Oct 8 2002 - The first media report of COOKED INTEL BOOKS

[blm]

Oct. 8, 2002, 10:47AM

Some administration officials expressing misgivings on Iraq
By WARREN P. STROBEL and JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight-Ridder Tribune News

WASHINGTON -- While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.

These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses -- including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network -- have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.

They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.

"Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews.

No one who was interviewed disagreed.

>>>>>>>>>>>


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1607676

PLEASE READ WHOLE KNIGHT RIDDER ARTICLE. Prepare yourself for next week and the GOPs "opinion" argument on the UK Minutes memo.

[Just Me]

1. OMG! That was the article that essentially threw me,...

,...into a whirlwind of independent information gathering!!! Due to the stepped up war propaganda, I felt like something was wrong without being able to put my finger on it. Then, I read this article and I just knew this administration was lying. Life hasn't been the same ever since.

[blm]

4. That is why I consider it an important source that must be shared with

as many as possible.

[Roland99]

2. I think I'll send that link around to a few people

:)

[blm]

6. Very few papers carried the story when it came out or they buried it

deep within the paper so it was less likely to be seen.

I think we all need strong backup when the pushback begins, and let the truth win out.

[Gothmog]

3. Good article

The whole aluminum tube issue also needs to be discussed. It is clear that Bush and Rice lied about these tubes being for nuclear uses and that US dept of Energy had told every one that these tubes could not be used for enrichment purposes.

[Karenina]

7. Remember the "drones?"

model airplanes of balsa held together with duct tape? ;-)

DOWNING STREET MINUTES - OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MINUTES OF AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MEETING

[blm]

5. Kick for solid reporting.

.

[ms.smiler]

8. May 31, 2003 - U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed

WASHINGTON - A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq.

snip

This team, self-mockingly called the Cabal, "cherry-picked the intelligence stream" in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defense Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence.

That agency was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he added in a phone interview. He said the CIA had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.

snip

"There are current intelligence officials who believe it is a scandal," he said in a telephone interview. They believe the administration, before going to war, had a "moral obligation to use the best information available, not just information that fits your preconceived ideas."

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/US_insiders_053103.htm

[LunaC]

21. They're referring to the OSP

(From the link in my sig line)

The Office of Special Plans (OSP) was a secret group of analysts and policy advisors with no status in the intelligence community. Nevertheless they reported directly to the White House and National Security office with cherry-picked intelligence from questionable sources to support the case for invading Iraq. The OSP circumvented formal, well-established oversight procedures, ignored intelligence that didn't further their agenda, expanded the intelligence on weapons beyond what was justified and over-emphasized the national security risk. They became more influential than the CIA or the Defense Intelligence Agency who didn't even know the ultra-secret OSP existed for at least a year.

Because they were based in the Pentagon, it was assumed that the OSP was an intelligence-gathering agency that was second-guessing the CIA but in actuality it was the White House Military Marketing Machine charged with the task of writing the PNAC's "Get Saddam" sales pitch for the public. Shading and bending reality to suit their own purpose, it wasn't important for the OSP's stories about Saddam Hussein to be factual, only that the average American believed them to be - in true Hollywood fashion.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

[Ouabache]

53. Joe Wilson says OSP were the neo-conservative moles in the DOD

That is exactly what he calls them, "moles". He says John Bolton ran the neo-conservative mole operation over at State, and that Cheney has a super secret mole operation of neo-conservatives operating out of his offices. Cheney's operation sort of co-ordinates it all, naturally.

Albert and Roberta Wohlstetter from University of Chicago, and mentors to Wolfowitz and Perle, were the chief interviewers as this was being set up during BUSH I admin ! The Wohlstetters team interviewed lots of people at that time in the DOD to see who was sympathetic, rejecting a lot of officers and former officers per Thomas Lang (himself rejected), according to Wilson. Wilson says his talks with a number of officers showed that they agreed that William J. Luti was definitely accepted as a mid-level neo-con at the DOD. Also per Wilson David Wurmser was one of these people at State, later moving into Cheney's operation.

Of course, OSP in the DOD is supposedly 'out of business' now. Something just tells me it runs out of Cheney's offices now and is piped over to Rummy and his minions?

[Coexist]

9. great stuff!

now why haven't we heard this from our politicians?

[cthrumatrix]

10. the point is the politicians can NOW INVESTIGATE these sources

and the UK memo to see if Bush lied and if there are grounds for impeachment.

They have a chance to do this NOW....will they?

[blm]

12. McCain's commission was supposed to have done this. UK minutes proves he

covered up for Bush when he concluded that CIA analysts were to blame or bad intel.

[cthrumatrix]

32. time to have McCain answer a few questions

[blm]

33. That two-faced creep can be taken down, too. I sure won't cry for him.

I protested outside a Bush event in 2000 because of his attacks on McCain. I sent proMcCain letters to the editor in hopes that it would be a McCain-Gore choice so that at least I could respect whichever one prevailed.

But, McCain has done so much covering up for Bush's crimes and lies that he no longer deserves respect from anyone who cares about the truth and good, honest governance.

[Coexist]

23. I'm hoping!

my fingers are crossed and I can write even more letters. Ever notice that letters get letters in response, and emails hardly ever get anything. My file at the FBI must be getting pretty thick by now.

[blm]

34. Heheh...I'd say many of us have fairly thick files by now.

.

[G_j]

11. How Many More Have to Come Forward?

http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?fmedia_id=6490&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

March 23, 2004

How Many More Have to Come Forward?
By: Andrew Limburg
Independent Media TV

-------

Independent Media TV - Many high ranking officials have come out and said that the Bush Administration has lied and exaggerated selective intelligence to garner support for an Iraqi invasion. Many of whom are conservatives. How many people have to come forward before true hearings are started? How many have to come forward before it will be believed?

<snip> (goes on to talk about specific allegations from various people such as Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke)

[Toots]

13. Someone should get this information to Kerry as he is about to make a case

that the "Cabal" LIED their asses off and LIED to Congress. There was a Rush to War and it is documented by a few brave journalists not belonging to MSM. MSM never mentioned a thing. They were to busy cheerleading the War Effort. I think if Congress or even just Kerry were to investigate all of those unnamed sources would come forward and tell their story. With Richard Clark and Paul O'Neil both high ups in the "Cabal" saying the exact same thing reasonable people would have to come to a reasonable conclusion. Bush* Cabal LIED the US into an unnecessary war. Impeach the Bastards.

[Hissyspit]

14. A LOT of diplomats, intel people and military people complained.

EARLY ON. Americans have just forgotten.

[blm]

15. Most Americans have never heard these statements because broadcast media

never aired the complaints against Bush from these analysts.

Most papers even buried the stories.

[Karenina]

16. Kick!

:kick:

[Hissyspit]

26. That, too.

[PowerToThePeople]

38. I heard it all on NPR, back before it swung right.. n/t

[tex-wyo-dem]

17. Great find!!!

This and any other historical reports that can be found need to be gathered and distributed. This will solidify the case for the DSM and impeachable offenses.

[blm]

19. A timeline that includes all reports such as this backs up the contents

of the Downing Street Minutes.

[DearAbby]

18. Send all relevant information such as this to Conyers and Kerry.

Lets be their right arms in gathering information. Do your Part. God I love DU!

[tex-wyo-dem]

20. And let's not forget this...

"Secret US plans for Iraq's oil" - Palast

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

[LunaC]

22. Hell, they wanted to attacjk Iraq in 1998!

See link in my sig line for all the sordid details.

[johnaries]

24. We need to push this along with Clarke's and O'Neill's statements, and

point out that the Downing Street Minutes corroborates all of them.
Put all together, I'd say the evidence is pretty over-whelming!

[tex-wyo-dem]

25. Kick! n/t

[Zhade]

27. And, um, when did Congress vote on the IWR?

And why did Dems vote yes, when this (among so many other good non-SCLM articles at the time) shows there was no threat?

[blm]

29. IWR stipulated that weapons inspectors go in first. If Bush had adhered to

IWR that would have been NO INVASION.

The IWR was not to blame for Bush going to war. It SHOULD have been the reason that war was avoided.

Everytime the IWR is blamed instead of Bush it works to his advantage and does nothing to advance the truth.

[Zhade]

30. And the Senators who voted yes couldn't have pointed out the lies...

...that were motivating the whole "we must stop this threat now" angle of the inspections?

Sorry. I hold both b*s* AND the IWR yes-voters accountable. If *I* knew at the time there was no threat, they have zero excuse.

[blm]

31. This news was hardly in any papers.

And what you don't care about is how easily you play into Bush's spin that he went to war WITH the IWR and not in spite of it.

THAT is what I find to be monstrously inexcusable and enormously STUPID. TRUTH should matter to everyone.

[Zhade]

36. I'm a monster for holding all accountable and not excusing pro-IWR votes?

Wow.

[blm]

39. No. I used monstrously, as in HUGELY. And you play right into Rove's spin

You blame an IWR vote for the war. The IWR should have PREVENTED war if Bush implemented it honestly.

So, people like you believe the SPIN that Bush went to war WITH the power and the direction of the IWR.

That is false.

Bush was going to war with or without the IWR and would use the UN directive from 1991 to do so. The IWR would have avoided war if Bush had allowed the weapons inspectors to fulfill their job.

Bush went to war in SPITE of the directive from the IWR that weapons inspectors be allowed in to do their job first, and military action would be taken only after it was DETERMINED by Bush that Iraq was a threat AFTER the weapons inspections.

Bush did not go to war WITH the IWR. Bush went to war in SPITE of the IWR.

Why that simple fact is so difficult for some to grasp........oh well....can't let facts get in the way of what someone WANTS to believe.

[Zhade]

41. What you're leaving out is that the IWR wasn't needed at all.

There was no threat from Hussein, and we knew it at the time.

Congress had no business even voting on the IWR.

Now, yes, b*s* did indeed fail to meet the vague terms of the unconstitutional ceding of war powers to the executive branch that Congress wrongfully granted him. But Congress never should have given away their power to declare war (yes, I'm aware of the War Powers Act, and find THAT to be unconstitutional as well).

No matter how much you may wish it, the members of Congress who voted yes on the IWR violated their duty by giving it up to the whim of the executive branch. That is WRONG, and I will never fall silent on that fact.

[blm]

42. Problem is you lay blame on IWR when it's not IWR that took us to war.

You let Bush off the hook every time you blame IWR.

IWR would have PREVENTED war if administered by an honest president. Why is THAT never a priority to you?

You prefer to twist the IWR into a pretzel just for the satisfaction of blaming those you want to blame.

That's EXACTLY what Rove expected from those who would NEVER take the time to think through those parts of the IWR that would have prevented war.

[Zhade]

43. What part of "the IWR shouldn't have been voted on" don't you get?

It was an unconstitutional ceding of powers, and you're damn right I'll blame those members of Congress who gave away their war-making powers.

That has nothing to do with the fact that I have repeatedly taken b*s* to task for lying us into a war. I mean, I've called for the guy to swing in the gallows for his war crimes - don't you think that shows I hate his actions far more than the pro-IWR members of Congress?

I don't recall calling for their heads. Your anger is misdirected and your argument is weak. Both b*s* AND CONGRESS are responsible for this bullshit war. I refuse to absolve those who voted to give away their right to decide on going to war just because your boy was one of them.

No amount of "Rove wants you" spin is going to make me conclude that your flawed argument has merit, because I hold them ALL accountable.

[blm]

44. What part of Rove spun YOU into blaming IWR don't you get?

IWR DIDN'T TAKE THIS NATION TO WAR.

IWR WAS IN PLACE TO PREVENT WAR AND WOULD HAVE IF THE PRESIDENT HAD IMPLEMENTED IT AS WRITTEN.

ROVE SPUN THE MEDIA INTO SAYING BUSH WENT TO WAR WITH THE IWR BACKING HIM, WHEN THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT BUSH WENT TO WAR IN SPITE OF THE IWR AND ITS GUIDELINES.

ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT IWR TOOK US TO WAR IS A MORAN.

I don't care one whit if you want to believe what you want to believe, but, when you ignore facts in a rush to dump on good Democrats using Rove-planted media spin, expect to be countered relentlessly with the TRUTH.

[Zhade]

45. Man, do you just not know how to read?

My argument is that IWR should never have been voted on. And that's accurate. Congress had no business giving away its war-making powers.

Do you agree that Congress should have retained its duty to decide if we should go to war, or do you think the executive branch should have the right to decide when to go to war?

[blm]

46. Sure. But your dump has always been on IWR and the vote.

Just because you're pointing to the War Powers act and the constitutional directive now, doesn't exempt you from your original reply on this thread about the IWR.

YOU chose to invoke the IWR in an attempt to attack for the hundredth time those Democrats who voted for it.

YOU are the one who refuses to acknowledge that the IWR had guidelines to PREVENT war.

YOU are the one who blames IWR and those who voted for it when you should be blaming the president who didn't even USE the IWR guidelines in his decision to go to war.

[Zhade]

47. Again, I BLAME BOTH.

b*s* for lying us into a war, Congress for believing the lies WE and many others were debunking in real time and for voting on an unconstitutional giveaway of Congressional powers.

I have never solely blamed those who voted for the IWR for the war. To say otherwise is a lie, because it simply is not the case.

I don't care how many vague "provisions that would have prevented war" the IWR contained, IT WAS STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Those who voted for it should be held accountable for their decision to turn their decision-making duty over to the executive branch.

Do I think those pro-IWR members of Congress are AS culpable as b*s* for the war? Of course not. Am I angry that they abdicated their duty? Yes! Do I bitch about them doing so? Yes - I expect better from them.

[blm]

48. And blaming THEM and the IWR only lets Bush off the hook. Congrats....

cuz THAT is the bottom line.

[Zhade]

50. Well, I consider that a bullshit argument.

There's no rule that only one party can be held to blame. That's conservative black-or-white thinking, and I don't go there, thanks.

[davekriss]

49. We are all responsible...

...after all, we didn't storm the gates of the White House after December 12 2000 and prevent GWB from usurping the Presidency.

But I, like you, agree that the Democrats that voted "yes" to IWR voted out of (a degree of) cowardice -- we witnessed a stand down in principaled democracy on that October day.

It's dangerous to speak for "all", but I find it hard to believe anyone in the know believed that Saddam Hussein's Iraq represented an immediate threat to the United States. Therefore anyone voting "yes" -- in fact anyone not vigorously resisting Bush's folly -- shares a degree of culpability. There were sufficiently numbered voices at the time of IWR that were questioning whether or not the "intelligence" was being cooked to excuse without any blame a "yes" vote.

The Orwellian march to war began in the early Spring of 2002 when Condie Rice was making the rounds in the major media proclaiming with indignation that there was good reason to believe that a fighter pilot downed in the first days of Operation Desert Storm was still alive and being held captive in some secret prison by Saddam Hussein. That charade was a trial balloon; the White House was testing the waters to see if rage could be flamed and focused on Hussein to eventually allow them to attack (as planned by the PNAC crew long before GWB siezed power). I remember turning to my wife saying that we'd be at war with Iraq within a year.

But while culpability accrues to Democrats who voted "yes" on IWR, it pales in comparison to the Bush administration, Rove and his Wurlitzer, Rumsfeld and the OSP, and the major media (which ceded every last strand of objective reporting). Rove successfully created a climate of political fear -- the less than saintly principaled were worried about reelection chances and feared losing more ground to the Republicans. They reasoned that they needed to look "strong" and voting "no" on IWR would make them look "weak" and open themselves up to traditional Republican attack.

Little did they know that a Wellstone was to be Wellstoned, black box voting and suppression techniques were going to run rampant (yielding the first Republican governer in Georgia in 130 years despite trailing by about 10 points on election eve) -- we lost ground anyway. But their tactical pragmatism does not excuse them from a measure of moral culpability on the matter.

Just remember, though, our enemies are over there ------------------> (on the Right)

[Zhade]

51. Thank you. I never argued that the pro-IWRers were as culpable.

I never would - that would clearly be laughable.

However, I will not excuse the inexcusable, and ceding authority to make war is inexcusable.

[davekriss]

52. I didn't think you asserted "as culpable"...

...I just wanted to make my point that the Bush administration created a climate of fear that made the less-than-saintly chose a (flawed) pragmatic vote. However, I, I assume like you, do not think that excuses them from some (small) culpability for our current situation.

Moreover, debating the "yes/no" merit of the Democrats on IWR is a distraction on a thread that rightly surfaces the pre-war intelligence community dissent. Next thing you know you'll be screaming "Republicrats" and claim there's little difference between the two parties, claiming both to be mere factions of a single party, the CPA (Corporatist Party of America)! ;)

(Hey there'd be some merit to such a scream...)

[Zhade]

54. Well, it's true that it might be seen as threadjacking.

Not my intent - it's just that when I see a story that questioned the reality of the "threat" BEFORE the IWR vote, I wonder why it is that I could see there was no threat, yet members of Congress could not.

I believe the evidence points toward the uncharitable: self-serving votes, and bad ones at that, since the whole deal went south faster than geese in winter.

Once we get these guys out of office (I hope), how are we going to return war-making powers to Congress? The long-term impact of the IWR votes troubles me.

[tex-wyo-dem]

28. kick again! n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

35. evening kick

[jayctravis]

37. Didn't a lot of people resign?

If there's a Deep Throat at work, I'm sure that person has dropped out of sight.

[blm]

40. Bush had Goss purge the CIA of any analysts suspected of speaking against

the use of bad intel.

Bush rewards those who planted the bad intel and got rid of those who warned it was bad intel.

That story has yet to be told to the American people.

[Karenina]

55. Kick!

:kick: