Cheney behind Iraq/Al Qaeda lies

The administration, eager to launch Bush's War despite any legitimate necessity, depended on Cheney to push the lies about an Iraq/Al Qaeda link, despite globs of evidence to the contrary.

In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation [...]

Cheney's staff also waged a campaign to include the allegation in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's speech to the United Nations in February in which he made the administration's case for war against Iraq. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, pressed Powell's speechwriters to include the Atta claim and other suspected links between Iraq and terrorism, according to senior and mid-level administration officials involved in crafting the speech.

When State Department and CIA officials complained about Libby's proposed language and suggested cutting large sections, Cheney's associates fought back. "Every piece offered . . . they fought tooth and nail to keep it in," said one official involved in putting together the speech.

It's clear why the CIA is fighting back hard against this administration. As Bush's and his Chickenhawk Cabal's LIES continue to be exposed, they have tried mightily to pass all blame off to the CIA for its supposed "intelligence failures".

On top of all that, imagine the CIA's collective reaction to comments like this one:

Matalin said Cheney "doesn't base his opinion on one piece of data," but has access to information that cannot be declassified because it would harm national security or compromise sources.

The CIA is now quite aware that this administration doesn't give a damn about compromising sources so long as it serves its broader political agenda.

----------------

Incidentally, while it's good to see Cheney's lies getting A1 treatment at the Washington Post, it does beg the question -- why weren't they this aggressive before the war?

We might've been able to prevent the Iraq quagmire (At least six dead, seven wounded Americans in the past five days, and another assassination attempt on an Iraqi on the ruling council).

So where was the Post? Cheerleading the war, of course. While the blogosphere knew the administration was sowing lie after lie to sell its war, busily piecing together the truth, the WaPo and othe Big Media outlets were too busy encouraging Bush's warmongering.

But late is better than never, I suppose.

Posted September 29, 2003 09:15 AM | Comments (30)