The lie Cheney told about A.Q. Khan
by Larisa Alexandrovna
..................
No One Could Have ImaginedCheney says that the attacks of September 11, 2001 “caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated.”
On the contrary, the plans were not new and bold and were well documented by the Central Intelligence Agency. In fact, a month prior to the attacks, President Bush and Dick Cheney both received a briefing on the matter. The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US,” is fairly clear. The PDB mentions the following:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives
.
What did Bush do after receiving this briefing? He promptly went on vacation. It is unclear what Cheney did, but whatever it was, it had nothing to do with national security. In addition, torture was unneeded in obtaining this information. What was needed, however, was a White House interested in protecting our nation. It is therefore remarkable that Cheney continues to use 9/11 as a reason for his abuses of power, rather than be shamed by his indifference and negligence.
A.Q. Khan NetworkHere is what he says about A.Q. Khan, the "father" of Pakistani nuclear weapons and a Middle East black market that sprang up around him:
This was the world in which al-Qaida was seeking nuclear technology and A.Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps in Afghanistan and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.
--snip--
We did all of these things and, with bipartisan support, put all of these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations: the takedown of the A.Q. Khan network and the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program.
Now let's look at the actual facts of this.
..............
Although
I was told a good deal more than this, including her then-most recent work on Iraq, I was restricted by my sources to reporting ONLY about Iran and ONLY touching on Pakistan. The nature of the "minimal support" remains highly classified. I was also restricted from using certain words and still have not been released from that restriction.
The reason for why my sources insisted on these conditions was that although they had felt strongly that what Cheney had done was indeed treason, they also felt strongly that too much information would expose the operation further and cause additional damages to agency methods and sources.
What we do know is that a group of clandestine officers provided at least "minimal support" in monitoring the A.Q. Khan network. What we also know is that this operation was compromised because Dick Cheney's office had to silence a good, honest, few Americans from speaking out about the lies that led us into Iraq.Yet Cheney claims success in taking down A.Q. Khan's network.
Yes, it boggles the mind. These are but two examples in a speech littered with such claims despite well documented facts. Imagine, too, the networks covered this for the world to see. What did they cover? The world saw a former Vice President giving a speech in defense of torture and lying about even the most basic, known facts of what the Bush administration has done. If he could so brazenly lie about topics such as these, what else is he lying about? What must the world think of us for giving this man a podium on national television? Worse still, there are many defending him, regardless of the truth and regardless of the illegality of torture.
more at:
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/cheney-lies-in-defense-of-torture/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
