DoD Report Appears to Confirm Downing Street Memo

[RightinNYC]

http://www.dodig.osd.mil/IGInformation/archives/Unclass Executive Summary.pdf

http://www.dodig.osd.mil/IGInformation/archives/OUSDP-OSP Brief.pdf

http://www.dodig.osd.mil/IGInformation/archives/OUSDP-OSP Brief.pdf

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy [OUSD(P)] developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision makers.

While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that the products did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community and were, in some cases, shown as intelligence products.​

It seems they showed senior decision makers "some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community" "as intelligence products" when they were not.
Here's the rub, these actions were not unauthorized.

Who authorized the OSP to show "senior decision makers" "alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship" as though they were products of the intelligence community?​

From reading it in context, it appears that there was no one individual who actually went ahead and authorized this action, but rather that this was following existing policies.

While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were in our opinion, inappropriate given that the intelligence assessments were intelligence products and did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community. This condition occurred because of an expanded role and mission of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from policy formulation to alternative intelligence analysis and dissemination.

The Deputy Secretary of Defense direction made the action authorized; however, we believe the actions were inappropriate because a policy office was producing intelligence products and was not clearly conveying to senior decision-makers the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
A) You said "all," the intelligence this report was specifically in relation to the AQ Saddam links.

B) Where exactly does it say that anyone was lying? For the life of me I can't find that anywhere.

You've been saying all along the intelligence agencies all thought the same thing. This clearly indicates that they didn't!

Originally posted by TOT:
C) Somebody ought to inform the DOD about DOCEX that proves conclusively that their was infact an AQ Saddam relationship and it was collaborative.

Strange how you try to use something as proof that the government went out of their way to issue a disclaimer about when they released this information.

U.S. releases pre-war Iraqi goverment documents

...the administration "has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translation."

The Administration won't even say whether this is authentic or not, TOT. What do you know that they don't?

 

[Cold Dirt]

Stinger, you gotta warn me when you start spewing bullshit like this! I almost didn't have time to pull up my pant legs before your sewage post rolled on by!

Anyone who says Hussein was a threat is the biggest ***** on the planet. Because what you're saying is that a country that was bombed back to the stone age, that barely has running water and electricity, that is a population of goat herders, that is 9000 miles away with no navy, is a threat to the most technologically advanced military the world has ever seen.

S.h.i.t, it only took a 100 hours to beat'em the first time...

People that think Iraq was a threat either have an agenda their manifesting or they have chicken-little syndrome.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"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. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Politics (Words of Mass Destruction)

I see a whole lot of ******s........all with D's by their names.......so that must make you a ***** too........

btw boy, why dont we sit down a talk about the threat Saddam and his military was.....it may of only been a 100 hours for ******s like you that was sitting on your fat *** while real men like me were fighting in 90 plus degree heat....with lead flying all over the place.......

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Cold Dirt:
I see a whole lot of ******s........all with D's by their names.......so that must make you a ***** too........

btw boy, why dont we sit down a talk about the threat Saddam and his military was.....it may of only been a 100 hours for ******s like you that was sitting on your fat *** while real men like me were fighting in 90 plus degree heat....with lead flying all over the place.......

Sorry to take the wind out of your sails CD, but I'm not a Democrat!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You've been saying all along the intelligence agencies all thought the same thing. This clearly indicates that they didn't!

I said that in regards to the WMD intel, not the AQ/Saddam links.

Strange how you try to use something as proof that the government went out of their way to issue a disclaimer about when they released this information.

The Administration won't even say whether this is authentic or not, TOT. What do you know that they don't?

Ya DOCEX confirms the Feith memo.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Ya DOCEX confirms the Feith memo.

Ya, it confirmed a fraud!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ya, it confirmed a fraud!

No it comfirmed the Saddam AQ collaborative relationship.

Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show

By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 24, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt - A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show - March 24, 2006 - The New York Sun

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
No it comfirmed the Saddam AQ collaborative relationship.

Not according to the official government findings...

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE ON POST WAR FINDINGS ABOUT
IRAQ'S WMD PROGRAM AND LINKS TO TERRORISM AND
HOW THEY COMPARE WITH PREWAR ASSESSMENTS
September 8, 2006

B. Misstating and Manipulating the Intelligence to Justify Preemptive War

Links to September 11 and al Qaeda

Our investigation has found that President Bush and members of his Administration made numerous false statements regarding linkages between Iraq and the September 11 attacks, and also may have sought to manipulate intelligence to support these statements. This includes misstatements concerning general linkages between Iraq and al Qaeda; an alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence officials; and allegations that Iraq was training al Qaeda members to use chemical and biological weapons. With regard to general linkages between Iraq and al Qaeda, members of the Bush Administration ignored at least five separate reports from within their own Administration, including:

- a report shortly after September 11 prepared by Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke finding no connection with Iraq that was “bounced back,” with his superiors saying “wrong answer . . .. Do it again.”

- a September 21, 2001 classified intelligence 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.”

• a June 21, 2002 CIA report which found “no conclusive evidence of cooperation on specific terrorist operations. ”
• the October 2002 NIE, which gave a“Low Confidence” rating to the notion of “whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with Al Qa ’ida.”
• a January, 2003 CIA report that the “Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida strike. ” Given this record, it is particularly hard to justify Administration statements such as Secretary Rumsfeld’s September 22, 2002 claim that he had “bulletproof” evidence of ties between Saddam and al Qaeda.

The evidence that members of the Bush Administration sought to manipulate and pressure intelligence officials on this linkage includes Deputy Director of the CIA Richard Kerr’s report that people at the CIA have stated they have been “pushed too hard” on this point and felt “too much pressure; a CIA ombudsman who reported unprecedented “hammering” on this issue; an FBI official who stated that the “Bush administration...was misleading the public in implying there was a close connection between Iraq and al Qaeda” and former CIA Agent Paul Pillar ’s statement that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions that had been already made.”

What do you have to say to this?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Not according to the official government findings...What do you have to say to this?

The Senate Report is a load of sh!t and you ought to read the dissenting opinions, so I say this:

"This second report in a series of reports coming from a second round investigation into Iraq prewar intelligence comes at a critical juncture. Yet rather than attempt to improve our efforts to combat terrorism and make our country safer, the results of the investiation were calculated to promote a partisan agenda.

For the past two years, rather than pursue our oversight role to ensure that some of the key findings and recommendations of these reports and others were enacted, this committee’s usefulness as an oversight body and as a key element in our national security apparatus has been consumed by a rear-view mirror investigation pursued for political ends.

Simply stated this second series of reports is designed to point fingers in Washington and at the Administration. The conclusions in the reports were crafted with more partisan bias than we have witnessed in a long time in Congress. The “Phase II” investigation has turned the Senate Intelligence Committee, a committee initially designed to be the most bipartisan committee in the Senate, into a political playground stripped of its bipartisan power."

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/documents/iraq_intel060908.pdf

And this:

How Bad Is the Senate
Intelligence Report?




very bad.
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/25/2006, Volume 012, Issue 02

According to a report released September 8 by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Saddam Hussein "was resistant to cooperating with al Qaeda or any other Islamist groups." It's an odd claim. Saddam Hussein's regime has a long and well-documented history of cooperating with Islamists, including al Qaeda and its affiliates.

As early as 1982, the Iraqi regime was openly supporting, training, and funding the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization opposed to the secular regime of Hafez Assad. For years, Saddam Hussein cultivated warm relations with Hassan al-Turabi, the Islamist who was the de facto leader of the Sudanese terrorist state, and a man Bill Clinton described as "a buddy of [Osama] bin Laden's."

How Bad Is the Senate <br>Intelligence Report?

 

[PrimBabUB]

So all that pre-invasion hype was a lie after all.

I love the way you liberals cherry-pick your agendas. What's the big whoop? You people are all about saving the down trodden aren't you? You are all about saving the world against Tyrants aren't you? Can you deney that 80% of the country was down trodden by Saddam? But of course it doesn't fit your agenda does it? Why don't you give us a list of who you think needs to be saved first and why?

 

[Stinger]

Strange that Hussein would want to help a terrorist organization dedicated to bringing his type of Govt down.

You can think it strange all you want, Saddam was supporting the furthering of those contacts with terrorist groups.

Oh yes, the great urgent perfume sprayer threat posed by Iraq.

By terrorist groups who could use them in attacks on us or the EU country's. Strange you make light of it.

"The chemical section reports that the M16 Directorate "had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in rifle grenades and a plan to bottle sarin and sulfur mustard in perfume sprayers and medicine bottles which they would ship to the United States and Europe." Are we to believe this plan existed because they liked us? Or did they wish to do us harm? The major threat posed by Iraq, in my opinion, was the support it gave to terrorists in general, and its own terrorist activity."

The ISG was also told that "ricin was being developed into stable liquid to deliver as an aerosol" in various munitions. Such development was not just for assassination. If Iraq was successful in developing an aerosolizable ricin, it made a significant step forward. The development had to be for terrorist delivery. Even on a small scale this must be considered as a WMD.
Biological agents, delivered on a small scale (terrorist delivery) can maim or kill a large number of people. The Iraqi Intelligence organizations had a history of conducting tests on humans with chemical and biological substances that went beyond assassination studies. While many of these were in the 1970s and 1980s, multiple documents and testimony indicate that such testing continued through the 1990s and into the next millennium, perhaps as late as 2002. Do we wait until such weapons are used against our domestic population before we act? Is that the way that some people wish to have the U.S. protected from terrorist activity?HAVE WAR CRITICS EVEN READ THE DUELFER REPORT? - Richard O. Spertzel - Benador Associates



So do you think they were developing these things for the battlefield?

 

[EAGLE1]

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Politics (Words of Mass Destruction)

I see a whole lot of ******s........all with D's by their names.......so that must make you a ***** too........

btw boy, why dont we sit down a talk about the threat Saddam and his military was.....it may of only been a 100 hours for ******s like you that was sitting on your fat *** while real men like me were fighting in 90 plus degree heat....with lead flying all over the place.......

Haw haw haw... a real man like you? You're not the only one here who went to Iraq.

 

[tryreading]

The Senate Report is a load of sh!t and you ought to read the dissenting opinions, so I say this:



And this:



How Bad Is the Senate
Intelligence Report?




very bad.
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/25/2006, Volume 012, Issue 02

According to a report released September 8 by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Saddam Hussein "was resistant to cooperating with al Qaeda or any other Islamist groups." It's an odd claim. Saddam Hussein's regime has a long and well-documented history of cooperating with Islamists, including al Qaeda and its affiliates.

As early as 1982, the Iraqi regime was openly supporting, training, and funding the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization opposed to the secular regime of Hafez Assad. For years, Saddam Hussein cultivated warm relations with Hassan al-Turabi, the Islamist who was the de facto leader of the Sudanese terrorist state, and a man Bill Clinton described as "a buddy of [Osama] bin Laden's."

How Bad Is the Senate <br>Intelligence Report?

(my emphasis)

Saddam Hussein had another buddy in 1982, the US President. Ronald Reagan supported Hussein militarily and financially in his war against Iran. He also took Hussein's Iraq off our list of terrorist nations. We continued to support him even we knew he used chemical weapons on the Kurds, and on the Iranians.

We had supported Hussein for about 3 decades before the elder President Bush decided he didn't want to any more due to potential oil-flow problems.

Carter wanted Hussein to attack Iran. Reagan backed Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld was all handshakes and smiles when he visited with Aziz during the war, and assured Iraq that we backed them even though publicly we had critized the use of chemical weapons. I'm sure Rumsfeld must have had his fingers crossed though.

Let's discuss the full history of our interaction with Hussein, and not just go back to the 80's, a time convenient for you to talk about.

 

[cherokee]

You know a lot better than I do that the recruiting standards have been relaxed to the point where certain types of people, who would not normally qualify to be admitted, are in uniform. Those in uniform that commit atrocities are criminals. If they were not in uniform, they'd still be committing atrocities. Because that's the kind of people they are.

I'm also on record saying the majority of troops do their very difficult job as professionally as they can, given the circumstances. I'm also on record saying that I support them by wanting them the hell out of there [Iraq]. I want them out of harms way. I want this war to stop now. I do not believe the bullshit coming out of Washington. This is Bush's war. Not the troops war. They did not decide to go to Iraq. Bush did.

And for that, yes, I'd like to see his a.s.s impeached. Our standing around the world would improve if we impeached him. The chances of people getting their heads chopped off would decrease if he was impeached. If we want to properly fight the bullshit war on terror, then we should impeach the President and Vice-President, then charge them both with war crimes and turn them over to an International Court of Law. At which point, this country would re-assume it's position as a great nation once again.

Here we go. I knew you wouldn’t be able to resist. I have no problem when you rant against Bush. Hell I'll don’t like the man. But face it billo your rants and those of other anti bush’s all most always transcends into the "Troops are committing Atrocities". Because a few people broke the means doesn’t mean ALL of them did or all of them are.
Do you know the backgrounds of those have committed any crimes in Iraq?

We show the world what we are made of when we prosecute our own for committing crimes. You know as well as I do nothing we do except convert to Islam is the only thing that would change our standing in the Muslim world but even then it would depend on which sect.

MY BOTTOM LINE FOR ALL OF YOU IS THIS

If you hate bush…FINE I DON’T CARE.
You wish to charge him with war crimes.. FINE I DON’T CARE.
You wish to expose all of his mistakes for history to record. FINE I DON’T CARE.

What I do care about is when any one goes from anti bush to anti troop.

 

[tryreading]

No it comfirmed the Saddam AQ collaborative relationship.

The Senate Intelligence Committee found no evidence of Hussein/Al Queda collaboration. Neither did the 911 Commission:

In 2004, the 9/11 Commission, also known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, found that there was no evidence "of a collaborative relationship between Saddam [Hussein] and Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror organization before the US invasion."

...


If you think your little brother took the last cookie, facts won't get in the way of your conclusion:

Feith's office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," according to portions of the report, released [Thursday] by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.).

...


These guys are good. They know you keep one set of books to show the IRS, one for your own use so you can see your real profits, and one in case your partner gets nosy:

Feith's unit gave three different briefings on its findings, according to Edelman's response. The one for Rumsfeld, in August 2002, cited "one indication of Iraqi coordination with al-Qaeda specifically related to 9/11." One the same month for senior CIA officials cited "one possible indication of Iraqi coordination with Al Qaeda specifically related to 9/11." The third version, given to the White House in September 2002, cited "some indications of possible Iraqi coordination with Al Qaeda specifically related to 9/11."
...

Sometimes you have to outright make it up as you go:

McClatchy also reports that Feith's unit cited as one of its strongest piece of evidence of this relationship "a purported April 2001 meeting in the Czech capital of Prague between a senior Iraqi intelligence officer and Mohammed Atta, who led the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon several months later." The CIA and the FBI later concluded that the meeting never took place...

Pentagon: Prewar intel on Al Qaeda-Hussein link not illegal but 'dubious' | csmonitor.com

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The Senate Intelligence Committee found no evidence of Hussein/Al Queda collaboration. Neither did the 911 Commission

Nor did the US Intel Community.

It seems it was just folks like TOT and Stinger who hav been astute enough to find such a relationship.
I have advised several such folks to contact the USIC with their groundbreaking info that's vital to US natl security.
Somehow, the USIC hasn't gotten wind of the important discoveries these folks made on the internets.
Unless the USIC is a part of the Vast-Left Wing Conspiracy TM and they want Hussein back in power because they hate Bush soooo much.

I'm not sure if you can convince some folks that they don't know more about the GWoT than the USIC.​

 

[Stinger]

(my emphasis)

Saddam Hussein had another buddy in 1982, the US President. Ronald Reagan supported Hussein militarily and financially in his war against Iran.

We supported both sides of the Iraq/Iran war, we wanted it to end with no one being the victor.

 

[Stinger]

Nor did the US Intel Community.

It seems it was just folks like TOT and Stinger who hav been astute enough to find such a relationship.

Do you people know the difference between contacts and collaborations? Where have I or TOT claimed a collaborative relationship.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Do you people know the difference between contacts and collaborations? Where have I or TOT claimed a collaborative relationship.

For starters, about ten posts ago in this very thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...confirm-downing-street-memo-4.html#post486439

No it comfirmed the Saddam AQ collaborative relationship.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

(my emphasis)

Saddam Hussein had another buddy in 1982, the US President. Ronald Reagan supported Hussein militarily and financially in his war against Iran. He also took Hussein's Iraq off our list of terrorist nations. We continued to support him even we knew he used chemical weapons on the Kurds, and on the Iranians.

We had supported Hussein for about 3 decades before the elder President Bush decided he didn't want to any more due to potential oil-flow problems.

Carter wanted Hussein to attack Iran. Reagan backed Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld was all handshakes and smiles when he visited with Aziz during the war, and assured Iraq that we backed them even though publicly we had critized the use of chemical weapons. I'm sure Rumsfeld must have had his fingers crossed though.

Let's discuss the full history of our interaction with Hussein, and not just go back to the 80's, a time convenient for you to talk about.

Ya let's, we supplied .5% of foreign weapons to Saddam between 1973 and 1990 mostly consisting of dual use equipment that was converted for military use after we sold it to him, the bulk of his weapons were supplied by the Soviets and the French.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The Senate Intelligence Committee found no evidence of Hussein/Al Queda collaboration. Neither did the 911 Commission:

That report is bullshit, read the dissenting opinions contained therin:

"This second report in a series of reports coming from a second round investigation into Iraq prewar intelligence comes at a critical juncture. Yet rather than attempt to improve our efforts to combat terrorism and make our country safer, the results of the investiation were calculated to promote a partisan agenda.

For the past two years, rather than pursue our oversight role to ensure that some of the key findings and recommendations of these reports and others were enacted, this committee’s usefulness as an oversight body and as a key element in our national security apparatus has been consumed by a rear-view mirror investigation pursued for political ends.

Simply stated this second series of reports is designed to point fingers in Washington and at the Administration. The conclusions in the reports were crafted with more partisan bias than we have witnessed in a long time in Congress. The “Phase II” investigation has turned the Senate Intelligence Committee, a committee initially designed to be the most bipartisan committee in the Senate, into a political playground stripped of its bipartisan power."

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/intera...ntel060908.pdf

 

[Stinger]

For starters, about ten posts ago in this very thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...confirm-downing-street-memo-4.html#post486439

Then TOT will have to speak for himself, the article misuses the term collaborative with cooperative. And the heading is misleading as in the article itself it states

"While the commission detailed some contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, in Sudan and Afghanistan, the newly declassified Iraqi documents provide more detail than the commission disclosed in its final conclusions. For example, the fact that Saddam broadcast the ser mons of al-Ouda at bin Laden's request was previously unknown, as was a conversation about possible collaboration on attacks against Saudi Arabia."

Which we know they were exploring.

"Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden."

That's cooperation not collaboration on a specific plot, not yet.

But that was one reason the Clinton administration made it the policy of the country to remove him, he just failed at it.

So let's be clear, I have not claimed their had been collaborated actions. We don't have evidence that they ever engaged in a terrorist action together. But then we don't know everything.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stinger:
"Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden."

That's cooperation not collaboration on a specific plot, not yet.

That wouldn't be the report when UBL asked the Saudi's if they would like for him to "take out" Saddam Hussein?

That was the last communication UBL had with the Saudi's.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
That report is bullshit, read the dissenting opinions contained therin:

All the reports indicate you are FOS!

Pre-war intelligence gathering under fire
By Julian E. Barnes, Times Staff Writer
2:29 PM PST, February 9, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats assailed Pentagon officials today for insisting to the White House in the months before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein had direct links to Al Qaeda — despite doubts within the U.S. intelligence community.

Defense Department Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble told the lawmakers that he questioned Douglas J. Feith, the influential former undersecretary, about the incident.

Feith was a prime architect of Bush administration policies and presented policymakers with allegations of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda that did not accurately reflect the views of U.S. intelligence agencies.

"He said it was left out because it was critical of the intelligence community," Gimble said.

"It's damn suspicious to me," said Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.). "You're telling the CIA — you're giving them an assessment that disagrees in a number of respects with theirs, but leave out a slide that says that you have fundamental problems with how the intelligence community is assessing information…. You remove it when you're talking to the CIA and then you reinsert it when you present this same assessment to the White House. That's mighty bloody suspicious."

So drop this bogus argument! You don't have a leg to stand on. You're just lying to the world. But I'm not surprised. Irresponsible people say irresponsible things.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Ya let's, we supplied .5% of foreign weapons to Saddam between 1973 and 1990 mostly consisting of dual use equipment that was converted for military use after we sold it to him, the bulk of his weapons were supplied by the Soviets and the French.

.5% of what? Our total arms export? Were the biggest arms dealer in the world. Over $400 million per year!