Posted on 06/17/2004 1:36:38 AM PDT by kattracks
As newspaper headlines are sure to scream in page one, above-the-fold stories, the 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Saddam played a role in the terrorist attack.
But what you won't hear is that Saddam's possible role in 9/11 had little to do with the case for war in Iraq.
Quite simply, war was waged in Iraq to prevent another 9/11. Apparently, this is too much nuance for most of the media to handle.
Did the administration make Iraq's substantial terrorist ties, including to al Qaeda, one of the primary reasons for going to war? Of course. But did the administration try to pin 9/11 on Saddam? No.
Yet the casual reader probably couldn't glean that from the initial media reaction to the commission's interim report.
Nor could the casual reader discern that the "news" on Iraq was but one paragraph in a 12-page document.
Reuters newswire, the outlet where al Qaeda is merely an "extremist network," pronounced in its headline, "Panel says no signs on Iraq, Qaeda link." The headline writer, though, must have missed the second paragraph, which acknowledged that the commission found that bin Laden himself had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994.
The Associated Press was no better, and in fact, played a more overtly political hand. Its lead sentence stated that the commission's report was "[b]luntly contradicting the Bush administration." Except that it wasn't.
The primary "contradiction" contained in the report is that the panel has a different view of the credibility of the evidence suggesting a meeting between 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague. Vice President Cheney has presented this meeting as a possibility, but he never claimed that it was ironclad.
The AP headline, though, was even more troubling. It stated that the commission found that "Iraq Rebuffed al Qaeda." But that's simply not the case. The report failed to find evidence that the 1994 meeting produced substantial follow-up, but that is a far cry from a "rebuff."
Obviously, if the administration had made the case for war based on Saddam actively supporting 9/11, the media would be pulling those quotes. Which explains why the media instead had to distort the administration's words.
Exhibit number one is Vice President Dick Cheney's comment Monday that Saddam had "long-established ties" to al Qaeda. The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin, for example, claimed that Cheney's statement was "at odds" with the commission report.
But the commission report noted that Saddam didn't play a significant role in 9/11, not that he didn't have "long-established ties" to al Qaeda. That' s not an unimportant distinction.
Explains 9/11 Commission spokesman Jonathan Stull, "The report doesn't close the book on connections between Iraq and al Qaeda." And how could it, with only one paragraph on the issue?
More important, it couldn't have "closed the book," because Saddam did have "long-established ties" to al Qaeda. The best case to date, in fact, has been made by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard in his new book, "The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America."
Far from some crackpot conspiracy theorist, Hayes is a cautious, seasoned journalist who is careful to add caveats about each piece of evidence. Even though, as he is quick to point out, a number of the stories and events may turn out not to be true, the sheer volume of ties-in terms of both depth and breadth-between Iraq and al Qaeda should leave little doubt that this was a determined, ongoing relationship.
"The Connection" lives up to its title in exploring Saddam's support for and sheltering of one of the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing, as well as extensive meetings between various Iraqi intelligence officials and bin Laden over the years. And recent events serve to
corroborate Hayes' reporting on Zarqawi's substantial Iraqi ties.
Hayes even documents evidence suggesting an agreement for Iraq to aid al Qaeda in developing WMD. The danger is obvious: stockpiles or no, no one disputes Saddam's WMD know-how.
With heaps of evidence documenting at least a substantial relationship, the question becomes: what more do the media need? A photograph of a Saddam-bin Laden tea party?Joel Mowbray (mail@joelmowbray.com) is author of “Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America’s Security.”
The media's dangerous game of intentionally fighting and spinning everything the President does for our protection, just to get him out of power, will eventually come back to bite them in the posterior.
..and it will hurt us and our safety...
Last night in the car I was listening to "CBS Radio Neuse." The newsreader said something to the effect of, "Was there a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda? The Bush Administration has been saying, 'Yes,' for some time. But now the 9-11 Commission has come out and said there is no connection." Gorelick strikes again?
The media couldn't report the truth to save their sorry hides. Now they are flat out making things up. I remember stuff Bush said in the lead up to War.
I remember him saying that Saddam had a connection to terrorists. Which he did, the two terrorist training camps they found in Iraq are pretty good evidence of that. Not to mention is payouts to those families of suicide bombers (wonder how much of that UN oil for food scandal money went to that) I don't recall, however, Bush coming out everyday and saying al Qaeda, as the media now seems to be claiming. As a matter of fact, when the media misrepresented what Cheney said that time about terrorists and 9-11, Bush was the one saying that there was no direct evidence between Saddam and 9-11. He said that several times. He did mention...as did Commision, that Saddam had one of his intel officers meet with an al Qaeda higher up. And it is interesting how the 9-11 commision has failed to address the incident in Jordan. You know, the one where they stopped a chemical WMD attack that could have killed thousands. Jordan's govt. showed a tape on tv on one of the captured terrorists stating how they were trained in Iraq before the war. Of course if the commision did that they would have point out the high possibility that those chemicals, which had been brought into Jordan from Syria, could have been taken into Syria from Iraq. I'm sure their excuse would be that they are just concerned with 9-11 and not Iraq....which would not explain why they are constantly bringing up Iraq.
They are playing politics...with American Lives. If that whore Gorelicked and her commission pals are allowed to keep this up...they will reach their intended goal of helping their pal Kerry get elected. And more Americans will get killed.
I know that 9/11/01 is fast becoming ancient history, but as I remember things, we went to war in Afghanistan, not Iraq as a direct result of 911. Iraq is certainly an extension of that same policy, but for the media, you'd think Afghanistan did not exist.
Has the panel ever called Richard Miniter?
I need a slightly better article than this to send my mom. She's a potential first time GOP voter. But stuff like this needs to be countered, and I am afraid this article doesn't do it sharply enough. I shall scour FR for a suitable essay today, so long as "work" doesn't get in the way.
The media went beyond spinning this story, they have completely lied about it. The reporting was disgraceful.
Look at it this way, when most folks find out what we already know, the commission's toast. The truth will out.
I remind people that Bush went out there and said "Iraq, Iran, North Korea" then promptly invaded Afghanistan. Kind of like invading Germany after Pearl Hrbor.
Ping me when you find it, I'll do the same.
The pressitutes and propagandist don't care how many Americans are slaughtered by these terrorist as long as it oust Dubya and returns power to the RATS. Technically you could call them traitors.
Bush's first SOTU speech was in 2002. We invaded Afghanistan in Oct. 2001.
Oops, you're right. Thanks for the correction.
Without even looking at your link, I know I need to get that book. I'd read some of the pre-release reviews/summaries. Thanks for the reminder.
This is no different than the way the media treated David Kay's report. Of course, in that case, Kay seemed to be willing to be all things to all people, depending on who was interviewing him.
The Al Quida - Iraq connection was not a “lie”, it was based on the best information available at the time.
I was not supportive of the resumption of war with Iraq, but now that we are there I will support every aspect of it until we are able to honorably (not the “peace with honor” of Viet Nam) withdraw and leave the new Iraq able to defend its self.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.