Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

About That Memo . . .
Weekly Standard ^ | 12/08/2003, Volume 009, Issue 13 | The Editors

Posted on 11/28/2003 11:32:39 AM PST by nickcarraway

From the December 8, 2003 issue: You can understand why the media might ignore the Saddam-Osama memo, but what about the Bush administration?

ON THE SURFACE, it might seem like a simple case of media bias. In the November 24, 2003, WEEKLY STANDARD, Stephen F. Hayes summarized and quoted at length a recent, secret Pentagon memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee. The memo laid out--in 50 bullet points, over 16 pages--the relationship between Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Much of the intelligence in the memo was detailed and appeared to be well-sourced and well-corroborated.

The story generated lots of discussion on talk radio and on the Internet, but the establishment media did their best to take a pass. The New York Times and the Washington Post wrote brief articles about the memo that focused as much on the alleged "leak" of the information as they did on the substance of the intelligence. Newsweek, in an article on its website, misreported several important elements of the memo and dismissed the article as "hype." As we went to press, the memo had received nary a mention on the major broadcast networks.

Slate columnist Jack Shafer, who declares himself agnostic on the substance of the memo, scolded the media for their stubborn resistance to covering the story: "A classified memo by a top Pentagon official written at Senate committee request and containing intelligence about scores of intelligence reports might spell news to you or me." But "the mainstream press has largely ignored Hayes's piece. What's keeping the pack from tearing Hayes's story to shreds, from building on it or at least exploiting the secret document from which Hayes quotes? One possible explanation is that the mainstream press is too invested in its consensus finding that Saddam and Osama never teamed up and its almost theological view that Saddam and Osama couldn't possibly have ever hooked up because of secular-sacred differences."

Whatever the reason, we're not surprised by bias among the mainstream media. And we rarely complain about it, since we take it for granted. But we do have a complaint about the Bush administration. The administration says, repeatedly, that "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror." They produce a memo for the Senate Intelligence Committee laying out the connections between Osama and Saddam. We obtain the memo, and make public those parts that don't endanger intelligence sources and methods. But now the administration--continuing a pattern of the last several months--shies away from an opportunity to substantiate its own case before the American people and the world.

Within 24 hours of the publication of Hayes's article, the Defense Department released a statement that seemed designed to distance it from the memo written by its third-ranking official, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith. The Pentagon statement criticized "news reports" about the memo as "inaccurate." It specified neither any reports nor any alleged errors. In fact, the Pentagon's statement itself contained several mistakes. For example, the Pentagon declared that the memo "was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions." Not exactly.

Consider the introduction to the relevant part of the Pentagon memo, called "Summary of Body of Intelligence Reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda Contacts (1990-2003)."

Some individuals have argued that the al Qaeda ties to Iraq have not been "proven." The requirement for certainty misses the point. Intelligence assessments are not about prosecutorial proof. They do not require juridical evidence to support them nor the legal standards that are needed in law enforcement. Intelligence assessments examine trends, patterns, capabilities, and intentions. By these criteria, the substantial body of intelligence reporting--for over a decade, from a variety of sources--reflects a pattern of Iraqi support for al Qaeda's activities. The covert nature of the relationship has made it difficult to know the full extent of that support. Al Qaeda's operational security and Iraq's need to cloak its activities have precluded a full appreciation of the relationship. Nonetheless, the following reports clearly indicate that Osama bin Laden did cooperate with Iraq's secular regime despite differences in ideology and religious beliefs in order to advance al Qaeda's objectives and to defeat a common enemy--the U.S.

As it happens, we agree with the conclusions in this analysis; others will disagree. But make no mistake--contrary to what Defense now says--these are conclusions and this is analysis.

All of this leads us to ask several questions. Is the intelligence in the Feith memo inaccurate? If so, why would the Bush administration provide inaccurate intelligence to a Senate panel investigating the possible misuse of intelligence? If not, why is the Bush administration so reluctant to discuss it? White House spokesman Scott McClellan correctly said the next day that "the ties between, or the relationship between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaeda were well documented. They were documented by Secretary Powell before the United Nations, back in February, I believe. And we have previously talked about those ties that are there." But the administration has been peculiarly timid about talking about those ties again, today.

And the administration's silence on the Feith memo is odd because the reporting it contains seems, as McClellan suggests, mostly to back up allegations that top officials have been making for more than a year. CIA Director George Tenet wrote on October 7, 2002, that his agency had "solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade," that the CIA had "credible information" about discussions between Iraq and al Qaeda on "safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression" and "solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad," and "credible reporting" that "Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

President Bush made similar charges in a speech on October 8, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio:

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy: the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Colin Powell updated the case in his February 5, 2003, presentation to the United Nations Security Council:

Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an al Qaeda source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that al Qaeda would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early al Qaeda ties were forged by secret, high-level [Iraqi] intelligence service contacts with al Qaeda. . . . We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service. . . . Iraqis continue to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s, to provide training to al Qaeda members on document forgery. From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the al Qaeda organization.

We believed George Tenet and President Bush and Colin Powell when they made those claims. So why the public silence now, when the administration, as we have discovered, has reiterated its claims to the Senate Intelligence Committee? We're not asking here for a point-by-point confirmation of the Feith memo. We ourselves suspect that some of the 50 items in the memo, on further analysis, may not check out. We're also not suggesting the administration publicly divulge currently relevant intelligence secrets. But why the embarrassed silence about terror ties with a regime that is now, thank heaven, gone?

Perhaps the Bush administration is still spooked by its mishandling of the Niger-uranium-Joe Wilson-State of the Union fiasco earlier this year. Perhaps they didn't want to appear to be exploiting a "leaked" memo. So let us forget about all the water that's under the bridge, and simply pose a few questions to Bush administration officials--questions based on the now revealed portions of the Feith memo, questions to which the American people deserve an answer:

(1) Do you in fact have "credible reporting" about Iraqi training of al Qaeda in "the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs"?

(2) Faruq Hijazi, former deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, is in U.S. custody. He was allegedly one of the key facilitators of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and apparently admitted, during a May 2003 custodial interview, meeting with bin Laden in 1994 in Sudan. What else is he saying? Do you believe him? Is there corroborating evidence for this meeting? Is there corroborating evidence for the reports detailed in the memo of 1998-1999 meetings between al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

(3) The Feith memo refers to "fragmentary evidence" of Iraqi involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, and possible Iraqi involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center attack. What is this evidence? How persuasive is it?

(4) Ahmed Hikmat Shakir is an Iraqi native who escorted two of the September 11 hijackers to the planning meeting for the attacks in January 2000 in Kuala Lumpur. He got his job at the Kuala Lumpur airport through a contact at the Iraqi embassy, and that person controlled his schedule. During his detention by Jordanian intelligence after September 11, Saddam's regime exerted pressure on the Jordanians for his release. Shakir was set free and fled to Baghdad. What have the Jordanians told you about Iraq's demands that Shakir be released? What have other detainees told you about Shakir's connections to Iraqi intelligence, on the one hand, and to the September 11 hijackers on the other?

(5) The U.S. government has 1,400 people on the ground in Iraq searching for evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. Is there any similar effort to examine Iraq's ties to al Qaeda? Why not? Wouldn't such an effort give us insight into the nature of the relationship between Baathists and al Qaeda before the war, and into the ongoing fight against al Qaeda today?

We at THE WEEKLY STANDARD have long believed that the war in Iraq was, indeed, central to the broader war on terror. This argument never depended on particular connections of Saddam and al Qaeda, but such connections are certainly relevant. Based on all the evidence we have seen, we believe that such connections existed. Does the Bush administration agree, or doesn't it?

--The Editors

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 911terrorism; feith; feithmemo; intelligence; iraq; leaks; media; memo; osamabinladen; saddamhussein; stephenhayes

1 posted on 11/28/2003 11:32:40 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
2 posted on 11/28/2003 11:36:37 AM PST by aculeus (I cut and paste. You decide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Drat. I searched and nothing came up. I was surprised, so I even did it twice...
3 posted on 11/28/2003 11:37:45 AM PST by nickcarraway (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
The Administration will comment on the contents of the memo after it has finished debriefing all the captured Iraqi intelligence officers, and after it has finished reviewing all the related documents. When it finally makes a statement on this, it will do so in a complete and overwhelming fashion. They're not going to make a case until they can make they're best case.

That is very, very smart. Let all the naysayers climb as far out on their limbs as they can, and only then do you saw it off at the base.

4 posted on 11/28/2003 11:45:27 AM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
I think they also are getting a big laugh about seeing all the left-wing media shooting themselves in the foot. They'll let them scream about "no connection" as long as they like, and then they'll hammer them.

Bush plays the media like an old banjo.
5 posted on 11/28/2003 11:59:55 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
You can understand why the media might ignore the Saddam-Osama memo, but what about the Bush administration?
I don't think the Bush campaign won't ignore it. Just wait.
6 posted on 11/28/2003 12:00:20 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
7 posted on 11/28/2003 12:15:53 PM PST by malia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
Bush doesn't tailor his actions and decisions based upon the daily news (like his predecessor). He'll tell the American people when he thinks it's appropriate.
8 posted on 11/28/2003 12:22:04 PM PST by Jeff Chandler (Chilling Effect-1, Global Warming-0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
This administration has it's own reasons for not revealing all it knows about the links of Bin Ladin and Saddam. I don't know what they are, but I do know that whatever the reason, it is in the national interest. This President does what is best for this country, not the polls, for surely they would be better off personally if they just said there is a link etc.
9 posted on 11/28/2003 12:27:29 PM PST by ladyinred (The Left have blood on their hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I have been asking this same question, why is the administration ducking this issue? The only explanation that I can come up with is that the administration does not want the the US public to be terrorized by the knowledge that Al Qaeda operatives actually have the ability to use biological weapons and dirty bombs. It is kind of like in the '80s when the gov't told us that latex gloves and condoms could protect against aids, they can't. The aids virus is small enough to pass right through microscopic wholes in latex.
10 posted on 11/28/2003 12:29:55 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
I have been asking this same question, why is the administration ducking this issue?

I think your logic might need a tweak.

You may want an answer, others as well. Lots of people want things they can't have.

Your want (lack of information) does not equate to "the administration ducking this issue."

I do have my tinfoil hat close by, though. Just in case.


11 posted on 11/28/2003 1:03:54 PM PST by LasVegasMac (Thunder was his engine and White Lightning was his load....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
12 posted on 11/28/2003 2:39:20 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; RWR8189
For bookmarking purposes:

Case closed: Saddam*s Terror Links to Al Qaeda - But Ignored by Media
Newsweek's "Case"-Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball get the Osama-Saddam memo wrong.
The Saddam-Osama Memo (cont.)
Case Decidedly Not Closed
CASE CLOSED (Osama-Saddam Link Proved in Intel Cmte Brief)
Case Closed: Dr. Kelly Supported Iraqi War

13 posted on 12/13/2003 7:57:40 AM PST by optimistically_conservative (Clinton's Penis Endorses Dean: Beware the Dean Mujahideen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson