Saddam And Al-Qaeda Revisited

Power Line takes the Administration to task for not defending itself better based on the September 11 Commission report:

That’s it. To say that this report adds nothing to our understanding of al Qaeda and Iraq would be an understatement. It appears to have been written before the discovery that a Lt. Col. in the Saddam Fedayeen, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, attended the key planning meeting of the Sept. 11 plotters. Beyond that, the staff either is ignorant of the many indications of connections between al Qaeda and Iraq, or simply ignores them, secure in the knowledge that the mainstream media will applaud their conclusions without questioning their reasoning.

The claim that the Bush administration alleged a connection between Iraq and Sept. 11 is, of course, false. But newspapers like the Times and the Post are caught up in the excitement of the election year; they deliberately seek to create the impression that the administration made such a claim, and that it has somehow been “refuted.” Neither suggestion is true.

And:

Behind this hilarious effort to avoid crediting the administration’s policies–note the discreet mention of the fact that "al Qaeda lost Afghanistan after 9/11," the suggestion that al Qaeda no longer has to "provide substantial funding to the Taliban," and, most of all, the priceless reference to "bin Laden’s seclusion"–lurks another headline: "Phenomenal Success of Bush’s War on Terror." But you’ll never see it.

Given that the Republicans ostensibly control both houses of Congress, I can’t explain why the Sept. 11 commission and its staff consist mostly of Democratic Party operatives. But that isn’t the real problem; the real problem is that President Bush is passive and inarticulate, and his administration is pathologically unable to engage in debate. The staff report is a juicy target–what movie is it where a soldier rides between rows of watermelons set on sticks, slicing them off with his sword?–but no one in the Bush administration has the courage or skill to stand up for the administration’s policies. So, as always, the administration will keep its head down and try to weather another storm, hoping to slide its nose over the finish line in November. That really isn’t good enough.

I have to agree with Hindrocket on this one. The Administration needs to get out in front of these things more and start defending itself. This constant game of letting such accusations slide is a poor stategy.

InstaPundit also finds an interesting piece on the British view of a Saddam/al-Qaeda link:

Deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein did let al-Qaida operate out of Iraq, Downing Street insisted today.

A US report yesterday said there was no conclusive evidence of a link between the former Iraqi dictator and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist group.

But Downing Street said Saddam had created "a permissive environment" for terrorists and al-Qaida operatives were in the country during his time in office.

No 10 said it was not claiming a direct link but a spokeswoman said: "The prime minister has always said Saddam created a permissive environment for terrorism and we know that the people affiliated to al-Qaida operated in Iraq during the regime."

"The prime minister always made it clear that Saddam’s was a rogue state which threatened the security of the region and the world."

Which shows that the lie has already been taken as truth – the Commission’s report did not say there was no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, in fact they confirmed that the two had worked together in the Sudan. Of course, when the media is more concerned with political spin than accurately reporting the facts, the idea that there never was and never could have been a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda is a nearly religious belief.

UPDATE: It looks like the White House is going on the offensive after all. I have a feeling that this issue is a win for Bush – by bashing Bush on something that many Americans feel is an obvious connection, the Democrats only cement their image as being a party that is weak on terrorism. I have a feeling that the hyping and outright obfuscation of this report was a political mistake.