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

Stephen Hayes has written a book that should be read by all members of the media who report or comment on connections between Iraq and al Qaeda. For many in the media, they are simply ignorant of events that occurred during the 1990s (many of which were reported by their own papers or networks!) or they have conveniently "forgotten" them.Hayes makes it clear that the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda was a basic assumption of the Clinton administration. Amongst other connections, he points to the Clinton Justice Department November 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden which clearly states: "In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."Obviously, the Clinton administration had to have had some evidence of a operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. If it can be declassified, the American people deserve to know what that evidence was.Hayes also notes that no fewer than six Clinton administration national security officials--including Richard Clarke--justified the August 1998 retaliatory attack on the al Shifra plant in the Sudan by citing Iraqi connections. The attack occurred after al Qaeda bombed to US embassies in Africa.Hayes also includes a chapter on the Atta-Iraqi intelligence meeting in Prague. The 9/11 Commission concluded that they cannot show that the meeting occurred. Commissioners Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton appeared on This Week today (June 20) at stated that there is no evidence to show that the meeting occurred or that it did NOT occur. Nevertheless, members of the media have claimed this week that the meeting absolutely did not occur. Al Hunt on Satruday's Crossfire called the meeting a fiction.Hayes notes that no fewer than "five high-ranking Czech officials have publicly confirmed that the meeting occurred." CIA director George Tenet has privately told associates and journalists that he believes the Atta meeting occurred. Hayes also notes that the FBI has paperwork outlining Atta's movements and financial transactions in the months leading up to 9/11. However, the paper trail has a gap of three days, which happen to coincide with the alleged meeting in Prague. The 9/11 Commission points to the fact that Atta's cell phone was used in Florida during those three days. However, since his cell phone would not have worked in Eastern Europe, it is quite possible that he left the phone behind for someone else to use. Hayes accurately notes that many of the hijackers shared cell phones.Hayes' book is likely to be dismissed at the right-wing musings of a Weekly Standard writer. However, the burden is on them to use reason and facts to counter Hayes' case. The war on terrorism is too important to all of us to simply close our minds and ignore years of information on events and connections that occurred before

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.

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.

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.

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 ob