The Spying and the FBI Porn-Watching
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Mort Zuckerman
Jun 4, 2008, 5:19:35 AM6/4/08
to corrupticourts
To: zerh...@od.nih.gov, Spin...@yahoogroups.com,
kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com, patrick.f...@usdoj.gov,
model...@sbcglobal.net, jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com,
Jgerb...@cdc.gov, len...@courant.com, michae...@po.state.ct.us,
con...@po.state.ct.us, executiv...@nytimes.com, managing-
edi...@nytimes.com, news...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com,
biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com, me...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, ubi...@courant.com, ma...@concentric.net,
camp...@courant.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, cohen...@aol.com,
FalN...@aol.com, brans...@comcast.net, vts...@comcast.net,
o...@po.state.ct.us, da...@davila-dilzer.com,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, thomas...@usdoj.gov, amcg...@rms-law.com,
rjmu...@aol.com, paulcrai...@yahoo.com,
sidney_b...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov
Subject: The Spying and the FBI Porn-Watching
Date: Jun 4, 2008 5:18 AM
"Katharine Gun, a translator in the British equivalent of our National
Security
Agency, did successfully leak a very damaging Jan. 31, 2003,
memorandum from NSA
revealing that the U.S. and UK were pulling out all stops to sell the
war, even
intercepting messages to UN delegations in New York and elsewhere."
------ see the rest below -------------
Note that Janice Beers, myself, Lisa Masterson, and Karen Forschner
were all stalked,
wiretapped, and harassed by the Durland Fish-Ed McSweegan clique:
http://www.actionlyme.org/SWEEG_STALKING.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/080531ERICKSON.htm
http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/2008/06/national-inoculation-scam.html
http://www.actionlyme.org/McSweegan.htm
In fact, yet another Lyme victim/Mother was recently falsely reported
to the Child
Protective Servicetards.
You can see how it is done:
http://www.actionlyme.org/TICK_BITE_CONSPIRACY.htm
Sweeg and his "clairvoyance" as regards wiretapping and stalking Karen
Forschner of the Lyme.org during this deposition of McSweegan:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thread/thread/87640d534c586115/c5e50e5b067b2565?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=It+wasn%27t+just+the+LDF+grantee#c5e50e5b067b2565
So, methinks this illegal spying Corporate/GOP Wiretapping is meant to
be an opportunity
to spy on the whole world, rather than just Americans, especially
given the Mossad,
the 911 Dancing Israelis, the Israeli company Foxcom and the Israeli
company AmDocs
wiretapping Capitol Hill Blackberries and every other land line.
AND then there's the ALDF.com-associated, Red Pfohl's www.otaotr.com,
which
is clearly an international-spy-for-hire company.
The morons who agreed with the Bushies on the wiretapping would have
to have had
some secret -true-or-not- whispered into their ears by the likes of
the Israeli
Monster-Hunters. Threatened, in other words.
Which is what I think happened to John McCain.
It could be that, the US Elite, to include the Bushies and the
Rockefellers (who
traditionally did not like Jews), feel that perhaps the illegal
wiretapping of Americans
will help them spy on the current illegally wiretapping Israelis.
?
To avoid this, a separate system of communication has to be
established, and since
the lines are owned by someone else, all that individuals can do to
communicate
in private is to put a code through a randomizer for which only the
email communicatees
own the templates/programs (and the software has to be written on an
offline computer,
saved to a disk, and the disk transferred in person).
You know, like an electronic Enigma.
The couriers would have to have an unusual quality.
Bear in mind that Israel wants weapons technology and the US corporate
crooks want
to bag whistleblowers of corporate crime and they both want to steal
secrets from
foreign nations. Methinks this could be done through US illegal
corporate spying
networks.
Or, you know. The US Telecoms.
Kofi Annan admitted that he knew if he really had to say something
private, he would
take a walk outside the UN and say what he had to say in person. He
knew his office
was bugged by the USA. Many others did too, in the run-up to the
war.
I hope the UN intends to move out of New York, soon. It seems silly
that in addition
to all this crime, that when Ahmadinejad came to the States, he was
outright trashed
by Columbia University, when in fact, Columbia, being a University,
would be expected
to know that Ahmadinejad called for Zionist Regime change, and not
that "Israel
should be wiped off the map."
ZIONISTS or the self-alleged Israeli elite, being the elite, are
entitled to whatever
property in the Middle East that they want. (That's the definition of
ZIONIST
according to the Arab world.)
What else would Ahmadinejad say to Israel? "Come on over and treat us
the
way you've treated Palestinians!!"
??
Iraq WMD was baloney - except for what we gave Saddam - as is the case
for illegal
wiretapping of America.
I'm thinking: wiretapping and information-theft/technology theft, is,
well,
The Corporate Condition, and that the tards in the FBI perhaps are
playing catch-up.
You know, to the extent that they're not absorbed in getting their
jollies allegedly
catching porn-watchers. Superporn-Watching Central is what's in that
new FBI
building at 600 State Street, New Haven.
All the FBI fun-porn-watching might even be a recruiting point.
They do what they do - a directive from Albert-ho Gonzales - as a
distraction from
catching corporate crime. The New Haven FBI are amazingly *stupid*
people. I know
because I call them quite a bit. They're like duh DCFtards: afraid
of, and
resent bad, bad BIG-WORD-SAYERS.
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
===================
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=12939
June 4, 2008
Australia Bolts Iraq Over Bush's Lies
by Ray McGovern
Matilda is waltzing home from Iraq, and the Australians are lucky but
chastened.
Lucky for having lost not one soldier in combat of the 2,000 sent to
join the "coalition
of the willing" attack on Iraq in March 2003.
Chastened because Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is now pulling
no punches
in decrying the subservience of his predecessor, John Howard, to
Washington.
Announcing the withdrawal of the 550 Australian troops still in Iraq
on Monday,
Rudd echoed recent charges by former White House spokesman Scott
McClellan about
the Bush administration's "shading" of intelligence to "justify"
an unnecessary war.
Rudd told Parliament he was most concerned by "the manner in which the
decision
to go to war was made; the abuse of intelligence information, a
failure to disclose
to the Australian people the qualified nature of that intelligence";
and the
government's silence on "the prewar warning that an attack on Iraq
would
increase the terrorist threat, not decrease it."
Rudd added:
"This government does not believe that our alliance with the United
States
mandates automatic compliance with every element of the United States'
foreign
policy."
Stung by Rudd's candor, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino fell back
on the
canard that "the entire world" agreed on the threat posed by Saddam
Hussein.
As President Lyndon Johnson would have put it, that dog won't hunt.
If all agreed, why then was President George W. Bush unable to secure
the approval
of the UN Security Council, without which an armed attack on another
country is
illegal under international and U.S. law?
Among "coalition of the willing" leaders not named Bush, only the
faith-based
former British Prime Minister Tony Blair hangs on pathetically to the
notion that
"everyone" believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs.
This is particularly odd since Blair acknowledges the authenticity of
the (in)famous
Downing Street Memos. Perhaps his conversion to Catholicism will
prompt him to confess
that he lied – a reality long beyond dispute.
The Downing Street Truth
As some will recall, Blair sent his intelligence chief off to
Washington in summer
2002 to confer with his opposite number, and Bush intimate, CIA
Director George
Tenet.
In the spring of 2005, a patriotic truth-teller leaked to British
media the minutes
of a summit meeting of UK national security officials convened on July
23, 2002,
at 10 Downing Street. (The minutes, which became known as the Downing
Street Memos,
were composed that same day by one of those officials and sent to the
other participants.)
The minutes revealed that at CIA headquarters on July 20, 2002, Tenet
informed his
British counterpart that President Bush had decided to attack Iraq for
regime change;
that the war would be justified by the "conjunction" of weapons of
mass
destruction and terrorism; and that "the intelligence and facts were
being
fixed around the policy."
So we did not really need Scott McClellan's recent revelations to
understand
that the intelligence was "fixed," even though our country's fawning
corporate media (FCM) made a Herculean effort to suppress this key
evidence – in
part by ignoring and disparaging the Downing Street Memos when they
surfaced three
years ago.
Among the saddest aspects of this whole affair, at least for those who
have been
in the intelligence profession, is that no one within the U.S.
intelligence establishment
saw fit to go public and disclose the deception that was being used to
"justify"
a war of aggression. No one.
The only seasoned officials with the courage to speak out were three
Foreign Service
officers – Brady Kiesling, Ann Wright, and John H. Brown – each of
whom resigned
before the war since it was clear to them, even without access to the
most sensitive
intelligence, that the war could not be justified.
As for intelligence officials outside the United States, there were
several profiles
in courage.
Katharine Gun, a translator in the British equivalent of our National
Security Agency,
did successfully leak a very damaging Jan. 31, 2003, memorandum from
NSA revealing
that the U.S. and UK were pulling out all stops to sell the war, even
intercepting
messages to UN delegations in New York and elsewhere.
