Instead of medal he richly deserves, Lt. Col. West will get a court martial

Status
Not open for further replies.

RustyHammer

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,336
Location
Louisiana
Here is one most of us missed:

http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/the_news_ed_columnists/article/0,1651,TCP_1133_2410749,00.html


Joe Crankshaw: Instead of medal he richly deserves, Lt. Col. West will get a court martial -- By Joe Crankshaw -- columnist

November 8, 2003

You may never have heard of Lt. Col. Allen B. West, a battalion commander in the Fourth Infantry Division in Iraq, but he desperately needs your help. He faces an untimely end to his military career, and time in jail for saving the lives of his men. Specifically, he is charged with assault for firing his pistol into the air to intimidate an Iraqi prisoner who was concealing plans for an ambush of American troops.

The ploy worked, and U.S. troops ambushed the would be ambushers. Col. West should be receiving a medal, not a court martial.

An Army Judge Advocate General officer — a lawyer for the Army in plain English — assigned to the Fourth Infantry, leveled the charges and is making them stick. It is certainly an example of legal technicalities that ignore both recent history in Iraq and the true nature of war.

If this lawyer wants to prosecute someone for mistreating prisoners of war, let him hunt down the men who mistreated the members of the Ordinance unit, including Jessica Lynch, who were captured, tortured and murdered by the Iraqis. Evidence shows Lynch was raped in the process. Or, let him look for the people who beat and mistreated our pilots during the first Gulf War. That should give him plenty of legitimate targets.

Col. West and his men were stationed at a place called "Saba al Boor," when they captured an Iraqi guerrilla, and began interrogating him. Military questioning on the frontlines is normally conducted by an intelligence officer or noncommissioned officer, assisted by a translator if they don't speak the enemy's language. The process is not unlike what happens in a police precinct station, except that the pressure of time and the fact that American lives hang in the balance, adds an unpleasant dimension.

During the interrogation, the intelligence people came to realize they had something more than your ordinary guerilla grunt. This one had knowledge of upcoming actions, which he was not coming forward with, but which needed to be known. In every war we have fought, when our men were taken under similar circumstances and tried to conceal information, the treatment they received was often brutal and sometimes fatal.

Col. West is dedicated to his men, and he knew he had to get the information in real time or see some of them die. I guess the JAG officer would rather have seen the men die. The colonel had many options, if he was determined to get the information. He could have ordered the prisoner beaten into submission; he could have ordered torture; he could have done many things, but he did none of them. He just scared the information out of the prisoner. He stood behind him, drew his pistol, slid back the slide so the prisoner could hear it, and fired twice in the air. The prisoner, apparently, was not ready to go to paradise, and spilled the beans.

The Iraqi should be glad he was not a prisoner of the South or North Koreans, whose favorite interrogation technique is to truss up the prisoner, tying wrists to ankles, suspending him in the air, then beating him with long, thin bamboo poles for a few hours before they start questioning.

In South Vietnam, ARVIN questioners took prisoners up in helicopters in groups of two or three. At a high altitude, they would pick up one of the prisoners and heave him out the door sans parachute, then start questioning the others. It was effective, but I am sure the JAG officer would not approve.

Germans, Japanese, Russians, all have used brutal tactics far exceeding Col. West's, and everyone just accepts it.

I am not a fan of the Bush War in Iraq. I think we should and could have handled the matter differently. But I support our troops in what they are trying to do under dreadful conditions. I don't think a man's career should be trashed in the name of some theoretical, legal nicety, when he was saving American lives. The end does not always justify the means, but in this case, I think his means are justified by the end. As I have often written, I don't think there is one square inch of foreign soil worth one American life. I also uphold Gen. George Patton's speech to his troops in which he told them the idea that they were supposed to die for their country was crap. "Your job," he said, "is to make the other poor bastard die for his."

Write, e-mail, call, button-hole your congressman and sink the White House under a blizzard of mail. Demand a medal, not a court martial, for Lt. Col. Allen B. West.

