From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
every night and every day...
Published on April 6, 2007 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In War on Terror
Dick Cheney continued his campaign of lies and deceit against the American People and the Constitution he swore to protect and uphold. This week, on comedian Rush Limaugh's show, Cheney had the audacity to repeat his bogus allegations that Iraq and Al Qaeda were working togethre before our invasion in 2003.

This was after the release of a report that captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam and two of his former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not in any way directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. This, not according to democrats, or the liberal media or any of the administrations perceived enemies, but according to a Defense Department report released this week.

The Pentagon report also contains new details about the intelligence community's pre-war consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts. Judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious and/or unconfirmed information.

"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told the comedian's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his bogus argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of Al Qaeda."

Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, requested the report's declassification, and said in a written statement that the complete text (a summary was released in Feb.) demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office, run by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith, had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.

And the CIA was not alone or on an island with their view. The Defense Department's own intelligence showed that there was no actual "relationship" as described falsely by the vice-president to this day. And unfortuanately, too many people have gotten blinded by the macho rhetoric of Cheney and Company to see thru all the blatant lies.

The only person who reported and tried to defend the presumtions that the Bush / Cheney "faith based" crowd wanted to believe, and the facts be damned, was Bush loyalist Doug Feith. Feith also reccomended to Cheney directly that they should just ignore the CIA and those who disagreed with their made-up assessments.

The rebutting of the administrations wishful pre emtive conclusions were buried from the get-go, as the report shows. Feith's orig. argument, entitled "Iraq and Al Qaeda" was rebutted and shown to have "no intelligence value" with at least 15 of the 26 points directly refuted. But as so many people are realizing for the 1st time now, these "wolves in sheep's clothing" were going to invade Iraq for their own purposes and interests, instead of the american people's interests and purposes, come hell or highwater.

A joint cheif member saw the political agenda boiling to the surface ahead of any facts early on. He told the author of a request to widely circulate the 'Making The Case" paper " that putting it out there would be playing into the hands of people" such as then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, and belittled the author for trying to support "some agenda of people in the building."

Was it that Feith was right on some things and wrong in others? Not according to the report, which noted..."that post-war debriefs of Sadaam Hussein, [former Iraqi foreign minister] Tariq Aziz, [former Iraqi intelligence minister Mani al-Rashid] al Tikriti, and [senior al-Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shaykh] al-Libi, as well as document exploitation by DIA all confirmed that the Intelligence Community was correct: Iraq and al-Qaida did not cooperate in all categories alleged by Feith's office."

Oh, and one more thing.

Zarqawi, whom Cheney who continues to depict as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda after the U.S. invasion, in early 2004.

But of course, some will continue to blame the media, democrats or whomever else they can try to pin it on. And the wolves in sheep's clothing will continue to rape, pillage and plunder with the blessing of their 30% base that will swallow any lie Cheney and his pundits tell.


on Apr 06, 2007

Then, the connection:

The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program.

The senior intelligence officials who briefed reporters laid out the collaboration. "We knew there were fuzzy ties between [bin Laden] and the plant but strong ties between him and Sudan and strong ties between the plant and Sudan and strong ties between the plant and Iraq." Although this official was careful not to oversell bin Laden's ties to the plant, other Clinton officials told reporters that the plant's general manager lived in a villa owned by bin Laden.

Several Clinton administration national security officials told THE WEEKLY STANDARD last week that they stand by the intelligence. "The bottom line for me is that the targeting was justified and appropriate," said Daniel Benjamin, director of counterterrorism on Clinton's National Security Council, in an emailed response to questions. "I would be surprised if any president--with the evidence of al Qaeda's intentions evident in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and the intelligence on [chemical weapons] that was at hand from Sudan--would have made a different decision about bombing the plant."

The current president certainly agrees. "I think you give the commander in chief the benefit of the doubt," said George W. Bush, governor of Texas, on August 20, 1998, the same day as the U.S. counterstrikes. "This is a foreign policy matter. I'm confident he's working on the best intelligence available, and I hope it's successful."

on Apr 07, 2007
problem is,,,they weren't working "on the best intelligence available." that intelligence, i.e. anything that dissented from their bloodlust, was ignored. and the report acknowledges contacts in the sudan , along with the fact that nothing ever materialized out of them. and by the time we invaded iraq, we knew that much of what we thought was true in 1998, wasn't.

don't you realize that every single arab, muslim and anywhere near the middle east governments have "met" with people who were in al qaeda? that means absolutely nothing. hell, i'm sure if someone actually declassified everything we would see that someone from our government has probably "met" with al qaeda at some point.

please miler,,,i'm not asking you to be any less the republican you are. but these guys are not genuine. i am not saying there aren't good republicans out there, or good ideas from the gop. but these guys are not as advertised. and i think you will see more and more "good republicans" speak out as time goes on and some have began to.
on Apr 07, 2007
Do you really think rhetoric like "rape, pillage... plunder" and "bloodlust" serves your argument well?

I don't doubt that our knowledge of Al Qaeda's extent of connections and involvement in various countries was and remains skimpy. Our lack of adequate direct human intelligence is part of the reason for that and we continue to be significantly in the dark as a consequence.

After 9/11, I don't fault them for not quite trusting the agency that had just failed them & taking a worst-case scenario point of view, which doesn't translate in my mind to "bloodlust," "rape, pillage... plunder." After all, that "intelligence consensus" wasn't particularly helpful in preventing the death of some 3000 Americans.
on Apr 07, 2007
Do you really think rhetoric like "rape, pillage... plunder" and "bloodlust" serves your argument well?

perhaps that is more about my strong feelings on the matter and the man. and where no one is ever going to make the claim that i am "captain conservative", i do have a lot of respect for the conservative political philosophy and do support some of it's tenents. but to me, from everything i have seen from him since he was in bush sr's admin. has turned me off. and in this administration he has gone from a strong pundit of neoconservative philosophy and a believer in increasing the power of the executive branch to about as dishonest of a person that we have seen in government in a long time. whether you agree with cheney or not, one has to concede that he is absolutely fanatical about his own beliefs. that fanaticism has caused him from being a strong pundit, who like all pundits, engages in "truthiness" rather than truth most of the a bald faced liar to defend his beliefs and actions.

he in my mind, is the reason the founders put oversight in the duties of congress and saw the 3 branches of government as equals. and the fact that the executive has enjoyed a majority since late 2002 (when cheney really got his groove on) and hasn't had to deal with oversight is really obvious as they stumble over themselves now that some actual oversight is taking place.

i don't think cheney or rove will "go down" during the final (less than) 2 years they have to complete their terms. just like with the iraq war, where it is obvious that they can effectively stall till their time is up and punt it to the next administration.

but i digress...anyway, i'm sorry if you take offense to my language. but i do feel strongly about cheney and his lying ways, which i believe aren't only criminal possibly, but perhaps worse. and where i can even write positive, unqualified words about bush, like i did last week, to me, cheney is just bad news.
on Apr 08, 2007
I took no offense - those are some of the nicer things they've been accused of.   

Truthiness? Sure.

Bald faced liar? Not so sure.