Contributed by: filbert Friday, March 14 2008 @ 09:48 AM CST
From PowerLine:
The Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes is the man who wrote the book on The Connection[*1] between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. He also wrote the Standard article on “The connection.”[*2]
The Bush administration long ago gave up trying to tell the truth about the issue, as it has on so many others where it has been beaten into submission by the elite media. And so when the Pentagon recently released its 59-page report confirming Hayes’s reportage, the media have been left free to misrepresent it with impunity, as McClatchy’s Warren Strobel does here[*4] , as the New York Times blog does here, and as the ABC blog does here.
Steve has now obtained and reviewed the report in its entirety. In a post[*7] previewing his article in the forthcoming issue of the Standard, Steve writes:
A new Pentagon report on Iraq and Terrorism has the news media buzzing. An item on the New York Times blog snarks[*5] , “Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link.” The ABC News story[*6] that previews the full report concludes, “Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda.”
How, then, to explain this sentence about Iraq and al Qaeda from the report’s abstract: “At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust”? And how to explain the “considerable overlap” between their activities which led not only to the appearances of ties but to a “de facto link between the organizations”? (See the entire abstract below.)
And what about this revelation from page 34? “Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda — as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s long-term vision.” (The example given in the report is the Army of Muhammad in Bahrain, a group the Iraqi Intelligence Service describes as “under the wings of bin Laden.”)
And there is this line from page 42: “Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.”
Really? Saddam Hussein “supported” a group that merged with al Qaeda in the late 1990s, run by al Qaeda’s #2, and the New York Times thinks this is not a link between Iraq and al Qaeda? How does that work?
Anyone interested in the “strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism” — that language comes from this report, too — should read the entire thing for themselves, here[*3] .
Emphasis added for the reading-comprehension-impared.