BRANDOLAND: Talking to God...For You!

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

CIA knew Iraq was nuclear free

Today's theme - fixing intelligence to fit policy.

Back to this craziness:

Ex-Official: CIA knew Iraq was nuclear-free

And it ain't Joe Wilson.
A former employee has claimed that the Central Intelligence Agency was told by an informant in the spring of 2001 that Iraq had abandoned a major element of its nuclear weapons programme, The New York Times reported.

The Spring of 2001?
The New York Times reported on Monday that the agency did not share the information with other agencies or with senior policy-makers.

Why would they want to do that?
In a lawsuit filed in the federal court in December, the former CIA officer, whose name remains secret, said the informant had told him that Iraq's uranium enrichment programme had ended years earlier and that the centrifuge components from the scuttled programme were available for examination and purchase.
"Available for purchase."

"I got a truck-load, man. I sell to you. Very cheap."

"That's okay."

"Come on. I sell to you."

"No, really. I don't want --"

"Don' be a cheap bastard."

The paper said the officer, an employee at the agency for more than 20 years, was fired in 2004.
You're kidding.
In his lawsuit, he says his dismissal was punishment for his reports questioning the agency's assumptions on a series of weapons- related matters, according to The Times.

He also charged that he had been the target of retaliation for his refusal to go along with the agency's intelligence conclusions.
Any guesses on how they went after the dude?
The former officer has been accused of having sex with a female contact and diverting to his own use money earmarked for payments to informants. He denies both charges, according to The Times.

"Sex with a female" and "diverting money."

They could've done a lot better than that.


"The former officer has been accused of being liberal, relying on his wife for work, and cruising Santa Monica Blvd for young dude meat."



Here's the KEY INFO from yesterday's NY Times article (Spy's Notes on Iraqi Aims Were Shelved, Suit Says):
Throughout much of the 1990's, the C.I.A. and other United States intelligence agencies believed that Iraq had largely abandoned its nuclear weapons program.

In December 2000, the intelligence agencies issued a classified assessment stating that Iraq DID NOT appear to have taken significant steps toward the reconstitution of the program, according to the presidential commission report concerning illicit weapons.

But that ASSESSMENT CHANGED in early 2001 - a critical period in the intelligence community's handling of the Iraqi nuclear issue, the commission concluded.
That assessment changed - in early 2001.

Early 2001.

Early 2001.

(Think, think, think.)


Wink wink. Nudge nudge. Eh, eh, eh?

In March 2001, intelligence indicating that Iraq was seeking high-strength aluminum tubes from China greatly influenced the agency's thinking.
Wonder where they got THAT intelligence?

Can you say...Ahmed Chalabi & Co.?
Analysts soon came to believe that the only possible explanation for Iraq's purchase of the tubes was to develop high-tech centrifuges for a new uranium enrichment program.

By the following year, the agency's view had HARDENED, despite differing interpretations of the tubes' purposes by other intelligence experts.
"Despite differing interpretations" is a nice way of saying, "Despite evidence to the contrary."
In October 2002, the National Intelligence Estimate, produced by the intelligence community under pressure from Congress, stated that most of the nation's intelligence agencies believed that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, based in large part on the aluminum tubes.


(Mr. Krieger) said he had asked the court handling the case to declassify his client's suit, but the C.I.A. had moved to classify most of his motion seeking declassification. He added that he recently sent a letter to the director of the F.B.I. requesting an investigation of his client's complaints, but that the C.I.A. had classified that letter, as well.

Most of the details of the case, he said, "were classified by the C.I.A., not to protect national security but to conceal politically embarrassing facts from public scrutiny."
Well, I mean, we can't have "politically embarassing facts" made public, can we?

"We can't have FACTS made public."


More later...


  • Good piece there Brendan - if you haven't seen it, check out this photo of Bush signing a CAFTA agreement.

    By Anonymous Nick, at 11:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home