« Veteran's Day Thoughs from an Iraqi | Main | Thugs Hired by New York Times Harass Innocent Iraqis »

November 17, 2003

Comments

horace

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

Eric Deamer

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.

Horace

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.

Eric Deamer

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

Horace

"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.

Abhishiktananda

>>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.

Fleevoimi

ujewp http://www.southfloridaspeedleague.com uggs outlet vqqww http://www.southfloridaspeedleague.com]uggs for cheap[/url] wwqbk

uticierty

urtvnds http://www.hogansitoufficiale-outlet.net hogan outlet ujnobko [url=http://www.hogansitoufficiale-outlet.net]hogan[/url] xcauwfc hogan scarpe kabpl

The comments to this entry are closed.