0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 06:43 am
Surrender monkeys, too . . .
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 06:44 am
Slate also reviews a Post editorial:

Quote:
A Post editorial notices that while the Pentagon has launched numerous (albeit limited) investigations into abuses of prisoners, there has been an "almost complete absence of scrutiny of the CIA's activity." The lack of investigations comes despite what the Post describes as the CIA's "illegal behavior": keeping some prisoners off-the-books and incommunicado, occasionally torturing them, and having at least two die while being interrogated. (A contractor has been charged in one of those cases.)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 06:44 am
nimh wrote:

And yet countries like France are supposed to be cynical, ungrateful cowards for having refused to buy into it?


Yes - at least that's what "they" always tell here.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 07:40 am
I don't happen to think the French are cowards.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 10:29 am
All Together Now
July 15, 2004
By BARBARA EHRENREICH

Their faces long with disapproval, the anchors announced that the reason for the war had finally been uncovered by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and it was "groupthink," not to mention "collective groupthink." It sounds so kinky
and un-American, like something that might go on in a North Korean stadium or in one of those sex clubs that Jack Ryan, the former Illinois Senate candidate, is accused of dragging his wife to. But supposedly intelligent, morally upstanding people had been indulging in it right in Langley, Va.

This is a surprise? Groupthink has become as American as apple pie and prisoner abuse; in fact, it's hard to find any thinking these days that doesn't qualify for the prefix "group." Our standardized-test-driven schools reward the
right answer, not the unsettling question. Our corporate culture prides itself on individualism, but it's the "team player" with the fixed smile who gets to be employee of the month. In our political culture, the most crushing rebuke is to call someone "out of step with the American people."
Zip your lips, is the universal message, and get with the program.

This summer's remake of the "Stepford Wives" doesn't have anything coherent to say about gender politics: Men are the oppressors? Women are the oppressors? Or maybe just Glenn Close? But it does play to the fantasy, more widespread
than I'd realized, that if you were to rip off the face of the person sitting in the next cubicle, you'd find nothing but circuit boards underneath.

I trace the current outbreak of droidlike conformity to the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when groupthink became the official substitute for patriotism, and we began to run out of surfaces for affixing American flags. Bill Maher lost his job for pointing out that, whatever else they were, the
9/11 terrorists weren't cowards, prompting Ari Fleischer to warn (though he has since backed down) that Americans "need to watch what they say." Never mind that Sun Tzu says, somewhere in his oeuvre, that while it's soothing to
underestimate the enemy, it's often fatal, too.

And what was that group thinking in Abu Ghraib? Yes, the accused guards seem to have been encouraged to soften up their charges for interrogation, just as the operatives at Langley were pelted with White House demands for some
plausible casus belli. But the alarming thing is how few soldiers demurred, and how many got caught up in the fun of it.

Societies throughout history have recognized the hazards of groupthink and made arrangements to guard against it. The shaman, the wise woman and similar figures all represent institutionalized outlets for alternative points of view. In the European carnival tradition, a "king of fools" was permitted to mock the authorities, at least for a day or two. In some cultures, people resorted to vision quests or
hallucinogens - anything to get out of the box. Because, while the capacity for groupthink is an endearing part of our legacy as social animals, it's also a common precondition for self-destruction. One thousand coalition soldiers have died because the C.I.A. was so eager to go along with the emperor's delusion that he was actually wearing clothes.

Instead of honoring groupthink resisters, we subject them to insult and abuse. Sgt. Samuel Provance III has been shunned by fellow soldiers since speaking out against the torture at Abu Ghraib, in addition to losing his security
clearance and being faced with a possible court-martial. A fellow Abu Ghraib whistle-blower, Specialist Joseph Darby, was praised by the brass, but has had to move to an undisclosed location to avoid grass-roots retaliation.

The list goes on. Sibel Edmonds lost her job at the F.B.I. for complaining about mistranslations of terror-related documents from the Arabic. Jesselyn Radack was driven out of her post at the Justice Department for objecting to the treatment of John Walker Lindh, then harassed by John Ashcroft's enforcers at her next job. As Fred Alford, a
political scientist who studies the fate of
whistle-blowers, puts it: "We need to understand in this `land of the free and home of the brave' that most people are scared to death. About 50 percent of all whistle-blowers lose their jobs, about half of those lose their homes, and half of those people lose their families."

