The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America [Anglais] [Relié]

Looking at the previous reviews of this book, the ones with few stars are obviously politically motivated. It's doubtful that they've read the book, and some indulge in outrageous and even dystopian tangents that have no connection to the subject at hand. However, after the outcry for "connecting the dots" after 9-11 it doesn't make sense to sweep other connected dots under the rug. Did Saddam Hussein have connections to terrorists? Indisputably. To argue otherwise is to hide one's head (to speak diplomatically) in the sand. Was he connected to 9-11? Possibly. The important thing to understand is that author Stephen F. Hayes can only put forth "dots". Like any good prosecuting attorney, he presents his case clearly, giving exhibits that build a case on circumstantial evidence. But to be fair, the "dots" that should have been connected to stop 9-11 (if it could be humanly stopped) are also tenuous, unless one sees them with the benefit of hindsight. I will not say whether Hayes (in the interest of full disclosure, it must be said he works for the _Weekly Standard_, which raises as much hackles as a worker for _The New York Times_ to a so-called Neo-Con) proves his case. READ THE BOOK FOR YOURSELF, especially before you have the temerity to write a negative review. In fact, the reviews (all reviews) of this book, including positive ones, should be ignored because they are meaningless. If one thinks Iraq is the centerpiece on the war on terror, the reviews will be positive (though also one has to admit in those cases the book was probably read); if one adamantly refuses to admit Saddam Hussein had ties to terror at all (which is a foolish decision) and think the Iraq leg on the war on terror a diversion or a sideshow (which is at least an arguable position, though I don't accept it) one probably isn't going to read the book because a belief may sometimes be shaken when confronted with cold facts. The important thing to do with this book is READ it and give the facts a fair hearing, even if you reject them. If you ever said the phrase "connect the dots" in relation to 9-11, you must read this book. Your opinion may not be changed (dogma rarely is) but you will at least see what connecting dots amounts to. It's done here to good advantage. Is the book true? How do I know -- I'm not a CIA operative! But it is IMPORTANT. Here are the facts. Accept them or reject them. In the climate the world is in at present, with terrorists crossing oceans to kill innocents, even affecting elections in western countries, you're doing yourself a disservice and even being dumb if you don't at least give these dots a fair hearing before writing your reviews to denegrate the book.

This is a very short book and smaller than half the size of a typical magazine page, so it didn't take long to read it over lunch hour today. But the contents more than make up for its size. If you have read any of Hayes' articles in the Weekly Standard over the last year or so, you won't find a lot of new material here, but he does connect a few more dots, but also exposes the sad truth about journalists today- they are lazy and have a political agenda to discredit any evidence which does not fit the mantra of the liberals that there was no connection between Hussein and bin Laden. Hayes cites numerous examples of Saddam's funding of terrorists all over the Middle East, and complements Laurie Mylroie's books which links Iraq to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi native who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center, moved back to Iraq after the bombing and actually was paid by Saddam, as newly discovered records show. The supposedly "discredited" link of Iraqi intelligence meeting in Prague with Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers is examined in full, with the CIA "sources" who dismiss the claim looking more like the incompetents that they are. Hayes does a good job of dissecting stories published by the NY Times and the Washington Post which confirm their political agenda rather than objective reporting. One small example is their citing of al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida alias Abu Zubayadah, alias Abd al-Hadi Al-Wahab, alias Zain Al-Abidin, alias Muhahhad Hussain, alias Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, alias Tariq, alias Abu-al Hasanat, alias Noorud Din, alias Dawood, alias Kamil, alias Badar alias Al Mujahid,a Palestinian born at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Zubaida has been the source of numerous pieces of information gleaned during his interrogation by the CIA and FBI at Guantanamo after his capture in Pakistan in 2002. Every threat cited by him (which actually resulted in an increase in the threat level being raised to orange last year) has turned out to be totally false. But he is cited as the source of "credible" intelligence by the Times and Post when he denies that there was any link between Iraq and al Qaeda, even though other al Qaeda leaders have said there were links. Now why should a thug who has been proven to be lying in everything he has told interrogators suddenly become credible when he said there was no connection. Yet his denial has become one of the cornerstones in the mantra that there was no linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda? Hayes cites numerous examples which shows the partisan political agenda of the left-wing media which refuses to be bothered by the facts, and their reliance on their "sources" in the US intelligence community. This is the same community whose failure is laid bare by the hole in the ground where the WTC once stood in New York.
I am certain that there will be numerous reviews written by Bush haters who will never hold this book in their hands, but objective observers who want to understand why Iraq was one of the "Axis of Evil" countries cited by Bush last year should get this book. Hopefully Hayes will write about Iran's recent embarrassing admissions about their nuclear program after denying its existence to the IAEA for the last decade.

Mr. Hayes presents a sound argument that shows a general connection between al-Qaeda and the former Iraqi regime. Do not be fooled into thinking that this is a balanced discussion of the issue. The author never claims to offer both sides of the debate. Instead, Mr. Hayes starts with the hypothesis that a connection existed and then provides numerous facts to support his theory. In the end, I was convinced. If you have solidly formed your opinion against a connection, then don't read the book. If you have already decided that a connection exists, you will probably enjoy the read. If you have not made up your mind, Mr. Hayes offers compelling arguments.

My only criticism is the exclusion of footnotes with more detailed source citations.