Re: "The neocon-artists wrote the memo."
Whoever you mean by "neocon-artists" is irrelevant to the information from over the years contained within the memo, unless you say elements in the intelligence agencies which gathered the reported information, are the "neocon-artists," and that they planted flase reports over the years including a Newsweek reference from 1998. Face it, this is actual intelligence information received. Make of it what you will, but there is no indication the information itself isn't actual information given to the various agencies involved over the years.
Re: "What do we already know about the intelligence wars over the Iraq-al Qaida link?"
Specifically and most concretely, the information presented to the Senate Intelligence Committee in the form of a memo which was cleared by all agencies involved. Read it, judge it, no point in pretending it doesn't exist(particularly when you have zilch for evidence to indicate it was fabricated over the years, or at any time by anyone).
From the article you are proud to repost: "Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources."
From your thoughts, re: "there seems to be little if anything here that the folks in the rest of the Intel Community -- outside of Special Plans -- did not see before concluding that there were no significant links between Iraq and al Qaida"
"Seems" is indicative of a hedged opinion rather than fact(very appropriate), and "concluding that there were no significant links between Iraq and al Qaida" is silly since once shown the information we now see(even if "cherry picked"), it would be illogical to arrive at said conclusion(the information ONLY leads toward a greater likelihood of a link of some extent, on its bald face, nothing more nor less). It's more likely, therefore, that it would have been said that there is no PROOF of significant links between Al Qaeda & Iraq(bringing into doubt your veracity). You have bias, we see, IMO. We see what, in your opinion, is "the first point to make here," but your point is contrary to logic given the state of the information.
Your second point concerns cherry-picking, and I would note that the inability to do so has been considered to HINDER the ability to interpret intelligence(it is easy to overlook similarities coming from different sources when it is desirable to do so in order to detect a pattern). Here we have, as accurately noted above, a situation where "Much of the evidence is...corroborated by multiple sources."
Resond to the evidence. Or tell us why you might think the givers of the information in evidence were lying through the 90's. Or tell us the information received was fabricated over the years by neocons. Make your case. Don't expect it to be palatable without a shred of evidence to back it up. The evidence is what it is, unless impeached soundly(I don't foresee you accomplishing this).
Dan B. |
