The Weekly Standard bombshell

I'm surprised that there's been no mention of this here in the P&C forums.

Here's a taste:

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. 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. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in
some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

...

Information about connections between al Qaeda and Iraq was so widespread by early 1999 that it made its way into the mainstream press. A January 11, 1999, Newsweek story ran under this headline: "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The story cited an "Arab intelligence source" with knowledge of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. "According to this source, Saddam expected last month's American and British bombing campaign to go on much longer than it did. The dictator believed that as the attacks continued, indignation would grow in the Muslim world, making his terrorism offensive both harder to trace and more effective. With acts of terror contributing to chaos in the region, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait might feel less inclined to support Washington. Saddam's long-term strategy, according to several sources, is to bully or cajole Muslim countries into breaking the embargo against Iraq, without waiting for the United Nations to lift if formally."

INTELLIGENCE REPORTS about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda from mid-1999 through 2003 are conflicting. One senior Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody, Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, "said that the last contact between the IIS and al Qaeda was in July 1999. Bin Laden wanted to meet with Saddam, he said. The guidance sent back from Saddam's office reportedly ordered Iraqi intelligence to refrain from any further contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda. The source opined that Saddam wanted to distance himself from al Qaeda."

...

One of the most interesting things to note about the 16-page memo is that it covers only a fraction of the evidence that will eventually be available to document the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. For one thing, both Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their cooperation secret. (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on an internal intelligence document to conceal bin Laden's name.) For another, few people in the U.S. government are expressly looking for such links. There is no Iraq-al Qaeda equivalent of the CIA's 1,400-person Iraq Survey Group currently searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

Instead, CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but also revolting details of the regime's long history of brutality. It will be a slow process.

So Feith's memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee is best viewed as sort of a "Cliff's Notes" version of the relationship. It contains the highlights, but it is far from exhaustive.

One example. The memo contains only one paragraph on Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi facilitator who escorted two September 11 hijackers through customs in Kuala Lumpur. U.S. intelligence agencies have extensive reporting on his activities before and after the September 11 hijacking. That they would include only this brief overview suggests the 16-page memo, extensive as it is, just skims the surface of the reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda connections.

Other intelligence reports indicate that Shakir whisked not one but two September 11 hijackers--Khalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamzi--through the passport and customs process upon their arrival in Kuala Lumpur on January 5, 2000. Shakir then traveled with the hijackers to the Kuala Lumpur Hotel where they met with Ramzi bin al Shibh, one of the masterminds of the September 11 plot. The meeting lasted three days. Shakir returned to work on January 9 and January 10, and never again.

Of course, this may not even matter. Like the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin or O.J. Simpson's guilt, some parties will refuse to believe the evidence presented to them. After all, to acknowledge the legitimacy and accuracy of this report would require giving some credit to the Bush Administration for targeting Iraq in the "War on Terror".

And even in the unlikely scenario that the current Administration's critics acknowledge their erroneous position on this aspect of the War, I'm sure they will be even quicker to revive the WMD issue.

Funny that, if the Weekly Standard report is true, the U.S. Intelligence Community has been wrongly (and loudly) crucified for attempting to "connect the dots" on the Iraq-Al Qaeda relationship after being lambasted for failing to do so regarding 9/11.

And why wasn''t this presented at the UNSC? I dont think there would have been so many doubts if this evidence was presented during Powell''s presentation for example or better even earlier on. And if it wasn''t available by then, it does not justify a preemptive strike with hindsight.

Haven''t we hemmed and hawed enough over ""secret memos"" printed by biased news services? You left out these parts from the full article:

4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

A decisive moment in the budding relationship came in 1993, when bin Laden faced internal resistance to his cooperation with Saddam.

It was a meeting, in a country allied with the US no less. No conspiracy.

5. A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the ""Islamic Army"" of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam. Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an ""understanding"" with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an ""understanding"" with Saddam under which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against the Iraqi leader.

Another facilitator of the relationship during the mid-1990s was Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim (a.k.a. Abu Hajer al-Iraqi). Abu Hajer, now in a New York prison, was described in court proceedings related to the August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as bin Laden''s ""best friend."" According to CIA reporting dating back to the Clinton administration, bin Laden trusted him to serve as a liaison with Saddam''s regime and tasked him with procurement of weapons of mass destruction for al Qaeda. FBI reporting in the memo reveals that Abu Hajer ""visited Iraq in early 1995"" and ""had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence. Sometime before mid-1995 he went on an al Qaeda mission to discuss unspecified cooperation with the Iraqi government.""

Some of the reporting about the relationship throughout the mid-1990s comes from a source who had intimate knowledge of bin Laden and his dealings. This source, according to CIA analysis, offered ""the most credible information"" on cooperation between bin Laden and Iraq.

This source''s reports read almost like a diary. Specific dates of when bin Laden flew to various cities are included, as well as names of individuals he met. The source did not offer information on the substantive talks during the meetings. . . . There are not a great many reports in general on the relationship between bin Laden and Iraq because of the secrecy surrounding it. But when this source with close access provided a ""window"" into bin Laden''s activities, bin Laden is seen as heavily involved with Iraq (and Iran).

Reporting from the early 1990s remains somewhat sketchy, though multiple sources place Hassan al-Turabi and Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden''s current No. 2, at the center of the relationship. The reporting gets much more specific in the mid-1990s:

Hmmm, interesting that Saddam didn''t arm his secret army with all those WMDs he supposedly has. Is this the same CIA that conservatives have criticized for failing their leadership?

8. Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IIS''s [Iraqi Intelligence Service] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden''s farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti.

So, if this is true, Iraqis trained al-Qaeda in explosives in the 90s only to have al-Qaeda come back and train the same Iraqis in 2003?

9 . . . Bin Laden visited Doha, Qatar (17-19 Jan. 1996), staying at the residence of a member of the Qatari ruling family. He discussed the successful movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, and operations targeted against U.S. and U.K. interests in Dammam, Dharan, and Khobar, using clandestine al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return, bin Laden met with Hijazi and Turabi, among others.

And later more reporting, from the same ""well placed"" source:

Sounds like we should''ve gone to war with Qatar instead of Iraq. Qatar is where most of Operation Iraqi Freedom was coordinated from. Notice that Iraq isn''t mentioned in that entire snippet?

Points 10, 11, 14, 15,16, 17, & 18 all outline other bin Ladin ""meetings."" But a meeting does not equate an alliance. Points 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22 are not in the article. I wonder why.

23. . . . Iraqi officials were carefully considering offering safe haven to bin Laden and his closest collaborators in Nov. 1999. The source indicated the idea was put forward by the presumed head of Iraqi intelligence in Islamabad (Khalid Janaby) who in turn was in frequent contact and had good relations with bin Laden.

Some of the most intriguing intelligence concerns an Iraqi named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir:

Consideration, but no offer. Sounds like this was just an idea that was vetoed.

24. According to sensitive reporting, a Malaysia-based Iraqi national (Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting indicates Shakir''s travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur airport--a job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy employee.

One of the men at that al Qaeda operational meeting in the Kuala Lumpur Hotel was Tawfiz al Atash, a top bin Laden lieutenant later identified as the mastermind of the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.

People attempting to connect al-Qaeda and Iraq will state that Shakir was an Iraqi intelligence agent. However, no where in source material does it say that he was. He''s only an Iraqi national. Not all Iraqi nationals are loyal to Saddam Hussein.

25. Investigation into the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 by al Qaeda revealed no specific Iraqi connections but according to the CIA, ""fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement.""

Nothing new and not a smoking gun.

26. During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was ""encouraged"" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training.

The analysis of this report follows.

CIA maintains that Ibn al-Shaykh''s timeline is consistent with other sensitive reporting indicating that bin Laden asked Iraq in 1998 for advanced weapons, including CBW and ""poisons.""

Additional reporting also calls into question the claim that relations between Iraq and al Qaeda cooled after mid-1999:

Damning for Iraq if true but there''s just one little thing. Nothing came of this meeting since al-Qaeda has never used any chemical or biological agents in the multitude of attacks since 9-11.

27. According to sensitive CIA reporting, . . . the Saudi National Guard went on a kingdom-wide state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia.

And then there is the alleged contact between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The reporting on those links suggests not one meeting, but as many as four. What''s more, the memo reveals potential financing of Atta''s activities by Iraqi intelligence.

Probably erroneous intelligence on the part of the Saudis. As for the Prague meetings, these have been disproven, since the alleged Iraqi agent and Mohammed Atta were not in town at the same time when these meetings were to take place. Even if they were, meetings do not equate a conspiracy. 9-11 was well into the planning and set-up stages by the time Atta was alleged to have met with the agent, so chances are the Iraqis didn''t come up with the plan.

31. An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel.

Here, I''ll concede, is probably a kernal of truth. By October, war was inevitable; it makes sense that Saddam was seeking allies. And look at what happened; seems like a good strategy. The question is: would Saddam have agreed to this set up if war wasn''t looming?

Edit: A counter argument from the Washington Post:

The CIA''s search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found no evidence that former president Saddam Hussein tried to transfer chemical or biological technology or weapons to terrorists, according to a military and intelligence expert.

Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, provided new details about the weapons search and Iraqi insurgency in a report released Friday. It was based on briefings over the past two weeks in Iraq from David Kay, the CIA representative who is directing the search for unconventional weapons in Iraq; L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civil administrator there; and military officials.

""No evidence of any Iraqi effort to transfer weapons of mass destruction or weapons to terrorists,"" Cordesman wrote of Kay''s briefing. ""Only possibility was Saddam''s Fedayeen [his son''s irregular terrorist force] and talk only.""

Does this also mean that the Department of Defense is wrong, too?

News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.

A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in his testimony before the Committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.

The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the Committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the Intelligence Community.

The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence Community. The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee's question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions.

Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.

And why wasn''t this presented at the UNSC? I dont think there would have been so many doubts if this evidence was presented during Powell''s presentation for example or better even earlier on. And if it wasn''t available by then, it does not justify a preemptive strike with hindsight.

Because the UN resolutions in question which we were telling the UN to enforce had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

It was a meeting, in a country allied with the US no less. No conspiracy.

Pakistan is not a US ally, and certainly wasn''t in the 1990''s, when it was the patron state of the Taliban.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Hmmm, interesting that Saddam didn''t arm his secret army with all those WMDs he supposedly has. Is this the same CIA that conservatives have criticized for failing their leadership?

No, it''s the same CIA that Bill Clinton used to justify bombing Iraq''s WMD programs, and the same CIA that couldn''t corroborate Iraq seeking uranium in Niger...

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Sounds like we should''ve gone to war with Qatar instead of Iraq. Qatar is where most of Operation Iraqi Freedom was coordinated from. Notice that Iraq isn''t mentioned in that entire snippet?

Got it. So one point out of 50 doesn''t mention Iraq. You''re right, this completely exonerates Saddam!

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Points 10, 11, 14, 15,16, 17, & 18 all outline other bin Ladin ""meetings."" But a meeting does not equate an alliance.

They were probably just playing tennis. You''re right, Rantage, some people really can ignore anything.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Damning for Iraq if true but there''s just one little thing. Nothing came of this meeting since al-Qaeda has never used any chemical or biological agents in the multitude of attacks since 9-11.

Which again falls under the category of logic that since we haven''t nuked anyone since WWII, the United States must not have nukes. Glad to see that Rat will think there''s a problem only when people are dying in the streets.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

As for the Prague meetings, these have been disproven, since the alleged Iraqi agent and Mohammed Atta were not in town at the same time when these meetings were to take place.

They have never been disproven. Only one meeting has been called seriously into question, and there are 4 alleged. Even the one disputed is only because intelligence agencies and the FBI can''t corroborate - they cannot dismiss it either.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Atta was alleged to have met with the agent, so chances are the Iraqis didn''t come up with the plan.

So if Iraq knew or gave support they are off the hook, since at least they didn''t come up with the plan? Please.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

The question is: would Saddam have agreed to this set up if war wasn''t looming?

Well, if you actually read the report, you know the answer...since his relationship with Al Qaeda was 10 years old.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Edit: A counter argument from the Washington Post:

Which has literally nothing to do with the thread - the Post is talking about stockpiles of weapons being transferred before the war, not Al Qaeda

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Does this also mean that the Department of Defense is wrong, too?

