Freedom of the press
(Filed: 27/04/2003)
Today, The Sunday Telegraph reveals a remarkable cache of documents, discovered in Baghdad by our reporter Inigo Gilmore, which provide the first hard evidence of the direct links between al-Qa'eda and Saddam Hussein's regime. Since September 11, the Bush administration and, to a lesser extent, the British Government have been struggling to prove that this deadly relationship existed. The papers, which concern a clandestine visit by an envoy of Osama bin Laden to Baghdad in 1998, do just that.
Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and his refusal to comply fully with UN weapons inspectors meant that there was a perfectly legitimate casus belli for the war in Iraq. Nonetheless, the inability of President Bush or the Prime Minister to demonstrate a clear link between the Iraqi dictator and al-Qa'eda has always been a source of political embarrassment, not least because some of the attempts to prove such a link by politicians and the intelligence agencies were so feeble. The weakness of this forensic case was often - and understandably - seized upon by opponents of the war on terrorism.
The new papers transform that forensic case: they show beyond reasonable doubt that the Ba'ath regime was taking active measures in 1998 to develop a strong relationship both with al-Qa'eda as an organisation and bin Laden personally. The common cause at this point appears to have been the battle to bring down America's regional ally, Saudi Arabia. But it would be odd if this was the only issue which Saddam's henchmen and bin Laden's representatives discussed.
Our disclosure today does not, of course, amount to evidence that Saddam was directly involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center. But it is a tantalising glimpse of a relationship which may have spawned the most appalling atrocities. We can only speculate about what new revelations - still more explosive - will be made by resourceful journalists in Baghdad.
This is the third week in a row that The Sunday Telegraph has published documents retrieved from the ministry buildings once occupied by the Ba'ath regime. A fortnight ago, papers which our reporter David Harrison had retrieved from the bombed headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service, showed that Russia had passed intelligence to Saddam Hussein's regime about Tony Blair's private conversations. Last week, we disclosed details of a dossier found in the same building, which revealed that German intelligence officers had offered co-operation with the Iraqi dictator in the build-up to war last year. Two days later, The Daily Telegraph disclosed documents it had found in the Iraqi foreign ministry which produced an outstanding scoop: George Galloway, the papers purported to show, had received at least £375,000 a year from Saddam's regime, money syphoned off from the country's oil-for-food programme.
Mr Galloway, who denies the veracity of the documents, has been quick to insinuate that such stories are being spoon-fed to the press by sinister intelligence agencies. On Monday, he told the Daily Telegraph: "Maybe it's the product of the same forgers who forged so many other things in this whole Iraq picture … It would not be the Iraqi regime that was forging it. It would be people like you [Telegraph journalists] and the Government whose policies you have supported." In an article in Thursday's Independent, Mr Galloway warmed to his theme, hinting that it was odd that the Telegraph Group should have "broken three major 'intelligence' stories in two weeks out of Baghdad".
The truth is that these stories are not the result of orchestration or manipulation by the military coalition and Western intelligence agencies, but precisely the opposite. The media has been presented at these ministries with something approaching a free-for-all; a combination of journalistic initiative and serendipity have contributed to the best disclosures. If, indeed, MI6 had got to the Galloway file first, it is highly improbable that the British intelligence service would have leaked it to the press. The practice of such agencies is to keep precious information of this sort to themselves - not least as potential leverage with those, such as Mr Galloway, suspected of questionable dealings with a hostile regime.
What is striking, in fact, is that the coalition apparently had no plans to secure these government buildings - with the presentationally unfortunate exception of the oil ministry. It would seem self-evident that those seeking Saddam's weapons of mass destruction would want first sight of what documents had survived at the dictator's intelligence HQ, the foreign ministry and the agriculture department (vital for biological and chemical technology). However, no attempts were made to seal off these departments, or even to give them a minimal military guard.
That organisational failure was echoed in the failure to heed explicit warnings about the risks of looting. On February 11, for example, the All-Party Parliamentary Archaeological Group wrote to the Prime Minister specifically warning of the risks to Iraq's cultural treasures if Saddam's regime collapsed. The group was told that their letter had been passed to the Foreign Office. But the ransacking of the Iraqi National Museum shows that no action was taken in response - an error for which President Bush apologised on behalf of the coalition in an interview with NBC last week. Such failures of foresight do not detract in the slightest from the greater triumph of Iraq's liberation. But they do show how much the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance headed by Jay Garner still has to do.
Today's disclosure adds weight to the case which has underpinned the war on terrorism since September 11. It adds lustre to the argument - long made by the President and Prime Minister - that rogue states and international terrorist groups share both ambitions and resources. The veil has at last been lifted on the long-suspected relationship between a terrible dictator and the world's most blood-soaked terrorist. It is good that journalistic talent and persistence should have yielded such a discovery. But it is a matter of undeniable concern that the coalition's intelligence agencies were themselves unable to produce comparable information when it was most needed. The most important question posed by the September 11 attacks - was Saddam linked to bin Laden? - has now been emphatically answered. But it should be a source of grave embarrassment to the British and American governments that it has taken a newspaper, trawling through the files in a burnt-out building, to finish the job.
Forget about al qaeda and Galloway...
Document$, Polaroid snapshots, receipts, stained kiddie dresses, etc., etc.... I want to see ALL of it.
You just can't please the media. You give 'em an all expense paid trip, protection and a mission; and they still can't seem to just report the bombshell. Journalists have to whine and complain about how it wasn't done right.
But, hey, maybe it's true. But again, I just don't think so.
All of those incriminating papers I simply do not believe were found at random, by some enterprising reporting sifting through the ashes.
I believe copies of these papers were in posession of someone, somewhere. Maybe one of the many in the deck of cards that the coalition captured.
Then the copies were sent to the British newspapers, interestingly enough, which published them after sending a reporter they liked to go and sort through the rubble at the Information Ministry....go quick, it's left unguarded just for you. Who knows what the reporter found, maybe some charred papers which the home office said were fine, we have good copies right here.
I think the plan to release this information via British newspapers had already been agreed on by Bush and Blair before the war. They both decided that when the information was found, a way would be found to funnel it to British newspapers. I don't know why, maybe it's what Blair wanted after the pounding he got by the public.
The Times and the other one, forget the name, agreed to make it look like the papers were accidentally "found". The papers required that they be able to say that their reporter found them and deny any governmental aid.
If these papers had been found by the coalition, who would have believed their authenticity? As it is, so far it is only the wise I who has figured out the truth.
Okay, maybe it's a wrong-headed idea but you can paint me green and put me on a stick if I believe some upshot reporter found these internationally important papers by sifting through the wet and dirty rubble of a bombed out Iraqi Information Ministry.
Your mileage may vary.