Intelligence Report Good for Bush

The whole of this summary of the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report is far too long for most attention spans, so I will just excerpt this “Bottom Line” synopsis from the end – suffice it to say, the whole “Bush Lied!” trope has been nailed into its coffin.

http://windsofchange.net/archives

/005191.php#conclusion

The bottom line

Everything Powell said at the UN regarding Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda (which is pretty much the same as what President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and others said going into the war) appears to have reflected the consensus of the broader intelligence community.

Joe Wilson’s claims (along with, I suspect, his reputation within Democratic circles) have more or less gone down in flames, as have claims that intelligence analysts were pressured into making certain conclusions. The claim on p. 328 that “Wali Khan” (i.e. Wali Khan Amin Shah, one of Ramzi Yousef’s two lieutenants in the proto-9/11 Oplan Bojinka plot) and Jamal al-Fadhl (whose name is blacked out in the last sentence in that paragraph) identified Abu Hajir al-Iraqi (aka Mamdouh Mahmoud Salim, a high-ranking al-Qaeda leader who was arrested in the wake of the 1998 embassy bombings and later stabbed a NYC prison guard with a comb in his left eye in an attempted prison break in 2000) as the chief liaison between Iraq and al-Qaeda is sure to keep Mylroie enthusiasts around for quite some time at any rate.

In general, this document is a lot better than that Staff Statement No. 15 that was churned out by the 9/11 commission. One other thing to be mentioned, incidentally, is that this report specifically undercuts some of the 9/11 Commission’s key findings with respect to Iraq and al-Qaeda. It cites post-1999 contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, which the 9/11 commission claims to possess no information on. Perhaps someone should hand the commission members a copy of the Senate Intelligence Committee report?

Also, this demolishes 2 of Richard Clarke’s key claims with respect to Iraq: that there was no Iraqi involvement in terrorism post-1993, and that there is no evidence whatsoever of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda. Both of these claims, to put it quite simply, can now be shown to be factually untrue.

As I said, no doubt apologies will pending from all those concerned.

[quote]The bottom line

Everything Powell said at the UN regarding Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda (which is pretty much the same as what President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and others said going into the war) appears to have reflected the consensus of the broader intelligence community.
[/quote]

Oh horsehit.

The second half of the Intelligence commission’s report is delayed until after the November elections.

The first half of the report outlines how security briefings didn’t reflect actual intelligence data.

But the second half of the report will concentrate on how the Bush administration distorted intelligence and used it to fulfill a pre-determined interest in attacking Iraq.

The reason the report had to be fragmented into two parts, is probably because the White House resisted an investigation for almost a year. Then once the investigation began, the White House dragged it’s feet about providing the requested documents, to the point that the commission had to threatren subpeonas.

(As far as the Joe Wilson case goes, I can’t wait to see who’s going to go to jail for leaking the name of a CIA agent to the press. We should have a pool to pick the felon. I’d put my money on Scooter Libby. Who do you think leaked? By the way, it’s getting tough to keep track of all the Bush scandals nowadays!)

Uh oh. I may have goofed.

Are you (BB) referring to the commission headed up by Senator Pat Roberts and Senator Jay Rockefeller?

If so, I think your asessment is way off, after seeing their press conference last week. Their assessment was in no way ‘good news’ for anybody.

If you are talking about a different commission, I may have been a wee bit hasty, in which case I apologize.

But it’s getting hard to keep to keep up with all the different scandals and investigations.

Lumpy:

This report focused on the process of gathering the intelligence; the next part of the report will focus on the accuracy of the intelligence and how it was applied. However, within the over 500 pages of the current report, there appears to be good information on accuracy and how the information was presented to the administration by the CIA.

Here’s an excerpt from Michael Ledeen’s analysis article, which is linked at the end of the summary I posted the link to above:

http://nationalreview.com/ledeen/

ledeen200407120941.asp

"The central issue of how intelligence on Iraq was ? in this Senator’s opinion, was exaggerated by the Bush administration officials, was relegated to that second phase, as yet unbegun…

But in the very next breath, it turns out that it has begun.

'We've done a little bit of work on the number three guy in the Defense Department, Douglas Feith, part of his alleged efforts to run intelligence past the intelligence community altogether... And was he running a private intelligence failure, which is not lawful.' (emphasis added)

I’m not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, I love that “private intelligence failure” bit, as if only the CIA is entitled to intelligence failure. On the other hand, it’s appalling and disgusting to have this senator hint of something “not lawful” on the part of the undersecretary of defense for policy, especially when said senator’s own fat report totally exonerates Feith of the nasty rumors that have been circulated by the likes of Seymour Hersh, Joshua Marshall, and other camp followers for many months.

Then Rockefeller went on to lament that the report didn’t really explain “the environment of intense pressure in which the intelligence officials were asked to render judgments,” implying that administration officials bullied the analysts into saying what the president wanted to hear. Not so. The report explained that there was certainly pressure, but that pressure came from the real situation ? from the knowledge that error might lead to the death of many Americans ? not from policymakers demanding that intelligence officials get the analysis just right.

In fact, for those few people who actually read the report, there’s a pretty big story around page 357, on which we learn that Chairman Roberts got upset at the many anonymous leaks alleging pressure to “cook” the intelligence in the run-up to the war. So he, along with his House counterpart, Porter Goss, “made a public call for officials to come forward and contact the Committee if they had information” about such pressure. Roberts issued that call at least nine different times, but “the Committee was not presented with any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure…or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so…”

So Rockefeller should either put up or shut up. If the report is wrong, he put his signature on a lie. If it’s right, he should stop talking as if he lived in an alternate sauna…I mean universe.

It’s even worse than that, because the report does talk about pressure, but it’s the opposite of what Rockefeller and the Hate Bush crowd was hoping for. It turns out that the CIA pressured some analysts into agreeing with its view of the aluminum tubes ? which it said were headed for uranium-enriching centrifuges but could easily have been for rockets. And it wasn’t the Pentagon that ran its own private intelligence “failure” but the CIA, which kept the experts at the Department of Energy ? who were specialized in such matters ? out of that particular loop.

For those who follow the debates over this stuff, I think the plethora of reported contacts between al Qaeda biggies and Iraqi-intelligence officials is sufficient to convince any open-minded person that there was enough to worry about."

Interesting stuff, no? But, like you, I am definitely interested to see what the next installment of the report brings out.

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Uh oh. I may have goofed.

Are you (BB) referring to the commission headed up by Senator Pat Roberts and Senator Jay Rockefeller?

If so, I think your asessment is way off, after seeing their press conference last week. Their assessment was in no way ‘good news’ for anybody.

If you are talking about a different commission, I may have been a wee bit hasty, in which case I apologize.

But it’s getting hard to keep to keep up with all the different scandals and investigations.[/quote]

No, you’re quite correct. Rockefeller definitely was trying to downsell it, but I think the substance of what is in the report is definitely favorable.

About Senator Rockfeller, Kerry, Daschle, Biden, Levin, and so many other Democrats…Back in the 1990’s, so amny were against Sadaam Hussien. calling for the ousting of Sadam Hussien. And I know some have been very critical at how long my posts get at times. But the space is small these posts are in. And there are some points that I want to make. And I do see some of your posts go on as well.

I am only going to give you one quote from Senator Kerry on Iraq from 1998 …
"Sen. Kerry (Mass.), Congressional Record, March 13, 1998:
“Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. . . . I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the weapons inspection standoff - and I will say clearly that I cannot conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point - we must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses.”

That is word from word from the COngressional record of 1998…

As for the Intelligence, and I am sure some of you will refute this book I am now reading. Calling it right wing propaganda. But I am reading Intelligence Failure by David N Bossie. And I reread several websites on this subject. As well as went back and read the 9/11 commission reports, as well as the sites Boston was referring to. And there is nothing in this book or this report that has been falsified or fabricated.

Bush totally inherited the mess the CIA and FBI is in, to this day. And as I read the book I can see why we were getting so much conflicting information, when it came to Iraq and WMD. And it is not only in this book I have bene to website after website, and all are saying the same thing. Again things that Moore, and so many ohers fail to bring out. Making it look like Bush was the one that caused all this mess.

To shorten the posts,
I will bring out a few of thenm:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/Mideast/CIAKnew.htm

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13516

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/missedsignals_2_020219.html

An totally Unbelieveable website here…
and go to 2004…

http://www.newamericancentury.
org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm

Joe

In regards to the conflicts bewteen the SIC and 9/11 Commision, this is a classic case of the Right Hand not knowing what the Left Hand is doing.

Simply put, the gov. is too damn big to work effectively.

jackzepplin,

Valid point!

The British intelligence report is good for Bush too. And bad for Joe Wilson, and thus, bad for the Democrats who have been caterwauling about the “16 words” and “Bush lied!”

