Chicago Tribune editorial: Al Qaeda, Iraq-and war (and my response)

[Martin Eden]

The Chicago Tribune has consistently backed Bush on the war in Iraq, and this editorial is downright Cheney-esque in its refusal to admit Al Qaeda and Iraq were not in bed together:

Al Qaeda, Iraq--and war

June 17, 2004

Top officials of the Bush administration and their critics probably will go to their graves debating whether Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were diabolically linked. As recently as Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney asserted during a speech that the Iraqi leader "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda."

So it was understandable that the first news flashes after Wednesday's release of a report by the staff of the commission probing Sept. 11, 2001, would focus on a next turn of that wheel. Said the staff report: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." That contention doesn't address Cheney's more limited assertion that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "long-established ties."

The staff report runs to 12 single-spaced pages, of which 12 lines discuss Iraq. 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. Instead the report says bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan , despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime."

The report says the Sudanese, who were playing host to bin Laden and also wanted to preserve their own ties to Iraq, "arranged for contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan , but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq." Next comes the cautious, no-credible-evidence sentence. It certainly isn't a throwaway line, but in the context of reporting contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, it relies in part on Al Qaeda denials--no surprise--and falls short of this-didn't-happen.
<<snip>>

Read the entire editorial:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0406170230jun17,1,129745.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed

Here is the LTTE I just dashed off:

The June 17 Tribune editorial (Al Qaeda, Iraq-and war) clings to the remote possibility that Iraq and al Qaeda were allied, despite the conclusions of the 9-11 Commission that Iraq had no hand in attacks against the United States. Although a degree of uncertainty is inherent in any intelligence analysis, it is glaringly obvious the Bush administration had no basis for stating with absolute certainty an operational alliance existed. As with weapons of mass destruction, they flagrantly misrepresented what was known and unknown.

President Bush never came right out and said Iraq was responsible for 9-11, but he put that event and Saddam Hussein together in so many speeches – leaving out any mention of Osama bin Laden – it’s no surprise a majority of Americans came to believe what was necessary to promote the war. Tribune editorials have consistently backed this administration’s rationale, so I shouldn’t be surprised when an editorial focuses on a few remaining shreds to support the president’s case rather than the mounting evidence which indicates he intentionally misled our nation into war.

[thebigidea]

1. so I suppose those journalists that interviewed OBL have Al-Q connections

... quick, arrest them all!

And arrest any CIA types that met with OBL back when he was a "good guy!"

[Worst Username Ever]

2. Nice work

[dand]

3. Great letter Martin, LTTEs like these make a difference

People who can think scare these people.