General discussion

Locked

More "lies" from Maxwell's favourite newspaper ...

By jardinier ·
Well Max, you should be able to really go to town on this item. I am confident that you will be able to prove that there never was a Senate Committee inquiry into the intelligence resports which were used to justify the invasion of Iraq, and if there was a such a committee, the media have just published a pack of lies and distortions about its findings.

The depth of the CIA's distortions over WMDs has been revealed, Marian Wilkinson writes.
The day before the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, delivered his critical speech to the United Nations saying Iraq possessed mobile biological weapons laboratories, a US intelligence agent warned the CIA that the evidence had come from an Iraqi defector called Curve Ball who was unreliable and possibly an alcoholic.
Despite that warning, the CIA did not change Powell's speech, which was designed to persuade the UN Security Council to vote in favour of the invasion of Iraq in February last
year. The CIA Iraq officer who received the warning placated his colleague in an email before Powell spoke.
"Let's keep in mind, the war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say and the Powers That Be probably aren't interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about. However, in the interest of Truth, we owe somebody a sentence or two of warning, if you honestly have reservations," he wrote.
Powell's speech went ahead with the false information from Curve Ball that Iraq had developed mobile biological weapons laboratories.
Powell told the Security Council: "One of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq's biological weapons is the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents. Let me take you inside that intelligence file and share with you what we know from eyewitness accounts. We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails".
The supposed eyewitness accounts came largely from Curve Ball, whom no one in the CIA had met. But the US Defence Intelligence Agency officer detailed to quiz Curve Ball, and who met him once in the custody of a foreign intelligence agency, was sceptical. He wrote to the CIA desk officer in an email that Curve Ball had "a terrible hangover" the morning they met, and the agent thought he was an alcoholic. The email said the agency's operatives in Iraq "were attempting to determine if, in fact, Curve Ball was who he said he was".
The defence intelligence officer continued: "These issues, in my opinion, warrant further inquiry, before we use the information as the backbone of one of our major findings of the existence of a continuing Iraqi BW [biological weapons] program."
The officer pointed out in his email, written the day before Powell's speech, that the other witnesses cited in the draft of the speech were problematic as well. One of the sources was an Iraqi major, the officer wrote.
"This is the Vanity Fair source - who was deemed a fabricator. Need I say more?"
But his colleague at the CIA would not be budged by the concerns. Powell's speech was going to be delivered the next day and the CIA officer thought it was "too far along to bring them up". The email exchange between the CIA's deputy director of its Iraq desk and the defence intelligence officer who handled Curve Ball is just one of scores of devastating revelations in the report of the US Senate committee examining the prewar intelligence on Iraq.
Read as a whole, the 500-page report is a scathing indictment of the Western intelligence services' assessment of the threat from Saddam Hussein. But it is especially damning of the CIA, whose officers and their superiors distorted the intelligence on Iraq.
The two senators who led the inquiry, Pat Roberts, a Republican, and Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, called the prewar claims, "a global intelligence failure".
Roberts said: "Before the war, the US intelligence community told the President, as well as the Congress and the public, that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and, if left unchecked, would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade.
"Well, today we know these assessments were wrong. They were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence."
Rockefeller was blunter: "There is simply no question that mistakes leading up to the war in Iraq rank among the most devastating losses and intelligence failures in the history of the nation.
"The fact is that the Administration, at all levels, and to some extent us, used bad information to bolster its case for war."
And Congress "would not have authorised that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now".
The Prime Minister, John Howard, relied on this same wrong intelligence when he went into Parliament last year to justify the invasion of Iraq and the commitment of Australian troops.
He told Parliament: "We cannot walk away from the threat that Iraq's continued possession of weapons of mass destruction constitutes to its region and to the wider world. In the final analysis, the absolute conviction of the Government is that disarming Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of the world and is therefore manifestly in the national interest of Australia."
On page after page in the Senate report, CIA and other US intelligence officers are shown distorting information, covering up or ignoring evidence in order to prosecute the case that Iraq had an active biological and chemical weapons program, and was rebuilding its nuclear weapons capability.
In the case of Curve Ball, it finds, even the CIA's imagery analyst who identified the seven sites Curve Ball named could not find evidence of any biological weapons facilities there.
Another defector source who says Iraq had biological weapons laboratories was described by his Defence Intelligence Agency debriefer as being coached. The defector had been brought to the agency by the Iraqi opposition group led by Ahmad Chalabi. But when the debriefer's report was sent up the line to his superiors, the note on his being coached was removed, and one saying he had passed a polygraph was included.
Soon after the DIA issued a "fabrication notice" about the defector, but his material was still used in Powell's speech.
More disturbing was the failure by the CIA to report that many of its claims about Iraq using its facilities for biological weapons production deliberately ignored information that the facilities were more likely being used for medical or agricultural purposes.
Satellite images showing changes at the Amiriyah agricultural facility were linked with Curve Ball's claims that it was a biological weapons site. But CIA and the defence intelligence officers admitted to the Senate committee that "the activity could have been consistent with legitimate public health-related activities", including "some huge vaccination campaigns against polio and foot and mouth disease".
The CIA's claim that "the chances are even that smallpox is part of Baghdad's offensive BW program" was found not to be supported by evidence. The CIA admitted to the Senate committee: "We have no evidence that Iraq ever weaponised smallpox."
Overall, the report found, while there was intelligence to support the claim that Iraq had the capability of producing biological weapons agents, it could have been "very limited in nature, been abandoned years ago or represented legitimate activity".
Similarly, the report found that claims that Baghdad had chemical weapons stockpiles "overstated both what was known about Iraq's chemical weapons holdings and what intelligence analysts judged about Iraq's chemical weapons holdings".
George Bush will take some comfort from the Republican-dominated Senate committee not finding that the CIA or other intelligence agencies had been pressured by the White House. At the weekend he still insisted that Saddam Hussein had the capability and intent of producing weapons of mass destruction.
The critical second half of the Senate inquiry, which looks at the role of the Administration, especially the Pentagon, in using or abusing the intelligence will not be finished until after the election in November.
Despite this, Bush, like Howard and Tony Blair, will be forced on the defensive by the colossal scale of the intelligence failure revealed by the bipartisan report.
Rockefeller said: "Tragically, the intelligence failures set forth in this report will affect our national security for generations to come. Our credibility is diminished. Our standing n the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world, and that will grow.
"As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before."
While he was talking about the US, the same question will equally be applied to Australia and Britain, the intelligence and military allies who went to war, based, as Rockefeller put it, "on false claims".

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

8 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Jul - Ah Shut Up - Like you told our President to do ..

by SkipperUSN In reply to More "lies" from Maxwell' ...

Jul - stay down under before our president tells you again how to run you counrty correctly..

Jul - Please Shut Up - As you told Our President to do -

Oh - right you'll quote freedom of Speech ... well then you both have it ... He can tell Aussies how to run their government - and you can try to tell us..

Hey Mate - how does that sound..

Collapse -

Sounds like your alias to me

by Oz_Media In reply to Jul - Ah Shut Up - Like y ...

With your chosen alias being Skipper USN, how can anyone possible expect you to provide or even consider anything but pro military support?

You pigeonhole all of your replies instantly simply by diminishing your comments with a biased alias.

It's almost like someone useing Moore_fan@yahoo.com or something, do you REALLY think any right wing supporter would give his comments NAY relevance whatsoever? Of course not.

Yet you make statements that you expect to be taken seriously then tag them with Skipper USN, you may have well said 'Pro-Military supporter'.

Now, given the above, how can you actually believe that your comments are offered unbiased and prokoke logical debate?

You are absolutely no different than those you are pointing your finger at for being one-sided or Anti-Bush.

Now why would someon in another country expect to have his say about GWB but not take kindly to your president doing the same against his country?

Well, first of all he is not the president of Australia, nor is his president GWB, yet soldiers in his country are being killed while fighting YOUR war. YOUR president has imposed himself upon other countries, without them imposing on yor own, and then made slanderous statements toward them. This is VERY different than a citizen speaking out against what YOUR president does in their country, instead of your own.

The reason YOUR president is EVERYONE's business is simply because HE WANTED TO AND FORCED IT TO BE THAT WAY HIMSELF. Nobody incited GWB to be on their TV all day, in their news each evening and on the front doorstep, smiling like a chimp each morning. Morning noon and night, GWB.

Now is he Canada's president? Nope. Australia's president? Nope? England's president? Nope. France's President? Nope.

Is he in their news and faces all day every day? Yes.

Is their own PM in the news each day even in their own countries? Not bloodly likely, people don't want to hear it, yet they are FORCED TO listen to your president, then several hundread million people who all say he is right and they are wrong.

So for you to take offense to somebody commenting on your president, you need to step back and think: WHY are they bitching about our president? Welll, because HE made it that way, he likes it that way, and it is YOUR duty to do something about it. If you want silence from the outside world, elect someone who keeps America's business America's business, not the world's.

Collapse -

Ah - Forget About It -

by SkipperUSN In reply to Sounds like your alias to ...

Ah - Forget about - not worth the post time ... :-)

Collapse -

Ah- forget about it?

by Oz_Media In reply to Ah - Forget About It -

You use a VERY suggestive alias and when it is noticed you then just back away, it's not worth the time?!? Let me guess, it's futile to try and have a one sided conversation with the other side unless they will eventually agree with you?

I suppose this just shows how hard you will work to change things, no wonder GWB is still in office.

Collapse -

Credit where it is due

by stress junkie In reply to Sounds like your alias to ...

I think the reason that you have GWB in the media is due to the work of your countryman Rupert Murdock, media mogul and tabloid monger extraordinaire. He runs a bunch of newspapers, radio stations, and television stations in the United States as well. Funny but his properties in the United States tend to be extremely pro-Bush.

Collapse -

Correct

by Oz_Media In reply to Credit where it is due

That and the fact that American networks dominate ot TV media, I will agree that most Canadian TV sucks, although it HAS been getting considerably beter the last few years.

Collapse -

Canadian TV programming

by pgm554 In reply to Correct

That's just what, hockey games and beer commercials?

(Sorry,just couldn't resist,eh?)

Collapse -

"extremely pro-Bush"

by Absolutely In reply to Credit where it is due

& extremely successful, selling to Americans not Australians. The owner's Australian background is irrelevant. The crappy content, and the fact that there is a market for that content, are the problems.

Back to Community Forum
8 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums