As Claudia Rosset is to the UN Oil for Food Scandal, so Stephen Hayes is to the Saddam-al Queda link. Both are reporters with an enormous interest in a story that you would think, given its importance, many outlets and many reporters would care about -- and yet there they are, pretty much alone.
Because of the new information about this man who may have been both Saddam Fedayeen and at the Malaysia meeting of al Queda, Hayes here provides a quick round up of what we know and what questions are outstanding.
How little interest is there in this story? I found out last week (I can't now remember how) that Hayes had a book out on this, and of course raced to Amazon. Because I hadn't heard anything, or seen him anywhere, I assumed it wasn't out yet and I'd be placing a preorder.
I was stunned to realize that the book is already out. I was going to point this out when my copy arrives, but Hayes is the top reporter on this question, period. Does he believe there was a connection? Sure. But he believes there was a connection between Saddam and al Queda, not between Saddam and the Martians. Why no book tour? Why no interviews? Why isn't he booked on Today, and Hardball (where he's been a guest regularly) and all the rest? I watch enough cable news that I'd miss one or two appearances in a book tour -- not the fact of a book tour.
Even someone paying as much attention as I do can't know what we aren't told about.
Good work, but as one of Roger Simon's commenters noted, maybe there will be an October surprise. Poker may well be an apt analogy, not to mention piloting skills and business manangement acumen.
Posted by: Richard Meixner | May 29, 2004 at 09:39 AM