9/11 Commission Says No Tie Between Saddamites and Al-Qaeda

Among the pretexts for sending the troops into Baghdad was the alleged connection between the Saddamite regime that misruled Iraq and the rich kid terrorists of Al-Qaeda. Without any weapons of mass destruction or any sign of a stable democratic Iraq in sight, the White House could have done with this tie holding up to empirical scrutiny. According to the 9/11 Commission, though, there is no tie, and the Vice President and President are either stubbornly wrong or liars.

Thursday, June 16, the 9/11 commission released a statement that said, "Two senior Bin Ladin [sic] associates have adamantly denied any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated in the attacks against the United States." [page 5 of the report]. Two days earlier, Vice President Cheney spoke to the James Madison Institute where he said that the Saddamites and al Qaeda had "long-established ties." Right after the report came out, the President of the United States said, terrorist Abu Musab "[al-]"Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda." That's all well and good, but the terrorist in question operated out of Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, near the town of Herat.

So, what is one to think? Could the 9/11 commission be completely wrong? A logician's approach here is in order. The commission says there is "no credible evidence" of a link. While the word "credible" places some subjectivity into the equation, logically one must conclude that the statement remains accurate. If it were incorrect, the White House would have told the world, most assuredly. There is no such evidence. President Bush is merely asserting falsehoods. The next time Mr. Cheney reiterates this position, he will be doing the same. Prime Minister Tony Blair echoed their lies Thursday when his spokseswoman said the Saddamites "created a permissive environment for terrorism and we know that the people affiliated to al Qaeda operated in Iraq during the regime."

The late Senator D. Patrick Moynihan of New York once said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts." Yet, this administration seems to have accepted the "Big Lie" theory -- tell a big enough lie loud enough and long enough, and the people will believe it. The problem is it remains a lie. Is it unpatriotic and wrong to call these men liars? Consider that Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense and arch-neocon, said back in August 2003, "I’m not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it [the September 11 murders]."

There is no proof, there is no evidence, there is no tie. The White House and Number 10 Downing Street can say the opposite all they want, but the longer they do, the less chance one can excuse their position as benign, while stubborn, ignorance. With each passing day, the explanation becomes less and less charitable. An administration that is prepared to put troops in the line of fire on the basis of ignorance is unfortunate; one that does so on the basis of willful lies is beyond criminal. It is un-American. And one had hoped Mr. Blair was a better man than this.


© Copyright 2004 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.


Home