Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (110075)	8/5/2003 12:49:33 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

‘We Want Accountability’ ______________________________ Families of loved ones lost in the September 11 terror attacks remain frustrated after a newly released congressional report finds massive intelligence failures preceded the attacks By Jennifer Barrett NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE July 24, 2003 msnbc.com

To: JohnM who wrote (110075)	8/5/2003 2:54:40 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Did Bush or Rummy Authorize Dropping Firebombs on Iraqi Troops...? commondreams.org

To: JohnM who wrote (110075)	8/5/2003 3:21:55 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Intelligence Shouldn't Exist Just to Serve Policy by Ray McGovern Published on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 by the Miami Herald I could scarcely believe my ears listening to Vice President Dick Cheney on July 24 defending the decision to go to war in Iraq. In light of what is now known, it was hard for me at first to tell whether he was applauding or blaming the intelligence adduced to support that fateful decision. The centerpiece of Cheney’s speech was a ''mis-overestimate'' -- the National Intelligence Estimate issued on Oct. 1, 2002. Reciting some of its main judgments, Cheney charged that it would have been ''irresponsible'' to shy away from using force to deal with the threat they depicted. But wait. Has no one told the vice president that the NIE’s conclusions, though described as ''high confidence'' judgments, have been thrown into serious doubt by more than four months of experience in Iraq? Where is the nuclear weapons program Iraq was said to be ''reconstituting''? Where are the chemical and biological weapons Iraq was purported to have? On the very day Cheney spoke, former CIA director John Deutch branded the failure to find such weapons ''an intelligence failure of massive proportions.'' How can such a thing be possible? The National Intelligence Estimate is the most authoritative genre of intelligence analysis provided to the president and his senior advisors. CIA Director George Tenet signs them in his capacity as director of Central Intelligence -- that is, head of all the intelligence agencies, which are involved in its preparation. Having chaired a number of NIEs during my 27-year career at the CIA, I am familiar with the intense care and effort that used to go into working one up. My dismay over how the NIE on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq could have gotten it so wrong prompted a hunt for the reasons. Start with the fact that there was no NIE before the decision for war last summer. Such decisions are supposed to be based on the conclusions of NIE’s, not the other way around. This time the process was reversed. It does not speak well for a Director of Central Intelligence to shy away from serving up the intelligence community’s best estimate anyway (''without fear or favor,'' the way we used to operate). But better no NIE, I suppose, than one served up to suit the preconceived notions of policymakers. But the pressure became intense late last summer after the Bush administration decided to make war. The marketing rollout for the war was keynoted by the vice president, who in a shrill speech on Aug. 26 charged, ''Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.'' An NIE was then ordered up, essentially to support the extreme judgments voiced by Cheney, and its various drafts were used effectively to frighten members of Congress into voting to authorize war. Adding insult to injury, the cockamamie story about Iraq seeking uranium in Niger was accorded three paragraphs in the estimate, prompting State Department intelligence analysts to insist on a footnote branding the story “highly dubious.'' More important, State went on to insist that the evidence that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program was ''inadequate.'' As for when Iraq might have a nuclear weapon, State explained that it was “unwilling to project a timeline for completion of activities it does not now see happening.'' So courage, intelligence analysts! It is possible to stand up to pressure to manipulate and market intelligence to justify prior decisions by policymakers, and it’s a lot easier to look in the mirror the next morning. Many of my former colleagues at the CIA are still holding their noses. One suggested, not wholly in jest, that the biblical verse at the entrance to CIA headquarters -- ''You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free'' -- be sent on rotation to the State Department, to be replaced by “We cook estimates to go.'' ______________________________________ Ray McGovern (rmcgovern@slschool.org) chaired NIEs and briefed the President’s Daily Brief during his 27-year career at CIA. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and co-director of the Servant Leadership School, an inner-city outreach ministry in Washington, DC. © 2003 The Miami Herald commondreams.org

To: JohnM who wrote (110075)	8/6/2003 6:08:21 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Maureen Dowd is right on target about the NeoCONS... ___________________________________________ Neocon Coup at the Department d'État By MAUREEN DOWD Columnist The New York Times August 6, 2003 WASHINGTON - Let others fight over whether the war in Iraq was a neocon vigilante action disrupting diplomacy. The neocons have moved on to a vigilante action to occupy diplomacy. The audacious ones have saddled up their pre-emptive steeds and headed off to force a regime change at Foggy Bottom. President Bush staged a Texan tableau vivant last night, playing host at his ranch to the secretary of state, his wife, Alma, and his deputy, Richard Armitage. Mr. Bush wanted to show solidarity after a Washington Post story on Monday that said that Colin Powell, under pressure from his wife, said he would not be part of a second Bush term, nor would Mr. Armitage. Mr. Bush might be trying to signal his respect for Mr. Powell, but the president is not always privy to the start of a grandiose neocon scheme. The scene was reminiscent of last August in Crawford, when Mr. Bush dismissed press "churning" that the administration was on the verge of striking Iraq, saying, "When I say I'm a patient man, I mean I'm a patient man and that we will look at all options and we will consider all technologies available to us, and diplomacy and intelligence." We all know how that turned out. When the neocons want something done, they'll get it done, no matter what Mr. Bush thinks. And they think Mr. Powell has downgraded the top cabinet post into a human resources job, making nicey-nice with the U.N. and assorted bad guys instead of pursuing the neocon blueprint for world domination through what James Woolsey calls World War IV (World War III being the cold war.) Countering the Post story, Mr. Powell's posse claimed that neither the secretary of state nor his deputy had ever said they intended to step down, and charged that the neocons were leaking a canard to turn the two men they consider lame doves into lame ducks. "This is the revenge of the neocons for two months of bad news, looking like they're falling all over themselves in Iraq," said a Powell confidant, noting that Alma Powell was furious she had been dragged in. In The Post, nearly all of the names of those who could move up if Mr. Powell moves out are Iraq hawks: Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz and Newt Gingrich were mentioned as candidates for secretary of state; Wolfie, Cheney Chief of Staff Scooter Libby and Condi deputy Steve Hadley, who may be radioactive after the uranium mistake, were mentioned for national security chief. Mr. Wolfowitz has been tacitly campaigning for the jobs. He told Charlie Rose about his vice-regal trip to Iraq, where he said at last grateful Iraqis were thronging. "As we would drive by, little kids would run up to the road and give us a thumbs up sign," he said. (At least he thought it was the thumb.) The move against the popular Powell had all the earmarks of the neocons' pre-emptive strike on Iraq. 1.) Demonize. Reiterating his speech trashing Foggy Bottom last April for propping up dictators and coddling the corrupt, Mr. Gingrich — a Rummy ally who serves on the Defense Policy Board — called for "top-to-bottom reform and culture shock" at State in an article in the July Foreign Policy magazine. 2.) Sex-up the intelligence. The leakers spread word that Mr. Armitage told Condi that he and Mr. Powell would leave on Jan. 21, 2005, the day after the next presidential inauguration. "Nonsense," said Mr. Powell. "Nonsense," said Mr. Armitage. 3.) Create a false rationale. Everyone knew the pair might not stay for a second term. But the neocons were impatient to give them a push, blaming poor Alma Powell for henpecking her husband when they were. 4.) Bring about regime change. 5.) Fail to prepare for the aftermath. "Newt as secretary of state?" sneered one Powell pal. "Hel-lo?" 6.) Make sure it's good for Ariel Sharon. Just as the neocons made their move on Mr. Powell, pro-Israel hawks scorned the secretary for not being on their team in the peace process. Israel's supporters scoffed at the new threat to cut loan guarantees as a State Department policy, not a White House policy. 7.) Ignore the real threat. While the neocons are preoccupying the country with Iraq and a coup at the department d'état, Al Qaeda may have blown up a Marriott in Indonesia and are plotting attacks here. 8.) Change the subject. Next stop, North Korea. nytimes.com