Iraq & Afghanistan: Post-Invasion Chaos Blamed for Drug Surge

A new CIA assessment undercuts the White House’s claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al-Qaida, saying there’s no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The CIA review, which U.S. officials said Monday was requested some months ago by Vice President Dick Cheney, is the latest assessment that calls into question one of President Bush’s key justifications for last year’s U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The new assessment follows the independent Sept. 11 commission’s finding that there was no “collaborative relationship” between the former Iraqi regime and bin Laden’s terrorist network. …

The Bush administration has clashed repeatedly with the CIA and other intelligence community agencies over Iraq and terrorism. …

Bush called the report, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, a “guess,” but later amended his remarks to call it an “estimate.”

Note to abqjournal readers: the first few paragraphs of this article appeared in the Journal (no link available); the real article is much longer. Editors have the power to shape everything we know. mjh

CBC News: Al-Qaeda remarks ‘misunderstood’: Rumsfeld

U.S. Defence Secretary Don ald Rumsfeld said he was “misunderstood” when he claimed Monday night that there was no “hard evidence” linking Saddam Hussein and al- Qaeda.

Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Rumsfeld said, “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.”

But hours after his appearance, he issued a statement saying his comment “regrettably was misunderstood.”

“I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq,” Rumsfeld said in a statement on the Department of Defence website, posted hours after his appearance.

Note this common Radical Right technique of claiming a direct quote is ‘misunderstood.’ We heard this from Cheney, who assured us we were doomed if Kerry wins and then spun otherwise. Spiders spin. Remember that Cheney and Rumsfeld are from the Nixon Adminstration (if you don’t remember Nixon, he was more evil than Raygun, less evil than Bush — and that’s saying a lot). mjh

Column:Bush flip-flopped on all but taxes by Nathan Cobb, Daily Lobo columnist

Promise: In 2001, Bush trumpeted that finding Osama bin Laden was his administration’s “number one priority. We will not rest until we’ve found him.”

How Bush backed it up: In 2002, when asked about the whereabouts of Osama, he replied, “I don’t know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don’t care. It’s not that important.”

Read that one over a few times and really let it sink in.

Rooftop Revolt – By the People

Transcript of Thursday’s presidential debate

KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

I believe that when you know something’s going wrong, you make it right. …

KERRY: [W]e do have differences. I’m not going to talk about a difference of character. I don’t think that’s my job or my business.

But let me talk about something that the president just sort of finished up with. Maybe someone would call it a character trait, maybe somebody wouldn’t.

But this issue of certainty. It’s one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong.

It’s another to be certain and be right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right.

What I worry about with the president is that he’s not acknowledging what’s on the ground, he’s not acknowledging the realities of North Korea, he’s not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem-cell research or of global warming and other issues.

And certainty sometimes can get you in trouble.

baltimoresun.com – As Kerry hits domestic front, Bush drums security

“Time and again, George Bush has proven that he’s just plain stubborn, out of touch, and unwilling to change course,” Kerry said. To those who would say voters “shouldn’t change horses in midstream,” Kerry retorted: “If your horse is heading downstream towards a waterfall, it’s time to change horses in midstream.”

mjh’s Blog: Can’t Change a Horse in Mid-stream

Well, if the horse ignores your rein and drags you into a raging torrent that is well over his head, maybe you should. mjh [two weeks before]

The American Dream Is at Risk, Kerry Says (washingtonpost.com) By Jim VandeHei

“Time and time again, George Bush has proven that he’s stubborn, out of touch and unwilling to change course,” Kerry said.

Jay Nordlinger on Election 2004 & Debate #1 on National Review Online

Although the two candidates had the same amount of time, Kerry got many, many more words in. And they weren’t rushed words. Kerry spoke at a good, measured pace all through.

Bush said, “We’re makin’ progress” a hundred times — that seemed a little desperate. He also said “mixed messages” a hundred times — I was wishing that he would mix his message. He said, “It’s hard work,” or, “It’s tough,” a hundred times. In fact, Bush reminded me of Dan Quayle in the 1988 debate, when the Hoosier repeated a couple of talking points over and over, to some chuckles from the audience (if I recall correctly).

Staying on message is one thing; robotic repetition — when there are oceans of material available — is another. …

I hate to say it, but often Bush gave the appearance of being what his critics charge he is: callow, jejune, unserious. And remember — talk about repetition! — I concede this as someone who loves the man. …

Why did Bush keep requesting a special 30 seconds to say the same thing over and over? …

I’m thinking that Bush didn’t respect Kerry enough. That he didn’t prepare enough. That he had kind of a disdain for the assignment….

I have a feeling that Bush could have done just the same — exactly the same, no better, no worse — with zero preparation. With no practice at all. Just wingin’ it.