It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Iranian agents dupe Pentagon officials?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Did Iranian agents dupe Pentagon officials?


www.mcclatchydc.com

The revelation raises questions about whether Iran may have used a small cabal of officials in the Pentagon and in Vice President Dick Cheney's office to feed bogus intelligence on Iraq and Iran to senior policymakers in the Bush administration who were eager to oust the Iraqi dictator.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
This is a pretty jaw dropping read, actually. I'm not ready to stand up and tout it's merits as a defense for why our intelligence failed us prior to Iraq, but if you think about it, it is certainly plausible. In fact, if true it would be more troubling to me than if it was proven tomorrow that the White House flat out lied to get us to attack Iraq. The idea that our leaders were completely hoodwinked and tricked into doing Iran's dirty work for them is scary as hell.

www.mcclatchydc.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


The administration had the plans to attack Iraq before they had the intelligence to support it. They weren't hoodwinked by Iran. They may have used false intel provided by them, but it was to serve their own purpose. If true, the situation was mutually beneficial to both parties.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
The answer to the question posed by the title is, NO.

The US was not given bad intel. There really wasn't any intel at all. This was not an intelligence failure, this was an administration failure.



This article is meant to whip up support for war on Iran. Pure propaganda.

Here is the "smoking gun" evidence that led us to war...




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Desperate propaganda? or A Stunning admission?

This story is too good to be true! I know it's a very cynical suggestion but consider please:

The report states:


... Defense Department counterintelligence investigators suspected that Iranian exiles who provided dubious intelligence on Iraq and Iran to a small group of Pentagon officials ...


First, I must point out that I would be very curious to know where these DoD CI investigators are now. The must be personal friends of John Walcott of the McClatchy Newspapers company, the reporter. Interestingly, no trace of this story appears (yet) on AP, REUTERS, or any other competing news-stream (nice scoop John). We may never know.

Second, can someone tell me just how small is "A small group of Pentagon officials?" This would be the lowest number of people necessary to completely derail all the fail safe checks and balances protecting the nation. What is the fewest number of seditious traitors it takes to screw America out of the fruits of our labor (for money?)

This story in one fell swoop deals two great benefits to the administration, its exculpatory towards their conduct during pre/post Iraq War, AND PLACES THE EVIL BLAME ON OUR LATEST HUCKLEBERRY, Iran. Good news, sort of, it wasn't money to blame, the implication is that it was those radical terrorists again.


Background on the source.
Coauthored - Best Laid Plans: The Inside Story of America's War Against
Terrorism
Mr. Walcott served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense

McClatchy Company recently (2006) enjoyed a huge growth spurt when it acquired giant Knight Ridder, the second-largest newspaper company in the United States. It's one of those mega-conglomerate 'press' companies whose consolidating all news sources into a single entity. (you know the ones that were fostered by the politicos, despite public objections)

All the potential for this being propaganda is there. No disrespect intended to the OP, it is a very alarming and noteworthy thread. But this wouldn't be ATS if I didn't provide an alternative CT theory



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Several of us hopped on this news article but burdman beat us to it.


Anyway... its one more in a long string of harsh and bitter exposures of this corrupt and criminal administration...

... If I were the next congress I would open up and exhaustive investigation with the goal of inditing and trying the key figures of this administration including bush minor, cheney the dick, dumbsfeld and rice, among others for high crimes against the state....

... we need to in order to set an example for the good of the nation because if not the next time a bunch of ideologues get the reins of power, the results could be far far worse.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
This is not really breaking news.....Mr. Chalabi was/is an iranian backed double spy, and is now in charge of Iraqi oil sales to...Iran. Mr. Chalabi was paid 400,000 per month by the pentagon for years until they figured out who he was, and the info he fed the pentagon was trash.

par for the course....if you really want to see something, you will



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
No doubt, the potential for it being propaganda is out there, but then again that could be argued for almost any article posted anywhere. Every "news" story has some level of bias circulating around it and found within it, regardless the source. I'm not so sure that it is pure propaganda, however. If you really think about it, isn't the idea that our government was so easily tricked into doing another, non-allied nation's dirty work just as alarming as the idea that they flat out lied to the American people? At least with the full out lie scenario, we're retaining our sovreignity... with this possibillity we've basically been relegated to a puppet status. I really don't think the administration really wants this type of information known for that reason.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
The point here, is that there was no pre-war intelligence that was credible. Not that we had good evidence fed to us that turned out to be wrong. There just wasn't any credible evidence in the first place, regardless of where it came from.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Actually, we did have some good pre-war evidence. The strongest "evidence" in my mind, and the only evidence we should have needed, was a very defiant Saddam Hussein. Throwing the UN weapons inspectors out of the country every 6 months isn't compliancy. Refusing to complete the disclosure statements and refusing to cooperate with the inspectors throughout the course of 17 different disarmament attempts by the UN isn't compliancy. Did we find the missing WMDs that were unaccounted for in the papers Hussein turned over? No, we didn't. Could Hussein have prevented this whole war purely by being forthright, open, honest, and cooperating with the weapons inspectors? Yep, sure could have. Dick Cheney responds to a reporter's question with a defiant "so what?" and you want to have the man impeached, imprisoned, and (at least for the most extreme administration haters) executed for his arrogant, cocky, and flippiant attitude. Saddam Hussein repeatedly and arrogantly defies and makes a mockery out of the international law enforcement agency trying to save his mangey ass and suddenly we have no credible evidence that justifies removing him from power?

Have I missed something here?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
This report is a load of trash.

So the Administration has it's backs against the wall for forging intelligence in order to attack Iraq... and their excuse?... Iran did it. lol. Give me a break.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



Have I missed something here?


The picture I posted above aparrently.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Iran certainly helped to covertly build a case for an Iraqi invasion. Its hard to assess how important that impact was without having access to all the documentation though.

The Neoconservative officials within the Pentagon and the White House certainly wanted to go in, and the oil and reconstruction companies wouldn't complain at getting some more government contracts either. The question becomes how important was Iran's role in supplying intelligence justfiying the invasion? I've read enough to suggest that Iran passed on the faked Niger Uranium documents via the Italian SISMI as well as having Chalabi in the Pentagon, both of which reinforced the WMD line being pursued by the White House at the time.

I think that alone warrants further investigation. If Iran is enabling American unilateralism to its own benefit, then there are problems with US policy that need to be looked at.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Did we find the missing WMDs that were unaccounted for in the papers Hussein turned over? No, we didn't. Could Hussein have prevented this whole war purely by being forthright, open, honest, and cooperating with the weapons inspectors? Yep, sure could have.


We never did find out what was in those 8000 missing pages that the US took from the submitted Iraqi papers before presenting them to the UN. Whatever was there, it must have been something pretty damning and potentially harmful to the US. I wonder if the pages are still locked away somewhere or did they go to the shredder and incinerator ASAP


I find this whole story pretty funny really. Mired in allegations of lying to kickoff the war, they now whine and say the faulty intel was the Iranians fault.

Surely this revelation must be taken with a bucket load of salt and be viewed as a desperate measure by a desperate administration.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Rogue Element
 


Keep in mind that the whole reason Saddam Hussein tried to keep up some appearance that he had WMD's, and that his military was still a force to be reckoned with, was to put off the potential for Iranian agression. Of course Iran was going to say that Saddam was a threat, that's exactly what he needed them to think in the interests if Iraqi national security. Saddam was no threat to the world, but he still had to give the appearance that he could defend himself against his primary foe.




new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join