Alt+left-arrow to return from a link
Hearings, Congressional Record, video, press DNI, Iraq, U.N., Philippines, Mexico
by Charles Judson Harwood Jr.
• Iraq wmd war
• War Crimes Act
• John Bolton
• John Negroponte
• Alberto Gonzales
• Condoleezza Rice
• Bob Gates
• Iraq Study Group
• Iraq wmd war timeline: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005-2006, 2007-2008
• Iran uranium timeline
• Israel/Palestine
• Settlements
• Blockade, reprisals
Is he fit?
To be Director of National Intelligence?
A criminal liar? and criminal aider and abettor of liars? in a criminal conspiracy to lie?
So it appears, from government documents, which Congress has mostly concealed from itself and the public. And from government officials, whose testimony Congress does not want to hear. And from eye witness accounts, which Congress cannot conceal.
On this record, John D. Negroponte prima facie incited, ordered, aided and abetted, officers of the State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Department, to criminally lie to their own headquarters, and to Congress, in a criminal conspiracy, first to dissuade Congress, then to violate the laws of Congress.
On this record, John D. Negroponte is prima facie complicit in violent crimes by Honduras government officials and by the Contra army based there.
All in aid of a secret CIA/DoD war. Launched from Honduras in secret. Prohibited by the U.S. Constitution (for want of Congressional approval). Prohibited by international law (U.N. International Court of Justice, judgment, summary). A war of aggression, a tort, a prima facie international crime, the crime against peace.
I speak of his “service” in Honduras (October 29 1981-1985 May 30). And of Nicaragua.
On this record, John D. Negroponte is a safe and trusted pair of hands, to manage proliferating U.S. government criminal enterprises. And to lie about them. Especially to a Congress which wants to be lied to.
Like his circle of conspirators did about Iran Air Flight 655, when he was later in the White House, as Deputy National Security Adviser (1987-1989) to Colin Powell, telephoning the President, with the news. Constituting themselves members of a second prima facie criminal enterprise, the felony-murder, or manslaughter, of the mostly American victims of Pan Am 103, a promised, foreseeable, apparent, international countermeasure to the first criminal enterprise, that self-same conspiracy of criminal liars, who decided to lie — to protect themselves, instead of the citizens in their charge — and falsely deny responsibility, on behalf of the United States, thereupon legalizing an eye for an eye.
Demonstrating, it’s not only foreigners who have to worry about U.S. government criminal liars.
The families, friends, neighbors, of the 1500+ U.S. service wo/men killed in Iraq, and the 10,000+ maimed for life, they too can attest to that. As can every U.S. taxpayer, and their distant descendants, crippled by debt, from this lying war, feeding their expanding military shadow-state, from the plates of their needy.
And those citizens U.S. government criminal liars decided to poison, with their criminal munitions, they lied about, to hundreds of thousands of our soldiers, and their families. According to truthful {262kb.pdf} U.S. government officials {2682kb.pdf, copy}, whose truthful research, lying U.S. government officials, deeply complicit in a massive U.S. government criminal enterprise, decided to conceal, misrepresent, coverup.
Depleted uranium. The only weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. Each one, atomizing 70% of itself, when used, into alpha radiating aerosols, a DNA-mutating and chemical poison, hundreds of tons of invisible, micron-sized particles of uranium oxide dust (U-238), wafting in the wind, and their beta and gamma cousins (decay progeny U-234 and 0.2% U-235), “billions and billions and billions” of them, we imported into Iraq, to poison our soldiers, and their progeny, attacking them, when they breathe (lodging in their lungs), when they eat (migrating through their gut wall, into their blood, to lodge in their organs), when they break their skin (infecting their blood and organs via wounds, cuts, abrasions). And to likewise poison the doomed men, women, children, progeny, of that land we blighted, for eternity.
A transgenerational catastrophe. A breath-taking, staggering, immense, war crime, and crime against humanity, surpassing even the Nazis, who confined their criminal killings to the living, not unborn generations, and mostly by quick and humane methods, not by slow, debilitating, lingering, “unnecessary suffering,” condemned particularly, as a separate, additional, war crime. Against expendable American and allied cannon-fodder, and Iraqis alike.
