NYTimes: No iRaq-Al Queda Ties!!!! ....errrr, not exactly...

The Times, which in the wake of the 9/11 commission's staff reports last week had the gall to demand an apology to the nation from W&C, turns out to have had in its possession at the time a file which contradicted their own editorial. now who's being dishonest?

also, the times attempt to have it both ways, writing that the contacts occured in the mid-90s "before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization." yet, PBS provides a useful timeline of al queda activities in the mid-90s. they certainly sound like a terrorist organization to me.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/cron.html

-1992: Bin Laden Organizes Attacks on U.N. Forces in Somalia

-Dec 1992: In an apparent plot to kill U.S. servicemen headed to Somalia, a bomb explodes at a hotel in Aden

-Feb. 26, 1993: World Trade Center Bombing ..Osama bin Laden's name surfaces during the 1993 WTC investigation as a financier... also... was called from a safe house used by the conspirators.

-April 1993: members of Al Qaeda return to Somalia to train Somali forces to attack U.N. troops.

-Oct. 3-4, 1993: Eighteen American soldiers are attacked and killed in Mogadishu, Somalia... bin Laden and his followers [ trained ] the attackers.

-January 1994: Bin Laden Funds Sudan Terrorist Camps


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/p...0&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=print&position=

--
June 25, 2004
THE INTELLIGENCE

Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says
By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, June 24 — Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.

American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. He was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in Afghanistan.

The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration.

Last week, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks addressed the known contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which have been cited by the White House as evidence of a close relationship between the two.

The commission concluded that the contacts had not demonstrated "a collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Bush administration responded that there was considerable evidence of ties.

The new document, which appears to have circulated only since April, was provided to The New York Times several weeks ago, before the commission's report was released. Since obtaining the document, The Times has interviewed several military, intelligence and United States government officials in Washington and Baghdad to determine that the government considered it authentic.

The Americans confirmed that they had obtained the document from the Iraqi National Congress, as part of a trove that the group gathered after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government last year. The Defense Intelligence Agency paid the Iraqi National Congress for documents and other information until recently, when the group and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, fell out of favor in Washington.

Some of the intelligence provided by the group is now wholly discredited, although officials have called some of the documents it helped to obtain useful.

A translation of the new Iraqi document was reviewed by a Pentagon working group in the spring, officials said. It included senior analysts from the military's Joint Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency and a joint intelligence task force that specialized in counterterrorism issues, they said.

The task force concluded that the document "appeared authentic," and that it "corroborates and expands on previous reporting" about contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden in Sudan, according to the task force's analysis.

It is not known whether some on the task force held dissenting opinions about the document's veracity.

At the time of the contacts described in the Iraqi document, Mr. bin Laden was little known beyond the world of national security experts. It is now thought that his associates bombed a hotel in Yemen used by American troops bound for Somalia in 1992. Intelligence officials also believe he played a role in training Somali fighters who battled Army Rangers and Special Operations forces in Mogadishu during the "Black Hawk Down" battle of 1993.

Iraq during that period was struggling with its defeat by American-led forces in the Persian Gulf war of 1991, when American troops used Saudi Arabia as the base for expelling Iraqi invaders from Kuwait.

The document details a time before any of the spectacular anti-American terrorist strikes attributed to Al Qaeda: the two American Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998, the strike on the destroyer Cole in Yemeni waters in 2000, and the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

"Since obtaining the document, The Times has interviewed several military, intelligence and United States government officials in Washington and Baghdad to determine that the government considered it authentic."

The real scandal for me is that the times had this document in its possession for weeks, and still ran the banner "no link" headlines and editorials.

 

here's the times on June 17th:

"there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11."

 

the times on June 17th, after the staff reports were released:

"there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11."

the times today:

"The new document, which appears to have circulated only since April, was provided to The New York Times several weeks ago, before the commission's report was released. "

the times had in in possession a document that it knew the government considered authentic and that directly contradicts the editorial line on 6/17. isn't that incredibly dishonest? is the times intent on turning the once proud gray lady, the paper of record, into just a print version of michael moore? doesn't this make it painfully obvious that the times editorial policies drive their "news" coverage?

 

Andrew McCarthy, who after wrapping Pretty in Pink seems to have joined NRO's staff, weighs in:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406251321.asp

--
une 25, 2004, 1:21 p.m.
Times Games
The newspaper of record withholds Iraq/Qaeda connection evidence.

A week ago, the New York Times reported, in a screaming page-one headline, that the 9/11 Commission had found "No Qaeda-Iraq Tie." Today, in a remarkable story that positively oozes with consciousness of guilt, the Times confesses not only that there is documentary evidence of at least one tie but that the Times has had the document in question for several weeks. That is, the Times was well aware of this information at the very time of last week's reporting, during which, on June 17, it declaimed from its editorial perch that the lack of a connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's terror network meant President Bush owed the nation an apology.

Today, the Times concedes that the Defense Intelligence Agency is in possession of a document showing that, in the mid-1990s, the Iraqi Intelligence Service reached out to what the newspaper euphemistically calls "Mr. bin Laden's organization" (more on that below) regarding the possibility of joint efforts against the Saudi regime, which was then hosting U.S. forces. To be clear, the document records that it was Iraq which initiated the contacts, and that bin Laden finally agreed to discuss cooperation only after having spurned previous overtures because he "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative[.]"

Why does it matter who was enticing whom? On June 17, when, despite having this document, it was trashing the whole notion of an Iraq/Qaeda connection, the Times asserted without qualification that: The 9/11 Commission had found that any collaboration proposals had come from bin Laden's side; all such proposals had been declined by Saddam; and this scenario undermined the Bush administration's rationale for deposing the Iraqi regime. (The Times on June 17: "As for Iraq, the commission's staff said its investigation showed that the government of Mr. Hussein had rebuffed or ignored requests from Qaeda leaders for help in the 1990's, a conclusion that directly contradicts a series of public statements President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney made before and after last year's invasion of Iraq in justifying the war.")

Even now, the Times feebly endeavors to minimize the importance of the collaboration evidenced by the newly reported document. It says the information indicates "that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration." (Emphasis added.) Nevertheless, the reader who has the patience to wade through several paragraphs of the Times disingenuously letting itself off the hook for refusing for weeks to report on this document will learn that what the newspaper really means when it says bin Laden's suggestions "went unanswered." In actuality, "the document contains no statement of response by the Iraqi leadership under Mr. Hussein to the request for joint operations[.]" Translation: Maybe there was a response and maybe there wasn't, but this document does not tell us one way or the other.

Why is this important? Because it is the continuation of a pattern — another instance of an effective but misleading tactic repeatedly used by the Times, the intelligence community, the 9/11 Commission staff, and all the Iraq/Qaeda connection naysayers. To wit: When they can't explain something, they never say they can't explain it; they say it didn't happen — even if saying so is against the weight of considerable counterevidence.

Best example? The 9/11 Commission staff, as gleefully reported by the Times last week, has concluded that there was not a meeting between top-hijacker Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence Officer Ahmed al-Ani in Prague five months before the 9/11 attacks. There is an eyewitness (a watcher for Czech intelligence) who says he saw them together, and there is substantial corroboration (including an entry in al-Ani's appointment calendar that he was to meet with a "Hamburg student," a pair of highly suspicious trips that Atta undoubtedly made to Prague in 2000 right before coming to the United States, and the fact that no witness has been found who can say he saw Atta in the U.S. when the Czechs say he was in Prague). Did the 9/11 Commission staff actually interview the eyewitness? No. Did the staff or the Times discuss the corroboration that supports the occurrence of the Prague meeting? No. Did either of them grapple with what is to be inferred from Atta's trips to Prague in 2000? No — not a word about them. Just a flat conclusion that the meeting never happened.

Since it's Clinton week, maybe it's best to put it this way: For the Times and its allies, Iraq and al Qaeda are like the former president's trysts: If there ain't a blue cocktail dress, it never happened. If there isn't a photograph of Atta and al-Ani poring over diagrams of the World Trade Center, we just conclude that they never saw each other, and we see no reason to acknowledge that there's considerable evidence that they probably did.

This morning's report is more of the same. We know there were numerous contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after the collaborative proposals discussed in the newly reported document. How does the Times know that Saddam never responded to bin Laden's overtures? It doesn't. Neither do I. Neither do you. That's why it's called an investigation. The idea is to keep digging until you know. To the contrary, the Times's idea is: bury it, pretend you don't even know the things you do know, grudgingly admit the bare minimum, and use the enormous weight of your own inertia to make the whole thing go away. Thus we get hilarious paragraphs, like this one in today's story:

Members of the Pentagon task force that reviewed the document said it described no formal alliance being reached between Mr. bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence. The Iraqi document itself states that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

(Emphasis added.)

That's a good one: a "formal alliance" between terrorists to terrorize. Did the Times expect a signing ceremony? What next? "The FBI's organized crime unit concluded today that there probably is no Mafia because the evidence does not describe any formal alliance between shadowy figures who, Vice President Dick Cheney claims, refer to themselves as 'Gambinos' and 'Bonannos'...."

Most pathetic of all in today's article is the Times's self-serving rationale for withholding critical information while it was accusing the president of misleading the country. First, even though the document inescapably shows a tie to bin Laden, the Times slyly suggests it may not really show a tie to al Qaeda. After all, so the story goes, this was the mid-90s, "before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization." Nice try. As established by federal indictments, the embassy bombing trial, the 9/11 Commission staff report released last week, and innumerable other sources, al Qaeda was formed in Afghanistan in the late 1980s — years before this document existed.

Al Qaeda, as even the Times is forced to acknowledge, was so full-fledged by 1992 and 1993 that it was launching international attacks against the U.S. military in Yemen and Somalia. The Times fudges this by claiming: "At the time of the contacts described in the Iraqi document, Mr. bin Laden was little known beyond the world of national security experts." That may be so, but it is a far cry from saying al Qaeda wasn't really al Qaeda back then, just because the Times may not have heard of it. And what exactly is the newspaper trying to tell us with this hair-splitting? That when it was blaring that there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, it was considering any contacts between Iraq and bin Laden as a separate issue? If that ludicrous position is their position, it would have been nice if they'd told us.

As existential doubts about al Qaeda clearly won't fly, the Times next drags out one of its favorite hobbyhorses: Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. It appears, the Times says, that the INC was the source of this document. Translation: We get a pass for withholding this information because, after all, "ome of the intelligence provided by the group is now wholly discredited[.]"

Strike two. What has allegedly been discredited are defectors who, the INC's detractors say, provided accounts about Saddam's military capabilities and the like that now appear dubious. What we are talking about here, though, is a document. Not only is it true, as the Times ruefully concedes, that "officials have called some of the documents [the INC] helped to obtain useful." This particular document, this spring, turns out to have been "reviewed by a Pentagon working group...[that] included senior analysts from the military's Joint Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency and a joint intelligence task force that specialized in counterterrorism issues[.]" The result of that review: "The task force concluded that the document 'appeared authentic,' and that it 'corroborates and expands on previous reporting" about contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden in Sudan[.]"

And then, finally, comes strike three. With no apparent, positive reason to have doubted, and thus to have resisted reporting, this document showing a tie between Iraq and al Qaeda, the Times invents one out of whole cloth: "It is not known whether some on the task force held dissenting opinions about the document's veracity." This is just shameful.

If it is not known whether there were dissenting views, why suggest that there were? After all, the Times knows full well that there are robust dissenting views about the Commission staff's rejection of an Atta/al-Ani meeting in Prague in April 2001, yet it has had no trouble leaping with both feet on the Commission staff's conclusion. The Times knew in March, when it reported Richard Clarke's categorical claim that there was no Iraq/Qaeda connection, that in 1998, when Clarke had been the government's top counter-terrorism official, the same government filed a sealed indictment against bin Laden expressly alleging an Iraq/Qaeda connection.

The Times speculates — in what are presented as straight news stories — that there simply must be dissenting views only when such views would support the ones transparently held by the editors of the Times. And that, above all, is what this is about.

The Times has been against the Iraq war from the start. Its relentless propaganda, in conjunction with its media allies, has taken a sizable toll. President Bush has taken a ratings hit, and a poll out this morning suggests that a slim majority of Americans now believes the war was a mistake. But that could turn around in a heartbeat. No one is more aware than the "newspaper of record" that if the American people become convinced Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were in cahoots, the national perception of the necessity for this war will drastically change, and the president's reelection will be a virtual lock.

That's what this is about. And who knows what else the Times is not telling us?

 

it was in an editorial where they demanded bush apologize for misleading the country. on the same day they had a banner headline that there were no iraq-al queda ties.

 

actually, the best that can be said is yes, there were contacts, and at the highest levels (Uday). as to operational ties, the truth is we just don't know one way or another. this is not the same as "they never worked together on any plans, attacks, or terrorist missions."