It was all part of a last-ditch attempt to pressure nonaligned members
of the UN
Security Council into acquiescing to the U.S./UK desire to strike
Iraq. Gun thought
she might succeed in slowing or even stopping an attack on Iraq, if
the world learned
the lengths to which Bush and Blair were going to have their war.
Gun's explosive document, carried by the London Observer on March 2,
2003 –
just two and a half weeks before the attack on Iraq – was suppressed
or trivialized
by the FCM in the United States.
(Gun, who acknowledged leaking the document, was fired and charged
under the Official
Secrets Act. But the case collapsed when the British government balked
at providing
evidence that might have disclosed some government law experts had
concluded that
the Iraq invasion was illegal. Gun is now a member of VIPS/West.)
And after the war began, Danish Army Intelligence Major Frank Grevil
gave the Danish
media documents showing that Danish intelligence had reported to its
government
that the U.S. public rationale for war was not supported by authentic
intelligence.
Grevil (another VIPS member) was sentenced to four months in prison
for his efforts
to tell the truth.
Andrew Wilkie: Rising to the Challenge
Until he quit nine days before the attack on Iraq, Andrew Wilkie was a
senior analyst
in Australia's premier intelligence agency, the Office of National
Assessments
(ONA).
Of all the Australian, British, and American all-source intelligence
analysts with
direct knowledge of how intelligence was abused in the run-up to the
war, Wilkie
was the only one to resign in protest and speak truth to power.
Those who dismiss such efforts as an exercise in futility should know
that on Oct.
7, 2003, the Australian Senate, in a rare move, censured then-Prime
Minister Howard
for misleading the public in justifying sending Australian troops off
to war.
The Senate statement of censure noted that Howard had produced no
evidence to justify
his claims in March 2003 that Iraq had stockpiles of biological and
chemical weapons,
and it castigated him for suppressing Australian intelligence warnings
that war
with Iraq would increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks.
One senator accused Howard of "unprecedented deceit."
Ask the American FCM why they ignored that story.
Thanks to Wilkie's courage and determination , many Australians were
able to
come to an early understanding that the reasons adduced for war on
Iraq were cooked
in Washington and served up by Australian leaders all too willing to
give unquestioning
support to the Bush administration.
Those Australian leaders are now being held accountable.
VIPS invited Andrew Wilkie to Washington in July 2003 to speak at a
briefing arranged
by Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in the House Rayburn Building. There were
14 TV cameras
in that room, but not one minute of TV coverage that afternoon or
evening.
After his presentation, we strongly encouraged Wilkie to keep throwing
light on
this dark chapter of history; he was pleased to join VIPS/East.
We expressed our hope that U.S. intelligence analysts who also watched
the deceit
close-up would soon join him in speaking out. With a wan smile, Wilkie
shook his
head and pointed to the cost, including the character assassination to
which he
had already been subjected at the hands of his government.
One VIPS Testifies
On Aug. 22, 2003, Wilkie had an opportunity not yet afforded any VIPS
of the American,
British, or Danish chapters. He laid out his case before parliament in
Canberra,
testifying that the attack on Iraq had little to do with WMDs or
terrorism. One
particularly telling part of his testimony:
"Please remember the government was also receiving detailed
assessments on
the U.S. in which it was made very clear the U.S. was intent on
invading Iraq for
more important reasons than WMDs and terrorism. Hence all this talk
about WMDs and
terrorism was hollow. Much more likely is the proposition the
government deliberately
exaggerated the Iraq WMDs threat so as to stay in step with the U.S."
In the wake of Wilkie's testimony, Australian pundits became more
critical of
the Howard government and its persistent refusal to acknowledge that,
as one journalist
put it, they were "conned by master manipulators masquerading as
purveyors
of objective intelligence."
Sounds a little like Scott McClellan, no? But, thanks to the FCM, most
Americans
hear it for the first time only five years later.
The candor of Wilkie's Aug. 22, 2003, testimony to the Australian
parliament
helps to dispel the myths and canards still wafting around about –
among other things
– how "the entire world" believed Saddam Hussein was a dangerous
threat.
Accordingly, we include some of the more telling Wilkie excerpts
below. (Emphasis
added in bold.)
Opening Remarks to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the
Australian Security
Intelligence Organization (ASIO), the Australian Secret Intelligence
Service (ASIS),
and the Defense Signals Directorate (DSD)
Aug. 22, 2003
Andrew Wilkie
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to appear before the
Committee.
You would be well aware that I resigned from the Office of
National Assessments,
before the Iraq war, because I assessed that invading Iraq would not
be the most
sensible and ethical way to resolve the Iraq issue. I chose
resignation, specifically,
because compromise or seeking to create change from within ONA were
not realistic
options.