Contact Joe Crankshaw by telephone at (772) 221-4181, or e-mail: [email protected]. His columns are archived on the News'website, TCPalm.com.
 
Exonerate Lt. Col. Allen B. West from Criminal Prosecution

Sign Petition here: http://patriotpetitions.us/colwest/

11/4/2003 — Exonerate Lt. Col. Allen B. West from Criminal Prosecution


Signers: 106268

To President George Bush, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and acting Secretary of the Army Secretary Les Brownlee

Petition Text:

To President George Bush, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and acting Secretary of the Army Secretary Les Brownlee

We, the people of these United States, rightfully petition our President, House of Representatives, Senate and Department of Defense on behalf of Army Lt. Col. Allen B. West. Col. West, together with his fellow line officers engaged in combat with terrorists in Iraq, has been ordered to complete a difficult mission under impossible circumstances. U.S. forces in Iraq are not engaged in conventional warfare. They are facing a terrorist enemy who blends into the civilian population -- hiding behind women and children -- only to reemerge to conduct deadly attacks against our troops, themselves fettered by the rules used to govern traditional wars. Col. West's own battalion faces such attacks almost every day. While we acknowledge that U.S. soldiers have an obligation to adhere to a higher standard than their enemy counterparts, and that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is a fair and just standard in ordinary cases, we believe the circumstances surrounding Col. West's case are extraordinary, to say the least. It is beyond dispute that Col. West's actions saved the lives of men under his command when he extracted information of an impending attack against himself and his men from an enemy combatant in his custody. In twice firing his sidearm, Col. West never intended nor did he actually harm the interrogated prisoner. In this case, the end does indeed justify the means.

Col. West's actions do not merit prosecution, demotion, loss of benefits or prison time. Col. West's actions merit the praise of his countrymen for the lives he saved in the line of duty. We, citizens of the United States, do hereby petition for Col. West's reprieve from prosecution and return to duty through the intervention of the President, the Congress or the Department of Defense. We will not forget how our nation's leaders choose to treat this brave soldier.

Signed,

{sign online at above-referenced URL}
 
Look for a fracturing of the military in the next few years. What
that portends is hard to predict. Don't think a lot of military guys
aren't looking at Col. West's situation and asking the obvious questions.
 
If I were still in, and deliverately violated the rules and regs regarding treatment of prisoners, what would happen to me as a lowly enlisted infantryman?
 
He is actually getting the court martial he richly deserves. I missed thew section in the front of the UCMJ that says it's a peace peacetime only law.

Jeff
 
November 4th we had a presentation at work (an early vetern's day thing) by one of the US military officers held by Iran after they took the US embassy in 1979. During the question and answer session someone asked him about this case. He responded by saying "Its a tricky subject but I wouldn't want to be the guy prosecuting him for saving his men. I had that done to me in Iran, but I can't condemn Col. West for doing it in Iraq." If someone who has been there on the opposite side of the gun can't condemn West, how can I?
 
He is actually getting the court martial he richly deserves. I missed thew section in the front of the UCMJ that says it's a peace peacetime only law.

May not be "right", but better than stuffing body bags with the remains of his troops. At least they wear the uniform!
 
Well, he admits to violating the law (UCMJ) so whats wrong with holding a trial to formally determine if his actions were justified or not? Isn't that what trials are for? even military trials?
 
How many would be calling for his head if he'd done the "right" thing and just reported it to "intelligence" and in the meantime the terrorists had attacked with a truck bomb, killing 10 or 20 of his men? All knowing he could have possibly prevented it from happening?
If he knew his men were in danger and he did nothing to prevent his troops from dying, would the UCMJ be on his side?
Would the troops left ever be able to trust their commander (if they feel his only interest is CYA) again? Trust is pretty important when your life is on the line, and it has to go both ways.
 
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47608&highlight=West

In fact, the article above is a distortion of the facts presented by West himself. The threat he was interrogating the guy about was an assassination plot against him personally, not a threat to attack his troops or US forces in general. So much for the selflessness angle.

