ATS: US Foreign Policy Expert: Washington Doctored Intelligence on N.Korea Nuke Threat

A top-ranking expert on US foreign policy has claimed that the US government has distorted intelligence reports pertaining to the development of a weapons-grade uranium enrichment program by hard-line Communist North Korea. Released yesterday, the article alleges intentional blurring of the distinction between "civilian and military uranium-enrichment capabilities" on the part of the US government.



The increasingly apparent non-existence of the Weapons of Mass Destruction which were cited by the Bush administration and US intelligence as justification for the invasion of Iraq continues to be a thorn in the side for the War on Terror. When this is coupled with surfacing allegations of "cooked" intelligence reports concerning a North Korean nuclear weapons program, and the death under mysterious circumstances of British intelligence "whistle-blower" Dr. David Kelly in July 2003, doubts may well be raised as to the integrity and the true intentions of both the Bush and Blair administrations.

Intelligence agencies are ideally instruments of peace, serving as a "we know what you're up to" form of preventing conflicts between sovereign nations. However, when those agencies are used to fabricate intelligence or to mislead the public, they then become the very instruments of war. When those instruments are placed in the hands of governments of questionable principles, suddenly the future looks ominous indeed.

The intelligence community is our watcher on the world. But as the old saying goes: "Who's watching the watchers?"

Related News Links:
news.yahoo.com
www.theage.com.au
www.wpherald.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
TA-HISTORY: Powell: Iraq WMD case based on 'flawed sources'
NEWS: Mushroom Cloud Seen After N.Korea Explosion 9/9/04
Forget Iraq. Look what's happening in Korea!

Seems to me that your verdict is given, eh wecomeinpeace?
Let me get this straight, when a 'man', in the position of Mr. "Top-Ranking Expert of US Foreign Policy," makes a claim it amounts to being 'gospel,' eh?

Sorry to bust your bubble here, but seems to me that before posting this article, perhaps one should have searched around to 'verify' said "claims"?

The CIA released a report detailing their concerns on this matter, as well as on others.
An article released in November says as much:

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has restated its belief that Iran has secretly pursued nuclear weapons, and also says North Korea is continuing to develop ballistic missiles that could reach parts of the United States. The CIA posted the unclassified report on its Internet website.

CIA Releases Report on WMD in Iran, North Korea

Seems that the IAEA "claims" and/or suspects that N.Korea has:

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency is convinced North Korea has built four to six nuclear bombs out of the nuclear material the agency had monitored there until 2002.

North Korea 'has six nuclear bombs'

There have been multitudes of nations who have said that NKorea has nukes: South Korea, Japan, the UK, the US, and others, even the NKoreans, but hey, maybe this is "cooked" information also, huh?
NK Nuclear Weapons Program
More info:
North korea has nuclear bombs




seekerof

[edit on 10-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Seekerof,
Nowhere did I state that the words of this expert were "gospel", as you put it. The post reports an event. What was that event? That an expert had issued an article. It goes on to detail that person's claims and the content of his article. It does not report that undeniable evidence had been found, nor does it state that intelligence figures had come forth to verify those claims. If you read the post again, you will notice that throughout, I consistently use words such as "claims", "apparent", "mysterious circumstances", "allegations", "doubts", "questions raised", and so forth.

Perhaps you are correct in that I did not research greatly into the background of the expert in question, however your reaction seems to stem from more than simply questioning posting form. That being said, I respect you as a moderator of this forum and one with more experience on this board than I, and I will edit my post if you feel it is necessary.

Regarding the content of the article and your links, I'm still waiting to see the Iraq WMDs that the CIA released reports of, well prior to the current Iran/NK reports that you refer to.

Another inconsistancy is glaring in taking the assessment of this "expert" at his word because then one has to ask just what was the 94' Clinton deal all about and why was all that money wasted on an ill-fated or as now claimed an unwarranted trumped up belief that North Korea has the ability to process plutonium and make nuclear weapons.

Who lied? Clinton or more recently El Baradei and the IAEA or is everyone suspect except for this "Foreign policy expert" with an opinion.

Or is this story another twist on the tried and true "Bush Lied" bandwagon?

wecomeinpeace,
Lack of evidence does not necessarily rule out that someone doesn't have something.

As to this:

Regarding the content of the article and your links, I'm still waiting to see the Iraq WMDs that the CIA released reports of, well prior to the current Iran/NK reports that you refer to.

Again, an in depth search of the internet or internet archives will indicate that the US was not the only one's who had intelligence reports and/or documentations stating and.or indicating that Saddam/Iraq had WMDs. The UN still has Iraq as having "unaccounted for WMDs". Prior to the war, literally everyone (the UN, France, Germany, Russia, UK, USA, Spain, Etc., etc., etc) claimed and asserted, by their own intelligence briefs, reports, documentations, etc., that Saddam/Iraq had WMDs. Prior President Clinton and his administration, along with the CIA, asserted and claimed as much.



seekerof

[edit on 10-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
wecomeinpeace,
Lack of evidence does not necessarily rule out that someone doesn't have something.

Ok, this is true, but two points:

Firstly, if there is no evidence, then where did the reports of the WMDs in Iraq come from in the first place? Did the evidence that was there suddenly disappear? In the first of the related threads, Powell himself admits the info was from flawed sources and the evidence he submitted was not solid. This is a direct, open admission of distortion.

Secondly, �h have heard the argument many times on ATS that you can't prove a negative. Folks will come up with theories about "Reptoids" and when confronted they say, "prove that they don't exist", to which others will reply that the burden of proof lies with he/she who comes up with the theory. So here we have "claims" and "theories" of WMDs without any evidence. The burden of proof still lies with the governments who have used these claims as justification for a war.

...the US was not the only one's who had intelligence reports and/or documentations stating and.or indicating that Saddam/Iraq had WMDs. The UN still has Iraq as having "unaccounted for WMDs". Prior to the war, literally everyone (the UN, France, Germany, Russia, UK, USA, Spain, Etc., etc., etc) claimed and asserted, by their own intelligence briefs, reports, documentations, etc., that Saddam/Iraq had WMDs. Prior President Clinton and his administration, along with the CIA, asserted and claimed as much.

Sure, all of those governments claiming the same thing is very convincing. Hey, I was convinced at the time. But majority does not necessarily denote correctness, or even integrity. So we have all of these governments claiming and asserting that the WMDs are there for all to see and, let's face it: they're simply not there. Seems a little odd, wouldn't you say?

I see a few possibilities:

1. The WMDs were never there and intelligence reports were hammed up to justify a war that was planned well before.

2. The intelligence communities of all of these governments are all a bunch of ijits who couldn't tell a satellite pic of missile launch pad from an ice-cream van.

3. The WMDs were there, but they were somehow smuggled out of the country, despite the intensive surveillance of the country throughout.

4. The WMDs are still waiting to be found, and have been hidden in mountain bunkers or unchecked warehouses somewhere.

Which is the facts? Maybe we'll never know.

Seems a little odd, wouldn't you say?

No. Again wecomeinpeace, why does the UN, to this day, STILL have Iraq as having "unaccounted for WMDs"?

As for the possiblilites, I will go with your #3 and #4, along with a few other possibilities.




seekerof

Is anyone really shocked? The Bush empire is unraveling with defections and the casting of light on his dirty little secrets. No matter how much people want to squeeze thier eyes shut and stick thier fingers in your ears, they can't ignore the truth forever. We'll see some more scapegoating, more scandals, then Bush will become even a bigger lame duck president than he is right now.

curme....thats seriously hilarious.
Btw, was Clinton and his cronies lying when they reported, documented, and stated that Saddam/Iraq had WMDs?



seekerof

"Unaccounted for" implies that the existence of the WMDs was and has been verified, that the WMDs were counted, that they were documented with evidence, and that they are now 'missing'. So...(not mocking here)...where is this evidence? Do you have a link to sat pics? Does the U.N. or anybody else claim to have undeniable pictures of all these WMDs? I'm seriously asking. If I can see some WMDs turn up, then my faith in government and the cause will be restored somewhat.

"Unaccounted for" implies that the existence of the WMDs was and has been verified, that the WMDs were counted, that they were documented with evidence, and that they are now 'missing'.

Umm, no.
"Unaccounted for" means exactly what it implies: unaccounted for. The UN inspections (numerous) were not able to certify or account for the WMDs and their parts. They were not accounted for then lost, despite a few cases of such occuring. That is a misleading explanation for what the UN has listed as "unaccounted for" and NOT accounted for and then lost, misplaced, etc.
The Great WMD Hunt
What Happened to Iraq's WMDs?

Please bear in mind that "proofs and evidences' are a matter of a number of things, but that this discussion of Saddam/Iraq having or not having WMDs has been, quite literally, discussed intensely and in depth....all within the ATS archives. Utilize the search for what you seek.



seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
curme....thats seriously hilarious.
Btw, was Clinton and his cronies lying when they reported, documented, and stated that Saddam/Iraq had WMDs?

seekerof

Were weapon inspectors lying when they said they were gone, as per UN resolutions? Are you still grasping for the WMD straw? Pick Saddam was a dictator, ties to al queda, oil for food, something new. Bush has abandoned the WMD excuse a long time ago, I think we should finally put it to bed.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Please bear in mind that "proofs and evidences' are a matter of a number of things, but that this discussion of Saddam/Iraq having or not having WMDs has been, quite literally, discussed intensely and in depth....all within the ATS archives. Utilize the search for what you seek.

That's actually good advice, Seekerof. I've been a part of quite a few of those myself. Please feel free to join one of the more recent ones so that we can have a closer look at how much insight you actually have on this issue.

I had missed this article and actually submitted an article a little while ago on this not knowing it had been reported. I don't understand why your article was placed in ATS, which tends to lessen its seriousness. Personally, I believe that to be a faulted decision, but that's my opinion.

I have researched this situation and believe the claims of both Harrison and Pollack to be of substance.

If you take into account the normalization of relations taking place in 2002, when Kelly made the accusation, it makes sense. Here's my write-up which also contains historical reports from a couple of international foreign policy groups:

Expert Accuses U.S. of Exaggerating North Korean Uranium Program