Some in US Intel. Community Reject Obama Admin Case for Syria Attack
NO ADVERTISING, GOVERNMENT OR CORPORATE FUNDING
DONATE TODAY

Some in US Intel. Community Reject Obama Admin Case for Syria Attack


Pt 1: Gareth Porter: US Intelligence on Syria "cherry-picked" by proponents of proposed strike -   October 3, 14
Members don't see ads. If you are a member, and you're seeing this appeal, click here


Audio

Share to Facebook Share to Twitter



I support The Real News Network because it is not Conservative, it is not Liberal; it is Real. - David Pear
Log in and tell us why you support TRNN

Bio

Gareth Porter is a historian and investigative journalist specializing in US foreign and military policy. He writes regularly for Inter Press Service on US policy towards Iraq and Iran. He is the author of five books, of which the latest is Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

Transcript

Some in US Intel. Community Reject Obama Admin Case for Syria AttackJAISAL NOOR, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Jaisal Noor in Baltimore. And welcome to this latest edition of The Porter Report.

As the Obama administration continues to outline its case for attacking Syria, new revelations have come to light that call into question the very intelligence the White House is using to justify its actions.

Now joining us to discuss this is Gareth Porter. He's a historian and investigative journalist on U.S. foreign and military policy. He writes regularly for the Inter Press Service, and he received the U.K.-based Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2011 for his articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new piece published today in IPS is "Obama's Case for Syria Didn't Reflect Intel Consensus".

Thank you so much for joining us, Gareth.

GARETH PORTER, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: Thank you, Jaisal.

NOOR: So, Gareth, what do you know and how do you know it?

PORTER: Well, we know that there's a problem with the way in which the intelligence paper that the White House issued August 30 has been described, for a number of reasons. The thing that--the tipoff that should have alerted me and many others but which I and others missed is the fact that this paper about the intelligence on the Syrian chemical weapons attack or alleged attack of August 21 has been called by the White House, labeled a U.S. government assessment.

Now, that raises very fundamental question: why would the White House call a paper that's supposed to represent the intelligence community's perspective or their analysis of this intelligence a U.S. government assessment? And that is a tipoff that in fact this was not a paper that was put forward by the intelligence community itself and then simply released by the White House. It was a paper that went through a process which did involve the intelligence community, no doubt about that. They undoubtedly submitted their analyses, various intelligence agencies, the CIA, the DIA, and the 14 others, to the office of the director of national intelligence, James Clapper. There was a press report a couple of days, I think three days before the release of this paper indicating that the plan was that Clapper would be the person who would be the alleged author or the person whose name would be on this paper. But in fact his name is nowhere to be found. And I found from a very careful search of the website of the office of the director of national intelligence that it's nowhere to be found there either. It's only found on the White House website itself.

And incidentally, when I called the office of the director of national intelligence for this story on three successive days, a number of phone calls as well as an email, I could get no response whatsoever from them, and it's very clear they were refusing to talk to me about this. So this is the first clue that this was in fact a White House product in the end. But the White House had the final say over what was included in the product and not the director of national intelligence, not the CIA director or any of the other top officials of the intelligence community.

NOOR: So, Gareth, you talked to many former intelligence and government officials. One unnamed official you quote said this demonstrates the cherry picking of intelligence in this lead up to the possible attack on Syria. And you also talked to Greg Thielmann, who was involved in the government in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Can you talk about his significance and what it means that he's speaking out about this lead-up to the attack on Syria?

PORTER: Right. Well, first of all, just to be clear, the former senior intelligence official who I quoted saying that what was going on here was that the administration had put together something which allowed them to cherry pick the intelligence that they wanted to cite in support of their policy, the significance of that, of course, is that this was the charge against the Bush administration in 2002. And this senior intelligence official, who has decades of experience, has had dozens of security classifications, told me that he had never heard of the idea of a government assessment. He'd never seen that term used for any kind of document related to an international crisis, let alone a intelligence document, supposedly an intelligence assessment.

