DoD Statement on News Reports of al-Qaida and Iraq Connections

Defense Link ^ | 15Nov03 | DoD

[xzins]

DoD Statement on News Reports of al-Qaida and Iraq Connections News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.

A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. 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. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.

The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the Committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the Intelligence Community.

The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence Community. The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions.

Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.

-END-

[halfdome]

Do you mean that Bush would withhold the information for political reasons, and release it in time to help in his re-election?

[SandRat]

No just a confloughence fo events; finding, checking the heck out of it and double checking.

[Saints fan]

It doesn't sound like they are saying that the memo is innaccurate, but that statements saying that they confirmed it are innaccurate.Does that make sense?

[Delta 21]

...reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA.

Crazy In the Army, No Such Agency, and Dang It Anyway.

Who knew what when? Back in July....and no one leaked it untill now!! ??? !!

[the Real fifi]

Perfect sense. It is a classified document with raw intel. A report to the committee which demanded they disclose all this. But the interrogation of captured Baathists and AQ contines as does the review of the intel docs they found in Iraq and Kayes' work. I doubt the Administration wants to be bound by anything until more factual material is at hand or confirmed.

[Spunky]

xzin you say;"This is the part that has me confused.

From article:"News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed "new" information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate."

Let me tell you what I think they were trying to say but didn't have the guts.

News reporters(whoever you are)that said the Defense Department confirmed "NEW" info about al-Qaida and Iraq THEY DID NOT.

This is information we have had for a long time but have kept it under raps until someone leaked it.

So for you to say it was something "NEW" that the DoD confirmed is a bald faced lie.

Get it you stupid a--ed reporters?

That is what I think they were trying to say. :-)

[Spunky]

"In other words, the The Weakly Standard article was bogus"

No it wasn't. Read my posting above yours at #46.

There is a key word in that sentence about "NEW"Information being confirmed. There was no "NEW" information. It was information they already had but we haven't heard it because the report is still in its raw state and was classified.

[Jeff Chandler]

hillary desperately wants Dean to NOT get the nomination. The clintons don't control Dean, and if Dean is nominated, they will lose control of the DNC. They were able to keep McAuliffe in there in spite of Treebeard(Algore) being the nominee in '00, but Dean would put his own man in there. The whole Clark thing is about control of the DNC.

If Dean looks like he is going to be the nominee, hillary might be forced to slither in at the convention and "save" the party.

This whole thing is getting mighty interesting.

[Delta 21]

.....watch out....there are people actually agreeing on things here.....

STAND YOUR POST

[Robert_Paulson2]

It is apparent, people who are in a position to know, or find out who does know... aren't attacking bush on this "bush lied" tripe trap...

Even hillary is keeping her big blab pantsuit crotch closed on it... Dems who know, KNOW that Bush had the goods up front...
and CHENEY despite the mag covers this week was not FOOLED by false intel... no damned way. HE did NOT sell a war to poor stupid W...

Beware presstitutes. Bush has your balls in a nutvise and you don't even realize it...

[xzins]

That's what I think I'm getting out of it, too.

They aren't saying it's inaccurate, but that they are not the ones that released it.

In an odd way, it increases the liklihood that the information is accurate.

[prairiebreeze]

[prairiebreeze]

in case you haven't seen it, ping

Prairie

[blackie]

Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal ~ Bump!

[jpl]

The stratetic ambuguity and the games continue.

[MamaLucci]

Beware presstitutes. Bush has your balls in a nutvise and you don't even realize it...
I can't wait until he decides to tighten the screws.

[Maelstrom]

It was a Dem who released the memo

[neverdem]

"It was a Dem who released the memo"

Which one, the DOD disclaimer or the one obtained from the Senate Intelligence Committee that disclosed all the contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime?

[Monti Cello]

It looks to me like they're admitting that that these are intel data points, but they are not new data points, and dammit there is no line drawn among those points! Even if they form a near-perfect line on their own, we have not drawn in that line!

It was the Weekly Standard which drew in the line, and provided the 'analysis', however easy and obvious that was to do.