It's time for a full-on media war, and the stakes are as high as they could possibly be. The Weekly Standard has published a piece by Stephen F. Hayes, aptly titled "Case Closed". The piece is based on "a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD" and it describes how "OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta". It is an absolute must-read, and if you haven't read it you should definitely click on the link regardless of where you stand because it's incredibly important and is going to be discussed all over the blogosphere.
Hayes's report, which is essentially a précis of a memo sent by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, is measured and reasonable. He does not attempt to oversell the intelligence, certainly no "sexing up" here, but even the most skeptical reading leads to the inevitable conclusion that the facile War on Terror/War in Iraq dichotomy which war opponents set up is dead in the water. And should that come as any surprise, given Mr. Zarqawi's presence in Iraq, given Ansar-al-Islam, given the stream of foreign fighters now in Iraq and the Al-Qaeda like tactics our soldiers face there now and faced even during the war itself?
But what of the tired, cramped, and stale argument that because Saddam was supposedly so "secular" he could never make common cause with a group of religious fanatics? This of course entirely ignores the fact that his rhetoric and his actions were growing increasingly Islamist (building the world's biggest Mosque etc.). Also, no one who advances this argument seems to have bothered to wonder why Mr. Bin Laden attacked all the other secular regimes of the Moslem world, either with actual terrorist attacks or at least with words, and always left Saddam Hussein's Iraq alone. He in fact issued a fatwa on the plight of the Iraqi people, blaming their plight not of course on the godlessness of the regime but on the sanctions, the US, Israel etc. Hayes offers some fascinating context as to why that fatwa was issued.
For the anti-war crowd this, of course, will not be enough. Nothing will be enough. After all, the "smoking gun" was supposed to be something about, their current obsession, WMD's right? Well, interestingly enough the majority of the co-operation was in the form of Iraq giving chemical weapons training to Al Qaeda operatives. Must have been with those non-existent chemical weapons I guess. Even without that I think most reasonable people would accept a high level of support for Al-Qaeda in and of itself as sufficient justificiation for removing Saddam Hussein. The Bush Doctrine is clear. The previous approach to dealing with Islamist terrorism, the piecemeal, law-enforcement based, prosecute them after the fact approach, is not acceptable after September 11th. Both the terrorist groups and the states who harbor and support them must be targeted. It's pretty clear from a fair reading of this memo that Saddam Hussein's Iraq harbored some Al-Qaeda members, provided some operational and financial support to Al Qaeda, and some chemical weapons training. Add to that 300,000 in mass graves, contravention of countless UN resolutions, and the fact that virtually everyone thought Iraq had a large and active WMD program, and well, to coin a phrase, Case Closed.
The next stage is the Media War. The NYT, LAT, and the network news have thus far ignored the memo and the Hayes pieced based on it, and there was a brief, dismissive reaction in the Washington Post. This is no surprise, as the Big Media have, in fact, been ignoring these connections all along. Even without the memo someone could have easily written a connect-the-dots piece about this based on widely available sources. In fact, part of the evidence that Hayes cites is from a Newsweek article from 1999. Given Big Media's perfidy regarding this, we must all do whatever we possibly can to keep this story alive.
The reaction among blogs has been so predictable and partisan it's scarcely worth mentioning. One of the more asinine "memes" going around was that this DoD memo was somehow a disavowal by the Defense Department of any Iraq/Al Qaeda link. Josh Chafetz of Oxblog does a good job taking on that one here.
Again, for some people nothing will be enough. In fact, this story has only been picked up by media outlets sympathetic to the war in Iraq, such as the New York Post, Fox News, Washington Times, Drudge, and of course, all like-minded blogs. We have fully entered the age of media fragmentation, and the dropping of any pretense of objectivity. I usually see that as a good thing, but when a story like this, which should be of importance to every American regardless of their politics, is completely ignored by Big Media, and only picked up by partisans of one side (like myself) I wonder.
UPDATE: Captain Ed is starting a laudable effort challenging bloggers to post on this daily and promising to link to all those posts. Andrew Sullivan is "alternately perplexed and not surprised at all" by Big Media's silence. Glenn Reynolds is quite cynical about it: "But, you see, it has been decided that 'Bush lied' in suggesting a Saddam / Al Qaeda connection, and mere evidence can't be allowed to get in the way of such a trope. Especially with less than a year until the election." I tend to agree that that's the reason the story is being ignored. That's the reason we have to do everything we can through blogs.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Roger L. Simon, who's been on this story from the beginning, has further thoughts:
But, arguendo, let’s say only one-third of Feith’s fifty points stand up. Does that mean there was no Saddam/al Qaeda connection? No, on the contrary, it means that there was. (And this leaves aside all the unexamined material now in CIA hands, which apparently runs from Baghdad to Brooklyn.)
So now, if you will, imagine, my fellow citizens, what might have happened in a world in which the United States had not acted against the Saddam after the Taliban were overthrown in Afghanistan. I don’t think I have to conjure this up for you in particular. Just think about what’s going on in Iraq now and multiply that by, say, twenty… or a hundred. In the land of the enemy of my enemy is my friend… anything is possible.
There has been no serious engagement this memo. There has only been facile critiques of Feith's possible agenda, and overinterpretations of the DoD's non denial, and, of course, silence.
NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Pentagon Questions Reports on Osama-Saddam Ties
Some Outlets Run With 'Weekly Standard' Story
By Seth Porges
NEW YORK -- Updated at 11 a.m. ET, Nov. 19
Several newspapers and other media outlets had egg on their face Monday after reporting or endorsing a Weekly Standard story revealing new evidence of an "operational relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.
Several outlets, including the New York Post, The Washington Times and FOX News, ran with the story. There was just one problem: On Saturday, the Pentagon issued a press release stating that "news reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq ... are inaccurate."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2030480
Posted by: horace | November 19, 2003 at 05:33 PM
I can't believe anyone is still flogging that crap from editor and publisher, or that they haven't corrected that calumny by now. The little piece of drivel you link quotes very selectively from the Pentagon memo, which is here:
http://www.dod.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html
Read it, so you can see for yourself, but I think the memo doesn't come anywhere close to denying the idea of a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. It's mostly a pro forma assertion that leaking is bad, along with a statement that the memo is just raw data that doesn't come to any conclusions, which is pretty much the argument of the Hayes piece itself.
Josh Chafetz of Oxblog explains this perfectly here:
http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2003_11_16_oxblog_archive.html#106898620399950250
And Hayes himself has now responded to the memo here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/396hflxy.asp
You owe it to yourself to read all of these things before making up your mind on this very important matter. That Editor and Publisher bit is very poor journalism.
Posted by: Eric Deamer | November 19, 2003 at 11:51 PM
My problem with the DOD memo is its wording, but the same can be said about Case Closed. While “inaccurate” isn’t specific, neither is the strength of the sources in Case Closed.
Though the article does quote the memo as saying a certain source was “well placed” it does not
indicate if “well placed” was from the bold-type intelligence reporting, or the plain-type
analysis; or from the separate evaluation of the source (which some paragraphs featured,
according to the article), the key distinction of quality.
The importance of the DOD’s memo is that it says the internal document “drew no conclusions.”
If any of the information – especially regarding the important matters, such as bomb making and
training – were definite, I doubt the DOD would deny it. Hell, I doubt the DOD would miss any
chance to bolster support.
Also, the article notes a 1998 Bin Laden speech as further proof of the relationship – “Four days
later, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden issued his now-famous fatwa on the plight of Iraq,
published in the Arabic-language daily,” – but ignores a Feb 2002 speech in which Bin laden calls
Saddam an infidel. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm
Case Closed is certainly not an open and shut matter.
Posted by: Horace | November 25, 2003 at 06:23 PM
Case Closed is certainly not an open and shut matter.
Well, that's exactly the point. On further reflection I think the piece's title, Case Closed, was an unfortuante overreach. The piece itself, however, was quite measured and wasn't overreaching, until the last paragraph. The Case is, so to speak, most definitely "open". I've heard no one refute the substance of even one of the 50 allegations in the leaked memo. If even, say, a third of them were true, I would think that would make for a pretty substantive story. So, by all means let's examine them with the most critical eye possible.
That Seth Porges drivel and the Newsweek piece, however, ironically are for more definite and overreaching than the original Hayes piece was. They also argue "Case Closed", but simply mean that there is no possible evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda collaborated, which is a preposterously close-minded approach to take.
