This article is quite comprehensive and has lots of links in it. Here's the URL: washingtonpost.com
A Disconnect on the Al Qaeda Link
Thursday, Jun 17, 2004; 11:45 AM
Is there a contradiction, or not?
Yesterday, a staff report from the Sept. 11 commission concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.
And this morning, pretty much every mainstream media outlet in the world concludes that this knocks down one of the Bush administration's few still-standing justifications for the war in Iraq.
But the White House says there's no contradiction, because President Bush never made an explicit link between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.
On CNN yesterday, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said: "Just because al Qaeda and Iraq may not have collaborated in a specific attack on 9/11 does not mean that there's not a relationship or past relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. . . .
"President Bush has made it very clear that there was not direct evidence linking to the 9/11 plot, and never did he make that suggestion."
Really?
Sifting through the previous statements of Bush administration officials has become a cottage industry here in Washington.
There are certainly a legion of quotes from Bush and Cheney directly asserting a connection between Hussein and al Qaeda -- and at the very least intimating a link between Hussein and 9/11.
Here's one collection, from the Associated Press.
Iraq on the Record, a database commissioned by Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, offers up a list of statements by Bush, Cheney and others asserting a link between al Qaeda and Iraq.
And the liberal Center for American Progress's claimvfact.org database leads to this one from Bush: "The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." (Here's the text of that Sept. 9, 2002, statement.)
But today's prize may belong to Mimi Hall of USA Today, who simply reminds her reader: "In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 -- the day the war in Iraq began -- Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'"
Here's that letter.
The Morning of September 11
But before I go into more detail about the alleged Iraq-al Qaeda connection, here's what everyone will be writing about tomorrow.
Dan Eggen reports on washingtonpost.com that the latest staff report from the Sept. 11 Commission concludes that the White House did not issue orders to shoot down hostile aircraft until it was much too late to do any good.
The report is full of new details about that morning. Among them, the first official timetable for President Bush.
"The President was seated in a classroom of second graders when, at approximately 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.' The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. The national press corps was standing behind the children in the classroom; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening."
(The grainy video from that classroom, a hallmark of Michael Moore's new movie, can also be found here, at The Memory Hole.)
The report continues: "The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15, where he was briefed by staff and saw television coverage. He then spoke to Vice President Cheney, Dr. Rice, Governor Pataki, and FBI Director Mueller. He decided to make a brief statement from the school before leaving for the airport. The Secret Service told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door.
"Between 9:15 and 9:30, the staff was busy arranging a return to Washington, while the President consulted his senior advisers about his remarks. No one in the traveling party had any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing. As far as we know, no one was in contact with the Pentagon. The focus was on the President's statement to the nation. No decisions were made during this time, other than the decision to return to Washington.
"The President's motorcade departed at 9:35, and arrived at the airport between 9:42 and 9:45. During the ride the President learned about the attack on the Pentagon. He boarded the aircraft, asked the Secret Service about the safety of his family, and called the Vice President. According to notes of the call, at about 9:45 the President told the Vice President: 'Sounds like we have a minor war going on here, I heard about the Pentagon. We're at war. . . . somebody's going to pay.'"
Iraq and al Qaeda
Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank write in The Washington Post: "The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no 'collaborative relationship' between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
"Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was 'overwhelming.'"
(Here's that NPR interview.)
Pincus and Milbank note that "Bush, speaking to troops in Tampa yesterday, did not mention an Iraq-al Qaeda link, saying only that Iraq 'sheltered terrorist groups.' That was a significantly milder version of the allegations administration officials have made since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
(Here's the text of his Tampa speech.)
Pincus and Milbank wrote that the report found "there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation." But they also note that the report "did not specifically address two of the other pieces of evidence the administration has offered to link Iraq to al Qaeda: [Abu Musab] Zarqawi's Tawhid organization and the Ansar al-Islam group."
In a news analysis for the New York Times, Richard W. Stevenson writes: "The bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks further called into question on Wednesday one of President Bush's rationales for the war with Iraq, and again put him on the defensive over an issue the White House was once confident would be a political plus.
"In questioning the extent of any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the commission weakened the already spotty scorecard on Mr. Bush's justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein."
And Stevenson writes: "The official White House strategy for Wednesday may have been to deny any real differences with the commission. But on this day as on many others recently, its real goal appeared to be to stick a bandage on whatever wound it might have suffered, keep moving toward June 30, when the United States will return sovereignty to the Iraqis, and then bank on its ability to redefine the election on terms more favorable to Mr. Bush."
Terence Hunt writes in a news analysis for the Associated Press: "More than two-thirds of Americans expressed a belief last year that Iraq was behind the attacks, and Cheney said at the time, 'It's not surprising people make that connection.'"
(Here's that "Meet the Press" transcript.)
Hunt writes: "Bush worked to fuel the connection, talking about the Sept. 11 terrorists and Saddam in the same breath. 'Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam,' Bush said in his State of the Union message last year, before the war."
(Here's the text of the speech.)
Josh Meyer writes in the Los Angeles Times: "The findings appeared to be the most complete and authoritative dismissal of a key Bush administration rationale for invading Iraq: that Hussein's regime had worked in collusion with Al Qaeda."
On the CBS Evening News, John Roberts reported: "It is one of President Bush's last surviving justifications for war in Iraq and today it took a devastating hit when the 9/11 Commission declared there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. . . .
"[T]he Commission today put the nail in that connection, or for that matter, any other al Qaeda acts of terror against America, declaring there is no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States. The report is yet another blow to the President's credibility as he struggles to find the exit door in Iraq, and opens him up to new criticism on the wisdom of taking on Saddam with al Qaeda's leadership still at large."
Will Cheney Retract His Statements?
"Hell no!" an administration official tells Adam Entous of Reuters.
Editorial Roundup
New York Times: "Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.
"Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide."
Los Angeles Times: "[P]rewar Iraq spurned Al Qaeda's overtures. Though. . . . Baghdad may now be Terror Central, it is a consequence of the war itself."
Washington Post: "The administration has not recently suggested that Iraq was behind Sept. 11. Nor, in fact, did the commission yesterday contradict what Mr. Cheney actually said -- and President Bush backed up -- earlier this week: that there were 'long-established ties' between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
"The trouble for the administration is that Mr. Cheney has not always been careful to distinguish between Iraqi ties to al Qaeda and supposed support for the attacks. . . . If the U.S. intelligence community now believes that the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein consisted of no more than what the commission reports, Mr. Cheney ought not be implying more."
Chicago Tribune: "The Tribune has been agnostic-to-skeptical on alleged ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. It would be helpful if those 12 lines put the question to rest. Unfortunately, they do not." |
