In view of the Levin requested Pentagon report on whether or not there was an AQ link in Iraq.....here's another report from 2006 that is revealing today
SSCI - Phase II - Proving a point by a prearranged conclusion
macsmind.com
I’m still weeding through this “report”. First impressions I got is that it seems to read as if it were trying to convince me that Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda as if by repeating over and over again I would descend in to a state of BDS and start a new liberal blog.
This is supposed to be a report, but coming a couple of years after Phase I in 2004 you read, “Unable to confirm”, “Cannot locate evidence”, etc, ad naseum. Who are these guys? I could Google “evidence” all over the internet, indeed this blog has talked about them a few times. In many places it directly contradicts the Phase I report, and even get’s comical when it suggests that Saddam tried to capture Zarqawi. How about checking the hospital in Bagdad Saddam?
Most disturbing and it coincides with the left’s war on The Path to 9/11, as Thomas Joscelyn writes in The Weekly Standard today, in Rules of Evidence:
“The testimony of another former senior Iraqi official is more starkly disturbing. One of Saddam’s senior intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, was questioned about his contacts with bin Laden and al Qaeda. There is a substantial body of reporting on Hijazi’s ties to al Qaeda throughout the 1990s.
Hijazi admitted to meeting bin Laden once in 1995, but claimed that “this was his sole meeting with bin Ladin or a member of al Qaeda and he is not aware of any other individual following up on the initial contact.”
This is not true. Hijazi’s best known contact with bin Laden came in December 1998, days after the Clinton administration’s Operation Desert Fox concluded. We know the meeting happened because the worldwide media reported it. The meeting took place on December 21, 1998. And just days later, Osama bin Laden warned, “The British and the American people loudly declared their support for their leaders decision to attack Iraq. It is the duty of Muslims to confront, fight, and kill them.”
Reports of the alliance became so prevalent that in February 1998 Richard Clarke worried in an email to Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s National Security adviser, that if bin Laden were flushed from Afghanistan he would probably just “boogie to Baghdad.” Today, Clarke has made a habit of denying that Iraq and al Qaeda were at all connected.
There is a voluminous body of evidence surrounding this December 1998 meeting between Hijazi and bin Laden–yet there is not a single mention of it in the committee’s report. THE WEEKLY STANDARD asked the staffers “Why not?” They replied that there was no evidence of the meeting in the intelligence or documents they reviewed.”
On that note we have to ask, “What else is being hid from the Clinton years?” Clinton was impeached during his office term, but I wonder now that he has been out of office, what would happen if a flood of evidence began to appear of his specific malfeasance in regards to terrorism and specifically to 9/11?
Unfortunately our Senate Intelligence Committee could care less about getting to the truth, for the Democrats on the committee it was just another way to get Bush, nothing more, and nothing less.
More at Strata-Sphere, Flopping Aces
democrats elections politics bush war on terror path to 9/11
Posted by Macranger on Saturday, September 9th, 2006 at 8:30 am.
3 Responses to “SSCI - Phase II - Proving a point by a prearranged conclusion”
The dependence on post-war interviews with Saddam’s staff struck me. All I could visualize was Bagdad Bob reporting that they were winning, while leading armor elements were entering the city!
It was enough to make me quit reading.
Left by azdad on September 9th, 2006
Hint:
Mac, you have to read the addendum by Kean, etc. It says, that Rocky and friends pitched such a fit over what the facts showed, that they had to alter some of their findings/conclusions or the dems wouldn’t play.
He admits they also had to do some of that in the first report just to get it done. But, they say that these findings that the Dems wanted in some cases goes entirely against the findings of fact. And that while they disagreed with it entirely, they had to go along..as that was the nature of such a bi-partisan effort.
Rocky also attached a statement, frothing BDS that the report now shows that Bush lied, etc..etc.
At times they would have several pieces of direct evidence, documents and statements from multiple sources and suggest it doesn’t prove anything…move along..nothing to see. Then at others, they would accept the solitary word of someone who had motive to lie, as definitive evidence (including taking Saddam himself at his word). You are right…it’s ridiculous! Half the committee signed onto two different addendum letters to say just that!
I found reading the addendum and attached letters more telling that the rest of it.
Left by Dc on September 9th, 2006
[…] AJStrata notes that media establishment journalists can’t read. Now I know why journalists get their stories so wrong so often - they lack basic reading comprehension skills. With all the hoopla about the Senate Intelligence report supposedly saying there were no ties between Saddam and Terrorists (despite Iraq documents which log the training of thousands of terrorists, and notes reqarding meetings with Al Qaeda) it might behoove people to read them for themselves. […]
Left by Never Yet Melted » Liberal Majority on Senate Intel Committee Adopts Pouting Spook’s Press Releases on September 9th, 2006 |
