The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.
That is a factually correct statement. Congratulations for identifying it - Bush-haters are so rarely able to distinguish fact from their own fantasies. ;-)
But that statement says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to refute, rebut, repudiate or re-anything-else the factual accuracy of the intelligence information contained in the annex OR the conclusions the reporter or any objective reader might draw from it.
As for Atta, I figured you'd bring that up. As you may have noticed, the article noted reports of up to FOUR meetings over a period of years, not one. The author also noted that one of the reported meetings is seriously doubted by US intelligence services and another is subject to seemingly conflicting information. Finally, he reminds us that Czech intelligence officials stand by ALL of their reports of meetings.
But the point is not that anyone can definitively tie Saddam Hussein to planning and execution of 9/11, but rather that he DID, according to the evidence, have an active and growing involvement with al Queda in it's efforts to attack US citizens, assets, allies and interests, which was Bush's claim before the war.
At the very least, you Bush-haters should give up your oft-repeated lie that "there was no connection between Saddam and al Queda" and that "Bush lied about it."
As for the DoD statement that the leaked report, as you put it, "cannot be relied upon", when was the last time the government DIDN'T "officially" repudiate a leaked top secret report? It's pretty much automatic.
Now, if you'd like to suggest that the information contained in this report should be examined fully in the light of day, I'll go for that, subject of course to protecting US intelligence personnel and assets. |
