.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

 

Conspiracy


If this is true, then we would seemingly have the makings of a conspiracy charge against President George W. Bush.
Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
By Murray Waas, special to National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the 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, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.

One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Simply put: public officials were saying something publically--in concert--that was different from what they understood and were saying in private.

That's a conspiracy.

Comments:
I hate to say, but there are lots of ways to weasle out of this. First off, Cheney has been very active in claiming that the "tradition" analysts have always viewed the raw intel in a different light as the neo-cons. This is why he set up his own analysis task force. Of course, it is clear that the intell they considered was pretty thin (I am being very charitable here), and subject to a lot of reading between the lines.
I would be surprised if the conspircy claim would stick given all of the ways that they manipualated the situation.

Oh. Don't think I don't agree with you. I just don't think the charge will go very far... Ok. If the 2006 elections bring a sea change to congress, and a set of investigations get kicked off as a result. Still. This is a slippery bunch.
 
I'm sure you're right.

But if we can't have truth and accountability, we can at least dream of it.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

All material on this site © 2002-2007 201k.com - All Rights Reserved.