You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front
Wolfowitz: U.S. intelligence murky
2003-07-28
Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary who is the architect of the White House policy on Iraq, said Sunday that "murky" intelligence guides much of the administration’s anti-terrorism policy.
holy smokes, sounds serious...
Wolfowitz made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows defending the Bush administration’s reasons for going to war in Iraq and its postwar plans. "The nature of terrorism intelligence is intrinsically murky," he told NBC’s "Meet the Press."
...oh, but it was taken out of context.
Wolfowitz said he had not read the recently released 900-page House-Senate report on intelligence before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks ...
Other senators expressed concern Sunday about the 28 pages withheld from the House-Senate report that dealt with a foreign government’s support of the September 11 hijackers.
which foreign government might that be? Lichtenstein?
Greenland? Bhutan?
"I think [the pages] are classified for the wrong reason," he [Sen. Richard Shelby] said on NBC’s "Meet The Press," adding that the pages were being withheld because the information "might be embarrassing to some international relations."
Moldova? Burkina Faso?
Samoa? Lappland?
Current Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, ... also confirmed what has been a open secret in Washington since the report was issued — that Saudi Arabia was linked to the hijackers in the blacked-out portions of the report.
Saudi Arabia? Nooo waaay!
Oh, say it ain't so! Quick, Ethel! My pills!
"Part of that was redacted to protect the Saudis," Roberts said, adding that "there was obvious Saudi involvement." Sen. Bob Graham, D-Florida, told "Fox News Sunday" the information was withheld by the Bush administration "to protect relationships with foreign governments, particularly a foreign government." Graham, who is seeking the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, refused to identify the country involved, saying it would be a criminal offense to publicly discuss classified information.
Aw c’mon! Say it. I won’t tell. It’s an open secret anyway.
"This foreign government provided logistical assistance to at least two of the hijackers, made acquisitions of their behalf, made payments on their behalf, [and] provided — not through charities but through a source related back to an official of that government — significant financial support for these two terrorists." He also charged the "high officials in this government, who I assume were not just rogue officials acting on their own, " were involved in providing support that helped the hijackers "plan, practice then execute" their attacks.
Did everything but fly the planes.
Posted by:Rafael

#10  bigot
Posted by: raptor   2003-7-29 8:36:51 AM  

#9  Yup, Wolfowitz, Perle, Fleisher (is there a pattern here?--insert anti-Semitic accusation now) decided to expand the American Empire and working class kids with no prospects who volunteered for this Army were sent to further their agenda--which has nothing to do with American interests but all about you know WHO'S
Bring our boys home NOW!
Posted by: Not Mike Moore   2003-7-28 10:35:08 PM  

#8  hmm... kinetic energy.. highly concentrated.. 17.4 MeV? hmmm.. maybe not.. that one's kinda dirty.. then again...
Posted by: Dishman   2003-7-28 5:06:14 PM  

#7  You seem to be in a bit of a kinetic energy kind of mood today, Lucky.........
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2003-7-28 2:51:35 PM  

#6  It is Saudi civilians who are attacking the US! The US needs to actively take them on. As I said before, blow shit out of some palaces then deny doing it. Do it some more and again deny it. Turn up the heat and the rats will scramble. Let France, the BBC, Rueters go on screeching and screeching.
Posted by: Lucky   2003-7-28 12:17:19 PM  

#5  Thanks for clearing that up, Frank G.

Just once, I'd like to see Shumer or Shelby or one of these clowns stand up and criticize CONGRESS for redacting pages of the report (even if it was at the White House's request). I would love to hear one of them say something like "Why did we act like a bunch of p*ssies and allow W (or Colin or Dick or Rummy) to bully us into shielding the Saudis from the criticisms in our own report?"
Posted by: Tibor   2003-7-28 12:04:23 PM  

#4  You mean why is he getting heat for it? Or why is he allowing all the heat to be focused on him and not on others? Doesn't matter: either way, Bush is going to get the heat for apparently trying to shield the Saudis, and that's the important thing. I strongly suspect he knows darned well he's going to get pressured to deal more forcibly with the oil ticks, and I also suspect he welcomes it.

If I were in his shoes, I'd have long ago concluded that with the 2004 election coming up and the Democrats pouncing all over every last damned thing I try to do, the surest way to build a consensus for action against the Saudis, would be to pretend that I'm trying to avoid it.
Posted by: Dave D.   2003-7-28 11:36:42 AM  

#3  umm...because there's an election next year?
Posted by: Frank G   2003-7-28 11:25:32 AM  

#2  "Wolfowitz said he had not read the recently released 900-page House-Senate report on intelligence before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks . . . ."

I think the Saudis' duplicity (mendacity, corruption, etc.) need to be dealt with, and given Bush's (W's, not his dad's) track record, I think Dave D. may be right, but remind me again why the White House is taking all the heat for redacting pages from a House-Senate report? I know W can pressure the Republicans to shape the report's findings, but I thought that this report was a bi-partisan effort.
Posted by: Tibor   2003-7-28 11:15:21 AM  

#1  LOL! Gosh, Steve, you're right: I have to admit, that silly notion did actually cross my mind...
Posted by: Dave D.   2003-7-28 10:11:13 AM  

00:00