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."

[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, November 18, 2003

Quote of the Day by South40

[Numbers Guy]

The Weekly Standard article based on the leak, which undercuts the Dem rants about the war, has been totally ignored by the mainstream media.

But now the mainstream media will go into a feeding frenzy over who leaked the memo.

It's very clear that there are elements in the CIA who are attempted to embarrass President Bush at every opportunity (the appointment of leftist twit Wilson is just one example). If George Tenet can't get those people under control, he should be fired

[Chad Fairbanks]

What is it with memos lately? Maybe we need to get congress on this ASAP, with a "Memo Abuse Act of 2003", to stop government people from writing memos for a while.... ;0)

[Tijeras_Slim]

Send your congresscritter a memo.

[Pikamax]

pincus continues to try and bury this memo in the article as well.

[livius]

I can't think of a better way of calling attention to it. Had it been released through "normal" channels, the mainstream media would have buried it entirely.

[RippleFire]

bump

[Howlin]

I'm beginning to wonder if the CIA is "with us."

[nuffsenuff]

Oh look, the Washington Post is doing its best to debunk the info... How cute.

[Steve_Seattle]

"The Weekly Standard article based on the leak, which undercuts the Dem rants about the war, has been totally ignored by the mainstream media. But now the mainstream media will go into a feeding frenzy over who leaked the memo."

Correct. Disgusting, aren't they? Just yesterday, the libs on Fox's round table - the only network that seemed to mention the memo - were saying there was "nothing new" in the memo.

[eyespysomething]

Outlaw memos now!!!


Especially at my office.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Good idea. I'd post it here first, but I'm afraid it would be leaked ;0)

< looks around for Democratic Senators... >

[marty60]

When the Thing (akaBJClinton)had agood relationship with the CIA, you knew it had been corrupted.

Looks like a patriot has had enough.

[JohnGalt]

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

[Libertina]

BTTT

[Numbers Guy]

W. Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East section of the DIA, said yesterday that the Standard article "is a listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship. If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?"

The above has to be the most pathetic attempt to debunk that I've ever seen in my life.

I suppose because things got rough on occasion between the US/UK and the USSR during WW II, that means we weren't allied with the Soviets.

The null hypothesis of the left was that there was NO relationship between bin Laden and Saddam. Now this doofus is reduced to saying that it might not have been a full-fledged lip-lock sucky-face type of relationship. That's far diferent from saying there was no relationship whatsoever.

[JohnHuang2]

pincus continues to try and bury this memo in the article as well.

Indeed, I only heard about this article when it was mentioned on Fox News Channel.

[Strider]

Hannity said it wasn't a Republican that leaked the memo.

My guess is the democrat Senator from Indiana.

[JohnHuang2]

Sen. Evan Bayh? You may be on to something.

[JohnHuang2]

Although the memo referred to in this report isn't the Democrat strategy memo -- that's a separate memo.

[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.

[Eva]

You're 100% correct in your assesment of the mainstream media treatment of the information. The only way to get the information out there was to leak it from the CIA. The Democrats have treating the war issue the same way they used to use information from the Indepenent Council investigation; that is the Democrats were free to make any type of baseless statements or accusations against Republicans because they knew that the truth was sealed by law.

[JohnGalt]

We'll re-group but right now, I'd like to see the whole bloody structure fall on itself, a collapse due to moral rot, help up by spin.

Perhaps tomorrow I will be in a better mood.

Yours in liberty,

[Coop]

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.

Fair enough. And as you can tell by my letter above, I do not think its lack of coverage by the lamestream media is simply a coincidence.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Have a good day, man!

[Monti Cello]

I don't know anyone trumpeting that the memo contains new information. The CIA stated that it didn't in an apparent response to a charge that wasn't leveled. Since much of the information dates from the early and mid 90's the claim that it's old info seems even more irrelevant.

The idea of Iraq-AQ connections have been ceaselessly mocked as ludicrous on their face. This when many mainstream news accounts were documenting such connections long before 9/11.

The memo, if true in its substance, is a major vindication for Bush and the war in Iraq, and clears up a key question on its justification. It also exposes Democrats who were privy to its findings as disingenuous at best. Leaks of 'old information' are of minor consequence by comparison. Harping on that appears to me a feeble attempt to change the subject.

I've got a hunch it was a Democratic staffer who leaked it. The one with the conscience.

[Dog]

Shooting the messenger again??

[Dog]

I think you are correct.....the Democrats have a leaker in their own party.

I wonder what else is going to get leaked......notice they are pulling out the stops to get people to look into the Senat Judiciary leak and now this...

[JohnGalt]

The position of this administration is the Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. They were privy to all the information contained in this memo and still reached a conclusion opposite the view of the Office of Special Plans.

That is the key here and why there is intentional confusion coming from those who pushed this memo on whether there any new information.

[JohnGalt]

The messenger in question backed John McCain in the primaries; whose side are you on?

[Mo1]

Hannity said it wasn't a Republican that leaked the memo.

That was about the memo regarding te Dems using the Select Intell Committee scoring political points with intell information

This is a different memo .. and I am guessing there is a serial leaker in the Dem Party

I wonder what they'll leak next?