Author: Larry Johnson

Want further proof that John McCain is living in an alternate universe when it comes to Iraq? Check out this exchange on Iraq in tonight’s debate:

Did you catch McCain’s key quip? “I know of no military leader, including General Petraeus, who says we can’t sustain our effort in Iraq.” Oh really?

Well, maybe Senator McCain was taking a nap last month, but Army Chief of Staff, General Casey disagrees. The Christian Science Monitor’s Gordon Lubold reported the following last Christmas Eve:

“We’re deploying at unsustainable rates,” General Casey said three weeks ago during remarks to an audience at the Brookings Institution in Washington. The Army agreed to a buildup of troops a year ago with the understanding that it was temporary, he said. “We can’t sustain that. We have to come off of that, and we’re working that very hard.”

In fact, Casey is not alone. Lubold also wrote:

While there is reasonable consensus that a significant drawdown must occur to relieve the Army – from Gates to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the service chiefs and many combatant commanders – Petraeus may not see things the same way. An expert in counterinsurgency, Petraeus believes such campaigns can last a decade or more if done right. While he is mindful of the strains on the force, he is considered to be more focused on maintaining the security momentum there, analysts say.

So what did media stars Tim Russert and Brian Williams do?  Nothing.  They did a fair impression of a bobble head doll.  Each happily nodding along as McCain spun his fantasy.  Not one person tonight dared challenge John McCain on this point–something that was demonstrably false–even in the post-debate wrap up.  Although McCain was a brave Navy pilot, it is equally clear he is now an addled old man who lacks the mental acuity to be a competent President. But with our “crack” TV media stars on patrol, they’ll just humor him and let him skate until he actually gets the job and can do some real damage. And at that point the joke will be on us.  Thank God (irony intended) for the Christian Science Monitor.  Too bad more folks don’t read it.  Perhaps McCain might like a subscription.

I am fortunate to have as friends lots of folks who worked in one form or fashion on the Afghan Task Force or in support of the mission to help the Afghan people fight the Russian invasion of 1979. As part of the continuing discussion about the movie and the Congressman, I want to share a couple of these and also direct you to an excellent article in the American Thinker that puts the movie in a different context.

First the American Thinker piece. Paul Kengor provides a very valid criticism:

I’m an historian, not a film critic. My objective here is to show where the movie is inaccurate — at times, woefully so. Simply put, the movie vastly exaggerates the influence of Charlie Wilson at the expense of individuals who were equally or even far more influential, and who somehow are not mentioned whatsoever — a gross, intentional, and rather shameless oversight. (read the rest)

I also received a note from Vince Cannistraro, who was a senior CIA officer and was working at the National Security Council during these events:

Having had some close views from the NSC of the development of the Afghan policy during the Reagan years, it is dismaying to see the bowdlerized account in “Charlie Wilson’s War.” Primarily in the film, but also in Crile’s book, which is partly based on Gust’s Avrakatos’ prejudices. Gust was, as described by others, crass, crude and thuggish- a perfect foil for Charlie whose resemblance to another congressman currently serving a prison sentence is uncanny. Charlie was deservedly credited with the large CIA appropriations for the war (along with a large bipartisan group on the Hill) but Charlie forced on the CIA the purchase of significant amounts of anti-aircraft weapons (the Oerlikan), a gun that was totally unsuited for use by the Afghan Mujahadin in mountain warfare. Charlie was an agent for Oerlikan and reputedly received a kickback on the sale. The weapon was not widely distributed by the Pakistanis, who administered the (US, French, Egyptian and even Chinese) arms supply to the Afghans. There is a long, convoluted and fascinating story to be told, but it is not contained in the movie or book.

Mr. “Retired” (a regular commenter at No Quarter and a retired CIA officer and friend) added this note:

Long and convoluted is absolutely correct. Which makes for interesting history, but not a very entertaining movie, so Hanks chose the Oscar nomination path.

I was in Egypt at the time schlepping arms “downrange” and watched the Oerlikon and Blowpipe phases with fascination. How, I wondered, are the Afghans going to learn the Blowpipe when even the OTS guy that we sent to the Blowpipe Platoon Leaders’ course screwed up the final live exercise? I used to have dinner with Peter and Gust when the latter blew into town and I thought that Hoffman portrayed Gust about as accurately as a blond guy is going to portray a Greek.

For those who were involved, I guess the movie serves the purpose of seeing our op up in lights in an entertaining way during a time when our Organization has become a political whipping boy of choice for both Congress and the White House. Not exactly what I was expecting out of retirement when I EoD’d (entered on duty), but I guess times do change.

Then there is the nonsense of Chalmers Johnson. I am always fascinated by folks who write about the CIA and never served on the inside but presume to know what actually happened. Chalmer’s critiques Crile’s book and the movie with this cannard:

“The author of this glowing account, [the late] George Crile, was a veteran producer for the CBS television news show ‘60 Minutes’ and an exuberant Tom Clancy-type enthusiast for the Afghan caper. He argues that the U.S.’s clandestine involvement in Afghanistan was ‘the largest and most successful CIA operation in history,’ ‘the one morally unambiguous crusade of our time,’ and that ‘there was nothing so romantic and exciting as this war against the Evil Empire.’ Crile’s sole measure of success is killed Soviet soldiers (about 15,000), which undermined Soviet morale and contributed to the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the period 1989 to 1991. That’s the successful part.

“However, he never once mentions that the ‘tens of thousands of fanatical Muslim fundamentalists’ the CIA armed are the same people who in 1996 killed nineteen American airmen at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, blew a hole in the side of the U.S.S. Cole in Aden Harbor in 2000, and on September 11, 2001, flew hijacked airliners into New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon.”

If Chalmers expects to be taken seriously then he should get his goddamn facts right. They are not the “same” fucking people! The people implicated in the attack in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia had direct ties to Iran. Iran was not involved in the 9-11 attacks. The attacks on U.S. targets in Kenya, Tanzania, Yemen, New York City, and Washington, D.C. were carried out by people in league with Osama Bin Laden. Neither Iran nor Bin Laden (and the Arab fighters for that matter) were given surface to air missiles or covert financial support by the United States during the secret war to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

If he had said, “the people we are now fighting in Afghanistan are the same folks we armed to fight off the Soviets,” then that would be accurate. We did arm Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Abdul Haq, Rahim Wardak, and Jalaluddin Haqqani.  But none of those gentlemen were involved with the planning or execution of any of the terrorist attacks carried out by Bin Laden’s minions.  But irony of ironies, we now find ourselves fighting those same folks. If you want to debate that, fine. But Chalmers Johnson takes chutzpah to a new level in accusing George Crile of sanitizing and rewriting history. He needs to move out of his glass house before he continues throwing rocks.

These simplistic, conspiratorial explanations of events like the 1980-89 war in Afghanistan can be entertaining fodder for Hollywood, but are not useful for helping us formulate new policies. The “truth” of that era is complex and nuanced. There are people who did heroic things and others who acted in disgraceful ways. And sometimes people were both hero and goat at the same time.

The point about Charlie Wilson is that despite being a rogue and reprobate he was genuinely concerned about helping the Afghan people fight off the Soviets. And it looks like Charlie took advantage of the situation to line his own pockets. More importantly, Charlie did not start the covert program and was not the only one involved. The truth of the matter is that the U.S. Government–Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan–directed that a covert effort be mounted. The CIA was not carrying out its own policy. The CIA was carrying out the policy of an elected commnader-in-chief. Keep that in mind as you look backwards.

Now something for those who are weary of all the political back-and-forth. Rightwing bloggers and neocons are up in arms over a story first reported by Washington Times reporter, Bill Gertz:

Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, has been fired from his position on the military’s Joint Staff. . . . Mr. Coughlin was notified this week that his contract with the Joint Staff will end in March, effectively halting the career of one of the U.S. government’s most important figures in analyzing the nature of extremism and ultimately preparing to wage ideological war against it. . . .
Mr. Coughlin was accused directly by Mr. Islam of being a Christian zealot or extremist “with a pen,” according to defense officials. Mr. Coughlin appears to have become one of the first casualties in the war of ideas with Islamism. The officials said Mr. Coughlin was let go because he had become “too hot” or controversial within the Pentagon.

Misguided Pentagon officials, including Mr. Islam and Mr. England, have initiated an aggressive “outreach” program to U.S. Muslim groups that critics say is lending credibility to what has been identified as a budding support network for Islamist extremists, including front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

Well, being the “Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism” may be akin to being the Oral Roberts University expert on fellatio and anal sex.  A terrific title for one with no genuine expertise. Meet Mr. Stephen Coughlin:

An attorney, decorated intelligence officer and noted specialist on Islamic law, ideology and related strategic information programs, Stephen C. Coughlin is a Visiting Fellow of IASC’s National Security Law Project. Mr. Coughlin integrates experience in international law, intelligence, strategic communications and high-level project management in both the national defense and private sectors to develop unique perspectives, assessments and training packages relating to the intersection of national security and law.

Does he speak Arabic? No. How about Urdu? Nope. He studied Islam where? No clue. But he graduated from an ABA sanctioned second-tier law school.   A good school, but it is not known as a center of Islamic study.  Unfortunately, Coughlin’s broad brush approach to Islam is more polemics than scholarship.  And it appears he has been involved with unfair attacks on genuine experts.  Consider the case of Jim Guirard, whom Coughlin reportedly claimed was in sympathy with members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Guirard writes:

It has come to my attention that a Joint Staff memorandum by Information Operations analyst Stephen Coughlin describing the nefarious aspirations of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Salafi-Wahhabi-al Qaeda look-alikes has been circulated in the anti-Terrorism community — and includes patently false inferences that I am somehow in collaboration with these self-proclaimed “Death to America” killers and hate-mongers.

(read the rest here).

Coughlin and others of his ilk have been pushing the hysteria that there is only one Islam and all of Islam is intent on conquering the West.   (Yes there are some Muslims who believe this, but Islam is not a monolith).  Pandering to peoples’ fears is an effective propaganda ploy but it does little to help our soldiers understand the cultural roots and political/religious dynamics they find in the field.  You would expect that in a war inside an Arab nation, that is predominantly Muslim, the Pentagon would hire renowned experts on the topics of Islam.  Nope.  We have Stephen Coughlin.  We have a situation in which folks with no real expertise or command of Arabic are making fanciful claims about a religion and cultures they do not know intimately.

Think I am making this up? Take a look for yourselves. This is a powerpoint presentation that is being circulated within the military community.  I think it is polemical and outstanding propaganda. Just enough truth to be believable. My point is that this kind of mindset, based more in ignorance rather than scholarship, is designed to foster war between the West and Islam. That is in no one’s interest who cares about humanity and decency.

Military Islamic Terrorism Presentation  (warning, this is a 172 slide monster of a presentation).

Finally, one further piece of anecdotal evidence about the Pentagon’s failure to take the war in Iraq seriously.  A old friend of my just deployed to Iraq.  His unit will be carrying out a mission that involves psychological operations.  Guess how many Arabic speakers are in the unit?  None.  Guess how many weeks of training they received on Iraq, Islam, and Arabic cultural sensitivities?  NONE!!  But we want these soldiers to go into a foreign combat theater and help shape the hearts and minds of a foreign people.  This, in a nutshell, highlights why we are making so little progress in Iraq.

I guess it is impossible for any movie, with the exception of Lord of the Rings, to capture the essence of the original book (come to think of it, Hollywood took liberties with Tokien). That is true for the recently released film of George Crile’s masterpiece, Charlie Wilson’s War. You lose the nuance and complexity that Crile captures, but the basic storyline is sound.

There are two central characters–Congressman Charlie Wilson and CIA case officer, Gust Avrakotos. Wilson was a womanizer, alcoholic, and patriot. Avrakotos was a working class guy not viewed by his supervisors as management material. He was too rough around the edges. This is a story of a Washington that no longer exists.

As the Reagan Administration spent its political capital during the mid-eighties to fight the Democratic controlled Congress’s efforts to cutoff covert funds for the Contras fighting to overthrow the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, an obscure Democratic Congressman, Charlie Wilson, working almost alone helped organize and fund a massive covert operation to beat the Soviets in Afghanistan. The movie tells that basic story in a very entertaining fashion, but it does not approach the wild truth that George Crile brings to life in his book.

Unfortunately, Hollywood is no damn good with history. They take enormous liberties with the real story. Gust Avrakotos, for example, appears as the central CIA guy running the op throughout. In the real world Gust subsequently was replaced by Jack Devine and Frank Anderson. You also hear nothing about Milt Bearden, who actually was in charge in Pakistan and oversaw the training and equipping of the various mujahideen recipients of CIA funds.

The movie also tries to gloss over the fact that the United States was funding some of the mujahideen–Haqqani and Hekmatayar in particular–that we are now fighting in Afghanistan. Shah Ahmad Massoud is presented in the movie as the main beneficiary of U.S. largesse. Not so. He received one, but there was continuing tension between Massoud, a Tajik, and the Pushtun Afghans who were backed by Pushtun cousins in Pakistan.

This much is true–the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was seen as an atrocity and outrage. And the Soviets were guilty of killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians. It was a noble effort on our part. But the movie also is ripe with irony. How many Afghan refugees have we helped create? While we are not engaged in the same indiscriminate attacks on Afghan civilians, there are unfortunately too many credible reports in which our forces have bombed villages and killed civilians. It is tough to leave the movie feeling too comfortable about our own moral superiority.

Too bad the movie could not show the contrast between the covert effort backing the Contras and that of the Afghans. Crile accurately captures the night and day difference. I was fortunate during the fall of 1985 to work on the Afghan Task Force and then, in the Spring of 1986, on the Central American Task Force. Crile correctly notes that the Central American Task force was a black comedy of errors and the Afghan Task Force was an unsung, under appreciated effort. It was the worst and best of the CIA.

If you are 35 or younger you have no memory of this period. George Crile’s book is required reading. Get the book first and then see the movie. Both are worth your time.

Several of you are wondering who I am backing to be the next President. I have not decided on a final choice because, to be candid, I have little say in the matter. I live and vote in Maryland. By the time primary season rolls around in my neck of the woods and bay inlets, the die will be cast.

Of the current field of democratic candidates I like three in particular–Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. If I were participating in an Iowa caucus or voting in New Hampshire, I’d go for Joe. But he is not getting any traction. So that leaves me with Hillary and Edwards.

I favor giving Hillary more coverage at No Quarter for a very simple reason–no other candidate for president in my memory has been subjected to as many vile, baseless attacks as this good woman. You don’t have to be a rightwing nut to know or believe some of this garbage. According to these critics Hillary is a murderer, a practicing lesbian who is getting it on with her Saudi chief of staff, a swindler, a cheat, and a coverup artist. Oh yeah, her and Bill employ, so we are told, their own hit squad who run around silencing critics.

What I find amazing is how inept that Clinton “hit” squad is? If they were worth a damn (or REAL) then critics like this bozo in Texas, Robert Morrow, would be a worm buffet by now (I will not link to anything written by Morrow). Ain’t it amazing that Bill and Hill are known to kill their opponents and yet so many opponents and critics are still walking around unscathed?

The evil witch, bitch caricature of Hillary is a lie readily embraced by many in America. But it is not the Hillary I have met. I am not a good friend nor a close advisor. And I am not lobbying for a slot in a Clinton Administration. I’m not ready for a pay cut and I like to sleep until 9am. But I have been in her office twice and briefed her on issues concerning terrorism and Iraq. If you had asked me before my first visit in 2005 if she could be president I would have said, “There are two ways–no way and no way in hell”. Sadly, much of my initial opinion about Senator Clinton was based on the filth I had heard about her lack of character and private behavior.

The briefing occurred shortly after I had testified on the Hill about the harm done to Valerie Plame. Senator Clinton was aware of my testimony and congratulated me on standing up for Val. The Senator was very gracious, engaging, and charismatic. And she does not have fat legs (the number of guys who have dissed her for not having great gams is obscene). She is an attractive 60-year-old woman. But that was not what stood out for me. She is scary smart.

I was not alone at the briefing–there were two other participants who are well-known experts on the Middle East and Iraq. We had not submitted our briefings in advance. We made our respective presentations and had a genuine, in-depth discussion about viable options. She asked us tough questions and could think on her feet without having to look at notes. She focused on what could be done to achieve U.S. interests in Iraq without bleeding our country’s treasury and military.

As we talked about the limits and efficacy of using military assets to go after terrorist targets, the Senator brought up the book, Not a Good Day to Die by Sean Naylor. She did more than bring it up. She described in detail the challenges that special operations military forces actually face on the ground. I was stunned. This is not an easy book to read. It is an excellent work and provides enormous detail on special operations and CIA military activities in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda. But it is tough sledding for folks not familiar with military terminology. She had it nailed, and it was not a mere pre-planned politician’s trick. She knew what she was talking about.

I came out of that meeting and realized I could be seeing the next President. If people could always see the real Hillary she would win in a cake walk. I admit her main failing is to over-think the politics of every situation and, as a result, she has at times appeared rigid, robotic, and programmed. But that is not the real her. She’s funny, quick, and can think and talk on her feet without choking on a pretzel.

So if No Quarter appears to be a pro-Hillary site, it is simply me trying to balance out the mountain of shit tossed her way.

I also like John Edwards. But he has not tasted even a hint of the personal and political attacks that have been launched against Hillary. Therefore I do not feel as much of a need to “defend” him. However, I have given my friends–Wayne Williams and Brad Parker–full permission to publish any John Edwards piece they want. They are rabid Edwards promoters.

Who would be the strongest national candidate for the Democrats? I think it is Edwards. That’s my analytical conclusion. I worry that the hatred and prejudice against Senator Clinton is so deep that it will be a tough obstacle to overcome. But then I think back to a time when I had accepted the anti-Hillary propaganda and what subsequently happened to my thinking after meeting her. The Hillary I saw behind the closed doors of her office is a genuine, smart, very likable person. If America is permitted to see that woman then she has a chance.

UPDATE:  Further to the point that Obama lacks the seasoning and the smarts to be President, please watch this Bush-esque performance.  Obama cannot provide a clear, cogent answer to why he declined to vote in favor of allowing sexual abuse victims to have their court recrods sealed and their privacy protected.  My god people.  Can we afford another dummy in the White House?

The key question surrounding torture tape gate is not who authorized the destruction of the tapes in 2005. Nope. The real priority is who in the Bush Administration knowlingly lied to a Federal Judge in the spring of 2003.

The fun started on 7 May 2003 during a CIPA (i.e., Classified Information Procedures Act) hearing presided over by Judge Leonie Brinkema. She ordered the government to determine if interrogations of suspected terrorists were recorded. Two days later, 9 May 2003, Judge Leonie Brinkema asked, “whether the interrogations are being recorded in any format”? The Department of Justice, based on info from the CIA, said “NO”. (see p. 4 of letter to Federal Judges by U.S. attorneys Novak and Raskin).

There are at least two felonies here–obstruction of justice and lying to a federal law enforcement official. Someone who worked for John Ashcroft, the Attorney General at the time, certainly was in touch with the U.S. Attorneys who fielded this question from Judge Brinkema. And the Department of Justice asked the C.I.A. I will bet you dollars to donuts that the White House also was in the loop on this. At least Harriet Miers, Gonzo, and Addington. Who would they talk to at the CIA?

George Tenet, Director? Yes. CIA General Counsel? Certainly. The guy in charge of spies in the field–the DDO Jim Pavitt? Probably.  This was not some obscure legal point.  This was a high priority matter.  Someone (or several someones, i.e. a conspiracy) at the CIA or the Department of Justice lied.  And Federal Judges like Brinkema don’t like being lied to.  Gives them a case of the cherry ass.

When the CIA affirms to the court in November of 2005 that there are no tapes, that may have been a true statement at the time. If the tapes were destroyed in June or July then it was a factual statement. The real crime starts in 2003. Funny, but then Deputy Director of the CIA, John McLaughlin, has been quiet as a church mouse of late. Ditto for Tenet and Pavitt. With reason. Someone lied.

After querying former intelligence officers and reviewing the letter from the U.S. Attorney’s in Richmond, Virginia, I can clarify some issues surrounding what’s what with respect to the question of the “destruction” of interrogation tapes and speculate on others.

For starters tt appears that the June 2005 decision of the Italian judge to issue arrest warrants for C.I.A. officers and contractors involved in the kidnapping of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr in 2003 may have been the precipitating incident convincing Jose Rodriguez that Agency must destroy video tapes of terrorist interrogations. That operation was conducted with the full knowledge and approval of the Italians. If the Italians could flip on us that meant anyone could.

Let’s follow the timeline:

March 2002–Abu Zubaydah is captured in Pakistan. George Bush is briefed regularly by George Tenet on the details of Zubaydah’s interrogation (see p. 22, State of War by James Risen). Cofer Black is in charge of the CIA’s Counteterrorism Center and oversees the CIA’s hunt for the terrorists. Zubaydah is interrogated in Thailand, where the sessions were filmed. He was waterboarded sometime in the May-June 2002 time frame. Enhanced interrogation methods were used and approval for them came from Jim Pavitt (see p. 21 of ABC News interview of former CIA case officer, John Kiriakou). Pavitt was the DDO (i.e., Deputy Director of Operations). Stephen Kappes, who currently serves as the Deputy Director of the CIA, was named Assistant Deputy Director of Operations in June 2002. Ron Suskind confirms Risen’s report that the President and his National Security team were regularly briefed on the results of Zubaydah’s torture sessions (see The One Percent Doctrine, pp. 111-115).

What we know for certain is that the CIA was keeping the President and his National Security team fully briefed on the methods and results of interrogating Abu Zubaydah. In fact, it is highly likely that George Tenet showed part of the videotape of the interrogation to the President.

November-December 2002–Cofer Black leaves the C.I.A. and is sworn in as the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the Department of State. Jose A. Rodriguez takes over the helm of the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center.

9 May 2003–C.I.A. declares in sworn statement to Judge Leonie Brinkema that it was not recording interrogations of terrorist suspects in any format (see p. 4 of letter to Federal Judges by U.S. attorneys Novak and Raskin).

June 2004–George Tenet resigns as Director of the C.I.A. James Pavitt retires. Stephen Kappes replaces Pavitt as DDO.

September 2004–Porter Goss sworn in as Director of the C.I.A.

November 2004–Stephen Kappes resigns from the C.I.A. in a dispute with Porter Goss and the his aides. Jose Rodriguez takes over as the DDO.

late June 2005–An Italian judge issued arrest warrants for 13 U.S. CIA agents accused of kidnapping imam Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr in Italy in 2003, and sending him to Egypt for questioning regarding possible terrorist activities.

14 November 2005–In response to an order of the U.S. District Court for the C.I.A. to confirm or deny that it has video or audio tapes of interrogations of C.I.A. subjects, the C.I.A. the “U.S. Government does not have any video or audio tapes of the interrogations of (two terrorist suspects whose names are blacked out)” (see p. 4 of U.S. Attorney letter).

June 2006–Michael Hayden takes over as Director of the C.I.A. and Stephen Kappes returns as the Deputy Director of the C.I.A.

13 September 2007–C.I.A. notifies the U.S. Attorneys in Richmond, Virginia that it had discovered the videotape of the interrogation of terrorists whose names are blacked out in the declassified letter (see. p. 2 of the letter).

19 September 2007–The U.S. Attorneys view the video tape. Attorneys direct the C.I.A. to search its files again for relevant material.

18 October 2007–C.I.A. provides the U.S. Attorneys with an additional video tape and an audio tape of an interrogation. The U.S. Attorneys compare the video tapes with the operational cables (i.e., written reports) reporting the results of the interrogations. They determined that the reports accurately reported what was viewed on the video tape.

This is an important point–the substance of what transpired during those interrogations was given to the Moussaoui defense team.

So. Who did what?

Jose Rodriguez has been fingered as acting unilaterally, but that is not true. He did check with both the IG and the DO’s assigned Assistant General Counsel before destroying the DO’s copies of the tapes. Although Jose is a lawyer, he made the mistake of trusting fellow lawyers, and now is likely to get chopped up in the political meat grinder while trying to clear his name and reputation. The only thing that might save him a bit is that he and Congressman Reyes are buddies, which is what Congressman Reyes may have meant when he told the NYT today that he (Reyes) “was not looking for scapegoats.”

This isn’t the first time that Jose has had his tit in a ringer. During Iran-Contra, he and another C.I.A. officer were summoned to DC for questioning by the FBI. He could prove that he had asked for, and never received, DCI confirmation through cable command channels that Ollie North’s orders were legit, and thus diplomatically told Felix Rodriguez to pound sand. However, when it was thought that he was going to be called to testify on the Hill, the DCI’s office told him that, despite what the regulations said, OGC would not provide him legal support for acting within his authority and the law. Then C.I.A. Director told Jose thru a friend that Iran-Contra was “political, get your own lawyer.”

Jose Rodriguez did not consult beforehand with Kyle “Dusty” Foggo. However, Jose did inform Dusty subsequently of the advice he received from the OGC’s counsel.

And last but not least. The top two Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees–the so-called “gang of eight”–were fully briefed in interrogation techniques several times during 2002-3. They concurred unanimously that the interrogation techniques were OK. This means that Democrats as well as Republicans backed this process.

All for now boys and girls. Stay tuned.

Listening to the howls and foot stomping tantrums from Newt Gingrich and John Bolton this past week as they reacted to the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, one would think that communist jihadists bent on raping Mother Teresa on the tomb of the Unknown Soldier arrived in Washington. Gingrich called the estimate a “coup d’etat” by former State Department officials. And Bolton insists that the intelligence community engaged in policymaking rather than analysis. Harumph!!

Leave it to Newt Gingrich to believe that providing people with truth is the equivalent of a coup. And John Bolton–a black pot if ever there was one–is angry that intelligence is being used to fix a policy. That’s like listening to John Wayne Gacy complaining about men who get their jollies by raping and murdering teenage boys. Save the faux outrage Bolton.

Folks like Gingrich and Bolton only accept intelligence if it corresponds to their preconceived prejudices. Truth is largely irrelevant in their worldview. Just as long as the story line adheres to neocon orthodoxy, they are happy campers.

Where is the “politicization” or “policymaking” in the current NIE?

It does not exist. As someone who has worked and lived in both worlds it is easy to distinguish between intelligence analysis/assessment and making policy. Asking whether Iran has a nuclear weapons program or capability is an intelligence question. Deciding what to do (or not do) about an Iranian nuclear weapons program is the realm of policy making.

Intelligence analysts describe the threat based on existing intelligence. Policy makers in turn have the burden of deciding whether the threat is worthy of attention and, if so, what to do about it. If the Intelligence Community believes that Iran is well on its way to building a nuke, then policymakers must first decide if that is a threat to our nation. If the answer is yes, then the next set of decisions is to figure out what to do.

The Intelligence Community’s latest NIE on Iran is not based on opinion. It is based on information developed since the publication of the last NIE on Iran in 2005. The neocons’ panties are in knot because the Intelligence Community–specifically the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA, INR, and DOE–concluded unanimously that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

This is not policymaking. This is fact presentation. Gingrich and Bolton are pissed because their well-honed propaganda campaign to persuade the American people that there was no alternative but war with Iran was destroyed by the Intelligence Community’s inconvenient truth. They understand that it is easier to make policy as long as the public is given the mushroom treatment (i.e., keep the people in the dark and feed them shit).

The Neocon Intelligence Cookbook is pretty simple. First, you must persuade people that Saddam Hussein was collaborating with Osama Bin Laden. Once you close that deal then the next step–whipping up public furor to attack Iraq as part of the war on terrorism–is easy. If the intelligence community tells you there is no such relationship, you ignore the community and produce your own information. Then you give it to political hacks like Stephen Hayes, who help spread the propaganda and convince the public that war with the enemy is the only logical choice.

It is the public release of the NIE that has Gingrich and Bolton seething. During the build up to the war with Iraq, the objections of the intelligence community about the alleged links between Osama and Saddam were not made public. With respect to Iran the American people now know that Iran is not on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon. Iran is not pushing for a new World War. Iran’s actions are the opposite of a Nazi Germany seeking to gain more territory and subjugate nations.

It also is important to note what the NIE does not contain. It does not call for more sanctions or less sanctions. It does not encourage or discourage the President from seeking Congressional support for military action against Iran. It says nothing about what the policy of the United States should be toward Iran.

In 2005 the Intelligence Community believed that Iran was determined to build nuclear weapons. Now the analysts who wrote and coordinated on the NIE:

Judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (DOE and the NIC have moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.)

The analysts also concluded that that Iran probably would have the technical means to produce highly enriched uranium in four to six years. The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research is the most skeptical of the analysts in the community, and believes that technical and program problems will delay Iran until at least 2013.

Worth noting that the Intelligence Community does not instruct policymakers what they should or should not do. George Bush is still free to advocate for going to war with Iran. Getting this information in front of the public has pulled the rug out from under the Bush hypnotism show. The President and his neocon buddies have been busy laying the groundwork for attacking Iran. Their case was based on a lie. But they were doing a good job of selling the lie to the American people. Repeat ad nauseum–Iran is building nukes. . . .Iran is building nukes.

Only this time, the fix is not in and the neocons don’t have full access to pull the strings. This time the intelligence community offered its factual judgments. The analysts do not infringe on the President’s right to decide what kind of policy he wants. They simply make it more difficult for him to pretend that the moon is made of green cheese and the earth is flat. George Bush is no longer entitled to only rely on his own misguided set of personal beliefs.  He is constrained from telling Americans that Iran is building nukes.  The Intelligence Community did its job–they gave the President their best judgment.  Will George Bush persist in building his Iranian fantasy?  That is the key question.

Looks like the cat is out of the bag and the “new family jewels” were destroyed. What am I talking about? Today’s revelation in the NY Times that, “the Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about its secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.”

During the Church Committee investigation of CIA misdeeds in 1975-76, “family jewels” was the euphemism for the list of unsavory secret activities–e.g., assassination, domestic spying, etc.–carried out by CIA officers that then CIA Director, William Colby, handed over to Congress. Those “jewels” tarnished the Agency’s reputation and its officers. Well, here we go again.

The news of the destroyed tapes is not on par with the “family jewels” of the seventies. But it does reinforce the “24″ image of CIA activities that the average layman (or woman) believes to be true. It’s not just Jack Bauer torturing folks to save America.

The truth on this will come out assuming that the Democrats press the investigation. At initial glance the CIA is hiding behind the lamest of excuses:

General Hayden’s statement said that the tapes posed a “serious security risk” and that if they had become public they would have exposed C.I.A. officials “and their families to retaliation from Al Qaeda and its sympathizers.”

I do not dispute the possibility of retaliation by Al Qaeda against an undercover officer. In fact, it happened to Valerie Plame Wilson, but her identity was exposed by the Bush Administration. Then there is the question of tradecraft. Did the CIA officers participating in the interrogation/torture sessions allow themselves to be filmed so that they could be easily identified? I am skeptical. When the truth comes out I think we are likely to discover the people doing the questioning were contractors, not undercover Agency officers.

But let’s assume for a moment that undercover CIA officers actually were filmed.  Are you telling me that CIA has not figured out how to edit videotapes and cover the faces and voices of their personnel?  I’m sure there is a 14 year old computer geek out there somewhere with a MacBook Pro who is ready and willing to help the CIA do the necessary editing to protect their personnel.  The Hayden excuse does not pass the bullshit test.

But anyway, according to the CIA, there wasn’t anything worth seeing. The tapes are no longer of any value.

Let’s be clear why these were destroyed–the chief of the Operations Division, Jose Rodriguez, understood that this was video evidence of torture. It was not the exposure of clandestine identities that had him fretting. It was the fear that CIA officers and contractors could be standing before a tribunal in the Hague trying to explain why the images of torture were not torture.

Then there is the potential embarrassment from showing that these extreme interrogation measures did not produce any intelligence of significance. If, for example, one of the tortured victims had spilled the beans about an impending attack on the White House or the financial towers of New York City you can be sure that evidence would be preserved and shared. At least those involved in this tawdry affair could justify violating international conventions by demonstrating that “lives were saved”. But that did not happen.

Jose Rodriguez will not be the only one walking the public plank on this issue.  In fact, he did not undertake this mission without the permission or direction from higher ups.  And when you are the Deputy Director of Operations, there are not a lot of people above you. Prominent names include George Tenet, John McLaughlin, Porter Goss, and John Rizzo.  Darrel Plant has an insightful piece giving some important background on Rizzo, the acting CIA General Counsel.

