Veteran intelligence professionals warn Obama (as they did Bush) intel may be cooked.

[BelgianMadCow]

Consortiumnews
"We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”"

"Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you."

Looks pretty credible to me, but I don't know the people involved, or Consortiumnews.

on edit: the people signing the letter:

Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan
Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)
Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

[Autumn]

1. John Brennan. Yeah I believe it.

[truebluegreen]

25. Coleen Rowley. Ray McGovern

I believe it too.

edited for spelling.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Looks like other sources aren't picking this up yet?

If it's true, it's important!

[BelgianMadCow]

4. Opednews now also carries it, I haven't checked US MSM

for ages except via LBN at DU.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Warned-on-Syrian-Int-by-Consortium-News-Attack_Intelligence_Israel_Obama-130906-348.html

Wouldn't "insiders" contacting retired colleagues be a logical route for something like this to come out? Short of a fullblown whistleblower, that is.

[bananas]

34. I posted it in LBN, but it was locked.

"12 U.S. Intelligence Officials Tell Obama It Wasn’t Assad"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014588010

I hadn't seen this thread in GD until just now.

[Catherina]

3. They're extremely concerned. Here's the letter they sent General Dempsey

They're extremely concerned. Here's the letter they sent General Dempsey to remind him that he took an oath to the constitution, not a personality.
[hr]

An Appeal to Gen. Dempsey on Syria (Protect the Constitution or Resign)


Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

During a very interesting conversation, Ray McGovern discussed how General Dempsey and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff is not willing to go to war without Congressional Authorization.

There's an uproar in the military. If there's one thing all soldiers and officers know, it's their constitution and who authorizes war. They take their oath to the constitution very seriously.

What made Obama blink?

We did! A lot of us. Look if you obey an illegal order to start a


Here is the letter than McGovern references at minute 29:30.

An Appeal to Gen. Dempsey on Syria
August 30, 2013

Gen. Martin Dempsey, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, has spoken soberly about the dangers from any military strike on Syria, but press reports indicate President Obama is still set on launching cruise missiles in the coming days, an action that former U.S. intelligence professionals say should prompt Dempsey’s resignation.

MEMORANDUM FOR: General Martin Dempsey, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

SUBJECT: Syria and Our Oath to Defend the Constitution

Dear Gen. Dempsey:

Summary: We refer to your acknowledgment, in your letter of July 19 to Sen. Carl Levin on Syria, that a “decision to use force is not one that any of us takes lightly. It is no less than an act of war.” It appears that the President may order such an act of war without proper Congressional authorization.

As seasoned intelligence and military professionals solemnly sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, we have long been aware that – from private to general – it is one’s duty not to obey an illegal order. If such were given, the honorable thing would be to resign, rather than be complicit.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In responding to questions on military options voiced at your re-nomination hearing on July 18, your letter to the chair of the Committee on Armed Services reflects that you acknowledge Congress’s Constitutional role with respect to U.S. “acts of war.” Equally important, you addressed these words to Sen. Levin: “You deserve my best military advice on how military force could be used in order to decide whether it should be used.” (emphasis in your letter).

The options your letter addressed regarding potential use of military force included five being considered at the time: (1) Train, Advise, Assist the Opposition; (2) Conduct Limited Stand-off Strikes; (3) Establish a No-Fly Zone; (4) Establish Buffer Zones; (5) Control Chemical Weapons. You were quite candid about the risks and costs attached to each of the five options, and stressed the difficulty of staying out of the Syrian civil war, once the U.S. launched military action.

‘Tailored, Limited’ Strike Option

Presumably, there has not been enough time to give Sen. Levin’s committee an equivalent assessment of the implications of the new option described by the President Wednesday evening as a “tailored, limited” response to the chemical weapons attack on August 21 that he has been told was carried out by Syrian government forces. President Obama said, without elaboration, that a retaliatory strike is “needed … to protect U.S. security.”

It is precisely this kind of unsupported claim (so embarrassingly reminiscent of the spurious ones used more than a decade ago to “justify” attacks on Iraq) that needs to be subjected to rigorous analysis by both the Pentagon and Congress BEFORE the President orders military action. For some unexplained reason of urgency, that order may come within the next day or two. With no wish to prejudge the results of analysis presumably under way, we feel it our responsibility to tell you now that, speaking out of several hundred years of collective experience in intelligence and national security matters, we strongly believe that the President’s reference to a military strike on Syria being “needed to protect U.S. security” cannot bear close scrutiny.

In all candor, the credibility of his chief national security advisers – and his own credibility – have been seriously damaged in recent months, giving all the more urgency and importance to the need for Congress to exercise its Constitutional role regarding war. And, as usual, there are serious problems with the provenance and nature of the “intelligence” that is being used to support the need for military action.

In your July 19 letter to Sen. Levin you emphasized: “As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that the use of force will move us toward the intended outcome. … Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid. We should act in accordance with the law, and to the extent possible, in concert with our allies and partners.” (emphasis supplied)

This last sentence raises, first and foremost, the question of what the Constitution says of the role of Congress in authorizing a military attack that, in your words, “is no less than an act of war” (further discussed below).

It also raises the important issue of how seriously we should take the result of democratic Parliamentary procedures among our allies. Although not legally required to do so, British Prime Minister David Cameron on Thursday sought Parliamentary approval for military action against Syria and was rebuffed. With as much grace as he could summon, Cameron said the British people had expressed their will and he would not flout it (even though he could do so, legally in the British system):

“It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will act accordingly,” a tense-looking Cameron said immediately after the vote.

French President Francois Hollande has said his country may still strike Syria to “punish” it for allegedly using chemical weapons, despite the British Parliament’s failure to endorse military action. If Fiji can be lined up again, that would make a coalition of at least three.

The Fundamentals: Congress’s Role

Before the President spoke on Wednesday, the ranking member on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Jerrold Nadler issued a formal statement titled: Constitution Requires Congressional Authorization on Use of Force Against Syria. Nadler wrote:

“The Constitution requires that, barring an attack on the United States or an imminent threat to the U.S., any decision to use military force can only be made by Congress – not by the President. The decision to go to war – and we should be clear, launching a military strike on another country, justified or not, is an act of war – is reserved by the Constitution to the American people acting through their elected representatives in Congress.

“Since there is no imminent threat to the United States, there is no legal justification for bypassing the Constitutionally-required Congressional authorization. ‘Consultation’ with Congress is not sufficient. The Constitution requires Congressional authorization.

“The American people deserve to have this decision debated and made in the open, with all the facts and arguments laid out for public review and debate, followed by a Congressional vote. If the President believes that military action against Syria is necessary, he should immediately call Congress back into session and seek the Constitutionally-required authorization.”

As of Thursday, more than a third of the House of Representatives have spoken out against being marginalized, as they were before Libya, many insisting that there be Congressional debate and a vote before any military strike on Syria.

In addition, Republican House Speaker John Boehner sent Obama a letter Wednesday urging him to “make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interests, preserve America’s credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy.”

The President called Boehner on Thursday to brief him “on the status of deliberations over Syria,” according to a Boehner spokesman, who added that, “during the call, the speaker sought answers to concerns outlined in his letter, including the legal justification for any military strike.” After the call, Boehner reportedly complained that his questions had not been answered.

Holding Congress in Contempt

Elementary school children learn that, in view of the Founders’ experience with English kings, it was not by chance that, in crafting the Constitution, they took care to give to our elected representatives in Congress the exclusive “Power To declare War (and) To raise and support Armies.” (Article 1, Section 8). The somber historical consequences of letting this key power of Congress fall into disuse after WWII – in effect, allowing Presidents to act like Kings – speak eloquently to the folly of ignoring Article 1, Section 8.

And yet, there is no sign that President Barack Obama intends to request Congressional authorization (as opposed to “consultation” with chosen Members) before he orders military action against Syria. Indeed, he and his top appointees have been openly contemptuous of the Constitutional role of Congress in such matters.

Obama’s former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was smoother and more wise-old-handish than his predecessors in emasculating Congressional power. Thanks to Panetta, we have direct insight into how the Obama administration may strike Syria with very little consultation (not to mention authorization) from Congress.

Several of us remember watching you in some distress sitting next to your then-boss Panetta as he tried to put Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) in his place, at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2012. Chafing belatedly over the unauthorized nature of the war in Libya, Sessions asked repeatedly what “legal basis” would the Obama administration rely on to do in Syria what it did in Libya.

Panetta stonewalled time after time, making it abundantly clear that the Obama administration does not believe it needs Congressional approval for wars like the one in Libya. “I am really baffled,” said Sessions. “The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the U.S. military (in combat) is the Congress and the President and the law and the Constitution.”

Panetta’s response did nothing to relieve Sessions’s bafflement: “Let me just for the record be clear again, Senator, so there is no misunderstanding. When it comes to national defense, the President has the authority under the Constitution to act to defend this country, and we will, Sir.”

You will remember Panetta’s attitude, which Sen. Sessions called “breathtaking.” You said nothing then, and we can understand that. But, frankly, we are hoping that you had that awkward experience in mind when you reminded Sen. Levin that, “We should act in accordance with the law.”

Clearly, there is an important Constitutional issue here. The question is whether you will again choose to be silent, or whether you will give Secretary Chuck Hagel and the President notice that your oath to support and defend the Constitution precludes complicity in end-running Congress on Syria.

If, Resign

We do not understand why the White House has so far been unwilling to await the results of the UN inspection in Damascus, but we are all too familiar with what happens once the juggernaut starts rolling to war. However, if despite Thursday’s vote in the British Parliament and the increased opposition in Congress to war without the authorization of Congress, the President decides to order an attack on Syria, we urge you to act in accordance with your solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution, as well as your own conscience.

In such circumstances, we believe strongly that you should resign and explain your reasons at once to the American people.

Very Respectfully,

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

William Binney, Senior Scientist, NSA (ret.)

Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)

Dan Ellsberg, VIPS Member Emeritus

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan

Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Tom Maertens, Foreign Service Officer & NSC Director for Nonproliferation (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)

Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)

Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq

Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

Larry Wilkerson, Col., US Army (ret); Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell

Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/08/30/an-appeal-to-gen-dempsey-on-syria/

and if you have time, here's Ray McGovern talking about it and mentioning the letter.

[BelgianMadCow]

5. Wow. That's quite the letter. And Dempsey did seem ill at ease

during the hearing. He even corrected Hagel or Kerry to outline (subtly) where he was differing with them, when they had laid words in his mouth. Can't remember what it was about, dammit.

Thanks for the addition!

[Catherina]

6. You're welcome. Thanks for reading it. I was going to make it an OP last week

but I thought it would get buried by the brouhaha of the propaganda. The 9% is quite agitated these days.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Propaganda? In this place?

Really?

[Catherina]

11. Haha lol, very funny my friend

solidarity

[BelgianMadCow]

9. Funny. I was thinking of adding "I wonder what Wilkerson is hearing" to my post

I even typed it up, then deleted it. But the signatures list on the letter you posted is longer, and one of the differences is Wilkerson

[Catherina]

14. Glad it could help. Times are DIRE n/t

[grasswire]

23. thank you Catherina

most impressive

[AnotherMcIntosh]

31. Thank you. It may still be worthwhile to make it an OP.

[jakeXT]

35. I've read about his body language in the WP

The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nation’s most senior soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry’s thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage against Bashar al-Assad’s atrocities, Dempseywas largely (and respectfully) silent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-military-planners-dont-support-war-with-syria/2013/09/05/10a07114-15bb-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_story.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. We may very well be at a cross roads, Empire or not.

Yes, the stakes are that high.

[KittyWampus]

10. LOL! Here is the entire article parred down to eliminate all the other bullshit -

And by bullshit, I mean the vast majority of that crap is about Iraq and everything else OTHER than the actual event involving the use of chemical weapons on Damascus, Syria.

There are only three paragraphs that even directly mention Syria & the chemical weapons used. Three. And they offer nothing substantial in any way to back any claims.



"There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.

According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.

We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons."

………………….

So according to these guys-

There is a growing body of evidence affiliated w/Syrian opposition that they were the perpetrators.

There are zero links, names, analysis or facts offered. NONE.

THEN- We are unaware of any reliable evidence Syrian rockets capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area.

Well, I've two articles in my journal of munition experts weighing in on the rockets found thus far. And they seem to think it's at the very least plausible it was the Syrian Army. These guys must not be paying too much attention to the information that's actually available.

[grasswire]

16. so now American hero and renowned journalist Bob Parry is under the bus?

The contortions are boggling.

[KittyWampus]

26. Parry didn't write this. He posted it on his website. Doesn't change the total lack of facts

in what was linked to here.

[BelgianMadCow]

20. You're being a bit selective.

"They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you."

So a whole bunch of retired people in the know, whose standing you may put in doubt, but you haven't, are told by people still active in the intelligence community that a fraud is being perpetrated, but you prefer to focus on the fact that this particular letter isn't laying forth all the proof (which could compromise the insiders)?

I reject that premise. This letter didn't intend to lay out such proof.

[KittyWampus]

27. Selective? Almost the entire thing was about everything else BUT SYRIA. Yet it claims Syrian intelli

intelligence was "cooked".

Sorry, if you are going to make the assertion Syrian intelligence was cooked and that it was not Assad who launched a large scale chemical attack on civilians then you damned well should have some sort of evidence, facts, analysis. Some attributed quote.

There was a sum total of THREE SHORT PARAGRAPHS about the Damascus chemical attack and not one factual piece of evidence offered about it.

[dionysus]

12. i think larry johnson was proven to be a looney\asshole but i don't know about the others.

ah, he was one of the ones pushing the michelle "whitey" tape

http://prospect.org/article/larry-johnsons-strange-trip

[grasswire]

13. I hope you will read the history of Consortium News, then.

Robert Parry was a top investigative journalist when he was blacklisted for reporting Iran Contra. He has consistently reported the truth, for decades now.

[KittyWampus]

15. That is irrelevant. The entire article boils down to 3 paragraphs none of which offer any facts.

3 paragraphs. that's it. THREE.

And not one piece of evidence. Not even a strongly worded attempt at "some people say".

As far as I'm concerned these guys are disseminating this to help Congress Republicans vote "No".

[grasswire]

18. Hmm

Should I trust an anonymous poster on a message board -- a poster with a known agenda -- or should I trust a proven investigative journalist who follows the truth no matter where it leads?

Hmmmmmmm.

[grasswire]

19. Wait. So now Bob Parry is trying to help Congressional Republicans??

Do you have any idea how ignorant and foolish that premise is?

[KittyWampus]

28. Yet you still haven't managed to point to any fact in that entire article NOT ONE about Syria.

The people who wrote have zero facts, evidence, circumstantial evidence, analysis.

ZERO.

And Parry didn't write it. He published it.

[BelgianMadCow]

17. Ah. Thanks for the pointer.

I did check their other reporting, and that looked like decent investigative journalism.
Bookmarking them. I'm always on the lookout for credible independent news. Now I have The Real News Network in that dept in the US.

[grasswire]

21. Media Matters.org is another trustworthy site. nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

22. Coleen Rowley, for those with short memories...

After the September 11, 2001, attacks, Rowley wrote a paper for FBI Director Robert Mueller documenting how FBI HQ personnel in Washington, D.C., had mishandled and failed to take action on information provided by the Minneapolis, Minnesota Field Office regarding its investigation of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. Moussaoui had been suspected of being involved in preparations for a suicide-hijacking similar to the December 1994 "Eiffel Tower" hijacking of Air France 8969. Failures identified by Rowley may have left the U.S. vulnerable to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Rowley was one of many agents frustrated by the events that led up to the attacks, writing:

During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre–September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question was "Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBI HQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like (Robert Hanssen), who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis's effort.) [2][3]

Rowley testified in front of the Senate and for the 9/11 Commission about the FBI's internal organization and mishandling of information related to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Mueller and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) pushed for and got a major reorganization, focused on creation of the new Office of Intelligence at the FBI. This reorganization was supported with a significant expansion of FBI personnel with counterterrorism and language skills.[citation needed]

Rowley retired from the FBI in 2004 after 24 years with the agency. She jointly held the TIME "Person of the Year" award in 2002 with two other women credited as whistleblowers: Sherron Watkins from Enron and Cynthia Cooper of WorldCom. She also received the Sam Adams Award for 2002.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley

[ProSense]

24. So

"We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”"

"Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you."

...they're trying to prove the rebels did it, but are claiming the intelligence the U.S. is presenting against Assad is unreliable?

This is basically another Assad didn't do it argument. The intelligence isn't "cooked." They acknowledge the attack and are making a convoluted case that the rebels did it. The scale and location of the attacks make the case against the rebels more implausible, but those trying to absolve Assad seem to want to portray their claims as irrefutable.

There is also evidence from other countries implicating Assad.

The UN is having samples from Syria tested. France and Germany presented evidence Assad did it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023590778

Sarin traces found in Syria chemical weapons attack, Britain says

By Michael Pearson. Greg Botelho and Holly Yan, CNN

(CNN) -- British military scientists found traces of sarin gas in soil and clothing taken from a patient treated near the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack outside Syria's capital, the prime minister's office said Thursday.

Scientists at the Porton Down military laboratory concluded the samples were unlikely to have been faked, and Britain is sharing its findings with the United Nations, the office said.

The revelation is the most specific statement by British officials regarding the chemical they believe was used in the August 21 attack on a rebel stronghold near Damascus, though the office didn't explicitly say who was responsible. U.S. officials have, blaming Syrian government forces for an attack they say left more than 1,400 people dead, many of them children.

The British statement is not the first allegation that sarin gas -- an extremely volatile nerve agent that can kill -- has been used in Syria's gruesome, two-year civil war.

- more -

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/world/meast/syria-civil-war/

[KittyWampus]

29. they don't make a case anyone did it. They don't have one fact, quote, analysis. It's just

a bunch of people saying a lot of nothing.

[grasswire]

30. do you realize how foolish this attack on Bob Parry sounds?

Parry published it. You're impugning his honor (while misunderstanding the point). Have you no shame?

[dkf]

32. Wow. That's quite a list.

[BelgianMadCow]

33. Adding this truthout analysis

http://truth-out.org/news/item/18559-how-intelligence-was-twisted-to-support-an-attack-on-syria

very detailed, very interesting.

[KoKo]

36. That is an interesting read.. Recommend