Posted on 03/16/2008 7:25:18 AM PDT by ricks_place
Late last week, the Defense Department released an analysis of 600,000 documents captured in Iraq prepared by the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded think tank. Here's the attention-grabbing sentence from the report's executive summary: "This study found no 'smoking gun' (i.e. direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda."
Relying on a leak of the executive summary, ABC News reported that the study was "the first official acknowledgment from the U.S. military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda." There followed a brief item in the Washington Post that ran under the headline "Study Discounts Hussein, Al-Qaeda Link." The New York Times announced: "Study Finds No Qaeda-Hussein Tie." NPR agreed: "Study Finds No Link Between Saddam, bin Laden."
And the Bush administration reacted with an apparently guilty silence.
But here's the truth. The executive summary of the report is extraordinarily misleading. The full report, released Thursday night, states, for example, on 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." In fact, as Stephen F. Hayes reports in this issue, the study outlines a startling range of connections between Saddam and various organizations associated with al Qaeda and other terror groups.
But don't take our word for it: Go to Iraqi Perspectives Project Saddam and Terrorism:Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Document and read the 59 pages of analysis for yourself. You'll see, in the words of the authors, "strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism." And, from the report's conclusion:
The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's "coercion" toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting (1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats, (2) the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and (3) organizational relationships and "outreach programs" for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.
Take a look also at the documents showing links between Saddam Hussein and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Apparently whoever wrote the executive summary didn't consider the link between Saddam and al Zawahiri a "direct connection" because Egyptian Islamic Jihad had not yet, in the early 1990s, fully been incorporated into al Qaeda. Of course, by that standard, evidence of support provided to Osama bin Laden in the early 1990s might not be deemed a "direct connection" because al Qaeda as we know it today did not yet exist.
If you talk to people in the Bush administration, they know the truth about the report. They know that it makes the case convincingly for Saddam's terror connections. But they'll tell you (off the record) it's too hard to try to set the record straight. Any reengagement on the case for war is a loser, they'll say. Furthermore, once the first wave of coverage is bad, you can never catch up: You give the misleading stories more life and your opponents further chances to beat you up in the media. And as for trying to prevent misleading summaries and press leaks in the first place--that's hopeless. Someone will tell the media you're behaving like Scooter Libby, and God knows what might happen next.
So, this week's fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war will bring us countless news stories reexamining the case for war, with the White House essentially pleading nolo contendere. Even though there is abundant evidence that Iraq was a serious state sponsor of terrorism--and would almost certainly have become a greater one if Saddam had been left in power--most Americans will assume there was no real Saddam-terror connection. After all, they haven't heard the Bush administration say otherwise.
The president has a responsibility to help the American people understand the nature of the threat we faced in 2003 and the threats we face today--how terror groups work, the extent of state sponsorship, and how that sponsorship transcends Sunni-Shia or secular-jihadist differences.
It's not too late. Bush can still override his cautious aides and tell the American people the whole truth about the situation we faced in 2003 and would face today if Saddam were still in power. This is more than a matter of political advantage. It is a requirement of war leadership.
--William Kristol
Clinton would have jumped all over this.
To answer Kristol’s question: this administration has been absolutely horrific at public relations and media management since 2001. I don’t know why that is, but sometimes it is the most frustrating thing in the world to watch. Bush has been hammered in the press day in and day out; his policies have been completely skewered; but he just sits idly by. Disgusting.
I hope W reviews the run up to Iraq during an exit interview. The left have been back seat drivers based on hindsight. It would be good to remind voters what kind of information a decider has to act on.
“Spitzer paid no money directly to prostitute.” (He went through the pimp.)
Forget about Clinton, but this is one of the major differences between Ronald Reagan and GW Bush.
The MSM was completely in Clinton's pocket, mainly because they were so anti-Republican. I'm not sure what the thinking is in the Bush administration but I know they know they can't count on the media. I talked to Stephen Hayes and asked him "if undeniable evidence is found that Sadam had been working on WMD, will the media publish it" and he said no...without hesitation. Republican dealings with the media are a little strange here in the USA.
“Clinton would have jumped all over this.”
ANY leader with an ounce of moxie would have jumped on this. Poor W.
A connection between the soon-to-be ex-Governor of New York , his preferred prostitute, his pimp, and al Qaeda has not been made public to my knowledge.
Okay, now that makes sense. /s
What a bunch of morons
Everyone (including Rush) keep giving W high marks for always taking the "high road," and refusing to respond to ANYTHING, from ANYONE.
Sheesh
Small wonder that Conservatives feel left out in the cold and leaderless
The White House, the RNC, most of Congress (R's) don't' even know how to begin fighting and until they decide to take the gloves off, the Dhummies will continue to pummel them about the head and shoulders and we won't ever regain the majority in Congress--and may even lose the White House.
His inabilty, his unwillingness even, to engage the anti-war zealots in the US, even when the truth and facts are on his side, strikes me as naivete and foolishness.
I agree with Kristol here, he could still win this in the court of public opinion, and he owes it to those who fought, and to those who have supported him.
Bush can count on the MSM to spin (backwards) anything he says. His strategy has been to let the media make allegations based on leaked information and half truths and then let the full story come out and prove them wrong.
It's working, the MSM is dying and only the nuttiest of liberals see them as unbiased.
Oh, he understands alright. He understands that he owes nothing to anybody, and cares nothing for opinion polls. He may walk with a Texas swagger, and talk with an affected twang, but underneath he’s still nothing but a rich little Down Easter with an Ivy League education; an elitist who will never be inclined to provide the great unwashed with explanations of any kind. Our best and brightest fight and die in foreign lands. W should be on the airwaves every evening detailing each day’s successes, and reaching out to Mom and Pop and reassuring them that their boy didn’t die in vain...but no, he doesn’t think he owes us anything. Bye-Bye W, don’t let the screen door hit you on the way out. Cant’ wait for you to be gone.
Saddam is to Al Queda/Bin Laden/terrorists
as
Hill/Bill Clinton is to Pelosi/Boxer/Feinstein/Murtha/Kerry/Code Pink/ (actually, Hill/Bill have a much longer list of ‘known criminals’ than Saddam did.)
“Clinton would have jumped all over this.”
Yes. Yes, he would.
Like a very congenial monkey on a leash.
There are a number of things a Republican administration needs to learn about the news media. I have a couple of ideas on how to beat them---you will never completely negate them---but you can FORCE them to present "your side" through certain "tricks."
“A connection between the soon-to-be ex-Governor of New York , his preferred prostitute, his pimp, and al Qaeda has not been made public to my knowledge.”
That’s only because we haven’t seen the names of Clients #1-8
or Client #10! - lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.