Bush and Cheney — as well as Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, and their undersecretaries — had solid information there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 or Al Qaeda, but have refused to date to share this knowledge, contained in a PDB distributed ten days after 9/11, with members of Congress.
Just in, this breaking news report written by the incomparable REAL Woodward & Bernstein-rolled-into-one of the 21st century, MURRAY WAAS:
Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
By Murray Waas, special to National Journal
“Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter…
“… The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee’s ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.”
Update [2005-11-22 19:7:17 by susanhu]: It’s key to note that — because of this revelation — the meme that Congress had the same information as the White House is untrue. — as pointed out by Kevin at Lean Left, via Memeorandum.com.
Do we need MORE proof for impeachment proceedings to begin immediately? And, below, you’ll see that Dick Cheney saw all of this too.
Journalists like Murray Waas are making mincemeat of Booby and Judy Judy Judy and their ilk …
Update [2005-11-22 18:21:9 by Steven D]:I’ve posted this at Daily Kos here for Susan. Steven D
( More excerpts below ….)
From the National Journal:
The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the “President’s Daily Brief,” a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.
One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.
The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Much of the contents of the September 21 PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda’s contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq’s support for international terrorism. Although the CIA found scant evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the agency reported that it had long since established that Iraq had previously supported the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and had provided tens of millions of dollars and logistical support to Palestinian groups, including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president’s national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee’s ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents. ….
Read all at the National Journal.
how is this different than what Richard Clarke told the world about Bush wanting info linking Iraq and 9/11 on September 11, 2001 or days after, Clarke saying “there isnt any link”, and Bush responding “I know, but keep looking.”?
Well, I missed that! Google didn’t find anything with this search: Bush Clark “I know but keep looking”
How interesting. Please say more.
This is amazing and wonderful! Go, Keith!!
Condi knew.
Powell knew.
Rumsfeld knew ….
they all knew … they all saw this document!
Susan are you posting this at dkos?
I can’t … I had my one diary today. YOU DO IT!
(But watch out for cannibals … they may have already seen this on their RSS feeds.)
I’ll post itr for you and give you credit.
Post the link!
STEVEN D’s DIARY at DKos … do your thing.
Reccommended!
For some reason this remind me of that old old gag
Everyone knew….
– Did Condi know?
Yes, Condi knew, everyone knew
– Did Powell know?
Dammit.. YES. Powell knew. Everyone knew.
– Did Rumsfeld know?
Oh my God! YES!! Everyone knew..Powell knew Condi Knew Bush Knew. Cheny knew. Everyone knew Everybloody one knew!!!!
– So your trying to tell me that everybody knew?
It isn’t different other than NOW people are listening and asking the right questions. Lame Duck? More like duck stew! KO is awesome. He used to be able to hide his contempt for the administration but now he is going full speed ahead. He’s incredible as is Waas.
Smoking gun #274.
As if we even NEEDED one.
SOMETHING killed all those Iraqis and Americans.
It sure as hell wasn’t Saddam Hussein’s WMDs.
And it wasn’t Saddam Hussein’s sons or them dirty raghead Al Quedas in those Abu Ghraib photos.
We don’ NEED no steenking smoking gun.
I got yer proof right HERE!!!
GUILTY!!!
Next…
AG
I am beginning to notice how absolutely desperate the pro-war crowd is now. In addition, there are a number of people, who while pretending to be anti-war, have actually been pro-war all along.
For example, Paul Woodward who runs War in Context established his site early on and has consistently linked to articles that have been critical of the administration. But several months ago, when more and more voices could be heard advocating withdrawal, Woodward began to argue that the troops could not be withdrawn. Now, he is absolutely rabid. Was Paul Woodward a closet hawk, or has he put self-interest ahead of morality?
I would argue that he is a hawk who simply could never see himself aligned with Bush. But, in fact, he is a Bush enabler: someone who quietly assists the administration while pretending to be in opposition. There are many of these types out there.
What I find so disgusting is that this crowd will not even consider the desires of the Iraqis themselves. Today’s call for a timetable for withdrawal is simply ignored. To them, the US continues to reserve the right to tell the rest of the world that only our opinion matters. In the end, the real threat is not neo-cons on the march, but the rabid nationalism that can be found on both sides of the aisle.
…a lot of people who are arguing against withdrawal now agree with Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn” theorem: “we broke it, we bought it.” To wit, since we caused all this trouble, we can’t leave a vacuum behind now into which would flow the worst possible people to create the worst possible consequences.
I don’t agree with this point of view because I think we have a better chance of preventing the worst possible conseqences by withdrawing (at least into Kurdistan) and doing every diplomatic thing we can to get the Iraqis to seek peace among themselves. But I think those who make this argument – from the left side of the spectrum – have a respectable point of view. We can’t and shouldn’t counter imperialism with isolationism.
There are several answers to these people: first, threaten to smash their Rolex, then tell them that since you have broken it you now own it; second, the phrase “we own it” does not mean we “own” the country, it means we “own” the mess. Leaving Iraq does not mean we are then off the hook — on the contrary, we have a moral obligation to assist the Iraqis financially, and in other ways.
In my view, those who are using the “we own it” excuse are again using nationalism (mixed in with imperialism). Iraq is owned by the Iraqis. No action by this country will ever change that. If we made a mistake by invading Iraq (we did) we cannot undo that mistake by occupying the country against the will of its inhabitants. It was sheer egotism to think that the Iraqis wanted us there after the invasion. The only people who wanted us there were the “exiles” who were trying to grab power, and the people we actually installed into power — without us they had no power.
Now that a new group of people have taken political control, it is not surprising that they should want us out. They have been cautious and have delayed their calls for withdrawal because they have been unsure of the situation.
A better reply than any I could have given.
I understand the position that we shouldn’t make a bad situation worse by leaving precipitously, but certainly a timetable that establishes a schedule for troop withdrawal over the next year or 18 mos. isn’t too quick, especially if it is coupled with initiatives in the UN and/or middle east to find other countries willing to provide assistance and mediation efforts so that a stable, peaceful Iraq can result.
As our own generals have pointed out, there is no military solution, only a political one.
What a great deconstruction of the you own it crapola. Of course, the common import of the phrase is that if you break something in a store, you’ve gotta pay for it.
Reparations anyone?
Absolutely, MB.
None of us would just walk out and leave it to the terrorists.
Murtha’s plan — which few people point out — has lots of diplomacy attached.
Others’ plans include the U.N. and NATO peacekeeping.
Larry Johnson’s plan includes good ol’ shoe leather intelligence to help the good guys watch out for the terrorists.
and on and on. I don’t want to debate any of these specifically. What I want to convey is that a LOT of able people are looking at this very sensibly and responsibly.
One other problem with that theory: the worst possible people are already running the show over there. The American government installed them in power through rigged elections.
But hey, they’re just oppressing women and anyone who doesn’t toe their theological line. They’re a role model for the vision of America espoused by more than a few!
The desires of the Iraqis were never part of this Bush regime’s matrix. The principles of Democracy and iberty were never part of this Bush regime’s agenda. Establishing peace and security for the indigenous peoples anywhere in the oil and gas producing regions of the Middle East was never part of theBush regime rubric. The idea of “doing the right thing” was never even considered by this Bush regime. And telling the truth was never a viable option for these blazing lunatics.
every crusade supporter.
And most of us can’t really conceive of the amount of money at stake.
.
Tue May 31st, 2005 at 02:57:01 PM PST
I don’t have Lexis-Nexis anymore and it makes me crazy.
But one of you must have access. Here’s what I want.
I want all the articles that William Safire wrote between 9/11 and the
start of the Iraq War that mention any of the following:
THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
I wish I could afford Lexis Nexis.
In any case, this diary by Booman references I think 7 Safire propaganda pieces.
We’re also #1 at Memeorandum.com.
[as I posted to this Diary over at KOS]
Cross Posted Over At: AfterDowningStreet
Original At CNN Transcipts
Wow! Suddenly WMD and Iraq-Al Qaeda are NOT the Reasons we Invaded Iraq…
CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER
Interview With Donald Rumsfeld; Interview With Lawrence Wilkerson
Aired November 20, 2005 – 11:00 ET
RUMSFELD: We know intelligence is imperfect.
