« The darker side of grrl power | Main | Two Hours of "24" »

The Pentagon iG Report and Some Misleading Media Reports

I have still not had time to read the recently released Pentagon Inspector General's report and did not want to comment on it until I had time to get into it. I guess it is at least a good thing that I did not comment on the report based on what the Washington Post reported because they (shock, gasp) did not fairly and accurately represent the report. Well, that is, they did not fairly report the Inspector General's report. Instead they quoted from Democrat Carl Levin's "report" as if it were the Inspector General's report. At least they did a correction for their bad reporting this time. Usually we don't even get that much.

Michelle Malkin
has details.

Ed Morrisey has the following to say about the report itself:

The acting Inspector General of the Defense Department has issued a long-awaited report on the intelligence analysis provided by Douglas Feith during the period between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. According to Thomas Gimble, Feith and others did not violate laws or policies at the Department of Defense, nor did they mislead Congress -- but Gimble still concludes that their activities were "inappropriate":...

It's difficult to understand the objection of the IG. If the activity broke no laws and violated no policies, what is inappropriate about having competing sets of analysts looking at intelligence to get alternative viewpoints? One of the criticisms made by Bush administration critics is that the White House relied on stovepiped intel analysis for the WMD question -- which came from the official CIA analysts and directed by George Tenet.

In this case, the Secretary and Undersecretary of Defense wanted an investigation of intel to determine whether Iraq had operational ties to al-Qaeda, a reasonable question given the circumstances. The CIA -- which the Democrats believe got it wrong on WMD -- didn't believe that radical Islamists would cooperate with the supposedly secular Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz authorized Feith to review the intelligence to see if evidence existed for a different conclusion, and Feith found enough contacts between Saddam and AQ to at least challenge the notion that they would have never considered a partnership.

Instead, the IG scolded Feith for not following the consensus, and then not following the procedures for "rare" disagreement. That differs rather dramatically from the scolding given to the intel communities by the 9/11 Commission and enthusiastically supported by the same elements in Congress that now want a piece of Douglas Feith for daring to disagree and to do so publicly. Back then, dissenters got celebrated as visionaries who had the courage to try to wake up the decisionmakers. Now Congress wants to punish someone who essentially did what Congress demanded during those reviews.

Pam at Atlas Shrugs has more on the bad reporting of this story.
In today's New York Sun is an oped piece excoriating the Washington Post for their reckless disregard of facts in the matter of Douglas Feith. This pattern is disturbing. Disturbing and dangerous to the nation's ability to get reliable information and news. How can we expect the Americna people to vote on people and policy if it's garbage in/garbage out.
Others have noted that this is a pretty reliable pattern. The mainstream media puts a story out there -- headlines in the major papers, leading the morning shows like Today and GMA, topic of the day on the cable shows -- then slowly, when people have had a chance to review the full facts of the story, or read the entire report, or get past the Democrat talking points that were spoon fed to the media, it becomes clear that the initial reports were misleading at best, wrong at worst. But the corrections and follow up stories never get the attention the original flood of stories got, and the public perception is of the original, wrong, interpretation of the story.



Comments (73)

It's worse because it shows... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

It's worse because it shows that one of their chief complaints about Bush (that he only listens to a small group of people) is a lie. When he goes to somebody "outside the loop" to simply provide a different analysis of the info, he is raked over the coals.
-=Mike

"Michelle Malkin has detail... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"Michelle Malkin has details..."

If I trust anyone regarding media credibility, it's Michelle Malkin. Oh, wait...

"jp2" (club member) MM has ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

"jp2" (club member) MM has more class in her little finger then you do in your whole body. Up yours dipwit.

LorieThis is absur... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Lorie

This is absurd. So it took you 4 days sincr the first report to get some spin and TP's from the blogosphere.

The OSP was a policy and not intelligence board. The CIA had significant differences w/ Feith's work & told him so and the CIA wanted changes in some of the evaluations. Instead it was presented to the Bush regime in its original form w/ none of the CIA caveats.

CIA analysts disagreed w/ 50% of the OSP report.

The Post issued a correctio... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

The Post issued a correction/retracion on the same day it published the story.

I am still waiting for FOX to retract the Obama/Terrorist Training Camp/Hillary Leaked story.

The OSP was a policy and... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

The OSP was a policy and not intelligence board. The CIA had significant differences w/ Feith's work & told him so and the CIA wanted changes in some of the evaluations. Instead it was presented to the Bush regime in its original form w/ none of the CIA caveats.

Again, the CIA hardly had the track record to say a different analysis was wrong.

And the Saddam/Al Qaeda link was known before Bush even won the 2000 election. It's not like this is a new thing.

The Post issued a correction/retracion on the same day it published the story.

I am still waiting for FOX to retract the Obama/Terrorist Training Camp/Hillary Leaked story.

FOX reported a story by Insight that Insight stands behind. What are they supposed to do?

FOX reported Insight's statement that Hillary's people were saying that. Nothing has come out to show that Insight was lying and until they say the story is wrong, FOX is in poor position to say Insight did not hear that from Hillary's people.

And with Feith, they got THE ENTIRE STORY WRONG. They cited the wrong report with conclusions that completely went against what the report actually said.

More eyes analyzing intel is better than fewer eyes doing it.
-=Mike

Puke, I know you mig... (Below threshold)
Lorie:

Puke,
I know you might not understand this, but some people have lives offline. I actually wrote the post two days ago, intending on fleshing it out by reading the report and adding some other info before posting. Since my daughter got sick and I had other stuff going on this weekend, I did not have the time to get into the report and read it like I wanted to do. I almost didn't post at all, since I could not comment on the actual report myself, but then I would have been accused of ignoring it altogether, right? What I have read of the report, excerpts on several blogs, did not match the headlines I saw and heard on television last week. Forgive me for not trusting the media version. I have been burned too many times doing that.

And for the record, I am on my way out to visit my mom and some other family who live an hour away and won't be back 'til later tonight. Just wanted to get that out of the way so I would not be accused of avoiding/ignoring something while I am away from the computer. Really, every blogger does not sit at their computer 24/7. Sometimes the failure to post a story in a timely manner, or at all, is just due to the fact that they have lives. No big conspiracy. Just real life stuff.

Lorie --- actually, your li... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Lorie --- actually, your liberal brethren basically DO sit by their computers 24/7 to blog. You, sadly, don't have somebody like Soros to underwrite you to allow you that luxury.
-=Mike

The mainstream media put... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The mainstream media puts a story out there -- headlines in the major papers, leading the morning shows like Today and GMA, topic of the day on the cable shows -- then slowly, when people have had a chance to review the full facts of the story, or read the entire report, or get past the talking points that were spoon fed to the media, it becomes clear that the initial reports were misleading at best, wrong at worst. But the corrections and follow up stories never get the attention the original flood of stories got, and the public perception is of the original, wrong, interpretation of the story.

Lorie, why are you bringing up the Pelosi plane non-scandal again? I thought that was settled. And since you're so in favor of corrections getting the proper attention, when should we expect you to "bump and update" that story again with your corrections?

For years we have heard how... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

For years we have heard how the WH cherry-picked the intelligence Paul Pilar/Downing Str.):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

Now we have the Feith intelligence report.

With all the suspect intelligence, why was the al Qaeda link the only one open for criticism? Did Feith do a "devils advocate" analysis on WMD?

Let's recap:
-When the CIA indicated that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, the WH used it.
-When the CIA, state department and DIA discounted the Niger/Iraq link, the WH used the forged documents and British Intelligence.
-When the CIA and State Department questioned the validity of Curve-Ball, they used German Intelligence
-When the DIA and our weapon scientists disagreed with the CIA analysis of the aluminum tubes, the WH went with the CIA

Do you see the pattern? If the CIA did not endorse the intelligence, than they found someone that would, or they had Feith just make some crap up.

And since you're so in f... (Below threshold)
mantis:

And since you're so in favor of corrections getting the proper attention, when should we expect you to "bump and update" that story again with your corrections?

Actually that was Kim's little imbroglio. She doesn't do corrections though, just indignation. Plus it's hard to correct your mistakes when the Moonie Times keeps providing new places to direct your faux outrage. Gotta keep up!

This is absurd. So it t... (Below threshold)
marc:

This is absurd. So it took you 4 days sincr the first report to get some spin and TP's from the blogosphere.... CIA analysts disagreed w/ 50% of the OSP report.Posted by: aRepukelican at February 12, 2007 03:43 PM

I agree it is absurd!

It took you 4 days of excoriating Lorie, J and others for not posting something on this issue and what have YOU provided? One link to a left leaning LaT that also includes more than a few Dem talking points.

So where is your analysis? Waiting for final editing from Dkos of the DUmmmies before it is released for public perusal.

-When the CIA, state dep... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

-When the CIA, state department and DIA discounted the Niger/Iraq link, the WH used the forged documents and British Intelligence.
-When the CIA and State Department questioned the validity of Curve-Ball, they used German Intelligence
-When the DIA and our weapon scientists disagreed with the CIA analysis of the aluminum tubes, the WH went with the CIA

The forged documents were, at no point, used in the analysis of Saddam's pursuit of a relationship with Sudan (who ALSO thought it was pretty clearly referencing yellowcake).

George Tenet says he was unaware of the problems with Curveball's testimony and says that it was not forwarded to Bush for that reason.

The Daily Intel Estimate stated that ALL intel agencies believed that the tubes could easily be modified for use in centrifuges. From the Select Intel Committe Report:

Conclusion 42. The Director of Central Intelligence was not aware of the views of all intelligence agencies on the aluminum tubes prior to September 2002 and, as a result, could only have passed the Central Intelligence Agency's view along to the President until that time.

So --- where is this cherry-picking?
-=Mike

Don't confuse him MikeSC</p... (Below threshold)
marc:

Don't confuse him MikeSC

He might get disoriented and run back to his fellow travelers that push the downing street memo tripe to be consoled.

So the IG thinks everyone s... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

So the IG thinks everyone should be like the Dhimmi's and line up like good little duckling's and all quack the same tune. No opposing analysis allowed. It wasn't too many years ago that the same idiots were screaming the president didn't listen to other people. Dhimmi's are hyprocrites, one and all.

MikeC,Bwahahahahah... (Below threshold)
Jo:

MikeC,

Bwahahahahah....

I admit it is a guilty pleasure of mine to come in here and see liberals ripped to shreds by the facts.

: )

Jo, then you should enjoy <... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Jo, then you should enjoy this.

Bwahahahaha...

Mikesc, why didn't Feith pr... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Mikesc, why didn't Feith produce an opposing view of Curveball, Niger and aluminum tubes like he did about al Qaeda links? Why did Cheney ask for a follow-up on the Niger relationship (Wilson mission) and than never bother reading the report? Why did Cheney say that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence when there was no evidence it ever happened?

Sounds like cherry picking to me. Or maybe manipulation of the data is more accurate.

Brian you are one of the li... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Brian you are one of the libs I enjoy watching getting ripped to shreds. I know it bugs you, but so be it.

If you don't like getting nailed, it would be best to not come here.

Good times, good times.

"I did not comment on th... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

"I did not comment on the report based on what the Washington Post reported because they (shock, gasp) did not fairly and accurately represent the report.

You'll have to add the Air Force Times and the Army Times to the list of the unfair and innacurate as well, using the perpetually fabricating Associated Press report.

How dare the military use the AP as a source!!

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, 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.

That sounds like facts presented by Feith and not an opposing opinion.

Brian you are one of the... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian you are one of the libs I enjoy watching getting ripped to shreds. I know it bugs you, but so be it.

Ohhhhh, OK, now I understand you. You're one of those who can get shot in the chest and will then shout "Ha! You missed!"

If you don't like getting nailed, it would be best to not come here.

But I come here to do the nailin'. It's so satisfying watching those like you and MikeSC getting hammered to the walls, all the while with you shouting "b-b-b-but my argument doesn't need facts!"

Bwahahahaha!

I'll translate for Brian:</... (Below threshold)
Jo:

I'll translate for Brian:

"You humiliate me and I'm angry about it."
Brian

Don't worry hon. God will give you back your integrity and male genitalia......someday.

Meanwhile I enjoy seeing you nailed. I'll be the first to let you know when you finally start nailing someone in here.

Barney:If you're r... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Barney:

If you're referring to the "Case Closed" article and confusion over it, and I believe you are, then there's a helluva lot more to the story than just simply quoting the entire 1st paragraph of a very long article (read: not the original Feith memo) and passing it off as as quote coming directly from Feith, which it does not; it is a conclusion made by Stephen Hayes. Furthermore, there is a follow-up article to the "Case Closed" article which examines the DoD November 15 response to the memo; which in itself is an odd and vaguely worded response from the DoD.

Combined they are far more illuminating than simple cherry-picking of an article to support "point".

Oops.... "of an article to ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Oops.... "of an article to support your "point."

I'll supply the links to the articles, but you'll need a register at the Weekly Standard in order to access them, I believe.

Her it is peter.<a... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Her it is peter.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378

"passing it off as as quote coming directly from Feith, which it does not" Really Peter?

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith

LorieI can underst... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Lorie

I can understand that you have a life and that it took 4 days to get your post out, but, looking to the imbecilic rantings of Malkin/Slattern, among others, is hardly a good place to begin if one is trying to find an overall perspective on any issue.

One would go to Malkin/Slattern if one only wants an extremely slanted uninformed P.O.V. If one wnts pure uninformed bile then Malkin/Slattern is the place to go.

No, Barney, either I was no... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

No, Barney, either I was not clear enough or you're not following your own presentation/logic. You quoted the first paragraph that begins "Osama bin laden and Saddam Hussein..." as coming from Feith, which it does NOT. It was written by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard who cites the Feith memo in the article. But the opening paragraph you cite is NOT part of the Feith memo.

I'll translate for Brian... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I'll translate for Brian:

I'll translate for Jo:

"I have no facts or reasoning ability, so I'll just shout 'bwahahaha' and hurl personal attacks so no one will notice."

Meanwhile I enjoy seeing you nailed. I'll be the first to let you know when you finally start nailing someone in here.

OK, thanks! In the meantime, I'll keep a lookout for your continued whining. It'll let me know that I'm right. Hey, I'm still waiting for you to nail me over the Pelosi story. You've been pretty quiet about that since I shut you up. What's that? Got nothing? Thought so.

Bwahahahaha!

Trollop!... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Trollop!

Mike SC"FOX rep... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Mike SC

"FOX reported a story by Insight that Insight stands behind. What are they supposed to do?"

