[Osx-nutters] Iraq and Al Qaeda

[Charles Bennett]

Kevin Callahan wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>
>> I'm surprised no one has mentioned this:
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387_pf.html> 
>>
>
> yeah, manipulating intelligence to take a nation to war against a 
> nation who posed no threat seems like grounds for impeachment ..
> particularly vis-a-vis impeachment for a blowjob.
>
> I read Isikoff and Korn's "Hubris" and it really spells out just how 
> fucked up the sources were for WMD, Al-Queda ...
> Feith was one of the worst proponents of deceit.
>
> He and his team would claim that Saddam was so adept at hiding his 
> ties with Al-Queda, there was no "evidence" to show the connection, 
> but it was there.  He, along with Wolfowitz, Laurie Mylroie et al, 
> would claim that the attacks on 9/11 were state sponsored and the guy 
> behind it all was Saddam.
>
[snipped]

Have you seen then "we completely screwed the pooch" correction  to the 
article in the wp?

They were quoting something that Levin said as if Feith said it.  Also 
Feith said that (paraphrase) 'of course, my conclusions were at odds 
with the CIA.  The report was written specifically to be critical of 
their conclusions.'

Here is the WP correction:
"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."
"

In other words, they blamed Feith for shit that Levin had said and ran 
it above the fold on page 1.

Good work ass hats..  I wonder how many print subscribers will ever see 
the correction? Likely none..

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387.html>


now has the correction at the top of the page.

=c=