"A temporary coup"

[seemslikeadream]

The bitterest dispute, though not the only one, is between the CIA and the Pentagon, whose own secret intelligence unit, the Office of Special Plans, aggressively promoted the war on Iraq. While departing CIA Director George Tenet played along with the Bush administration -- a fact which Powers says reveals the urgent need for a truly independent intelligence chief -- much of the agency is enraged at the Pentagon, which put intense pressure on it to produce reports tailored to the policy goals of the Bush White House. The simmering tensions between the Pentagon, with its troika of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith, and rank and file CIA personnel boiled over in July 2003, when the White House trashed the career of veteran CIA operative Valerie Plame by leaking her identity. The move was a crude retaliation against Plame's husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had exposed the Bush administration's specious claim that Saddam had sought "yellowcake" from Africa to build a nuclear bomb.

The struggle between the CIA and the Defense Department reached a bizarre climax a few weeks ago when Ahmed Chalabi's office was very publicly ransacked by officers working under the command of the CIA; the Iraqi exile leader was later accused of leaking vital information to Iran, among other allegations. The abrupt fall from grace of the man hand-picked by neoconservative policymakers to lead post-Saddam Iraq, says Powers, lays bare the brutal turf war between the two sides.

"It reveals an extraordinary level of bitter combat between the CIA and the Pentagon. It's astonishing that the CIA actually oversaw a team of people who broke into Chalabi's headquarters -- which was paid for by the Pentagon -- and ransacked the place. The CIA single-handedly destroyed him."

The collapse of U.S. intelligence and the arrogance and extremism at the top of the Bush administration are also at the root of the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib prison, Powers says. With U.S. troops facing a mounting insurgency from an enemy they couldn't find, Powers believes Bush officials signed off on a systematic policy of hardcore interrogation in a frantic attempt to deal with the problem. He says that while it's unlikely Defense Secretary Rumsfeld gave specific orders as to what type of abuse should be meted out to the Iraqi prisoners, there is strong reason to believe Rumsfeld "issued blanket permission for them to turn up the heat."

more
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/14/coup/index.html

[Tellurian]

1. Temporary? I hope not!

The CIA has to keep the heat on until Justice is served!

[Pachamama]

2. Wow - who would ever have thought that we would be cheering on the CIA

...that the CIA could be the saving grace from the tyranny of King George and his merry maniacs....

[seemslikeadream]

3. I'm starting to feel bi-polar

[coloradodem2005]

4. Well, I believe in the agency.

I don't know about actively cheering them on. They are obviously pissed about the leak and because they have been undermined in other ways.

[Gemini Cat]

5. That's very true.

I would never have thought I'd cheer the CIA on. Then again, I never thought someone or several someones would out an agent.

[Buns_of_Fire]

6. "The CIA single-handedly destroyed him (Chalabi)."

The shot over the bow of USS Bunnypants?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

7. While largely correct, here are some corrections to that article...

1. When the former CIA officers began giving highly damaging to the press following the Plame exposure by the NeoCons, only Tenet could have given them permission to do so. Exposing Plame was bad enough, but her front company as well as the 60-70 operatives tracking the materials used to make WMDs were also exposed.

2. Tenet strongly advised Junior not to mention the Iraqi WMDs during his State of the Union address.

3. Tenet also strongly advised Powell not to mention the Iraqi WMDs during his address to the UN. Powell is just now saying that he was misled by the intelligence that he was given. Additionally, the OSP was responsible for that bogus information.

4. The CIA has been leaking like a sieve since the Plame exposure...who do you think authorized those leaks, or at least looked the other way when the leaks were taking place? By the way, those leaks are getting progressively more damiaging to the NeoCons.

5. Tenet was a long-time CIA employee. From his bio, it appears that he joined the CIA shortly after he completed his masters degree in 1978. He was well-liked by his fellow CIA employees, and he was well-liked by Congresspeople on both sides of the aisle.

Doesn't sound like a guy that was "playing along", does it?

6. The DIA was the intelligence group that masterminded the figurative kick to Chalabi's nether region, not the CIA. Remember, the CIA is NOT the only intelligence group that was kicked to the curb when Rummy and the rest of the Pentagon NeoCons formed the OSP.

7. We currently have the following groups at odds with the NeoCons: CIA, DIA, a strong faction of senior military officers, a strong faction of former ambassadors/senior military officers, the FBI, a strong faction of the DoJ including judges, and a large section of the mainstream media who are controlled by the CIA...read Operation Mockingbird:

<http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_01_03_03_mockingbird.html>.

8. We had a previous "temporary coup" take place when two-star General Al Haig became the Chief of Staff for Nixon. Haig reported directly to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and to no one else. The guy carrying the "football" (nuclear codes) stopped following Nixon and was assigned to someone else...who that was is not clear even to this day. All military commands received the order to "disregard all orders from the Commander-in-Chief". Haig's reward was to be given the 4-star job heading up NATO, a job that jumped Haig over dozens of officers with higher rank.

[Robbien]

8. Not to mention some corporates aren't too happy either

Plame was the CIA covert operative who had her finger on the pulse of Saudi oil. When she was outed the whole operation was closed down and our monied corporates are now handicapped in their deals with the House of Saud.

[Merlin]

11. Thanks for this good stuff, MLD. But I'm confused a little.

In your #1, you say:
"Exposing Plame was bad enough, but her front company as well as the 60-70 operatives tracking the materials used to make WMDs were also exposed."

But your prior sentence is:
"When the former CIA officers began giving highly damaging to the press following the Plame exposure by the NeoCons, only Tenet could have given them permission to do so."

Are you saying it was Tenet who revealed Plame's front co. & the operatives?

If not, then what is the "highly damaging (info) to the press" you mention?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. The former CIA officers were given permission by Tenet to speak...

...to the public to express the outrage of the CIA over the exposure of Plame, etc. During the course of those public conversations, information was revealed that was highly damaging to the NeoCons.

When CIA officers retire, they are still bound by certain restrictions when discussing what they did in the CIA. Prior to writing a book and/or discussing the CIA in any way, they must get permission from the Director of the CIA before doing so.

And no, Tenet did NOT expose Plame, her front company, etc. That WOULD be pretty insane, would it not? :-)

Hope that helps...sorry for the confusion from my poorly worded comment in my earlier post.

[Merlin]

28. The problem is Tenet has been very ambiguous.

>"Tenet did NOT expose Plame, her front company, etc. That WOULD be pretty insane, would it not? :-)"

I don't know. The problem I think many of us have is that Tenet's role in all of this has been so seemingly ambiguous--if not duplicitous.

From the very start--even before the congressional resolution--my sense has been that the professionals in the company were always very clear that any intel suggesting Iraqi WMDs and/or cxs w/aQ was highly suspect and definitely not confirmed. Yet Tenet has acquiesced, by silence, in suggestions that it was his intel that (1) Cheyney, (2) Powell, and (3) Bush all based their public assertions on.

If he is such a professional, and if he was himself victimized by the neocons, why did (does) he not at least trot out the suggestion that maybe Powell, for example, is way off base pinning his whorish, OSP-inspired UN lies on the agency? Of course the CIA often has to play the goat for public consumption, but it must be especially galling to do so in the face of solid evidence that the professionals gave precisely the opposite advice.

I appreciate your insight. But I still have questions about Tenet's objectivity. Seems more like he was playing footsie with the neocons to save his own ass, at the expense of the agency--and above all at the expense of the kind of honest intel the nation needs to base war & peace decisions upon. And that would seem to me to indicate that he has by now lost a lot of whatever respect he may previously have enjoyed in the ranks.

One of the things that still sticks in my craw about Tenet is what Joe Hoeffel told me--and I clarified it with him on two separate occassions. He said he personally asked Tenet, in a closed-door briefing, what the odds were that the WMD "intel" was accurate. "Beyond a doubt." was Tenet's answer. "At least 99%."