And what--when I asked Greg Thielmann about this, he said he agreed that there was something that was quite puzzling about this. He did not understand. He'd never himself seen the use of such a term and thought that it was a strange. And therefore he confirmed what the unnamed former senior intelligence official had said to me.

But I do want to make it clear that Greg Thielmann has said publicly and confirmed to me that he believes that the intelligence itself is more sound or firmer than it was in 2002. He's more satisfied with it. I disagree with that based on a very detailed analysis of what the White House did in fact cte in support of its plan to attack Syria in that August 30 paper. But he, on one hand, admits that there's something not quite right about it. But he's not ready to say the same thing, that this means that the White House has cherry picked the intelligence.

NOOR: And can you just give us a little background on Thielmann and his involvement in the State Department in the lead-up to the war in Iraq?

PORTER: Well, he was the State Department specialist on Iraq who was the person who had to deal with the issues relating to the national intelligence estimate that was being prepared in October--well, is being prepared in September and early October 2002 and had dissented from the point of view that predominated in the CIA, and which essentially was the one that was carried in the national intelligence estimate of October 2002, on the issues of aluminum tubes, the famous aluminum tubes that were claimed to be evidence of a very advanced program of nuclear weapons on the part of Saddam and the question of the mobile bio weapons labs. So he was the State Department person who was entering in dissent on that set of issues.

NOOR: So, Gareth, thank you so much for joining us for part one of this discussion. We're going to continue this discussion and air part two of it tomorrow.

PORTER: Thank you, Jaisal.

NOOR: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.


Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Comments


Latest Stories


Bullock Trial Begins Friday
Sanders Lead: Why is He Silent on U.S. Foreign Policy?
First Canadian Officer Convicted for Mass Arrests at 2010 G-20 Toronto Summit
What Would Happen to the Eurozone if Greece Leaves?
Katrina Victims Were Forced into Exile
National Day of Action Pushes Democratic Senators to Support Iran Deal
International Law and "The Responsibility to Protect" - Vijay Prashad on Reality Asserts Itself (4/4)
Days of Revolt: State Violence and Counter Violence
The Sky Is Not Falling? China's Stock Market Impact
Why is Saudi Arabia Now Supporting the Iran Deal?
The PLO's "Game of Musical Chairs"
GRITtv with Laura Flanders: New Orleans and the Economics of Recovery
Chelsea Manning, the Nuremberg Charter and Refusing to Collaborate with War Crimes - Vijay Prashad on Reality Asserts Itself (3/4)
A Fire In My Soul
Smoke and Mirrors of Corporate Buybacks Behind the Market Crash
Computer Voting and Stealing Democracy
Questioning the Underlying Structures of Property and Power is "Off the Table" - Vijay Prashad on Reality Asserts Itself (2/4)
AIPAC Spending Millions to Defeat Iran Deal, But Efforts Are Falling Flat
Sanders: Great White Hope or Hype?
Moving Towards a Police State - Michael Ratner on Reality Asserts Itself (7/7)
Decades of Relentless Austerity in Canada Could Defeat the Conservatives
Chicago Parents Launch Hunger-Strike for Community Input in School's Future
Athlete Turned Artist & Movement for Black Lives Conference
Marx and Tolstoy Helped Me See the Limits of Liberalism - Vijay Prashad on Reality Asserts Itself (1/4)
Greek Left Platform Creates New Popular Unity Party
Macedonian Police Clash With Refugees at Greek Border
Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras Tenders His Resignation
Former IAEA Inspector: Iranian "Self-Inspection" Won't Undermine Deal
ACLU: Illegal Pocomoke Meeting Should Void Chief's Firing
Typhoid Outbreak Latest Catastrophe for Palestinians in Besieged Yarmouk Refugee Camp

RealNewsNetwork.com, Real News Network, Real News, Real News For Real People, IWT are trademarks and service marks of IWT.TV inc. "The Real News" is the flagship show of IWT and Real News Network.

All original content on this site is copyright of The Real News Network. Click here for more

Problems with this site? Please let us know

Linux VPS Hosting by Star Dot Hosting