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

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

New Mexico is a state in the Southwest United States. It borders on Mexico.

"borders??" que es esta?? oh.. wait.. borders are something that the bush administration fails to see any importance in guarding in america or iraq...

Guarding? From what? It's not like the three million or so illegals somehow got themselves registered and voted Bush back into a job that he totally screwed up the first four years. How would Bush evplain a three million vote victory under the shadow of a wrecked economy, tens of thousands of casualities in an undeclared war, American loss of stature throughout the world, our jobs sold to the highest bidder, while the leftovers are scarfed up by the illegals???
What doyou mean ... guard the borders?

CIA fired me for not toeing Iraq line, says agent

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Friday December 10, 2004
The Guardian

A senior CIA analyst who was once decorated for his work on weapons proliferation in the Middle East has accused the spy agency of ruining his career as punishment for his refusal to adhere to official pre-war "dogma" on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

In a lawsuit filed in a US district court, the unnamed agent, described as a 22-year veteran of the agency's counter-proliferation department, accuses his former supervisors of demanding that he alter his intelligence reporting to conform to the views of CIA management in the run-up to the war on Iraq.

The action marks the first time the CIA, which proclaimed that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMD, has been publicly accused by one of its employees of exerting pressure to produce reports that would help the Bush administration make its case to go to war on Saddam.

However, one former CIA employee said the process described by the analyst - pressure and retaliation - was a familiar bureaucratic response to agents who did not conform.

The agent's refusal to tailor his reports had, he claims, a disastrous effect on a career that had previously been marked by regular promotions and a CIA medal for the operative's recruitment of moles who penetrated a nuclear weapons programme in another Middle Eastern country.

"The complaint alleges that there was a pre-war dogma at the CIA concerning weapons of mass destruction, and my client's reports were contrary to the dogma," said Roy Krieger, who represents the agent. "My client was told to conform to the dogma. He refused and retribution followed."

The CIA last night rejected the charge. "The notion that CIA managers order officers to falsify reports is flat wrong," said spokeswoman Anya Guilsher. "Our mission is to call it like we see it."

The agent's complaint has been heavily blacked out by the CIA, and it makes no mention of the word "Iraq".

However, the timing of the operative's run-in with his superiors and other details strongly suggest he ran foul of agency managements for his reports on Saddam Hussein's alleged arsenal during the run-up to the war.

But the undercover agent's work was not restricted to Iraq. The first instance of pressure occurred in 2000, when he says he tried to pass on intelligence culled from one of his many "human assets" in the field.

Court papers describe how the "plaintiff was subsequently advised by CIA management that his report did not support the earlier assessment... and instructed that if he did not alter his report to support this assessment, it would not be received well by the intelligence community".

A year later, the agent obtained intelligence from a "highly respected human asset", which he tried to pass on to his superiors, the complaint says. "Plaintiff was later instructed that he should prepare no written report of the matter", and received assurances that the CIA chief would personally brief the president.

However, "upon information and belief, plaintiff avers that no such briefing ever occurred, and therefore the president was misled by the withholding of vital intelligence."

The complaint goes on to describe further instances in 2001 and 2002 where the operative's attempts to report "actionable" intelligence were thwarted by CIA superiors. He was also warned to break off contact with the highly regarded source.

"Plaintiff was subsequently approached by a senior desk officer who insisted that plaintiff falsify his reporting of this matter," the complaint reads.

Some months later, the CIA operative was accused of having sex with one of his female informants. In September 2003, the operative was suspended. He was later accused of stealing funds meant to pay informants, and last September 10 he was sacked.

"Plaintiff avers that the termination of his employment at CIA was in further retaliation for, and to contrive a pretext to discredit, his refusal to falsify his intelligence reporting to support the politically mandated conclusion," the complaint says.

The CIA has had a torrid two years. Its former director, George Tenet, was quoted as telling President Bush that finding WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk"; and the agency has been pilloried for the way it dealt with intelligence prior to the September 11 attacks.

And under its new chief, Porter Goss, there have been persistent rumblings of mis-management as a series of senior figures have announced their intention to quit.

That there were "al Qaeda" camps in northern Iraq is one thing, that Saddam, by some "indications," "tolerated" them or "may even have helped" them is another. Where is your proof beyond this "some evidence" of yours?

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54

Did our military, I presume you're referring to Gen. Franks, say those camps in southern Iraq were "al Qaeda friends" camps? Or are you misrepresenting his words, ican?

And they had also encountered several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Libya who were being trained by the regime in a camp south of Baghdad. These foreign volunteers fought with suicidal ferocity, but they did not fight well. The Marines killed them all.

How is Saddam being told by us about the northern camps and Zarqawi proof that Saddam, by some "indications," "tolerated" them or "may even have helped" them?

As regards the camps in northern Iraq, Saddam had no control, no sovereignty there. The Kurds controlled that area under the protection of the Joint Task Force. Saddam was contained to the area of Iraq that was not guarded over by the northern and southern no-fly zones.

In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54

Who said anything about al Qaeda abandoning their plans or not as concerns our invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, except you, ican? I refuse to chase your red herring. It is irrelevant.

Have our invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq destroyed al Qaeda?

ican, I asked you where your proof was beyond your "some evidence"

Citing the 9/11 commission's conjectures as proof of their conjectures is circular logic, ican. Can't you do better than that?

Once again, you misrepresent what Gen. Franks has written. Where, EXACTLY, does he refer to the training camps south of Baghdad as "al Qaeda" training camps?

Citing the 9/11 commission that Ansar al-Islam suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces is not proof or evidence that Saddam had control over northern Iraq.

Whether he "tolerated" or found Ansar al-Islam intolerable is irrelevant given the fact that Operation Northern Watch "allow the Kurds and other minorities above the 36th parallel to prosper, and more importantly, it allowed the US to contain Saddam," (Operation Northern Watch officially over, Terry Boyd, Stars and Stipes, European Edition, Friday, May2, 2003).

It is the 9/11 commission that contradicts the effects and results of ONW. The 9/11 commission was talking out of its ass.

Accusations of "tolerance" are further discredited by the fact that Ansar was a group of KURDISH separatists and Islamic fundamentalists seeking to transform Iraq's KURDISH lands into an Islamic state. It's a stretch to claim that Saddam would have a hand, or be involved with a group who's intent was the establishment of an INDEPENDENT KURDISH ISLAMIST STATE IN IRAQ.

Do you have PROOF of your point that al Qaeda has abandoned their plans to continue their war against American civilians given our violence, destruction and killing in Iraq?

If you are opposed to all forms of self-defence, or specifically opposed to a nation defending itself by means of preemtive counterattack against those who mass murder civilians, or those who knowingly and willingly harbor same, then at least I would have a context within which I could interpret and understand your posts.

Gelisgesti wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

New Mexico is a state in the Southwest United States. It borders on Mexico.

"borders??" que es esta?? oh.. wait.. borders are something that the bush administration fails to see any importance in guarding in america or iraq...

Guarding? From what? It's not like the three million or so illegals somehow got themselves registered and voted Bush back into a job that he totally screwed up the first four years. How would Bush evplain a three million vote victory under the shadow of a wrecked economy, tens of thousands of casualities in an undeclared war, American loss of stature throughout the world, our jobs sold to the highest bidder, while the leftovers are scarfed up by the illegals???
What doyou mean ... guard the borders?

Correction ...... 'our jobs sold to the highest bidder' should read .........'our jobs sold to the lowest bidder'.