– Former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, December 16, 2003, on the initial decision to hand interrogation matters regarding Saddam Hussein, over to the CIA.
That decision was soon redacted:
And the three-minute decision was reassessed within weeks as the Federal Bureau of Investigation took the interrogation reins for the reason described in a January 2004 article:
The F.B.I. involvement reflects C.I.A. reluctance to allow covert officers to take part in interrogations that could force them to appear as court witnesses. In contrast, F.B.I. agents are trained to interview suspects in preparation for prosecutions.
In 2008, the two themes expressed in those sentences — C.I.A. aversion to public spectacle and F.B.I. experience on interrogation matters — are still being reinforced as a long-running rivalry continues to play out.
George Piro (former partner of Kenneth Williams), one of only 50 or so Arabic speaking F.B.I special agents out of 10,000, was assigned the task of being Saddam Hussein’s interrogator.
This past Sunday, saw 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley interview George Piro.
The interview is even the “top story” featured on the FBI website.
I was hoping it would reveal something new that has not already been covered in Ronald Kessler’s Terror Watch. Oddly enough, the interview reads almost verbatim, the chapter in the book which covers George Piro and Saddam Hussein. Much of the 7-month’s worth of interrogation is still classified, of course. But what is revealed, is still pretty interesting, if not particularly revelatory, as we’ve heard before about Saddam’s pretense of WMDs, for fear of Iran. It is interesting to note, that in Kessler’s book, he does not close the door on the possibility that Iraq did still possess WMD:
every time inspectors came, Saddam gave them the runaround, reinforcing for Iran’s consumption the notion that he had WMD. And that explains why, if there were no WMD, he acted as if he did have them.
Notice the big “if”? My emphasis.
It might just be the partisan in me, but I could have sworn I saw Pelley’s eyeballs begin to salivate when he came to his “gotcha” question, regarding what Saddam says he thought of bin Laden, and the question of connections between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Among the most important questions for U.S. intelligence was whether Saddam was supporting al Qaeda, as had been claimed by some in the Bush administration:
What was Saddam’s opinion of Osama Bin Laden?
“He considered him to be a fanatic. And as such was very wary of him. He told me, ‘You can’t really trust fanatics,'” Piro says.
“Didn’t think of Bin Laden as an ally in his effort against the United States in this war against the United States?” Pelley asks.
“No. No. He didn’t wanna be seen with Bin Laden. And didn’t want to associate with Bin Laden,” Piro explains.
Piro says Saddam thought that Bin Laden was a threat to him and his regime.
Saddam’s story was verified in interrogations with other former high-ranking members of his government.
Such as Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, an Iraqi intelligence officer
told U.S. interrogators that Saddam ordered his intelligence service in July 1999 to refrain from all contact with al-Qaeda.
I can see Saddam not trusting bin Laden, but not having sought some form of an alliance? Numerous documentation seems to speak otherwise. This includes recovered internal Iraqi Intelligence Service documents. Just click on the FA category, Iraq-al-Qaeda connections. This post is a good place to start. I think the George Piro interview only enriches the complexity of the picture, and does not disqualify previous documents and evidence of an al-Qaeda presence, and a relationship sought, at one time or another. It was a CIA assumption that a secular Saddam would never work with a religious terror group. And it is to the CIA’s discredit, that their analysts at the time refused to look “outside the box” (linking because of the citation of Feith, not Think Progress’ rebuttal) and lacked the imagination to conceive of this as a possibility. They basically expressed disinterest and left stones unturned that should have been examined.
A bit of background on how Ronald Kessler came to obtain the interview for his book and the decision by the F.B.I to allow George Piro to speak.
Also blogging:
Bottomline Upfront
From Sea to Shining Sea
Related:
Flopping Aces
NewsBusters
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
So… just to recap: Saddam admits he was LYING about WMD, but now we are supposed to believe he was telling the truth about his connections to Al Queda????
“The F.B.I. involvement reflects C.I.A. reluctance to allow covert officers to take part in interrogations that could force them to appear as court witnesses. In contrast, F.B.I. agents are trained to interview suspects in preparation for prosecutions.”
Yeah, and we all see what a GREAT decision that was-I mean, it’s not like Saddam’s trial was a circus, right?
Nah, I’m sorry, but I think the CIA shoulda done whatever they needed to do to get intel from Saddam. According to this, the decision was made to go with the FBI so he could stand trial, and the decision WAS NOT MADE TO GET THE MOST INTEL.
I strongly strongly believe that this was a big mistake. The only reason to have the trial was to put forth an image of justice, but it was a circus, it was not the image of justice people hoped, and the end result was weak intel (again).
That part about Saddam lying about the WMD, ”
reinforcing for Iran’s consumption the notion that he had WMD. And that explains why, if there were no WMD, he acted as if he did have them” reinforces exactly the conclusions reached in the Iraqi Perspectives Project:
• Saddam was caught in a Catch-22. On the one hand, he wanted some countries to believe that he had WMD because “they lived in a very dangerous global neighborhood where even the perception of weakness drew wolves.”
• On the other hand, he had to convince the United States and other nations that he did not possess WMD. He did not want to be attacked and in order to get the sanctions lifted it was crucial that they believed that the threat of WMD was gone.
• “When it came to WMD, Saddam was simultaneously attempting to deceive one audience that they were gone, and another that Iraq still had them.”
Scott is able to give analysis on the intel that was gained ?
My analysis of his analysis is that his analysis is weak.
Excellent post Word tying together the huge cache of evidence that exists Saddam had ties with AQ. I don’t doubt Saddam didn’t trust them, I doubt he trusted many people including most of his family, but trust is not the ultimate condition for a tyrant to do business with another tyrant.
I find it funny when liberals tell us that Saddam was just a big fat liar and we should never had believed him on WMD, but in the next breath tell us he should be believed on what his ties were with AQ.
There are a lot of guns for hire and also a lot of bragging. Al Qaeda among other factions are basically all tied together too. For instance Saddam sends weapons to the PLO and the PLO sells those weapons to Al Qaeda. Saddam could have been plugged into the same network of terrorists without directly dealing with the leaders of Al Qaeda.
I don’t know where Saddam got the idea that the U.S. wouldn’t attack. Do people just joke about these things in diplomatic meetings? Does he forget the last time the U.S. had a massive arms build up along his boarder? If Iran was such a threat, why didn’t he form allies instead? He could have asked for UN troops. I think he wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq. Why would he support an invasion? The Russians were giving him advise which turned out to be wrong. They probably came closer to the real monitary cost of the war compared to Bush’s staff, but the death rate was expected to be much higher. Remember the rule is 3-1 when invading so I’m thinking he was given the numbers of around 10,000-30,000 dead Americans. He was also told by the Russians the U.S. wouldn’t risk going into cities so he could hide out in one. An American force in Iraq would also protect Iraq agains Iran. Also notice that the Sunnis and Shiites fought among themselves. I bet he was hoping the Shiites would fight the Americans while also having to fight off the Sunnis. The double wammy would have hurt the Shiites more than the Sunnis. The trouble came when Al Qaeda showed up and the Sunnis backed them. Al Qaeda managed to pull off one of the worst PR moves in modern history and actually got the Shiites and Sunnis together, but Saddam didn’t see that before he died.
Great post Gregory. You’re so right about the guns-for-hire. I guess that’s why “Al Queda” translates as “the base” or “starting point” or “origin”. They’re really the coordination and link or base-center-origin for hundreds of jihadi groups.
VERY good points about the Russians too btw. Let’s not forget that just weeks before the invasion, Russia’s Primakov (who had been on Iraq’s payroll via Oil For Food since 1996 according to the Clinton Admin) flew into Baghdad with 2 Russian generals (an airborne general, and a general who specialized in urban guerrilla warfare). They were given Iraq’s highest medals, and when CNN asked em what they did to get the medals, “well, we didn’t fly here to drink tea” was all they said. Then, rather than fly back out on the cargo plane they flew in on (odd, flying in on a cargo plane instead of a diplomatic plane) they drove out in a “diplomatic convoy” to Syria. Then, after the war started, Primakov rode out in another Russian convoy. That one was intercepted near the Sryian border by US Special Forces (per CNN reports), but most of the vehicles made it into Syria. And let’s not forget the little diplomatic tuff that happened after the convoy was intercepted. The department of Defense complained openly that Russia was providing night vision goggles and GPS jammers to Iraq. Vladamir Putin himself came to DC to quell the concerns (allegedly). Meanwhile, the Russian navy sent two destroyers to escort two russian cargo ships out of Basra, Iraq, through the Persian Gulf (which literally had over a hundred US and Coalition warships swarming in it), through the Indian ocean (where Coalition warships are openly searching ships on the high seas even today), through the Red Sea (where there was yet another US carrier battlegroup, through the Suez, and…yep, you guessed it, to Syria. You’re so right, Gregory. Russia was deeply involved.
John, I only commented on the open source stuff, and the point I made was that gathering intelligence should have been a higher priority than a show trial. I thought you’d be happy to see another mistake of the Bush Admin pointed out, no?
All of the studies that were independent of political influence concluded that:
1. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were enemies right up until the end.
2. There was no WMD program in Iraq at the time of the 2003 invasion.
All of the Conservative spin since then is nothing more than urban legends to satisfy the Bush Faithful.
“All of the studies that were independent of political influence concluded that:
1. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were enemies right up until the end.
2. There was no WMD program in Iraq at the time of the 2003 invasion.”
yeah, right. WHICH study that was independent of political influence concluded they were enemies?
nice spin on #2 though. You’re right, no active program, no stockpiles, but what did you deliberately leave out (or was it left out due to incompetence)?
A) You left out that Saddam intended (per this very interview in this very thread) to restart his programs
B) You left out that Saddam had in fact prepared his programs to restart as soon as sanctions were gone
C) You left out that post-war findings (to say nothing of the Oil For Food program) determined sanctions to be irrevocably deteriorated and successfully undermined by Saddam’s diplomacy
D) You left out the repeated detail from the CIA and from UNMOVIC as late as 2005 that Saddam’s WMD programs were modified and turned into a “breakout capability” or rapid restart which could have produced fresh, more potent WMD in months, weeks, even hours
E) You left out that Saddam had circumvented sanctions and even inspections by getting Russia, France, and others to change descriptions of many proscribed/illegal/wmd issues into benign/acceptable/dual use items. Even Dr Blix quipped that Saddam had enough chlorine production to purify all the water in the entire Middle East-far more than Iraq’s needs. This goes the same for nerve agents re-described as concentrated pesticides, or anthrax production equipment made legal by re-designating it as “dual use” because Iraq claimed it was used to make anthrax simulants.
A+B+C+D+E=WMD threat
and don’t even try to pretend Saddam would never use WMD on the US for fear of retaliation. The ISG report has transcripts of his conversations where he orders its use, but Gen Sada tricked him into not using it.
Hmmm, Steve forgot 5 criticially important things (among a myriad of others) re WMD. That shows either great incompetence or a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth; lies.
If Steve had any cleverness in him, he would have written that out as “Bush Feithful“.
True Word. Could it be he finally looked at a calender and realized that Feith’s OSP couldn’t have misled anyone because 48hrs later the CIA put out it’s “Iraq Support for Terrorism 2002” pamphlet? Nah, I doubt it.
Show me the pictures of mountains of atomic bombs, nuclear materials, stockpiles of (working) nerve gas cannisters and mobile biological weapons factories that were captured and displayed by invading troops in 2003.
I gave you the link to the book which had the pictures Steve. It is in the “Why Iraq” post I did last year.
“Weapons of Mass Destruction Found” by Maj Bryan Russell, USAF.
Or are the leftest faithful not allowed to read that book?
No one ever claimed there were mountains of atomic bombs. Nuclear materials? Check the ISG report.
The pictures alone show all kinds of uncovered (re CONCEALED) nuclear program components that IAEA missed; that Saddam successfully hid with the intention (per the interview mentioned earlier) of restarting his programs as soon as sanctions were decayed further.
Nerve gas cannisters…are you serious? Have you even read the ISG report? There’s not only pics of the empty nerve gas shells stored at “pesticide facilities” but there’s even the “perfume atomizers” discovered at the Muthanna chemical weapons complex (perhaps the French really believed the WMD facility was a new perfume plant?). There’s also pics of GI’s in chem suits standing in pits of chemicals at the same complex poured into the sand.
Mobile weapons factories. Probably bad intel on that one, but the idea of something mobile just sitting in Iraq while the US built up forces for military action over half a year…seems to lose sight of the entire concept and reason such facilities would be MOBILE
Seriously, have you ever looked at the pictures in the ISG report?
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
I think Steve misses part of the point, which is even if components and stockpiles of wmds were never found, the irresponsible course of action would have been to follow the status quo of the previous 12 years, when the overwhelming bulk of intell information which we had at our disposal, as shoddy as it was, pointed in the direction of Saddam posing a threat. Saddam is responsible for perpetuating that perception. And based upon postwar information, I believe Saddam was a threat then, and would be one today and tomorrow had we not treated this metasticizing cancer upon the world before the threat became imminent.
Enjoy the pics Steve
.JPG)
The Iraq Survey Group found there were no weapons in Iraq.
We were heralded by Administration talk of “Mushroom clouds over Cleveland”
The weapons were not there. The war was for nothing.
Even the President Conservatives equate with Abraham Lincoln admits “we got it wrong”.
All of your conspiracy and “they were trucked into Syria/Russia/The South Pole” stories are lies, told by Conservatives to Conservatives so as to justify the $ trillions and lives that are being wasted in Iraq because George W. Bush wanted to be “The War Presdient” for his 2004 re-election.
Summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group
My copy of Moby Dick is 700+pages long. Is “WHALE” a good description of that piece of literature, or was there more to it than those 5 letters? The ISG report is 1000+pages long. Similarly, the ISG report has a lot more in it than “NOWMD,” but why believe the pictures when you can cite a source than any Joe schmoe can modify.
…from YOUR own link (to a source that any junior high teacher wouldn’t allow):
The question isn’t weapons, but threat. Was there a threat? Kay-a former weapons inspector-says yes.
A+B+C+D+E=WMD threat.
Also from YOUR SOURCE:
You asked for pics, I showed em. Then you made statements based solely on your heavily partisan opinion rather than cite the politically independent investigation you mentioned.
re truckloads of “stuff” moved into Syria, perhaps you can suggest what it was that WAS smuggled out; to Syria by truck and plane, and elsewhere by plane and ship? I got a big kick out of your saying that the pic of a traffic jam of trucks trying to get into Syria was a lie. Great stuff Steve. Worth the laughs
Re: “The question isn’t weapons, but threat. Was there a threat? Kay-a former weapons inspector-says yes. ”
There were no weapons. There was no threat that required invasion. The sanctions were working, as we would have known had President Bush not “suggested” that the Weapons inspectors leav Iraq in 2003, just prior to his invasion, before they could complete their job and document that the WMD’s did not exist.
Your own link says there was a threat,
and that sanctions were not working.
Steve,
I am sorry, would a mushroom cloud or a VX attack make you happy? Oh, wait, there was that thwarted VX attack on Amman, Jordan in 2004 I cited before in the “Why Iraq” thread (which I wrote while IN Iraq), but you said it did not matter. Nothing but leftist dictated hate and your fanatical hatred of conservatives matters to you.
Now you are calling US Soldiers liars when we point out that Saddam was a threat and was trying to conceal his WMD research and manufacturing capability.
Furthermore you state
2003!!!! We had inspectors in since 1991 and they still did not “complete their job” by 2003!!??!! Ok, given their absence from 1998 on, maybe they did not have the full 12 YEARS, but how many years would you have given them!!!?? As I stated in the “Why Iraq” post you dismissed before, 12 YEARS of violating the cease fire seems not to have been enough for you.