Other intelligence officers likely to be asked tough questions include Cofer Black (now a senior official with Blackwater) and Ambassador Henry “Hank” Crumpton, who was Cofer’s deputy and subsequently served as the Coordinator for Counter Terrorism at State Department.

Be assured that lawyers in Washington are celebrating this as a holiday gift.  I am sure many CIA officers will get a chance to use the insurance policies they bought, which helps defray legal expenses.  I doubt that Jose Rodriguez will be a willing scapegoat.  In fact, I would not be surprised if he kept some information back that would help exonerate him just in case this very contingency arose.

Happy Holidays.

“How can you trust the intelligence community to get it right on Iran? They got Iraq wrong in 2002 and now this?” The “this” is the NIE on Iran and its search for nukes.
That in a nutshell is one of the prevalent reactions of neocons and Bush true believers. But wait, there is more.
John Bolton told Wolf Blitzer that the NIE was the handiwork of exiled State Department officials hell bent on undermining Bush and this country.

Well, I think it’s potentially wrong. But I would also say many of the people who wrote this are former State Department employees who, during their career at the State Department, never gave much attention to the threat of the Iranian program. Now they are writing as members of the intelligence community, the same opinions that they have had four and five years ago.

This is one of the neocon talking points. Check out the ravings of Norman Podhoretz, a senior statesman of the neocons. The Pod Man wrote:

I must confess to suspecting that the intelligence community, having been excoriated for supporting the then universal belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is now bending over backward to counter what has up to now been a similarly universal view (including as is evident from the 2005 NIE, within the intelligence community itself) that Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons. I also suspect that, having been excoriated as well for minimizing the time it would take Saddam to add nuclear weapons to his arsenal, the intelligence community is now bending over backward to maximize the time it will take Iran to reach the same goal.

But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations. As the intelligence community must know, if he were to do so, it would be as a last resort, only after it had become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding. How better, then, to stop Bush in his tracks than by telling him and the world that such pressures have already been effective and that keeping them up could well bring about “a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program”—especially if the negotiations and sanctions were combined with a goodly dose of appeasement or, in the NIE’s own euphemistic formulation, “with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways.”

This blog was one of the first to report that the NIE was being delayed for political reasons. George Bush tried his moron act again today (i.e., “I didn’t find out about this until last week.”) but this time the turd ain’t floating. The news that Iran ended its nuclear program in 2003 was briefed to George Bush in the Presidential Daily Brief. He has known about this, I am told, for at least one year. George Bush is lying when he insists he had no inkling, until last week, that the intelligence community believed Iran halted its nuke program in 2003.

This is the kind of earthshaking intel that analysts rarely get to see. What is remarkable about the NIE is the consensus in the intelligence community about the validity of this info. Compare this to the execrable 2002 NIE on Iraq. There was no consensus in the intelligence community about Iraq’s efforts to acquire nukes. The”true believers” held the day and their position was prominently featured in the final draft. Dissenters–State’s Intelligence and Research Bureau and the Department of Energy–were relegated to footnotes and comments separated from the claim.

When you do an NIE it is incumbent on the writers to clearly state whether there is consensus or dissent. And if there is disagreement then that should be reflected in the text. In the case of the October 2002 abortion, the NIC editors should have noted that there was disagreement in the intelligence community about Iraq’s efforts to rebuild its nuclear program. They should have written something like, “analysts at the CIA and DIA believe Saddam is trying but analysts at INR and DOE believe the evidence points to non-nuclear activity”.  Instead, the NIC editors let stand the misleading notion that Iraq was rebuilding a nuclear weapons program even though all agreed that Iraq was not trying to acquire yellowcake uranium from Niger.  The senior NIC officials failed to do their duty in 2002.

Not the case today. The NIC stepped up and refused to budge despite repeated efforts by Dick Cheney and his minions to gut the effort. This happened thanks to the convergence of several factors. First, most of the Bush neocon ideologues are gone–Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, Wurmser, Libby, etc. Second, the Democrats control the House and Senate Intelligence committee and were receiving reports from analysts about the bullying by Cheney and others who were trying to sandbag the conclusions. Third, senior intelligence officers learned the lesson of 2002 and returned to the tradition of telling the President the truth, no matter how unpopular or unpalatable. And finally, this Administration’s days are numbered and the analysts can read the tea leaves. They know there is no percentage in pandering to power by serving up half-truths and wishful thinking.

But let’s not celebrate too strongly. It is clear from the Bush presser today that he is not backing off an inch from his delusion about the Iranians and his commitment to do something about them. Fortunately, the release of this NIE hems him in a bit and limits his options for using military force. It also reminds the American people that serious threats can be resolved with diplomacy rather than rely on testosterone laden military fantasies. If political pressure can keep Iran from building nukes then that is the course we should pursue above all others. Eat that one Mr. Podhoretz.