WSJ: Saddam-terrorist connections get no media coverage
posted at 12:05 pm on March 24, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Wall Street Journal’s editors took the time to read the Pentagon report on the connections between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups, and wonder why the national media have ignored the story. The analysis of the Harmony documents got initially misreported, and after the Pentagon released the full analysis, few if any news agencies opted to correct the initial distortions they published — and the WSJ says that leaves Americans misinformed:
Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq’s links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.
Naturally, it’s getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions, while the Bush Administration seems indifferent. Even John McCain has let the study’s revelations float by. But that doesn’t make the facts any less notable or true.
The redacted version of “Saddam and Terrorism” is the most definitive public assessment to date from the Harmony program, the trove of “exploitable” documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq. On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam’s willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East.
“The rise of Islamic 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,” the authors conclude. Throughout the 1990s, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) cooperated with Hamas; the Palestine Liberation Front, which maintained a Baghdad office; Force 17, Yasser Arafat’s private army; and others. The IIS gave commando training for members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the organization that assassinated Anwar Sadat and whose “emir” was Ayman al-Zawahiri, who became Osama bin Laden’s second-in-command when the group merged with al Qaeda in 1998.
We covered the misrepresentations earlier in these posts. In one, I used the title that should have been used to headline this story: “Saddam supported at least two al-Qaeda groups”. That was the lede that the American media buried, thanks to a distortion that came from an anonymous Pentagon source that took one sentence from the executive summary out of context and a curious reluctance to address the actual evidence that the report highlights.
The Journal wonders what the media needs to report this story correctly. More trenchantly, it wonders why the Bush administration hasn’t pressed the story harder. It almost appears as if the White House has surrendered the entire contemporary narrative on Iraq to the distorters and hope to have historians pull their chestnuts from the fire a generation from now. Maybe that will happen, but in the meantime, we’re fighting terrorists now. We need to shine a bright light on the Harmony evidence, not just to correct the record for this administration but to underscore the role Iraq played in fomenting both pan-Arabist secular and radical Islamist terrorism before the invasion brought it to an end.
Without the record being clear, the misinformation that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism, and especially terrorism that targeted the US, will continue to hamper our ability to react to intelligence quickly and forcefully. That’s more important than Bush’s reputation, and one hopes that the White House will soon find the stomach for challenging the distortions more effectively and energetically than what we’re seeing now.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Looking for a link to the entire report. Anyone have it?
Vanbasten on March 24, 2008 at 12:08 PM
It’s been that way from the beginning, or almost from the beginning of this whole mess. I still can’t figure out if the root of this fundamental mistake is caused by Bush administration arrogance (why should we have to convince the plebes?) or ignorance/incompetence/fear of the media. Either way it has damaged the war effort and hurt morale for the troops and military families.
The communication failure coupled with the stubborn insistance to not increase the size of the active duty force has made this whole thing much more difficult on the military community than it should have been.
funky chicken on March 24, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Wait… what about the Bush Lied People Died argument?
saltydogg14 on March 24, 2008 at 12:13 PM
I am shocked.
Hening on March 24, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Long ago I wrote a letter to the White House complaining about their lack of action regarding terror ties back in September of 2003.
Don Quixote’s letter to the President, tilting at windmills can be fun
Why they have never defended the obvious is beyond me. But after all of the incompetence of this administration I gather they just simply never understood the importance of it. And before anyone jumps on me I donated a ton of money to Bush. Not impressed with the return…that does not make me a liberal democrat.
PierreLegrand on March 24, 2008 at 12:15 PM
The media always ignores what it dosent want to cover.
tx2654 on March 24, 2008 at 12:16 PM
PL lol nope, you’re definitely not a liberal. I’ve found that fewer folks sling the “BDS” label at me when I bring this stuff up now…back in 2005 when listening would have saved the GOP majority in congress? Man did the calls of BDS fly.
funky chicken on March 24, 2008 at 12:20 PM
tx2654 It’s the job of the President to make sure they can’t ignore it. We are at war, we have people fighting and dying in the field, and the Bush administration has been either terminally timid or arrogant in failing to get the pro-war message out there….
funky chicken on March 24, 2008 at 12:22 PM
“Yeah, it’s good Saddam is gone, but he was no threat to us.”MSM favorite YEAH BUT about the Iraq War. The neighbors of Saddam should get down on their knees, face MECCA, and thank ALLAH that the U.S. did their job for them. We all know it was only a matter of time before Iran, Kuwait, and a whole lot of their Muslim pals would have to fight Mr. Hussein, to save their butts.
pueblo1032 on March 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM
The only people who will listen are those here…At this point history is the only judge. One need only look at the difference in Iraq from the first war til today. The influence is unarguable. Any average citizen should be able to see the difference.
tomas on March 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM
This administration let the media take control of this story so that even the government reports are using their terms and benchmarks. Since when did “the smoking gun” have to be OPERATIONAL links proving that Saddam ordered terrorist groups to attack the US.
Per Wiki:
I consider funding and training terrorist groups that attack Americans to be a smoking gun. Basically Powells statement that Saddam was at the nexus of terrorism is 100% true.
BohicaTwentyTwo on March 24, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I think the Bush admin. “mis-underestimated” just how low the MSM was willing to go to do the lefts bidding. I think the admin. should have hired a PR firm to get the message out and to keep it straight.
kcd on March 24, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Link to all 5 volumes of the report
Some of my better reviews of the msm reviews on the report (only 1-UPI’s-is actually based on the report. The rest admit or grossly demonstrate that they never even read pg1 of the 1600pgs)
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/03/23/saddams-files-they-show-terror-plots-but-raise-new-questions-about-some-media-claims/
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/03/20/associated-press-blows-it-again-re-regime-ties-to-al-queda/
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/03/16/no-ties-between-saddam-and-al-queda-network-of-terrorist-groups/
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/03/21/americans-deserve-insight-not-old-news-on-iraq-war-so-where-is-it/
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/03/15/pentagon-rpt-confirms-saddams-regime-supported-al-qaida/
scottm on March 24, 2008 at 12:32 PM
“v. Conclusion
One question remains regarding Iraq’s terrorism capability: Is there
anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his
terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of
Saddam’s statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United
States, the answer is /yes/.”
[btw, no emphasis added on that 'yes'. It's emphasized in the report]
scottm on March 24, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Here’s a link to the report as a PDF document, provided by ABC.
JS on March 24, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Eh this has been pretty common knowledge to anyone who bothers to read stuff that’s not front page.
Seriously, I remember some of these materials being found… was it two years ago?
I’d have to dig through my blog, but I’m pretty sure it’s been circulated. No one really seemed to care. Lefties see what they want, moderates just don’t care, and those of us on the right who find the stories…
well we’re conservative so obviously we can’t think for ourselves.
gag.
One Angry Christian on March 24, 2008 at 12:36 PM
That pretty much says it all! The question should not be why the Bush Administration has failed to champion the truth, the question is why the media insists on creating lies, distortion and out right omission when reporting on the war and terrorism!
dmann on March 24, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Actually, no. A lot of it is common knowledge, but there’s some REALLY amazing stuff in there-particularly volume 5 imo.
scottm on March 24, 2008 at 12:37 PM
the fact that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups made their stand in Iraq and not Afghanistan is enough proof.
politically this has been a disaster, if the media was a little more balanced/honest/conservative, this wouldn’t be near the issue it is and the administration wouldn’t be afraid to bring up the argument all over again.
jp on March 24, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Any way to avoid the central issue: Islamic imperialism
sanctioned by the Koran (and Hadiths).
These petty cells of jihadists and their enablers are less crucial to our survival and to their defeat than grasping the central ideology behind them all: bringing on a theocratic tyranny.
profitsbeard on March 24, 2008 at 12:43 PM
I’ve said the same thing. That would have been vital in preventing support for the war from dropping.
But that also shows the difference between a Republican administration vs. Democrat administration. The Democrat administration is ALL PR. Bush’s administration actually works for a living, though I don’t agree with everything it’s done.
shick on March 24, 2008 at 12:44 PM
One of Bush’s most egregious failures has been his unwillingness to make a case for himself to the American people and to the media. You can’t blame him for giving up, due to the way the media continuously distorts everything he’s said. However, I think if he got up there and presented this, and called the media’s bluff, they’d at least have to comment on it. For now, the media is just pretending that it doesn’t even exist.
