Archive for  April 2007

Home / April 2007
89 Posts

To Mr. George Tenet —

Dear Mr. Tenet:

We write to you on the occasion of the release of your book, At the Center of the Storm. You are on the record complaining about the “damage to your reputation.” In our view the damage to your reputation is inconsequential compared to the harm your actions have caused for the U.S. soldiers engaged in combat in Iraq and the national security of the United States. We believe you have a moral obligation to return the Medal of Freedom you received from President George Bush. We also call for you to dedicate a significant percentage of the royalties from your book to the U.S. soldiers and their families who have been killed and wounded in Iraq.

We agree with you that Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials took the United States to war for flimsy reasons. We agree that the war of choice in Iraq was ill-advised and wrong headed. But your lament that you are a victim in a process you helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership. You were not a victim. You were a willing participant in a poorly considered policy to start an unnecessary war and you share culpability with Dick Cheney and George Bush for the debacle in Iraq.

You are not alone in failing to speak up and protest the twisting and shading of intelligence. Those who remained silent when they could have made a difference also share the blame for not protesting the abuse and misuse of intelligence that occurred under your watch. But ultimately you were in charge and you signed off on the CIA products and you briefed the President. This is not a case of Monday morning quarterbacking.

You helped send very mixed signals to the American people and their legislators in the fall of 2002. CIA field operatives produced solid intelligence in September 2002 that stated clearly there was no stockpile of any kind of WMD in Iraq. This intelligence was ignored and later misused. On October 1 you signed and gave to President Bush and senior policy makers a fraudulent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) — which dovetailed with unsupported threats presented by Vice President Dick Cheney in an alarmist speech on August 26, 2002. You were well aware that the White House tried to present as fact intelligence you knew was unreliable.

And yet you tried to have it both ways. On October 7, just hours before the president gave a major speech in Cincinnati, you were successful in preventing him from using the fable about Iraq purchasing uranium in Africa, although that same claim appeared in the NIE you signed only six days before.

Although CIA officers learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein’s inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, you still went before Congress in February 2003 and testified that Iraq did indeed have links to Al Qaeda. You showed a lack of leadership and courage in January of 2003 as the Bush Administration pushed and cajoled analysts and managers to let them make the bogus claim that Iraq was on the verge of getting its hands on uranium.

You signed off on Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations. And, at his insistence, you sat behind him and visibly squandered CIA’s most precious asset: credibility.

You may now feel you were bullied and victimized but you were also one of the bullies. In the end you allowed suspect sources, like Curveball, to be used based on very limited reporting and evidence. Yet you were informed in no uncertain terms that Curveball was not reliable. You broke with CIA standard practice and insisted on voluminous evidence to refute this reporting rather than treat the information as suspect. You helped set the bar very low for reporting that supported favored White House positions, while raising the bar astronomically high when it came to raw intelligence that did not support the case for war being hawked by the president and vice president.

It now turns out that you were the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community — a grotesque mixture of incompetence and sycophancy shielded by a genial personality. Decisions were made, you were in charge, but you have no idea how decisions were made even though you were in charge.

Curiously, you focus your anger on the likes of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice, but you decline to criticize the President. Mr. Tenet, as head of the intelligence community, you failed to use your position of power and influence to protect the intelligence process and, more importantly, the country. What should you have done? What could you have done? For starters, during the critical summer and fall of 2002, you could have gone to key Republicans and Democrats in the Congress and warned them of the pressure. But you remained silent.

Your candor during your one-on-one with Sir Richard Dearlove, then-head of British Intelligence, of July 20, 2002 provides documentary evidence that you knew exactly what you were doing; namely, “fixing” the intelligence to the policy. By your silence you helped build the case for war. You betrayed the CIA officers who collected the intelligence that made it clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat. You betrayed the analysts who tried to withstand the pressure applied by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Most importantly and tragically, you failed to meet your obligations to the people of the United States. Instead of resigning in protest, when it could have made a difference in the public debate, you remained silent and allowed the Bush Administration to cite your participation in these deliberations to justify their decision to go to war. Your silence contributed to the willingness of the public to support the disastrous war in Iraq, which has killed more than 3300 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

If you are committed to correcting the record about your past failings then you should start by returning the Medal of Freedom you willingly received from President Bush in December 2004. You claim it was given only because of the war on terror, but you were standing next to General Tommy Franks and L. Paul Bremer, who also contributed to the disaster in Iraq. President Bush said that you “played pivotal roles in great events, and [your] efforts have made our country more secure and advanced the cause of human liberty.”

The reality of Iraq, however, has not made our nation more secure nor has the cause of human liberty been advanced. In fact, your tenure as head of the CIA has helped create a world that is more dangerous. The damage to the credibility of the CIA is serious but can eventually be repaired. Many of the U.S. soldiers maimed in the streets of Fallujah and Baghdad cannot be fixed. Many will live the rest of their lives missing limbs, blinded, mentally disabled, or physically disfigured. And the dead have passed into history.

Mr. Tenet, you cannot undo what has been done. It is doubly sad that you seem still to lack an adequate appreciation of the enormous amount of death and carnage you have facilitated. If reflection on these matters serves to prick your conscience we encourage you to donate at least half of the royalties from your book sales to the veterans and their families, who have paid and are paying the price for your failure to speak up when you could have made a difference. That would be the decent and honorable thing to do.

Sincerely yours,

Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson, Jim Marcinkowski, Vince Cannistraro, David MacMichael

I can not stop being surprised by how much the Americans are afraid of history. I really do not understand it.

They now only do not want to read or hear about it, they just do not want anyone else to read or hear about it either.

The so called progressive Americans have created 100s of web sites to stop the Bush administration and to create a counter power against the powerful main-stream-media in the US who mostly supports this administration (even though they do not admit it).

One of the most famous sites is the Buzzflash.com and their newly created site Buzzflash.net. The idea behind Buzzflash.net was to create a “free and democratic” site where members could add and publish news they wanted to share with other and the most popular one by voting gets an honorary place on the front page of the buzzflash.com.

Recently, I found out that those in charge of the Buzzflash.net do not want to have any uncomfortable discussion about the American democrats (like John Kerry) or anything about the history of 9/11.

Before getting to that issue, I have to say that I am not a believer of the 9/11 conspiracies. I personally believe that the attacks of 9/11 was the highlight of the arrogance and stupidity and incompetence of the US government that did not do anything to stop a group of idiots to manage the most successful terrorist act of the modern history.

Today, I found a discussion site at Airliners.net that had a discussion about a possible attack by a Jet plane crashing into the WTC building. The discussion was from the November of 2000. Over 11 months before the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Here is how the discussion begined on their site:

When the two towers that make up the World Trade Center were built, they were designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, the Boeing 707 Intercontinental. The Empire State Building survived a B-25 medium bomber crashing into it on very foggy day. It was during the weekend when most people weren’t there, but still, 14 people died.

Anyone wanna bet that the World Trade Center could survive an 767-300 impact?

I was specially interested in one of the answers they sent to this question:

f a 707 or a 757 slammed into the World Trade Center, it might be much more damaging than the case of the B-25 bomber that crashed into the Empire State Building.

For one thing, unlike the Empire State Building, which has more heavy concrete, the World Trade Center is made more of steel and glass – this may mean far greater structural damage due to the impact and flying glass shards and debris raining down on the people below. There could be a possibility of toppling if the 707 or the 757 came in at a high enough speed. Both of these planes are larger and heavier than a B-25 bomber, so this means a greater force of impact. I’m no expert on building structure or air crashes, but it would no doubt be far worse than the Empire State Building disaster.

It is very doubtful any passengers or crew would have survived such a grim scenario. Also, there are probably more people per floor in the World Trade Center compared to the Empire State Building, so casualties in the building will likely be much higher.

However, I wouldn’t be surprised if the authorities would have a strict exclusion zone preventing any large airplanes, especially commercial airliners, from getting too close to Manhattan, so that there would be no repeat of the Empire State Building crash.

So, I tried to share that with the people at buzzflash.net and submitted the following story (this is the screen capture of my browser when I admitted the case). You can click on the icon for a larger image.

Buzzflash.net submitted article

But a minute later I realized that I had made a typo and went back to correct the name of the site but I found out that the post was deleted with no warning or message to me. It was not rejected, or lucked as many other sites would do, it was just vanished.

This is not the first time it happens to me.

A few weeks ago, I found an uncomfortable story about John Kerry, the bozo who was the person who challenged George Bush and literally gave the presidency to his skull and bone buddy instead. When I sent the story, I never checked it out, but a few hours later when I went back to see it, I realize it was gone. So I thought maybe, I had done something wrong and the story was rejected, but like this time the story had just disapeared.

I would expect this kind of behavior among the right wing nuts in the US, but these guys supposedly against all type of censorship and want to create a democratic platform where there members choose the stories to be published. But just like their country, their moderator picks what can be voted and what can not, so people are free to submit and vote, as long as the moderator “accepts” and approves the content.

So, this is how democracy works among those who do not like censorship in America! Lovely, isn’t it?

From : http://farm1.static.flickr.com/209/473745084_b23a620c87.jpg

This is one of the reasons. Click on the link to see the actual broadcast.

Fox News Sinks To New Low, Repeatedly Reports Parody Story As Actual News

On Tuesday, Fox News morning show “Fox & Friends” aired at least eight segments on a purported “news” story that was actually a parody article written by a publication similar to The Onion.

The backstory: Last week in the town of Lewiston, Maine, a group of Somalian Muslim middle school students were the subject of a cruel prank when their peers placed a ham steak next to them in order to personally offend the students. School officials filed a report because the students considered the act to be a hate/bias crime.

This actual story was then spoofed by a parody site called Associated Content, which made up quotes and details, such as the school’s intention to “create an anti-ham ‘response plan.’”

On Tuesday, Fox & Friends reported these parody quotes and details as actual news. Poking fun at the students, hosts asked whether ham was “a hate crime…or lunch?” and showed screen shots of ham sandwiches, starving Somalians, belching, animal noises, and mock “reenactments” of the incident. Ironically, the hosts assured viewers several times, “We’re not making this up!”