General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsU.S. Military and Intelligence Officials to Obama: “Assad NOT Responsible for Chemical Attack”
Exclusive: Despite the Obama administrations supposedly high confidence regarding Syrian government guilt over the Aug. 21 chemical attack near Damascus, a dozen former U.S. military and intelligence officials are telling President Obama that they are picking up information that undercuts the Official Story.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap?
Precedence: IMMEDIATE
We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as plausible denial.
We have been down this road before with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powells Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent intelligence to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled or, at the least, very poorly advised.
The fraudulent nature of Powells speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to widen the discussion beyond
the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic. We offer you the same advice today.
Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public and perhaps even you.
We have observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly, we find what our former colleagues are now telling us easy to believe. Sadder still, this goes in spades for those of us who have worked with him personally; we give him zero credence. And that goes, as well, for his titular boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has admitted he gave clearly erroneous sworn testimony to Congress denying NSA eavesdropping on Americans.
Intelligence Summary or Political Ploy?
That Secretary of State John Kerry would invoke Clappers name this week in Congressional testimony, in an apparent attempt to enhance the credibility of the four-page Government Assessment strikes us as odd. The more so, since it was, for some unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the assessment.
This is not a fine point. We know how these things are done. Although the Government Assessment is being sold to the media as an intelligence summary, it is a political, not an intelligence document. The drafters, massagers, and fixers avoided presenting essential detail. Moreover, they conceded upfront that, though they pinned high confidence on the assessment, it still fell short of confirmation.
Déjà Fraud: This brings a flashback to the famous Downing Street Minutes of July 23, 2002, on Iraq, The minutes record the Richard Dearlove, then head of British intelligence, reporting to Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials that President Bush had decided to remove Saddam Hussein through military action that would be justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. Dearlove had gotten the word from then-CIA Director George Tenet whom he visited at CIA headquarters on July 20.
The discussion that followed centered on the ephemeral nature of the evidence, prompting Dearlove to explain: But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. We are concerned that this is precisely what has happened with the intelligence on Syria.
The Intelligence
There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.
According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.
We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.
In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors.
Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to a war-changing development, which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.
At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government
The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And they were. A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence officers.
Cui bono?
That the various groups trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have ample incentive to get the U.S. more deeply involved in support of that effort is clear. Until now, it has not been quite as clear that the Netanyahu government in Israel has equally powerful incentive to get Washington more deeply engaged in yet another war in the area. But with outspoken urging coming from Israel and those Americans who lobby for Israeli interests, this priority Israeli objective is becoming crystal clear.
Reporter Judi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem in an important article in Fridays New York Times addresses Israeli motivation in an uncommonly candid way. Her article, titled Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria, notes that the Israelis have argued, quietly, that the best outcome for Syrias two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome. Rudoren continues:
For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assads government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.
This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you dont want one to win well settle for a tie, said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: thats the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, theres no real threat from Syria.
We think this is the way Israels current leaders look at the situation in Syria, and that deeper U.S. involvement albeit, initially, by limited military strikes is likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict in Syria. The longer Sunni and Shia are at each others throats in Syria and in the wider region, the safer Israel calculates that it is.
That Syrias main ally is Iran, with whom it has a mutual defense treaty, also plays a role in Israeli calculations. Irans leaders are not likely to be able to have much military impact in Syria, and Israel can highlight that as an embarrassment for Tehran.
Irans Role
Iran can readily be blamed by association and charged with all manner of provocation, real and imagined. Some have seen Israels hand in the provenance of the most damaging charges against Assad regarding chemical weapons and our experience suggests to us that such is supremely possible.
Possible also is a false-flag attack by an interested party resulting in the sinking or damaging, say, of one of the five U.S. destroyers now on patrol just west of Syria. Our mainstream media could be counted on to milk that for all its worth, and you would find yourself under still more pressure to widen U.S. military involvement in Syria and perhaps beyond, against Iran.
Iran has joined those who blame the Syrian rebels for the August 21 chemical incident, and has been quick to warn the U.S. not to get more deeply involved. According to the Iranian English-channel Press TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif has claimed: The Syria crisis is a trap set by Zionist pressure groups for (the United States).
Actually, he may be not far off the mark. But we think your advisers may be chary of entertaining this notion. Thus, we see as our continuing responsibility to try to get word to you so as to ensure that you and other decision makers are given the full picture.
Inevitable Retaliation
We hope your advisers have warned you that retaliation for attacks on Syrian are not a matter of IF, but rather WHERE and WHEN. Retaliation is inevitable. For example, terrorist strikes on U.S. embassies and other installations are likely to make what happened to the U.S. Mission in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, look like a minor dust-up by comparison. One of us addressed this key consideration directly a week ago in an article titled Possible Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria Remembering the U.S. Marine Barracks Destruction in Beirut, 1983.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan
Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)
Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/06/obama-warned-on-syrian-intel/
ProSense
(116,464 posts)We have been down this road before with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powells Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent intelligence to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled or, at the least, very poorly advised.
The fraudulent nature of Powells speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to widen the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic. We offer you the same advice today.
Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public and perhaps even you.
...They're trying to prove the rebels did it, but are claiming the intelligence the U.S. is presenting against Assad is unreliable?
The nonsense about being "down this road before with President George W. Bush" is beyond absurd.
This is basically another Assad didn't do it argument. The intelligence isn't fake. The attack isn't a figment of anyone's imagination. Even they acknowledge the attack, but are making a convoluted case that the rebels did it. The scale and location of the attacks make the case against the rebels more implausible, but those trying to absolve Assad seem to want to portray their claims as irrefutable.
There is also evidence from other countries implicating Assad.
The UN is having samples from Syria tested. France and Germany presented evidence Assad did it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023590778
By Michael Pearson. Greg Botelho and Holly Yan, CNN
(CNN) -- British military scientists found traces of sarin gas in soil and clothing taken from a patient treated near the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack outside Syria's capital, the prime minister's office said Thursday.
Scientists at the Porton Down military laboratory concluded the samples were unlikely to have been faked, and Britain is sharing its findings with the United Nations, the office said.
The revelation is the most specific statement by British officials regarding the chemical they believe was used in the August 21 attack on a rebel stronghold near Damascus, though the office didn't explicitly say who was responsible. U.S. officials have, blaming Syrian government forces for an attack they say left more than 1,400 people dead, many of them children.
The British statement is not the first allegation that sarin gas -- an extremely volatile nerve agent that can kill -- has been used in Syria's gruesome, two-year civil war.
- more -
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/world/meast/syria-civil-war/
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Maybe you'll be vindicated, or maybe you'll go down with the ship.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023617191
"Once again you blindly pin what little credibility you have to the administration line"
All you have are lame personal attacks.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)Why do you believe the rebels gassing themselves is a more plausible scenario than Assad and his agents gassing the rebels?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Call me paranoid but I want to see independent confirmation of the administration's claims. It's pretty obvious why the rebels might do it; if you could create a circumstance where the US bombed the shit out your enemy you'd probably do pretty much anything. Especially that bloodthirsty bunch.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)the U.S. into doing their dirty work would not weigh one bit on their consciences.
On the flip side, Assad knows that if he uses CWs and is caught red handed, then the chickenhawks would love to bomb the baloney out of him.
So absent any hard proof, who is more likely to use CWs? The ones that stand to gain greatly from it, or the one that will get the shit bombed out of him for it?
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)might have planted the scheme in their minds.
The group of distinguished retired spies, who put this document together, suggest that their currently working friends in the spy business, didn't give the administration the same story as they are giving us.
I've long suspected that the CIA was really in charge of foreign policy.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)The job of the CIA and the State Dept is to protect the "investments" which Billionaires have Stolen around the globe. They are, Mob-Enforcement for the Transnational Bankster and Industrialists Cartels. The USA took over the "global enforcer" role from the Brits after WWII. American workers "went along" with this scheme, because a "critical percentage" were spared the poverty-fate of the colonized - a sizeable middle-class "voting block" was well paid.
When the WWII generation retired, the younger generation decided to sell-out / colonize the USA as well - hence the loss of our manufacturing and standard of living. Only the Scandanavians are left now with a high standard of living, as their Royals evidently don't want to live in a gated-community within a national-ghetto like American and Latin-American Elites.
But we must remember that European lifestyles are funded, as was the now declining / pre-outsourcing US-living standard (see: Trade Deficit), to a great extent by global extortion rackets. In these "Transnational" endeavors, Euro-Elites are partners with their US counterparts, with the "Spanish descent" families in Latin America, with Royals in the Gulf region, and etc.
To end all this, this network of Mafias must be boycotted by humanity until it starves to death. And we must be prepared for the violence of its death-throes - terrorists, wars, lies and all.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)And I see the same eventual outcomes.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)samsingh
(17,601 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Fellow-travelers sometimes find each other expendable in the interest of the Greater Cause.
progressoid
(49,999 posts)It's hard for a lot of people to see the shades of grey in these conflicts.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)The opponents of Assad are losing the war. They desperately need US Air force & Navy to bail them out.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)This phrase mainly serves to show ignorance about the situation in Syria.
Inform yourself up to a basic standard before mouthing off.
For a start: Are the "rebels" a single group?
How many "rebel" factions are there estimated to be?
What is their relationship to each other?
What is the relationship of different factions to the actual revolution that was happening prior to the armed hostilities?
Have "rebel" factions fought each other?
Which outside powers are supporting which factions?
How many actual "rebel" fighters appear to have been killed in the August 21 attack?
Etc.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)You highlighted that. What's your point?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)It's fairly obvious.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)no matter what the issue, no matter what the facts. That makes you far less credible in regards to any issue having to do with Obama or what he wants to do - one simply cannot believe you will give any fair treatment to any issue regarding Obama. Sure, you post lots of information, but one has to wonder how carefully picked that information is in order to support whatever Obama wants to do.
Since you have no credibility, your posts are just noise.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)and that is sticking to verifiable facts.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)that has gained Prosense so many enemies. Some people don't want 'the facts' - it interferes with their delusional thinking.
questionseverything
(9,661 posts)how does pro KNOW what this evidence is since our own congressmen are not allowed to see it?
SunSeeker
(51,729 posts)mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)that tell a very one-sided story. People who believe something strongly will find facts to support that belief, examples include racism or religion.
PS would have us believe that there is no "funny business" in ginning up a war with Syria, as she would have us believe that the government, under Obama, is not collecting all out phone calls. She has made the argument that only metadata is being collected.
Sorry, but this was is a really bad idea. People have written eloquently about why it's a really bad idea, and I won't repeat those arguments here. Also, the government spying on us is a really bad thing, even if it were limited to being used to track terrorists, its effect on our democracy would be profound and dangerous. It's not limited to catching terrorists, which makes it a lot worse.
Defending Obama on these issues is incredible.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)a serious person looks at the merits of an issue regardless of the politics at the moment. which, btw, aren't clearly D vs R. This is a right vs wrong issue -- and an issue that impacts our ability to maintain our responsibilities here at home, as well as the brand of the Democratic going forward. there's a lot more in play than the legacy of this president.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)based on non-ProSense-approved facts, either absurd or silly. That's purely supporting a person or party, without regard to the policies that person or party is promoting. I believe in Democratic ideals, such as using government to help people or society where applicable, and limiting it where it is being used to hurt democracy - specifically spying of ALL OF US, ALL THE TIME! That is a bad use of government. People who support that unquestioningly destroy their own credibility.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)but i think I will keep horse hooked up to the Obama Wagon rather than
"Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity "
please....
wisteria
(19,581 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)McGovern, or Kerry?
Tough choices!
John2
(2,730 posts)time, why do you keep trying to sell the same Governments wanting to strike Syria, ever since this Chemical redline was established? Everyone of those sources have been accused as bias and supporting the so called rebels. This isn't the first time they have tried to accuse the Assad Government of using chemical weapons and tried to convince us, the rebels, consisting of terrorist groups like Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and foreign groups from Libya, Tunisia,Belgium and Checknya isn't capable of using chemical weapons and don't even have the means. There is intelligence from opposing forces saying the U.S. and those supporters lied about that. They have been caught in several lies so far.
When someone catches you lying, it seems to reason you will stop lying. It seems these people have a problem though which indicates they are evil or have some sickness. It seems some people in Government think they are above the Laws and they don't apply to them. Can you guess which Governments have shown these symptons. Maybe believing some businesses or corporations are too Big to fail and be prosecuted might give you some clue.
The same people that produced false intelligence about Iraq, are still running the American Intelligence Agencies. They believe in the cause of regime change, and they report to those politicians probably also. Clapper should be runned out of the intelligence field and fired for lying to Congress. Obama keeps them in place, because he agrees with their advice.
If they can justify droning women and children to get at terrorists, then why can't you believe they are capable of manufacturing false evidence to kill women and children by the rebels. I want the CIA to appear before a Congressional Board and specifically under oath deny the rebels have access or the capabilities to carry out chemical attacks. I don't want to hear it from the White house but the head of the CIA and Mr Clapper subject to them going to prison for life if they lie under oath. Then we will get some where. I want everything about chemical weapons uses and abilities by the rebels declassified and anything about the possibility of the Erodogen,Saudi, Qatar or Israeli Government providing chemical weapons to the rebels. All of it should be declassified at the UN, along with the evidence supplied by the Syrian,Russian and other Governments claiming The U.S. and her allies supplied the rebels with chemical weapons.
I don't think anybody's word should be taken for granted given the track records of this Governments. We don't want to listen to either side play with words either. When we say rebels, we mean Al Nusra,Al Qaeda, the Taliban and certain terrorist groups from Foreign countries. I think if there is evidence Prince Bandar and Prime Minister Erodogen has been secretly suppling chemical weapons to Terrorist groups, they should be prosecuted under International Law.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)our tax dollars support, not the other way around.
And the CIA does not work for American interests, it is a fascist creation of the uber-classes, that works for corporate interests.
If rank and file spies are telling their ex-spy friends that the Administration's story is wrong, we all ought to listen. Including, especially, Obama.
This group grants Obama the possibility that he is unaware of the truth. That is a terrible thing for them to assume might be. That the heads of the intelligence community control the decisions of the President.
This is further evidence that we need to shut down organizations that use our resources to infringe on our privacy.
They already have too much power.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)Ocelot
(227 posts)Obama lied knowingly to the people of the United States about the extent of NSA spying a very short time ago. That's a fact.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Were it not for Reagan's Iran-Contra and Bush's Iraq, they would get away with lying the Us into war. How ironic!
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)They say he's been lied to by war mongers within the American government, people who have wanted to go to war agonist Iran and/or Assad for years. Frankly, that's really not much of a stretch for me to believe.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Adams_Award
Google: Sam Adams Award site:http://commondreams.org
Google: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity site:http://www.counterpunch.org
Formerly AfterDowningStreet.org http://warisacrime.org/vips (compilation of letters)
VIP members (or so I've read) Daniel Ellsberg, Lawrence Wilkerson, Craig Murray, Sibel Edmonds aren't listed above. Significance?
by craig on August 31, 2013 8:43 am
(in the weeds except for insiders, IMO)
I'm glad they've made their concerns public.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)Are probably aware that this propaganda letter is too comical to be believed even by someone skeptical of the official line.
