Fifty one mid- to high-level State Department officers
involved with advising on Syria policy have signed a dissent channel cable calling for military strikes against
President Bashar al-Assad's government, to stop its persistent violations
of the ceasefire.
That might be all very well for Washington based policy wonks to "bravely" put their heads above the parapet on paper. However, the reality is that any strikes on Assad will bring America into direct conflict with Assad's sponsor Russia.
Additonally, as with Iraq, what exactly is the game plan if Assad is toppled?
Do these cosseted staffers think the democracy will magically bloom overnight in the arid sands of the desert?
Remove Assad and you have ISIS, Al Qaeda and other idiots running the show!
The 51 dissenters should be sacked. Not for dissenting, but for being idiots!
Showing posts with label al-Qaida. Show all posts
Showing posts with label al-Qaida. Show all posts
Friday, June 17, 2016
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Pentagon Tries To Bury Report
Unsurprisingly the Pentagon tried to bury the report, released yesterday, that stated that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida (this of course had been the central plank of Bush's rationale for the invasion of Iraq).
The Pentagon cancelled a planned briefing about the report, and scrapped plans to post its findings on the internet. Unclassified copies of the report would be sent to interested individuals in the mail, military officials told ABC.
Another Pentagon official told ABC that initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive".
Despite the Pentagon's attempts to bury the report, the media are awash with stories about it.
Mission Accomplished!
The Pentagon cancelled a planned briefing about the report, and scrapped plans to post its findings on the internet. Unclassified copies of the report would be sent to interested individuals in the mail, military officials told ABC.
Another Pentagon official told ABC that initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive".
Despite the Pentagon's attempts to bury the report, the media are awash with stories about it.
Mission Accomplished!
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
No Link To al-Qaida
A detailed review by the the Institute for Defense Analyses (sponsored by the Pentagon) of over 600,000 Iraqi documents, captured after the 2003 US invasion, has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network.
The review, "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents", is not due to be published officially to Congress until tomorrow.
The Defence Secretary (Donald Rumsfeld) claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.
Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed that there were many links between Saddam and al-Qaida in a February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council designed to rally support for the invasion.
Seemingly all of these statements made by Rumsfeld and Powell were based on false/misinterpreted intelligence.
The review was completed last year. However, it has been sat on since then as people have been reluctant to declassify it.
The review, "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents", is not due to be published officially to Congress until tomorrow.
The Defence Secretary (Donald Rumsfeld) claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.
Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed that there were many links between Saddam and al-Qaida in a February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council designed to rally support for the invasion.
Seemingly all of these statements made by Rumsfeld and Powell were based on false/misinterpreted intelligence.
The review was completed last year. However, it has been sat on since then as people have been reluctant to declassify it.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Saddam Hussein's Trial Resumes
Saddam Hussein's second trial, on charges of genocide in connection with a crackdown on Kurds, resumes today.
Saddam and his co-defendants face the death penalty for the killings of thousands of Kurds during the Anfal campaign in the 1980s.
Toady is also the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States, which were used as the causa bella against Saddam by the Bush administration.
Ironically, as Iraq now lurches ever closer to civil war, a U.S. Senate Intelligence report now states that no link has been found between Saddam and al-Qaida.
Saddam and his co-defendants face the death penalty for the killings of thousands of Kurds during the Anfal campaign in the 1980s.
Toady is also the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States, which were used as the causa bella against Saddam by the Bush administration.
Ironically, as Iraq now lurches ever closer to civil war, a U.S. Senate Intelligence report now states that no link has been found between Saddam and al-Qaida.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Bush Cherry Picked Reason For War
Paul Pillar, a former CIA National Intelligence officer with 28 years' experience, has set the cat amongst the pigeons in an article that he has written for the journal Foreign Affairs.
In the article he alleges that the Bush administration selectively chose parts of intelligence (ie "cherry picked") to justify its decision, already made, to invade Iraq.
The Administration has repeatedly denied manipulating intelligence.
Vice President Dick Cheney said last year:
"What is not legitimate, and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible, is the suggestion by some U.S. senators that the president of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence."
Intelligence officers have insisted that they did not distort the intelligence to satisfy the administration.
In a VOA interview, Paul Pillar alleges that Administration officials wanted to demonstrate a substantive link between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaida. He notes that no such links existed.
Quote:
"The main thing that happened there, particularly with reference to this issue of, was there a relationship between the Saddam regime and al-Qaida -- was a selective use of bits and pieces of reporting to try to build the case that in this case there was some kind of alliance without really reflecting the analytic judgment of the intelligence community that there was not."
Pillar claims that, whilst there was no direct pressure to alter intelligence analyses, the Administration's determination to go to war created a climate that cut off objectivity and stopped dissenting views among intelligence analysts.
Quote:
"If, instead, the analyst is operating in an environment in which he knows decisions have already been made, in which he knows the policymaker has a particular preference for what would suit his purposes in mustering support for that decision..well, that's an entirely different sort of thing."
The question that the American people need to ask is this:
Did President Bush take us to war to avenge his father, and use "exaggerated" intelligence to justify that decision?
In the article he alleges that the Bush administration selectively chose parts of intelligence (ie "cherry picked") to justify its decision, already made, to invade Iraq.
The Administration has repeatedly denied manipulating intelligence.
Vice President Dick Cheney said last year:
"What is not legitimate, and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible, is the suggestion by some U.S. senators that the president of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence."
Intelligence officers have insisted that they did not distort the intelligence to satisfy the administration.
In a VOA interview, Paul Pillar alleges that Administration officials wanted to demonstrate a substantive link between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaida. He notes that no such links existed.
Quote:
"The main thing that happened there, particularly with reference to this issue of, was there a relationship between the Saddam regime and al-Qaida -- was a selective use of bits and pieces of reporting to try to build the case that in this case there was some kind of alliance without really reflecting the analytic judgment of the intelligence community that there was not."
Pillar claims that, whilst there was no direct pressure to alter intelligence analyses, the Administration's determination to go to war created a climate that cut off objectivity and stopped dissenting views among intelligence analysts.
Quote:
"If, instead, the analyst is operating in an environment in which he knows decisions have already been made, in which he knows the policymaker has a particular preference for what would suit his purposes in mustering support for that decision..well, that's an entirely different sort of thing."
The question that the American people need to ask is this:
Did President Bush take us to war to avenge his father, and use "exaggerated" intelligence to justify that decision?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)