Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Choosing Ignorance (NYT finally acknowledges the Saddam documents--if only to dismiss them)
Weekly Standard ^ | 03/28/2006 | Stephen F. Hayes

Posted on 03/28/2006 12:36:12 PM PST by tellw

THE NEW YORK TIMES today joined the debate about Iraqi documents with a front-page news article and an op-ed by Peter Bergen. It's been nearly two weeks since the first documents were released, but a belated acknowledgement of the news is better than nothing. One might have expected such a longtime champion of open government as the Times to have aggressively led the effort to have these once-secret documents released. Not this time.

The front-page story seeks to dismiss the importance of the documents while the op-ed by Bergen seems to find them only significant enough to warrant an attempted deconstruction. Both of these efforts fail badly. Reading the two pieces together, one gets the unmistakable impression that the Times doesn't want to know more about the documents, their contents and what they tell us about prewar Iraq. The Times, it seems, has chosen ignorance.

The news piece deserves little in the way of a response. Reporter Scott Shane casts the story as a battle between diehard supporters of the Bush administration and the truth, noting most helpfully that in other Internet projects "volunteers have tested software, scanned chemical compounds for useful drugs and even searched radiotelescope data for signals from extraterrestrial life."

Shane ignores the mostly-thoughtful commentary and analysis of the documents and chooses to quote an exuberant conservative blogger proclaiming that one document shows that Iraq had WMD and connections to terrorism, only to knock that claim down later. "The anthrax document . . . does not seem to prove much," Shane writes. And he liberally sprinkles his piece with quotes from anonymous intelligence officials who downplay the significance of the document release. (In one case, Shane names the intelligence official, Michael Scheuer, but neglects to include any mention of Scheuer's self-contradictory analysis of Iraq and terrorism or any reminder that Scheuer might not be a disinterested party.)

Lost on Shane, it seems, is that these documents were released in large part so that we would no longer have to rely on the opinions of anonymous intelligence officials who, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee's bipartisan report, knew very little about Iraq before the war. It should hardly be surprising that the U.S. intelligence community would seek to downplay the significance of these documents after paying them little attention for three years. In any case, the release of the documents allows the debate to move from speculation to fact. It is a development one would expect the Times to welcome.

MORE BIZARRE than the Times's news piece is Bergen's op-ed on Iraq and terrorism. Bergen has long argued that religious and ideological differences between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein would preclude their cooperation. Despite new evidence that renders this view, at best, anachronistic, Bergen is not persuaded. The pull-quote accompanying his op-ed asks this quaint question: "Why would Saddam help al Qaeda?"

An internal Iraqi Intelligence memo that Bergen describes as "one of the most credible documents," and was first reported by the Times in 2004, suggests that a better question is: "Why did Saddam help al Qaeda?" According to the document, Saddam Hussein personally approved bin Laden's request--made in a face-to-face meeting with Iraqi intelligence--to rebroadcast al Qaeda's anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi airwaves. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether this is significant cooperation. What is indisputable from this document, though, is that bin Laden sought cooperation from the Iraqis and the Iraqis, at least in a limited way, agreed to provide it.

The Iraqis left open their response to bin Laden's second request, to carry out "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to a U.S. government translation, the Iraqi memo said: "We were left to develop the relationship and the cooperation between the two sides to see what other doors of cooperation and agreement open up."

DID OTHER DOORS of cooperation open up? Bergen thinks he knows. "The results of this meeting were . . . nothing." Really? Even if one accepts Bergen's claim that Iraq had nothing to do with two subsequent attacks on U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, does that show that nothing came of the meeting? Hardly.

Bergen tells us that the second of those attacks, the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, was carried out "by the Saudi branch of Hezbollah, a Shiite group aided by Iranian government officials." Once again, the implication is that ideological and religious differences make cooperation unthinkable.

But the very document that includes bin Laden's requests also shows that Saudi Hezbollah was one of four Saudi opposition groups from which the Iraqi regime sought cooperation. Indeed, the regime did not foreclose the possibility of working with Saudi Hezbollah. The memo notes that the Iraqi representative was told to "proceed cautiously" with those discussions for fear of having the Iraqi regime's "intentions" compromised.

4. The Saudi Hezbollah

A. Various meetings took place between the representative of the Honorable Directorate of Intelligence Services Office, our Ambassador in Yemen in 1993, and with the leader of the Yemeni Hezbollah (Abdallah Ajinah). [Abdallah Ajinah] expressed willingness to obtain a secret meeting in Yemen between the representative [of IIS] and some of the members of the leadership of the Saudi Hezbollah.

B. Due to the doubt and indications that Ajinah has a relationship with the Iranian intelligence, the representative was directed to proceed cautiously in dealing with the above mentioned. To listen to what he presents only, in anticipation of the above mentioned being pressured by the Iranian intelligence to reveal our intentions of the Saudi opposition and then passing the information on to the Saudi side.

What, exactly, did the Iraqis mean by "our intentions of the Saudi opposition?" We don't know, but one might think that the Times would be interested.

Bergen continues: "Another striking feature about the supposed Qaeda-Iraq connection is that since the fall of the Taliban, not one of the thousands of documents found in Afghanistan substantiate such an alliance, even though al Qaeda was a highly bureaucratized organization that required potential recruits to fill out application forms."

Leaving aside the relevance of al Qaeda application forms, there are two points to make. First, hard as it might be to believe, the U.S. intelligence community has only recently begun to exploit many of the documents captured in Afghanistan. In a report that aired on National Public Radio on March 14, 2006, reporter Jackie Northam interviewed Major General Jay Hood, the commanding officer of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Here is the relevant part of that exchange:

Major General HOOD: Jackie, we're going to go in and look here in a minute at what's called our evidence locker. It's a . . .

NORTHAM: This evidence locker is a long, low building that overlooks the blue waters of the Caribbean. For the first time, a journalist is allowed to go inside. Metal shelves crammed with dark green boxes fill the cavernous room. In them are more than 120,000 documents.

Major General HOOD: Captured telephone records, captured notebooks with all sorts of engineering data in them, both real and forged money.

NORTHAM: General Hood says when the detainees were captured about four years ago, the evidence was gathered up and stuffed into garbage bags and boxes.

Major General HOOD: It was hastily inventoried, stacked up, sealed and was transported here to Guantanamo. Frankly, it's just in the last year that we've been able to take a closer look at exactly what we've got here.

One document captured in postwar Afghanistan and released with 27 others in February, is filed as AFGP-2002-601693, and called "Status of Jihad." The letter between two al Qaeda terrorists (of apparently high rank) makes several references to connections between the Islamists and Iraq. One passage notes that bin Laden's chief deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, "went to Iraq and Iran" seeking support. Even the 9/11 Commission, which as Bergen points out was skeptical of any "collaborative operational relationship," allowed that Zawahiri had "contacts of his own" to the Iraqis.

It is worth noting that two 9/11 Commissioners also see value in the Iraqi Intelligence documents. The day after the 9/11 report was released, Commissioner John Lehman offered this prophetic warning in an interview with THE WEEKLY STANDARD: "There may well be--and probably will be--additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as, nor meant to be, the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities."

Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator who also served as a 9/11 Commissioner, recently told Eli Lake of the New York Sun that the Iraqi Intelligence documents offer "a very significant set of facts." While cautioning that the documents don't tie Saddam to 9/11, Kerrey added that they do tie Saddam to "a circle that meant to damage the United States."

As U.S. News & World Report first reported, one high-ranking Iraqi military official told U.S. interrogators that the Iraqi regime provided Zawahiri with $300,000 in 1998. Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi claimed to have seen documents showing that Zawahiri had been in Iraq for a gathering of Islamists in 1999. Allawi was recently back on the front pages of U.S. newspapers with his claim that Iraq was in the midst of a civil war, but the American media has showed far less interest in his oft-repeated claims that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda.

Bergen ends his piece by reminding us that bin Laden offered to fight against Saddam Hussein's Iraq before the first Gulf War, noting that "months before the Kuwait invasion in 1990 [bin Laden] angrily warned colleagues that Iraq had designs on Persian Gulf states." This is true, and suggests that the on-again, off-again relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda was based on mutual exploitation rather than mutual admiration. But Bergen fails to acknowledge that another captured Iraqi document, this one from 1992 and authenticated by the Defense Intelligence Agency, reveals that the Iraqis considered Osama bin Laden an Iraqi Intelligence asset who had good relations with the Iraqi intelligence station in Damascus, Syria.

