Anybody surprised by this?

ABC News:

The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.

The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.

It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online.

Asked why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."

Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive."

ABC News obtained the comprehensive military study of Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism on Tuesday. Read the report's executive summary HERE.

The study, which was due to be released Wednesday, found no "smoking gun" or any evidence of a direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist organization.

The report is based on the analysis of some 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces after the invasion. It is also based on thousands of hours of interrogations of former top officials in Saddam's government who are now in U.S. custody.

Others have reached the same conclusion, but no previous study has had access to so much information. Further, this is the first official acknowledgement from the U.S. military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda.

UPDATE: According to ABC News, "[The report] won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online."

According to our great C&L commenters, it can be found here.

It's been a popular refrain by conservatives that the Detroit Underwear Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, ought to be turned over to the military so that he can be "squeezed" for information. Yes, that's because it's worked so well in the past... but more to the point, how's the former administration's track record on civil and military trials of terrorist suspects? From the UK's Guardian:

The Bush administration -- in which Liz Cheney's papa held a fairly high position, you might recall -- prosecuted, after 9-11, 828 people on terrorism charges in civilian courts. At the time of publication of this excellent report from the Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law last year, trials were still pending against 235 of those folks. That leaves 593 resolved indictments, of which 523 were convicted of some crime, for a conviction rate of 88%.

With regard to military tribunals, the Bush administration inaugurated 20 such cases. So far just three convictions have been won. The highest-profile is the conviction of Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver. The Hamdan legal saga, rehearsed here, doesn't exactly suggest that military tribunals provide swifter and surer and tougher justice. In the end, he was convicted all right, but sentenced -- not by a bunch of New York City Democrats, but by a military jury! -- to five and half years.

Then, the tribunal judge, a US Navy captain, gave Hamdan credit for time served, which was five years. So he served six months after conviction. Today he's back in -- guess where? -- Yemen.

Now far be it for us to accuse the Republicans, Faux News, and many conservatives of deliberate hypocrisy. But it's hard to look at the numbers and then suggest that the right-wing hysteria is anything but deliberate political gamesmanship without any regard to due process or actually addressing the threat of terrorism.

DOWNLOADS: (905)

PLAYS: (1725)

Embed

Spencer Ackermann tried this morning on Morning Joe to bring common sense to the debate over the fate of the would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. He rightly points out that the "freak-out factor" that a situation like this occurs.

Spencer: I really don't understand the argument because every single time we have a new emergency, we have to forget about the hard lessons we've learned in the past about this. And then secondly, by every standard you've seen so far in every piece of reporting, the guy cooperated. He immediately said he was a member of al-Qaida. He started talking in a threatening manner about how there are other attacks coming, so I'm not really sure where we make this jump to the idea that we're not getting information from the guy.

Since he's cooperating so much, what the hell. Ship him off to Gitmo, torture the shit out of him just for the hell of it.

Pat Buchanan couldn't miss out on a chance to join in the chorus of psychopathic right-wingers who have been responding with their usual grotesque visions of xenophobic hatred after the Christmas Day failed attack on Flight 253.

Buchanan: ...frankly if that means you have to deny him pain medication because he's badly burned, I think you go ahead and do that. I'm not arguing for torture, but I am...

Spencer: You just did.

Buchanan: Nobody is, but I am arguing for hostile interrogations of this fellow, because our job is to protect American lives.It's not to make sure his Miranda rights haven't been violated.

Spencer: So you're arguing for torture but with a different euphemism for it?

Buchanan: I'm arguing for the fact that this is an enemy soldier who tried to commit a mass atrocity and the idea that you're treating him like some guy who held up a 7-11, it seems to me preposterous.

Spencer: Except for all of the hundreds of terrorists that we've convicted in federal courts over the years that were able to hold that were able to incarcerate successfully and that were able to get information out of. I mean, the fact is, al-Qaeda is a dangerous and really important threat, but they are also not a super army of supermen that have Muslim heat vision, and it's ludicrous to think that we should inflate how dangerous they are because that's exactly what they want.

Great points by Ackermann, but right-wing loons need to have al-Qaeda built up as the scary monster hiding underneath your beds, ready to strike you down if you go to sleep even for a minute. We can't even get a break from fearmongering, even during the holidays. Withholding pain meds in the way Buchanan speaks of is torture, and the guy has been singing like a canary. Still, right-wing talkers are spreading incredibly sick thoughts on our radio and TV airwaves.

I know there were people saying this at the time, but the people bent on war refused to believe it. Oh well, what's a few hundred thousand dead people killed in the name of saving us all?

WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein feared Iran's arsenal more than a U.S. attack, and even considered asking ex-President George W. Bush "to protect" Iraq from its neighbor, once secret FBI files show.

The FBI interrogations of the toppled tyrant - codename "Desert Spider" - were declassified after a Freedom of Information Act request.

The records show Saddam happily boasted of duping the world about stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. And he consistently denied cooperating with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

Of all his enemies, Iraq's ex-president - who insisted he still held office during captivity - hated Iran most.

Asked how he would have faced "fanatic" Iranian ayatollahs if Iraq had been proven toothless by UN weapons inspectors in 2003, Saddam said he would have cut a deal with Bush.

"Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to attack from Iran and would have sought a security agreement with the U.S. to protect it from threats in the region," according to a 2004 FBI report among the declassified files.

Without Bush's help, "Iraq would have done what was necessary," he told FBI Agent George Piro in his Baghdad International Airport cell.

That didn't mean an alliance of evil with Al Qaeda, he insisted months into what he called a "dialogue" with Piro.

The interrogations unfolded in 2004 after his capture the previous December at the same farm where he said he'd hidden after orchestrating a failed 1959 coup plot.

Saddam denied ever laying eyes on the "zealot" Bin Laden, bent on striking the U.S.

He said he "did not have the same belief of vision" as the terror kingpin.

Saddam never sought Al Qaeda assistance because he feared the terror group would turn on him. To protect his country, the more likely ally "would have been North Korea."

Saddam also said the U.S. "used the 9/11 attack as a justification to attack Iraq" and "lost sight of the cause of 9/11."

The U.S. "was not Iraq's enemy," just its policies, Saddam explained.

Asked about WMDs, Saddam insisted: "We destroyed them. We told you."

"By God, if I had such weapons, I would have used them in the fight against the U.S," he added.

Although I normally take everything the CIA says with a very large grain of salt, I just don't think Leon Panetta's all that far from the truth. I think Dick Cheney would rather be right than see the country safe from harm:

WASHINGTON -- CIA Director Leon Panetta says former Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism of the Obama administration's approach to terrorism almost suggests "he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."

Panetta told The New Yorker for an article in its June 22 issue that Cheney "smells some blood in the water" on the issue of national security.

Cheney has said in several interviews that he thinks Obama is making the U.S. less safe. He has been critical of Obama for ordering the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, halting enhanced interrogations of suspected terrorists and reversing other Bush administration initiatives he says helped to prevent attacks on the U.S.

Last month the former vice president offered a withering critique of Obama's policies and a defense of the Bush administration on the same day that Obama made a major speech about national security.

Panetta said of Cheney's remarks: "It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics."

Why is it that, on the issues that count (Iraq, torture, FISA, secrecy), this administration is so much like the previous one? It really makes me wonder:

The Obama administration objected yesterday to the release of certain Bush-era documents that detail the videotaped interrogations of CIA detainees at secret prisons, arguing to a federal judge that doing so would endanger national security and benefit al-Qaeda's recruitment efforts.

In an affidavit, CIA Director Leon E. Panetta defended the classification of records describing the contents of the 92 videotapes, their destruction by the CIA in 2005 and what he called "sensitive operational information" about the interrogations.

The forced disclosure of such material to the American Civil Liberties Union "could be expected to result in exceptionally grave damage to the national security by informing our enemies of what we knew about them, and when, and in some instances, how we obtained the intelligence we possessed," Panetta argued.

Although Panetta's statement is in keeping with his previous opposition to the disclosure of other information about the CIA's interrogation policies and practices during George W. Bush's presidency, it represents a new assertion by the Obama administration that the CIA should be allowed to keep such information secret. Bush's critics have long hoped that disclosure would pinpoint responsibility for actions they contend were abusive or illegal.

Last month, President Obama said he would seek to bar the release of photographs being sought by other nonprofit groups that depict abusive interrogations at military prisons during the Bush administration.

Panetta argued that none of the 65 CIA documents immediately at issue, which the ACLU has sought for several years in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, should be released. He asked U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein to draw a legal distinction between the administration's release in April of Justice Department memos authorizing the harsh interrogations and the CIA's desire to keep classified its own documents detailing the specific handling of detainees at its secret facilities overseas.

He said that while the Justice Department memos discussed harsh interrogation "in the abstract," the CIA information was "of a qualitatively different nature" because it described the interrogation techniques "as applied in actual operations."

DOWNLOADS: (1259)

PLAYS: (2739)

Embed

Why is it that wingers like Greta still need to ask if waterboarding is torture? Enhanced interrogations are code for torture, but we know that. I guess my brain is getting scrambled by having to watch FOX News constantly try and denounce waterboarding as not really being torture. It's enhanced, it just tastes a little better than before.

Greta: Is waterboarding torture or enhanced interrogation techniques, what words do we use on this?

McCain: It's torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Conventions of the international agreement on torture treaty...singed during the Reagan administration. It goes all the way back to the Spanish Inquisition. It's not a new technique and it is certainly torture.

Did Greta really believe she would get McCain to change his mind on this? Maybe she thought she could break him. Then they get into all the national security stories of the week. Greta wants all the documents released about Cheney and Pelosi and that's when McCain starts wanking along...

At least she brought up Graham rebuking the CIA. McCain is worried about the morale of the CIA? Are they really that weak-kneed? I doubt it, but it's a useful talking point against Pelosi because the media will never say, "hey, these guys are out their in covert world, why would they care what a politician said."

DOWNLOADS: (1546)

PLAYS: (1969)

Embed

The hysteria has reached new heights by FOX News as they spin the Pelosi outrage as far as it can go. How far is that? The CIA will just stop working and America may be attacked because of her. Wingnut Du Jour, ex-CIA agent and FOX Newser Wayne Simmons said that Pelosi has. What is the impact of Nancy Pelosi saying that the CIA lied to her and members of Congress? We're doomed!!!

Simmons: The best thing about not being a diplomat or a politician is that I can tell you that first and foremost Nancy Pelosi, the woman whose third in line to be President of the United States, the Speaker of the House is a pathological liar and her attacks on the CIA, the release of the CIA memos has so sent a chill through the CIA to guys like me who were not only interrogated in our entire careers, but ran interrogations and interviews that I can assure you that we are not going to go the extra mile EVER in this climate to secure information and intelligence that's going to protect the Untied States so understand that the American people need to, this has directly affected the National Security of the United States.

Martha MacCallum: The Church Commission in the seventies and eighties, a lot of people think that those cracked down on our intelligence and made them very hesitant to do the job that hey needed to do and that those failures may have led to September eleventh.

Martha MacCallum, the FOX host, actually blames the Church Committee for the 9/11 attacks, and Simmons agrees. They always bring it back to 9/11. The FISA courts were instituted because of the Church Committee.

Simmons paints the CIA as one big chickenshit outfit that can't take a little criticism from the big bad Nancy Pelosi. They will even abandon their posts and let terrorists attack the country because their itty-bitty feelings are so hurt. I say they should all quit right now if Simmons is correct.

This clip also speaks volumes about the type of agent Simmons is. Don't call me names or I'll let Cleveland get bombed. Of course the CIA would never do that, but that's how coordinated this attack of Pelosi is by the entire right wing. Doesn't the media ever get tired of the robotic responses by the Right whenever they want to push a narrative to the American people?

DOWNLOADS: (2559)

PLAYS: (2989)

Embed

This is incredible but not surprising news. Robert Windrem, who covered terrorism for NBC, reports:

*Two U.S. intelligence officers confirm that Vice President Cheney’s office suggested waterboarding an Iraqi prisoner, a former intelligence official for Saddam Hussein, who was suspected to have knowledge of a Saddam-al Qaeda connection. *The former chief of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, in charge of interrogations, tells The Daily Beast that he considered the request reprehensible. *Much of the information in the report of the 9/11 Commission was provided through more than 30 sessions of torture of detainees...read on

Read the entire story. What this report says is that the Bush administration took an active role in how torture was being used and their purposes were purely political and not to keep America safe. Richard Wolffe says the same thing to Nora on MSNBC.

Cheney and his band of inquisitors wanted to find something that could justify the Iraq war to the American people after all the lies were uncovered for us to see. And there was nothing. NO WMD's in Iraq and no connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Cheney willingly promoted the use of torture for his own political gains. Wow. He should be prosecuted just for that action because he even violated the CIA torture memo guidelines.

Cheney knows this information is going to come out so he's taking to the airwaves to try and turn the discussion all around. Lawrence Wilkerson has come out and said this:

Lawrence Wilkerson essentially confirmed this today.

Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002--well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion--its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida.

So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney's office that their detainee "was compliant" (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP's office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa'ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, "revealed" such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.

There in fact were no such contacts. (Incidentally, al-Libi just "committed suicide" in Libya. Interestingly, several U.S. lawyers working with tortured detainees were attempting to get the Libyan government to allow them to interview al-Libi....)

Did you notices that there was very little media coverage if any on al-Libi's suicide? It's like he never even existed for the Villagers.

The CIA releases a detailed document at the request of Republicans that says 19 Democrats were routinely briefed on interrogation techniques. The Republicans are playing hardball, and this one's a little chin music for anyone who dares to try to prosecute BushCo over torture. (Here's a link to the document.)

And maybe this is why Democrats are so evasive over torture. If true, this is what happens when Democrats embrace Republican policies: They're always the ones who get blamed. You'd think they'd learn:

The document appears to conflict with recent statements from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was then the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee. Ms. Pelosi has said she hadn't been told that the CIA was using the technique known as waterboarding, or simulated drowning. According to the document, Ms. Pelosi was one of the first lawmakers briefed on the interrogations in 2002.

Ms. Pelosi's spokesman Thursday reiterated the speaker's earlier contention that she was told in the briefing that waterboarding had been authorized but not yet used.

CIA Director Leon Panetta said the agency compiled the document -- based on the files and meeting summaries written at the time that represented the best recollections of the briefers -- in response to requests from Republican lawmakers, including the top Republican on the intelligence panel.

Greg Sergeant says there's more to it:

As you can see, this letter says that the info about briefings is taken from notes based on the “best recollections” of those who were there, adding:

In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened.

That would appear to be a concession that the CIA isn’t willing to vouch for the accuracy of the info about the briefings in the docs, and that only further inquiry will produce a reliable recounting of what happened.

To be clear, it’s perfectly possible that the info about what Dems were told is right. But not even the CIA is willing to promise this right now. So it’s unclear how much stock to place in the documents at this point.

***

Update: I’ve just learned that this same letter was also sent to GOP Rep Pete Hoekstra, a leading proponent of the claim that Dems knew the full scope of the torture program early on. I’ve edited the above to reflect this.

I’ve obtained the letter to Hoekstra, which you can read right here. What this means is that the Republican who has lodged the highest-profile attacks on Dems over what they knew and when has been directly informed by the CIA that the info on the briefings may not be reliable.

Bonus Update: Marcy Wheeler nails exactly why this is important.

Special Update For Waterboarding Obsessives: Here’s the key question in a nutshell.