Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Report Says Pentagon Manipulated Intel
SF Gate ^ | 02/09/07 | Robert Burns

Posted on 02/09/2007 6:19:47 AM PST by SoFloFreeper

A "very damning" report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, says the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"That was the argument that was used to make the sale to the American people about the need to go to war," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. He said the Pentagon's work, "which was wrong, which was distorted, which was inappropriate ... is something which is highly disturbing."

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; congress; democrats; iraq; liberalbias; moonbatchronicle; pentagon; sfcomical; skewedsfbs; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 last
To: KJC1

That IS a good one; thanks!


101 posted on 02/09/2007 9:58:13 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

bttt


102 posted on 02/09/2007 10:02:53 AM PST by petercooper (Cemeteries & the ignorant - comprising 2 of the largest Democrat voting blocs for the past 75 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan

Again,...who cares?

You are not getting my point and are wasting energy on an argument that no one but the left cares about. I mean how many elections do they think they can milk from this?
Bush didn't have to convince me that Saddam needed to be taken out. Clinton didn't either when he was president. He just didn't do anything about it, or with Osama. Evil is evil.
Just for the record, our govt has been packaging military strategy wrapped with patriotic fervor for a long time. Gaming the intell, or selective facts have many times been utilized in time of war. Gets the population riled, ie "Mushroom cloud, yada yada yada." In this case, Saddam was just a plain old evil guy who's time had long been coming since 1990. Bush didn't need to convince me. I knew saddam was a freak during my tenor during the first gulf war.
The 9/11 "slash" Saddam line was repeated over and over and it developed into a well-tuned, Rovian, political psychosis in some people's mind that we "just had to do something." We did do something. Bush did something. And Bush is where he is because of it. I think Bush sleeps at night. I would. There is no election in the near future, no further need to campaign. He is unencumbered by the fetters of political hype. Problem is, he has got to keep his party together over the next two years.
so what? So we are having some problems in Bagdad. We just need to change strategy. Give it some time to work. We got an Admiral in charge now :)


103 posted on 02/09/2007 10:05:22 AM PST by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when?" "Because it's judgment that defeats us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. "

-Hillary Clinton Oct 10, 2002


104 posted on 02/09/2007 10:06:50 AM PST by Albert Barr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf

Ansar al Islam and Salman Pak were flimsy evidence?

Abdul Rahman Yasin (convicted 93 WTC bomb-maker) living in Baghdad and collecting a government paycheck for a decade is flimsy?

The 1998 Grand Jury indictment citing a working relationship between OBL and Saddam was based on flimsy evidence?

The 1999 offer of asylum to OBL is flimsy evidence?

The IIS envoys to the Sudan and Afghanistan to meet with OBL are flimsy?

The al-Ani/Atta meeting in Prague is flimsy? Why, because an anonymous FBI source told the New York Times they placed Atta in Virginia at the time (and we all know the FBI had such a great handle on Atta in 2001).

Using the Simpson Jury standard for reasonable doubt, there is no such thing as actionable intelligence.

Just for the record, do you personally believe there was a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam? Don't tell me your personal beliefs don't matter, I already know that. I'm asking anyway, in the interest of putting our cards on the table here.


105 posted on 02/09/2007 10:16:28 AM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard ("and alllll the children are insane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Albert Barr
Here is another good one from the same speech:

"And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them."

I guess she forgot to add, "Until the going gets a little rough, then we're going to pull the carpet out from under you and your Iraqi supporters and let Al-Qaeda take over."
106 posted on 02/09/2007 10:18:09 AM PST by Albert Barr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
"Is my recollection faulty?"

Nope, you're spot on. It has been driving me up a wall with WHOEVER is trying to revise history these last few years -- Republican or Democrat. I paid rapt attention to everything Bush said right after 9-11. I didn't get it wrong. He never said there was, in fact, he said there was no provable link between Saddam and 9-11, but there were links to Al Qaida in Iraq, i.e. funding, terrorist training, etc. He said if we opened the ball on this situation, it would be long and hard and take many years. He also said he couldn't 100% confirm there were WMDs, but was struggling with whether or not to go in and bust the place up because of strong suspicion.

I remember when he announced we were going in, and I thought to myself, "Well, I guess we'll find out for sure one way or the other." I sighed a deep sigh and because I had a son who was a year too young to enlist (and I was sure he would) there was no rush to go on my part, but I knew we had to know what the ME had and how they intended to use it. This is all so aggravating, I can't stand it AND I'm irritated as heck that Bush won't step up and blast -- I would -- and I think somebody needs to pin these traitors hides to the wall but GOOD! This is just out and out wrong!
107 posted on 02/09/2007 10:20:39 AM PST by Constitutions Grandchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Irrelevant. Saddam violated the 1991 Cease Fire agreement, and we knew he was trying to obtain WMDs. That is the bottom line, he didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. This is "The War on Terror", not the "War on Al-Qaeda."

The question leading into the war was whether or not we could determine with confidence that Saddam's regime actually did not possess at the time - much less did not have designs on getting in the future - WMDs. The pathetic attempts by the UN to make a determination have received a white-washing by the media and thus the war has easily been branded as needless if not evil, but the truth is that, regardless of the left's alleged ability to know (by power of ideological speculation) what Saddam was and wasn't up to, the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam was the only way to have any assurance on the matter.

Further, everyone seems to buy into the Chamerlain-ite line that Saddam would have been of no harm to anyone had he been left alone and that we should have ignored his violation of a whole slew of agreements...

My fear now is that this entire episode will be used in the future to prevent another Iraq-type action, with politicians and 'intellectuals' convincing the public to accept some ridiculously arduous standard of evidence before taking action, thus buying time to plot and act for those who are obviously our enemies.

108 posted on 02/09/2007 10:24:35 AM PST by MitchellC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EODGUY
I would like to see our "objective media" ask General Pace how many military personnel currently and since the initial deployment of personnel to Iraq have been given the specific assignment of searching for and uncovering WMD's

Excellent idea that needs repeating.

109 posted on 02/09/2007 10:28:34 AM PST by MitchellC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
To a competent intelligence analyst and intelligence agency, it's clear that there's no links of any major significance between Saddam and AQ.

So James Woolsey is incompetent? Because he not only believes there was, he testified to it in district court to it (and the judge agreed).

110 posted on 02/09/2007 10:40:09 AM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard ("and alllll the children are insane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Tulsa Ramjet

"...during my tenor during the first gulf war."

You're a tenor??? Can you sing, "Oh Danny, Boy" for me?

I'd settle for "Mother McCree" if you can't remember all the words to "Danny, Boy". ;-)


111 posted on 02/09/2007 11:02:38 AM PST by Constitutions Grandchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Constitutions Grandchild

i'm a goof. and you are funny :)
I meant during my depoyment you wascally wabbit.


112 posted on 02/09/2007 11:10:04 AM PST by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when?" "Because it's judgment that defeats us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
Rather than address all of them line by line, I'll just say that the AQ/Saddam links sound a lot more menacing than they apparently were. That's why President Bush and the Administration haven't made any hay over them, and that's why no one in the IC is stepping forward to say, "Look! We had the proof!"

Using the Simpson Jury standard for reasonable doubt, there is no such thing as actionable intelligence.

I guess so, but that's an apples and oranges comparison. Intelligence doesn't have to be perfect. It never did, and it never will. It just has to be credible, and confirmed by other sources. This bin Laden stuff may sounds scary, but it's child's play next to some reports floating around. You could stack every impressive sounding CIA report on top of each other, and they'd reach halfway to the moon. Volume doesn't mean anything without reliability or (non circular) confirmation.

Just for the record, do you personally believe there was a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam? Don't tell me your personal beliefs don't matter, I already know that. I'm asking anyway, in the interest of putting our cards on the table here.

A connection, meaning what? That he had his intelligence guys in contact with AQ agents? Absolutely. That's par for the course in that neighborhood. If we wanted to lay our cards down on the table, we could indict Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, or any number of countries as having links to al-Qa'ida. Does that mean they're actively plotting attacks against the U.S., or that they're running a robust intelligence service? The kind that we wish we had, that actually had links and insight to potential troublemakers.

I'm not convinced that there were any operational links between AQ and Saddam, and given the Administration's stance, I doubt anyone in the U.S government really thinks there were either. That doesn't make Saddam innocent, or invading Iraq a bad idea, by any means. Just that his links to AQ were the prudent kind that a tyrant in the region would want.

113 posted on 02/09/2007 11:28:15 AM PST by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
The thing that strikes me is that the IG is an accountant whose job it is to look for financial waste, fraud and abuse.

Is this even in his job description?

114 posted on 02/09/2007 11:45:55 AM PST by Smedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tulsa Ramjet

I'm glad you're home, safe, dear. You can sing in any key you like, any time, any place. Thanks for your service.


115 posted on 02/09/2007 2:49:02 PM PST by Constitutions Grandchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
"I do not recall a big linkage being made between Saddam and Al Qaeda...some of a link, but not a major one. Is my recollection faulty?"

Consider the source.

SF Gate is part of the San Francisco Chronicle, a left wing rag commonly known locally as "The San Francisco Koranicle". Discount 90% of what that fishwrap prints.

116 posted on 02/10/2007 3:13:36 PM PST by albee (Okay. so he missed aThe best thing you can do for the poor is.....not be one of them. - Eric Hoffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
If these were just uncorroborated intelligence reports, I'd say you had a point. But most of this stuff is known.

Abdul Rahman Yasin entered the US on an authentic Iraqi passport along with Ramzi Yousef, made the bomb Yousef used to blow up the parking garage of the WTC and fled to Baghdad, where he lived -- on a government stipend, in an apartment provided by the regime -- for a decade. Yousef's computer in the Philippines was later recovered with early plans for a 9/11 style attack and the Operation: Bonjinka attack (which al Qaeda attempted again in August, 2006).

The relationship between Yousef and Khalid Sheik Mohamed (nephew and uncle) -- as well as the plans found on Yousef's computer -- establish a direct link between Yousef and what we now know as al Qaeda, thus a link between the February 1993 WTC attack and the WTC attack of September 2001 is also established. Yasin's passport, the 50 phone calls he made to Baghdad in the days before the '93 attack (they're a matter of court record), and his decade of safe-haven in Baghdad establish a link between Saddam and the 1993 attack. It doesn't prove that Saddam gave the order for the attack, but it shows direct and irrefutable linkage between himself and the perpetrators of the attack.

What kind of evidence do we need to establish more than a casual relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda? They operated freely in his country (Ansar al Islam, Abu Musab al Zarqawi), they found shelter there after committing direct attacks on the US homeland (Yasin), he provided the only known terrorist training camp in the world where a plane was used to teach unarmed hijackings (Salman Pak) -- precisely the type used on September 11, and nowhere else ever. His diplomats were expelled for aiding al Qaeda terrorists in the Czech Republic, they were expelled from the Philippines for aiding Abu Sayef terrorists (an AQ affiliate). Really, what kind of hard evidence are we expecting a billionaire dictator with unlimited intelligence and military resources at his disposal to leave around for us to find? His voice on tape ordering specific attacks? Detailed, hand-written plans with Saddam's signature? What exactly?

117 posted on 02/11/2007 2:00:00 PM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard ("and alllll the children are insane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: MitchellC

Perhaps the question has been asked and merely not reported. But with the 6 years of hearings that have been conducted while the democrats were the minority party in both the senate and the house, I can't imagine at least ONE Republican legislator would not have made such an elementary inquiry?????


EODGUY


118 posted on 02/11/2007 4:57:36 PM PST by EODGUY (If feel so comfortable knowing we have an honest, ethical, majority party in both houses. /gasp/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

Jveritas, did you ever win FREEPer of the Year Award? You should have. Thanks for the links!


119 posted on 02/14/2007 6:46:18 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Thank you very much :)


120 posted on 02/14/2007 6:49:25 AM PST by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson