Ray McGovern: Rise of Another CIA Yes Man

[marmar]

from Consortium News:




Rise of Another CIA Yes Man
August 29, 2011

Exclusive: The gross manipulation of CIA analysis under George W. Bush pushed a new generation of “yes men” into the agency’s top ranks. Now one of those aspiring bureaucrats will be Gen. David Petraeus’s right-hand man, writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern. (Also, at end of article, see special comments from several CIA insiders.)

By Ray McGovern


As Gen. David Petraeus prepares to take the helm at CIA in September, he can expect unswerving loyalty from his likely deputy, Michael Morell, who has been acting director since July when Leon Panetta left to become Secretary of Defense.

Like many senior CIA officials in recent years, Morell’s record is checkered, at best. He held key jobs in intelligence analysis over the past decade as the CIA often served as a handmaiden to the war propagandists.

As for Michael Morell, as with many other successful CIA careerists, his strongest suit seemed to be pleasing his boss and not antagonizing the White House. If past is precedent, his loyalty will be to Petraeus, not necessarily to the truth.

Forgive me if my thinking about loyalty to the facts seems “obsolete” or “quaint” – or if it seems unfair to expect CIA analysts to put their careers on the line when politicians and ideologues are misleading the nation to war – but those were the principles that analysts of my generation tried to uphold. ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://consortiumnews.com/2011/08/29/rise-of-another-cia-yes-man/

[Peace Patriot]

1. I admire and agree with most of what Ray McGovern says about the War Party

in this article, especially his nailing of Cheney specifically with the unnecessary deaths of 4,500 troops and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis...

----

This was no innocent mistake by the Vice President; it was a bald-faced lie, a falsehood that opened the gates to a hellish conflict that has ripped apart Iraq, bringing untold death and destruction.

Nine years later it is well worth recalling this lie – on behalf of the 4,500 U.S. troops killed in Iraq, the many more wounded, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, and the five million displaced from their homes. --from the OP

----

Hear! Hear! It was not a mistake; it was a bald-faced lie!


But I have argument with a couple of things McGovern says in passing. Here's one of them, about how the war on Iran was prevented:

----

And, if you think it’s unfair to expect CIA bureaucrats to risk their careers by challenging the political desires of the White House, it’s worth noting the one major exception to the CIA’s sorry record during George W. Bush’s presidency – and how honest CIA analysts helped prevent another unnecessary war.

After former chief of State Department intelligence Tom Fingar was put in charge of National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs), a thoroughly professional NIE in late 2007 concluded unanimously and “with high confidence” that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in mid-2003.

President Bush’s own memoir leaves no doubt that this Estimate played a huge role in spiking White House plans for war on Iran. It’s a pity that the Estimate on Iran should be an exception to the rule. --from the OP (my emphasis)

----------------------

First of all, everything Bush Jr says "leaves a doubt." ("President Bush’s own memoir leaves no doubt...".) He is a congenital liar, a basically very stupid man and a fuckup. His "memoir" is NOT a reliable source. He probably doesn't even know what's in it. I understand the point that McGovern is trying to make--the importance of honest intelligence--but this is NOT how to make that point--citing George W. Bush!

Secondly, I have very serious doubts that this is what happened--that the CIA wrote an honest memo and suddenly the Bush Junta woke up, all enlightened, and called off their second oil war. And, frankly, I think the reverse happened--that a whole different set of players called off the war on Iran (and also ousted Rumsfeld) and then the CIA was permitted to write an honest memo to underpin this decision by what was, in effect, a counter-coup group.

I think that, a) Cheney/Rumsfeld were going to plant WMDs in Iraq, to be "found" by the U.S. soldiers who were "hunting" for them (spring, summer '03); b) that that plot got foiled, probably by Valerie Plame's worldwide network of WMD anti-proliferation agents and contacts, and that is why she and her entire project were outed and why David Kelly was murdered (the outings and his death occurred within four days of each other, in mid-July '03); c) that Cheney/Rumseld remained intent on attacking Iran, in fact, nuking it--the only way to defeat a well-defended country like Iran with no military Draft here and the U.S. military resorting to "stop-loss" just to keep the Iraq murder and mayhem going--and that the military brass and Bush Sr and his "Iraq Study Group" (which was really about Iran--and also which had Leon Panetta as a member) opposed the nuking of Iran for several reasons, including risk of Iran's nuclear allies, Russia and China coming into it; plain risk of Armageddon in the ME (nukes in Israel, Pakistan and nervous India) and risk of "nuclear winter" (end of planet Earth --basically an insane act, nuking Iran), and d) the military brass, Bush Sr/the ISG/Panetta and the furious CIA (at the Cheney/Rumsfeld outings of their agents) got together and ousting Rumsfeld in late '06 and curtailed Cheney for the remainder of Jr's term.

In this context, Jr's White house had split down the middle--Bush/Rove vs Cheney/Libby over who would take the fall for the CIA outings. (Somebody had to take the fall or the CIA was going to retaliate. Bush Sr's ISG was something of a "save Junior" effort.) That was the background of Katrina, with Jr out there on his own, looking like a doofus, and Bush Sr and Bill Clinton coming out and standing behind him like sentries at his one and only lame, and late, press conference. They were there to buck Jr up as if to say, "This IS the president." His godawful regime was crumbling. Bush Sr formed the "Iraq Study Group" soon afterward and then the coalition of the ISG, old and new CIA and the military brass took charge.

I think it's quite possible that Cheney/Rumsfeld were planning a literal "junta" to stay in power past 2008 after nuking Iran. They were convinced to give that up and leave quietly, when the time came, by means of a "deal" that promised them no impeachment, no investigations and no prosecution. The Democrats were permitted to "win" the 2006 congressional (s)election, but only by a few seats and only if they continued boffo military spending and the war on Iraq (the "surge"), which they dutifully did, despite the clear, documented mandate from the American people to end that war now. (And Nancy Pelosi let a bit of this deep backroom manipulation slip out when she said, "Impeachment is off the table." Um, WHAT "table," Nancy? Hm?)

Some such scenario as the above is much more believable than that Cheney/Rumsfeld decided to heed an honest CIA intelligence report. I mean, it's just laughable when you think about it. (And it's also fun to speculate who might've written that part of Junior's "memoirs.")

------------------

My other beef with McGovern's article has to do with his assertion that the Bushwhacks "scared" Congress into voting for the Iraq War:

----

After assuring themselves that Tenet was a reliable salesman, Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld allowed him to play a supporting role in advertising bogus claims about aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment and mobile trailers for manufacturing biological warfare agents.

The hyped and bogus intelligence succeeded in scaring Congress into voting for war on Oct. 10 and 11, 2002. --from the OP (my emphasis)

----------------

Nope, I don't think most of Congress was "scared" into the war on Iraq. I think most of them wanted the war on Iraq--to please their war profiteer lobbyist supporters, to ensconce the U.S. military in the Middle East to protect Israel and to please Exxon Mobil, et al. In that SAME month--October 2002--that SAME Congress committed a second treasonous act, with equally dire long term consequences: They passed the bill providing $3.9 billion to fast-track electronic voting machines all over the country, run on 'TRADE SECRET' code, controlled by a handful of far rightwing-connected corporations, with virtually no audit-recount controls. This WAS the coup d'etat that happened to our country. It kept Bush-Cheney in office for four more years--despite egregiously unjust war with "untold death and destruction," as McGovern reminds us, and the Nuremburg-class war crime of aggressive war; despite torture revelations, vast theft in Iraq and other crimes, including personal benefit to the Vice President of the U.S. with his own personal war profiteer firm, Halliburton.

The 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines have kept War Congresses in office through today (and this Scumbag Congress) and they permitted a lame, novice politician to take the White House, whom we are all supposed to reverence because he's black--one of the more cynical acts of our very cynical and very, very corrupt political establishment. And the MIC can remove him at will with this new 'TRADE SECRET' power over voting results.

Now we have oil war by presidential fiat (Libya). The president doesn't even bother to consult Congress or the American people (har-har-har). I do think that Obama may have agreed to "the deal" (no investigation, no prosecution of Bush Junta war criminals) and agreed to be hogtied with certain important restrictions on his power for good reasons, from a personal point of view. I don't think he's a bad man or a stupid man. (--although his statement that "We need to look forward not backward" on Bush war crimes was one of the lamest things I ever heard a supposedly intelligent politician say--and him a former Harvard Law Review editor!). And I DO believe that he was actually elected--on the hopes for a just and peaceful world that his rhetoric stirred up--but, with the 'TRADE SECRET' code voting machines, it's just a belief. No official in this country can prove that he or she was actually elected, including Obama.

And those who did THAT to us committed treason.

