The media has been gloating for days over news that a Pentagon report found no ties between Saddam and Al Qeada.

I wondered though, because there have been plenty of documents (out of the millions found) the bloggers have posted on in the past that refute that.  I also noted that the sudy cited 600K documents, not millions, so I wondered how conprehensive it really was.

I should not have worried.  Via Powerline:

The connection, take 54

The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes is the man who wrote the book on The Connection"The connection."

The Bush administration long ago gave up trying to tell the truth about the issue, as it has on so many others where it has been beaten into submission by the elite media. And so when the Pentagon recently released its 59-page report confirming Hayes's reportage, the media have been left free to misrepresent it with impunity, as McClatchy's Warren Strobel does here, as the New York Times blog does here, and as the ABC blog does here.

Steve has now obtained and reviewed the report in its entirety. In a post previewing his article in the forthcoming issue of the Standard, Steve writes:

A new Pentagon report on Iraq and Terrorism has the news media buzzing. An item on the New York Times blog snarks, "Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link." The ABC News story that previews the full report concludes, "Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda."

How, then, to explain this sentence about Iraq and al Qaeda from the report's abstract: "At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust"? And how to explain the "considerable overlap" between their activities which led not only to the appearances of ties but to a "de facto link between the organizations?" (See the entire abstract below.)

And what about this revelation from page 34? "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision." (The example given in the report is the Army of Muhammad in Bahrain, a group the Iraqi Intelligence Service describes as "under the wings of bin Laden.")

And there is this line from page 42: "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."

Really? Saddam Hussein "supported" a group that merged with al Qaeda in the late 1990s, run by al Qaeda's #2, and the New York Times thinks this is not a link between Iraq and al Qaeda? How does that work?

Anyone interested in the "strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism" -- that language comes from this report, too -- should read the entire thing for themselves, here.

Steve quotes from the report's executive summary:

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

Steve adds in an update:

Just to be clear, the confusion is not entirely the fault of the news organizations. The executive summary says that the evidence did not reveal a "smoking gun (direct connection)" between Iraq and al Qaeda. But, as noted, the report itself offers much evidence that the opposite is true.

If you have only learned of the report via reportage such as the items linked above, take a look at the report with your own eyes before drawing any conclusions about it.

As usual, the media runs with the spin, and refuses to investigate.

 Trackposted to Macsmind, Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, A NEWT ONE-LIVE COVERAGE FROM EAGLE'S MUSTER, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Chuck's Place, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Tilting At Windmill Farms, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS