is no longer any serious doubt that Bush administration
officials deceived us into war. The key question
now is why so many influential people are in denial,
unwilling to admit the obvious...But even people
who aren't partisan Republicans
shy away from confronting the administration's dishonest
case for war, because they don't want to face the
all, suppose a politician - or a journalist - admits
to himself that Mr. Bush bamboozled the nation into
war. Well, launching a war on false pretenses is,
to say the least a breach of trust. So if you admit
to yourself that such a thing happened, you have
a moral obligation to demand accountability - and
to do so in the face not only of a powerful, ruthless
political machine but in the face of a country not
yet ready to believe that its leaders have exploited
9/11 for political gain. It's a scary prospect.
if we can't find people willing to take the risk - to
face the truth and act on it - what will happen to
Paul Krugman, The New York
Times, June 24, 2003
1, 2003 1600 PDT (FTW) -- Let's just suppose for a moment that George W. Bush
was removed from the White House. Cheney, Powell,
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and Rove too. What
would that leave
us with? It would leave us stuck in hugely expensive,
Vietnam-like guerrilla wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would leave us with the Patriot Act, Homeland
Security and Total Information Awareness snooping
into every detail of our lives. It would leave us with
government in violation of the 1st,
5th, 6th and 8th Amendments
to the Constitution. It would leave us with a
massive cover-up of US complicity in the attacks of 9/11 that, if fully admitted,
would show not intelligence "failures" but intelligence crimes,
approved and ordered by the most powerful people
in the country. It would leave us with a government
now has the power to compel mass vaccinations
on pain of imprisonment or fine, and with no
to sue the vaccine makers who killed our friends
our children. It would leave us with two and
half million unemployed; the largest budget deficits
more than $3.3 trillion missing from the Department
of Defense; and state and local governments broke
to the point of having to cut back essential
services like sewers, police, and fire. It would
a federal government that had hit the debt ceiling
and was unable to borrow any more money. And
we would still be facing a looming natural gas
crisis of unimagined
proportions, and living on a planet that is slowly
realizing that it is running out of oil with
B". Our airports however, would be very safe,
and shares of Halliburton, Lockheed and DynCorp
is not good management.
all of these issues unaddressed is not good management
this is why, as I will demonstrate in this article,
the decision has already been made by corporate and
financial powers to remove George W. Bush, whether
he wants to leave or not, and whether he steals the
next election or not. Before you start cheering, ask
yourself three questions: "If there is someone or something
that can decide that Bush will not return, nor remain
for long, what is it? And if that thing is powerful
enough to remove Bush, was it not also powerful enough
to have put him there in the first place? And if that
is the case, then isn't that what's really responsible
for the state of things? George W. Bush is just a hired
CEO who is about to be removed by the "Board of Directors".
Who are they? Are they going to choose his replacement?
Are you going to help them?
can change this Board of Directors and the way the "Corporation" protects
its interests? These are the only issues that matter.
now the honest question about the 2004 Presidential
campaign is, "What do you really want out of it?" Do
you want the illusion that everything is a little better
while it really gets worse? Or are you ready yet to
roll up your sleeves and make some very unpleasant
but necessary fixes?
greatest test of the 2004 presidential election campaign
is not with the candidates. It is with the people.
There are strong signs that presidential election issues
on the Democratic side are already being manipulated
by corporate and financial interests. And some naďve
and well-intentioned (and some not-so-naďve and not-so-well
intentioned) activists are already playing right into
the Board's hands. There are many disturbing signs
that the only choice offered to the American people
will be no choice at all. Under the psychological rationale, "This
is the way it has to be done", campaign debates will
likely address only half-truths and fail to come to
grips with - or even acknowledge - the most important
issues that I just described. In fact, only the least
important issues will likely be addressed in campaign
2004 at the usual expense of future generations who
are rapidly realizing that they are about to become
the victims of the biggest Holocaust in mankind's history.
The final platforms for Election 2004 will likely be
manifestos of madness unless we dictate differently.
is amazing to see such words of honesty coming from The
New York Times as those of Paul Krugman. I am not
referring to the recent scandals over falsified stories
that brought down a reporter and two editors at the Times.
That particular drama was overplayed by CNN, Fox and The
Washington Post as punishment for the Times' opposition
to the invasion of Iraq. The most vicious dogs of war are sometimes armed
with sharpened, saliva-drenched keyboards. No, Paul
Krugman's words represent the essence of what From The Wilderness has stood for since its very first issue.
