Sep 08 2006
Truth Of Senate Report
Now I know why journalists get their stories so wrong so often – they lack basic reading comprehension skills. With all the hoopla about the Senate Intelligence report supposedly saying there were no ties between Saddam and Terrorists (despite Iraq documents which log the training of thousands of terrorists, and notes reqarding meetings with Al Qaeda) it might behoove people to read them for themselves (WMD here, Terrorists here). One thing people should know is the terrorist related volume is NOT definitive or conclusive. Why? Well I’ll let the report speak for itself (from the WMD volume):
In the first phase of the Committee’s investigation, the Committee staff endeavored to disregard the postwar discoveries concerning Iraq until after completing the analysis of the prewar intelligence material. This was done to replicate, to the greatest extent possible, the same analytic environment Intelligence Community analysts experienced prior to the war. In its July 2004 report, the Committtee identified strengths and weaknesses throughout the intelligence process…
…
On February 12, 2004, with the knowledge that the postwar investigative work on the ground was not yet complete, the Committee refined the terms of reference regarding the question of accuracy, agreering that in the second phase the Committee review it would address:
The postwar findings about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and weapons programs and links to terrorism and how they compare with prewar assessments.
…
This report is divided into two main topics, Iraq’s WMD capabilities and Iraq’s links to terrorism. These two sections are treated differently in two key aspects. First, in examining the Intelligence Community’s prewar assessment about Iraq’s WMD capabilities, the Committee focused on the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destrution… Second, the Committee used the findings of the ISG [ed: Iraq Survey Group], which investigated Iraq’s WMD capabilities after the war,…
…
The US government did not conduct a similar postwar investigation of Iraq’s links to terrorism. Indeed, the nature of the question of whether or to what extent Iraq was linked to terrorist organizations, including al-Qa’ida, does not lend itself to an on-the-ground fact finding investigation as easily as the WMD case. One is not able to search Iraq for the presence of linkg to al Qa’ida as one can search for the presence of WMD and the industrial facilities capable of producing WMD.
Emphasis mine. Clearly the report is stating there is no way to definitively ascertain the terrorist links. It clearly says it had no way to do a postwar investigation. It would be interesting to hear if Committee Staff did any review of the analysis being done on the thousands of documents seized in Iraq and showing all sorts of connections never before reported.
I plan to post more on this report later, but it is clear in the run up to the war (no matter what forgeries Joe Wilson lies about) there was a clear concern Saddam was planning attacks in the US. One item the news media missed (no surprise there) is this disturbing gem:
The Committee examined the assessments from the Intelligence Community on the topics discussed in the NIE produced prior to and following the NIE. In most cases, the opinions of the community and individual agencies did not change following the publication of the NIE or following the 2002-2003 United Nations’ inspections in Iraq. The community judgement did change pertaining to the intended use of the Iraq’s UAVs. Specifically, the NIE judgement that Iraq’s attempts to procure U.S. mapping software for its UAVs that was useless outside the U.S., “strongly suggests that Iraq is investigating the use of these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.” A change was made to the UAV judgements in a new NIE published in January 2003 titled Nontraditional Threats to the US Homeland Through 2007.
People need to recognize this revelation came only a little more than a year after 9-11. And UAVs are built from parts you can buy here in the US. Many UAVs are simply transformed ultra-lights you buy from a catalogue (I know, I used to work on UAVs and some were exactly this kind of retrofit). The mapping SW is useless outside the US, but you need to integrate this SW into the UAV’s avionics SW first and make sure it works. This is why an enemy would build and test a prototype overseas and then simpy bring the SW into the US for the real deal. UAVs are cheap an can be made en masse once you are in the US.
This is not a minor issue and it explains why there was a lot of concern in the Administration. After 9-11 and anthrax attacks, this intel must have been like a bombshell. This illustrates an honest escalation of concern that Saddam would want to copy cat Al Qaeda with his own 9-11 plot. Iraq was never linked to 9-11, it was just one of the most obvious sources for future 9-11s. And contrary to the ’16 words’ game played by Wilson and the media, this intel paints a real bulls-eye right on us here in the US. This has me more concerned than any highjacking. Buying or building ultra lights is like building a go-kart. The basic flying structure is about that simple. Add some smart avoinics (ours were off the shelf, mail-order computer components) and you got yourself an unmanned fighter wing.
Update: I just want to leave folks with a few examples of what I am talking about on the from a google search on “UAV, ultralight”. First a homegrown UAV that is cheap and easy to replicate. Low payload mass – but biological material is light. Second is the product of a few college graduates with some financial assistance. Finally, an on-line brochure. The point is all you need is a credit card and a garage of some kind. This is just from a simple google search. This is not the rocket science end of the business.
It’s important to note that this report is not intended to be a conclusive report of postwar findings. It is a report to compare prewar CIA assesssments that were made in the last Senate intel report and compare ONLY THOSE words to what was found postwar, nothing outside those paremeters. Funny how the press glosses over that part of their “get Bush” storyline.
I find it particularly infuriating that the report relies so heavily on the testimony of Saddam and his cronies.
Also, all of the Iraqi testimony about Iraq al Qaeda meetings indicate that the meetings were at the behest of al Qaeda. This is the opposite of what other reports, such as the 9-11 commission, concluded about Iraq initiating a number of meetings.
This thing is rubbish in it’s current state and I plan on doing a serious breakdown of it at http://www.regimeofterror.com as I am sure many others such as Tom Joscelyn, Threatswatch.org, Ray Robison, Ed Morrisey and others will be.
This report really needs to be challenged. ASAP.
This is just more of the same ass covering we have come to expect from the same people. Bush can’t do that, he is forced to live with the cards dealt him, Senators however, can change whenever they want to.
For instance they say that Saddam considered Zarqawi threat. Well geez, I bet Churchill and FDR felt a little uncomfortable with Stalin too. Point is Saddam let that man come into his country knowing who he was, he let him set up his terrorist training camp, and he made no attempt to take him, turn him over, or in any way hinder him. I am supposed to believe that Saddam could kill hundreds of thousands of people, but he can’t nab Zarqawi from a hospital in Baghdad.
Saddam is like a Don. He usese his underlings to do the dirty work, he leaves little if any evidence that directly involves him and he considers everyone a threat, even his own sons.
I am sure that Saddam and AlQaida were fellow travellors. Saddam would not sit down and plan attacks with them, but he would allow certain people in his regime to go to Sudan and train them in the use of chemicals. He would not do anything overt however, that is how he survived as long as he did.
Besides, Saddam had his own terrorists, the Fedayeen.
When one considers any part of a Senate Committee on Intelligence report, one must remember:
“I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.”
So spoke Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) on “Fox Sunday†on November 14, 2005, who at the time of his trip was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and is now its vice chairman.
Please read the first paragraph once again, digest it (if your stomach can handle it), and consider its immense – if not treasonous – implications.
OR
NOVEMBER 6, 2003 : (MEMOGATE : ROCKEFELLER INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE PLOT TO UNDERMINE THE PRESIDENT AND THE WAR EFFORT IS EXPOSED) It [the plan] centered on duping the panel’s Republican chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, into approving probes that in actuality would be fishing expeditions inside the State Department and Pentagon. The authors hoped to dig up and hype “improper or questionable conduct by administration officials.” According to a staff memo, the committee then would release the information during the course of the “investigation,” with Democrats providing their “additional views” that would, “among other things, castigate the majority [Republicans] for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.” In other words, they would manufacture and denounce a cover-up where none existed. The Democrats then would drag the issue through the 2004 presidential campaign by creating an independent commission to investigate, according to the memo. The plan, made public by Fox News on Nov. 6, went like this: “Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time – but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be [in 2004].” – Democrat Senator Rockefeller’s office memo via Fox News.
Trust a report from a group that includes these people. NEVER
For me, two things have become impossible to ignore:
1. Hearing the Dixie Chicks music without visions of BDS
2. Trusting anything coming out of either house of Congress as thorough, accurate, or impartial.
This latest example is no surprise.
SSCI – Phase II – Proving a point by a prearranged conclusion…
I’m still weeding through this “report”. First impressions I got is that it seems to read as if it were trying to convince me that Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda as if by repeating over and over again I would descend in to a state of…
Democrats/MSM continue cherry-picking pre-war Iraq intelligence…
From today’s Washington Post:
Iraq’s Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War
A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged …
On The Truth About The Senate Report On Saddam And The Terrorists…
BTW – not having read the entire Report, I can’t help but wonder what it says about al-Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri’s trip to Baghdad in 1998 (in which he received $300,000, possibly from Saddam Hussein himself), Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s medical trip to…
More On The Worthless Senate Report…
In the end this report by the Senate was never about investigating the Saddam/Al-Qaeda link, it was all about giving Democratic politicians ammo against Bush….thats it in a nutshell.
……
Phase II Documents: Plowing Through The Woods Of Partisanship…
Personally, I’m having quite some difficulty to plow through the woods of partisanship regarding this issue. I will have more in the coming hours / days -> I want to study this report very carefully myself (don’t forget that this is not just of inter…
Terrye…SH cannot prevent several near-successful assassination attempts but CAN find an Al Qaeda operative? Terrye is probably sure that Iraq and Iran, both being anti-American, were “fellow travellers” during their bloody war…
Flopping Aces writes as if the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans had the influence of an ineffectual marginalized third party.
And all the neocons can’t explain Bush’s distancing from all
their so-called WMD and Saddam/Osama linkage “evidence” which,after all, might even raise his approval rate a few points if
he cited it. Who’s living the fantasy?
Phase II Documents: Plowing Through The Woods Of Partisanship …
Personally, I’m having quite some difficulty to plow through the woods of partisanship regarding this issue. I will have more in the coming hours / days -> I want to study this report very carefully myself (don’t forget that this is not just of inter…
Ken:
Well since had Iraqi Intelligence people had infiltrated Zarqawi’s organization and since Saddam knew exactly where they were and since he was supposed to arrest Zarqawi who was wanted on charges by both the US and Jordan and since the terrorist was known to be in Baghdad shortly after he entered the country from Afghanistan and since Saddam managed to kill a lot of other people without any trouble, yes, I think he could have killed Zarqawi if he was afraid of him. After all he killed his own sons in law.
And Ken keep up, most of the evidence supporting this claim came from Clinton. In fact in the 1998 indictment of Osama for the embassy bombings in Africa the US indictment specifically mentions a connection between Saddam and AlQaida. Remember the whole aspirin factory bombing thing?
The hardest thing for me having read so much over the last decade or so is dealing with people who really do not have enough of a grasp of the facts to adequately debate the topic. All they know is what 2 minute blurb they heard from what talking head.
For instance in May 2000, back when Bush and the neo cons were nowhere near Washington, Zinni told Congress that Saddam was our number one threat in the region. Number one. Later he had something else to say of course, but back then when he was a very important and influential person in the acquisition of military information it was his assertion that Saddam was our number one threat.
I think Saddam was a threat, any man crazy enough to make mince meat of a ceasefire, try to kill a POTUS and refuse to comply for years knowing full well what could happen, was a threat.
Hey, he is alive. Maybe you would like to see him back in power filling those mass graves..not me.
And Bush is not distancing himself from anything, he can’t. He is the president, he is the man who made the decision. The rest of them can be just as smarmy as they like, he is stuck with the hand he was dealt.
SSCI Report on Prewar Intel Phase II…
I read the Phase II Accuracy Report yesterday and I didn’t find it near as devastating to the administration as Senator Levine did.
In general however the report was devastating to the Intelligence Community . The basic finding that because of a l….
Perhaps someone in this thread can help me out here:
Back in 1999, CNN carried this news story on their web site:
“Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.”
I realize this isn’t news to any of you. You’ve all seen the same story, in one form or another. In fact, CNN still has the story posted to their site:
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/
My question: does anyone know where the sourcing for this specific article came from? Several news outlets carried this same story, but all without attribution. Did Saddam make a public speech? Was asylum offered through an Iraqi ambassador? My question is scholarly, not rhetorical. I’m trying to hunt down where this story originated.
Links and Minifeatures 09 09 Saturday late…
Clinton blasts 9/11 film, amid report of changes
Spin, spin, spin, you worthless gladhanding used car salesman. Your accomodationist, anything to ……
Yeah Terrye, as if “number one threat” meant BIG threat. Try again.
Among others you’re fighting the two closest to the truth at the key time…and every neighbor of Iraq including Kuwait. By the
“closest” I mean Scott Ritter and Hans Blix both of whom said Hussein ,ultimately, was more honest than George Bush.
By “neighbor” I mean every single Mideast country warned Bush against invasion, saying specifically Saddam was contained in a box and they were NOT threatened. Funny, Rice and Powell are quoted
many times during 2001 saying the same thing when asked, throughout the world to the press and at conferences. Right up until
9/11/2001,that is, when they changed their tune and began to lie.
Some Phase II Conclusions Beyond Comprehension…
Some Phase II Conclusions (particularly #9) Beyond Comprehension Future DOCEX Efforts Dismissed In Order To Buttress SSCI Phase II Report Conclusions as Comprehensive In the ‘Iraqi Links to Al-Qaeda’ section of the Senate Select Committee on Intell…