Dick Cheney Was Right

The Weekly Standard ^ | 10/20/03 | Stephen F. Hayes

[Dog]

Rather, the White House is nervous that publicly discussing the links could trigger another set of leaks, most of them presumed to come from the CIA, attempting to discredit the new information. Those are battles the White House doesn't want to fight.

What the hell?

[Dog]

Thanks for the ping...

[Cboldt]

"some battles will be visible, others will not." I accept that, and happen to trust the Bush administration to act in the best interests of the country. I don't blame them for not wanting to divert energy to addressing leaked informtion.

Mind you, I am distrustful of government in general, but at some point (national defence being an easy line for me to draw), given what I believe to be honest leadership, I give a bit more than mere "benefit of the doubt."

[Dog]

Hayes is reliable in his reporting.....if this is true..

Is there a specialized team searching for Saddam-al Qaeda ties--something like David Kay's Iraq Survey Group, say, with its 1,400 scientists and intelligence experts roaming Iraq in search of proscribed weapons? "There is no such operation," says one intelligence official familiar with postwar intelligence. "What we know, we know because a handful of uniformed guys on the ground in Iraq have a hard-on for this stuff."

If this is true......that the CIA isn't even looking for a connection then we are royally screwed....in the War on Terror.

Hayes is alluding to a White House that is afraid to make any kind of claim of a connection because there is a faction in the CIA waiting to leak from classified material to discredit them.

Amazing ........simply jaw dropping amazing!

[Dog]

Mind you I am not blaming the White House......I just think they can't be cowed by a faction in the CIA. They need to fight....

I think a purge is in order at the farm.

[Cboldt]

That could well be one of the invisible battles. I think GWB chooses carefully.

[Dog]

We could find the smoking gun tomorrow in Iraq....everything Saddam was making on the WMD issue and there is a faction in Langley who will be out in the next news cycle claiming we made it all up........lord help us.

[jwalsh07]

BTT

[Miss Marple]

And THAT is the problem that Ambassador Wilson has inadvertently revealed. I would bet cash money that the entire group at Langley working on weapons proliferation (Foley, Plame, and all the rest) is actively pursuing their political agenda, and may be in the payroll of foreign agencies.

[Cboldt]

LOL, most of the media will either create or glom onto a "US made up the WMD discovery" story.

[MEG33]

Thanks for the ping..it is good stuff.Dog,scary thoughts.I've been having them since the Wilson story broke.

[MEG33]

cute

[okie01]

"The White House and the CIA are in open conflict at this point."

I'd say this story pretty much proves your contention.

Langley is no longer "on the team".

And, to coin a phrase, if you aren't with us, you're...

[BOBTHENAILER]

Perhaps now would be a good time for journalists to suspend the pronouncements and to start asking questions.

and the first question should be...

"Why in he!!, are you not sweeping the fouled stables at Langley clean of the Clinton filth currently festering there?"

[okie01]

"It's been obvious for a couple of years that the CIA doesn't WANT to find any connection between al Qaeda and Saddam. There's no other way to explain why they have failed to investigate this lead, which was widely publicized at the time."

Recall, as well, Jeff Goldberg's revelation of al-Qaeda operations in the Kurdish territory of Northern Iraq as early as March, 2002 And that these operations were conducted with the full knowledge and assistance of Saddam's regime. See The Great Terror, 3/25/02 New Yorker.

Incredibly, by their own admission, the CIA never attempted to confirm Goldberg's observations -- and continued to deny any connection between Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Interesting to see that Goldberg is one of the reporters who is still pursuing this story, though...

[CyberAnt]

"any reasonable person"

The HATE-Bush people are not "any reasonable person".

[Agnes Heep]

The HATE-Bush people are not "any reasonable person".

You are right there, and won't get any argument from me.

[CyberAnt]

Wow! I could not agree more.