Unless people find the will to address scandals, lies,
and betrayals of trust that, by their very existence,
reveal that the system itself is corrupt and that the
people controlling it - both in government, and in
America's corporations and financial institutions --
are criminals, there is no chance to make anything
better, only an absolute certainty that things will
we can see the early signs of delusional and dishonest
behavior that is being willingly embraced by equally
delusional activists who have begun a sterile debate
about which candidate to support and why it is better
to become involved on the side of one Democratic Party
candidate or another or why a vote for a Green Party
candidate instead of a Democrat is tantamount to treason.
The Republicans, of course, are sharpening up a campaign
that will portray George W. Bush as the "Hero of 9/11", "The
Protector of the American Economy", "The Savior of
the Free World", "A Man Who Loves God", and "The Man
Who Cut Taxes". Electroshock therapy might be useful
for these people.
is it any less warranted for people who believe that
everything will be fine if there is better theme music
in the background, while none of the real offenses
of the past two years are addressed or undone?
on the Democratic side are already positioning themselves
to co-opt and control what happened on 9/11 into a
softer, less disturbing "Better this than nothing" strategy.
This attitude, that the only thing that matters is
finding an electable Democrat, is nothing more than
a rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. Has
everyone suddenly forgotten that the 2000 election
was stolen: first by using software and political machinery
to disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible voters,
then by open interference at polling places, and finally
by an absolutely illegal Supreme Court decision? Do
these people believe that such a crime, absolutely
successful the first time, will never be attempted
has everyone also forgotten that in the 2002 midterm
elections the proprietary voting software, in many
cases owned by those affiliated with the Republican
Party or - as in the case of Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska - the candidates themselves, has been ruled by the
Supreme Court to be immune from public inspection.
(Hagel won by a lopsided 83% majority). Throughout
the United States in 2002 there was abundant evidence that the so-called "solution" to
hanging chads did nothing more than enshrine the ability
to steal elections with immunity and also much less
fuss afterwards? Who in their right mind would trust
such a system? Why have none of the candidates mentioned
if all else fails, we can have more Wellstone plane
crashes. It has worked with three Democratic Senate
candidates in key races over the last thirty years.
Maybe that's why no one in Congress is talking about
the election process. Plane crashes are part of that
is the process in which some are urging us to place
our trust? My publication, which recently ran a full-page
ad in The Washington Post, and is about to unleash
a national ad campaign, has already been unofficially
approached by people from two Democratic challengers
seeking an endorsement. I have made it clear that FTW will
not endorse any candidate who does not make the life-and-death
issues facing mankind his or her number-one priority
and address them openly.
the 2004 election already being rolled, like soft cookie
dough, away from the issues? Already there are signs
that some candidates who speak the truth are having
their campaigns infiltrated by expert managers who
might dilute the message. There are signs that others,
looked upon as likely winners with strong progressive
credentials, may be nothing more than different dogs
from the same kennel that brought us the Bush Wolf
first let me convince you that the Bush management
team is actually on its way out and that this is not
a reason to breathe a sigh of relief. Don't get me
wrong, I'll be glad to see the mean-spirited and dishonest
bastards go. I'll also acknowledge their healthy severance
package and I'll worry about the bastards that will
likely replace them who might be much harder to identify.
is only one difference between the evidence showing
the Bush administration's criminal culpability in and
foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11, and the evidence
showing that the administration deceived the American
public about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Both
sets of evidence are thoroughly documented. They are
irrefutable and based upon government records and official
statements and actions shown to be false, misleading
or dishonest. And both sets of evidence are unimpeachable.
The difference is that the evidence showing the Iraqi
deception is being seriously and widely investigated
by the mainstream press, and actively by an ever-increasing
number of elected representatives. That's it.
is the hard record of official statements made by Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell on Iraq that will sink the administration, either before or
after the election. These guys are horrible managers
and they have really botched things up, big time - exactly
as I said they would. There is no amount of spin anywhere
that can neutralize this record. As FTW predicted
back in March, the biggest and most obvious criminal
action of the administration, a knowing lie (one of
many) used to deceive a nation into war, was the administration's
assertion that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program and
had recently attempted to purchase uranium from the
African country of Niger.
before the March 2003 Iraqi invasion in our two-part
series titled The Perfect Storm we wrote:
There are serious signs of a major political revolt
brewing in the United
States - one
that could end the Bush Presidency - George W. Bush
still has his finger on the trigger and he knows
that his only hope for survival is to pull it. U.S. and
British intelligence agencies are leaking documents
left and right disputing White House "evidence" against Iraq that
has repeatedly been shown to be falsified, plagiarized
and forged. Quiet meetings are being held in Washington between
members of Congress and attorneys like Ramsey Clark
discussing Bush's impeachment. Leaders of the World
Trade Organization (WTO), as reported in a March
15 story in the International Herald Tribune have
said, "All international institutions would
suffer a loss of credibility if the one superpower
appeared to be choosing which rules to obey and which
to ignore." And a Rockefeller has called for
an investigation of a Bush. On March 14, the Associated
Press reported that W.
Jay Rockefeller has asked the FBI to investigate
forged documents which were presented first by Britain and
then the United
that Iraq had
been trying to purchase uranium from the African
country of Niger for
its weapons program. Of all the glaring falsehoods
told by the administration, the fact that these forgeries
were noted by a Rockefeller may make them the second-rate
Watergate burglary of the 21st century...
There are few things more closely connected to or identified
with Bush family power than globalization and the
Rockefellers. He has most likely failed both of them
and both have the power to remove him...
In the meantime,
there are increasing signs that the U.S. political
and economic elites are laying the groundwork to
make the Bush administration, specifically Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Perle and Wolfowitz, sacrificial
scapegoats for a failed policy in time to consolidate
post 9-11 gains, regroup and move forward.
prophecy is coming true with a vengeance.
Bush administration's gamble is that, because it can
raise more money than all the Democratic challengers
put together, it can still manage to re-elect itself
in 2004. No doubt, the administration will put up a
good fight. But an impeachment, long sought after by
many - including University of Illinois law Professor Francis Boyle -- will be waiting after the second inauguration
just as surely as it was for Richard Nixon in 1973.
certainty is based upon a record that is utterly damning
and penetrates to almost every assertion made by the
Bush administration in its pursuit of Iraqi oil. Rather
than digress into a lengthy discussion of the offenses
let me refer the reader to two examples that exemplify
how strong the case is and that it is being pursued.
Work from the House
legal groundwork for the Clinton impeachment of 1998-9
was laid out quietly over a period of many months.
The same holds true now.
foundation of the impeachment - or the scandal that
will prompt a regime change - was laid in a March 17
letter written by California Congressman Henry Waxman
who has been dogging the Bush administration on its
violations of law since it took office. Waxman's first
battle was over the refusal of the administration to
release the mostly still-secret records of Vice President
Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force. It is there that some
of the biggest secrets of 9/11 lay buried. With respect
to the Iraqi invasion -- using the record of official
statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powel
-- Waxman has already laid out and won the prima facie
case that the administration has lied, deceived the
public and broken the public trust. There can be no
defense against this record once it gets into a legal
web page details Waxman's meticulous compilation of
evidence and - from a legal, as opposed to political
standpoint - is no doubt the core of any future impeachment
case against Bush. It is damning and Waxman has diligently
continued to build, brick by brick, the wall into which
the administration could soon crash. An important historical
novelty here is that Waxman's compilation of irrefutable
criminal activity also guarantees that if Bush goes,
so do Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell. What then?
From Inside the Beltway
June 26, a twenty-seven-year CIA veteran analyst tied
the pieces together and made it clear that, Bush is
fighting a battle he cannot win. Just as it was with
Nixon, the intelligence agencies have turned against
him. Ray McGovern, affiliated with the watchdog group
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS),
has been out front with criticisms of the Bush administration's
abuse of intelligence procedures for some time. However,
in his interview with William Rivers Pitt, writing
for Truthout.org, McGovern took Waxman's work several
steps further. He was also critical of CIA Director
George Tenet's endorsements of intelligence abuses
by Powell, Cheney and Bush, yet he did not mention
that Tenet had left a paper record showing that the
CIA had never trusted the forged Niger documents that the administration still - even after
warnings -- sold to the public and to the world as
McGovern also let Tenet
off the hook for the biggest crime of the administration,
allowing and facilitating the attacks of 9/11, saying, "My
analysis is that George Bush had no option but to keep
George Tenet on as Director, because George Tenet had
warned Bush repeatedly, for months and months before
September 11, that something very bad was about to
happen". Even still McGovern let the Bush administration
know that its conduct before the attacks was a sword
of Damocles hanging over Bush's head.
