9/11 Panel Denies Al-Qaeda-Iraq Links
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - In a direct challenge to recent assertions by both President George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the special bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon has found "no credible evidence" of any operational link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

While the commission, which has had access to highly classified U.S. intelligence, said that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had sought contacts with and support from former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein after his expulsion from Sudan in 1994, those appeals were ignored.

Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda after bin Laden moved to Afghanistan "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," according to the commission's report, which was released Wednesday morning. It added that two senior al-Qaeda officials now in U.S. custody "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq."

The report is the first of a series expected to be released over the coming months as the commission winds up its work.

Most of it deals with al-Qaeda's evolution beginning in the 1980s. Echoing the administration, it warns that "al-Qaeda is actively striving to attack the United States and inflict mass casualties."

Its conclusion about the absence of any operational link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein not only further undermines the administration's case for going to war against Iraq, but also deals a sharp blow to the already-strained credibility of Cheney, who Monday asserted without elaboration during a speech to a right-wing institute in Florida that the Iraqi leader had "long-established ties" to the group.

Cheney insisted as recently as last January that Washington had obtained "conclusive" evidence that Hussein had biological weapons in the form of two customized truck trailers that he said was for their production.

The claim, which he has not repeated since, was discredited by, among others, outgoing Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director George Tenet, as well as the head of the U.S. task force in charge of searching for alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in Iraq, David Kay.

Asked about Cheney's most recent remarks at a Tuesday press conference, Bush declined to answer directly, insisting instead that Hussein had ties with "terrorist organizations," of which he cited only the late Abu Nidal, a Palestinian who split from Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in the 1970s and created his own terrorist group.

Bush also suggested that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian who is identified by U.S. officials as a leader of resistance to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, might also have had ties to Hussein and al-Qaeda.

"Zarqawi is the best evidence of (Hussein's) connection to al-Qaeda affiliates and al-Qaeda," Bush said. "He's the person who's still killing."

The commission's conclusion on the absence of ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda is also certain to further discredit the so-called neoconservatives both inside and outside the administration who led the march to war. Many of them were behind what appeared to be an orchestrated campaign to implicate Hussein in the 9/11 attacks themselves.

Within the administration, the principals appear to have included Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney and his national security adviser, I. Lewis Libby, among others in key posts in the National Security Council (NSC) and the State Department.

Outside the administration, key figures included close friends of both Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, including Richard Perle, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief James Woolsey - both members of Rumsfeld's Defence Policy Board (DPB); Frank Gaffney, head of the arms-industry-funded Centre for Security Policy; and William Kristol, editor of the Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard and chairman of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), among others.

A close examination of the public record indicates that all of these individuals were actively preparing the ground within days, even hours, after the 9/11 attacks for an eventual strike on Iraq, whether or not it had any role in the attacks or any connection to al-Qaeda.

A hint of a deliberate campaign to connect Iraq with 9/11 and al-Qaeda surfaced one year ago in a televised interview of General Wesley Clark on the popular public-affairs program, Meet the Press. In answer to a question, Clark asserted, "there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

"It came from the White House, it came from other people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'you got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'"

While Clark has not yet identified who called him, Perle, Woolsey, Gaffney and Kristol were using the same language in their media appearances on 9/11 and over the following weeks.

"This could not have been done without help of one or more governments," Perle told The Washington Post on Sept. 11.  "Someone taught these suicide bombers how to fly large airplanes. I don't think that can be done without the assistance of large governments."

While Kristol and company were trying to implicate Hussein in the public debate, their friends in the administration were pushing hard in the same direction. Cheney, according to published accounts, had already confided to friends before Sept. 11 that he hoped the Bush administration would remove Hussein from power.

But the evidence about Rumsfeld is even more dramatic. According to an account by veteran CBS newsman David Martin in September 2002, Rumsfeld was "telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks" five hours after an American Airlines jet slammed into the Pentagon.

Martin attributed his account in part to notes taken at the time by a Rumsfeld aide. They quote the defense chief asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH (Saddam Hussein) at the same time, not only UBL (Usama bin Laden). The administration should "go massive ... sweep it all up, things related and not," the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. Iraq - if we can prove Iraq had a role."

Despite the secretary of state's reservations, the neocon campaign was remarkably successful. As recently as eight weeks ago, a survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), University of Maryland, found that 57 percent of the U.S. public believed Iraq was either "directly involved" in carrying out the 9/11 attacks or had provided "substantial support" to al-Qaeda. Fifty-two percent said they believed that concrete evidence of a Hussein-al-Qaeda link had been uncovered by U.S. investigators since the war. Wolfowitz shared those views, according to an account of the meeting, Sept. 15-16, of the administration's war council at Camp David, provided by the Post's Bill Woodward and Dan Balz. In the "I-was-there" style for which Woodward, whose access to powerful officials since his investigative role in the Watergate scandal almost 30 years ago is unmatched, is famous:

"Wolfowitz argued (at the meeting) that the real source of all the trouble and terrorism was probably Hussein. The terrorist attacks of Sep. 11 created an opportunity to strike. Now, Rumsfeld asked again: 'Is this the time to attack Iraq?'"

"Powell objected," the Woodward and Balz account continued, citing Secretary of State Colin Powell's argument that U.S. allies would not support a strike on Iraq. "If you get something pinning Sep. 11 on Iraq, great," Powell is quoted as saying. "But let's get Afghanistan now. If we do that, we will have increased our ability to go after Iraq.”

Retired senior U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials have long doubted any operational link between al-Qaeda and Hussein, as noted by former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman, who signed a statement by former top-ranking diplomats and military officials that was released here Tuesday, denouncing U.S. policy in Iraq and the Middle East.

"(Hussein) and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were mortal enemies during this period," Freeman told reporters, adding that administration assertions that the two had such links before the war were regarded by specialists in the region as "ludicrous."

"Why the vice president continues to make that claim beats me," said another former top diplomat, Ambassador Robert Oakley. "I have no idea."

Copyright 2004 by PENN, L.L.C. All rights reserved. Feel free to forward this, in its entirety, to others.

Smedley Butler on Interventionism
--Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General
Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

CLINTON DIDN'T ASK FOR AN APOLOGY

Have you heard the news? In an interview in the December issue of Esquire magazine, President Clinton demands that Congressional Republicans apologize to the nation for impeaching him.

Have you heard? It must be true. It dominated last Sunday morning's talk shows. On ABC, Cokie Roberts asked Trent Lott about it. On Fox, Brit Hume asked Tom Daschle about it. On CNBC, Tim Russert asked Al Hunt and Bob Novak about it. All of whom expressed shock that Clinton would make such an outrageous demand.

There's only one problem. He never did. Once again, the media got it wrong. Before all that high-priced television talent piled on, asking how Clinton could dare suggest that Republicans apologize for impeaching him, they should have read the Esquire article first. I did. So can you. You don't have to wait till it hits the newsstands, it's available now on line at Esquire.com. Here's what it says:

Asked by reporter Michael Paterniti whether he is worried that Republicans might turn this year's presidential election into a campaign about him, Clinton responds: ``Well, they can't -- for two reasons. One is, unlike them, I have apologized to the American people for what I did wrong, and most Americans think I paid a pretty high price.'' A little later, after admitting he agrees with Joe Lieberman's criticism of his personal behavior, Clinton again makes the distinction between him and Republican leaders in Congress: ``They never apologized to the country for impeachment, they never apologized for all the things they've done.''

Notice. Clinton merely states the fact that, while he has apologized, over and over again, for his sexual pranks with Monica Lewinsky and all the turmoil it caused, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde and crowd have never apologized for making a moral mountain out of a stupid, adolescent molehill.

Despite what you saw on television or read in the newspapers, in other words, Clinton never asked that Republicans express regret for last year's impeachment mess. He never demanded that they apologize -- but he should have!

Did Clinton owe the nation an apology for impeachment? Of course. And we got it.

Do Republicans owe the nation an apology for impeachment? Absolutely. But we'll never get it.

Why should they apologize? Because they neglected their jobs for one whole year. Because they set aside work they should have been doing on education, Social Security or Medicare. Because they misused their powers and abused the Constitution by turning the Congress into the partisan pursuit of a president for purely personal misbehavior.

Republicans should apologize, in short, for putting the country through the agony of impeachment over what never came close to an impeachable offense. The Founding Fathers did not intend the impeachment clause to be invoked either for enjoying oral sex or lying about it.

That's not the only thing Clinton got right in the Esquire interview. He also nailed Republicans on the real motives behind the House impeachment and Senate trial. Despite all their pious rhetoric, ``most people know that what they did was not about morality or truth or the law,'' Clinton told Esquire. ``It was about politics and power.''

How true. There was no need to devote an entire year to a House impeachment and Senate trial. Most Americans didn't want it. Most Republicans and Democrats in Congress preferred and were willing to vote for a motion of censure, which even Clinton agreed to. But Gingrich, Lott and their overzealous lieutenants insisted on pursuing impeachment all the way to the end, as their only hope of destroying Clinton politically. The irony is, they failed.

They not only did not destroy Clinton, they made him stronger. He's a better president now than he was before impeachment. He's in total control of the agenda in Washington. He runs circles around Trent Lott and Dennis Hastert. And he's more popular today than Ronald Reagan was in the final months of his presidency. Clinton did more than survive impeachment, he triumphed over it.

In the end, the only problem with Clinton's Esquire interview was not what he said, but when he said it. Locked in a dead heat with George W. Bush, the last thing Al Gore needs right now is for Bill Clinton to be reminding Americans about his frolic with Monica Lewinsky. If only he could have waited 10 more days.

But the timing is one thing, the substance is another. When Bill Clinton talked to Esquire was wrong. What he told them was right on.

Was there a Conspiracy?

By Denis Mueller

Confessional conversions make good drama. In the 1940’s, such notables as Arthur Koestler (The God That Failed,)

Richard Wright and Ignazio Silone, all turned away from Communism. For various reasons, they condemned the Stalinist doctrine that they once had followed.

The tradition of left-to-right conversions is now joined by several right-to-moderate left re-evaluations. The most notable of these being David Brock, whose new book describes some of the culture wars of the 1990’s. Brock was the darling of the right during these times. His work as a polemicist at the University of California earned him a position for the magazine Insight.  Insight was the weekly magazine published by Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Moon and his party's main concern was forwarding a right-wing agenda and sending out his disciples to bother the rest of us.

Brock was hired by the magazine, The American Spectator, and he burst into the spotlight with his scathing book about Anita Hill. He became the darling of such right-wing notables as Rush Limbaugh, George Will and William Buckley. It also received a favorable review by the New York Times and became a best seller.

But Hill was small potatoes compared to his next target, the new President of the United States, Bill Clinton. A few of his allegations were serious stuff - such as a discredited story that Clinton had offered jobs to state troopers in exchange for their silence on Clinton’s sexual activities. Activiites which included a reference to a woman named Paula Jones, whose latest claim to fame is her appearance of Fox’s new gift to our culture, "Celebrity Boxing."

Guess what? Brock has now repudiated his former convictions and has said basically that the right-wing conspiracy that Hilary Clinton spoke of was true. Backed by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, whose past will be discussed in a future column, and others funneled money into the Spectator. Perhaps their most serious allegation was the charge that the Clintons had something to do with the death of Vincent Foster, a family friend of the Clintons.

Brock now says that these articles written by a British journalist Ambrose Evans-Prichard was a shoddy piece of journalism. However, the editor of the Spectator, R. Emmett Tyrrel was determined to, facts or not, publish the article.

Prichard's article was so bad and untrue that Brock, who had begun to have misgivings turned to Ted Olsen, the current Solicitor General of the United States and close friend to Kenneth Starr and asked him to read the article.

Brock thought he was giving the article to a principled conservative but little did he know that Olsen, while acknowledging that Foster had committed suicide, felt that it was more important to discredit the Clintons. Brock was stunned. Olsen cared little for the truth. That, when coupled with the hypocrisy of the demagogues of the right convinced Brock that the radical right was made up of liars and hypocrites. Think about it for a second, aren’t Solicitor Generals supposed to be concerned with the truth?  Apparently not.

Brock now says that he discredited reporters who wrote that indeed Thomas was a habitual renter of pornography despite the fact that Brock knew their allegations were true. I am no fan of Bill Clinton. I felt that any honorable human being would have resigned, but what the right-wing nuts did was no benefit to any of us. They are liars and scoundrels and someday someone will expose them for what they are. Welcome back David Brock to the human race. Your gift of exposing these creeps is a great gift to history.

Sources: David Brock: Blinded by the Right