| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:13 pm Post subject: Senate Asks Pentagon to Probe Feith Role on Iraq |
| US Support of Israel Primary Motivation for US Terror Problem:
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorilla-in-room-is-us-support-for.html
One can see a picture of this JINSA (Jewish) Neocon (Israel first) traitor to America at the top of www.nowarforisrael.com as one can look up Feith in the index of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book as well :
Senate Asks Pentagon to Probe Feith Role on Iraq
Reuters
Tuesday 08 November 2005
Washington - The Pentagon's inspector general has been asked to investigate the prewar intelligence role of a planning office headed by former US defense policy chief Douglas Feith, a main architect of the Iraq war, officials said on Tuesday.
The request was made by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in a letter sent in August.
It said the Defense Department should determine whether Feith and his Office of Special Plans wielded excessive influence over intelligence that claimed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The threat of such weapons, which have never been found in Iraq, was cited as a main justification for President George W. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003.
A Defense Department spokesman said it had not yet decided whether to undertake the investigation.
Democrats have put pressure on the Republicans who control Congress to speed up an investigation of whether the Bush administration twisted or misused intelligence in the run-up to the war, which was strongly supported by several top Pentagon officials including Feith.
Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, Republican chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, asked the Pentagon's inspector general to look into the activities of Feith's office after officials stopped cooperating with a Senate probe of prewar intelligence on Iraq.
Republicans blame the slackening in Pentagon cooperation on public suggestions by Democrats that Feith's office could be guilty of illegal activities.
"This is in response to problems we had getting them to testify. To get a good look at the situation, asked the IG to look into it," Roberts spokeswoman Sarah Ross Little said.
However, Democrats on the committee including the vice chairman, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, opposed Roberts' action and warned the move could delay the Senate investigation of Feith's office by up to a year.
Scathing Report
The Senate committee, which produced a scathing report on US prewar intelligence in July 2004, is due to examine the Office of Special Plans as part of a second-phase probe into how Bush administration officials used intelligence on Iraq while making their case for war.
"In no way does the vice chairman believe the IG's investigation should be a substitute for the committee's work. The committee agreed to look at this and it needs to fulfill its commitment," said Rockefeller spokeswoman Wendy Morigi.
She said Rockefeller was not aware of Roberts' request to the inspector general until after the letter had been sent.
Feith was not available for comment.
Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said the inspector general's office had not decided whether to proceed with the Senate's request.
"My understanding is that they have a request from (Capitol) Hill to look at this, but that the IG's office is still evaluating that request," Whitman said in an e-mail responding to queries from Reuters.
Critics including Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Armed Services and a leading member of the intelligence panel, have accused Feith of using the Office of Special Plans to manipulate information to support the 2003 US-led invasion.
Some lawmakers also believe Feith bypassed the CIA to provide uncorroborated intelligence directly to the White House, including information from Ahmad Chalabi, the discredited Iraqi politician and former exile leader who is visiting Washington this week.
Feith, who left the Pentagon earlier this year, has also been blamed for overseeing what is widely considered to have been inadequate postwar planning in Iraq, which is now gripped by a bloody insurgency.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/11/10/senate-dems-up-the-pressu_n_10451.html
-------
Last edited by Alpha on Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:45 pm; edited 1 time in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:15 pm Post subject: Interview Tomorrow with Tillawi |
| Subject: Interview Tomorrow with Tillawi
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:59:53 -0500
http://www.currentissues.tv/
This Thursday November 10, 2005, Dr. Hesham Tillawi will interview Stephen Sniegoski Author of "War on Iraq - Conceived In Israel" (link to articles) : http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/20030102.php
Dr Stephen J Sniegoski, Ph.D., holds his doctorate in American history from the University of Maryland, with a specialty in American diplomatic history. He is the author of numerous articles dealing with World War II, the war on Iraq, and political philosophy that have appeared in such publications as Telos, The World and I, Modern Age, Current Concerns, The Occidental Quarterly, and The Last Ditch.
"Is there any evidence that Israel and her supporters have managed to get the United States to fight for their interests?"
"To unearth the real motives for the projected war on Iraq, one must ask the critical question: How did the 9/11 terrorist attack lead to the planned war on Iraq, even though there is no real evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11? From the time of the 9/11 attack, neoconservatives, of primarily (though not exclusively) Jewish ethnicity and right-wing Zionist persuasion, have tried to make use of 9/11 to foment a broad war against Islamic terrorism, the targets of which would coincide with the enemies of Israel."
In the second hour Dr Tillawi will interview one of America's greatest patriots, former United States Senator, the Honorable James Abourezk [SD]
A maverick who questioned the political status quo and the first Arab-American to serve in the Senate, James Abourezk was one of the few people with the foresight to condemn George Bush's neo-conservative inspired War in Iraq from the beginning, long before it became fashionable in contemporary liberal circles. Abourezk predicted the obvious – Bush's War in Iraq would fail and only increase world terrorism, not suppress it. The Mainstream Media doesn't want you to know about Abourezk or to remember that he said BEFORE the invasion:
1 - Moves toward an attack on Iraq [were/are] motivated by Israel.
2 - "If America launched an attack on somebody without any provocation and declaration of war, then it will lose its moral standards," [Abu Ghraib - Gitmo]
3 - "Bush, pushed by Israel, is trying to build a case against Iraq without evidence." [I would ad that this is being done right now against Iran as well]
So join us Thursday night, November 10, 2005, between 8 PM and 10 PM to hear the uncomfortable truth behind the invasion of Iraq and hear it from a former United States Senator | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:39 am Post subject: Pentagon agrees to probe Feith's role in Iraq intel |
| One can see Feith near the top of www.nowarforisrael.com as he is listed in the index of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book (page 403 of the recently released paperback version of 'A Pretext for War' conveys how Israeli generals walked to Feith's office at the Pentagon like they owned the place):
Now, take a look at pages 261-269 of Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book by scrolling down to such at the following URL as you can't tell me that the primary motivation for the Iraq invasion wasn't for Israel via the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocon cabal via Cheney's office (keep in mind that Cheney was associated with JINSA and PNAC as well):
'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda (pages 261-269 from James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/11/a-clean-break-from-james-bamford-s-a-pretext-for-war.php
Fisk was a real piece of work in pushing the 'war for oil' line at UCLA this past Monday night, however, he made no mention of such in the following article about JINSA (which is where I first learned about JINSA as Fisk had simply seen Jason Vest's 'Men from JINSA and CSP' article from 'The Nation'):
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/vest
Pentagon agrees to probe Feith's role in Iraq intel
Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:42 PM ET
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon's inspector general has agreed to review the prewar intelligence activities of former U.S. defense undersecretary Douglas Feith, a main architect of the Iraq war, congressional officials said on Thursday.
News of the Defense Department probe comes at a time of bitter political debate over whether President George W. Bush misled the American people with prewar intelligence. The increasingly biter dispute has pitted the president and his top advisers against lawmakers including some from Bush's own Republican Party.
Democrats have accused Feith of manipulating information from sources including discredited Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi to suggest links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, which masterminded the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Bush and other top administration officials cited alleged ties between Iraq and al Qaeda as a justification for military action. But the September 11 commission later reported that no collaborative relationship existed between the two.
The inspector general's office informed the Senate on October 19 that it would undertake a review after receiving separate requests from the Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, officials said.
Congressional officials expect the review to look at whether Feith and his staff bypassed the CIA by giving the White House uncorroborated intelligence that sought to make a case for war in the months leading up to the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Feith, who was the Pentagon's policy chief until he left the Defense Department for the private sector earlier this year, was not immediately available for comment.
Officials said the Pentagon's inspector general told the Senate its review would begin sometime in November. One official estimated the probe could take at least six months.
"We're going to try to expedite it as much as possible," said Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, the Senate intelligence panel chairman who asked the inspector general on September 9 for a review of Feith's Office of Special Plans.
"The IG knows we are very eager to get this done but he wants to get it done right," he told Reuters.
Roberts said his request had been incorporated with a later one from Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, who asked acting Defense Department Inspector General Tom Gimble in a September 22 letter for a broad probe encompassing all elements of Feith's Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said in an e-mail on Thursday that the inspector general's office was still discussing the requests with committee staff.
Defense officials have defended Feith, saying no credible evidence of wrongdoing by him or his staff has ever been discovered. They also say Democratic lawmakers never responded to a Pentagon challenge to produce incriminating evidence.
A copy of Levin's letter to Gimble, which was obtained by Reuters, asks the inspector general to consider 10 questions including whether Feith's office undercut the intelligence community by providing the White House with its own analysis that went beyond the scope of the underlying intelligence.
Levin also wants the inspector general to look into whether Feith misled Congress in January 2004 by providing oversight committees with reports dealing with the credibility of prewar intelligence on Iraq.
Roberts' office declined to provide a copy of his written request to the inspector general.
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll this week said 63 percent of Americans oppose Bush's handling of the Iraq war, and 52 percent say troops should be pulled out now or within 12 months.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lie Factory:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:35 pm Post subject: Office of former Rumsfeld policy chief investigated |
| http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_frm/thread/d3244d3c556271d4/b1fd851b1a980a6a#b1fd851b1a980a6a
Office of former Rumsfeld policy chief investigated
By Robert Burns
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -
The Pentagon’s inspector general said Friday it has begun an
investigation into allegations that an office run by Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld’s former policy chief, Douglas J. Feith, engaged in
illegal or inappropriate intelligence activities before the Iraq war.
The probe, which two senators requested two months ago, comes at a
contentious point in the political debate over President Bush’s
decision to invade Iraq and the intelligence upon which Bush based his
decision.
It extends a controversy that has prominently featured Sen. Carl
Levin, D-Mich., a vocal critic of Bush’s Iraq policy, who has accused
Feith of engaging in inappropriate intelligence activities at the
Pentagon and of deceiving Congress about intelligence on Iraq’s
pre-war links to the al-Qaida terrorist network.
Levin told reporters Friday that Feith provided the White House and
its National Security Council with "really erroneous and distorted
intelligence" about Iraq and its purported links to terrorist groups.
One of the questions to be probed by the Pentagon inspector general,
Levin said, is whether Feith, in his position as undersecretary of
defense for policy, "provided a separate channel of intelligence,
unbeknownst to the CIA, to the White House - which he did."
In a letter Wednesday to Feith’s successor, Eric Edelman, and to
Rumsfeld’s intelligence chief, Stephen Cambone, the inspector
general’s office asked for points of contact for the investigation no
later than Dec. 1.
"The overall objective will be to determine whether personnel assigned
to the Office of Special Plans from September 2002 through June 2003
conducted unauthorized, unlawful or inappropriate intelligence
activities," the letter said.
A copy was released by the Pentagon late Friday afternoon.
Feith left his Pentagon post this summer.
Attempts to reach him for comment Friday were not successful.
So why wasn't the above covered in the US mainstream media either? One can look up this JINSA (serving Israel first traitor to America) Feith in the index of esteemed US intelligence author James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book (page 403 of the recently released paperback version conveys how Feith had Israeli generals walk to his office at the Pentagon like they owned the place). You can see Feith at the top of http://www.nowarforisrael.com
Senate Asks Pentagon to Probe Feith Role on Iraq:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/11/10/senate-asks-pentagon-to-probe-feith-role-on-iraq.php
This 'Thinking about Neoconservatism' article conveys what the real motivation is for the Jewish Likudnik Neocons who took to war in Iraq for their beloved Israel in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda that esteemed US intelligence author James Bamford discusses on pages 261-269/321 of his 'A Pretext for War' book:
http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm
Pat Buchanan had their agenda down in this 'Whose War?' article:
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com
JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons moving fast for action against Syria:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/10/21/jinsa-csp-pnac-neocons-moving-fast-for-action-against-syria.php
From: rbleier@igc.org
To: "rbleier" <rbleier@igc.org>
Subject: T.Schuh: Faking the case ag Syria: Pushing the next neo con war
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:19:49 -0500
I've snipped a long section, but kept the part about super-Zionist, Jack Abramoff who is (was?) apparently involved in planned regime change in Syria which is scheduled for next year.
The part about Mehlis is important. From the looks of it, Kofi Annan knew Mehlis would do a hatchet job on Syria, but was powerless to go against the US.
Yet another example of pernicious Zionist influence in getting us into more disasters. You'd think out of simple self interest, US Zionists would say, enough already. But since it's perceived to be good for Israel, they ignore US interests-- not to mention the rest of the world's. -RB
www.counterpunch.org
November 18, 2005
Mehlis's Murky Past; US and Israeli Proxies Pushing the Next Neo-Con War
Faking the Case Against Syria
By TRISH SCHUH
Another slam dunk forgery is being used to convict Syria. The United Nations' Detlev Mehlis inquiry into the murder of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafiq Hairri depends on a central witness, Zuhir Ibn Mohamed Said Saddik, who has faced accusations of being a swindler and embezzler. Der Spiegel exposed Saddik's brags of "becoming a millionaire" from his testimony to the Mehlis Commission. Saddik was referred to the Mehlis Commission by Syrian regime critic Rifaat Assad, the uncle of current Syrian President Bashar Assad. Rifaat has been lobbying the Bush administration to become the president of Syria in the event his nephew Bashar is ousted.
The record of the UN's investigator Mehlis does not inspire faith in his credibility. As Senior Public Prosecutor in the German Attorney General's office, Mehlis investigated the 1986 LaBelle Discotheque bombing in Berlin. Relying on alleged National Security Agency intercepts of coded messages between Tripoli and Libyan suspects in Germany (later revealed by former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky as false telex signals generated by Mossad itself), Mehlis provided the 'irrefutable proof' of Libya's guilt that then justified Ronald Reagan's bombing of Libya.
In the case of the accusations against Syria, Mehlis's case revolves around a series of questionable phone conversations and intersecting calling card numbers allegedly dialled by the perpetrators. It contains no definitive forensics on the car bomb explosives used. Outside investigators have said it could have been RDX plastique, not TNT as Mehlis suggested in his report. The German Mercedes manufacturers were also perplexed at how Hariri's vehicle, reinforced by the heaviest steel-titanium alloy, was "melted by the force of the explosion," after-effects usually associated with high density DU munitions. The car bomb vehicle (stolen in Japan and never fully traced) was possibly driven by a suicide bomber, whose identity is still unknown. Mehlis's report then states: "Another only slightly less likely possibility is that of a remotely controlled device."
Mehlis conclusions on the case , due on December 15 could justify an attack on Syria, using the Hariri assassination as justification. But from Beirut to Damascus, the "Arab Spring" was a neocon forgery designed to destabilize the Levant and redraw the map of the middle east.
Near the Mohammad Al Amin Mosque of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in Beirut, I interviewed a founder of the Martyrs' Square tent city and asked about US-Israeli sponsorship of the 'Independence Intifadah'. Surrounded by red and white Lebanese flags, soldier Michael Sweiden of the Lebanese Forces emphasized he was Christian Lebanese.
"We love Israel", he told me. "Israel helps us. Israel is like our mother."
Years before its role in the so-called "Cedar Revolution" (a moniker coined by US Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky, a signatory to the Project for a New American Century), Israel awarded citizenship and grants of up to $10,000 to South Lebanon Army soldiers who collaborated with the Israeli Defense Forces during Lebanon's civil war. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz revealed, "Senior officials at Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office were in touch with Lebanese leaders even before the current crisis." Backed by American and Israeli neocons, a Christian Lebanese Likud is proxying Israel's second invasion.
One example is the Lebanese Foundation for Peace, a self-styled "Government of Lebanon in Exile in Jerusalem" founded by former Lebanese Forces' military intelligence officer Nagi Najjar. Najjar, a CIA consultant, testified not so long ago in support of Ariel Sharon's "complete innocence" in the Sabra and Shatila affair against charges by Human Rights Watch and regional governments. Najjar has also paired with Mossad agent Yossef Bodansky while lobbying the U.S. congress to intervene in Hezbollah-dominated south Lebanon. His NGO, The Lebanese Foundation for Peace, endorsed the AIPAC-sponsored sanctions against Syria, known as the Syria Accountability / Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003. On his LFP website featuring an Israeli flag, Najjar's "government in exile" issued an official declaration; "We, the people of Free Lebanon, thank Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom for the campaign launched by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Afffairs aimed at ousting Syria from occupying Lebanon."
Another NGO of the Lebanese Likud is the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon. Its President, Ziad Abdel Nour is the son of wealthy Lebanese Minister of Parliament Khalil Abdel Nour. USCFL partners with designated "democratizers" such as the American Enterprise Institute (created by Lebanese-American William Baroody, Sr.), Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Republican Jewish Coalition, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Middle East Forum, the Hudson Institute and kindred pro-Israel lobbies.
The USCFL hails former Lebanese president Amin Gemayel for signing a peace deal with Israel in 1983. (According to the UAE's late president Sheik Zayed bin sultan Al Nahyan, Saddam Hussein agreed to leave Iraq before the war in 2003 to halt the invasion. But Amin Gemayel, the mediator between Saddam and the US administration, wrongly informed the US that Hussein had rejected all offers of exile). Abdel Nour's other links include the World Lebanese Organization, which advocates Israel's re-occupation of south Lebanon. In 2000, he and neocon Daniel Pipes composed the policy paper "Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: the US Role" and together co-author the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin. The bulletin is a project of the neocon Middle East Forum and is a frequent resource for American intelligence agencies. On November 2, 2005 Abdel Nour updated me on the Syrian crisis by phone.
Schuh: What is the future of Syria, of President Bashar Al Assad's situation?
Nour: Both the Syrian and Lebanese regimes will be changed- whether they like it or not- whether it's going to be a military coup or something else... and we are working on it. We know already exactly who's going to be the replacements. We're working on it with the Bush administration. This is a Nazi regime of 30 years, killing ministers, presidents and stuff like that. They must be removed. These guys who came to power, who rule by power, can only be removed by power. This is Machiavelli's power game. That's how it is. This is how geopolitics -- the war games, power games -- work. I know inside out how it works, because I come from a family of politicians for the last 60 years. Look, I have access to the top classified information from the CIA from all over the world. They call me, I advise them. I know exactly what's going on. And this will happen.
Q: So would they remove the entire Assad family?
A: Why not? Who is Bashar Al Assad?
Q: I didn't see forensic proof in the Mehlis report that would legally convict Assad of Hariri's death in a court of law.
A: I don't give a damn. I don't give a damn, frankly. This Bashar Al Assad-Emil Lahoud regime is going to go whether it's true or not. When we went to Iraq whether there were weapons of mass destruction or not, the key is -- we won. And Saddam is out! Whatever we want, will happen. Iran? We will not let Iran become a nuclear power. We'll find a way, we'll find an excuse- to get rid of Iran. And I don't care what the excuse is. There is no room for rogue states in the world. Whether we lie about it, or invent something, or we don't... I don't care. The end justifies the means. What's right? Might is right, might is right. That's it. Might is right.
Q: You sound just like Saddam. Those were his rules too.
A: So Saddam wanted to prove to the whole world he was strong? Well, we're stronger- he's out! He's finished. And Iran's going to be finished and every single Arab regime that's like this will be finished. Because there is no room for us capitalists and multinationalists in the world to operate with regimes like this. Its all about money. And power. And wealth... and democracy has to be spread around the world. Those who want to espouse globalization are going to make a lot of money, be happy, their families will be happy. And those who aren't going to play this game are going to be crushed, whether they like it or not! This is how we rule. And this is how it's going to be as long as you have people who think like me.
Q: When will this regime change take place?
A: Within 6 months, in both Lebanon and Syria.
Q: Some names of replacements?
A: It is classified. There are going to be replacements and we know who they are, but I cannot mention the names.
Q: Will this be done peacefully?
A: It doesn't matter. The end justifies the means. I don't care about how it's done. The important thing is that it is done. I don't rule out force. I'm not against force. If it's an option, it will be an option.
Q: But if it's just trading Syrian control for American or Israeli control?
A: I have -- we have -- absolutely no problem with heavy US involvement in Lebanon. On an economic level, military level, political level, security level... whatever it is. Israel is the 51st state of the United States. Let Lebanon be the 52nd state. And if the Arabs don't like it, tough luck.
[snip -- long section]
Rumsfeld's team had already begun discussions with Israeli intelligence about assassinating Lebanese officials -- particularly "Hezbollah and their supporters" in 2002, and intelligence operatives were dispatched to Lebanon. (This writer was introduced to at least one Israeli 'student' studying Arabic at AUB in Beirut. He travelled with an American passport, coming to Lebanon "to study 'the enemy' to find out how they think.") The Sunday Times (6/5/05) revealed that Mossad had been using Trojan Horse email surveillance on President Assad's wife Asma, labelling her family correspondence a "legitimate soft target".
By January 2005, the Pentagon were preparing for military operations in Lebanon to destroy "insurgency strongholds along the Lebanese-Syrian border". Simultaneously, Israeli approval for a military operation in Lebanon was given after Hezbollah killed an IDF officer. Political-security cabinet members comprised of PM Sharon, Deputy PM Ehud Olmert, Vice Premier Shimon Peres, and FM Silvan Shalom had authorized the action. (Haaretz, 5/3/05). But then Rafiq Hariri was killed, and the door to Syria swung open.
Syria may become America's 53rd state, if Farid Ghadry's NGO, the Reform Party of Syria rushes through that opened door. Ghadry is a Syrian Christian who worked for EG & G, a Department of Defense contractor. EG & G assisted in the development and testing of nuclear weapons and in many of the US military's top secret atomic projects. Ghadry's Reform Party coordinates with the Syrian National Council, and transmits Radio Free Syria from Cyprus and Germany to destabilize Syria. The CIA and Mossad have long used Kurds to target nations in the region. Journalist Jack Anderson wrote in 1972 about Israeli envoys delivering $50,000 a month to Kurdish leader Mullah Mustafa Barzani to destabilize Iraq.
In March 2004, this writer was approached in Damascus by Kurds from Qamishli and Hasaka (one whose brother was arrested in the riots) wanting to "thank Bush for helping us get rid of Assad". News accounts later verified that the chaos up north had been orchestrated by the US and Israel, using Turkish and Iraqi Kurds. 'Protesters' at the height of the melee even waved posters of President Bush and American flags. The ringleaders were sponsored by the Department of Defense and the US State Department. "Let the Damascus spring flower, and let its flowers bloom," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. So sprouted another color catastrophe -- Syria's "Jasmine Revolution".
Reform Party of Syria's Farid Ghadry has been a featured speaker at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and is himself a member of AIPAC. When repeated calls to his organization went unanswered, I visited the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the RFP. Reform Party of Syria is the office of "super-Zionist" lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Middle Gate Ventures, Abramoff's 'political advisory company' partners with RFP. Abramoff is a top Beltway lobbyist now under intensive FBI investigation concerning, among other things, his proposed $9 million fee to get Gabon's president an Oval Office session with Bush.
As a College Republican in the 1980s, Abramoff founded the International Freedom Foundation, a project linked to the South African Defence Forces. The International Freedom Foundation was the PR branch of sister NGO Strategic Communications, a covert organization charged by former spy Craig Williamson in the Weekly Mail and Guardian for 2/24/95 with being involved with frame-ups, extreme violence and dirty tricks campaigns.
According to the Weekly Standard (12/20/04), one Abramoff venture was his organization of a 1985 global "summit" of underworld thugs. With Citizens for America sponsorship, Contra leaders, guerilla rebels and right wing 'freedom fighters' from around the world convened in the African hinterlands to strategize. During this period, Abramoff's membership/financial transactions with the secretive Council for National Policy, which included Oliver North and Richard Secord, became a template for how to mask money that still remains partially hidden. (Nizkor Project)
Recently Abramoff's interventionism has focused on the Middle East. Tomflocco.com reveals that Abramoff's long-time employer, Greenberg Traurig, partially financed a Homeland Security Government Contract Team trip to Israel for the US House/Senate Armed Services Committee and defense contractor CACI (accused of Abu Ghraib torture). The delegation reviewed IDF "resistance to interrogation techniques" used in Palestine, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. The Lebanon Daily Star reported that the group visited Beit Horon "the central training camp for the anti-terrorist forces of the Israeli police and border police" and were able to "witness exercises related to anti-terror warfare." Legislators' names were not disclosed.
Abramoff also works with the World Zionist Organization and the Christian Coalition to bankroll illegal Israeli settlement activities. According to Israeli prosecutor Talia Sasson they are part of a larger international problem. Some $60 billion worldwide has been illicitly funnelled to Israeli settlements via different foreign donors, quasi-NGOs and secret military accounts.
In one such case, according to Senate testimony and news reports in Newsweek and The New Republic, an Abramoff charity, Capital Athletic Fund, underwrote sniper scopes, camouflage suits, thermal imagers, night vision goggles, hydration tactical tubes, shooting mats and other paramilitary equipment through Greenberg Traurig to right wing settler Shmuel Ben-Zvi. Abramoff wanted to help ultraorthodox settlement Beitar Illit "neutralize terrorists" and wrote to Ben-Zvi; "Thanks brother. If only there were another dozen of you the dirty rats would be finished." Apparently angling for cover and a tax deduction, Beitar Illit seminar director Ben-Zvi suggested invoicing the weaponry to the Israeli Defence Forces on 'Sniper Workshop' stationery with a sniper logo and letterhead to qualify it as an educational entity. Payments were partially run through "Kollel Ohel Tiferet," an entity not publicly listed or traceable. Beitar Illit Mayor Yitzhak Pindrus claims never to have heard of it. (Newsweek, 5/2/05)
Abramoff dollars may also have found their way to the Israeli Defense Forces' Lebanon Border Unit, the civilian SF troops that patrol the Israel-Lebanon border. Yaagal, supposedly disbanded after Israel's 2000 pullout from south Lebanon, still conducts clandestine reconnaissance, plans ambushes and carries out cross-border incursions into Hezbollah-held areas of south Lebanon. As so often with lobbyist Abramoff's entities, the tools and trails remain murky.
Indicted AIPAC lobbyist Steven Rosen told the New Yorker; "A lobby is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun." But Abramoff's own words to Ralph Reed in 1983 are even more apropos; "It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistance" with opponents. "Our job is to remove them permanently." Flowery language for forged freedoms, an "Arab Spring" Machiavelli-style.
Trish Schuh writes about Middle East politics. She can be reached at: hsvariety@yahoo.com | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:44 am Post subject: Where to Look for Answers on Corrupted Intelligence |
| Where to Look for Answers on Corrupted Intelligence
By Ray McGovern
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Sunday 20 November 2005
While it is altogether appropriate for Congress's attention to be riveted on the future and, specifically, on how to end the disaster in Iraq, we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) continue to be asked about the past and how the George W. Bush administration was able to create/corrupt intelligence to convey a false picture of the need for war on Iraq in the first place.
Renewed, if short-lived, interest in this issue can be traced to Senator Harry Reid's demand on November 1 that Pat Roberts, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, make good on his promise to complete his investigation into this issue (the so-called "Phase 2" study that Democratic senator Jay Rockefeller acquiesced in postponing until after last year's election).
Don't hold your breath. Roberts is still diddling Rockefeller, who, as ranking Democrat on Roberts's committee, has a painful propensity for letting himself be outmaneuvered. The two are still far from agreement on how to proceed, and Roberts seems likely to use another pending study to delay still further the completion of "Phase 2."
Congressional sources disclosed Thursday that the Department of Defense Inspector General has agreed to review the pre-war intelligence activities of former defense undersecretary Douglas Feith, a main architect of the war on Iraq. The IG investigation could take at least six months, say defense officials. Indeed, the study is not yet under way, since the IG is "still discussing it with the Roberts committee staff," according to Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman.
For the gullible, here's a new promise from Pat Roberts: "We're going to try to expedite it [the IG study on Feith] as much as possible ... The IG knows we are very eager to get this done but he wants to get it done right."
Right.
Not that it really matters. Attempting to get an apolitical study out of Roberts's committee would be a fool's errand, even if Rockefeller had more backbone. Pat Roberts, you may recall, rejected as "inappropriate" Rockefeller's suggestion last year that the committee ask the FBI to look into who manufactured the (in)famous forgery about Iraq seeking uranium in Niger.
Don't despair. We in VIPS have been hard at work on this issue since well before the war. Indeed, it was/is our raison d'être.
Where to look for the answers? Try the just published "Neo-CONNED Again!" a collection of essays and interviews by and with VIPS and other professionals. My colleague Col. W. Patrick Lang, USA (ret) and I have authored chapters devoted specifically to how intelligence was corrupted to "justify" an unjustifiable war - or, in the words of the Downing Street Minutes, how "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Pat's article, "Drinking the Kool-Aid: Making the Case for War with Compromised Integrity and Intelligence," was originally published in the summer 2004 Middle East Policy Journal. Mine is titled "Sham Dunk: Cooking Intelligence for the President." The text is posted here.
But for a fuller picture on the Iraq misadventure, you may wish to obtain the book itself. For it also contains a wealth of insight from the likes of Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Karen Kwiatkowski, Jeffrey Record, Tom Engelhardt, Sam Gardiner, Michael Ratner and many others.
The experience of the past few years has shown that, although Pat Roberts prides himself on being a US Marine, waiting for him to deliver on his promises is like waiting for Godot. (See "Semper Fraud, Senator Roberts.") There, fellow Marine (and VIPS member) Scott Ritter offers unique insight into Pat Roberts, including his foot-dragging on the "Phase 2" investigation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was an analyst at CIA for 27 years, and is on the Steering Group of VIPS. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:50 pm Post subject: Bush Owns the OSP and the Broken Iraqi Pottery |
| Bush Owns the OSP and the Broken Iraqi Pottery
by Ahmed Amr
(Monday November 28 2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We won’t hear the fat lady sing until we see Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney testifying under oath about the OSP. When that day comes, the fat lady will sound a lot like George Bush."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After two long years of dodging and weaving, the Bush administration is finally being held to account for fixing, twisting, exaggerating and cherry picking pre-war WMD intelligence. So far, the White House has responded to these charges with pleas of innocence and assertions that hostilities were initiated only as a last resort and based on the best information available at the time. Since the Libby indictment, the administration and its media cronies have launched an aggressive campaign to convince an increasingly skeptical public that Bush honestly believed that Saddam possessed WMD stockpiles and was behind the 9/11 atrocities.
One positive aspect of this new White House strategy is that Dick Cheney is no longer free to insinuate that Iraq had lethal arsenals of unconventional weapons. Until very recently, Cheney continued to propagate the ridiculous notion that Saddam was involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 terrorist assaults. This is no small retreat for a man who claimed that “It's been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.” This, after all, is the very same Cheney who told us on Aug. 26, 2002 that "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
We should all be thankful for small favors but there remains the single most important question: did the administration get the intelligence wrong or did they deliberately and systematically cook the books?
When George Bush claims both ignorance and naiveté – who amongst us can provide convincing evidence to prove a contrarian thesis? To make a case that Bush and Cheney systematically lied us into a war of choice, one has to provide iron clad proof that the pre-war intelligence was fabricated, manipulated and distorted and that both men were fully aware of the cherry picking operation going on in their front yard.
By all accounts, Cheney was personally involved in the intelligence gathering process and spent an inordinate amount of time in Langley. The CIA analysts – despite enormous pressure – refused to give credibility to the neocon contention that Saddam was behind 9/11 or in any way connected to Al Qaeda. So, why then did our President of Vice and Torture continue to spread the unfounded and incredible idea that Iraq was providing aid and comfort to Bin Laden and that Saddam had set up WMD training camps for Al Qaeda terrrorists? More to the point, why is it so reprehensible and irresponsible to call Cheney a serial liar?
Despite the daily accumulation of evidence that the pre-war intelligence was deliberately corrupted, the White House continues to market the Rovian spin de jure which goes something like this. “We had credible intelligence that Saddam had WMD stockpiles. After 9/11, we couldn’t take the chance that he might hand them over to Bin Laden. Other intelligence agencies around the world concurred with our assessments and we shared all available information with Congress before they voted to support the invasion. If we were wrong, so was the rest of the world. We were taken in by the Chalabi crowd and had no reason to suspect that they were duping us. In any case, what’s done is done. We have to look forward - not rehash the past and waste time on revisionist history. Our mission is to defeat the insurgents and we will not waiver until we achieve a decisive victory. We can’t publicly define the parameters of victory because that will only embolden the enemy. If we falter, Iraq will fall in the hands of Al Zarqawi and become a base for exporting terrorism. It is irresponsible and reprehensible to suggest that this administration lied to the American people. We intend to vigorously contest this vicious slander which originated from the usual suspects on the radical left coast. Trust us. We did not deliberately fix the intelligence to make a case for a war of choice. We went to war as a last resort and only after all other options had been exhausted. This smear campaign is providing aid and comfort to the enemy and confusing our brave lads who are fighting the good fight to spread the blessings of democracy to the people of the Middle East.”
You have to give Karl Rove and his cronies credit for their sheer audacity and their stalinist discipline in communicating the party line. Even when their defense strategy rests entirely on a claim of stupidity and ignorance, they like to show off their talents for spin. It doesn’t hurt that they have legions of embedded pundits to amplify their message. Time will prove that Bob Woodward and Judith Miller were no abberations. Even as you read these words, dozens of Woodward and Miller clones are busy doing stenography chores for Rove in yet another campaign to evade answering some very basic questions. In the CNN and FOX accounts, you might detect a few slight deviations from Rove’s talking points. But inevitably, these neocon media operatives will all deliver the same essential message that “it is an outrageous canard to suggest that the president deliberately and systematically decieved the American people.”
When senior public officials make insistent and repetitive assertions about any given subject, people assume that they know what they’re talking about. When their point of view is reinforced by the politicians of the ‘loyal opposition’, their contentions become unassailable. Add to the mix a few dozen mass media operatives who act as uncritical conduits for their message and you end up with the gospel truth.
It is easy enough to prove that Cheney is a one man canard factory. But contesting the claim that Bush is just a gullible fool is a heavier burden. It doesn’t help that many of the president’s detractors on the left continue to lampoon the man as an idiot – the kind of idiot who managed to convince 90 per cent of Americans that they faced an imminent danger of witnessing Iraqi nuclear mushroom clouds from their front porch.
Caught between Iraq and a hard place, the administration is now challenging its critics to provide hard evidence that the president was a willingly and competent participant in the plan to decieve the public with false claims that Iraq posed a national security threat to the United States of America. Let me predict that their final point of retreat will be to claim that Bush was duped by a professional liar – the most powerful President of Vice in American history.
Blaming the whole Iraqi mess on Cheney and his neocon advisers doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Let’s start with the fact that Bush had access to the same intelligence as the Brits. It’s fair to assume that the Robin Cook was privy to the same intelligence as Tony Blair. I single out the British Foreign Minister because the administration invariably places MI5 at the top of the list of foreign intelligence operatives that allegedly concluded that Iraq had WMD capabilities and posed an imminent threat to the ‘civilized world.’ Let’s not forget that the president’s infamous ‘yellow cake’ uranium claim was attributed to the British government.
To debunk the “every body thought Iraq had WMDs” argument, it is worth quoting the late Robin Cook at length.
“It seems almost cruel to remind those who sold the case for the Iraq war of what they claimed at the time. But it is necessary, because they appear to be forgetting it themselves. President Bush was definite and apocalyptic: "Saddam is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to intimidate the civilized world." Donald Rumsfeld went one better: "We know where they are." On the eve of war, Tony Blair was equally specific that Saddam Hussein had the real thing: "Saddam has chemical and biological weapons."
The case that George Bush and Tony Blair made for war was that containment had failed and that we must launch a pre-emptive strike before Saddam used his imaginary weapons. Indeed, the claim that Saddam already had weapons of mass destruction ready for use was central to their argument that military action must be taken urgently. As Donald Rumsfeld warned in alarmist terms, "within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qaida".
If Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, there was no urgent need to invade Iraq. George Bush and Tony Blair could have given Hans Blix the extra few months for which he pleaded to finish his job and prove Saddam was no threat. What created real urgency in Washington to start the invasion may have been the dawning realisation that Hans Blix was about to remove their pretext for war. “
When the phantom WMD stockpiles failed to materialize, Robin Cook was fully entitled to point out that the exhaustive CIA search "establishes that Iraq had no stockpile, no biological agents, no chemical feedstocks, no plants to manufacture them and no delivery systems to fire them. Saddam was no threat to us and had no weapons of mass destruction to pass to terrorists. Brushing the UN inspectors aside in order to go to war on false intelligence was a colossal blunder."
Both George Bush and Tony Blair knew what Robin Cook knew. The president also had contrarians among his staff – like Colin Powell – who debunked most of the suspect intelligence cooked up by Scooter Libby and the neocon operatives in the Office of Special Plans. We now know that Bush set up the White House Iraq Group and specifically tasked it with the mission to market the war in August of 2002. We have the Downing Street Memos. And we have reports that the American and British military started escalating military strikes against Iraq long before the actual invasion.
Still, the President continues to maintain that he made his decision to go to war based on the same intelligence that was provided to Congress. It is not my purpose to defend Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Lieberman, or any of the other willing enablers in the ‘loyal opposition.’ They are as deeply entrenched in the war party as Dick Cheney. Whether they were recipients of the same intelligence as Bush would hardly have made a difference. They supported the war for purely opportunistic reasons and because they march to the tune of the Likudnik neocons embedded in the Democratic Party. If you want to know why the Democratic Party ignores the overwhelming opposition to the war among its rank and file, educate yourself on the Democratic Leadership Committee, the neocon party within the party. The neocons in the DLC call themselves neo-liberals. Same difference. Until very recently, the Kerry-Clinton-Biden-Lieberman DLC cabal was prodding Bush to escalate the conflict in Iraq by sending more troops. Notice how quickly they distanced themselves from Rep. John Murtha when he proposed an orderly and swift withdrawal of American troops.
Even so, the claim that Congress had access to the same intelligence as the president is pure nonsense. Most of them apparently made their decision to authorize the war after reviewing a five page summary of intelligence that had already been thoroughly corrupted by Douglas Feith, Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz and the Office of Special Plans.
At this late date, why is it so important to prove that Bush was a key player in orchestrating the intelligence fixing operation? Because as the leader of the wrecking crew that created the disaster in Iraq – he is hardly equipped to lead the clean up operations. In the effort to cover up his role in the WMD hoax, Bush continues to make discredited arguments about why we invaded Iraq. The president’s judgment about where we are and where to go from here is impaired by his desire to conjure up an end game that can be sold as a ‘victory.’
Consider Bush’s argument that casting a little light on the corruption of pre-war intelligence would undermine the military. Here is my two-word rebuttal: John Murtha. The congressman’s defection from the war party is significant precisely because the powers that be understand that he was talking for the brass. If the generals believe that this venture is going badly, we should all pay attention. As a general rule, military officers do not involve themselves in public policy debates. But their concerns about the folly of ‘staying the course’ have obviously been communicated to Murtha – who has a well deserved reputation of being a defense hawk and a voice for the rank and file. Murtha is also a man who keeps the company of generals and he is privy to their private assessments of the situation on the ground.
The president continues to pedal the silly notion that if American forces withdraw from Iraq – Zarqawi and Bin Laden would move in to fill the vacuum. First of all, let’s not forget that we have a Jihadist element because we have an insurgency that came about as a result of the invasion. Even by Pentagon estimates, the foreign jihadists represent less than five per cent of the insurgents. If they choose to continue causing havoc after an American withdrawal, the prospect that they could eventually take over Iraq is too negligible to merit serious consideration. Their support among the population is very limited and directly tied to the presence of foreign occupation forces on Iraqi soil. Just like in Bosnia, the strength and role of these elements has been vastly exaggerated and they will most likely vanish from the scene once the occupation ends.
If there is one legitimate concern about what could eventually happens in Iraq – it is the prospect of civil strife. It is not quite clear whether the continued presence of foreign troops increases or diminishes the chances of a civil war that might already be in progress. It doesn’t help matters that the coalition has allowed the police and army to be infiltrated by the Badr brigades and the Peshmerga. Entire units of the new Iraqi army are now made up of Shiites or Kurds. The Police moonlight as death squads and are brazen enough to operate torture centers right in the heart of Baghdad.
One of the obligations of an occupation army is to provide security for the population under their control. In Iraq, the British and American forces are mainly concerned with protecting their own soldiers. We have tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq primarily because we have 160,000 military personnel to protect. The main mission of American forces in Iraq is ‘force protection’. It is a policy that has resulted in rules of engagement that contribute to high civilian casualties. That, in turn, ends up fueling the insurgency.
In any case, even at the risk of civil war, the Iraqis want an end to foreign occupation. According to a recent poll comissioned by the British government, 80% of Iraqis want an immediate end to the occupation. Which puts them on the same wave length as the 63% of Americans who want to bring the troops home. The recent Cairo meeting between representatives of all Iraqi factions also called for the withdrawal of coalition forces. So, just two weeks before a national elections, Iraqi politicians are competing for the votes of the vast majority of Iraqis who want an immediate end to the occupation. That should tell us something.
The bottom line is that Bush doesn’t have a leg to stand on. There was no good reason to invade and there is no sound rationale for the continued presence of foreign forces on Iraqi soil. The real fear in the Bush administration is that exiting now would leave Iran as the only winner in this conflict. Try to explain that to the American people.
Whether he likes it or not, Bush will have very little say in the final outcome of what transpires in Iraq. The leadership of the Shia community has long standing ties with Tehran. No amount of occupation is likely to dent such intimate relationships. These are connections that go back all the way to Ayatollah Khomeni who founded and funded SCIRI, an exile para-military organization that has emerged as the largest party in post-war Iraq. The SCIRI leadership and it military wing – The Badr Brigades – were recruited, trained and armed by Iran. I don’t think the prospect of leaving Iraq in the hands of Tehran’s Iraqi allies is exactly what Bush had in mind when he decided to topple Saddam. Just chalk it up as another one of those unintended consequences of ‘pre-emptive’ wars.
Which brings us back to why it is so vital to investigate the pre-war corruption of intelligence. The price of this quagmire in blood and treasure has been too high and the rewards are nowhere near the delusional expectations of the neocon prophets. To borrow a neocon phrase, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Lewis Libby, Michael Ledeen and Ken Adelman were ‘wildly off the mark.’ One of their patron saints and willing enablers was non other than Dick Cheney. Another was Donald Rumsfeld. Yet another was George Bush, the man ultimately responsible for their foul produce.
And then there is the small matter of how George Bush decided to conduct the war. Starting with the ‘Shock and Awe’ campaign that incinerated thousands of innocent Iraqis, the president moved on to construct torture chambers in Abu Ghraib and then turned his attention to converting Fallujah into a modern day Guernica. The country is crawling with forty thousand foreign mercenaries who are a law unto themselves and are not subject to the Geneva Convention. Sectarian Shia and Kurdish militias have been empowered and allowed to infiltrate the ranks of the new Iraqi Army and the Police.
They now roam the streets on death squad errands fully camouflaged in Iraqi army and police uniforms. After failing to find Iraqi WMD stockpiles, Bush imported American white phosphorus ammunition, depleted uranium shells, napalm and cluster bombs and used them as weapons of urban warfare. In the process he squandered the lives of over 2,100 young Americans and uncounted thousands of Iraqis.
Even at this late date, we have very little definitive information on why Bush really invaded Iraq. But we do know how he obtained a carte blanche license to create this catastrophe. He did it by convincing the American public that we were going to disarm Saddam of his WMD arsenal before he handed them to Bin Laden. It was the president who was the tip of the spear in the campaign to systematically bombard us with incessant lies about Iraq’s military capabilities. He consistently and consciously exploited the tragedy of 9/11 to scare the nation into war.
Let there be no doubt, that there is readily available hard evidence of Bush and Cheney’s culpability in corrupting the intelligence gathering process. As Lawrence Wilkerson has made clear, there are also paper trails to document how the American military was authorized to use torture and ignore the Geneva Convention. Unfortunately, much of the evidence is still locked up in the Office of Special Plans. For two years, the administration’s congressional allies have obstructed the investigation into this rogue Pentagon operation where the intelligence hoax was fabricated. For very good reasons, Bush has invested considerable effort derailing all inquiries into the activities of this WMD fib factory. Bush owns the OSP just as surly as he owns the broken Iraqi pottery. The OSP is the address where you will find answers to who fabricated the WMD hoax, why they felt the need to cook the books and who authorized the operation? There you will also find details of the elaborate propaganda campaign that involved wholesale leaks to neocon operatives in a few favored media outlets.
We won’t hear the fat lady sing until we see Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney testifying under oath about the OSP. When that day comes, the fat lady will sound a lot like George Bush.
Notes in the Margin: The cover-up of the OSP would not be possible without the active collaboration of Arthur Sulzberger, Donald Graham, Rupert Murdoch and other media tycoons. The fact that the OSP scandal is not playing 24/7 on CNN and FOX is certain proof that these lap dogs don’t hunt and won’t bark unless they are on patrol with an officially sanctioned war party. If anything good can come out of this useless war, let us hope that it will permanently cripple the monopoly media franchises held by the New York Times, The Washington Post, FOX and CNN. The Iraq war enriched the coffers of the embedded media barons who, along with Halliburton, stand accused of war profiteering. Does anybody seriously believe that Judith Miller and Bob Woodward were not intimately familiar with the Office of Special Plans or the White House Iraq Group? Is it even sane to assume that Woodward and Miller were the only mainstream ‘journalists’ actively marketing the invasion of Iraq? Without naming a single source, Woodward and Miller can write entire books about the OSP and the systematic corruption of intelligence. But that’s not part of their job description.
If you want to know what Judith Miller really does for a living, read this Rolling Stones article on Miller and James Bamford and how they sold the war.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/879
8997?rnd=1133173267750&has-player=true&version=6.0.8.1024 | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