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108985106838564311,00.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

The Yellowcake Con
July 15, 2004; Page A10

So now the British government has published its own inquiry into the intelligence behind the invasion of Iraq, with equally devastating implications for the credibility of the Bush-Blair “lied” crowd. Like last week’s 511-page document from the Senate Intelligence Committee, the exhaustive British study found some flawed intelligence but no evidence of “deliberate distortion.” Inquiry leader Lord Butler told reporters that Prime Minister Tony Blair had “acted in good faith.”

What’s more, Lord Butler was not ready to dismiss Saddam Hussein as a threat merely because no large “stockpiles” of weapons of mass destruction have been found. The report concludes that Saddam probably intended to pursue his banned programs, including the nuclear one, if and when U.N. sanctions were lifted; that research, development and procurement continued so WMD capabilities could be sustained; and that he was pursuing the development of WMD delivery systems – missiles – of longer range than the U.N. permitted.

But the part that may prove most salient in the U.S. is that, like the Senate Intelligence findings, the Butler report vindicates President Bush on the allegedly misleading “16 words” regarding uranium from Africa: “We conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.” (See more excerpts.)

We’re awaiting apologies from former Ambassador Joe Wilson, and all those who championed him, after his July 2003 New York Times op-ed alleging that Mr. Bush had “twisted” intelligence “to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” The news is also relevant to the question of whether any crime was committed when a still unknown Administration official told columnist Robert Novak that Mr. Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA employee and that’s why he had been recommended for a sensitive mission to Niger. A Justice Department special prosecutor is investigating the case, with especially paralyzing effect on the office of the Vice President.

In that New York Times piece, readers will recall, Mr. Wilson outed himself as the person who had been sent to Niger by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq might have been seeking yellowcake ore for its weapons program. Vice President Dick Cheney had asked for the CIA’s opinion on the issue after reading a Defense intelligence report.

Mr. Wilson wrote that “It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.” He claimed he informed the CIA of his findings upon his return, was certain reports of his debrief had circulated through appropriate channels, and that the Administration had chosen to ignore his debunking of the story.

After the Novak column appeared, Mr. Wilson charged that his wife was outed solely as punishment for his daring dissent from White House policy. To that end, he has repeatedly denied that his wife played a role in his selection for the mission. “Valerie had nothing to do with the matter,” he wrote in his book “The Politics of Truth.” “She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip.” A huge political uproar ensued.

But very little of what Mr. Wilson has said has turned out to be true. For starters, his wife did recommend him for that trip. The Senate report quotes from a February 12, 2002, memo from Ms. Plame: “my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.”

This matters a lot. There’s a big difference both legally and ethically between revealing an agent’s identity for the revenge purpose of ruining her career, and citing nepotism (truthfully!) to explain to a puzzled reporter why an undistinguished and obviously partisan former ambassador had been sent to investigate this “crazy report” (his wife’s words to the Senate). We’d argue that once her husband broke his own cover to become a partisan actor, Ms. Plame’s own motives in recommending her husband deserved to become part of the public debate. She had herself become political.

Mr. Wilson also seems to have dissembled about how he concluded that there was nothing to the Iraq-Niger uranium story, serving for example as the anonymous source for a June 12, 2003, Washington Post story saying “among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’” There were some forged documents related to an Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Trouble was, such documents had not even come to the intelligence community (never mind to Mr. Wilson’s attention) by the time of his trip, and obviously hadn’t been the basis of the report he’d been sent to investigate. He told the Senate he may have “mispoken” – at some length we guess – on this issue.

The Senate Intelligence Committee found, finally, that far from debunking the Iraq-Niger story, Mr. Wilson’s debrief was interpreted as providing “some confirmation of foreign government service reporting” that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. Why? Because he’d reported that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had told him of a 1999 visit by the Iraqis to discuss “commercial relations,” which the leader of the one-industry country logically interpreted as interest in uranium.

Remember that Messrs. Bush and Blair only said that Iraq had “sought” or was “trying to buy” uranium, not that it had succeeded. It now appears that both leaders have been far more scrupulous in discussing this and related issues than much of the media in either of their countries, which would embarrass the journalistic profession, if that were possible.

All of this matters because Mr. Wilson’s disinformation became the vanguard of a year-long assault on Mr. Bush’s credibility. The political goal was to portray the President as a “liar,” regardless of the facts. Now that we know those facts, Americans can decide who the real liars are.

