Ever since September 11 2001, the Bush Administration has attempted to make a connection between Saddam Hussein and the horrific events of that day. That effort has been successful. Surveys have consistently shown that nearly half of the American people believe that Saddam Hussein played a direct role in the September 11th attack. A January 2003 Knight-Ridder poll showed that 50 percent of the American people believe that one or more of the Sept. 11 hijackers was Iraqi. A New York Times/CBS survey released on March 11 found that 45% of Americans think that Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in the Sept. 11 attacks. Depending on how the questions are phrased, roughly two thirds of the American people believe that there is some kind of connection between Iraq and Al Qa’ida. Here in Britain we may find that difficult to comprehend. But it is neither surprising nor indicative of ignorance on the part of the American people. After all, after 9/11, shouldn’t they be able to believe what their President tells them? In his news conference on March 6th, President Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein, "has trained and financed Al Qa’ida-type organizations before - Al Qa’ida and other terrorist organizations". In his last broadcast he repeated that assertion. This is simply not true! By asserting such a connection, and attempting to exploit people’s fear and anger over Sept. 11, President Bush undermines the credibility of his leadership and draws into question his other arguments for war.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, Czech intelligence officials reported an April 2001 meeting in Prague between the leader of the Sept. 11 murderers, Mohammed Atta, and an Iraqi intelligence agent. President Bush, and other senior administration officials, quickly seized on that meeting to allege an Iraq–Al Qa’ida link. Later, after further investigation, Czech officials confessed that they had been mistaken – that no such meeting had taken place. Nonetheless, top US officials continued to cite that meeting as evidence of an Iraq-Al Qa’ida link (Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld claimed that the evidence was "bulletproof"). Last year, Vaclav Havel personally told White House officials that Czech intelligence had been mistaken, and after exhaustive investigation, the FBI and CIA came to the same conclusion. Nonetheless, senior members of the Bush administration continued to repeat the claim. Only when the focus shifted to Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, did administration officials stop citing the Prague meeting. Not surprisingly, it was not part of the case against Saddam Hussein made by Secretary of State Powell to the United Nations on Feb. 5th. But the repeated administration claims have never been retracted and the misimpression they created lingers and continues to be reinforced in the public mind by other administration claims of an Iraq-Al Qa’ida link. For example, in his State of the Union address in late January, President Bush said: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveals that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists including members of Al Qa’ida". Secretary Powell told the United Nations there was, "a sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qa’ida terrorist network". In his televised war address on 17 March, President Bush repeated the claim that Iraq aids and harbours Al Qa’ida terrorists.

This claim rests heavily on reports that a single Jordanian member of Al Qa’ida, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, sought and received medical treatment in Baghdad after being injured in the fighting in Afghanistan. Al-Zarqawi has been associated with the assassination last October of Laurence Foley, an American diplomatic officer in Jordan. There is not any evidence, nor is it claimed, that Zarqawi received anything other than medical treatment in Iraq. By contrast, how many injured Al Qa’ida members got medical treatment in Afghanistan or across the border in Pakistan? U.S. officials acknowledge that al-Zarqawi had support from a member of the Qatari Royal family, Abdul Karim al-Thani, who hosted him in Qatar. However, administration officials do not claim that, as with Iraq, these facts show that the Qatari court is connected to Al Qua’ida – particularly since the United States depends on Qatar to provide staging support for the U.S. Central Command. (And while President Bush hailed the arrest earlier this month of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, the New York Times reported that Qatar harbored him in 1996 and tipped him off when the FBI was closing in on him early that year. Who knows, had the "friends" in Qatar not helped Shaikh Mohammed elude capture then, the events of Sept. 11 may never have happened.)

The US administration also claims that Al Qa’ida members have found refuge in northern Iraq. These allegations relate to a group called Ansar al-Islam which has taken over a small area near the Iranian border. This part of Iraq, however, is in Kurdish hands and outside the direct control of the Iraqi Government. If the U.S. is aware of terrorist training camps in northern Iraq, in an area where the U.S. controls the air space, why haven't they simply taken them out? "Regime change" in Baghdad isn't necessary to accomplish that. Not only is this territory not controlled by Saddam Hussein, in fact, the leaders of Ansar al-Islam say they seek to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his government.

