*Bumped to the top* Newer posts below.
Don’t let the sensationalist headlines fool you.
John at Powerline and Curt at Flopping Aces explain what the story is really about.
Here’s more via Captain Ed.
PM Update I: Scott Malensek rips the media a new one for their faulty reporting on this story. Consider it a must-read.
PM Update II and Bump: The WaPo has issued a major correction on this story:
A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general’s report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith’s office producing “reporting of dubious quality or reliability” and that the office “was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda” were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith’s office drew on “both reliable and unreliable reporting” to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq “that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration” were also from Levin’s report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith’s office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general’s report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith’s office: Levin’s report refers to an “alternative intelligence assessment process” developed in that office, while the inspector general’s report states that the office “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.” The inspector general’s report further states that Feith’s briefing to the White House in 2002 “undercuts the Intelligence Community” and “did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence.”
Allah sums it up:
Got that? The big scoop was that the Pentagon itself had concluded that Feith floated bogus intel on the links between Iraq and AQ and suggested that he’d done so at Bush/Cheney’s behest. Except the Pentagon didn’t conclude that. Anti-war Democrat Carl Levin did. The only damning quote from the IG report that doesn’t appear to have been retracted is this:
It stated that the office produced intelligence assessments “inconsistent” with the U.S. intelligence community consensus, calling those actions “inappropriate” because the assessments purported to be “intelligence products” but were far more conclusive than the consensus view…
The policy office, the summary stated, “was inappropriately performing Intelligence Activities . . . that should be performed by the Intelligence Community.”
And yet, per the Times: “According to Congressional officials [who’d read the report], Mr. Feith’s statement and the policy office’s rebuttal, the report concluded that none of the Pentagon’s activities were illegal and that they did not violate Defense Department directives.” In which case … whence the impropriety? He conducted his own investigation and came to a different conclusion than the CIA. Like Captain Ed says, I thought the left liked dissent.
So how’d they blow it so bigtime? Blame Levin. Says the Times:
Working under Douglas J. Feith, who at the time was under secretary of defense for policy, the group “developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers,” the report concluded. Excerpts were quoted by Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who has long been critical of Mr. Feith and other Pentagon officials.
He must have held a conference call and inadvertently read to them out of his own office’s report, not the IG’s. Sweet, sweet justice for the leakhive.
Sweet justice for the leakhive, but too bad the ‘impression’ has already been left by the WaPo’s (and others) bogus reporting on this “issue.” Score another one for the MSM’s disinformation campaign.
(Originally posted 8:44 a.m.)
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/9/2007 - 9:02 am
Uncalled for, PCD. –ST
Comment by PCD @ 2/9/2007 - 9:38 am
Edited. –ST
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/9/2007 - 10:04 am
tommy, if the email address you use when you post is a valid one, I need you to check it, please.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/9/2007 - 10:16 am
I think what is improper is the constant denial of the reasons we went into Iraq being spinned into the stupidity that the left try to say it was. We went into Iraq for a multitude of reason, but leftists only ever bring up 1 of them, WMDs. They virtually cheered when supposedly we didn’t find WMDs. They ignore, the facts that he had them and he wanted them. He had programs and scientists in place, he used them to end the Iran/Iraq war. He sent his top Atomic scientists to Niger on a fact finding mission. All he needed was the sanctions dropped, and he would of started working on a Nuke. Now good lefties want to ignore these obvious signs, thankfully President Bush didn’t. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 2/9/2007 - 1:27 pm
Why is it ST that almost anytime a totally justified criticism about the incompentent 43 Admin reveals itself
tommy, can youse please define “justified”??
It seems that as long as YOU agree with the opinion, it’s ok to write about. However, if you disagree with the opinion being aired it’s “seige mentality”. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about anything. I wouldn’t pat myself on the back too hard about the American people not buying anything. Congress approval rating is not much higher than the presidents.
Comment by NC Cop @ 2/9/2007 - 2:26 pm
NC wrote, “tommy, can youse please define “justified”??
It’s the truth as tommy sees it. There are no simple disagreements for tommy. It MUST be that the pres is “incompetent” or doing something “illegal” to leftists like tommy. Why? Because he is LAZY. He’d rather accuse with no basis in truth then share how he disagrees with a policy.
We here can state up and down how we disagree with Bush because we have perspective. For liberals they seem to be incapable.
BTW Tommy - a leader not following opinion polls is the mark of a good leader. I know you love Clinton but he had his wet finger in the air ALL the time. He would not have stood tall this length of time as Bush has done. Call it arrogance if you wish as most liberals do but in this day in age during the GWOT we NEED a leader to withstand the assault by terrorists and leftists. Leftists attack terrorists surveillance, SWIFT and a whole host of needed programs during this war and why? Because many leftists have said they think this war is overhyped and not needed anymore and that we only need focus on bin laden. I disagree. And I’m glad Bush does also. Most conservatives would ACTUALLY like to see an even TOUGHER GWOT than Bush is waging. Bush is in the middle as always.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/9/2007 - 2:42 pm
One more thing:
Abraham Lincoln stood tall in the face of opposition also. He was viciously attacked and his opposition ran deep. The Emancipation Proclamation was not popular.
As far as Presidents go he was one of the greatest and he stood tall against the long standing opposition. He lost LARGE numbers of Representatives in the House in a mid year election and continued to stand tall for what he thought was right.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/9/2007 - 3:01 pm
An excerpt from Answers.com about Abraham Lincoln:
Comment by Baklava @ 2/9/2007 - 3:10 pm
From this link:
Historian Allen C. Guelzo wrote: “If anything we underestimate the political courage it took for Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation and then stand behind it. Six weeks after he gave his hundred-days’ warning, the midterm congressional elections dumped 45 Republicans from their seats in the House of Representatives.
Sorry to go off topic ST. tommy has talked about the polls 100 times I think. As if that matters to what is right or wrong.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/9/2007 - 3:13 pm
Tell you what guys let me give you this statement …….,,,,,On Feb 16,1992 Dick Cheney then secratary of defense,told the BBC why we had not pressed on to Baghdad: “If we’d gone to Baghdad and got rid of Saddam Hussein-assuming we could have found him-we’dhave had to put a lot of forces in and run him into the ground someplace.He would not have been easy to capture. Then you’ve got to put a new government in his place and then you’re faced with the question of what kind of governmentare you going to establish in Iraq?Is it going to be a Kurdish government or a Shiite government or a Sunni government? How many forces forces are you going to leave there to keep it propped up,how many casualties are you going to take through the course of this operation” Okay Dick how many? Everything he said that day was the truth do we all agree on that one OK. So what I’m wondering is what changed all of sudden in March 2003? Now look where we are…….. stuck in the middle of chaos. If you don’t understand where I’m coming from then there really isn’t much else I can say. Peace out
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/9/2007 - 3:36 pm
As usual tommy, you neglect to notice that the world is a very different place post 9/11. In 92 we were still possessed of the fallacious viewpoint that we could contain this problem, after 9/11 that option was proven invalid.
Comment by Severian @ 2/9/2007 - 3:39 pm
Well Sev Saddam Hussein and the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 WERE different sets on enemies this pre-emptive war against Iraq is draining money,personnel and resources against Al-Queda IMHO you may not agree but that’s how I see it.
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/9/2007 - 3:48 pm
Tommy pulled a pre 9/11 quote for some reason. Don’t know why. It is irrelevant to what we all (or most of us) learned on 9/11.
Tommy conveniently forgot about the 14 month long “rush” to war by stating, “OK. So what I’m wondering is what changed all of sudden in March 2003?”
9/11 happened. We are no longer going to sit and let terrorists have an infrastructure and build up and take it to our buildings. This GWOT is not just being waged militarily and it’s not just against bin laden. We are working globally on many fronts trying to dry up resources and infrastructure for terrorists.
Tommy wrote, “Now look where we are…….. stuck in the middle of chaos.”
WHICH BRINGS US TO TODAY’S Question tommy !!! Do we create a humanitarian crisis going forward by pulling out like you want to do or do we look for a solution for victory. Are you for victory tommy or are you against it? Do you KNOW what these guys want after establishing a middle east Islamic Caliphate. ANSWER that question above all else.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/9/2007 - 4:02 pm
Well first off Baklava there already is a humantarian crisis but I know what you are implying. In a lot of ways we did the Iranians a huge favor by taking their next door neighbors regimes which was hostile to them. So. Iraq is definitly an example of a very conservative Islamic society (example you find many women walking around Najaf NOT wearing a hijab) So in a way we are uniting shiite muslims together in Iraq and I ran. The Sunnis are preety nervous at the moment. They know if we leave the Iranian backed Shiite militias are going to on a rampage which honestly nobody really wants. The best way out of this is to cut a deal with the Iranians and the Syrians because they can be helpful in us seriously drawing down our forces. You’re biggest question about the caliphate is not one I’m taking very seriously because that’s not going to happen in my lifetime. The Arab world is too divided and greedy before Al-Queda ever grows into a political movement which actually threatenS the regimeS of the Gulf States,Jordan ,Egypt,etc. OK Dude look my train is coming so I’m blowing this Taco stand have a pleasant weekend everybody
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/9/2007 - 4:18 pm
tommy without regard to human history wrote, “Well first off Baklava there already is a humantarian crisis”
Millions were killed when we left Vietnam. Are you prepared for that? Are there consequences to actions that we regret? Yes. Should we LEARN from history? Yes.
I give tommy a small break because he then wrote, “but I know what you are implying.”
Whew !! I got through one time.
Tommy funnily wrote, “You’re biggest question about the caliphate is not one I’m taking very seriously because that’s not going to happen in my lifetime.”
It would happen in a few years if we left Iraq in an unstable state. Your solution would speed it up to be in your lifetime… So - I disagree with your solution. And may the force be with Bush and his leadership stay strong.
God Bless Abraham Lincoln, and Bush.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/9/2007 - 4:23 pm
Tommy shows the true liberal mentality…everything is about how it affects meeeeee:
You’re (sic) biggest question about the caliphate is not one I’m taking very seriously because that’s not going to happen in my lifetime.
On that, two points: first - so you don’t mind if it happens to your children? Are you that self-centered?
No less true today than it was when he said it.
If it’s all the same to you, tommy, the rest of us would prefer to have a spine.
The second point - since you’re not worried about anything that won’t happen in your lifetime, I challenge you to go tell Bob and the rest of your left-wing buddies to shut their pie-holes about global warming, since that wouldn’t affect you either, even if it were true.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 2/9/2007 - 10:11 pm
tommy uses public opinion polls as his reason for bowing down to the islamofascists:
Problem for youse guys is that the American public ain’t buying it anymore.
Which calls to mind this quote:
As I recall, Churchill is also credited with saying that the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. (yes, I know, I’m going bonkers with the quotes tonight.
) Every time I hear someone cite polls as a reason for doing something, I’m reminded of one on-camera polling interview I saw a few years back. The pollster asked a young lady in her early 20’s if she knew the war in which George Washington fought. Her answer: World War I. Not too coincidentally, she also was voting Democrat.
Bak, thanks for the excellent, spot-on reminder of the Lincoln presidency, and how it’s important to be a leader in dangerous times, not a finger-in-the-wind poll-driven politician.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 2/9/2007 - 10:36 pm
YW GWR
Comment by Baklava @ 2/9/2007 - 11:26 pm
HOLY CRAP ST. Thanks for the update.
I didn’t hear it from the drive-by legacy press. Might as well say I get my news from ST.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/10/2007 - 12:02 am
tommy raised an excellent point with the ‘92 Cheney post, and the responses that he got seem to me to be utterly devoid of reason.
In what way did 9/11 change the relevance or truth of any of the specific points that Cheney made in that passage? How did 9/11 change the fact that it would be hard to find Saddam, once we went in. How did 9/11 change the fact that we would be left with trying to set up a government. How did 9/11 change the fact underlying reality that Cheney seems to have been alluding to - that Iraq could well end up a chaotic mess with us as the responsible power, if we were to invade.
And of course, how can anyone believe today that an invasion of Iraq would yield any significant headway in the war against al-Q or islamist jihadis? Creating a failed chaotic state where al-Q elements can come in and operate with a fair amount of freedom is, objectivly, a step backward in the greater war on terrorism.
I get the sense that people here are far more intent on trading one-liners, and “winning” arguments against visiting dissenters than they are with taking these critical issues seriously.
Comment by Tano @ 2/10/2007 - 12:23 am
Tano seems to have overlooked some recent history:
In what way did 9/11 change the relevance or truth of any of the specific points that Cheney made in that passage?
Start with nine years of escalating terrorist attacks, culminating in one horrific day which showed that we could be attacked effectively right here at home, by thugs armed with nothing more than box cutters. That might not have been a wake-up call for Tano, but it was for most of us.
We know Saddam was helping to finance terrorists. He was letting AQ train on Iraqi soil. We know he was intent on acquiring yellowcake, and did in fact have some poison gas and other WMDs. So let’s connect the dots. The probability that he would make some very advanced and lethal armaments available to AQ was high.
What changed, then, is that we understood that we no longer had the luxury of treating terrorism as an annoyance, as we did pre-9/11. It isn’t that anything Cheney said was less true - it was that we could not longer accept the likely consequences of doing nothing.
Tano stays in the cocoon:
how can anyone believe today that an invasion of Iraq would yield any significant headway in the war against al-Q or islamist jihadis?
For one thing, I think it’s a pretty sure bet Saddam won’t be helping AQ train or providing them sanctuary. A long rope took care of that. For another, it’s become the focus of the WOT for the islamofascists. They understand the impact of a relatively free and democratic Iraq, even if you don’t. That’s why they’re going all in to win there, and that’s fine with me. It makes for a nice target-rich environment there. Personally, if we must be fighting AQ, I’d rather do it with marines in Baghdad than with firemen in New York. You’d prefer it the other way around?
Creating a failed chaotic state where al-Q elements can come in and operate with a fair amount of freedom is, objectivly, a step backward in the greater war on terrorism.
They were doing that beforehand. However, the interesting point is that you seem to have concluded that Iraq must become a failure. That’s not a certainty at all. You want to know what is a step backward in the WOT? Attempts by our own left to undermine the prosecution of the WOT. Nothing heartens the average jihadi more than when our leftists march and editorialize against it. Every time a Dick Durbin makes nonsensical Nazi charges against our troops solely for some partisan motives, AQ gets a little more resolve. They know their only hope of winning is to convince Americans to stop fighting and give up. And they know right where to go for help.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 2/10/2007 - 2:12 am
GWR wrote, “We know Saddam was helping to finance terrorists. He was letting AQ train on Iraqi soil. We know he was intent on acquiring yellowcake, and did in fact have some poison gas and other WMDs. ”
That’s not what the drive-by legacy press told me….
Comment by Baklava @ 2/10/2007 - 10:28 am
Good point Bak
, but that won’t stop GWR from believing. He’s still clinging to the long reputed assertions of the pre-war Bush Admin to make his point.
You see Tano, to some 9/11 is a justification for a War on Terror. Most take this to mean War in the sense of “War on Drugs” - metaphorical, not literal. A war to be fought using traditional international crime fighting techniques and limited police actions using military force.
So while Bin Laden- the responsible party - still goes un-punished, we flush billions of dollars and thousands more lives down the toilet in our misadventures in Iraq. We’ve created a huge problem that we didn’t have pre-9/11, and Al-Qaeda- our real enemy - only benefits from this. GWR’s idea that somehow using Iraq as the world’s battleground to fight terrorist is ridiculous on it’s face. This fantasy must assume there are a limited reservoir of potential terrorists. As if we can just drain it and go home!
By GWR’s justification for war on Iraq, there are a few other countries that should also be on the list. Pakistan, anyone?
9/11 was perpetrated by “thugs armed with nothing more than box cutters”. Our response? Send our armies around the world to topple an annoying dictator with no real ties to the people responsible for the attack on our country. Then claim this is somehow helping the WOT. So while GWR plays connect-the-dots, we mortgage our future in a war where even the best realistic outcome would have no upside for us.
Comment by tom @ 2/10/2007 - 11:51 am
Actually the genius of the war on Iraq is that a place has been created where AQ and so many others have come to kill Americans that is on their soil not ours. In essense, we brought the attack to the enemy and it is staying on their soil. Our military who is trained to fight this enemy is doing what they are trained to do. Our civilians have been kept safe as the attention and resources of our enemy has been in fighting our military. That my friends is genius.
As far as Dick Cheney’s quote, you forget one thing, at that time he was Def Sec, he is doing his job which is to parrot the administration he was working under. It was the policy of the 1st Bush president to not confront Sadamn then, as it still is now. But that might not be how Cheney honestly feels, so Tommy your quote is actually of no value to the argument. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 2/10/2007 - 12:34 pm
Regarding the Cheney quote, I would add that at the time, the goal of the coalition forces was to remove Hussein from Kuwait. I would imagine, as I’ve no inside sources, that their planning only went that far and that they were not equipped or prepared for an overthrow of Hussein at that time. Thus, the Cheney comments were accurate.
Comment by Marshall Art @ 2/10/2007 - 2:05 pm
Tom with reading comprehension issues wrote, “He’s still clinging to the long reputed assertions of the pre-war Bush Admin to make his point.”
Can you point to an assertion made recently that has been found to be false? No. Bush has on the contrary referred to the intelligence being inaccurate MANY times. The left has instead of being ‘giving’ has gone on the attack making charges that the Bush admin ‘cooked’ the intelligence or ‘manipulated’ the intelligence also. There has been no basis for the charges.
Why not simply just say you disagreed with going to war? Why with the ugly baseless charges during a war time? It’s horrible what the left has done.
The hate emanating through your posts is quite astounding. Do you want dialog or do you want attack (on your part) and defend on our part? It’s useless as we’ve seen with your types before. We point out the pattern and it doesn’t change for weeks and weeks and weeks. And it’s uncalled for really. Laundry lists of accusations makes your world go around but not most people.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/10/2007 - 3:21 pm