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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (528936)	1/25/2004 9:14:37 AM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 769667

>>> Firstly, there was a problem with Iraq, particularly over the interpretation of the WMD issue. Many said they had been openly sceptical about the presence of WMD in Iraq for years. There was a systematic failure, they believe, in the way intelligence was interpreted. This was because they were under pressure to provide the government with what it wanted, namely that Iraq possessed WMD and that it posed a clear and present danger.<<< sundayherald.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (528936)	1/25/2004 9:15:28 AM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 769667

>>> Secondly, they say intelligence was “cherry-picked” about Iraq: that damning intelligence against Iraq was selectively chosen, whilst intelligence assessments, which might have worked against the build-up to war, were sidelined. The government was looking for anything that would cast Iraq in a negative light.<<< sundayherald.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (528936)	1/25/2004 9:16:27 AM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 769667

>>> Thirdly, they claim that a political agenda had crept into the work of the intelligence community and they found themselves in the position of taking orders from politicians. When asked if direct lies were told to the British public, the answer was that the intelligence they supplied was one- sided and produced on demand to politicians.<<< sundayherald.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (528936)	1/25/2004 9:17:19 AM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 769667

>>> Fourthly, the intelligence community got into the habit of making worst-case scenarios and these were used to make factual claims by politicians. The intelligence community accepts that intelligence was used for political ends. But they also understand that intelligence is not supposed to help politicians justify their actions as that distorts the nature of what intelligence work is about.<<< sundayherald.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (528936)	1/25/2004 9:20:16 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

>>>n fact, in June last year the Sunday Herald revealed that Britain ran a covert “dirty tricks”operation designed specifically to produce misleading intelligence that Saddam had WMD in order to give the UK an excuse to wage war on Iraq.<<< sundayherald.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (528936)	1/25/2004 9:33:48 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

>>>"...It was set up to “cherry-pick” intelligence proving an active Iraqi WMD programme and to ignore and quash intelligence which indicated that Saddam’s stockpiles had been destroyed or wound down.<<< sundayherald.com Everything seems to fit. In past posts I've referenced Cheney's 2002 speech before the 103rd VFW convention. In this speech Cheney highlights information learned from Saddam's son-in-law who stated two things: a) Iraq was close to a nuclear program in the late 80's; and, b) Iraq had destroyed and buried its WMD shortly after the first gulf war. At this convention speech, Cheney selectively cited only the nuclear part and completely ignored the WMD burial part. Think: "The whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God!" And then, of course, there's this: Ex-CIA Officers Questioning Iraq Data By John J. Lumpkin Associated Press Friday 14 March 2003 A small group composed mostly of retired CIA officers is appealing to colleagues still inside to go public with any evidence the Bush administration is slanting intelligence to support its case for war with Iraq. Members of the group contend the Bush administration has released information on Iraq that meets only its ends -- while ignoring or withholding contrary reporting. They also say the administration's public evidence about the immediacy of Iraq's threat to the United States and its alleged ties to al-Qaida is unconvincing, and accuse policy-makers of pushing out some information that does not meet an intelligence professional's standards of proof. "It's been cooked to a recipe, and the recipe is high policy," said Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA veteran who briefed top Reagan administration security officials before retiring in 1990. "That's why a lot of my former colleagues are holding their noses these days." A CIA spokesman suggested McGovern and his supporters were unqualified to describe the quality of intelligence provided to policy-makers. "He left the agency over a decade ago," said spokesman Mark Mansfield. "He's hardly in a position to comment knowledgeably on that subject." McGovern's group, calling itself Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, includes about 25 retired officers, mostly from the CIA's analytical branch but with a smattering from its operational side and other agencies, he said. Carrying an anti-war bent, they invoke the names of whistle-blowers like Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, a top secret study on U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Leaking classified national defense information is illegal, and CIA officers take a secrecy oath when they join. Prosecutions of violations are rare, but government personnel caught leaking nondefense information may lose their security clearances, or their jobs. Federal law also offers protections to whistle-blowers in some cases. McGovern and his supporters acknowledge their appeal to their colleagues inside the CIA and other agencies is unusual. The CIA's culture tends to keep disputes inside the family, and many intelligence officers shun discussions of American policy -- such as whether war on Iraq is justified -- saying it is their job to provide information, not to decide how to act on it. McGovern, who now works in an inner-city outreach ministry in Washington, said of his group's request, "It goes against the whole ethic of secrecy and going through channels, and going to the (Inspector General). It takes a courageous person to get by all that, and say, 'I've got a higher duty.'" Agency spokesman Mansfield said, "Our role is to call it like we see it, to provide objective, unvarnished assessments. That's the code we live by, and that's what policy-makers expect from us." The administration says its information is sound. During Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the United Nations Security Council last month, he said, "These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." But other countries have challenged the accuracy of several of Powell's statements. And it is no secret that in the past some people with access to intelligence information -- such as members of Congress or a presidential administration -- have leaked selected pieces that lend support to a given policy. This can provide the public with a less-than-complete picture of what the CIA and other agencies have learned. Another member of McGovern's group, Patrick Eddington, resigned from the CIA in 1996 to protest what he describes as the agency's refusal to investigate some of the possible causes of Gulf War veterans' medical problems. Eddington said would-be whistle-blowers can privately contact members of Congress to get their message out. "They have to basically put conscience before career," he said. Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, said he saw little chance of CIA analysts going public to contradict the Bush administration. "Sure, there's a lot of disagreement among analysts in the intelligence community on how things are going to be used (by policy-makers)," he said. "But you are not going to see people making public resignations. That would mean giving up your career."

