By now, just in case you don’t know, the Senate Intelligence Report released on September 8th has be thoroughly dissected and found wanting. CIA friends of mine call the report “A comic fairy tale”. How this so called committee could miss all the solid evidence showing Saddam’s ties to terrorism and adding insult to anyone who has intelligence (left coast leave the room), they basically took Saddam’s word for it that he didn’t.

Hoookay…

While I still peruse the report (my own take to come), it’s apparent that the report isn’t worth the paper it was written on, and moreover it was simply constructed to be a club to smack the President around with.

However, Stephen F. Hayes has a complete dissection in this weeks Weekly Standard that is a must read. Last year Stephen told us of “The Mother of all Connections”, which broke down the history of Iraq and Al Qaeda.

In his recent article In he asks the question of Part 2 of the report, “Just how bad is the Senate Intelligence Report? Real Bad.”

I like this part specifically:

“There is no mention of the Clinton administration’s 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden, which noted that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” The language was dropped from a superseding indictment of bin Laden, after the August 7, 1998, East Africa embassy bombings allowed prosecutors to narrow their charges. Patrick Fitzgerald, a U.S. attorney involved in preparing the original indictment (who would later gain national prominence in the CIA leak case), testified before the 9/11 Commission. He told the panel that the claim in the indictment came from Jamal al Fadl, who told prosecutors that a senior Iraqi member of al Qaeda, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, had worked out the agreement between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to Fitzgerald’s testimony, Salim “tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn’t work against each other–sort of the enemy of my enemy is my friend–and that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there, which al Qaeda left in the summer of ‘96, or the spring of ‘96, there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons.”

There is no mention of the Clinton administration’s many public claims that Iraq was working with al Qaeda on chemical weapons development in Sudan. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the passage in the indictment of bin Laden “led [Richard] Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to [National Security Adviser Sandy] Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was ‘probably a direct result of the Iraq-al Qaeda agreement.’ Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the ‘exact formula used by Iraq.’”

There is no mention of telephone intercepts, cited by a “senior intelligence official” in August 1998, connecting al Shifa officials with Emad al Ani, the father of Iraq’s VX program. William Cohen, secretary of defense under Bill Clinton, reviewed the intelligence in testimony before the 9/11 Commission on March 23, 2004, and claimed that the plant owner had visited Baghdad to meet al Ani. “This particular facility [al Shifa], according to the intelligence we had at that time, had been constructed under extra ordinary security circumstances, even with some surface-to-air missile capability or defense capabilities; that the plant itself had been constructed under these security measures; that the–that the plant had been funded, in part, by the so-called Military Industrial Corporation; that bin Laden had been living there; that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this Military Industrial Corporation; that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program.”

Being on the heals of The Path to 9/11 which the left is still trying to throw mud on, this is unique in that you don’t notice Bill Clinton coming through to correct what is obviously a glaring omission from the report.

Just what in the hell did Rockefeller, Levin and the rest of the hacks on that committee think when they wrote this, that we couldn’t look the facts up ourselves? Did they think we wouldn’t find out that they completely ignored repeated attempts from intelligence members with knowledge of the ties to testify? Did they think those people would just let them publish this drivel without a challenge.

The most obvious answer to that question is “Yes”, they are that stupid. Rockefeller, Levin, and the rest are more than traitors to this nation. These who once called Saddam the most evil of dictators and touted his ties to terrorism, now act as though we all live in a bubble and only remember today. They are quite wrong. This report is so bad that it borders on perjury, and in my opinion those involved should be so charged.

Be sure also to check out Mark Eichenlaub at Regime of Terror with another good look at the discrepancies in the report.