CIA Seeks Probe of Iraq-Al Qaeda Memo Leak [Memo reveals Iraq-Al Qaeda link Dems said was impossible

Washington Post ^ | Tuesday, November 18, 2003 | By Walter Pincus

[Coop]

Apparently, this Administration does not have any evidence either to support the theory put forth by the Weekly Standard, who is not a friend of this Administration.

I'm really not concerned with the Weekly Standard (WS)'s analysis of the memo. I'm concerned with what's in the memo, as best we can tell from the WS article and the DoD press release. Not to mention previous knowledge which will or will not support what's in this memorandum.

I would suggest a better tact is to wait for the Administration's position on this memo lest you find yourself in the very awkward position of being aligned against the Administration.

President Bush says there are definitely links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I say there are definitely links. I think my invitation to the next fundraising dinner is safe.

[JohnGalt]

Me too.

The victims of 9/11 deserved better, much in the same way Randy Weaver, the victims of Waco, and the victims of the OKC bombing did as well.

[JohnGalt]

President Bush says there are definitely links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I say there are definitely links. I think my invitation to the next fundraising dinner is safe.

Exactly. The memo is a little red meat for the true believers, without exposing the administration to taking a position. Such is the DC-tax regime on the eve of the fall.

Yours in liberty,

[Coop]

The memo is a little red meat for the true believers

I thought you said we should wait for the Administration to take a position before rendering judgment?

[Monti Cello]

Whose side are you on?

You are having serious problems with facts and logic, so I will forgive your bizarre and paranoid accusations.

First, the Administration DID REACH THE SAME CONCLUSIONS as the Feith memo, that Saddam and al qaeda were operationally connected.

Woolsey is quoted above stating the same thing.

Do you deny that?

Gee whiz, my KGB handlers would get a real laugh out of you!

[halfdome]

Didn't the DOD issue a release saying that the memo was not an analyis about the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and did not come to any conclusions about any alleged relationship? I don't understand why the memo is such a big deal.

[JohnGalt]

No, re-read, I suggested a better tactic for you to employ that I personally (and my ilk) would find more compelling.

Clearly, I have already made my judgement based on the prejudices, experiences, assumptions, world view I brought to the table before I even heard of this memo. That is how people make decisions of what is a fact and what is not.

[JohnGalt]

Well, neither of us have seen the memo, but this is from the first paragraph of Stephen Hayes report:

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.

[Monti Cello]

The memo is a little red meat for the true believers, without exposing the administration to taking a position.

And I thought the Weekly Standard was hostile to the President...but carrying his water??

[Monti Cello]

Yes...I understand the content of the memo, as much has been released.

Again, do you deny these multiple accounts, numbering in the dozens, corroborated by many independent media accounts predating 9/11, by James Woolsey, supporting the Bush Admin's position of operational cooperation?

In other words, do you believe there was operational connection, based on your understanding of the available info and your sophisiticated political acumen?

And if the substance of the memo is true, does that justify US actions on Saddam?

[JohnGalt]

From your posts I think you are capable enough to come up with a better explanation.

The "Weekly Standard's" concern is that the Mainstream Right and the Republican Party is not that committed to their larger agenda of rebuilding the Middle East in 'thine own image.' So they toss some red meat out there to keep the base who would hate thought of a) being used to support this war or b)think their leadership is incompetent.

The problem is that if this information were rock solid they would have chosen a better way to get it into the press besides releasing the story on a Friday (see the Clinton Administration) and then having Fred Barnes raise hell on the Sunday talk show to ask why the media was not reporting on the report about the memo, a memo authored by Douglas Feith who is 'friend' to the Weekly Standard crowd--see how that does not really pass the smell test, I mean, just on the face of it?

As we speak, the Ds are getting out in front in the nation building project (see Sheila Jackson Lee) and it is the Republicans from Chuck Hagel to Rich Lugar who are asking the tough questions, i.e. acting as the voice of dissent. The situation is very precarious for the Weekly Standard bunch and I am curious whether they are thinking about switching sides...

[GOPJ]

Leaks were the exclusive property of dems and their "objective" media friends for years.

Nice to see the tables turned.

It's about time.

[JohnGalt]

I am not sure you want me on record saying that I believe Iraq and AQ had an "operation connection." I believe elements of radical Islam who became members/part of AQ had an operation connection to the CIA, so I find the verbiage rather self-serving and yet to vague to mean anything of importance to me.

[Wolfstar]

Ah, Pincus again. The same "non-biased" reporter who aided and abetted Joseph Wilson in drumming up the Wilson-Plame non-story into a Leftist cause celebre. This Pincus article about the CIA memo just drips scorn for even a suggestion that there might be a connection between Hussein and al-Queda.

The "objective" Pincus also lies in his article when he says this: "In making their case for invading Iraq, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other senior administration officials stressed both Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and his connection to bin Laden."

No one in the administration ever stressed any connection between Hussein and bin Laden before invading Iraq. Quite the opposite — they were at pains to avoid doing so. They did say that Hussein supported terrorists, which is true. They also said they were concerned that rogue nations such as Iraq might hand off WMD to terrorist organizations like al Queda, and that the United States couldn't afford to sit around and wait for such an eventuality. Only a bona fide hate-America Leftist like Pincus could quarrel with this point of view.

[GOPJ]

Leaks were the exclusive property of dems and their "objective" media friends for years.

Nice to see the tables turned.

It's about time.

[GOPJ]

What would they "switch" to?

The situation is very precarious for the Weekly Standard bunch and I am curious whether they are thinking about switching sides...

[epluribus_2]

She would gladly nuke the party to regain full control over it. The base core of her support will always be there for people like her. (now if some info about John Doe Number 2 should show up in the Saddam/AQ connection raw data - that would really torpedo her future comeback)

[JohnGalt]

In 1992, 'they' switched to Clinton only to be shut out of any jobs in his administration. If you recall, Clinton became 'hawkish' with his rhetoric about 'coddling dictators' as but one example.

If this topic interests you I would be happy to spend more time on it.

[what's up]

Sen. Evan Bayh? You may be on to something.

I predict he will be the next Senate Minority leader.

[Monti Cello]

I'm just trying to get your best judgment on the extent of Al qaeda - Saddam cooperation. You find such connection between AQ elements and the CIA, ok...what about Saddam?