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

 

 

Create your own review

He could not even back up his "facts" against a comedian like Jon Stewart. Just wait till he gets interviewed by actual journalists. His claims are illogical, do not hold up to REAL facts (as opposed to self-serving memos by political partisans) and are frankly not worth the paper they're printed on. Trees died for this?

This book is a good overview of the evidence regarding links that existed, or may have existed, between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda. The strength of the book is that it brings together evidence from a wide variety of sources which describe a relationship that began somewhere between 1992 and 1995 (it will be clear below why there is uncertainty) and ended only with the termination of Saddam's regime in 2003. The weakness of the book is the way Hayes cites his sources. Probably about half his key sources are anonymous intelligence officials, for the remainder he doesn't footnote them but just cites them in the text. Moreover, for a lot of background information that comes from open sources he gives no gives no source at all; there was some information I already knew because I had read it elsewhere, but which a less informed reader might conclude came from a secret source.

Hayes is careful to make clear where he is depending on a human intelligence source and he can't give the chain of transmission. He recognizes that sources of human intelligence can lie, exaggerate or be honestly mistaken, so the fact that something comes from a "well-placed source" doesn't mean that it is sound. The fact that the book is endorsed by James Woolsey is reassuring; the former CIA director (1993-1995) knows his material and usually displays good judgment.

Having studied the subject I can summarize what is verifiable here and what is not. There are three categories into which the evidence fits. First, there is undisputed evidence regarding Saddam's links to other terrorist organizations - other than Al-Qaeda - going back about 30 years. During the 1970s Saddam supported the most radical and militant of Palestinian terrorists; the infamous Abu Nidal was a client. Among those who killed Americans, Saddam gave refuse to the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking (we captured him last year, in Iraq) and the guy who appears to have been the no. 2 in the 1993 World Trade Center attack.

This category of evidence, almost entirely ignored by the media now, is important for two reasons. One, Al-Qaeda is merely the most important of the terrorist organizations that America faces. Two, the distinction between Al-Qaeda and other militant groups has often been murky; it affiliates with other groups, individuals pass from one to the other and Al-Qaeda itself merged with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad several years ago. For example, Iraq is known to have supported the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood following its expulsion from Syria in 1982. Many from the Syrian and Egyptian MB also went to Saudi Arabia, however, and ended up working with Al-Qaeda. Thus, Saddam and bin Laden were drawing off the same candidate pool.

Second, there were fairly regular contacts between high-level Iraqi intelligence officers and Bin Laden during the 1990s, and the dispute is mainly over how many contacts and for what purpose. The 9/11 Commission, which concluded that there was not conclusive evidence of a "collaborative relationship," noted that such meetings took place while Bin Laden was in the Sudan. After he left in 1996, a number of Iraqi operatives were caught traveling to or from meetings with Al-Qaeda in western Pakistan. Hayes also mentions other contacts I have not read from any other source.

Third, there are two specific indications that Iraq may have been "in on" the 9/11 operation in the sense that it at least knew about it. One, there is the purported meeting between Muhammad Atta, one of the 9/11 crew leaders, and an Iraqi intelligence officer in early 2001 in Prague. Some doubt the account because calls were made from Atta's cell phone in Florida at the same time, but the Czechs stand by their account. Two, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir was one of those present at the meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, which planned the 9/11 attacks. An Iraqi who got his job there through the Iraqi embassy, Shakir was arrested but then released by the Jordanians and then never heard from again several years ago. But in May 2004 we uncovered three documents of the Iraqi Fayedeen which listed him as a Lieutenant-Colonel. Unless these are two people with the same name, it looks like one of Saddam's high-ranking thugs may have been an early liaison to Al-Qaeda, and that he knew about it from the beginning. This latter piece of information came out after this book went to press, so Hayes' account is more complete if this fact is considered (for a source, search the Wall Street Journal).

This is a good book and I recommend it. I have given it four stars because I believe that with more time a better book could be written; one gets the idea that Hayes was under pressure to get this book out now while it is timely.

I am always amazed that the leftist America-haters of the loony left in the Democratic party have brainwashed ignorant sheep of people into hating their own country; the country that has provided them with so much, and to which they give so little.
I'll use this "el Dopo" negative reviewer loony tune, Brian Stokes, as an example. He and others of the socialist persuasion have "acquitted" Hussein of collaboration with bin Laden by saying they hate each other. Now, if he had the least bit of education, and intellegence, it wouldn't take much to see that the terrorists are uniting to destroy America. Sunni, Shiite, Iranian, Syrian, and many others, who in the past, have killed each other by the thousands. Yes, it's true Mr. Stokes, and other American "Nazis" of the left, enemies of this country are working together whether they hate each other or not. Some of their objectives are 1. Destroy America 2. Take back Spain, which they invaded and conquered a few hundred years before the Crusades. Which of course, most ignorant Americans who slept and griped through world history classes don't remember, or probably don't even know, and 3. Take over France. Yes, people, that is a goal of the Muslim terrorists. The French will pay a big price for protecting the terrorists and turning against America who saved them in WWII. They are one of the next on the list.
There is a world of evidence that terrorists were being harbored in Iraq. Not only evidence, but facts so clear that we know some of their names.
Yes, the Bush administration wanted to destroy Sadaam's rule. Why wouldn't they? They killed their own people, invaded Kuwait, tried to assasinate an American President, and have been, for years, a menace to their neighboring countries. Even Putin of Russia has said Iraq had plans to attack us.
I am assuming, and I know I shouldn't, but I won't be far wrong, that the leftists writing "reviews" of this book that they didn't read, are undereducated, ignorant, and not too bright members of the X and Y generation---the most spoiled generation in American history, and the richest. Why these young people hate the country that has made them the richest generation in history is beyond me, but they do. Well, I guess I do know why; the leftists that have taken over the Democratic party have brainwashed them into thinking that they are going to be given even more than they already have. That worked in Germany---for a while. That worked in Russia--for a while. And it has worked in third world countries all over the world--for a while. But, socialist countries don't keep powerful, rich, and successful very long. Just ask the Germans, the Russians, and a lot of Latin Americans, such as the Cubans. Yes, the miserable failure Latin Americans like Che Guevara, who failed in nearly everything he attempted, except when under Castro's leadership, is a perfect example of the "champions" these leftist idiots worship. "Che lives", they chant. Well, not for very long he didn't, and doesn't now--because he was a loser.
It's laughable how the leftists in the older generation want to bring back the sixties, and all the hate they fomented against wonderful American soldiers, whom they weren't fit to shine their shoes. They wave banners and signs, chant, sing anti-war songs, then get into the cars, busses, and planes, and burn the oil they "don't need" to go to their nice homes this country allowed them to earn, where they get on the internet and write "reviews" of books they haven't read.
Read the book, people. You might learn something. If you don't believe it, do your homework, or ask someone brighter than you to explain it all to you.

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 75 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

5.0 out of 5 stars Right on the Mark - the Truth Hurts
A superb piece of investigative reporting and incisive analysis on a key issue in the War on Terror. Read more

Published on July 16 2004 by EddyG

1.0 out of 5 stars Editor of Weekly Standard?
This guy is a conservative ideologue trying to make a point that has been thoroughly discredited. That alone is not bad, but ask yourself this about the credibility of this book:... Read more

Published on July 15 2004

5.0 out of 5 stars Links Proven
This book is excellent in spelling out in excrutiating detail the ties between Osama and Saddam and Osama and various other radical Muslim groups around the world. Read more

Published on July 15 2004

1.0 out of 5 stars Bush can't get Osama, check this
Hayes promotes an agenda and a stretch made by the Bush White House. It is their last ditch effort to fool the American public. Fool me once.... (what is that expression?? Read more

Published on July 14 2004 by Osama's Mama

2.0 out of 5 stars Who needs credible sources when you can just IMPLY?
No footnotes, no credible sources, just breathless assertions.

Look, I know the neokons desparately want to believe all this Saddam/Osama claptrap is true but wishing doesn't... Read more

Published on July 12 2004 by Everclear

1.0 out of 5 stars Excellent Fabrication of Iraq-al Qaida Relationship,
Stephen Hayes obviously does not have any sources, like most of his media counterparts. The reason that he still amasses more information on "the connection" than most... Read more

Published on July 10 2004

5.0 out of 5 stars The Truth
With the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN dominating the media landscape with their careful selection of what is "news," as well as their blatant anti-Bush... Read more

Published on July 8 2004 by J. Houzet

1.0 out of 5 stars Strictly for the Black Helicopter crowd.
For a book that purports to claim a link between Saddam and al Qaeda, a lack of footnotes and attribution of sources is a disturbing sign - and how about at least an index? Read more

Published on July 8 2004

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent Overview of Iraq-al Qaida Relationship
Stephen Hayes does not necessarily have better sources than most of his media counterparts. The reason that he still amasses more information on "the connection" than... Read more

Published on July 7 2004

5.0 out of 5 stars The Obvious Relationship
Whether or not you supported the war in Iraq, one thing is certain, there were numerous connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda and this book clearly points them out. Read more

Published on July 7 2004 by Yehoshua Ebert

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 75 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

Search Listmania!