The 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines were to keep the Forever War going...forever. The two things are intimately related. It is NOT a coincidence that the e-voting act and the Iraq war resolution occurred in the same month. The e-voting act insured control over the American people--insured that we would have no say about war, or anything else, ever again. And all you have to do is look at the Scumbag Congress of today--the most unrepresentative Congress in U.S. history--to understand what this means. Take a good look at this Scum! I rest my case.

-------------

As for Panetta--and this goes more to the substance of McGovern's article--I think he is "old CIA," close to Bush Sr (member of Bush Sr's ISG), and was appointed by this consortium that ousted Rumsfeld to end the war between the Pentagon and the CIA that Rumsfeld/Cheney had started, and also to clean up after Junior and his Junta (to see that no investigations/prosecutions take place).

I've been following things in Colombia and have reason to believe that Colombia was a FIRST concern of Panetta when he took over as CIA Director. His FIRST act as CIA Director (that I noticed in the 'news') was to go to Bogota amidst rumors of a Uribe coup to stay in power. What is unfolding there now is a huge spying scandal with Bush Jr pal and Mob Boss/former President Alvaro Uribe accused of vast, illegal, domestic spying--even spying on judges and prosecutors--and it has just come out in testimony that the U.S./Bush Junta was supplying the funds, the equipment and the technical assistance for the spying, with reports on the spying being delivered to the U.S. embassy by an American go-between, between the spying office and the embassy.

A number of actions by the U.S. (Bush appointed) ambassador to Colombia, during the 2009-2010 period, and by the U.S. (Obama) government point to a coverup in progress of Bush Junta war crimes in Colombia. This may be Bush Jr's and the Bush Junta's most vulnerable venue as to prosecution--since the judges and prosecutors in Colombia are particularly courageous and independent and are vigorously pursuing Uribe for his many crimes (which include Colombian military and rightwing death squad murders of trade unionists and others, illegal domestic spying related to "hit lists" and death threats, truly vast land theft--5 MILLION peasant farmers driven from their farms--and--I believe--consolidation and control of the trillion+ dollar cocaine trade).

Panetta--having done what he can to clean up that mess, and having accomplished whatever his mission was, as to CIA vs Pentagon war--has now been moved to the Pentagon, probably to heal this internal war from that end as well. (And Petraeus may have a similar mission at the CIA--say, further coordinating CIA/Pentagon intelligence and activities, so that the sort of conflicts that Rumsfeld/Cheney caused are avoided.) What this may mean is a more efficient war machine, not a better country. And the MIC may have plans as to who they want as commander-in-chief of this Panetta-fixed war machine, and they have the easy--EASY!--capability to install whoever that is.

If my scenario above is correct, as to how the nuking of Iran was prevented--we can certainly feel relieved that saner heads prevailed and that Armageddon was avoided, but this consortium has done us no favors as to our democracy and the dark tunnel of endless war that we are in. And, frankly, I don't think it matters any more whether the CIA has honest vs careerist operatives. The CIA will serve whatever purpose the MIC puts it to--which right now seems to be to pick off the more vulnerable oil countries. (I am VERY concerned that, after Libya, Venezuela is next--but how that has been set up and whether it would succeed or not, is another topic.)

I think that, to some extent, McGovern's concern about careerist toady Michael Morell serving Petraeus personally (rather than serving the country, the president and the truth) is a rhetorical device, to explain how an honest, useful intelligence service, in an honest and democratic country, should be constituted, as opposed to how it IS constituted. I don't think McGovern expects any change--or believes that public pressure or former insiders speaking out can change things--not after all that he has seen over the last decade. But maybe in his deepest core he still has hope--I'm thinking of the Zinni paragraphs--but I don't really agree with him that, if Admiral Zinni had spoken out, after Cheney told outright lies about Iraq, early on, that it would have changed anything. You see, I think that public opinion ceased to matter to the War Party probably as early as the Supreme Court choice of Bush Jr for president, and certainly by Cheney's speech. They were already getting the rigged voting system in place. (They used it on Max Cleland in Georgia in 2002--in a test run.) They knew what they were going to do--override public opinion, trample it into the dust--and go to war to get the oil. It had nothing to do with WMDs or Saddam's tyranny or anything else. And no dissenting admiral or general could have stopped it. McGovern probably knows this--that it would have been useless--but he needs to say how it should be. We mustn't forget how things should be.

[formercia]

2. The problem with putting your Career on the Line.

It doesn't stop after you leave. The boys will Blacklist you forever.

I know. Been there done that.

[Blue_Tires]

3. kick