"Were there contacts over time between Iraq and al-Qaeda? Yes, there were efforts made to communicate. We found no evidence of collaboration in any effort to mount any kind of operation against the United States' interests"
About this Quote
A lawyer’s sentence that manages to concede, deflate, and preempt all at once. Ben-Veniste grants the smallest point that can’t be responsibly denied - “contacts over time,” “efforts made to communicate” - then locks it inside the evidentiary cage that actually matters: “no evidence of collaboration” toward operations against U.S. interests. The structure is classic legal triage. Admit what the record compels, refuse the implication people want to smuggle in.
The timing and cultural utility of this phrasing are hard to miss. Post-9/11 Washington was awash in insinuation: that proximity equals partnership, that a shadowy phone call can be narrated into an alliance. Ben-Veniste’s wording targets that rhetorical sleight of hand. “Contacts” is not “collaboration”; “communication” is not “conspiracy.” He’s separating conversational smoke from operational fire, insisting on a burden of proof rather than a mood of suspicion.
Subtext: the public has been trained to hear “yes” as the headline and the negation as fine print. So he stacks the denial with specifics - “any effort,” “any kind of operation,” “United States’ interests” - broadening the scope of what was not found to close off the usual escape hatch (“maybe not a direct attack, but...”). It’s also an indictment of how policy arguments get laundered through ambiguity: if you can keep the nouns vague, you can keep the fear vivid. Ben-Veniste, speaking as counsel and investigator, drags the claim back to what can be proven.
The timing and cultural utility of this phrasing are hard to miss. Post-9/11 Washington was awash in insinuation: that proximity equals partnership, that a shadowy phone call can be narrated into an alliance. Ben-Veniste’s wording targets that rhetorical sleight of hand. “Contacts” is not “collaboration”; “communication” is not “conspiracy.” He’s separating conversational smoke from operational fire, insisting on a burden of proof rather than a mood of suspicion.
Subtext: the public has been trained to hear “yes” as the headline and the negation as fine print. So he stacks the denial with specifics - “any effort,” “any kind of operation,” “United States’ interests” - broadening the scope of what was not found to close off the usual escape hatch (“maybe not a direct attack, but...”). It’s also an indictment of how policy arguments get laundered through ambiguity: if you can keep the nouns vague, you can keep the fear vivid. Ben-Veniste, speaking as counsel and investigator, drags the claim back to what can be proven.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Richard
Add to List
