R. Jeffrey Smith’s Washington Post article Hussein’s Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted is a classic example of what Orwell called “euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness^•”.

Reading the headline, you might think the article says Hussein had no pre-war ties to al-Qaeda. A cursory read might even make you think the article says Hussein had no pre-war ties to terrorism. On closer examination, it’s unclear what, exactly, the article is saying. How could we rewrite it to make it more clear?

“Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited” would become “Pentagon report confirms contacts existed”.

“Hussein’s regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq” would become “Hussein’s regime was cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq”.

“There were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials” would become “there were substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials”.

“It lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups” would become “Iraq forged long-term relationships with other terrorist groups”. It would probably also become “and was feeling out a long-term relationship with al-Qaeda”. (See below.)

“Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations,” is so vague that it’s hard to say what it really means. Were there conclusive signs of cooperation on general terrorist operations? Were there inconclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations? “Operations” is another term Orwell would eschew, although we probably can’t blame the Post for it. They’re either terrorist attacks or terrorist tea parties but, unless they cooperated on terrorist medical care, “operation” is a euphemism designed to obscure what we’re really talking about.

Either way, this part of the article does seem to say that “there were signs of cooperation”.

“Iraq and al-Qaida did not cooperate in all categories alleged by Feith’s office” would instead say “Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated in some categories but not in others”, and then include a list of those categories that Iraq and al-Qaeda did cooperate in.

“Zarqawi… was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents” sounds like it means something on a casual read, but what does it actually say? “Associated” is another euphemism designed to obscure. What was the nature of Zarqawi’s association with al-Qaeda? Tea-parties again? Or terrorist attacks? For that matter, what’s an “adherent” in this context? And was it Zarqawi alone or his terrorist group who associated with al-Qaeda?

This could mean anything from “Zarqawi led a terrorist group that worked with al-Qaeda” to “Zarqawi, who knew people who worshipped al-Qaeda…”

Finally,

The CIA had separately concluded that reports of Iraqi training on weapons of mass destruction were "episodic, sketchy, or not corroborated in other channels," the inspector general’s report said. It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.

Take a closer look at this. This was all one paragraph in the original. Is it merely incredibly poor writing, or is it actually saying that there is evidence that Iraq was training al-Qaeda terrorists on weapons of mass destruction? Is it an inadvertent juxtaposition of two unrelated thoughts? Is the Post reporting from press releases again or looking at the original document?

Here’s a short rewrite of the Post article.

This rewrite doesn’t contradict the original article. Remove the euphemisms and sheer cloudy adjectives, and it appears that this is what the report the Post is quoting actually said.