Which information from the Weekly Standard''s report does this invalidate?

Because the UN resolutions in question which we were telling the UN to enforce had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

In your locked post you talk about WMDs as well which had to do with the resolution. Additionally your government tried several times to connect Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. If it had these proofs, why weren''t they presented as such?

"chrisg" wrote:

And why wasn''t this presented at the UNSC?

Well it is (or rather, was) a Top Secret memo -- I''m sure some elements within the U.S. Intelligence Community would have balked at revealing it in front of the UN.

We don''t fully share all our intel with NATO -- and we''ve got a heck of a lot stronger relationship with that organization than the UN.

I dont think there would have been so many doubts if this evidence was presented during Powell''s presentation for example or better even earlier on.

You may be right...but then again (playing Devil''s Advocate) Powell showed lots of satellite photos which U.S. analysts said were evidence of a WMD program, and critics pooh-poohed it even before the first troops rolled into Iraq. One more U.S. report with assesments by other U.S. analysts might not have done much.

And if it wasn''t available by then, it does not justify a preemptive strike with hindsight.

Maybe it wouldn''t have justified it to the UN, but if the U.S. was aware of it then I think we were certainly justified in doing what we did.

In your locked post you talk about WMDs as well which had to do with the resolution. Additionally your government tried several times to connect Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. If it had these proofs, why weren''t they presented as such?

I think you''re missing the point. First of all, the main thrust of the UN resolutions had to do with Saddam disarming, so showing that he hadn''t disarmed was the thrust of our argument there. Secondly, the intelligence about Al Qaeda is still Top Secret, and our government would not have released this in a public forum.

There was no amount of ""convincing"" that would have been adequate. Too much of the UN was making too much money off the vaunted ""oil for food"" program. The UN''s irrelevancy is matched only by its inherent corruption.

Some question on the article in general, I don''t know this paper, so I trust on your verdict on it: can this article in this paper be trusted? I haven''t heard of it before that is why I am asking.

Well it is (or rather, was ) a Top Secret memo -- I''m sure some elements within the U.S. Intelligence Community would have balked at revealing it in front of the UN.

Proofs that the Taleban supported Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 were shown behind locked doors to the allies as well. It should have been possible to do this one in a similar manner.

Powell showed lots of satellite photos which U.S. analysts said were evidence of a WMD program, and critics pooh-poohed it even before the first troops rolled into Iraq.

As far as I remember these were proven of being no evidence at all by the UN inspectors, because they have visted these places themselves. Back to the memo: If you have a memo and can back it up with intelligence information, it just doesn''t make sense to me to not use it. Honestly I doubt the other nations could have just ignored it.

Maybe it wouldn''t have justified it to the UN, but if the U.S. was aware of it then I think we were certainly justified in doing what we did.

While this is surely the case, this is not what I am aiming at. Don''t you think this whole affair could have garnered a lot more supported and less problems with the UN if these documents were used? Sometimes justifying it to yourself is not enough.

can this article in this paper be trusted?

The Weekly Standard is a political magazine with a Conservative viewpoint. It has been around for a long time and is very well-written and respected. To my knowledge, it''s integrity of reporting has never been called into question.

Back to the memo: If you have a memo and can back it up with intelligence information, it just doesn''t make sense to me to not use it. Honestly I doubt the other nations could have just ignored it.

I''m not sure it works that way. Intelligence agencies don''t alway share specifics of intelligence, even with Allies, as doing so potentially comprimises sources and information. The US has been stating the link existed all along - and I would be willing to bet that our Allies have similar evidence already.

I think you''re missing the point. First of all, the main thrust of the UN resolutions had to do with Saddam disarming, so showing that he hadn''t disarmed was the thrust of our argument there.

Yeah but your governments reason for going to war wasn''t solely the disarment of Saddam, but as well the war on terror
and that his disarment is important, because we must prevent terrorists from cooperating with Saddam and to obtain WMDs. So even though this document may not be directly linked to the resolution, without a doubt it would have a great impact on the affair.

Secondly, the intelligence about Al Qaeda is still Top Secret, and our government would not have released this in a public forum.

So top secret that we now can read about it in the news?

