Sunday, November 6, 2005

For months, the Bush administration claimed that al Qaeda was being trained by Iraq on the use of chemical and biological weapons.

Not only was that obviously not true, but they knew it wasn't true back in February 2002:

"It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers," the February 2002 report said. "Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest."

And why on Earth would he do that? Because he was one of the first people we started torturing, due to "a series of covert directives" to the CIA from President Bush.

And Cheney still wants the CIA to be able to torture false information out of people.

So we can add this to a growing list of arguments made in support for Iraq that they knew to be unsupported by the evidence when they made them. We can also add the idea of "close collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda":

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Levin also called attention to another portion of the D.I.A. report, which expressed skepticism about the idea of close collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, an idea that was never substantiated by American intelligence agencies but was a pillar of the administration's prewar claims.

"Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements," the D.I.A. report said in one of two declassified paragraphs. "Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."

This only continues to increase my belief that these people and their supporters don't give a damn about being effective, as long as they're being "tough".

No comments: