michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 9, 2006 10:57:34 GMT 4
Could we expect any less from the Bush Administration when choosing a new Secretary of Defense? Some things never change....Michelle Gates Has History of Manipulating Intelligence By Jason Leopold t r u t h o u t | Report Wednesday 08 November 2006 Robert Gates, the former director of the CIA during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, and who was tapped Tuesday by the president to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, is part of Texas's good ol' boy network. He may be best known for playing a role in arming Iraq's former dictator Saddam Hussein with American made weapons in the country's war against Iran in the 1980's. Gates, who currently is president of Texas A&M University, came under intense fire during confirmation hearings in the early 1990's for being unaware of the explosive situation in Iraq in the 1980's, and the demise of the Soviet republic. Gates joined the CIA in 1966, and spent eight years there as an analyst before moving over to the National Security Council in 1974. He returned to the CIA in 1980, and a year later was appointed by Ronald Reagan to serve as deputy director for intelligence. Five years later, he was named deputy director for the agency, the number two post in the agency. In 1989, he was appointed deputy director of the National Security Council and in 1991, when the first Bush administration was in office, he was named director of the spy shop. During contentious Senate confirmation hearings in October 1991 - that are bound to come up again - Gates's role in cooking intelligence information during the Iran-contra scandal was revealed. It was during those hearings that senators found out about a December 2, 1986, 10-page classified memo written by Thomas Barksdale, the CIA analyst for Iran. That memo claimed that covert arms sales to the country demonstrated "a perversion of the intelligence process" that is staggering in its proportions. The Barksdale memo was used by Gates's detractors to prove he played an active role in slanting intelligence information during his tenure at the agency under Reagan. Eerily reminiscent of the way CIA analysts were treated by Vice President Dick Cheney during the run-up to the Iraq war three years ago, when agents were forced to provide the Bush administration with intelligence showing Iraq being a nuclear threat, Barksdale said he and other Iran analysts "were never consulted or asked to provide an intelligence input to the covert actions and secret contacts that have occurred." Barksdale added that Gates was the pipeline for providing "exclusive reports to the White House" intelligence that was "at odds with the overwhelming bulk of intelligence reporting, both from U.S. sources and foreign intelligence services." In testimony before the Senate on October 1, 1991, Harold P. Ford, former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, described an aspect of Gates's personality that mirrors many of the top officials in the Bush administration today. "Bob Gates has often depended too much on his own individual analytic judgments and has ignored or scorned the views of others whose assessments did not accord with his own. This would be okay if he were uniquely all-seeing. He has not been ...," Ford said. At the hearing, other CIA analysts said Gates forced them to twist intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by the former Soviet Union. Analysts alleged a report approved by Gates overstated Soviet influence in Iran that specifically led the late President Ronald Reagan into making policy decisions that turned into the Iran-contra scandal. Jennifer Glaudemans, a former CIA analyst, said at the 1991 Gates confirmation hearings that she and her colleagues at the CIA believed "Mr Gates and his influence have led to a prostitution of (Soviet) analysis." Melvin Goodman, Glaudemans former boss at the CIA, also said that under Gates, the CIA was "trying to provide the intelligence analysis ... that would support the operational decision to sell arms to Iran." Gates testified at his confirmation hearing in October 1991 that he was aware the United States was selling arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. But he denied that he had any knowledge that Oliver North, the former National Security aide, was diverting money from arms sales to Iran to secretly aid the Nicaraguan contras. But White House memos released at the time showed that North and John Poindexter, the national security adviser at the time, engaged in classified briefings with Gates on numerous occasions about Iran-contra. Poindexter testified that he discussed the situation with Gates, but Gates said at his Senate confirmation hearings he had "no recollection" about those conversations. Alan Fiers, a former CIA officer who served as an agency liaison along with North and met weekly with Gates, testified at Gates's confirmation hearings that he discussed specific details of the covert operation with Gates. "Bob Gates understood the universe, understood the structure, understood that there was an operational - that there was a support operation being run out of the White House," and "that Ollie North was the quarterback," Fiers said at Gate's confirmation hearing in 1991. "I had no reason to think he had great detail, but I do think there was a baseline knowledge there." If confirmed, Gates would arguably be overseeing a war that removed a dictator he personally helped to prop up. Tom Harkin, a senator from Iowa, described Gates's role in intelligence sharing operations with Iraq during a time when the United States helped arm Saddam Hussein in Iraq's war against Iran. "I also have doubts and questions about Mr. Gates's role in the secret intelligence sharing operation with Iraq," Harkin said during Gates's confirmation hearings on November 7, 1991. "Robert Gates served as assistant to the director of the CIA in 1981 and as deputy director for intelligence from 1982 to 1986. In that capacity, he helped develop options in dealing with the Iran-Iraq war, which eventually evolved into a secret intelligence liaison relationship with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Gates was in charge of the directorate that prepared the intelligence information that was passed on to Iraq. He testified that he was also an active participant in the operation during 1986. The secret intelligence sharing operation with Iraq was not only a highly questionable and possibly illegal operation, but also may have jeopardized American lives and our national interests. The photo reconnaissance, highly sensitive electronic eavesdropping, and narrative texts provided to Saddam may not only have helped him in Iraq's war against Iran, but also in the recent gulf war." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Leopold is a former Los Angeles bureau chief for Dow Jones Newswire. He has written over 2,000 stories on the California energy crisis and received the Dow Jones Journalist of the Year Award in 2001 for his coverage on the issue as well as a Project Censored award in 2004. Leopold also reported extensively on Enron's downfall and was the first journalist to land an interview with former Enron president Jeffrey Skilling following Enron's bankruptcy filing in December 2001. Leopold has appeared on CNBC and National Public Radio as an expert on energy policy and has also been the keynote speaker at more than two dozen energy industry conferences around the country. Source: www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110806R.shtml
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 10, 2006 4:19:23 GMT 4
The Secret World of Robert Gates By Robert Parry Consortium News Thursday 09 November 2006
Robert Gates, George W. Bush's choice to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, is a trusted figure within the Bush Family's inner circle, but there are lingering questions about whether Gates is a trustworthy public official.
The 63-year-old Gates has long faced accusations of collaborating with Islamic extremists in Iran, arming Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq, and politicizing U.S. intelligence to conform with the desires of policymakers - three key areas that relate to his future job.
Gates skated past some of these controversies during his 1991 confirmation hearings to be CIA director - and the current Bush administration is seeking to slip Gates through the congressional approval process again, this time by pressing for a quick confirmation by the end of the year, before the new Democratic-controlled Senate is seated.
If Bush's timetable is met, there will be no time for a serious investigation into Gates's past.
Fifteen years ago, Gates got a similar pass when leading Democrats agreed to put "bipartisanship" ahead of careful oversight when Gates was nominated for the CIA job by President George H.W. Bush.
In 1991, despite doubts about Gates's honesty over Iran-Contra and other scandals, the career intelligence officer brushed aside accusations that he played secret roles in arming both sides of the Iran-Iraq War. Since then, however, documents have surfaced that raise new questions about Gates's sweeping denials.
For instance, the Russian government sent an intelligence report to a House investigative task force in early 1993 stating that Gates participated in secret contacts with Iranian officials in 1980 to delay release of 52 U.S. hostages then held in Iran, a move to benefit the presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
"R[obert] Gates, at that time a staffer of the National Security Council in the administration of Jimmy Carter, and former CIA Director George Bush also took part" in a meeting in Paris in October 1980, according to the Russian report, which meshed with information from witnesses who have alleged Gates's involvement in the Iranian gambit.
Once in office, the Reagan administration did permit weapons to flow to Iran via Israel. One of the planes carrying an arms shipment was shot down over the Soviet Union on July 18, 1981, after straying off course, but the incident drew little attention at the time.
The arms flow continued, on and off, until 1986 when the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal broke. [For details, see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege. For text of the Russian report, click here. To view the actual U.S. embassy cable that includes the Russian report, click here.]
Iraqgate Scandal
Gates also was implicated in a secret operation to funnel military assistance to Iraq in the 1980s, as the Reagan administration played off the two countries battling each other in the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq War.
Middle Eastern witnesses alleged that Gates worked on the secret Iraqi initiative, which included Saddam Hussein's procurement of cluster bombs and chemicals used to produce chemical weapons for the war against Iran.
Gates denied those Iran-Iraq accusations in 1991 and the Senate Intelligence Committee - then headed by Gates's personal friend, Sen. David Boren, D-Oklahoma - failed to fully check out the claims before recommending Gates for confirmation.
However, four years later - in early January 1995 - Howard Teicher, one of Reagan's National Security Council officials, added more details about Gates's alleged role in the Iraq shipments.
In a sworn affidavit submitted in a Florida criminal case, Teicher stated that the covert arming of Iraq dated back to spring 1982 when Iran had gained the upper hand in the war, leading President Reagan to authorize a U.S. tilt toward Saddam Hussein.
The effort to arm the Iraqis was "spearheaded" by CIA Director William Casey and involved his deputy, Robert Gates, according to Teicher's affidavit. "The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq," Teicher wrote.
Ironically, that same pro-Iraq initiative involved Donald Rumsfeld, then Reagan's special emissary to the Middle East. An infamous photograph from 1983 shows a smiling Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.
Teicher described Gates's role as far more substantive than Rumsfeld's. "Under CIA Director [William] Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA authorized, approved and assisted [Chilean arms dealer Carlos] Cardoen in the manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq," Teicher wrote.
Like the Russian report, the Teicher affidavit has never been never seriously examined. After Teicher submitted it to a federal court in Miami, the affidavit was classified and then attacked by Clinton administration prosecutors. They saw Teicher's account as disruptive to their prosecution of a private company, Teledyne Industries, and one of its salesmen, Ed Johnson.
But the questions about Gates's participation in dubious schemes involving hotspots such as Iran and Iraq are relevant again today because they reflect on Gates's judgment, his honesty and his relationship with two countries at the top of U.S. military concerns.
About 140,000 U.S. troops are now bogged down in Iraq, 3 ½ years after President George W. Bush ordered an invasion to remove Saddam Hussein from power and eliminate his supposed WMD stockpiles. One reason the United States knew that Hussein once had those stockpiles was because the Reagan administration helped him procure the material needed for the WMD production in the 1980s.
The United States also is facing down Iran's Islamic government over its nuclear ambitions. Though Bush has so far emphasized diplomatic pressure on Iran, he has pointedly left open the possibility of a military option.
Political Intelligence
Beyond the secret schemes to aid Iran and Iraq in the 1980s, Gates also stands accused of playing a central role in politicizing the CIA intelligence product, tailoring it to fit the interests of his political superiors, a legacy that some Gates critics say contributed to the botched CIA's analysis of Iraqi WMD in 2002.
Before Gates's rapid rise through the CIA's ranks in the 1980s, the CIA's tradition was to zealously protect the objectivity and scholarship of the intelligence. However, during the Reagan administration, that ethos collapsed.
At Gates's confirmation hearings in 1991, former CIA analysts, including renowned Kremlinologist Mel Goodman, took the extraordinary step of coming out of the shadows to accuse Gates of politicizing the intelligence while he was chief of the analytical division and then deputy director.
The former intelligence officers said the ambitious Gates pressured the CIA's analytical division to exaggerate the Soviet menace to fit the ideological perspective of the Reagan administration. Analysts who took a more nuanced view of Soviet power and Moscow's behavior in the world faced pressure and career reprisals.
In 1981, Carolyn McGiffert Ekedahl of the CIA's Soviet office was the unfortunate analyst who was handed the assignment to prepare an analysis on the Soviet Union's alleged support and direction of international terrorism.
Contrary to the desired White House take on Soviet-backed terrorism, Ekedahl said the consensus of the intelligence community was that the Soviets discouraged acts of terrorism by groups getting support from Moscow for practical, not moral, reasons.
"We agreed that the Soviets consistently stated, publicly and privately, that they considered international terrorist activities counterproductive and advised groups they supported not to use such tactics," Ekedahl said. "We had hard evidence to support this conclusion."
But Gates took the analysts to task, accusing them of trying to "stick our finger in the policy maker's eye," Ekedahl testified
Ekedahl said Gates, dissatisfied with the terrorism assessment, joined in rewriting the draft "to suggest greater Soviet support for terrorism and the text was altered by pulling up from the annex reports that overstated Soviet involvement."
In his memoirs, From the Shadows, Gates denied politicizing the CIA's intelligence product, though acknowledging that he was aware of Casey's hostile reaction to the analysts' disagreement with right-wing theories about Soviet-directed terrorism.
Soon, the hammer fell on the analysts who had prepared the Soviet-terrorism report. Ekedahl said many analysts were "replaced by people new to the subject who insisted on language emphasizing Soviet control of international terrorist activities."
A donnybrook ensued inside the U.S. intelligence community. Some senior officials responsible for analysis pushed back against Casey's dictates, warning that acts of politicization would undermine the integrity of the process and risk policy disasters in the future.
Working with Gates, Casey also undertook a series of institutional changes that gave him fuller control of the analytical process. Casey required that drafts needed clearance from his office before they could go out to other intelligence agencies.
Casey appointed Gates to be director of the Directorate of Intelligence [DI] and consolidated Gates's control over analysis by also making him chairman of the National Intelligence Council, another key analytical body.
"Casey and Gates used various management tactics to get the line of intelligence they desired and to suppress unwanted intelligence," Ekedahl said.
Career Reprisals
With Gates using top-down management techniques, CIA analysts sensitive to their career paths intuitively grasped that they could rarely go wrong by backing the "company line" and presenting the worst-case scenario about Soviet capabilities and intentions, Ekedahl and other CIA analysts said.
Largely outside public view, the CIA's proud Soviet analytical office underwent a purge of its most senior people. "Nearly every senior analyst on Soviet foreign policy eventually left the Office of Soviet Analysis," Goodman said.
Gates made clear he intended to shake up the DI's culture, demanding greater responsiveness to the needs of the White House and other policymakers.
In a speech to the DI's analysts and managers on Jan. 7, 1982, Gates berated the division for producing shoddy analysis that administration officials didn't find helpful.
Gates unveiled an 11-point management plan to whip the DI into shape. His plan included rotating division chiefs through one-year stints in policy agencies and requiring CIA analysts to "refresh their substantive knowledge and broaden their perspective" by taking courses at Washington-area think tanks and universities.