BLITZER: That’s why the U.S. went to war: the WMD and the Iraq- Al Qaida
connection that you alleged.
RUMSFELD: The reason the United States went to war, the president has
announced and said it repeatedly. There were 17 resolutions in the U.N.
that were ignored by Saddam Hussein. Our planes were being shot at on a
regular basis in the Operation Southern Watch and Operation Northern
Watch. Saddam Hussein was giving $25,000 to the families of suicide
bombers. Iraq was on the terrorist list. Iraq had used chemical weapons
against its own people and its neighbors.
BLITZER: But, Mr. Secretary, wasn’t Iraq under Saddam Hussein in those
days effectively contained by the United Nations, by the U.S., the no-fly
zones, the economic sanctions, the diplomatic sanctions? Weren’t they
effectively contained? And certainly, with hindsight, Saddam Hussein did
not pose much of a threat to the United States.
RUMSFELD: The — you say was it effectively contained?
It was certainly engaged in doing things that were harmful — shooting at
our airplanes, the only place in the world that was taking place. The
United Nations — ignoring 17 U.N. resolutions. The sanctions obviously
were not working very well.
BLITZER: Let me…
RUMSFELD: Just let me answer your question. Just a minute.
BLITZER: Go ahead.
RUMSFELD: The sanctions were obviously not working very well, which
sanctions tend not to after a long period of time. You’ve read what’s been
going on with the oil-for-food in the United Nations.
BLITZER: But based on the fact that the United States didn’t find any
stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction…
RUMSFELD: It’s clear the intelligence was wrong.
BLITZER: And it’s clear that he didn’t really represent much of a threat.
RUMSFELD: If you’re talking about whether or not the intelligence was
correct, everyone has agreed it was not.
RUMSFELD: The reason the United States went to war, the president has
announced and said it repeatedly. There were 17 resolutions in the U.N.
that were ignored by Saddam Hussein. Our planes were being shot at on a
regular basis in the Operation Southern Watch and Operation Northern
Watch. [Never Mind The rest Of His Lies, When Did We Have A Plane Shot Down, Let Alone PLANES ON A REGULAR BASIS!! This Guy’s Gone Completely Over The Edge With No Return, Straight Jacket NOW!!} Saddam Hussein was giving $25,000 to the families of suicide
bombers. Iraq was on the terrorist list. Iraq had used chemical weapons
against its own people and its neighbors.
I’ve Declared Non-Violent ‘War’ On ChickenHawks,Freeper/Sheep,Talking Heads and No Support For Pols Who Refuse To Investigate This Administration and End This Illegal Conflict!
Veterans: Wether Conflict or Peace Time Vets, Signature Everything you sign, post, send, whatever! Let Them Know WHO WE ARE!!!
James Starowicz
USN ’67-’71 GMG3 Vietnam In-Country ’70-’71 COMNAVFORV
Awesome work, Jim. This deserves its own diary.
several years ago, but during this administration, it was rumored that SH was paying the Palestine suicide bombers family’s $25,000 after they do their thing, in Israel. As far as the shooting at our aircraft, the UK speeded up their bombing of both, but primarily the south, due to the radar they were locking on to by the Iraqi government. They even faked satellite photos to frame iraq as gathering at the SA boarder. All were lies out forth by us and the UK. IN those bombings, we did kill innocent iraqi’s.
.
It’s almost impossible by now for me to be shocked at anything I read about Bush’s mendacity. But that passage did the trick.
Great article, Mr. Waas.
P.S. Waas is on Air America right now (8:20 p.m. Eastern, Tuesday).
Shit! Library closing in 1/2 hour! PC crashed! Damnit!
Just went to all th e major papers I could think of — not a word of this in any of them.
They were scooped? This news is like something you’ve known forever, but most of the world is waking up to. Will the Intelligence Committee get this? How can the Bushes stonewall this?
Susan, this is great.
Son of a bitches out to be convicted! And, for some reason, I am not even shocked…even feel too sad to be angry or cry, hell, I dunno what I feel. Numb describes it best!
Just emailed links to John Conyers’ office. (WTF, why not?)
Why not Indeed!
For all the talking heads that kept telling us back in May that the Downing Street Memo was “old news”, there is no story here. You are right, I do have issues, and this is one of them!