It reads as if a not-very-smart Junior High spy novelist wannabee wrote it.
frylock
(34,825 posts)or was this it?
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Some in US Intel. Community Reject Obama Admin Case for Syria Attack
Pt 1: Gareth Porter: US Intelligence on Syria "cherry-picked" by proponents of proposed strike
September 10, 13
VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT
Guest Bio:
Gareth Porter is a historian and investigative journalist on US foreign and military policy analyst. He writes regularly for Inter Press Service on US policy towards Iraq and Iran. Author of four books, the latest of which is Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam.
JAISAL NOOR, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Jaisal Noor in Baltimore. And welcome to this latest edition of The Porter Report.
As the Obama administration continues to outline its case for attacking Syria, new revelations have come to light that call into question the very intelligence the White House is using to justify its actions.
Now joining us to discuss this is Gareth Porter. He's a historian and investigative journalist on U.S. foreign and military policy. He writes regularly for the Inter Press Service, and he received the U.K.-based Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2011 for his articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new piece published today in IPS is "Obama's Case for Syria Didn't Reflect Intel Consensus".
Thank you so much for joining us, Gareth.
GARETH PORTER, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: Thank you, Jaisal.
NOOR: So, Gareth, what do you know and how do you know it?
PORTER: Well, we know that there's a problem with the way in which the intelligence paper that the White House issued August 30 has been described, for a number of reasons. The thing that--the tipoff that should have alerted me and many others but which I and others missed is the fact that this paper about the intelligence on the Syrian chemical weapons attack or alleged attack of August 21 has been called by the White House, labeled a U.S. government assessment.
Now, that raises very fundamental question: why would the White House call a paper that's supposed to represent the intelligence community's perspective or their analysis of this intelligence a U.S. government assessment? And that is a tipoff that in fact this was not a paper that was put forward by the intelligence community itself and then simply released by the White House. It was a paper that went through a process which did involve the intelligence community, no doubt about that. They undoubtedly submitted their analyses, various intelligence agencies, the CIA, the DIA, and the 14 others, to the office of the director of national intelligence, James Clapper. There was a press report a couple of days, I think three days before the release of this paper indicating that the plan was that Clapper would be the person who would be the alleged author or the person whose name would be on this paper. But in fact his name is nowhere to be found. And I found from a very careful search of the website of the office of the director of national intelligence that it's nowhere to be found there either. It's only found on the White House website itself.
And incidentally, when I called the office of the director of national intelligence for this story on three successive days, a number of phone calls as well as an email, I could get no response whatsoever from them, and it's very clear they were refusing to talk to me about this. So this is the first clue that this was in fact a White House product in the end. But the White House had the final say over what was included in the product and not the director of national intelligence, not the CIA director or any of the other top officials of the intelligence community.
<>
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)I was pointing out that they weren't calling Obama a liar, they "chose to assume" that he was being misled.
I have far more respect for the signatories to that letter than I do for the administration.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)he sat quiet on the sidelines during the "fish-in-a-barrel" shoot in open air prison Gaza.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Imagine how many people wouldn't have been needlessly slaughtered in Iraq had this been the case back then. PBO should thank his lucky stars that as a nation we're not going along with him this time.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)The same people who wrote this letter fired one off to General Dempsey reminding him that if he goes to war without legal authorization, he'll be committing a war crime. Ray McGovern stated that right after Dempsey read that letter, came the shocking announcement to go to Congress for authorization.
Patriots are doing all they can to stop this war. I hope Obama, and the general public, spurn the drum-beating sycophants.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)That's a decent person?????
http://prospect.org/article/larry-johnsons-strange-trip
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
randr
(12,417 posts)he would be cleaning house and we would embark on a future void of the MIC, CIA, Homeland Security, etal.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)But instead, he is showing us his true self and where his real passion is!
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)level of access as any DUer. No more. No less.
MineralMan - USAF Security Service Analyst & Translator, NSA (former)
See...
ProSense
(116,464 posts)MineralMan
(146,336 posts)It doesn't matter. None of the people who signed that letter know any more than anyone else who is not involved.
It's bullshit, and will be treated as such by whomever receives it.
None of those people are in any position to know any more than I do. Their opinions have the same value as mine, too. Which is pretty close to nil.
I can state my opinion, and they can state theirs. There's no real value in either. They're just opinions.
TomClash
(11,344 posts)That was so funny you made my day. Thanks!
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Are you discounting their expertise? Or just their "up to dateness"?
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)As many have been quick to point out, my own experience in the intelligence business has no relevance to the current situation. Neither does that of the undersigners of that letter.
I do not know their expertise or their experience, either. Neither do you. Neither does the OP.
If current intelligence personnel are sharing classified information with any of the people who signed that letter, they are breaking the law in doing so. For that reason, I doubt that the statement in the first paragraph of the letter is even true.
Why would anyone pay any attention to what former and retired intelligence personnel say about what is happening now. They have the same level of knowledge as I do, and nobody pays any attention to me, after all.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)"I do not know their expertise or their experience"
"They have the same level of knowledge as I do"
It's one or the other, it can't be both.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)Just as I don't know theirs.
Neither they or I are experts in this. It is that simple.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)and you said "Neither they or I are experts in this". One of those statements is a baldfaced lie.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)MineralMan
(146,336 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I didn't believe it. Until now.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)This group has been very active and would have people who support them still inside intelligence community who agree with their efforts. You say they are "breaking the law if they do so" and yet what if they are trying to stop this strike on Syria because of special current security knowledge and deep commitments that this would be a mistake.
Just as Newspapers have "sources" who are not prosecuted (well until lately..with the Obama Admins war on whistle blowers) for "leaking info" they feel is in the vital interest of the nation it would seem that this group is active enough that they would have legitimate sources. Now we can't forget Judith Miller, Curveball and the other inside sources working for Think Tanks that helped ramp up the Iraq Invasion who were spreading propaganda for their own reasons. But, Ray McGovern and this group probably has more current info that you would since you've been out of the scene for many years and perhaps lost contact with those you worked with who might still be active.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)of those sources.
As an exercise, I googled a few of their names. Very interesting, indeed, and an exercise I recommend to others. Quite a rabble, they are, indeed.
One was a foreign affairs adviser to Ron Paul, for example.
Go use Google.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Got it.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)It's supposed to magically disarm anyone you disagree with.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)MineralMan
(146,336 posts)See ya.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I am NOT on the Blue Team when the Blue Team is for war. There are coalitions that the powerful fear to see made. one of those is anti-war left and anti-war right.
You bet your expletive that as a Liberal I'd work with the Pauls (as disgusting and non-Libertarian as they are) on issues where we CAN work together. And I'll oppose them where our interests conflict.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)I'm not for war, either, as I have stated on multiple threads. You do whatever pleases you.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)I hope they go public before Obama starts WWIII.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)Without corroboration, it's meaningless. It's just another way to say, "I've been told that...." without revealing any source information.
Classic bullshit technique. It should always raise skepticism, whenever it appears.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)1. On the Internet, as in bars, anyone can claim to have been in military intelligence or NSA intelligence.
2. It is not credible for a person who claims to have been in intelligence to make unsupported suppositions.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)I don't claim it. I did it. I'm not going to copy and paste my DD-214 for you, though.
Have a pleasant afternoon, won't you...
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Thank You!
That is the EXACT same way I feel about the claims being made by President Obama and John Kerry.
Had Obama Cleaned House at our "Intelligence" Agencies after gaining the Oval Office, and destroyed the cabal that purposely falsified the intelligence on Iraq & Libya, I would give this some thought,
but he didn't.
In many cases, it is the same pack of blood thirsty PNAC War Mongers that were there under Bush,
and they and their "product" that Obama & Kerry are working so hard to SELL is tainted.
marew
(1,588 posts)Same old, same old!
pkdu
(3,977 posts)Link Speed
(650 posts)for truthfulness, I'd go with the retirees every time.
The retirees bank their opinions on experience, the others just fit the frame and follow the script that they are handed.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)Good luck with that.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'd give their statements more credence.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Maybe Orly Taitz was unavailable.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)What about Ann Wright's or Ray McGovern's? These are the four names I remember from the run-up to the Iraq War. Those four people told thei truth when everyone else was lying. That gives them one hell of a lot of credibility with me. I'm sure the other signatories whose names are not familiar to me are telling the truth as well, or what they sincerely believe to be the truth anyway. That's more than I can say for Obama or Kerry.
Their credibility won't easily be destroyed by accusations of racism or any other cheap smears. Even if Larry Johnson is a racist--and I don't know one way or the other--I have every reason to believe he's telling the truth about Assad's ALLEGED used of CWs. And again--his signature isn't the only one on that letter.
No, Larry Johnson's signature DOES NOT "discredit the whole thing." But your saying so goes a long way towards discrediting you--I mean more than you've been discredited already.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If you want to place blind faith in a professional liar and fraudster, go right ahead.
frylock
(34,825 posts)get fucking real.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)to share classified information with former coworkers. I'm in contact with a number of former coworkers from my days in the USAFSS and elsewhere. We never discuss what we may know that isn't already known to the other person. Even now. Even many years later.
Some people take security rules seriously. Others may not.
I'm always "fucking real."
frylock
(34,825 posts)I don't give two fucking shits if it's illegal, as long as it sheds light on the behind the scenes bullshit leading up to these strikes. rule of law is what you authoritarians obsess over. laws over ethics. fuck that shit.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)"fuck" and "shit" today. Me, not so much. I'm out of this conversation.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)Here is my cred.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)These folks also aren't nearly out of the loop as you are, you did your stint decades ago and totally got out the game.
I do not believe your experience to be comparable enough for you to jump in as expert witness of their lack of understanding of the situation.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)I don't care, frankly.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)You may well not care what I think but you are trying to influence opinions here by using your long past status as a grunt in military intelligence as bonafides to neutralize counter points.
This is not to dog you but to jog the thoughts of those reading the exchange to the very real idea that your experience and those of folks much further up the food chain in much more recent times is probably divergent.
You didn't hit the revolving doors or become a political adviser. You kept your lips buttoned and left the game behind a lifetime ago and only knew it from the level of a fairly low level military operative, you weren't even commissioned, if I recall correctly, much less in field operations or especially the Director level loop.
Nothing wrong with that, saying so is not a slight.
It is citing a different perspective may well be operative that you cannot speak to from your experience much more than a school kid, it isn't even an apples to bananas comparison and sure isn't apples to apples.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)I will leave it at that.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)to the current situation. In contrast, you do not have any factual basis for claiming to believe that they do not have intelligence from friends in the Pentagon or other sources.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)You will believe whatever you believe.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)President Obama.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)Not a popular view in this thread, though.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)indepat
(20,899 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Response to KittyWampus (Reply #25)
MissDeeds This message was self-deleted by its author.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)No quotes, no analysis.
It's pathetic that some DU'ers insist on combing the internet to find anything to push their conspiracy theory.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)Those who do not are not.
Simple, huh?
I have identical credentials to any of those people. I am also a (former) intelligence worker. I, too, can claim that "someone" told me something. I, too, cannot name that person because....top secret....
I'm opposed to bombing Syria, too, but I don't claim to have exclusive information I do not have, as the signers of this letter do. The letter is worthless as evidence of anything.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)Barbara Lee, who was the only member of Congress to Vote against the Afghanistan War Authorization, has seen the evidence and has stated she is convinced it was the Assad regime that was behind the chemical attack, and while she sympathizes with the victims, she is not convinced a military response is appropriate.
That's a much more intellectually honest position than arguing the rebels gassed themselves.
former9thward
(32,085 posts)The UN says the rebels used chemical gas in May. Or are they part of the conspiracy also? http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)If the "rebels" had "gassed Bandar Bush", that might be akin to "themselves," to use your analogy.
... or like the Spanish "suicided themselves" by blowing up the USS Maine in Havana harbor, Vietnamese in the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident," and etc.
False Flags are a FACT of starting wars, and have been for a long time. So please put away the "conspiracy theory" frame.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)You have "identical credentials" to Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Wright
As the BOG likes to say:
Caretha
(2,737 posts)MM doesn't respond to your post. Just so others know, there are a lot of pencil pushers/typist that have the "identical credentials" as MM.
Say it isn't so MM.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)I mean, seriously, "identical credentials" as Ray McGovern and Coleen Rowley?
denbot
(9,901 posts)In the run up to Gulf II Cheney continuously rejected intel that did not fit his needs. This is not the case with this administration.
[IMG][/IMG]
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)iandhr
(6,852 posts)I guess it possible for different intelligence agencies to produce contradictory reports.
pnwmom
(108,999 posts)You would think they would want this to be heard by as many people as possible -- not just the readers of Consortium News.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Does Consortium News even have a bra advert on page 3?
pnwmom
(108,999 posts)of reputable, well-distributed papers that would vet the letter and talk to its signers.
frylock
(34,825 posts)as opposed to that of the Honorable and Courageous John Kerry.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)and talk to its signers. In fact, that's the last thing they want to do. After all, that would be real investigative journalism, and the MSM doesn't do that any more. That kind of stuff went out of style shortly after Woodward (or was it Bernstein?) met Deep Throat at 1 a.m. in a parking structure to talk about what did the President (Nixon) know and when did he know it.
More important: They would learn that everything VIPS alleges checks out. Obama and Kerry would be exposed as liars or fools or both in front of the whole country. A "crisis of confidence" or worse--a crisis of legitimacy, and we can't have THAT!
Well, guess what, folks...this IS a crisis of legitimacy, but not everyone knows it yet.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)I'm not so sure. But, I don't have time today to explore that.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)as is often the case...
You are confusing "source" with "source."
A story has publisher, writer and sources. They can be separate.
This was published in Consortium News but is not a CN story.
It is an independent statement by VIPS, as the byline and signatures make clear. It has been published all around. If you happen to see it on a compiler site like Infowars (or DU!) that doesn't make it anything other than a VIPS authored statement. (Citing various sources besides the logic of their authors - their accuracy and validity are separate questions.)
Yes, I'll take Ray McGovern, Coleen Rowley, Ann Wright, David McMichael and others on that list as generally more reliable sources with a better track record, each of them especially since they left the national security state. Those inside the NSS at any time tend not to be reliable!
valerief
(53,235 posts)come hell or high water.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I was about to, as I just found the same info on Michael Moore's website, by
Ray McGovern.
I hope Bandar Bush gets the recognition he richly deserves for the CW attack.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)and I think this effort to try and prove it wasn't Assad is counterproductive.
I don't support military strikes whoever did it.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)
Bashar Assad's military is gaining the upper hand in this war with opponents/insurgents/Al Qaeda/etc.
Why would Assad want US to get involved against him?
He has already killed over 100,000 Syrians. He has plenty of Russian & Iran supplied weapons to kill. Why would he need to kill 1400 using chemical weapons and get US invoved against him? Makes no sense whatsoever.
edited typo's.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)it's funny, isn't it? We have all these DU'ers quick to point out that the difference between the US turning Syrians into flying meat and Syria doing the same, is "intent" - that since we don't mean to slaughter them, it's okay and we forgive ourselves (and they should forgive us too, the moon-worshiping savages!) but Assad, ooooh, he's an evil little ape who did it all on purpose!
Except... we can't prove that at all.
Assad's not an irrational or stupid man. He is not Saddam by any shot - and he's certainly no Hitler (who contrary to the History Channel's assertions, was neither very bright nor very collected). Why the hell is he going to have chemical weapons fired, immediately after the UN inspectors show up - the UN inspectors he invited to investigate alleged uses of chemical weapons! - at a battle where Syrian forces were winning? it would be stupid and irrational.
Does that mean that Assad's forces were not responsible? Not necessarily, though it remains within the bounds of possibility someone else used the weapons (sorry, bog-dwellers, secret intelligence doesn't convince me). It's possible that what we have is a case of someone having grabbed the wrong goddamned munitions... or even possible that the commander involved decided to "do things his own way."
We don't know. or, if we do, the damning evidence has not been provided to the public, and it looks like it will not be provided, so the public has to assume - hey - We don't know!
golfguru
(4,987 posts)I like your writing style! Gentle, humorous, informative & thoughtful.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)to sound like Iraq 2013. WTH???
Lifelong Dem
(344 posts)The rebels would need to be crazy to draw the US into a battle against them. The US would make the Assad attacks look like child's play and the rebels or the terrorists would know this.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)We are planning to attack Assad, not the rebels opposing him!
Lifelong Dem
(344 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Listen UP. Former intelligence professionals no longer have access to anything more than they see on TV. Just like you and I see.
They are informed by their personal opinions just like you and I are. And Larry Johnson has a video of Rush Limbaugh saying President Obama planned and planted the CW, right on the front page of his blog No Quarter right this minute. Check it out. Then read all about what an incompetent weakling Obama is, in Larry's own words. BTW, HE'S A REPUBLICAN.
Make what you will of that.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)Looking up the signers in Google was interesting.
David Krout
(423 posts)While whatever the VIPS group had access to allowed them to oppose the Iraq War.
There goes your argument.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)weren't centrifuges, as the Bush Admin claimed. That show aired months before Powell went before the UN.
So, WE ALL SAW IT ON TV AND KNEW BUSH WAS LYING.
Look it up yourself. Dan Rather did the report. It's why they brought him down.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)might mean for Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.
The Saudis, and probably the Jordanians, had persuaded the first Bush administration that taking out Saddam would probably mean the disintegration of Iraq with bad consequences throughout the area.
Iraq is a sectarian mess aligned with Iran, pretty much as predicted. Sunni Muslim Arabs and Christians have left in droves, and the country seems to have become a haven for radicals of every stripe.
I have seen and heard reports that a Syria without Assad would disintegrate like Iraq.
How many more people would die from that?
And the Russians were not allies of Saddam. I don't mean that the cold war would return if we attack Assad, but the Russians can cause problems all over, even though their power is diminished from what it was during the height of the cold war.
In addition, I wonder how much of the Obama administration's collective thinking is influenced by the guilt that some former Clinton administration officials feel for their failure to stop the killing in Rwanda. The President himself brought up that tragic situation in one of his statements recently. While the situation in Rwanda and Burundi was horrific, the US is in a much different situation now than it was in the '90s. Back then, we had not exhausted ourselves in a wholly unnecessary war and another that may have been necessary in party, but was expanded unnecessarily and is still going on. The economy was booming.
I'm not someone who thinks that the past should be completely put behind us, as our President so often does, but I don't think that we should always respond to different situations in the present just because of something that happened in the past.
David Krout
(423 posts)Have you ever heard of "ad-hominem attack"?
You would be guilty of this fallacy if you said something about the person (or in this case, one of the people) who signed it and nothing about what the statement said.
Did you do that?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I guess President Putin did know what he was talking about when he told us the evidence against Assad was flimsy at best.
They say when you investigate a crime, look for who had motive and opportunity. Assad had opportunity but no motive. The Syrian rebels had both motive and opportunity.
(Israel's government also had motive and opportunity, however, for an American to suggest they were responsible would be considered tantamount to treason, so I won't do that.)
Catherina
(35,568 posts)On Syria Vote, Trust, but Verify
By ALAN GRAYSON
September 6, 2013
WASHINGTON THE documentary record regarding an attack on Syria consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. Im not allowed to tell you whats in the classified summary, but you can draw your own conclusion.
On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was no.
The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, social media postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldnt possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)
...
The danger of the administrations approach was illustrated by a widely read report last week in The Daily Caller, which claimed that the Obama administration had selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes in Syria, with one report doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.
The allegedly doctored report attributes the attack to the Syrian general staff. But according to The Daily Caller, it was clear that the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions.
...
We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The security state is drowning in its own phlegm.
...
Alan Grayson, a Democratic representative from Florida, is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/opinion/on-syria-vote-trust-but-verify.html
Attended another classified briefing on #Syria & reviewed add'l materials. Now more skeptical than ever. Can't believe Pres is pushing war.
If Americans could read classified docs, they'd be even more against #Syria action. Obama admn's public statements are misleading at best.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)Which regime has one of the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the Middle East?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Which one?
malthaussen
(17,217 posts)The difficulty I have with accepting the elegant argument that the rebels did it themselves to provoke world opinion against Mr Assad, is with wondering where they would have gotten the ordnance in the first place. Okay, not really a big problem (for that matter, Israel could have given it to them and told them to have a party), but the government does bear greater suspicion simply due to access.
But the "motive" leg of the triangle bugs me, too. The government really had no need to escalate things at this time, and the "unhinged subordinate" scenario strikes me as relatively lame. If we want to evaluate things totally on motive, then IMO the rebels are the ones with the big, black target on their backs. And some of those fanatics will break as many eggs as necessary to complete their omelette.
In any event, as clear and cogent as this memo is, it cites not one fact. So it does not constitute evidence. As a cautionary voice, though, I find it compelling enough. My biggest and final question remains: why do we not want to let the UN try to sort this out?
-- Mal
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)They said that they got them from Assad's stockpiles in bases they captured. They have also bragged they intend to use them. Perhaps they already have?
creeksneakers2
(7,476 posts)He might want to terrify the insurgents.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)To suggest he needed to "terrify" the losing side seems unlikely. That is more of a grasping-at-straws argument, in my opinion.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,384 posts)They are all former officials. You know that very well, but chose to lie in your thread title. That title is extremely misleading - there is a huge difference between what actual officials who have access to the current intelligence say, and what former officials are claiming from un-named sources.
We don't need lying propaganda in this debate. Please change it, for your own reputation.
MineralMan
(146,336 posts)in this thread.
questionseverything
(9,661 posts)not our congressmen according to greysen
We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The security state is drowning in its own phlegm
Rex
(65,616 posts)Help 'the terrorists' or help Assad. OR stay completely out of it.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Yup, I thought so.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)You can always find some group somewhere to support your point of view, but, just because they say it, doesn't make it true.
frylock
(34,825 posts)really, what would they know? these former intelligence officers who are talking to friends and colleagues that do have access to current intel. Kerry is a courageous and honorable man, just like he was in 2003.
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)Had publish anything ...just people who say they have...
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)Never heard of that agency before.
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)Serious source that report that this group had make a recent statement...
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)your agenda here?
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)Get lost.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)propagandizing this Syrian conflict.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)"Sand wind" is clearly pushing an agenda on Syria, just as he did in regard to the Egyptian coup. I have my suspicions as to what that agenda is, but I will let them remain unstated for now.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)But if you can't find an impressive history to each of the names on that list, then that could only be because you don't have access to the Web. I'm sure basic lessons in how to use google are available in your town?
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)You said you could find nothing about this group.
I didn't say that, you did.
Every one of those names can be put into a search engine. Most people use the one at google.com.
Everyone of those names has a history.
So the only explanation for your otherwise incredible claim that you can find nothing about this group is that you have no Internet. It's a shame.
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)and at some point it's foolish to engage with them.
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)This Obama hate is getting more and more pathetic every day.
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)You must be black, gay, or inbred being from Alabama to defend that arab muslim POS!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and denouncing white people from the pulpit of Trinity church...
http://prospect.org/article/larry-johnsons-strange-trip
This is the moran you present as a source???? You've got to be kidding.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the case for bombing Syria moreso than Obama could.
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)riverbendviewgal
(4,254 posts)remember Robert Greenwald's UNCOVERED: THE WAR ON IRAQ
It had a lot of ex generals and ex government officials warning of the disaster to come...They were right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncovered:_The_War_on_Iraq
Interviewees
David Albright, Robert Baer, Milt Bearden, Rand Beers, Bill Christison, David Corn, Philip Coyle, John Dean, Patrick Eddington, Chas Freeman, Graham Fuller, Mel Goodman, Larry Johnson, David Kay, John Brady Kiesling, Karen Kwiatkowski, Patrick Lang, David C. MacMichael, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Clare Short, Stanfield Turner, Henry Waxman, Thomas E. White, Joseph C. Wilson, Mary Ann Wright, Peter Zimmerman
George II
(67,782 posts)What information could co-workers of retired military personnel have, and where did they get it?
IsItJustMe
(7,012 posts)At first, when I read the memo and thought to myself,
'Anyone can make assertions like this and there is no references or facts to back this up. What kind of anti war group is this and what kind of axe do they have to grind'.
At a closer internet examination of this group however, it seemed to me that these were patriots who were utterly disgusted with the way intelligence is used in this country for political ends rather than in the search for truth. So they banded together in common cause.
If anyone is interested, they should really read VIPS memos to GWB pre Iraqi invasion. It's scary of just how spot on VIPS was regarding the fabricated intelligence that lead us into the Iraq war.
If this group was RIGHT ON then, they may just might be RIGHT ON now.
http://warisacrime.org/vips
Raksha
(7,167 posts)Re "If this group was RIGHT ON then, they may just might be RIGHT ON now."
http://warisacrime.org/vips
warisacrime.org was originally called "After Downing Street" in reference to the famous leaked Downing Street memo. I remember exactly where I was when I read that famous line: "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Mostly I remember the horror as the meaning sank in. It was similar to the sinking horror I felt on November 21, 1963, listening to Walter Cronkite make a dreaded announcement to the nation. I knew the world I had lived in until then was forever changed. I could not know in what way and neither could anyone else, but I knew it could never be the same world again.
Thanks for the link. I think I'll go read those VIPS memos to GWB. It's been a while and I need to refresh my memory.
frylock
(34,825 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)It's basically a bunch of people saying Assad didn't do it, and asserting that the rebels did.
The fact that people are willing, in the face of the evidence against Assad, to blame someone else for this atrocity on someone else is telling.
I mean, Saddam had no WMD. There was a chemical attack in Syria. This group is attempting to blame the rebels.
IsItJustMe
(7,012 posts)have his war, it should come as no surprise that many people in this country are just a little bit leary about our intelligence and how it is used.
You say that there are no facts in the VIPS memo, and that is true, but do you see any hard fact on the data that our government is showing up. None what-so-ever.
They say that they can't release that info because it is top secret.
I do believe that many are past the days when our government can tell us something and we will believe it just because our government says that it is so.
We need hard facts because it will be a complete nightmare if this country gets into another military conflict over lies.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)who gassed those poor people. It simply doesn't rise to the level of an act of war against the United States. Our government and corporate media's subservience to Israeli and Saudi foreign policy interests is far more alarming than who used the gas. It would not surprise me to eventually learn that Saudi Jihadists working with Mossad agents carried out the attack, and until some kind of real fucking evidence is presented to the contrary, that's as good a guess as the government's and probably better. Any American credulous enough to believe anything said by anyone beating a war drum in this matter should have to hand in his voters card.
marew
(1,588 posts)Cosmocat
(14,575 posts)it is bad, and if the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY and or UN felt it needed dealt with and needed our help, then so be it.
But, there are COUNTLESS other countries across this planet where people are dying at the hands of their government, and no one could careless.
Happening all over Africa and no one cares one bit. But, the middle east, where there is oil, and people want to go to war.
And, it is a mystery to some why those people hate the US?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)VIPS says this was a Turkish-Saudi provocation, Both sources might be easily dismissed were it not for the fact that some sort of foreign-trained and sponsored paramilitary operation is supposed to have set off an incident leading to US intervention, and that was reported on 8/17 - at least 72 hours before the chemical attack in Gorta was reported.
DEBKA reported that two echelons of special trained commandos had entered Syria, one from Lebanon and the other from an undisclosed point of entry.
I would put forward the possibility that they may be describing two sides of the same operation.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)but this is an interesting coincidence.
Do you know if folks from the old "RU" site from the 2d Iraq War are posting anywhere? They had the best info back then.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Still outrageous: http://www.iraq-war.ru/
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Either that or it has morphed into something else.
The RU site that I remembered appeared to be something of a blog by intelligence folks, either on the ground in Iraq or with unfiltered access to signals intelligence coming from Iraq. It was very rough in its approach and its graphic presentation was at best a mess.
This seems more like RT TV, which gives the Russian/Putin position on most things.
Too bad.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)This one reminds me of the British Counterspy site of the mid-2000s.
CRH
(1,553 posts)the 'Pentagon Papers' by comparison are nothing. This is in 'real' time.
If this memorandum indeed has the signature of Ray McGovern, and validity is confirmed, Obama should rapidly start retreating from his administration's, position. Anything less, and justified calls for impeachment will be thundering for the last two thirds of his second term. If this memorandum is genuine, an the attack proceeds, Obama should face a date, at the Hague.
I hope, this is not the 'hope we can believe in'. For me it would be, de'ja'vu, just another war criminal, where is that hope we have been waiting for.
Find and verify the source of this memorandum! NOW.
If this is real, great post Catherina.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Ray McGovern has it up on his blog http://warisacrime.org/content/whos-lying-brennan-obama-or-both
Michael Moore has it up on his site http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/obama-warned-syrian-intel and so does David Swanson
It's a follow-up to the the letter the same group sent General Dempsey a few days ago. Ray McGovern mentions it in this interview from a few days ago. They sent it to General Dempsey to remind him that he took an oath to the constitution and that "if you obey an illegal order to start a war, that puts you in the same category as the Nazi Generals who knew they were obeying illegal orders". (minute 30:00
[hr]
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
During a very interesting conversation, Ray McGovern discussed how General Dempsey and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff is not willing to go to war without Congressional Authorization.
There's an uproar in the military. If there's one thing all soldiers and officers know, it's their constitution and who authorizes war. They take their oath to the constitution very seriously.
What made Obama blink?
We did! A lot of us. Look if you obey an illegal order to start a
Here is the letter than McGovern references at minute 29:30.
An Appeal to Gen. Dempsey on Syria
August 30, 2013
Gen. Martin Dempsey, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, has spoken soberly about the dangers from any military strike on Syria, but press reports indicate President Obama is still set on launching cruise missiles in the coming days, an action that former U.S. intelligence professionals say should prompt Dempseys resignation.
MEMORANDUM FOR: General Martin Dempsey, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
SUBJECT: Syria and Our Oath to Defend the Constitution
Dear Gen. Dempsey:
Summary: We refer to your acknowledgment, in your letter of July 19 to Sen. Carl Levin on Syria, that a decision to use force is not one that any of us takes lightly. It is no less than an act of war. It appears that the President may order such an act of war without proper Congressional authorization.
As seasoned intelligence and military professionals solemnly sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, we have long been aware that from private to general it is ones duty not to obey an illegal order. If such were given, the honorable thing would be to resign, rather than be complicit.
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In responding to questions on military options voiced at your re-nomination hearing on July 18, your letter to the chair of the Committee on Armed Services reflects that you acknowledge Congresss Constitutional role with respect to U.S. acts of war. Equally important, you addressed these words to Sen. Levin: You deserve my best military advice on how military force could be used in order to decide whether it should be used. (emphasis in your letter).
The options your letter addressed regarding potential use of military force included five being considered at the time: (1) Train, Advise, Assist the Opposition; (2) Conduct Limited Stand-off Strikes; (3) Establish a No-Fly Zone; (4) Establish Buffer Zones; (5) Control Chemical Weapons. You were quite candid about the risks and costs attached to each of the five options, and stressed the difficulty of staying out of the Syrian civil war, once the U.S. launched military action.
Tailored, Limited Strike Option
Presumably, there has not been enough time to give Sen. Levins committee an equivalent assessment of the implications of the new option described by the President Wednesday evening as a tailored, limited response to the chemical weapons attack on August 21 that he has been told was carried out by Syrian government forces. President Obama said, without elaboration, that a retaliatory strike is needed to protect U.S. security.
It is precisely this kind of unsupported claim (so embarrassingly reminiscent of the spurious ones used more than a decade ago to justify attacks on Iraq) that needs to be subjected to rigorous analysis by both the Pentagon and Congress BEFORE the President orders military action. For some unexplained reason of urgency, that order may come within the next day or two. With no wish to prejudge the results of analysis presumably under way, we feel it our responsibility to tell you now that, speaking out of several hundred years of collective experience in intelligence and national security matters, we strongly believe that the Presidents reference to a military strike on Syria being needed to protect U.S. security cannot bear close scrutiny.
In all candor, the credibility of his chief national security advisers and his own credibility have been seriously damaged in recent months, giving all the more urgency and importance to the need for Congress to exercise its Constitutional role regarding war. And, as usual, there are serious problems with the provenance and nature of the intelligence that is being used to support the need for military action.
In your July 19 letter to Sen. Levin you emphasized: As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that the use of force will move us toward the intended outcome. Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid. We should act in accordance with the law, and to the extent possible, in concert with our allies and partners. (emphasis supplied)
This last sentence raises, first and foremost, the question of what the Constitution says of the role of Congress in authorizing a military attack that, in your words, is no less than an act of war (further discussed below).
It also raises the important issue of how seriously we should take the result of democratic Parliamentary procedures among our allies. Although not legally required to do so, British Prime Minister David Cameron on Thursday sought Parliamentary approval for military action against Syria and was rebuffed. With as much grace as he could summon, Cameron said the British people had expressed their will and he would not flout it (even though he could do so, legally in the British system):
It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will act accordingly, a tense-looking Cameron said immediately after the vote.
French President Francois Hollande has said his country may still strike Syria to punish it for allegedly using chemical weapons, despite the British Parliaments failure to endorse military action. If Fiji can be lined up again, that would make a coalition of at least three.
The Fundamentals: Congresss Role
Before the President spoke on Wednesday, the ranking member on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Jerrold Nadler issued a formal statement titled: Constitution Requires Congressional Authorization on Use of Force Against Syria. Nadler wrote:
The Constitution requires that, barring an attack on the United States or an imminent threat to the U.S., any decision to use military force can only be made by Congress not by the President. The decision to go to war and we should be clear, launching a military strike on another country, justified or not, is an act of war is reserved by the Constitution to the American people acting through their elected representatives in Congress.
Since there is no imminent threat to the United States, there is no legal justification for bypassing the Constitutionally-required Congressional authorization. Consultation with Congress is not sufficient. The Constitution requires Congressional authorization.
The American people deserve to have this decision debated and made in the open, with all the facts and arguments laid out for public review and debate, followed by a Congressional vote. If the President believes that military action against Syria is necessary, he should immediately call Congress back into session and seek the Constitutionally-required authorization.
As of Thursday, more than a third of the House of Representatives have spoken out against being marginalized, as they were before Libya, many insisting that there be Congressional debate and a vote before any military strike on Syria.
In addition, Republican House Speaker John Boehner sent Obama a letter Wednesday urging him to make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interests, preserve Americas credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy.
The President called Boehner on Thursday to brief him on the status of deliberations over Syria, according to a Boehner spokesman, who added that, during the call, the speaker sought answers to concerns outlined in his letter, including the legal justification for any military strike. After the call, Boehner reportedly complained that his questions had not been answered.
Holding Congress in Contempt
Elementary school children learn that, in view of the Founders experience with English kings, it was not by chance that, in crafting the Constitution, they took care to give to our elected representatives in Congress the exclusive Power To declare War (and) To raise and support Armies. (Article 1, Section 8). The somber historical consequences of letting this key power of Congress fall into disuse after WWII in effect, allowing Presidents to act like Kings speak eloquently to the folly of ignoring Article 1, Section 8.
And yet, there is no sign that President Barack Obama intends to request Congressional authorization (as opposed to consultation with chosen Members) before he orders military action against Syria. Indeed, he and his top appointees have been openly contemptuous of the Constitutional role of Congress in such matters.
Obamas former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was smoother and more wise-old-handish than his predecessors in emasculating Congressional power. Thanks to Panetta, we have direct insight into how the Obama administration may strike Syria with very little consultation (not to mention authorization) from Congress.
Several of us remember watching you in some distress sitting next to your then-boss Panetta as he tried to put Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) in his place, at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2012. Chafing belatedly over the unauthorized nature of the war in Libya, Sessions asked repeatedly what legal basis would the Obama administration rely on to do in Syria what it did in Libya.
Panetta stonewalled time after time, making it abundantly clear that the Obama administration does not believe it needs Congressional approval for wars like the one in Libya. I am really baffled, said Sessions. The only legal authority thats required to deploy the U.S. military (in combat) is the Congress and the President and the law and the Constitution.
Panettas response did nothing to relieve Sessionss bafflement: Let me just for the record be clear again, Senator, so there is no misunderstanding. When it comes to national defense, the President has the authority under the Constitution to act to defend this country, and we will, Sir.
You will remember Panettas attitude, which Sen. Sessions called breathtaking. You said nothing then, and we can understand that. But, frankly, we are hoping that you had that awkward experience in mind when you reminded Sen. Levin that, We should act in accordance with the law.
Clearly, there is an important Constitutional issue here. The question is whether you will again choose to be silent, or whether you will give Secretary Chuck Hagel and the President notice that your oath to support and defend the Constitution precludes complicity in end-running Congress on Syria.
If, Resign
We do not understand why the White House has so far been unwilling to await the results of the UN inspection in Damascus, but we are all too familiar with what happens once the juggernaut starts rolling to war. However, if despite Thursdays vote in the British Parliament and the increased opposition in Congress to war without the authorization of Congress, the President decides to order an attack on Syria, we urge you to act in accordance with your solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution, as well as your own conscience.
In such circumstances, we believe strongly that you should resign and explain your reasons at once to the American people.
Very Respectfully,
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, Senior Scientist, NSA (ret.)
Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)
Dan Ellsberg, VIPS Member Emeritus
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan
Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Tom Maertens, Foreign Service Officer & NSC Director for Nonproliferation (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)
Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Larry Wilkerson, Col., US Army (ret); Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/08/30/an-appeal-to-gen-dempsey-on-syria/
CRH
(1,553 posts)desist or acquire a date at the Hague.
I will be interested to see which side the media flops, in the next day or two.
Great post, and Thank You.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)This may interest you too
By Robert H. Scales, Published: September 5
Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College.
The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nations most senior soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesdays Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. Its pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesnt want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerrys thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage against Bashar al-Assads atrocities, Dempsey was largely (and respectfully) silent.
Dempseys unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.
They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administrations attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.
They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our responsibility to protect the worlds innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. The U.S. militarys civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-military-planners-dont-support-war-with-syria/2013/09/05/10a07114-15bb-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_story.html
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Ignoring Bloody Mideast Lessons
August 31, 2013
The Obama administration appears blind to the history that when U.S. officials have lashed out in anger at Middle East adversaries, the consequences have usually been bad and bloody. The Iraq War is an obvious cautionary tale but so too is Ronald Reagans shelling of Lebanon in 1983, as Ann Wright recalls.
By Ann Wright
<>
President Obama has not spelled out the possible consequences of a military attack on Syria, but U.S. military leaders are warning about the risks. In a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey wrote last month, As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that use of force will move us toward the intended outcome.
Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.
General James Mattis, who retired recently as head of the U.S. Central Command, said last month at a security conference that the United States has no moral obligation to do the impossible in Syria. If Americans take ownership of this, this is going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war.
<>
SEE:
http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/gen-dempsey-responds-to-levins-request-for-assessment-of-options-for-use-of-us-military-force-in-syria
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-military-officers-have-deep-doubts-about-impact-wisdom-of-a-us-strike-on-syria/2013/08/29/825dd5d4-10ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story_1.html
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Thank you
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)They seem awfully in a hurry to get this passed by Congress. I'm sure CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC etc .. the usual media folks anyway.. have their "people" in Damascus .. let's see, at the 4 Seasons? Well anyway, you get the picture .. Isn't it funny we sit back and munch on popcorn while we watch this thing play out on television? How sick is that?
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)can you confirm your confirmation?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)did not exist!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)soryang
(3,299 posts)I'll go with the opinion posted here rather than the belligerent liars in the administration. the neo con foment a war ploys are getting old at this point. the American public has figured it out. Even Hillary had the smarts to get out before this diplomatic disaster and she was one of the worst secretaries of state in US history. the current crew will go down in infamy if they attack Syria. Our diplomatic isolation is obvious.
vdogg
(1,384 posts)Is very misleading. You need to put the word "former" at the beginning of the title. Leaving that out gives the impression that Obama is going against the advice of his "current" intelligence team, which is absolutely not the case.
CRH
(1,553 posts)any more misleading than Obama and Kerry's statements. Have you seen the legislation they are asking congress to approve. It allows far more than limited strikes. It allows for the destruction of the entire Syrian infrastructure, in much the same as they flattened Irag in 1991 and 2003 prior to war.
So if the title of this thread is misleading, what do you call this legislation in comparison to the statements of Obama and Kerry?
http://www.thenation.com/article/176059/real-reason-war-syria#axzz2eCeSgAzT
Tom Hayden
September 6, 2013
The resolution in favor of American intervention in Syria conceals an agenda for escalation far beyond, as a statement by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Robert Menendez described it, a narrow and focused US response to the chemical weapons attack on August 21. The American public and Congress are being fooled into a broader effort that looks a lot like war and regime change.
?
Maybe its the price the president paid for Senator John McCains vote. But McCains amendment, which says, It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement, suggests escalation will not be far behind air strikes.
The measure authorizes: two or three months of sustained bombing and missile strikes, aimed at decisively damaging Assads military bases and infrastructure; increasing the capabilities of the insurgent forcessomehow without strengthening Al Qaedaand profoundly weakening Assads capacity to continue in power. The prohibition of boots on the ground, so important to Congress, does not cover CIA boots on the ground, nor the boots of American advisers and trainers just over the Syrian border.
That is, 'two to three months of sustained bombing and missile strikes.' Misleading? There has been a lot of that going around lately.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Truth Tellers, all.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)would love your take on the history of this player in these matters.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It's nothing personal. It's business.
Did NSA and JSOC Team Up to Game Obama and Monaco on Yemen Terror Alert?
By: Jim White
EmptyWheel, Saturday August 17, 2013 10:46 am
NBC published a fascinating article yesterday that provided new and interesting details on the events surrounding the escalation of drone strikes in Yemen that took place in response to the intercepted conference call that wasnt a conference call. Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito and Jim Miklaszewski report on the personnel and policy changes that were taking place in the Obama administration as these events unfolded and how these changes had led to a decrease in drone strikes:
Obama announced that he had chosen Lisa Monaco to replace Brennan as his top counterterror official on January 25, and she officially assumed the role of Homeland Security Advisor on March 8. The U.S. launched four strikes on Yemen between January 19 and January 23, just before Obamas announcement about Monaco, but didnt launch another until April 17.
With Brennan going over to CIA and Monaco replacing him, it took time, said a senior counterterrorism official. This was a while coming. JSOC (the Pentagons Joint Special Operations Command) was pushing for more strikes and more operations but the White House slowed everything down.
Those three strikes in mid-April were followed by another lull in strikes until mid-May, when there were two strikes just before Obamas drone policy speech:
In tandem with the drone speech, the President issued new internal guidance to officials that tightened controls on what targets could be hit and who could make the decision to launch a drone.
What followed, sources said, was more frustration from Defense Department officials, and a third, seven-week-long interruption in drone strikes that led to a backlog of identified militant targets in Yemen.
But the targeting done by JSOC in Yemen isnt of the same quality as the information prepared for targeting by the CIA for strikes in Pakistan, according to the NBC report:
In May, around the time of Obamas speech, senior military officials prepared targeting packages for Monaco, with a roster of suspected militants in Yemen that they wanted to eliminate. The targeting packages contain background information on the identified targets. The CIAs packages for Pakistan are often very detailed, while the Defense Departments research on Yemeni targets was sometimes less detailed.
In fact, the JSOC apparently even admitted that some of these recent targeting packages pertained to lower level targets, but in an apparent use of pre-cogs, they claimed these were going to be important al Qaeda figures in the future and the administration had to deal with the question of pain now, or pain later in their recommendation to take out these lower level operatives.
CONTINUED...
http://www.emptywheel.net/tag/john-brennan/
Brennan islikethis with Bandar Bush. Wayne Masden suspects him of being the henchman behind some heinous crimes, including the murder of a 9-11 author and his children and Michael Hastings, the reporter in the runaway Mercedes. I don't know, but i do know the business of war involves dollar amounts so big they have no compunction taking, or if they're gentlemen, in hiring someone to take innocent human life.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)FBI has released declassified documents that reveal a continued investigation into what it calls "controversial reporting" by the Rolling Stone contributor (Michael Hastings).
creeksneakers2
(7,476 posts)Why isn't Assad making the claim more loudly and directly to the American public? Why isn't he demanding hundreds of weapons inspectors and steering them to proof of rebel culpability? Assad could also promise that it would never happen again.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)There's a history of that not working for our disfavored dictators with strategic oil interests.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-obamas-war-room-20111013
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I don't avocate US military intervention here but I have not seen a credible source that thinks anyone other than Syrian government forces are responsible for that attack, whether they support US involvement or not.
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)my own. They are no longer privy to classified information and some on the list are out and out nut cases. I believe the the president has much better, more reliable, up-to-date information than this group.
JEB
(4,748 posts)then why not airlift massive supply of gas masks to Syria instead of bombs?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)ellenfl
(8,660 posts)concedes he has. end of story.