What Fox Noise could do is consider that the source comes from an adjunct of the Washington Chymes, which should be sufficient for anyone who prefers not to gobble up the product from the sphincter for the Republic Party.

What Feith Said on FOX Sund... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

What Feith Said on FOX Sunday:
FEITH: No, they didn't. Nobody in my office ever said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It's just not correct. I mean, words matter. And people are throwing around loose allegations, vague allegations, based on not reading the words carefully.

According to the Weekly Standard, Feith wrote this:
OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith

Feith just can't stop lying.

According to the Weekly ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

According to the Weekly Standard, Feith wrote this:
OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith

No, goddamnit, Feith DID NOT write that at all. Knock it off, Barney.

You'll have to add the ... (Below threshold)
marc:

You'll have to add the Air Force Times and the Army Times to the list of the unfair and innacurate as well, using the perpetually fabricating Associated Press report.

How dare the military use the AP as a source!!
Posted by: MyPetGloat at February 12, 2007 05:29 PM

How dare you attempt to say they have!!!

Did you ever view the disclaimer on those two websites? Don't answer that unless you willfully lie or admit to being an utter failure at reading comprehension 101.

The Air Force Times is owned, operated and editorial content is under the direction of Gannett Co.,

They have no more or less credibility than any other MSM source.

And guess what... the Army Times is also owned by Gannett, as is the Marine Times, the Navy Times and Military.com.

Nice try nitwit

Peter, complain to the Week... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Peter, complain to the Weekly Standard, no to me. While you are at it, complain to the SSC:

Senate Select Committee Findings page 305 (powerpoint presentation created by Feith's staff):
(U) The briefing slides contained a "Summary of Known Iraq -al-Qaida Contacts, 1990-2002," including an item "2001: Prague IIS Chief al-hi meets with Mohammed Atta in April."
Another slide was entitled "FundamentalProblems with How Intelligence Community is Assessing Information." It faulted the IC for requiring "juridical evidence" for its findings. It also criticized the IC for "consistent underestimation"of efforts by Iraq and al-Qaida to hide their relationship and for an "assumption that secularists and Islamists will not cooperate."

A "findings" slide summed up the Iraq -al-Qaida relationship as "More than a decade of numerous contacts," "Multiple areas of cooperation," "Shared interest and pursuit of WMD," and "One
indication of Iraq coordination with al-Qaida specificallyrelated to 9/ 11."

Peter be sure read the "Findings" slide very carefully.

Now what did Feith say on FOX Sunday:
"Nobody in my office ever said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

One would go to Malkin/... (Below threshold)
marc:

One would go to Malkin/Slattern if one only wants an extremely slanted uninformed P.O.V. If one wnts pure uninformed bile then Malkin/Slattern is the place to go. Posted by: aRepukelican

Why do you assume that's the only source she has read in the last 4 days?

Other than giving you the chance to use more childish 5th grade invective I mean.

And BTW where's your assessment on the situation. I'm very sure there would be great interest in reading your thoughts.

Barney:What does i... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Barney:

What does it say just above the opening paragraph you cite? don't bother, here, let me help you:

"Editor's Note, 1/27/04: In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank reported that "Vice President Cheney . . . in an interview this month with the Rocky Mountain News, recommended as the 'best source of information' an article in The Weekly Standard magazine detailing a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda based on leaked classified information."

"Here's the Stephen F. Hayes article to which the vice president was referring."

Stephen Hayes. Not Douglas Feith. Not the Man on the Friggin' Moon. Stephen Hayes.

So, either learn to read, Barney, or stop drinking when you get home from work--assuming you even have a job. Which is severely in doubt seeing as you have trouble reading a simple Editor's Note.

I wonder if Barney, BrianD ... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

I wonder if Barney, BrianD or the Puke can explain this for ushttp://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid275898292/bctid494852750

Peter, Hayes is quoting lin... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Peter, Hayes is quoting lines from Feith's memo. Do you really think the Hayes is just making this stuff up? What about the SSC finding? Did they just make up the presentation that stated a working relationship existed between Saddam and al Qaeda?

Old GuyHaven't the... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Old Guy

Haven't the foggiest what your link is about because it comes up "unavailable."

Old Guy, thanks for the vid... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Old Guy, thanks for the vid, now go back to the Weekly Standard article, and compare notes. You will find that Feith or someone in the White House Iraqi Group leaked the same information to both sources. Now go to the Senate Committee report and read there conclusions on the so called Iraqi relationships, there were none. Read the 911 commission report, no ties.

Again and again, the WH lied to us.

Ok...look we are there...it... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Ok...look we are there...it does not matter how we got there..everyone was fooled..the surge will work..if we just give it time...
Sure, there are the moonbats and the MSM who in their desperation will attempt to show a dark picture...
True Patriots know...the sacrifice of our brave troops is necessary for victory..
Besides...it is Iran that is causing this..once we send them a serious bomb message ..it will get better in no more than 6 months...

Mikesc, why didn't Feith... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Mikesc, why didn't Feith produce an opposing view of Curveball, Niger and aluminum tubes like he did about al Qaeda links?

Likely it was not his mandate. He was not asked to review every piece of intel out there.

Why did Cheney ask for a follow-up on the Niger relationship (Wilson mission) and than never bother reading the report?

He did. Wilson verified British Intel that Saddam sought uranium from Niger.

You didn't know that? It's been pretty widely reported.

Why did Cheney say that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence when there was no evidence it ever happened?

At the time this was done, that was the belief. It has since been proven incorrect.

C'est la vie.

You don't see me blaming Clinton because North Korea reneged on its agreements. Sometimes, you don't know what happened until later.

You'll have to add the Air Force Times and the Army Times to the list of the unfair and innacurate as well, using the perpetually fabricating Associated Press report.

Weird. You know who wrote BOTH stories?

By Robert Burns - The Associated Press
Posted : Friday Feb 9, 2007 7:13:35 EST

What Fox Noise could do is consider that the source comes from an adjunct of the Washington Chymes, which should be sufficient for anyone who prefers not to gobble up the product from the sphincter for the Republic Party.

Nobody has actually disproven Insight's story.

Namely that Hillary's people were saying this.

Now, can you make an actually valid point with your usual name-calling? I bet you cannot.
-=Mike

Hard to see how the surge w... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Hard to see how the surge will work, since we still can't get our troops the proper armor. Oh wait, I'm off-topic.

BarneyG2000 and aRepukelica... (Below threshold)

BarneyG2000 and aRepukelican

Somewhat off topic but addressed to each of you individually. Iran openly and without reservation claims it is seeking the ability to deploy nuclear weapons. If you were given the reigns of power that President Bush has now, what would you do about the problem of Iran?

Caveat, no "should have, could have, would have answers". If you were made President today, what would be your policy toward Iran?

Stuck between a Feith and a... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Stuck between a Feith and a Libby! As Jo would say: "Good times! Good times!" Except I'm not secretly grimmacing as Jo SO is! I really mean it! Hell, Kristol couldn't even manage his patented grunt-smile at the Fox round table despite 3:1 neocon sympathy and only 3 minutes to endure the topic. And kudos to Chris Wallace for nailing Feith on the alternate versions of the OSP Powerpoint presentations. 1 to be used when CIA was out of the room! The walls are slowly, slowly closing in on the traitors and no one would even flack for Feith, so Feith (whom Gen Franks(?) deemed "the Dumbest Man in The World"), had to do a "Libby Limbo" himself! I invite Jo to join me in a "Wooo Hooo! Good Times! Good Times!"

bryanDMy sinceres... (Below threshold)

bryanD

My sincerest apologies as I forgot to include you on the above question for BarneyG2000 and aRepukelican:

Somewhat off topic but addressed to each of you individually. Iran openly and without reservation claims it is seeking the ability to deploy nuclear weapons. If you were given the reigns of power that President Bush has now, what would you do about the problem of Iran?

Caveat, no "should have, could have, would have answers". If you were made President today, what would be your policy toward Iran?


The link I posted earlier (... (Below threshold)
upset Old Guy:

The link I posted earlier ( http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid275898292/bctid494852750 ), is a video of ABC's Sheila McVicar, reporting on the ties between AQ and Saddam's Iraq. It's from January 1999.

Back then the tie was common knowledge, widely reported in the media and referenced by pols from both sides of the aisle.

But our liberal/progressive guests here claim that is not the case. Maybe Barney or Bryan or the Puke can tell us WHEN that new piece of information became common knowledge. You all write with the convictions of someone who's actually seen the raw data, rather than just the executive summary. When did it happen. Maybe I was asleep that day.

Hugh SWhy I'd do t... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Hugh S

Why I'd do the only sane thing that could be done...nuke 'em.

Then I'd get a bicycle in preparation for oil going to $200 per barrel and hunker down for a world-wide depression for the rest of the 21st century. After all, we have it on good authority from the Bush base evangelicals...the end of days will come well before then anyway.

Sorta the Bush/religious fruitcake evangelical version of martydom followed by 72 virgins.

Hugh S: I would encourage p... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Hugh S: I would encourage peaceful nuclear energy implemenation here as well as in Iran. I would encourage Israel and Iran to enter into a bi-lateral non-proliferation agreement. No, I would make our $5 B/ year aid grant to Israel DEPENDENT on it. I would squeeze the piss out of Saudi Arabia to make a point that each country in the region could read in its own way.

Old GuySo now you ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Old Guy

So now you want to vest your stake w/ the centerpiece of the MSM?

Apart from your ABC report from 1999, would you care to explain why the 9/11 Commission stated that there was no substantive link between Saddam and al-Qaida?

Care to explain why Darth Cheney never claimed that report even tho he maintained the lie w/ citations of the non-existent Iraqi-Atta meeting in Prague?

aRepukelicanThanks .... (Below threshold)

aRepukelican
Thanks ...I'll accept your answer "to nuke them" because the remainder of your response fails the "should have , could have, would have" caveat.

