Skip to comments.WSJ: Saddam-terrorist connections get no media coverage
Posted on 03/24/2008 3:07:02 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Wall Street Journals editors took the time to read the Pentagon report on the connections between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups, and wonder why the national media have ignored the story. The analysis of the Harmony documents got initially misreported, and after the Pentagon released the full analysis, few if any news agencies opted to correct the initial distortions they published and the WSJ says that leaves Americans misinformed:
Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraqs links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.
Naturally, its getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions, while the Bush Administration seems indifferent. Even John McCain has let the studys revelations float by. But that doesnt make the facts any less notable or true.
We covered the misrepresentations earlier in these posts. In one, I used the title that should have been used to headline this story: Saddam supported at least two al-Qaeda groups. That was the lede that the American media buried, thanks to a distortion that came from an anonymous Pentagon source that took one sentence from the executive summary out of context and a curious reluctance to address the actual evidence that the report highlights.
The Journal wonders what the media needs to report this story correctly.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
More trenchantly, it wonders why the Bush administration hasnt pressed the story harder. It almost appears as if the White House has surrendered the entire contemporary narrative on Iraq to the distorters and hope to have historians pull their chestnuts from the fire a generation from now. Maybe that will happen, but in the meantime, were fighting terrorists now. We need to shine a bright light on the Harmony evidence, not just to correct the record for this administration but to underscore the role Iraq played in fomenting both pan-Arabist secular and radical Islamist terrorism before the invasion brought it to an end.
FR Thread with WSJ Story and a huge list of links regarding the links of Saddam and Terror....
Sorry, it doesn’t fit the agenda.
The administration’s inability, or unwillingness, to communicate effectively concerning the war has been one of its biggest failings.
The first front in any war is the war of words.
for later reading
The administrations inability, or unwillingness, to communicate effectively concerning the war has been one of its biggest failings. The first front in any war is the war of words.
For all of Romney's problems, and they were substantial, I loved listening to him. Finally, an articulate Republican who could think on his feet, who effortlessly countered the MSM's propaganda! It was such a pleasure to see liberal reporters get that deer-in-the-headlights look, instead of seeing in on the leader of the Republican Party.
Bush does not even try to defend his perfectly reasonable policies, including the Iraq invasion. I bet that he counts the days until he can be back on his ranch. I know I do.
Should be “seeing it” instead of “seeing in.”
Well, I have to differ with you on that one. I can’t stand to listen to Romney...because I don’t believe one word he says. Nothing he had to say in this election cycle bore any resemblance to his actual record. It was simply a set of talking points put into his mouth by consultants.
He’s slick alright, but completely untrustworthy.
He also has a smarminess I find off-putting.
I hear you, but I am more than fed up with an administration that receives broadside after broadside from the MSM, and responds with inappropriate grins. At this point, a smarmy, insincere, untrustworthy politician who is ready, willing, and able to engage the MSM enemy looks pretty good to me. That said, I do not support Romney for VP, because he divides the party.
The Wall Street Journal's editors took the time to read the Pentagon report on the connections between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups, and wonder why the national media have ignored the story. The analysis of the Harmony documents got initially misreported,Gee, I can't imagine why that happened.
Saddam, the terrorist’s friend
Newly published Iraqi documents reveal just how extensive Saddam’s involvement with international terrorism was. The summary of these documents, published under the heading Saddam and Terrorism, has been reported across the world and read by almost no one.Its first paragraph reads: “The Iraqi Perspectives Project review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the US.
“At times these organisations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements.”
We get too little real journalism about these subjects and too much “churnalism”, in which a single sometimes misleading wire report is repeated by thousands of commentators while nobody bothers to read the source document.
The world was misled about this report because of the focus on one single sentence of the report, which said: “This study found no smoking gun (that is, a direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al-Qa’ida.”
However, the report does portray a vast network of Iraqi support for terrorist organisations that includes numerous groups the report identifies as “part of al-Qa’ida”. The misleading and declaratory sentence presumably refers only to Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida central itself. For example, the report states: “Captured documents reveal that the regime (of Saddam) was willing to co-opt or support organisations it knew to be part of al-Qa’ida, as long as that organisation’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s long-term vision.” This included, for example, Saddam providing financial support for Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s deputy.
Acknowledging this support, but saying there’s no smoking gun directly to al-Qa’ida itself, means the report is taking an incredibly restrictive and precise view of al-Qa’ida.
But in any event this report is not claiming, as wrongly reported in the wires, that there was no link with al-Qa’ida, merely that it found no absolute smoking gun in the translated documents...
Were you referring to Rumsfeld?
Is anyone surprised....
Hm, now that you mention it...
Not so much. It is (or was) primarily Bush's job to effectively explain and defend his policies.
I watched the two and a half hour FRONTLINE PBS report last night titled Bush’s War. What a hatchet job on the pres and is staff. As usual they put out some facts, half facts, and ignored what they wanted the public to not consider.