I believe this is the first thread that i have seen where the intelligent arguments have been supported by factual premisis. I believe Lumpy quited himself proceding the overwhelming information which was supported by factual documents. It’s amazing to see the outcome of an argument when one supports a logical deductive argument rather than subjective and irritatingly emotive claims that are propogated for the mere pleasure of stroking ones ego. I just believe that if we are only wanting to ascertain truth than we will be much better off but there are still so many who insist on vague and inconclusive arguments which deductively stand on no objective grounds. Why are there so many here that insist that we regard their points as valid who give no credulity to what anyone else says. That is my very unerstanding of duplicity. Keep it up BB. Great websites and documentation of fact with argument. Finally, an argument with intelligence.

I don’t see how a report that cites massive intelligence failures is “good for Bush”.

I saw the press conference where Rockefeller and Roberts announced the report, and they BOTH said it was a nightmare scenario of incompetence, that spelled big problems for America. There was nothing “good” about any of it.

Also, Rockefeller referred to making compromises on some points that BB referred to, in order to get the report finished, rather than bog down in partisan arguments. If you actually saw any of the testimony, it doesn’t actually jibe with some of the conclusions in the first half of the report.

I think the report is being mischaracterized if you are saying it’s good news. It’s not good news. It may mean that Team Bush was let off the hook. I get the feeling that re-electing Bush is your (BB’s) main priority, and what is true is less important. In that sense then I suppose it is good news, as Bush escaped being pin-pointed.

If anything, it’s a white-wash on the facts that was done to try not to damage the country any further.

As far as nobody coming forward to say that pressure was exerted to come up with certain conclusions, try this little test: At the next company meeting, ask for anybody who has a beef with management to stand up and raise their hand. See how many people come forward.

As far as Douglas Feith goes, the stories I am seeing are pretty damning. He ran a parellel intelligence operation that told senior administration officials to ignore the CIA’s conclusions on WMD, and so on. I think Feith is going to get nailed… “big time”.

Here’s the article on Douglas Feith, number three man in the Defense Department. According to an appendix in the intelligence report we’re talking about, it says that Feith was undercutting the CIA intelligence by offering his own “alternative” intelligence that was secretly gathered by the Pentagon. In other words, forces in the Penatgon were fighting with the CIA over the President’s attention, with Feith and the Pentagon winning out in some cases… unfortunately “winning” meant providing bad intelligence that the White House relied on.

news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/
2004/07/11/wsept11.xml&
sSheet=/news/2004/07/11/
ixnewstop.html

Thought you would enjoy this viewpoint on how we were duped into the war, and the role the CIA played… Blaming everything on “CIA failures” is a ruse.

(By the way, I’m still waiting for one Republican on this forum to explain away the Ahmed Chalabi factor, in Bush’s rationale for invading Iraq. Chalabi was our main source of info on Iraq’s supposed possession of chemical and biological stockpiles. But now it turns out Chalabi may be an agent working for Iran. Team Bush had Chalabi on a salary in excess of 300,000 dollars a month, up until a month ago.)

“CIA DID NOT FAIL - THE U.S. WAS DECEIVED INTO THE IRAQ WAR”
Eric Margolis
July 19, 2004
New York
Having presided over the two worst intelligence disasters since Pearl Harbor - 9/11 and the misbegotten invasion of Iraq - the Bush Administration and its apologists are now whining, “OK, we were wrong about Iraq’s weapons and supposed threat, but so was everybody else. Besides, it was all CIA’s fault.”

No so. The Iraq weapons fiasco was absolutely not caused by an “intelligence failure,” as the White House and the recent Senate whitewash claim. It was not an understandable mistake made by all, as a rigged British “inquiry” concluded.

US national security and CIA were corrupted and blinded by extremist ideology, cowardice, and careerism. The failure at CIA was not of the organization, but its leadership.

Nor was everyone wrong about Iraq. The UN’s arms inspectors (those that were not spies for the US and Israel) declared Iraq had no WMD’s. Scores of Mideast professionals, this writer included, insisted from Day 1 that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, posed no threat to the USA, and had no link to al-Qaida. The Bush Administration had documents confirming destruction in 1992 of all of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons (supplied by the US and Britain for use against Iran).

Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, had the courage and integrity to resign in protest over Tony Blair’s rush to join the Bush Administration in a trumped-up war.

Here’s what really happened. In 2002, Cheney thundered that Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons. A month later, Secretary Colin Powell proclaimed “no doubt he (Saddam) has chemical weapons.” Shortly after, President George Bush assured the UN that Iraq had biological weapons.

