|
Re: 9/11 Commission members say there were Iraq-Al Qaeda Links; media jumped the gun
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
I find it particularly interesting that the US press, so quick to indict the Bush administration, didn't even bother to finish reading the 9/11 report, nor did they attempt to clarify the one sentence on which they hang their entire claims of "no link."
The following is the statement of 9/11 Commission Spokesman Jonathan Stull:
And then today, Chairman Kean and Vice-Chairman Hamilton confirmed this, stating clearly that there were links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Gotta love those reporters. |
Well now we're back to the old Clinton game of defining "is", aren't we? If you define "link" by meaning the two groups had contact with one another, then yes that is most certainly true. But if you're defining "link" by an established relationship, and to take it one step further - Saddam aiding and supporting Al Qaeda (i.e. an alliance), well this is what is clearly false. Let's look at some of the details of what Bush and Cheney have stated:
In a news conference yesterday, Bush was asked by a reporter the following:
Reporter: "The Vice President, who I see standing over there, said yesterday that Saddam Hussein has long-established ties to al Qaeda. As you know, this is disputed within the US intelligence community. Mr. President, would you add any qualifiers to that flat statement? And what do you think is the best evidence of it?"
The response:
Bush: Zarqawi. Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda. He’s the person who’s still killing. He’s the person – and remember the email exchange between al Qaeda leadership and he, himself, about how to disrupt the progress toward freedom?
The problem:
the “email exchange” he mentioned suggests the exact opposite of what he claimed. And, by the way, it was not an email exchange. Here's what occurred:
On February 10, The New York Times reported on its front page that the Kurds had intercepted a courier for Ansar al-Islam, a fundamentalist terrorist group that had been based in northern Iraq. The messenger, Hassan Ghul, had on him a CD-ROM that contained a seventeen-page document that appeared to be a letter to al Qaeda from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a supposed leader of Ansar al-Islam. Zarqawi is the much sought-after terrorist who apparently beheaded American contractor Nick Berg and who is widely regarded as responsible for much of the post-invasion terrorist attacks in Iraq. The letter was a request for assistance. Ansar al-Islam wanted to start an Iraqi civil war by attacking Shi’ite Muslims, and Zarqawi was hoping al Qaeda would help him.
The Times story noted that the letter was not evidence of a link between al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam. The dispatch said that if the document was authentic, it would “constitute the strongest evidence to date of contacts between extremists in Iraq and Al Qaeda. But it does not speak to the debate about whether there was a Qaeda presence in Iraq during the Saddam Hussein era, nor is there any mention [in the request for help] of a collaboration with Hussein loyalists.”
Ten days later, the Times reported–again on the front page–that Ansar al-Islam “appears to be operating mostly apart from al Qaeda, senior American officials say.” According to the newspaper, “Most significantly, the officials said, American intelligence had picked up signs that Qaeda members outside Iraq had refused a request from the group, Ansar al-Islam, for help in attacking Shi’ite Muslims in Iraq.” It seems that Zarqawi had asked for help, and bin Laden had said no. So if one looks at the “email exchange” Bush cited, there is no evidence of a strong operational alliance between Zarqawi and al Qaeda.
It would be a mistake to consider al Qaeda’s refusal to provide assistance as definitive evidence that the two outfits were at odds and unable to hook up in the future. “But, officials said, there are growing indications,” the Times reported, “that the two groups are distinct and independent, and are embracing different tactics and agendas.” (In February 2003, CIA chief George Tenet testified in Congress that that while the CIA believed Ansar al-Islam had received funding from al Qaeda, Zarqawi considered himself and his network “quite independent” of al Qaeda.)
So does Bush have intelligence reports that contradict the public record? If so, he should let those White House reporters know. There is also the question of whether a connection between Zarqawi and al Qaeda would mean there was a connection between Hussein and al Qaeda. Neocons who have been pushing the al Qaeda-Iraq link claim that Zarqawi was in Baghdad before the war to receive medical treatment and that this could not have occurred without the approval of Hussein’s regime. But details are rather sketchy about this episode. And before the war Ansar-al-Islam operated in the northern territory, where Baghdad had limited control. Its head, Najm al-Din Faraj–who goes by the nom de guerre as Mullah Krekar–has repeatedly said his group never had any ties to Hussein’s regime. Earlier this year, he told the Guardian of London, “I am against Saddam Hussein. I want [Iraq] to change into an Islamic regime.” Moreover, in January, when Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked whether there was evidence linking Hussein and al Qaeda, he replied, “There is not–you know, I have not seen smoking-gun concrete evidence about the connection.”
Bush, though, declared that a postwar “email exchange"–which does not exist – is the concrete evidence that Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda. The president should really read the papers more often. I know–he says he doesn’t bother; he’d rather get his information from Andrew Card and Condoleezza Rice. But he ought to glance at the front page once in a while. That at least might prevent him from making stuff up.
And just recently today Bush stated: "There was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." He added, "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, for example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in Sudan."
Well if Iraqi intelligence agents did meet with bin Laden in Sudan, they did so before 1996, when bin Laden shifted his operations to Afghanistan. The existence of such contacts five years before 9/11 tells us nothing about any "relationship" that might have existed in the time before or after September 11.
Bush also said, Hussein "was a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like al-Zarqawi who is still killing innocents inside Iraq." Neoconservative supporters of the war have claimed that the (supposed) fact that Zarqawi received medical attention in Baghdad before the war indicates that he was in league with Hussein's regime. But the Zarqawi-in-Baghdad episode remains sketchy. And Zarqawi has been linked to Ansar al-Islam, a fundamentalist terrorist outfit that claimed it was opposed to Hussein and that (prior to the war) operated out of northern Iraq, in territory not controlled by Hussein's regime.
By the way, on March 2, NBC News reported that "long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out [Zarqawi's] terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself--but never pulled the trigger." Three times in 2002 and 2003, according to this report, the Pentagon drew up plans to attack Zarqawi in his camp in northern Iraq. Yet the White House said no. According to NBC News, "Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."
If this report was true, it should be big news. The White House had Zarqawi in its sights. Yet Bush officials believed that if they took him out, they would lose an argument for war. (At his presentation to the UN, Powell tried to use Zarqawi to link al Qaeda to Hussein.) So did politics trump a national security decision? Did the administration allow to roam free a terrorist who would become perhaps the biggest threat to American GIs in Iraqi today? Is Bush now playing politics with the truth by insisting there was a connection between al Qaeda and Hussein, even though the more objective members of the 9/11 commission--who have had access to the intelligence reporting on this dicey matter--have reviewed the record and found no compelling evidence of a signficant relationship?
And as for the supposed meeting in Prague involving Mohammed Atta, both the CIA and FBI discredited this long ago. We now have the 9/11 Commission reporting that it likely never happened as well. Let's keep in mind that the 9/11 Commission staff has more than 80 investigators. They have interviewed 1,000 witnesses and reviewed more than 2 million documents. So I ask in all seriousness, will this ever be fucking good enough for Bush apologists?!?!?!
| quote: | If you want to check out the report that the spokesman referenced, check out the 9/11 Commission website. http://www.9-11commission.gov/
The issue is, of course, the Iraq-9/11 link, and if you've kept up on the news, you'll note that the Bush administration never alleged such a link. |
I have kept up quite well, and to me this Administration did a helluva job trying to establish that link ever since the beginning days of the OSP and Cheney/Gingrich making special "visits" over to the CIA.:
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/...17/6294563s.htm
| quote: | However, Bush and Cheney also have sought to tie Iraq specifically to the 9/11 attacks. In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 -- the day the war in Iraq began -- Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who ''planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.''
Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press in September 2003 that ''I think it's not surprising that people make that connection'' between Saddam and Sept. 11. |
What I want to know is, if Cheney and this Administration knew all along that there was no established link between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorists, why did he not come clean when interviewed here? Indeed it appears that he more or less supports the public misconception - why not tell the public they were wrong?
BTW: the bulk of my info. came from David Corn, that whacky left-winger. I don't mind attacking his politics, but the facts given above are well known.
So how shall we define "is"?
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
