CIA Seeks Probe of Iraq-Al Qaeda Memo Leak [Memo reveals Iraq-Al Qaeda link Dems said was impossible

Washington Post ^ | Tuesday, November 18, 2003 | By Walter Pincus

[JohnHuang2]

By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, November 18, 2003; Page A18

The CIA will ask the Justice Department to investigate the leak of a 16-page classified Pentagon memo that listed and briefly described raw agency intelligence on any relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network, according to congressional and administration sources.

In addition, the leaders of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), are considering making their own request for a Justice investigation. The top-secret memo was attached to an Oct. 27 letter to them from Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith. Feith was answering a request that he support his assertion during a closed-door hearing in July that there was intelligence to support a longtime relationship between the Iraqi leader and the terrorist group.

Excerpts from the memo were first published Saturday in the issue of the Weekly Standard dated Nov. 24. Under the headline "Case Closed," the article described the memo as documenting "an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003" between bin Laden and Hussein. It describes the memo as containing "50 numbered points" that are "best viewed as sort of a 'Cliff's Notes' version of the relationship. It contains the highlights, but it is far from exhaustive."

[Coop]

I just sent in this letter to the editor. I won't be holding my breath for the ComPost to print it. :-)

Dear Washington Post,

Just over a week ago I wrote to you concerning your double standard regarding an intelligence memorandum relating to the Democrat attack strategy (11/6, "Politicized Memo Incites Row" article, featured on page A27) being compared to the Wilson/CIA leak scandal. Both involved intelligence and both involved presumed political pressure to embarass an opponent. Yet the memo damaging to the Democrat party is buried on page A27, while the latter scandal was featured - at a minimum - on pages:

A01 1 Oct "Man Behind the Furor" (Wilson...)
A01 28 Sep "Bush Administration is Focus of Inquiry"
A06 25 Oct "Democrats Seek Wider Inquiry"
A08 24 Oct "Bush's Press Aide, Rove Questioned in Leaks Probe"

Curiously, you chose not print my letter. Now here we are twelve days later, and you publish another CIA-related intelligence memorandum detailing Al Qaeda's connection with the Iraqi regime. Do you focus on the myriad of sources detailing this connection, loudly denied by some in Washington, many of whom also accused the President of lying? No. You focus instead on the leak of classified data - which is certainly serious, but not enough to overshadow the major impact of this memo.

And where did you print this article regarding the latest critical CIA intelligence memo and its impact on America's war on terror?

Page A18.

[Coop]

You realize the Weekly Standard and Fox News are owned by the same person, and both share Fred Barnes?

Yes. You do realize that North Vietnam and Ted Turner both share Jane Fonda?

[JohnHuang2]

Thoughtful, very well written.

[Coop]

Thoughtful, very well written.

Shoot! No wonder they didn't print it!

:-p Thanks

[xzins]

The liberals are crying that the Feith Memo is not analysis but is raw data. For me, being told that Al-Qaeda and Iraq's face-to-face meeting is a piece of "raw data" that I shouldn't see is to tell me that "analysis" is the art of obfuscation and lying.

[JohnHuang2]

Yep, small wonder.

[JohnGalt]

I see, it's the liberal media keeping the man down.

How old are you, 19?

[Coop]

How old are you, 19?

So I use an example of your own "logic" against you, and you insinuate that I'm immature?

How curious. :-)

[hchutch]

Still trying to shoot the messenger because you don't like the message?

[JohnGalt]

We have had some playful back and forths, but aren't you the least bit concerned with the nature of leaking an old memo from the Office of Special Plans and then angling like the memo itself contains new information?

It's just a little too hackey, though I realize the troops needed some red meat.

As a Bush supporter, not a neocon supporter, I will wait to see if he releases any comments on the incident.

[familyofman]

"Looks like a patriot has had enough."

Curious - leakers of classified documents are now patriots.

[Chad Fairbanks]

In a bad mood this morning?

[Chad Fairbanks]

Awww... come one guys. Let's keep fighting the real enemies, and not each other... :0)

[Coop]

We have had some playful back and forths, but aren't you the least bit concerned with the nature of leaking an old memo from the Office of Special Plans and then angling like the memo itself contains new information?

From my letter above: You focus instead on the leak of classified data - which is certainly serious, but not enough to overshadow the major impact of this memo.

Concerning angling for new information, I follow this strain of news quite closely, and there were some things in this memo I'd never heard of.

Having said that, the DoD release specifically said: One of the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in his testimony before the Committee.

Doesn't sound very new to those in "the know."

And one more thing from the DoD release: Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.

[Chad Fairbanks]

I heard about that. Not a good thing...

[JohnGalt]

Perhaps you would concede that the history of the memo itself is murky, and perhaps there might be some wisdom in seeing it flesh out rather than tie the cause for war, its costs in life and treasure, to a memo printed at a magazine and reported on a tv network owned by the same person, and run by the same people?

And just so we are clear, my intent was only to point out that the tactical approach of blaming the media for not reporting this memo is a bad one, in my opinion and will fail.

[codercpc]

Stephen Hayes author of the Memogate file will be on WTMJ 620 this morning in about 5 minutes.

http://620wtmj.com/

They have an interet feed to listen live. Charlies Sykes will be interviewing him.