PDA

View Full Version : PNAC, WHIG and OSP - How the Bush administration misled Americans into war


Jack Pott
09-14-2006, 01:47 PM
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was established in 1997 with the goal of promoting "American global leadership". Prior to Bush being elected president, several PNAC members (such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz) stated that an invasion of Iraq is part of a larger Middle East policy.

In September 2000, the PNAC issued a report entitled entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century". The document stated that: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." Here's the document:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

Here's more info about the PNAC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC

http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

In August 2002, the White House created "The White House Iraq Group" (WHIG). WHIG was the marketing arm of the Republican Party whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public. The task force was set up by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and chaired by Karl Rove to coordinate all the executive branch elements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. One example of the WHIG's functions and influence is the escalation of rhetoric about the danger that Iraq posed to the US, including the introduction of the term "mushroom cloud". Here's info about WHIG:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...use_Iraq_Group

In September 2002, the Bush administration created an agency called Office of Special Plans (OSP). Seymour Hersh wrote that, according to an unnamed Pentagon adviser, "OSP was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States." Here's Hersh's article:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../030512fa_fact

Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the Pentagon, said the OSP manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists: "It wasn't intelligence‚ -- it was propaganda. They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together." Here are two articles by Kwiatkowski:

http://amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/fea.../index_np.html

The allegations concerning the OSP are supported by an annexe to the first part of Senate Intelligence Committee's Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq published in July 2004. The review, which was highly critical of the CIA's Iraq intelligence generally but found its judgments were right on the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship, suggests that the OSP sought to discredit and cast doubt on CIA analysis in an effort to establish a connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism.

Here's more info about the OSP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...999737,00.html

Much of the pre-war information came from The Iraqi National Congress. The INC was an umbrella Iraqi opposition group led by Ahmad Chalabi, who is said to have had political contacts within the PNAC, most notably with Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. Before the war, the CIA was largely skeptical of Chalabi and the INC. In December 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported that the Bush administration actually preferred INC-supplied analyses of Iraq over analyses provided by long-standing analysts within the CIA:

http://www.prospect.org/print-friend...reyfuss-r.html

An Iraqi informant named "Curveball" was the source of pivotal information concerning WMD. The CIA claimed that it did not have "direct access" to Curveball, and that the mysterious informant instead communicated to Germany's intelligence service, which relayed the information to the United States Defense Intelligence Agency. He was described by German intelligence as an individual not living in Iraq and as an "out of control" and mentally unstable alcoholic.

Although there were wide doubts and questions about the claimed informant's reliability and background, assertions attributed to Curveball claiming that Iraq was creating biological agents in mobile weapons laboratories to elude inspectors appeared in more than 100 United States government reports between January 2000 and September 2001.

In November 2002, UN weapons inspectors investigated Curveball's claims, and found that details and information given by Curveball could not be verified.

The LA Times reported that Curveball was actually the brother of one of Ahmed Chalabi's top aides.

On June 26 2006, the Washington Post reported that "the CIA acknowledged that Curveball was a con artist who drove a taxi in Iraq and spun his engineering knowledge into a fantastic but plausible tale about secret bioweapons factories on wheels":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062401081.html

The informant's German handlers said they had told U.S. officials that his information was not proven and were shocked when Bush and Colin Powell used it in key prewar speeches. According to the Germans, Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons.

Here's info about Curveball:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...dlines&index=2

PittsburghAfterDark
09-14-2006, 02:03 PM
This entire post is lifted directly from democrats.com. (http://www.democrats.com/node/9116)Â*Â*The site recommends that this writing be lifted in its entirety and posted on message boards around the world.

The site is not owned, operated or endorsed by the DNC.Â*Â*It's similar to democraticunderground.com.

Our poster, again, is not an American.Â*Â*The registered ISP is from Finland though the original client is unknown.Â*Â*It's entirely possible that this is a redirect from a third country.Â*Â*We're seeing a WHOLE lot of this.

EDIT: His registered GMT time was altered from the default. It's set at -12 from GMT which puts his location somewhere between New Zealand and Hawaii. In other words, the chances of this being a legit user is real close to zero.

We're being targeted by some kind of spam or informational propaganda. We see single posting users created once or twice a day. I wouldn't waste your breath on them, they're never going to respond or come back.

