Originally posted by: Fern
I'll refer you to my earlier post (in this thread) on this topic.
The one about how "np operation links" went directly to "no links'.
Much of what is in the Weekly Standard article was mentioned in the McClatchy article. So, I see no reason to dismiss out of hand the WS article.
Yes, we all know that the Weekly Standard is a right -leaning publication, but it's a professional one and as such should be attacked on a factual basis (e.g., the "facts" it details within the article), and an analytical one as to the conclusions that are, or not, drawn in the article.
For example:
Later, Wright describes the founding of al Qaeda.
Toward the end of 1989, a meeting took place in the Afghan town of Khost at a mujahideen camp. A Sudanese fighter named Jamal al-Fadl was among the participants, and he later testified about the event in a New York courtroom during one of the trials connected with the 1998 bombing of the American embassies in East Africa. According to Fadl, the meeting was attended by ten men--four or five of them Egyptians, including Zawahiri. Fadl told the court that the chairman of the meeting, an Iraqi known as Abu Ayoub, proposed the formation of a new organization that would wage jihad beyond the borders of Afghanistan. There was some dispute about the name, but ultimately the new organization came to be called Al Qaeda--the Base. The alliance was conceived as a loose affiliation among individual mujahideen and established groups, and was dominated by Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The ultimate boss, however, was Osama bin Laden, who held the checkbook.
If this were indeed told the court, it quite likely can be verified or refuted by checking against court records available from the case.
(I also note this is of some interest to me as we recently had a thread about some BBC article (IIRC) wherein some ATer's held it proved AQ did not exist before the invasion of Iraq.)
When I compare the McClatchy and this article, I'm begining to think Saddam had more of a link to AQ (and related terorist groups) than I had previously thought. I assume we shall see much more about about this Pentagon report. It may well be very interesting, both for the facts and info uncovered by searching through 600,000 documents and the spin that's sure to accompany it's release to the public.
I'm not suggesting that this validates the "war". In hindsight almost everyone agrees another course of action would have been better. But the MSM's rush to deny/dismiss such links, that otherwise appear true, is illustrative of the poor state of journalism today.
Edit: I'm also reminded of the recent NIE report and the rather facile conclusion that Iran is not seeking nuke weapons because they claim not to be. No matter the fact that they are proceeding as if they do intend to.
Fern