Customer Reviews

The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America

5 star:		(38)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(40)

 

 

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...

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.

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.

Looking at the previous reviews of this book, the ones with few stars are obviously politically motivated. It's doubtful that they've read the book, and some indulge in outrageous and even dystopian tangents that have no connection to the subject at hand. However, after the outcry for "connecting the dots" after 9-11 it doesn't make sense to sweep other connected dots under the rug. Did Saddam Hussein have connections to terrorists? Indisputably. To argue otherwise is to hide one's head (to speak diplomatically) in the sand. Was he connected to 9-11? Possibly. The important thing to understand is that author Stephen F. Hayes can only put forth "dots". Like any good prosecuting attorney, he presents his case clearly, giving exhibits that build a case on circumstantial evidence. But to be fair, the "dots" that should have been connected to stop 9-11 (if it could be humanly stopped) are also tenuous, unless one sees them with the benefit of hindsight. I will not say whether Hayes (in the interest of full disclosure, it must be said he works for the _Weekly Standard_, which raises as much hackles as a worker for _The New York Times_ to a so-called Neo-Con) proves his case. READ THE BOOK FOR YOURSELF, especially before you have the temerity to write a negative review. In fact, the reviews (all reviews) of this book, including positive ones, should be ignored because they are meaningless. If one thinks Iraq is the centerpiece on the war on terror, the reviews will be positive (though also one has to admit in those cases the book was probably read); if one adamantly refuses to admit Saddam Hussein had ties to terror at all (which is a foolish decision) and think the Iraq leg on the war on terror a diversion or a sideshow (which is at least an arguable position, though I don't accept it) one probably isn't going to read the book because a belief may sometimes be shaken when confronted with cold facts. The important thing to do with this book is READ it and give the facts a fair hearing, even if you reject them. If you ever said the phrase "connect the dots" in relation to 9-11, you must read this book. Your opinion may not be changed (dogma rarely is) but you will at least see what connecting dots amounts to. It's done here to good advantage. Is the book true? How do I know -- I'm not a CIA operative! But it is IMPORTANT. Here are the facts. Accept them or reject them. In the climate the world is in at present, with terrorists crossing oceans to kill innocents, even affecting elections in western countries, you're doing yourself a disservice and even being dumb if you don't at least give these dots a fair hearing before writing your reviews to denegrate the book.

Mr. Hayes presents a sound argument that shows a general connection between al-Qaeda and the former Iraqi regime. Do not be fooled into thinking that this is a balanced discussion of the issue. The author never claims to offer both sides of the debate. Instead, Mr. Hayes starts with the hypothesis that a connection existed and then provides numerous facts to support his theory. In the end, I was convinced. If you have solidly formed your opinion against a connection, then don't read the book. If you have already decided that a connection exists, you will probably enjoy the read. If you have not made up your mind, Mr. Hayes offers compelling arguments.

My only criticism is the exclusion of footnotes with more detailed source citations.

This book goes into dark details with an evenhandedness and sober reporting that is never boring, it is like a airplane trip through hell. It goes much deeper than a newspaper or magazine piece would go in covering terrorist connections to Saddam. But it covers Al Qaida and Iraq's relationship and puts things in perspective until, as each chapter unfolds, you see the truth--which is that Saddam and Al Qaida were constant bedfellows.

How else can Al Zaquori get injured in Afghanistan in 2002 and then get the best hospital care in Baghdad at the same time? The author shows the pipeline.

There are hundreds of little connections like this that led to the inexorable conclusion that Osama-bred terrorists and Saddam are one in the same. I was always a bit doubtful, but now feel cleansed and sure and I applaud the author for his focus and truthfinding. This book will be a huge historical reference book, and oft quoted in the future.

Regard this book as a test of your commitment to intellectual independence and of your immunity to intellectual intimidation. Forget about what Others believe, say, or think, and just ask yourself: What are Hayes's claims?, and How well are those claims supported? When you're done with the book, you'll be able to judge the state of the debate for yourself.

The incontrovertible fact is that the book achieves the end it sets for itself. Hayes sets out to summarize the state of the evidence in favor of a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, and to show that the evidence supports some such connection. It's a fairly modest aim, and he succeeds at it. To deny the existence of "a" connection after reading this book is willfully to flout the evidence.