I do not say this to challenge your obviously well informed statements, but merely to express how the situation appears to somebody like me.

[oblivious]

12. I think he does sound like a guy 'playing along'.

I don't pretend to know anything about this, but remembered this excerpt from an old Dec 2002 article in The American Prospect, by Robert Dreyfuss, in reference to George Tenet:

-snip-But he took pains to ingratiate himself with the Bushes, père et fils. He quickly acted to name the CIA headquarters after former President Bush in 1998, organized a major intelligence conference at the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University -- itself headed by Robert Gates, a former CIA director -- and personally briefed then-Texas Gov. Bush during the 2000 election campaign. Tenet's quiet politicking was enough to persuade Bush to keep him on at the CIA, and the director's recent actions signal that he doesn't intend to buck the drive toward war.-end-

Also, from reading this article, you've got to wonder what the CIA rank and file thought of Tenet, when their research showed no link between Al-queda and Bagdad, yet Tenet says there was. Sounds like he just gave in to the political pressure.

-snip-What's got him excited is an Oct. 7 letter, recently declassified, from CIA Director George Tenet that put the CIA on record for the first time as saying that there have been "high-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade"; that Iraq and Osama bin Laden's gang have "discussed safe haven"; that members of al-Qaeda have been present in Baghdad; and that Iraq has "provided training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases."-end-

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/dreyfuss-r.html

[Media_Lies_Daily]

15. You have to remember that the NeoCons have been trying for quite...

...some time to pin the blame for the alleged "poor intelligence" on Tenet. I'll address your comments point-by-point.

In your first comment, you wrote:

"I don't pretend to know anything about this, but remembered this excerpt from an old Dec 2002 article in The American Prospect, by Robert Dreyfuss, in reference to George Tenet:

-snip-But he took pains to ingratiate himself with the Bushes, père et fils. He quickly acted to name the CIA headquarters after former President Bush in 1998, organized a major intelligence conference at the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University -- itself headed by Robert Gates, a former CIA director -- and personally briefed then-Texas Gov. Bush during the 2000 election campaign. Tenet's quiet politicking was enough to persuade Bush to keep him on at the CIA, and the director's recent actions signal that he doesn't intend to buck the drive toward war.-end-"

===========================================

First, CIA Directors ALWAYS brief the presidential candidate of the challenging party prior to the presidential elections. That way, if the challenger wins the election they are not in the dark about current intelligence situations around the world.

Second, the naming of CIA headquarters after George H. W. Bush was directed by the GOP-dominated Congress and signed by President Clinton. There is nothing Tenet or anyone in the CIA could have done to halt that activity. George H. W. Bush was a long-time CIA employee with heavy roots in the operational side of the house. Some say that his association with the agency may stretch as far back as the OSS toward the end of WWII, but it's more likely that it does extend back to the very early days of the CIA after its formation. It appears that Bush, Sr. was involved with most, if not all, of the foreign and domestic operations conducted by the CIA in North, Central, and South America. More ominously, a pic has recently surfaced placing Mr. Bush in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Third, there was probably pressure from the FratBoy Fuhrer to have the intelligence conference mentioned above held at Texas A&M. How else was Tenet supposed to deal with that request?

Fourth, in the same paragraph in the American Prospect article, Tenet is described as a politician, not a long-time CIA employee...and that is patently false. Tenet appears to have joined the CIA pretty soon after he finished his masters degree in 1978. The first two companies by whom he was allegedly employed required that Tenet travel extensively overseas...the first in his parent's native country, Greece, and the second with a broader international scope.

George Tenet bio:
<http://www.cnn.com/interactive/profiles/tenet/tenet.bio.html>

<http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/tenet.html>

<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1155&slug=Tenet%20Resigns>


In your second paragraph, you wrote the following:

"Also, from reading this article, you've got to wonder what the CIA rank and file thought of Tenet, when their research showed no link between Al-queda and Bagdad, yet Tenet says there was. Sounds like he just gave in to the political pressure.

-snip-What's got him excited is an Oct. 7 letter, recently declassified, from CIA Director George Tenet that put the CIA on record for the first time as saying that there have been "high-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade"; that Iraq and Osama bin Laden's gang have "discussed safe haven"; that members of al-Qaeda have been present in Baghdad; and that Iraq has "provided training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases."-end-"

First, Tenet has ALWAYS been well-liked inside the Agency. He came out of the ranks to become Director of the CIA, and never forgot that. He was also well-liked by Democrats and Republicans in Congress, as well as former members of Congress.

Second, the alleged information contained in the October 7th memo that seemed to excite Woolsey as discussed in the American Prospect article appears to have been taken rather broadly out of context, and/or outright fabricated. First, if it was declassified, where is the text of this memo? Here is some additional information on that memo:

<http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_103>

Excerpt:

"Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases - Bush alleges that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda operatives 'in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.' - White House, 10/7/02 - <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html>

Less than a week earlier, US spy agencies had completed a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in which they concluded that this allegation could not be confirmed. Furthermore, it turns out that the source of the claim is a single al-Qaeda member being held in custody by the US. According to an unnamed administration official, the claim has not yet been substantiated.

- Newsday, 10/10/02 - <http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/2002/newsday101002.htm>

- San Francisco Chronicle, 10/12/02 -
<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/10/12/MN186933.DTL>

- Washington Post, 6/22/03 -
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A19822-2003Jun21¬Found=true>

- CNN, 9/26/02 Sources: Unnamed administration official -
<http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/>

Third, Tenet was kept on at the Agency because of Tenet's work to difuse a crisis in the Middle East involving Israel. It had nothing to do with "politicking".

Fourth, Tenet can now do more OUTSIDE the agency to help remove the NeoCon Junta. He will be free to testify on a wide range of subjects when he is called on by Congress to do so.

[Ragin1]

26. poppy in dallas?

"More ominously, a pic has recently surfaced placing Mr. Bush in Dallas on November 22, 1963."

Do you have any more info on this? Links?

I want to thank everyone for an outstanding thread. These are the things I come to web forums for. Most of the time it's I hate yada yada yada.

[seemslikeadream]

30. Did you know that Barb took her little boy georgie to see the president

that day? Absolute fact!

Historian MICHAEL BESCHLOSS said so on Imus one morning

[Edmond Dantes]

18. Can you be more specific, please?

"7. We currently have the following groups at odds with the NeoCons: CIA, DIA, a strong faction of senior military officers, a strong faction of former ambassadors/senior military officers, the FBI, a strong faction of the DoJ including judges"

I am curious: To which DOJ faction do you refer? Also, I am struck by your reference to DOJ, including judges. DOJ is part of the executive branch, while most judges are part of the judicial branch. Are you referring to the FISA Court that sits physically in DOJ even though it is comprised of federal judges from the judicial branch?

I'm very interested in your observations!

[charlyvi]

29. I'm confused.

As to your statement that Tenet advised * not to mention Iraq WMD's in the SOTU address. I thought he advised him to leave out the factually incorrect statement that Saddam had bought Nigerian yellowcake. Advising him to leave out this factually incorrect statement is not the same as advising him to leave out mention of Iraqi WMD's. Also, Woodward's statement that Tenet told * the WMD's were a "slam dunk" seems to contradict his advising * not to mention them.

Not trying to be confrontational; I'm just confused.

[Dover]

9. A bit more.......

What do you make of the Byzantine twists of the Ahmed Chalabi story? By the time photos of his ransacked Baghdad compound filled the newspapers, the tale of his rise and fall seemed almost unbelievable, the stuff of a spy novel.