To my knowledge, it''s integrity of reporting has never been called into question.

Thanks for clearing this up, I really didn''t know the paper before. So we can agree this is a trustful source.

I''m not sure it works that way. Intelligence agencies don''t alway share specifics of intelligence, even with Allies, as doing so potentially comprimises sources and information.

I know, but you did it after 9/11, why not now? This document for me personally sheds a different light on the war. And I think many others will feel the same way.

The US has been stating the link existed all along - and I would be willing to bet that our Allies have similar evidence already.

Correct, but they did not back it up. I don''t know if Germany has similar evidence, but if it has, a certain politician better starts praying it will never see the light of the day.

Yeah but your governments reason for going to war wasn''t solely the disarment of Saddam, but as well the war on terror
and that his disarment is important

Yes, but that wasn''t theUN''sinterest. The UN''s interest was in enforcing it''s resolutions, almost all of which were about disarming, therefore our case to the UN was about disarming Saddam.

So top secret that we now can read about it in the news?

That''s an excellent point. The DOD release, which Rat misrepresents as a smoking gun of rebuttal, indicates in strong language that leaks like this hurt national security. I would assume that this leak was done by someone in the administration or Congress trying to help the President''s case, but I can''t say I condone doing it this way.

Yes, but that wasn''t the UN''s interest. The UN''s interest was in enforcing it''s resolutions, almost all of which were about disarming, therefore our case to the UN was about disarming Saddam.

...because as your president put it, he posed a threat to the world. To many this threat was not evident. But this proves that the threat was indeed more evident than we thought it was in the first place.

"ralcydan" wrote:
So top secret that we now can read about it in the news?

That''s an excellent point. The DOD release, which Rat misrepresents as a smoking gun of rebuttal, indicates in strong language that leaks like this hurt national security. I would assume that this leak was done by someone in the administration or Congress trying to help the President''s case, but I can''t say I condone doing it this way.

Note that this is hardly the first time secret and possibly explosive documents about a war have been leaked.

That doesn''t make this incident more appropriate or legal, but it demonstrates that it is not an impossible scenario.

Considering how dozens of anti-war talking heads were given the benefit of the doubt about Iraq''s WMD program before the war started (Sean Penn, Jeanine Garofalo, Martin Sheen, et al) I''m amazed that the people who are claiming the opposite aren''t afforded the same courtesy.

"chrisg" wrote:
Secondly, the intelligence about Al Qaeda is still Top Secret, and our government would not have released this in a public forum.

So top secret that we now can read about it in the news? :)

Well, like the DoD said:

News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.

Probably, they view the memo as accurate but the conclusions reached by the Weakly Standard as innacurate and/or premature. Nevertheless, it was considered top secret.

Probably, they view the memo as accurate but the conclusions reached by the Weakly Standard as innacurate and/or premature. Nevertheless, it was considered top secret.

Read more carefully. All the DOD said was that they didn''tconfirmthe information - which they wouldn''t because it is Top Secret. The DOD release states that the news reports about the confirmation are inaccurate. It doesn''t say that the memo or the information inside is inaccurate. And the memo speaks for itself - the Weekly Standard doesn''t offer any analysis that you can''t get by reading it. Try again.

I want to wait a little longer.

Here''s a thought, the Democrats have had this note for God knows how long and yet said nothing and in fact have been denying that the evidence presented here didn''t exist. Who''s lying now?

the Democrats have had this note for God knows how long and yet said nothing and in fact have been denying that the evidence presented here didn''t exist. Who''s lying now?

I think you just answered your own question.

It was rhetorical. Yet again, the Democrats play politics at the expense of the truth.

It was rhetorical. Yet again, the Democrats play politics at the expense of the truth.

They will do anything to get Bush out of power - the truth doesn''t even come in second.

Exactly. Especially such a man as Bush. It''s perfectly okay to make accusations against Clinton for rape, obstruction of justice, and the murder of Vince Foster because Clinton was a bad man and a bad president. Glad to see you''re catching on.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Here''s a thought, the Democrats have had this note for God knows how long and yet said nothing and in fact have been denying that the evidence presented here didn''t exist. Who''s lying now?

Good question. Is somebody lying, confused, or merely choosing to spin the truth in the way that benefits them the most?

When you look at the prominent Democratic figures, it''s hard to tell.

You''ve got this guy, who seems to be unsure of just about everything except that World War III would have been an OK idea.

You''ve got this guy who not only seems to revise the past but apparently the present as well.

There''s Dean, who apparently can''t admit that Iraq is better off without Saddam:

BLITZER: But governor, nobody -- nobody disagrees there are going to be problems. But aren''t the people of Iraq so much better off now without Saddam Hussein on their back?

DEAN: We don''t know that yet. We don''t know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance. We don''t know yet, and until we do...

BLITZER: You think it''s possible -- excuse me for interrupting that whatever emerges in Iraq could be worse than what they have for decades under Saddam Hussein?

DEAN: I do, I do.

Of course Dean is a Governor, not a Senator or a General, and really doesn''t have much experience with either foreign affairs or classified intelligence...so I''m willing to cut him some slack.

As for Senator Pat Roberts, I have no theory. Perhaps he decided to keep mum on the memo because it was classified.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, on the other hand, also doesn''t appear to have a problem with distorting the truth. And let''s not forget that Rockefeller''s office was the source of this memo about possibly using a last-minute inquiry into the Bush Administration by the Intelligence Committee for political reasons.

While I would not go so far as to say members of the Democratic party would engage in partisan politics and downright dishonesty to further their agenda at the cost of the good of the people, it certainly wouldn''t be unprecedented.

It''s perfectly okay to make accusations against Clinton for rape, obstruction of justice, and the murder of Vince Foster because Clinton was a bad man and a bad president.

New thread if you really want to go that way, but...

Clinton was accused of rape by the woman who he allegedly raped...and LOTS of journalists found her credible.

Clinton did obstruct justice and commit perjury. It''s a matter of record.

The Vince Foster thing is silly.

"Rantage" wrote:

Is somebody lying, confused, or merely choosing to spin the truth in the way that benefits them the most?

Yes, yes, and yes.

You''ve got this guy, who seems to be unsure of just about everything except that World War III would have been an OK idea.

Wes Clark is a liar.

You''ve got this guy who not only seems to revise the past but apparently the present as well.

Kerry spins the truth to suit him.

There''s Dean, who apparently can''t admit that Iraq is better off without Saddam:
BLITZER: But governor, nobody -- nobody disagrees there are going to be problems. But aren''t the people of Iraq so much better off now without Saddam Hussein on their back?

DEAN: We don''t know that yet. We don''t know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance. We don''t know yet, and until we do...

BLITZER: You think it''s possible -- excuse me for interrupting that whatever emerges in Iraq could be worse than what they have for decades under Saddam Hussein?

DEAN: I do, I do.

Of course Dean is a Governor, not a Senator or a General, and really doesn''t have much experience with either foreign affairs or classified intelligence...so I''m willing to cut him some slack.

Dean is confused.

As for Senator Pat Roberts, I have no theory. Perhaps he decided to keep mum on the memo because it was classified.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, on the other hand, also doesn''t appear to have a problem with distorting the truth. And let''s not forget that Rockefeller''s office was the source of this memo about possibly using a last-minute inquiry into the Bush Administration by the Intelligence Committee for political reasons.

Pat Roberts is seeking the truth and would have told us if the memo wasn''t classified. Rockefeller is a classic blue-blood liberal elitist who, like the rest of the Democratic Party, are willing to do anything to unseat Bush in 2004. How dare he!

While I would not go so far as to say members of the Democratic party would engage in partisan politics and downright dishonesty to further their agenda at the cost of the good of the people, it certainly wouldn''t be unprecedented.

Recall the Democrats! Out with the traitors!

"Ulairi" wrote:

I want to wait a little longer.

This might be an obvious statement/thought, but It's possible that the US intelligence agencies don't divulge intel or sources for the simple fact of national security.

I have been told that some dictators are extremely efficient at rooting out spies and extermination them, their family, and their 20 closest friends.

It's hard to get a spy close to a dictator that is that ruthless.

[edit]

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Recall the Democrats! Out with the traitors!

I think the pony is getting a bit worn out from that trick.