So, you would nuke them. Courageous choice given that you don't get to write the menue you are given when you enter office.

Puke,I'm not "vest... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Puke,

I'm not "vesting" anything. All I've done is show you a broadcast new clip from the past. From ABC, back when Peter Jennings was alive and Bill Clinton was sitting in the White House.

You're one of the ones stating things are to the contrary. Logic would demand you be the one to start explaining things, instead of just making assertions.

"I would encourage peace... (Below threshold)

"I would encourage peaceful nuclear energy implemenation here as well as in Iran. I would encourage Israel and Iran to enter into a bi-lateral non-proliferation agreement. No, I would make our $5 B/ year aid grant to Israel DEPENDENT on it. I would squeeze the piss out of Saudi Arabia to make a point that each country in the region could read this policy in its own way."

OK Bryan, let's say we withhold our "$5 B/year aid grant" to Israel and they balk. And let's say we squeezed "the piss" (that would mean US dollars, right?)out of the Saudis.

Do you think the Saudis would or could invoke their will on the Israelis when we have abandoned them (the Israelis) economically?

And how can you "encourage Israel and Iran to enter into a bi-lateral non-proliferation agreement." when it is the stated desire of Iran to destroy Israel? Will you accomplish that by the power of your persuasion? By the power of your coercion of the Saudis? What other countries would you "make a point (of) in the region (to) read in its own way?

"I would encourage peace... (Below threshold)

"I would encourage peaceful nuclear energy implemenation here as well as in Iran. I would encourage Israel and Iran to enter into a bi-lateral non-proliferation agreement. No, I would make our $5 B/ year aid grant to Israel DEPENDENT on it. I would squeeze the piss out of Saudi Arabia to make a point that each country in the region could read this policy in its own way."

OK Bryan, let's say we withhold our "$5 B/year aid grant" to Israel and they balk. And let's say we squeezed "the piss" (that would mean US dollars, right?)out of the Saudis.

Do you think the Saudis would or could invoke their will on the Israelis when we have abandoned them (the Israelis) economically?

And how can you "encourage Israel and Iran to enter into a bi-lateral non-proliferation agreement." when it is the stated desire of Iran to destroy Israel? Will you accomplish that by the power of your persuasion? By the power of your coercion of the Saudis? What other countries would you "make a point (of) in the region (to) read in its own way?

Hugh SActually, yo... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Hugh S

Actually, you deserved something better than the sarcastic reply above.

Now, to one degree, I cannot accept your caveat to the extent that what I have to offer is a chance gone by.

However, if I were president and had something like this fax come across a desk in my West Wing, I would have tried this just as described in the article.(another link to the same story) As the article points out, it might have failed because the Iranians may not have had the slightest sincere intentions.

OTH making the effort to explore the possibility without any dimunition of keeping our guard could have led to a turnaround comparable to JFK's resolution of the Cuban Missle Crisis in the '60's.

The fact that the Sec. of State has no recollection of this documnet is totally and completely unacceptable and reflects the grossest incompetence imaginable.

Now you may want to drag out your caveat & I am not suggesting that this could any longer be explored given that it happened 4 years ago, but, that it probably could no longer be useful is testimony to the fact that we have had the most incompetent presidency in the history of this nation.

I would encourage peacef... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I would encourage peaceful nuclear energy implemenation here as well as in Iran.

And you'd get the environmentalists to go along with it how? It's not conservatives opposing nuclear power here.

I would encourage Israel and Iran to enter into a bi-lateral non-proliferation agreement.

Seeing as how Iran has vowed to wipe Israel off the map --- any ideas as to how?

No, I would make our $5 B/ year aid grant to Israel DEPENDENT on it.

Even though Israel isn't the one threatening to wipe Iran out, but instead, it's the opposite?

Nice.

I would squeeze the piss out of Saudi Arabia to make a point that each country in the region could read in its own way.

They then cut off oil and people whine that you're manipulating the oil industry for your friends.

Hardly a good idea.

Notice how difficult it is to come up with actually WORKABLE solutions?

Apart from your ABC report from 1999, would you care to explain why the 9/11 Commission stated that there was no substantive link between Saddam and al-Qaida?

They, in fact, didn't say that. They said there was no Saddam link to 9/11.
-=Mike

HughS, It was Egypt's state... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

HughS, It was Egypt's stated goal to destroy Israel once upon a time. So? As for Israel, the country's one big subsidized housing project. We have no defense treaty with them, and I'd banish the impression the world holds that we do. They can play ball, or they let the gentiles overrun them sooner rather than later. I think Israel can make accomodations. They're just milking the Me-baby bit.

HughS, It was Egypt's st... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

HughS, It was Egypt's stated goal to destroy Israel once upon a time. So? As for Israel, the country's one big subsidized housing project. We have no defense treaty with them, and I'd banish the impression the world holds that we do. They can play ball, or they let the gentiles overrun them sooner rather than later. I think Israel can make accomodations. They're just milking the Me-baby bit.

Yes. Screw the only democracy there and the only country who has ever tried to negotiate for peace in that hellhole.

Gotta get the int'l anti-Semitic left to love us so, hey, let's screw over the Jews.

Again.
-=Mike

MikeSC: Who cares what the ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

MikeSC: Who cares what the enviromentalist think? And I would have us (USA)nuked-up in 10 years. If the Saudis embargo us, shift to Irananian oil, Iraqi oil and /or the clean-burning American coal thAT Slick Willie put in trust to Indonesia. Your brand of munchkin republicanism is dying, thank god!

"Gotta get the int'l anti-S... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"Gotta get the int'l anti-Semitic left to love us so, hey, let's screw over the Jews": mikeSC........Earth to mikeSC: The Arabs are semites, too. Quit being anti-semitic! And stop your chimp, GeeDub's anti-semitic shit fits; he's spattering the Heck out of Uncle Sam's pantaloons!

I thought the big advantage... (Below threshold)

I thought the big advantage Old Media was supposed to have over bloggers and the like was their editing and fact-checking.

Oh, well.


JT, you reading all this stuff?

;-)

Who cares what the envir... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Who cares what the enviromentalist think?

Good luck getting a plant built with the never-ending stream of lawsuits that will be filed.

There is a reason why none have been built for decades.

If the Saudis embargo us, shift to Irananian oil, Iraqi oil and /or the clean-burning American coal thAT Slick Willie put in trust to Indonesia. Your brand of munchkin republicanism is dying, thank god!

Yes, because Iran is MUCH less of a problem.

You aren't being realistic at all here.

Earth to mikeSC: The Arabs are semites, too.

Fair enough.

The jew-hating int'l left. Jew-haters demanded the term "anti-Semitic" (and, now, "anti-Zionist"). I was willing to play along, but if you want to drop the euphemisms, let's do so.

The int'l left hates Jews. With a passion. Always have and always will.

And stop your chimp, GeeDub's anti-semitic shit fits; he's spattering the Heck out of Uncle Sam's pantaloons!

I suppose in some alternate reality this constitutes a point.
-=Mike

They, in fact, didn't sa... (Below threshold)
Brian:

They, in fact, didn't say that. They said there was no Saddam link to 9/11.

Mike, the reason your lies are so easy to expose is that you make statements that are in direct contradiction with the published record.

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda
If I read the two responses... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

If I read the two responses we received to the posted news report video http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid275898292/bctid494852750 correctly, Barney is blaming a news report from January 1999 on the GWB Administration and The Puke believes I should be defending it for ABC News.

Honestly, it doesn't matter if the report is accurate or not to respond to my question. Back in 1999 the AQ/Saddam linkage was commonly and widely reported both in the media and by pols from both sides of the aisle. Our liberal/progressive guests here claim that is just not true. So enlighten us, exactly when did we become aware of the non-linkage? And be advised, no one is going to believe you if your answer is, "The day GWB took the oath of office".

Old Guy, just to make you h... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Old Guy, just to make you happy, please read the 9/11 Commission and Senate Select Committee reports and conclusions. We have supplied several links and pasted text, so even you can follow along.

Both concluded that there were no substantive or operational links between Saddam and al Qaeda. Their conclusions were based on the available intelligence at the time the administration was making those claims. This was not in hind sight or based on evidence found after the invasion. The administration was passing along unsubstantiated rumors as facts!

Since you believe the ABC report even though the claims have been found to be false, I bet you still believe the CBS story about GWB and Air National Guard are true?

Barney:In repsonse... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Barney:

In repsonse to my final post from yesterday:

Normally, I don't like to call people names, but in this case I'll make an exception: You're an idiot who can't read. Why? While it is true that Hayes quotes many portions of Feith's report, the opening paragraph which you attribute to Feith is IN FACT Hayes' writing. How does the reader--at least those of us with a good grasp on the English language--know this? Because the portions of the Feith memo that Hayes cites are in friggin' italics!!! A common practice among ANY journalist regardless of his/her political affiliation.

So your misrepresentation of the Hayes article renders most if not all of your subsequent "points" as being disengenuous and moot.

Finally, if you still don't understand the whole concept of italics and how writers cite references from sources, then I would suggest you contact your local library and inquire about some remedial reading courses for adults because you desparately need them. Or you can remain an ignorant and illierate idiot. The choice is yours...

Peter, OK, here is a direct... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Peter, OK, here is a direct quote from the Feith memo:

"37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere."

Did you notice this part, "..al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials."?

I could lift quote after quote from the Feith memo that states strong evidence indicates an operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The SSC saw the evidence, and so the 911 commission, and concluded that no real evidence existed.


Barney, you friggin asshat,... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Barney, you friggin asshat, pay attention to the goddamn words I wrote. I explicitly and directly said "the opening paragraph" that YOU cited as being from Feith. This one:

"OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

It is NOT from Feith and renders much of you said utterly meaningless and a misrepresentation of the facts.

