White_Male_Canada
02-10-2007, 01:44 AM
Big set-up by Levin and his fellow travellers at WaPo. The "journalists" at the Washington Post took Levin at his word,lock, stock and barrell. Did they even read the report? Obviously not since WaPo had to print a correction. Biased dominant media regurgitating Democrat Levin`s lies.
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. Radical leftist Democrat Carl Levin did. 8) Busted! 8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correction to This Article
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."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now, the rest of the story.
The IG’s report concludes that a Pentagon unit which scrubbed existing intelligence about Iraq’s terror ties under the leadership of Doug Feith, then-Undersecretary for Policy, did not mislead Congress. It further finds that neither Feith nor any other Defense officials engaged in wrong-doing. Nevertheless, acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble huffs and puffs and contends that Feith’s unit still behaved “inappropriately.”
Why? Back in 2002, none of the 16 different intelligence agencies was willing to do a detailed report on the question of ties between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda. The CIA-after much prodding-finally put out a small report, but it was vague because the United States didn’t have a single spy in Iraq for the previous four years (1998-2002). Having just been attacked by Al Queda, the Bush Administration and components of it wanted to know if there was a serious relationship between Iraq and Al Queda, but no one wanted to give them one. So, in 2002 the Pentagon (where even their own intelligence agencies were refusing to investigate the matter) put together a group called the Office of Special Plans.
This office went around to the different intelligence agencies, looked at whatever intelligence reporting they had on the subject (remember, all 16 intelligence agencies worked alone at this point in American history. They did not normally share information). Then this Office of Special Plans found a bunch of reports that seemed scary. They presented these scary reports to the CIA and others, who refused to stand by any assessment because so little intelligence had been gathered.
Let’s leave aside the innumerable known connections between Saddam and Islamic terror—the harbored jihadists; the meetings between top al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence officials; the $300,000 cash pay-off to Ayman Zawahiri in 1998; the Iraqi intelligence operative who accompanied a jihadist to Pakistan in 1998 to explore the possibility of bombing American and British targets; the Clinton administration’s 1998 bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory believed to be a WMD venture involving Iraq and al Qaeda; the Clinton administration’s conviction that Iraq offered bin Laden safe-harbor; the presence of an Iraqi intelligence operative at a 2000 Kuala Lampur meeting of terrorists later involved in the U.S.S. Cole and 9/11 attacks, etc., etc., etc.
In any event, what was so “inappropriate”? The Defense Department did not take the IG’s diagnosis lying down. As the NYTimes notes:
"The Pentagon’s rebuttal vehemently rejected the report’s contention that there was “inappropriate” use of intelligence by Pentagon civilians and said the effort to identify links between Saddam Hussein’s government and Al Qaeda was done at the direction of Mr. Wolfowitz, who was deputy defense secretary at the time. Describing the work as a “fresh, critical look” at intelligence agency conclusions about Al Qaeda and Iraq, the Pentagon rebuttal said, “It is somewhat difficult to understand how activities that admittedly were lawful and authorized (in this case by either the secretary of defense or the deputy secretary of defense) could nevertheless be characterized as ‘inappropriate.’”
Feith and Wolfowitz have served as targets for Democrats for years, and now that they have returned to power, they want to use whatever they can to finish them politically. Carl Levin and Jay Rockefeller can't wait to start holding hearings on the matter, even though the IG explicitly states that no laws were broken and the effort was properly revealed to Congress.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/02/09/dod-inspector-general-report-d/#morehttp://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjY5ZWFkNjQ1YzBiNTE0NmM4MjZmN2QxMjYyMDg5ZGQ=
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. Radical leftist Democrat Carl Levin did. 8) Busted! 8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correction to This Article
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."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now, the rest of the story.
The IG’s report concludes that a Pentagon unit which scrubbed existing intelligence about Iraq’s terror ties under the leadership of Doug Feith, then-Undersecretary for Policy, did not mislead Congress. It further finds that neither Feith nor any other Defense officials engaged in wrong-doing. Nevertheless, acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble huffs and puffs and contends that Feith’s unit still behaved “inappropriately.”
Why? Back in 2002, none of the 16 different intelligence agencies was willing to do a detailed report on the question of ties between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda. The CIA-after much prodding-finally put out a small report, but it was vague because the United States didn’t have a single spy in Iraq for the previous four years (1998-2002). Having just been attacked by Al Queda, the Bush Administration and components of it wanted to know if there was a serious relationship between Iraq and Al Queda, but no one wanted to give them one. So, in 2002 the Pentagon (where even their own intelligence agencies were refusing to investigate the matter) put together a group called the Office of Special Plans.
This office went around to the different intelligence agencies, looked at whatever intelligence reporting they had on the subject (remember, all 16 intelligence agencies worked alone at this point in American history. They did not normally share information). Then this Office of Special Plans found a bunch of reports that seemed scary. They presented these scary reports to the CIA and others, who refused to stand by any assessment because so little intelligence had been gathered.
Let’s leave aside the innumerable known connections between Saddam and Islamic terror—the harbored jihadists; the meetings between top al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence officials; the $300,000 cash pay-off to Ayman Zawahiri in 1998; the Iraqi intelligence operative who accompanied a jihadist to Pakistan in 1998 to explore the possibility of bombing American and British targets; the Clinton administration’s 1998 bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory believed to be a WMD venture involving Iraq and al Qaeda; the Clinton administration’s conviction that Iraq offered bin Laden safe-harbor; the presence of an Iraqi intelligence operative at a 2000 Kuala Lampur meeting of terrorists later involved in the U.S.S. Cole and 9/11 attacks, etc., etc., etc.
In any event, what was so “inappropriate”? The Defense Department did not take the IG’s diagnosis lying down. As the NYTimes notes:
"The Pentagon’s rebuttal vehemently rejected the report’s contention that there was “inappropriate” use of intelligence by Pentagon civilians and said the effort to identify links between Saddam Hussein’s government and Al Qaeda was done at the direction of Mr. Wolfowitz, who was deputy defense secretary at the time. Describing the work as a “fresh, critical look” at intelligence agency conclusions about Al Qaeda and Iraq, the Pentagon rebuttal said, “It is somewhat difficult to understand how activities that admittedly were lawful and authorized (in this case by either the secretary of defense or the deputy secretary of defense) could nevertheless be characterized as ‘inappropriate.’”
Feith and Wolfowitz have served as targets for Democrats for years, and now that they have returned to power, they want to use whatever they can to finish them politically. Carl Levin and Jay Rockefeller can't wait to start holding hearings on the matter, even though the IG explicitly states that no laws were broken and the effort was properly revealed to Congress.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/02/09/dod-inspector-general-report-d/#morehttp://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjY5ZWFkNjQ1YzBiNTE0NmM4MjZmN2QxMjYyMDg5ZGQ=