home

Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lack of Iraq-al Qaida Connection

Murray Waas' latest article concerns a presidential briefing paper written 10 days after September 11, 2001 that says,"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."

The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

Waas' article is important for among other things, pointing out that the Administration, through Dick Cheney, was out to discredit the CIA. Waas writes that on one of Douglas Feith's reports, Cheney hand wrote in the margin:

"This is very good indeed … Encouraging … Not like the crap we are all so used to getting out of CIA."

As for the Administration's refusal to turn over the daily briefings, Waas reports:

On November 18, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said he planned to attach an amendment to the fiscal 2006 intelligence authorization bill that would require the Bush administration to give the Senate and House intelligence committees copies of PDBs for a three-year period. After Democrats and Republicans were unable to agree on language for the amendment, Kennedy said he would delay final action on the matter until Congress returns in December.

Let's hope Senator Kennedy sticks to his guns.

< Why is Russert Stonewalling on Matthews? | Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantanamo >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    "This is very good indeed … Encouraging … Not like the crap we are all so used to getting out of CIA."
    Hmm... looks like someone just went and f*cked himself.

    Dick f*cked himself a long time ago. I will enjoy watching it all catch up to him. May he enjoy many moments of discomfort as the layers of deceit are peeled away.

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    ...but, but, but, this is outrageous...cough...splutter...this is...is...is... dishonest and reprehensible...it's not our fault... you f**ked up... you trusted us.

    I don't see the problem here. After all, hasn't congress already seen all the same intelligence the administration looked at?

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    et al - Let us review this with an unbiased eye. The CIA didn't have some information 10 days after 9/11. Now. What does that prove? That 1998 indictment of OBL, was still in existence and said in part:
    In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."


    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#6)
    by Punchy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    Wow, and I thought all these "intelligence memo" leaks were suspicious...It's now clear the CIA has gone to war against Cheney, and we'll be seeing a LOT more of these damning leaks in the future... To diss the CIA--especially after lying about motives for a war--has just sealed this Admin's fate. The intelligence community will bury these cockroaches, if Congress doesn't do it first...

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#7)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    Let us review this with an unbiased eye. In that case, you will have to step out into the hallway so we can do so. The CIA didn't have some information 10 days after 9/11. Now. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing about any connection between Saddam and AQ, even though the VP insisted that there was one. Have you figured out why they kept saying something that had no evidence to suggest it was true? Now, on the other hand, suppose there was a PDB that had a title something like, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside United States," accompanied by several dozen warnings over previous months about the use of aircraft as bombs, which were taken so seriously that security at a summit in Italy attended by the president was adjusted to deal with that exact threat. Would that be a good time to spend a month "clearing" carefully placed "brush?"

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    Repack - And your point is? You seem to forget that the previous administration had quite a bit to say about Iraq and terrorism, up to and including attacks against Iraq and that Congress had passed some laws, etc. None of these beliefs held were held in a vacuum. The information in the indictment alone would make Iraq highly suspect. Punchy - Why do you not display some dismay at the thought of a secret organization attacking an administration that was elected. Tell me, what happened to all those movies about the evil CIA attacking left wing governments... Have you given ten seconds thought as to how, in the future, it could well be the right attacking an administration? Do you really think letting something like this is good for the country?

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    1) Saying "he did it too!" is not a rebuttal, it is a non sequitur. 2) So Clinton started a war based on these lies? Clinton got up in front of the UN and used these lies to to start a war?

    An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lack of Iraq-al Qaida Connection This subject has truly been beaten to death. Everybody is hung up on the term "al Qaida "... There are scores of terrorists organizations out there. Right now al Qaida is a hot one... when I was younger, it was "Black September"....(and several lesser known ones that I can't remember right now)... what does it really matter? A terrorists is a terrorist no matter what group he aligns himself with. You all can argue an Iraqi connection till the cows come home...but the FACTS are: Saddam rewarded, harboured, trained, and otherwise backed numerous organizations... used weapons against his own people...tried to procure more deadlier ones..etc...etc. All this argueing about al Qaida is moot.

    Jim--Do you really believe the stuff you type here, or are you just trying to get a rise out of the rest of us?

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#12)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    Jim:
    Let us review this with an unbiased eye.
    Oh, man, that's priceless. Jim, Bush ignored the Clinton administration's warnings about bin Laden. BB, let us assume for a moment that your "facts" about Saddam are really established facts. Then (1) Why was Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with the man in 1986? (2) Substitute the name of any of many evil tyrants around the world for Saddam in your listing, and it is also true. So why pick on Saddam and ignore, say, the Burmese generals? They are just as related to the 9-11 attacks as Saddam is.

    BB, Aside from the fact that Saddam used weapons against his own people (I believe there is substantial credible evidence of this), please sight, in detail, your sources that prove Saddam rewarded, harbored, trained, and otherwise backed numerous organizations. Also sight, in detail, evidence that the numerous organizations he allegedly backed had anything to do with the events of September 11, 2001.

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    BB, I call BS, provide links. Besides, bushco is the one the constantly harping about iraq and AQ, so I really don't undertand your point. and besides "used weapons against his own people", we've used chemical weapons in iraq, against civilian areas. We have torture rooms in iraq. we have mercenaries (read terrorists for pay) in iraq.

    This subject has truly been beaten to death. Everybody is hung up on the term "al Qaida "... There are scores of terrorists organizations out there.
    Yes, but only one that orchestrated an attack against New York and Washington using airliners as weapons (a tactic no one could have foreseen). It was the leader of that one organization that someone promised to "bring to justice", "dead or alive". We were told that he could "run but he can't hide" and that he would be "smoked out". In 2002, when the wounds of 9/11 were still quite fresh in the American psyche, there was indeed a concerted effort by this administration to connect this one organization and its leader with a more convenient and desirable target, even though it was clear that this connection was bogus! Moot? No. It was deliberate deception.

    Al... (1) Why was Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with the man in 1986? Well, that was 20 years ago... During the Iraq / Iran war, we sided with Iraq. (the lesser of two evils at the time). We are now 'friends' with the republic of Viet Nam.... Japan... Germany.. etc..etc Things change! So why pick on Saddam and ignore, say, the Burmese generals? The Burmese generals aren't on record calling the USA their sworn enemy... They also aren't trying to get weapons to use against us. Burma isn't in the heart of the most troubled (volitile) region on the planet. They are just as related to the 9-11 attacks as Saddam is. Nobody EVER claimed Sadam was directly responsible for 9/11... When are you guys going to drop this tired old point? Going after Saddam was not about 9/11. macromaniac... please sight, in detail, your sources that prove Saddam rewarded, harbored, trained, and otherwise backed numerous organizations. I'm at work and can't do that right now...however I'm sure if you google, you can see the many examples. Saddam made no bones about (and never tried to hide that he was) sending money to the families of Palastinian suicide bombers. Didn't you ever watch the news? Several known terrorists where also found living in Bagdad. The main one I can remember off the top of my head is the guy that hijacked the Italian cruise ship(acilie lauro - sp?) in the 80's. sailor... Besides, bushco is the one the constantly harping about iraq and AQ, so I really don't undertand your point. As I said... call them what you want... they change their names every few years anyway. My point is there is (was) a link between Saddam & AQ, but most of you libs ignore it. we've used chemical weapons in iraq, against civilian areas. That is false ...and I see no link from you! Quaker... It was the leader of that one organization that someone promised to "bring to justice", "dead or alive". And that will happen. Have some patience. Do you have any idea how many people 'in this country' are on the run from the law? What makes you think finding someone in a cave thousands of miles from nowhere (sorrounded & protected by hundreds of 'friends') would be easy?

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    we've used chemical weapons in iraq, against civilian areas. "That is false ...and I see no link from you!" that's because there are several threads on this site already documenting it. see 'phosphorus', see 'fallujah', see 'napalm' but first see this!

    BB, I do watch the news but you made the statement in the comment section of this blog and did not support your claim with any facts. I did take it upon myself to Google for information and found this site detailing Saddam's involvement with terror and the events of 9/11. I also Googled to see if there was any information showing that Saddam did not have any involvement in the events of 9/11 and found this site. So, who is right?

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#19)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    (1) Why was Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with the man in 1986? Well, that was 20 years ago... During the Iraq / Iran war, we sided with Iraq. (the lesser of two evils at the time). We are now 'friends' with the republic of Viet Nam.... Japan... Germany.. etc..etc Things change!
    That's a far cry from the moral indignation about Saddam you were displaying before. Obviously, friendship between the US and Japan or Germany is based on the fact that the regimes that the US fought in those countries are long since gone, and replaced by democratic governments. If Hitler had triumphed in WW2, I would hope the US would not consider him a "friend". As for Vietnam, there is not much love lost between the two countries. Quite simply, the US was completely defeated militarily there. I wouldn't call that "friendship". The Burmese generals, like Saddam, persecute their own people. If you're goin to make a big deal out of that sort of thing, you have to be consistent. Several governments have no compunction in declaring their hatred for the US. That doesn't mean you should attack them and invade them. Imagine if the Soviet Union had decided to attack the US when Ronald Reagan called them "the evil empire". The question is not whether a foreign leader disses the US, but whether the country constitutes a real threat. And it is clear that Iraq did not, and the Administration had no reason to think they did.

    Sailor... that's because there are several threads on this site already documenting it. Yes...from left wing propoganda (hating the USA) sites. Look... there are civilian casulties in war...that's unavoidable... but you seem to think we purposely 'target' civilians and that's just BS! In fact, soldiers go out of their way (at great risk to themselves) to try & keep civilian casulties down... and I for one take great offense to people like you that claim our own sons & daughters are murderers!!!! macromaniac... Great 1st. post....as I siad... there is plenty of 'proof' out there. Saddam did reward and offer safe heaven to terrorist... that alone is reason to take him out! As far as your second post goes... the 9/11 commision had a political agenda and left many things (like the fact that Clinton knew & was warned) that there were 'questionable' people here attending flight schools.. But that is another subject that will come out over due time... Kennedy & those other lib blowhards have changed their tune to protect their asses now.. And I have plenty of links to back that up if you need them. As far as who's right.... the first link is closer to the truth... Al... but whether the country constitutes a real threat. And it is clear that Iraq did not, and the Administration had no reason to think they did. It's not clear just not true, and goes against the facts... It's easy now with 20/20 hindsite, but EVERYONE knew he had weapons...wanted to use them ..or at least sell them. You can continue to go around with your eyes closed and cite the Dem talking points..or you can open your eyes and face reality... Your leaders in the Dem party sure aren't...so I can understand why you wouldn't!

    With 20/20 hindsight, I now see that I should cite this Web site.
    cite / sight / site
    Cite is a verb. Cite means quote, or mention. Sight is a noun. Sight means seeing or ability to see. Site is a noun. Site means location.
    • A policeman will cite him for speeding if he doesn't slow down.
    • The soldier was cited for bravery.
    • The Parthenon is an awesome sight.
    • It was a beautiful sight.
    • Gettysburg, PA, is the site of a famous US Civil War battle.
    • This is the site where the new school will be built.


    Cymro, Thanks for the English lesson. I will make note of the error regarding my use of the word sight. However, I do believe that my use of site was correct. Still, I should know better. BB, I think you are missing my point. It seems that for every link, as evident in my previous post with references to contrasting Web sites, that someone attempts to make regarding Saddam and 9/11, there is other evidence that shows there was no link. The first Website I linked appeared a bit right of center and was researched and written by one person with one point of and potential for bias. The 9/11 commission was a panel of individuals investigating a link between Saddam (Iraq) and al-Qaida with direct access to credible and factual sources. Why is the first site any closer to the truth than the second site?

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    Yeah, foolish me, I responded to bb, who is just a troll and can't provide links for his bizarro view of lies (especially when the opposite is documented on video.)
    Look... there are civilian casulties in war
    No, YOU look at THIS! BTW, the "Yes...from left wing propoganda (hating the USA) sites." doesn't fly because there were wh.gov and defense.mil sites on the original posts.

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    Molly, NYC - I provided you with a quotation from an indictment issued by the Clinton administration on 11/04/98. Perhaps you can tell me why I should not beleive it? I mean besides the fact that if you believe it it blows up all your anti-war BS that Iraq and OBL weren't on the same page.

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#25)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    Clinton's actions against Iraq were motivate d by much the same logic that drove Bush. The only difference is that Clinton did not invade. Clinton's motivation was very simple, he did not want sanctions lifted. By 1998 there was evidence that Saddam had destroyed his weapons, in hopes of getting the sanctions lifted. Why did Saddam want the sanctions lifted and Clinton want them to remain in place? As almost everyone who has followed this closely knows, Saddam had signed long term contracts with China and Russia to refurbish the oil infrastructure. There was little progress and there would continue to be little as long as the sanctions were in place. Saddam's long term plan was to shift to Euros away from dollars. It was clear that Saddam was not going to sell oil to the US but to China, India etc. There was no way that Clinton, and Dem or Repub was going to let that happen. So when the scum Madelene Albright said that the deaths caused by the sanctions was a price that was well worth it, she of course was talking about the oil supply. You all should remember that Bush's doctrine is just the Carter doctrine on steroids and mescaline administered by idiots.

    Oh, good Lord...
    Molly, NYC - I provided you with a quotation from an indictment issued by the Clinton administration on 11/04/98. Perhaps you can tell me why I should not beleive it? I mean besides the fact that if you believe it it blows up all your anti-war BS that Iraq and OBL weren't on the same page.
    There is nothing in the world that will make you not believe it, PPJ. Nothing. I've never seen anyone this side of a Jehovah's Witness hold on to something so flimsy with such a white-knuckled grip in my entire life. The fact that we've not seen the first iota of evidence to substantiate that 7-year-old claim, especially in light of al Qaeda's activities since then, is enough for rational people to question its veracity. Even with an administration as thoroughly inept as the current, one would think that the CIA had access to whatever intelligence that line of the indictment referred to...yet 10 days after 9/11, the CIA could present no such information to the president. Can you at least bring yourself to please explain why the only evidence you can find linking Saddam to al Qaeda is that one line from a seven-year-old indictment and why you think the rational half of the planet should find that sufficient?

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#27)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    Sailor and ClayP PPJ does not care about the truth, never has never will. Evidence means nothing, facts mean nothing. his true goals are to disrupt discussion and bait people into over reacting. PPJ knwos were TL's line is and never crosses it. He continues to insult and lie, knowing that lying is not an offense here, not even chronic lying. At this point actually having a direct exchange with him is a complete waste of time. You need to come to the realization that people like him are not interested in honest exchange. You want to get under his skin, ignore him. Bullies don't like to be ignored.

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    Hey SD, you are 100% correct, but I would add that if PPJ didn't donate TL serious amounts of cash, he would be across the line and banned.

    macro, indeed your use of 'site' was correct -- 'hindsite' was contributed by another poster. Normally I would not say anything, but seeing all three words confused within the space of a few posts was just too much for my sensibility! Happy Thanksgiving!

    And I have read the stories, and I have heard people in the government who now continue to talk to me, talk about Curveball. I have also heard them talk about Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, whose story also, gained under other than Geneva Convention interrogation techniques, has now been recanted. That was the story that connected al-Qaeda and Baghdad very closely prewar. I have heard that story blown out of the water. Now I have heard the Curveball story blown out of the water. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson on Democracy Now

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    Speaking of early bush briefings: Secretary Powell 2001:
    The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained.


    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    Sailor - re Powell. Date?? Link?? SD - Welcome back! Where have you been? I do hope your health is okay. Now, tell us, what evidence do you have that the 11/4/98 indictment is wrong? BTW - I do love the attack mode you're in. Looks like the time off has filled your venom sac. ClayP - I offer you the same deal. If the indictment is wrong, show us, don't talk about them not pursuing... I'm sure it will be broken out when OBL is caught...assuming he isn't dead... BTW - Why do you always question your country...not the enemy?? Inquiring minds and all that.. or maybe you aren't US?? BTW - In our last go around I gave you several other examples... I'll toss in the fact that the 9/11 commission said they had contact.. Oh well, you will never believe.. macromaniac - Could you give us some links showing Saddam was not involved? (Mind you now, no Left wing blogs....) Al - O n e m o r e t i m e..... We provided help to Iraq because we wanted them, not us, to fight Iran. Said IRAN was intent in taking over the ME. It is called geopolitis.. It is called "An enemy of my enemy is my firend..." See WWII and US and Soviet alliance... See Afghanistan... See HISTORY. Read some. Educate yourself.

    JimakaPPJ, I did in an earlier post when I linked two contrasting Websites and posed the question as to which of the two was correct in their conclusions. But just in case you can't find it, here it is again. Last I checked MSNBC was not a left wing blog and neither was the bi partisan 9/11 commission.

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    macro - Actually I was looking for quotes that would refute the 11/4/98 indictment (see above) that ties the two together. Or quotes that would refute this:
    Conveniently, such analyses ignore statements like this one from Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Hard to believe reporters just missed it--he made the comments at the press conference held to release the commission's final report. And that report detailed several "friendly contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda,
    Or this:
    NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York City on Wednesday found Iraq among those liable for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and awarded nearly $104 million to the families of two men who died in the World Trade Center. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Harold Baer marked the first time that a court had pinned some blame for the attacks on Iraq.
    Or this:
    Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, a


    Jim, You didn't ask me for quotes to refute the 11/4/98 indictment you asked me for links showing that Saddam was not involved. I provided that link twice. What is it about the report from a bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002 that you don't like?

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#36)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    Jim:
    We provided help to Iraq because we wanted them, not us, to fight Iran. Said IRAN was intent in taking over the ME. It is called [sic] geopolitis.. It is called "An enemy of my enemy is my firend..." See WWII and US and Soviet alliance... See Afghanistan... See HISTORY. Read some. Educate yourself.
    No Jim, that's not geopolitics; it's mere hypocrisy. In the end, it backfires, because the US loses all credibility. I am perfectly aware of the history of the US dealing with the scum of the earth. Reagan, for example, called the Taliban "freedom fighters". If that wasn't sincere, why should anyone believe all the righteous indignation about them now? You and BB are saying that US foreign policy is guided purely by opportunistic motives. I believe it; I have always thought the US invaded Iraq for its oil, not to save the Iraqis from a ruthless tyrant. You can't have it both ways. For those of us who really believe in democracy and freedom, you're either with us or against us.

    So sayeth the PPJ:
    ClayP - I offer you the same deal. If the indictment is wrong, show us, don't talk about them not pursuing... I'm sure it will be broken out when OBL is caught...assuming he isn't dead... BTW - Why do you always question your country...not the enemy?? Inquiring minds and all that.. or maybe you aren't US?? BTW - In our last go around I gave you several other examples... I'll toss in the fact that the 9/11 commission said they had contact.. Oh well, you will never believe..
    There's a part of me that deeply wants to believe that you're deliberately playing an Archie Bunker -style caricature with this. Ask you a simple question and you spew off that ridiculously predictable "unpatriotic" rant. The thing is, I genuinely don't think you're stupid. The article about the summation of the 9/11 Commission Report, the link to which was kindly provided by macromaniac above, holds at least two interesting pieces of information about the specious assertions you keep making. Exhibit A:
    The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for “anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.” Bin Laden ceased that support in the early 1990s, opening the way for a meeting between the al-Qaida leader and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 in Sudan, the report said. At the meeting, bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded, the staff report said.
    emphasis mine Are you following, PPJ? Exhibit B:
    It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq." The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.”
    One more, buddy...and this is the good one. Exhibit C:
    Fred Fielding, a Republican member of the commission, prodded witnesses about their conclusion, citing a 1998 indictment of bin Laden that alleged links with the then-Iraqi leader. But U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald of Illinois said that while such claims were contained in the original indictment, they were dropped when later charges were filed.
    What's that? The assertions of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda in that 1998 indictment that you keep tossing out there as absolute evidence of that link were later removed from the charges? By the government itself? Gasp! Say it ain't so! As for your continual sermons about geopolitics and the wisdom of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policies...have you ever stopped to consider what the end cost of those policies has been? Let's review the Big Three Boogeymen from the past couple of decades: Noriega, Saddam and Osama bin Laden. "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" sure yielded positive results with those three, didn't it? Reading history, in and of itself, isn't enough PPJ. You have to think and put things into context. You're capable of it, you simply refuse to do so.

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    ClapP – Exhbit A contains a very large “qualifier.”
    but Iraq apparently never responded, the staff report said.
    Apparent: manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid.
    BTW – This is the staff who also ignored the AbleDanger info, Not exactly a recommendation. Also, Exibit B displays the same weasel words:
    do not appear
    to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied
    Worse, it relies on two terrorists for verification. Uh-huh. Sure. Do doubt. The commission staff’s comment gives pause when read in full and then digested: Link
    (Staff statement no. 15) Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.
    Analysis from link.
    Just taken on its own terms, this (staff’s) paragraph is both internally inconsistent and ambiguously worded. First, it cannot be true both that the Sudanese arranged contacts between Iraq and bin Laden and that no "ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq." If the first proposition is so, then the "[t]wo senior Bin Laden associates" who are the sources of the second are either lying or misinformed.
    We also have this from the linked article.
    That is, the staff is not saying al Qaeda and Iraq did cooperate — far from it. The staff seems to be saying: "they appear to have cooperated but we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that they worked in tandem on a specific terrorist attack, such as 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, or the embassy bombings."
    And then we have the CIA’s George Tenet in his 10/7/02 letter to Congress:
    Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. …We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.
    BTW – I guess the Demos have forgotten about this letter, or believe Bush dictated to Tenet what to say… Exhibit C is interesting. Shall we see what was actually said, and not use a secondary source?
    FITZGERALD: …I can tell you what led to that inclusion in that sealed indictment in May and then when we superseded, which meant we broadened the charges in the Fall, we dropped that language.
    Now note that he doesn’t say he doesn’t believe. He says the charges were broadened in the fall. Now let’s see why he didn’t say the charges weren’t true.
    We did understand from people, including al-Fadl -- and my recollection is that he would have described this most likely in public at the trial that we had, but I can't tell you that for sure; that was a few years ago -- that at a certain point they decided that they wouldn't work against each other and that we believed a fellow in al Qaeda named Mondu Saleem (ph), Abu Harzai (ph) the Iraqi, tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn't work against each other. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there -- which al Qaeda left in the summer of '96 or spring '96 -- there were efforts to work on joint -- you know, acquiring weapons. The clearest account from al-Fadl as a Sudanese was that he had dealt directly with the Sudanese intelligence service, so we had first-hand knowledge of that. We corroborated the relationship with Iran to a lesser extent but to a solid extent. And then we had information from al-Fadl, who we believe was truthful, learning from others that there were also was efforts to try to work with Iraq. That was the basis for what we put in that indictment. Clearly, we put Sudan in the first order at that time as being the partner of al Qaeda. We understood the relationship with Iran but Iraq, we understood, went from a position where they were working against each other to a standing down against each other. And we understood they were going to explore the possibility of working on weapons together.
    So I give you the point that the charges are no longer in the indictment. But I think the mountains of evidence that is still there proves the point. Saddam and OBL were involved with each other, and as such, Iraq is guilty of the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps this says it best.
    Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Hard to believe reporters just missed it--he made the comments at the press conference held to release the commission's final report. And that report detailed several "friendly contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda,
    .

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#39)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    let's see, bushco knew at the start there was no iraq/AQ collaboration; bush has said iraq had nothing to do with AQ; the 9/11 commission found there was no iraq/AQ collaboration. Next!

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    sailor - You can keep repeating that old wife's tale, but it won't make it true. Too much evidence, too much common sense... ClayP and Al - As for geopolitics, I would say that those tens of thousands American and English solders who did not have to invade Berlin because we had cut a deal with the USSR were happy that we practiced some geopolitics. Same for those who didn't have to stop Iran because we used Iraq. Same for those who didn't have to fight the Soviets because of our using the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan to help bleed the Soviets and win the Cold War.... Same for Iran where we used the Shah to deny the Soviets a warm water port and a way to sell their oil... You see, a fight, if avoided, is a life saved, although sometimes the fight can't be avoided. But you can try. As for the morality of it all, well I heard the Left for years tell us that we shouldn't practice "geopolitics" but always stand up for democracy, peace, freedom and the American Way. Well, guess what. We are now engaged in trying to do exactly what you wanted for years, and all I hear is complaints. Being stuffed from a Thanksgiving feast, I note that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Shouldn't you be supporting Bush?

    You can keep repeating that old wife's tale, but it won't make it true.
    I hereby proclaim PPJ to be His Royal Majesty, the King of Irony. Look, Jim...the 9/11 Commission Report implicitly states that there was no evidence of any "collaborative operational relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. Period. They elaborated:
    Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
    The brain-dead interpretation of that report by the National Review does not qualify as "evidence," nor does anything else in that metric sh*tload of ideologically-addled conjecture that you keep peddling on the subject. No doubt that you're entitled to your opinions, but kindly stop insisting that the rest of us participate in your delusions. I am finished trying to discuss this with you. It accomplishes nothing.

    Re: Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lac (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    ClayP - What your withdrawal proves is that your claims do not stand up. But your comments that amuse me the most are the ones about "geopolitics," and your ignoring my rebuttal that the Left is now getting what it asked for, and doesn't like it. What that proves, of course, is that the Left never wanted freedom, democracy and the American way for these countries, they just wanted their dictators in place instead of the ones who were favorable to the US. Most folks find that to be a hypocritical position. BTW - This post was about Waas. My talents are ever so meager, something my many fans will eagerly agree to. So here, read a real deconstruction of Waas' attempt to change history. Enjoy.