National Insecurity Advisor Condoleeza Rice warned a “mushroom cloud” threatened America. Britain’s glib prime minister, Tony Blair, made similar ludicrous claims.

Many veteran CIA officers dismissed these alarms as politically-motivated propaganda. The US State Department, Air Force, and French intelligence challenged claims Iraq had threatening offensive weapons systems. Many senior Pentagon military officers opposed invading Iraq.

But the word went out: Now here this. If you value your job and pension, do not, repeat, do not contradict the boss. The president is hell-bent on invading Iraq. Make it so.

Cheney repeatedly visited CIA, intimidating staff and demanding evidence be found of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaida. Oblivious to all facts, Cheney keeps warning Iraq still threatens the USA. He appears increasingly out of touch with reality.

CIA director George Tenet, a political apartchik, not an intelligence professional, undermined his agency’s ethics by eagerly pandering to all of Bush and Cheney’s prejudices - over his subordinate’s protests. Careerism and hand-licking took precedence over professionalism. Those with dissenting views were ignored, shunted aside, or fired.

This column has long reported smoldering anger among veteran CIA officers over Bush’s deeply flawed policies towards Iraq and the Muslim World. In late 2001, I was shocked and horrified to hear a distinguished member of CIA’s founding families actually claim a “fifth column” had taken control of Iraq policy and was driving the US to war.

But even the obsequious Tenet failed to satisfy Bush and Cheney’s growing demands for more damning “evidence,” so Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld created two independent intelligence units, Office for Special Plans, and “Team B,” packing them with far-right neoconservative militarists from the Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle faction. Their mission: find the smoking guns to justify immediate war against Iraq.

These two intelligence units became the main conduits for disinformation about Iraq, confirming every rumor or lie the White House and media wanted to believe, no matter how absurd.

Iraq-exile Ahmad Chalabi, created, financed, and managed by Pentagon neocons, was the main lie-producer. His tales were trumpeted by the White House and media. Israeli and British intelligence provided more faked material to whip up war fever.

This was no intelligence failure. This was strategic deception, a combination the Soviets KGB called “disinformatzia” and “maskirovka.” This was facilitated by an ideologically and religiously extreme president; a Dr Strangelovian vice president lusting for war and oil; neocon ideologues determined to advance the Greater Israel cause of PM Ariel Sharon; and a cowardly Congress that gravely violated its most basic responsibility to the nation by giving President Bush a blank check to go to war. And a national security establishment that lacked the cojones to tell superiors or Americans the truth.

Purging CIA is not the answer. If anyone should be held accountable, it is the politicians and neocons in the Pentagon and media, who willfully misled the US into a catastrophic war that has so far cost the lives of over 880 Americans, 13,000 Iraqi civilians, US $200 billion, and ruined the good name of the United States around the world.

They and Britain’s Tony Blair must not be allowed to escape full blame and retribution by hiding behind the sophistry that everyone - and thus no one- was responsible.

http://www.ericmargolis.com/

way to post op-ed as some kind of supporting evidence, lumpy.
I will let others with more desire and elegance handle the details…

1). Who the fuck is eric margolis
2). Where the fuck is his evidence
3). Hasnt he ever heard of the DIA? The defense department has had their own intelligence agency for quite sometime. This is nothing new or suprising about this.

Who is Winds of Change, and why should I believe THEIR op-ed interpretation, rather Eric Margolis or any one of numerous other sources saying the same thing.

When this report comes out this week (free on the internet) it’s going to be another kick in the balls for Dubya. Contrary to what BB says, this report isn’t “good for Bush”.

OK Lumpy…What is one of the top headline stories???

WASHINGTON - President Clintons’ national security adviser, Sandy Berger, is the focus of a criminal investigation after admitting he removed highly classified terrorism documents from a secure reading room during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings, The Associated Press has learned.
When asked, Berger said he returned some of the classified documents, which he found in his office, and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room, but said he could not locate two or three copies of the highly classified millennium terror report.

“In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the Sept. 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives,” Berger said.

“When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few document that I apparently had accidentally discarded,” he said.
The officials said the missing documents were highly classified, and included critical assessments about the Clinton administration’s handling of the millennium terror threats as well as identification of America’s terror vulnerabilities at airports to sea ports.

Berger testified at one of the commission’s public hearings about the Clinton administration’s approach to fighting terrorism. The former president answered the panel’s questions at a private meeting.

The former national security adviser himself had ordered his anti-terror czar Richard Clarke in early 2000 to write the after-action report and has spoken publicly about how the review brought to the forefront the realization that al-Qaida had reached America’s shores and required more attention.

Berger testified that during the millennium period, “we thwarted threats and I do believe it was important to bring the principals together on a frequent basis” to consider terror threats more regularly.

The missing documents involve two or three draft versions of the report as it was evolving and being refined by the Clinton administration, officials and lawyers say. The Archives is believed to have copies of some of the missing documents.

The Archives staff first raised concerns with Berger during an Oct. 2 review of documents that at least one copy of the post-millennium report he had reviewed earlier was missing. Berger was given a second copy that day, Breuer said.

Officials familiar with the investigation said Archives staff specially marked the documents and when the new copy and others disappeared, Archives officials called Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey to report the disappearance.

Berger immediately returned all the notes he had taken, and conducted a search and located two copies of the classified documents on a messy desk in his office, Breuer said. An Archives official came to Berger’s home to collect those documents but Berger couldn’t locate the other missing copies, the lawyer said.

He retained counsel, and in January the FBI executed search warrants of a safe at Berger’s home as well as his business office where he found some of the documents. Agents also failed to locate the missing documents.

Justice Department officials have told the Sept. 11 commission of the Berger incident and the nature of the documents in case commissioners wanted more information, officials said. The commission is expected to release its final report Thursday.

Congressional intelligence committees, however, have not been formally notified.

“The House Intelligence Committee has not been informed on the loss or theft of any classified intelligence information from the Archives, but we will follow up and get the information that is appropriate for the committee to have,” the committee said Monday in a statement. “And if it has occurred, we should be informed. If there has been delay in getting the information to the committee we need to know why.”

Berger is the second high-level Clinton-era official to face controversy over taking classified information home…

So who is this report going to be bad for??? Be interesting to see what comes out of this. And it casts light on the report now. How accurate is it going to be now? Especially with key classified documents missing, and Berger has no idea where they are. Which happen to be of coincidence on the Clinton administration’s handling of the millennium terror threats as well as identification of America’s terror vulnerabilities at airports to sea ports.

Joe

Who is Eric MArgolis you ask? In one of his more recent appearances here at LIB, we were privy to Eric Margolis enthusiastically gushing about how “thrilling” it was to visit KGB headquarters, and to sit at the same desk “on which the mass murderers of the Soviet secret police - Yagoda, Yezhov, Beria - wrote orders sending over 20 million to their deaths”. But whatever. I bring that up to provide some context. Because this week, Mr. Margolis has chosen to regale us with his view of “Fahrenheit 9/11”; and guess what? He lurves it.

From the first day of his election, John Paul 11?s pontificate raised concern in Central Committee headquarters. Canadian reporter Eric Margolis (Toronto Sun) put it this way: `I was the first Western journalist inside the KGB headquarters in 1990. The generals told me that the Vatican, and the Pope above all, was regarded as their number one, most dangerous enemy in the world.?"

This is on: http://www.torontofreepress.com/

Joe

Lumpy:

Forgive me for being a little less-than-ready to jump at Margolis’ pile of crap, er, I mean, allegations and claims. Margolis can’t even manage to quote his own position during the build up to the Iraq war properly – I went back and checked through his archives on the site you linked, and the only claim he made was that both Iran and Iraq lacked delivery systems for WMD, and that the didn’t currently have nuclear weapons. This is a completely different claim than what he now credits himself (and other governments and inspectors) with: that Iraq actually had no WMD.

This is demonstrably false: just go back and see what the main objections were: that Saddam needed to be given more time to comply with the resolutions requiring him to get rid of all his WMD. Don’t forget, WMD can equal nuclear weapons, but it is also chemical and biological weapons. Thus, showing you claimed Iraq didn’t have nukes is not the same as showing you claimed Iraq didn’t have WMD.

Other than that, Margolis seems quite good at piling together the negative-sounding adjectives and broad claims, but I’ll be more impressed when he comes up with some facts to back some of it up.

Has anyone read a book titled ‘A Pretext for War’ by James Bamford? I thought it was pretty good, and though he does fault the Bush administration in the book, it seems like he has researched a lot and is not leaning towards the left or right. I’m just getting into reading about politics and the happenings in the world so I couldnt really say if he is unbiased or not. If anyone else has read it let me know what you thought of it and any further readings (either from the left, right or hopefully more unbiased) would be appreciated. Thanks and take care.