The amazing thing about all of this is how difficult is has been for the Bush administration to find even the slimmest pretext of an Iraq-Al Qa’ida link. Of the hundreds of alleged Al Qa’ida members rounded up in the past year and a half around the world, not a single leading Al Qa’ida operative has been an Iraqi. Virtually all have come from countries that the U.S. considers allies. Most are Saudi (as were 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers) or Egyptian; some Pakistani and Yemeni; a few from Afghanistan, UAE and Lebanon. Even citizens of the U.S. and Great Britain have been accused of Al Qa’ida links. But no Iraqis. So it would seem that the only group of Arabs not represented in Al Qa’ida, are Iraqis. But which country is it proposing to attack? Given the resources that the Bush administration has devoted to finding any kind of Iraqi link to Al Qa’ida, the absence of any credible evidence speaks volumes. The simple fact is that Al Qa’ida was formed for the purpose of overthrowing secular Arab governments like Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. And the Dictator is among the Arab leaders most hostile to radical Islam (or anything else that might provide opposition to his ruthless rule). It is hard to imagine two less likely allies. As the Prime Minister has said, Saddam Hussein has given money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (see link to Hansard record of PM's comments), which is certainly a form of support for terrorism. But so have some members of the Saudi Royal family. And like the Saudi Royal family, Saddam Hussein has done this as a form of propaganda, to bolster his image as a defender of the Arab people in their fight against Israel.

In his war statement to the American people, President Bush spoke of a clear danger: "using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people". What nonsense! Saddam Hussein’s interest is first and foremost survival. He recognizes that use of WMDs would greatly reduce his own life expectancy. Why would he increase the threat to his own existence by giving such weapons to terrorists he doesn’t control (and, in the case of Al Qa’ida, who seek his destruction)? Saddam Hussein is not a radical Islamist. He has no ideological or theological reason to assist terrorists. He is shrewd enough to know that it is distinctly not in his interest to attack the US or support someone else who might. That is, unless he concluded that it is his last hope for survival. Or, if all hope is gone, that he might be revered as an Arab "martyr". It is worth noting that Saddam Hussein did not use chemical or biological weapons against the US, Israel or anyone else during the Gulf War. That just reinforces the conclusion that, even in the extreme circumstances of war, he has considered the use of such weapons against the US or its allies to be counterproductive to his own survival.

To simply assert that Saddam Hussein "would" at some point in the future decide to support someone who threatens the US is a poor pretext to undertake a major unprovoked war, with no UN authority.

The same could be said, however implausibly, of any country the US doesn’t like and intends to overthrow. Isn’t this the danger of the pax Americana wanted by Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz and others signed up to the Project for the New American Century which will overturn the post-Second World War settlement? And what is the lesson of this to other tyrants of the world when Saddam Hussein is being attacked precisely because he is so weak (a point made forcefully by Robin Cook in his resignation speech) and does not possess nuclear weapons.

Bush's credibility as a leader and his popularity arose from the 9/11 attacks and the fear that they generated. The War on Terrorism has muted opposition to his policies and helped Bush achieve many elements of an extreme right agenda that would have never been possible otherwise. Maintaining that state of war is crucial to maintaining Bush's power. His inability to find Osama bin Laden added an element of urgency to the need for a new face of the enemy. It's hard to come up with better villain than Saddam Hussein.

Not all the reasons given for going to war are without merit, and not all the reasons against going to war are decisive. But surely, the bottom line is that a world in which the US is admired and respected is a much safer world than one in which the US is hated and feared. The burden of justification required to undertake a major, unprovoked attack has not been met. Members of Parliament have to decide whether to use what influence we have to deprive the US administration of the fig leaf of respectability for war in Iraq that would be provided by this Country’s support.

Acknowledgements to Russ Daggatt