-Eric
Posted by: Eric Deamer | November 26, 2003 at 11:41 AM
"The piece itself, however, was quite measured and wasn't overreaching, until the last
paragraph."
I have to disagree with that.
When I first read the article, I didn't have time to comb it properly; I read it and noticed the lack
of details regarding the sources and nature of the memo-quotes. Upon a second viewing it
becomes obvious that not only is it overreaching, it's also a really sloppy article.
Throughout the article Hayes claims there is a link, which is something that is neither definite
nor proven. One of my favourite sections is: " ... the 16-page memo is that it covers only a
fraction of the evidence that will eventually be available to document the relationship between
Iraq and al Qaeda." The key word being "eventually."
He goes on: "For one thing, both Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their cooperation
secret. (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on an internal intelligence document to
conceal bin Laden's name.)" That selection assumes 2 things. 1, that there was a definite
connection (again, something he didn't prove, as he decided to not to include key descriptive
details about his quoted memo sections -- which I find a little shocking), and 2, that the story of
the 'liquid paper note' is reliable.
Why would Hayes assume the Liquid Paper Note is reliable? Because he wrote about it in
another story (“Saddam's al Qaeda Connection”). He goes on about what the information on the
note might include, the nature of the (unproven) relationship, and even tells the reader that he
“emailed (Mitch) Potter, a Jerusalem-based correspondent for the Toronto Star, about his finding
(of the document).” But what Hayes doesn’t include, is the nature of document, and how Potter
and Inigo Gilmore got it. (To be fair, I don’t expect a full recap of the story to appear in Hayes’
article, as Gilmore is a Weekly Standard writer, but I do expect Hayes to ask basic questions.)
The story is this: Potter decides to check out an IIS building, which is being guarded by US
troops, who, for some reason, decide to allow him into the site. The site is being guarded
because it’s under investigation, and has just been searched by the CIA. Potter finds the
document – Gilmore is a witness – under some rubble (I guess the CIA missed it) and decides to
take it. It’s stated that his translator scratches off the liquid paper (with either a scaple, or razor
blade; reports are unclear) later in his hotel, and finds Bin laden’s name. But the question
immediately arises. If Potter can’t speak/read Arabic (hence the translator), why would he risk
stealing a piece of paper (unmarked as official, but instead handwritten) from an active CIA
investigation, when he doesn’t even know what’s on it?
That is the most dubious thing I have ever heard. But, naturally, Hayes didn’t see fit to mention
this, or ask the type of questions any journalism student would ask.
Hayes is a sloppy reporter who is obviously not interested in the truth (during his 3 day trip to
Bagdad he was guided by a CPA military escort -- like all objective reporters, right?).
Am I saying that there is no possible connection between Saddam and Bin Laden? No. They
have common hatred of the US, so it’s possible (given Laden’s public call for Saddam’s head,
it’s doubtful). But there certainly isn’t any proof; and with horrible reporters like Hayes, the
truth will never surface, whatever it may be.
I now highly contest the entire Hayes story, if only because I know Hayes is seemingly incapable
of delivering fair work.
Posted by: Horace | November 27, 2003 at 06:58 PM
>>I now highly contest the entire Hayes story, if only because I know Hayes is seemingly incapable
of delivering fair work.
>>
Of course, this didn't stop Brit Hume from fawning all over him during today's (6/27/04) Fox "News" Sunday, as though he were Deep Throat himself.
I think that the RNC and the White House have issued a talking points mandate to its shills that have instructed them to hammer home the Al Qaeda link just long enough to create enough confusion in the minds of enough voters that don't pay a lot of attention to these kinds of things. I bet it will work.
Posted by: Abhishiktananda | June 27, 2004 at 11:26 PM
ujewp http://www.southfloridaspeedleague.com uggs outlet vqqww http://www.southfloridaspeedleague.com]uggs for cheap[/url] wwqbk
Posted by: Fleevoimi | December 15, 2011 at 03:56 AM
urtvnds http://www.hogansitoufficiale-outlet.net hogan outlet ujnobko [url=http://www.hogansitoufficiale-outlet.net]hogan[/url] xcauwfc hogan scarpe kabpl
Posted by: uticierty | January 04, 2012 at 04:11 AM