I think it reveals an extraordinary level of bitter combat between the CIA and the Pentagon. It's astonishing that things would get to such a level, where the CIA actually oversaw a team of people who broke into Chalabi's headquarters -- which was paid for by the Pentagon -- and ransacked the place and carried away his computers. Who do you think bought those computers? Those are your American tax dollars at work.

That level of internal animosity is amazing. Look at the chronology: First you have a moment when the Pentagon announces that it's cutting off the funds to Chalabi's intelligence operation. A few days later this raid takes place. Well, it looks pretty clear that somebody warned the Pentagon this was going to happen, so that they could at least cut off his funding and not be caught with their pants down. Chalabi was the Pentagon's candidate to run Iraq. Richard Perle still says that the single greatest mistake we've made so far was not putting Chalabi in power as soon we got there.

And who has actually gone into power now? The CIA's man: Iyad Allawi . That's a dramatic shift. As it was, Chalabi didn't appear to be the candidate that Lakhdar Brahimi was going to choose, but that invasion of Chalabi's office made it an impossibility. The CIA single-handedly destroyed him by doing that.

Chalabi is clearly a shady figure, but given the timing and chronology here, do you find the recent charges that he could be working for the Iranians believable? Or is it ultimately a smear campaign? What's at the center of all this?

Who knows! . We can only try to follow the logic of where the information about the leaked Iranian code would've come from. The conversation between Chalabi and the Iranian intelligence office was likely collected by the National Security Agency, which is normally in charge of that kind of data, who would've then passed it on to counterintelligence in the CIA. Or, the CIA might have actually sent a team into Chalabi's office to plant bugs or broadcasting devices, they might have conducted that type of black-bag operation in order to get access to that communication traffic. It's also conceivable the Defense Intelligence Agency was involved.

The information about Chalabi could certainly be real, but meanwhile, the CIA's guy Allawi apparently benefits by the removal from the scene of a principle rival -- right before Brahimi gets to choose the new government.


So this is ultimately the CIA fighting back against the Pentagon?

I think so -- can it really be a coincidence that this happens right before Brahimi announces the new government? U.S. intelligence knew about the compromised Iranian code about six weeks before the raid. So why wait till just before Brahimi's announcement? And why the large team of people and the very public display of trashing Chalabi headquarters and carting everything away? Regardless of the truth, when something like this happens, Brahimi is incapable of sorting it out. He just has to step away. It's one of those things you can't touch with a 10-foot pole..........MUCH MORE

[Tight_rope]

10. Wow! I don't know what to make of this!

I will take it with a grain of salt. I don't trust any form of the US government.

[Justice]

14. So That Is Why Tenet Had To Go?

"CIA actually oversaw a team of people who broke into Chalabi's headquarters -- which was paid for by the Pentagon -- and ransacked the place. The CIA single-handedly destroyed him."

And Bush probably said Tenet, you are all done b/c you let this happen and you embarassed me.

[Eloriel]

17. Given what the CIA has been doing vis a vis this administration

I prefer the notion that Tenet left so he could TESTIFY -- in the Plame affair, and whatever else comes up. If he were the sitting head of the CIA, he would be prevented from testifying against the chief executive. As an ex-employee (well, as ex- as CIA folks get), he doesn't have that restriction.

Time will tell. Perhaps.

[robbedvoter]

16. There's a Pentagon vs Pentagon dispute as well

The generals vs the civilians. Basically, it's theneocons vs everyone else.

[Tellurian]

19. MLD...thanks for the dissemination of facts

"First, CIA Directors ALWAYS brief the presidential candidate of the challenging party prior to the presidential elections. That way, if the challenger wins the election they are not in the dark about current intelligence situations around the world."

Does this mean Kerry is as knowledgeable as Bush about what is going on in Iraq?

"Fourth, Tenet can now do more OUTSIDE the agency to help remove the NeoCon Junta. He will be free to testify on a wide range of subjects when he is called on by Congress to do so."

Our very existence may depend on Tenet, the CiA, the fbi and hopefully the SS. By now, they must realize we are all Americans who are under the control of a rouge government. Who's intent, with the passage of PAII, is to enslave the America we've known and loved.

[AndyTiedye]

27. Those were the Old Rules

> "First, CIA Directors ALWAYS brief the presidential candidate of the
> challenging party prior to the presidential elections. That way, if
> the challenger wins the election they are not in the dark about
> current intelligence situations around the world."

He isn't the official candidate yet, and I'd be willing to bet that
he doesn't get briefed at all, until such time, if it ever comes, that
the regime yields up power after losing the election.

[Dover]

20. Are we in a crisis?

So Tenet knew that after the Chalabi raid incident he'd be fired...if one assumes that Rummy and the neocons wield greater influence with Bush. So it seems that Tenet fell on his sword for the CIA and its "backers" rather than Bushco. And hopefully that will leave him free to work now, outside the confines of employment.......hopefully to assist in whatever will be necessary to oust the regime.

But what will it take?

I don't think it is an exageration to say that we are at a critical point and a Constitutional crisis, as many are now suggesting. With Ashcroft's refusal to give up the memos WITHOUT any legal reasons, thereby being in contempt of Congress, we are where we were in the Nixon tape handover re. Watergate.(though Ashcroft's refusal is simply one in a long line of refusals to cooperate with Congress). Only this time around the neocons are testing the limits of the government's ability to back up it's laws. They have prepared well for this moment by positioning their people in all the critical positions of power. So the question in my mind is, HOW will this all come down?

Maybe we the people need to begin to think very seriously about how we will respond if things don't come down the way we'd like...

[Mithras61]

23. Another analysis...

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060804_coup_detat.html

COUP D'ETAT:
The Real Reason Tenet and Pavitt Resigned from the
CIA on June 3rd and 4th

Bush, Cheney Indictments in Plame Case Looming

by
Michael C. Ruppert

additional reporting by
Wayne Madsen from Washington

© Copyright 2004, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.

JUNE 8, 2004 1600 PDT (FTW) - Why did DCI George Tenet suddenly resign on June 3rd, only to be followed a day later by James Pavitt, the CIA's Deputy Director of Operations (DDO)?

The real reasons, contrary to the saturation spin being put out by major news outlets, have nothing to do with Tenet's role as taking the fall for alleged 9/11 and Iraqi intelligence "failures" before the upcoming presidential election.

Both resignations, perhaps soon to be followed by resignations from Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage, are about the imminent and extremely messy demise of George W. Bush and his Neocon administration in a coup d'etat being executed by the Central Intelligence Agency. The coup, in the planning for at least two years, has apparently become an urgent priority as a number of deepening crises threaten a global meltdown.

(much, much more...) It looks to me like the CIA has been preparing extensively for this, and the only real questionis before the election, or after Shrub steals another term...

[Dover]

24. Thanks. I read this the other day. So far it seems to be pretty accurate

but I am wondering what, exactly, the CIA side of this inner divide will actually DO if Bushco continues to defy the laws?

Can they be arrested? By what army or police force? Will it require a popular uprising or just how will anyone get this group to comply with the laws?

Just pondering what comes next.

[Mithras61]

25. If the Congress & Senate actually impeach & convict...

Then it won't matter if Bushco wants to step down or not. At that point, there would be either a military coup or they'd be out on their arse...

[Beetwasher]

21. This Confirms What Many of Us Have Been Saying For A While Now

Important article...

[ElementaryPenguin]

22. CIA! CIA! You can do it, CIA! - CIA! CIA! You can save the USA!!

That's my team!! Kick the Pentagoons and the Bushtapos greedy chickenhawks' ass!

:toast:

[Generator]

32. I tend to be in your camp

How wierd is it to be pro-CIA? I never thought it'd happen to me.

This is not your grandfather's CIA or maybe it needs to be?

Whatever it takes to bring the house of Shrub down.

[pinto]

31. kick 4 a great analytical article.......eom