That non-existent link
A couple of mainstream media outlets have now acknowledged the fact that the study by the Institute for Defense Analyses based on 600,000 documents seized from Saddam’s Iraq and which was said to have shown ‘no tie’ between Saddam and al Qaeda in fact reveal a far greater involvement by Saddam with al Qaeda affiliates and other international terrorist groups threatening western interests than was ever suspected. The Wall Street Journal observed:
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.At the Weekly Standard Stephen Hayes, who has tirelessly revealed details of Saddam’s links to terrorism over the years, frets about the extraordinary failure not merely of the media to report these findings, instead representing the report misleadingly as claiming that there were no ‘direct’ Saddam/al Qaeda links, but also the inexplicable silence by the US government which has not mentioned them either.
What's happening here is obvious. Military historians and terrorism analysts are engaged in a good faith effort to review the captured documents from the Iraqi regime and provide a dispassionate, fact-based examination of Saddam Hussein's long support of jihadist terrorism. Most reporters don't care. They are trapped in a world where the Bush administration lied to the country about an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, and no amount of evidence to the contrary--not even the words of the fallen Iraqi regime itself -- can convince them to re-examine their mistaken assumptions.
Bush administration officials, meanwhile, tell us that the Iraq war is the central front in the war on terror and that American national security depends on winning there. And yet they are too busy or too tired or too lazy to correct these fundamental misperceptions about the case for war, the most important decision of the Bush presidency.
To which might be added—too demoralised. On both sides of the pond, the fall-out from the flawed aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, the subsequent mass re-writing of history and the mass hysteria and descent into irrationality which have ensued, not to mention the desire to avoid anything which might focus attention on the mistakes that were made (which were rather more devastating, if one takes the view that Saddam’s WMD did exist and are now in the hands of other rogue states, than anything dreamed up by the anti-war brigade) has meant that faced with any evidence that they were actually right to do what they did (if not the way in which they did it) the reaction of both the American and British governments is to put their heads under a pillow and hope it all just goes away.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (15)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 Britain’s AWOL ally - Fraser Nelson
2 A phonecall to Kelly looks better than not mentioning expenses - Peter Hoskin
3 Fatal inexperience - Humphrey Carpenter
4 The day ends on a sour note for Labour - Peter Hoskin
5 Cameron fires a broadside at ‘petty’ Brown - David Blackburn
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
GASCONY
GASCONY, SW France, near Condom-en-Armagnac 13th Century stone house, 21st Century luxury for 12 in 5 en-suites. 50 acres +
BIG SAND STEEL BAND
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, Tarn et Garonne.
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2009 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Bob Latchford
March 25th, 2008 8:10pmI think the fact that George Bush has deserted Ms Phillips and left her alone on the island of insanity that beleives that under the close scruitny of the world, including a warmongering America and a gaggle of UN weapons inspectors, Saddam somehow loaded all of his WMD's on the back of lorries and drove them to Syria, speaks volumes.
BJ
March 25th, 2008 10:39pmAnother excellent comment from Bob Latchford. Keep them coming!
steve
March 25th, 2008 10:57pmSorry if the WMDs existed as promised why hasn't the U.S. government reported this since it's in their interest to do so. They've had in custody most of the senior leadership of Iraq plus scientists plus members of Iraqi intelligence and the military (plus interal Iraqi government records) and you would have us believe that all of these people have conspired to keep silent about the WMDs that have now been shipped elsewhere? Why would it be in their interest to do so? Can you please let this fantasy finally die because it is at odds with both the facts and basic logic but then, as Stephen Colbert noted, reality does have a liberal bias.
Straydingo
March 25th, 2008 11:14pmBob,
Instead of attacking the author why not try something novel and challenge the facts.
None of what Melanie is posting here is really hard to validate.
Ian G.
March 26th, 2008 12:18amWhy not try following the link and reading the article? Then you might be able to make a relevant comment, Mr. Latchford.
yonason
March 26th, 2008 3:17amAs John at Powerline says, "Over the last five years, we have witnessed something remarkable: our principal news media outlets have fabricated an alternative reality around the Iraq war by simply misreporting the facts. They have done this in order to advance their own political agenda." -- http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/03/020111.php --
yonason
March 26th, 2008 3:38am[TB:=Tom Brokaw, DK:=David Kay] ___ TB: The president described Iraq as a gathering threat — a gathering danger. Was that an accurate description? ___
DK: I think that’s a very accurate description. ___
TB: But an imminent threat to the United States? ___
DK: Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It’s not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened. ___ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4066462/ ___ And, yes, David Kay even says that some WMD may have been shipped out and/or even hidden in Iraq, and that the intent was to reconstitute the WMD programs as soon as it was possible. ___ http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/ ___ But the Bob Latchfords of the world either don't present real evidence, or, when they do, they distort it's meaning to fit whatever perverse narrative they have concocted. They like to indulge in insults more than reason, because it serves as a smokescreen to conceal their shallow thoughts. Give it a rest, Bobby, your cover is blown.
Ray Robison
March 26th, 2008 3:06pmMy book Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents examines many of these same documents in detail (and more) in greater historical context. It is quite clear that Saddam was deeply involved in Islamic terrorism and had many connections to al Qaeda core leadership. There is even evidence that he directly influenced al Qaeda and the Taliban and at the very least funded those groups.
http://www.bothinonetrench.com
rudolph camillo
March 26th, 2008 4:09pmi think the way you headline your comments on the war against the jews,is subbordinate to its contents. long term however it may lose its impact out of sheer headline repetition. in any case keep up the good work. regards
field
March 27th, 2008 1:47amBob Latchford -
So you are asking us to believe that Saddam ordered co-operation with the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, led by Al Queda's current no. 2 but subsequently did not continue that co-operation when it morphed into AQ? Now - THAT is incredible.
And you are asking us to believe that if Saddam did transfer weapons to Syria he would parcel them up in lorries marked WMD? What are you saying - that all trade between Syria and Iraq had stopped at this stage? Of course not. So there were lorries going back and forth the whole time. No one could tell what was in them.
Anyway your argument is illogical. You are saying we had faulty intelligence but on the other hand you are saying the evidence is that our intelligence service were not so faulty that they couldn't discover a weapons transfer to Syria. Having since learned how poor our intelligence was, the logical conclusions is that the transfers could easily have taken place without our knowledge.
phil
March 27th, 2008 7:05pmWhy do all you intelligent people continue to respond to latchford -he has his own agenda and facts never get in his way -sadaam had made it perfectly clear that he was going to attack Israel ASAP, he tried to get the supergun and failed ,he had to be warned during the first gulf war not to tip his scuds with chemicals or he would be obliterated ,he also continued trying to get these weapons even if he did not succeed-had he got them and used them I believe a third world war would have been triggered , just follow the logic for yourselves -you will see its not far fetched ,and all in order for him to be the biggest man in the Arab world .whether he got his WMD is hardly relevant HE WAS TRYING, cant these smart alecs realise it ?I will answer my own question -they don't want too.I suggest you all ignore latchford and his sidekick dbc john ,we are trying to debate in a serious way and those two are just indulging their own weird fantasies -show Melanie some respect guys and don't reply to them .
Commondog
March 27th, 2008 8:13pmBob Latchford.
'Island of Insanity'?
This 'warmongering America' thing is by now so tired that even Hollywood struggles any longer to make it breathe.
The 'close scrutiny' of the world? It never did amount to much more than a couple of dozen Landcruisers with satphones. Thunderbird 3 was not available.
You supply, with that collective noun, a perfect description of the folly of the weapons inspectors: as expert as ever they were, they were indeed a very small number of flapping squawks in a very large country.
The lorries and Syria bit though I think is worth pursuing.
Paul
March 27th, 2008 9:40pmHi Phil,if Bob Latchford didn`t exist perhaps it would be necessary to invent him.I think in the interest of open debate it`s vital to have opposing views no matter how objectionable.It`s only through open discussion that misplaced views can be addressed and possibly changed.If we choose to ignore views that are different then we end up loosing credibility and become just another sight dedicated to perpetuating propaganda rather than seeking some kind of truth.
phil
March 28th, 2008 1:19amPaul ,you are of course right but only if the man deals in facts not distortions -we all have *biased*views but most of us do not deal in insults and inventions -i have had many exchanges ( mostly friendly i think) with mike ,mr chaffey ,rob ETC ,but the stuff latchford puts out with his pals dbc john, and london calling are mostly fantasies as befits the web site *london calling*-I have to admit being initially naive because I did not know what that web site was but I do now and I dont want to know any more of its drivel ..nor do I want to see gratuitous insults aimed at Melanie who affords us this opportunity to air our views-just to close Paul there are many varied views here which enable us to adjust our thoughts and have better knowledge ,but I really dont want to know what those above mentioned people think . I also accept your remarks are constructive so thank you
field
March 28th, 2008 2:46pmSteve -
Your argument is more logical than Latchford's.
But just out of interest - this means you do think that Saddam voluntarily divested himself of all WMD but without telling the UN or documenting it properly? Why did he do that if he knew it would risk loss of his power? Any reasons?
I'd genuinely be interested in hearing a plausible explanation. I personally don't buy the "he couldn't show how weak he was" argument, since this policy just made him weaker in fact without making him secure in the long run (i.e. it was always going to lead to confrontation with the USA).