Proof behind Iraq, al Qaeda link

As newspaper headlines are sure to scream in page one, above-the-fold stories, the 9-11 commission found “no credible evidence” that Saddam Hussein played a role in the terrorist attacks.

But what you won’t hear is that Saddam’s possible role in 9-11 had little to do with the case for war in Iraq. Quite simply, war was waged in Iraq to prevent another 9-11. Apparently, this is too much nuance for most of the media to handle.

Did the administration make Iraq’s substantial terrorist ties, including to al Qaeda, one of the primary reasons for going to war? Of course. But did the administration try to pin 9-11 on Saddam? No.

Yet the casual reader probably couldn’t glean that from the initial media reaction to the commission’s interim report. Nor could the casual reader discern that the “news” on Iraq was but one paragraph in a 12-page document.

Reuters, the news outlet where al Qaeda is merely an “extremist network,” pronounced in its headline, “Panel says no signs on Iraq, al Qaeda link.” The headline writer, though, must have missed the second paragraph, which acknowledged that the commission found that bin Laden himself had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994.

The Associated Press was no better, and in fact, played a more overtly political hand. Its lead sentence stated that the commission’s report was “bluntly contradicting the Bush administration.” Except that it wasn’t.

The primary “contradiction” contained in the report is that the panel has a different view of the credibility of the evidence suggesting a meeting between 9-11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague. Vice President Richard Cheney has presented this meeting as a possibility, but he never claimed that it was ironclad.

The AP headline, though, was even more troubling. It stated that the commission found that “Iraq Rebuffed al Qaeda.” But that’s simply not the case. The report failed to find evidence that the 1994 meeting produced substantial follow-up, but that is a far cry from a “rebuff.”

Obviously, if the administration had made the case for war based on Saddam actively supporting 9-11, the media would be pulling those quotes. Which explains why the media instead had to distort the administration’s words.

Exhibit No. 1 is Vice President Dick Cheney’s comment Monday that Saddam had “long-established ties” to al Qaeda. The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin, for example, claimed that Cheney’s statement was “at odds” with the commission report.

But the commission report noted that Saddam didn’t play a significant role in 9-11, not that he didn’t have “long-established ties” to al Qaeda. That’s not an unimportant distinction.

Explains 9-11 Commision spokesman Jonathan Stull, “The report doesn’t close the book on connections between Iraq and al Qaeda.” And how could it, with only one paragraph on the issue?

More important, it couldn’t have “closed the book,” because Saddam did have “long-established ties” to al Qaeda. The best case to date, in fact, has been made by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard in his new book, “The Connection : How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America.”

Far from some crackpot conspiracy theorist, Hayes is a cautious, seasoned journalist who is careful to add caveats about each piece of evidence. Even though, as he is quick to point out, a number of the stories and events may turn out not to be true, the sheer volume of ties — in terms of both depth and breadth — between Iraq and al Qaeda should leave little doubt that this was a determined, continuing relationship.

“The Connection” lives up to its title in exploring Saddam’s support for and sheltering of one of the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing, as well as extensive meetings between various Iraqi intelligence officials and bin Laden over the years. And recent events serve to corroborate Hayes’ reporting on terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi’s substantial Iraqi ties.

Hayes even documents evidence suggesting an agreement for Iraq to aid al Qaeda in developing WMD. The danger is obvious: stockpiles or no, no one disputes Saddam’s WMD know-how.

With heaps of evidence documenting at least a substantial relationship, the question becomes: what more do the media need? A photograph of a Saddam-bin Laden tea party?