"On August 6, the title
of the [Presidential] briefing was, ‘Bin Laden Determined
to Strike in the US,' and that briefing had the word ‘Hijacking' in it.
That's all I know about it, but that's quite enough.
In September, Bush had to make a decision. Is it feasible
to let go of Tenet, whose agency flubbed the dub on
this one? And the answer was no, because Tenet knows
too much about what Bush knew, and Bush didn't know
what to do about it. That's the bottom line for me."
I disagree with McGovern---there
is a record showing that the CIA knew about 9/11---but
otherwise McGovern's analysis matched perfectly with FTW's of
three months ago. Here are some excerpts:
In the coming weeks,
we're going to be seeing folks coming out and coming
forth with what they know, and it is going to be
very embarrassing for the Bush administration.
To be quite complete
on this, it encourages me that the analysts at the
Defense Intelligence Agency - who share this ethic
of trying to tell the truth, even though they are
under much greater pressure and have much less career
protection because they work for Rumsfeld - to their
great credit, in September of last year they put
out a memo saying there is no reliable evidence to
suggest that the Iraqis have biological or chemical
weapons, or that they are producing them...
They looked around
after Labor Day and said, "OK, if we're going to
have this war, we really need to persuade Congress
to vote for it. How are we going to do that? Well,
let's do the al Qaeda-Iraq connection. That's the
traumatic one. 9/11 is still a traumatic thing for
most Americans. Let's do that."
But then they said, "Oh
damn, those folks at CIA don't buy that, they say
there's no evidence, and we can't bring them around.
We've tried every which way and they won't relent.
That won't work, because if we try that, Congress
is going to have these CIA wimps come down, and the
next day they'll undercut us. How about these chemical
and biological weapons? We know they don't have any
nuclear weapons, so how about the chemical and biological
stuff? Well, damn. We have these other wimps at the
Defense Intelligence Agency, and dammit, they won't come around either. They say there's no
reliable evidence of that, so if we go up to Congress
with that, the next day they'll call the DIA folks
in, and the DIA folks will undercut us."
So they said, "What
have we got? We've got those aluminum tubes!" The
aluminum tubes, you will remember, were something
that came out in late September, the 24th of September.
The British and we front-paged it. These were aluminum
tubes that were said by Condoleezza Rice as soon
as the report came out to be only suitable for use
in a nuclear application. This is hardware that they
had the dimensions of. So they got that report, and
the British played it up, and we played it up. It
was front page in the New York Times. Condoleezza
Rice said, "Ah ha! These aluminum tubes are suitable
only for uranium-enrichment centrifuges."
Then they gave the
tubes to the Department of Energy labs, and to a
person, each one of those nuclear scientists and
engineers said, "Well, if Iraq thinks it can use
these dimensions and these specifications of aluminum
tubes to build a nuclear program, let ‘em do
it! Let ‘emdo it. It'll never work, and
we can't believe they are so stupid. These must be
for conventional rockets."
And, of course, that's
what they were for, and that's what the UN determined
they were for. So, after Condoleezza Rice's initial
foray into this scientific area, they knew that they
couldn't make that stick, either. So what else did
Well, somebody said, "How
about those reports earlier this year that Iraq was
trying to get Uranium from Niger?
Yeah...that was pretty good." But of course if George
Tenet were there, he would have said, "But we looked
at the evidence, and they're forgeries, they stink
to high heaven." So the question became, "How long
would it take for someone to find out they were forgeries?" The
answer was about a day or two. The next question
was, "When do we have to show people this stuff?" The
answer was that the IAEA had been after us for a
couple of months now to give it to them, but we can
probably put them off for three or four months.
So there it was. "What's
the problem? We'll take these reports, we'll
use them to brief Congress and to raise the specter
of a mushroom cloud. You'll recall that the President
on the 7th of October said, "Our smoking gun could
come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Condoleezza
Rice said exactly the same thing the next day. Victoria
Clarke said exactly the same thing on the 9th of
October, and of course the vote came on the 11th
The most important
and clear-cut scandal, of course, has to do with
the forgery of those Niger nuclear
documents that were used as proof. The very cold
calculation was that Congress could be deceived,
we could have our war, we could win it, and then
no one would care that part of the evidence for war
was forged. That may still prove to be the case,
but the most encouraging thing I've seen over the
last four weeks now is that the US press
has sort of woken from its slumber and is interested.
I've asked people in the press how they account for
their lack of interest before the war, and now they
seem to be interested. I guess the simple answer
is that they don't like to be lied to...
I think the real
difference is that no one knew, or very few people
knew, before the war that there weren't any weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.
Now they know. It's an unavoidable fact. No one likes
to be conned, no one likes to be lied to, and no
one particularly likes that 190 US servicemen
and women have been killed in this effort, not to
mention the five or six thousand Iraqi civilians.
There's a difference
in tone. If the press does not succumb to the argument
put out by folks like Tom Friedman, who says it doesn't
really matter that there are no weapons in Iraq,
if it does become a quagmire which I believe it will
be, and we have a few servicemen killed every week,
then there is a prospect that the American people
will wake up and say, "Tell me again why my son was
killed? Why did we have to make this war on Iraq?"
So I do think that
there is some hope now that the truth will come out.
It won't come out through the Congressional committees.
That's really a joke, a sick joke...
It doesn't take a
crackerjack analyst. Take Pat Roberts, the Republican
Senator from Kansas,
who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
When the Niger forgery was unearthed and when Colin
Powell admitted, well shucks, it was a forgery, Senator
Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on that committee,
went to Pat Roberts and said they really needed the
FBI to take a look at this. After all, this was known
to be a forgery and was still used on Congressmen
and Senators. We'd better get the Bureau in on this.
Pat Roberts said no, that would
be inappropriate. So Rockefeller drafted his own
letter, and went back to Roberts and said he was
going to send the letter to FBI Director Mueller,
and asked if Roberts would sign on to it. Roberts
said no, that would be inappropriate...
What the FBI Director
eventually got was a letter from one Minority member
saying pretty please, would you maybe take a look
at what happened here, because we think there may
have been some skullduggery. The answer he got from
the Bureau was a brush-off. Why do I mention all
that? This is the same Pat Roberts who is going to
lead the investigation into what happened with this
All I'm saying
is that you've got Porter Goss on the House side,
you've got Pat Roberts on the Senate side, you've
got John Warner who's a piece with Pat Roberts. I'm
very reluctant to be so unequivocal, but in this
case I can say nothing is going to come out of those
hearings but a lot of smoke...
What I'm saying is
that this needs to be investigated. We know that
it was Dick Cheney who sent the former US ambassador
to Niger to
investigate. We know he was told in early March of
last year that the documents were forgeries. And
yet these same documents were used in that application.
That is something that needs to be uncovered. We
need to pursue why the Vice President allowed that
to happen. To have global reporters like Walter Pincus
quoting senior administration officials that Vice
President Cheney was not told by CIA about the findings
of this former US ambassador
strains credulity well beyond the breaking point.
Cheney commissioned this trip, and when the fellow
came back, he said, "Don't tell me, I don't want
to know what happened." That's just ridiculous.
reference to Walter Pincus echoes an observation made
by FTW in March:
FTW has previously noted strong signals in the form
of published remarks by powerful figures such as
Senator Jay Rockefeller and news stories by media
powerhouses such as James Risen and Walter Pincus
that quiet moves were underway to remove the Bush
administration from power. In a harsh and stunning
public statement to the BBC three days ago, former
Bush I Secretary of State and Henry Kissinger business
partner Lawrence Eagleburger smacked ol' "W" right between the eyes with a two-by-four.
The shocking April 14 Eagleburger statement revealed the depth of dissatisfaction
in the real halls of power with the Bush team:
George Bush [Jr.] decided he was going to turn the
troops loose on Syria and Iran after
that he would last in office for about 15 minutes.
In fact if President Bush were to try that now even
I would think that he ought to be impeached. You
can't get away with that sort of thing in this democracy.
Military's Silent Mutiny - A "Full Scale Rebellion"
his interview with Pitt, retired CIA analyst McGovern
hinted at what appears to be a growing but quiet dissent
within the ranks of the US military at the totalitarian management style of Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the fact that the administration
seems unconcerned with the facts. He said:
be quite complete on this, it encourages me that
the analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency -
who share this ethic of trying to tell the truth,
even though they are under much greater pressure
and have much less career protection because they
work for Rumsfeld - to their great credit, in September
of last year they put out a memo saying there is
no reliable evidence to suggest that the Iraqis have
biological or chemical weapons, or that they are
the multitude of leaks of intelligence estimates, reports,
memos and other records from within the military and
intelligence communities suggests a deep dissatisfaction
with the Bush regime. But perhaps nothing is as telling
as a recent report from Washington journalist and frequent FTW contributor Wayne
Madsen who is also a former US Naval officer and a
veteran of the National Security Agency.
Other effects of Weaponsgate are
already apparent. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
the majordomo of the neocons within the Pentagon, cannot find anyone to take the
place of outgoing Army Chief of Staff General Eric
Shinseki. General Tommy Franks and Shinseki's vice
chief, General John "Jack" Keane, want
no part of the job. After winning a lightning war
Franks suddenly announced his retirement. He and
Keane witnessed how Rumsfeld and his coterie of advisers
and consultants, who never once lifted a weapon in
the defense of their country, constantly ignored
and publicly abused Shinseki. Army Secretary and
retired General Tom White resigned after a number
of clashes with Rumsfeld and his cabal.
Curious as to whether this indicated a no-confidence
vote in the Bush administration by career, professional
military officers I e-mailed Madsen and asked for further
His reply was straight to the point.
Pentagon officers have told me that Rumsfeld and
his political advisers take no criticism from the
military or the career civil servants, to complain
publicly though is to sign a death warrant for your
career. The "cabal" as they call themselves are extremely
vindictive but there remains a full-scale rebellion
within the Pentagon, especially the Defense Intelligence
Agency, as well as the CIA and State over the cooking
of the books on the non-existent Iraqi WMDs. The
people who have been dissed by
Rumsfeld and his gang know WMDs are their weak point
and even Richard Perle is worried that the wheels
are coming off their charade.
As casualties continue to mount in the worsening guerrilla
war in Iraq, and as growing casualties in Afghanistan
are beginning to attract notice, it is a certainty
that career military leaders are going to become more
restive as they watch their troops die in attacks that
remind us all of Vietnam and as the world continues
to disintegrate. The power of the military, rarely
discussed in the news media, is substantial. And if
the military has no confidence in the White House,
it will shake both Washington and Wall Street to the
core. Without the military, Wall Street cannot function.
This is especially true as conflicts continue to erupt
all over Africa and instability mounts in Iran and Saudi Arabia. That instability was created by an administration
that is increasingly demonstrating zero management
MEDIA MASSES - THE MIGHTY WURLITZER PLAYS
since the Watergate scandal of 1972-4 has a crescendo
of press stories been more carefully crafted. And it
is because of this that we can see many historical
connections to Watergate - a coup that took down a
President who believed he was invincible.
follows is a partial list of recent articles, reports,
letters and editorials in the mainstream press focusing
the administration's fraudulent case for the invasion
June 6 - In a story published
at the hugely influential FindLaw.com, former
Nixon counsel John Dean - the witness who broke Watergate
wide open - publishes a lengthy article comparing the
current scandal to Watergate. He states bluntly, "If
Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based
on bogus information, he is cooked."
June 12 - Follow up letter
by Henry Waxman to Condoleezza Rice asking why he has
received no response to previous inquiries;
June 13 - US News and World
Report states that in November 2002 "the Defense
Intelligence Agency issued a report stating that
there was ‘no reliable information' showing that Iraq was actually producing or stockpiling chemical weapons."
June 15 - Retired NATO Commander
Wesley Clark tells Meet the Press that the administration
had asked him to talk about Iraqi weapons and that
he refused because there was no evidence supporting
June 18 - USA Today quotes
former CIA Director, Admiral Stansfield Turner as saying
that the administration stretched the facts on Iraq.
June 18 - The Associated
Press quotes Democratic candidates John Kerry
and Howard Dean as saying that the administration
has misled Americans.
June 19 - The Los Angeles
Times calls for open hearings on the Iraqi evidence;
June 20 - The Boston Globe runs
a widely reprinted Op-Ed by Derrick Jackson saying
that without WMDs Iraq must be about oil.
June 22 - The Observer (UK) quotes Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow,
retired General William Nash saying that the administration
has distorted intelligence.
June 22 - Washington Times/UPI correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave raises serious
questions about the administration's conduct.
June 22 - The Washington
Post, a front-page major story by Walter Pincus.
June 24 - The Christian
Science Monitor runs an editorial titled, "Bush
Credibility Gap - a Slow, Quiet Crumble".
June 25 - The New York Times,
James Risen and Douglas Jehl report that a top State
Department expert has told Congress he was pressed
by the White House to distort evidence.
June 25 - Newsweek correspondent Michael Isikoff in
a lengthy article titled "Distorted Intelligence" reveals
that intelligence documents from Germany (in Newsweek's possession) and Qatar blow distinct holes in the administration's claims of an Iraq-Al Qaeda
alliance. This constitutes a clear message to Bush
that the media case against the administration is tight.
June 29 - Denver Post Columnist Diane Carman publishes
a column titled, "Scandal Lurks in the Shadow of Iraq
June 29 - Time Magazine publishes a story titled "Who
Lost the WMD?" that summarized many of the major points
of the scandal including direct interference with CIA
analysis by Dick Cheney during "working visits" to
CIA headquarters. It contains the telling statement, "And
as Bush's allies and enemies alike on Capitol Hill
begin to pick apart some 19 volumes of prewar intelligence
and examine them one document at a time, the cohesive
Bush team is starting to come apart."
But who (and what) is
the media serving?
Of all of these stories,
it is the June 22 front-page Washington Post story
by Walter Pincus that tells me that Bush is cooked.
Pincus is a CIA mouthpiece who wrote a 1967 column
titled, "How I traveled the world on a CIA stipend." He
was the major damage control spokesman when Pulitzer
Prize winner Gary Webb's 1996 stories blew the lid
off of CIA connections to Contra-connected cocaine
being smuggled into Los Angeles. If any journalist is a weathervane for the tides
of political fortune in a scandal like this it is Pincus.
His role, though likely to be shared with other press
organizations, will be the same as Woodward and Bernstein's
In that article, titled, "Report
Cast Doubt on Iraq- Al Qaeda Connection" Pincus created
a virtual airtight separation of the CIA from the White
House. It was, in effect, a warning to Bush that if
he sought an escape by blaming the Agency, it would
backfire. He wrote:
In a nationally televised address last October in which
he sought to rally congressional support for a resolution
authorizing war against Iraq, President Bush declared
that the government of Saddam Hussein posed an immediate
threat to the United States by outlining what he
said was evidence pointing to its ongoing ties with
national intelligence report circulating within the
Bush administration at the time, however, portrayed
a far less clear picture about the link between Iraq and
al Qaeda than the one presented by the president,
according to U.S. intelligence
analysts and congressional sources who have read
Intelligence Estimate on Iraq,
which represented the consensus of the U.S. intelligence
community, contained cautionary language about Iraq's
connections with al Qaeda and warnings about the
reliability of conflicting reports by Iraqi defectors
and captured al Qaeda members about the ties, the
Similar questions have been raised about Bush's statement
in his State of the Union address last January that
the British had reported Iraq was attempting to buy
uranium in Africa, which the president used to back
up his assertion that Iraq had a reconstituted nuclear
weapons program. In that case, senior U.S. officials
said, the CIA 10 months earlier sent a former senior
American diplomat to visit Niger who
reported that country's officials said they had not
made any agreement to aid the sale of uranium to Iraq and
indicated documents alleging that were forged. Details
of that CIA Niger inquiry were not shared with the
White House, although the agency succeeded in deleting
that allegation from other administration statements...
address crystallized the assertion that had been
made by senior administration officials for months
that the combination of Iraq's
chemical and biological weapons and a terrorist organization,
such as al Qaeda, committed to attacking the United
a grave and imminent threat. Within four days, the
House and Senate overwhelmingly endorsed a resolution
granting the president authority to go to war.
of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programs
and its links to al Qaeda has come under increased
scrutiny on Capitol Hill, with some leading Democrats
charging that the administration exaggerated the
case against Hussein by publicizing intelligence
that supported its policy and keeping contradictory
information under wraps. The House intelligence committee
opened a closed-door review into the matter last
week; its Senate counterpart is planning similar
hearings. The Senate Armed Services Committee is
also investigating the issue...
about the reliability of the intelligence that Bush
cited in his Cincinnati address
were raised shortly after the speech by ranking Democrats
on the Senate intelligence and armed services panel.
They pressed the CIA to declassify more of the 90-page
National Intelligence Estimate than a 28-page "white
paper" on Iraq distributed
on Capitol Hill on Oct. 4.
of the more notable statements made by the president,
Bush said that "Iraq could
decide on any given day to provide a biological or
chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual
terrorists," and added: "Alliance with
terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without
leaving any fingerprints."
did not indicate that the consensus of U.S. intelligence
analysts was that Hussein would launch a terrorist
attack against the United
if he thought he could not stop the United
The intelligence report had said that the Iraqi president
might decide to give chemical or biological agents
to terrorists, such as al Qaeda, for use against
as a "last chance to exact vengeance by taking
a large number of victims with him." And it
said this would be an "extreme step" by
These conclusions in the report were contained in a
letter CIA Director George J. Tenet sent to Sen.
Bob Graham (D-Fla.), then the chairman of the Senate intelligence panel,
the day of Bush's speech.
While Bush also spoke of Iraq and al Qaeda having had "high-level
contacts that go back a decade," the president
did not say -- as the classified intelligence report
asserted -- that the contacts occurred in the early
1990s, when Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader,
was living in Sudan and his organization was in its
infancy. At the time, the report said, bin Laden
and Hussein were united primarily by their common
hostility to the Saudi Arabian monarchy, according
to sources. Bush also did not refer to the report's
conclusion that those early contacts had not led
to any known continuing high-level relationships
between the Iraqi government and al Qaeda, the sources
4, three days before the president's speech, at the
urging of members of Congress, the CIA released its
declassified excerpts from the intelligence report
as a "white paper" on Iraq's
weapons programs and al Qaeda links...
Graham felt that they declassified only things that
supported their position and left classified what
did not support that policy," said Bob Philippone,
Graham's deputy chief of staff. Graham, now a candidate
for the Democratic presidential nomination, opposed
the war resolution.
the white paper appeared, Graham and Sen. Carl M.
Levin (D-Mich.), an intelligence panel member and
at that time chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
asked to have additional portions of the intelligence
estimate as well as portions of the testimony at
the Oct. 2 hearing made public.
day of Bush's speech, Tenet sent a letter to Graham
with some of the additional information. The letter
drew attention because it seemed to contradict Bush's
statements that Hussein would give weapons to al
released a statement on Oct. 8 that said, "There
is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam's
growing threat and the view as expressed by the president
in his speech." He went on to say, however,
that the chance that the Iraqi leader would turn
weapons over to al Qaeda was "low, in part because
it would constitute an admission that he possesses" weapons
of mass destruction.
9, the CIA sent a letter to Graham and Levin informing
them that no additional portions of the intelligence
report would be made public...
would Tenet refuse to declassify additional portions
of the report? Because, as I am sure he will ultimately
testify, he was ordered not to by President Bush himself.
That would close the case for obstruction of justice
in a manner similar to the way that Richard Nixon's
coup de grace was an 18-minute gap on a tape recording
of Oval Office deliberations. That would follow the
pattern set in the joint 9/11 intelligence hearings
when Staff Director Eleanor Hill objected to the fact
that - even though some of it was already a matter
of public record and previously documented in FTW's 9/11
reporting - the CIA had classified details as to what
information about impending attacks the President had
received before the attacks.
as with Watergate, every time the administration wiggles
now, it will only be drawing the noose tighter. And
this is what the "Board of Directors" intends. The
Bush administration will be controlled as it is being
eased out. Business and finance cannot afford any more
militarism and this is all that the Neocons know.
biggest challenge for those who run the country---who
select, remove and replace presidents---will be to
oust the Bush administration and yet keep the darkest
secrets of 9/11 from being publicly acknowledged.
will be my biggest challenge to see to it that they
in mid-Late September- PART II - The real
state of the world and why the coup is necessary
for Wall Street and the power brokers. How Bush's
options in Iraq and everywhere else are being closed
off by American power brokers. FTW will
question spokespersons for every Democratic challenger
to provide you with a detailed analysis of who they
are and what they stand for. We'll also talk about
how their campaigns are being influenced, guided
and controlled. Don't get your hopes up. The one
chance for real change is to use the energy of the
coup to drag the secrets of 9/11 out into the open.
Note: In Mid-July Mike Ruppert had a near-fatal encounter with peritonitis. He
was sidelined for a full month. The research and writing of Beyond Bush II is
very detailed and will take some time to accomplish. But the end result will
be better. We appreciate the many requests for this important story and appreciate
your continued patience.