In the July 18th, 2005 edition of the Weekly Standard:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp
Stephen F. Hayes & Thomas Joscelyn
proudly declare "The Mother of All Connections" in which they attempt, once again, to try to link Saddam Hussein to Al Queda. But instead of proving Bush was justified in sending us into Iraq, the authors actually admit that, in fact, the WH was lying to us.
They begin by attempting to debunk their own 911 Commissions report that there was no connection by saying that:
"It assumed, not unreasonably, that the 9/11 Commission's conclusion was based on a firm foundation of intelligence reporting, that the intelligence community had the type of human intelligence and other reporting that would allow senior-level analysts to draw reasonable conclusions. We know now that was not the case."
But if we lacked the intel to know there wasn't a connection, then we also lacked the intel to know that there WAS a connection. And that's the point isn't it? And so begins the Mother of All Confessions about how the WH fixed the intelligence leading up to war.
The White House was telling us Saddam DID have WMD's, they had proof. The White House was insinuating to us that Saddam DID have a relationship with Al Queda, though they kept flip flopping on that issue. The White House was telling us Saddam might give WMD's to terrorists, that was WHY we had to invade Iraq.
So the story now is "We know now that was not the case"? Sorry, but the story THEN was we DID have a "firm foundation of intelligence reporting" and it DID point us towards going to war.
At least now they confess that was not the case.
But the right wing confessions don't stop there. Rather than show us actual connections between Saddam and Al Queda, the authors go on to say:
"Daniel Benjamin, a senior counterterrorism official in the Clinton administration, summarized this view in a New York Times op-ed on September 30, 2002. He wrote"Saddam Hussein has long recognized that al Qaeda and like-minded Islamists represent a threat to his regime. Consequently, he has shown no interest in working with them against their common enemy, the United States.
There was no noteworthy relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq. I know that for a fact."
Their point in bringing up evidence AGAINST their view? That the CIA didn't know then what we know now:
"The CIA had no [redacted] credible reporting on the leadership of either the Iraqi regime or al Qaeda, which would have enabled it to better define a cooperative relationship, if any did in fact exist."
So in fact, the authors are admitting that NO KNOWN LINK EXISTED between Al Queda and Iraq during the buildup towards war. They confess that the White House was spinning this issue at that time.
How do the authors reconcile the fact that Bush made these allegations at the time with their allegation - if you were to believe that the CIA didn't have people who knew the truth - that the CIA had no credible reporting? Simple. They try to redifine the meaning of credible reporting:
"The difference between most intelligence community analysts and Bush administration policymakers can be found in how they interpret the gaps. The analysts seemed to assume, despite the history of poor collection, that the many Iraq-al Qaeda contacts reported in intelligence products and open sources were anomalous. To them, the gaps in reporting simply reflected a lack of activity. Policymakers (and a small number of analysts) took a different view. The gaps in reporting on Iraq and al Qaeda were just that: gaps in reporting. To this group, the many reports of contacts, training, and offers of safe haven were indicative of a relationship that ran much deeper."
So they make yet another confession: That there were only a "small number of analysts" who agreed with the Policymakers. By their own admission, "most intelligence community analysts" took a different view. So we are to believe that the CIA professionals who keep our country safe didn't know jack about Iraq and didn't know jack about Al Queda but the Bush administration, in their infinite wisdom, knew better than they did.
If so, where ARE the WMD's?
But let's not go there just yet. Because you see, what they've just done in their article is to make THE MOTHER OF ALL CONFESSIONS:
The intelligence to support their claims that Iraq was a threat just wasn't there so they fixed the intelligence. If they couldn't find hard evidence to back up their claims, they just called it a "gap" in intelligence and decided that it must be true because they SAID so.
Only when they went before the Congress and the people of the United States, they didn't tell us that they had "gaps" in their intelligence. They didn't tell us that they had no hard evidence about their allegations. No, in fact, they said the exact opposite. They said they had hard evidence. Proof. They wouldn't provide us with the proof because they said that would risk national security so we had to take their words for it.
Now, the authors confess, they must have been lying all along. Why isn't that surprising?
I'd like to thank Stephen F. Hayes & Thomas Joscelyn for having the courage to show the world that the White House did indeed FIX the intelligence.
Of course, the authors were also trying to tell us about that connection. The "Mother of all Connections." What exactly was all THAT about?
Well, it turns out they have this:
"There could hardly be a clearer case--of the ongoing revelations and the ongoing denial--than in the 13 points below, reproduced verbatim from a "Summary of Evidence" prepared by the U.S. government in November 2004. This unclassified document was released by the Pentagon in late March 2005. It details the case for designating an Iraqi member of al Qaeda, currently detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an "enemy combatant."
- From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.
- A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.
- The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.
- The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.
