Barnes Challenges Journalists to Persue Hussein-al Qaeda Ties

Media Research Center ^ | November 17, 2003 | Brent Baker

[ravingnutter]

The CIA has for many months criticized the way intelligence reports were handled by the OSP.

In light of the fact that the CIA stated that the uranium case was false because Saddam already had enough uranium and that it did not register with them when they saw a convoy of trucks taking the WMD to the Bekaa Valley, I would not put much confidence in the CIA's intelligence capabilities.

[XJarhead]

That is a twisted, Clintonesque distinction without a difference.

If you see no difference between "they weren't involved" and "we don't have any evidence they were involved", that's your issue. But if you didn't see any difference, why put words in the mouth of the Administration that it never said? Anyway, here's a quote from the memo that illustrates the difference:

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.

It would be wrong to claim that there is evidence of a link between 9/11 and Iraq. But its equally wrong to claim, as you do, that there was no such link.

Which CIA memo? The Feith Memo, I have read, is related to the Office of Special Plans not the CIA.

The OSP stuff was castigated for relying on information from Chalabi's people. The Feith memo includes information obtained from interviews with Iraqi intelligence officers after the war, which necessarily goes beyond anything obtained by Chalabi.

I'm not buying any of the conclusions in the memo yet until the Administration is willing to go public with some of it. But neither am I willing to dismiss it yet.

[driftless]

Despite the mountain of smoke coming from that area, libs were desperately hoping that there was no fire. Come on, just about the whole lib argument against the war was hoping against hope (and logic) that there was no connection between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Now there was already evidence that Hussein supported other terrorists, so why wouldn't he support Al-Qaeda? We were pals with Stalin during WWII and arch-enemies afterwards. Necessity makes strange bedfellows, and Saddam and Osama have been sharing sleeping quarters for some time. Hey libs, pull your pointy heads out of your hindquarters and smell the coffee.

[PJ-Comix]

Come on, just about the whole lib argument against the war was hoping against hope (and logic) that there was no connection between Hussein and Al-Qaeda.

True. It's RIDICULOUS to think that Saddam had no connection with Al Qaeda. Both were dedicated to harming America. And the libs think Bin Laden wouldn't deal with Saddam because of religious problems? Gimme a break! Even Osama doesn't believe in that crap. Remember, he was a spoiled rich student brat in Britain. He is just using the religion shtick to attract ignorant Muslims. Osama would definitely have no problems dealing with Saddam. And we sure neither know had any moral qualms in dealing with each other.

[JohnGalt]

I don't take anything seriously from 'big media' be it right or left.

[JohnGalt]

I have zero confidence in the CIA as well.

That does not mean I think Rummy and Feith Office of Special plans could do any better.

[mr.pink]

The public has no idea it exists.

That fact that the White House hasn't called a press conference to support the veracity of the charges in the memo speaks a hell of a lot louder than the memo itself does.

IMO, the memo seems a desperation play from predictable and embarrassed neo-conservative sources....sort of like throwing a bowl of "raw intel" spaghetti against the wall.

Besides the impecably professional Brit Hume, Juan Williams is the only decent person on that show.

[Huck]

That fact that the White House hasn't called a press conference to support the veracity of the charges in the memo speaks a hell of a lot louder than the memo itself does.

It seems some of the info in the memo is known. Colin Powell, according to last night's Brit Hume show, referenced some of the same info in his UN presentation. But obviously the White House isn't making a big deal about this memo. Seems to me the White House has lost control of the "message" these days. Maybe they think they don't need to remind people of things, but they do. And they're not doing it, at least, it isn't reaching people. Liberal media is a factor. And they are trying to make this war a loser. Which doesn't help. But the White House needs to step up the PR, imo. I love Brit Hume's show--its the only news show I regularly watch.

[mr.pink]

The WH needs this memo to be true a lot more than the dandies at the Weekly Standard do.

I think Bush knows this memo bubbled up from the same sources who burned him so badly with shoddy intel during the build up to the war.

I'm glad he's approaching this cautiously and with distrust (i.e.- fool me once...etc, etc). I mean, if Bush loses in `04, I'm guessing the dandies at the Weekly Standard won't be losing their jobs.

[Huck]

I think some of the info in the memo is confirmed true. I think the meetings between al qaeda and Iraq have been confirmed. I am not sure where exactly the intel has failed the President. I think the Kay report indicated that some progress is being made in the search for Saddam's weapons programs. The fact that Saddam was seeking WMD capabilities was well know for many years. Which failures of intel are you referring to?