SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tsigprofit who wrote (1827)6/2/2003 5:22:45 PM
From: tsigprofit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20773
 
Administration grossly manipulated intelligence on WMD
truthout.org

Save Our Spooks
NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Saturday 31 May 2003

On Day 71 of the Hunt for Iraqi W.M.D., yesterday, once again nothing turned up.

Maybe we'll do better on Day 72. But we might have better luck searching for something just as alarming: the growing evidence that the administration grossly manipulated intelligence about those weapons of mass destruction in the ruup to the Iraq war.

A column earlier this month on this issue drew a torrent of covert communications from indignant spooks who say that administration officials leaned on them to exaggerate the Iraqi threat and deceive the public.

"The American people were manipulated," bluntly declares one person from the Defense Intelligence Agency who says he was privy to all the intelligence there on Iraq. These people are coming forward because they are fiercely proud of the deepest ethic in the intelligence world — that such work should be nonpolitical — and are disgusted at efforts to turn them into propagandists.

"The Al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S.," notes Greg Thielmann, who retired in September after 25 years in the State Department, the last four in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. "And the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things."

The outrage among the intelligence professionals is so widespread that they have formed a group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, that wrote to President Bush this month to protest what it called "a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions."

"While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes," the letter said, "never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war."

Ray McGovern, a retired C.I.A. analyst who briefed President Bush's father in the White House in the 1980's, said that people in the agency were now "totally demoralized." He says, and others back him up, that the Pentagon took dubious accounts from émigrés close to Ahmad Chalabi and gave these tales credibility they did not deserve.

Intelligence analysts often speak of "humint" for human intelligence (spies) and "sigint" for signals intelligence (wiretaps). They refer contemptuously to recent work as "rumint," or rumor intelligence.

"I've never heard this level of alarm before," said Larry Johnson, who used to work in the C.I.A. and State Department. "It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt."

Some say that top Pentagon officials cast about for the most sensational nuggets about Iraq and used them to bludgeon Colin Powell and seduce President Bush. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, has been generally liked and respected within the agency ranks, but in the last year, particularly in the intelligence directorate, people say that he has kowtowed to Donald Rumsfeld and compromised the integrity of his own organization.

"We never felt that there was any leadership in the C.I.A. to qualify or put into context the information available," one veteran said. "Rather there was a tendency to feed the most alarming tidbits to the president. Often it's the most ill-considered information that goes to the president.

"So instead of giving the president the most considered, carefully examined information available, basically you give him the garbage. And then in a few days when it's clear that maybe it wasn't right, well then, you feed him some more hot garbage."

The C.I.A. is now examining its own record, and that's welcome. But the atmosphere within the intelligence community is so poisonous, and the stakes are so high — for the credibility of America's word and the soundness of information on which we base American foreign policy — that an outside examination is essential.

Congress must provide greater oversight, and President Bush should invite Brent Scowcroft, the head of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a man trusted by all sides, to lead an inquiry and, in a public report, suggest steps to restore integrity to America's intelligence agencies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go to Original

Straw, Powell Had Serious Doubts Over Their Iraqi Weapons Claims : Secret transcript revealed
Dan Plesch and Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian

Saturday 31 May 2003

Jack Straw and his US counterpart, Colin Powell, privately expressed serious doubts about the quality of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programme at the very time they were publicly trumpeting it to get UN support for a war on Iraq, the Guardian has learned.

Their deep concerns about the intelligence - and about claims being made by their political bosses, Tony Blair and George Bush - emerged at a private meeting between the two men shortly before a crucial UN security council session on February 5.

The meeting took place at the Waldorf hotel in New York, where they discussed the growing diplomatic crisis. The exchange about the validity of their respective governments' intelligence reports on Iraq lasted less than 10 minutes, according to a diplomatic source who has read a transcript of the conversation.

The foreign secretary reportedly expressed concern that claims being made by Mr Blair and President Bush could not be proved. The problem, explained Mr Straw, was the lack of corroborative evidence to back up the claims.

Much of the intelligence were assumptions and assessments not supported by hard facts or other sources.

Mr Powell shared the concern about intelligence assessments, especially those being presented by the Pentagon's office of special plans set up by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz.

Mr Powell said he had all but "moved in" with US intelligence to prepare his briefings for the UN security council, according to the transcripts.

But he told Mr Straw he had come away from the meetings "apprehensive" about what he called, at best, circumstantial evidence highly tilted in favour of assessments drawn from them, rather than any actual raw intelligence.

Mr Powell told the foreign secretary he hoped the facts, when they came out, would not "explode in their faces".

What are called the "Waldorf transcripts" are being circulated in Nato diplomatic circles. It is not being revealed how the transcripts came to be made; however, they appear to have been leaked by diplomats who supported the war against Iraq even when the evidence about Saddam Hussein's programme of weapons of mass destruction was fuzzy, and who now believe they were lied to.

People circulating the transcripts call themselves "allied sources supportive of US war aims in Iraq at the time".

The transcripts will fuel the controversy in Britain and the US over claims that London and Washington distorted and exaggerated the intelligence assessments about Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programme.

An unnamed intelligence official told the BBC on Thursday that a key claim in the dossier on Iraq's weapons released by the British government last September - that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack within 45 minutes of an order - was inserted on the instructions of officials in 10 Downing Street.

Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, admitted the claim was made by "a single source; it wasn't corroborated".

Speaking yesterday in Warsaw, the Polish capital, Mr Blair said the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in the dossier was "evidence the truth of which I have absolutely no doubt about at all".

He said he had consulted the heads of the security and intelligence services before emphatically denying that Downing Street had leaned on them to strengthen their assessment of the WMD threat in Iraq. He insisted he had "absolutely no doubt" that proof of banned weapons would eventually be found in Iraq. Whitehall sources make it clear they do not share the prime minister's optimism.

The Waldorf transcripts are all the more damaging given Mr Powell's dramatic 75-minute speech to the UN security council on February 5, when he presented declassified satellite images, and communications intercepts of what were purported to be conversations between Iraqi commanders, and held up a vial that, he said, could contain anthrax.

Evidence, he said, had come from "people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam is really up to".

Some of the intelligence used by Mr Powell was provided by Britain.

The US secretary of state, who was praised by Mr Straw as having made a "most powerful and authoritative case", also drew links between al-Qaida and Iraq - a connection dismissed by British intelligence agencies. His speech did not persuade France, Germany and Russia, who stuck to their previous insistence that the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq should be given more time to do their job.

The Waldorf meeting took place a few days after Downing Street presented Mr Powell with a separate dossier on Iraq's banned weapons which he used to try to strengthen the impact of his UN speech.

A few days later, Downing Street admitted that much of its dossier was lifted from academic sources and included a plagiarised section written by an American PhD student.

Mr Wolfowitz set up the Pentagon's office of special plans to counter what he and his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, considered inadequate - and unwelcome - intelligence from the CIA.

He angered critics of the war this week in a Vanity Fair magazine interview in which he cited "bureaucratic reasons" for the White House focusing on Iraq's alleged arsenal as the reason for the war. In reality, a "huge" reason for the conflict was to enable the US to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia, he said.

Earlier in the week, Mr Rumsfeld suggested that Saddam might have destroyed such weapons before the war.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)



To: tsigprofit who wrote (1827)6/3/2003 3:16:21 PM
From: Ron  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 20773
 
Poll shows U.S. isolation: In war's wake, hostility and mistrust
Meg Bortin/IHT International Herald Tribune
Tuesday, June 3, 2003

PARIS The war in Iraq has widened the rift between the United States and the rest of the world, with a steep plunge in Americans' views of their traditional allies and a further surge of anti-Americanism in Muslim countries, a global opinion survey shows.

The poll of more than 15,000 people in 20 countries and the Palestinian Authority, conducted in May by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, also showed a significant loss of faith in two major international institutions created out of the ashes of World War II - the United Nations and NATO.

"The figures show that the publics - the European public and our public - are feeling that the ties that have bound us together for the last 50 years are weakening," said Madeleine Albright, the former U.S. secretary of state and chair of the Pew Global Attitudes Project. "I see this as very serious."

The poll forcefully supported the finding of an earlier survey that a U.S. war with Iraq would fuel anti-American sentiment.

As could be expected, this feeling is strongest in the Muslim world, where negative attitudes toward the United States have soared since the war on Iraq began March 20 with a wave of American air attacks over Baghdad.

One of the most extreme shifts was seen in Turkey, where the government, heeding popular sentiment, decided not to allow United States to use its soil as a base for attacks on Iraq although Washington and Ankara are partners in NATO.

The poll found that 83 percent of Turks now have an unfavorable opinion of the United States, up from 55 percent last summer.

The swing was even sharper in Indonesia, where Islamic radicalism has been rising since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

While 75 percent had a favorable opinion of the United States in 2000, 83 percent now have an unfavorable view. Similar levels of animosity hold sway in the Palestinian Authority and Jordan.

In fact, feelings are so intense in the Islamic world that Osama bin Laden was chosen by five Muslim publics - in Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority - as one of the three political leaders they would most trust to "do the right thing" in world affairs.

Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, said he had been surprised by the extent to which "the bottom has fallen out" in the Muslim world.

"Anti-Americanism has deepened, but it has also widened," he said. "You now find it in the far reaches of Africa - in Nigeria, among Muslims - and in Indonesia. People see America as a real threat. They think we're going to invade them."

In Europe, in contrast, the image of the United States has improved since a poll in March, just before the onset of hostilities in Iraq. Yet favorable views among America's main allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization remain sharply down from levels last year.

In France, Germany and Spain, where public anger over the U.S. war plans spilled massively into the streets this winter, fewer than 50 percent have a positive view of the United States, the poll showed.

Among the French, who took an uncharacteristically univocal stand in opposing the war, favorable opinion of the United States has recovered to 43 percent - up from what Pew describes as the "abysmal" level of 31 percent in March, but well below the 63 percent favorable rating of last summer.

The Germans, who joined the French at the head of Europe's anti-war front, also remain wary of the United States, with 45 percent having a favorable opinion, up from 25 percent in March but down from 61 percent in the summer of 2002.

Animosity is far stronger on the other side of the Atlantic, where Americans were infuriated by the failure of traditional allies - and especially the French - to back them in the war.

Only 29 percent of Americans now say they have a very favorable or somewhat favorable view of France, down from 79 percent in February 2002. And just 44 percent of Americans take a favorable view of Germany now - a dramatic plunge from 83 percent in February 2002.

"The figures confirm that the Iraq crisis has precipitated a profound crisis in trans-Atlantic relations, which I think had been building for some time," said Timothy Garton Ash, author and director of the European Studies Center at Oxford.

"The deepest cause is the end of the Cold War and the fact that we no longer have a common enemy - the Soviet Union."

Among the West European allies, favorable opinion of the United States is strongest by far in Britain, America's chief partner in the war despite considerable domestic opposition to the cooperation provided by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Positive views among the British have bounced back to 70 percent, up from 48 percent in March.

Favorable opinion among the allies is weakest in Spain, where the government ignored overwhelming popular opposition to the war and backed the United States and Britain.

Only 38 percent of Spaniards now have a positive opinion of the United States - a big increase, however, from 14 percent in March.

The hostility in Spain is not limited to U.S. policies but extends to Americans as people - fewer than half have a positive impression. But approval of "the American people" remains solid in France, where 58 percent have a favorable view, Germany (67 percent), Italy (77 percent, up 3 points since last summer) and Britain (80 percent).

Asked if they had an unfavorable view of the United States because of George W. Bush or a more general problem with America, a majority in Western Europe blamed the president. Nearly three quarters in France and Germany blame Bush, as do two-thirds in Italy and six out of 10 in Britain.

Bush, said Garton Ash, stirred European resentment by "basically giving key allies like France and Germany the feeling that, 'We don't really care whether you're with us or not,'" and in forcing the timetable. "If Bush had given us a few more months of negotiation he could probably have got the Europeans on board," he said.

"Especially now that we know Saddam didn't have a nuclear weapon in the cellar ready to use."

One casualty of the increased strains between America and Europe is NATO. A more independent approach to security and diplomatic affairs for Western Europe was favored by more than three-quarters in France, more than six out of 10 in Spain, Turkey and Italy, and 57 percent in Germany.

Britons are divided on the idea of loosening the partnership, with 51 percent favoring continued close ties and 45 percent wanting a more independent approach.

Even in the United States, a big minority - 39 percent - favors an easing of the security and diplomatic bonds that have cemented the alliance since the end of World War II.

"For those of us who care about NATO, this is a red flag," Albright said. "The only way to get beyond this is to find more ways we can work together in NATO. I think it's a relevant organization, but it can't be relevant if you don't work at it."

Another casualty of the war is the credibility of the United Nations, where protracted bickering in the run-up to the Iraq war failed to prevent hostilities.

"Favorability ratings for the world body have tumbled in 16 of the 18 countries for which benchmark figures are available," the Pew report notes. "Majorities or pluralities in most countries believe that the war in Iraq showed the UN to be less important than it once was."

In fact, not a single country surveyed has a majority who believes that the United Nations still plays an important role in dealing with international conflicts.

A further consequence of the war is a new decline in post-9/11 sympathy for the United States. Since last summer, support for America's war on terror has dropped to 60 percent from 75 percent in France, to 60 percent from 70 percent in Germany and to 51 percent from 73 percent in Russia.

Over the same period, opposition to the war on terror has swelled to more than 70 percent in Pakistan and Turkey and to 97 percent in Jordan.

With the exception of Israel, Nigeria and the United States itself, all the countries surveyed judge U.S. policies to be too unilateralist. Fully 85 percent of the French said they felt that the United States did not take into account the interests of other countries. At least seven out of 10 shared this sentiment in South Korea, Spain, Russia and Canada, as did two thirds in Australia and Germany.

Majorities in most countries polled reject the so-called Bush doctrine of military preemption. Those with majorities backing the doctrine were traditional U.S. allies - Canada, Britain, Australia and Israel - as well as Pakistan, which is involved in a military face-off with India over Kashmir and where fully 70 percent said that "military force against countries that may seriously threaten our country, but have not attacked us," can be often or sometimes justified.

As for the conduct of the war itself, majorities in every country surveyed except Spain and Turkey felt their own government made the right decision to use or not use force, or offer bases to the United States, as the case may be.

Still, majorities in many countries that opposed the use of force say they believe Iraqis are better off since the ouster of Saddam Hussein. In France and Germany, more than three-quarters say this is the case, and 70 percent in Spain agree.

Among the populations surveyed, Muslims were divided on this, with majorities or pluralities in Nigeria, Lebanon and Kuwait saying Iraqis were better off without Saddam, while most people in Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority said the Iraqis were worse off.

Underlying some of the opinions that have emerged since the war are attitudes on national identity and social values uncovered in an earlier Pew survey of more than 38,000 people in 44 countries.

The survey, conducted in 2002, demonstrated broad acceptance of U.S. ideals like democracy, the free-market model and, surprisingly, even globalization.

Yet at the same time, people in many countries see their way of life as threatened and want protection from foreign influence.

This feeling is strongest of all in Turkey, which feared being drawn into fighting in Iraq and where, even before the war, nearly 90 percent said their way of life needed defending.