This nation was not founded by habitual groupthinkers. But it stands a fair chance of being destroyed by them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/15/opinion/15EHRE.html?ex=1090891869&ei=1&en=046261c5aee24306

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 11:30 am
A somewhat different take, from one I'd say arguably more solidly credentialed in the field of Intelligence Assessment:

Quote:
Yes: We had no option but to topple Saddam

Thursday July 15th 2004


THESE intelligence critiques don't substantially affect the case for going to war. The case for pre-emption was always that a country that possesses the means to make weapons of mass destruction (WMD) of any sort-especially a regime with the hostile history of Iraq-might provide them to terrorist groups.

The error of the CIA was to refer to "weapons" instead of chemical or biological agents that could rapidly be made into weapons.

The CIA never said Iraq had nuclear weapons, but in fact projected it could have them within five to seven years if it tried to reconstitute its programme closed down after the Gulf War.

You don't need stockpiles of weapons loaded up in bombs and shells to give anthrax or sarin to terrorist groups. UN weapons inspector Hans Blix himself said there were 8,500 litres of anthrax Saddam admitted to making whose destruction he could not demonstrate. Similarly there was a ton of sarin. Even the Russians and the French agreed these chemical and biological agents were unaccounted for.

That seems huge, but that amount of agent would all fit in half a tractor trailer.

And it would take only a few days, a week or two at most, to weaponise those agents in a microbrewry-type facility attached to a restaurant.

In fact, the Senate report documents that Iraq was working on powderising "simulants" - materials like anthrax in every way except toxicity. They could then turn that technique and equipment to work on anthrax. In powder form, anthrax would be very lethal. This means Iraq could have been days or weeks away from preparing agent to give to a terrorist group. To prepare sarin involves only minor modifications to a pesticide plant.

In other words, the CIA was wrong in thinking there might be massive stockpiles of weapons and leading people to expect that. But, given Saddam's hostile stance to the United States and his history of having used chemical weapons twice, the possibility he might weaponise chemical and biological agents for terrorists who might hit us was very real. And that was enough case, in my view, for a preventive war because the time it might take to weaponise agents was far less than the time it would take to build up an invasion force and prepare for war. This is the heart of the matter. Saddam had plenty of ties with terrorist groups from Abu Nidal to Hamas. Chapter 12 of the supporting study to the US Senate report says that there were a dozen or more credible reports of training by Iraq of al-Qa'ida in chemical and bacteriological weapons use. The CIA also had plenty of reports of training in conventional explosives.

The Senate report says the CIA could find no "formal" relationship between Saddam and al-Qa'ida. Well, there are no "formal" relationships in this kind of activity. There are no diplomats in striped suits signing pieces of parchment here. You don't put stuff like this in writing.

The CIA has hundreds of relationships around the world with other intelligence agencies. Of all those, I can think of only two or three where there is any degree of formality, with signed documents and so on. The same is true of other intelligence services.

Al-Qa'ida and Iraq were not going to sign some piece of paper to formalise any links. That is nonsense. So, to say there was no "formal" relationship is really saying nothing. This idea of looking for formal links comes from a mindset that developed during the 1970-80s when state-sponsored terrorism was most prominent. Hezbollah is not rich, so it relies on Iran to pay the bills and the mullahs in Tehran give orders.

Al-Qa'ida is rich on its own. The two countries where it was substantially present-Sudan and Afghanistan-were more terrorist-sponsored states than the other way around. So I would agree that al-Qa'ida was in no way sponsored or ordered around by Iraq.

But I would also agree with the Senate report that al-Qa'ida and Iraq seemed to have overcome their mutual antipathy because al-Qa'ida needed assistance from Iraq - particularly in use of chemicals and bacteriologicals - and Iraq was pleased to see the al-Qa'ida attacks on the United States.

That does not mean that Iraq helped al-Qa'ida commit 9/11 or the earlier World Trade Center bombing. It only means they were happy to do what they could clandestinely to menace the United States. Intelligence and the decision to wage preemptive war are interactions among the nature of the regime, the nature of its ties to terrorist groups and its historical record. Iraq met those requirements in spades, even if it had destroyed all its anthrax and sarin and only had its just-in-time production capacity.

If the Bush administration had made that argument honestly, most people would have gone along with the war on those grounds. If people are waiting for the smoking pot of anthrax to be found before they are willing to wage preventive war, then this argument is right. But concerning a regime with a history like Saddam's, you have to make a judgment. There is no automatic formula here. But when you put the factors together, you can objectively make the case for preemption. However, after all we've been through with Iraq, it will be harder, in political terms, to make the case again.


James Woolsey was director of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 1993 to 1995. He has been a leading neoconservative promoting the war in Iraq.

James Woolsey

© Irish Independent
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/ & http://www.unison.ie/


Another interesting tidbit:
Quote:
U.K. Report: Zarqawi Set Up Sleeper Cells

Thu Jul 15, 9:12 AM ET

By ED JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi set up "sleeper cells" in Baghdad before the Iraq war to attack American forces occupying the country, according to a British intelligence report.

The report, dated March 2003 and released as part of an overall review of British intelligence, forecast the string of Zarqawi's attacks against American targets during the past year "using car bombs and other weapons." It said he was setting up groups of fighters to be activated at a later time, known in the intelligence field as "sleeper cells." ... [/b]

Edit to add: I sure screwed up that last link ... should work now, though ... sorry for any inconvenience or confusion - timber
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 11:51 am
James Woolsey is full of hot air. The preemptive attack on Iraq was wrong; they had no WMDs nor any connection to 9-11. All this administration had to ask was "do we have this intelligence on first hand knowledge?" Colin Powell showed pictures of where Saddam had WMDs. How old were those pictures? Since the UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq, Saddam posed no threat to anybody. That's the base line; not what "imagined potential threat" Saddam posed. That's bad policy no matter who you're considering bombing to smitherines which ends up killing thousands of innocent people.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 01:17 pm
And all this time timber has been telling us that he discounts opinion pieces...

Hm.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 01:24 pm
PDiddie wrote:
And all this time timber has been telling us that he discounts opinion pieces...

Hm.


Well, it always depends, who posts them.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 01:33 pm
I don't place a helluvalotta weight on opinion pieces, but I do cite them from time-to-time. I think I'm pretty good about diffe rentiating 'em from real news or data, too (for instance, note above "A somewhat different take .... "... but that's mebbe just my opinion.

There's no question I offer a buncha my own opinion, just like everybody else. That's sorta the point of discussion, after all.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 03:59 pm
R. James Woolsey is a prominent example of the phenomenon, mixing his business interests with what he contends are the country's strategic interests. He left the CIA in 1995, but he remains a senior government advisor on intelligence and national security issues, including Iraq. Meanwhile, he works for two private companies that do business in Iraq and is a partner in a company that invests in firms that provide security and anti-terrorism services.

Woolsey said in an interview that he was not directly involved with the companies' Iraq-related ventures. But as a vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting firm, he was a featured speaker in May 2003 at a conference co-sponsored by the company at which about 80 corporate executives and others paid up to $1,100 to hear about the economic outlook and business opportunities in Iraq.
Before the war, Woolsey was a founding member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization set up in 2002 at the request of the White House to help build public backing for war in Iraq. He also wrote about a need for regime change and sat on the CIA advisory board and the Defense Policy Board, whose unpaid members have provided advice on Iraq and other matters to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Woolsey is part of a small group that shows with unusual clarity the interlocking nature of the way the insider system can work. Moving in the same social circles, often sitting together on government panels and working with like-minded think tanks and advocacy groups, they wrote letters to the White House urging military action in Iraq, formed
organizations that pressed for invasion and pushed legislation that authorized aid to exile groups.

Since the start of the war, despite the violence and instability in Iraq, they have turned to private enterprise.
Soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, he wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal saying a foreign state had aided Al Qaeda in preparing the strikes. He named Iraq as the leading suspect. In October 2001, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz sent Woolsey to London, where he hunted for evidence linking Hussein to the attacks.
At the May 2003 Washington conference, titled "Companies on the Ground: The Challenge for Business in Rebuilding Iraq," Woolsey spoke on political and diplomatic issues that might affect economic progress. He also spoke favorably about the Bush administration's
decision to tilt reconstruction contracts toward U.S. firms.

In an interview, Woolsey said he saw no conflict between advocating for the war and subsequently advising companies on business in Iraq.
Woolsey was interviewed at the Washington office of the Paladin Capital Group, a venture capital firm where he is a partner. Paladin invests in companies involved in homeland security and infrastructure protection, Woolsey said.
Woolsey also is a paid advisor to Livingstone's GlobalOptions. He said his own work at the firm did not involve Iraq.

Under Livingstone, Global- Options "offers a wide range of security and risk management services," according to its website.

In a 1993 opinion piece for Newsday, Livingstone wrote that the United States "should launch a massive covert program designed to remove Hussein."

These are snippets from the article's entirety, which you can read here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-advocates14jul14,1,278590.story?coll
=la-home-headlines
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 04:10 pm
Mr. Woolsey is currently the Chairman of the Advisory Boards of the Clean Fuels Foundation and the New UsesCouncil; and, a Trustee of the Center for Strategic & International Studies.
Among numerous other distinguished appointments, he has been a member of The National Commission on Terrorism, 1999-2000; The Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the U.S. (Rumsfeld Commission), 1998; The President's Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform, 1989; The President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management (Packard Commission), 1985-1986; and The President's Commission on Strategic Forces (Scowcroft Commission), 1983.
Mr. Woolsey is presently a principal in the Homeland Security Fund of
Paladin Capital Group and a member of the Board of Directors of three
privately held companies, generally in fields related to renewable energy,
infrastructure protection, and resilience.

And recently, "R. James Woolsey, Vice President and officer in the Global Resilience practice of Booz Allen Hamilton, and former Director of Central Intelligence (1993 -- 1995), has accepted an invitation to serve on the Board of Advisors of BioDefense Corporation."
source: http://www.prnewswire.com/
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 08:21 pm
timber, anent your comment about the French.

I was at a gathering outside the US recently when a US representative (of an investigative committee reporting to Rumsfeld) was preaching to an almost totally supportive choir. One of the group, however, was a local of the country and was compelled to speak out about the US attitude that France was a nation of timid cowardly Old Europeans. He noted that France, in WWI, lost 20-25% of its male population, more proportionately than the US has lost in all of the wars it has ever been involved in to the present day. This man's opinion was that the French even today are influenced by that loss. They will not go lightly into war ever again. They are far from cowardly or timid. Their mindset was changed utterly by WWI, and it was his opinion that this attitude has come down through the generations since.

The group was very quiet when he finished speaking.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 08:45 pm
Kara, whatever else I may think of The French - The French Leadership and the French Media, to be more precise - I hold nothing but the highest respect and regard for the gallantry, heroism, and sacrice of which the French citizen, particularly the French fighting man (and, considering the Foreign Legion, non-citizen fighting man, too), are most ably and quite demonstratedly capable.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 08:50 pm
When the "Yanks" arrived in Paris in the Great War, a colonel, commanding a fatigue battalion, marched them to La Fayette's tomb--he was at home in the city where he had spent so many years before the war.

He called his battalion to attention and then turned to the tomb, saluting and saying:

"La Fayette, we are here."

That has always summed it up for me.
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 08:59 pm
Decided to get out of the history area for a bit....anyway bush is an idiot and you Americans if you have any sense this november please vote for the democratic party. Oh ya did you know that Bush is the first president since 1933 not to meet this organization of black americans.






-Hans
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 09:03 pm
Hans, That isn't surprising to most Americans. Bush is lucky to get ten percent of the black votes. It'll probably be less this November when they remember what happened to blacks in Florida back in 2000.
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 09:09 pm
hehe i'll say he'll get his just desserts.






-Hans
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 09:24 pm
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 10:10 pm
CI, the article by BARBARA EHRENREICH;
She did a very nice job with that one. Thanks for posting it!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 09:04:03