"A captured al Qaeda member who was a principle source for U.S. claims of cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda has recanted his earlier testimony."

Boy, the CIA is really pulling out all the stops for the election, huh?

Pete:

It's not so much the CIA as it is certain people inside the Agency. You'll notice they didn't bother to detail any specifics of what al-Libi said prior to all of this or even what he has changed his story to. Very little context is provided here, including that al-Libi provided actionable intelligence that led to terrorist attacks being thwarted as well as the capture of Abu Zubaydah in those exact same sessions where he was talking about the Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda.

This is the same tactic that used (and I'm 90% sure it was by the exact same people) by those who told the New York Times that Abu Zubaydah had "denied" that al-Qaeda ever worked with Iraq, where in fact he said no such thing.

But U.S. intelligence officials tell NEWSWEEK that al-Libi was a crucial source for one of the more dramatic assertions made by President George W. Bush and his top aides: that Iraq had provided training in "poisons and deadly gases" for Al Qaeda. Al-Libi, who once ran one of bin Laden's biggest training camps, was captured in Pakistan in November 2001 and soon began talking to CIA interrogators. Although he never mentioned his name, Secretary of State Colin Powell prominently referred to al-Libi's claims in his February 2003 speech to the United Nations; he recounted how a "senior terrorist operative" said Qaeda leaders were frustrated by their inability to make chemical or biological agents in Afghanistan and turned for help to Iraq. Continuing to rely on al-Libi's version, Powell then told how a bin Laden operative seeking help in acquiring poisons and gases had forged a "successful" relationship with Iraqi officials in the late 1990s and that, as recently as December 2000, Iraq had offered "chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaeda associates."

Powell has pretty much repudiated his own speeches.

It's worth mentioning (again): information obtained by torture is always dubious. Even when you have a known bad apple, you don't know when his genuine information runs out, and the nonsense he spews to stop the torture begins.

Andrew J. Lazarus:

As I stated, al-Libi was regarded as trustworthy because he had provided actionable intelligence, intelligence that resulted in the prevention of at least one major al-Qaeda terrorist attack as well as the detention of Abu Zubaydah. That much is a matter of public record.

Without touching on any specific quibbles, the information in question is not specific enough because it provides an incomplete picture of the actionable intelligence that al-Libi has provided at the same time that he was making the claims that he was concerning Iraq. There are also various ways to verify what he says by tossing it back and forth off other detainees. To use one specific example that is public record, they tossed what he said to Abu Zubaydah and Zubaydah said that while he wasn't familiar with that instance of collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda, he readily acknowledged that bin Laden would work with anyone who opposed the United States and that Iraq would be a particularly welcome ally because of their chemical and biological weapons expertise.

Of course, I've noticed your own caveat concerning information obtained under duress hasn't prevented opponents of the war (yourself included) from taking Abu Zubaydah's (non) denial as well as that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at complete face value.

Here's what Tenet said on the subject back in February 2003:

"Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al-Qa'ida. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al-Qa'ida associates; one of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.

"Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources. And it is consistent with the pattern of denial and deception exhibited by Saddam Hussein over the past 12 years."

That was Tenet, now, and if he's ever backed away from that statement I would be very interested in seeing it, as I believe you'll find that such a situation simply has not occurred.

In any case, the Newsweek piece still doesn't answer one question: what exactly is al-Libi saying now? There's a reason for that, which is the exact same reason why James Risen's CIA sources didn't get into Abu Zubaydah's "denials" of Iraqi collaboration with al-Qaeda, that being that the people who are leaking these types of stories to the press don't want to release information that might contradict their position.

Why you might even say they were "cherry-picking" intel ...

Of all the Iraq/al Qaeda claims discussed of late, this source's claim is probably the least referenced... I don't think he's as "principal" as Isikoff wants him to be. The Niger story sort of buries this as well. Well, it would if the media were fair and balanced.

Apparently the US has, for security reasons, decided to hand over sovereignty to the interim government in Iraq two days early! As Jane notes:

Two hours after the ceremony Bremer left Iraq on a U.S. Air Force C-130, said Robert Tappan, an official of the former coalition occupation authority. Bremer was accompanied by coalition spokesman Dan Senor and close members of his staff. Bremer's destination was not given, but an aide said he was ''going home.''

The new interim government was sworn in six hours after the handover ceremony, which Western governments largely hailed as a necessary next step. The Arab world voiced cautious optimism, but maintained calls for the U.S. military to leave the country quickly.

Allawi delivered a sweeping speech sketching out some of his goals for the country, urging people not to be afraid of the ''outlaws'' fighting against ''Islam and Muslims,'' assuring them that ''God is with us.''

Scott:

There's been stuff floating around for awhile that Zarqawi had something nasty planned for June 30, so the general consensus is that it's better to throw a monkey wrench into his plans.

Dan, I am not stating that information obtained under torture is always wrong, but that it is unreliable. I don't think you can refute this by showing me places where information extracted from Al Qaeda representatives under torture was correct, given the fact that we have no evidence whatsoever that (for example) Saddam was training Al Qaeda in WMD in 2000. The plain reading of this is that we obtained information from al-Libi and/or other Al Qaeda members under torture that was rubbish, and this is hardly a shock. I don't know if Tenet has retracted this particular datum, but Powell sure has.

Josh Marshall states that the Financial Times story on Niger is wrong, details to follow (in the indefinite future, I admit). Once burned, twice shy has never been the pro-war motto on anti-Saddam intel, has it?

Andrew J. Lazarus:

"Dan, I am not stating that information obtained under torture is always wrong, but that it is unreliable."

I would tend to agree, which is, here again, why I say that there are ways in which to check the information to see who's lying and who's not. Al-Libi's held up and resulted in the capture of a key al-Qaeda operative as well as the disruption of an attack on the US embassy in Yemen.

"given the fact that we have no evidence whatsoever that (for example) Saddam was training Al Qaeda in WMD in 2000."

Tenet (and, I would submit, the CIA) appeared to think otherwise, which is why that information appeared in the worldwide threat briefing. There has been no clarification from him or other public figures concerning these remarks. More to the point, there is still a huge cache of Iraqi documents to translate, a fair number of which have stood up as far as pre-war claims are concerned (the "document dump" referenced at the conclusion of the article), in rather stark contrast to various claims that have been advanced asserting that Saddam Hussein and bin Laden were blood enemies - a point I noted in my recent analysis of the New York Times piece on the subject of the Mukhabarat document from 1995 detailing a meeting with bin Laden in Sudan after which Saddam Hussein agreed to broadcast anti-Saudi religious propaganda on Iraqi state-run TV. So much for his much-vaunted secularism ...

"The plain reading of this is that we obtained information from al-Libi and/or other Al Qaeda members under torture that was rubbish, and this is hardly a shock."

That was, in my view, the intent of who ever leaked this tidbit to Michael Isikoff (a very sympathetic audience, as can be seen from his willingness to run with Shadi Abdallah's claims regarding Zarqawi)to begin with. However, it isn't quite as cut and dry as all of that. All the article states is that al-Libi changed his story when confronted with claims that contradicted his own (though it doesn't say what such changes were or event if they relate to Iraqi/al-Qaeda ties, here again this is where specifics are important in such things, especially in light of the Zubaydah snarfu) and that some folks think he may have done this because of various interrogation techniques that he might face - it does not say that the information was exacted under said techniques and this is an important distinction to be made.

"I don't know if Tenet has retracted this particular datum, but Powell sure has."

When? Certainly not in the link you provided.

"Josh Marshall states that the Financial Times story on Niger is wrong, details to follow (in the indefinite future, I admit). Once burned, twice shy has never been the pro-war motto on anti-Saddam intel, has it?"

I look forward to reading Marshall's assessment of the Financial Times piece, though he and a fair number of other anti-war folks really should apologize to Feith for repeatedly lamblasting the man's work and then proceeding to cite his conclusions with respect to al-Qaeda, Iran, the Saudis, Pakistan, and just about every other country under the sun ... except Iraq. But hey, any stick to beat a dog, right?

"... terrorists facing Marines in future combats won't need to worry about being mistreated at Abu Ghraib."

I think also that as a professional courtesy, the Army will extend the same consideration to the terrorists.

As they all should do anyway, for Nick Berg, Paul Johnson and Kim Sun-il. And Daniel Pearl.

I've reviewed Bremer's edicts and find them constructive for a government in major transformation. We in the US have many civil service type positions which, particularly during a new administration is voted into office, provide some needed continuity. This appears to be a main trust of Bremer's efforts.

Word of advice: Don't drink the WaPo kool-aid, they seem to have a built in bias, don't ya know.

Actually, an execution would change nothing. This is an intelligence war, and captured enemies are potentially valuable sources of information that could save future Marines.

Both the Army and the Marines are too profesisonal to compromise that for some kind of personal vendetta.

I was wondering if there was a article about my brother,on Tues,or Wed.paper about him being attacked.he was heading to the border to get supplies for his camp when he got shot 11 times and a hand gernade went off .He is at the Kuwait hopital until they stabilize him for transfer to germany.his name is Gordon Jankord. thank you