| Author | Message | ||
     Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 66 Registered: 1-2003 |
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp Flame Away. | ||
| Duncan Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1110 Registered: 12-2001  |
I wont flame, just ask why if this is all true, wasnt it released on Oct 28 on every morning news program to ease the criticism of the "left" as to the reasons for invading? If its in the article and I missed it its cause i have a two year old yanking my sleeve "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" Wayne Gretzky | ||
| JJC Citizen Username: Mercury Post Number: 100 Registered: 12-2002 |
DOD has confirmed that this 'leak' was inaccurate. Do your homework. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 67 Registered: 1-2003 |
Could you please post a link to the DOD statement? | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2419 Registered: 10-1999  |
U.S. Department of Defense News Release, November 15, 2003 | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 68 Registered: 1-2003 |
Scratch that, I just read it here. http://www.dod.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html They don't deny any of it, the DOD simply states that the memo contains raw intelligence data and that the memo was not an analysis of the relationship. The DOD is denying that there is any new information, but is confirming the memo, and that it is intelligence from "products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA" In other words, the facts are the facts, interpret them as you will. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5712 Registered: 4-1998  |
Facts are never facts when their very origin is human observation. For example, the report about Iraq seeking plutonium was a fact. The information was wrong, but the report factual. Also, the writer of the Weekly Standard story travels with Wolfowitz. I guess the DOD press release must be referring to him and Wolfowitz when they conclude: "Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal." | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1512 Registered: 5-2001 |
The documents supplied were neither a complete package of relevant documents, nor vetted. Just raw info, to be taken back, compared with all the other raw info, and turned eventually into an analysis. The only actual "fact" that you can glean is that "someone said this." | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5717 Registered: 4-1998 |
And that the reporter travelling with Wolfowitz released it, potentially committing a crime and endangering national security (according to Bush's Dept. of Defense). | ||
| Diversity Man Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 503 Registered: 5-2001 |
Wasn't it Kevin Costner who travelled with Wolfowitz? DWM | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 301 Registered: 12-2001 |
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com has an interesting perspective. "First, congratulations to Steve for a great scoop. He and I disagree about most things these days. But I'm certainly an admirer of his work. But is it "case closed"? Not quite. More like, case restated. What do we already know about the intelligence wars over the Iraq-al Qaida link? We know that most of the Intelligence Community didn't think there was much there. Some contacts, but nothing substantial. We also know that Doug Feith -- along with other administration appointees -- didn't agree. And Feith set up his own intelligence shop at the Pentagon to review all the raw data and find what the CIA and others had missed, misinterpreted or buried. They came up with a raft of purported connections between Saddam and al Qaida. But when they presented their findings to professional analysts in the rest of the Intelligence Community, most notably at the CIA, the consensus was that those findings didn't pass the laugh-test. And who put together this new memo, the one the Standard article is based on? "The U.S. Government," as the headline of the article says? Not exactly. As Steve's article makes clear, the authorship is a bit more specific. "The memo," writes Steve ... dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. In other words, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee is doing their investigation into the pre-war intelligence. This memo is what Doug Feith sent them representing their side of the story. With the exception of some tidbits from interviews with Iraqis now in custody, this is, to all appearances, the same bill of particulars that Feith's shop put together in 2002 and which was panned by the analysts in the rest of the Intel community. So, the first point to make is that there seems to be little if anything here that the folks in the rest of the Intel Community -- outside of Special Plans -- did not see before concluding that there were no significant links between Iraq and al Qaida. Point two is that Feith's shop, the Office of Special Plans, the original source of this memo, gained an apparently richly-deserved reputation for what intel analysts call cherry-picking. That is, culling raw intel data to find all the information that supports the conclusion you want to find and then ignoring all the rest. Now, of course, Feith's advocates say that everyone else was just doing their own sort of cherry-picking, picking the evidence that supported their preconceived notions, etc. But this is simply another example of a pattern which we see widely in this administration: the inability to recognize that there is such a thing as expertise which is anything more than a cover for ideological predilection (for more on this, see this article.) More to the point, there's now a record. These are the folks, remember, who had the most outlandish reads on the extent of Iraq's WMD capacities and the most roseate predictions about the ease of the post-war reconstruction. So their record of interpreting raw intelligence is, shall we say, objectively poor. Having said all this, I am, needless to say, not a trained analyst. I'll be commenting on various points in the piece that I know something about. But there's really little point in my speculating on the meaning of the various data points raised in this memo. Much of the value of this evidence rests on the reliability of the sources and methods used to find it. And we on the outside have little way of knowing who the sources were or how reliable they are. Also, you'd want people who could put the data points into their proper context. So, let's read Hayes' article, but also be clear on the character and source of the memo he's discussing and wait till other knowledgeable folks weigh in with their opinion of what it means. " -- Josh Marshall | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1514 Registered: 5-2001 |
I don't even know which thread to post this on, this will do: http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war25.html | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2423 Registered: 10-1999 |
Oopsies ... If it really is "previously unknown" information, then these guys are in a lot of trouble. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 69 Registered: 1-2003 |
The Justice department has to investigate all leaks... didn't we go through this before? Anyway, yes, it is raw intelligence... I'd like to see a point by point analysis of why the points are laughable before I make any decisions. On the face, these reports look very very incriminating, far more than "some guy got hospital treatment in Iraq". I don't know how reliable all of the reports are, but there enough of them that I don't think they ALL are innaccurate. Even if many are, it still establihes a serious link between Saddam and Bin Laden. Even if these reports are "cherry picked" so what? There are 50 of them. That really does establish a relationship. I do realize though that establishing a link between two people that have all intentions of keeping their relationship hidden is a difficult thing. You will rarely have more than a "someone said this" kind of thing. HEre is an excerpt... <quote> 15. A foreign government service reported that an Iraqi delegation, including at least two Iraqi intelligence officers formerly assigned to the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan, met in late 1998 with bin Laden in Afghanistan. 16. According to CIA reporting, bin Laden and Zawahiri met with two Iraqi intelligence officers in Afghanistan in Dec. 1998. 17. . . . Iraq sent an intelligence officer to Afghanistan to seek closer ties to bin Laden and the Taliban in late 1998. The source reported that the Iraqi regime was trying to broaden its cooperation with al Qaeda. Iraq was looking to recruit Muslim "elements" to sabotage U.S. and U.K. interests. After a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Taliban leader [Mullah] Omar, arrangements were made for a series of meetings between the Iraqi intelligence officer and bin Laden in Pakistan. The source noted Faruq Hijazi was in Afghanistan in late 1998. 18. . . . Faruq Hijazi went to Afghanistan in 1999 along with several other Iraqi officials to meet with bin Laden. The source claimed that Hijazi would have met bin Laden only at Saddam's explicit direction. An analysis that follows No. 18 provides additional context and an explanation of these reports: Reporting entries #4, #11, #15, #16, #17, and #18, from different sources, corroborate each other and provide confirmation of meetings between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of the reports have information on operational details or the purpose of such meetings. The covert nature of the relationship would indicate strict compartmentation [sic] of operations.<\quote> This seems to be a little more than "someone said this" Like I said, I don't know the voracity of the claims, but it should at the very least give anyone who feels that there is no link between Saddam and Bin Laden serious pause. Poo Poo it all you want, but you can't simply dismiss it. If you do, then what would it take to make you rethink your position? Even just a little to allow the idea of there being a link between these two? | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 302 Registered: 12-2001 |
It's a war between the CIA and the administration, isn't it? Does this mean that the CIA is mad that this Douglas J. Feith leaked this memo - making the CIA look bad? They are mad that the admin exposed their agent a while back, and mad that this very committee is preparing to blame the bad WMD intelligence on the CIA as well. It gets complicated if the administration, through its Senate Republican proxies, says "the bad intelligence on WMD is the fault of the CIA, who reluctantly half-supported what we insisted was true, and by the way, here's a memo that makes it appear that the CIA was also too cautious about Iraq Al-Queda links while it was being too rash about WMD." Crazy. Bush and co have a penchant for politicizing all matters, making consensus and truth not only hard to find, but obsolete in practical terms. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 70 Registered: 1-2003 |
You don't know who leaked the memo... My money is on someone in Sen. Roberts office that is sick of seeing media reports and pundits claiming there is no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, when he or she has seen classified reports showing links. But that is just my guess. The CIA may have screwed up with WMD... I personally think its too soon to tell. My gut tells me that we will find something. Probably Chemical or Bio. Maybe in Syria or somewhere in the dessert. But what do I know? The CIA and FBI don't have that great a record in analyzing data pertaining to terrorists. Look at the failures leading up to 9/11. But this is hard work, and I personally would rather look at the raw data and draw my own conclusions... not that this is an easy thing to do. But these reports are a start. I'd love to see counter points to these reports... does anyone know of a link? The points in the article seem to me to be relevant and corroborated, showing at very least some connection between the two groups. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1516 Registered: 5-2001 |
For there to be a link to counter-points, there would have to have been a counter-leak of the raw intelligence pointing to the different conclusions. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 255 Registered: 6-2003 |
Your gut tells you? Give me a break. The government employs career professionals in the Departments of State and Defense to provide data and analysis for important decisions. Please go back and read what some of these people have been saying. Then ask yourself why Bush and his supporters have not listened to them. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 72 Registered: 1-2003 |
Please link to these professionals statements. I'd be happy to read them, but all I can find is opinion pieces and most of those are from web bloggers, not respected publications. Oh, and I'm curious, is it anything more thn your gut telling you that we WON'T find anything? There is ample and convincing evidence that there were definetly weapons in Iraq that no one has been able to track down. Where is there any evidence whatsoever that they have been destroyed? Please link. Its all a gut call. Give me a break. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 62 Registered: 11-2003 |
"We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Long-standing ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold. "As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own back yard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims." |
