Hiding the truth about Al Qaeda in Iraq
Posted 24 weeks 3 hours ago by
You may have heard about the new report showing that Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda had no "operational links" before the U.S. invasion in 2003.
No? Let me give you a quick summary.
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.
The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.
This is where a good blogger would link you directly to the report. But I can't. Why?
This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.
It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online.
Nobody, so far, is claiming any security exemption for this removal -- and, indeed, any such claim would be accompanied by a "classified" stamp and total removal from the public realm. Instead, we get an intentional effort to avoid 21st century transparency. Information obstructed is information denied. But would you expect any different?
Image from PingNews, via Flickr.
Thoughts
Re: incompetence
Submitted on March 13th, 2008 by AnonymousChuck, why is it you think only the liberals are ignoring the story? Take the log out of your own eye, brother. Those concerned about Darfur aren't shouting about anything else because, well, we're still shouting about Darfur. It still needs shouting about, as do many other things. I don't know about you though, and I'm all for fighting the good fight, but I can only take on one genocidal regime each day!
It's funny to me that you act like either Darfur or the "Oil for Food" fiasco are partisan issues, too - I can't think of anything easier to get bipartisan agreement on! Both have had disastrous consequences. End of song. So recall for a moment that there really are things you can't blame solely on the opposition, ok?
Re: Incompetence
Submitted on March 12th, 2008 by JoelI'm not a conspiracy theorist. And not making public a report you were planning to make public -- they were ready to have a press conference and put the report online -- is not an act of oops! It's a considered, deliberate act.
And: Oil for food scandal? Bad, very bad. I'll give you that.
Try "Government Incompetence"
Submitted on March 12th, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonI love conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but I think the title is probably the reason for the removal of the report.
So we are clear, I supported the war on humanitarian grounds (and did so very reluctantly.) In retrospective, it probably would have been cheaper to buy Saddam out of power. And I still think Saddam Hussein -- who launched two wars of aggression, gassed his own people, used economic warfare, and bombed our allies -- was the weapon of mass destruction. Though the libertarian in me bristles at war, I've got to say that it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
I think it's very interesting, though, how liberals just sort of keep quiet about the largest financial scandal in the history of mankind: the Oil-for-Food program. Naturally, that scandal was orchestrated by the U.N. and no heads have rolled even though millions of Iraqis died.
Where are the Darfur people crying "U.N. lied, millions died?"
----------------------------------
Chuck Johnson is a student at Claremont McKenna College. Feel free to contact him.