Media/Dems Continue to Mislead on Pre-War Intelligence
Monday, February 12, 2007 at 10:37AM Bottom Line Up Front: The release of the Defense Department's report inspecting pre-war intelligence vindicates President Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, yet Democrats refuse to accept the findings.
Despite critics’ erroneous accusations that President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld purposefully exaggerated pre-war intelligence to justify war in Iraq, the Defense Departments’s Inspector General’s report last week found there was nothing illegal or unauthorized in the assessment. It stated that there were an inappropriate "alternative analysis that did not reflect the consensus of the intelligence community or include caveats about the information's reliability”, but as former Pentagon policy chief Douglas Feith explained in front of the Senate Armed Services committee , this amounted to a circular logic from the Pentagon’s internal watchdog.
"The people in my office were doing a criticism of the intelligence community consensus. By definition, that criticism varied. If it didn't vary, they wouldn't have done the criticism."
Oh, rats! The IG report could not support the Pentagon’s pre-war intelligence that a “mature symbiotic relationship” existed in all areas between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but as Feith explained,
"No one in my office ever claimed there was an operational relationship. There was a relationship."
Surely Democrats can understand the difference; it was rather like Bill Clinton’s explanation of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Democratic Sen. John Rockefeller in 2004 accused then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who created the unit, of "running a private intelligence failure, which is not lawful."
Mr. Feith said yesterday he feels vindicated after hearing repeated charges from Mr. Rockefeller and Sen. Carl Levin:
"It's healthy to criticize the CIA's intelligence. What the people in the Pentagon were doing was right. It was good government."
"It is good but not surprising that the inspector general found that the Pentagon policy office's activities were all legal and authorized and that policy officials did not mislead Congress.”
"The policy office has been smeared for years by allegations that its pre-Iraq War work was somehow 'unlawful' or 'unauthorized' and that some information it gave to congressional committees was deceptive or misleading. The office's accusers always couched the charges in vague language, making them difficult to refute with precision. The charges have been repeated persistently despite the lack of any substantiation. The inspector general's report has now thoroughly repudiated the smears."
The IG report and the testimony of Feith vindicating the case for war, however, is misreported by the more liberal news organizations and politicians. Michigan Democrat Carl Levin went on to call the IG Report “very damning”, leaving the question to be answered, “Damning to whom?” Not to the administration or Pentagon. Even in the face of a major reality check, Democrats are incapable of honesty.
The Washington Post ran on its front page an article claiming the IG Report contained 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". In fact, it was CARL LEVIN who issues those quotes, not the IG Report. After running headlines in the Washington Post stating that pre-war intelligence was “dubious and unreliable” based on the report, they now offer a correction:
An article in yesterday's Washington Post misattributed to the inspector general's report critical comments about the Pentagon operation made by committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). In a statement he released Thursday, Levin, not the inspector general, said the Pentagon effort used intelligence reporting of "dubious quality or reliability." [See correction, A2.]
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."
Ace of Spaces suggests a better headline for the Washington Post might be: Charges Carl Levin Has Been Making For Three Years Completely Vindicated By 2004 Report Authored By Carl Levin.
Wake Up America takes an excellent trip down memory lane and revisits the al-Qaeda/Iraq connection. Below is a 1999 ABC news video, compliments of Power Line, establishing the connection:
It is clear that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al-Qaeda and although it may not have been a "symbiotic, operational" relationship, one certainly existed. It isn't hard to believe in such a relationship existed after considering that Saddam was a secular Sunni; Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are Sunni extremists called Wahabbi. Both are outside of traditional Islamic principles and with their violent ideology cloaked in religion that is rejected by Muslims as blasphemous (Hirabah). An alliance between the two, while perhaps not "symbiotic", is fully reasonable as mutually satisfying.
Unfortunately, liberal accomplices in the media continue to perpetuate the lie that the engagement in Iraq is an illegal and that the administration trumped up intelligence and lied to America about it. Both are blatantly false. America doesn’t need to look any further than the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 signed into law by Bill Clinton to realize that the intelligence that led us into Iraq in 2003 is the same intelligence that led Clinton to bomb WMD factors in December 1998 in Iraq. Perhaps the average American is too preoccupied with cute little clichés about the war to learn the truth, but Democrats know better, and that’s why their acquiescence to the “unjust war” doctrine is unconscionable.
Trackbacked to: Faultline USATrackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/910764
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (16)
For some reason I can't get the video to load but the rest of the article is interesting. I've had an ongoing disagreement regarding the administration and it's policies with a dear internet friend of mine. She sent me a link regarding the Levin report, and I sent her a link to this post, Amy. I don't trust Levin and I don't trust the MSN. It's getting very hard to trust anyone these days. I'm still upset about our border situation and believe it probably has much to do with plans for the North American Alliance.
Anyway, video or no video, good post!
Amy, this just goes to show that no matter how much evidence one might have on any given situation, and no matter how many reports may written that show the Republican administration was correct in their actions, the liberal Democrat progressive secularists will continue to try and make a "Silk Purse out of a Sow's Ear".
Gayle,be assured that if the North American Alliance comes to fruition, it will be the ultimate sellout and treasonous action against the United States, and it will be committed by the very people whom we have elected to represent us and who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. And it will have been accomplished without the knowledge,will or consent of We the People. The only punishment that would be fitting such a crime on the part of our elected officials and all those who participate in it, would be to march them out, put them against a wall and shoot them. I realize that this statement may seem radical coming from a priest, but when one is willing to sell out their own country and national soverignty, there is no other punishment that would match the harm they will have caused to millions of people.
Some people, professing themselves to wise, are total fools. Such fools believe Iran does not export terrorism and is not killing Americans. Tomorrow mornings Good Morning America will show President Ahmadinejad dancing in circles to NOT answer the question. (I posted my letter to the Iranian President today) It is clear he is not honest, transparent and offers distractions to the question.
People do the same with pre-war intelligence. Intelligence has never been a perfect industry. It is not like making a water hose - test it at the end of assembly line and if it passes sell it. Ooops... even those get recalled. Cars get recalled. Why is it that Intelligence, is supposed to perfect when even children's toys get recalls?
The truth - people distort the past to promote their present political agendas. Sadly some of those agendas are not in the best interest of world peace and the nation.
Excellent post!!!!!!! People seem to have short memories and the media takes full advantage of that to rewrite history.
Great work, as usual!!!
The truth - people distort reality to promote their present political agendas. Sadly some of those agendas are not in the best interest of world peace and the nation.
At this point Amy, we should ponder turning the US army onto domestic terrorist supporters in our country. Although, I think people would be opposed to have the main networks news and news papers shut down, it could prove resourceful in stopping terrorist appeasement. This denial of the left is so unproductive. They really want to say in public, “heah, I like Usama and company, they have good social arguments. First, get rid of Republicans, sure, I’m for that – see we have a lot in common, us and Usama.” Bill Clinton apparently doesn’t know what third grader’s know: “What is the definition of ‘ is’? Well Mr. former President, it is a ‘to be ‘verb taught to all kiddies first learning English as it ‘is’ the most used verb in the English language. The question now remains, how do Democrats justify your under developed knowledge of life? How could you be a president of the United States and be so illiterate? If you were this stupid surely you had no idea what a terrorist was or is or will be, that is correct!
I really sympathize with Iraqis having to endure Al Qaeda and Iran’s involvement in supplying armor piercing weaponry to them in Iraq and the subsequent terrorist attacks, which are killing innocent people. You see Al Qaeda, chicken-livers, do not target the US army, instead they target little girls and boys and laugh as their bodies are blown to pieces. This sick picture doesn’t seem to register with the Democratic Party. They are more worried about how to get Usama’s social goals into place in America.
grumpy, I think we finally agree, although I'm not convinced we're talking about the same agendas. Pacificity has never promoted peace; it promotes the opposite. All one need do is take a historical look back at the U.N. resolutions since the 1940's to see that sanctions, weak diplomacy and negotiations with insincere negotiators has not produced any results. In fact, it is the U.N. type of peace that has encouraged people like Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad, Palestinian terrorist leaders and Saddam Hussein to continue in a protected state with their course of action.
Nonbite, intriguing comments. I see the Democratic Party as one of the biggest liabilities of a free Republic. Clearly demcracy has its liabilities; liberalism is the biggest one.
Amy,
I was just agreeing with the last sentence of Roxie's post (with a slight revision). But it can go both ways, which was the point.
Yes "liberalism" is a liability to your great leader's "vision", as is democracy itself, But hey, it's America.
Excellent article, Amy. When we have the MSM so eager to side with liberals that they quoted Levin instead of the actual report, there is a grave danger they will get away with re-writing history in just this manner.
We have a liberal press in this country that reports exactly what the liberal politicians tells it to report and they report it as fact and not opinion. Case in point the latest Global Warming farce.
So the socialist left politicos say there were no WMD or relationship with OBL and their lackeys in the press report it as fact. And they have no shame as they believe they are working for the betterment of mankind with their blatant lying.
Note I use mankind which could be humanity, people in theory, not as individuals and not as nations for the left in this country has no such allegiances or concerns. They believe that bin Ladin's beliefs and religion is just as good as the next person's and equal respect is due one and all in this regard. They just won't admit it openly. Yet. But they are getting closer all the time.
I base this on my years of observation and the reaction or lack thereof by the left in this country. They neither condemn nor offer any resistance to the War on Terror and I truly believe it is because they sympathize with the killers and deeply believe they are just as entitled to the opinions they hold as the rest of us are to act in our own best interest.
Lying is OK in their minds if done for the "right" reasons and who is to stop them if they have the backing of major media. Thank goodness for the internet and blogs. But do we have a fighting chance against this stacked deck?
Amelia,
Whay are you people so paranoid?
You have a major television "news" network of your own, talk radio is 90% RW, you had control all levels of government until last year.
But still you cry "...do we have a fighting chance against this stacked deck?"
Give me a break!
I don't know whether Amelia will return to read your comment, Grumpy Old Fart, so I will tell you how I see it. Yes, we have most of the talk shows on the radio and we have one (1) news station. Lucky us! The liberals have all the other television stations and the majority of the newspapers. Well, they used to be newspapers. They've degenerated into being nothing but liberal and socialist propoganda. The deck, as far as the MSM is concerned, is still stacked against the conservatives in this country. There are thousands of citizens in America who don't have cable network or satelite dishes. They get CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. They don't get the Fox News channel. I know, because I know many people in that situation. Many of them don't have computers and wouldn't know what to do with one if they did have them. They get a constant blast of news that is biased mainly because it leaves the good things accomplished in Iraq out. Even Fox doesn't broadcast enough of that.
Bottom line, we have a lot of citizens who are only being informed by the left-wing media, and who are not politically savvy enough to turn on a radio other than to listed to their favorite music.
We do have a stacked deck and it's stacked to favor liberalism and socialism. Amelia is exactly right.
grumpy:
Liberalism is a liability to everyone. How is Democracy a liability to the President? He won 2 presidential elections and several as governor of Texas. Democracies are, slowly but surely, springing up in the most unlikely of places because of him. Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt.... while your comment sounded clever, I'm not so sure it is.
The media is 90% liberal by their own admission. The reason talk radio is 90% conservative is because it is consumer driven, supply and demand, unlike the main stream media. No one wants to listen to a liberal talk for any amount of time on the radio (can you say "Air America"?)
Amelia is correct. It is the MSM that has hurt the war effort and encouraged our damnest enemies. They are stacked against us but the millions of people who are leaving big media viewing (check CBS, ABC, NBC and CNNs rating decline) are flocking to Fox or AM radio where at least the other side is given and our views are validated.
Contrary to your paranoia, MSM VERY market driven, and is delivering to the lowest common denominator, and that's pretty darn low. Last time I looked at ABC et al, it was Anna Nicole all the time, or some similar grabage.
I don't know if ya'll realize this, but the left rails against the MSM too. More along the the lines of how lazy and worthless (see Anna Nicole, Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson....) they are.
I should think that's at least one thing we can agree on regarding this issue. MSM just sucks in general when it comes to real news.
Wonderful post, wish I had time for the comments. Whether it is Anna Nicole Smiff or something else; the media decides what goes on the tube or in print. I always wonder if there is anything else happening....but I guess not if they don't report it. So much for the 24/hr news cycle.
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." - Abraham Lincoln
grumpy, paronia? MSM is driven by $$, commerical advertisements and liberal agendas.
Even Fox News caters to the "lowest common denominator". Anna Nicole Smith coverage is driven by popularity/advertisers even though there are bigger things going on in the world.
Yes, we do agree. I just wasted an HOUR of my life watching the morning news shows... Fox News, CNN (MSNBC was slightly better), and the morning shows on ABC, NBC and CBS are totally worthless. There are real issues developing in the world but they're running reels of Anna Nicole Smith and the ice storms. I mean, come on! We have a lot of snow here but I don't want 24 hour a day coverage of it. I want to know what significant developments are happening around the world.
The Bush worshippers here should realise that News isn't about being "fair and balanced" it should be about delivering the news as closest to reality as possible. When there is overwhelming evidence for the failure of neo-conservatism, any attempt to appease neo-cons will be at the expense of reality, facts, and reason. Let me repeat, REALITY, FACTS, AND REASON, three words that are feared by neo-conservatives and other Bush-is-messiah freaks. The Fox News Network, has done well in tipping this so called "fair and balance" well into the neo-con box, but any professor of Journalism/mass communication (ie those crazy academics with all those crazy liberal facts....) would certainly have a laugh at its credibility as a "news" network.