Seixon on March 24, 2008 at 12:44 PM
If they weren’t willing to do it when the Dems in Congress at least had a chance of cutting off the funding, why would they do it now?
I’m still dumbfounded as to why the administration has completely laid down on this issue.
NeoconNews.com on March 24, 2008 at 12:49 PM
in their little minds, there is no connection. When they are proven wrong, they clap their hands to their ears, “NANANANANOT LISTENING!”
Mazztek on March 24, 2008 at 1:09 PM
I remember a while back when Tony Snow was asked about why the Bush admin wasn’t pushing the findings in the captured Iraqi documents. He replied to the effect that they “didn’t want to open that can of worms again.”
People sacrifice so much, fight and die, and these people don’t have the guts to run their mouths in their defense. Pathetic.
tomk59 on March 24, 2008 at 1:14 PM
I’m convinced the Bush Administration does not feel it needs to convince the American people… because they do their most effective work when folks are not looking.
Iranian IEDs? Should have been hammered by the admin…
Iranian training camps? sam…
and this….
They don’t seem to understand the Power of the American Public.
Romeo13 on March 24, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Seixon on March 24, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Indeed. This admin. gets low grades on communication. They are a total failure on this facet of the war, and on other significant topics. That no one can clarify this to the president is very telling.
Entelechy on March 24, 2008 at 1:37 PM
” against all enemies, foreign and domestic“
Johan Klaus on March 24, 2008 at 1:52 PM
someone needs to remind the press that with the freedom of speech comes the potential irresponsibility of silence.
beefytee on March 24, 2008 at 1:55 PM
The Bush administration has long understood that it is a waste of time to attempt debate with zealots and fanatics.
You can not, you will not be able to persuade a democrat loyalist. They simply reject anything that does not support their conclulsions. They will not re-evaluate their conclusions, because they can not comprehend the possiblility that they might be wrong.
rockhauler on March 24, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Why give them ammunition?
I think the strategy is to rely on peoples good sense who support us.
The A-holes that ignore the truth are many and not worth the time at this point, it just gives them the attention they crave.
Sonosam on March 24, 2008 at 3:18 PM
my only problem with this, is its part of why conservatism is fractured. many of the social con and fiscal cons that don’t follow this stuff closely and are paleo- leaning conservtives have bought into the misinformation and lies on the matter. They think we went to war because of WMD and to “nation build” only and are blaming the ‘neo-cons’ for the republican electoral troubles.
jp on March 24, 2008 at 3:30 PM
This is the link.. Ayman al-Zawahiri, he was just out with a new video..
Chakra Hammer on March 24, 2008 at 3:34 PM
funky chicken on March 24, 2008 at 3:51 PM
The Bush administration has long understood that it is a waste of time to attempt debate with zealots and fanatics.
That is a crazy understanding. Besides not being accurate. The Administration time and time again pooh poohed the connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Indeed they even went against Cheney when he responded to a question of Tim Russert.
So then you might think that the administration would back up the Vice President…you would be wrong.
When asked about Cheney’s statement both the President and the Sec of Defense acted like he had lost his marbles. Notice these marvelous quotes:
Not wanting to be left of the fun the President steps up to the plate and agrees with Rumsfeld that there is no link. As if in 2003 those two clowns actually had all the evidence before them. It is pitiful. Cheney was the only professional among them.
So no the case was lost because of dumbness not some diabolical deviousness by the President. We should be so lucky that the guy who invited terrorists to the White House the week after 9/11 was smart enough to be all those things I believed he was. Hell I thought he was putting us on when he declared that Islam was the Religion of Peace…no indeedy not. That knucklehead actually believes that nonsense. Holy smokes and there are some that ascribe brilliant strategy to him? I used to and but not anymore now I understand he just gets lucky every now and again and that there are a few adults around him that prevent him from running with scissors.
Bitter??? Yea a bit.
PierreLegrand on March 24, 2008 at 3:57 PM
It may be crazy, Pierre, but it’s precisely what happened.
They said Saddam supported terror, the press corps accused them of claiming Saddam was behind 9/11. They said there was no proof of that, the press corps said they admitted Saddam had no terror connection. It’s the exact same principle they use to twist “Saddam had extensive terror ties” into “Saddam didn’t support Bin Laden” as a headline - whoever did that must have been a pretty revolting person.
The press corps pretty much lies its ass off constantly, and while it may have been a bad decision, I think the Bush admin just decided to minimize their involvement with the press. The press have constantly complained that Bush doesn’t talk to the press enough… would you, if all they ever did was lie about what you said?
It would REALLY be nice to have someone in such a high office willing to take the press corps to task, to call them on their lies and distortions, and to tell them what awful liars they’ve become… I just don’t see it happening, sadly.
Merovign on March 24, 2008 at 4:10 PM
the game the left plays with that is that there is no proven connection to 9/11 specifically and Saddam. This is how they dumb down this entire issue by grandstanding, completely blurring the facts that saddam was in fact in bed with Al-Qaeda, though we have no proof of 9/11 specifically, but with other acts we definitely do.
This is why the admin. is afraid to take this issue on, this is how the left will spin it in their favor and with our media and their dominance of the national dialogue, they win with the avg. voter and what they take away from it.
jp on March 24, 2008 at 4:44 PM
The administration probably figures no one would believe them, so why bother. Seems rather irresponsible to me.
ThePrez on March 24, 2008 at 4:51 PM
America trained the terrorists to fly planes. When it comes to 9-11, no other country had a more important contribution. No American flight training, no 911. It’s as simple as that. For some reason no one talks about that.
Should we have bombed and invaded ourselves instead of Iraq as revenge for training 911 hijackers???? A ludicrous proposition, but one that makes as much sense as still clinging to the Iraq Al-Qaeda “links” as a valid Iraq war justification.
coldwater on March 24, 2008 at 6:27 PM
coldwater, you are an idiot.
btw, google Salman Pak and “fussle lodge” sometime
jp on March 24, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Yeah, Coldwater, it is pretty simple- i mean your post and for lack of a better word, logic.
tomk59 on March 24, 2008 at 6:41 PM
First off, you didn’t bring a link so your claim has no credibility. Second off, our support for Islamists in the Middle East was based on a war with Russia. I think its hame shares some common elements with your handle. Third off, you subscribe to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - you say that we trained terrorists to fly planes, and the terrorists then chose to fly planes through our buildings, therefore it’s our fault. In the context of the war in Afghanistan during the latter stages of the Cold War, that’s like giving a man a gun to defend himself against someone invading his home and then blaming yourself when he decides to shoot you.
Anyway, the reason Bush doesn’t bring this up is because he can’t. Plain and simple. Any speeches Bush makes about the Pentagon’s findings will immediately discredit them in the eyes of anyone who doesn’t already believe there was a link between Saddam and AQ, because to those people anything with Bush’s stench about it is dirty and worthless. The only way for this to take hold at all is if it is perceived as independent from Bush, and for that to happen Bush can’t give any statements reminding people that this was done by people under him. That’ll just evoke the “well, they were wrong about WMDs in Iraq” image in most people’s minds. It’s gotten to the point where the government can’t release anything that might indicate that the enemy has something (this), but when it releases something that denies that possibility (the Iran “intel” report) it gains instant credibility. Sad, really.
Math_Mage on March 24, 2008 at 10:41 PM
I wonder how much it’s his boob handlers, scared of their own shadow, or arrogantly thinking they know what’s best.
Whenever Bush says some things unscripted, he seems pretty forceful in what he wants done in Iraq.
The lower level flunkies should be pushing the same message. Rather than doing that, they are conceding whatever the media’s message is by staying silent.
91Veteran on March 25, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Telling someone that he is an idiot is terribly rude. You ought to learn some manners.
The evidence for terrorist training taking place at Salman Pak is inconclusive at best and disproved at worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Pak_facility
There is a link for you. There are plenty of references in the article. Feel free to contribute to this article if you feel it’s missing important factual evidence.
coldwater on March 25, 2008 at 1:59 AM
The fact that the hijackers learned to fly commercial passenger planes in US flight schools is a well known fact. You would have to agree with that. You would probably also have to agree that this is the most advanced skill needed to carry out the attack.
The argument you are making is precisely why not a single US government oficial was ever held responsible for allowing the tragedy to occur. At the very least, the National Security Advisor, CIA Director and FBI Director should have been fired the next day. Of course where would we be now without Condie….
coldwater on March 25, 2008 at 2:52 AM