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

[Mo1]

doing do = doing so

[Monti Cello]

The position of this administration is the Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

If you've got quotations to that effect I'd love to see them, but I don't recall them stating it positively and definitively as you do.

Cheney fairly recently has mentioned the Atta-Prague meeting as a possible connection. The lack of a definitive documented link to the 9/11 event does not preclude the longtime cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda documented by the CIA memo and numerous news reports. Do you have any reaction to that?

If they were standing military allies in terrorism, that puts Saddam right in the crosshairs by itself.

[Coop]

The position of this administration is the Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Says who? I've seen Administration representatives say that there is no "proof" of the Saddam/Al Qaeda link, but I don't believe there's anyone at 1600 Penn Ave that thinks he wasn't involved.

[Mo1]

If you've got quotations to that effect I'd love to see them, but I don't recall them stating it positively and definitively as you do.

I think what they said was there was no hard evidence at the time

[mr.pink]

The assumption many have that they are a friend to this administration is groundless.

Nice to see someone around here is paying attention to operational style of the dandies at the "Sneaky Standard", and even though it's late in the game I believe Bush has finally wised up their machinations.

You 100% correct in noting they are no friends of Bush...never were, and never will be.

IMO, another raw intel stew has been cooked up and seasoned by the adventurous chefs at the DOD's OSP, and dished to friendly media oulets.

Who could blame Bush for asking for a few tasters prior to shallowing any of this himself? The last time he bit into one these OSP Intel meals, it went down just fine at the time...but three months later he starting choking on it.

So I'll wait for the official stamp of approval, formally announced by the WH, prior to lowering my guard.

[JohnGalt]

A distinction without a difference. You are better than that.

[JohnGalt]

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" George Bush 9/18/2003.

To immediately jump to spin control in the next paragraph is not conducive to making me believe you are really interested in this story.

[jmstein7]

Hmmm... the same crowd didn't complain when the Pentagon Papers were *stolen* from the PENTAGON, now did they?

[JohnGalt]

So lets just wait and see what Rummy and Bush have to say about it, okay?

Who side are you on, BTW?

[Coop]

A distinction without a difference. You are better than that.

Sorry, there most assuredly is a difference. For two reasons:
1) Pre-war intelligence is never 100% accurate. Sounds decisions must be made on whatever information is on hand. That's why corroborating sources are so important, if available. But it still probably won't reach the "proof" threshold demanded by our media (but only when Pubbies are involved).
2) There may well be evidence/proof of a classified nature, which the Administration does not wish to disclose.

[Monti Cello]

To immediately jump to spin control in the next paragraph is not conducive to making me believe you are really interested in this story.

I'm trying to get some support for your claim that, The position of this administration is the Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

You respond with an article quoting Bush, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

You are the one spinning. Citing a 'lack of evidence' is a far cry from definitively stating there was no link -- the case is still open on the 9/11 connection. A little intellectual honesty, please.

As for spin, all I've done is descibe the contents of the Feith memo, and widely-available press accounts that indicate a longstanding military alliance between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

Do you just dismiss all those accounts out of hand? If it's shown that Saddam provided support for al qaeda terrorism in general, would that be sufficient cause for us to involve Iraq in our military response?

[Coop]

Speaking of spin control. Taken from your link, right up front:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the [P]resident said.

This Feith memo deals specifically with Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda.

Perhaps there's not "evidence" of involvement with 9/11, but there's plenty of linkage between the two groups.

[txhurl]

I could've sworn there was enough unclassified stuff about Salman Pak alone to cement the AQ-SH relationship. Wasn't there?

[JohnGalt]

You are going in the wrong direction...


The Administration plays a fairly vague game, for example, on whether they believe in a theory called 'global warming.' Wink wink, nudge nudge, we all kind of understand why this is.

The Administration decides what they 'want to believe is a fact versus what they 'don't believe' based on the core principals of the President and what is politically necessary.

The President and this Administration do not have the goods, so they stake out a moderate position on a question of fact (spin control) that please the believers, and the critics.

I don't care about the media, I care about the truth; I don't care or expect to have my world view vindicated by CNN or Bill O'Reilly; and separately I wish to see the criminals of 9/11 meet their makers. I happen to believe by a Western criminal standard, many of the puppet masters are in Saudi Arabia and many of the middle men were employed to organize the KLA in Kosovo. I reached this conclusion after a lot of reading, but I don't claim to have seen any evidence from a Western definition that I could imagine would support a 'war.'

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 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.

[JohnGalt]

I guess not.

[JohnGalt]

I dismiss the accounts of the Feith memo because the administration did not reach the same conclusions. You are either naive to the nature of politics, or you are merely attempting to push propaganda to push your unstated agenda. The position of this Administration being privy to vastly more pieces of intelligence and trained to filter from conflicting reports what is a fact and what is a lie, things the Feith memo is pure crap so they chose to ignore it.

Whose side are you on?

[txhurl]

Some days I want to drive over to Bobby Inman's house and beg, cry, scream, plead, shriek hysterically in his driveway for the Phoenix papers. I'm so sick of this AQ-SH air hockey BS.