[promoted by BooMan. I hadn’t put all this together in my mind. But, Patriot Daily has put it together in his/her mind.]
Bush fired Goss as a quick fix to stop a spring storm of CIA leaks about Bush’s cherry-picking campaign of prewar intelligence that for the first time directly links Bush to the cherry picking. A review of news stories published in April and May shows that the detailed nature of CIA information publicly disclosed actually also provides a de facto public hearing of the cherry-picking probe that the GOP is refusing to provide before the midterm elections. This is the same information that Rove concluded could have prevented Bush’s victory in the 2004 election. And, the intensity of this spring storm occurred during the same time period attributed as crucial in the decision to fire Goss.
It is now reported that Goss was fired (or “forced to step down”) due to his incompetence in managing the CIA during a time of war, and that a likely replacement is General Hayden. This may well be true. However, the “war” that Goss failed to manage was not Iraq, Afghanistan or the “war on terror,” but Bush’s war with the CIA. Bush appointed Goss precisely to arrange for a loyalist placement in the CIA who would follow White House directives during the last major confrontation between the CIA and Bush prior to the 2004 presidential election. Goss dutifully conducted the recent witch hunt by polygraph to track and fire CIA officials not loyal to Bush, essentially using political affiliation as a guidepost. But, the witch hunt backfired as evidenced by key CIA officials leaving the agency and this spring storm of leaks. Should Hayden be selected, who better to manage Bush’s war then a military general?
Since before the Iraq war, there has been a war between Bush and the CIA that focused on Bush’s lying to the American people about the grounds for war, which he blamed on poor intelligence by the CIA, and the CIA claiming that the White House manipulated intelligence, generally not provided by the vetted CIA process, but through unofficial channels established by Rumsfeld and Cheney. A review of media stories dating back to 2004 shows that this war has endured various “battles” when a slew of CIA leaks would hit the MSM. But, this spring storm of CIA leaks is different in nature and intensity than other scrimmages between Bush and the CIA: Named, high-ranking CIA officials who were in the loop at the time of cherry-picking issued public statements rather than anonymous leaks; detailed information was provided that for the first time directly linked Bush to the cherry-picking campaign, and specifics were provided on facets of the intricate planning and underhanded methods used to trick the public.
(1) A spring storm occurred during April and May of CIA leaks of Bush’s cherry picking campaign – leaks that increased in frequency and specificity and were well-publicized by both TV and MSM. Prior to this spring storm, this issue had taken a respite since late 2005.
The day before Goss was fired, 3 CIA officials stepped forward. Paul Pillar, a former CIA analyst expert in Middle East and Asian counter terrorism, stated that Bush had an “organized campaign” to manipulate intelligence to justify war based on links between Iraq and al qaeda. The devious nature of Bush’s campaign was also revealed: The Bush team chose the myth of an al-qaeda link because “it was this that most strongly affected public opinion in the United States, and which would keep alive the images of September 11, 2001.” Former 27-year CIA veteran Ray McGovern also spoke out the same day as Pillar when he publicly challenged Rumsfeld’s lies and stated that the CIA intelligence was correct, but the administration simply lied about their “bullet proof”‘ evidence. Equally significant was that McGovern had the audacity (in Bush’s eyes) to confront Rumsfeld at a public event and McGovern refused to blink. On the same day, it was also revealed that a former CIA agent had filed a lawsuit against the CIA, claiming he was fired for refusing to falsify information in accordance with the party line on Iraq and 2 other countries. He also alleged that the CIA tried to stop pursuit of intelligence and bury actionable intelligence.
April was also a very active month. Retired CIA official Drumheller, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe, appeared on “60 Minutes” to disclose that Bush ignored CIA intelligence that Iraq did not have WMDs or an active nuclear program. In fact, Drumheller stated that Bush “disregarded the expertise of the intelligence community, politicized the intelligence process and used unrepresentative data in making the case for war.” In addition, Bush received at least 3 warnings by the UN and US State Department before his State of Union address that his claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was false. Bush also tried to provide the lame defense that he did not mislead the public, but had relied upon an erroneous CIA report, when he claimed that the Iraqi trailers constituted WMDs. In fact, April revealed many stories with details that Bush had to have known that this trailer story was false before he made the claim to the American people. In addition, it was reported in April that Bush team had leaked an internal Pentagon top-secret document based upon classified intelligence that “evidenced” the relationship between Hussein and bin Laden to a conservative publication months after the war started but public support was draining. Then Cheney cited this conservative publication as evidence to support his claim of such a relationship as grounds for war. However, “even at the time, most members of the intelligence community believed the relationship between Hussein and Bin Laden was relatively unimportant and considered the leaked memo a distortion of evidence.”
April and May news reports also linked the Plame probe to Bush’s cherry-picking campaign for both Iraq and Iran. The MSM reported that when Plame was outed by White House officials she had been tracking Iran’s distribution and acquisition of WMDs and necessary technology. The MSM also reported that the legal documents filed in the Plame prosecution of Libby provided additional evidence that Bush and Cheney were directly involved in the cherry-picking campaign. It was reported that Bush authorized Libby to leak selected portions of the classified NIE to reporters. Two significant facts were revealed. First, the evidence that Cheney directed Libby to leak to reporters “had been disproved months before,” which is one component of manipulating the public by false information. Second, one component of the cherry-picking campaign was to have White House aides simultaneously suggest that “any exaggerations” about Iraq’s WMDs was the “fault of the CIA, not the White House.”
(2) During the latter time frame of this spring storm, the White House decided it was necessary for Bush’s flunky Sen. Goss to delay the Congressional cherry-picking probe until after the midterm elections.
This storm of CIA leaks may be the reason that GOP Sen. Roberts decided in late April 2006 to take further action to prevent the Senate from conducting a probe of Bush’s prewar intelligence cherry picking, or at least delay this probe until after the midterm elections. This is a repeat of the same delay strategy used by the White House prior to the 2004 presidential election. In 2004, Roberts needed a carrot to perform his duty to investigate Bush’s cherry picking. Roberts agreed to investigate cherry picking but only if the probe about Bush manipulating intelligence was conducted after the 2004 presidential election. On April 25, 2006, reprising the same GOP delay tactic used prior to the 2004 elections, Sen. Roberts announced his plan to once again divide his panel’s inquiry into Bush’s cherry-picking of Iraq intelligence prior to war to delay the “most politically controversial elements to a later time” or after the midterm elections. Two days later, the GOP stated that the cherry-picking probe would be further restricted to exclude interviews of administration officials who publicly made the case for war because GOP members of the probe panel already concluded that their statements were substantiated by intelligence, which is one purpose of the probe.
Firing Goss and delaying the cherry-picking probe until after the midterm election may have been deemed necessary to try to stop the unrest at the CIA . The CIA unrest and low morale caused by the witch hunts may have been viewed as reasons for the increasing number of leaks and the fact that high-ranking, named CIA officials who had top level positions during the prewar period were publicly disclosing specific information on the record.
(3) Bush and Rove changed their job descriptions so that both could focus on the midterm elections, which both the White House and the GOP have stated are crucial to prevent Democrats from obtaining control of Congress, fearing probes and potential impeachment.
Bush’s biggest fear right now is the impeachment hearings that may commence should the GOP lose control of Congress. That is why Bush decided to focus on only 2 issues – Iraq and midterm elections – and delegated the remaining issues of his policies to be decided by Cabinet members. Rove was also reassigned to focus solely on the elections.
The White House now faces circumstances similar to events that occurred prior to the 2004 election: CIA leaks about cherry-picking and public pressure for conducting the probe. The connection between the leaks and its impact on how the public votes in an upcoming election was noted by Rove. Rove warned White House aides in 2003 that Bush’s 2004 election prospects would be bad if it were publicly disclosed that Bush was “personally warned” repeatedly that a key ground for war, Iraq buying aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons, was not true.
This spring storm of leaks discounted the primary grounds for war as false, information which many knew before. But, more details were provided by named high-ranking CIA officials, some who were in the loop at the time the cherry picking occurred. Details that included linking Bush and Cheney directly to the cherry-picking by revealing for the first time that they knew the statements were false before either authorizing leaks or personally presenting false statements to the public. The leaks also revealed how the manipulated intelligence, specifically the myth of al-Qaeda links, was selected by first determining what was likely to trigger fear and thus consent by the public for the Iraq war. Finally, the leaks revealed how the White House campaigned to blame the intelligence failure on the CIA in hopes of avoiding a cherry-picking probe. The whole chain of events ties together the cherry-picking, the Plame leak and efforts to conceal it from the public by preventing the cherry-picking probe. In short, the Bush team spent more time, energy, and research on this cherry-picking campaign than on preparing a strategy for our troops in Iraq.
Patriot Daily: News of the day, just a click away!