Iraq and Al Qaeda - key 'collaboration' source changes his story, Newsweek

[TacticalPeek]

Iraq and Al Qaeda

Forget the 'Poisons and Deadly Gases'

Flip flop: Was Saddam working with Al Qaeda or not?

By Michael Isikoff
Investigative Correspondent
Newsweek

July 5 issue - A captured Qaeda commander who was a principal source for Bush administration claims that Osama bin Laden collaborated with Saddam Hussein's regime has changed his story, setting back White House efforts to shore up the credibility of its original case for the invasion of Iraq. The apparent recantation of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a onetime member of bin Laden's inner circle, has never been publicly acknowledged. But U.S. intelligence officials tell NEWSWEEK that al-Libi was a crucial source for one of the more dramatic assertions made by President George W. Bush and his top aides: that Iraq had provided training in "poisons and deadly gases" for Al Qaeda. Al-Libi, who once ran one of bin Laden's biggest training camps, was captured in Pakistan in November 2001 and soon began talking to CIA interrogators. Although he never mentioned his name, Secretary of State Colin Powell prominently referred to al-Libi's claims in his February 2003 speech to the United Nations; he recounted how a "senior terrorist operative" said Qaeda leaders were frustrated by their inability to make chemical or biological agents in Afghanistan and turned for help to Iraq. Continuing to rely on al-Libi's version, Powell then told how a bin Laden operative seeking help in acquiring poisons and gases had forged a "successful" relationship with Iraqi officials in the late 1990s and that, as recently as December 2000, Iraq had offered "chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaeda associates."

But more recently, sources said, U.S. interrogators went back to al-Libi with new evidence from other detainees that cast doubt on his claims. Al-Libi "subsequently recounted a different story," said one U.S. official. "It's not clear which version is correct. We are still sorting this out." Some officials now suspect that al-Libi, facing aggressive interrogation techniques, had previously said what U.S. officials wanted to hear. SNIP

more
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5305085/site/newsweek

[Journeyman]

1. And another one down, and another one down. . .

another one bites the dust. . .

[jbfam4]

2. this keeps the torture issue on the front burner

It is another example of how they cherry picked items to make their case for an immoral, unjust war. This administration went to war because they could!

The president bet his presidency on this war.....HE LOST.

America is finally waking up. Many now know, what we here at DU have known all along.
*Bush isn't a victim of the far left.....HE IS A VICTIM of this own bad judgement.

[IndianaGreen]

23. People will confess to anything under torture

The US has fallen victim of its own delusions and pride.

Thousands have died for nothing!

[Cheneys_former_heart]

3. Yeah, that torture works so well

just waterboard him and he'll agree to any scenario the interregators cook up. Saddam? Yeah, he was in on it. Santa Claus? He provided logistical support.

[thebigidea]

5. and the Easter Bunny drove the getaway truck to Syria...

[TahitiNut]

8. That's why the Busholini's love torture and coercion ...

After all, might makes right, right? (It's their style. The whippings will continue until morale improves.) Impoverishment, failed public schools, and unemployment make a really wonderful 'volunteer' military, right? Let's have more loyalty oaths!

The saddest thing about it is ... 30-40% of the "good people" in this country agree. The ranks of the brownshirts are still swollen with true believers.

[Tatiana]

4. Wow, Isikoff plays investigative journalist for once!

This is a sinking ship. I wonder who will resign next...

[Eloriel]

7. Don't bet on it

I suspect that someone in the CIA fed him the info. There IS no such thing as investigative journalism in the mainstream media anymore. Corporate news doesn't want to pay for it, don't have the stomach for it anyway, and "journalists" have pretty much forgotten how. Hell, the've demonstrated to me they're too dumb and/or lazy to even use google for the simplest of things -- and they all have access to Lexis/Nexis which is an even richer source for research.

[TacticalPeek]

11. True, about the virtual death of investigative journalism.

But I'm lately excited just to find another spook channel surfacing in the Overthrow by a Thousand Cuts campaign.

Re: the media, here's an interesting page at the Columbia Journalism Review site, about who owns what among the media etc.

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners

[mountainvue]

13. Yup. The CIA

is finished with the dalliances of the Boy King. they will not tolerate him one minute longer than they have to.

[Tatiana]

20. Good point.

Re-reading the article, it's entirely plausible that this is a feed from the CIA. They've been very busy of late.

[iconoclastic cat]

6. Wow! And here I thought Newsweek was a RW organ!

Color me tickled!

[OKNancy]

9. What is really stupid about the whole thing

is the utter lack of thought. Why would Saddam help al Queda at that time? So they could cause him more trouble than they already were. It's just so stupid that the US bought it. I mean really, bin Laden had said Saddam was the devil incarnate. Idiots.

[Just Me]

10. Apparently, the BFEE has lost control over the CIA,...

,...particularly those who infiltrated the media.

They must be crappin' their britches *LOL*.

Ahhhh,...what is that saying about the gods always make over-confident those who MUST fall?

[radfringe]

12. still leaves a big question that Bush* has not answered

WHY
ARE
WE
IN
IRAQ?

[radfringe]

15. Meanwhile, NEWSWEEK has learned,

Pentagon officials are culling * through captured Iraqi documents they say will provide hard evidence of multiple contacts between Iraqi officials and Qaeda members over a decade. Current plans call for a massive "document dump" before the election. But officials acknowledge ultimate proof may prove elusive. "It all depends on what your definition of a relationship is," said one.**


*Culling? Think they mean cherry-picking

** definition of relationship is? I don't think this will fly

[Jack Rabbit]

14. I wonder

I wonder if al-Libi made his original statement after some persuasive methods approved by Rumsfeld like sleep deprivation or standing in place for hours were applied.

Form Why Torture Doesn't Work by Jack Rabbit, Democratic Underground, March 11:

(I)nformation gained from a torture victim must be regarded as unreliable. The authorities may torture a suspect (Dershowitz suggests sterile needles placed under fingernails), and he may tell them anything to get them stop. Since the situation is urgent, time is on the side of the terrorist. If he is determined to kill people, he could tell them anything or even nothing at all. The authorities would have to investigate what he says, since they can't assume it is true. Of course, investigating the suspect's statements takes time that the authorities don't have. Torturing the suspect where time is an urgent factor gains the authorities nothing.

Note: the above paragraph assumes Alan Dershowitz' ticking bomb scenario, which clearly would not have been applicable here. Nevertheless, like the intelligence that was cooked in order to justify the war, it would not be surprising if the administration officials just apply whatever methods they deem necessary to get not the truth but what they want to hear and then use it to propagate their case to the world.

Even assuming al-Libi was not tortured (and no one can say for certain that he was), it would not be surprising if, once he said what they wanted to hear, they left it at that and didn't check it out.

[The Magistrate]

18. Another Thought, Mr. Rabbit

These information games can play two ways, my friend. Not only is there something the interrogators may want to hear, there is likely something the interogatees want their captors to believe. Providing false information is one way to influence the actions of your enemy, and information provided under stringent interrogation is more likely to be accepted uncritically than information arriving from some of the other usual means of planting concoctions on the foe, for the interrogator will be proud of his efforts, and feel obscurely he has earned the reward by them, and be confident in his superiority over his victim.

Training in withstanding interrogation is certainly part of the Jihadists' procedures, and since, in the long run, just about everyone talks under extreme duress, this must likely focus on how to talk, so to speak. The best way to conceal something is to give the opponent something else to look at. Since the enemy will desire to act on what is "learned," providing false information is an available means of manipulating the enemy's actions, from a position of apparent helplessness.

There is little question that the U. S. invasion of Iraq has been a great boon to the Jihadists. Nor is there any reason to suppose they were unaware of the existing predisposition of the current administration to embark on such an invasion. Therefore, there seems to be every reason to suppose they might have bent some effort to encourage such an action by the United States. A campaign of disinformation mounted from within the cells is certainly possible to dedicated operatives.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. Normally, I would disagree with that, Sir

However, in this case you could be right.

The reason I would disagree with it is that I had an MI MOS in the army. I was told that, in the event of being taken prisoner, one should not answer questions even with false information. It would just give the enemy some information to validate; even invalidating false information gives the enemy something he didn't have before and helps his cause. As you say, the jihadists could focus such training on how to talk.

In this case, the al-Libi's enemy isn't interested in facts; he's interested in talking points. I don't know if al-Libi realizes this or not, but, if he does, it just makes his task of deception easier. Who could be so easy to deceive as one wanting to hear lies?

[The Magistrate]

22. It Is Mere Speculation, My Friend, Of Course

But "pure" intelligence operations are a somewhat different beast than standard military intelligence. Foisting dis-information onto the foe is a standard tactic of the former craft, and has several potential advantages: besides the possibilty of serious mis-direction, knowledge such tricks are practiced has made agencies discard genuine information at times because they thought it was really something planted onto them. Absent access to Iraqi archives, it is hard to see how a tale such as this fellow's original story could be disproved, and those who heard it would want to believe it. If several high-level captives had agreed to tell a similar tale before-hand, if captured, a pattern of mutual verification could emerge from different interrogations that might be most convincing, even to skeptical persons.

[peterh]

16. In the LAT yesterday….

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-iraqflap26jun26,1,5281194.story?coll=la-news-a_section

Semantics Skirmish on 9/11 Report

Cheney, in reference to the 911 report, is quoted as saying:

“Cheney read the evidence differently, saying it neither proved nor disproved the meeting took place. "We just don't know," he said on CNBC after the report was released.”




I about fell out of my chair when I read that. Here we have Cheney as being probably the most vocal in promoting a tie, yet essentially saying he doesn’t know. This whole Iraqi façade has been build and sold on the premise if it hasn’t been disproved (or anything that might aren’t used) then in neocon logic, it’s a slamdunk.

Regardless of what any contrary evidence might reach the public, you can bet that Karl Rove will be in the background repeating the mantra….stay on message. Their only hope is that the fools will outnumber the non in November.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Dissenting

This whole Iraqi façade has been build and sold on the premise if it hasn’t been disproved (or anything that might aren’t used) then in neocon logic, it’s a slamdunk.

The fall back position of the administration and their allies is that the intelligence was bad and they acted accordingly; if mistakes were made, it was the fault of the CIA and DIA.

There are two things wrong with that alibi. First, there was information in public that called the junta's facts into question. For example, Scott Ritter, the former UN chief weapons inspector and no political left-wing kook, challenged the contention that Saddam had the vast stockpiles of biochemical weapons; he was in a position to know and presented his case to anybody who would listen. Unfortunately, anybody who would listen did not include key members of Congress of both parties who were intent on approving the IWR in October 2002; they made sure the witness list for committee hearings were stacked with pro-invasion witnesses. Second, if the intelligence was just bad, but still made a case for war, why was the Office of Special Plans constituted in the Pentagon and why did key White House and Pentagon personnel pressure the intelligence community to write analyses that supported the case for war more strongly than the evidence justified? The junta made every attempt to suppress any information that contradicted the case for war and to remove qualifications and nuances about Saddam's capabilities. The intelligence was deliberately politicized, which is to say that policy makers deliberately lied to members of Congress, other world leaders, the United Nations and the public at large.

They are continuing to lie.

[TacticalPeek]

19. "that alibi"

alibi?

al-Libi?


Bwaaahahahahahaha! The universe remembered to take its weird pill today.

:evilgrin:

[daleo]

24. Al-Libi sounds more like ad libi

Another Bush lie is revealed.