Tuesday :: Jun 22, 2004

Recent Bush/Cheney Claims On Saddam-Al Qaeda Link Fall Apart Once Again Under Scrutiny

by Steve

Much of the Bush Administrationís recent claims that a Saddam-Al Qaeda working relationship stem from recently unearthed documents (where have you heard that before, Mr. Chalabi?) which the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal, and GOP 9/11 commissioner-cum-water boy John Lehman claim to show that a Lieutenant Colonel in Saddamís Fedayeen was also involved in Al Qaeda. However, Knight-Ridder, Newsday, and the Postís Walter (Mr. Langley) Pincus report that, as usual, the intelligence community disputes these claims. Why? Because the Fedayeen Lieutenant Colonel the wingers and Bush/Cheney identify as the link to Al Qaeda is a different man than the guy already identified as an Al Qaeda operative. (Names, Schnames, what's the difference)

Spencer Ackerman, guest-hosting for Josh Marshall this week over at Talking Points Memo, has also been all over this story. So, chalk this one up to another example of sloppy work done by faith-based intelligence geeks working for an administration so desperate to make these claims that they canít even get the names of their suspects straight. And the 9/11 Commission is around to remind voters of the factually deficient and pathetic efforts by the White House to justify why they invaded.

Ackerman points out the reason why the administration is so desperate to hang on to the slender reed that the Iraq invasion was about terrorism. According to a New York Times piece over the weekend, it is known inside the GOP political establishment that as Iraq goes into the toilet this fall, the only justification Bush has left to sell the public on his mistake and messianic misjudgment is his claim that toppling Saddam was part of the larger war on terror.

"They feel it's important to their long-term credibility on the issue of the decision to go to war," the adviser said. "It's important because it's part of the overall view that Iraq is part of the war on terror. If you discount the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, then you discount the proposition that it's part of the war on terror. If it's not part of the war on terror, then what is it ó some cockeyed adventure on the part of George W. Bush?"


Steve :: 8:29 AM :: Comments (13) :: Digg It!