Home (Post) Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Ex-Agent Says CIA Ignored Iran Facts

A former CIA operative who says he tried to warn the agency about faulty intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs now contends that CIA officials also ignored evidence that Iran had suspended work on a nuclear bomb.

The onetime undercover agent, who has been barred by the CIA from using his real name, filed a motion in federal court late Friday asking the government to declassify legal documents describing what he says was a deliberate suppression of findings on Iran that were contrary to agency views at the time.

The former operative alleged in a 2004 lawsuit that the CIA fired him after he repeatedly clashed with senior managers over his attempts to file reports that challenged the conventional wisdom about weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Key details of his claim have not been made public because they describe events the CIA deems secret.

The consensus view on Iran’s nuclear program shifted dramatically last December with the release of a landmark intelligence report that concluded that Iran halted work on nuclear weapons design in 2003. The publication of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran undermined the CIA’s rationale for censoring the former officer’s lawsuit, said his attorney, Roy Krieger.

“On five occasions he was ordered to either falsify his reporting on WMD in the Near East, or not to file his reports at all,” Krieger said in an interview.

In court documents and in statements by his attorney, the former officer contends that his 22-year CIA career collapsed after he questioned CIA doctrine about the nuclear programs of Iraq and Iran. As a native of the Middle East and a fluent speaker of both Farsi and Arabic, he had been assigned undercover work in the Persian Gulf region, where he successfully recruited an informant with access to sensitive information about Iran’s nuclear program, Krieger said.

Sound familiar?:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Comments

Avatar for Jeugenen

ISRAEL GETS BAD
MAD, the international principle of Mutual Assured Destruction protects nuclear armed nations from catastrophic destruction by nuclear warfare, because a nuclear armed adversary that makes a pre-emptive nuclear attack is assured of a devastating nuclear counter-attack.  Thereby, the nuclear armed nations competing for scarce World resources are compelled to resolve their fights by diplomacy or conventional warfare, to their own benefit and the benefit of the World.
To be protected by MAD, it is imperative that the competing nuclear armed nations maintain favorable balances of nuclear weapons.  The adversaries must have just enough nuclear weapons to make a nuclear war suicidal, in reality and in the wildest fantasy. 
MAD creates an obsession in nations vulnerable to their nuclear armed enemies, to acquire nuclear arms for national survival, as in the case of Iran being notoriously threatened by Israel.  The Israeli Judeofascist land robbers, working with their Crypto-Neo-Marxist Diaspora in the Republican and Democrat parties has acquired an arsenal of 150 or so nuclear weapons, for defense against her justifiably outraged non-nuclear Middle Eastern neighbors; instead of the nuclear armed Russian and Chinese Marxists.
Recently, in defiance of the international law against deploying nuclear weapons in warfare, Israel has been implicitly threatening to launch a nuclear strike against Iran, if she does not stop enriching uranium.  If the great nuclear powers of the World tolerate such an unprecedented nuclear attack on a non-nuclear power, MAD will have failed to protect the World environment against nuclear warfare.
To insure that renegade nuclear armed nations are deterred by MAD; an amendment to international law against the deployment of nuclear weapons in warfare shall be needed.  BAD, an international law of Bilateral Mutual Destruction, that imposes on every nuclear armed nation in World the civic duty to launch a surprise nuclear counter-attack on behalf of a non-nuclear power that is insanely attacked by a renegade nuclear power, would extend the deterrent power of MAD to such renegade nations.
Furthermore, BAD would reduce the future incentive for nations to develop defensive nuclear arms, by putting their survival at greater risk of bilateral retaliation, as in the case of Iran. In the case of Judeofascist Israel, the possession of an arsenal of nuclear weapons of any size has made her a certain candidate for one bang annihilation.

Jeugenen on July 1, 2008 at 02:30 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.