When Richard Clarke was asked about Bush's claim that 75% of Al Qaeda's leaders were dead or captured, he said it was a very "MBA way" of looking at the problem--that it referred to identified leaders as of 9-10-2001, that Al Qaeda was perfectly capable of replacing, promoting, metastasizing, et cetera, and that it in no way meant that Al Qaeada was 75% degraded.
When Condi Rice was asked about the same claim, she backed it--but said that she didn't know whether it was 9 out of 12 or 75 out of 100.
Now the staff are jumping ship. Nobody, it seems, will back the claim. And many appear to dispute it in private:
Posted by DeLong at October 22, 2004 12:55 PM | TrackBackShrillblog: Scores of Career National Security Officials and Political Appointees Including Frances Frago Townsend Are Shrill: The articles also says that "classified government tallies . . . suggest that Bush and Vice President Cheney have inflated the manhunt's success in their reelection bid." Frances Fragos Townsend, the current White House counterterrorism and homeland security adviser, was asked to back up the administration's assertion that three-quarters of known al Qaeda leaders as of 9/11 are dead or in custody. Townsend "said she would have to consult a list. White House spokeswoman Erin Healy referred follow-up questions to the FBI. Spokesmen for the FBI, the National Security Council and the CIA did not respond to multiple telephone calls and e-mails."...
Recall, also, that in the second debate the modifier 'leaders' was dropped altogether giving the impression to many that the bulk of the totality of al-Qaeda had been destroyed. Convenient ommission, that.
Posted by: john at October 22, 2004 03:02 PMAre GOP grownups finally revolting?
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html
Posted by: bakho at October 22, 2004 03:20 PMThis administration is reality-challenged to the point it can't even count or work out basic percentages. Rice said she didn't know whether the al Qaeda leadership numbered in "the tens or the hundreds", but she claimed we had whacked 75% of them. Hey, what's an order of magnitude among incompetents? It's too bad some Senator or Representative doesn't have the gumption at Rice's testimony during congressional hearings to ask her, "Dr. Rice, why do you even still have a job as National Security Advisor?"
Posted by: TonyB at October 22, 2004 03:31 PMhttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/politics/22intel.html
Pentagon Reportedly Skewed C.I.A.'s View of Qaeda Tie
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON - As recently as January 2004, a top Defense Department official misrepresented to Congress the view of American intelligence agencies about the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, according to a new report by a Senate Democrat.
The report said a classified document prepared by Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, not only asserted that there were ties between the Baghdad government and the terrorist network, but also did not reflect accurately the intelligence agencies' assessment - even while claiming that it did.
In issuing the report, the senator, Carl M. Levin, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he would ask the panel to take "appropriate action'' against Mr. Feith. Senator Levin said Mr. Feith had repeatedly described the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda as far more significant and extensive than the intelligence agencies had.
The broad outlines of Mr. Feith's efforts to promote the idea of such close links have been previously disclosed.
The view, a staple of the Bush administration's public statements before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, has since been discredited by the Sept. 11 commission, which concluded that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "no close collaborative relationship.''
The 46-page report by Senator Levin and the Democratic staff of the Armed Services Committee is the first to focus narrowly on the role played by Mr. Feith's office. Democrats had sought to include that line of inquiry in a report completed in June by the Senate Intelligence Committee, but Republicans on the panel postponed that phase of the study until after the presidential election.
In an interview, Mr. Levin said he had concluded that Mr. Feith had practiced "continuing deception of Congress.'' But he said he had no evidence that Mr. Feith's conduct had been illegal.
Mr. Levin began the inquiry in June 2003, after Republicans on the panel, led by Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, declined to take part. He said his findings were endorsed by other Democrats on the committee, but complained that the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency had declined to provide crucial documents.
In a statement, the Pentagon said the Levin report "appears to depart from the bipartisan, consultative relationship" between the Defense Department and the Armed Services Committee, adding, "The unanimous, bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report of July 2004 found no evidence that administration officials tried to coerce, influence or pressure intelligence analysts to change their judgments."
Senator Warner said, "I take strong exception to the conclusions Senator Levin reaches." He said his view was based on the Intelligence Committee's "analysis thus far of the public and classified records."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/politics/22intel.html?
Pentagon Reportedly Skewed C.I.A.'s View of Qaeda Tie
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON - As recently as January 2004, a top Defense Department official misrepresented to Congress the view of American intelligence agencies about the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, according to a new report by a Senate Democrat.
The report said a classified document prepared by Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, not only asserted that there were ties between the Baghdad government and the terrorist network, but also did not reflect accurately the intelligence agencies' assessment - even while claiming that it did.
In issuing the report, the senator, Carl M. Levin, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he would ask the panel to take "appropriate action'' against Mr. Feith. Senator Levin said Mr. Feith had repeatedly described the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda as far more significant and extensive than the intelligence agencies had.
The broad outlines of Mr. Feith's efforts to promote the idea of such close links have been previously disclosed.
The view, a staple of the Bush administration's public statements before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, has since been discredited by the Sept. 11 commission, which concluded that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "no close collaborative relationship.''
The 46-page report by Senator Levin and the Democratic staff of the Armed Services Committee is the first to focus narrowly on the role played by Mr. Feith's office. Democrats had sought to include that line of inquiry in a report completed in June by the Senate Intelligence Committee, but Republicans on the panel postponed that phase of the study until after the presidential election.
In an interview, Mr. Levin said he had concluded that Mr. Feith had practiced "continuing deception of Congress.'' But he said he had no evidence that Mr. Feith's conduct had been illegal.
Mr. Levin began the inquiry in June 2003, after Republicans on the panel, led by Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, declined to take part. He said his findings were endorsed by other Democrats on the committee, but complained that the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency had declined to provide crucial documents.
In a statement, the Pentagon said the Levin report "appears to depart from the bipartisan, consultative relationship" between the Defense Department and the Armed Services Committee, adding, "The unanimous, bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report of July 2004 found no evidence that administration officials tried to coerce, influence or pressure intelligence analysts to change their judgments."
Senator Warner said, "I take strong exception to the conclusions Senator Levin reaches." He said his view was based on the Intelligence Committee's "analysis thus far of the public and classified records."
Sorry about the double post. The comments seem extremely sluggish.
Dear Brad, the last comment took 5 minutes to post. I expect there is a problem, so I timed the post for you. We have an extremely fast connection on our part.
Love you, Lise
Posted by: lise at October 22, 2004 04:04 PMThe good news is, Daniel Pearl's killers were killed on Wednesday.
Since my eldest daughter is serving in a position that may put her in harm's way, I consider this salutory news.
-dlj.
Brad, this is a bit OT, but connected by the idea of the press not doing its job.
Do you plan to post any more about Bush's fitness for office? I have been wondering if Bush is not physically healthy. I know that he seems to have lenty of physical vigor, but hear me out.
I have two main arguments. I think they make a reasonable circumstantial case that we need more information to be certain Bush is actually fit for office. I'm ignoring the possibility of mental defect, though that's another oft-mentioned possibility, and not independent from the physical question.
1) This year Bush did not take a physical, so there is no report on his health. That is unusual, and the explanation from the WH that he is too busy doesn't wash---he has taken the physical in August before, when he took a long vacation. He took a vacation this August as well, so he had the time.
2) This is just an impression, but doesn't it seem that the White House and Bush's campaign are hardly stressing his physical vigor at all?
For instance, did you see him clearing brush at the ranch this year? I don't recall anything like that, nor am I aware of photos of him doing any exercise for months. Also, are there press releases and references to Bush's current exercise regimen? That used to be rather common; now, I don't think it happens.
You get the drift.. it's subtle but definite that the White House does not want to discuss Bush's health. Why, I don't know, but given that he has not taken a physical, I think the public should be at least a little concerned.
Oh, and it goes without saying that the box he wears on his back is another piece of evidence that may relate here. It fits the profile for an available portable defibrillator quite well. That's an off the wall thought, but since the press won't pursue the question, all we can do is speculate.
I wish the press would ask more about the missed physical. I"m afraid there won't be any coverage of it unless a prominent figure mentions it, however. Brad, you're prominent, aren't you? :)
And you know Paul Krugman, who I'm sure would not be afraid to write on the topic if he thought it needed to be broached.
I always liked The Onion's report on the MOAB, "a bomb so powerful that it can create 5,000 terrorists with a single blast."
Doesn't that say it all about Feith-based community initiatives?
-dlj.
January 2004: 75% of Al Queda captured or dead.
...
...
...
October 2004: 75% of Al Queda captured or dead.
These figures tell a troubling story.
Posted by: Sean Kellett at October 24, 2004 06:30 AM