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

Do you really KNOW the truth about the connection? Read on and find out what I believe about this book and about "the connection"...

This review will address three issues:

1. simple, clear, hard evidence proving that there IS a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda

2. the issue of whether or not the 9/11 commission report finds "connections" between Iraq and al Qaeda

3. my reactions to reading this book

1. In April 2003 two newspapers-one in Toronto and one in Britain-published stories about a document their reporters found in the rubble of Iraq's intelligence headquarters after the fall of Baghdad. This document shows proof of a meeting between Iraqi intelligence and a highly placed al Qaeda operative in 1998. You can easily check it out for yourself. Go to one of the following newspaper web sites: www.star.com (that's the Canadian paper "Toronto Star") or www.telegraph.co.uk (that's the London paper "The Telegraph"). If you choose the Canadian paper, do a search for stories by journalist Mitch Potter. If you choose the British paper, do a search for stories by journalist Inigo Gilmore. In either paper, look for stories published on April 27, 2003. There's your independent proof in black and white. I am astounded that no other media outlets or government agencies have brought this out into the public's view.

2. Many folks have cited the 9/11 commission report to "prove" or "disprove" connections between Iraq and al Qaeda. Democrats have ranted that the report has found no such connection. Republicans have railed that the report shows a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, just not a connection between Iraq and 9/11. In reality, most of those folks haven't read a single sentence of the report. The plain truth is, the 9/11 commission report doesn't state definitely one way or the other if there is or is not a connection. Why? My guess is because it wasn't an explicit part of the commission's mandate!! Read the report for yourself; page xv in the Preface outlines the commission's mandate (www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf). The report does treat the issue in a peripheral way; it cites intelligence reports that show there were attempts at meetings between Iraq and al Qaeda, it cites other reports stating there WERE meetings between the two sides, and it cites still other reports that suggest other alleged meetings in fact didn't take place. However, I searched for every instance of the word "Iraq" in the report (over 150), and nowhere does the report state a finding of fact or a judgment of the commission members that there is OR that there isn't a connection.

3. I gave this book three stars because it is generally well written; it is written in a thoughtful, measured way that shows the author did his homework, mostly using open source sources (i.e., media reports, etc.). It's true that there are no footnotes or endnotes, and there's no index, which is annoying. BUT, the author usually states in the body of the text the source from which he derived his material--i.e., which newspaper, the date a speech was given, or that it came from "top secret" intelligence memo. Hey, the guy's a journalist, and both conservative and liberal journalists have to protect their sources, right? In all, you have to make up your own mind about the book, but there is definite evidence presented to show a connection between the two groups does exist (including references to the newspaper articles I mentioned above).

In the final analysis, history takes time to unfold. It's way too premature for any one person to state the "definitive truth" about the war in Iraq or connections between Saddam and Osama. Heck, historians are finding out new things every day that changes our understanding of history that occurred ten, twenty, fifty, five hundred years ago! Who's to say the something won't emerge in a week or in five years that will give a very clear cut view of the extent of the connections between Saddam and Osama...

Despite your political leanings, one can read THE CONNECTION and find that there are a wealth of connections between the international terrorism community. It's very clear that the al Qaeda had a massive network of support -- be it financial, material, or providing training space -- and that the organization was intent upon inflicting harm wherever and whenever it say a truly calculated means. I think that Stephen Hayes has done an exceptional job at gathering together what proven and speculative bits have been exposed, and I think he does an exceptional job at putting it together in a fashion that makes the most sense to the average reader.

While the book tries very hard to show a definitive connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, I'm not completely convinced it hits the nail on the head. Yes, it is very clear that members within the Iraqi intelligence community were aware of al Qaeda, offered them support and training facilites, etc., but what the book falls short of convincing me is whether or not Saddam Hussein was aware and/or endorsed these activities.

More than anything, I think Hayes underscores that, when you're dealing with intelligence, there very rarely is a "smoking gun" ... rather, there's a lot of smoke one has to peer through in order to get to the bottom in order to reach any conclusions.

Kudos to the book for being accessible to the general public: there are an awful lot of difficult names and places (for a non-political thinker and reader like myself). Instead of spending time exploring the background of these folks and places, Hayes concentrates of current events mostly -- 1990s to the present -- in order to make his case.

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.