Lies about 9/11 Commission report

This page was last updated on June 22, 2004.
 

In Media Bias I wrote about how the mainstream media tend to craft stories to favor liberal causes.  Reporting of a National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) staff statement provides one of the more egregious examples yet.

Consider the following front-page headlines and sub-headlines from June 17, 2004.

  • "Panel findings challenge Bush's case for Iraq war; Sept. 11 commission report - no Saddam-al-Qaida ties" - Beaver County Times
  • "Saddam, al-Qaida not linked; Sept. 11 panel's conclusion at odds with administration" - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
  • "9/11 panel debunks Saddam link; Report: No evidence of al-Qaida ties" - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
  • "Panel finds no Qaeda-Iraq Tie" - The New York Times
  • "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link is Dismissed" - The Washington Post
  • "No Iraq, al-Qaeda Link Found" - USA Today

ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC news broadcasts told similar stories.  What is wrong with these headlines and stories?  They are all wrong.  Worse, I believe most of them are intentionally wrong.  They are based on the following sentence from a 9/11 Commission staff statement.1

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

You may ask, "How is that statement inconsistent with the headlines?"  Saying there was no Iraq/al-Qaida collaboration on the 9/11 attack is not the same as saying there was no contact whatsoever between the two.  That is what you find when you read the entire paragraph (page 5, paragraph 4) containing the cited sentence.

"Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime.  Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.  The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda.  A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994.  Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.  There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.  Two senior Bin Ladin associate have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq.  We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Now let's consider what the Bush administration has, and has not, said about Iraq/al-Qaida contacts.

  • First, the Bush administration never claimed an Iraqi role in 9/11.  When asked if Iraq was involved, the administration position has always been that there was no evidence to suggest Iraqi involvement.
  • The Bush administration has claimed contacts/links between Iraq and al-Qaida but never said how close those ties were.

Both of these positions are completely consistent with the 9/11 Commission statement.  Indeed, when interviewed, four members of the Commission said the Commission and White House positions on Iraq/al-Qaida links were consistent.  Below is an excerpt from a press conference held by Commission co-chairmen Tom Kean (R) and Lee Hamilton (D).

Kean: "Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq?  Yes.  Some of them are shadowy, but there's no question they were there."

Hamilton: "I must say I have trouble understanding the flap over this.  The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.  We don't disagree with that.  So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."2

A subsequent Fox News Channel interview with Commission member Jim Thompson (R) evoked a similar response, as did a CNN interview with Commission member John Lehman (R).

So why do we have headlines and "news" stories completely at odds with the facts?  In all cases except for the Tribune-Review, I believe the answer is simply liberal bias.  The whole story was there, but these outlets simply ignored what was not convenient.  In the case of the Tribune-Review, I believe (hope?) it was laziness.  The lead stories under the headline were written by reporters from The Associated Press and The Washington Post, and both outlets have an anti-Bush bias.  Had the Tribune-Review done a little reporting of its own, I suspect the headline would have been different.  That said, the Tribune-Review opposed the war, though its position is we can't cut and run.

Now, after Commission members said it and the White House were in agreement about Iraq/al-Qaida contact, you might think the outlets would revise their stories.  You would be wrong.

  • Published the day after the above Commission comments, a Post-Gazette editorial entitled No link / The 9-11 commission staff's disagreement with Bush continues the lie.3  This despite a Post-Gazette story the same day documenting the Lee Hamilton comment cited above!4
  • The Post-Gazette continued the message on June 19th in an editorial cartoon saying "9/11 panel: No Iraq/al-Qaida link."5
  • The Post-Gazette was not alone in continuing the deception.  On June 20th, the Beaver County Times published both an editorial cartoon6 and an opinion piece claiming no Iraq/al-Qaida contact.7
  • The Beaver County Times repeated their drumbeat on June 21st with an editorial entitled Spin cycle.8  To the Times, it is merely "spin" to distinguish between 9/11 collaboration and ongoing contacts.  Consider that Germany and Japan were close allies in World War II, yet no evidence exists Germany collaborated with Japan on the Pearl Harbor attack.  You don't have to have close collaboration to have ongoing contact.

I haven't listened to or read all news outlets, but Fox News Channel appears to be the only major news outlet to report the story accurately.

The apparently deliberate misreporting was bad enough, but it wasn't all that was going on.  Not content with misrepresenting the 9/11 Commission report, many reporters implied the White House claimed an Iraq involvement in 9/11.  In so doing, they were trying to get two "Bush lied" moments in one story.  As stated above, the Bush administration never made this claim.

Other reporters took a different tack.  Until June 16th, most mainstream reporters incorrectly claimed WMD was the sole reason for the Iraq War.  That way, they could bash the war because we haven't yet found a lot of WMD.9  After the 9/11 Commission report, an Iraq/al-Qaida link suddenly became the central cause for the war!  In other words, these reporters now want us to believe the war was for, and sold on, revenge.  They want us to forget President Bush's case was for preemption, not revenge.  Revenge would have been an easier sale than preemption.  As recently as early June, preemption was being bashed, but now it's revenge.  Because these folks are lying at every turn, they can't maintain a consistent story.

Getting back to the Iraq/al-Qaida links, many of these outlets in the late 1990s reported these links existed.  For example, here is an excerpt from a 1999 edition of an ABC news program.

"Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists.  Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the most notorious terrorists of their era, all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad.  Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

"Three weeks after the bombing [by the U.S. in Sudan], on August 31, bin Laden reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan.  [over video of Iraqi man cheek to cheek with Sudanese men] Iraq's Vice President arrives in Khartoum to show his support for the Sudanese after the U.S. attack.  ABC News has learned that during these meetings, senior Sudanese officials, acting on behalf of bin Laden, ask if Saddam Hussein would grant him asylum.

"Iraq was, indeed, interested.  ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden.  Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad."10

Based on testimony before the 9/11 Commission, the Clinton administration claimed an Iraq/al-Qaida link.  This believed link is what led to the cruise missile attack on the Sudan pharmaceutical factory in 1998 in retaliation for the U.S. embassy bombings.  The CIA reported Osama bin Laden had an ownership position in the factory and had met with Iraqi chemical weapon scientists.  The CIA believed -- perhaps incorrectly -- the factory produced VX nerve gas.11  Belief in Iraq/al-Qaida contact did not begin in the Bush administration and is not new news; it was reported in 1998.12  Even that recent darling of Bush bashers, Richard Clarke, believed in the link.

On a related topic, Russia President Vladimir Putin recently disclosed that "Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States."13

After all this, there is only one reasonable conclusion.  The so-called "reporting" is malicious and the mainstream press will not let the truth get in the way of its political agenda.  I guess they believe the ends justify the means.

1. Overview of the Enemy - Staff Statement No. 15; National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States; June 16, 2004.

2. Media Suppress Hamilton’s Scolding of Misreporting of Iraq-Qaeda; Media Research Center; June 18, 2004.

3. Editorial: No link / The 9-11 commission staff's disagreement with Bush; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; June 18, 2004.

4. Bush takes issue with Sept. 11 panel's reported findings about links between Iraq and al-Qaida; Deb Reichmann, The Associated Press; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; June 18, 2004.

5. Editorial cartoon (page A-14); Rob Rogers; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; June 19, 2004.

6. Editorial cartoon (page A6); Jack Ohman - The Oregonian; Beaver County Times; June 20, 2004.  The Oregonian originally published this cartoon on June 17, 2004.

7. 'Because I say so' isn't reason enough for war; Leonard Pitts, Jr.; Beaver County Times; June 20, 2004.

8. Spin cycle; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 21, 2004.

9. Remember, American troops were attacked in May 2004 with chemical weapons in two separate incidents.  One shell contained mustard gas (a blistering agent) and the other contained sarin (a nerve agent).  Fortunately, both shells failed to detonate properly.  Making the search for WMD more difficult, neither shell had markings indicating they were chemical weapons.

10. Update: Reporter Who Documented bin Laden-Saddam Ties Now at CBS; Media Research Center; June 18, 2004.

11. Transcript of Testimony During Eighth Public Hearing; National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States; March 23, 2004.

12. U.S.: Sudan plant sample contains VX nerve gas precursor; Jamie McIntyre; CNN.com; August 24, 1998.

13. Putin: Russia Gave Bush Iraq Intelligence; Bagila Bukharbayeva; The Associated Press; June 18, 2004.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.