From the December 29, 2003 / January 5, 2004 issue: Connecting the dots in 1998, but not in 2003.Dec 29, 2003, Vol. 9, No. 16 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
ARE AL QAEDA'S links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq just a fantasy of the Bush administration? Hardly. The Clinton administration also warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection.
Why Howard Dean is wrong and the capture of Saddam Hussein does matter.11:00 PM, Dec 17, 2003 • By TERRY EASTLAND
IN HIS INITIAL COMMENTS on Saddam Hussein's capture, President Bush didn't mention the main reason we went after the brutal dictator in the first place. Not that Bush needed to go into the principal justification for invading Iraq. But the matter is worth bringing up--especially since Howard Dean, whose candidacy has been fueled by his opposition to the president's decision to go to war, is the odds-on favorite to capture the Democratic presidential nomination.
What Saddam's trial could mean to Iraq and the world.11:00 PM, Dec 16, 2003 • By CLAUDIA WINKLER
NO LESS SURREAL than the details of Saddam Hussein's hideaway--the copy of "Crime and Punishment," the Catholic image headed "God Bless Our Home," the can of 7-Up--were the photographs of reporters crawling all over the compound, inspecting it minutely, and even personally trying out the "spider hole." Whatever else it may prove to be, be the capture of Saddam is already a triumph of openness.
Kanan Makiya prepares a museum for Baghdad documenting the evils of Saddam's rule and the courage of those who fought against it.11:00 PM, Dec 15, 2003 • By ERIN MONTGOMERY
PRESIDENT BUSH'S MESSAGE to Iraqis on Sunday was deliciously absolute: "You will not have to fear the rule of Saddam Hussein ever again." Kanan Makiya's message to Iraqis does not convey the same sense of finality, but it rings just as true: You can never forget Saddam.
Oh, sorry, sir, I didn't mean to--Say, aren't you . . . ?11:00 PM, Dec 14, 2003 • By LARRY MILLER
AH, SADDAM, SADDAM, SADDAM. What has it all come to, eh, my friend? All those palaces, all those solid gold toilets, all those deliciously terrified looks in people's eyes. All that hard work, and you just wind up looking like Jerry Garcia after a show.
What Saddam's capture means for the 2004 race and the Democratic contenders. Hint: It's bad for Howard Dean.5:30 PM, Dec 14, 2003 • By FRED BARNES
LET'S BE CRASS and assess the politics of the capture of Saddam Hussein. No one is boosted more than President Bush, the beneficiary of so much good news this fall (surging economy, 10,000 Dow, Medicare drug benefit). For him, only one more thing has to fall into place to assure re-election. That's a sharp turn for the better in the twilight war against the Baathist diehards and their motley allies in the Sunni triangle of Iraq. The grabbing of Saddam, a pathetic, cowardly Saddam, could lead to exactly that--but not necessarily.
Howard Dean cogitates on the merits of American justice versus international justice in the war on terror.3:20 PM, Dec 2, 2003 • By HUGH HEWITT
HOWARD DEAN wants Osama bin Laden to get 30 years to life. No hanging by the neck until dead. No firing squad. Not even a lethal injection for being the mastermind behind the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans.
That's the upshot of Dean's exchange with Chris Matthews last night, an exchange ignored--and in one case glossed over--by a Dean-friendly press.
MATTHEWS: Who should try Osama bin Laden if we catch him? We or the World Court?
DEAN: I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I'm happy . . .
Dec 1, 2003, Vol. 9, No. 12 • By
The Old News on Saddam and Osama
Stephen F. Hayes's article last week on the history of friendly contact between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden ("Case Closed") provoked criticism from several quarters, including from the Pentagon itself--where the secret memo on Iraqi-al Qaeda links obtained by Hayes originated.
Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball get the Osama-Saddam memo wrong.12:26 PM, Nov 20, 2003 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
A NEWSWEEK article by investigative reporters Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball about the memo linking Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein dismisses a recent WEEKLY STANDARD report as "hype" and concludes, the "tangled tale of the memo suggests that the case of whether there has been Iraqi-al Qaeda complicity is far from closed."
While it's refreshing to see the establishment media pick up the story, the News
A close examination of the Defense Department's latest statement.11:00 PM, Nov 18, 2003 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT late Saturday, November 15, issued a statement that began: "News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate."
The statement didn't specify the "inaccurate" news reports, but most observers have inferred that the main report in question was an article in the most recent issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD--
From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.Nov 24, 2003, Vol. 9, No. 11 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
Editor's Note, 1/27/04: In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank reported that "Vice President Cheney . . . in an interview this month with the Rocky Mountain News, recommended as the 'best source of information' an article in The Weekly Standard magazine detailing a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda based on leaked classified information."
Here's the Stephen F. Hayes article to which the vice president was referring.
From the November 3, 2003 issue: The further connections between al Qaeda and Saddam.Nov 3, 2003, Vol. 9, No. 08 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
IN A LITTLE-NOTICED DECISION in a New York courtroom on September 25, 2003, a man described as Osama bin Laden's "best friend" got some good news. U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Batts ruled that Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim could not be sentenced to life in prison.
Salim--who was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989 and who was for years one of bin Laden's most trusted confidants--had been captured in Germany in 1998 and extradited to the United States for prosecution related to his role in the grand conspiracy that resulted in the 1998 bombings at U.S.
From the October 20, 2003 issue: "We don't know" about Saddam and 9/11.Oct 20, 2003, Vol. 9, No. 06 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2003, "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert asked Vice President Dick Cheney whether Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 attacks. Cheney's answer was characteristically straightforward: "We don't know."
The reaction was furious, even by Washington standards.
The Kay Report suggests he had one, and it almost worked.Oct 20, 2003, Vol. 9, No. 06 • By TOD LINDBERG
DAVID KAY'S interim report on the investigation into Saddam Hussein's weapons programs leaves open as many questions as it answers. Exactly what was underway and at what stage of development is still unknown. But it does establish to a certainty the critical point that Saddam had every intention of reconstituting chemical, biological, and nuclear programs as soon as he could.
The junior senator from New York may be surprising some people with what she has to say about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction.2:30 PM, Sep 24, 2003 • By FRED BARNES
PRESIDENT BUSH has a surprising defender of his contention that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction--Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. "The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning.