Stephen Hayes: The last Saddam-Al Qaeda believer

Jason Zengerle devastates the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes in this week's New Republic. Here's how the column begins (TNR subscription required):

Earlier this month, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported what seemed to be big news. In February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had concluded that a captured Al Qaeda commander named Ibn Al Shaykh Al Libi was probably lying when he told debriefers that Saddam Hussein had provided chemical and biological weapons training to the terrorist group. Still, the newspapers reported that, even after this, the Bush administration used Libi's claims to sell the war. Colin Powell touted Libi's statements as evidence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda link in his February 2003 presentation to the United Nations; President Bush did the same in an October 2002 address to the nation.

And, yet, the news was greeted with a collective yawn. The Times buried its article on page A14, the Post on page A22. The Bush administration, meanwhile, declined to comment for either article; nor did Bush officials feel the need to address the stories in subsequent days. All of which proved that, nearly three years after the Bush administration claimed that Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda were a primary justification for the war in Iraq, no one--not even the administration itself--is now willing to seriously argue that the dictator and the terrorist group had a meaningful relationship.

Well, no one, that is, except for Stephen Hayes. Like a Japanese soldier hiding in a cave who never got the news that the emperor had surrendered, Hayes, a writer for The Weekly Standard, continues to fight--stubbornly insisting that Saddam did, in fact, support Al Qaeda.

Comments

[Smithers]

It's amazing how hard these guys continue to fight to justify this war.

Why are we still there? As are as I am concerned it's mission accomplished.

We deposed Saddam, ok. No WMD, oh well. At this point it seems to me that our presence in Iraq is just enabling the Iraqi's from taking responsibility for their own country. Iraq is going to succeed or fail on its own and the longer that we are there the longer it is going to take for everyone to find out of the Iraqi's have it in them to make their country work.

Let's just declare victory and get the hell out of there while we still can.

[Jonny]

I my heck Nyhan. That is one piece of evidence out of a mountain of evidence regarding the connection between Saddam and al Qaida.

As far as Smithers comment, one reason not to leave Iraq right now is that we would embolden the enemy that wants to kill your mother, spouse, children, and yes, you. North Vietnam did not have the long-term goal.

[Smithers]

a mountain of evidence regarding the connection between Saddam and al Qaida.

Ha ha ha! I guess Hayes is not the last believer after all.

one reason not to leave Iraq right now is that we would embolden the enemy that wants to kill your mother, spouse, children, and yes, you.

Yea right. Define the enemy and prove that our continued presence in Iraq does not only embolden them, but also offers them training on how to fight us.

Try again "Jonny"...

[Jonny]

Smithers,

What is this "Try again 'Johnny'" crap. Is that part of your intellectual discourse?

You are blind to the mountain of evidence b/c you don't want to look and see for yourself.

The training ground is a deadly ground for the terrorists - they are being killed/captured by the thousands. Now that Jordanians have denounced their fellow countryman (Zarqawi), tips have been flooding in that have exposed his many hiding places. Killing/capturing the enemy -> less enemy. And there is no evidence (only a theory) that the war has created more terrorists. That theory is simply unfounded.

[Smithers]

Maybe you should e-mail me (smithersmplsblog@yahoo.com) this mountain of evidence because it is certainly not available anywhere that I can find. Even the Bush Administration has walked away from the claim that there was any connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. This issue is dead save for guys like you and Hayes. I'm not saying that you can't believe it, go ahead. It's just that you are wrong.

And there is no evidence (only a theory) that the war has created more terrorists. Umm, if the war has not created more terrorists than where did all these thousands that have been captured or killed come from?

Killing/capturing the enemy -> less enemy. Since the terrorists are drawing more forces from the general public I guess your solution is to keep American forces in the middle east until everyone is killed or captured. That's not going to work.

Getting back to reality, the Iraqi leadership itself has now called for a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition forces and has stated that there is a "legitimate right" of resistance against coalition forces. This place is turning into a death trap.

The reasons to stay in Iraq are as flawed as the reasons that were used to invade in the first place.

[Ray Robison]

While you people try to focus on who didn't do it you seem oblivious to the real question, who did the anthrax attack? Until that is known, the AQ-saddam link is one of two realistic theories. BTW, the other one is that a professional, top secret cleared, patriotic US scientist did it. You all think that makes sense?

[Mark]

No evidence? How about the HUNDREDS of IIS/Fedayeen/Republican Guard/al Qaeda members who admitted the two sides cooperated pre invasion and the hundreds caught doing so?
http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/05/former_baathists_found_working/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23264

Those people don't count? It's debatable how high the contacts/cooperation went or if it was an effort by Saddam's regime to infiltrate these groups but saying it's all made up by Hayes or Bush isn't accurate.