for whatever they want.

I don't buy that argument that the Israelis have to capitulate to terrorists. Put the clamps on the terrorist groups to alleviate Israel's security issues and Israel will continue to withdraw from those occupied territories.

As far as official U.S. policy, it changes with each administration... they do pressure Israel to conceed on issues such as settlements in the occupied territories, but it seems every time the U.S. and Israel agree to something, some idiot leader in an Arab nation starts rattling his saber about destroying Israel or wiping out the Jews, etc. and the whole process starts all over again.

 

[blackadder]

Actually, I have a degree in history/poli sci/English and one of the classes I took was on the Arab-Israeli conflict... you mention the Six Day war... but what about the other wars where the Arabs attacked the Israelis?

Oh, and here's a write-up on the Six Day War: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/67_War.html

Of course, since it is from a Jewish POV, it is suspect...

The "occupied" territories were lost as a result of the war...which is no different that happens to any other nation that loses a war over territory.

Israel has been more than willing to withdraw from the occupied territories under the condition of security.

Just because I take a pro-Israel stance, doesn't mean I'm ignorant of history. Abolishing the state of Israel wouldn't end terrorism...those who advocate terrorism will find another reason to continue to push for whatever they want.

I don't buy that argument that the Israelis have to capitulate to terrorists. Put the clamps on the terrorist groups to alleviate Israel's security issues and Israel will continue to withdraw from those occupied territories.

As far as official U.S. policy, it changes with each administration... they do pressure Israel to conceed on issues such as settlements in the occupied territories, but it seems every time the U.S. and Israel agree to something, some idiot leader in an Arab nation starts rattling his saber about destroying Israel or wiping out the Jews, etc. and the whole process starts all over again.

The only other instance where the Arab governments launched a massive surprise attack was the Yom Kippur war in 1973 when Egypt and Syria attacked with the very specific and limited objectives of regaining territory Israel had taken from them in 1967.

Otherwise the record is not so clear cut. In 1948 the surrounding Arab countries intervened in an ongoing crisis in Palestine. You can do a little research into something called "Plan Dalet" also known as Plan Daleth or Zionist Plan D.

There was an escalating civil war in Palestine in 1947-48. Jewish forces, some irregular military, others outright terrorists, undertook a deliberate policy of violence and intimidation to drive Arabs out of Palestine. By Mid May when Arab armies entered Palestine, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians refugees were streaming into Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt, driven out by violence and threats of violence, They were NOT told to leave. That is a myth.

Once the Arab forces intervened they were able to do no better than hold the Zionist forces out of the West Bank and Gaza. They were outclassed by the Jewish forces in every way.

After that, you had the 1956 Suez crisis, when the Israelis attacked Egypt without provocation and invaded the Sinai. Israel only withdrew when Eisenhower forced them to with threats of curtailing aid.

Then that brings us to 1967, when the Israelis again launched a surprise attack against three Arab countries based on trumped charges that "they were going to attack so we had to do it first." The Arabs were not going to attack.

Then you get to 1973. After 5 or 6 years of trying to open negotiations for return of their territory but being rebuffed by Israel, Egypt and Syria launched the Yom Kippur war. They were defeated when Nixon ordered emergency military supplies airlifted to Israel.

Then we get to 1982, when Israel attacked Lebanon. Their excuse was that an Israeli official was murdered in London by Abu Nidal, who was freelancing (he had broken off of the PLO). Israel chose to use this event a pretext to put in motion long standing plans for Lebanon.

Only one clear cut instance where Arabs attacked Israel.

Under international law an occupying power is not allowed to colonize. Transferring new population in by force or old population out by force is illegal. That is our position but we do not enforce it with regard to Israel. Israel is colonizing the West Bank and squeezing out the native population.

Israel has never been willing to withdraw from "Judea and Samaria" or the Golan Heights. Many deals have been offered by the Arabs but Israel does not respond to these offers because they do not wish to negotiate. It wishes to continue the status quo, which is to move Jewish settlers into the midst of the Arabs until they are squeezed out and a viable Palestinian state is physically impossible.

No one is talking about abolishing Israel just getting them to stop stirring the hornet's nest and learn to be satisfied with what they have, which is substantially more than they were granted in the original U.N. partition plan.

As for "capitulating to terror," Israel itself was formed through a capitulation to terror on the part of the Brits. Zionist terror groups were waging a war on the Brits from '45-'48. The Brits appeased, ran away and allowed the Israelis take over Palestine and over-rule the wishes of the native Arab population.

In fact, terror was introduced to Palestine by the Zionists -- Lehi, Stern Gang and the Irgun. The P.L.O. took its cues from Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. The Jews taught the Arabs quite well the effectiveness of political violence.

Time for both to let it go.

 

['79 Saints]

You forgot to mention Golda Mier (sp?)

Intersting perspective... my opinions, of course, are slanted more toward the Jewish state, because each of these wars precluded terror attacks on civilians and bellicose statments made by Arab leaders calling for the elimination of Israel.

I also don't blame the Israelis from being unwilling to withdraw from the occupied territories, because their enemies are unwilling to guarentee the safety of the Israeli people w/o those territories as buffer zones.

Israel has already destroyed their settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. They retunred the Sinai after Egypt agreed to recognize Israeli's right to exist (not because there wasn't any oil). Israel has already agreed to accept a Palestinian state, even with the PLO as the ruling party.

I agree it is time for both to let go, but the Arab nations have been more unwilling to shut down their terror groups. They continue to fund them on the side to prevent said groups from overthrowing the ruling classes of Saudi Arabia, Jordan et al.

They have created a monster that they can no longer control... so they keep feeding it for their own political survival. The Israelis know this, so they a cynical or outright reject any roadmaps to peace.

 

[blackadder]

You forgot to mention Golda Mier (sp?)

Intersting perspective... my opinions, of course, are slanted more toward the Jewish state, because each of these wars precluded terror attacks on civilians and bellicose statments made by Arab leaders calling for the elimination of Israel.

I also don't blame the Israelis from being unwilling to withdraw from the occupied territories, because their enemies are unwilling to guarentee the safety of the Israeli people w/o those territories as buffer zones.

Israel has already destroyed their settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. They retunred the Sinai after Egypt agreed to recognize Israeli's right to exist (not because there wasn't any oil). Israel has already agreed to accept a Palestinian state, even with the PLO as the ruling party.

I agree it is time for both to let go, but the Arab nations have been more unwilling to shut down their terror groups. They continue to fund them on the side to prevent said groups from overthrowing the ruling classes of Saudi Arabia, Jordan et al.

They have created a monster that they can no longer control... so they keep feeding it for their own political survival. The Israelis know this, so they a cynical or outright reject any roadmaps to peace.

The Israelis played a pretty much equal role in beginning the cycle of terrorism in the 30s and 40s. Bombings of open air Arab markets, Bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, assassination of Folke Bernadotte, terrorism against the British, Dier Yassin massacre of civilians, etc. They just managed to get the upper hand and press reset on the clock of history. You are not supposed to remember anything that happened before the P.L.O.

If you've ever seen the movie "Munich" they did a nice allusion to this. There is a scene where the Mossad assassins are talking about the conflict and one of the Mossad agents asks "How do you think we got the land?" Spielberg was in hot water with the pro-Israel crowd for that for a while...

Anyway, Israel pulled about 7,000 settlers out from the heart of the Gaza strip. Other than that nothing has changed. They control the borders, coast, airspace and daily physical movements of the Arab population. Whatever it may do, that will not end terrorism.

In the West Bank they have only removed a few "unauthorized" settlements with great fanfare and publicity. But at the same time they expand the existing "authorized" settlements in violation of their promises to the United States Government. It is just a shell game. Settler population continues to rise. Every expansion in the West Bank comes at the expense of the Arabs. They lose land, olive groves and access to water and are more likely to support terror/resistance, however you wish to characterize it.

The Arab League has offered, several times, full recognition and normalization of relations with Israel if they end the occupation, but Israel will not respond to the offer. Syria is begging for a peace deal. Israel does not pick up the phone.

It's just a game. Speak about peace and a Palestinian state, pay lip service to the concept, but in terms of actions continue to pursue policies on the ground that "create facts" and in the long run make this "state" impossible.

To the extent the American government is subsidizing this charade, we are getting played.

 

['79 Saints]

The Israelis played a pretty much equal role in beginning the cycle of terrorism in the 30s and 40s. Bombings of open air Arab markets, Bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, assasination of Folke Brnadatte, terrorism against the British, Dier Yassin massacre of civilians, etc. They just managed to get the upper hand and press reset on the clock of history. You are not supposed to remember anything that happened before the P.L.O.

If you've ever seen the movie "Munich" they did a nice allusion to this. There is a scene where the Mossad assassins are talking about the conflict and one of the Mossad agents asks "How do you think we got the land?" Spielberg was in hot water with the pro-Israel crowd for that for a while...

Anyway, Israel pulled about 7,000 settlers out from the heart of the Gaza strip. Other than that nothing has changed. They control the borders, coast, asirspace and daily physical movements of the Arab population. Whatever it may do, that will not end terrorism.

In the West Bank they have only removed a few "unauthroized" settlments with great fanfare and publicity. But at the same time they expand the existing "authorized" settlements in violation of thier promisies to the United States Government. It is just a shell game. Settler population continues to rise. Every expansion in the West Bank comes at the expense of the Arabs. They lose land, olive groves and access to water and are more likely to support terror/resistance, however you wish to charachterize it.

The Arab League has offered, several times, full recognition and normalization of relations with Israel is they end the occupation, but Israel will not respond to the offer. Syria is begging for a peace deal. Israel does not pick up the phone.

It's just a game. Speak about peace and a Palestinian state, pay lips service to the concept, but in terms of actions continue to pursue polciies on the ground that "create facts" and in the long run make this state impossible.

To the extent the American government is subsidizing this charade, we are getting played.

Because Syria cannto be trusted... I wouldn't pick up the phone either. They still view Lebanon as "Lower Syria".

Again, the Arab league doesn't have legitimate control over terror groups... they can guarentee everything Israel is asking for, and Haamas, Hezbolla or insert your terror group here will continue to attack Israelis until they achieve their goals which may be independent of the leaders of Arab nations' goals and objectives.