At the time I resigned I put on the public record three
fundamental concerns.
Firstly, that Iraq did not pose a serious enough security threat to
justify a war.
Secondly, that too many things could go wrong. And, thirdly, that war
was still
totally unnecessary because options short of war were yet to be
exhausted.
My first concern is especially relevant today. It was based on my
assessment
that Iraq's conventional armed forces were weak, that Iraq's weapons
of
mass destruction program was disjointed and contained, and that there
was no hard
evidence of any active cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
Now the government has claimed repeatedly I was not close enough
to the Iraq
issue to know what I'm talking about. Such statements have misled the
public
and have been exceptionally hurtful to me.
I was a senior analyst with a top-secret positive vet security
clearance. I'd
been awarded a superior rating in my last performance appraisal, and
not long before
I resigned I'd been informed by the deputy director-general that
thought was
being given to my being promoted.
Because of my military background (I had been a regular army
infantry lieutenant
colonel), I was required to be familiar with war-related issues … and
was on standby
to cover Iraq once the war began….
Now, in fairness to Australian and allied intelligence agencies,
Iraq was a
tough target. From time to time there were shortages of human
intelligence on the
country. At other times the preponderance of anti-Saddam sources
desperate for U.S.
intervention ensured a flood of disinformation. Collecting technical
intelligence
was equally challenging.
A problem for Australian agencies was their reliance on allies. We
had virtually
no influence on foreign intelligence collection planning, and the raw
intelligence
seldom arrived with adequate notes on sources or reliability. More
problematic was
the way in which Australia's tiny agencies needed to rely on the
sometimes weak
and skewed views contained in the assessments prepared in Washington.
A few problems were inevitable. For instance, intelligence gaps
were sometimes
back-filled with the disinformation. Worst-case sometimes took primacy
over most-likely.
The threat was sometimes overestimated as a result of the fairy tales
coming out
of the U.S. And sometimes government pressure, as well as politically
correct intelligence
officers themselves, resulted in its own bias.
But, overall, Australian agencies did, I believe, an acceptable
job reporting
on the existence of, the capacity and willingness to use, and
immediacy of the threat,
posed by Iraq. Assessments were okay, not least because they were
always heavily
qualified to reflect the ambiguous intelligence picture.
How then to explain the big gap between the government's prewar
claims about
Iraq possessing a massive arsenal of WMDs and cooperating actively
with al-Qaeda
and the reality that no arsenal of weapons or evidence of substantive
links have
yet been found?
Well, most often the government deliberately skewed the truth by
taking the
ambiguity out of the issue. Key intelligence assessment qualifications
like "probably,"
"could," and "uncorroborated evidence suggests" were frequently
dropped. Much more useful words like "massive" and "mammoth"
were included, even though such words had not been offered to the
government by
the intelligence agencies. Before we knew it, the government had
created a mythical
Iraq, one where every factory was up to no good and weaponization was
continuing
apace.
Equally misleading was the way in which the government
misrepresented the truth.
For example, when the government spoke of Iraq having form [being up
to no good],
it cited pre-1991 Gulf War examples, like the use of chemical weapons
against Iran
and the Kurds. Mind you, the government needed to be creative, because
12 years
of sanctions, inspections, and air strikes had virtually disarmed
modern Iraq….
The government even went so far as to fabricate the truth. The
claims about
Iraq cooperating actively with al-Qaeda were obviously nonsense. As
was the government's
reference to Iraq seeking uranium in Africa, despite the fact that
ONA, the Department
of Defense, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade all knew
the Niger story
was fraudulent. This was critical information. It beggars belief that
ONA knew it
was discredited but didn't advise the prime minister, Defense knew but
didn't
tell the defense minister, and Foreign Affairs knew but didn't tell
the foreign
minister. …
In closing, I wish to make it clear that I do not apologize for,
or withdraw
from, my accusation that the Howard government misled the Australian
public over
Iraq, both through its own public statements as well as through its
endorsement
of Allied statements.
The government lied every time it said or implied that I was not
senior enough
or appropriately placed in ONA to know what I was talking about. And
the government
lied every time it skewed, misrepresented, used selectively, and
fabricated the
Iraq story.
But these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. For instance,
the government
lied when the prime minister's office told the media I was mentally
unstable.
The government lied when it associated Iraq with the Bali bombing. And
the government
lied every time it linked Iraq to the War on Terror.
The prime minister and the foreign minister in particular have a
lot to answer
for. After all, they were the chief cheerleaders for the invasion of
another country,
without UN endorsement, for reasons that have now been discredited.
Reprinted courtesy of Consortium News.
kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com, patrick.f...@usdoj.gov,
model...@sbcglobal.net, jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com,
Jgerb...@cdc.gov, len...@courant.com, michae...@po.state.ct.us,
con...@po.state.ct.us, executiv...@nytimes.com, managing-
edi...@nytimes.com, news...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com,
biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com, me...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, ubi...@courant.com, ma...@concentric.net,
camp...@courant.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, cohen...@aol.com,
FalN...@aol.com, brans...@comcast.net, vts...@comcast.net,
o...@po.state.ct.us, da...@davila-dilzer.com,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, thomas...@usdoj.gov, amcg...@rms-law.com,
rjmu...@aol.com, paulcrai...@yahoo.com,
sidney_b...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov
Subject: The Spying and the FBI Porn-Watching
Date: Jun 4, 2008 5:18 AM
"Katharine Gun, a translator in the British equivalent of our National
Security
Agency, did successfully leak a very damaging Jan. 31, 2003,
memorandum from NSA
revealing that the U.S. and UK were pulling out all stops to sell the
war, even
intercepting messages to UN delegations in New York and elsewhere."
------ see the rest below -------------
Note that Janice Beers, myself, Lisa Masterson, and Karen Forschner
were all stalked,
wiretapped, and harassed by the Durland Fish-Ed McSweegan clique:
http://www.actionlyme.org/SWEEG_STALKING.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/080531ERICKSON.htm
http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/2008/06/national-inoculation-scam.html
http://www.actionlyme.org/McSweegan.htm
In fact, yet another Lyme victim/Mother was recently falsely reported
to the Child
Protective Servicetards.
You can see how it is done:
http://www.actionlyme.org/TICK_BITE_CONSPIRACY.htm
Sweeg and his "clairvoyance" as regards wiretapping and stalking Karen
Forschner of the Lyme.org during this deposition of McSweegan:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thread/thread/87640d534c586115/c5e50e5b067b2565?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=It+wasn%27t+just+the+LDF+grantee#c5e50e5b067b2565
So, methinks this illegal spying Corporate/GOP Wiretapping is meant to
be an opportunity
to spy on the whole world, rather than just Americans, especially
given the Mossad,
the 911 Dancing Israelis, the Israeli company Foxcom and the Israeli
company AmDocs
wiretapping Capitol Hill Blackberries and every other land line.
AND then there's the ALDF.com-associated, Red Pfohl's www.otaotr.com,
which
is clearly an international-spy-for-hire company.
The morons who agreed with the Bushies on the wiretapping would have
to have had
some secret -true-or-not- whispered into their ears by the likes of
the Israeli
Monster-Hunters. Threatened, in other words.
Which is what I think happened to John McCain.
It could be that, the US Elite, to include the Bushies and the
Rockefellers (who
traditionally did not like Jews), feel that perhaps the illegal
wiretapping of Americans
will help them spy on the current illegally wiretapping Israelis.
?
To avoid this, a separate system of communication has to be
established, and since
the lines are owned by someone else, all that individuals can do to
communicate
in private is to put a code through a randomizer for which only the
email communicatees
own the templates/programs (and the software has to be written on an
offline computer,
saved to a disk, and the disk transferred in person).
You know, like an electronic Enigma.
The couriers would have to have an unusual quality.
Bear in mind that Israel wants weapons technology and the US corporate
crooks want
to bag whistleblowers of corporate crime and they both want to steal
secrets from
foreign nations. Methinks this could be done through US illegal
corporate spying
networks.
Or, you know. The US Telecoms.
Kofi Annan admitted that he knew if he really had to say something
private, he would
take a walk outside the UN and say what he had to say in person. He
knew his office
was bugged by the USA. Many others did too, in the run-up to the
war.
I hope the UN intends to move out of New York, soon. It seems silly
that in addition
to all this crime, that when Ahmadinejad came to the States, he was
outright trashed
by Columbia University, when in fact, Columbia, being a University,
would be expected
to know that Ahmadinejad called for Zionist Regime change, and not
that "Israel
should be wiped off the map."
ZIONISTS or the self-alleged Israeli elite, being the elite, are
entitled to whatever
property in the Middle East that they want. (That's the definition of
ZIONIST
according to the Arab world.)
What else would Ahmadinejad say to Israel? "Come on over and treat us
the
way you've treated Palestinians!!"
??
Iraq WMD was baloney - except for what we gave Saddam - as is the case
for illegal
wiretapping of America.
I'm thinking: wiretapping and information-theft/technology theft, is,
well,
The Corporate Condition, and that the tards in the FBI perhaps are
playing catch-up.
You know, to the extent that they're not absorbed in getting their
jollies allegedly
catching porn-watchers. Superporn-Watching Central is what's in that
new FBI
building at 600 State Street, New Haven.
All the FBI fun-porn-watching might even be a recruiting point.
They do what they do - a directive from Albert-ho Gonzales - as a
distraction from
catching corporate crime. The New Haven FBI are amazingly *stupid*
people. I know
because I call them quite a bit. They're like duh DCFtards: afraid
of, and
resent bad, bad BIG-WORD-SAYERS.
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
===================
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=12939
June 4, 2008
Australia Bolts Iraq Over Bush's Lies
by Ray McGovern
Matilda is waltzing home from Iraq, and the Australians are lucky but
chastened.
Lucky for having lost not one soldier in combat of the 2,000 sent to
join the "coalition
of the willing" attack on Iraq in March 2003.
Chastened because Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is now pulling
no punches
in decrying the subservience of his predecessor, John Howard, to
Washington.
Announcing the withdrawal of the 550 Australian troops still in Iraq
on Monday,
Rudd echoed recent charges by former White House spokesman Scott
McClellan about
the Bush administration's "shading" of intelligence to "justify"
an unnecessary war.
Rudd told Parliament he was most concerned by "the manner in which the
decision
to go to war was made; the abuse of intelligence information, a
failure to disclose
to the Australian people the qualified nature of that intelligence";
and the
government's silence on "the prewar warning that an attack on Iraq
would
increase the terrorist threat, not decrease it."
Rudd added:
"This government does not believe that our alliance with the United
States
mandates automatic compliance with every element of the United States'
foreign
policy."
Stung by Rudd's candor, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino fell back
on the
canard that "the entire world" agreed on the threat posed by Saddam
Hussein.
As President Lyndon Johnson would have put it, that dog won't hunt.
If all agreed, why then was President George W. Bush unable to secure
the approval
of the UN Security Council, without which an armed attack on another
country is
illegal under international and U.S. law?
Among "coalition of the willing" leaders not named Bush, only the
faith-based
former British Prime Minister Tony Blair hangs on pathetically to the
notion that
"everyone" believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs.
This is particularly odd since Blair acknowledges the authenticity of
the (in)famous
Downing Street Memos. Perhaps his conversion to Catholicism will
prompt him to confess
that he lied – a reality long beyond dispute.
The Downing Street Truth
As some will recall, Blair sent his intelligence chief off to
Washington in summer
2002 to confer with his opposite number, and Bush intimate, CIA
Director George
Tenet.
In the spring of 2005, a patriotic truth-teller leaked to British
media the minutes
of a summit meeting of UK national security officials convened on July
23, 2002,
at 10 Downing Street. (The minutes, which became known as the Downing
Street Memos,
were composed that same day by one of those officials and sent to the
other participants.)
The minutes revealed that at CIA headquarters on July 20, 2002, Tenet
informed his
British counterpart that President Bush had decided to attack Iraq for
regime change;
that the war would be justified by the "conjunction" of weapons of
mass
destruction and terrorism; and that "the intelligence and facts were
being
fixed around the policy."
So we did not really need Scott McClellan's recent revelations to
understand
that the intelligence was "fixed," even though our country's fawning
corporate media (FCM) made a Herculean effort to suppress this key
evidence – in
part by ignoring and disparaging the Downing Street Memos when they
surfaced three
years ago.
Among the saddest aspects of this whole affair, at least for those who
have been
in the intelligence profession, is that no one within the U.S.
intelligence establishment
saw fit to go public and disclose the deception that was being used to
"justify"
a war of aggression. No one.
The only seasoned officials with the courage to speak out were three
Foreign Service
officers – Brady Kiesling, Ann Wright, and John H. Brown – each of
whom resigned
before the war since it was clear to them, even without access to the
most sensitive
intelligence, that the war could not be justified.
As for intelligence officials outside the United States, there were
several profiles
in courage.
Katharine Gun, a translator in the British equivalent of our National
Security Agency,
did successfully leak a very damaging Jan. 31, 2003, memorandum from
NSA revealing
that the U.S. and UK were pulling out all stops to sell the war, even
intercepting
messages to UN delegations in New York and elsewhere.
It was all part of a last-ditch attempt to pressure nonaligned members
of the UN
Security Council into acquiescing to the U.S./UK desire to strike
Iraq. Gun thought
she might succeed in slowing or even stopping an attack on Iraq, if
the world learned
the lengths to which Bush and Blair were going to have their war.
Gun's explosive document, carried by the London Observer on March 2,
2003 –
just two and a half weeks before the attack on Iraq – was suppressed
or trivialized
by the FCM in the United States.
(Gun, who acknowledged leaking the document, was fired and charged
under the Official
Secrets Act. But the case collapsed when the British government balked
at providing
evidence that might have disclosed some government law experts had
concluded that
the Iraq invasion was illegal. Gun is now a member of VIPS/West.)
And after the war began, Danish Army Intelligence Major Frank Grevil
gave the Danish
media documents showing that Danish intelligence had reported to its
government
that the U.S. public rationale for war was not supported by authentic
intelligence.
Grevil (another VIPS member) was sentenced to four months in prison
for his efforts
to tell the truth.
Andrew Wilkie: Rising to the Challenge
Until he quit nine days before the attack on Iraq, Andrew Wilkie was a
senior analyst
in Australia's premier intelligence agency, the Office of National
Assessments
(ONA).
Of all the Australian, British, and American all-source intelligence
analysts with
direct knowledge of how intelligence was abused in the run-up to the
war, Wilkie
was the only one to resign in protest and speak truth to power.
Those who dismiss such efforts as an exercise in futility should know
that on Oct.
7, 2003, the Australian Senate, in a rare move, censured then-Prime
Minister Howard
for misleading the public in justifying sending Australian troops off
to war.
The Senate statement of censure noted that Howard had produced no
evidence to justify
his claims in March 2003 that Iraq had stockpiles of biological and
chemical weapons,
and it castigated him for suppressing Australian intelligence warnings
that war
with Iraq would increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks.
One senator accused Howard of "unprecedented deceit."
Ask the American FCM why they ignored that story.
Thanks to Wilkie's courage and determination , many Australians were
able to
come to an early understanding that the reasons adduced for war on
Iraq were cooked
in Washington and served up by Australian leaders all too willing to
give unquestioning
support to the Bush administration.
Those Australian leaders are now being held accountable.
VIPS invited Andrew Wilkie to Washington in July 2003 to speak at a
briefing arranged
by Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in the House Rayburn Building. There were
14 TV cameras
in that room, but not one minute of TV coverage that afternoon or
evening.
After his presentation, we strongly encouraged Wilkie to keep throwing
light on
this dark chapter of history; he was pleased to join VIPS/East.
We expressed our hope that U.S. intelligence analysts who also watched
the deceit
close-up would soon join him in speaking out. With a wan smile, Wilkie
shook his
head and pointed to the cost, including the character assassination to
which he
had already been subjected at the hands of his government.
One VIPS Testifies
On Aug. 22, 2003, Wilkie had an opportunity not yet afforded any VIPS
of the American,
British, or Danish chapters. He laid out his case before parliament in
Canberra,
testifying that the attack on Iraq had little to do with WMDs or
terrorism. One
particularly telling part of his testimony:
"Please remember the government was also receiving detailed
assessments on
the U.S. in which it was made very clear the U.S. was intent on
invading Iraq for
more important reasons than WMDs and terrorism. Hence all this talk
about WMDs and
terrorism was hollow. Much more likely is the proposition the
government deliberately
exaggerated the Iraq WMDs threat so as to stay in step with the U.S."
In the wake of Wilkie's testimony, Australian pundits became more
critical of
the Howard government and its persistent refusal to acknowledge that,
as one journalist
put it, they were "conned by master manipulators masquerading as
purveyors
of objective intelligence."
Sounds a little like Scott McClellan, no? But, thanks to the FCM, most
Americans
hear it for the first time only five years later.
The candor of Wilkie's Aug. 22, 2003, testimony to the Australian
parliament
helps to dispel the myths and canards still wafting around about –
among other things
– how "the entire world" believed Saddam Hussein was a dangerous
threat.
Accordingly, we include some of the more telling Wilkie excerpts
below. (Emphasis
added in bold.)
Opening Remarks to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the
Australian Security
Intelligence Organization (ASIO), the Australian Secret Intelligence
Service (ASIS),
and the Defense Signals Directorate (DSD)
Aug. 22, 2003
Andrew Wilkie
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to appear before the
Committee.
You would be well aware that I resigned from the Office of
National Assessments,
before the Iraq war, because I assessed that invading Iraq would not
be the most
sensible and ethical way to resolve the Iraq issue. I chose
resignation, specifically,
because compromise or seeking to create change from within ONA were
not realistic
options.
At the time I resigned I put on the public record three
fundamental concerns.
Firstly, that Iraq did not pose a serious enough security threat to
justify a war.
Secondly, that too many things could go wrong. And, thirdly, that war
was still
totally unnecessary because options short of war were yet to be
exhausted.
My first concern is especially relevant today. It was based on my
assessment
that Iraq's conventional armed forces were weak, that Iraq's weapons
of
mass destruction program was disjointed and contained, and that there
was no hard
evidence of any active cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
Now the government has claimed repeatedly I was not close enough
to the Iraq
issue to know what I'm talking about. Such statements have misled the
public
and have been exceptionally hurtful to me.
I was a senior analyst with a top-secret positive vet security
clearance. I'd
been awarded a superior rating in my last performance appraisal, and
not long before
I resigned I'd been informed by the deputy director-general that
thought was
being given to my being promoted.
Because of my military background (I had been a regular army
infantry lieutenant
colonel), I was required to be familiar with war-related issues … and
was on standby
to cover Iraq once the war began….
Now, in fairness to Australian and allied intelligence agencies,
Iraq was a
tough target. From time to time there were shortages of human
intelligence on the
country. At other times the preponderance of anti-Saddam sources
desperate for U.S.
intervention ensured a flood of disinformation. Collecting technical
intelligence
was equally challenging.
A problem for Australian agencies was their reliance on allies. We
had virtually
no influence on foreign intelligence collection planning, and the raw
intelligence
seldom arrived with adequate notes on sources or reliability. More
problematic was
the way in which Australia's tiny agencies needed to rely on the
sometimes weak
and skewed views contained in the assessments prepared in Washington.
A few problems were inevitable. For instance, intelligence gaps
were sometimes
back-filled with the disinformation. Worst-case sometimes took primacy
over most-likely.
The threat was sometimes overestimated as a result of the fairy tales
coming out
of the U.S. And sometimes government pressure, as well as politically
correct intelligence
officers themselves, resulted in its own bias.
But, overall, Australian agencies did, I believe, an acceptable
job reporting
on the existence of, the capacity and willingness to use, and
immediacy of the threat,
posed by Iraq. Assessments were okay, not least because they were
always heavily
qualified to reflect the ambiguous intelligence picture.
How then to explain the big gap between the government's prewar
claims about
Iraq possessing a massive arsenal of WMDs and cooperating actively
with al-Qaeda
and the reality that no arsenal of weapons or evidence of substantive
links have
yet been found?
Well, most often the government deliberately skewed the truth by
taking the
ambiguity out of the issue. Key intelligence assessment qualifications
like "probably,"
"could," and "uncorroborated evidence suggests" were frequently
dropped. Much more useful words like "massive" and "mammoth"
were included, even though such words had not been offered to the
government by
the intelligence agencies. Before we knew it, the government had
created a mythical
Iraq, one where every factory was up to no good and weaponization was
continuing
apace.
Equally misleading was the way in which the government
misrepresented the truth.
For example, when the government spoke of Iraq having form [being up
to no good],
it cited pre-1991 Gulf War examples, like the use of chemical weapons
against Iran
and the Kurds. Mind you, the government needed to be creative, because
12 years
of sanctions, inspections, and air strikes had virtually disarmed
modern Iraq….
The government even went so far as to fabricate the truth. The
claims about
Iraq cooperating actively with al-Qaeda were obviously nonsense. As
was the government's
reference to Iraq seeking uranium in Africa, despite the fact that
ONA, the Department
of Defense, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade all knew
the Niger story
was fraudulent. This was critical information. It beggars belief that
ONA knew it
was discredited but didn't advise the prime minister, Defense knew but
didn't
tell the defense minister, and Foreign Affairs knew but didn't tell
the foreign
minister. …
In closing, I wish to make it clear that I do not apologize for,
or withdraw
from, my accusation that the Howard government misled the Australian
public over
Iraq, both through its own public statements as well as through its
endorsement
of Allied statements.
The government lied every time it said or implied that I was not
senior enough
or appropriately placed in ONA to know what I was talking about. And
the government
lied every time it skewed, misrepresented, used selectively, and
fabricated the
Iraq story.
But these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. For instance,
the government
lied when the prime minister's office told the media I was mentally
unstable.
The government lied when it associated Iraq with the Bali bombing. And
the government
lied every time it linked Iraq to the War on Terror.
The prime minister and the foreign minister in particular have a
lot to answer
for. After all, they were the chief cheerleaders for the invasion of
another country,
without UN endorsement, for reasons that have now been discredited.
Reprinted courtesy of Consortium News.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages