Larry Johnson, Author at Progress Pond

Brent Bozell, Chicken?

by Larry Johnson (bio below)

From: I was contacted by an MSNBC booker late today (Monday, 28 November) who asked if I would appear tonight on the Joe Scarborough Show to discuss whether or not the media are hypocrites when it comes to covering the leak to the Washington Post about the CIA secret prisons. The booker told me that Brent Bozell, head of the Media Research Center, was accusing the media of focusing too much on the leak of Valerie Plame and not enough on the leak about the prisons.

I agreed to come on air to debate Mr. Bozell. My point was simple–the leak to Dana Priest came in part from CIA officers who were concerned that the effort by the Vice President and Director Goss to allow a torture loophole would discredit and destroy the CIA’s future effectiveness.

This is a far cry from the President and Vice President authorizing the leak of CIA clandestine operative’s identity because her husband had the temerity to blow the whistle on the White House trying to bamboozle the people of the United States. I was looking forward to discussing the issue with Mr. Bozell.

Apparently, Mr. Bozell is a coward. He told MSNBC he would not appear if I was on the show, even if they scheduled me before or after him. He couldn’t handle a man-to-man debate. Typical conservative coward. I think the term is “Girly Man”. Tough talker when he is alone but unable to handle an informed debate. What is really sad is the MSNBC is caving into Bozell, rather than insisting that its audience hear both sides of an issue.

Shocked, anyone?

……………………………………………………..

Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm that helps corporations and governments manage threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism (as a Deputy Director), is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC’s Nightline, NBC’s Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world. Further bio details.

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

The President’s Exclusive Access to Sensitive Intelligence

by Larry Johnson (bio below)

If you didn’t catch Mel Goodman’s op-ed at truthout it is worth a read. Lays out in great detail why Congress had no where near the intel access that Bush and Cheney did. Too bad most of the media is content to repeat talking points rather than go after the substance of the matter.

Happy Turkey Day

Larry Johnson

The President’s Exclusive Access to Sensitive Intelligence

By Mel Goodman

t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Mel Goodman, senior fellow for intelligence reform at the Center for International Policy, was an intelligence analyst at the CIA for 24 years. On the net: ustourofduty.org

Sunday 20 November 2005

President Bush, in defense of his decision to use force in Iraq, contends that the Congress supported the decision and that it had access to the same intelligence available to the White House. Not true!

The president and his key advisers, usually about five or six principals, receive the CIA’s “President’s Daily Brief” (PDB) five or six times a week. The PDB contains sensitive intelligence, including raw intelligence, that is not seen anywhere else in the policy community or on Capitol Hill. Most of this intelligence is of the compartmented variety that isn’t even available to intelligence analysts working on a particular problem. In addition to the PDB, the briefer usually brings additional intelligence reporting that would be of special interest to the president or the secretaries of state or defense. Again, these items are highly classified and not available to the general community.

Every agency or department in the intelligence community has special compartmented intelligence that is not widely shared. The CIA’s directorate of operations, for example, has what is known as “red-border” and “blue-border” series of clandestine intelligence that can be carried to the White House or the National Security Council, but receives very limited distribution elsewhere and certainly would not be seen by members of congress. The National Security Agency has very sensitive collections that often do not get into any publication other than the PDB and are distributed by hand to only one or two members of other intelligence agencies. The State Department has sensitive cables for embassies that are marked “eyes only” or “nodis” for no distribution that are seen by only a few outside the department. These items certainly would not be seen on the Hill. The same is true for sensitive satellite imagery.

In addition to published and raw intelligence that is not even seen by the Senate and House intelligence committees, the president and his staff can task the CIA and other intelligence agencies for sensitive analysis on key aspects of the war in Iraq. During Vietnam, for example, the CIA did numerous studies on the bombing campaign, which told President Johnson and Secretary of Defense McNamara that it was not working. The CIA also did sensitive reports on the numbers of Viet Cong in South Vietnam, which made it clear that the Pentagon was significantly underestimating the size and strength of the enemy. It is unlikely that sensitive intelligence is being shared today that deals with the size and strength of the insurgency in Iraq or the ineffectiveness of certain military tactics there. Even before the Tet offensive in 1968, President Johnson knew that the war effort would not succeed. No senator is likely to gain access to the very intelligence that would be most useful to the criticism of a particular decision, such as use of force in Iraq. Indeed, the Senate Armed Forces Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee need to task the intelligence community for the sensitive intelligence that would inform the debate on when and how to withdraw.

The Democrats, however, cannot say they were duped before voting for the war in October 2002.

… Continued below …
Before that vote, the Senate had been given the flawed CIA estimate on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that contained numerous errors and deceptions on the Iraqi weapons inventory. The vote on the use of force should have been delayed to allow sufficient scrutiny of the specious estimate. Unfortunately, only five or six Senators even bothered to go to the special vaulted area of the Senate intelligence committee to read the estimate, and the only senator who proclaimed that the document was a fraud, Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), was ignored. So, if the Congress was hoodwinked, then it helped to apply its own blinders.

In any event, it is entirely disingenuous to say that the senators who voted on the use of force in Iraq in October 2002 had the same access to intelligence that was available to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. At the same time, it was foolish for Senator John Kerry to say in the summer of 2004 that, if he knew in 2002 what he knew in 2004, he still would have voted for the use of force. More likely, if Kerry knew in 2002 what we all knew in 2004, there would have been no vote at all.

……………………………………………………..

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

Getting It Right

by Larry Johnson (bio below)

I did this two and a half years ago. I commented on the outrage in the intel community about the cooking of the books on Iraq. Seems timely in light of Cheney’s continued denial of reality. — LJ

CIA Politics

Listen to this story … by Michele Norris

All Things Considered, May 30, 2003 · NPR’s Michele Norris talks with Larry Johnson, a former CIA and State Department analyst, about Nicholas Kristof’s New York Times column entitled “Save Our Spooks.” Kristof says the Department of Defense deliberately skewed the facts to convince the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq.

……………………………………………………..

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

Blowing the Whistle On Bob Woodward

by
Larry C. Johnson (bio below)

There is an entire backstory on Woodward that most folks are ignoring. Woodward appears to have been in bed with neocon types going back to 1969. He worked, for example, for the Admiral who was spying on the Nixon Administration. I’m not trying to portray Tricky Dick as a victim (he wasn’t). Worth getting folks focused on this.
— Best, LJ

Among the many op-eds spawned by Bob Woodward’s duplicity, this one in the Tampa Tribune struck a nerve. Entitled, Woodward Failed His Readers By Holding Back What He Knew, the piece sparked a reaction by Len Colodny. Len’s site, watergate.com, has some fascinating background on Bob Woodward and his ties to military intelligence.

Woodward has been the consummate insider while cultivating the image of the hard charging investigative reporter. He is anything but, and it is time to blow the whistle on his incestuous relationship with certain government officials. The fact that the Washington Post is still covering for this joker says volumes about the decline of the Post.

When he appears on Larry King Live Tonight maybe he will answer a longstanding question, “When did he resign from Naval Intelligence?”

Take a look at Len Colodny’s letter to the editor of the Tampa Trib and his website.

Dear Ms Goudreau,

There is a lot wrong with Journalism, but Woodward goes way beyond that. Ask him why he lies about his Navy career or his lying about briefing Al Haig in 1969? You can read and see for yourself the sources are there and on tape at www.watergate.com there are more pages of material on the real “Woodward” than anywhere else on the net. Including an exclusive 90 minute interview I conducted with him in 1989. You can read and judge for yourself.

I only wish he was a journalist, not a front for the right wing military for the past 35 years. Your editorial lumps him in with a lot of good journalists that actually work at the job, and are very ethical. When Woodward actually tried to work as an editor at the Post, one of his reporters had to admit she made up a false story and return a Pulitzer Prize. Another Woodward edited story caused the Post to be sued by the President of Mobil oil and they lost at trial. Judy Belushi sued him after he wrote the book wired, He settled. Woodward also forced one of his young reporters to write a false story in order to force a sources hand, and release material the source had refused to release on his own. Finally the Post sent him off to a safe place where he could write books (Although everyone knows he does not even know how to write, he needs a caddy for that)

I guess I am shocked that you at the Tribune seem so upset with Woodward, for those of us that know him well, this was something that was consistent with what he has done over the last three decades. Just Woodward being Woodward. Should you find the time to check the site above you will note all my sources are named. That is the right way to conduct investigative reporting.

I have pride in what we do, so I hope you understand my passion for the truth.

Thanks for at least taking Woodward to task, even if we do not see it exactly the same way.

Sincerely,

Len Colodny

……………………………………………………..

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

Good News in Iraq?

by Larry C. Johnson (bio below)

The neocons who helped bum rush the United States into war are insistent that things are actually peachy keen in Iraq. It is just that damn liberal media who keeps spreading the lies and the bad news about the place. Oh really?

Consider the following:

The strife between the Shias and the Sunnis in Iraq is escalating. A dandy piece in today’s New York Times by Sabrina Tavernise lays it out in excruciating detail.

Two and a half years after the American invasion, deep divides that have long split Iraqi society have violently burst into full view. As the hatred between Sunni Arabs and Shiites hardens and the relentless toll of bombings and assassinations grows, families are leaving their mixed towns and cities for safer areas where they will not automatically be targets. In doing so, they are creating increasingly polarized enclaves and redrawing the sectarian map of Iraq, especially in Baghdad and the belt of cities around it.

But, it is not just the “liberals” bemoaning this fact. Consider David Brooks’ op-ed piece in the same newspaper. He notes that, “And what also drives violence in Iraq is that the Shiites have responded to Sunni supremacy by turning ultrachauvinist themselves. In the vacuum of security caused by the botched American occupation, these ethnic tensions have turned into a low-grade civil war.”

The other manifestations of the civil war are quite evident. Who can forget or ignore the Ministry of Interior torture center, which is under the control of Shia officials and dedicated to the proposition that the only good Sunni is a dead Sunni. How do the Sunnis respond to this? They bomb funerals. Shia funerals, that is.

So, how does the U.S. figure in this mayhem? Well, we’re organizing and training an Army and police force comprised largely of Shia and Kurds. That is a fact. These forces in turn attack largely Sunni communities. That also is a fact. Those communities, not surprisingly, believe the United States is engaged in a deliberate policy of extermination. That is not true but it is the perceived truth. In fact, other surrounding Sunni nations such as Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia believe we have a secret plan to create this chaos as part of a broader strategy to gain control of the region for our own purposes.

We face a terrible choice. We cannot allow the purging of the Sunni to continue and have ourselves blamed as the ones directing this genocide. However, if we move to rein in the various Shia groups we will find ourselves battling Shia insurgents who so far have saved most of their wrath for the Sunnis.

… More below:
Hey, wait, it gets even better. If we are perceived as turning against the Shias we will face the monumental task of trying to protect our logistics supply line which runs south from Baghdad thru Shia communities to Kuwait. It is a vulnerability that military commanders understandably don’t want to talk about in public. Let there be no doubt that the major benefactor of the Shias, the Iranians, understand this point all too well.

The multiple threats we face in Iraq will not be solved by an election. The differences dividing the ethno religious groups in the territory of Iraq cannot be bridged by a group hug or a sit down around a conference table. We have ripped the scab off of an ancient wound and unleashed a beast that cannot be calmed through diplomacy. We do not have the force structure in place in Iraq to contain the burgeoning civil war. Instead, we are becoming pawns that each side of this ethnic quagmire will use to justify their particular agendas. The British learned the hard way in the 1920s. It remains to be seen if we are willing to learn anything from history or just destined to repeat it.

……………………………………………………..

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

Why John Murtha is Right!

by Larry C. Johnson (bio below)

John Murtha’s courageous call for American troops to leave Iraq is the right policy at the right time. The Bush chickenhawks already are impugning Murtha’s patriotism, but when you have a purple heart and a silver star compared to a President with a spotty attendance record with the National Guard and a Vice President with five deferments, that dog don’t hunt.

The situation in Iraq is clear. The United States does not have enough troops on the ground to contain and destroy the insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency consists of at least 26 different groups and draws upon as many as 250,000 supporters. These groups represent a spectrum of beliefs ranging from secular nationalists to hard core jihadists. The only thing they agree on is that they hate the invader; which is us.

To defeat the insurgency we will need at least 400,000 troops on the ground. At the present time, the United States does not have sufficient troop strength to ramp up to that level. Our choice is simple–either we come up with the additional forces and commit ourselves to an effort that will stretch on for at least five years with 400,000 plus soldiers and marines in theatre or we withdraw.

How do we get 400,000 troops on the ground? That will require a draft or a commitment by NATO forces and other countries to provide forces. Even if we start a draft tomorrow, we will not be able to field combat capable divisions for at least two years. Basic training requires 10 weeks. Advance infantry training adds an additional six months. Once the troops are trained they need to train as units. The unit training, starting with companies and working up to division level exercises, will require at least 18 months (and that is an optomistic scenario).

In the interim we would need to call upon NATO forces to deploy to Iraq and conduct a coordinated counter insurgency effort. This effort, over the next two years, will likely produce at least 10,000 fatalities and 80,000 wounded. Are we willing as a country to pay that price? I don’t think so.

Meanwhile, our efforts on the ground are succeeding in killing and capturing a large number of suspected insurgents. But our kill capture effort is producing a blowback–Iraqis who are incarcerated and the surviving relatives of those killed respond to our effort by joining the insurgents. Instead of reducing the insurgency our efforts are providing a catalyst that recruits new insurgents faster than we can kill them.

There also is no doubt that our efforts are providing a recruiting poster for jihadists. Last year, for example, the number of terrorist attacks that resulted in people being killed and wounded was the highest number ever recorded since the CIA started keeping statistics in 1968. The Al Qaeda groups have reduced the planning time required for mass casualty attacks. Prior to 9-11, Al Qaeda carried out such attacks every 18 months. Now, they are able to mount operations in only three or four months. The trend line is going in the wrong direction

I see no political will on the part of the American public to accept a draft and to accept 90,000 casualties during the next four years. The elections in December will not produce a political outcome that will persuade the various insurgents to lay down their weapons and focus their energies on political debate in a legislature and in newspapers.

Our best alternative is to withdraw from Iraq and establish covert relations with the secular insurgents. Over the long run our interest as a nation is to prevent the religious jihadists from consolidating their control over Iraq and forging a closer relationship with Iran. The question is not, will there be a civil war? A civil war is already underway. Rather, the proper question is what can we do as a nation to protect our longterm interests?

We have two key long term strategic interests. First, we want to promote a secular society. The current Iraqi constiturion enshrines the Quran as the law of the land and encourages sectarian strife. Second, we must enlist the support of Russia, China, Europe, and the Muslim nations in rooting out and destroying the jihadists. Most of that effort can be handled with intelligence and law enforcement work rather than military operations. The Beatles had it right–we can get by with some help from our friends.

Given these facts, John Murtha is right. We must withdraw, sooner rather than later, from Iraq. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in a quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam. Only this time, the jihadists who are carrying out urban combat operations will be equipped and trained through their experience to carry out future attacks against our interests around the world. John Murtha and Chuck Hagel are patriots who understand this dilemma. We have lit a fuze on the next generation of jihadist terrorism. We must douse the fuse with water, and put it out sooner rather than later.

(bio below)

……………………………………………………..

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

Letter to President Bush

The attached letter was sent earlier today to the White House and copied to members of the Senate and House leadership. The group of former and retired intelligence officers are bipartisan, representing a variety of political views. We are agreed on one thing, we are Americans and believe this country is worth defending.

The following signatories have indicated a willingness to speak with the press about the letter sent to President Bush regarding the outing of Valerie Wilson’s classified identity.

15 November 2005

President George W. Bush

Office of the President

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Most respectfully, we, the undersigned, as former intelligence officers who have served this nation in a variety of capacities, both undercover and in the open, are writing to deplore the breach of trust between this Administration and members of the intelligence community that has resulted from the Valerie Plame case. Moreover, this nation’s clandestine intelligence service will be seriously undermined if those culpable of disclosing or discussing her identity are pardoned after being found guilty or allowed to continue holding security clearances.

Mr. President, you entered office with the promise to restore honor to the White House and in the spirit of that pledge later promised to hold accountable anyone on your staff implicated in the leak of Valerie Wilson’s classified identity. Mr. President, we are asking you to keep your promises.

As intelligence professionals our allegiance has been first and foremost to protecting the Constitutional government of the United States. This commitment supersedes partisan politics. We have worked undercover, out of the limelight, and employed clandestine methods to gather information about individuals and nations who have sought to harm the United States and its citizens. In carrying out these duties we rely on you and the members of your administration to protect our secrets and safeguard our identities.

Inexplicably, this bond of trust was shattered with the exposure in July 2003 of the identity of Valerie Wilson, a CIA case officer working under non-official cover. It is clear that at least two members of your staff—I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Karl Rove—were implicated in this act. Most of us are not lawyers and we make no claim as to whether any law was violated. However, the actions of these senior White House officials have compromised and destroyed valuable intelligence assets. It does not matter whether their disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s identity as a CIA officer was unwitting or intentional. Their actions destroyed both her career and her intelligence network, which was devoted to protecting this country from the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

Therefore, we are asking that you immediately suspend the clearances of all White House personnel who spoke to reporters about Mrs. Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA. They have mishandled classified information and no longer deserve the level of trust required to have access to this nation’s secrets.

We also ask that you make it clear that any individual, who is convicted of a crime stemming from the leak of the classified identity of Valerie Wilson, will not receive a pardon. The refusal, so far, of I. Lewis Libby to heed your call for full cooperation with the prosecutor raises the specter that he will try to stonewall the investigation in hopes of ultimately being pardoned by you.

We believe that the President, in his role as Commander-in-Chief, has a duty to demonstrate the highest standards when it comes to protecting our nation’s secrets. We are reminded that Vice President Cheney, when he was Secretary of Defense, dismissed the Air Force Chief of Staff for inadvertently disclosing classified information to the press. The Vice President recognized correctly that the mishandling of classified information, regardless of intent, must be punished.

If you take these steps you will be sending a clear message that your first priority is the nation’s security rather than your aides’ well being. You will demonstrate that you will not tolerate people in your Administration who mishandle our nation’s secrets and send an unambiguous message to the American people, as well as our enemies, that you are serious about protecting the security and safety of America.

Respectfully,

The undersigned current and former intelligence professionals— (listed alphabetically):

A. Dale Ackels, Col. USA (ret.)

Robert Baer, former Case Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA

Vincent Cannistraro, former Case Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA

Brent Cavan, former Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA

Philip Giraldi, former Case Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA

Melvin A. Goodman, former Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA

Mike Grimaldi, former Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA

Karen Kwiatowski, political military staff analyst, retired Lt Col, USAF, Ph.D.

Larry C. Johnson, former Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA

W. Patrick Lang, Col. USA (ret), Chief of DIA Middle East Division, Director Defense Humint Services

Melissa Boyle Mahle, former Case Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA

Jim Marcinkowski, former Case Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA

John “Jack” McCavitt, former Case Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA

Ray McGovern, former Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA

David Rupp, former Case Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA

Bill Wagner, former Case Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA

cc:

The Honorable William Frist,

The Honorable Harry Reid

The Honorable Pat Roberts

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV

The Honorable Denny Hastert

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

The Honorable Peter Hoekstra

The Honorable Jane Harman

Cooking the Books and Politicizing Intelligence

by Larry C. Johnson (bio below)

Like a passenger who just leaped from the Titanic into the icy waters of the North Atlantic, George Bush is frantically looking for a rescue boat. Understandably he keeps pointing at the dinghy nearby—i.e. last year’s report issued by former Senator Chuck Robb and Judge Laurence Silbermann under the title, Final Report on Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, that boat don’t float too good and Bush’s credibility will continue, along with his Presidency, to sink beneath the weight of lies used to bamboozle America into a preemptive war.

Hopefully most Americans will take time to read the report and understand the limitations of the Robb and Silbermann effort. While I agree with the Commission’s conclusion that analysts made mistakes, the Robb and Silbermann report clearly demonstrates that none of the intelligence analysis from the CIA suggested that Iraq’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction had reached a critical point requiring a preemptive strike.

Unfortunately Robb and Silbermann want Americans to accept the nonsense that politics played no role in the intelligence analysis. They ask America to accept the sorry picture of a President and legislators who, apparently, were willing idiots being spoon-fed wrong information by incompetent analysts. If we accept this fairy tale we will have learned nothing from the fiasco in Iraq.

………………………………………………….

[editor’s note, by susanhu] Here are the links to the WMD report (PDF) and to the Commission’s Web site — succinctly named wmd.gov. NOTE: On wmd.gov’s “about” page, you can link to several more documents, including the Executive Order and White House Fact Sheet. And, at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, you can read “Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq.” (PDF)

………………………………………………….

Consider what is presented in the Chapter on the Iraq failure (which Robb and Silbermann concede is the most important issue). According to the report the analysts said: … continued below:

The pre-war estimate of Iraq’s nuclear program, as reflected in the October 2002 NIE Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, was that, in the view of most agencies, Baghdad was “reconstituting its nuclear weapons program” and “if left unchecked, [would] probably…have a nuclear weapon during this decade,” although it would be unlikely before 2007 to 2009. The NIE explained that, in the view of most agencies, “compelling evidence” of reconstitution was provided by Iraq’s “aggressive pursuit of high-strength aluminum tubes.” The NIE also pointed to additional indicators, such as other dual-use procurement activity, supporting reconstitution. The assessment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program and could therefore have a weapon by the end of the decade was made with “moderate confidence.

Play close attention. The analysts believed, incorrectly, that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. But there were important caveats. First, Iraq would only have a nuke if left “unmolested” to develop such a capability. Did anyone see the words, “therefore Mr. President, you must invade?” Nope. Second, the analysts concluded that even if left unmolested Iraq would not have acquired a nuke until at least 2007. And how strong was this judgment? The analysts made it with “moderate confidence”.

So, rather than restart or continue with inspections we now know were effective, President Bush opted for war. It was the policymakers, not the analysts, who made the decision to go to war and who oversold the October estimate to a gullible public.

I am not exonerating the CIA for its failures. There were major mistakes of leadership. For example, Robert Walpole, the man who led the drafting of the October 2002 estimate, surrounded himself with true believers who shared the view of Bush Administration policymakers at the NSC and Department of Defense that military action in Iraq was required. This National Intelligence Officer did nothing to ensure that dissident voices within the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community were heard. But to pretend that the flaws in the intelligence explains why President Bush took us to war requires that we ignore a host of other uncomfortable facts.

CIA analysts got it right on the lack of operational relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Yet, notwithstanding the correct judgment of the analysts, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have continued to insist that there was such a relationship. In their words, the war in Iraq was an extension of the war on terrorism.

Analysts also got it right in dismissing as nonsense the claim that Iraq was trying to buy Yellowcake uranium in West Africa. The analysts who briefed Congress in October 2002 said there was no truth to the allegation. Yet, the White House wanted to run with it. We know that George Tenet had to call Stephen Hadley and Condi Rice to insist that a reference to the Iraq/Niger claim not be included in a speech the President planned to deliver in Cincinnati.

The CIA analysts consistently warned the Administration that the info the Brits had also was unreliable and the reports of Iraq trying to get their hands on a nuke were wrong. The director of WINPAC at the CIA, Alan Foley, repeatedly warned NSC official Robert Joseph not that the Niger claim was unreliable. Undeterred Joseph inserted the bogus 16 words into the President’s 2003 State of the Union Address.
But the policymakers did not want to hear it. In fact, Don Rumsfeld and his minions were briefing TV and newspaper pundits just two weeks before the President’s 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in Niger.

Here is the bottom line. There is no such thing as perfect intelligence or perfect analysis. However, we do not serve the security of this country by perpetuating the myth that we went to war in Iraq because a couple of analysts believed Saddam’s acquisition of aluminum tubes was part of a secret program to build a nuke. Going to war was and remains a political decision made by a President.

……………………………………………………..

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

Bush Wrong Again

by Larry C. Johnson (bio below)

[Also see my op-ed, “… And why it should never be done,” published in the LA Times on November 11, 2005.]

The inept attempt by President Bush to justify the pre-emptive war in Iraq depends on the misleading assertion that others, including foreign allies and Bill Clinton, believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Let’s ask the more correct question–how many other countries and individuals believed that a pre-emptive war was justified and required? Answer–not many!

Scott Ritter was pretty damn consistent on this point. Few wanted to hear him. The UN weapons inspectors made the point that continued inspections could contain Saddam and reduce the threat. Guess what? They were right.

And the Intelligence Community? Despite some wrong assessments that Saddam had some chemical and nuclear programs hidden from us, they never–I repeat NEVER–told the President or any policymaker that an invasion of Iraq was needed in order to defeat what we now know was a bogus threat.

Don’t let the Bush spin machine get away with this nonsense.

……………………………………………………..

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

Intelligence: The Human Factor (Securing Our Nation)
By Patrick Lang
Editor: Larry C. Johnson

… And why it should never be done

by Larry C. Johnson (bio below)

From my op-ed written for, and published in, today’s Los Angeles Times (sub. required):

LARRY C. JOHNSON, a former CIA officer, was a deputy director of the State Department Office of Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993.

I THINK Dick Cheney has been watching too many Hollywood flicks that glorify torture. He needs to get out of his undisclosed location and talk to the people on the ground.

I’m a former CIA officer and a former counterterrorism official. During the last few months, I have spoken with three good friends who are CIA operations officers, all of whom have worked on terrorism at the highest levels. They all agree that torturing detainees will not help us. In fact, they believe that it will hurt us in many ways.

These are the very people the vice president wants to empower to torture — and they don’t want to do it.

I have some experience of my own with “duress interrogation.” Back when I was undergoing paramilitary training at a CIA facility in 1986, my colleagues and I were interrogated to prepare us in case we were taken hostage.

At one point we were “captured” by faux terrorists. After being stripped naked and given baggy military uniforms, we entered a CIA version of Gitmo. We were deprived of sleep for 36 hours, given limited rice and water and forced to stand in place. Our interrogators — all U.S. military personnel — coaxed and harangued us by turns.

Those of us who declined to cooperate were stuffed into punishment boxes — miniature coffins that induced claustrophobia. …

Below, what happened next:

After 30 hours, one of my classmates gave me up in exchange for a grape soda and a ham sandwich.

The lesson of this training was that everyone has a breaking point. But our instructors were not recommending breaking detainees through torture. Instead, they emphasized the need to build rapport and trust with people who had information we wanted.

Two of my friends, one a classmate from hostage school, served in Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Some Americans believe that the suicide attack on the World Trade Center justifies using all techniques to get information from terrorist suspects. But my friends recognize correctly that their mission is to gather intelligence, not to create new enemies.

If you inflict enough pain on someone, they will give you information, but what they tell you may not be true. You will have to corroborate it, which will take time. And, unless you kill every suspect you brutalize, you will make enemies of them, their families, maybe their entire villages. What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust — even with a terrorist, even if it’s time-consuming — than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets, who believed that national security always trumped human rights.

And that’s the point. We should never use our fear of being attacked as justification for dehumanizing ourselves or others.

Before the CIA gets all the blame for promoting the torture mentality, we ought to note that Hollywood’s hands are dirty as well. In last year’s “Man on Fire,” we saw Denzel Washington give a corrupt Mexican cop a plastic explosive enema. He also taped the hands of another errant cop to the steering wheel and began to snip off digits in an effort to find out the whereabouts of a kidnapped child.

I am not advocating that terrorists be given room service at the Four Seasons. Some sleep deprivation — of the sort mothers of newborns all endure — and spartan living conditions are appropriate. What we must not do is use physical pain or the threat of drowning, as in “waterboarding,” to gain information. Tough, relentless questioning is OK. Torture is not.

……………………………………………………..

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

LINKED at Raw Story.