November 15, 2003

The Memory Hole. I guess they also put Bush's February speech, where he talked about promoting democracy in Iraq, down the same chute.

I have spent all morning listening to the major network tv news shows, but so far I have heard not a mention of this memo. Perhaps I missed something, or am missing something, but isn't this a major development?

As they say in the industry: Stay tuned

At least some of this memo has been discounted since it was originally issued a year ago. See Josh Marshall, who writes:

The one supposed piece of 'evidence', of course, is the alleged meeting between Mohamed Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence official in the spring of 2001. But contrary to Mr. Cheney's claim that "we?ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it," US intelligence officials have thoroughly discredited that report. And it has even been denied by the Czechs. What's more, as al Qaida expert Peter Bergen noted last month when he spoke with TPM, the US now has in custody the two Iraqi intelligence officials connected with this alleged incident.

As Bergen asked, "Don't you think he knows his get-out-of-jail-free card to some degree is saying "Hey I did meet with Mohammed Atta"? He's obviously not saying that, otherwise we'd know about it."

And for some, any part that hasn't been "discounted already" soon will be.

US intelligence officials have thoroughly discredited that report. And it has even been denied by the Czechs.

This part of Mr Marshall's report, is of course, thoroughly misleading. If he were inclined to tell the truth, he would have said "some" US Intelligence Experts and "some Czechs".

So what?

Other than proving it is possible to make contrary statements to anything, you wouldn't be trying to say that there is any credible evidence there was no conection between Saddam Hussein and terrorist organizations would you?

As far as "smoking guns" go, the entire point of the administration's actions concerning Iraq and terrorist groups has been to prevent the guns from going off in the first place. Suicidal martyrdom is a hallmark of the people who declared war on us, not an indicator of free democracies.

Prove it's "some," you fraud. I will match each charge of yours in this thread just like I did in another here. You showed yourself an unsupported coward there, and most likely will do the same here.

You are an empty bag of wind, Grumpy. I recommend you buy some Beano.

My, my we're touchy.

Yes inded you matched them, but matching them with nonsense, lies, and loud noises doesn't count for much unless you intend to post on Indymedia.

.
When you can prove that that the author's claim-- one that you chose to bring up --stands as written ,and when you care to let us know that you think you can prove there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and terorism, do get back to us.

Oh, you two! Grumpy, the burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the defendant. (If you disagree, I'll bring up rumors about your naughty past, you devil.) And Hired, Mr. Joshua "I'm Such An Insider" Marshall certainly doesn't say "all," in his piece yesterday morning (10:35) he only says "most" of the intelligence community. It's more than some, but not unanimous. Point to Grumpy, although it's a negative point, since he wanted to minimize it to "some" to make it sound like it could be disregarded. Which is not what "most" does.

Grumpy, let's get this straight: the idea that Iraq met with Mohammed Atta is to suggest that Iraq was behind September 11, right? Now, Feith may have had that opinion in October of 2002, but a more recent statement from US authorities is this:

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."

Was this some wacko fringe element of the Federal government? You tell me - - it was President George W. Bush. And he said it September 17, 2003, which, being more recent (almost a year later, and just two months ago), should mean it's more reliable than Feith's memo of a year ago.

The statement was made re a question about VP Cheney's appearance on "Meet the Press" a few days earlier; Cheney had come under public criticism for overstating the case of Iraqi involvement in 9/11. If the President was in a position to defend his veep, don't you think he would have taken it?

Now, how much else in that October 2002 Feith memo still stands up to scrutiny?

Given how much which has been brought out and later deflated, Bernard probably has the better attitude ("wait and see"). To call this "Case Closed" (as in the original article) is just plain ridiculous punditry.

Ooops! The Feith memo is from October 2003, not 2002. But has so much changed in our understanding of the intelligence in one month, that what the President said in September is wrong?

Touchy, screechy, loud, and evidently not posessed of very good comprehension skills either.

You really should followup on that SQ3R reading course I suggested:

-Survey
-Question
-Read
-Recite
-Review

I said Marshall's quote was inaccurate.
It is. Evidently, he revised it himself.

I didn't suggest anything at all about Atta.

Next thing, you'll be trying to us that the military action in Iraq was "illegal" or "unilateral."

Tell you what--If you can prove that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism I'll send a fruit basket-in your name, of course- to your favorite murderous dictator or terrorist organization.

Is there more to the story? The Weekly Standard, perhaps because it could only print so much in its print edition, doesn't reprint the entire memo; nor, presumably, does Feith lay out the entire context of his evidence -- the sources, their reliability, etc. The Department of Defense press release is being cited by both those who do/don't want to believe the Feith memo; the press release does seem to say that the Feith memo is composed of undigested raw data. (Data is often said to be the bottom of a chain that goes data -> information -> knowledge -> wisdom.) Who here can really claim to know the full story?

Grumpy, did you forget to comment on what the President said in September?

No Frank, I didn't forget.

I recommended the SQ3R Course to you also. The thread has to do with the recent disclosure of information from an intelligence breefing.

If you really want to make a connection between the report we are discussing and a particular statement of the President, I would suggest you re-read the this one:

After demanding that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein readmit UN weapons inspectors, expelled three years ago, the US president was asked what would happen if Saddam refused to comply. "He'll find out," he said.
"If anybody harbours a terrorist, they're a terrorist," Bush said. "If they fund a terrorist, they're a terrorist. If they house terrorists, they're terrorists. I mean, I can't make it any more clear to other nations around the world. If they develop weapons of mass destruction that will be used to terrorise nations, they will be held accountable."

Read it again, and then the report this thread was intended to comment on. If you remember to survey, question, read, review and recite, it might lead you to some wisdom.

Much as you and the ever contrary one would like to turn everything into a dispute over anything and everything said by anyone on earth that would lead to a reasonable conclusion about Saddam Hussein and terrorisism, this is not Indymedia.

Some of us are quite capable of telling the difference between reasoned discussion and ideologicaly based nonsense. I believe that's what Steve had in mind for his website when he wrote on the masthead "fighting folly, ignorance, and cant"

If you would like to join el Contrario in proving there is no connection between Saddam and terrorism, I'll add your name to the fruitbasket, if successful.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."
- The President of the United States

Oh, Grumpy, you irrepressible man! You KNOW that by asking someone to prove "no connection" that you're asking the impossible! You can't prove an event didn't happen, you can only prove that it did. THAT's why the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defendant. That's why it was so KEWT when you typed "If you can prove that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism", why, I just laughed! You funny funny man!

Saddam Hussein isn't a "defendant", and isn't on trial in any criminal court proceding.

In any event, he isn't under any burden to prove anything at the moment- unless he want's to make the practical consideration that he has to convince anyone who knows of his whereabouts why they should refrain from either putting a bullet in his head or making a phone call to US Military headquarters-- and becoming a rich, as well as free, Iraqi .

PS - HC-

SQ3R The President made it abundantly clear that whether or not old Sadman had anything to do with 9-11, there was no question he supported terrorists and terorism. If you ever get around to reading the report this thread is in response to you would understand that.

THIS is why I love you, you silly man -- you claim to not understand that you asked others HERE to prove something doesn't exist. The boyfriend and I think your squirming is just pathetic. Be a MAN, and prove the connection yourself, otherwise the judge will throw your little case out of court.

"I didn't suggest anything at all about Atta," wrote Grumpy.

No, it was Doug Feith who wrote that, and is being discredited.

"The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office." (from the Weekly Standard article)

So, in the face of that, I use this to discredit Doug Feith's memo:

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."
- The President of the United States

Well, why don't you and your boyfriend just giggle away and enjoy yourselves? We'll see if there is anybody else around who posts who can read and talk sense.

-----------
Sorry, no winners on the fruit basket.

Grumpy has now branded himself w/ an "L."

So far I've seen no rebuttals of the 50+ points in the Feith memo. I've seen attacks on the messenger (Feith); I've seen attacks on the manhood of certain bloggers, I've seen ideological dismissals of others, like Andrew Sullivan. I've read the memo and wonder: What if, say, half of the intelligence data is correct? Would that change people's view of the justness of our invasion of Iraq? Just asking.

Give me the resources of the US Government, and maybe you will, Stephen. The DOD has already said that what Feith supplied is undigested bits and pieces, not the "larger" view which intelligence provides. We know there is information to the contrary which Feith did not provide. While many think this is irrefutable evidence, many in the blogosphere have already said "there's nothing new here," that it's been refuted already. Feith works in a group that cherry-picks.

I'm not convinced that talking about Douglas Feith is inappropriate. A judicial arena has been discussed a lot in this thread, as providing a model for proof and who bears its burden. Feith is basically a witness here, since he wrote the memo on which the Weekly Standard article was based. Feith works in a division which is separate from the trained intelligence staff, and so it's important to understand Feith's ability to sift information, weigh its credibility, and put it in its context. Does Feith have these abilities? Is he a credible witness? Would any attorney put him on the stand as their expert witness? These are not ad hominem attacks; as reasonable people we are entitled to consider this.

Aside from Feith himself, the information: I don't know where this information came from, and who the sources were. I know I will never know that, and in order to get on with my life, I don't need to. But I do remember reading that intelligence officials (maybe the Pentagon) were having hindsight reservations about the quality of the information which they had received from informers; there has been suspicion that, eager to please their handlers, informers gave the US information which they thought the US wanted to hear.

Lastly, the larger view of the CIA should be considered at the same time as Feith's view. Saturday's Washington Post reported that the CIA had found no evidence that Hussein was supplying terrorists with arms.

It's really not so clear to me that this case is "closed," as the Weekly Standard put it in their headline. Far from being closed, it's merely open to debate.

But isn't it LOVELY to see Mr. Rittenberg trawl for traffic at Lucianne Goldberg's site under the name of "samejohnson"?

See http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=90973 , reply 22, and click the poster...

Campy,
Great to see you're reading other conservative websites. The light of Horsefeathers is not hidden under a bushel and is even available to enlighten fools. You can also find us posting and linked from time to time at other blogs--the iconoclast, the antiidiotarian LGF, Intellectual conservative---see the list of favorites on the right hand side. Give them a try--it might enlarge your perspective.

Yes, you big lunk, but to link your site without any disclosure, not even saying "as well as my site"? When will you be offering free toasters?