| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/25 |
| 2003/11/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11014 Activity:high |
11/10 Retired CIA analyst take on the WMD controversy:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1109-02.htm
\_ Yoo-hoo, Neo Cons? Care to comment?
\_ I am a socialist myself. Having said that, I don't see
anyone, conservatives, liberals alike, should tolerate leaders
lies in order to drag us into war.
\_ one of the interesting trait of George Bush is that while he has
gutts to make bold moves, he doesn't seems to have the shoulder to
bear the responsibility when things are not going his way.
Deny the fact that he linked Iraq with al Qeda is one example,
scapgoating George Tenent and the entire CIA community is another.
While I disagree with 99% of his political agenda, it is this
particular trait which I've completely lost any respect for
him, as a person.
\_ This guy was an intelligence officer during the Nixon
administration - he has no knowledge of current WMD intelligence
beyond you and me. Let's recall what Democrats in the House
and Senate had to say, from the Congressional Record:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/949198/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947873/posts
For some reason I trust the Senate Foreign Relations
committee more than this guy.
Did you read the Kay report - even the abstract?
\_ Actually he served as a CIA analyst from 1964 to 1990.
Here he exposes more lies from the Bush administration:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern06232003.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern06272003.html
\_ Useless. That was before the FIRST war. We're now 6 months
after the SECOND war _and_ 12 YEARS of sanctions. You might
as well quote me in a book. My opinion is just as valid as
this guy's.
\_ I am just pointing out the weak attempt (by you,
presumably) to discredit McGovern by saying that he
is from the "Nixon administration" when he worked
way beyond that time period right into the senior
Bush's administration. Besides, his revelations were
not based on some supposed classified piece of
information, but information released to the public
combined with his understanding on how the intelligence
community works and how they interact with the
politicians. In that regard, given his intelligence
background and experience, yes, his opinion is more
valuable than yours.
\_ That was my first comment in this thread. His info
\_ So it is your contention McGovern has more classified
and understanding is ancient. I'm here to discuss my
opinions and he's not. There's no way to question him.
The article is like a hit n run driver. You don't know
that he's done anything more than sit on a beach for
13 years while I've read everything available. My
opinion carries more weight than his until he shows up
and demonstrates post-1990 knowledge.
\_ Interesting. Maybe that's why Donald Rumsfeld
is so horrible as the Secretary of Defense.
Must be because his experience under the Nixon
administration, etc. was totally useless, and
because he went into business for quite a few
years before coming back, his "ancient"
experience had become totally outdated. Maybe,
instead of calling him a senior statesman, we
should call him a rookie statesman.
\_ So it is your contention McGovern has more classified
sources than Senators Joe Biden, Carl Levin, and former
Majority leader Tom Daschle?
sources than Senators Joe Biden and Carl Levin?
\_ I read the NYT and CNN summary which said GWB is eeevvvviill so
I don't need to read anything more! Those pure and neutral
bodies of journalistic integrity and highest principles tell me
all I need to think about any topic! The 300,000 dead Iraqis
that Hussein put in their graves wasn't above the fold of the
NYT so it isn't important! Nyah!
\_ So now we're taking out every regime that kills more than
\_ Don't forget Indonesia ... oh wait, we have a big
gold mine and oil projects there .... sorry, next
country.
\_ If we could I think we should. You think we should pull
back and hide behind our borders in Fortress America? If
the rest of the world is lucky we one day will be able to.
\_ Afghanistan, good war. Iraq, bad war. No one
here except you is talking about a Fortress America.
Your strawman argument doesn't work.
\_ Afghanistan pretty much sucks as a war too if you're
going to include aftermath. Only Kabul is under
control, and that is only by the will of the warlords
who are willing to give the UN their "victory."
\_ yea, but at least the goal is clear right
from the start - disrupting bin laden and al
queda. taking out taliban is a side benefit.
taliban is as hopeless as it get already,
comparable to the khmer rouge. anything is
better that the taliban. as bad as saddam
was, an aftermath worse than what it was
before is quite possible for iraq.
300K? The Africans will be so happy! |
| 12/25 |
|
| www.commondreams.org/views03/1109-02.htm The intelligence process is a bit like virginity, says Ray McGovern, who worked as a CIA analyst for 27 years. Watching what has happened with Iraq over the past several months has been like watching your daughter being raped. Such is an indication of the extraordinary depth of feeling within the US intelligence community as the Bush administrations basis for the war in Iraq - the weapons of mass destruction, the dark hint of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida - has been shown to have been built on air. Mr McGovern worked near the very top of his profession, giving direct advice to Henry Kissinger during the Nixon era and preparing the Presidents daily security brief for Ronald Reagan. Now he is co-founder of a group of former CIA employees called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or Vips for short. What the Bush White House has done, he believes, is far worse than the false premise that dragged the United States into the Vietnam War - a reported second attack on a US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin which later turned out not to have taken place. The Gulf of Tonkin was a spur-of-the-moment thing, and Lyndon Johnson seized on that. Thats very different from the very calculated, 18-month, orchestrated, incredibly cynical campaign of lies that weve seen to justify a war. Mr McGovern accuses Mr Bush of an extraordinary act of chutzpah - taking advantage of his authority as President of the United States to make people believe there must be something to his insistent allegations that Iraq possessed potentially devastating weaponry. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. |
| www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/949198/posts IRAQ/WMD: What did Clinton & Senate Dems know & whenHYPOCRISYDEMS; SEE FOR YOURSELF Library of Congress 7/19/03 Various Senators Posted on 07/19/2003 4:10:41 PM PDT by Wolfstar ED. They are EXTREMELY revealing as to who was wringing their hands over the danger posed to United States security by Iraq and its WMD just five years ago, and who was calling Iraqs actions that year a crisis. These debates led to passage of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, WHICH MADE REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ UNITED STATES POLICY. Its crucial ammunition for anyone who wants clear, unambiguous evidence of Democrat hypocrisy on Iraq and WMD. BEGIN EXCERPTS: Click link above to search the full Congressional Record. Also note that, where used, bold and upper case emphasis is Wolfstars. NOTE: After Kofi Annan secured one more useless agreement with Hussein, Daschle took the floor to gush like a schoolgirl about that achievement. The reader is advised to pay close attention to Daschles words here. What we should demand is an answer to what intelligence Daschle relied on when he declared that Iraq had not only chemical and biological weapons, but nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. If fully implemented, this commitment will allow UNSCOM to fulfill its mission: First, to find and destroy all of Iraqs chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; The United States remains resolved to secure, by whatever means necessary , Iraqs full compliance with its commitment to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. At the very moment diplomacy appears not to be working, force will be employed. This is not a question of simply delaying and somehow, then, obviating the need for the use of force should it be required. President, we have made great progress on paper over the last 72 hours. Every single one of those scummy Dem presidential wannabes from the senate knows this, but that doesnt prevent them from pretending to be outraged at phony claims that the Bush Administration hyped intelligence. Again, we ought to demand answers to what intelligence Clinton and company relied on in 1998 when they changed United States policy toward Iraq from one of containment to one of regime change. This program was in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention, to which Iraq is a party. ED NOTE: Dorgan presents exhibits in support of a call for an International War Crimes Tribunal for Iraq. The exhibits detail the crimes of Saddam Hussein and Iraqi leaders. The most enormous crime that Iraqi leaders have committed was the genocidal Anfal campaign against Kurds in rural areas of northern Iraq. The campaign involved the destruction of thousands of Kurdish villages, and the murder, disappearance, extermination by chemical weapons, or forcible resettlement of hundreds of thousands of Kurds. The third category is Iraqi violations of treaties and UN resolutions. These chemical weapons attacks, both in the war against Iran and internally against the people of Kurdistan, raise the issue of Iraqs entire program to develop weapons of mass destruction chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. According to the Clinton Administration white paper, Iraqs biological weapons activities included producing 8,500 liters of anthrax, 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin, and 2,200 liters of alfatoxin. Iraq also prepared biological weapons munitions, including 25 Scud missile warheads 5 anthrax, 16 botulinum toxin, 4 alfatoxin, 157 aerial bombs, and aerial dispensers. Iraq researched other ways of using biological weapons, including 155mm artillery shells, artillery rockets, a MiG-21 drone, and aerosol generators. Lastly, Iraq has confessed to a nuclear weapons development program, but again only after Husayn Kamils defection in 1995. ED NOTE: It cant be emphasized strongly enough that the UN Security Council declared Iraq to be in material breach five years ago. Yet that Leftist cabal led by Annan, Chriac and Schroeder refused to stand by its own findings while it was putting Bush and Blair through the wringer earlier this year. I am far, far more interested in learning the truth about this than I am about one sentence in the State of the Union speech. Vigorous diplomacy has been pursued over the past three months, but, thus far, Saddam Hussein has shown that he has no interest in a peaceful solution on anything other than his own terms. We cannot allow this tyrant to prevail over the will of the international community. Our national security would be seriously compromised by a failure to stand up to the challenge he has confronted us with. If Iraq does not comply immediately and unconditionally with United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding unfettered access for United States weapons inspectors, I believe that President Clinton will have no choice but to order the use of air power. NOTE: Ironic, isnt it, that time really ran out five years later under a different president. In recent weeks, several questions and criticisms have been raised with respect to President Clintons policy. They are to curtail and delay Saddam Husseins capacity to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten his neighbors. We should all hope for a genuine diplomatic solution to this stand-off, but no one should doubt our resolve to use force if it becomes necessary. First and foremost, an Iraq left free to develop weapons of mass destruction would pose a grave threat to our national security. ED NOTE: Again, one must ask the question why in 1998 but not in 2003? That, I hope, is the message that will be heard in Baghdad, most importantly. If the Commander in Chief of the United States decides that military force is necessary to be employed against Iraq, the overwhelming majority of Members of the United States Senate will stand strongly behind him and behind those American personnel in uniform who will carry out that policy. NOTE: Lott introduces the bill that, when later passed, becomes the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I am joined by Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator McCain of Arizona, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, Senator Helms of North Carolina, Senator Shelby of Alabama, Senator Brownback of Kansas, and Senator Kyl of Arizona. For months, I have urged the Administration to fundamentally change its policy on Iraq. Monitoring the concealment of weapons of mass destruction is not enough. It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. NOTE: This law passed overwhelmingly in 1998 and was signed into law by Clinton. Yet in the post-9/11, post anthrax-attacks world, in 2002-03 Dem senators reversed course and opposed the invasion of Iraq to effect that very regime change policy they had placed into United States law. There is only one answer: Because a member of their party was not in the White House. They put raw partisan politics above the national well-being and are still doing so today. Saddam Hussein will lose his job, I will lose my job, or I will keep talking about him on this floor. NOTE: Sure enough, Hussein outlasted Kerreys tenure in the Senate. Terrorism may or may not actually be on the rise, but terrorists have recently shown the intention and ability to attack American targets overseas. As we confront organizations like that of Usama bin Laden, we come face to face with people who will go to great efforts to kill Americans, and we react strongly. In the aftermath of events like the bombing of Khobar Towers or the two embassies in Africa, we naturally move terrorism to the forefront of our threat concerns. ED NOTE: Dont know which we Kerrey was talking about, since Clinton didnt do squat about terrorism during his eight-year term. So, as regards the threat posed by Usama bin Laden, what did Clinton and the Senate Dems know, and when did they know it? I refer to the need to free the Iraqi people from one of the most oppressive dictatorships on earth. We Americans, who have striven for more than two centuries to govern ourselves, should particularly feel the cruel anomaly which is the Iraqi governm... |
