President Bush gave a speech on Veterans Day where he criticized those that claim the administration "manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war." Most of this criticism is based on the administration pushing suspect "evidence" for Iraq WMD programs, such as the forged Niger documents, aluminum tubes, etc.
So it's a bit ironic that this same speech highlights a letter, supposedly written by Al Qaeda #2 Ayman al- Zawahiri, that many believe is a forgery. Furthermore, the contents of this letter were discussed at length in the speech. From the transcript:
Last month, the world learned of a letter written by al Qaeda's number two leader, a guy named Zawahiri. And he wrote this letter to his chief deputy in Iraq — the terrorist Zarqawi. In it, Zawahiri points to the Vietnam War as a model for al Qaeda. This is what he said: "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy." The terrorists witnessed a similar response after the attacks on American troops in Beirut in 1983 and Mogadishu in 1993. They believe that America can be made to run again — only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.
Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country — a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. And now they've set their sights on Iraq. In his recent letter, Zawahiri writes that al Qaeda views Iraq as, "the place for the greatest battle." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against the terrorists. (Applause.)
....
Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. They are fanatical and extreme — but they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." (Applause.)
Well, here are some of the claims regarding the letter's veracity:
Ken Katzman, a terrorism expert with the Congressional Research Service -- the in-house think-tank of the U.S. Congress -- said the letter contained elements that raised doubts about its authenticity.
"The purported letter has Zawahri admitting to certain things that it's not realistic for him to admit, because he would know there's a potential this letter might be intercepted," Katzman said.
He said they included a request for money from Zarqawi, an admission that Pakistan's army is hunting for al Qaeda and how the arrest of a top operative affected the network.
Juan Cole chimes in:
On the other hand, a number of knowledgeable observers have agreed that it is strange for al-Zawahiri and his circle to call the Prophet's grandson, Husayn, an "Imam." There are other odd things about the letter that I will discuss on Saturday.
Later he refers to Husain, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, as al-Imam al-sibt, "the Imam, the grandson". I do not believe that a hard line Sunni such as Zawahiri would call Husain an Imam. That is Shiite terminology.
The letter then says how much Zawahiri misses meeting with Zarqawi. Zarqawi was not part of al-Qaeda when he was in Afghanistan. He had a rivalry with it. And when he went back to Jordan he did not allow the Jordanian and German chapters of his Tawhid wa Jihad group to send money to Bin Laden. If Zawahiri was going to bring up old times, he would have had to find a way to get past this troubled history, not just pretend that the two used to pal around.
My gut tells me that the letter is a forgery.
And CNN:
Mohannad Hage Ali of the London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat, cites the tone of the letter as a reason he doubts its authenticity.
In the letter, al-Zawahiri urges al-Zarqawi to stop the beheadings that were carried out by his group and to downplay his vicious attacks on Iraq's Shiite majority because "we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds" of the Sunnis.
However, Ali says: "The writer, who is supposed to be Zawahiri, sounds like a moderate with pragmatic views. The most recent tape of Zawahiri shows this is not the case. He is as adamant as ever."
Still, the al-Zawahiri of the recent letter sounds remarkably like the al-Zawahiri from 2001, in both cases saying the jihad could go only so far, and that popular support was crucial.
Others cite instances of bad grammar, a plea for money by the author to send 100,000 (it doesn't say what), and the almost-chatty mention that he is the father of a new daughter named Nawwar, as out of character for al-Zawahiri.
And even though the letter is supposed to be addressed to al-Zarqawi, the last line says, "By God, if by chance you're going to Fallujah, send greetings to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," another puzzling inconsistency.
At least one skeptical analyst says clues that one would use to verify the letter -- including al-Zawahiri's mention of how his son, daughter and one of his wives were killed by a U.S. bomb in Afghanistan -- were almost too obvious.
Reuters also picked up on the inconsistency of having a letter to al-Zarqawi:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence officials who released a letter purporting to be from an al Qaeda leader to Iraq insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi this week said on Friday they could not account for a passage that has raised doubts about the document's authenticity.
The July 9 dated letter, which U.S. officials say was written by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri, appears near its close to urge the Iraq insurgent leader to send greetings to himself if visiting the Iraqi city of Falluja.
Now I'm no Arabic expert, but there do seem to be a lot of inconsistencies with the letter. One could be fair and say that it's questionable that this letter is legitimate.
So what we have are Democrats questioning the Bush administration for using shaky evidence to support his case for the war in Iraq. And so Bush crticizes Democrats who believe this. And in the same speech, he uses more shaky evidence to support his case for the war in Iraq.
My head hurts.
Comments