• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Chris Wallace smashes Feith's pre-war Qaeda 'lies'

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,257
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Can't believe that Douglas Feith had the cahonas to actually state in an interview that he never charged that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda. Neither did Chris Wallace, who proceeded to completely rip him apart on this notable "noble lie", which was used by the Bush administration as part of their justification to go war with Iraq. The Bush administration lied, and soldiers died. That is not supporting the troops.

Article is here.
 
Yeah I saw this a few days ago. That man has balls the size of the moon.
 

2 things:

1) Where's his rebuttal? You'd think that if you wanted to really decimate someone, you'd have them on the show, or at least ask them for comment. Nowhere was he given a chance to explain this.

2) Look at the exchange:
Douglas Feith: Nobody in my office ever said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. It's just not correct. I mean, words matter.

So, we don't actually know what the memo said.

We know what the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol's neoconservative magazine, claims to have seen in a memo.

Considering how frequently you call into doubt the words of Kristol and his other neoconservatives, why in this instance are you taking their claims as sacrosanct? Isn't it equally, if not more likely, that the Weekly Standard lied or hyped the phrasing in their reporting?
 
From a partially declassified report (compiled and presented by Feith's group) produced by the Pentagon's inspector general:

ntelligence indicates cooperation in all categories” and a “mature symbiotic relationship” between Iraq and al-Qaida, Feith conveniently reported to superiors who had already decided on the need to overthrow Saddam and were seeking a way to link it to Americans’ rage at Osama bin Laden. These alleged “multiple areas of cooperation” included “shared interest and pursuit” of weapons of mass destruction and “some indications of possible Iraq coordination with al Qaeda related to 9/11.” All of those claims were known by the intelligence community to be false or completely unproven, as documented by the nonpartisan 9/11 commission. Yet, they were presented by Feith’s office “unbeknownst to the Director of Central Intelligence,” according to the report, were “not vetted by the Intelligence Community” and were “not supported by the available intelligence.”

Truthdig - Reports - Before the Invasion, There Was Feith
 

That's because the Feith memo is still classified and the DOD won't release it but here's the article in question with excerpts of the memo which does make a strong case for a collaborative relationship:


Here's the DOD response to the Weekly Standards dessimination of the memo:


And here's the Weekly Standard's response to the Pentagon release:

 
Last edited:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…