How Pair's Finding on Terror Led to Clash on Shaping Intelligence (Linking OBL and Saddam)

New York Times ^ | April 28, 2004 | James Risen

[Peach]

How Pair's Finding on Terror Led to Clash on Shaping Intelligence By JAMES RISEN

Published: April 28, 2004

ASHINGTON, April 27 — Soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, a two-man intelligence team set up shop in a windowless, cipher-locked room at the Pentagon, searching for evidence of links between terrorist groups and host countries.

The men culled classified material, much of it uncorroborated data from the C.I.A. "We discovered tons of raw intelligence," said Michael Maloof, one of the pair. "We were stunned that we couldn't find any mention of it in the C.I.A.'s finished reports."

Advertisement

They recorded and annotated their evidence on butcher paper hung like a mural around their small office. By the end of the year, as the rubble was being cleared from the World Trade Center and United States forces were fighting in Afghanistan, the men had constructed a startling new picture of global terrorism.

Old ethnic, religious and political divides between terrorist groups were breaking down, the two men warned, posing an ominous new threat. They saw alliances among a wide range of Islamic terrorists, and theorized about a convergence of Sunni and Shiite extremist groups and secular Arab governments. Their conclusions, delivered to senior Bush administration officials, connected Iraq and Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

In doing so, the team also helped set off a controversy over the shaping of intelligence that continues today.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is investigating whether the unit — named the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group by its creator, Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy — exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq to justify the war.

The C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies found little evidence to support the Pentagon's view of an increasingly unified terrorist threat or links between Mr. Hussein and Mr. bin Laden, and still largely dismiss those ideas. Foreign Islamic fighters have sought haven in Iraq since the American-led invasion and some Sunnis and Shiites have banded together against the occupiers, but the agencies say that is the result of anger and chaotic conditions, not proof of prewar alliances.

And with criticism mounting in recent weeks as the conflict has become more bloody, President Bush has found himself forced to defend once more how the war on terror led to Baghdad.

Some critics argue that some of the first steps were taken by Mr. Feith's little intelligence shop. Whether its findings influenced the thinking of policy makers or merely provided talking points that buttressed long-held views, the unit played a role in the administration's evolving effort to define the threat of Iraq — and sell it to the public.

Unable to reach a consensus on Iraq's terrorist ties because of the skepticism of the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Bush administration turned its focus to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as the central rationale for war. Mr. Feith said his team was not involved in the analysis of those weapons.

But, he said in an interview, terrorism and Iraq's weapons became linked in the minds of top Bush administration officials. After Sept. 11 and the anthrax attacks that followed it, he said, the administration "focused on the danger that Iraq could provide the fruits of its W.M.D. programs to terrorists."

The president, as well as Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, alluded to connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda in their public statements. Mr. Bush also frequently warned of the risks that Mr. Hussein would share his weapons with terrorists.

"The worst thing that could happen would be to allow a nation like Iraq, run by Saddam Hussein, to develop weapons of mass destruction and then team up with a terrorist organization so they can blackmail the world," Mr. Bush said in an interview in April 2002.

The failure to find such weapons in Iraq has prompted a series of investigations into prewar intelligence. The Senate committee plans to complete its review, including its examination of the Feith group, in the next few months. The unit has often been confused with another Feith operation, called the Office of Special Plans, which Pentagon officials say was involved in prewar planning but not intelligence analysis.

[Peach]

Interesting that this is in the NYT.

Yesterday we saw several articles regarding the thwarted terrorist chemical (WMD) attack in Jordan. One of the AQ terrorists caught admits he learned how to use WMD in Iraq before the fall of Afghanistan.

Now this. Old Media might be starting to figure out they are being played like fiddles and they are covering their bases.

[The G Man]

Nice find, Peach. Bumping for later reading.

[cripplecreek]

It's starting to seem as if the Times sees the handwriting on the wall and is scrambling to get themselves on the winning side.

[Peach]

On the otherhand, (I'm waking up) it could be that the NYT is doing its best to pretend that the Bush administration relied on the word of just two men.

All the while discounting the fact that during the 90's dozens of mainstream press reported on the fact that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein's relationship was growing stronger:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1

[Always Right]

I thought only mis-informed stupid Fox viewers believed there was any connection between Osoma and Saddam....

[Peach]

And neocons.

[Just mythoughts]

"Now this. Old Media might be starting to figure out they are being played like fiddles and they are covering their bases."


This is a possibility, however, upon reading "Rockey's" LEAKED MEMO again, what appears to me an organized conspiracy from the "get go" to destroy President Bush's credibility. The French supposedly promised Saddam they would prevent the US from bringing military might.

How could the French make such a promise unless they believed our liberals were not in on the promise???? JFKerry is running for president on the French position and worshiper of all that is the UN.

Once June 30th comes around those running Iraq that will be having their own "TRIALS" like our "The Commission", may have evidence that even the NYTimes cannot ignore.

[hoosiermama]

bump

[maica]

"The worst thing that could happen would be to allow a nation like Iraq, run by Saddam Hussein, to develop weapons of mass destruction and then team up with a terrorist organization so they can blackmail the world," Mr. Bush said in an interview in April 2002.

My initial reaction to this article was similar to yours - the NYT is trying to say that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld relied on the word of 2 men. That dog won't hunt anymore after televised hearings of the ten "commissioners" leering at Condi Rice and sneering "Why did no one put the dots together?"

Americans will support any information that CIA analysts link together when countries and groups have said that they wish us dead.

[MEG33]

Interesting article..

[Peach]

It made me rather angry when I re-read the article and the words "first steps" toward linking OBL and Saddam jumped out at me. As though the president would rely on two people.

How I wish the press would regain SOME honest objectivity and remember the articles they wrote in the 90's worrying about the growing relationship between the jihadist and the dictator. Of course, that was before it all became a political football.

[MEG33]

What they have done,even if inadvertant is show the absolute divide between "secular"Saddam,AlQueda,Hamas,Ansar al Islam,Hezbollah;and other like groups is not there.The intelligence community said Bin Ladin would have nothing to do with the bad,secular Saddam,the Iranians and Bin Ladin were incompatible,etc.

I think they are all involved in the same goal for different reasons.If the atheist left wing of the US can team up with the Islamists who want to impose Islamic rule,why is this so difficult?

[tentmaker]

Immediately after 9/11, I began putting together a database on terrorism and the groups and individuals involved with it, with the purpose of divining some kind of "game plan" to fight it.

The first thing that jumped out of the picture being assembled was the fact that terrorism was dominated by dozens of interwoven groups all related to Palestinian roots. It was obvious that our policy toward Arafat would need to change.

The second thing was that we could not just "lop" off the head of Al Qaeda and expect it to go away. We would need to infiltrate (in many ways) and map out as much of the organization as possible before going after the leaders. Al-Zawahiri is probably more dangerous than bin Laden, so we need to get him first, not the other way around. Leaving bin Laden in place might even be a viable strategy for discovery.

The third thing was that such a widespread network needs support from nation states and we would have to attack this support base just as surely as any other part of the network and this was the only part that we could begin to pressure immediately. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Iran were on the hot list. Direct connections and explicit collaboration were never a requirement, because the basis of Al Qaeda's success has been it's dispersal and institutional "deniability", which make responses difficult.

The implicit connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda has always been obvious and the extreme danger of an explicit exchange of weapons sophistication has always been the driving force behind our strategy. To see it any other way is irresponsible and usually a tell-tale that the view holder has not surveyed the background territory very well at all.

[Peach]

I'm impressed with the work you have devoted to this.

The most I've done is start several files, one of which is a file about the Iraq/AQ/Terrorist links. It's far from complete as I had a computer crash a year and a half ago.

I rather with FR had started a section on this matter, rather like Alamo Girl's downside legacy Clinton section.

[Gritty]

re your #14

Well said!

[Dr Snide]

I love how the people are most adament that there could be no connection between al qudea and the "secular" Hussein are the same people that constantly try to portray the United States as responsible for training and supplying Bin Laden in Afganistan. So we are suppose to believe that Bin Laden would not work with Iraq because they were not Muslim enough but was willing to work with the "great satan"? The lack of consistency never seems to bother them but I guess thats were the left is now days.

[blanknoone]

Ronald Reagan earned the title, "The Great Communicator." He explained our positions so well that many who otherwise never would have, opened their eyes and understood the divide between Rs and Ds.

George Bush is not a great communicator, but is probably the best politician in the world at playing rope a dope with his political opposites. He has rather expertly left the door open just enough for his opponents to jump to untenable and rediculous positions. Ronald Reagan played the hand on our side exceptionally well. GWB makes our enemies play their hands exceptionally poorly. In the distant future, both will be seen as brilliant.

[Piranha]

I never heard of James Risen (the reporter) before. This is a very interesting article. Thanks for posting/linking to it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

RATmedia is not being played like a fiddle. It is the Fiddler. It is not an innocent victim but consciously and on a 24/7 basis shapes these lies, disseminates them and vigorously fights against any truth coming out.

RATmedia is America's No. 1 Enemy. It must be confronted at every instance. It's latest malfeaseance is the refusal to demand Goreslick's immediate resignation.