- The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.
- The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.
- The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.
- The detainee was a member of al Qaida.
- An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.
- The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.
- From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
- In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.
- Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002."
Oh, yes, that really IS a mother isn't it? I mean gee golly whiz, the Al Queda actually had an Iraqi INFANTRYMAN join their ranks? Bust out the tanks, load the bombs, LET'S ROLL!
And while you're at it, wasn't there also an AMERICAN citizen who joined Al Queda? What about the Pakistani's? They actually DO have WMD's and they had a scientist who was willing, and possibly DID share his information with terrorists. Shouldn't we have invaded Pakistan first? I'm sure a Pakistani nuclear scientist trumps an Iraqi infantryman anyday.
I'm sorry, but we didn't invade Iraq because an Iraqi infantryman joined Al Queda.
But that wasn't ALL they had to back up their Mother of all Connections. Oh no, they had this too:
"The alleged plot was to have taken place in August 1998, the same month that al Qaeda attacked two U.S. embassies in East Africa. And more interesting still: It was to have taken place in the same month that the Clinton administration publicly accused Iraq of supplying al Qaeda with chemical weapons expertise and material.
But none of this was interesting enough for any of the major television networks to cover it. Nor was it deemed sufficiently newsworthy to merit a mention in either the Washington Post or the New York Times."
Okay, two points. One, we now know, not guess, not fill in the gaps, KNOW that Iraq didn't have any chemical weapons or material. So the Clinton accusation was wrong. Second, the fact the networks didn't deem it newsworthy were probably twofold: There didn't seem to be any evidence backing up the claim. Clinton, not Bush, made the claim. You see, you can count on two things: If a Dem says something, the media is very critical about it or simply ignores it. If the Reps say ANYTHING, the media gulps it down like the word of God and spreads that word far and wide like it was the literal truth without doing one bit of investigation to find out if it is true.
Except, amazingly, one newservice, the Associated Press, DID do just that. More amazingly, Hayes & Joscelyn tell us what conclusion they came to:
"There is no indication the Iraqi's alleged terror-related activities were on behalf of Saddam Hussein's government, other than the brief mention of him traveling to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi intelligence."
So where is the evidence that would counter the AP's claim that these two mens actions weren't on behalf of Saddams government? All Hayes and Joscelyn can tell us is:
"there is much we don't know."
You can say THAT again! Oh wait, they DO say that again:
"there is much we do not know about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda"
Thanks, I would have definately been behind the war in Iraq from the get go if only I'd known back then that "there is much we do not know about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda"!
What DO they know?
"We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
We have been told by Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, that Saddam Hussein welcomed young al Qaeda members "with open arms" before the war, that they "entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," and that the regime "strictly and directly" controlled their activities. We have been told by Jordan's King Abdullah that his government knew Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and requested that the former Iraqi regime deport him. We have been told by Time magazine that confidential documents from Zarqawi's group, recovered in recent raids, indicate other jihadists had joined him in Baghdad before the Hussein regime fell. We have been told by one of those jihadists that he was with Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war. We have been told by Ayad Allawi, former Iraqi prime minister and a longtime CIA source, that other Iraqi Intelligence documents indicate bin Laden's top deputy was in Iraq for a jihadist conference in September 1999."
Notice first off that they don't provide links to any of these allegations. For all we know, all of this could just be the latest WH spin. But none of these things really matter. They are all besides the point. What the authors are saying is that they NOW know these things, but they didn't before we invaded Iraq:
"All of this is new--information obtained since the fall of the Hussein regime."
And you know what? Even THAT doesn't really matter either because the REAL ISSUE here is that we went to war with Iraq because we were led to fear that Iraq would share WMD's with terrorists. THAT'S the only reason it even MATTERS if Iraq had ties to Al Queda. We didn't go to war because Saddam regarded Al Queda as an intelligence asset back in 1992. We didn't go to war because Iraq allowed one of its citizens back into his own country who had admitted aiding the WTC attack in 93. We didn't go to war because Iraqi television was allowed to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda at the request of Osama. We didn't go to war because a "trusted confidant" of bin Laden got put up in a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of Iraqi Intelligence.
And guess what? Like those "gaps" in Intelligence that the WH exploited to build a case that there were links between Al Queda and Iraq, we now know that the White House filled in a bunch more "gaps" as well. We now know there WEREN'T any WMD's. So we now know it didn't MATTER if there was any type of relationship between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein. And we are learning everyday that the WH knew all along that there weren't any WMD's in Iraq.
YOU fill in the gaps.
So long as OBL wasn't hiding IN Iraq, we could just keep Saddam contained while we hunted down Osama. Instead, we just stole Iraq's oil and left Osama's oranization out there to keep attacking us. THAT'S what really matters.
But thanks guys, for the great confessions!