Rummy Now Accepts CIA Assessments As Accurate?
Rummy has lost any remaining credibility he had left.
Yesterday, at a Q&A at the Council on Foreign Relations, Rummy said in answer to a question about the connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda:
"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
Hours later, after no doubt some heat-seeking phone calls from the White House, Rummy came out with the latest clarification from this moral clarity, message-disciplined administration:
"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between al Qaeda and Iraq...Today at the Council, I even noted that 'when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say "I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks" and I read it'."
In the new statement, issued on the Pentagon Web site, Rumsfeld listed what he said were arguments for suggesting links between al Qaeda and Iraq under Saddam, including what the CIA regarded as "credible evidence" that al Qaeda leaders had sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Rummy's not in "that business", he's not in the intelligence business?
So now Rummy wants us to think that he accepts what the CIA says on the issue of Iraq and WMDs? Then why did you set up the Office of Special Plans to provide your own alternative universe of intelligence? If you accept what the CIA says, (notice how this conversion away from faith-based intelligence coincides with George Tenetís replacement with Porter Goss), then I presume that you are now willing to terminate Douglas Feith and Stephen Camboneís little empire, right?