[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Who Turned Off The Gaslight?

Head Of Chase Bank Warns Customers: Era Of Free Checking Is Likely Over

Bob Dylan - Hurricane [Scotty mar10]

Replacing Biden Won't Solve Democrats' Problems - Look Who Will Inherit His Campaign War Chest

Who Died: Late June/Early July 2024 | News

A top Russian banker says Russia's payment methods should be a 'state secret' because the West keeps shutting them down so fast

Viral Biden Brain Freeze During Debate Sparks Major Question: Who’s Really Running the Country?

Disney Heiress, Other Major Dem Donors: Dump Biden

LAWYER: 5 NEW Tricks Cops Are Using During DWI Stops

10 Signs That Global War Is Rapidly Approaching

Horse Back At Library.

This Video Needs To Be Seen By Every Cop In America

'It's time to give peace another chance': Thousands rally in Tel Aviv to end the war

Biden's leaked bedtime request puts White House on damage control

Smith: It's Damned Hard To Be Proud Of America

Lefties losing it: Rita Panahi slams ‘deranged rant’ calling for assassination of Trump

Stalin, The Red Terror | Full Documentary

Russia, Soviet Union and The Cold War: Stalin's Legacy | Russia's Wars Ep.2 | Documentary

Battle and Liberation: The End of World War II | Countdown to Surrender – The Last 100 Days | Ep. 4

Ethereum ETFs In 'Window-Dressing' Stage, Approval Within Weeks; Galaxy

Americans Are More Likely To Go To War With The Government Than Submit To The Draft

Rudy Giuliani has just been disbarred in New York

Israeli Generals Want Truce in Gaza,

Joe Biden's felon son Hunter is joining White House meetings

The only Democrat who could beat Trump

Ukraine is too CORRUPT to join NATO, US says, in major blow to Zelensky and boost for Putin

CNN Erin Burnett Admits Joe Biden knew the Debate questions..

Affirmative Action Suit Details How Law School Blackballed Accomplished White Men, Opted For Unqualified Black Women

Russia warns Israel over Ukraine missiles

Yemeni Houthis Vow USS Theodore Roosevelt 'Primary Target' Once it Enters Red Sea


National News
See other National News Articles

Title: Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted [BeAChooser is Heartbroken]
Source: Washington Post
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... /04/05/AR2007040502263_pf.html
Published: Apr 5, 2007
Author: R. Jeffrey Smith
Post Date: 2007-04-05 22:50:34 by ...
Keywords: None
Views: 292
Comments: 43

Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.

The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.

The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials, and said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the one Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative."

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.

The CIA was not alone, the defense report emphasized. The Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded that year that "available reporting is not firm enough to demonstrate an ongoing relationship" between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, it said.

But the contrary conclusions reached by Feith's office -- and leaked to the conservative Weekly Standard magazine before the war -- were publicly praised by Cheney as the best source of information on the topic, a circumstance the Pentagon report cites in documenting the impact of what it described as "inappropriate" work.

Feith has vigorously defended his work, accusing Gimble of "giving bad advice based on incomplete fact-finding and poor logic," and charging that the acting inspector general has been "cheered on by the chairmen of the Senate intelligence and armed services committees." In January, Feith's successor at the Pentagon, Eric S. Edelman, wrote a 52-page rebuttal to the inspector general's report that disputed its analysis and recommendations for Pentagon reform.

Cheney's public statements before and after the war about the risks posed by Iraq have closely tracked the briefing Feith's office presented to the vice president's then-chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. That includes the briefing's depiction of an alleged 2001 meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence official and one of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers as one of eight "Known Iraq-Al Qaida Contacts."

The defense report states that at the time, "the intelligence community disagreed with the briefing's assessment that the alleged meeting constituted a 'known contact' " -- a circumstance the report said was known to Feith's office. But his office had bluntly concluded in a July 2002 critique of a CIA report on Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda that the CIA's interpretation of the facts it cited "ought to be ignored."

The briefing to Libby was also presented with slight variations to then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley. It was prepared in part by what the defense report described as a "junior Naval Reservist" intelligence analyst detailed to Feith's office from the DIA. The person is not named in the report, but Edelman wrote that she was requested by Feith's office.

When a senior intelligence analyst working for the government's counterterrorism task force obtained an early account of the conclusions by Feith's office -- titled "Iraq and al-Qaida: Making the Case" -- the analyst prepared a detailed rebuttal calling it of "no intelligence value" and taking issue with 15 of 26 key conclusions, the report states. The analyst's rebuttal was shared with intelligence officers on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but evidently not with others.

Edelman complained in his own account of the incident that a senior Joint Chiefs analyst -- in responding to a suggestion by the DIA analyst that the "Making the Case" account be widely circulated -- told its author that "putting it out there would be playing into the hands of people" such as then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, and belittled the author for trying to support "some agenda of people in the building."

But the inspector general's report, in a footnote, commented that it was "noteworthy . . . that post-war debriefs of Sadaam Hussein, [former Iraqi foreign minister] Tariq Aziz, [former Iraqi intelligence minister Mani al-Rashid] al Tikriti, and [senior al-Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shaykh] al-Libi, as well as document exploitation by DIA all confirmed that the Intelligence Community was correct: Iraq and al-Qaida did not cooperate in all categories" alleged by Feith's office.

From these sources, the report added, "the terms the Intelligence Community used to describe the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida were validated, [namely] 'no conclusive signs,' and 'direct cooperation . . . has not been established.' "

Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda after the U.S. invasion, in early 2004.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 30.

#7. To: nolu_chan, aristeides, bluedogtxn, Brian S, robin, christine, Diana, kiki, rowdee, Mekons4, AGAviator, Neil McIver, SKYDRIFTER, Burkeman1, angle, randge, Fred Mertz (#0) (Edited)

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.

The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials, and said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the one Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

It's Doug Feith and his Office of Special Plans that begs Congressional investigation. It's a President who blamed "faulty" CIA intel for the Iraq invsion that begs Congressional investigation.

The CIA did not give the White House bad intel. That was a flagrant lie by the President.

It was Doug Feith who knowingly gave the WH MANUFACTURED intel, and the WH ran with it inspite of the fact that the CIA disputed Feith's allegations.

Forget about the 8 fired political appointee lawyers. They represent "background music." True evil exists on the front stage. The Democrats have been given a mandate that they should not squander. They should go for the jugulars of these known traitors and they should bring them down. Put impeachment on the front burner, Nancy. America wants it, demands it.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-06   0:18:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: scrapper2 (#7)

The CIA did not give the White House bad intel. That was a flagrant lie by the President.

It was Doug Feith who knowingly gave the WH MANUFACTURED intel, and the WH ran with it inspite of the fact that the CIA disputed Feith's allegations.

For all intents and purposes, the WH ginned up its own intel. They created their own office of propaganda intel and said what they wanted to hear.

I'm not sure there is a great deal left to investigate. They lied the nation into war and the whole world knows it.

It would appear that the Intelligence Creator-in-Chief was Cheney.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-04-06   16:37:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: nolu_chan (#21)

For all intents and purposes, the WH ginned up its own intel. They created their own office of propaganda intel and said what they wanted to hear.

I'm not sure there is a great deal left to investigate. They lied the nation into war and the whole world knows it.

It would appear that the Intelligence Creator-in-Chief was Cheney.

The whole world may know what was done, but no one has been held to account for their actions. The Iraqi peoples and American soldiers have suffered mortal consequences due to the manufactured intel that caused the Iraq invasion, yet the people who manufactured the false intel as well as the leadership who acted on what they knew to be lies walk freely and have suffered no negative consequences for their actions.

IMO, GWB and Cheney should be impeached and Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz as directors of the Office of Special Plans should be tried for treason.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-06   19:56:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: scrapper2 (#22)

MO, GWB and Cheney should be impeached and Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz as directors of the Office of Special Plans should be tried for treason.

An attempted impeachment that cannot be sustained is counter-productive. The votes in the Senate are simply not there.

While not usual, a person may be impeached after they leave office. Secretary of War William W. Belknap was impeached in 1876 a month after he left office. By a vote of 37-29, the Senate decided it had jurisdiction to proceed despite Belknap's resignation.

There is a zero chance of sustaining a charge of treason against Feith and Wolfowitz. Treason is the one crime defined and limited by the Constitution. Treason can consist only of waging war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to her enemies. There must be at least two witnesses to the same overt act. The Framers intentionally made it extremely difficult to sustain a charge of treason, mindful of excesses regarding the charge as used by the British monarch.

There have been seven treason convictions in the history of the U.S. Two [John Brown/Thomas Dorr] were for treason against a state [Virginia/Rhode Island]. Two were subsequently granted presidential pardons. The three remaining Federal convictions are from World War 2.

Following the Civil War, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were indicted but neither case ever went to trial. Aaron Burr was tried for treason but not found guilty.

Well known cases (Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Jonathan Pollard, et al) have relied upon other charges such as espionage or sedition. An actual charge of treason is narrowly defined, generally not applicable, and usually cannot be made.

What some deserve and what is reasonably attainable may be different things. While it may be impossible to get hold of the jugular, death by a thousand cuts is still death.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-04-06   22:30:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: nolu_chan (#23)

While it may be impossible to get hold of the jugular, death by a thousand cuts is still death.

This seems to have been the Democratic/Pelosi plan from day one, and it seems to be a good one.

A lot of effort went into quieting the impeachment howels over on KOS. The Democrats then began an investigation into every ascpect of the past six years. At my last count there were fifty-two open investigations and they just began a new one into the recess appointment today. If only one in ten bears fruit Bush will be dead meat by 2008.

The main problem with the plan seems to be that people don't have patience for it. They are used to getting promises without action. So far, however, the Democrats seem to be delivering - at lest to the extent that is humanly possible. A few more months of this might go a long way towards quieting the dissent.

Dragging up one the Bush crimes one after the other also has the effect of killing off the last of Bush's support. We might yet see the votes for an impeachment - or the GOP itself might find it necessary to get rid of Bush.

...  posted on  2007-04-06   23:23:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: ..., nolu_chan, aristeides, bluedogtxn, Burkeman1, robin, leveller, randge, christine, rowdee, Mekons4, Brian S (#26)

Dragging up one the Bush crimes one after the other also has the effect of killing off the last of Bush's support. We might yet see the votes for an impeachment - or the GOP itself might find it necessary to get rid of Bush.

The diehard BushBots - like those on free republic - will stay loyal to the bitter end no matter how many paper cuts. The ones who voted Bush in 2004 did so reluctantly and are long gone no matter how many investigations of Alberto Gonzales and the 8 fired political appointee lawyers take place.

The reason GWB was not ousted in 2004 was not because of Bush-love, it was because the alternative - a cousin to W, an israelFirster himself - was not that different from Bush on ME meddling - so voters stuck with the devil known rather than the devil unknown.

The single most important issue to American voters is the Iraq War, followed by Immigration.

How different are the Democrats from the GOP on either of those 2 issues - nada.

GWB is not running for office in 2008. Who cares if more people get to despiese him? The Dems would not need to do any investigations - any time that ass makes a decision or does a press conference his polls go down a notch.

But here's the thing - while Democrats twiddle on their 1000 paper cuts issues, their ratings are not increasing. The public have less confidence in Congress than in GWB.

So whatever the goal is that the Democrats are seeking to achieve, winning the public's confidence is not one of them.

Just the very action - something decisive, "binding" and responsive to the public - like going for impeachment of the 2 most despiesed people in America if not the world who knowingly caused a war based on lies, manufactured by a DOD office of their creation - those 2 actions alone would guarantee a Democratic Party sweep in 2008.

The rest is putzing, I'm sorry to tell you, but it's putzing - maybe the Democrats want to have things even Steven, equilibrium, no tipping of the boat - that way they will not be held accountable by their electorate for broken promises - the promises that were never meant to be kept from the get go.

The fix is in - all of us who once voted GOP have seen it for a long while. But the Democrat voter base continues to deceive itself by thinking that "their" party is different. HA! Smell the coffee. It's not "your" party - your vote gives an elite punk official power and after that prick votes on issues as he/she pleases.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-07   1:08:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: scrapper2 (#29)

How different are the Democrats from the GOP on either of those 2 issues - nada.

GWB is not running for office in 2008. Who cares if more people get to despiese him? The Dems would not need to do any investigations - any time that ass makes a decision or does a press conference his polls go down a notch.

You need to read the papers.

The Democrats have a pullout resolution in the supplemental spending bill. The Republicans are violently opposing it. I don't see how there could be more difference on the issues.

GWB is not running for office in 2008. Who cares if more people get to despiese him?

American Presidents are elected. This happens every four years. There are usually two parties that put up candidates for the election, the Republicans and the Democrats. George Bush, our current President is a Republican - and people identify him with the party. You ask what will be the result if people hate George Bush, and by extension his party, even more than they do now immediately prior to the next election. The probable result would be a Democratic victory. This is because people ordinarily don't vote for people they dispise. Are you following me here? If they hate the Repbublicans for their exposed corruption just prior to the election, they will be more inclined to vote for the other party - which we call the Democrats.

But here's the thing - while Democrats twiddle on their 1000 paper cuts issues, their ratings are not increasing. The public have less confidence in Congress than in GWB.

The polls I've seen don't show this. In fact, they show a growing identification with the Democratic party. The one I saw last week indicated about a 50% identification with Democrats and a 35% identification with Republicans.

So whatever the goal is that the Democrats are seeking to achieve, winning the public's confidence is not one of them.

Again, the most recent Pew poll says you are dead wrong.

Just the very action - something decisive, "binding" and responsive to the public - like going for impeachment of the 2 most despiesed people in America

You say the Democrats should wave their magic wand and create votes that they do not have. This isn't possible. The only way they can get the votes they need is to have Senators elected. The elections only take place every four years. The next one won't take place until 2008. They can't change that. Throwing a hissy fit over it won't change it either.

The Democrats have to put bills up for a vote in the Senate to pass them. They have no choice. There is a document called the Constitution that requires them to do this. There is no leeway on this matter. Maybe if you could magically create more votes for them in the Senate they would accomodate you. Have you tried doing this? Close your eyes and wish very hard. If you can create another 12 or 13 Senators for them they can then do what you are asking.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   1:41:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 30.

#31. To: ... (#30)

a. The Democrats have a pullout resolution in the supplemental spending bill. The Republicans are violently opposing it. I don't see how there could be more difference on the issues.

b. You ask what will be the result if people hate George Bush, and by extension his party, even more than they do now immediately prior to the next election. The probable result would be a Democratic victory. This is because people ordinarily don't vote for people they dispise. Are you following me here? If they hate the Repbublicans for their exposed corruption just prior to the election, they will be more inclined to vote for the other party - which we call the Democrats.

c. The polls I've seen don't show this. In fact, they show a growing identification with the Democratic party. The one I saw last week indicated about a 50% identification with Democrats and a 35% identification with Republicans. Again, the most recent Pew poll says you are dead wrong.

d. You say the Democrats should wave their magic wand and create votes that they do not have. This isn't possible. The only way they can get the votes they need is to have Senators elected. The elections only take place every four years. The next one won't take place until 2008. They can't change that. Throwing a hissy fit over it won't change it either.

a. And Obama has already announced that the Democrats will approve whatever GWB wants for funding the Iraq War.

b. Correction - the public hate Cheney as they always have and to a lesser degree they hate GWB. That doesn't mean they hate the GOP because of the other 2 who will not be running for election in 2008.

The Democrats promised they would end the Iraq War. That was the main issue that got them the majority. If they don't deliver, they will have shot themselves in the foot. The GOP made no promises. When the GWB/Cheney team leave, it's a blank slate for the others who follow. The Democrats however ran on the specific promise of ending the war. If they don't deliver, they will be judged on that single issue - the same that got them into power - it cuts both ways.

c. The polls you have been monitoring are wrong.

http://www.pollingreport.com/co ngress.htm

Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll. March 29-April 1, 2007. N=807 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5 (for all registered voters).

"Democrats gained majorities in the House and Senate in the 2006 elections. Do you think that the new Democratic majority in Congress is doing better, worse or about the same as the Republican majority that was in power before them?"

All Regisrered voters 28% better/18% worse/44% same/10% unsure

d. What about up and down votes on the 3 issues dear to American public's hearts?

-rescinding the October 11/02 Iraq invasion resolution?

- requiring GWB to get authorization from Congress to start another war

- requiring Immigration laws on the books to be enforced

These are but a few of the issues that the American public want Congress to vote on. What you don't want to accept is that "your" party, the Democrats, is on the same page as "the other party" - both parties don't want what is best for America. Both parties are in cinq with one another and out of step with what Americans want.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-07 02:20:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 30.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]