home

Obama, Clinton Threaten To Cut Off Intelligence To Brits If Torture Evidence Exposed

Glenn Greenwald:

In May, The Washington Times' Eli Lake reported that an extraordinary letter sent to the British by the Obama administration proved that "the Obama administration [said] it may curtail Anglo-American intelligence sharing if the British High Court discloses new details of the treatment of a former Guantanamo detainee." . . . [N]ow, The Guardian reports that . . . threats were issued by the Obama administration not only in the form of that previously disclosed letter, but also personally by Hillary Clinton in a May meeting with him and other British officials:
Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, personally intervened to suppress evidence of CIA collusion in the torture of a British resident, the high court heard today. . . . David Miliband, the [British] foreign secretary . . . met Clinton in Washington on 12 May this year.

The most amazing thing about this to me is, except for Dan Froomkin when he blogged for the Post, this story has been completely ignored by the American Media. Watchdogs indeed.

Speaking for me only

< Bad Prosecutor Becomes Corrupt Judge | More Police Misconduct in Benton Harbor >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I would call that bluff (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:37:26 AM EST
    if I were the British government.

    I noticed in a recent .. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:54:45 AM EST
    Brown presser that the British press is giving him hard push-back on Afghanistan, something we also aren't seeing here.

    Parent
    A lot of Brits (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 01:14:35 PM EST
    want British involvement ended.  I'm not sure that their national security can justify them pulling out though.  Brits have much more to fear than we do from Islamic Extremist Terrorism, and this could be something that many Brits hope to avoid encouraging.  Trouble is, most people don't understand that it doesn't take any encouragement at all for Osama to decide that you have sinned and now you must be punished.  I have a lot of mixed feelings about our mission in Afghanistan, but Islamic Extremists are just as nuts as our Evangelicals who run around shooting doctors in the head during a public church service.  Seems to me though that the Obama administration hopes to scare some Brits by reminding them of how vulnerable to terrorism they are.

    Parent
    I would imagine... (none / 0) (#31)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 02:33:33 PM EST
    ...just going down into the Tube everyday or seeing the eye in sky cameras everywhere would be plenty enough of a reminder to your average Brit.  

    Parent
    It's an absurd bluff to me (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    too link.  Just one of many instances where we are in the thick of this together whether we like it or not.  And usually we like each other just fine.  Brits have different laws and Bush lawlessness may be exposed due to that.  Tough sh*t I say.  Get over it and get on with it.

    Parent
    I'd like to be amazed by the media's (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:39:30 AM EST
    silence on this particular story, and the issue of torture in general, but that would only be possible if we had a media that didn't seem to be of the opinion that it was too political to dig too deeply.  I'm sure Chuck Todd (see Glenn's coverage of Chuck's views on this subject) isn't the only one in the media who thinks investigations would be more cable catnip than anything else.  Listening to Todd, you would think it is the duty of the media not to get in the way of the president's agenda, and covering the possible crimes committed by members of the previous administration would do just that.  

    Look no further than watching Matt Lauer or Meredith Viera doing a cut-in on local morning news coverage to breathlessly preview their top story - the latest news on the Michael Jackson case, every day since the man died - to understand how the media views their mission and responsibility; if there's no entertainment value, forget it.

    As for Clinton delivering the Obama administration's message on this, that's her job, and I have no idea whether she agrees with this approach or not.  I find the whole thing - not just Clinton's involvement - to be hugely disappointing, but in general, I am not surprised that Obama sent Clinton in to reinforce the earlier letter, given other decisions Obama has made in this arena.


    The media is giving the public (2.00 / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:19:21 AM EST
    what the public wants.

    And the public has been educated in a manner that is very much in line with what, in general, the Left wants.

    Parent

    And what does the Left want, Jim? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:42:06 AM EST
    To destroy the nation, right?  To make us all believe that we are pure evil and that "moslem" extremist terrorists are actually the good guys, yes?  that torture is bad, yes?  that every single thing about America is wrong and that every single thing about any "marxist/socialist" nation is right, yes?  

    Ack, I don't know why I even bother.  Shuffle up and deal, this is far too depressing.

    Parent

    You can see the result of the education (2.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 01:09:55 PM EST
    daily... Give some clerk $1.06 to pay for an $86.00 item and watch them struggle.

    The Left wants to rule through a Secular Theocracy. They are on the same coin as the evileeee Far Right,just opposite sides.

    Parent

    A secular theocracy? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 01:16:12 PM EST
    What the hell are we doing with all these atheists onboard with us :)?

    Parent
    It's something he heard (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 04:26:00 PM EST
    on wingnut radio or whirled nut daily. Dont expect him to be able to explain it.

    But, if he could, it would be something about Marxist-materialists and their continued attacks on our precious bodily fluids.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 04:46:03 PM EST
    General Jack T Ripper is ppj

    Parent
    wish I could type (2.00 / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 01:10:34 PM EST
    $.86

    Parent
    The problem is not so much that (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:17:12 AM EST
    the media is giving the people what they want, but that the entertainment divisions of media outlets have eclipsed the news divisions to a large extent, and for reasons that have to do with ratings and profits, the news divisions have sexed up their approach such that they blur the line between news and entertainment.

    As to your second assertion, if the public had been educated by the media in line with what The Left wants, it's quite likely that we would not have spent the last quarter of 2001, all of 2002 and beyond the first quarter of 2003 being sold a war that never needed to be waged.  If The Left had been driving the education of America via the media, we might not have some of the worst legislation to ever come through the Congress - USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the FISA renewal (yes, I know Obama voted for it).  If The Left had its way, matters relating to black site prisons and rendition and torture would have been in front of the public a lot sooner.

    So, sure, the media is confused about what is news and what is entertainment, but your theory that The Left likes it that way is just silly.


    Parent

    "The Left" ie: other educated people (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 05:23:36 PM EST
    Well ... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:53:07 AM EST
    The most amazing thing about this to me is, except for Dan Froomkin when he blogged for the Post, this story has been completely ignored by the American Media. Watchdogs indeed.

    At least we have the Internet and people like BTD and Glenn.

    Who (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:44:22 AM EST
    knows what Clinton's position actually is on this. This is Obama's policy.

    When Clinton is president, I'll believe this is her policy.  Until then, Clinton is only threatening to do what her boss wants her to do, just as any peon minion should.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:46:11 AM EST
    As long as Clinton is serving as Obama's secretary of state, she owns the policy, too. No excuses. Hillary Clinton is a member of the Obama administration.

    Parent
    True, but her options are (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 02:53:55 PM EST
    toe the line or resign.

    Parent
    I was waiting for this one . . . (none / 0) (#30)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 02:29:42 PM EST
    surely you jest

    Parent
    Clinton is not Secretary of State for nothing (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Sumner on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 05:39:59 PM EST
    Who knows what Clinton's position actually is on this?

    The secret renditions were going on under the Clinton Administration.

    There is an entire world of clandestine operations that goes on, that mostly remains unseen, yet runs the world.

    It is not just the members of Eschelon that share information, although members of NATO may not share total information, as Eschelon members do, other countries are muscled into subservience to US policies, as well.

    Using Sweden as but just one example, our FBI showed up there (they can be cover for other 3-letter-agencies too, remember), and very clandestinely brought Sweden into compliance with US dogmas such as massive criminalization of child porn and file-sharing. Sweden bowed immediately. That paved the way for the recent open actions such as that of our media giants attacking Pirate Bay. Look at the gross draconian penalties for both of those "crimes", already in place, just waiting for deep packet inspection ahead, to get all put into place.

    Slowly but surely, Obama is owning the cover-up of his predecessors' war crimes. But covering up war crimes, refusing to prosecute them, promoting those associated with them, and suppressing evidence of them are themselves violations of Geneva and the UN Convention.

    So why, do you ask? Because they cannot at any cost, reveal the mechanisms of torture such as the scope of "no touch torture". Because that is what they have in store for the future for us. That is what the future holds in store for here.

    All the various unreleased torture photographs are withheld precisely for that reason, they show how they do what they do and what is in store for times ahead. That's the super-secret technology.

    You can chose to deny but all you do is (2.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:24:45 PM EST
    embarrass yourself.

    Review the two sources.

    WASHINGTON --  The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

    So what I have provided is a transcript, not an opinion piece of what Clarke said. As I noted he made it clear that the Clinton admin had a strategy but not a plan primarily because of the issues with Pakistan.

    And that Bush moved immediately to increase CIA resources 5 fold in their attempt to suppress al-Qaeda.

    Why would Clarke lie?

    WASHINGTON --  Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, spoke to reporters at the White House on Wednesday to discuss charges made by Richard A. Clarke, a former counterterrorism official, that the Bush administration did not take the threat of terrorism seriously enough. Rice also talked about why she has not publicly testified before the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Following are excerpts of the interview.

    Again we have a transcript, of a public interview attended by several reporters. In it Rice clearly shows that Bush had all of the parties put on notice of what the CIA knew some 30 days prior to the infamous PDB.

    You know, it is in things like this that I truly become discouraged with some members on the Left. Their refusal to accept public information that no source has disputed shows that they are not interested in facts or a debate over policy but rather an unreasoning and continual attack on Bush.

    We are truly pathetic (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:04:46 AM EST
    We are addicts believing we can hide our addiction forever, when in reality we are only worsening the effects of the blast to come, when this all explodes in our faces more profoundly.  This sh*t cannot stay hidden indefinitely, not a chance.  It will come out someday soon.

    As for the media, why be surprised?  Pols are pols and do what they do, as you say, and sadly we have evolved to where we can safely add that reporters are reporters and do what they do.

    Which is not much of anything.

    Addicts?? (2.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:22:47 AM EST
    Dadler old chum, it appears you have grown worse in your belief that we are an evil society. Tell me that it isn't so!

    And governments that share intelligence always demand that the other party not release shared information for the simple reason that some of it may be important to party A and not to Party B.

    Parent

    you don't threaten your allies... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:35:56 AM EST
    ...for doing the right thing.  period.  what britain wants to disclose has nothing to do with gathering intelligence, it has to do with being evolved, genuinely free people who are not wretched hypocrites.  

    the truth will set you free.  always does.

    everyone is an angel and a devil, every country is, and that is what makes living hard.  we are ALL capable of good and evil.  in your world of black and white, however, i suppose the living is easy and we are only capable of good.

    have a nice one.

    Parent

    and by the way... (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:44:06 AM EST
    ...this kind of action sort of, um, flies in the face of your wildly comic assertion that Obama is a "marxist/socialist".  you are well aware of this, yes?

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    Obama wants it dropped because too many Demos he needs for his programs have their names all over these... see Pelosi for a starting point.

    Parent
    Jimbo... (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:56:53 AM EST
    alert the media...you strongly agree with an Obama admin. decision!  Between this and his ramping up of the Afghanistan occupation, you must be pleasantly surprised like us "lefties" are dissapointed.

    It's cool man, I agreed with G-Dub once or twice:)

    Parent

    And as you know I often disagreed (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 01:04:43 PM EST
    with Bush's social policies... and thought some of his foreign policies dumb...

    Parent
    I remember... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    how could I forget when I was most proud of my old pal:)

    Parent
    I'm just waiting (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 02:56:06 PM EST
    to see how your Libertarian side matches up with the Kingdom of Obama.

    :-)

    Parent

    Hm (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:16:21 AM EST
    I seem to recall an interesting suggestion that the letter was all kabuki theater, although I suppose the Clinton story makes that less likely.

    Is Milibank a reliable witness? (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:46:33 AM EST
    Back in February, the British Foreign Minster, David Miliband, denied that he was explicitly threatened by the Bush administration.  


    There is very little doubt (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:46:09 AM EST
    that the British have a more effective intelligence service than we do.

    Threatening to cut off intelligence sharing with the British isn't just a threat to make the British people less safe, it's a threat to make America less safe.  I hope Hillary had a nice long shower after delivering that particular message.

    We both have excellent intelligence (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 01:19:45 PM EST
    services, but we have different assets readily available due to who lives where and who runs what when.  I'm sad that the Bush administrations desire to use make believe intelligence has led so many of us to conclude that America has inferior intelligence services.

    Parent
    The Clinton administration (2.00 / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 02:52:51 PM EST
    had 8 years to get "feet on the ground" and failed.

    Your attempt to blame Bush is risible. Just another example of your BDS.

    Parent

    Worst security lapse (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 04:17:36 PM EST
    in American history; worst economic collapse in 75 years.

    But dont blame Bush -- or the confederacy of dunces who put him in office -- it's all Clinton and Jimmy Carter's fault.

    Parent

    It is a made up story (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 05:34:00 PM EST
    that Bush received a memo that an attack on the United States from Osama Bin Laden seemed eminent, and then he chose to ignore it.  After the attack, we went with curveball intelligence, which was utterly brilliant on the part of the Bush administration and will go down in flaming history as such.

    Parent
    Nope, you are wrong as usual. (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:05:49 PM EST
    The Left continues with its attempts to rewrite history. The always popular subject is that Bush did nothing to prevent 9/11. Of course that is pure BS, and deserves to be scorned. In addition I note that that doesn't track with what Richard Clarke, Clinton's NSA who was retained by Bush, has said. From an interview:

    RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

    Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

    Clarke rambles a bit here, but there are two key points. There was no PLAN but their was a STRATEGY. But since they could not solve the Northern Alliance, Pakistan, etc., and had not for over two years, they couldn't produce a PLAN.

    And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

    And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect.

    The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    Clarke rambles again, but the two key points is that within days of the start of the start of the Bush administration it was decided to increase resources in going after al-Qaeda, "five fold."  
    The second point is that nothing Clinton had started was stopped. "...the lethal findings were still in effect."

    So Bush kept Clinton's CIA going and decided to increase the resources 500%.

    Now you can argue that this wasn't enough, but the facts are that this was 7 months before 9/11 and demonstrates Bush's belief that there was a problem and pledged to increase the resources.

    Plus, the problems with the Northern Alliance and Pakistan that Clinton could not solve for over two years still remained.  

    ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

    CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

    Link

    Now the Left likes to make much over the Presidential Daily Briefing that Bush received on 8/6/01 that said that al-Qaeda was going to attack. Bush's response was less than nice, dismissing the briefer with an "Okay, now you've done your job" type comment.

    Why was he grumpy? Most likely because there was nothing new in the  report and he regarded it as a CYA by staff. Why do I say this? Because he already knew it. Again from Rice.

    "At the special meeting on July 5 (2001) were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    Link

    The above is from an interview with NSA Rice and shows that 32 days before the meeting Bush knew about it and had his NSA warn all the agencies.

     And there was little more he could have done outside declaring martial law and taking control of all entrances into the US and all movements within the US.

    So there you have the facts. Clinton dithered and Bush took action. It may not have been enough but it was all he could have done, and should have done based on the information he had.

    Parent

    B.S. to any of your opinion of what (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:20:15 PM EST
    Bush could have done prior.  Your facts are only facts to you and are not upheld anywhere else and you don't even touch curveball or phony documents about orange cake or outed CIA agents.  9/11 did not happen on Bill Clintons watch and Bush could have incubated and birthed a human child before it DID HAPPEN on his watch. How sad to have to live so intellectually sheltered to enable your self desired denial.

    Parent
    I've heard Clarke lecture (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:52:17 PM EST
    several years ago; he made clear that the Clinton admin was onto Al Quaeda; that national security admin (broadly construed) officials met daily to go over everything any agency had heard or learned, and shook all the trees.  Clarke himself many times tried to interest the Bush admin in Al Quaeda and he was ignored, at best.

    Parent
    It has been awhile since (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:38:21 PM EST
    Clarke was speaking about all this, but wasn't he also of the opinion that what the Republicans were doing to Clinton through Starr.....that that ended up with Clinton feeling too hamstrung to risk an International event like giving Clarke permission to off Osama when Clarke had him in the sites and it was a clear shot?

    Parent
    I invite you to read my comment (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:28:41 PM EST
    in which Clarke, in an interview, says that Bush increased CIA resources 5 fold to go after al Qaeda. And that was in February 2001.

    Was Clarke being factual then? Or was he being factual later? And do you have a source that supports your claim?

    Parent

    We invite you to read EVERYTHING (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:37:32 PM EST
    else that Clarke DID say about the Clinton administration and how seriously they took Al Qaeda in comparison to Bush.  I listened to many of the things that Clarke said about the Bush administrations negligence in dealing with Al Qaeda and I don't ever recall him making statements about the Bushies increasing anything pertaining to dealing with Al Qaeda prior to 9/11.  I remember him saying they blew him off daily.  I need an actual working link to this claim involving a credible media source before I'm willing to believe it at all.  I could be wrong on this, but it is a sad thing Jim to have to cherry pick through so much of what Clarke informed us all of in order to find one tiny little golden kernel to feed to your denial of how pathetic the Bush administration was on national security and military matters.

    Parent
    The fact that you did not read the (2.00 / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:33:08 PM EST
    interview I provided here means only that you have not read the interview.

    And I dare say there are many things neither of us have read.

    I gave you a working link to a Fox News Transcript of an interview with Clarke in which Fox was only one of the participants. If you choose to think that Fox News made the whole thing up, posted it and has it available in their archives then your paranoia level is quite high.

    Parent

    You put so much of what I consider (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:43:24 PM EST
    garbage up here, and just because you put it up that means it is factual and is not doctored or taken out of context in any way?  Gimmee a break.

    Parent
    Again (2.00 / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:13:56 PM EST
    the links are there for all to read. If you think FNC made the interview up, posted it on their website and have kept in their archives then you are welcome to your own little world.

    But the interviews will still have happened.

    Really Tracy, read what Clarke said. He is quite factual and complimentary towards what Clinton had done and how Bush improved and expanded it. You should examine your need for everyone to be evil if they don't fit your needs.

    Parent

    I believe I've heard (none / 0) (#72)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 02:34:50 PM EST
    Clarke and many others in the Clinton Admin say that during the transition, the Clinton folk tried to tell the new Admin beware Al Quaeda, Al Quaeda, Al Quaeda & were ignored.

    Parent
    The problem with that urban legend, so beloved by (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 03:35:04 PM EST
    by many on the Left, is not supported by what Clarke actually said in March of '04 in this interview. Clarke said:

    And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

    And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    If we can believe Clarke the Bush administration not only believed al-Qaeda was a threat and continued the Clinton admin's efforts, but increased resources 500%.

    That isn't ignoring.

    Link to interview transcript.

    Parent

    Orange cake?? (2.00 / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:39:04 PM EST
    This is what Joe Wilson told the CIA after his infamous trip to Niger to see if Iraq had tried to purchase yellow cake. NOTE: The claim was never that Iraq had purchased.

    The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue,...   The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

    Link

    Parent

    Ha....you fell for it (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 09:45:32 PM EST
    So you've heard this story huh?  About phony documents that the Bush administration used to justify going to war?  They may have even took part in creating them.  In any case they used them even after they were told they were phony.

    Parent
    Good grief (2.00 / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:19:05 PM EST
    Joe Wilson was the husband of Plame... The quote came from his CIA debriefing after he returned from his trip to Niger to see if Iraq had tried to purchase yellow cake... If you have no knowledge of that MT you really can't participate...

    You see, Bush never claimed Iraq had PURCHASED, he just echoed the Brits claim that they had TRIED to purchase. And Wilson agreed.

    As for the documents....

    U) The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.

    Link

    So here we have something that was published and then later retracted. But, the original was just too juicy so it has hung around and hung around after the person who "misspoke" has agreed that he never saw the report.

    Parent

    Really :) (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:30:46 PM EST
    In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[2] This single sentence, known now as the infamous "Sixteen Words",[3] would become a crucial justification of the administration's decision to conduct an invasion of Iraq less than three months later.

    The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated, "These sixteen words should never have been included." The administration attributed the error to the CIA.[4] In mid-2003, the U.S. government declassified the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which contained a dissenting opinion published by the U.S. Department of State stating that the intelligence connecting Niger to Saddam Hussein was "highly suspect," primarily because State Department's intelligence agency analysts did not believe that Niger would be likely to engage in such a transaction due to a French consortium which maintained close control over the Nigerien uranium industry. [5]

    According to The Washington Post, when occupying troops found no evidence of a current nuclear program, the statement and how it came to be in the speech became a focus for critics in Washington and foreign capitals to press the case that the White House manipulated facts to take the United States to war. The Post reported, "Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable." [6] With the release of the 2002 NIE report, the Bush administration was criticized for including the statement in the State of the Union despite CIA and State Department reports questioning its veracity.

    link

    Another incident of Bush ignoring our actual intel (he obviously didn't get enough of those snooping jerks fired off) and making up his own and then acting upon it.

    Parent

    You state the obvious. (2.00 / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:45:07 PM EST
    No one has said that Bush did not say that Iraq TRIED to purchase yellow cake.

    The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

    2003 SOTU Link

    What my comment showed you was that Joe Wilson went to Niger and came back and was debriefed by the CIA and AGREED that Iraq had TRIED.

    No one ever claimed that they had actually PURCHASED yellow cake.

    Do you understand the difference between "trying" and "doing?"

    Parent

    You need to read a little bit more (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:47:47 PM EST
    Even the Brits and British intelligence told Bush that the documents were fake.  He still ran with those sixteen words.....even after that.

    Parent
    Wilson agreed with the CIA (2.00 / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:03:35 PM EST
    in March of 2002. He later agreed that he misspoke about the documents. The IAEA's statements came in March of 2003, long after the SOTU.

    And everyone seems to forget what the ex-PM of Niger said.

    Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(                    ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.
    "

    Link

    Plus, the "documents" you refer to are regarding the sale of yellowcake. That wasn't the Brit's claim that Bush quoted.

    Again. Do you understand the difference between "trying" and "doing?"

    Parent

    I'm not talking about Wilson (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:07:44 PM EST
    I'm talking about President Bush, who used the "evidence" that the fake documents provided him that Iraq was trying to buy uranium even after every intelligence agency involved told him they were forged.

    Parent
    There were no fake documents (2.00 / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:19:40 PM EST
    that said Iraq was trying.

    The fake documents said they had purchased.

    A rather large difference.

     

    He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.

    Limk

    Again. March 2003 was about two months after Bush gave his SOTU speech.


    Parent

    As always, when you have no point to make (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 09:19:21 AM EST
    you resort to making the point that I have poor grammar or perhaps incorrect color schemes or some such distraction :)  Bush created his own intelligence while every intelligence agency on the globe knew they were nothing but a bunch of liars that were now in charge.  They told the Bushies as much too as politely as they could but the Bushies didn't care, for a moment they ruled the world and would dictate reality to all of us.....for a moment.  And now the history books will keep the records of who was full of it.

    Parent
    You should also read what David Kay (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:54:17 PM EST
    had to say:

    What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?

    We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

    · A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

    · A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

    · Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

    · New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

    · Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

    · A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

    · Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

    · Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km -- well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

    · Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

    In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence -- hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use -- are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts.

    Link

    Parent

    Seems to me (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:00:41 PM EST
    that the British are simply better at developing assets in that part of the world than we are, perhaps because of their historic ties to South Asia.  Whatever the reason, that's why it would be suicidal for us to cut off intelligence-sharing with them.  I suspect everyone involved understands that it would be mutually disastrous.

    Parent
    I think you right about this (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 08:40:43 PM EST
    I can't see where we are hurting anyone but ourselves by threatening to not share intel with them.  We both need each other a lot right now and we work together well on this issue, at least up until now we have.

    Parent
    You need to read up on the Church (2.00 / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:24:19 PM EST
    Committee that, back in the early 70's, basically tied the CIA's hands as far as HUMANIT operatives are concerned and that led to more and more reliance on electronic spying which is very expensive... The Brits didn't have the money for that so we made a good team.

    The human side of this then is that the Brits could very well unintentionally expose one our few human spies and cause his/her death.

    Parent

    Things have changed a bit since the early 70s (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:32:14 PM EST
    Yes (2.00 / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:47:42 PM EST
    and if you would do some studying you would find that it was Reagan's CIA that started to focus on the electronic rather than the human.

    So your lack of knowledge deprives you of a valid snark.

    Although it was Church, a Democrat, who did the initial damage,

    Parent

    Why is that everyone I discover to be a kook (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:51:25 PM EST
    or a flake in my book thrives on assessing and reassessing the Church Committee?  

    Parent
    Laying aside your snark (2.00 / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:07:06 PM EST
    the results of the work of the Church Committee is one of the most important events in the history of our intelligence programs.

    Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean that it is not important.

    And I think your personal attack shows that you know you have lost the discussion.

    Parent

    What the Brits don't have (2.00 / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 01:14:04 PM EST
    is the technology and the systems resources. Those are as important as HUMANIT.

    Parent
    B.S. (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 01:20:14 PM EST
    What an intelligent comment. (2.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    Actually one of your better ones.

    lol

    Parent

    To quote other posters around here (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 05:29:01 PM EST
    I calls em as I sees em.

    Parent
    Thanks for reminding us of this, BTD (none / 0) (#28)
    by lambert on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 01:28:56 PM EST
    Plus ca change....