|
The SIC Report contains this little tidbit about an Intelligence Report that the Administration got in the summer of 2002. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-c.htm (U) The Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) directed that Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship be published on June 21, 2002, although it did not reflect the NESA's views. CTC's explanation of its approach to this study and the analysts' differing views were contained in the paper's Scope Note, which stated:
(U) This intelligence assessment responds to senior policymaker interest in a comprehensive assessment of Iraqi regime links to al-Qa'ida. Our approach is purposefully aggressive in seeking to draw connections, on the assumption that any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States.
(U) We reviewed intelligence reporting over the past decade to determine whether Iraq had a relationship with al-Qa'ida and, if so, the dimensions of the relationship.
Our knowledge of Iraqi links to al-Qa'ida still contains many critical gaps Now this tells us a couple of things. First that Bush was told that they were throwing in everything including the kitchen sink, with the ‘purposefully aggressive’ statement, into the report. Secondly, that they didn’t really know what the fuck they were talking about with their ‘many critical gaps’ disclaimer. So how do we know Bush was lying? Let’s look at some of his statements, but first, let’s look at a portion of the “Interpreting a Murky Relationship” from June 21, 2002 that the SIC Report failed to mention. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2005_cr/CIAreport.062102.pdf>June 21, 2002 CIA report, “Iraq and al-Qa'ida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship,” starts with: “In the past several years, Iraq reportedly has provided specialized training to al-Qa’ida in explosives and assistance to the group’s chemical and biological weapons programs, although the level and extent of this training assistance is not clear.
And it shows us what part the and parts from the above extract from the SIC Report contained.
Our knowledge of Iraqi links to al-Qa'ida still contains many critical gaps because of limited reporting and the questionable reliability of many of our sources."
And finishes with:
“The CBRN Angle. The most ominous indications of Iraq-al-Qa’ida cooperation involve Bin Laden’s chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) ambitions. Although Iraq historically has tended to hold closely its strategic weapons experts and resources, Baghdad could have offered training or other support that fell well short of its most closely held secrets. of Iraq or Iraqi nationals in al-Qa’ida CBRN efforts, but we cannot determine which, if any of these Iraqi nationals Baghdad directed.
And now for the parts of the October 2001 NIE that Bush got to see.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2005_cr/NIE.100202.pdf>The October 2, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's Continuing WMD Programs, states:
As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training and support are second-hand or from sources of varying reliability. The most conspicuous pattern in the reporting is of al-Qa’ida enduring interest in acquiring chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) expertise from Iraq. suggest the involvement of Iraq or Iraqi nationals in al-Qa’ida’s CBW efforts. We cannot determine however, how many of these Iraqi nationals were directed by Baghdad or how many of the reported plans for CBW training or support were actually realized.
None of the hundreds of al-Qa’ida members captured during Operation Enduring Freedom report having been trained in Iraq or by Iraqi trainers elsewhere, but given interest over the years in training and expertise from outside sources, we cannot discount reports of such training entirely.
Entirely? They could not discount the claims 100%. Interesting comment. And let’s not forget the “We cannot determine however, how many of these Iraqi nationals were directed by Baghdad or how many of the reported plans for CBW training or support were actually realized.” comment; they could not determine even One. Interesting.
Now let’s see what Bush did with the “We don’t know” and “we can’t be 100% sure that there is nothing there” comments. But first I should mention another Document that has just had portions declassified.
Ditsum No. 044-02:
In February 2002, when al-Libi’s claims about chemical and biological weapons training were first reported in the Intelligence Community, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued DITSUM # 044-02 containing al-Libi’s claims and the following comment:
“This is the first report from Ibnal-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida’s CBRN efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqi’s involved, the CBRN material associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.
Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”
So now we have: “We don’t know”, “we’re not sure, but were almost 100% sure nothing is there”, and “the one guy we tortured some info out of, is lying about the training”.
Now let’s go look at what Bush said? Not yet, we still have to deal with the 1998 “Indictment” that many Wingers are claiming proves that Clinton must also have lied.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16_2.html
. . . Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superseding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand. . .
So now we have: “We don’t know”, “we’re not sure, but were almost 100% sure nothing is there”, “the one guy we tortured some info out of, is lying about the training”, and “Clinton’s Justice Department didn’t confirm it either”.
Now let’s look at what Bush said.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-17.html
“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” Source: President Bush: World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003)
Notice the “Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training” comment? The Intelligence obviously did not say that; it said that it can’t prove that comment and we’re almost 100% sure it’s not true.
And let’s not forget the January 29, 2003 CIA report, the one that came out about a week before Bush’s comment in question, called; “Iraqi Support for Terrorism”
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2005_cr/CIAreport.012903.pdf>January 29, 2003 CIA report, "Iraqi Support for Terrorism"
Iraq-al-Qa’ida Training:
After contacts the reporting touches most frequently on the topic of Iraqi training of al-Qa’ida. Details on training range from good reports {BLACKED OUT] varying reliability, often the result of long and opaque reporting chains or discussions of future intentions rather than evidence of completed training. The general pattern that emerges is of al-Qa’ida enduring interest in acquiring CBW expertise from Iraq.
There have been fewer reports of al-Qa’ida receiving conventional terrorist training from Iraq after Bin Laden relocated to Afghanistan in 1996, possibly because Bin Ladin’s needs were less in this area.
Some of the most ominous suggestions of possible Iraqi-al-Qa’ida cooperation involve Bin Ladin’s CBW ambitions. Although Iraq historically has guarded closely its strategic weapons information, experts, and resources, Baghdad could have offered training or other support to al-Qa’ida.
Most of the reports do not make clear whether training initiatives offered by Iraqi’s or discussed by the two sides remained in the planning stages or were actually implemented.
In about half of the reports, we cannot determine if the Iraqi nationals mentioned had any relationship with the Baghdad government or were expatriate or free-lance scientists or engineers.
At least of the reports appear based on hearsay:
of the reports are simple declarative accusations of Iraqi-al-Qa’ida complicity with no substantiating detail or other information that might help us corroborate them.
So we have Bush saying that “Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training”; yet a week before, the Intelligence was still saying, we can prove that claim.
So much for Bush’s claim that he was misled by the Intellignece.
NOTE: Stephen Hayes was complaining that the Declassified Intelligence used above was not available in one of his Articles. The ‘secrets want to be free’ (or something like that). No wonder he claimed that; because it shows his Articles are full of it.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
