COngress Did Not Have Same Intelligence
Posted by
Kevin
More evidence that Bush withheld information from Congress:
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 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.
…. Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won’t say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.
If this is true, they were told in no uncertain terms that Iraq had nothing to do with al-Queada, And yet they, Cheney in particular, constantly insinuated or stated outright that there was a connection. They kept this information form both the people and the people’s representatives. If this is accurate, then they are not fit to hold office.
Crooked Lip should be pounding rocks for the treasonous, murderous way he has satiated his greed and the greed of his buddies.
I am convinced that history will view this vile slug for what he is, and always was-a sociopathic monster.
Comment 11/23/2005
The PDB was not the “smoking gun” that liberals seem to imply. Take a peek at the document [PDF] yourself.
Comment 11/23/2005
How many times are you going to repeat the lie that Bush has said there was operational (or collaborative) ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam? Since it never happened, you may as well give up. Repetition is not going to make it true.
Comment 11/23/2005
What fred said.
Comment 11/23/2005
Fred and Uncle
Really?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p09s01-codc.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/11/eveningnews/main1041302.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1320129,00.html
Comment 11/23/2005
The NJ piece mentions ties to Saddam. The others, Iraq in general. We do know that Al Q was operating there but not in a significant or collaborative way. Again, nothing to see here.
Comment 11/23/2005
I didn’t have a chance to read in detail the reports from your sources. However, I did scan one, and I didn’t see anywhere the specific operation or operations that Bush claimed that Saddam collaborated with Al Qaeda. Perhaps you can tell us when that operation took place.
Comment 11/23/2005
Uncle
Can you read? Becasue the very first link quotes Rice saying that Iraq trained al-Quaeda operatives in chemical weapons warfare. If that isn’t a collaborative and operational relationship, then the words have no meaning.
Comment 11/23/2005
Yes, can you? Perhaps, then, you’d like to read your fourth link in which Rummy says (paraphrased) ‘yeah, we thought that at the time and now, not so much but we’re not sure’. So, let’s see:
9/21/01: no links noted in PDB
2002ish: CIA reports claim there’s a link
later: maybe not.
Additionally, those claims were not justification for the war, which is what a lot of folks are insinuating.
Comment 11/23/2005
Uncle
No, you cnanot read, appraently — that fourth link is a story about Rumsfled back-tracking from the comments. And you still haven’t delt with the Rice quotes.
And I will leave you in Tom’s capable hands, since you seem to be back to arguing that the Bush Admin did not try to use al-Qaeda as a justification for invading Iraq.
Oh, and notice the very first quote in that link is Bush stating Saddam had aided and protected terrorists, including Al-Queada. If aiding and protecting does not signal a collaborative and operational relationship, then the words have no meaning.
Comment 11/23/2005
No, you cnanot read, appraently
Well, at least I can type ;-P
The problem with this whole issue is that you cannot criticize claims made in, say, 2002 when the backtracking on those claims by the administration has occurred since.
What does the NJ piece really tell us? That at the time, the CIA (not the most credible agency, btw) didn’t think there was a link. Over time, that changed. Now it appears to be leaning toward the ‘no operational’ relationship thing. The administration is definitely guilty of moving goalposts.
Comment 11/23/2005
Oh and that the admin kept that info from congress, which is a valid point that I happen to agree with.
Comment 11/23/2005
“Well, at least I can type ;-P”
Okay, now you are jsut being mean
“The problem with this whole issue is that you cannot criticize claims made in, say, 2002 when the backtracking on those claims by the administration has occurred since.”
Yes I can, becasue the point is that the Administration knew before 2002 that their cliams were either wrong or where the Admin was, at the time they where making the claims, not providing the full picture.
In 2001 they where told by the CIA that there was no significant ties between al-Quaeda and Iraq. In the next few months they made the oppisite claim. The best you can say for them is that they were not telling the public the whole truth.
Comment 11/23/2005
the Administration knew before 2002 that their cliams were either wrong
The PDB was dated 2001. It does not indicate that the administration ‘knew’ just that at the time there was no evidence to support such a contentin. Other sources came to light that seemed to verify these links. They did not know, per se.
Comment 11/23/2005
Uncle:
It continues to boggle my mind that someone as intelligent as you is either unwilling or unable to cut through this administration’s obvious bullshit. I know you get a kick out of being contrarian, but come on. Anyone with half a brain can see that this administration at worst fabricated claims to sell the war, and at best grossly exaggerated their certainty about some things to do so. Either way, they weren’t exactly forthright with the American people.
For someone who’s not supposed to be a Bush partisan, it mystifies me that you continue to defend them on this. I really wish you would scrutinize the Bush Administration’s claims on this with even one fifth of the skepticism you reserve for, say, the Brady bunch.
Comment 11/29/2005
tg: “Anyone with half a brain can see that this administration at worst fabricated claims to sell the war, and at best grossly exaggerated their certainty about some things to do so.”
Fred: You are right. Anyone with half a brain would think as you do. Those of us who have a whole brain can see the whole picture.
Comment 11/30/2005