(ala "googlenews")
1. in the KnightRidder piece (By Jonathan S. Landay, Warren P. Strobel and Joseph L. Galloway
Knight Ridder Newspapers) this showed up at least in the Miami and Philadelphia papers - this is linked in the original post)
2. shows up in a Salon piece from January 26
Cheney's favorite leak
The vice president hails an "inaccurate" leak and provokes a new battle in the White House war with the intelligence community.
By Eric Boehlert
Jan. 27, 2004 | Vice President Dick Cheney's claim that a magazine article, based on leaked and unevaluated intelligence, definitively proved links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden has triggered a new round in the Bush administration's conflict with the intelligence community.
"It's disgusting," said Vincent Cannistraro, the former CIA chief of counterterrorism. "It's bullshit," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who served in the agency's Near East division.
--snip--
The Weekly Standard article was drawn from a "top secret U.S. government memorandum" that the magazine depicted as proving bin Laden and Saddam had an "operational relationship" that dated back nearly a decade. The memo was written by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who also oversaw the unique Office of Special Plans within the Pentagon. This small office of handpicked operatives was created under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to act as a counter to the CIA and other intelligence agencies that were seen as insufficiently loyal in providing material to help make the administration's case about Saddam's imminent threat. Since its inception, the OSP has worked outside established intelligence channels, rarely sharing its intelligence information for peer review, and has been a direct source of information, often faulty, for the White House.
Following Feith's testimony about alleged ties between Saddam and external terrorist groups before Congress last July 10, he was pressed in a follow-up letter from Sens. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., respectively the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to provide the evidence that backed up his assertions. In response, Feith's office cited 50 instances of raw intelligence that suggested ties between the Iraqi dictator and the al-Qaida leader. Meanwhile, Feith's report also found its way to the Weekly Standard.
more:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/27/cheney/ (not sure if this is a "premium" article or not)
3. Capitol Hill Blue (influential libertarian Cap. Hill news source)
Cheney Cites Discredited Source as Proof of Iraq-al Qaeda Link
By M.E. SPRENGELMEYER
Jan 24, 2004, 09:33
Critics are blasting Vice President Dick Cheney for his recent interview with the Rocky Mountain News of Denver, in which he said the "best source of information" about alleged connections between Iraq and al Qaeda was a magazine article that the Pentagon already had called "inaccurate" and based on "deplorable" intelligence leaks.
In an interview before his recent fundraising trip to Denver, Cheney was asked about past statements alleging a connection between the former Iraqi regime and the terrorist group behind the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
---snip--
Much of the controversial article, titled "Case Closed," was based on materials sent from Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy, to members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Attached to the letter were classified reports the committee requested about the alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
After the magazine article was published, the Department of Defense issued a press release saying "news reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate."
The release said that the reports attached to Feith's letter were based on raw intelligence from the CIA, National Security Agency or Defense Intelligence Agency, and were "not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions."
more:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_3946.shtmlIn short - he shows up - but only in one of the recent stories re: intelligence failures. He is not yet becoming a mainstay name in these discussions.