Anatomy of a Leak - How anonymous CIA sources spun the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah

Weekly Standard ^ | December 1, 2005 | Thomas Joscelyn

[Daralundy]

IN THE CIA's continuing campaign against the Bush administration, the agency has found the leaking of classified information to be a potent weapon. This is especially true with regard to the spinning of intelligence connecting Saddam's Iraq and bin Laden's al Qaeda. Consider, for example, the case of Abu Zubaydah, a top al Qaeda operative captured in March 2002.

On June 9, 2003 the New York Times published a piece by James Risen ("Threats and Responses: C.I.A.; Captives Deny Qaeda Worked With Baghdad") that suggested that the Bush administration was being duplicitous in linking Iraq and al Qaeda. The Times relied on anonymous intelligence officials who explained that the two top al Qaeda operatives in custody (Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) told their CIA interrogators that the terrorist group had rejected the idea of working with Saddam. The Times account began,

Two of the highest-ranking leaders of Al Qaeda in American custody have told the C.I.A. in separate interrogations that the terrorist organization did not work jointly with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein, according to several intelligence officials.

According to the Times's sources, Abu Zubaydah discounted the possibility of a relationship:

Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda planner and recruiter until his capture in March 2002, told his questioners last year that the idea of working with Mr. Hussein's government had been discussed among Qaeda leaders, but that Osama bin Laden had rejected such proposals, according to an official who has read the Central Intelligence Agency's classified report on the interrogation.

In his debriefing, Mr. Zubaydah said Mr. bin Laden had vetoed the idea because he did not want to be beholden to Mr. Hussein, the official said.

[eureka!]

My hope of hopes is that Director Goss is running a sting operation and is gettting ready to spring it...

[ncountylee]

Is Gross keeping the box busy?

[Yo-Yo]

For the N^th frikkin time: Bush did NOT say that Saddam was behind 9/11. He said that Saddam is not cooperating with the UN inspectors, and it is unacceptable to risk Saddam's WMDs to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda.

Sheesh.

[eureka!]

Huh?

[ncountylee]

Lie detector.

[eureka!]

Oh, thanks. I hope that he's doing something to clean the place up. This war on W by the CIA is reprehensible...

[Ditto]

This war on W by the CIA is reprehensible...

The CIA will lose.

[oceanview]

let us know when that starts happening. so far, I don't see any major investigations and a "clearing out" of these elements at CIA.

[eureka!]

Re#8 I agree. I just want to see it happen sooner rather than later. Way too much at stake...

[Ditto]

Be patient. It's a poker game and the CIA riffraff are overplaying their hand. They are not as smooth as they think they are, and they can't rely on their LSM buds to cover their 6 anymore.

Misunderestimation --- once again.

[eureka!]

Here's hoping...

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[roses of sharon]

As a matter of fact, it was Sen Bob Graham, (D), CHAIRMAN of the Sen INTELL committee that first said Saddam could be behind 9/11.

He is quoted in Time mags 9/11 special edition, saying they had CREDIBLE evidence.

Of course, the press never brings that quote up, I wonder what that evidence was?

[ravingnutter]

I found another interesting vote from the 108th Congress yesterday... here is the relevant excerpt:

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 8, 2004

H. RES. 757

Whereas three years after September 11, 2001, the United States is fighting a Global War on Terrorism to protect America and her friends and allies;

Whereas since the United States was attacked, it has led an international military coalition in the destruction of two terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq while using diplomacy and sanctions in cooperation with Great Britain and the international community to lead a third terrorist regime in Libya away from its weapons of mass destruction;

Thomas Legislation

That link is a query link, so if it does not work (they have a tendency to expire), use the original Thomas Legislation link and use the search engine.

Status: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 406 - 16 (Roll no. 431).

If you check the House Clerk's website for this bill, you find that both Murtha and Pelosi voted Yea.

Now...just who is tying Iraq to 9/11 and the war on terrorism? Seems to me it was everyone that voted for that bill, including Pelosi and Murtha. Freaking hypocrites...