To: stockman_scott who wrote (528936)	1/25/2004 9:44:42 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

>>> “We know … that prior to our going in that [Saddam] had spent time and effort acquiring mobile biological weapons labs,” Cheney said, reiterating a long-discredited claim that military trailers found in Iraq were mobile bio-weapons labs. In fact, the labs were, according to British weapons experts who examined them, used for producing hydrogen to fill artillery balloons.<<< Of course, the Brits knew this since it was Britain who, in fact, sold this balloon equipment to Iraq. But Bush--whose dad was a former president and former CIA director--and Cheney--who was the former DOD top dog--didn't? I guess Bush and Cheney only wanted, for political purposes, to feed Americans yet another dose of saspisash. >>>The Observer has discovered that not only did the Iraq military have such a system at one time, but that it was actually sold to them by the British. In 1987 Marconi, now known as AMS, sold the Iraqi army an Artillery Meteorological System or Amets for short.<<< observer.guardian.co.uk For a humorous version of this, see below: irregulartimes.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (528936)	1/25/2004 9:48:55 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Hey, I've got an idea! Let's bring back Bush's Ari and Blair's Allistair. Have the two pro-war presidential and prime ministerial mouthpieces really gone to where all the flowers have gone? Any GOPwinger advocating this Iraq war has to ask why did Bush and Blair both release their mouthpieces from further duty? >>> So, just as Hutton is about to announce the findings of his investigation, there is a rising clamour for yet another inquiry – this time not dealing with the death of just one whistle-blowing government scientist, but rather with the deaths of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children and hundreds of American and British troops. FOUR QUESTIONS HUTTON MUST ANSWER 1 Did the government ‘sex up’ the September 24 dossier justifying war against Saddam Hussein? We know the document was changed by John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, at the suggestion of Blair’s spin-meister Alastair Campbell and other aides. Campbell suggested 15 changes, including one to a passage claiming Iraq “may be able” to deploy WMD within 45 minutes, which he described as “weak”. Scarlett changed it to “are able to”. 2 Did the BBC Today reporter Andrew Gilligan exaggerate comments made by Kelly and was the BBC wrong in standing by them? It is not clear whether Kelly specifically blamed Campbell for inserting the 45-minute claim, as Gilligan claimed. It is known that BBC executives had reservations about Gilligan’s use of language and that the board of governors defended the report without knowing of those reservations. However, it is also clear that most of the claims in Gilligan’s report have been shown to be true. 3 Was David Kelly given adequate protection by his superiors after he told them he had talked to Gilligan? Richard Hatfield, MoD personnel director, said he had given “outstanding support” to Kelly. Kelly himself told journalist Nick Rufford that he had been “put through the wringer” by Hatfield and other MoD officials. It’s clear that while Kelly had been warned that the media were likely to name him as Gilligan’s source, he was not told that a decision had been taken to confirm his name to any journalist who put it to the MoD. 4 Who was responsible for the strategy of confirming Kelly as Gilligan’s source? Campbell and Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon wanted his name out. Sir Kevin Tebbit, the MoD’s most senior civil servant, told the inquiry the PM approved the strategy . Blair had earlier denied authorising Kelly’s naming but later said he took ‘‘full responsibility’’ for the government’s decisions.<<< sundayherald.com