As we noted a couple of months ago, the IG report was something of a joke. It criticized a Defense Department operation run by Undersecretary Douglas Feith for disagreeing with the CIA and the DIA on the significance of intelligence data on the connections between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Given what we know now about the CIA's performance in relation to Iraq, one would think that rethinking that agency's approach to such an important topic would be applauded. But no--the IG thought it was "improper" for a group within the Defense Department to dissent from the CIA's dogmatic interpretations of the evidence.
Further, the IG's report has already been an embarrassment to the Post. In February, the Post quoted from Carl Levin's press release about the report, which was much more critical of Feith's group than the report itself, and attributed Levin's quotes to the Inspector General. This gaffe led to a correction by the newspaper and an email from Post reporter Stephen Smith, which we reproduced here, in which Smith called his own paper's reporting an "egregious error," but said he had "nothing to do with" it.
One would think that Smith and the Post, having been burned on this story once already, would be careful to get their facts right the second time around. No such luck. Here is the first paragraph of Smith's story in yesterday's Post:
Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.To read this, one would think that the Post is actually reporting new information on this long-contentious subject. In fact, the IG's report contains no news on the subject at all, and the IG made no attempt to figure out who--the CIA or Feith's Defense Department group--was right. The statements in the IG's report that lead the Post's coverage come from a single footnote; worse, the Post didn't even report that footnote correctly. Here is what the footnote says:
Noteworthy is that post-war debriefs of Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, al-Tikriti and al-Libi as well as document exploitation by DIA all confirmed that the Intelligence Community was correct: Iraq and al-Qaeda did not cooperate in all categories. The terms the Intelligence Community used to describe the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda were validated, "no conclusive signs," and "direct cooperation...has not been established."Put aside, for a moment, the fatuity of assuming that Saddam and his henchmen can be relied on to describe their regime's relationship with al Qaeda truthfully, and note how the Post misrepresented the content of the footnote. The footnote doesn't say that Iraq and al Qaeda were not cooperating before th U.S. invasion, as the Post erroneously reported; it says that "direct cooperation...has not been established," an entirely different proposition. Further, the IG's footnote says that al Qaeda and Iraq "did not cooperate in all categories." This refers to a slide in a presentation prepared by Feith's group which says that al Qaeda and Iraq cooperated across "all categories," of which ten were listed, e.g., training and financing. So, far from saying that there was no cooperation at all, the IG footnote said that the two entities didn't cooperate "in all [ten] categories."
Further, by extracting (and misreporting) that single footnote, the Post misrepresents the overall tenor of prewar intelligence, as set forth in the IG's report. Far from flatly stating that al Qaeda and Iraq didn't collaborate, the CIA and DIA expressed doubt and agnosticism about the extent of such cooperation. Here are some quotes from those agencies' reports, as set forth by the IG:
"Compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and al Qaeda has not been established, despite a large body of anecdotal information."While some of those phrases actually made it into the Post's account, the overall tenor of the article would lead all but the most careful readers to think that pre-war intelligence estimates flatly rejected the possibility of cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. This false impression is accentuated by the Post's effort to suggest that the IG's report contradicts Vice President Dick Cheney's statements on the same subjects:
"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations, so discussion of the possible extent of cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda is necessarily speculative."
As far as knowledge or implication in 9/11 goes, the [CIA's August 20, 2002] report offers, "no conclusive indication of Iraqi complicity or foreknowledge in the 11 September attacks." Further, the report cites "no conclusive reporting that al Qaeda and Iraq collaborated on terrorist operations...."
The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.So what is "alleged" about this history? Zarqawi indisputably ran a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and fled that country in late 2001 as the Taliban's regime crumbled. No one denies that he went from Afghanistan to Iraq and set up terrorist operations there. We know that, among other operations, he engineered the assassination of American diplomat Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan, while in Iraq prior to our invasion of that country. It is similarly beyond dispute that Zarqawi headed the "al Qaeda in Iraq" organization until his death last year. So how, exactly, has the IG report turned Cheney's narrative into "alleged history"? If you read to the very last paragraph of the Post piece, you find this:"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."
Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda in early 2004, after the U.S. invasion.Given the Post's notorious fondness for anonymous sources, we don't know who these "intelligence analysts" who apparently speak with such confidence about Zarqawi's murky career might be. But how about a source who isn't afraid to be named, Sayf al Adl, al Qaeda's global security chief? Here is what he wrote about Zarqawi:
"Al-Zarqawi: The Second Al-Qaeda Generation," a recently published book on Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi -- who pledged his group's loyalty to Osama bin Laden last year -- chronicles al-Zarqawi's presence in Afghanistan and his relationship with the Al-Qaeda network, which funded al-Zarqawi training camps in Herat before the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. Following the invasion, al-Zarqawi and other Al-Qaeda leaders scattered and regrouped in Iran, pledging to reassemble in Afghanistan in seven years' time, Sayf al-Adl, the official in charge of security for the Global Al-Qaeda of Islam Army, recounted in the book.Al-Adl's account is, obviously, fully supportive of Cheney's characterization of Zarqawi's role. Beyond that, this whole dispute turns on very fine distinctions. No one questions that Zarqawi worked with Ansar al-Islam, which is generally described as an al Qaeda "affiliate." What, exactly, does that mean? Terrorists have no need of clear rules or sharp lines between organizations. At the end of the day, it matters very little whether Zarqawi (or any other terrorist) was a "member" of al Qaeda or "merely" someone who communicated and cooperated with al Qaeda in pursuit of shared goals.Al-Adl further documented al-Zarqawi's decision to establish his network of fighters in Iraq in 2001, an undertaking assisted through his relationship with the Ansar Al-Islam terrorist network based in Iraqi Kurdistan close to the Iranian border. That relationship was reportedly forged in Afghanistan.
"We began to converge on Iran one after the other. The fraternal brothers in the peninsula of the Arabs, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates who were outside Afghanistan, had already arrived. They possessed abundant funds. We set up a central leadership and working groups," al-Adl recounted. "We began to form some groups of fighters to return to Afghanistan to carry out well-prepared missions there. Meanwhile, we began to examine the situation of the group and the fraternal brothers to pick new places for them. Abu Mus'ab and his Jordanian and Palestinian comrades opted to go to Iraq...[an] examination of the situation indicated that the Americans would inevitably make a mistake and invade Iraq sooner or later. Such an invasion would aim at overthrowing the regime. Therefore, we should play an important role in the confrontation and resistance. It would be our historic chance to establish the state of Islam that would play a major role in alleviating injustice and establishing justice in this world," al-Adl said.
And, by the way, none of this has much to do with the IG report, which never mentions Zarqawi. It's just the occasion for more drive-by defamation of Dick Cheney.
The fact is that the extent of pre-war communication and collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda is still unknown. We know for sure that Saddam harbored terrorists and supported terrorist groups; what we don't know for sure the answer to a much less important question: to what extent did that support involve terrorists who were specifically linked to al Qaeda? Someday we may have definitive answers to that question. In the meantime, neither the IG report nor the Post's reporting adds an iota of information to our knowledge of the issue.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. Hinderaker,
Our president has already said that Saddam was not involved with 9-11. He said that his administration never made that claim. He already cleared that up for us.
Republicans have refused to accept this. They've avoided looking at President Bush actually saying it. It's right here. The website is idiotic, but the footage was cut from FOX. Why don't you watch it, then explain why almost all Republicans still claim Saddam was involved with 9-11? thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/
lil_turk at 9:33AM on Apr 7th 2007
2. Proving a negative is impossible as anyone with a
lick of logic knows. If in fact there were no weapons and no connection it would be impossible to prove yet it has been stated as fact from the very beginning. The left uses the opinions of those
who agree with them as fact when there is no evidence at all to support as fact. Tom Sowell once said on this subject.... "It is bad enough that people believe things without any evidence. What is even worse is that some people have no concept of evidence and regard as fact someone else's opinion."
