Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel

National Journal Group ^ | 11/22.2005 | Murray Waas

[Homer1]

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The administration has refused to provide the Sept. 21 President's Daily Brief, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.

The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.

One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Is there a sane person on earth who does not believe that Hitler might have been stopped in 1938 and WW2 avoided if the world had shown some backbone?

Is George W. Bush the only man alive who learned his history lessons?

Well, his grades did beat Al Gore's!

[SoFloFreeper]

President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda...

BUSH NEVER SAID SADDAM WAS INVOLVED WITH SEPTEMBER 11. NEVER. EVER. EVER.

[johnny7]

Horse-chowder.

[tarheelswamprat]

Funny, a new article says they STILL cannot disprove that it was Mohammad Atta that visited Al-Ani in Czechoslovakia in April 2001, or account for where MA got $8,000 suddenly in a bank account after that meeting.

"Still cannot disprove"... "Cannot confirm"...

More telling are the questions you will never hear asked of any "CIA spokesman" - "Why are you disputing the statements of Czech intelligence and President Vaclav Havel? Are you calling them liars? It's their country, are you saying you know more about what's going on there than they do?"

[FreePaul]

...President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence...

Without discussing the credibility of the whole article I have one question. Does this refer to the same "intelligence" community that didn't have a clue about the 9/11 attacks, or any of the other terrorist attacks on us, until well after they happened? Are we supposed to believe that in the ten days after 9/11 they suddenly became credible, maybe even honest? Okay, that's two questions.

[twigs]

What's new about this? I thought the administration said all along that there was no direct link between 9/11 and Saddam H. The concern was that SH was helping financially back terrorism. And we are in a war on terror. It was terrorists who hit us on 9/11. They had an extensive infrastructure... And SH contributed to helping that infrastructure.

[Nita Nupress]

Hey, thanks for remembering! I linked this thread over there.

[trebb]

Then that might explain why virtually all key Administration officials are on record saying there is no evidence Hussein was behind 9/11.

We know that, the author knows that, and the Dims know that, but it is not in their interest to admit it. The very fact that all they can come up with is lies and half-truths in all their attacks should be enough to silence them, but alas, there are too many idiots that have hate-Bush fever.

[Nita Nupress]

In this article, Murray Waas says:

The administration has refused to provide the Sept. 21 President's Daily Brief, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.

Actually, what he meant to say was:

 

Murray Waas has refused to provide the 20,000-page CIA "document dump", even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.

 

On second thought, has he even acknowledged its existence?

 

Yes, Murray. The pajama people still remember.

[RedEyeJack]

Actually, the loss of human intel in the form of unsavory agents goes back to Jimmy Carter and his CIA Director, Admiral Stansfield Turner. It is now ironic that the two people most responsible for our lack of intelligence in places like Iraq are among the leading critics of this administration for acting on the intelligence that was available after 9/11...

[SuziQ]

Yeah, well, the point of intelligence is that it keeps being collected. Ten days after 9/11, there may not have been much intelligence information about Al Qaeda operating in Iraq, but that doesn't mean it wasn't happening. That has been borne out since the war began.

[justshutupandtakeit]

This is an example of the crap Bush was being served by the CIA. There were many contacts, meetings, collaborative alliances, joint projects, training and payouts to al Queda by Saddam. Clinton justified bombing the Sudanese pharmacuetical factory by stating that it was a joint effort between aQ and Saddam to develop Chemical weapons. Was Waas' hero lying to us?

These Traitors have a convenient lapse of memory when it comes to the events of the 90s which were widely reported in the Treason media. They may forget but FReepers WON'T.

[justshutupandtakeit]

We can count on you to whack these liars over the head. Thanks for all your efforts.

[stocksthatgoup]

Wow.......maybe this is why the White House let everyone know early that they had no direct link between Al Quaida and Saddam's Iraq in regards to the 9/11 attacks.

[Mike Darancette]

no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein

And in all this time when has GWB EVER said that Saddam Hussein was complicit or responsible for 9/11?

[Burf]

Bump for later read.

[Lancey Howard]

Tempted by the title, I clicked on the thread.... Murray Waas... HAR!
Seeya on another thread!

[SuziQ]

I hate seeing this crap posted. I mean no harm but this is only adding to the B.S the rats are spinning.

But having this here, so knowedgeable Freepers can contribute to the threads, gives the rest of us ammo to dispute the libs who spout off in our presence. It's ALWAYS best to know what the enemy thinks.

[Mo1]

I know I've heard of Murray Waas before, I just don't remember where...

The conventional view--especially on the right--is that the online magazine Salon is probably the nation's most Clinton-friendly publication.

Earlier this year, for example, a Washington Times op-ed writer called Salon "a favorite Web site of the Clinton White House." A New York Post editorial this year referred to "the pro-Clinton press machine, writing under the name 'Murray Waas' in the on-line 'zine Salon."