Steve believes everyone is a lying conservative unless they agree with him-even if we show him pictures and point out that his own source for quoting contradicts his far left talking points from Daily Kos. It appears that in his mind’s eye only professional lawyer/politicians with a D next to their name are truthsayers.
It really is humorous to watch a person like Steve discombobulate like he’s doing here. Scott and others have shown over and over, with pictures and quotes from the very text he tries to use as evidence that there were no WMD’s, that there in fact WERE wmd’s in Iraq and that Saddam was a threat. His “smoking gun” proves our point and what does Steve do?
He ignores it all and stomps his feet like a little kid while wailing “I just know there were no WMD’s…I just know! I don’t care how much evidence you have!”…..figuratively of course.
You sure are an entertaining little fella Steve.
Reminds me of that commercial about pms, “They call it, denial”
Re: “I am sorry, would a mushroom cloud or a VX attack make you happy? ”
No. But the amount of time Conservatives like to talk about that event, I wonder if they might not like to see that happen, just to justify their agenda.
The only group that has actually attacked the mainland of the United States has been al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden. President Bush let them get away at Tora Bora in order to pursue his invasion of Iraq, which posed no imminent threat to the US.
Those are facts, even if Conservatives must pretend otherwise in order toprotect their hero, George W. Bush.
I love it, he ignores all the evidence again….
you sure don’t disappoint Steve….
And yet you malign President Bush and criticize the tools he’s put into action that protect us from further terror plots upon our soil. How brilliant of you!
From what I recall, hundreds of al-Qaeda fighters lost their lives; not a single U.S. soldier lost his during Tora Bora. If any got away, it wasn’t President Bush “letting them get away”. You do realize that the enemy isn’t just going to lay down and play dead for us, right?
Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, deputy commander of CENTCOM during the Afghanistan war, disagrees with you Philly Steve, as does General Franks. They live in reality. You are bogged down in la-la land.
President Bush never said Iraq posed an “imminent threat”, bucko. But Iraq was a cancer upon the world metasticizing for the worse. Treatment is better applied sooner than later. I’d say 12 years of the original cease fire agreements violated along with 17 UN Resolutions later was long enough of a wait.
Your facts are known as “flights of fancy and fantasy” in the real world. That’s a fact you keep ignoring.
We’re really trying to help you out, Steve. Really, we are. And to think we aren’t even charging you a fee!!!
Steve, your own link says there was a threat,
and that sanctions were not working.
“President Bush let them get away at Tora Bora in order to pursue his invasion of Iraq,”
Bin Laden escaped Tora Bora in mid-late 12/01, and the military buildup for Iraq began in 9/02 (nine months later). Further, the invasion of Iraq that you point to as your idea of how or why UBL escaped didn’t happen until 3/03.
Hmmm, let’s do the math:
UBL escapes then FIFTEEN MONTHS later Iraq is invaded? Methinks Steve must have 2001 and 2002 mixed up
Check a calender Steve. Those are facts, even if moonbat nutjobs must pretend otherwise in order to attack their nemesis, George W. Bush.
Re: “From what I recall, hundreds of al-Qaeda fighters lost their lives; not a single U.S. soldier lost his during Tora Bora. If any got away, it wasn’t President Bush “letting them get away”. You do realize that the enemy isn’t just going to lay down and play dead for us, right? ”
Actually the fact is that many al Qaeda were allowed to get away in the “Pakistani Airlift”, an operation at the end of 2001 that the Bush Administration supported so that the govenment of Paksitan wold not be embarrased by the fact that a good percentage of al Qaeda were Pakistani (second only to Saudi’s, virtually no Iraqis).
Unfortunately, as we all have come to know, the Bush Administration’s management of the Pakistani Airlift was less than competent and thousands left who were not Pakistani, in fact we had no idea who they were.
As a result, while thousands did die, many thousands more got away, including most of the al Qaeda leadership. But that is just fine with Conservatives since the Bush Administration policy of “low expectations” means that one expects massive bungling from George W. Bush and if even a tiny fraction of an effort actually goes right, Conservatives shout to the rooftops about what a great leader George W. Bush is.
Most of the al Qaeda leadership got away, and we all know that, had President Bush pursued al Qaeda, instead of diverting assets to hisplanned invasion of iraq, we likely would not be facing an al Qaeda that is as strong now as it was prior to the September 11 attacks, and the Taliban would not control massive portions of Aghanistan and Pakistan.
But not one single Conservative is allowed to hold George W. Bush accoutable for those results, because president Bush must be protected from accountability, at all costs.
Documentation related to above, although Conservatives usually consider proof “optional”.
http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/secretairlift.htm
http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020128fa_FACT
In Afghanistan last November, the Northern Alliance, supported by American Special Forces troops and emboldened by the highly accurate American bombing, forced thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters to retreat inside the northern hill town of Kunduz. Trapped with them were Pakistani Army officers, intelligence advisers, and volunteers who were fighting alongside the Taliban. (Pakistan had been the Taliban’s staunchest military and economic supporter in its long-running war against the Northern Alliance.) Many of the fighters had fled earlier defeats at Mazar-i-Sharif, to the west; Taloqan, to the east; and Pul-i-Khumri, to the south. The road to Kabul, a potential point of retreat, was blocked and was targeted by American bombers. Kunduz offered safety from the bombs and a chance to negotiate painless surrender terms, as Afghan tribes often do.
Surrender negotiations began immediately, but the Bush Administration heatedly—and successfully—opposed them. On November 25th, the Northern Alliance took Kunduz, capturing some four thousand of the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. The next day, President Bush said, “We’re smoking them out. They’re running, and now we’re going to bring them to justice.”
Even before the siege ended, however, a puzzling series of reports appeared in the Times and in other publications, quoting Northern Alliance officials who claimed that Pakistani airplanes had flown into Kunduz to evacuate the Pakistanis there. American and Pakistani officials refused to confirm the reports. On November 16th, when journalists asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about the reports of rescue aircraft, he was dismissive. “Well, if we see them, we shoot them down,” he said. Five days later, Rumsfeld declared, “Any idea that those people should be let loose on any basis at all to leave that country and to go bring terror to other countries and destabilize other countries is unacceptable.” At a Pentagon news conference on Monday, November 26th, the day after Kunduz fell, General Richard B. Myers, of the Air Force, who is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about the reports. The General did not directly answer the question but stated, “The runway there is not usable. I mean, there are segments of it that are usable. They’re too short for your standard transport aircraft. So we’re not sure where the reports are coming from.”
Pakistani officials also debunked the rescue reports, and continued to insist, as they had throughout the Afghanistan war, that no Pakistani military personnel were in the country. Anwar Mehmood, the government spokesman, told newsmen at the time that reports of a Pakistani airlift were “total rubbish. Hogwash.”
In interviews, however, American intelligence officials and high-ranking military officers said that Pakistanis were indeed flown to safety, in a series of nighttime airlifts that were approved by the Bush Administration. The Americans also said that what was supposed to be a limited evacuation apparently slipped out of control, and, as an unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus. “Dirt got through the screen,” a senior intelligence official told me. Last week, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld did not respond to a request for comment.
re: “Most of the al Qaeda leadership got away, and we all know that, had President Bush pursued al Qaeda, instead of diverting assets to hisplanned invasion of iraq,”
Really, so you’re saying that the Bush Admin diverted assets from Afghanistan to build up and invade Iraq in December 2001? Before Sept 2002? Simply didn’t happen, and either you’re a liar or you’re an incompetent fool (trending towards the latter given your continued repetition of debunked talking points)
FYI, your New Yorker talking point is so old even they don’t post the article anymore, and Hersh’s article (based on hearsay and anonymous sources per a heavily biased source, Hersh) is wrong. Kunduz fell on 11/26/01, and his own article says that the flights took off with US help 3wks before 12/13/01. US forces-even special forces and specifically CIA units per Gary Bernsten who led the US CIA ops at the time-weren’t there until December. I submit that Hersh was misled specifically because there’s no way that he was in contact with Delta Force guys in NYC or DC two months after those same guys were in Afghanistan. Bersten’s book, JAWBREAKER, as well as three corroborating books confirm that such CIA assets were still in Afghanistan until they started being rotated out and replaced by fresh CIA units and US Special Operations command in Feb/Mar 2002….which is of course AFTER Hersh wrote his fiction. Ya know, using 6yr old talking points is pretty easy to debunk. Try finding something newer, fresher, and more up to date; more informed.
You are spamming again Steve, and your fanatical hatred is showing. How long before you go off the deep end and demand our silent obedience to your masters or our deaths?
The only fanatic hater here is YOU. My vote is that you are wearing out your welcome with your lies, fanatical hate, spam posting, and arrogant ignorance. If any of use posted like you do at a leftist blog, we would last about 2 posts before being banned.
And having been to Iraq, I will gladly keep refuting your lies and hate.
Re: ” Try finding something newer, fresher, and more up to date; more informed.”
Hersh’s reporting has been the best of the war. Far ahead of the cheerleaders at FoxNews and the stenographers at the New York Times.
And, by “more informed”, you mean “Party Approved”, don’t you?
More documentation about the diversion of assets from the Hunt for bin Laden that Conservaties re not permitted to know.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm
WASHINGTON — In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.
Oh Stevie….
I see you’re hangin’ around this thread an awful lot but totally ignoring the difficult, specific questions that were posed to you on this thread:
It will probably be more than a bit embarrassing (even for you) for all of us to see additional proof (again) that you are talking out of your ass but facing your problem is the first step toward getting help.
Because we cite only news from FOX and NYT. We don’t read Michael Yon, Bill Roggio, Michael Totten, nor a variety of other sources. We’ve never linked to sources in our post, other than from FOX and the NYTs to support our positions. You got us good, Steve.
Hersh has the best reporting in the eyes of the moonbat left. Since you get to cite Seymour Lies, how about I cite Jed Babbin’s account on the Legend of Tora Bora?
I was told by FOXNews, NYT (WTF?), Rush, Coulter, and the Right Wing Talking Points Memo that 2/3rds of the al Qaeda leadership at that time, had been killed or captured.
Steve…tell me, truthfully: Each time you type that out at the end of every comment, you click your heels 3 times, don’t you? It’s ok to admit. We’re all friends here.
-So, you’re saying we should believe an opponent of the war reporting from the US 6yrs ago using anonymous sources rather than books from 2006 written by the actual people who were there in Afghanistan?
-Please show me where I have once cited Fox…just once. So far, you’ve done nothing but provide biased sources, sources that aren’t news sources, sources that don’t even carry the stories you describe because they’re so outdated, and sources that you apparently don’t even read yourself because they contradict your own positions.
-Actually Steve, I mentioned this one particular group to you directly in a previous conversation (which you must have ignored?), and by having done so completely destroy your vain attempt at suggesting I or anyone here knows less than you or knows only politically approved facts.
Oh, and btw, the 5th SFG wasn’t rotated out until the end of March 2002, over 100days after UBL escaped into Pakistan, but they were replaced by different forces which were suited for the new mission scope (see also battle of the whale’s ridge). ALSO, the 5th SFG was not/is not a conventional unit-the kind one uses for an invasion. Quite the opposite. The unique aspect of the 5th is that it was the most experienced military unit in the world when it came to regime change through the use of indigenous forces RATHER than invasion. These are the guys who went into Afghanistan in small groups, called in air strikes, and worked with the Northern Alliance so that the Afghans could retake their country with just US support rather than a US invasion (it was called the Downing Plan in terms of Iraq). The very nature of the unit you list debunks your own claim.
Scott,
Do you not know that Steve is a “military genius” in addition to an elite progressive? I swear, he could write for The People’s Cube. He is that blindly dedicated to the left.
Even me with 14 years and counting of active service must not know anything compared to Steve and his progressive, all knowing sources.
As time passes, Steve’s rantings etc are becoming so canned, and so easily debunked that we might as well respond with links to rebuttals he’s ignored (as I did in #36). I sometimes wonder if his real name might be Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf