The New York Times > Opinion > Show Us the Proof:
"When the commission studying the 9/11 terrorist attacks refuted the Bush administration's claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, we suggested that President Bush apologize for using these claims to help win Americans' support for the invasion of Iraq. We did not really expect that to happen. But we were surprised by the depth and ferocity of the administration's capacity for denial. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have not only brushed aside the panel's findings and questioned its expertise, but they are also trying to rewrite history.
Mr. Bush said the 9/11 panel had actually confirmed his contention that there were 'ties' between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said his administration had never connected Saddam Hussein to 9/11. Both statements are wrong.
Before the war, Mr. Bush spoke of far more than vague 'ties' between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said Iraq had provided Al Qaeda with weapons training, bomb-making expertise and a base in Iraq. On Feb. 8, 2003, Mr. Bush said that 'an Al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990's for help in acquiring poisons and gases.' The 9/11 panel's report, as well as news articles, indicate that these things never happened.
Mr. Cheney said yesterday that the 'evidence is overwhelming' of an Iraq-Qaeda axis and that there had been a 'whole series of high-level contacts' between them. The 9/11 panel said a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan in the early 1990's, meeting with Osama bin Laden once in 1994. It said Osama bin Laden had asked for 'space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.' The panel cited reports of further contacts after Osama bin Laden returned to Afghanistan in 1996, but said there was no working relationship. As far as the public record is concerned, then, Mr. Cheney's 'longstanding ties' amount to one confirmed meeting, after which the Iraq government did not help Al Qaeda. By those standards, the United States has longstanding ties to North Korea.
Mr. Bush has also used a terrorist named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Mr. Bush used to refer to Mr. Zarqawi as a 'senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner' who was in Baghdad working with the Iraqi government. But the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime, nor under the direction of Al Qaeda.
When it comes to 9/11, someone in the Bush administration has indeed drawn the connection to Iraq: the vice president. Mr. Cheney has repeatedly referred to reports that Mohamed Atta met in Prague in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent. He told Tim Russert of NBC on Dec. 9, 2001, that this report has 'been pretty well confirmed.' If so, no one seems to have informed the C.I.A., the Czech government or the 9/11 commission, which said it did not appear to be true. Yet Mr. Cheney cited it, again, on Thursday night on CNBC.
Mr. Cheney said he had lots of documents to prove his claims. We have heard that before, but Mr. Cheney always seems too pressed for time or too concerned about secrets to share them. Last September, Mr. Cheney's adviser, Mary Matalin, explained to The Washington Post that Mr. Cheney had access to lots of secret stuff. She said he had to 'tiptoe through the land mines of what's sayable and not sayable' to the public, but that 'his job is to connect the dots.'"
You know, I can remember months and months just after 9-11 when many people refused to believe that Osama was behind 9-11. Somewhere along the line, we made up our mind collectively that he was. Why? All the evidence was present fairly early on. I can remember after each new speech by Osama, people would pick it apart to say that even though he praised the attackers, he didn't directly take credit for the attack. Why do I mention this? Because what we are fighting is a shadowy organization, which isn't even an organization, so much as a terrorist support group. Which terrorists are or aren't in the network? Who talks to who? And if the president or anyone else makes an assertion, it's so easy to say "where's the proof!?", but we all know that the proof is top secret, and would reveal our intelligence gathering methods to the terrorists. I don't know what the answer is, other than to, firstly, put some faith in trust in our government leaders, which I find hard to do, but I can't see any way around it. Secondly, avoid the media filter. There's already enough obfuscation in the whole war on terror, to take any media account at face value. Read the actual Cheney interview with Russert. The whole thing. He does NOT say that he is convinced the Atta meeting in Prague ever took place. Read about the evidence connecting Iraq to the 93' world trade center attack and make up your own mind. Read Osama's speeches and see what he's saying. For instance, the media likes to position the war in Iraq as a distraction from the war on terror. Read the last two Zarqawi speeches. In his mind, Iraq is the frontline of the war against the US, a battle they must win to retain any credibility. I hate his guts, but I'm willing to take him at face value when he talks about the one thing dearest to his heart-terrorism.
"When the commission studying the 9/11 terrorist attacks refuted the Bush administration's claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, we suggested that President Bush apologize for using these claims to help win Americans' support for the invasion of Iraq. We did not really expect that to happen. But we were surprised by the depth and ferocity of the administration's capacity for denial. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have not only brushed aside the panel's findings and questioned its expertise, but they are also trying to rewrite history.
Mr. Bush said the 9/11 panel had actually confirmed his contention that there were 'ties' between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said his administration had never connected Saddam Hussein to 9/11. Both statements are wrong.
Before the war, Mr. Bush spoke of far more than vague 'ties' between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said Iraq had provided Al Qaeda with weapons training, bomb-making expertise and a base in Iraq. On Feb. 8, 2003, Mr. Bush said that 'an Al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990's for help in acquiring poisons and gases.' The 9/11 panel's report, as well as news articles, indicate that these things never happened.
Mr. Cheney said yesterday that the 'evidence is overwhelming' of an Iraq-Qaeda axis and that there had been a 'whole series of high-level contacts' between them. The 9/11 panel said a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan in the early 1990's, meeting with Osama bin Laden once in 1994. It said Osama bin Laden had asked for 'space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.' The panel cited reports of further contacts after Osama bin Laden returned to Afghanistan in 1996, but said there was no working relationship. As far as the public record is concerned, then, Mr. Cheney's 'longstanding ties' amount to one confirmed meeting, after which the Iraq government did not help Al Qaeda. By those standards, the United States has longstanding ties to North Korea.
Mr. Bush has also used a terrorist named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Mr. Bush used to refer to Mr. Zarqawi as a 'senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner' who was in Baghdad working with the Iraqi government. But the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime, nor under the direction of Al Qaeda.
When it comes to 9/11, someone in the Bush administration has indeed drawn the connection to Iraq: the vice president. Mr. Cheney has repeatedly referred to reports that Mohamed Atta met in Prague in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent. He told Tim Russert of NBC on Dec. 9, 2001, that this report has 'been pretty well confirmed.' If so, no one seems to have informed the C.I.A., the Czech government or the 9/11 commission, which said it did not appear to be true. Yet Mr. Cheney cited it, again, on Thursday night on CNBC.
Mr. Cheney said he had lots of documents to prove his claims. We have heard that before, but Mr. Cheney always seems too pressed for time or too concerned about secrets to share them. Last September, Mr. Cheney's adviser, Mary Matalin, explained to The Washington Post that Mr. Cheney had access to lots of secret stuff. She said he had to 'tiptoe through the land mines of what's sayable and not sayable' to the public, but that 'his job is to connect the dots.'"
You know, I can remember months and months just after 9-11 when many people refused to believe that Osama was behind 9-11. Somewhere along the line, we made up our mind collectively that he was. Why? All the evidence was present fairly early on. I can remember after each new speech by Osama, people would pick it apart to say that even though he praised the attackers, he didn't directly take credit for the attack. Why do I mention this? Because what we are fighting is a shadowy organization, which isn't even an organization, so much as a terrorist support group. Which terrorists are or aren't in the network? Who talks to who? And if the president or anyone else makes an assertion, it's so easy to say "where's the proof!?", but we all know that the proof is top secret, and would reveal our intelligence gathering methods to the terrorists. I don't know what the answer is, other than to, firstly, put some faith in trust in our government leaders, which I find hard to do, but I can't see any way around it. Secondly, avoid the media filter. There's already enough obfuscation in the whole war on terror, to take any media account at face value. Read the actual Cheney interview with Russert. The whole thing. He does NOT say that he is convinced the Atta meeting in Prague ever took place. Read about the evidence connecting Iraq to the 93' world trade center attack and make up your own mind. Read Osama's speeches and see what he's saying. For instance, the media likes to position the war in Iraq as a distraction from the war on terror. Read the last two Zarqawi speeches. In his mind, Iraq is the frontline of the war against the US, a battle they must win to retain any credibility. I hate his guts, but I'm willing to take him at face value when he talks about the one thing dearest to his heart-terrorism.
Comments