Why leave this out?

Many questions remain. What came of Iraq's outreach to Saudi opposition groups? Are Allawi's documents authentic? What of Zawahiri's "contacts of his own" with the Iraqis? Did Iraq pass money to Zawahiri or other al Qaeda associates? Who were the "non-Iraqi Arabs" the regime trained in Iraq beginning in 1998?

It would be nice to know more. Unless, of course, you're The New York Times.

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: iraq; iraqiintelligence; mediabias; prewardocs

1 posted on 03/28/2006 12:36:14 PM PST by tellw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething

Ping aling


2 posted on 03/28/2006 12:37:37 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tellw
The NY Times article on these documents is odd. The Times is living in a strange curiosity-free zone about whatever we can learn.

I guess they don't want any fresh news to get in the way of their ten-thousandth story about Abu Ghraib.

3 posted on 03/28/2006 12:38:42 PM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tellw

Maybe they are "Fake, but accurate".


4 posted on 03/28/2006 12:41:26 PM PST by petercooper (Cemeteries & the ignorant - comprising 2 of the largest Democrat voting blocs for the past 75 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tellw

The news media is going into heavy denial.


5 posted on 03/28/2006 12:42:17 PM PST by capt. norm (If you can't make a mistake, you can't make anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark

Yeah. And Hitler and Stalin would never reach an accord either.


6 posted on 03/28/2006 12:42:32 PM PST by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tellw

Remember this is coming from the Rag that turned a blind eye to such demons like Hitler and Stalin.

What's new with these winnie liberals?


7 posted on 03/28/2006 12:44:19 PM PST by The South Texan (The Democrat Party and the leftist (ABCCBSNBCCNN NYLATIMES)media are a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach; Chena; Valin; M. Thatcher; DocRock; Calpernia; Madame Dufarge; Txsleuth; SwatTeam; ...
Thanks for the ping Peach!

Choosing Ignorance (NYT finally acknowledges the Saddam documents--if only to dismiss them)

Release/Translation of Classified PreWar Docs ping. If you want to be added or removed to the ping list, please Freepmail me.

Please add the keyword prewardocs to any articles pertaining to this subject.

Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents

Also here

Documents from the Harmony Database

jveritas’s blog

8 posted on 03/28/2006 12:46:10 PM PST by eyespysomething
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: petercooper

"An internal Iraqi Intelligence memo that Bergen describes as "one of the most credible documents," and was first reported by the Times in 2004, suggests that a better question is: "Why did Saddam help al Qaeda?"

Because Saddam is a Sunni and Al Queada are mostly Sunni's. And they hate the Shiites.


9 posted on 03/28/2006 12:47:02 PM PST by EQAndyBuzz (To Serve Man......It's a cookbook!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething; tellw

The MSM is working with the democrats on how best to counterattack the legitimacy of the documents. The NY Times, of course, will lead the way.

But this time, the bastards will be soundly defeated in the public square. Spineless traitors.


10 posted on 03/28/2006 12:56:37 PM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: petercooper
Maybe they are "Fake, but accurate".

a lot of that going around in demRAt world

11 posted on 03/28/2006 12:57:32 PM PST by maine-iac7 ("...BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tellw

The Times isnt happy these documents dont fit their agenda.


12 posted on 03/28/2006 12:58:08 PM PST by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjo
Hitler and Stalin would never reach an accord either.

Yes, I agree with you -- such a pact is unthinkable.

And it's equally unthinkable that Stalin would become an ally of the US and the UK a few years later -- we know that could never happen because the ideological obstacles would be insurmountable.

13 posted on 03/28/2006 12:59:10 PM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
The Times isnt happy these documents dont fit their agenda.

Yeah, I think that's a safe assumption.

14 posted on 03/28/2006 1:01:01 PM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tellw
MSM really can't comment too much on these articles.

They have spent Pres. Bush's 2 terms poo-poo'ing the intelligence on Iraq as being whacked.

Yet, now, they have to take the the side of the intelligence that says there is nothing in these documents that change the intelligence.
15 posted on 03/28/2006 1:21:10 PM PST by stylin19a (Do you still have sex or are you already playing golf?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

It would be interesting to know the base assumptions the CIA Middle Eastern analysts start with when looking at data. I would be willing to bet they don't square with reality, which is why these docs threaten these intel folks at their very core.


16 posted on 03/28/2006 1:25:21 PM PST by gov_bean_ counter (Self appointed RNC Press Secretary for Smarmy Sound Bites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
you know what troubles me is, that ever since 911, the Feds have been decrying the lack of translators. It became even more a need when Iraq kicked up.

Where did they get all the translators needed to handle this humongous document\video dump ?

And there is an implication that all these bazillion documents have been looked at...does that even pass the laff test ?
17 posted on 03/28/2006 1:35:27 PM PST by stylin19a (Do you still have sex or are you already playing golf?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tellw

Just another day at the NY Slimes - don't let facts and journalistic integrity get in the way of their Anti-Bush Leftist Agenda.


18 posted on 03/28/2006 1:38:04 PM PST by Daytyn71 (Today's Illegals are Tomorrow's Democrats!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a; jveritas

You're kidding, right? They were released untranslated. We owe great thanks to individuals like jveritas for translating them.


19 posted on 03/28/2006 1:53:33 PM PST by MizSterious (Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
The NYT's sounding more and more like just another one of Saddam's defense lawyers.

Torturing logic and tap dancing like mad.

20 posted on 03/28/2006 2:07:40 PM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Am I kidding ? about what ? that the documents were\weren't looked at ? From the Fed document download web site.

The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available.

Explain how these documents get an english description if they weren't looked at ?
21 posted on 03/28/2006 2:16:51 PM PST by stylin19a (Do you still have sex or are you already playing golf?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tellw

The Times was already ignorant!


22 posted on 03/28/2006 5:37:01 PM PST by CyberAnt (Democrats/Old Media: "controversy, crap and confusion" -- Amen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tellw

Anyone who understands anything about the ME knows what strange alliances of convenience are made.

How about Baathist Syria and Ayatollah Iran.


23 posted on 03/28/2006 9:46:10 PM PST by dervish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

That is not why.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hatred of the US fed their relationship.


24 posted on 03/28/2006 9:48:59 PM PST by dervish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dervish

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hatred of the US fed their relationship."

Saddam hated the Shiites for years before we got involved with this. The Al Queada on 9/11 were Sunnis. 15 from Saudi Arabia. Iran's Shiite influence is what is causing all the problems.

Bottom line is they all are animals. We should finish off the Sunnis, go after Iran and Al Sadr let the Kurds have it all.


25 posted on 03/29/2006 6:25:45 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (To Serve Man......It's a cookbook!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Why did Saddam help al Qaeda?"

Perhaps it was because Joined Iraq and declared war on our Republic in 1998.

IIRC Operation Desert Storm ended in a truce, We were in a state of war with Saddam until Op Iraqi Freedom.

26 posted on 03/29/2006 6:35:36 AM PST by TeleStraightShooter (The Right To Take Life is NOT a Constitutional "Liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

"Bottom line is they all are animals. We should finish off the Sunnis, go after Iran and Al Sadr let the Kurds have it all."

Absolutely.


27 posted on 03/29/2006 7:43:00 AM PST by dervish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TeleStraightShooter
IIRC Operation Desert Storm ended in a truce, We were in a state of war with Saddam until Op Iraqi Freedom.

A truce with conditions similar to "parole." Iraq was NOT a sovereign nation. --Just as here a parolee's abode can be searched without warrant, so could Saddam's. The docs and tapes contian instances of Saddam stating that Iraq was "at war" with US.

Saddam was not a secular ruler. His Baathist gov was not mosque run, but it built mosques using state funds (and stone from Assyrian archeological sites). But even if Saddam had been secular that would have in no way prevented him from using Al-Qaeda to carry out proxy attacks.

28 posted on 03/29/2006 9:42:39 AM PST by Poincare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson