Shehata-Devil?

The recent capture of Suleiman Abu Ghaith should, at least theoretically, bring to light the history of Iran keeping certain key AQ members under 'house arrest' since 9/11.  But why, some people may ask, would they do it?  After all they are Shia, AQ is Sunni. 

While the answer may be obvious to the Jessica Chastain type characters in the CIA--perhaps as leverage to keep the west from attacking and bide time for the nuclear program, the bigger question may be whether Iran had any foreknowledge of 9/11 (as a federal judge in 2011 ruled in a civil trial).  Such a revelation, if true, is certainly not something that would make headlines at the moment for obvious reasons, nevertheless it might explain a lot about the War on Terror in general.

Poking around on this subject invariably unearths the name Thirwat Shehata.  A lawyer and senior member of Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad (his resume is deep), he was/is among the house arrestees in Iran.  He was also one of the senior members of EIJ that was believed to be operating in Iraq before the invasion in 2002-03, as mentioned by Tenet and Cheney (as casus belli for the attack).  His presence there is disputed, but one thing is sure, he's still around and hasn't been caught and is known as a right-hand man to Zawahiri.

But there's more than just safe harbor in Mullah-ville.  Shehata married the sister of Mahmoud Jaballah, who operated in Canada until he was picked up after 9/11 and placed in their "Gitmo North' without charges.  A judge released him and fellow detainee Mohammed Mahjoub to 'house arrest' in 2007 although the Canadian CIA (CSIS) has been closely monitoring them since.  Mahjoub was connected to "Vanguards of Conquest" (possibly the second in command) and was associated with Essam Marzouk, also a VoC member.  The Vanguards were associated with Zawahiri and Mohammed Atef, who was working on a project when he was droned in 2001. Abu Ghaith threatened America with millions of deaths via WMDs in 2001.  So yes, surely the FBI was very interested in what he might know.   

This blog did a piece on the Canadian connection back in 2008, tying them to suspected AQ figures Mohammed Loay Bayazid, one of the founding members of AQ, and Muburak al-Duri, an Iraqi whom the 9/11 Commission called a WMD procurement person for bin Laden.  Despite all kinds of circumstantial evidence placing these two in connection with AQ or EIJ members, neither have ever been arrested.   Both deny any involvement with terrorism, so maybe the FBI believes them, or maybe there's an inconvenience factor in play. 

At any rate, those not as smart as the Jessica Chastain character might see the dots between AQ, Iraq, Iran and WMD--and even the new Muslim Brotherhood ascension in Egypt--and try to connect them.  Some might even see the "death to America, death to Israel" scribbled in the anthrax letters after 9/11 as the calling card it was intended to portray, ie, don't mess with us, we have sleepers.  Which would line up with keeping AQ figures in-country under house arrest.  Sort of like keeping UBL locked up in a house in a Pakistani military garrison town.  Insurance.  And what about Benghazi?  Any loose connections?  

Or maybe it's all too convenient and Halliburton and friends are still the real enemy.   As usual, mystery and confusion reigns. 

Curveball Finale, and this Time it's for Real

The left's favorite Iraqi--code named Curveball--is making news again after telling the Guardian that essentially it wasn't Bush who lied--it was him:

"Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," he said. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."

OK, this is big news on the left (and has outrageously outraged Colin Powell) but before the lather thickens perhaps some questions could be answered:

1. He claims the German spy agency BND knew his claims were false in 2000. This would be before Bush took office. Why would Prime Minister Schroeder, by all accounts a Bush hater, help the US lie about WMDs to promote war in Iraq? Was David Kay correct about the BND? If so, why would they do it?

2. He claims toppling Saddam by force was the only way to bring democracy to Iraq. Based on the celebrations over Egypt, isn't this a great outcome?

3. He claims:

After the speech, Janabi said he called his handler at the BND and accused the secret service of breaking an agreement that they would not share anything he had told them with another country. He said he was told not to speak and placed in confinement for around 90 days.

If he was deliberately trying to bring down Saddam by lying why would he demand the Germans not share his info? Was it reverse psychology, knowing they would? That sounds like something an intelligence asset might try. Or did he seriously think Germany would roll tanks into Baghdad and liberate his family? Or was he just trying to use the story to gain asylum and now, after the fact, trying to elevate himself into a hero by saying he was noble?

4. Tyler Drumheller said he was a liar. Is he still a liar? Is he still drinking? A Chalabi stooge?

5. George Tenet said the following about Curveball in his memoirs regards Drumheller:

Thank Dr. Hanning for the Iraqi WMD information provided by the BND asset "Curve Ball." Inform Dr. Hanning that we would like to work with the BND to craft an approach to Curve Ball to secure his cooperation in locating evidence of Iraq's biological weapons (BW) programs, and about the direct involvement of Dr. Rihab Taha al-Azzawi in Iraq's mobile BW program.

Has Mr. Drumheller ever refudiated or responded to this assertion?

Oh well. It's highly unlikely these questions will be answered any faster than the last set posed in 2007. Maybe a Wiki Leak will clear things up.

Cheney Docs

The Cheney FBI 302 interview file is out and contains some insight along with a few Cheneyisms. Here's one, from very early in the interview:

His initial reaction to the Wilson article was that it was 'amateur hour' out at the CIA

Some pages later he recollects the period between the Wilson NY Times column on July 6 and Novak's earth-shaking column on July 14:

He does recall at one point 'gigging' Tenet and/or McGlaughlin about vetting a separate, and entirely unrelated intelligence matter by sarcastically suggesting to them that perhaps they ought to send Joe Wilson to check it out.

No wonder so many people in the CIA probably hated this guy. Here's another gem, from a question regards the crucial lunch meeting between Ari Fleischer and Libby, a compelling point during trial:

He is not aware of any lunch meetings or discussions between Ari Fleischer and Scooter Libby, but it would not surprise him if they had been to lunch together at some time during Fleischer's White House tenure.

As to insight, it's pretty clear from this reading that Cheney wasn't throwing Libby many life lines while busy saving himself. It would be interesting to hear Scooter's opinion on this.

But that's losing the big picture. Whatever Darth said or didn't say is largely irrelevant in regards to the raison d'etre for all things Plame. Had what Wilson didn't find in Africa been so important he could have been leaked it BEFORE the invasion. By waiting until nothing turned up the entire thing came off as a political stunt to help deflect blame away from CIA and the mainstream media while helping to elect Kerry, which actually succeeded well beyond Cheney's 'amateur hour' description (he needs to stay away from predictions).

Anyone following the case objectively knows that Wilson tried to mislead by suggesting he was sent to Africa at the "behest" of the OVP, who then ignored his findings in the rush to war. In truth the CIA analysts who did see his 'widely disseminated' out-brief were more convinced than ever Saddam had clandestine nuclear aspirations, which probably answers the question of why it wasn't leaked pre-war. All of this led to a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation that produced a collective "you lie" to Joe Wilson. That should have been the end of it.

But it lingers. Some on the left haven't yet given up on impeachment, but in truth the true truth may never come out. Cheney's writing a book but how far he chooses to go in this area is anyone's bet, and even he mentions it many won't believe him and besides, his testimony here was a testament to the game-playing, butt-covering nature of Washington.

As to the current crew, it's highly doubtful Obama will wade into this territory due to the blowback potential. They'd rather have foreigners do it (whilst going for a new shield law) and dither around with torture, at least until it becomes unproductive. Meanwhile, the Plameologists will keep waiting and hoping that someone catches some spilled truth one day, like the little balloon boy on CNN.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

The world is not enough for some of these Democrats:

"Cheney's world view, which so dominated the Bush years and dishonored our nation, gained a little traction last week -- enough to persuade me to address it head-on here tonight," Levin said.

What a guy, plying the airwaves to make sure the "torture" gift keeps on giving for the Dems. Wonder if Pelosi still considers it a gift, though? She pulled a Nixon and ran off to China last time the fur flew so unless she wants another vacation it would seem a big no. We will soon see if her "no further comment" policy remains in effect.

It's possible Levin is trying to reframe the debate to save her rear, ie, "Cheney only wanted waterboarded to get phony intel linking AQ and Iraq so he could get their greasy oil". It's the Larry Wilkerson route (although he's hit a few potholes) and is designed to take the debate off terrorists and back on "Bush lied" and "Cheney is evil" where the Dems feel more at home.

But if Levin is really really really interested in demonizing those in government who wondered aloud whether Saddam might be the man behind the curtain he could start by subpoenaing the Secretary of State and asking her why she said--on September 11th--that Saddam would have to be "dealt with" (hard to find now on the web) and that nations would have to be "with us or against us". Golly, that would have been before Bush officially lied, too.

Or maybe Levin could depose his colleagues and ask for explanations about what happened to the links they once talked about so morbidly when Clinton was being impeached. Or maybe he could depose himself, specifically about this statement:

Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq.

..which comes from his own Phase II Senate report That would be must-see TV!

This is tired old stuff but as long as the Dems keep dredging it back up it deserves to be challenged because they are literally trying to re-write history to wipe the GOP off the map. For instance, the Zarqawi debate is considered over by the left--as in Bush lied--but what about the Jordanians, who provided info on his comings/goings? Is Levin willing to call them liars, too? Is Pelosi?

And what of another guy named Abu? Old news but he's proof that Iraq was not beyond using proxies to attack American interests. Here are some other connections. They're out there, just a bit circumstantial. But if someone was going to set up a proxy network...

The bottom line is whether Cheney is lying about the effectiveness of EIT as Levin charges. First off, the public should wonder how Levin was able to view the very documents the CIA won't release to Cheney. Second, the public should demand to see the docs because then and only then will it become apparent who's telling the truth. If it turns out Cheney's bluffing or generalizing it would strongly suggest he was going after links between Iraq and AQ because that's where the WMD threat would have come from. But that's not what he's been saying in interviews.

Maybe he can't admit they got suckered and thought Iraq was involved, which might be a little problematic from a political point of view and would surely elevate Obama's 'superior judgment' into the stratosphere. But if Cheney's lying we need to know. Only the docs can tell. If he's not Levin and crew should receive no quarter.

Whether he's lying or not doesn't change the big Democrat lie, ie--that it's crazy to think a man who wanted the White House turned into dust might have actually tried to do it. Saddam was all about retribution and Arab pride. Apparently the left never truly believed the hype about him during the Clinton years, seeing Iraq as a convenient distraction when the Republicans were wrapping the dress around Clinton's neck. That changed fast with the transition.

Maybe they never really believed somebody would act on it. The real proof lies with the Clintons, who've never fully discarded or debunked it themselves. Whether that's the truth or something designed to protect their legacies (they have a lot of harsh rhetoric on tape) is hard to say, but should there be any truth commissions they should be among the first witnesses called to set the table.

The Never-Ending Storm

Cheney derangement syndrome is apparently contagious. Pulitzer winner Maureen Dowd was caught cutting and pasting Josh Marshall (for all we know they collaborated on JournoList and forgot who was to take credit) and Larry Wilkerson made a timeline error.

Both were evidently in a hurry to move the focus off the fairy tale being told by Pelosi and back on Bushitler where it belongs. Funny, the left thinks it's the right trying to reframe the debate. Apparently it's OK to mislead when attacking an opponent for lying.

Anyway, as told by Maguire, Wilkerson's timeline mistake was explained, sort of, in an email to Spencer Ackerman:

I am basing my conclusions on the fact that DCI Tenet and DDCI McLaughlin presented the information about al-Libi to Secretary Powell in Feb 2003 and not in Feb 2002. The strong impression was that the interrogation had just occurred or, at a minimum, that Tenet had just received the information (otherwise, why wouldn’t they have given it to Powell much earlier, say when he first expressed concerns over the terrorist links some days earlier?).

The al-Libi confession should have been known to State intelligence since it had been bandied about through DIA as Maguire points out. Wilkerson's offhand suggestion they created the confession is obviously silly but was Powell or State read in on every CIA interrogation? Maybe they're still sore for not being trusted. How much of all this has been about ego and professional reputations?

Since Wilkerson's central defense involves Powell's trip to Langley to get his UN story straight devoid of interference by Bushco, let's go to George Tenet. Here he is describing the meeting scenario, beginning on page 372:

We could let the administration write its own script, knowing they might easily mischaracterize complex intelligence information, or we could jump in and help craft the speech itself. We chose the latter.

In other words, they were trying to tamp down the Laurie Mylroie lobby who was convinced Saddam was working with AQ, and Powell was helping. Tenet even scoffs at Scooter Libby for providing Powell...

..a forty-page paper of unknown origin entitled "Iraq's Dangerous Support for Terror" which the secretary promptly dismissed.

If al-Libi was mentioned in that 40 pager it certainly would shoot down Wilkerson completely but Tenet doesn't mention Libi in this section. He also doesn't mention any 11th hour intelligence given to Powell either, which would seem weird if they were working together to clean out some of the AQ-Saddam stuff.

Whatever the case Mr. Wilkerson seems to be suggesting that Pelosi is correct in her accusation that the CIA lied to Congress about various matters, in this case, Iraq. Based on Tenet's narrative (which has admittedly been shaky in some spots) the only way Wilkerson's account could be correct is if somebody in the White House backdoored the al-Libi info through Tenet after realizing Powell was wavering, which calls into question Mr. Tenet's truthfulness. Wonder when somebody will badger interview him on this?

As if on cue, Newsweek today picked up the al-Libi "suicide" story, dropping a hint as to the Obama administration's curiosity:

Al-Libi also had been identified recently by U.S. defense lawyers as a possible key witness in upcoming trials of top terror suspects. "We want answers," said an administration official familiar with the case, who asked not to be identified discussing a sensitive matter. "We want to know what really happened here."

'Demanding answers'? That's rich coming from an administration that still hasn't been up front about AF1 buzzing New York or the president's own college transcripts. Assuming these folks aren't blowing smoke to Newsweek in support of the above gameplan it's logical to wonder if they think someone murdered al-Libi in prison to cover something up? But who would have motive?

Al-Libi had already recanted his AQ-Iraq confession, providing embarrassment to Bush and the CIA, so how much worse could it get? Do we know whether Mr. dead terrorist wasn't prepared to recant his previous recantation? Why should anyone believe him anyway? Well OK yes, the left would have believed him wholeheartedly had he only bashed Cheney--maybe that's a motive for Darth. Or maybe he told the aid workers to screw off for their lack of help and that if ever called he was going back to his AQ-Saddam story. In that case maybe Quadaffy saw an opportunity to score points with Obama.

But the nonsense is already out of the barn. Stories are popping up to suggest that Emperor Cheney ordered interrogators to look for Iraq-AQ links at Gitmo, as if such a thing occurring in 2002 was tantamount to Cheney asking them to find links between AQ and the Pope. The anthrax attacks had not even been blamed on Steven Hatfill in early 2002.

Anyway, here we are talking about the UN, Libby and Iraq instead of the Speaker of the House politicizing national security and accusing the CIA of lying to Congress while Obama runs amok socializing and spreading wealth. Mission accomplished, at least for awhile.

MORE 5/19/09

Colonel Wilkerson appeared on the Maddow show last night:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Weekly Standard sorts it out for us. His answer to the al-Libi timeline mistake was that he'll need to investigate more, as if he shouldn't have already been privy to the details bloggers so easily found by looking at publicly released Senate Intelligence reports. The whole thing has a kind of Clouseau/Barney Fife feel to it.

For instance, Wilkerson made a rather startling statement aside from al-Libi, saying that by 2002 (during the time the al-Libi and Zubaydah interrogations were ongoing) the US had not only "torn AQ a new one" in Afghanistan but done some other things to demobilize them to the point where, he says, people in 'the business' were not as worried about new attacks.

Really? Can he corroborate that, because the Bali bombing occurred in October 2002 and we still didn't have the top two kingpins of AQ in captivity, nor did we have KSM, Hambali, binalshibh, etc. Perhaps the Colonel has inside info he's not able to share to confirm this notion or perhaps his memory is somewhat fuzzy, but considering the Madrid and London attacks occurred after 2002 that certainly was an erroneous assumption if anyone made it.

But it does lend itself to a line of attack that suggests the administration was covering up their success against AQ to prepare for Saddam, and were torturing the necessary talking point links out of unsuspecting detainees to help them get there. And that Powell and Tenet were the fall guys should anything go wrong.

The 'Trouble' with Brennan

Glenn Greenwald is angry about Obama's proposed nomination of John O. Brennan for CIA Chief:

Still, Brennan has been and continues to be an extremely important adviser for Obama on intelligence issues. His views on past administration conduct are, in many important instances, clearly disturbing and bear watching.

He lists several instances where Brennan defended enhanced interrogation and secret sites. But in this Charlie Rose interview (along with Scott Shane from the Times and Tyler Drumheller) he seems detached enough from Iraq, and importantly Dick Cheney, to suit some lefty needs, despite his defense of former boss George Tenet.

By the way, Drumheller seems a real piece of work, at one point telling Rose that Tenet knew the WMDs weren't there but didn't have the nerve to tell Bush, then later that he thought Tenet believed there were WMDs. Which was it? If your memory no longer serves Mr. Drumheller was the one who claimed to have raised a flag about the intelligence Curveball was providing the German BND service, intel that ended up in Colin Powell's UN speech. Tenet, in his book, roundly disputed his narrative.

But as to Brennan, the lefty criticism seems directed at his unwillingness to harshly condemn "torture" and other efforts Bush used to keep terrorists from killing Americans. Apparently, such a person doesn't represent the change liberals needed in DC, perhaps preferring someone more like Drumheller or even John Kerry to head the CIA and confirm their Bush-era fantaspiracies. But Brennan might possibly indicate how reality sometimes trumps ideology when it comes to practical political survival.

As Rummy once famously said, 'we don't know what we don't know'. On page 193 of Ken Timmerman's book "Shadow Warriors" he recounts a conversation between Undersecretary of Defense John Shaw and Bill Gertz of the Washington Times regarding Saddam's WMDs, specifically the strange assignment of several Russian generals to Iraq in the months before the war. It has long been rumored that Russian Spetsnaz troops helped move anything sensitive with Russian fingerprints out of Iraq and into Syria before the invasion, oddly alluded to (offhand) by Joe the VP in his 2007 interview with Tim Russert. Perhaps Brennan knows something about all of this?

Whatever the case, he knows a lot more than the silly conventional wisdom that floats around the blogosphere about Bushitler. For instance, here's what Tenet writes in his book regarding an encounter between Brennan, who speaks Arabic, and a member of the Iranian MOIS intelligence, page 124:

John walked up to his car, knocked on the window, and said, "Hello, I'm from the U.S. Embassy and I've got something to tell you." As John tells the story, the guy got out of his car, claimed that Iran was a peace-loving country, then jumped back in the car and sped away. Just being seen with some of our people might cause MOIS officers to fall under suspicion with their own agency. The cold pitches undoubtedly ruined some careers, and maybe even lives, but also occasionally paid off in actual intelligence dividends. It couldn't happen to a nastier bunch of people.

By the way, if the name sounds familiar it's because Brennan's company, the Analysis Corp (sounds itself like a dummy CIA front company) was involved in some shenanigans regarding access of Obama's passport, a highly entertaining comedy act affectionately referred to as Passportgate, which spun up right in the middle of Reverend Wright-gate. Imagine that.

More dots?

Two noted conservative bloggers are reporting a story from a Kurdish newspaper that purports to show a document from Saddam's Iraq seeking a meeting with Ayman al-Zawahiri after 9/11.

Gateway Pundit and Strata Sphere

Both, including Regime of Terror, point out Saddam's previous ties to the Egyptian terror apparatus that featured not only Zawahiri but Mohammed Atta, the current leader of AQ in Iraq Abu Ayyub al-Masri, and the grandfather of jihad against America, the Blind Sheikh. Makes me wonder sometimes what actually happened with EgyptAir 990.

One more thing. In his book George Tenet mentioned the arrival of a group of EIJ members to Baghdad before the war:

What was even more worrisome was that by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa'ida -affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government.

More al-Qa'ida operatives would follow, including Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, two Egyptians assessed by a senior al-Qa'ida detainee to be among the Egyptian Islamic Jihad's best operational planners, who arrived by mid-May 2002.

Former Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada wrote about the animus between Saddam and the Royals in his book, recounting a trip by Izzat al-Duri to Saudi Arabia before the first Gulf War, which partially led to the first Gulf War. This very same hatred was recently exposed by FBI agent George Piro via Ron Kessler's book.

Does this mean Saddam attacked America? No, but if the document is indeed authentic it would represent yet another dot connected between Iraq and the terrorists who did attack America. One has to wonder just how many dots must be connected before we can officially call it a line--and if it becomes a line, how that would change our current political dynamic.

MORE 6/22/08

While 9/11 murderer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed awaits either trial or his habeas corpus petition at Guantanamo the New York Times has apparently decided that it's time to tell the story of his journey through interrogation, including that of the CIA hero assigned to his interrogation. Oh, and then name that man's name and current place of business.

Feel free to read it. There's nothing earthshatteringly new (other than KSM's poems and the notion that Poland is the 51st state). The only reason I can see for printing this (against the CIA's wishes) would be to start the ball rolling so that lower echelon journalists can chase the story and do the Times' dirty work. They must really feel like they're closing in on the enemy.

Lamenting the fate of the ghosts

In a column lamenting the "ghost prisoners" of the CIA's secret prison/rendition network (not yet transferred to GTMO) the WaPo's Craig Whitlock once again failed to mention a very intriguing detail about one of the suspected ghosts, Mustafa Setmariam Nasar--his past connections to Iraq.

Doubtful those connections were extensive, nevertheless, they are on the record. Here's what I dug up on Nasar after Whitlock's last column about the red-headed terrorist about 18 months ago (taken from the Jamestown Foundation's site for Global Terrorism Analysis):

Nasar joined the Syrian jihadist movement al-Tali'a al-Muqatila ("The Fighting Vanguard") and deepened his military expertise at the hands of refugee Syrian military officers in Jordan and Egyptian and Iraqi instructors in Baghdad and Cairo. Specializing in explosives engineering and urban guerrilla warfare, Nasar trained recruits in the military camps of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan and Baghdad..

While this doesn't prove al Qaeda and Saddam were blood brothers it does support other circumstantial evidence that he was in the loop in some shadowy fashion.

Speaking of the loop, Mr. Whitlock also mentions the fate of the notorious IIS (Iraqi Intelligence Service) member Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, better known as the Iraqi envoy to the Czech Republic reported to have met with Mohamed Atta months before the 9/11 attack. This was never corroborated by the FBI although VP Cheney made frequent mention in speeches before the Iraq invasion, a major talking point within the Bush-lied division of the Democrat Party.

Now we learn al-Ani--an Iraqi spy--is suing the Czech government for framing him! He must have visions of Valerie dancing in his head. But why sue Prague and not Washington? Well..

By many accounts al-Ani was hardly a saint. During his time in the Czech Republic, he reportedly hounded Iraqi exiles living in Prague and provided logistical assistance to Islamic extremists. A top agent in Saddam's intelligence agency, he directed, according to Mlada fronta, all secret operations in Central and Eastern Europe.

So, even if he didn't meet directly with Atta, he was an agent of terrorism in the Balkans under direction from Saddam. Kind of explains why he's suing in Prague rather than New York, doesn't it?

Finally, Mr. Whitlock mentions Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, no household name in America but certainly so for those in the know. He was notorious as the AQ training coordinator captured in Afghanistan who told Egyptian Intelligence that Saddam had offered training in poisons to al Qaeda members before the invasion, only to recant thereafter (to become a sort of cause celebre for the anti-Bush set). Here's what Tenet said about al-Libi in his recent memoir, page 269:

(he) had provided the Egyptians with information that he later recanted, that al-Qa'ida had collaborated with Russian organized crime to import into New York "cannisters containing nuclear material."

Funny, al-Libi is not generally notorious for that morsel, only the one he recanted about Iraq. Speaking of that recantation, Tenet covered it on pages 353-54:

He (al-Libi) clearly lied. We just don't know when. Did he lie when he first said that al-Qa'ida members received training in Iraq or did he lie when he said they did not? In my mind, either case might still be true. Perhaps early on, he was under pressure, assumed his interrogators already knew the story, and sang away. After time passed and it became clear that he would not be harmed, he might have changed his story to cloud the minds of his captors. Al-Qa'ida operatives are trained to do just that.

Maybe. Too often both sides in this debate tend to implicitly believe one side or the other based on their personal ideologies. But one thing remains incontrovertible--Saddam was up to his neck in activity designed to keep himself in power, destabilize the Middle East and weaken the United States' overall influence. He no doubt viewed the Gulf War as a stab in the back by America and had not given up on pursuing revenge, which made him dangerous in a world full of stateless rogue operators.

As to the black site ghosts, one has to decide whether America is really in a war. If we are, reading captured terrorists Miranda with full habeas corpus rights borders on the insane and is surely something even Hillary would not pursue, despite what she might say on the campaign trail. After all, she was there when her husband started the rendition program.

THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH 10/27/07

No, not the proposed title of Bush's memoirs. I'm talking about Bond, James Bond. Stay with me here.

Upon relaxing in front of the boob tube I landed on the above-titled movie today. In an early scene Bond meets Sophie Marceau, who plays "Elektra", an heiress to an oil baron. Elektra is continuing her father's work of building an oil pipeline across Azerbaijan, which she explains is going that way to "bypass the terrorists in Iran, Iraq and Syria". Terrorists? In Iraq? Iran?

The movie was released in 1999 and there was no memorable outrage over that portrayal. One might argue that Elektra was the villain and lied about it, but no one called them on it. Not even Robert Redford. Such was conventional wisdom then.

Ironically, after the above scene a commercial for his upcoming movie "Lions for Lambs" aired, which showed Tom Cruise hectoring Meryl Streep with the line "do you want to win the war on terror", a dead giveaway of the likely plot. The movie is being pegged as a wake-up call for America--guess it's too bad Redford was too tied up with Bagger Vance back in 1999 and 2000 to notice all those fatwas.

Cannistraro and Tenet

By now you probably know that several members of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) wrote a letter to Tenet demanding he return the Medal of Freedom. No surprise that among the five were Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson, or as CNN reminds us, Johnson is a former CIA intelligence official and registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000.. Johnson is perhaps the most quoted ex-CIA employee in history.

Their letter stated the following:

"You betrayed the CIA officers who collected the intelligence that made it clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat. You betrayed the analysts who tried to withstand the pressure applied by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

This is part and parcel of the revisionist history game being played by some members of the CIA, which apparently included Valerie Plame through her husband Joe Wilson.

The key word in that letter was "imminent", more on that later.

Another name on the list was Vincent Cannistraro. By the way, this post isn't an effort to demonize the man, only point out some of his stated opinions leading up to this letter. Here's one, from a wide-ranging interview done by Frontline a few years ago:

With terrorism, we have basically arrested all the perpetrators in the bombings of our embassies in East Africa in 1998. But these are secondary parts. They're replaceable tools. The leadership, the sponsorship, is beyond law enforcement. That's the problem with the law enforcement response. It isn't sufficient. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't prosecute people who commit crimes. Killing people and bombing is a crime. Sure. But it's not an effective total response to terrorism itself.

And that's the bottom line with all of this back and forth--we're dealing with opinions, judgment and assessments of analysts.

That's why the 180 on Iraq is so compelling. There is a war between sides to write history and right now the "Saddam was never a threat" side is winning. This 180 largely developed after 9/11 when some analysts realized Bush might actually be serious about finishing off the monster they'd helped create. If we return back in time to 1999 and the now infamous ABC News Sheila MacVicar report (about the possible links between Saddam and bin Laden) notice that Vince Cannistraro was an intergral part of that interview.

This is not to say the debate over Iraq is illegitimate or that Bush didn't cherry pick some of the worst assessments to help his case. That's otherwise known as accepting and acting on the worse-case scenario based on Saddam's past behavior. For years the detractors were satisfied in using the "cherry-picked" rubrick but are now going for the full Monty by suggesting it was conventional wisdom in 2003 that Saddam was no threat. Such a premise leaves the conclusion that Bush lied, and the letter-writers have now included Tenet.

From the above, the key word was imminent. Bush specifically said Iraq was a "gathering" threat, as did Bill Clinton before him. 9/11 created the paradigm that acting on such a threat had become prudent, but this is where the grand canyon was created. Argue with lefties and they'll claim that by mentioning 9/11 and Saddam in the same paragraph Bush was linking the two. Yes, but not as Saddam being the author of the attack, only as someone who had a long history of supporting terrorism. That's why this revisionism is important, because if Saddam can be removed from suspicion of acting in concert with terrorists it removes any conceivable imminent threats sans the bubbling vats of WMDs.

In hindsight perhaps we could have dealt differently with the Butcher but any hindsight discussions should include the following key points. One, the only way he agreed to more UN inspections was under the threat of the 150,000 combat troops massing on his periphery. Had we allowed Blix to declare him "disarmed", which is the possible result of protracted inspections, he would have lobbied the UN to remove the sanctions, something the US would have been hard-pressed to stop. Both Duelfer and Kay speculated what his intentions would have been under such a scenario.

On the other hand, had we not massed forces in 2003 Saddam wouldn't have allowed the inspectors back in, leaving the threat discussed in the MacVicar interview--ie, the passage of WMD technology or materials to terrorists. That's why the Congress voted as they did.

Perhaps maintaining the no-fly zones indefinitely and trying to force the UN to unravel the Oil for Food scandal would have been better, who knows. Nobody can deny we're now trapped between Iraq and a hard place and that our escape options are all fraught with peril.

But the attempt by people like Tenet, Cannistraro, Scheuer and others to re-write the history of the intelligence assessments about Saddam in order to repair reputations, soften legacies or gain political advantages better describes Tenet's parting remark in the book--'you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own set of facts'.

60 Minutes of CYA

Too bad nobody in DC can understand the old saying "what's done is done". In DC what's done is never done, it's just an opportunity to score points and make money. During peacetime it's not big deal--SOP--but during wartime it doesn't mix so well.

Nevertheless, more excerpts are pouring forth from Tenet's book in advance of his appearance tonight on 60 Minutes, with the breathless New York Times leading the way, painting Tenet as no different than a stock writer at Firedoglake or HuffPo. The WaPo also weighed in with another article, yet as Tom Maguire points out, it's disappointing there were no references to Valerie Plame or Joe Wilson. Rather odd, since the book title is "Center of the Storm". Perhaps we'll hear about some tonight. Or not.

At any rate, if you can stand it I'd like to present a few more thoughts on this subject. First things first, the Times article has been figuratively hurled out the window for reasons mentioned above. Instead let's focus on two WaPo stories with the first one focusing on the musings from Tenet (blockquoted):

(Bush) repeatedly stretched available intelligence to build support for the war

That seems a polar opposite to how Woodward described the December 2002 slam dunk meeting. Bush was painted as skeptical while Tenet was waving his arms, the president ending the conversation with an admonition to his staff to NOT stretch the info.

The debate "was not about imminence but about acting before Saddam did."

In hindsight a pretty good question but based on all the available wisdom at the time rather understandable, since Saddam had already "acted" several times with disastrous results.

In their threat briefings for the incoming Bush administration in late 2000, Tenet writes, CIA officials did not even mention Iraq. But Cheney, he says, asked for an Iraq briefing and requested that the outgoing Clinton administration's defense secretary, William S. Cohen, provide information on Iraq for Bush.

That begs the question--why would the former administration have ignored Iraq in their turnover briefings? Why did Cheney have to specifically ask? After all, it was William Cohen who famously held up that bag of sugar to simulate Saddam's anthrax threat. There were repeated bombings and speeches about the threat from Saddam to the point of even accusing him of helping bin Laden make VX gas in Khartoum, later inducing a bombing. Was it all just dog wagging after all?

When he became acting director in December 1996, Tenet writes, he found an agency "in shambles," its budget slashed, its recruiting moribund and its morale "in the basement."

Somehow the Times missed that part.

The program (NSA terrorist surveillance) was Cheney's idea, and the vice president briefed "the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence committees 12 times prior to its public disclosure" in late 2005

He might think this helps Cheney but it will probably just add more fuel to the impeachment fire. It does suggest the incredible power of the vice president, but we knew that.

Tenet's memoir revisionism is particularly strange since open source information says he sent a memo to Congress in October of 2002 explaining the WMD threat that Bush was building up at the time, most notably during a speech in Cincinnati on October 7. The letter also stipulated the known links to al Qaeda. As we know, only two months later he would tell the president the case was a slam dunk, hardly apt if he thought the case wasn't.

Enter Mike Scheuer, former Tenet underling and head of the bin Laden unit. His pre-60 Minutes WaPo Op Ed basically rips the former DCI a new bunghole (thanks Mick) by saying Tenet should have known what everyone else in the CIA knew--the Iraq war would be a disaster and that Saddam was never involved with AQ:

But Tenet's resignation would have destroyed the neocons' Iraq house of cards by discrediting the only glue holding it together: the intelligence that "proved" Saddam Hussein guilty of pursuing nuclear weapons and working with al-Qaeda.

Problem is, Mr. Scheuer himself was touting the bin Laden connection in his first book, which I've written about here many times and pointed out in detail quite awhile ago by Thomas Joscelyn of the Weekly Standard (also ripped by Scheuer).

Let me summarize--this book is just another CYA parade float. It can only help Mr. Tenet but it does no good in the long run nor does it help us in our present predicament. Terrorists and their state enablers attacked us on 9/11 (and other times) and Saddam was part of the fabric of terror nation. He might not have been involved in 9/11 but it's undeniable that he had possessed WMDs and had used them.

All this quibbling doesn't nullify those basic facts. Leaving him in power would have been risky. Remember, this was a guy who had written novels with allusions to the tumbling twin towers so the revisionist mothballing of his bad influence on the region is pretty stunning. But this is now a bridge never crossed by the warring parties in America.

Finally, Maguire notes that CIA press person Bill Harlow helped write the book. Yet another Plame star pokes up their head up like a meercat, looking around, seeing a clear coast, and filling a bag with book cash! All the while the Bush administration absorbs yet another body blow without so much as a middle finger from Rove in response. Perplexing, unless of course they are all guilty as sin.

LIVE BLOGGING THE SHOW.. SORT OF 4/29/07

Part of the lead in to the show, "who in the Bush administration put the knife in his back.." Off to a good start!

Tenet, "human beings make mistakes". Something nobody can seemingly understand anymore. Then said, "truth matters to us". By the way, he's the most animated guest I've ever seen.

On the Condi Rice "special briefing" pre 9/11...Tenet says he told Rice we needed to open a can on Afghanistan. That's interesting, because there were stories out right after 9/11 that in fact that's what we were planning to do.

Key moment--Tenet getting the passenger lists of the 9/11 flights and seeing the two Kuala Lumpur terrorists he failed to watch list in 2000. Ouch.

I like his attitude, by the way. "It's our turn now, bastards" or something to that effect. "We sat around the campfire and said now we get to torture people!. No, we don't torture people". Pelley (CBS): "c'mon George, waterboarding, etc". Tenet: "listen to me, we do not torture people". Very testy.

MORE

On the prospect of AQ nukes, "intent" is the key (as for me, I'm skeptical they could effectively deliver and am confident they can't produce, but these are the kinds of problems that cause multiple ulcers for those in charge).

IRAQ
Tenet, "war in Iraq is a national tragedy". CBS, "classic Washington fashion, someone decided to leak". Bwwhhahahaha.

Tenet slam dunked Cheney, but so what, he's the human pinata nowadays. He also got a Perle slam in there, too, regards him listing Saddam. Regards that statement he expressed incredulity that Perle would say such a thing, since he knew it was AQ. How did Tenet know what connections those terrorists had that quickly after the event?

He was very adamant about there being no connection between Saddam and ANY attack on America, yet above I linked the memo he sent Congress listing the known connections and the 2002 NIE. There's some disingenuity and showmanship going on here, methinks.
This is the reason Scheuer thinks he should have spoken up at the time, instead he said slam dunk.

Tenet, "Scott, you're doing it again". Ha. "Intelligence is about best judgments".
He defended Colin Powell's UN presentation.

Ah, now it's finally Joe time! Tenet, "she (Plame) is one of my officers". Pelley, 'how much damage', Tenet, animated, "that's not the point!".

As to the slam dunk moment, after seeing Tenet's gesticulations and animation on TV this is easily imaginable. He said nothing to convince me there.

As to who leaked it to Woodward, "I don't know". He called Andy Card and said he believed Saddam had WMDs, but that the White House had thrown him under the bus and were being dishonorable. Trust was broken. But he did accept the Medal of Freedom.

I'm with Scheuer, I like this guy. Not sure he's telling the complete truth on everything, especially Iraq, and he is certainly trying to settle scores and engage in classic DC tactics to salvage his legacy, but his service to the nation shouldn't be overlooked.

However, in the cold hard world his legacy will revolve around not watch-listing the two California terrorists and the slam dunk remark.

MORE 5/29/07

Tenet's reference to Richard Perle is being challenged already. We'll have to see how that impacts Tenet's proclamation that CIA folks always tell the truth.

About that slam dunk

The conventional wisdom says it all--George Tenet convinced a skeptical George Bush that attacking Saddam was warranted because it was a "slam dunk" he had WMDs.

Tenet is out on the book circuit explaining that comment and other misperceptions in his memoirs entitled, "At the Center of the Storm" (cleared by Langley of course).

According to the New York Times the book is a not a complete hit-piece on Bush but surely the parts that are will gain the most interest, ie, the slam dunk comment. Tenet described the leak of that as "the most despicable thing that ever happened" to him. So, how did it happen?

Enter Bob Woodward. Again. He broke the comment in his second Bush book, "Plan of Attack", so one might think the Washington Post coverage of this story might be worth checking out. While comprehensive, it doesn't shine much light on Woodward's complicity. Reporter Dafna Linzer did point out that at various times during the past few years both Tenet and his deputy John McGlaughlin have suffered amnesia about those comments (not hard to imagine) but apparently memories can sometimes improve with the passage of time, a phenomenon we also witnessed in the Libby trial.

So, what exactly did the book say?

It all began on page 247 as Hollywood Bob described a December 2002 Oval Office meeting on "the case" (for war) between Tenet and his deputy John McGlaughlin with Bush, Cheney, Rice and Andy Card. It was in this meeting that the CIA laid out the "hard" intelligence they had on Saddam's evilness.

Before beginning, let's keep clear what the Times quotes Mr. Tenet saying in his book,

“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years.

OK, on to Woodward's scribblings. He described John McGlaughlin's briefing to team Bush with flip charts, and when finished he quoted Bush as saying,

"Nice try. I don't think this is quite--it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from." He then turned to Tenet and said, "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?"

Then came the famous utterance. Woodward described it this way,

From the end of one of the couches in the Oval Office, Tenet rose up, threw his arms in the air. "It's a slam dunk case!", the DCI said.

Bush pressed, "George, how confident are you?" Tenet, a basketball fan who attended as many home games of his alma mater Georgetown as possible, leaned forward and threw his arms up again. "Don't worry, it's a slam dunk!"

Woodward then mentioned that is was "unusual" for Tenet to be so certain. The famed Watergate reporter ended the section on page 250 with Bush's instructions to Tenet, "make sure no one stretches to make our case".

And that's it. Tenet explains the comment as being in the totality of the entire case against Saddam not just about the WMDs, and he's probably right. But nobody in their right mind would use "slam dunk" to describe the case if they were shaky on the WMD part. This appears to fall under the category of "derriere-coverus maximus".

In retrospect it's doubtful Tenet's comment were the most decisive factor in Bush's decision to attack. Even the left has continually blamed Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans as part of the twisting effect (and part of Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment against the Veep) and others have blamed others, who've blamed others. But the slam dunk remark would have to rank pretty high coming from the DCI.

The left wing media will certainly wonder who leaked such a scurrilous thing to Woodward. Once again-- only Bob knows. Will he divulge his source or hold firm like he did with Watergate and the Plame case? For some reason I believe we'll find out soon on this one.

Folks more in the know will probably find Tenet's gesticulations interesting when compared to the previous writings of CIA officials like Michael Scheuer, someone else who was firmly convinced of ties between Saddam and bin Laden until it became unpopular and rather bad for business. Failures tend to do that.

Remember the timeline as well. The slam dunk meeting occurred in December 2002, many months AFTER Joe Wilson's trip to Africa. That should say something about the divisions present at Langley or other more sinister things.

Interesting--after all is said and done Saddam had perhaps the greatest impact on American politics than any other world leader from 1990 onward, and continues to cause gnashing of teeth even in death. He certainly was a threat to politicians and bureaucrats, if nothing else.

RIM SHOT 4/28/07

Here's more on the book from the NY Daily News blog (via Counterterrorism Blog), which suggests there are other double-crosses in the book besides the slam dunk, including Tenet trying to blame the FBI for a few things:

As federal probes have revealed, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar were tracked by CIA from Malaysia to Thailand and then to Los Angeles in January 2000, as detailed in agency cables the following March.

"Everybody assumed the information was passed to the FBI," a source close to Tenet told The Mouth this week. "There was no conspiracy. We weren’t trying to withhold it."

There are a couple of ways to look at this. If Tenet is correct and there was "no conspiracy", just a misunderstanding, it exonerates Bush on charges that 9/11 was an inside job since this occurred in 2000 on Clinton's watch. If Tenet is lying and it WAS part of a conspiracy that implicates Clinton. See how silly?

This is a rather remarkable article. It goes on to say:

In June 2005, the Justice Department's inspector general found in a report that one of the FBI detailees, identified by the pseudonym "Dwight," not only accessed a March 2000 CIA cable that Alhazmi and Almihdhar had flown to Los Angeles from Bangkok, but he also typed up a report for FBI headquarters. Dwight asked his CIA supervisor to okay the report but the DOJ IG found no evidence that the supervisor ever approved it. (None of the FBI detailees at CIA was ever interviewed by the 9/11 commission, a source said.)

Astounding. Recapping briefly, while most of the media has focused on Tenet's incredulous reaction to the slam dunk comment they have (and probably will continue to) ignore his attemps to blame the FBI for not getting a message they never approved sending.

Hindsight warning--it's still 20/20. But anyone who's ever had dealings with the Federal Government should not be the least bit surprised. And if anyone thinks it's a fixable problem they are stark raving nuts.