January 26, 2004

Center for American Progress
Posted by Jon Henke

A bit of misleading spin from the new liberal think-tank "Center for American Progress". We fisk....

In an exclusive interview with National Public Radio, Vice President Dick Cheney said this morning that "there was overwhelming evidence of a connection with al Qaeda and the Iraqi government." He stated flatly, "I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." Cheney is the same man who was reprimanded by President Bush for falsely asserting Iraq's complicity in 9/11

Reprimanded by Bush? Let me remind you what each of them said:
Cheney:
We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved.

Bush:
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties. ... We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

Notice any difference? Neither do I. Cheney said "we don't know", but pointed out that we know there were some links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Bush said "we have no evidence", but pointed out that were there some links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

And that's a reprimand? Sista, please. CAP goes on about Cheney's comment....

...and he had no definitive facts to back up his latest Saddam-al Qaeda claim.
Hmm....they criticise Cheney for not revealing data to back up his claim. Interesting...especially in light of the fact that they wrote this in Monday's report....
...Cheney might be in some legal hot water. In a January 9 interview with the Rocky Mountain News, the Vice President said that an article in the Weekly Standard that reprinted classified information was the "best source of information" on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Cheney touted the article because it was "based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and forwarded to the Senate Intelligence Committee some weeks ago." But a Department of Defense statement has dismissed the conclusions of the Hayes article as "inaccurate." The DoD said whomever leaked the information to Hayes was "doing serious harm to national security " and that the leak was "deplorable and [possibly] illegal." Now, by validating the article and the letter's contents, Cheney has confirmed the accuracy of classified information – a possible violation of federal law.
This is so much nonsense, it's hard to know where to start. Oh, right...first, we've already dispensed with the allegation that the information was called "inaccurate". Next, CAP does me the favor of linking to the law under which they claim Cheney may be liable....18 USC 798. Unfortunately for them, the law states...."Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information ... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Clearly, Cheney did none of those...he simply referred to an item which was already in the public domain - an item which had previously been disclosed....data which the DoD had confirmed were the raw intelligence reports of our intelligence agencies.

But let's get back to the original point. Within the space of a few days, the Center for American Progress manages to criticise Cheney for both discussing evidence of Iraq/Al Qaeda connections and for NOT discussing evidence of Iraq/Al Qaeda connections.

One wonders if the CAP has any core principles besides "whatever the Bush administration says....we say the opposite".

TrackBack

Comments