Check out this story from AFP about a pre-war intelligence assessment regarding Iraq-al Qaeda ties. The headline reads: "US intel on Iraq-Qaeda ties 'intentionally misleading': document" but that's not what the story says. According to the story, the source - Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi - claimed to have been trained in Iraq for chemical warfare.
Intelligence agencies report this. One, the DIA, seems to think that al Libi is "intentionally misleading" his captors. But we have no idea what the rest of the intelligence agencies had to say about the report.
Al-Libi later recanted, but we still have no idea what the actual truth is. The AFP sure didn't give us any. And the Democrats are showing off one report...where are the others? Surely, we aren't going to put all our eggs in one basket, are we? We're going to trust what a terrorist who told us one thing and then later said, "Oh! I was just folling around. I didn't mean that."
I think both sides of this debate are jumping to conclusions that aren't fully supported by corraborated evidence.
We aren't going to know what really happened until the historians get involved...