The reduced numbers of Iraqis, that is, who manage to survive their “liberation,” and permanent occupation {copy}, by a Great Satan, ensconced on a Green-Zone throne, disappearing billions of dollars of trust-fund money, smirking, from 106 military bases, to strong-arm demands of his oil and business clientele {detail, comment}, and his Zionist kin nearby. As many or most Iraqis view their fate. And most of the rest of the world do too.
Is he fit?
If you want to be lied to, he’s fit.
If you want him to wage crime on orders, he’s fit.
If you want him to thumb his nose at Congress, the Constitution, the laws, he’s fit.
Cassius: You love me not.
Brutus: I do not like your faults.
Cassius: A friendly eye could never see such faults.”
____________________
____________________
Is he fit?
Senator Carl Levin {8:25}: Mr. Ambassador, we need a director of national intelligence who will tell a president what a president may not want to hear.
But what he needs to hear.
We’ve too often seen heads of the intelligence community exaggerate or misrepresent or misstate intelligence to support the policy preferences of the White House.
We saw this with Bill Casey, who a bipartisan Iran-Contra report concluded had, quote,
“misrepresented or selectively used available intelligence to support the policy that he” — Bill Casey — “was promoting.” ...
Now, more recently, George Tenet also was engaged in exaggerations and misstatements when he said, for instance, publicly that Iraq had, quote,
“provided training in poisons and gases to two Al Qaida associates.”
Which was close to what the president was saying publicly about the same issue.
But the underlying intelligence said that that reporting was contradictory and was from sources of varying reliability.
Judge Silberman explained recently in talking about his report {copy} that, quote,
“The intelligence community was quite resistant to notions that there was an important connection between Saddam and Al Qaida or terrorism.”
And yet, you had the director, the DCI, talking about Iraq, quote,
“providing training in poisons and gasses to Al Qaida associates.”
My question is this:
Are you troubled by that kind of a public statement of Director Tenet?
Which differs or differed from the underlying intelligence relative to the connection between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein?
John Negroponte: ... I believe in calling things the way I see them. And I believe that the president deserves from his director of national intelligence and from the intelligence community unvarnished truth as I best understand it.
Carl Levin: That’s critically important because it’s not been the case.
When the DCI said that something was a slam dunk {copy} which was not a slam dunk, even given the underlying classified intelligence, that was not giving the president the unvarnished truth.
Now, you’re not responsible for what Tenet said, but your assurance here that you will do that is important.
There’s another aspect of unvarnished truth here, though.
And that is, that if you conclude that policymakers are making public statements that differ from the classified intelligence.
What action will you take?
And I want to just give you a couple recent examples.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, a single uncorroborated report alleged that the lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohammed Atta, had met in Prague in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence officer named Al-Ani.
On December 9th, 2001, Vice President Cheney said {copy, copy} that the Prague meeting had been, quote,
“pretty well confirmed,”
although it had never been confirmed.
On September 8th, 2002, Vice President Cheney was asked if the CIA thought the report of the meeting was credible.
And he said it was
“credible.”
But in fact — in fact — as early as late spring of 2002, long before that statement, the intelligence community was skeptical that the meeting had taken place.
In June of 2002, the CIA issued a then-classified report that said that the information about the meeting was contradictory.
It now turns out that in January 2003 — now that’s still before the war — that the CIA published a then-classified report that said the following, quote:
“Some information asserts that Atta met with Al-Ani. But” — and these are the key words — “the most reliable reporting to date casts doubt on that possibility.”
Close quote.
Now that language was just declassified at my request within the last week by the CIA.
So you have the CIA, in its classified assessment, saying that
“the most reliable reporting to date casts doubt on that possibility.”
But yet you have the top policymakers saying that, that meeting, we believe, took place.
My question to you is this:
What would you do?
If you were DNI at the time that kind of a public statement were made.
If you believed that it went beyond the classified intelligence.
John Negroponte: I think you’re raising a hypothetical.
Carl Levin: No, that’s a real one.
John Negroponte: But looking to the facts here, Senator, it seems to me that everything we’ve gone through in these last months — the 9/11 report {copy}, the WMD Commission report {copy}, the reports that you have done — are to look at ways in which we can correct and reform and improve the modus operandi of the intelligence community in order to avoid these kinds of situations being repeated.
I would, first of all, do my utmost to make sure that the right intelligence is presented to the president, the vice president, the Cabinet members and our armed forces and the Congress.
Carl Levin: And if you believed an erroneous statement was made by a top policymaker to the public?
What would you do?
John Negroponte: Well, I think that, first of all, given an opportunity to comment beforehand on the correctness or not of the statement, and if I had information that contradicted what was in a draft presidential speech, I would seek to ensure that that incorrect information did not find its way into a presidential or ...
Carl Levin: And if it did?
John Negroponte: Well, you know, we have to cross that bridge, Senator.
But I believe that we’ve got to work to establish objective intelligence. And the Intelligence Reform Act deals with a number of mechanisms designed to do that.
Carl Levin: Thank you.
____________________
Never in the history of the world, has a simplier question been asked of an honest man:
“What would you do?”
Yet, Mr. Negroponte did not answer the question.
In his mind, the question doesn’t compute.
His duty is to obey orders.
That’s what he’s always done. That’s why George W. Bush gave him the job. A safe and trusted pair of hands.
Sure, he’s got no problem laying the truth before policy makers. Those are his orders. And it’s a very simple matter, to ensure what that truth is, if they don’t want to hear the actual truth. Just like last time.
Because intelligence, by definition, is opinion, not fact. Mainly, a judgment on the knowledge and credibility of sources and intercepts. On guard against dupers and manipulators, with agendas, criminal enterprises, with inside knowledge of the intelligence community, fictitious evidence, forged documents, doctored soil samples, scripted electronics (telephone talk, emails, faxes, radio talk), designed to be intercepted. Just like last time.
And it’s easy to find like minded people, to make the final decisions, in a National Intelligence Estimate, what to assert is the community opinion, and what to footnote as a minority view. Or omit entirely. Just like last time. When they bypassed the National Intelligence Council, and appointed a CIA WINPAC official instead, to be their designated liar, the engine room of the criminal conspiracy, who proceeded to footnote the opinion of experts — on aluminum tubes, battlefield rockets, Niger uranium, unmanned aerial vehicles — pretending the indifferent, deferential, acquiescence of non-expert agencies, on those expert topics, was the community’s opinion. And concealing all of this from the unclassified public version of the NIE, the only version nearly every Member of Congress ever saw, omitting the Air Force’s dissent on unmanned aerial vehicles, for example, a key lie, which many Members of Congress have mentioned as influencing their vote, because the liars who briefed them said Saddam could attack the United States with these nonexistent UAVs.
All to please his political masters.
Exactly like Tony Blair’s designated liar did, in the U.K., John Scarlett, who also cancelled a committee meeting, where experts would have refused, to endorse the false claims he inserted, at the last minute, without their approval, into Tony Blair’s discredited dossier, on Iraq’s supposed WMD. A willful or reckless liar, who has so far escaped judgment as such, by a U.K. judge (Brian Hutton), who decided to join with John Scarlett, the both of them violating their duties, blinding themselves, to the underlying evidence, erroneously, negligently, recklessly, willfully, representing intelligence, neither had ever seen, to be what it is not.
And simpler still, if the various agencies — now safely operating under different chains of command — are brought under a unified chain of command, so all officials will now know, their jobs are imperiled, and whom they must now please, to keep their jobs, to gain advancement.
Which John R. Bolton will be glad to see, because the WMD analyst he berated did not work for him, and had no duty to collude in a lie about Cuba, because that analyst’s chain of command excluded Bolton, reporting directly {62kb.pdf} to the Secretary of State instead, not to Bolton, or to any other Under Secretary.
Failing which, scope for imposing his will on an Estimate is sharply reduced, and can operate only where there’s difference of opinion, among the separate agencies, who now have no duty to obey orders from other agencies. A difference of opinion he can create, by enleaguing at least one agency, though plagued by those niggling footnotes, from others, he cannot eradicate.