Hayes thus pushes the debate to the next logical level: given the existence of a connection, what precisely does it signify? How strong a connection is it? What kind of connection is it? These are genuinely difficult questions. Hayes doesn't address them, but he gives good reason to think they ought to be addressed--and good reason to think that they aren't being addressed.

I give Hayes 4 rather than 5 stars because I think he's made too many concessions to "accessibility" and sacrificed some rigor in the process. The book lacks an index and footnotes--which perhaps makes it easier to read but harder to check the sources. When you're writing a book about a subject as contested as this, it makes strategic sense to put the sources front and center: if the dispute is about evidence, you ought to make the *evidence* accessible to readers who crave evidence, rather than making the text accessible to people who crave easy reading.

But then again, neither The New York Times nor The Washington Post is indexed, footnoted, or on most days, even properly sourced. And yet people believe what they read there. So the absence of footnotes and index can hardly be an impediment to reading Hayes's book, and taking its claims seriously.

Especially people like Dan who quotes that infamous and erroneous 9/11 commission report in which the media, democrat and liberal jumped on like flies on s**t to say the were "no connections between Iraq and Al Queda." However, Kean and Hamilton said recently: "Were there contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq?" Kean asked himself. "Yes . . . no question." Hamilton joined in: "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections . . . we don't disagree with that" John F. Lehman, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that documents captured in Iraq "indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaida." People, there are known connections between Iraq and Al Queda, even Clinton's admin acknowledged this (re: Sudan). This is an important book for curious people who dont trust the press and really want some information on this topic. No they don't have connections with 9/11, but nobody in the Bush admin has purported it EVER. Only the media has been making the connection with their numerous unscientific polls and with their warped and lazy reporting having the general public in the dark about the truth about the extent of Al Queda's tentacles. I think we are in for big surprises in the future when more revelations are found. Thanks, not to the mainstream media, but to investigative journalists like Mr. Hayes who actually wants to find the truth - not bend it. After reading this you wont have a doubt that Iraq and Al Queda are connected and posed a potential threat to the U.S. Dont let your political views blind you. Fact is, a connection helps Bush immensley as far as justification for the Iraq. Why do you think liberals, democrats and mainstram media are so adverse to any connection? The real answer most definitely isnt "there arent any." Also, if people want the answers about the Atta meeting in Prague, which was NEVER disproven, go to www.edwardjayepstein.com !!

This expertly researched book exposes some fascinating links between Al Quada and Sassam Hussein without overblowing or overdramatizing them. Hayes calls a spade a spade, and when he has questions about a piece of evidence, he states that clearly. One might expect such a book to be a propaganda piece, but instead it takes a straightforward and balanced look at a very critical topic.

I'm still reading this book. Yet I can't get over how the story about Iraq and Al-Qaeda has been (mis)reported, particularly the findings of the September 11 Commission.

The commission found that there was no evidence that Saddam was behind September 11. Yet somehow, this gets abbreviated by the media and the Bush administration's critics to be a finding that there is no evidence whatsoever of an Iraq-Al-Qaeda connection.

People will debate about what happened for years. Yet there is undeniable evidence that there was a pattern of contact between the Iraqis and the Jihadis. The fact that it had not become a formal operating partnership does not mean that it was not a source of great concern. Think about it: How would you feel about the knowledge that a serial aggressor and genocidal ruler like Saddam and a group of religious fanatics were playing footsie with each other? How would you have felt if the Administration had taken a legalistic approach and decided that no action could be taken because there was no ironclad proof, and then something horrible happened because there was a partnership?

Another thing to consider is that Les Hamilton, a Democrat, has criticized the media for hyping the supposed disconnect between the Bush Administration's statements and the findings of the commission.

Still another thing is that old saw: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, just because the Iraqi regime figures and Al-Qaeda leaders that are in custody deny that there was an operational partnership doesn't mean that there wasn't. Maybe it did and maybe it didn't. We will probably never know for sure.

I guess on a final note, I wish someone would give me one example with direct quotes where any Bush Administration figures stated that Saddam was behind 9/11. So far, all that I've heard is innuendo.

As someone who works in the Intelligence Community, I am heartily sick of the politicization of issues that are of vital national interest by both the Democrats and Republicans. I wish both parties and their loud-mouthed supporters would stop trying to stick it to each other and figure out what went wrong and what is needed to make sure that it never happens again.