Posted on 11/17/2003 12:58:17 PM PST by PJ-Comix
On Fox News Sunday, Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard challenged his journalistic colleagues to pick up a story in this week’s issue which recounts a lengthy Department of Defense assessment of 13 years of connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. But so far, the mainstream media are ignoring it.
The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes led his November 24 edition cover story, which was released on Saturday, plugged by the DrudgeReport.com and reported by FNC: “Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda -- perhaps even for Mohamed Atta -- according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by The Weekly Standard.”
Barnes observed during the panel segment on Fox News Sunday: “I love the press's in particular selective use of intelligence, which they accuse the Bush administration of, the same people who will raise doubts about this intelligence are praising the CIA assessment of what's going on in Iraq right now.” That would be the CIA report saying that the situation is deteriorating rapidly.
But so far the media aren’t paying much attention to the Weekly Standard disclosure. None of the other broadcast network Sunday shows mentioned it and neither did the broadcast network evening newscasts on Sunday night.
And on Fox News Sunday, NPR’s Juan Williams ridiculed the Weekly Standard story while on Face the Nation, when Senator Ted Kennedy asserted that “the whole policy” toward Iraq “was based on the quicksand of false assumptions, that, one, that Iraq was involved in 9/11, which they weren't; secondly, that they were dominated by al-Qaeda, which they haven't been,” host Bob Schieffer failed to follow up by citing the Weekly Standard story. Instead, he summed up Kennedy’s claims for him: “Is what you're saying, Senator Kennedy, is that the administration decided it was going to war with Iraq and it didn't really care what the information was?”
(Schieffer mber 16 Fox News Sunday, Snow set up Barnes: “Fred, let me ask you about a series of memos that were first reported by Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard which seemed to indicate that our intelligence agencies thought that there were some very strong connections, or at least some coincidences, that would link Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Now, we haven't been able to get anybody to bite on this officially, but, looking at the memos, it does appear that the intelligence community thought there was pretty strong evidence that Saddam had been working with al Qaeda, and for a considerable period of time.”
Barnes: “Yes, and your first word was right, 'connections.’ They're not just coincidences. The interesting thing about this report, in particular, is the detail that it has of meetings between officials of Saddam Hussein's government and top officials of al Qaeda -- had met repeatedly over 13 years, from 1990 to 2003, met in many different places, and developed really an operational relationship of providing sanctuary for terrorists and training of terrorists in explosives and weapons of mass destruction and so on. Look, they say this is raw intelligence, but this is raw intelligence with great details, much of it coming from the CIA. You know, the -- I love the press's in particular selective use of intelligence, which they accuse the Bush administration of, the same people who will raise doubts about this intelligence are praising the CIA assessment of what's going on in Iraq right now. Look, there are repeated meetings that went on between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. It's clear that there was a strong connection.”
Williams: “Well, I don't know about a strong connection. The President himself has said we haven't proven anything.”
Brit Hume: “Whoa, whoa-”
Barnes: “He says we haven't proven-”
Hume: “9/11.”
Barnes: “-that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.”
Williams: “Correct.”
Hume: “That's different.”
Williams: “And I don't think there's any proof that there's any -- that meetings may have occurred, but there's proof of any kind of connection that would say, here are funds, here are troops, here is effort to attack Americans, to create terror. We don't know that, Fred. But I think-”
Barnes: “You're setting up a strawman.”
Williams: “Well, no, but I think that's what this is. I think you're saying there's some connections here. I think there's a big difference-”
Barnes: “Some? Strong!”
Williams: “-between what the CIA memo that was released this week, the one that Bremer knew about, and that every White House official I know about says, yes, that's a legitimate memo, and this one, which is speculative.”
Barnes: “No, no. No, no.”
Williams: “But I think that there's a big argument here, because you're trying to make a case that somehow there's a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. I don't see it.”
Barnes: “Juan, you cannot call that report 'speculative.’ It is filled with details. It doesn't speculate at all. There is no speculation in there. And, Juan, I wonder, why would your reaction be to try to knock it down, rather than say, hey, there really was a strong connection between Saddam and al Qaeda?”
Williams: “I tell you what, because I think the American people realize that after 9/11 we had to do something about Afghanistan, we had to do something about al Qaeda. The whole issue about Iraq is separate, and you're trying to conflate them. Because what we did was, we took preemptive action against Iraq. Most people -- I think everyone sitting on this panel would say, OK, we did it, we're going to stand with this president. But you don't have to create this kind of, you know, all this cotton candy -- oh yeah, we knew there was a hard connection. It sounds a lot like what happened with Jessica Lynch. All of a sudden you realize this week, you know, Jessica Lynch was not what the Defense Department was building her up to be.”
Barnes: “Juan, these are hard facts. You can call it 'speculative,’ you can call it 'cotton candy.’ These are hard facts, and I'd like to see you refute any one of them.”
Williams: “Well, we'll see.”
Barnes: “There's a hard connection there.”
Williams: “I think the case is not to refute it. I think the case is to prove it, and it's yet to be proven.”
In the Weekly Standard, Hayes explained what is outlined in the memo he obtained. An excerpt:
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.
According to the memo -- which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points -- Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.
The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."
The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."...
END of Excerpt
For the complete article as published in the November 24 Weekly Standard magazine: weeklystandard.com
In light of the fact that the CIA stated that the uranium case was false because Saddam already had enough uranium and that it did not register with them when they saw a convoy of trucks taking the WMD to the Bekaa Valley, I would not put much confidence in the CIA's intelligence capabilities.
If you see no difference between "they weren't involved" and "we don't have any evidence they were involved", that's your issue. But if you didn't see any difference, why put words in the mouth of the Administration that it never said? Anyway, here's a quote from the memo that illustrates the difference:
CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but also revolting details of the regime's long history of brutality. It will be a slow process.
It would be wrong to claim that there is evidence of a link between 9/11 and Iraq. But its equally wrong to claim, as you do, that there was no such link.
Which CIA memo? The Feith Memo, I have read, is related to the Office of Special Plans not the CIA.
The OSP stuff was castigated for relying on information from Chalabi's people. The Feith memo includes information obtained from interviews with Iraqi intelligence officers after the war, which necessarily goes beyond anything obtained by Chalabi.
I'm not buying any of the conclusions in the memo yet until the Administration is willing to go public with some of it. But neither am I willing to dismiss it yet.
True. It's RIDICULOUS to think that Saddam had no connection with Al Qaeda. Both were dedicated to harming America. And the libs think Bin Laden wouldn't deal with Saddam because of religious problems? Gimme a break! Even Osama doesn't believe in that crap. Remember, he was a spoiled rich student brat in Britain. He is just using the religion shtick to attract ignorant Muslims. Osama would definitely have no problems dealing with Saddam. And we sure neither know had any moral qualms in dealing with each other.
It seems some of the info in the memo is known. Colin Powell, according to last night's Brit Hume show, referenced some of the same info in his UN presentation. But obviously the White House isn't making a big deal about this memo. Seems to me the White House has lost control of the "message" these days. Maybe they think they don't need to remind people of things, but they do. And they're not doing it, at least, it isn't reaching people. Liberal media is a factor. And they are trying to make this war a loser. Which doesn't help. But the White House needs to step up the PR, imo. I love Brit Hume's show--its the only news show I regularly watch.
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.