Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
'Where Are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?'
In the past two decades I have had the opportunity to participate in certain experiences pertaining to my work that fall into the category of "no one will ever believe this." I usually file these away, calling on them only when events transpire that breathe new life into these extraordinary memories. Ron Suskind, a noted and accomplished journalist, has written a new book, "The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism," in which he claims that the "White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush [Tahir Jalil Habbush, the director of the Mukhabarat], to Saddam [Hussein], backdated to July 1, 2001." According to Suskind, the letter said that "9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq-thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President's Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq."
This is an extraordinary charge, which both the White House and the CIA vehemently deny. Suskind outlines a scenario which dates to the summer and fall of 2003, troubled times for the Bush administration as its case for invading Iraq was unraveling. I cannot independently confirm Suskind's findings, but I, too, heard a similar story, from a source I trust implicitly. In my former line of work, intelligence, it was understood that establishing patterns of behavior was important. Past patterns of behavior tend to repeat themselves, and are thus of interest when assessing a set of seemingly separate circumstances around the same source. Of course, given the nature of the story line, it is better if I introduce this information within its proper context.
In the summer of 2003 I was approached by Harper's Magazine to do a story on the work of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), a CIA-sponsored operation investigating Saddam's weapons-of-mass-destruction programs in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. David Kay, a former International Atomic Energy Agency inspector who served briefly in Iraq in 1991 and 1992, was at that time the head of the ISG. By October 2003 the group had prepared a so-called interim report, which claimed to have eyewitness evidence of Iraqi WMD-related activities prior to the invasion in March. The key to the ISG's interim report was the testimony of "cooperative sources," Iraqis of unstated pedigree purportedly providing the ISG with unverifiable information. With one exception-an Iraqi nuclear scientist who had been killed by coalition forces-David Kay failed to provide the name or WMD association of any of the sources he used for his report, making any effort to verify their assertions impossible. Many of the senior Iraqis who had openly contradicted Kay's report were, and still are to this day, muzzled behind the walls of an American prison in Baghdad. But there was another group of Iraqis, the former scientists and technicians involved in Iraq's WMD programs who were known to have been interviewed by the ISG, and who were released back into Iraqi society. These scientists held the key to deciphering the vague pronouncements of the ISG interim report, and could help to distinguish between fact and fiction.
Many of these scientists remained intimidated by their ISG experience, which often involved lengthy imprisonment and harsh interrogation. Loath to run afoul of their American occupiers, and tethered financially to a monthly stipend designed to keep them from exporting their WMD know-how out of Iraq (and, it has been suggested, from talking too freely with the media), these Iraqi scientists possessed a wealth of data which was difficult to tap into. In my own effort to research the veracity of David Kay's assertions, I made use of my connections within the community of former Iraqi WMD scientists to try to gain access to what they knew. One in particular, who, because of ongoing security concerns, will be identified only as Mohammed, worked to facilitate my visit, arranging for meetings with Iraqis who possessed firsthand knowledge about not only the past WMD programs but also the ongoing efforts of the ISG.
"You are welcome to Baghdad," Mohammed wrote me in mid-October 2003, after I had informed him of my intent to travel there and what my purpose was. "You can have my full support." After a back-and-forth exchange of e-mails with Mohammed on the subject of my visit, I finalized my agenda and reconfirmed the interviews I wanted arranged. I followed my e-mail to Mohammed on Nov. 5 with a detailed communication to the Coalition Provisional Authority, outlining both my proposed schedule in Iraq and requests for interviews with CPA and ISG officials and tours of related facilities.
My schedule had me departing the United States two days later. That morning, I did one final check of my e-mail and found a disturbing communication from Mohammed. In it, he reiterated how dangerous the situation had become in Baghdad. But he said more: "I understand that there are some people who wish to bury any new facts concerning the subject of WMD in Iraq. They are ready to liquidate any person or group who ventures into this subject." Iraqi officials who had been involved with WMD, Mohammed said, " ... are not ready to give interviews because that endangers their life. It would endanger your life as well. I am serious in my warning," he wrote. "Nobody can guarantee your life. Nor the fate of the material you will be collecting in Baghdad."
"I request that you adjourn your scheduled trip to Baghdad," Mohammed pleaded. "If you decide to continue with your intention, then I am very sorry to tell you that taking the overall environment in my country I am not able to support your mission. The main reason would be to preserve my life during or after it is concluded."
One does not view such a communication lightly. I immediately contacted Lewis Lapham at Harper's Magazine, as well as some trusted colleagues with experience in journalism and intelligence affairs. All agreed that in this case, discretion was the better part of valor. My trip to Baghdad was called off, but not the pursuit of the fate of Iraq's WMD. The journey of discovery had simply been re-routed, and instead of going to Mohammed, I brought Mohammed to me. Mohammed made his way to Amman, Jordan, where we met over a period of five days in December 2003 to discuss Iraq's past proscribed weapons programs. Before we could move forward on that complex topic, however, I needed to clear up the canceled Baghdad trip and, in particular, Mohammed's e-mail regarding a threat to his, and my, life.
"This was very real," Mohammed said. "I had made several important contacts in regards to your trip." I asked him to elaborate. "As you know, the situation inside Iraq is very dangerous and confused, and many people were hesitant to meet with you." Who were they afraid of? "The Americans," he said. "They were afraid of what the Americans might do if it was found out that they had met with you."
One of the contacts Mohammed had arranged for me to meet with while in Baghdad was a former official in the Iraqi Mukhabarat, the intelligence arm of Saddam Hussein's regime, who was intimately familiar with that organization's surveillance of U.N. weapons inspectors, both in Iraq and in New York. "The Mukhabarat never went away," Mohammed said. "They just disappeared into the shadows. They are still very much a presence in Baghdad and Iraq."
Mohammed had passed on my proposed schedule to the Mukhabarat official, who told Mohammed he "would check with his sources" to see if my visit was feasible or not. On the evening of Dec. 5, 2003, the Mukhabarat agent appeared at Mohammed's home. "You must cancel the visit," he told Mohammed. "Mr. Ritter's life is at risk if he comes here, as well as the life of any Iraqi he meets with."
The Mukhabarat had been preparing for the American occupation of Iraq for months before the initiation of hostilities in March 2003. By January 2003, orders had been issued to the various Mukhabarat departments to begin preparations for an American occupation. Mukhabarat personnel were instructed that in the case of the occupation of Iraq by the United States, they were to return to their homes and await further instructions. Those agents who were able to do so were encouraged to join the ranks of the various opposition parties that were expected to follow the Americans into Iraq, and to actively cooperate with the American occupiers. In this manner, the Mukhabarat was able to establish a network of informers inside the very ranks of the organizations that were seeking its demise. According to Mohammed, the Mukhabarat had been very successful in this regard. And it was this success, he said, that led to the warning from the Mukhabarat about the threat to my life, and the lives of those who cooperated with me, if I were to go to Baghdad.
According to Mohammed, Baghdad in late 2003 crawled with assassination squads. In addition to simple criminal gangs interested in extortion and murder, there were squads of killers who worked on behalf of the various political forces vying for power inside occupied Baghdad, settling old scores and eliminating potential competitors. One of the major themes among those positioning themselves for a leading role in post-Saddam Iraq was de-Baathification, a policy of identifying and neutralizing the members of the former ruling party, which was associated with the most horrific abuses of the regime of Saddam Hussein. De-Baathification was a primary objective of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), and major policy initiatives were passed to remove the Baathists from positions of power and influence. Opponents of the regime of Saddam Hussein were only too willing to aid and assist the CPA in its crusade against the Baathists, using their own networks of informants to locate Baathist members and sympathizers for the American occupiers. Given the abuses of power that occurred in Iraq under the Baathists, however, oftentimes the members of the newly empowered opposition took matters into their own hands, meting out street justice in the form of targeted assassination.
Among the more effective, and brutal, of these politically motivated assassination units were those run by SCIRI (the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) and its armed militia, the Badr Brigade. Their efforts to exterminate Baath Party remnants still loyal to Saddam Hussein, or those who were accused of committing crimes against SCIRI or its sympathizers, attracted the attention of the "black" side of the CPA-run de-Baathification efforts -covert operations run by the CIA and elite Special Operations units of the United States military. An abortive effort to formally acknowledge the role played by the various anti-Saddam militias in confronting the Baath holdouts offered a glimpse into what is an unspoken element of the U.S. policy regarding de-Baathification -let the Iraqis do the dirty work. And the Badr militia stood out among those willing and able to take the fight to the Baathist holdouts. For that reason, the Badr militia not only attracted the attention of the CPA but also the Mukhabarat, which, according to Mohammed, had infiltrated the SCIRI-run militia.
Mohammed's Mukhabarat connection had disturbing news. According to the source, the CPA had passed to the Badr militia my name, the dates of my planned trip to Baghdad, my proposed agenda and a list of Iraqis I had planned to meet with, including Mohammed. This information was in turn passed on to the unit in the Badr militia which specialized in targeted assassination in Baghdad. "Mr. Ritter cannot come to Iraq," the Mukhabarat agent told Mohammed. "If he does, his life is at risk, your life is at risk, and everyone associated with his visit's life will be at risk." And so Mohammed sent his e-mailed warning to me.
On the surface, Mohammed's story was too much to believe. I was willing to accept any account that held that specific Iraqi groups, such as Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, were opposed to my visit to the extent that they might issue threats in an effort to intimidate me from coming. But the concept of the United States government being involved boggled the mind.
The problem with disbelieving was there were too many pieces of this puzzle that seemed to fit together. The timing of the threat coincided too neatly with my communication with the CPA about my plans while in Baghdad. People in the CPA certainly had the information if they decided to pass it on-I had telephoned and sent faxes and e-mails providing my dates of travel, where I wanted to stay and how I wanted to interact with the CPA. The ability of the U.S. intelligence community to monitor my e-mail communications with Mohammed was a given. And then there was the disturbing fact that, since the time that I had notified the CPA of my intent to travel to Iraq to write this story for Harper's Magazine, I had been red-flagged by the United States government. On both occasions that I left the United States on assignment for Harper's Magazine (once to London and Prague, the other to Amman), I had been pulled aside by U.S. immigration and customs officials upon my return for special treatment.
Apparently taking their cues from computer instructions, the customs officials involved were very interested in where I had traveled, whom I had met with, and any documents I might be carrying. When I asked a senior customs official in Washington's Dulles Airport what the problem was, he simply shrugged. "I guess it's just because you are who you are," he said. A customs officer in New York's JFK Airport, after looking at instructions sent to him on his computer, looked up to me. "You used to work for the U.S. government?" he asked. Prompted again by the computer, he called over a supervisor, who was very interested in documents I had in my possession concerning Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. In both cases, the only thing that seemed to save me from an even greater intrusion into my personal belongings was a letter from Lewis Lapham identifying me with Harper's Magazine. The letter was carefully examined by customs officers and photocopied, and became the apparent subject of intense exchanges between the customs officers and whoever was on the other end of the computer. In both cases, my First Amendment rights prevailed over the concerns of the U.S. government, and I was allowed to proceed with my notes intact.
Mohammed's dire warning aside, it seemed clear that my new assignment for Harper's Magazine had caught the attention of someone in the U.S. government. What about my probing into the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue could prompt such extreme measures? What would make the U.S. government so afraid as to justify its attempt to intimidate a journalist-even an activist journalist such as myself-from carrying out his work? As a former weapons inspector with the United Nations, I was intimately familiar with the fraudulent case made by the Bush administration before the 2003 invasion, and had quite publicly challenged the president's allegations. I do not believe the Bush administration would undertake any activity, directly or indirectly, beyond simply harassing me, because of my stance on pre-war WMD claims. However, knowing that I was going to Baghdad to meet with Iraqis who had firsthand knowledge of what had transpired since the invasion was another matter. What could I have learned that troubled them so? I will relay the story as I received it from Mohammed.
On a bright morning one day in late June 2003 Mohammed waited patiently on the side of a street in the Jadariyah district of Baghdad. As a former official in the ousted regime of Saddam Hussein, he had knowledge of programs and activities of interest to the Americans who now occupied the palaces of the former Iraqi president; these programs and activities included but were not limited to weapons of mass destruction. Mohammed had been summoned to a meeting with a special intelligence cell that reported not to David Kay's Iraq Survey Group, but instead directly to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Shortly before 9 in the morning, a small convoy consisting of three unmarked Toyota Land Cruisers pulled up alongside Mohammed. Seated in the front passenger seat of the lead vehicle was a short, stocky blond woman named Stacey. One might not have guessed from her plain khaki cargo pants and simple white T-shirt that she was a lieutenant commander in the United States Navy. Stacey motioned for Mohammed to enter the vehicle, and the small convoy sped off.
Crossing the 14th of July Bridge, the convoy turned right, into the grounds of the Republican Palace. Through gates once manned by the most elite forces of the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Special Republican Guard, the small convoy now negotiated checkpoints manned by the soldiers of Iraq's new master, the United States. The Land Cruisers snaked past the main palace building itself, where four large bronze heads of Saddam sporting a Moghul helmet stared impassively above them (these statues were later removed under the orders of the then-head of the CPA, Paul Bremer). The SUVs moved north toward the far end of the former palace complex, now known as the Green Zone. In front of the former offices of the Iraqi National Security Committee, the convoy turned right, cutting through some administrative buildings before emerging on an embankment road running alongside the Tigris River. Heading south, the three vehicles came upon a villa complex surrounded by small decorative ponds, each pond connected with a small footbridge. On each island was an open barbecue pit, complete with accompanying stack of firewood, of the type favored by the former Iraqi president. Disembarking from the Land Cruiser, Stacey led Mohammed to the main villa, where they were ushered in by security personnel wearing similar nondescript clothing.
Seated on a couch in the middle of the elaborately furnished villa was a small, thin woman in her late 30s with short blond hair who introduced herself as Carol. On the table before the couch were plates full of sweets and fruit slices, imported from Kuwait, which Carol invited Mohammed to taste. Stacey joined them, and soon she and Carol began questioning Mohammed. About five minutes into the session, the two women were joined by a third person, an Army lieutenant colonel who introduced himself as Dave. Dave was dressed in the same khaki trousers as Stacey and Carol, but sported a gray T-shirt emblazoned with the seal of the United States and the words "U.S. Embassy Kuwait." A short, athletic-looking man with gray hair, Dave quickly took over the proceedings, with Carol and Stacey taking notes. For four hours Dave questioned Mohammed about various matters dealing with the Iraqi's former work.
The final line of questioning focused on weapons of mass destruction. Dave was on his feet, pacing before Mohammed, before turning to him and asking straight out, "Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" Mohammed, who had intimate knowledge of certain aspects of the Iraqi WMD effort, replied straight back: "There are no WMD in Iraq."
Dave continued pacing back and forth in front of Mohammed. "My president," he said, "is in trouble. Can you help him?"
Mohammed was taken aback by the question. "Excuse me?" he asked. "Could you repeat yourself?"
Dave sat down next to the Iraqi. "George Bush is in trouble. Our people did not find any WMD in Iraq. Can you help us?"
Mohammed looked back at Dave. "How?"
"Can we prepare something for that? We could bring in some nuclear material from the former Soviet Union, and pretend they are Iraqi."
Mohammed, stunned by the unexpected nature of the request, indicated that such a ploy could be easily uncovered by forensic examination of the evidence by outside experts, such as UNSCOM (the United Nations Special Commission) or the IAEA, who would undoubtedly be called in to verify such a finding. Dave sat in silence for a few moments, before springing to his feet. "I have to leave for a meeting," he said. "Stacey will show you out."
Mohammed was to meet again with Dave, Stacey and Carol in the weeks that followed. The subject of WMD, Iraqi or otherwise, was never again broached by Dave or anyone else in his team.
In my extensive dealings with him, Mohammed has never lied to me or exaggerated about events he was personally involved in. His story establishes a pattern of behavior which shows how the Bush administration, especially when operating in the form of small, ideologically motivated teams functioning outside the norms and conventions of the mainstream, was able to consider (in Mohammed's case) manufacturing data and circumstances to bolster its false case for invading Iraq, and (per author Ron Suskind) actually manufacture such data and circumstances. I trust Mohammed. And so I am willing to believe Suskind and his sources about similar cases of fraud, this time in the form of the CIA's manufactured Mukhabarat document.
The question is, what is Congress doing about this? At what point in time will it become clear that a crime against America has been committed, not by any foreign terrorist group, but rather the highest officials in the land, those entrusted with safeguarding the Constitution? If the rule of law is to have any meaning today, Congress has no choice but to institute proceedings mandated by the Constitution against those high officials who have committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the American people. Far from stating that impeachment is off the table, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi rightfully has no option but to instruct the House of Representatives to initiate investigations into the crime of fraud and other related obstructions of government undertaken by the administration of President George W. Bush. And if these investigations confirm that such crimes have indeed occurred, she must, as a servant of the Constitution, undertake impeachment proceedings. That Bush is a lame-duck president, and his time in office is short, is no excuse for failure to defend the rule of law to its fullest.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence specialist and was a chief weapons inspector for the United Nations in Iraq. He is the author of many books, including "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein" and "Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change."
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C.
142 Comments so far
Show AllActually ass, I don't bother reading any of the threads to which you post heavily, because I know they have been corrupted and rendered senseless by your father the Devil.
"The question is, what is Congress doing about this?"
Nothing. Nor will they. Ever.
Next question.
"I don't bother reading any of the threads to which you post heavily"
LOL! You are such a liar! Is this some excuse of yours about whether I presented any facts in the thread or not, that you didn't read the thread? "Whatever" miftin...
Go watch TV...you're missing the latest cop car chase.
Go see if you can get me banned from these boards. Have a nice weekend.
impeachment hearings.
or risk de-congressification.
Congress has a 9% approval rating. George Wanker Bush's is about 23%. Eight out of ten Merkunz say the nation is on the wrong track. Yet who will control the next government? Republicans and Democrats. Hopelessly corrupt, hopelessly inept, hopelessly vain and conceited liars, fools, thieves and killers by remote control. Try as you might to make any sense of this, you won't be able to. And in that blind and deaf void of rationality lies the self-destruction of this country.
Sounds like Mr. Ritter has had quite an awakening as to the true nature of those in charge of our nation. I never liked the TV show, The Sopranos, but I wonder if that show is really an allegory derived from our political system!
Dave
Sorry Scott - You've pledged allegiance to the flag too many times. That america is either gone or on hold. There are only three or four patriots in congress. These stories are becoming routine.
A pattern of lying, that led to the deaths of many iraqis and americans and others, is a crime against humanity. Something must be done or this scenario will repeat itself.
The new Congress should take it on if the current one will not. Elect new representatives with that goal in mind. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & co should not be allowed to hide in the shadows of haliburton & Exxon Mobil...they too should return the money stolen from the treasury and the american oil/gas consumers.
True democracy is the rule of the people not the privileged few!!!
THE QUESTION IS:
WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT CONGRESS?
Scott, I wish you'd write shorter articles or have summaries. I have so much to read each day that I just don't have the time to go through the entire articles you write. I'm not criticizing, I really value what you have to say, it's just the way it is.
Sisters and Brothers know where the biological and nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction are stupid. In their own private back yards!
How you say - 'Curiouser and curiouser.'
whatfools August 12th, 2008 1:42 pm
"The American government knew there were no WMDs well before the illegal invasion and plunder of Iraq and yet much blood and treasure was spent on the Bush/Cheney snipe hunt to cover up this crime against humanity."
I think they ASSUMED they would find /something/.
Remember Nancy Pelosi on public television said she can't think of any law George Bush has broken. Not only that, she can't think of any impeachable offenses he has commited.
Scott, what might have to happen is you and others with knowledge about this crime might have to conduct your case in front of the public because Congress is dirilect in its duty. You might have to circumnavigate Congress altogether and let the public determine the verdict. As far as protection goes, I am not sure how you would do it. But it would send a clear message to Congress that it is impotent and no longer an authoritative voice in this country.
Scott weaves quite a tale. He provides confirmation of Deathsquads operating with the approval of the USG/CPA, quite similar to other US occupations and proxy wars. His naivete regarding Congress's behavior is stunning--Regime change was a bipartisan DLC/GOP project and an on-the-record policy goal of Clinton/Gore, and thus most congressional Democrats. That is why congressional behavior regarding Iraq has remained consistent, although there's more dissent now within the ranks. I've been banging the drum for a long time regarding the overall continuity of policy toward Iraq and elsewhere and the necessity of congressional compliance/approval for those policy goals. On the question of Empire, there is little deviation in overall direction and goals of policy.
As this election year proves more than ever, the Presidency is captured by the Propaganda and Indoctrination Systems and their allies in Business. The only hope short of a successful revolution is to retake congress, which means the overthrow of the duopoly political party edifice. We must have congresspeople willing to denounce Empire and demand its rollback, both at home and abroad. That's what we must get into congress so it will do something other than being a rubber stamp for savage US Imperialism.
"In my former line of work, intelligence, it was understood that establishing patterns of behavior was important. Past patterns of behavior tend to repeat themselves...."
I strongly believe that one needs to look at the "patterns of behavior" of the US in its zealous crusade in establishing ITS FORM OF DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM, its humanitarian intervensions, and its war on terror. Even though one can go to the very beginnings of the US history to see the beginning of "the patterns of behavior" of the US as a state of terrorism, take few examples of Truman, who ordered the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even after receiving letter of Surrender from Japan, Nixon's genocidal violence in Vietnam based on lies, Reagan's "war on terror" in the form of Iran-Contra in Nicaragua. If you notice the names of architects of the present "war on terror", they are the same persons, who were involved in Reagan's "war on terror". What has the US Congress done in all these cases? No US president faced any war-crimes tribunal. For the Congress and the American public, it is unimaginable: their president facing war-crimes tribunal. Because America is an EXCEPTIONAL COUNTRY, and the Americans are THE CHOSEN PEOPLE OF GOD. So their genocidal violence is sanctioned by GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, and so it is HOLY, LEGAL and LEGITIMATE.
Scott Ritter trying/hoping to find the SAVIOR in the US Congress is like trying to catch a mirage. Probably he needs to investigate the "patterns of behavior" of the US to understand the REPITITION OF THE SAME BEHAVIOR IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, CONGO, SOMALIA.... Unless and until this behavioral patterns of the US is unearthed, understood, acknowledged, and REPENTED (someone said, the words "regret" and "repent" are missing in the American society), the people of America will continue to elect PSYCHOPATHS as presidents of the US, and give unconditional support to their genocidal violence based on lies.
The question is, what is Congress doing about this?
_____________________________
I presume the question is rhetorical.
Hey, Georgie. Same as Georgia. Your invasion of Iraq is unacceptable. End it today. You gotta go, too.
Thank you to Scott Ritter for unflinchingly speaking the truth even in the face of threats made on your life. I only hope the country will listen to you now a bit better than they did in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Admittedly, I'm not hopeful.
The American government knew there were no WMDs well before the illegal invasion and plunder of Iraq and yet much blood and treasure was spent on the Bush/Cheney snipe hunt to cover up this crime against humanity.
Well said, Mr. Ritter. Thank you. Pelosi? Conyers? Are you listening?
"The question is, what is Congress doing about this?"
Well, in the Senate, the favored one hundred, including Senator Change, the presumptive 44th president, are doing what they always do: creating pork barrel projects for their most wealthy and powerful constituents.
In the House, the congresspeople, with a few notable exceptions (Lee, Paul, Kucinich), are voting themselves a payraise and some really excellent health insurance.
And both are failing in their duties to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
"Regime change and democratization" is a messy business. A few eggs must be cracked in order to make this particular omelete. It does not matter who gets hurt, anyone who disagrees with the ruling power is at risk, American citizen or not. Does anyone really think they care whether a target is an American or not? How quaint and naive.
Americans would be in shock if they really knew what was, and is, going on. Upholding the Constitution? Please.....
John W. Dean being interviewed by Keith Olberman stated:
"I don't think people are looking at it too narrowly or Suskind is when I read his book. What happens when you tie that with a criminal conspiracy statute, 18 USC 371, which nailed countless people in Watergate for misusing the agencies and departments of government—that's where they've got a problem.
"That's where Nixon had a problem for telling the CIA to block the FBI for part of the Watergate investigation. Yes, it was obstruction but it was also defrauding the government. This is their real problem with that statute. ... "
Stop whining and sign up:
http://www.impeachbush.org
This insane tale, while not surprising to me, is stunning in it's very clear implications. Even though Mr. Ritter indicates that he doesn't believe that the administration would be capable of the kind of murderous treachery indicated in this story (targeted assassinations of Americans who question their motives), the evidence seems to indicate they were, and are, capable of virtually anything. If they wouldn't hesitate to assassinate American citizens, what wouldn't they do? I don't believe that there's anything they wouldn't have been willing to do, if they thought they'd get away with it. And in Iraq, the fog of war covers many many crimes, of which these are but a few.
If the information, about "Dave" asking for Mohammad to "help" George Bush out, is true, that is conspiracy of the highest level of criminality. If true, this would indicate war crimes of an unprecedented nature for this country. It certainly would prove that everything that has been revealed about this criminal organization (aka the executive branch) is true, and more. I suspect they've been able to hide the worst of what they've done, so if you think this is the worst, I would recommend you think again. God only knows how far they went with their atrocities, in pursuit of covering George Bush's crimes.
Truth, such as this has no place or relevant forum respectfully reserved for it in an untruthful state.
This mess is all about OIL . No OIL in Iraq ,No invasion of Iraq . How many law makers have stock in OIL companies . Any astute investor would have known to buy OIL stock when this admin of OIL PEOPLE took office . Does anybody think law makers are going to make laws or hold the admin accountable for making them richer ? Until recently a reporter that tried to publish a story about this mess was castigated .
Many thanks and blessings to Mr. Ritter for his continuing bravery in speaking truth to power and releasing such crucial information to the world. I pray we find the ability to see through our responsibilities as Americans and citizens of the Earth to ensure that steps are taken to dissemble this sickening global cabal once and for all. The future beckons to us with a calling to honor such truth and bravery in our daily lives. Our reward may possibly be the fulfillment of the long held dream of peace on Earth. For all of the world's children, regardless of age, thank you.
"My president is in trouble. Can you help him?" That statement and appeal is astronomically appalling. The pledging allegiance to a single leader is completely antithetical to our entire way of life.
Our country is in trouble. And only we can help ourselves. That sounds pretty dire I know. But it is true. That man "Dave" who would dare to suggest that he could import nuclear material to create some sort of WMD cover story is our national nightmare as much as Bush is. I hope you are wrong about this story Scott Ritter. But ya know.... I kinda believe it.
And this is exactly why the Progressives and Liberals need to stand up and keep fighting to ABOLISH THE CIA and STOP GIVING UP !!
Scott,
You keep beating a dead horse. This is already a very old story.
Yes, they lied, manipulated and threatened. We all know there were no
WMD and it is all about oil. This glaringly obvious even for the blind to
see.
The Democrats current and futur will do nothing. The Democrats are
enabler and in collusion. Obama if he wins, will continue exactly
on the same course. Just listen to what he is saying.
Mr. Ritter, talk about something new or just go away.
Nancy Pelosi became speaker with much fanfare and expectaion but now she runs the place as would a home room teacher. Her reluctance to pursue Bush's malfeasance has caused many Democrats to have second thoughts about her leadership. I don't live in her district but would suggest that her constituency elect someone else in November. A Republican challenger could beat her. One more Republican House member, who would be a freshman, would not change the balance of power and Nancy would be gone.
Ritter is a great read, manic run-on sentences that are just a step away from totally disorganized pulp. The NSA distorted the Tonkin incident, no one was officially scolded then, for the years of horror that followed. Hell, a famous civilian killer is now running for office.
Actually, Cindy Sheehan made the MSM today and publicly stated Pelosi was a failure and enumerated the reasons why.
On a similar note, isn't it interesting to see the widespread incompetence of people associated with the Bush Administration? Congress is obvious. Henry Paulson is obvious. But take Glenn Tilton, CEO of United Airlines. The pilot's union is calling for him to resign. One of the reasons they cite "failed leadership." Tilton, an oil man, "has run the airline into the ground." Apparently, Tilton will not step down. I guess the skies won't be so friendly anymore. Hell, I wonder if we will see any with a "U" painted on the tail of a jet. Sick-ins and slow downs are only the beginning Mr. Tilton. Wait until you have many more canceled flights, maybe all of them??
There should never be any excuse or any form of statute of limitations on the far-reaching and horrifying crimes against humanity and against the people of the United States committed by the Administration of George W. Bush. The list of those who should be tried does not end with Adminstration members -- but with anyone who helped, served to underwrite or complied as leadership with this Administration's campaign that has murdered and brought living and tormenting hell to countless people.
This is not a matter of politics. It a group effort that seeks to undermine life.
If congress has only 9% approval rating, why the hell won't people elect more third party candidates?
Atexan said: "Mr. Ritter, talk about something new or just go away."
Ritter is NOT saying these things for your entertainment. This is an issue of incredible importance that has NOT been addressed sufficiently. Ritter is a great patriot and should have nothing but your respect.
hello-kitty and others make their points.
Saddam absolutely had to be hanged ASAP. No one is condoning his crimes. However, as the guardian of the world's 2nd largest oil reserves he was an eyewitness to way too much corruption stemming from W's administration and Bush41's as well. In addition, he would not lie for W and tell a lie about W's fictitious MWD's to help W justify the invasion. He had to be silenced. Pronto.
As I read some comments I began to suspect that the rounding up in Iraq of "the usual suspects" for Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and for renditions in foreign hell-holes could be in reality a cover to arrest, torture, and eventually "disappear" Iraqi technicians who would not (because they could not!) lie about, and back, W's WMD _fiction_.
News items like this really leave me paranoid.
Yeah, Atexan contradicts himself. First he states: " This is already a very old story.
Yes, they lied, manipulated and threatened. We all know there were no
WMD and it is all about oil. This glaringly obvious even for the blind to
see."
Then he says, "Obama if he wins, will continue exactly on the same course. Just listen to what he is saying."
If this is "obvious" and Obama is "on the same course," then why does he get so much support?
guntotinganglion has it right. If you connect the dots and look at the atrocities committed by the Bush Administration, indeed imagine the worst, and then think again because it is much worse than the worst. There is plenty of evidence to prove it, and we only have seen a little bit of it.
NOTE to claudius' above post----listen Bud, when you say our Congress is impotent and unauthoritative==who do you think gave King George war powers? who do you think passed the Patriot Acts? who do you think passed the Kings torture legislation? who funded the billions to continue the invasion;? who do you think deregulated oil companies and lets big oil lie thru their teeth in hearings on billions of taxpayer monies giving them windfall profits, while we can't afford to drive to work ?? Who do you think lets big Pharma and AMA HMO's rule our Medical Care so that one illness bankrupts families, hospitals take sick patients out & dumps them on the street cuz they don't have cold cash or insurance ?? WHO DO YOU THINK???
***Claudius that's NOT IMPOTENCY, thats great Power taking America to the garbage dump in a handbasket. Just because they do not give a shit about US middle Americans, or our Constitutional form of Democracy does not mean they are not still exercising authority or making laws which rule the land !!!!! THINK !
******So when Karlof1 post says Ritter is amazingly Naive when he still expects Pelosi to impeach Bush, it is TRUE.
RITTER was an insider who knew the truth in 2003, and he should've been screaming from every rooftop ever since.
The revelation here is that the DEATH THREATS against his nosing around Iraqi WMD's came from INSIDE his own US Government===OH HO !!!! Remember a poor guy named Danny Pearl from the Wall Street Journal who was nosing around Pakistan asking questions about our favorite Boogie Man ??
***We all knew before Susskind they lied and manufactured false WMD data, and testified to it before the UN.
****The Downing Street Memos proved Britain and the USA were in cahoots drumming up false Iraq stuff.
****General Wesley Clark publicly said Bush NOr any of his Staff wanted NO info about Iraq unless it tied Iraq to Al Qaeda or the 911 attacks. General Clark was only on the Chief of Staff, thats all !!! Then came the yellowcake uranium lies, and the outing of CIA agent Plame.