Scott McKenzie at 9:47AM on Apr 7th 2007
3. "Why don't you watch it, then explain why almost all Republicans still claim Saddam was involved with 9-11?"
This is the typical line over and over again by the left. It is not that Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda on 9/11, the claim is that there was cooperation between the two organizations, not just 9/11. Whether it was financing, training, training sites, safes houses, etc the CIA or whatever intelligence group does not know with 100% certainty. The CIA was shredded in Congressional reports for not having enough intelligence on the ground to know for sure. Even the previous administration put the two groups together. A fact that never seems to be brought up by the MSM and admitted to by the left.
jamfey at 10:33AM on Apr 7th 2007
4. The bigger question is not whether there was a connection between Al Quida and Sadaam. We may never find that out.
The big question is, did Bush administration officials deliberately discount information when it did not support their conclusions
For example another example of an alleged Iraq/al-Qa'ida links was a meeting in Prague in mid-2001 between an Iraqi official and Mohammed Atta, leader of the September hijackers. The CIA discounted the idea, producing evidence that Atta could not have been in Prague.
In 2002 Mr Feith's office wrote that the CIA's conclusions "ought to be ignored."
egeefay at 10:37AM on Apr 7th 2007
5. I do not understand the desperate need for our friends on the right to cling to a lie. As has been pointed out, proving a negative is impossible. The writer also distorts the "footnote" by emphasizing only the individuals quoted, and not the "dcoumentation." "Iraqi Kurdistan" was not part of an Iraq under Sadaam's control. I do not believe Mr Hinderaker believes a word that he writes. He only wants to keep the ever shrinking 28% deceived. In fact his dishonesty only serves his opposition. Who can support a war that can only be justified by dishonesty?
bbbustard at 11:40AM on Apr 7th 2007
6.
Still trying to tweak and spin the truth. Beautiful. What is it you don't understand about NO CONNECTION ? How many times in how many ways by how many credible sources do you need to hear it ? Let me guess - the insurgency is in it's last throes too - right ? What's next ? A denial of the 1980s when the U.S. State Department (against the expressed wishes of Congress) took Saddam and Iraq OFF the enemies list and proceeded to help him raise hell against his neighbors and his own people ?
Saddam was hung for crimes committed against his own people - those crimes were committed in 1982 - the very same year he was anointed our trustworthy "friend". Fingerprints of people like Rumsfeld (who later denounced Hussein) were all over
this misguided policy. A deja vu moment occurred recently when the current administration decided to buddy up to career terrorist Muammar Gaddafi of Libya last year. In the middle of the war on terror they declare the godfather of modern terrorism "cured" of his ways. He then shows his gratitude by announcing plans to build a statue honoring Saddam Hussein. Amazing. Seems like there is a definite problem with this administration in dealing with things like the TRUTH and FACTS. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own version of the facts.
max at 11:47AM on Apr 7th 2007
7. Pop quiz: In which part of Iraq was Ansar al-Islam based?
P O'Neill at 11:47AM on Apr 7th 2007
8. John, have you seen the AFP's take on the story.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070406/1/47ogj.html
Pentagon report says no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda
"Interrogations of Saddam Hussein and seized documents confirmed the former Iraqi regime had no links with Al-Qaeda, a Pentagon report said Friday, contradicting the US case for the 2003 invasion.
...It contradicts a strong argument for the invasion made by the administration of President George W. Bush that Baghdad had a working relationship with Al-Qaeda."
chip at 12:17PM on Apr 7th 2007
9. The bottom line is that the Bush Administration, and a bi-partisan majority of Congress were afraid of Saddam Hussein, and his past use of WMD. The Iranian Mullahs were just as afraid, and Saddam used that fear to keep the Iranians from their just revenge.
It's human nature to pay more attention to "facts" that support your fears, especially when those fears have an emotional component (fear of the outside world, after 9/11). I know a lot of you want to get President Bush, but this issue isn't the one that will do that. The President did his job. The President needed a next move in the Global War on Islamic Terror, and Iraq looked like an easier nut to crack than Iran did.
Wally Lind at 12:35PM on Apr 7th 2007
10. it is fascinating watching the expression partisans supporting the democrat party like "lil_turk"...
as if the liberal partisan has decided not to read any content which might challenge their mantra, and provide a comment, which makes them seem incredibly closed to the discussion.
a form of closed mind, which concerns everyone these days...
never mind, all of the elected Democrats who voted, and advocated for the use of force to remove Saddam, including Hillary Rodham Clinton.
perhaps even worse, the Michael Moores of the World actually used their partisan bigotry to try to paint Saddam's Monstrous Dictatorship as a kite flying paradise.
it is this lack of reason, produced by a rather childish form of ugly bigotry, which has enabled many to turn an admirable endeavor to liberate the Millions of formerly oppressed in Iraq, from a brutal Tyrant who threatened the Arab Region, and the rest of the World, (who even rewarded PLO terrorists for their suicide bombing of Israelis), into a negative.
the wise Protest Warriors coined the simple phrase to display such vapid liberal bigotry:
"Say no to War, unless a Democrat is President".
HNAV at 1:36PM on Apr 7th 2007
11. Scott Mackenzie, jamfey, and others,
Proving Saddam was not involved with 9-11 is impossible, but there's no reason to believe he was. The president acknowledged that here:
BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.
But in ALL polls on this matter, Republicans still claim Saddam was responsible for 9-11. This is square one. It's impossible to have a real conversation about Iraq with people who won't get past this square.
lil_turk at 4:17PM on Apr 7th 2007
12. All the investigations and reports and no where do they mention what President Clinton said when bombed a factory in Sudan.
"The factory was built by Bin Laden (everyone agrees on this point)to make WMD for Saddam." As to what Bin Laden was making and who he was making it for, Clinton pointed to our inteligence service that tracked an Iraqi general and his monthly trips to Sudan.
This is the only operational connection ever made by the US government, and apparently none of these report producing morons has ever even heard of it.
What Clinton said about Saddam and Bin Laden goes way beyond the 'ties' between Saddam and Al Qeada, Bush suggested ... yet it's Bush that lied? Go figure, I thought Bush was the govenor of Texas at that time? Can someone, anyone explain this glaring hole in every report ever produce on this issue?
Liberals hold these reports up as if they were the last word of God, when what we have here is a document written by a bunch of pompous lawyers and filled with couched statements that never says anything definitive. How can anyone point to these 'reports' for proof of anything? Inquiring minds want to know.
tom gassett at 4:34PM on Apr 7th 2007
13. You can argue over minutia all day, but let's remember the realities.
In the world before 911, President Clinton saw the threat of Iraq and made regime change American policy.
IN the world after 911 no US president, be he demo or repub, would tollerate a mass murderer that had used WMD, had ties to terrorist, and callled for the destruction of the Great Satan (that's us) daily.
That way too many liberals and their comrades can't grasp this real world reality, suggest they should consentrate on cartoons, and leave the real world to those of us that live in it.
tom gassett at 4:41PM on Apr 7th 2007
14. Lil_turk
excuse me, but I'm not familiar with those polls. Could you be so kind as to elucidate with specifics?
cdor at 3:45PM on Apr 8th 2007
15. The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.
Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission.
He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."
He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm
Clinton sure thought there was an active ongoing relationship between saddam and al-qaeda! the same libs who say there was none now, were saying there was one when clinton was president....
oh yeah a judge ruled that saddam was responsible for 9/11
A federal judge Wednesday ordered Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others to pay early $104 million to the families of two Sept. 11 victims, saying there is evidence – though meager - that Iraq had a hand in the terrorist attacks.
The closely watched case was the first lawsuit against the terrorists believed responsible for the World Trade Center attack to reach the damages phase.
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer ordered that the damages be paid by bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Saddam and the former Iraqi government. The judge ruled against them by default in January after they failed to respond to the lawsuits brought on behalf of two of the trade center dead.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml
why don't you libs go to court to have that overturned??? Hmmmmmm???
t at 5:53PM on Apr 7th 2007