So go ahead and quote from the ACTUAL portions of the Feith memo. But when you do so, make sure you keep this in mind when it comes to reading MOST ANY intel report: You will be hard-presssed to find the word "fact(s)" in them; instead you will find phrases like "strong evidence" and "indicates", "suggests" and so forth, but never if ever rarely when it comes to contact intel reports, unless there are pictures, recorded conversations, etc, is ANY intel cited as being "facts".

But for the last goddamn time, you are flat wrong to cite any portions of the Hayes article that are NOT in italics as coming from Feith.

Peter, Feith said on Fox th... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Peter, Feith said on Fox that neither he nor anyone in his office ever said "operational relationship" . The Hayes report summarizes the Feith memo. I have provided direct quotes that support both, that Hayes had correctly summarized the memo and Feith lied.

The SSC said the same thing, so Feith did say it.

If you want to make a hissy fit over the first two paragraphs of the article go ahead the fact remains that Feith lied.

Barney:1.) Cite a ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Barney:

1.) Cite a quote from the October 27 report that directly says "operational relationship" that can be attributed to Feith and not Hayes.

2.) Cite and provide quotes (and the links) from "anyone in his office" that ever said there was an "operational relationship"

3.) "Hayes report summarizes the Feith memo". Well, duh. However, because Hayes summarizes Feith's memo and comes to the conclusion that there was an "operational relationship" does not mean those are the conclusions drawn by Feith and his memo. In fact, the memo draws ZERO conclusions, but provides analysis and reports as any intel report would do; the conclusions are to be made by the SIC (i.e. Levin and Rockefeller) and other policymakers.

4.) FYI. The October 27 memo is a repsonse to a letter sent by Sens. Levin and Rockefeller on September 26 requesting that Feith elaborate on his July 10 testimony to the SIC, and requests that Feith "provide the reports that were used for these (relationship) assesments". (Parens. mine)

5.) By design or by mistake, you are attempting to fit Hayes' words into Feith's mouth and pass them off as being Feith's words and his conclusions. This is from your post above:

What Feith Said on FOX Sunday:
FEITH: No, they didn't. Nobody in my office ever said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It's just not correct. I mean, words matter. And people are throwing around loose allegations, vague allegations, based on not reading the words carefully.

According to the Weekly Standard, Feith wrote this:
OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith

Feith just can't stop lying.
Posted by: BarneyG2000 at February 12, 2007 06:31 PM

No, Barney, it is YOU can't stop lying about Feith.

The reason I throw the "hissy fit over the first two paragraphs" is that you've completely and utterly misrepresented them as being Feith's worda and they are central to your "argument" that Feith is a "liar". In fact, you debunk your entire premise that Feith is a "liar" by misattributing words that aren't his to him.

6.) Regarding the 9/11 Commission Report which specifically states there was "no formal operational relationship" between Iraq and AQ, but they never came to the conclusion that there was NEVER some type of operational relationship between AQ and Iraq. And just what the hell does "formal" mean? Does "formal" mean diplomatic relationships, treaties or what? Does any reasonable and thinking person believe that a nefarious group such as Al Qaeda would form a "formal" relationship with Iraq, and vice versa? Of course not. Hell, even the Taliban didn't have a "formal" relationship with AQ, but everyone pretty much can agree that were was an obvious operational relationship. Even if there was "no formal operational relationship" between AQ and IRaq does that mean there was not or could not have been a "operational relationship" between the two? Again, of course not.

7.)The SSC said the same thing... They did? Where? Do you mean Carl Levin's "report" on the matter? The one not approved by the SIC but done by Levin himself on his own time? The one misattribued by the WaPo? That report? Show me, with links, what the SIC report says IF you can get your hands on it.

8.) I'll save you time on points 1 and 2. Don't worry, you won't find them.

Peter,Feith Memo</... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Peter,

Feith Memo

"37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere."

SSC:
(U) The briefing slides contained a "Summary of Known Iraq -al-Qaida Contacts, 1990-2002," including an item "2001: Prague IIS Chief al-hi meets with Mohammed Atta in April."
Another slide was entitled "FundamentalProblems with How Intelligence Community is Assessing Information." It faulted the IC for requiring "juridical evidence" for its findings. It also criticized the IC for "consistent underestimation"of efforts by Iraq and al-Qaida to hide their relationship and for an "assumption that secularists and Islamists will not cooperate."

A "findings" slide summed up the Iraq -al-Qaida relationship as "More than a decade of numerous contacts," "Multiple areas of cooperation," "Shared interest and pursuit of WMD," and "One
indication of Iraq coordination with al-Qaida specificallyrelated to 9/ 11."

Now go fuck yourself

No, you go fuck yourself yo... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

No, you go fuck yourself you fucking brainless halfwit. You can't even comprehend your fucking lame ass argument or even cite IN THE FEITH memo where it says "conclusion" or gives or states things as being "facts"




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy