More Bad Intelligence on Iran and Iraq

[freeflydrew 0]

From http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1624993,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

More Bad Intelligence on Iran and Iraq
Thursday, May. 24, 2007 By ROBERT BAER

This week the White House made a big show of declassifying intelligence alleging that in 2005 al-Qaeda considered using Iraq as a base to launch terrorist attacks on the United States. The White House didn't bother to mask the reason for the disclosure — to put pressure on the Democrats to stop trying to impose a date for a withdrawal from Iraq. Meanwhile, ABC News reported that the White House recently ordered the CIA to destabilize the Iranian regime.
Both cases show how the Administration is still trying to manipulate intelligence to further its strategic goals. ABC says that Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot Abrams is behind the covert action against Iran, which reportedly stems from a "nonlethal presidential finding" signed by Bush to launch a plan that "includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions." But the CIA has consistently told this White House it can't do anything about the mullahs in Tehran short of strangling the country economically, in particular cutting off finished fuel products. That could take years, which is too long for the Bush Administration. (Both the White House and CIA refused to comment to ABC about the report.)
It's no surprise that Abrams would be behind this. But of all people he should know better. Abrams was a key player in the Iran-contra fiasco, which was rooted in lousy intelligence. In case you have forgotten, a handful of confidence men convinced the Reagan NSC, along with Abrams, that they were talking to moderate Iranians, who, properly nurtured, would supposedly change the character of the Iranian regime. It was a lie; the NSC was dealing with the most radical, hostile faction in Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the same group holding our hostages in Lebanon.
Once again, neo-cons are urging the U.S. to take advantage of Iraq's long border with Iran and finally do something about the Iranian regime. I even got a call not long after the invasion from a neo-con asking if I wanted to go to Iraq to handle the Mujahideen-e-Khlaq, an Iranian dissident group on the State Department's terrorist list. The mission was supposedly to collect intelligence on Iranian nuclear facilities. (I declined, and I don't know where it went from there.) And I still keep hearing rumblings that Elliot Abrams is pressuring our Arab allies and Pakistan to fund and arm Jundallah, a fundamentalist Sunni Iranian Ballouch group, to attack the Iranian government — in other words, an off-the-books covert action. But neither the MEK nor Jundallah has the wherewithal to change the regime in Tehran.
As for the intelligence on al-Qaeda and Iraq, it's even flimsier. The captured Qaeda member who provided it, Abu Faraj al-Libbi, may have been tortured, either by Pakistan, by the CIA or at Guantanamo. Even if we accept the White House's euphemism for torture — "enhanced interrogation" techniques — what Libbi has to say about Qaeda can't be trusted, let alone drive U.S. policy.
Never mind that no one can decide what exact role Libbi played in Qaeda, or whether he was even in a position to know bin Laden's plans. He was never on the FBI Most Wanted list (as most Qaeda leaders on whom we have sufficient evidence are). Abu Faraj al-Libbi isn't even his real name (al-Libbi means "the Libyan" in Arabic). Abu Faraj al-Libbi is often confused with Ibn Shaykh al-Libbi, who was captured shortly after 9/11 and reportedly recanted his confession about Saddam having a pre-9/11 connection to al-Qaeda, saying it was coerced. Abu Faraj was also initially confused with Anas al-Liby, who was supposedly involved in the 1998 East Africa bombings and is on the Most Wanted list. Confused? Well, that's just the way the White House likes it.
Another problem with Abu Faraj al-Libbi's confession is that it doesn't make sense. Qaeda knows as well as anyone that Iraq, where the U.S. military could knock down your door at any moment, would be one of the worst places in the world from which to launch or plan a terrorist attack on the United States. The Administration knows that America is much more vulnerable in Europe. A Qaeda terrorist with a European passport can come into this country under the visa waiver program, virtually without scrutiny.
If the Bush Administration continues to feed the American people the same dog's breakfast of bad intelligence, we'll be in Iraq until Bush leaves office. And while we're at it, just maybe in a war with Iran.
Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East and Time.com's intelligence columnist, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down

[akarunway 1]

Yeah. I read yesterday the CIA gave BUSH all the details of what would happen if we invaded Iraq and it was on the money. AND IGNORED. Can't seem to find it today. Seems the news story was quashed. That's OK. It's going to congress. If the lazy bastards will bother to read it.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Qaeda knows as well as anyone that Iraq, where the U.S. military could knock down your door at any moment, would be one of the worst places in the world from which to launch or plan a terrorist attack on the United States.

Okay, so where else does al-Qaeda have to operate? Where will they go if they are squeezed out of Iraq? Iran? --No. Syria?--No (while many are crossing the border there, the regime there will not relinquish their control over its people to allow something like that). Jordan?--No. Afghanistan?--No. Where in Europe?--while they have pushed some Euro allies around, even Spain, who has succumbed to the threat won't be a safe-operating environment.

If al-Qaeda knows that Iraq is not the place to be, then why do they keep spending their efforts there attacking us, and the Iraqi government infrastructure?

How much clearer of a picture do you need to show that Iraq is more important to them than ever.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[freeflydrew 0]

Another problem with Abu Faraj al-Libbi's confession is that it doesn't make sense. Qaeda knows as well as anyone that Iraq, where the U.S. military could knock down your door at any moment, would be one of the worst places in the world from which to launch or plan a terrorist attack on the United States. The Administration knows that America is much more vulnerable in Europe. A Qaeda terrorist with a European passport can come into this country under the visa waiver program, virtually without scrutiny.

I think your question was answered on the next line...

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Another problem with Abu Faraj al-Libbi's confession is that it doesn't make sense. Qaeda knows as well as anyone that Iraq, where the U.S. military could knock down your door at any moment, would be one of the worst places in the world from which to launch or plan a terrorist attack on the United States. The Administration knows that America is much more vulnerable in Europe. A Qaeda terrorist with a European passport can come into this country under the visa waiver program, virtually without scrutiny.

I think your question was answered on the next line...

Even if that is the case, what will they be able to do while they are here? OK City part II? Nope...fertilizer sales of that magnitude are flagged. 9/11 part II? Nope...can't hijack a plane and expect the passengers to cower in fear, they know the ending. Fort Dix redeux? Probably not, just because the civil govt agencies won't "profile" doesn't mean the military won't.

I am not wholly discounting the point the article makes, but I do not think their issue is conclusive. If it were, then there would not be the level of insurgent activity there is in Iraq.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Yeah. I read yesterday the CIA gave BUSH all the details of what would happen if we invaded Iraq and it was on the money. AND IGNORED. Can't seem to find it today.

I would really like to read about that. Please post a link if you come across it.

[yourmomma 0]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18854414/

[freeflydrew 0]

I think that the point that you just made is pretty out there...

You're saying that the US is so safe that a terrorist couldn't pull off a bombing, poisoning, or hijacking on US soil, so they choose to fight in Iraq instead? And this explains the high level of insurgency in Iraq?

Maybe the level of insurgency in Iraq has to do with the fact that we're occupying a country, and involving ourselves in what is essentially a civil war with escalating tension and violence? That we're building military bases in a country that we invaded based on false pretenses and have no plans to leave? Or maybe it has to do with an underlying hatred towards America and it's allies based on 50 years of American Foreign Policy in the Region?

I have a tough time taking what this no-name, low level member of a terrorist organization, has confessed, through interrogation, as the truth...

I think that your sense of US security is unrealistic.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18854414/

WOW That's obscene!

When do impeachment proceedings begin?

[Amazon 7]

But the Chickenhawks got the war they wanted anyway...hell thier buddies at their former companies are doing quite nicely from ....and making HUGE profits from the war(Haliburton jumps to mind with BILLIONS in cost overruns).....have forced oil prices thru the roof ( good for the good ole oil boy buddies) .. and the yes men pentagon types get some new medals and promotions...

There will be plenty of jobs for them IF they leave power in early 2009.... if not.. they are set for life anyway.

[billvon 3,070]

From a recent press conference:
-----------------
Q Mr. President, after the mistakes that have been made in this war, when you do as you did yesterday, where you raised two-year-old intelligence, talking about the threat posed by al Qaeda, it's met with increasing skepticism. The majority in the public, a growing number of Republicans, appear not to trust you any longer to be able to carry out this policy successfully. Can you explain why you believe you're still a credible messenger on the war?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm credible because I read the intelligence, David. . . .

Yes, I talked about intelligence yesterday. I wanted to make sure the intelligence I laid out was credible, so we took our time. Somebody said, well, he's trying to politicize the thing. If I was trying to politicize it, I'd have dropped it out before the 2006 elections. I believe I have an obligation to tell the truth to the American people as to the nature of the enemy. And it's unpleasant for some. I fully recognize that after 9/11, in the calm here at home, relatively speaking, caused some to say, well, maybe we're not at war. I know that's a comfortable position to be in, but that's not the truth.
-------------

And I would be remiss if I did not point out this gem:

---------------
Q Mr. President, why is he [Bin Laden] still at large?

THE PRESIDENT: Why is he at large? Because we haven't got him yet, Jim. That's why. And he's hiding . ..
--------------

See? Everyone is wondering why we have not yet succeeded in capturing the #1 enemy of the US. Fortunately Bush has cut through the bafflegab with that razor-sharp mind of his, and realized that he has not been captured because we don't have him yet. And he's hiding.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I think that the point that you just made is pretty out there...

You're saying that the US is so safe that a terrorist couldn't pull off a bombing, poisoning, or hijacking on US soil, so they choose to fight in Iraq instead? And this explains the high level of insurgency in Iraq?

I did not say the US is so safe, etc. I did say that compared to pre-9/11, it is extremely difficult for an operation like that to function in the same way.

Quote

Maybe the level of insurgency in Iraq has to do with the fact that we're occupying a country, and involving ourselves in what is essentially a civil war with escalating tension and violence?

Having been there, and seen what I've seen, I disagree with that statement, and other factors don't support it either. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/23/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Arab-Insurgents.php
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/iraqi_official_.html

It's very convenient to say that this is only an internal struggle. It isn't. The world can see the void that was created as a result of the invasion. Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda see the lynch-pin that is Iraq.

Quote

That we're building military bases in a country that we invaded based on false pretenses and have no plans to leave? Or maybe it has to do with an underlying hatred towards America and it's allies based on 50 years of American Foreign Policy in the Region?

Newsflash, most of the people over there (even Iranians) don't hate us at all. They may not be thrilled about US foreign policy, but they have equal contempt for their own systems of government and quality of life.

US foreign policy in the region pales in comparison to the mess that was created in the wake of European colonization from Morocco to Iran. In fact, until the 1990s, US foreign policy in the region was aimed solely to contain the then conceived greater threat that was the USSR.

Quote

I have a tough time taking what this no-name, low level member of a terrorist organization, has confessed, through interrogation, as the truth...

I think that your sense of US security is unrealistic.

I wrote that I was not discounting the article, and added that I do not take it as conclusive. I've been around enough to know that the press is way off the mark for just about everything going on over there.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,070]

>It's very convenient to say that this is only an internal struggle. It isn't.

It isn't completely an internal struggle, but 90% of it is. The 'foreign fighter' myth has been debunked pretty thoroughly.

>Newsflash, most of the people over there (even Iranians) don't hate us at all.

Most people don't hate most other people. But they do mistrust us and they dislike what we are doing - and they want us out.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Most people don't hate most other people.

Just a general comment on "Most"

Unfortunately, hate and reaction to hate isn't an "average" type of thing. It take a very small proportion of 'haters' to have huge impact on any social system.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,070]

>It take a very small proportion of 'haters' to have huge impact on any social system.

I agree, and they are also the most notable (read: newsworthy) part of the population. I mentioned it because it's easy to forget that the noisiest parts of a group are NOT necessarily representative of the group as a whole.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>It take a very small proportion of 'haters' to have huge impact on any social system.

I agree, and they are also the most notable (read: newsworthy) part of the population. I mentioned it because it's easy to forget that the noisiest parts of a group are NOT necessarily representative of the group as a whole.

I think that's worth bringing up frequently. It's neglected often.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[akarunway 1]

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18854414/

Thanks. We'll see Bush get outta this one too! Impeach I say. Cheney first. Then we get Pelosi right? I say Ron Paul.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

It take a very small proportion of 'haters' to have huge impact on any social system.

Including internet forums.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>It's very convenient to say that this is only an internal struggle. It isn't.

It isn't completely an internal struggle, but 90% of it is. The 'foreign fighter' myth has been debunked pretty thoroughly.

>Newsflash, most of the people over there (even Iranians) don't hate us at all.

Most people don't hate most other people. But they do mistrust us and they dislike what we are doing - and they want us out.

The myths and mistrust you cite have been spoon-fed to you. The links I noted are recent (within past 10 days) reports coming from people that are there. Just because MSNBC isn't reporting it doesn't mean it's not a reality. In fact, the media isn't there in these hot spots to report it to begin with.

The Time article noted al-Qaim as the first stop out of Syria. The next stop is Ramadi, then Fallujah, and finally Baghdad. It's not as complex as domestic struggle of Shia vs Sunni. These sects have co-existed for centuries. They are getting inflamed by extremists from within and without (i.e. Sadr) following a much more plain agenda -- an agenda being managed outside the border most of the time.

If this truly were the intense internal struggle that gets whined about, then the Kurds would be involved as well, and there would be the risk of Turkey throwing gas on the fire in the northern part of the country, and Iran would be far more overt in its involvement to protect its northern border as well.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,070]

>Just because MSNBC isn't reporting it doesn't mean it's not a reality.

Actually it came from the Center for Strategic International Studies, not MSNBC. 4-10% of the insurgents are foreigners.

>In fact, the media isn't there in these hot spots to report it to begin with.

True. And they don't live very long when they are. Thus it's nearly always a mistake to rely on the mainstream media for information on such places. (Not surprisingly, the MSM has been pushing the "foreign fighters" thing.) Polls run by Iraqis (like the CSIS poll) will generally be more reliable indicators.

>If this truly were the intense internal struggle that gets whined about,
>then the Kurds would be involved as well . . .

?? As I am sure you're aware, the Kurds are ethnically and geographically removed from the struggle in places like Baghdad. It's like saying there's no internal conflict in Palestine because Jordan is not involved all that much.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Just because MSNBC isn't reporting it doesn't mean it's not a reality.

Actually it came from the Center for Strategic International Studies, not MSNBC. 4-10% of the insurgents are foreigners.

That report is two years old.

This one: http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060927_iraq_evolving.pdf
Is from September 2006, and if you scroll down to page 42 of the report, it outlines Sadr's militia as well as internal Shiite divisions. The insurgency is a mass of puppets whose agendas are not driven by internal considerations.

Quote

>In fact, the media isn't there in these hot spots to report it to begin with.

True. And they don't live very long when they are. Thus it's nearly always a mistake to rely on the mainstream media for information on such places. (Not surprisingly, the MSM has been pushing the "foreign fighters" thing.) Polls run by Iraqis (like the CSIS poll) will generally be more reliable indicators.

CSIS does not conduct polls. They conduct studies. The report you cite disputes nothing about what I noted. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

There used to be combat correspondents. Now they are hotel-dwellers, relying on third-fourth-hand information. You think that's reliable? I've got some goodies for you.

Quote

?? As I am sure you're aware, the Kurds are ethnically and geographically removed from the struggle in places like Baghdad. It's like saying there's no internal conflict in Palestine because Jordan is not involved all that much.

Under the old British Mandate for Iraq following WWI, the region of Mosul, extended right down to Baghdad. In fact, in the CSIS report I mentioned, they correct me on the Kurd's seemingly inactive role on things internally. However, it does support that their role is more political, if driven by ethnic strife in the past.

Comparing the Palestinians to Iraq is a bit of a stretch in my book, but I understand the point you're trying to make.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!