| www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947873/posts In fact, as far back as 1998, the top Democrat was warning that Iraq was shopping for nuclear fuel - almost the exact same allegation that has Levin and his party pointing the finger at Bush. Landmark Legals director, Mark Levin no relation, called on the Michigan Democrat to come clean on his intelligence sources. As a key member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, when you make allegations of this kind, they are presumed to be credible and substantiated. Therefore, we ask that you immediately reveal the sources on which you relied to make your allegations. War on Terror KEYWORDS: 1 posted on 07/17/2003 9:55:37 AM PDT by kattracks Post Reply Private Reply View Replies To: kattracks I hope this story gets some traction. Post Reply Private Reply To 6 View Replies To: holdonnow In quotes unearthed by the Landmark Legal Foundation, Good work. Im sure theres more where that came from, like the 1999 media reports throughout that year that Hussein and bin Laden were forging an alliance. The kind of alliance that the lefties act like GWB is a dope for even suggesting would be a possibility. However if you and others can develop a clean and well documented timeline of rat remarks before GW and the yellowcake Scam lies after GWs SOTUS. It will be seen and used by talkshow hosts and other conservatives. Post Reply Private Reply To 10 View Replies To: backhoe The truth about Yellowcake Scam has been documented by great Freepers like you. The truth is there for the doubters, if they want to take time and read it. |
| www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern06232003.html John Conyers Bushs Deceptions about Iraq Threaten Democracy at Home Julian Samuel A Review of Pilgers The New Rulers of the World Uri Avnery The Children of Death Steve Perry Bushs Lies, Part 2 June 14 / 15, 2003 Edward Said A Roadmap to What and Where? Gerry Lower Dear Rudy, Lets Get Those Damned Liberals Ted Dace A Review of Kovels The Enemy of Nature Adam Engel Midnight at the Apocalyptic Pancake Poets Basement Smith, Greeder, Albert, and OHayer Website of the Weekend AEI: Starts Wars; June 23, 2003 Washington Lied An Interview with Ray McGovern By MARC PRITZKE Editors Note: Former CIA official, Ray McGovern, has leveled serious accusations at the Bush administration in connection with the war in Iraq. From 1981 to 1985 he conducted daily briefings for Ronald Reagans vice president, George Bush, the father of the incumbent president. The following interview originally appeared in Die Tagesspiegel, one of Berlins largest daily papers. Imagine this appearing in the Sunday edition of the New York Times. The US Senate Intelligence Committee this week began hearings on the dispute over the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The committee chairman, Republican Pat Roberts, has already refused to ask the FBI to investigate allegations that Iraq has tried to obtain uranium from Niger. This, despite the fact that in making these allegations, administration officials knowingly relied on crudely forged documents. In a Memorandum for President Bush dated May 1 you speak of a policy and intelligence fiasco. Take, for example, the business about the aluminum tubes that Iraq tried to obtain. According to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, these were only suited to nuclear weapons programs. But nuclear engineers have been virtually unanimous in deciding that the pipes are not suitable for that. Despite this, President Bush on October 7, 2002 said that Iraq could possibly produce a nuclear weapon within a year. When a US president decides it is necessary to go to war, he has to procure intelligence to prove the need for war. So, for example, an incident in the Tonkin Gulf involving a North Vietnamese attack on a US warship-which attack never took place-nonetheless was deliberately used by President Johnson to get Congress endorsement for war with North Vietnam. This current administration had decided by September 2002 to make war on Iraq-five months before Secretary of State Colin Powells speech at the UN. What was missing was the intelligence basis to justify the decision for war. And in the case of the uranium Iraq was said to be seeking, it was based on forged documents. In retrospect, the train of thought in the White House at the time is clear: How long can we keep the forged documents from the public? In that case we can use the documents to get Congress to endorse war with Iraq and then wage it and win it before anyone discovers that the evidence was bogus. In addition, the administration has very artfully taken advantage of the trauma of September 11. So, for example, al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were always mentioned in the same breath, without any proof of a connection between the two. Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels said that, if you repeat something often enough, the people will believe it. On October 7, 2002 Bush said, without any evidence to support it, that what is to be feared is that in Iraqs case, the smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. National Security Adviser Rice repeated this on October 8, and Pentagon spokesperson Victoria Clarke did so on October 9 On October 11 Congress voted for war. But doesnt the US press have a reputation for good investigative reporting? But that reputation goes back 30 years to the time of Vietnam and Watergate. The mainstream press now marches to the drumbeat of the administration. Keep CounterPunch Alive: Make a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online! |
| www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern06272003.html Ray McGovern: Cheney, Forgery and the CIA home / subscribe / about us / books / archives / search / links / feedback New Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively to Subscribers: Cockburn on Howard Dean, Serf of Capital: Look Before You Leap; Clair on the Crimes of Boeing: Make Shoddy Planes, Lie to Regulators, Discriminate Against Blacks and Women, Get Billions in Contracts; Peter Linebaugh: The Blitz and the Rosenbergs: How I Came to Oppose the Death Penalty; Christine TenBarge: A Report from Chicago on the New Peace Movement; Fowl Reports: 60 Minutes Gets Egg on Its Face Over Terror Chickens. Remember, the CounterPunch website is supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter . Our worldwide web audience is soaring, with more than 60,000 visitors a day. This is inspiring news, but the work involved also compels us to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make a tax deductible donation if you can afford it. Or Call Toll Free 1-800-840 3683 or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 95558 Coming Soon! From Common Courage Press Recent Stories June 27, 2003 David Lindorff The Catch and Release of Comical Ali Ray McGovern Cheney, Forgery and the CIA June 26, 2003 Sen. The New Dark Ages David Lindorff Indonesias War on Journalists Dan Bacher Butterflies and Farmworkers Confront USDA and Riot Cops Adam Federman Success is Not the Issue Here Elaine Cassel Aint No Justice: Fed Judge Quits, Assails Sentencing Guidelines Bill Kauffman My America vs. Subscribe Online Search CounterPunch June 27, 2003 Cheney, Forgery and the CIA Not Business as Usual By RAY McGOVERN former CIA Analyst A s though this were normal! I mean the repeated visits Vice President Dick Cheney made to the CIA before the war in Iraq. During my 27-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, no vice president ever came to us for a working visit. During the 80s, it was my privilege to brief Vice President George HW Bush and other very senior policy-makers every other morning. I went either to the vice presidents office or on weekends to his home. The morning briefings gave us an excellent window on what was uppermost in the minds of those senior officials and helped us refine our tasks of collection and analysis. And the very thought of a vice president dropping by to help us with our analysis is extraordinary. We preferred to do that work without the pressure that inevitably comes from policy-makers at the table. Reports in late 2001 that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger stirred such intense interest that his office let it be known he wanted them checked out. So, with the CIA as facilitator, a retired United States ambassador was dispatched to Niger in February 2002 to investigate. He found nothing to substantiate the report and lots to call it into question. There the matter rested-until last summer, after the Bush administration made the decision for war in Iraq. At the time, CIA analysts were involved in a knock-down, drag-out argument with the Pentagon on this very point. Most of the nuclear engineers at the CIA, and virtually all scientists at United States government laboratories and the International Atomic Energy Agency, found no reliable evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear weapons program. Sad to say, those in charge of the draft National Intelligence Estimate took their cue and stated, falsely, that most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Smoke was blown about aluminum tubes sought by Iraq that, it turns out, were for conventional weapons programs. The rest amounted to things like Husseins frequent meetings with nuclear scientists and Iraqs foot-dragging in providing information to United States inspectors. Not much heed was paid to the fact that Husseins son-in-law, who supervised Iraqs nuclear program before he defected in 1995, had told interrogators that Iraqs nuclear capability-save the blueprints-had been destroyed in 1991 at his order. The Iraqi scientists who provided them added that, even though the blueprints would have given Iraq a head start, no order was given to restart the program; In sum, the evidence presented in last Septembers intelligence estimate fell far short of what was required to support Cheneys claim that Iraq was on the road to a nuclear weapon. Something scarier had to be produced, and quickly, if Congress was to be persuaded to authorize war. And so the decision was made to dust off the uranium-from-Niger canard. The White House calculated-correctly-that before anyone would make an issue of the fact that this key piece of intelligence was based on a forgery, Congress would vote yes. In recent weeks, administration officials have begun spreading the word that Cheney was never told the Iraq-Niger story was based on a forgery. I asked a senior official who recently served at the National Security Council if he thought that was possible. He pointed out that rigorous NSC procedures call for a very specific response to all vice presidential questions and added that the fact that Cheneys office had originally asked that the Iraq-Niger report be checked out makes it inconceivable that his office would not have been informed of the results. Did the president himself know that the information used to secure congressional approval for war was based on a forgery? Ray McGovern , a CIA analyst from 1964 to 1990, regularly reported to the vice president and senior policy-makers on the Presidents Daily Brief from 1981 to 1985. He now is co-director of the Servant Leadership School, an inner-city outreach ministry in Washington. |