***Absolutely nothing was or is sacred to the War Criminals operating within King George's administration.
****KNOWING MOST OF THE PUZZLE PIECES AS WE NOW DO, HOW CAN WE DOUBT FOR A MINUTE THAT THE MOTHER OF ALL PROBLEMS, THE 911 ATTACKS WERE NOT AN "INSIDE JOB" ???? HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY GIVE CREDENCE THAT A CAVE DWELLING BOOGIEMAN, AND 19 OF HIS AIRLINE SCHOOL FLUNKOUTS, PULLED OFF THE TECHNICAL GENIUS WHICH WAS 911. !!!!!!! NOW, READ AGAIN RITTER ABOVE, AND FOR ONCE====THINK !!!! IN YOUR HEART YOU KNOW.
Truthknoller,
You completely misunderstood my post. For one, I am not a dipshit and fully understand Ritter's article. Yes, Congress has great power. What I am saying DUDE is Congress will not investigate this when they are complicit. NO SHIT! I am not saying Congress is impotent or unauthoritative, so before you go on your rant either ask for clarification or SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Anyone remember the talk between Tony Blair and Bush about painting a plane to LOOK like "an enemy" aircraft that could then be used as another prompt, or provocation for war? These guys were convinced on an ends, and constantly seeking "evidence" that could support their fixed intention. There have been a number of insiders who have published books detailing varied facets of the plan. Again, Bugliosi has enough data for a sequel. I PRAY these maniacs get their KARMA in this lifetime... the world is watching, although it can never return to life, the million plus slaughtered, or the ones with injuries that will remain their legacy for the rest of their time on earth. This is one of the great tragedies of history, but I personally hold the Supreme Court largely accountable. When we think of someone HIGH up the criminal justice food chain, we assume they have an understanding of law, and at least a modicum of (as sense of) justice. We assume they are serving the Constitution and can put their own partisan self-centered interests aside. We also (wrongly) assumed we had a Constitution that protected citizens from tyranny, that three CO-EQUAL branches would insure that NO "unitary executive" could claim powers never meant to be his, and that's even if the person in charge had a functioning brain, natural intelligence, integrity, character, and a will to do good. That so much was instead handed to an amoral fool (I think Nietschze is right, I believe the man is borderline retarded for real) whose loyalties are exclusively to Mars (war) and mammon (dark profits to those willing to massacre others for their own comfort). SICKO, too!
Look folks, for those of you who are new and have not been following what many of us who have been posting here for quite some time are saying, please ask for clarification before you open your mouth and look like a fool like TRUTHKNOLLER. Some of us have brief posts because many of us understand how each other thinks, including political views. It never hurts to ask for clarification.
Absolutely, I agree that Daniel Pearl was a US assassination, through their collaborators, the Pakistan ISI, which also helped with the well done false flag operation, 9-11. (Well done in that it did everything it was meant to do, and got the perpetuators' every dream to come true).
Many people have wondered why the US didn't just plant WMDs. I guess this explains why.
The oh-so-bored attitudes so many people have about treason, lies, murder, plunder, and general illegalities with this government annoy me.
Scott Ritter writes well reasoned articles and stands up for the Constitution and the rule of law. If the articles are too long for you, perhaps you should be watching MTV instead.
If you don't trust the Congress to impeach, then you should be out working for progressive candidates. If you don't have any, run yourself!
And there is something very fishy about Nicholas Berg, also. He was in US custody until his family threatened to sue, then he was let loose and beheaded.
http://www.brushtail.com.au/nick_berg_hypothesis.html
"At what point in time will it become clear that a crime against America has been committed, not by any foreign terrorist group, but rather the highest officials in the land…?"
That point is long past, as are the number of crimes well beyond counting, like the bodies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, or wherever else this endless nightmare leaves its wake of horrors.
But, so many of the commentators are wrong, they do not see that the rot is not only at the top. Impeachment may satisfy appearances but will not purge the cancer which has now invaded every extremity of the entity of tyranny known as the USA.
If you were an Iraqi and knew even a little of how this tyrannical "machine" works, which American would you trust? Could you believe any of them and what point would there be in cooperating with them?
It has been obvious since Truman that America, in its ambition for global power and dominance succumbed to its own delusion.
In short every American should ask themselves why they would expect any foreigner to risk life and limb to enlighten a population of Americans who do not want to be enlightened and even when the facts become glaringly obvious at home and abroad they prefer to just look the other way, wallowing in asinine hypocrisy and self-righteousness, while happily being more or less hoodwinked by an elite who personify what they glorify, greed and avarice.
The crime in fact is what Americans are doing to themselves while they tolerate being "pulled aside by U.S. immigration and customs officials upon my return [on assignment for Harper's Magazine] for special treatment".
It is these lists and the people that follow their orders to implement such pervasive actions to control and further the crimes that make today's USA the same if not worse than Saddam's Iraq, or Hitler's Germany.
All government is by consent!
In the article, Mr. Ritter observes, "But the concept of the United States government being involved boggled the mind." Mr. Ritter: Thank you for joining the millions of Americans whose minds were never "boggled." We just knew not to trust the government. I hope that by now you have joined us.