Although the final public hearings of the 9/11 Commission weren't newsworthy enough for the cable nets to carry, since an in-depth description of how the plot was hatched and carried out was apparently not considered interesting or newsworthy, when they stake out a position on the relationship between al Queda and Saddam they're suddenly back in the spotlight again.
Lets start by looking at what the Commission's staff reports (since that's the focus of all the news reports) actually said. (Once again let me say -- God bless the Washington Post. Best paper in the country, great web site, and all the primary documents you'd want, linked right there.) But there's this one graf that all the news reports are working off of:
Bin Laden also requested possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. [And by the way, that's bin Laden initiating the contacts despite his feelings towards Hussein's regime. Doesn't that in one swoop take out the single most vociferous argument against the likelihood of an al Queda/Saddam connection?] Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedlyy persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Queda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, reportedly meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Queda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamently denied that any ties existed between al Queda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Queda cooperated on attacks against the United States.
That's it, my friends. That is the sum total, the full weight and balance of the argumentative firepower the Commission's staff brings to bear against all those interviews Stephen Hayes has been giving. (Oh, wait.) That's in the staff report on al Queda's history and development. The second report, the one on the plot itself has barely a few sentences on Iraq. It only mentions that the Commission staff does not believe that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi embassy employee in Prague the Spring before the attack. Certainly fair enough, but the only evidence they give for that belief are, first, the FBI cannot account for his whereabouts during the relevant dates (and the Commission staff are to be applauded for phrasing it this way, by the way, as there have been media reports that have mistranslated a lack of proof as "the FBI knows he wasn't in Prague) and his cell phone was used in the States during the relevant dates (hardly definitive.) I mean, they're not really trying all that hard. But, be that as it may, the Prague meeting just isn't where the action is. No one really makes a serious argument that Saddam was pulling the 9/11 strings (even if there's intriguing evidence he may have been getting little bulletins.) So the real action is in how that one paragraph gets interpreted.
What we have here is a concession that OBL himself initiated contacts. As I say, that takes the single biggest argument from the "there can't possibly be a relationship of any kind" camp right off the table. If he was looking for goodies from Saddam, clearly he wasn't all that picky about who his friends were, now was he? The Commission isn't aware of any response. What does that mean? That OBL didn't get the goods he wanted? Or that the Commission didn't get the word that there's paperwork proving that deals were struck? There's no evidence that they cooperated. Well, no one's claiming cooperation, however the media would like to spin things.
But there is evidence, whether the mainstream media wants to ignore it or not, of Iraq pursuing the relationship, if not of providing space for training camps (unless you want to count their relationship with Ansar al Islam, and offers of asylum, should OBL at any point need it. But I digress.) There is documenation supporting multiple visits, not only of Iraqi officials to Afghanistan, but of al Queda officials, high ranking ones, to Iraq. There is evidence of al Queda agreeing to a "non-aggression pact" and in return getting Iraq's expertise in the development of chemical weapons and poisons. There is the not small matter of the Clinton administration's mention of Iraq's involvement in al Queda's efforts at developing a chemicals program in their indictment of OBL in the mid-90s. In short, there is more than enough documentary evidence -- some of it in the court records of the US District Court for the Southern Manhatten District -- to prove a collaborative relationship, at least enough that it cannot be dismissed in a single paragraph and have that paragraph taken as definitive. At this point I'm not interested in going through all the material, or proving the argument. At this point I'm simply interested in proving this far simpler point: you cannot dismiss this extensive a record, and this elaborate a debate, with a paragraph, and have that paragraph taken as the more definitive account.
That there was not a cooperative relationship seems to me no problem. Again, that was not something that was claimed. Only something that was charged.
Yet how was this spun on the networks tonight? All three led with the story. From what I could tell, each handled it the same way: one piece on the Commission's staff report on the attack itself, then a second piece on the connection. And the statement of the Commission's staff was framed as definitive and final.
Dan Rather's lead-in tonight notes that the Commission's report "directly contradicted one of President Bush's justifications for war with Iraq." The reporter in the piece itself begins by saying that the relationship was "one of President Bush's last surviving justifications for war with Iraq, and today it took a devastating hit."
Why? Putting aside the question of how many justifications for the war are or aren't standing, first, the Commission has said there's nothing to a cooperative relationship -- which wasn't the justification -- and attempted to deal in a single paragraph with the question of whether there was any relationship at all. That's an awfully difficult question to put a definitive end to in a single, unfootnoted, paragraph. And, just for snicks, let me point out that the question of whether at any point in their history al Queda had a relationship with Saddam, as opposed to whether Iraq participated in the attacks, hardly seems to be within the Commission's purview, does it?
He further said that although the White House was not backing down (given the statements over the last two days, and the Communication Director's repeating today that there was a "relationship") that Commission said there was "no credible evidence they cooperated on the attacks" (which, of course, isn't the same as their having had a relationship, which is the White House's position), but the "White House is sticking to their story, [but] are trying to change the subject." (The piece also includes soundbites from Joesph Cirincione, influential and easily available think tank expert, eager to say that the White House misled the American people into believing the Iraqis had participated, this getting around the problem of the White House never having come right out and said so.)
And that, as near as I could tell while flipping back and forth, is relatively representative. Boy, oh boy, the Commission really kicked the Bushies where it hurts today. Because, after all -- their report must be definitive, after all. Then the same sound bite, no indication ever given that it's the only soundbite because it's, you know, the only soundbite.
How did the print press handle this? AP's piece highlights the problem with the staff report:
Rebuffing Bush administration claims, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). In hair-raising detail, the commission said the terror network had envisioned a much larger attack and is working hard to strike again.
Although Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) asked for help from Iraq (news - web sites) in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. The report asserted "no credible evidence" has emerged that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 strikes.
Frankly, that isn't an unfair representation of the paragraph in question. The administration does say there are ties. If OBL reached out, but Saddam never answered, then it can hardly be said that there were close ties, can it? But it is interesting, isn't it, that after all this time listening to the argument that it was bin Laden who would never, ever, ever in a million years have anything to do with Saddam because it's the Islamists who are so picky, all of a sudden everyone reverses course (poor OBL, his letters unanswered) without nary a peep about all that's been said up until now.
The only question I've got is this: where's the evidence that that one paragraph is based on extensive interviews with anybody? as opposed to just a review of the literature? What is that paragraph based on? It's just sitting there. And the Hayes book, the most extensive compilation of work summarizing work on both sides of the issue, makes the same claim. Actually, he's explicit about what his sourcing approach is -- there's nothing in this document to describe their approach to this particular question, as opposed to their approach to research generally.
And, speaking of finger pointing, what's less interesting to the media then the hope of nailing the administration on something? Look at what the AP buried (although they, to their credit, at least included it.)
Under questioning, John Pistole, the FBI (news - web sites)'s top counterterrorism official, told the commission that the government "has probably prevented a few aviation attacks" in the United States since Sept. 11 but that some operatives in those plots are still at large. (My emph.)
I didn't catch that mentioned in ABC's story on the planning for the attacks. Don't know if either of the other two bothered to mention it. But it does seem something worth mentioning to me.
The AP continues:
The conclusions that al-Qaida and Iraq had no cooperative relationship run counter to repeated assertions by President Bush (news - web sites), Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and other administration officials. The claims that bin Laden and Saddam were in league were central to the administration's justification for going to war in Iraq.
As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi president "had long-established ties with al-Qaida." And last fall he cited what he called a credible but unconfirmed intelligence report that Mohamed Atta, ringleader of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, met in Prague, Czech Republic, with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks.
The commission concluded no such meeting occurred.
Now who's playing fast and loose? The administration has been claiming they had a relationship, not that they were cooperating. It is true that Cheney "cited" the Prague meeting, but it is not the case that he said, you will recall, that he believed it -- the whole reason there was such hub-ub was because he he pointed out there was no proof, no way to confirm or deny. To simply say here that Cheney "cited" the meeting is a bit misleading.
Compare that to the piece the WaPo puts up, where the first two grafs are about the planning of the plot. The third graf reads as follows:
In an overview of al Qaeda released in a separate report earlier this morning, the commission also found "no credible evidence" that al Qaeda collaborated with Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq on the Sept. 11 strikes or any other attacks on the United States.
which is both true, accurate, and fair, and then goes back to reporting on the planning and the plotting.
Unfortunately it is not until the very end of the article that we find this:
By any means possible, it warns, "al Qaeda is actively striving to attack the United States and inflict mass casualties."
In testimony before the commission today, federal officials said they agreed that al Qaeda remains a threat to the United States.
U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald said that despite losing much of its leadership in the U.S. war on terrorism, al Qaeda is still dangerous and may now be more far-flung.
John Pistole, the FBI's executive assistant director for counter-terrorism, said the FBI views the war against terrorism as a "generational" one that may not be won until future generations in the Muslim world are weaned away from radical anti-American views.
"It may be tantamount to a hundred-year war," he said.
The Post does have a second piece up, one of it's little White House briefings, suggesting that there's no evidence that Zarqawi had ties to Iraq before the war, but not bothering to do much more than assert that fact.
In point of fact it's never been disputed that he was in Baghdad before the war, that he received medical treatment, not from some back alley quack, but from one of the finest hospitals, reserved for the regimes elite, and even if you believe a well known Ansar terrorist could have swung into Baghdad without Saddam's security people gotten wind of it, it's hard to imagine how he would have pulled that off. Hell, if you don't believe me -- just ask ABC.
Did Iraq have anything to do with Sept. 11th? There's no evidence to support that. As Stephen Hayes points out, there's intriguing evidence -- not proof, evidence -- that they may have been kept in the loop.
Was there a relationship there? There's just too much evidence there to dismiss in one paragraph. From a Commission not charged with investigating that topic. With no footnotes. Or explanation of research methodology. Sorry.
One more thing. It has been stated over and over that a "majority" of Americans believe that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. That's a bit of a misstatement of the poll results. Now, I've been quite critical of the latest PIPA study, the one finding viewers of certain media outlets more "misinformed" than others, but as I've said all along, I think PIPA is in general a top notch outfit, well worth reading. And I think if you'll look at their description of how we got from the Washington Post's original poll result on whether Saddam was involved in 9/11 to the myth that "70% of Americans believe that Saddam was involved" it will be well worth your time.
And with that, we shall wait and see what the morning papers do.
Update: One paragraph, precisely worded. The staffers were apparently quite deliberate in what they did and the way they did it.
Update: As I explain in the "Big, Fat, New York Times Post" above, I just don't get the point of wasting time trying to argue that Atta was in Prague in April of 2001. The best you're going to do is prove that we'll never know -- not exactly a great deal of offensive argumentative force. But, as Andrew McCarthy points out, there were other dates when he was in Prague that aren't contested. Why? Who knows? At this point, those dates remain nothing more than an intriguing mystery. But the real reason McCarthy's piece is of interest isn't for what he has to say about Atta in Prague, but for what he has to say about the idea that the staff report means closure on the idea of a link between al Queda and Iraq.
Update: It's worse than you thought! Mickey Kaus has the transcript, as opposed to my note taking, and it doesn't make CBS's reporter look very good.
That CBS News stuff is unbelievable. This is journalism? Cheap, easily debunked propaganda, at best. It's a miracle Americans have the slightest idea what's going on in the world, or their own country. And about the WaPo ..... wow. I realize "best" is a comparative, but it's usually indistinguishable from the other major papers in its pathologies.
Joe Cirincione, a very nice guy but utterly clueless on any substantive matters, is influential? That's so improbable, scary, and depressing that I'll simply refuse to believe it .....
Posted by: IceCold | June 16, 2004 at 10:44 PM
"Carefully worded."
Ah yes, carefully worded. An understatement indeed given the political agenda being advanced here, both by the MSM and this self-vaunted and self-enamored "9/11 commission".
And if we lowly ones in fly-over country are ever deemed worthy enough, perhaps someday they'll feed us poor humble masses a crumb of truth or two. Provided of course we're obeisant enough and duly deferential to our benefactors for bein' so very, very kindly to us. Another bowl of soup kindly sir?
Oh well, it's just another maelstrom of confusing disinformation from the MSM/Left nexus. So what's there to be surprised about?
As noted, both the news as well as the partisan 9/11 commission is framing so much of this stuff as "Truth" from on high, not to be questioned. But reviewing the commission's report itself I kept asking - from where and what is this based upon? Is this simply more chapter and verse cited from Washington D.C. yet again, even when it comes to this issue? I.e., had exactly the same thoughts as your own overview notes.
That's precisely the thing that makes reading analyses and commentary at this blog so refreshing. I understand I'm being treated like an intelligent, sentient human, not like a Stepford, yes-man clone fed information by the MSM and Washington D.C. that thereafter is not to be questioned. The odd part though is that the ruse seems so transparently obvious, both in print and on screen; as if the emperor so obviously doesn't have a stitch of clothes on, yet many applaud the tailoring nonetheless. Who is the performance addressed to any more other than a shrinking audience and - themselves, to shore up their own weakening beliefs?
Posted by: Michael B | June 17, 2004 at 01:02 AM
You people are a riot. There's evidence, not proof I hasten to add, that al Qaeda and Saddam's officers knew about each other and may have even chatted. Of all the countries in the world that al Qaeda has had 'relationships' with this is among the weakest. What do you hope to accomplish? Did Michael B let slip the real obsession: to shore up your own weakening beliefs? al Qaeda pulled off 9/11 without assistance from Iraq. Many Americans believed Saddam was invovled in 9/11. The American military had to be told that they were getting the people responsible for 9/11. Administration surrogates hinted as much, and the administration took no pains to suggest otherwise. So now a conflation of innuendo and possible universes gets deflated. What exactly is it you are clinging to here? That the urgency for war wasn't primarily based on fear-mongering. That 9/11 wasn't used opportunistically to satisfy a pre-held desire? That the shoddy war propaganda and sloppy post-war planning weren't the direct result of an administration either freaked out or giddy? What is the myth you so desperately want to preserve?
Posted by: I'm Cryin' | June 17, 2004 at 04:51 AM
"And with that, we shall wait and see what the morning papers do."
In a world where shades of gray block out all the sun, where apologies rain down in thousands of droplets, and tyrannical dicators are King and nuance composes the court, we have the NYT calling for Bush to apologize for waging war with Iraq.
Posted by: athena | June 17, 2004 at 06:18 AM
I don't read the NYT (only quotes and comments), but I can only hope that they have continued success with their PC commitment to obscurity. One would think all that sand in one's face would become tiresome.
Andrew Buncombe has a blindingly similar, 'enlightened' view of the commission's "wisdom." (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=532341)
Posted by: Richard Meixner | June 17, 2004 at 08:09 AM
Not even a decent try I'm Cryin'. The Atta/Prague meeting has neither been proven nor disproven, so am an agnostic in that area, a skeptic both toward those who believe and toward those who disbelieve in an overly confident manner. It's simply inconclusive, though there is some circumstantial evidence that supports the eye-witness in Prague. Still, that's not the point of the post and I for one am not willing to argue Atta/Prague herein.
The import of the post was the 9/11 comminsions' lack of transparency with available evidence (a failure to make it much more obvious as to what their statements are based upon) and seemingly attempting to make the evidence say more than it warrants as well. Also there's some misdirection being employed when the commission itself and the MSM reports overly emphasize the "no Saddam and 9/11" message: 1) It avoids the wider Saddam/al Queda question, outside of the purview of 9/11 per se and 2) again, the Atta/Prague meeting has to this point neither been proven nor disproven, at least in terms of the open source information.
Posted by: Michael B | June 17, 2004 at 08:27 AM