A civilian-led group in the Pentagon that tried to find links between Iraq and al-Qaida didn’t violate any laws, a new report by the Pentagon’s acting inspector general concludes. But the report criticized the group for producing and disseminating "alternative intelligence assessments" about supposed links that were "inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community." Said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee: "They made it clear they wanted any kind of possible connections, no matter how skimpy, and they got it."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- ProudMan on Too many exemptions
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
69 Comments
And this is a surprise to anyone?
“alternative intelligence assessments’”
Isn’t that when the adults use little words and a lot of pictures to get the message to ,and through,our confused leader?
Time for Plan B!
NOW can we impeach?
News Flash: Anna Nicole Smith is still dead!
I saw this four years ago when Worst. President. Ever. said, “I haven’t made up my mind,” when a blind and deaf man could see that nothing would STOP HIM from invading Iraq.
Certainly not the facts . . .
“Here is the answer. Now go and get the data to prove it.”
With my brief stint with Intelligence types in the AF, I always fund them to be overtly Political and covertly motivated. Never could get the hang of their jingo and outlook.
For those of those who remember the Soap Opera “Peyton Place” this is what the Intelligence Community reminded me of.
Secrets, rumors and general chaotic versions of what was going on and then re-interpreted by their own to design to confuse everyone including themselves.
The truth of the matter is, the CIA has been so inept ove the last thirty years that if you needed any reliable intelligence you had to get it yourself.
Levin will twist and use anything to further his own political agenda. Keep moving, nothing to see here.
Hank
Hank Price,
Even measured by your usual standards, those are some pretty tortured apologetics.
Of coure, the claim that the CIA was ineffectual at intelligence gathering in no way justifies that efforts by Doug Feith and others to cook intelligence findings to order by the Cheney Administration. That’s a Red Herring.
The question is whether the Administration cooked intelligence to suit its own predetermined policy goals–i.e. invading Iraq. The answer arrived at by the Pentagon-led group is a resounding ‘yes.’ Your criticisms of the CIA are completely irrelevant. The Administration used Pentagon intelligence services to lie to the American public. As usual, Repubicans will lie to the American public, knowing that for the most part their lies will go unchallenged in the DC-based media.
And, of course, whenever these lies are challenged, loyal minions like Hank Price can be counted on the attack the credibilty of the critic, in this case Carl Levin. One could just as easily denounce Hank Price’s views as biased and self-interested, and dismiss his ‘criticisms’ as instruments to push his own political agenda.
And in fact, I’ll do just that: your criticisms are worthless, Hank Price, because they are inevitably dismissive of factual evidence that doesn’t support your ideological preferences.
JM,
So, are you Eier or aren’t you? Are you black? Are you white? Are you something in between? Answer the question, JM. Or will you slink away, again?
No Hank is right.There really is nothing here to see.We’ve known for years that this is true.It’s the backwards logic the GOP uses.1) you do exactly as you please, laws and the constitution be damned.2) then you search out ways to justify, legal loopholes, and produce propaganda (evidence) to support the stupid and/or illegal shit you just did.
Nothing to see here,same old GOP game plans exposed.Just keep moving.
CF,
What is your issue with this Eier thing?
I am who I am, an ugly Sasquatch looking 60+ year old man. Happy now?
Dear CF,
What ‘factual evidence’ are your reffering to? Hmmm?
There has never been any evidence that Cheney or anyone else in the administration ever asked any intelligence agency to ‘cook’ the intelligence to fit their goals.
On the contrary, during the Senate Intelligence hearings there was testimony that denied the assertion that Cheney was putting the pressure on the CIA for specific results.
Makes no difference to the left, lie until it becomes ‘common knowledge’.
Hank
No~ Hank is wrong.There really is something here to see.We’ve known for years that this intel was cooked to order.It’s the backwards logic the GOP uses.1) you do exactly as you please, laws and the constitution be damned.2) then you search out ways to justify, legal loopholes, and produce propaganda (evidence) to support the stupid and/or illegal shit you just did.
Something to see here,same old GOP game plans exposed.Just keep lying till we believe.”We know where the WMD are…”
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.evote.com/evotepix/congress/senate/l/levin_carl_crazycarl_d-mi_050704.jpg&imgrefurl=http://throwingthings.blogspot.com/2006_01_29_throwingthings_archive.html&h=178&w=185&sz=26&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=hIY9DeOnomb7SM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcarl%2Blevin%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG
This bumbling idiot is yours, I rest my case.
“There has never been any evidence that Cheney or anyone else in the administration ever asked any intelligence agency to ‘cook’ the intelligence to fit their goals.”
Actually, the Downing Street Memos clearly indicate that Bush and the Neocons had already decided to invade Iraq and that the “intelligence was being fixed around the point.”
Ah, the famous Downing Street Memos. Nothing there, move on.
Nothing there, Hank? Bush and Blair had decided to invade Iraq and they wanted the intelligence “fixed” to support their position.
Move on?
The President of the United States had decided to send troops into war REGARDLESS of what the intelligence said? Make the intelligence fit the crime….
NOW can we impeach?
If your leaders had an ounce of moral courage, they would try.
If half of the things you people say is true, your leaders have a duty to protect America and impeach.
None are so blind than those who refuse to see. Nothing to see here – famous last words.
Hey fleetwood,
I aggree! Impeach the bastard! They are either liars or gutless unless the impeachment papers are drawn up!
Hell with either, or. They are both liars and gutless!
Hank
I hold more ill will for the current president than I ever wanted to feel for anyone. I won’t repeat all the reasons — you’ve all heard them and made up your minds about whether they are true — but will tell you I believe them ALL to be true. I’ve never been so ashamed or so scared of anyone in that office. All that said I do not want impeachment proceedings to begin. It isn’t that I don’t want him out of office, because I do. But I don’t want a second of time spent on something so divisive which takes time away from many other important needs and issues.
I hold more ill will
I believe them ALL to be true
I’ve never been so ashamed or so scared
It isn’t that I don’t want him out of office
So, which is it? Sounds a little wishy washy.
“A civilian-led group in the Pentagon that tried to find links between Iraq and al-Qaida didn’t violate any laws,…”
Why isn’t this the Headline for this story?
You see my dear friends, the famous Downing Street Memo was nothing more than one man’s notes concerning another man’s opinion. Hardly evidence enough to impeach a president with.
But… It’s all that is needed to get a bunch of kool-aid drinking liberals panties in a bunch!
Move on, nothing to see here.
Hank
Okay, JM, thanks for confirming that you’re a lying b*st*rd.
We pretty much knew it all along, but now we’re sure.
Hank, if George W Bush ate puppies alive on National TV, you Neocons would be applauding because he was keeping the population of canines down.
Exactly Fleetwood!
The whole purpose of the report was to put to bed the complaints of the democrats in congress that have been accusing this group of bening illegal for the last three or four years, mainly because they didn’t aggree with the groups conclusions.
Come up with facts that the liberals don’t like? You’re illegal! We will destroy you personnally! We will investigate you until you cry uncle and then twist the results of our investigation to fit our pre-concieved notions.
Sound familiar?
Hank
Okay CapnAmerica or should I say Phillip Brownlee?
If you want to say that to my face, arrange a time and place.
Let’s see how brave you are face to face with a sasquatch.
That’s what I thought.
fleetwood, I’ve never responded to one of your posts and don’t plan to make a habit of it. This one time I’ll make an exception to explain there is nothing wishy washy about my opinion or the feeling I hold. Bush is a very bad man and a worse president. He has gotten my country in deep trouble and caused many problems that require time and attention. I want those troubles addressed. I don’t want any time wasted on impeachment, because there are many more important issues to spend that time on. Now, you pull out some sound bite and argue with yourself because I’m not going down that road.
Hey Hank?
If anyone is drinking the kool ade its you and the remaining willfully blind.
This latest is no surprise to most. Hell we’ve known since the beginning that after 911 Rumsfeld complained that there were no hard targets in Afghanistan and that bush really WANTED to hear a connection to Iraq.
Impeach?? Mmmm not just yet. I wanna watch the sonofabitch dance in the wind for awhile! He is marginalizing his sort of conservatism out of existence!!
Puppies would be an outrage, cats on the other hand would be a public service.
Impeach?? Mmmm not just yet. I wanna watch the sonofabitch dance in the wind for awhile!
Wishy Washy is on parade.
To those of us that know Hank from his posts, it’s not surprising that he defends the indefensible.
This was the same guy who said that Bush was RIGHT about the “mobile weapons lab” that everybody knew wasn’t a mobile weapons lab.
Here’s a link based on a story from the Wash Post: The DIA technical team, collectively possessing at least 90 years of experience in biological weapons, ended the debate decisively. ”Within the first four hours,” a member of the team told the Post, ”it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs.”
In fact, a member said, ”There was no connection to anything biological.” This was so far from weapons of mass destruction that the team called the trailers ”the biggest sand toilets in the world.”
The team officially told their findings to superiors in Washington by e-mails and in a unanimous field report on May 27.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0415-21.htm
Watch Hank STILL try to argue that they are WMD labs despite the overwhelming evidence of the intelligence community.
At some point, you just have to feel sorry for him.
It would be so much easier just to admit what practically every one else in the world can see–Bush = FUBAR.
Gives you a real glimpse into what happens when one lets dogma take over their thinking–the pathetic neo-nazis are the Hank Prices of the world who are sure Hitler was right, if only we could have had more of him . . .
Come on Clark! Everyone on this BLOG that knows me knows that’s a lie!
Kittens maybe, he could eat kittens and I wouldn’t mind.
Hank
I agree, JR.
It’s not the Democrats’ job to end the Repukes’ worst nightmare.
They elected him despite the will of the majority.
Now they can take responsibility for him.
linda-Do you believe, as others do on this blog, that Bush has done anything illegal?Several presidents have not been good presidents, but were not impeachable. Do you think Bush is?
You got it, JM.
I’ll see you at the front door of Dillon’s at central and rock tonight at 6 pm.
I’ll be coming home from work.
I look like what I am: a former college wrestler.
It’s not the Democrats’ job to end the Repukes’ worst nightmare.
The Wish Wash continues.
You know, for a president who lied, people died, has enriched his friends etc., you people sure can’t put your money where your mouth is.
Absolutely! He goes so far beyond a bad president there aren’t adequate words. I have no doubt that he is guilty of impeachable offenses. They’ve been listed many times so don’t make your next question, “What are they?” You’ve made up your mind, I’ve made up mine. I promise you won’t change my mind and I see nothing in you to change.
the pathetic neo-nazis are the Hank Prices of the world who are sure Hitler was right, if only we could have had more of him . . .
Don’t talk about Ed that way. That’s my job.
I have no doubt that he is guilty of impeachable offenses.
Then man-up and get it on or STFU
Richard Clarke, the former anti-terrorism czar, who held that position and others in the same vein beginning with Reagan’s Administration, stated in his book, Against All Enemies, that after 9/11 Bush and Cheney both were more interested that someone FIND something on Iraq than they were in going after Al Qaeda.
Hank, upthread you posted that “The truth of the matter is, the CIA has been so inept ove the last thirty years that if you needed any reliable intelligence you had to get it yourself.” I believe there is some truth in the statement, but other than former Director Tenent’s assertion concerning WMDs in Iraq, I don’t have anything else concrete to point to. Could you provide some other examples?
Truth be told, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it’s a duck.This same logic can be applied to the search for terror supporters across the middle east.
From Hank:”What ‘factual evidence’ are your reffering to? Hmmm?”
Hank has a point. Yes the intel may have been slanted (not saying it is), but so far I don’t see anybody making any allegations that there was anything illegal. If there’s no chargable offense, why are we wasting time worrying about it?
Lindainks55 makes a good point. There are other more important things our representatives need to be doing besides trying to stir up more trouble. At some point we need to stop the political war and start addressing the important issues that face this country. Republicans are Americans, too. Their views count just as much as those of Liberals. It doesn’t serve anybody’s purpose to lock out half of the people in this country. If you don’t believe it, just look at the results of the last 6 years. Somebody needs to be big enough to step forward and say ENOUGH! Personally, I’d like to see the Democrats be the ones to do it. Democrats won in 2006. Now, I want to see them govern. Looking for revenge does not serve the greater good.
Hank, BTW, the above post addressed to you wasn’t meant to be “catty”, but a request to help me inform myself.
I gotta tell you, the Pentagon operation which was the subject of the IG report looks like an attempt to “find something” contra to the consensus in the intelligence community. If, indeed, as Mr. Feith has protested, there were questions, why wasn’t the established (as I understand there was) routine followed to raise the same?
XXX, I agree; there should be someone step forward and say “Enough”; kinda like the Iran-Contra days, there was an impeachable offense there (IMO) concerning the President, that threatened to toss the country into prolonged turmoil. As I recall the story, the Democratic leadership felt that impeachment proceedings at that time, given the Nixon mess about 10 years before, made no sense, and a deal was struck with the White House.
At this time, aren’t there better things to do than begin impeachment proceedings which have no apparent hope of ending in a conviction, given the status of the Senate? Plus, who wants Cheney as President, if there was a conviction of Bush?
xxx-Seems like a thoughtful post and much appreciated (now here’s the but), but an impeachment wouldn’t/shouldn’t be about “revenge”. Many here believe with all their hearts that Bush lied criminally. That Bush went to war to help his oil buddies. If all that is true, and if all that really is believed, then it is owed to the American people to get the evidence out (begin impeachment).
I don’t happen to believe it’s true. I am sick and tired of all the meaningless accusations. After the wishy washy responses to my call for impeachment, I am now beginning to believe it’s all just sniping at a man they hate, but they don’t really beleive their own snipe.
You know, fleet, there’s only been one Presidential impeachment about revenge, IMHO; the first one involving Andrew Johnson.
Sure.
CIA had no idea that the Berlin wall was about to come down. Furthermore, they had no idea it was going up!
CIA was completely ignorant of Russia’s plans to invade Afganistan.
CIA was completely dumbfounded when Pakistan came up with the nuclear bomb.
They have consistantly been wrong with their assesment of N. Korea.
Same for India.
As far as the incredible intelligence failures associated with Iraq:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5395999/
We went to war with the intelligence that the CIA gave us. You can blame Bush, but everyone from George Bush the 1st through Junior believed them.
Hell, GOOGLE CIA and any other word you want to describe incompetant and report back!
Hank
Although I’m against impeachment, I see no problem with criminal charges being filed once Bush is out of office.
vt-Now you are in my wheelhouse. Yes, it was about revenge. A critical error was made there. While understandable (a lot of Northerners dead and wounded), it was not acceptable and it hurt this nation.For a long time.
Okay, I was at Dillons from 6:04-6:12, and I didn’t see a big 60 year old black guy waiting for me.
So, JM, you are indeed just what I said.
I want impeachment only because I”m afraid of him doing something else stupid- like starting a war with Iran.
Doug Feith was on NPR ranting for the longest time that his “criticisms” of the intelligence linking Al Qaeda and Saddam were not “illegal” nor were they “intelligence gathering activities.”
Feith, the poor boy, must come from the – “if they don’t believe my denials, I must not be denying loudly enough” school of thought. The volume of his rant got louder and more spittle effusing as the interview went on. The poor fellow was nearly beside himself, it sounded to me. The fear emmanating from my radio was palpable. I bet he is hiring attorneys as I type.
And, for you wingnuts demanding impeachment: patience is a virtue. You may get what you ask for…
I was there at 6:15 and no one was at the front door but a bag/cart boy moving carts.
I waited 15 more minutes.
JM<——-moves FAST! : O
JM–got from Mississipi to Dillons in less than 3 HOURS?!? : O
JM<—–lying all OVER the place : (
“patience is a virtue. You may get what you ask for…”
No, we won’t. Dems and the French have too much in common. Easier to quit or just talk about doing something, then do nothing and quit again.
Not in Mississippi, back here to put things in storage and I don’t live in Wichita.
Like I said, it’s easy to be brave hiding behind a computer now isn’t it popup!
No, we won’t. Dems and the French “have too much in common. Easier to quit or just talk about doing something, then do nothing and quit again.”
Sorry Fleety, you are one really stupid asshole. I feel sorry for you and your family – which I am doubting you really have. Go back to listening to Rush and Sean. Maybe, you can provide some competent comenetary. Doubting that, though. Go back to where you came from. Pathetic and very sorry <— fleety
Impeach Bush? Hell no! After two years of being a lame duck, he’ll be out of office, and the next administration should hand him over to the World Court and we’ll be done with him!
JM<——-kook
Right after a “leaK’ to the conservative Washington Standard, Cheney goes on tv, citing the article as the best proof of the Al Quida /Iraq collusion. We’ve seen this pattern repeated many times by the current admin. leak to your buddies in the media, then go out and quote their publication of your lies! Wonder why after all this time and investigating Roberts couldn’t have exposed Feith.
I’m not sure what the problem is here. We KNEW from the get-go that Al Queda was not linked to Saddam. At least anyone paying attention to the White House releases knew that. I realize some drew a parallel between 9-11 and Saddam – but the Administration dismissed that early on.
So where did the idea of invading Iraq first come from?
Well, a number of incidents, dating back to our first Gulf War – but when was it actually DECLARED as an important goal?
In 1998, by then President, Bill Clinton.
This link gives a breakdown of the intent of the Act:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
This next link gives Clinton’s reasoning behind signing it:
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
Honest feeling – I think my desire to impeach Bush has more to do with tarnishing his legacy and inflicting some pain on that arrogant smug little piss ant. As for the country, I don’t know. I think a censure would be acceptable. He needs to know that ‘We the People’ do not approve of him.Question? Did the Houston Astros win a title under him? SHouldn’t the leader of our nation be able to assemble a national championship baseball team? Maybe this is why he has filled his administration with duds. Folks, we lost every game while he has been our team representative.If something comes out of all these hearings that proves Bushy had his hands in the mess then I would support an impeachment. This country has lost touch with its ideals – it feels like a 3rd world country politically. We get an obstinate SOB in office and he does whatever he wants to do. He even has signing statements. Someone please start the impeachment or censure hearings.
GS you are playing at revisionist history here, the general population DID get the idea that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were in bed together from the Bush Administration. Yes, I was paying attention so I knew shortly after the build up for the invasion that something just was not smelling right about what Bush&Co. was saying. Many of the realities of what was going on was hidden in plain sight, but the majority of Americans were getting their information from the two second sound bites and Rush L.
Old story revisited: When Bush was re-elected I was angry, my wife seemed pleased that her vote had countered my own.I said, “ He took us to an invasion for no reason!”.“There was a reason….Remember 9-11?”“Honey that was Afghanistan and Bin Laden, Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with it!”“Oh”“Where did you get the idea it was Iraq?”.“Well that is what the President said” she replied mildly.Point of fact, no Bush never said right out that Saddam was behind 9-11.Hinted at it, the leaders of the Religious Right told their followers that he was, Rush L. argued the case for it being Saddam. But Bush&Co. simply planted the seeds in the general public’s mind and let the idea grow.Feeding on the average citizens getting their news and opinion from two second sound bites and listening to someone that makes their money from feeding off of people’s ignorance.
Using the partisan politics and distrust of the other side to spread the truth and hide it. Face it, if Capt. America came to you and showed you internal memos from the White house that he received directly from Cheney himself. That stated that it was all because of a long held plan to invade Iraq that has been in the Bush administration’s mind since before the 2000 election. And that they doctor the intelligence to support they desire to invade because of a general dislike for Saddam and not because he was a real threat to this country. How would you respond? Would you believe your own eyes or just accuse Capt. America of trying to sling mud because he is a liberal and the President is a conservative?
I listen to Rush L. and read Ann Coulter not because they speak the truth or that I am a Republican. It is because both are somewhat funny in how they spin things. Almost totally clueless in their opinion and like I watch Fox News Sunday. It is from hearing a opposing view that you often find the middle ground and the truth.
“Someone please start the impeachment or censure hearings. ”
Ditto that. Bring it.
Houston Astros, Jim? Don’t think so.
But I like the line of thought. Lets censure the owners of Royals.
GSSheridan, nice try at revisionist history, but here’s what Brother Dick And Bush were saying at the time. WASHINGTON — President Bush yesterday defended Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion this week that Saddam Hussein had longstanding ties with Al Qaeda, even as critics charged that the White House had no new proof of a connection.
Article ToolsPrinter friendlySingle pageE-mail to a friendNation RSS feedAvailable RSS feedsMost e-mailedReprints & LicensingSave this articlepowered by Del.icio.usMore:Globe Nation stories |Latest national news |Globe front page |Boston.comSign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts At a news conference with Afghan president Hamid Karzai, Bush stood by his vice president, saying Hussein ”had ties to terrorist organizations,” though he did not specifically mention Al Qaeda.
”I look forward to the debates where people are saying, ‘Oh gosh, the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power,’ ” Bush said.
Bush has previously said there was ”no evidence” linking Hussein to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but he and other members of his administration have continued to say they believe there were ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda. In a speech to the conservative Madison Institute in Orlando on Monday, Cheney called Hussein ”a patron of terrorism” and said ”he had long established ties with Al Qaeda.”
An April poll by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes found that 57 percent of Americans surveyed believed that Iraq was helping Al Qaeda before the war, including 20 percent who believed Iraq was linked to the Sept. 11 attacks.
However, a former top weapons inspector said yesterday he and other investigators have not found evidence of a Hussein-Al Qaeda link.
”At various times Al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there,” said David Kay, former head of the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group, which searched for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism. ”But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all.”
”Cheney’s speech is evidence-free,” Kay said. ”It is an assertion, but doesn’t say why we should be believe this now.”
Cheney’s comments Monday echoed a January interview with National Public Radio in which he said, ”There’s overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there.”
Cheney’s continued assertions are stronger than a statement made earlier this year by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who said ”I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection,” while adding that ”the possibility of such connections did exist.”
Cheney’s statement comes amid questions about whether the Bush administration used faulty or misleading intelligence in saying that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which was a justification for Bush’s decision to go to war against Iraq.
In recent weeks, Powell has apologized for at least two lapses regarding information about Iraq and terrorism. In a recent appearance NBC-TV’s ”Meet The Press,” Powell said that he had relied on faulty intelligence when he told the United Nations in 2003 that Iraq had biological weapons labs. ”It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading,” Powell said.Continued…
And as far as Bush welcoming the time when the debate would come that Iraq was better off with Saddam… it is already here!
Even more proof of why “military intelligence” is one of the world’s best known oxymorons.