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


To: Don Pueblo who wrote (531267)1/28/2004 12:01:42 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
I look forward to it, frankly. Just the idea of getting rid of some of these chumps so I don't have to listen to them on the news, in a few weeks, is cheering me up. Especially the prospect of Dean going the way of all also rans..........



To: Don Pueblo who wrote (531267)1/28/2004 12:13:48 PM
From: PartyTime  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 28, 2004
Contact: Press Office
Phone: 202.228.3685
Statement of Senator Carl Levin at the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing with Dr. David Kay

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also welcome Dr. Kay to this hearing and state our thanks for his work on the Iraq Survey Group.

Dr. Kay’s recent reported statements – for example that the Intelligence Community was wrong about there being stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war; that it is the Intelligence Community’s consensus that the two alleged “biological” trailers were for hydrogen production, not for producing biological warfare agents; and that Iraq had not reconstituted its nuclear weapons program – stand in sharp contrast to statements made by the Administration before going to war in Iraq. Dr. Kay’s recent statements raise serious questions about the accuracy and objectivity of our intelligence and about the Administration’s public statements before the war that were supposedly based on that intelligence.

Before the war, the Administration, in order to support its decision to go to war, made numerous vivid, unqualified statements about Iraq having in its possession weapons of mass destruction – not “programs”; not “program-related activities”; and not “intentions”, but actual weapons.

For example, on August 26th, 2002, Vice President Cheney gave a major speech about a threat from Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

He asserted the following: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

Vice President Cheney was not talking about programs or intentions; he was talking about existing weapons that were being amassed for use against us.

Here is what Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said in his testimony to this Committee on September 19, 2002: “He's amassed large clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including anthrax, botulism toxin, possibly smallpox. He's amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.”

Notice: not programs or intentions – it’s stockpiles that Saddam Hussein was said to have amassed.

On September 27, 2002 President Bush said that we must make sure that Saddam Hussein “never has the capacity to ... use the stockpiles of anthrax that we know he has, or VX, the biological weapons which he possesses.” Notice again: not programs or intentions – it’s stockpiles and weapons Saddam possesses.

On October 7, 2002, President Bush said that: “It [Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons."

Possesses and produces – not programs or intentions.

On February 5th, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke at the UN. He said:

“We know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agent to various locations.... Most of the launchers and warheads had been hidden in large groves of palm trees and were to be moved every one to four weeks to escape detection.”

“There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons ... And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction.”

He talked about “the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents.... We know what the tanks, pumps, compressors and other parts look like. We know how they fit together, we know how they work, and we know a great deal about the platforms on which they are mounted.... We know that Iraq has at least seven of these mobile, biological agent production factories.”

“Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” “Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons.... And we have sources who tell us that he recently has authorized his field commanders to use them.”

Secretary Powell spoke of actual weapons, not about “program-related activities” or “intentions.”

And on March 11, 2003, just before the start of the war, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said: “we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighborhoods.”

About two weeks later, Secretary Rumsfeld made this statement: “We know where they [weapons of mass destruction] are.”

Just in case there was ever any doubt about the reason given for why we went to war, the President’s Press Secretary restated the point this way on April 10th, 2003: “make no mistake ... we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.”

Incredibly enough, Administration leaders are still saying that we found WMD production facilities. Just last week, Vice President Cheney said that the two trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological weapons labs programs and were “ conclusive evidence, if you will, that he did in fact have programs for weapons of mass destruction.” But today’s witness, David Kay, is reported in the New York Times as saying that the consensus in the Intelligence Community is that those two trailers were for producing hydrogen for weather balloons, or possibly rocket fuel – but not for biological weapons.

Surely we should find out what is the basis for Vice President Cheney’s recent statement as well as the basis for the unqualified statements made before the war I have just quoted.

Unfortunately, as of now, the leadership of the Senate will not allow an inquiry into how the Administration characterized the intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The Intelligence Committee’s inquiry is limited to the question of the production of the intelligence. That Committee is not looking into how that intelligence was used and characterized by policy makers. We will continue to press for an inquiry looking to get the whole story, the full picture. If the only way to obtain that is to have an outside, independent and nonpartisan commission to conduct a comprehensive and objective review of this entire matter – so be it.

Whether one agreed or disagreed with the decision to proceed to war, and whether one agreed or disagreed with the decision to proceed without the support of the international community, acting through the UN, the case made by the Administration for initiating the war against Iraq was not because Iraq had intentions to someday resume production of weapons of mass destruction. It was because they had in their possession weapons of mass destruction.

Although the issue of Iraq’s WMD intentions or ambitions, and program-related activities is a serious issue, it is not why we went to war. The case for war was Iraq’s possession, production, deployment, and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. A different case for war against Iraq can be made, but the case which the Administration made to the American people was the presence of actual weapons of mass destruction.

When lives are at stake and our military is going to be placed in harms way – in other words, when we decide to go to war – it is totally unacceptable to have intelligence that is this far off, or to exaggerate or shape the intelligence for any purpose by anybody.

senate.gov



To: Don Pueblo who wrote (531267)1/28/2004 12:15:04 PM
From: PartyTime  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
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."

truthout.org