portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war

Some administration officials expressing misgivings on Iraq, dissent silenced.

sniff sniff -do you smell that??? ...it smells like someone is ....cookin' the books! mmmmm booooks. oh no! now george is shooing us out of the kitchen. he must be keeping "dinner" as a suprise.

Well, I never thought I would see this but, it seems as though the progressives are not the only ones expressing dissent on the idea of a brisk march to WWIII.
Some administration officials expressing misgivings on Iraq
Knight-Ridder Tribune News

WASHINGTON -- While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.

These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses -- including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network -- have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.

They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.

"Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews.

No one who was interviewed disagreed.

They cited recent suggestions by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network are working together.

Rumsfeld said on Sept. 26 that the U.S. government has "bulletproof" confirmation of links between Iraq and al-Qaida members, including "solid evidence" that members of the terrorist network maintain a presence in Iraq.

The facts are much less conclusive. Officials said Rumsfeld's statement was based in part on intercepted telephone calls, in which an al-Qaida member who apparently was passing through Baghdad was overheard calling friends or relatives, intelligence officials said. The intercepts provide no evidence that the suspected terrorist was working with the Iraqi regime or that he was working on a terrorist operation while he was in Iraq, they said.

Rumsfeld also suggested that the Iraqi regime has offered safe haven to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar.

While technically true, that also is misleading. Intelligence reports said the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, a longtime Iraqi intelligence officer, made the offer during a visit to Afghanistan in late 1998, after the United States attacked al-Qaida training camps with cruise missiles to retaliate for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But officials said the same intelligence reports said bin Laden rejected the offer because he didn't want Saddam to control his group.

In fact, the officials said, there's no ironclad evidence that the Iraqi regime and the terrorist network are working together or that Saddam has ever contemplated giving chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaida, with whom he has deep ideological differences.

None of the dissenting officials, who work in a number of different agencies, would agree to speak publicly, out of fear of retribution. But many of them have long experience in the Middle East and South Asia, and all spoke in similar terms about their unease with the way U.S. political leaders are dealing with Iraq.

All agreed that Saddam is a threat who eventually must be dealt with, and none flatly opposes military action. But, they say, the U.S. government has no dramatic new knowledge about the Iraqi leader that justifies Bush's urgent call to arms.

"I've seen nothing that's compelling," said one military officer who has access to intelligence reports.

Some lawmakers have voiced similar concerns after receiving CIA briefings.

homepage: homepage: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1607676

Good Post 10.Oct.2002 12:32

The Patriot Guy

To whoever posted this>

1. Thank-you. Of course many conservatives are against this. Just follow Ron Paul, Judicial Watch, The Power Hour or Mike Ruppert.

2. Not all Progressives are against this, i.e. The Nation, NPR (National Propaganda Radio)

3. Until Joe Lunch Bucket, Tim Tie, Mary Jane Birkenstocks, Thelma Thumper and Archie Anarchy come together over their commonalities, rather than basking in their superior world view, Those oily scumbag nazi excuses for conservatives and their puppet press will continue to keep us divided.

4. Your PATRIOTIC duty is to reach out to people of different stripes. We are not going to be able to defeat this bastard if we continue using labels.