Article

2003-11-20 Home Front

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dragon Fly 2003-11-20 6:19:49 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 this article is mostly a case against the memo

mostly a "my unamed sources are better than your unamed sources. "

Fred or someone else should address it in you remarkably flavorful manner.

They mention the "hoary" claim about the czech meeting repeating the mantra that the FBI cannot say whether it happened. They do so seemingly without knowing the story that the FBI made up a story about Atta being in the US which it rescinded later.

The left is on the attack with its big media again.

The story wouldn't go away so it has to be addressed.

Posted by joe 2003-11-20 7:45:26 AM|| 2003-11-20 7:45:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 We are seeing a duel within the intelligence community played out publicly. The guys in charge should find out who the leakers are and put them up on charges if possible, fire them if not. Even leaks that seem to help the President are leaks and thus unacceptable.

Posted by ruprecht 2003-11-20 8:34:45 AM|| 2003-11-20 8:34:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Given the reference to Fox and Rupert Murdoch, wouldn't it be ironic if news outlets began to report: "Both the Washington Post and Newsweek are owned by the very liberal Graham family."

Posted by Tancred 2003-11-20 8:53:11 AM|| 2003-11-20 8:53:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 another link

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1103/blankley.html

his point is that these leaks are being avoided because they make Bush look good.

He does have a point. When was the last time the media did not go after any leak.

hmmmmm.

Posted by joe 2003-11-20 9:20:45 AM|| 2003-11-20 9:20:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Ah yes competitive leaking, at least maybe we'll get some sense of what's really going on.

Or someone can explain to me why I should take this seriously after the whole WMD debacle.

Feith is one of the people who is probably going to get tossed to the wolves for slipshod thinking in regards to Iraq.

Posted by Hiryu 2003-11-20 9:57:47 AM|| 2003-11-20 9:57:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 These are the exact same folks who were trying to tell us last spring that Zarqawi wasn't even part of al-Qaeda and in fact hated bin Laden (thereby perpetuating the "Bush lied" meme) solely on the basis of one of his allies in Germany.

They're trying very, very hard to debunk this without even noting that the same ex-CIA guy whom they use to "refute" evidence of a tie between bin Laden and Hijazi in 1999 was also claiming a possible Iraqi connection to the Cole bombing in 2000 ...

I know, I have too long an attention span ...

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-11-20 9:58:29 AM|| [http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2003-11-20 9:58:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Dan Darling -- Do you mean Vincent Canistaro? Another former CIA talking head who's full of it is Larry Johnson. He was all over the airwaves after 9/11, but I remember reading an op-ed piece by him from 1999 or so saying that al Qaeda was no real threat. He reminds me of that other famous "analyst" who thought the war wasn't going well until he declared victory on April 10th. I think his name was Wesley something . . .

Posted by Tibor 2003-11-20 10:34:00 AM|| 2003-11-20 10:34:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Newsweek has been on the enemy's side for months now. Let's not forget that.

Posted by someone 2003-11-20 11:10:28 AM|| 2003-11-20 11:10:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Yes, Larry Johnson penned an op-ed piece basically saying that the terrorist threat was diminishing, and what was that day -> Sept 11 2001.

Ironic, ....

Posted by joe 2003-11-20 11:16:08 AM|| 2003-11-20 11:16:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Feith is one of the people who is probably going to get tossed to the wolves for slipshod thinking in regards to Iraq.

Yeah, sure. Never mind that he's been saying the same things the Clinton administration said; now that there's another administration around, all the facts have changed.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-11-20 11:17:20 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-11-20 11:17:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Dan, I am waiting for your report. I am sure it will be good reading

Posted by joe 2003-11-20 11:20:56 AM|| 2003-11-20 11:20:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 If Feith gets canned it wont be for saying things about WMD, it will be for post-war force planning etc. But Im not sure who's idea the minimalist occupation was - I tend to think Rumsfeld.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-11-20 11:37:13 AM|| 2003-11-20 11:37:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 LH: Bzzt. Colin Powell.

Posted by someone 2003-11-20 12:15:10 PM|| 2003-11-20 12:15:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Joe, are you saying that Larry Johnson's op-ed piece was published on 9/11/01? Do you have a link for the op-ed? I thought it was much earlier than that (maybe before even the Cole bombing).

Posted by Tibor 2003-11-20 1:11:40 PM|| 2003-11-20 1:11:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 I saw it a while ago let me see if I can find it again.

Posted by joe 2003-11-20 2:31:42 PM|| 2003-11-20 2:31:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 found it. sorry it was july 10, 2001.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F5081FFE3A5C0C738DDDAE0894D9404482

unfortunately you have to pay for it

here is the abstract

Larry C Johnson Op-Ed article says that politically inspired terrorism, as opposed to more ordinary criminality motivated by simple greed, is not as common as most people may think, and that, contrary to popular belief, US and its policies are not primary targets of terrorist activity; says terrorist attacks against Americans and American interests have become comparatively rare

what stuck in my mind was this, "Bin Laden has an international network of contacts, but it's more analogous to the Elvis Presley fan club than a corporation like General Motors"

this is an example of the sleeping on the job.

read the whole thing. Wy listen to a joker like this.

Posted by joe 2003-11-20 2:41:53 PM|| 2003-11-20 2:41:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Thanks, Joe. I remember seeing him billed on various cable news shows after 9/11 as a former CIA agent who was a terrorism expert, and then seeing his op-ed posted on the web somewhere as an example of the CIA's intelligence failures.

Posted by Tibor 2003-11-20 3:01:56 PM|| 2003-11-20 3:01:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 BTW, here is Stephen Hayes' rebuttal of the Isikoff/Hosenbill Newsweek article linked above:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/399roadd.asp

Posted by Tibor 2003-11-20 3:04:53 PM|| 2003-11-20 3:04:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Tibor - Not Cannistraro, though it sure is interesting to note that he was telling the BBC right after the U.S.S. Cole bombing that al-Qaeda had been in touch with the Iraqi military.

I was referring to Isikoff/Hosenbill, who got ahold of Shadi Abdallah's (one of Zarqawi's flunkies who was busted in Germany) claims that Zarqawi was just another pro-Palestinian terrorist and that he hated al-Qaeda and posted them in a Newsweek web exclusive remarkably similar to this in order to perpetuate their "Bush lied" meme. Of course, that was pretty much blown straight to hell when the WaPo reported that Zarqawi was getting marching orders from Saif al-Adel and Co, but to my knowledge they have never admitted they were wrong or even published a retraction noting this and the article is still available online.

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-11-20 6:08:31 PM|| [http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2003-11-20 6:08:31 PM|| Front Page Top

21:08 milford
08:56 Anonymous
07:39 Raptor
02:54 B
01:59 JFM
00:11 Old Patriot
00:09 LeftEnd
00:03 LeftEnd
23:59 Old Patriot
23:58 Old Patriot
23:56 Anonymous
23:53 Old Patriot
23:51 Old Patriot
23:43 Zhang Fei
23:40 Old Patriot
23:20 Rafael
23:01 4thinfvet
22:55 Jarhead
22:48 Aris Katsaris
22:42 Lucky
22:24 Rafael
22:20 Paul Moloney
22:16 Raj
22:14 Jarhead