DIA Called al-Libi a Fraud Pre-War.

DITSUM No. 044-02, February 2002

This would be "Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02."

This document from the agency I worked for (DIA) threw cold water on the information provided by al-Libi, a key source in the US government’s attempts to "connect the dots" between the Iraqi government and AQ.

This was in EARLY 2002!!!  Al-Libi’s claims to know all about the supposed connection between Saddam and AW were judged by DIA to be doubtful way back then.

How did Jehl get this document?  Looks like someone in DIA has had enough abuse and "isn’t going to stand for it anymore."

Pat Lang

"In an interview on Friday, Mr. Levin also called attention to a portion of the D.I.A. report that expressed skepticism about the idea of close collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, an idea that was never substantiated by American intelligence but was a pillar of the administration’s prewar claims.

“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements,’’ the D.I.A. report said in one of two declassified paragraphs. “Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.’’ Douglas Jehl


This entry was posted in Current Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to DIA Called al-Libi a Fraud Pre-War.

  1. In a perfect world, GWB & Company would be in the midst of impeachment proceedings, and they’d also be subject to new rules clipping the wings of the Executive Branch.
    Personally, I think this behavior should be punished by execution, and not with a lethal injection! A perfect ending for the career of “express Lane” George.

  2. avedis says:

    What’s more, appently Al Libi’s statements were made under the duress of torture, proving once again that a man with electrodes on his family jewels will say anything…….
    There was no reason whatsoever to take Al Libi’s statement seriously – other than looking for whatever straw could be grasped to support the already-made decision to go to war – without substantial corroborating evidence.
    Even now, the right wing propaganda machine rattles on in full production mode. The NRO/AEI/Neocon group is crazy as ever. They refuse to address recent revelations such as Al Libi in anything close to honest discussion (in fact they ignore, obfuscate, and invent new “evidence” in defense), they continue to call for more blood and they show no shame at all.
    Who are these “men”? Have they no honor?
    I really want to believe that some people out there in a position to do something about all of this will organize and act to bring the perpetraters of the big Iraq War fraud to justice and, ultimately, to bring more sanity, dignity and competence to our federal government.
    Please tell me that it will happen before it’s too late.

  3. b says:

    @Jerome – with the NYT report there is a case for impeachment.
    Bush determined to congress that Iraq was linked to AlQaeda. If his determination was not based on facts or contrary to those, he did lie to congress. That’s impeachable.
    I just have written about that:

  4. Curious says:

    On related news, it sems the real question will fall by way side over political bickering instead. Laura Rosen is keeping an eye.
    On Fox news today, Brit Hume helpfully offered a sneak preview of the Pat Roberts/White House strategy over the next few days. In lieu of focusing on other parts of the Phase II investigation that was supposed to broadly be about policymakers’ use of the Iraq intelligence they received, Roberts will leak to the White House and the GOP the pre-war statements by Democrats about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. (If you heard Newt Gingrich on ABC’s This Week, you’ll have gotten a taste of that, with statements of Rockefeller, Schumer and Hillary Clinton discussed). Fair enough. As Rockefeller pointed out on CNN’s Late Edition today, it was president Bush that took this country to war, not the Democrats.
    But unfortunately, this airing of Democrats pre-war statements is the only part of the Phase II investigation that Roberts has ever shown any interest in. In fact, sometimes it seems he doesn’t remember the full terms of reference that all 17 members of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, Republicans and Democrats, unanimously agreed to investigate back in February 2004. We’re still waiting, for instance, on points D, F and G:
    D. the postwar findings about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and weapons programs and links to terrorism and how they compare with prewar assessments; …
    F. any intelligence activities relating to Iraq conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and
    G. the use by the Intelligence Community of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress (INC).
    Sen. Roberts indicated on Tuesday that he was basically done with his investigation and the Democrats knew that, and we could expect something as soon as this week. He didn’t understand why Senate Majority leader Bill Frist had agreed to appoint a task force of three Republican and three Democratic Senators to report back to the full Senate on the status of Roberts’ missing investigation.

  5. Some Guy says:

    I was surprised I did not hear any reference to the Jehl article on Sunday, which is truly explosive, much more direct than the Wilson Niger trip.
    As long as someone is following the story, as the Republicans try yet again to deflect attention from Bush’s mendacity, this piece of evidence will dog them. We now have the information and a starting place. What follows is a stubborn reprise: “who knew what and when did they know it?”
    A majority of the public FINALLY believes they were duped. That puts the pressure on nonsense like “the Dems wanted war too.” You can only say it wasn’t just my fault so long. The reasonable citizen will say, fine you both should get canned. The automatic my party good-their party bad logic is not going to shield anybody in this.

  6. Susan says:

    It’s sweet … but it will take a lot of leaks in order for this to filter down to the everyday people who don’t read the NYT.
    I think one of the problems of the opposition in 2004 — including all those generals, diplomats, and others who spoke out so eloquently and passionately against Bush — was that their messages never filtered down to everyday people.
    Something about the Valerie Plame case that has worked is that it’s easily comprehensible to everyday people that one shouldn’t OUT a CIA agent for political reasons.

  7. Susan says:

    Pat, someone at BoomanTribune.com asks:
    “Was this document written by a member of Doug Fieth’s group over at the Pentagon or someone outside that politically tainted group?
    “If such an admission of bogus intel was actually written by the political commissars under Fieth, then it is even more damning evidence against its use because then even the true believers recognized the lack of a causa belli.”
    (end of post at BooTrib)
    Did Feith’s coterie include people from DIA? I thought it was a new monster created by Rummy and Cheney.

  8. Pat Lang says:

    It was work like this by DIA analysts and collectors that caused the neocons to creat OSP. They wanted a way to overcome the professional skepticism of DIA.
    There were many in DIA involved in supplying information to OSD. That is their asssigned role. What OSD did with it is another question. pl

  9. avedis says:

    “It was work like this by DIA analysts and collectors that caused the neocons to creat OSP.”
    Question: Which neocons?
    I’ve been looking into these characters to the extent possible using google and by reading their own manifestos (seriously, reading Ledeen is like reading Hitler. One really must hold one’s nose).
    Yet, I don’t see most of these people as being powerful enough (or sane enough) to ensconce themselves in the DIA.
    Clearly, powerful people put them there. Who are those people? Are they neocons themselves? Or are they a different breed that is using the neocons rabid ideals and methods to further their own goals?

  10. W. Patrick Lang says:

    The actors in the intelligence fantasy were not generally in DIA or CIA although there may have been a few self-serving “quislings” in both places.
    This report in February, 2002 is proof that at that date the professionals were still trying to do their jobs by professional standards of skepticism.
    In response to this the neocons and the “reivers” created their own intelligence cell as the Office of Special Plans (OSP) in OSD in order to interpret the same data differently. This process continues in the utterances of the administration and the writings of people like Stephen Hayes. pl

  11. Eric says:

    Just saw you on Keith Obermann on this subject.
    Good show!
    Keep on keeping on!
    We need to have a full investigation of all of this.

  12. avedis says:

    However, I wasn’t asking a rhetorical question. Do you know who it was that actually conceived of the OSP? Then, who was it that was behind the implementation of the OSP concept?
    It would seem to me that such a directive could only come from the WH (or with WH approval). Whether that means Bush or Cheney or both I wouldn’t know.

  13. W. Patrick Lang says:

    I would think that this was a consensus decision made by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith with the VP’s consent, but I don’t actually know. pl

  14. avedis says:

    I have found several articles (in relatively reliable publications) that support your thinking.

  15. HerbEly says:

    Note to the NYT and WaPo: the Truth is Already in Your Files

    Today’s New York Times features an editorial editorial following yesterday’s story on Douglas Feith. The WaPo follows yesterday’s story by Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung with a report on Senate disagreement over the Pentagon inspector general’s critiq…

Comments are closed.