November 14, 2005

Was the intelligence "manipulated" prior to our attack on Iraq March 19, 2003? That is the question being fought over by Republicans and Democrats in Congress right now, and as President Clinton proved to us, it's all a matter of what the meaning of "is" is. Perhaps they are fighting over what the meaning of "was" was, but the issue at hand is extremely important to most everybody, from the survivors of service men and women killed in Iraq, to all the Iraqi non-combatants and their survivors killed collaterally in the initial attack and during the continuing occupation of a sovereign nation that had not attacked the United States or our allies.

It is important to remember that Saddam was routinely ordering his anti-aircraft missiles to be fired at American and British fighters patrolling the airspace over Iraq. On the other hand, I wonder what President Bush would do if Iraq got the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone over a portion of the United States after federal authorities barbecued the church congregation at Waco, Texas for defying outrageous and unnecessary excessive force by agents of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Agency.

Right now, former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, is on trial for his life for wiping out a bunch of Kurds in a village that spawned a failed attempt to assassinate him. In view of our own federal agents' actions against the Branch Davidians at Waco, the only real difference between what President Clinton and Saddam Hussein did comes down to numbers killed. In both cases, the motivation was the same.

Personally writing, the unnecessary and needless slaughter of just one person for no good reason, is no different than if hundreds or thousands lost their lives in one incident, because each individual suffers his/her own personal pain and death individually, and no matter how many die with you, that pain and death diminishes not little bit for you.

So, the question at hand is, "Did President Bush and his regime deliberately manipulate pre-invasion intelligence" to make the American Congress and the people of the United States accept and approve the invasion of Iraq? I don't pretend to know everything in this regard, but I do know two things for certain: There was great friction between the Administration and many employees of the CIA over this issue, and; The Bush Administration took extraordinary measures to silence and discredit anyone who came forth to challenge the "intelligence" Bush alluded to in support of the invasion.

The one thing I do know something about is human nature. I've got that one pretty much locked, and it was the Bush Administration's savage attacks on former United Nations Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter and Ambassador Joseph Wilson that raised my brows. "Manipulation" is perhaps an unfortunate term. What Congress should probably be considering is whether the Bush Administration used deliberate "selection", rather than manipulation, of existing intelligence data.

Both Ritter and Wilson publicly and loudly challenged intelligence that supported our invasion of Iraq. Ritter insisted Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD, chemical, biological and nuclear) no longer existed. Wilson reported that Saddam's alleged attempts to purchase nuclear materials from the nation of Niger were false. In both cases, the Bush Regime attacked! Ritter was falsely accused of being on Saddam's payroll, and Joseph Wilson's wife was deliberately "outed" as a CIA operative. That tells us everything.

In considering an issue objectively, we would expect the Bush Administration to carefully consider all intelligence from all sources before embarking on an action -- especially war. But that didn't happen. Any intelligence, from no matter what flaky source, that supported the idea Saddam had WMD and planned to use them imminently, was embraced and held credibly dear. But any intelligence from credible sources like Scott Ritter and Joseph Wilson, was not only dismissed out of hand, but the messengers were attacked personally, to the extent Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is now useless as a NOC, or Non-Official Cover covert CIA agent.

So the word, "manipulation" really doesn't apply here. Deliberate anti-selection would be more appropriate. Who knows how much other intelligence was selectively disregarded? The friction between the CIA and the Bush Administration would certainly suggest Bush & Company didn't like at least some of what they were being given, and since it was and probably still is, classified, we don't know about it and probably won't know about it for years to come.

So the road map I would suggest Congress follow, is not to look for existing intelligence that was manipulated; but to look for intelligence that was deliberately discarded or disregarded. I believe the answer lies with many of the former CIA employees who left their jobs under duress when Bush put CIA Director Goss in place. Longtime and often lifelong CIA agents were flushed from our intelligence ranks after Bush's buddy Goss took over, and they can't speak out unless Congress gives them the immunity and assurances their benefits and pensions won't be in jeopardy for doing so. If we're going to get to the real truth about how we ended up attacking Iraq militarily, we need those people to have their security muzzles removed, and to be able to tell what they knew, when they knew it and whether or not the Bush Regime was made aware of it.

You might want to forward this to your congresscritter.

Carl F. Worden

Archives

Different War - Same False Hope

Dead Man Walking

A Tale Of Two Juries

A Life Is A Life

Lessons To Learn From Terri Schaivo

Lawyer's Advice - No Charge

But Would You Want To Die That Way?

An Observation On The American Condition

Another One Bites The Dust

Remembering The OKC Bombing

Southern Oregon Sheriff Tramples Civil Rights Again

Letter From A "Liberated" Iraqi Citizen

Bring It On!

Complete Archives for Carl F. Worden