In West's account, "the interrogators had no luck at first," but it does not spell out if they were qualified CI personnel, or just the NCOs he sent to make the pick-up. At that point he made the conscious decision, as an unqualified cannon-cocker, to take over an interrogation. If they guys weren't qualified to interrogate the guy, West shouldn't have let them do it in the first place, and if they were, he should have had the good sense to shut the hell up and let the professionals do it. Either way, West taking over the interrogation made about as much sense as letting random people off the street operate a 155mm howitzer. Probably less, really, considering the amount of training that goes into making a good interrogator. West poisoned the well and ultimately ruined the guy as a source... yeah, he may have saved his ???, but the source is no good to us now. To my mind, reducing the risk to some light colonel's behind isn't worth the potential information lost from this informant, and the long-term positive effect it could have had on US operations... and it shouldn't have been to his, either. Colonels get the big bucks to see the bigger picture and do the right thing.

Of course, most folks think they know everything about interrogation because they watched a couple of episodes of "The Shield." :rolleyes:

In any case, he broke the law and is going to get court martialed. That's the way it is supposed to work, no free ride just because he's a field grade. If some PFC... who would have been no less qualified in interrogations than the colonel, incidentally... did this, he'd be court martialed without blinking an eye. It would also be detrimental to good order and discipline to let him get away with it, as it would be a tacit approval of abuse of captives at will.
 
Granted, there was self interest involved. That would be plenty of motivation for anyone. But given the usual methods of attack by the terrorists in those parts (car and truck bombs, people with explosives strapped to their bodies, several gunmen with automatic weapons) it is reasonable to assume that his men were in danger too.
If you knew someone was coming for you, and that would place your family in danger too, I would expect you to take a proactive approach to neutralize the threat as much (or more) for your family than you would for yourself.

edited to add: I'm not really against a court martial, as I am well aware why the UCMJ exists, just any presupposition (is that a word?) of guilt. While he is probably technically "guilty", I just don't feel that he was wrong. I hope he is exonerated.
 
If you knew someone was coming for you, and that would place your family in danger too, I would expect you to take a proactive approach to neutralize the threat as much (or more) for your family than you would for yourself.
Hey, man, do what you have to do.

Just understand there are consequences associated with those actions. The good Colonel is suffering personal consequences, we lost an intel source as a consequence, and the Iraquis and and rest of the world now view us as the sort of country that resorts to violence and death threats as part of routine interrogations.

Great.

Isn't that what the local law-and-order crowd says, anyway? "you do the crime..."
 
Well put, Derek...

The UCMJ is what separates "our'n from their'n"...not the Geneva or any other "international" convention.

We hold our own high ground, not subject to outside authority.

...and that's as it should be.
 
the Colonel is not fighting fair? Is that what this is about? He's not "playing" by the rules? Since when is fighting to survive about playing by the rules or fighting "fair"?

Have we become such wimps? Man, this sucks....
 
RustyHammer,
May not be "right", but better than stuffing body bags with the remains of his troops. At least they wear the uniform!

I retired on 31 Oct 2003 after almost 29 years. I'd wager to say I wore the uniform longer then most members of this board.

If you think we can condone this type of conduct from a field grade officer you are very wrong. We have troops from all MOSs (because Rumsfeld refuses to expand the Army to fight a war, it interferes with transformation but that's another thread) acting as Infantry and MPs in a counter insurgency environment where we aren't fighting a uniformed enemy. What LTC West did, was establish a new standard for field interrogation in his battalion. Sure it worked out well, this time. But you can bet that right after it happened every PFC and Specialist in the Bn heard about it. So now it's ok to treat every detainee that way? Hardly, but it is in that Bn, because the commander of that Bn set the standard with his own conduct. Can we fault the younger troops when they brutalize detainees if we don't hold everyone to the same standards?

We are fighting an enemy much tougher then the former Ba'athists ever will be. We are fighting the world media. They will do everything they can to undermine our troops and our objectives because the wrong party is in charge. The Toledo Blade already published a 4 part feature on alleged atrocities in Vietnam in 1967. Why do you think they are digging that up now? Because in the last article they tied it into counter insurgency warfare in Iraq. You'll soon see articles in the New York Times, Washington Post etc. claiming that this type of warfare is brutalizing our soliders and making calloused killers of our fine young men and women. So given all that, you want to condone violations of the Law of Land Warfare and the UCMJ?

This is a real war, it's not a Samuel L. Jackson war movie. I doubt that the commander of the Saddam Feydeen is going to testify at LTC West's Court Martial.

You are also ignoring that this came out as part of a 15-6 investigation into the command climate of a brigade. I'm sure there are a lot of other issues involved that aren't making the press.

The bottom line is that LTC West has to be held accountable. If he's not then the entire chain of command breaks down. You can slap a Sergeant who's a team leader on the wrist for something like this considering how it came out, but you can't do that to a field grade officer. If you let LTC West off, you might as well just say we can continue to torture detainees and we're all sliding down the slippery slope.

The best thing to do is let the military justice system work, The facts will come out and LTC West will get the justice he deserves. As a commander LTC West had an obligation to do things right and by the book. In my opinion his true character is showing when he chose to try this in the press.

Jeff
 
The media, here and abroad, are dredging up Vietnam not because of
Iraq but because Vietnam gave incontrovertible proof, to the hard-core
Left, that America was rotten at the root, that we are somehow the
world's cancer. They will never let go of Vietnam and the whiff of atrocities, no matter how much genocide is occurring all over this planet and how many mass graves are unearthed in Iraq. If there had been no Col. West to once
again prove to all mankind that Americans are satanic, the media would
have had to invent one. The Left wants to crack America's resolve and
to demoralize our military. The real question, to me anyway, is who
seized the West story and ran with it--and why. America would be very
wise to have a media blackout in its theaters of war--if we really want
to win. And that is far from clear in this age of PC.
 
With all due respect, longeyes, you are blatantly incorrect.

Army four-star General, Wesley Clark is running on the Democratic ticket, partially because of Bush's failed leadership over Iraq. Whether he wins the nomination or not, he is likely to be the nominee's running mate.

Dean's opposition to the Iraq war wasn't anti-military but was pro-military. This occupation is a waste of American resources (and definitely lives) and damages our credibility abroad.

U.S. War Dead in Iraq Exceed Early Vietnam Years
Thursday, November 13, 2003 5:23 p.m. ET
By David Morgan

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The U.S. death toll in Iraq has surpassed the number of American soldiers killed during the first three years of the Vietnam War, the brutal Cold War conflict that cast a shadow over U.S. affairs for more than a generation.

A Reuters analysis of Defense Department statistics showed on Thursday that the Vietnam War, which the Army says officially began on Dec. 11, 1961, produced a combined 392 fatal casualties from 1962 through 1964, when American troop levels in Indochina stood at just over 17,000.

By comparison, a roadside bomb attack that killed a soldier in Baghdad on Wednesday brought to 397 the tally of American dead in Iraq, where U.S. forces currently number about 130,000 troops -- the same number reached in Vietnam by October 1965.

The casualty count for Iraq apparently surpassed the Vietnam figure last Sunday, when a U.S. soldier killed in a rocket-propelled grenade attack south of Baghdad became the conflict's 393rd American casualty since Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 20.
…
http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp?section=MyLycos&storyId=798648

As to what it would take to "win". What are you suggesting? Nuke(s)? Mowing down Iraqi protestors? What do you think Bush is trying to do in Iraq? What is the objective? Liberate the Iraqis via nuke? Liberate the oil via nuke? Why not just leave Saddam there, if that is the "goal"? President Eisenhower helped install Saddam for stability.

Back on topic: Lt. Col. West should NOT be court marshalled, IMHO. He deserves a medal.
 
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The U.S. death toll in Iraq has surpassed the number of American soldiers killed during the first three years of the Vietnam War,

A Reuters analysis of Defense Department statistics showed on Thursday that the Vietnam War, which the Army says officially began on Dec. 11, 1961, produced a combined 392 fatal casualties from 1962 through 1964, when American troop levels in Indochina stood at just over 17,000.

Veeeery carefully worded. The first thought is "well there werent many american troops there to get killed in the first place in '61 so of course its lower." Then they tell you that there were 17,000 troops in INDOCHINA at the time. I would imagine that indochina includes more than vietnam. So this might not exactly mean what it appears to mean.

Regardless comparing the occupation of an enemy nation with the calmest two years of a 15 year war hardly makes any sense at all. Again people just like to bring up Vietnam so that they can pretend that they are protesting somethign worth protesting when in reality they arent.
 
Thanks w4ma, for making longeyes and my point for us....

Any comparison with Vietnam is completely irrelevant. You could also say that casualites exceed the first week of the revolution and it'd mean the same.

Once again the mainstream press and the Democratic Party is dancing on the graves of our honored dead. Where was all this concern when Clinton bombed Iraq? Where was it when the votes to authorize the use of force were conducted. IMHO those who were hawks when their party was in charge, and whowere hawks up until the time we went to war and are no longer hawks because to be so might not be the best way to get their party back into power aren't fit to clean the porta potties our troops use. Wesley Clark had nothing but praise for the administration until he decided to run for president.

Back on topic; What is your opinion on LTC West? Did he do the right thing?

Jeff
 
IIRC, the initial reports of this incident stated that Col. West's troops physically assaulted or tortured those being questioned, and that when this didn't produce the desired information, Col. West staged his shooting stunt. IMHO, this definitely warrants a court-martial: mistreatment of prisoners in the presence of the commanding officer, who then joins in the mistreatment! There's no way on earth that this conduct should be condoned.
 
On Topic: I just read Preacherman's post above. Assuming Preacherman's description of the situation is accurate, I agree with Preacherman.

Off topic, to defend myself: Jeff White, no Americans died containing Saddam. Jeff White, I was among those who tried to stop this invasion of Iraq before it started in order to prevent American (and Iraqi) deaths. Many generals tried to warn the ideologues in the White House that Iraq would become a quagmire. Many CIA agents tried to warn the White House ideologues that Iraq would become a quagmire. Many diplomats tried to warn the White House neo-cons that Iraq would become a quagmire.

Bush 'skewed facts to justify attack on Iraq'

A growing number of US national security professionals are accusing the Bush Administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq.

A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terror groups.

This team, self-mockingly called the cabal, “cherry-picked the intelligence stream†in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defence Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence.
…
The INC, which brought together groups opposed to Saddam, worked closely with the Pentagon to build a case against Iraq. “There are current intelligence officials who believe it is a scandal,†Mr Cannistraro said.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/31/1054177765483.html

Cheney Investigated Forged Niger Uranuium Document

As though this were normal! I mean the repeated visits Vice President Dick Cheney made to the CIA before the war in Iraq. The visits were, in fact, unprecedented. During my 27-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, no vice president ever came to us for a working visit.

During the '80s, it was my privilege to brief Vice President George H.W. Bush, and other very senior policy makers every other morning. I went either to the vice president's office or (on weekends) to his home. I am sure it never occurred to him to come to CIA headquarters.

The morning briefings gave us an excellent window on what was uppermost in the minds of those senior officials and helped us refine our tasks of collection and analysis. Thus, there was never any need for policy makers to visit us. And the very thought of a vice president dropping by to help us with our analysis is extraordinary. We preferred to do that work without the pressure that inevitably comes from policy makers at the table.

Cheney got into the operational side of intelligence as well. Reports in late 2001 that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger stirred such intense interest that his office let it be known he wanted them checked out. So, with the CIA as facilitator, a retired U.S. ambassador was dispatched to Niger in February 2002 to investigate. He found nothing to substantiate the report and lots to call it into question. There the matter rested – until last summer, after the Bush administration made the decision for war in Iraq.
…
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=6e9d5502599dc6a2
http://www.democraticunderground.co...ic&forum=102&topic_id=5858&mesg_id=5858&page=

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11

(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.
…
Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

“Go massive,†the notes quote him as saying. “Sweep it all up. Things related and not.†(Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hours after 9/11 attack)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
http://www.democraticunderground.co...&forum=104&topic_id=53315&mesg_id=53315&page=

A call to maintain CIA independence.

As the White House searches for every possible excuse to go to war with Iraq, pressure has been building on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates to fit a political agenda. In this case, the agencies are being pressed to find a casus belli for war, whether or not one exists.

“Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements, and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA,†Vince Cannistraro, the agency's former head of counterterrorism, told The Guardian, a London newspaper.

This confirms what Knight-Ridder reporters found: “A growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war,†the news service reported recently. “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.â€
…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-10-24-oped-bamford_x.htm

U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed
…
The DIA was “exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD,†or weapons of mass destruction, he added in a phone interview. He said the CIA had “no guts at all†to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.

Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of Central Intelligence Agency counterterrorist operations, said he knew of serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up “fraudulent†intelligence, “a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi.â€
…
They believe the administration, before going to war, had a “moral obligation to use the best information available, not just information that fits your preconceived ideas.â€

CHEMICAL WEAPONS REPORT 'SIMPLY WRONG'

The top Marine Corps officer in Iraq, Lt. Gen. James Conway, said on Friday U.S. intelligence was “simply wrong†in leading military commanders to fear troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons in the March invasion of Iraq that ousted Saddam.

Richard Perle, a Chalabi backer and member of the Defense Policy Board that advises Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, defended the four-person unit in a television interview.
…
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...e=2&u=/nm/20030530/ts_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc

CIA had doubts on Iraq link to al-Qaida

The debunking of the Bush administration's pre-war certainties on Iraq gathered pace yesterday when it emerged that the CIA knew for months that a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida was highly unlikely.

As President George Bush was forced for the second time in days to defend the decision to go to war, a new set of leaks from CIA officials suggested a tendency in the White House to suppress or ignore intelligence findings which did not shore up the case for war.
…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974182,00.html

Ex-CIA Officers Questioning Iraq Data

A small group composed mostly of retired CIA officers is appealing to colleagues still inside to go public with any evidence the Bush administration is slanting intelligence to support its case for war with Iraq.

Members of the group contend the Bush administration has released information on Iraq that meets only its ends -- while ignoring or withholding contrary reporting.

They also say the administration's public evidence about the immediacy of Iraq's threat to the United States and its alleged ties to al-Qaida is unconvincing, and accuse policy-makers of pushing out some information that does not meet an intelligence professional's standards of proof.

“It's been cooked to a recipe, and the recipe is high policy,†said Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA veteran who briefed top Reagan administration security officials before retiring in 1990. “That's why a lot of my former colleagues are holding their noses these days.†---
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030314/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_intelligence_4
http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID61/18413.html

Public was misled, claim ex-CIA men

A GROUP of former US intelligence officials has written to President Bush claiming that the US Congress and the American public were misled about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the war.

The group’s members, most of them former CIA analysts, say that they have close contacts withsenior officials working inside the US intelligence agencies, who have told them that intelligence was“cooked†to persuade Congress to authorise the war.

The manipulation of intelligence has, they say, produced “a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportionsâ€. They write in the letter to Mr Bush: “While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes, never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorise launching a war.

“You may not realise the extent of the current ferment within the intelligence community and particularly the CIA. In intelligence, there is one unpardonable sin — cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy. There is ample indication that this has been done in Iraq.â€
…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-698028,00.html

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0207-04.htm

U.S. diplomats also tried to stop this invasion:

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/international/27WEB-TNAT.html

Letter of Resignation (Mary Wright)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/marywright.asp

U.S. Mongolian Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq (Fourth U.S. Diplomat)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0327/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/war_diplomat_resigns_2

Third U.S. Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq Policy
http://truthout.org/docs_03/032303G.shtml

Second US Diplomat Resigns in Protest
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/03.03/0314krieger_diplo_resign.htm
U.S. diplomat resigns over Iraq war plans
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10105063.htm

Niger-Uranium Timeline
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=niger_timeline

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND WMDs: THEN AND NOW
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=bush_wmd_summary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top