November 07, 2005
Mike's America: "Democrats will lie US into Iraq Defeat
Mike of Mike's America has a well documented, well thought out post on the Democrat stunts in congress. My favorite grafs:
At the direction of Senator Roberts, staffers on the Senate Intell. panel assembled several hundred statements by Republicans regarding Iraq, weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism and paired them up with the intelligence reports that formed the basis for the conclusion. Along with Republican statements, those by Democrats were added as well. But before each statement was evaluated for it's veracity, staffers blocked the column revealing who said what.Posted by GM Roper at November 7, 2005 07:44 PM | TrackBackA blind study, fair and impartial, to get to the truth with less opportunity for political grandstanding! Of COURSE Democrats objected!
From Mike's America:
"The findings in the Intell Committee's original report, released in July 2004 were unanimous in concluding that there was no pressure on any government intelligence agency to phony their reports or slant their information. The report also described numerous contacts between Iraq under Hussein and Al Queda."
(1) The report didn't conclude that there was no pressure, it said merely that there wasn't evidence of pressure. If there was pressure, the lack of evidence is easy to explain: the same people whose contradictory opinions were suppressed aren't likely to endanger their careers.
(2) Was there pressure? As we've learned recently, contradictory opinions were suppressed -- almost all of these Iraq/Al Qaeda links were based on testimony that was considered suspect at the time, and for which no other significant evidence has emerged.
In particular, one supposed Al Qaeda informant described chemical and biological weapons training given to Al Qaeda by Iraq, and was apparently just making it all up -- very likely because, after all, an American invasion of Iraq worked for Al Qaeda just fine. Despite suspicions about this informant's bona fides, and a lack of any supporting evidence for his claims, his "information" made it into Colin Powell's address to the U.N.
"Newly declassified portions of a document from the Defense Intelligence Agency showed that the administration was alerted that an Al Qaeda member in US custody probably was lying about links between the terrorist organization and Iraq.
"The document from February 2002 showed that the agency questioned the reliability of Al Qaeda senior military trainer Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. He could not name any Iraqis involved in the effort or identify any chemical or biological materials or cite where the training took place, the report said.
"The agency concluded that al-Libi probably misled the interrogators deliberately, and he recanted the statements in January, according to the document made public by Senator Carl Levin, top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee."
Why did this document come to light only now? Well, daylight is getting safer by the day, for those who were involved in trying to get an accurate picture at the time. Or perhaps not -- but if not, what's YOUR explanation?
Posted by Michael Turner at November 8, 2005 12:26 AM
Unfortunately, yet typically, the recent actions of the Democrats on this topic have nothing to do with discovering the "truth" or defending some long-championed principle. Rather, their actions have everything to do with politics and an attempt to gain political advantage.
So, we might ask: why now? Because in politics it is considered fair and right to kick a man when he's down, and President Bush is wounded, if not down, right now.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by too many steves at November 8, 2005 06:20 AM