Rider
09-14-2006, 02:10 PM
Jack Pott-
All of this is old news, Jack. But all of this just points out the formulation of foreign policy planning and direction. Every administration or potential administration does this and if it didn't formulate some vision of where the US stands and where it needs to go, then they shouldn't be elected.

I would like to see the same scrutiny of FDR's foreign policy planning back in the late '30s. He correctly saw that the US needed to get involved with the coming war in Europe and knew that he would have to sell the American people on the idea even though they were strongly opposed to getting involved.

lily
09-15-2006, 12:00 AM
Jack Pott?!

Jack Pott
09-15-2006, 12:49 PM
This entire post is lifted directly from democrats.com. (http://www.democrats.com/node/9116)Â*Â*

No, it's not. I posted my sources such as Wikipedia and several articles. [hr]
Our poster, again, is not an American.Â*Â*The registered ISP is from Finland


Yeah. So?[hr]
We're being targeted by some kind of spam or informational propaganda.Â*


If you think what I posted is factually incorect, then prove it. Don't just accuse me of posting propaganda.

PittsburghAfterDark
09-15-2006, 12:57 PM
I'm not accusing you of posting propaganda, I'm telling you.... you're posting propaganda.

We've seen the same links, we've heard the same theories, we've had "proof" of the same conspiracies for 4 years. It's trite.

Jack Pott
09-15-2006, 01:58 PM
I'm not accusing you of posting propaganda, I'm telling you.... you're posting propaganda.


Oh really? Let me ask you something about the links that I posted: Is The American Conservative "propaganda"?

http://amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html

Is Washington Post "propaganda"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062401081.html

Are these links "propaganda"?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC

PittsburghAfterDark
09-15-2006, 02:08 PM
No, I'm saying your accusations and ancillary postings proving points that have tried to been publicly diseminated for 4+ years in propaganda.

No one here gives a rats behind about your alphabet soup agency/organizations and the "conspiracy" to go to war.

Oh and yes, the WaPo is most DEFINITELY propaganda and wikipedia is not at all objective for debating. Its entire contents are user submitted. There are no editorial controls on it at all or independent fact checking.

Jack Pott
09-16-2006, 10:26 AM
No, I'm saying your accusations and ancillary postings proving points that have tried to been publicly diseminated for 4+ years in propaganda.


Wrong. I cited PNAC's document. Are you saying that the document is "propaganda"?


Here's the document:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

[hr]
No one here gives a rats behind about your alphabet soup agency/organizations and the "conspiracy" to go to war.


"Alphabet soup"? Do you even know what the PNAC is? Have you ever even heard of the OPS or the WHIG? [hr]
Have you ever even heard of the OPS


"OPS"? Oops. No, Rumsfeld's little agency was called the Office of Special Plans (OSP)...[hr]the WaPo is most DEFINITELY propaganda


According to you. Tell me; is The Weekly Standard a credible source?[hr]
No one here gives a rats behind about your alphabet soup agency/organizations and the "conspiracy" to go to war.


So you think "PNAC" is "alphabet soup", huh?

If you think what I posted is just propaganda to support some conspiracy theory, then (according to you) the PNAC report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is pure propaganda because that's what I cited:


The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was established in 1997 with the goal of promoting "American global leadership". Prior to Bush being elected president, several PNAC members (such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz) stated that an invasion of Iraq is part of a larger Middle East policy.

In September 2000, the PNAC issued a report entitled entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century". The document stated that: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." Here's the document:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf


You do know that people like Cheney and Rumsfeld were PNAC members, right?

Rider
09-17-2006, 10:07 PM
Jack, we are all pretty much familiar with PNAC and OSP. A lot of the left leaning on this forum find those writings to be some sort of smoking gun, proving evil intent, etc.. Those of us on the right side of most issues tend to see these writings as policy papersÂ*orÂ*proposed action plans for the future. In any case you're just flogging a dead horse.

bobbylien
09-18-2006, 02:19 AM
I think this belongs in the conspiracy theories forum.

Jack Pott
09-21-2006, 12:11 PM
I think this belongs in the conspiracy theories forum.


So you think the fact that the Bush administration distorted intelligence before the war is a "conspiracy theory"?

The new Senate report supports the "conspiracy theory". For instance, Bush said, "Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida". But the report said, "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report&printer=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html?nav=rss_politics

Jack Pott
09-21-2006, 12:16 PM
Jack, we are all pretty much familiar with PNAC and OSP. A lot of the left leaning on this forum find those writings to be some sort of smoking gun, proving evil intent, etc.. Those of us on the right side of most issues tend to see these writings as policy papersÂ*orÂ*proposed action plans for the future. In any case you're just flogging a dead horse.


I wanna make clear that what I posted wasn't "left-wing propaganda". For instance, I cited the PNAC's document. Is that "propaganda"?

PS.

On March 9, 2004, Los Angeles Times' staff reporter Greg Miller wrote that during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, George Tenet revealed that "A special intelligence unit at the Pentagon provided private prewar briefings to senior White House officials on alleged ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda without the knowledge of the CIA Director... and the disclosure suggests that a controversial Pentagon office played a greater role than previously understood in shaping the administration's views on Iraq's alleged ties to the terrorist network behind the Sept. 11 attacks, and that it bypassed usual channels to make a case that conflicted with the conclusions of CIA analysts." Here's the article:

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/latimes92.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Special_Plans

Rider
09-22-2006, 04:20 AM
Jack- What's your point here? Do you think that any administration doesn't do what it needs to do to carry out its plans? The congress was calling for strikes on Iraq years before Bush came into office. Please don't be so naive.
The government employs hundreds of people who do nothing but think up different scenarios to work out plans for foreign policy.
I heard on Meet the Press last Sunday that there is controversy over the building of four new bases in Iraq. I was waiting for that move. Iraq was taken as a foothold to launch an offensive against Iran and Syria. WMD was a convenient (and true) excuse.

Jack Pott
09-22-2006, 02:09 PM
The congress was calling for strikes on Iraq years before Bush came into office. Please don't be so naive.


Are you comparing the air strikes that Clinton ordered to the invasion of Iraq?

Jack Pott
09-22-2006, 02:11 PM
Jack- What's your point here? Do you think that any administration doesn't do what it needs to do to carry out its plans?


My point? The OSP manipulated intelligence in order to justify the war. Americans were misled into war. That's my point.

PS.

The Pentagon's War Machine

CIA Probe Points to the Office of Special Plans

July 26, 2003

A half-dozen former CIA agents investigating prewar intelligence have found that a secret Pentagon committee, set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in October 2001, manipulated reams of intelligence information prepared by the spy agency on the so-called Iraqi threat and then delivered it to top White House officials who used it to win support for a war in Iraq.

The ad-hoc committee, called the Office of Special Plans, headed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and other Pentagon hawks, described the worst-case scenarios in terms of Iraq's alleged stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and claimed the country was close to acquiring nuclear weapons, according to four of the CIA agents, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the information is still classified, who conducted a preliminary view of the intelligence.

The agents said the Office of Special Plans is responsible for providing the National Security Council and Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and Rumsfeld with a bulk of the intelligence information on Iraq's weapons program that turned out to be wrong. But White House officials used the information it received from the Office of Special Plans to win support from the public and Congress to start a war in Iraq even though the White House knew much of the information was dubious, the CIA agents said.

For example, the agents said the Office of Special Plans told the National Security Council last year that Iraq's attempt to purchase aluminum tubes were part of a clandestine program to build an atomic bomb. The Office of Special Plans leaked the information to the New York Times last September. Shortly after the story appeared in the paper, Bush and Rice both pointed to the story as evidence that Iraq posed a grave threat to the United States and to its neighbors in the Middle East, even though experts in the field of nuclear science, the CIA and the State Department advised the White House that the aluminum tubes were not designed for an atomic bomb.

Furthermore, the CIA had been unable to develop any links between Iraq and the terrorist group al-Qaeda. But under Feith's direction, the Office of Special Plans came up with information of such links by looking at existing intelligence reports that they felt might have been overlooked or undervalued. The Special Plans office provided the information to the Pentagon and to the White House. During a Pentagon briefing last year, Rumsfeld said he had "bulletproof" evidence that Iraq was harboring al-Qaeda terrorists.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Leopold_OSP-Manipulation.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jason_Leopold/Articles