Gates declared that a new Production Evaluation Staff would aggressively review their analytical products and serve as his "junkyard dog."
Gates's message was that the DI, which had long operated as an "ivory tower" for academically oriented analysts committed to an ethos of objectivity, would take on more of a corporate culture with a product designed to fit the needs of those up the ladder both inside and outside the CIA.
"It was a kind of chilling speech," recalled Peter Dickson, an analyst who concentrated on proliferation issues. "One of the things he wanted to do, he was going to shake up the DI. He was going to read every paper that came out. What that did was that everybody between the analyst and him had to get involved in the paper to a greater extent because their careers were going to be at stake."
A chief Casey-Gates tactic for exerting tighter control over the analysis was to express concern about "the editorial process," Dickson said.
"You can jerk people around in the editorial process and hide behind your editorial mandate to intimidate people," Dickson said.
Gates soon was salting the analytical division with his allies, a group of managers who became known as the "Gates clones." Some of those who rose with Gates were David Cohen, David Carey, George Kolt, Jim Lynch, Winston Wiley, John Gannon and John McLaughlin.
Though Dickson's area of expertise - nuclear proliferation - was on the fringes of the Reagan-Bush primary concerns, it ended up getting him into trouble anyway. In 1983, he clashed with his superiors over his conclusion that the Soviet Union was more committed to controlling proliferation of nuclear weapons than the administration wanted to hear.
When Dickson stood by his evidence, he soon found himself facing accusations about his psychological fitness and other pressures that eventually caused him to leave the CIA.
Dickson also was among the analysts who raised alarms about Pakistan's development of nuclear weapons, another sore point because the Reagan-Bush administration wanted Pakistan's assistance in funneling weapons to Islamic fundamentalists fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.
One of the effects from the exaggerated intelligence about Soviet power and intentions was to make other potential risks - such as allowing development of a nuclear bomb in the Islamic world or training Islamic fundamentalists in techniques of sabotage - paled in comparison.
While worst-case scenarios were in order for the Soviet Union and other communist enemies, best-case scenarios were the order of the day for Reagan-Bush allies, including Osama bin Laden and other Arab extremists rushing to Afghanistan to wage a holy war against European invaders, in this case, the Russians.
As for the Pakistani drive to get a nuclear bomb, the Reagan-Bush administration turned to word games to avoid triggering anti-proliferation penalties that otherwise would be imposed on Pakistan.
"There was a distinction made to say that the possession of the device is not the same as developing it," Dickson told me. "They got into the argument that they don't quite possess it yet because they haven't turned the last screw into the warhead."
Finally, the intelligence on the Pakistan Bomb grew too strong to continue denying the reality. But the delay in confronting Pakistan ultimately allowed the Muslim government in Islamabad to produce nuclear weapons. Pakistani scientists also shared their know-how with "rogue" states, such as North Korea and Libya.
"The politicization that took place during the Casey-Gates era is directly responsible for the CIA's loss of its ethical compass and the erosion of its credibility," Goodman told the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1991. "The fact that the CIA missed the most important historical development in its history - the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the Soviet Union itself - is due in large measure to the culture and process that Gates established in his directorate."
Confirmation Battle
To push through Gates's nomination to be CIA director in 1991, the elder George Bush lined up solid Republican backing for Gates and enough accommodating Democrats - particularly Sen. Boren, the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman.
In his memoirs, Gates credited his friend, Boren, for clearing away any obstacles. "David took it as a personal challenge to get me confirmed," Gates wrote.
Part of running interference for Gates included rejecting the testimony of witnesses who implicated Gates in scandals beginning with the alleged back-channel negotiations with Iran in 1980 through the arming of Iraq's Saddam Hussein in the mid-1980s.
Boren's Intelligence Committee brushed aside two witnesses connecting Gates to the alleged schemes, former Israeli intelligence official Ari Ben-Menashe and Iranian businessman Richard Babayan. Both offered detailed accounts about Gates's alleged connections to the schemes.
Ben-Menashe, who worked for Israeli military intelligence from 1977-87, first fingered Gates as an operative in the secret Iraq arms pipeline in August 1990 during an interview that I conducted with him for PBS Frontline.
At the time, Ben-Menashe was in jail in New York on charges of trying to sell cargo planes to Iran (charges which were later dismissed). When the interview took place, Gates was in a relatively obscure position, as deputy national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush and not yet a candidate for the top CIA job.
In that interview and later under oath to Congress, Ben-Menashe said Gates joined in meetings between Republicans and senior Iranians in October 1980. Ben-Menashe said he also arranged Gates's personal help in bringing a suitcase full of cash into Miami in early 1981 to pay off some of the participants in the hostage gambit.
Ben-Menashe also placed Gates in a 1986 meeting with Chilean arms manufacturer Cardoen, who allegedly was supplying cluster bombs and chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein's army. Babayan, an Iranian exile working with Iraq, also connected Gates to the Iraqi supply lines and to Cardoen.
Gates has steadfastly denied involvement in either the Iran-hostage caper or the Iraqgate arms deals.
"I was accused on television and in the print media by people I had never spoken to or met of selling weapons to Iraq, or walking through Miami airport with suitcases full of cash, of being with Bush in Paris in October 1980 to meet with Iranians, and on and on," Gates wrote in his memoirs. "The allegations of meetings with me around the world were easily disproved for the committee by my travel records, calendars, and countless witnesses."
But none of Gates's supposedly supportive evidence was ever made public by either the Senate Intelligence Committee or the later inquiries into either the Iran hostage initiative or Iraqgate.
Not one of Gates's "countless witnesses" who could vouch for Gates's whereabouts was identified. Though Boren pledged publicly to have his investigators question Babayan, they never did.
Perhaps most galling for those of us who tried to assess Ben-Menashe's credibility was the Intelligence Committee's failure to test Ben-Menashe's claim that he met with Gates in Paramus, New Jersey, on the afternoon of April 20, 1989.
The date was pinned down by the fact that Ben-Menashe had been under Customs surveillance in the morning. So it was a perfect test for whether Ben-Menashe - or Gates - was lying.
When I first asked about this claim, congressional investigators told me that Gates had a perfect alibi for that day. They said Gates had been with Senator Boren at a speech in Oklahoma. But when we checked that out, we discovered that Gates's Oklahoma speech had been on April 19, a day earlier. Gates also had not been with Boren and had returned to Washington by that evening.
So where was Gates the next day? Could he have taken a quick trip to northern New Jersey? Since senior White House national security advisers keep detailed notes on their daily meetings, it should have been easy for Boren's investigators to interview someone who could vouch for Gates's whereabouts on the afternoon of April 20.
But the committee chose not to nail down an alibi for Gates. The committee said further investigation wasn't needed because Gates denied going to New Jersey and his personal calendar made no reference to the trip.
But the investigators couldn't tell me where Gates was that afternoon or with whom he may have met. Essentially, the alibi came down to Gates's word.
Ironically, Boren's key aide who helped limit the investigation of Gates was George Tenet, whose behind-the-scenes maneuvering on Gates's behalf won the personal appreciation of the senior George Bush. Tenet later became President Bill Clinton's last CIA director and was kept on in 2001 by the younger George Bush partly on his father's advice.
Now, as the Bush Family grapples with the disaster in Iraq, it is turning to an even more trusted hand to run the Defense Department. The appointment of Robert Gates suggests that the Bush Family is circling the wagons to save the embattled presidency of George W. Bush.
To determine whether Gates can be counted on to do what's in the interest of the larger American public is another question altogether. -------- Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 10, 2006 4:22:32 GMT 4
Senator Tom Harkin | Robert Gates Not Right for CIA in 1991Editors Note: Yesterday, President George W. Bush announced the appointment of Robert Gates as US Secretary of Defense to replace Donald H. Rumsfeld. The following is a Senate floor statement by Senator Tom Harkin, made during the 1991 confirmation hearings to nominate Robert Gates as Director of the CIA. - CW Senator Tom Harkin | Robert Gates Not Right for CIA in 1991 t r u t h o u t | Report Thursday 09 November 2006 Gates Nomination (Senate - November 07, 1991) Mr. Harkin [Senator Tom Harkin( D-Iowa)] Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Robert Gates to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. President, at the outset of the confirmation hearings, I had serious reservations about the nominee. The confirmation hearings only raised more questions and greater doubts. Questions and doubts about Mr. Gates' past activities, managerial style, judgment, lapses in memory and analytical abilities. Questions and doubts about his role in the Iran-Contra Affair and in providing military intelligence to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war; and questions and doubts about whether he will be able to remove the ideological blinders reflected in his writings and speeches or whether Mr. Gates is so rooted in the past, that he will not be able to lead the Agency into the post-cold war era. Because of these concerns, I have concluded that Mr. Gates is not the right person for the important job of overseeing our intelligence operations in this New World. Mr. President, Robert Gates is a career Soviet analyst and former Deputy Director of the CIA who was wrong about what CIA analyst Harold Ford described as `the central analytic target of the past few years: the probable fortunes of the USSR and the Soviet European bloc.' And I believe that the committee report points out one possible reason why the CIA failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. According to testimony, Mr. Gates was busy pursuing hypotheses and making unsubstantiated arguments attempting to show Soviet expansion in the Third World, instead of looking for or paying attention to facts that pointed in the opposite direction. Why? Why, as Mentor Moynihan has pointed out, was the CIA able to tell Presidents everything about the Soviet Union except the fact that it was falling apart? Mr. Gates was also wrong about the Soviet threat to Iran in 1985. The 1985 Special National Intelligence Estimate on Iran stressed possible Soviet inroads into Iran. Gates admits that the analysis was an anomaly. It was a clear departure from previous analyses and almost immediately proven wrong by subsequent events. Gates was involved in preparing that analysis. According to Hal Ford, whose testimony the nominee never refuted, Gates leaned heavily on the Iran Estimate, in effect, `insisting on his own views and discouraging dissent.' What was the result? The 1985 estimate was skewed and contributed to the biggest foreign policy debacle of the Reagan administration, the sale of arms to Iran. Mr. President, Graham Fuller, the CIA's National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, suggested that the 1985 SNIE estimate was based on intuition in the absence of hard evidence. I agree there is nothing wrong with preparing worse case scenarios or using `intuition' as opposed to hard evidence in the preparation of analysis, provided it is made clear to policymakers that the finished analysis is based on intuition and not hard evidence. It is the job of the CIA to sort out fact from fiction, not convert one into the other. Mr. President, I also have doubts and questions about Mr. Gates' role in the secret intelligence sharing operation with Iraq. Robert Gates served as assistant to the Director of the CIA in 1981 and as Deputy Director for Intelligence for 1982 to 1986. In that capacity he helped develop options in dealing with the Iran-Iraq war, which eventually involved into a secret intelligence liaison relationship with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Gates was in charge of the directorate that prepared the intelligence information that was passed on to Iraq. He testified that he was also an active participant in the operation during 1986. The secret intelligence sharing operation with Iraq was not only a highly questionable and possibly illegal operation, but also may have jeopardized American lives and our national interests. The photo reconnaissance, highly sensitive electronic eavesdropping and narrative texts provided to Saddam, may not only have helped him in Iraq's war against Iran but also in the recent gulf war. Saddam Hussein may have discovered the value of underground land lines as opposed to radio communications after he was give our intelligence information. That made it more difficult for the allied coalition to get quick and accurate intelligence during the gulf war. Further, after the Persian Gulf war, our intelligence community was surprised at the extent of Iraq's nuclear program. One reason Saddam may have hidden his nuclear program so effectively from detection was because of his knowledge of our satellite photos. What also concerns me about that operation is that we spend millions of dollars keeping secrets from the Soviets and then we give it to Saddam who sells them to the Soviets. In short, the coddling of Saddam was a mistake of the first order. Mr. President, I've stated a very simple case for rejecting the nomination of Robert Gates to be Director of the CIA. The fact that he was wrong on major issues which in some instances led to foreign policy debacles. I haven't addressed concerns about the allegations of his politicization of intelligence analysis, his apparently poor managerial style or still unanswered questions about his role in the Iran-Contra affair. Regarding the Iran-Contra affair, I should mention that I was quite disturbed to hear testimony that portrayed Robert Gates as someone concerned about Agency's role and not sufficiently concerned about pursuing possible illegal Government activities. In his opening statement before the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Gates said that he should have taken more seriously `the possibility of impropriety or possible wrongdoing in the Government and pursued this possibility more aggressively.' I agree. I should also mention, Mr. President, that aside from Mr. Gates' poor judgment in not pursuing the possibility of Government wrongdoing more aggressively, I still find it incredible that the Deputy Director of CIA was not aware of that major covert operation. How could such a high ranking official not know about the CIA's efforts to support the Contras? Did he purposely avoid trying to find out what was happening? The testimony seemed to indicate he did. Gates' selective lapses in recall about the affair by a man with a photographic memory raises serious doubts. The U.S. Congress and the American people depend on accurate and reliable intelligence information. Our expenditures on defense and other areas are often decided on the basis of that information. We cannot afford to waste billion of dollars in the future. After reviewing the record, I do not believe that the Central Intelligence Agency under the directorship of Robert Gates will provide the clear intelligence assessments necessary for Congress to make decisions to deal with the future threats confronting our nation. Mr. President, I do not believe that Robert Gates is the right person to lead the CIA at this time. The cold war is over and it's time for some of the old warriors to rest. Now we must take a fresh new look at the world, think new thoughts and reassess the future role of the intelligence community. I urge my colleagues to vote against Robert Gates. SOURCE: www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110906A.shtml
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 14, 2006 17:28:22 GMT 4
Will Gates Give Us A New Direction? If Robert Gates replaces Donald Rumsfeld, how would that give us a fresh perspective on Iraq? Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri — the top Democrats on the Armed Services committees — said the resignation would be a positive step only if accompanied by a change in policy.
When confirmation hearings begin for Gates' nomination, the Democrats will give us another huge dog and pony show. At this point, Americans must go back in time and remember that the elder George Bush lined up enough accommodating Democrats to push through Gates's nomination to be CIA director in 1991.
Previous to his replacing CIA Director William Casey, Robert Gates as Casey's deputy worked mighty hard at "using various management tactics to get the line of intelligence they desired and to suppress unwanted intelligence. Intelligence took on more of a corporate culture with a product designed to fit the needs of those up the ladder both inside and outside the CIA." [see article above: The Secret World of Robert Gates]
So when Senator Skelton says, "I think it is critical that this change be more than just a different face on the old policy," [as mentioned in the article below] how would this be so? Yes, there will be a great hoopla over the confirmation of Robert Gates; the Democrats will give us a side show of serious concern, but in the end, Gates will be confirmed. The status quo in Washington and Iraq will continue but, under the direction of another old face dug up from the early beginings of Bush Senior's political regime. They've never really left us and have plenty of replacements for whomever else may be booted out in the near future.....Michelle ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rumsfeld quits; Bush taps Gates for post By ROBERT BURNS and KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writers Wed Nov 8, 6:17 PM ET WASHINGTON - After years of defending his secretary of defense, President Bush on Wednesday announced Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation within hours of the Democrats' triumph in congressional elections. Bush reached back to his father's administration to tap a former CIA director to run the Pentagon. The Iraq war was the central issue of Rumsfeld's nearly six-year tenure, and unhappiness with the war was a major element of voter dissatisfaction Tuesday — and the main impetus for his departure. Even some GOP lawmakers became critical of the war's management, and growing numbers of politicians were urging Bush to replace Rumsfeld. Bush said Robert Gates, 63, who has served in a variety of national security jobs under six previous presidents, would be nominated to replace Rumsfeld. Gates, currently the president of Texas A&M University, is a Bush family friend and a member of an independent group studying the way ahead in Iraq. The White House hopes that replacing Rumsfeld with Gates can help refresh U.S. policy on the deeply unpopular war and perhaps establish a stronger rapport with the new Congress. Rumsfeld had a rocky relationship with many lawmakers. "Secretary Rumsfeld and I agreed that sometimes it's necessary to have a fresh perspective," Bush said in the abrupt announcement during a postelection news conference. In a later appearance at the White House with Rumsfeld and Gates at his side, Bush praised both men, thanked Rumsfeld for his service and predicted that Gates would bring fresh ideas. "The secretary of defense must be a man of vision who can see threats still over the horizon and prepare our nation to meet them. Bob Gates is the right man to meet both of these critical challenges," Bush said. But underscoring that he would not bow to those pushing for a quick U.S. withdrawal, Bush also said, "I'd like our troops to come home, too, but I want them to come home with victory." In brief remarks, Rumsfeld described the Iraq conflict as a "little understood, unfamiliar war" that is "complex for people to comprehend." Upon his return to the Pentagon after appearing with Bush and Gates, Rumsfeld said it was a good time for him to leave. "It will be a different Congress, a different environment, moving toward a presidential election and a lot of partisanship, and it struck me that this would be a good thing for everybody," Rumsfeld told reporters. There was little outward reaction among officials at the Pentagon, beyond surprise at the abrupt announcement. Asked whether Rumsfeld's departure signaled a new direction in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 U.S. troops and cost more than $300 billion, Bush said, "Well, there's certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon." Voters appeared to be telling politicians that the sooner the war ends the better. Surveys at polling places showed that about six in 10 voters disapproved of the war and only a third believed it had improved long-term security in the United States. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Rumsfeld was not leaving immediately. Rumsfeld planned to deliver a speech on the global war on terrorism at Kansas State University on Thursday. Just last week Bush told reporters that he expected Rumsfeld, 74, to remain until the end of the administration's term. And although Bush said Wednesday that his decision to replace Rumsfeld was not based on politics, the announcement of a Pentagon shake-up came on the heels of Tuesday's voting. With his often-combative defense of the war in Iraq, Rumsfeld had been the administration's face of the conflict. He became more of a target — and more politically vulnerable — as the war grew increasingly unpopular at home amid rising violence and with no end in sight. Gates ran the CIA under the first President Bush during the first Gulf war. He retired from government in 1993. He joined the CIA in 1966 and is the only agency employee to rise from an entry level job to become director. A native of Kansas, he made a name for himself as an analyst specializing in the former Soviet Union and he served in the intelligence community for more than a quarter century, under six presidents. Numerous Democrats in Congress had been calling for Rumsfeld's resignation for many months, asserting that his management of the war and of the military had been a resounding failure. Critics also accused Rumsfeld of not fully considering the advice of his generals and of refusing to consider alternative courses of action. Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan and Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record) of Missouri — the top Democrats on the Armed Services committees — said the resignation would be a positive step only if accompanied by a change in policy. "I think it is critical that this change be more than just a different face on the old policy," Skelton said. Rumsfeld, 74, has served in the job longer than anyone except Robert McNamara, who became secretary of defense during the Kennedy administration and remained until 1968. Rumsfeld is the only person to have served in the job twice; his previous tour was during the Ford administration. Rumsfeld had twice previously offered his resignation to Bush — once during the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in spring 2004 and again shortly after that. Both times the president refused to let him leave. Gates took over the CIA as acting director in 1987, when William Casey was terminally ill with cancer. Questions were raised about Gates' knowledge of the Iran-Contra affair, and he withdrew from consideration to take over the CIA permanently. Yet he stayed on as deputy director. Then-National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, who has been a critic of the younger Bush's policies, asked Gates to be his deputy in 1989 during the administration of Bush's father. The elder President Bush, a former CIA director himself, asked Gates to run the CIA two years later. Gates won confirmation, but only after hearings in which he was accused by CIA officials of manipulating intelligence as a senior analyst in the 1980s. Melvin Goodman, a former CIA division chief for Soviet affairs, testified that Gates politicized the intelligence on Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. "Gates' role in this activity was to corrupt the process and the ethics of intelligence on all of these issues," Goodman testified. The Bush administration's use of intelligence on Iraq has been a central theme of criticism from Democrats who say the White House stretched faulty intelligence from U.S. spy agencies to justify invading Iraq in 2003. Gates has taken a much lower profile since leaving government. He joined corporate boards and wrote a memoir, "From The Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War." It was published in 1996. Gates is a close friend of the Bush family, and particularly the first President Bush. He became the president of Texas A&M University in August 2002. The university is home to the presidential library of the elder Bush. Source:news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld_resigns
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Dec 6, 2006 8:01:14 GMT 4
Gates OK'd for Defense by Senate Panel - By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer Tuesday, December 5, 2006 (12-05) 15:07 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) -- Robert Gates, seemingly clinching confirmation as the new secretary of defense, said Tuesday the United States is not winning in Iraq and he's confident President Bush will listen to his ideas about forging a new war strategy. He won speedy and unanimous approval from the Senate Armed Services Committee after five hours of testimony, a bipartisan show of support that suggested how eager many lawmakers are to replace Donald H. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. The full Senate could seal Gates' confirmation as early as Wednesday."In my view, all options are on the table, in terms of how we address this problem in Iraq," he told the committee. But he also acknowledged the complexity of the challenge. "There are no new ideas on Iraq," he said during a discussion of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which previewed its findings and recommendations to President Bush Tuesday and will release them Wednesday. Gates was a member of the group until Bush announced his nomination for the Pentagon job last month. The senators voted 24-0 to support the nomination to replace Rumsfeld, who has become a symbol of the Bush administration's steadfast course in a war that has long since soured with the public and much of the world. "I voted yes because in both the substance of his answers and the tone of his answers, he seemed open to course correction," said Carl Levin, D-Mich., who will be the committee's chairman when Democrats take control of the Senate next month. During his appearance, Gates would not commit to any specific new course of action in the conflict. He said he would consult first with commanders and others. Asked directly by Levin whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir." That response appeared to contradict Bush, who said at an Oct. 25 news conference, "Absolutely, we're winning." Gates later said he believes the United States is neither winning nor losing, "at this point." His statements on the war — and his professed openness to change — underscored pressures heaped on Bush since Democratic victories in last month's congressional elections, votes widely read as a rejection of the administration's steadfast course in the war. Unrelenting violence by insurgents and between ethnic groups, and a U.S. death toll that has soared past 2,900, have raised questions about the effectiveness of Iraq's government. Bush in recent weeks has expressed a willingness to consider a fresh course in the war, but has shown no sign of a willingness to heed Democratic calls to start withdrawal of the 140,000 U.S. troops. Bush has said he wants to keep U.S. forces there until Iraq is able to govern and defend itself without being a haven for terrorists. "It seems to me that the United States is going to have to have some kind of presence in Iraq for a long time ... but it could be with a dramatically smaller number of U.S. forces than are there today," Gates said. Iraq dominated the hearing, which began with Gates saying, "I am under no illusion why I am sitting before you today — the war in Iraq." Without mentioning Rumsfeld by name, Gates made clear that he hopes to find a strategy that is more effective in Iraq than the current Pentagon approach. After lunch, Gates told the committee he wanted to amplify on his morning remark about not winning in Iraq. He said he did not want U.S. troops to think he believes they are being unsuccessful in their assigned missions. "Our military wins the battles that we fight," Gates said. "Where we're having our challenges, frankly, are in the areas of stabilization and political developments and so on." He said other federal agencies should do more in Iraq. Gates, a former director of the CIA, fielded questions with apparent ease, acknowledging at times that he simply did not know the answer or needed more time for study. He was armed with details, such as the exact U.S. death count in Iraq (2,889 as of Monday, he said), and the number of extra troops NATO has been asked to provide in Afghanistan (2,500, he said). There was little of the confrontational tone that sometimes emerged when the pricklier Rumsfeld testified before the same committee, which is responsible for overseeing the Defense Department. If confirmed, Gates said, he planned to visit U.S. commanders and troops in Iraq "quite soon." Gates, 63, said he believes Bush wants to see Iraq improve to the point where it can govern and defend itself, while seeking a new approach. "What we are now doing is not satisfactory," Gates said. On other high-priority subjects, Gates said: _ He worries about the prospect of growing Iranian influence in Iraq. _ He would be open to the idea of direct talks with Iran and Syria about stabilizing Iraq. _ He is uncertain whether the Army and Marine Corps need to expand, as many in Congress advocate. _ He is "sympathetic to the notion" of adding more U.S. or allied troops in Afghanistan. At the White House, press secretary Tony Snow was pressed by reporters about Gates' remark that the U.S. is not winning in Iraq. Snow said Gates' overall testimony showed he shares Bush's view that the U.S. must help Iraq govern and defend itself. "I know you want to pit a fight between Bob Gates and the president, it doesn't exist," Snow told reporters. Gates said he came to some of his conclusions during his time on the Iraqi Study Group, but he did not say what information or testimony in that process led him. Asked whether announcing a specific troop withdrawal timetable would send a signal of U.S. weakness, he said it "would essentially tell (the insurgents) how long they have to wait until we're gone." Gates also expressed concern about political divisions in Iraq. Unless the dominant Shiite faction shows a new willingness to share power and national wealth with the minority Sunnis and Kurds, then the country will fracture, and "it will not be long before we have a government in Baghdad that is as hostile as the one in Tehran," he said. Much of the questioning from panel members focused on whether Gates was committed to providing unvarnished advice to Bush. He assured the committee he would not shirk from that duty. He said he did not give up his position as president of Texas A&M University and return to Washington to "be a bump on a log." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a likely 2008 presidential candidate and an advocate of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq, asked whether Gates believes the U.S. had too few troops at the outset of the war in 2003. "I suspect in hindsight some of the folks in the administration would not make the same decisions they made," including the number of troops in Iraq to establish control after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Gates said. "Our course over the next year or two will determine whether the American and Iraqi people and the next president of the United States will face a slowly but steadily improving situation in Iraq and in the region or will face the very real risk, and possible reality, of a regional conflagration," Gates said. ___ Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott contributed to this report. Source: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/12/05/national/w141551S92.DTL Note from Michelle: Gates and the Senate are so full of it; they continue in a dragged out dance of deception while people die daily. Gates, so handy with statistics, gave the official body count, as of Monday, at 2,889. "The actual total of dead American military personnel is now over 12,000 and also rising and the number of seriously wounded is now at 25,000 This means that of the 158,000 U.S. military shipped to Iraq, 26,000 deserted, were killed or seriously wounded. The DoD lists currently being very quietly circulated indicate over 12,000 dead, over 25,000 seriously wounded and a large number of suicides, forced hospitalization for ongoing drug usage and sales, murder of Iraqi civilians and fellow soldiers, rapes, courts martial and so on -The government gets away with these huge lies because they claim, falsely, that only soldiers actually killed on the ground in Iraq are reported. The dying and critically wounded are listed as en route to military hospitals outside of the country and not reported on the daily postings. Anyone who dies just as the transport takes off from the Baghdad airport is not listed and neither are those who die in the US military hospitals." Source and read more: Ongoing body count here www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2474.htm Compare statements/concerns made here by Gates and Sen. John McCain to today's posting at:EXPOSE THE MEDIA « Reply #30 on 12/06/06 at 5:47am » Ten Fallacies about the Violence in Iraq tinyurl.com/ymt28qGates said he came to some of his conclusions during his time on the Iraqi Study Group, but he did not say what information or testimony in that process led him. Read more on Baker's Iraq Study Group in today's posting at:The Cakewalk War « Reply #11 on 12/06/06 at 5:30am » Fiddling While Baghdad Burns How to Stay in Iraq The Iraq Study Group Rides to the Rescue tinyurl.com/y45hr2CLIP:"All of this should ensure that, well into 2008, at least 70,000 American military personnel will still be in Iraq, after which, in the midst of a presidential election season, will actual withdrawal finally appear on some horizon? In other words, the Baker Commission plan guarantees us at least another 3-5 years in Iraq." The palter they spew is unbelievable!!!
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Dec 28, 2006 8:28:01 GMT 4
Pentagon chief signs order sending 82nd Airborne brigade to KuwaitThe Associated PressPublished: December 26, 2006 WASHINGTON: U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has signed orders that will send the 82nd Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade to Kuwait shortly after the new year, senior defense officials said Tuesday.The decision to send the unit was first reported earlier this month. The soldiers, who are based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, are expected to be deployed to Iraq early next year, and the move could be part of a short-term surge of troops to the battlefront to quell the ongoing violence. The 82nd Airborne unit — which would include as many as 3,300 soldiers — will replace the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which had served as the reserve force based in Kuwait but has been deployed to Iraq. U.S. Army officials said Tuesday they were not aware that a final decision had been made on sending the unit to Kuwait. But two senior defense officials, who requested anonymity because the announcement had not yet been made public, said Gates had signed the order Tuesday — the first of his week-old tenure as Pentagon chief. Gates was in Iraq last week meeting with U.S. military commanders and Iraqi officials. He met with President George W. Bush on Saturday to relay what he saw and learned during his three days in Iraq. He is scheduled to travel to Crawford, Texas, to meet with Bush on Thursday to discuss options for changes in the Iraq strategy. He and other military leaders have said that all options are on the table. Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will also meet with Bush on Thursday. Some of the options for a new strategy in Iraq that have been under discussion by U.S. officials include an increase in troops, to help tamp down the violence, particularly in Baghdad, and to beef up the training of Iraq soldiers. There are 134,000 troops in Iraq. The U.S. military has consistently kept a reserve force in Kuwait that can easily and quickly be deployed into Iraq, or other places in the region, as needed. Gates took over the top job at the Pentagon last week after the resignation of Donald H. Rumsfeld. Source: www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/26/america/NA_GEN_US_Iraq_Troops.php------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. ready to send 3,500 troops: sources By Kristin Roberts Tue Dec 26, 6:23 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon is expected to send 3,500 troops into Kuwait to stand ready for use in Iraq, senior defense officials said on Tuesday as the Bush administration weighs adjusting force levels in the war. The "call-forward" force was requested by Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of the military command responsible for the Middle East, and must be approved by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. According to one official, Abizaid's request came before Gates' fact-finding trip last week to Iraq to assess possible alternative strategies in a war that he and President George W. Bush say America is not winning. Options for changing course in the war include a short-term increase, or "surge," of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The U.S. force level there now stands at 134,000. "If we're going to surge, this makes sense," the official on Tuesday. Gates questioned U.S. commanders last week about the possibility of a surge and what it might accomplish. He has given little hint of his thoughts on the concept, but said generals in the war zone worry an increase in U.S. forces could allow Iraqis to delay taking responsibility for security. "I think that any time that you look at adjusting the troop strengths, the coalition troop strengths, you have to consider the impact that that has on the populace, to the extent that it benefits the security situation and at the same time has a negative impact on the Iraqi people given that you are still an occupying force in a sovereign nation," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman about Gates' consideration of more troops. "There's a tension there that you have to be cognizant of and finding the right balance is important and I think that's what our commanders have always emphasized and I'm sure that they relayed to the secretary in their discussions," Whitman said. Another official, speaking on condition of anonymity, did not know if Gates had yet approved the deployment of the standby force, but said the announcement was expected as early as Wednesday. The unit likely would come from Fort Bragg and fill a reserve slot that has been empty since commanders moved the previous call-forward force into the war zone earlier this year, that official said. The troops could be in place in Kuwait by mid-January. Source: news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061226/ts_nm/iraq_usa_troops_dc
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 12, 2007 13:03:30 GMT 4
Gates wants 92,000 Marines for IraqFrom correspondents in Washington January 12, 2007 12:00 US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said he would recommend to President George W. Bush increasing the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 troops over the next five years for the long-term fight against terrorism. “The emphasis will be on increasing combat capability,” Mr Gates said at a White House news conference to detail Mr Bush's plan for changing course in the Iraq war. Source:www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21047574-5001028,00.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pentagon abandons active-duty time limitPosted on Thu, Jan. 11, 2007 ROBERT BURNS Associated Press WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in Iraq.The day after President Bush announced his plan for a deeper U.S. military commitment in Iraq, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters the change in reserve policy would have been made anyway because active-duty troops already were getting too little time between their combat tours. The Pentagon also announced it is proposing to Congress that the size of the Army be increased by 65,000, to 547,000 and that the Marine Corps, the smallest of the services, grow by 27,000, to 202,000, over the next five years. No cost estimate was provided, but officials said it would be at least several billion dollars. Until now, the Pentagon's policy on the Guard or Reserve was that members' cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That cumulative limit is now lifted; the remaining limit is on the length of any single mobilization, which may not exceed 24 consecutive months, Pace said. In other words, a citizen-soldier could be mobilized for a 24-month stretch in Iraq or Afghanistan, then demobilized and allowed to return to civilian life, only to be mobilized a second time for as much as an additional 24 months. In practice, Pace said, the Pentagon intends to limit all future mobilizations to 12 months. Members of the Guard combat brigades that have served in Iraq in recent years spent 18 months on active duty - about six months in pre-deployment training in the United States, followed by about 12 months in Iraq. Under the old policy, they could not be sent back to Iraq because their cumulative time on active duty would exceed 24 months. Now that cumulative limit has been lifted, giving the Pentagon more flexibility. The new approach, Pace said, is to squeeze the training, deployment and demobilization into a maximum of 12 months. He called that a "significant planning factor" for Guard and Reserve members and their families. A senior U.S. military official who briefed reporters Thursday on Iraq-related developments said that by next January, the Pentagon "probably will be calling again" on National Guard combat brigades that previously served yearlong tours in Iraq. Under Pentagon ground rule, the official could not be further identified. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appearing with Pace, announced several other changes in Guard and Reserve policy: _Although the Pentagon's goal is to mobilize Guard and Reserve units no more frequently than one year out of six, the demands of wartime will require calling up some units more often than that. They provided no details on how many units would be remobilized at the faster pace or when that would begin to happen. Army officials had been saying for some time that more frequent mobilizations were necessary because the active-duty force is being stretched too thin. Gates' announcement is the first confirmation of the change. _To allow for more cohesion among Guard and Reserve units sent into combat, they will be deployed as whole units, rather than as partial units or as individuals plugged into a unit they do not normally train with. _Extra pay will be provided for Guard and Reserve troops who are required to mobilize more than once in six years; active-duty troops who get less than two years between overseas deployments also will get extra pay. Details were not provided. _Military commanders will review their administration of a hardship waiver program "to ensure that they have properly taken into account exceptional circumstances facing military families of deployed service members." As part of Bush's plan for boosting U.S. troop strength in Iraq, a brigade of National Guard soldiers from Minnesota will have its yearlong tour in Iraq extended by 125 days, to the end of July, and a Patriot missile battalion will be sent to the Persian Gulf next month, the Army said Thursday. Maj. Randy Taylor, a spokesman for the 3rd Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery Regiment, at Fort Bliss, Texas, said the Patriot unit was aware of the announced deployment. He said no formal order had been received Thursday. The dispatching of a Patriot missile battery, capable of defending against shorter-range ballistic missile attacks, appeared linked to Bush's announcement Wednesday that he ordered an aircraft carrier strike group to the Middle East, which would be in easy reach of Iran, whose nuclear program is a U.S. concern. Navy officials said the carrier heading to the Gulf region is the USS John C. Stennis, which previously had been in line to deploy to the Pacific. It was not clear Thursday how the Pentagon intended to compensate in the Pacific for the absence of the Stennis in that region, where a chief worry is North Korea. The Marines announced that two infantry units - the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, and the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment - will stay in Iraq 60 to 90 days longer than scheduled. That will enable the Marines to have a total of eight infantry battalions in western Anbar province, instead of the current six, by February. Once the 60- to 90-day extension is over, an additional two battalions will be sent in early from their U.S. bases. Also, the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which combines infantry with a helicopter squadron and a logistics battalion, totaling about 2,200 Marines, will stay in Anbar for 45 more days. Those extensions conform with Bush's announcement that he was ordering 4,000 more Marines to Anbar. The military tries to avoid extending combat tours and sending forces earlier than planned because it disrupts the lives of troops and their families and makes it harder for the services to get all troops through the education and training programs they need for promotions. But in this case it was deemed unavoidable.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 9, 2007 13:49:33 GMT 4
Top Joint Chiefs of Staff leaders being replacedIf Gates had earlier plans to recommend General Peter Pace for a second two-year term as chairman, why did he suddenly state:
“I think that the events of the last several months have simply created an environment in which I think there would be a confirmation process that would not be in the best interests of the country,”
Now I'm no fan of any Pentagon personnel, but Pace did make some contradictory statements in 2006 against Rumsfeld's claim that that Iran was “putting Iranian Quds Force-type people” into Iraq." More recently, in 2007 General Pace also declined to endorse the conclusions of U.S. military officers in Baghdad, that the Iranian government is providing high-powered roadside bombs to insurgents in Iraq.
The announcement that Pace would be replaced came as a surprise to senior Pentagon officials who as recently as last week were convinced there would be a second term for Pace. Gates used the lame excuse that he had been told by Republican and Democratic senators that a confirmation hearing for Pace would be a “backward-looking and very contentious process.” I'm not buying it; I think that Pace's earlier contradictions to the Bush Adminstration's claims would be a huge embarrassment to the administration and fuel for the war weary American public. But hey, I'm just thinkin' here.......and so should you anytime there's a change in plans or direction..... MichelleTop Joint Chiefs of Staff leaders being replaced Citing war and Congress, Gates to change chairman and vice chairmanUpdated: 8:20 p.m. ET June 8, 2007 WASHINGTON - Bitter divisions over the Iraq war, particularly on Capitol Hill, led the Bush administration to change course and replace Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a grim Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday. Gates said that despite earlier plans to recommend Pace for a second two-year term as chairman, he instead was recommending Adm. Mike Mullen, currently chief of naval operations, to take over when Pace’s term expires Sept. 30. “I think that the events of the last several months have simply created an environment in which I think there would be a confirmation process that would not be in the best interests of the country,” Gates said. “I wish it were not necessary to make a decision like this. But I think it’s a realistic appraisal of where we are.” Gates said he had been told by Republican and Democratic senators that a confirmation hearing for Pace would be a “backward-looking and very contentious process.” Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., acknowledged such advice, saying he had gathered views from a broad range of senators. “I found that the views of many senators reflected my own,” and confirmation would have focused on the past four years of war, he said. A spokesman for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said she, too, believed it would have been a difficult renomination. “When it comes to Iraq it’s not enough for President Bush to change the cast, he must also change their script,” said the spokesman, Philippe Reines. Mullen has long been eyed for a promotion, and on Friday Gates praised him as having the “vision, strategic insight and integrity to lead America’s armed forces.” Some surprise at Pentagon The announcement still seemed to surprise some senior Pentagon officials who as recently as last week were convinced there would be a second term for Pace, the first Marine to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Pace’s departure will put nearly an entirely new slate of leaders and military commanders in charge of the war, which is now in its fifth year and has claimed the lives of more than 3,500 U.S. troops. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld abruptly resigned a day after last year’s elections, which were consumed with debate on the war and swept Democrats into control of Congress. Since then, the Democrats have shown an eagerness to challenge President Bush’s handling of the conflict and support among Republicans has waned as well Democrats have used recent military confirmation hearings, including one earlier this week, to blast the administration’s handling of the war. White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Gates “informed the president a little over two weeks ago that consultations had not gone well (with senators) and it was his recommendation that we not go forward with the renomination of General Pace.” Gates called National Security Council Adviser Steve Hadley in Heiligendamm, Germany, Thursday night, to talk about the timing of the announcement, and on Friday Hadley informed Bush that they were going forward. “The president had already concurred” based on the earlier talks with Gates, said Johndroe, who was traveling overseas with Bush. Gates made it clear his decision came reluctantly. “I am no stranger to contentious confirmations, and I do not shrink from them,” Gates said. “However, I have decided that at this moment in our history, the nation, our men and women in uniform and General Pace himself would not be well served by a divisive ordeal.” CONTINUED: Vice chairman also changing:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19112660/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ General 'sacrificed' to clear decks on Iraq
· Chairman of joint chiefs of staff to stand down · Senate hearings would have been controversial Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Saturday June 9, 2007 The Guardian The Bush administration yesterday attempted to wipe the slate clean on the Iraq war and chart a new way forward with the surprise announcement that it was replacing General Peter Pace as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.The defence chief, Robert Gates, said he had reluctantly decided on the reshuffle - despite his initial support for Gen Pace - to avoid a "divisive ordeal" at the Senate which would have had to approve an extension of the general's term. "The focus of this confirmation process would have been on the past rather than on the future," Mr Gates told the press conference. "There was a very real prospect that the process would be quite contentious." He said he had nominated Admiral Mike Mullen, who is currently chief of naval operations, to replace Gen Pace. In another house cleaning move, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Edmund Gambastiani, also announced his retirement yesterday. A career marine, Gen Pace has been at the centre of military decision-making by the Bush administration on Afghanistan and Iraq for the last six years. As vice chairman and then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, he was a key architect of the 2003 invasion to remove Saddam Hussein, as well as the post-war planning. The decision not to fight for Gen Pace was seen as a sign of the administration's eagerness to open a new chapter in the Iraq war, and so help rebuild wavering Republican support for the troops increase. Mr Gates denied any doubts about Gen Pace's performance. "I am disappointed that the circumstances make this kind of decision necessary," Mr Gates told reporters. "I wish that were not the case." The secretary said the political figures he had conferred with were unanimous in their respect for Gen Pace - and unanimous in their feeling that a change in Pentagon leadership was needed. It was also seen as an extraordinary retreat for an administration which had earlier prided itself on its resolve in pursuing policy matters, as well as loyalty to personnel. Mr Gates told the press conference that conversations in recent weeks with both Republican and Democratic senators had convinced him that a confirmation process would have shone the spotlight on the prosecution of the war. That spectacle could have proved devastating at a time when the White House is fighting hard to maintain Republican support for additional troops in Iraq. Republican leaders have warned the White House repeatedly that they need to see concrete results from the surge by September if they are to continue to justify their support to a war-weary public.
That task grew even more difficult in recent days as the death toll among US troops serving in Iraq reached a grim milestone of 3,500.Yesterday's announcement by Mr Gates came on a day of house cleaning at the Pentagon. A military spokesman said that the Pentagon had asked two military judges at Guantánamo to reconsider their decisions to dismiss all charges against two detainees on the grounds that the military tribunals convened by the Bush administration lacked proper jurisdiction to hear the cases. The detainees, Omar Khadr, a Canadian arrested as a teenager who is accused of lobbing a grenade at an army medic, and Yasser Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni accused of being Osama bin Laden's driver, remained in detention. Source:www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2099084,00.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ With the Bush Administration under so much scrutiny, could this be why Pace is to be replaced? M Top American General Disputes US Military Claim on Iran By Al Pessin Canberra, Australia 12 February 2007 The top American military officer, General Peter Pace, declined Monday to endorse the conclusions of U.S. military officers in Baghdad, who told reporters on Sunday that the Iranian government is providing high-powered roadside bombs to insurgents in Iraq. General Pace made his comments during a visit to Australia, and VOA's Al Pessin reports from Canberra.General Pace said he was not aware of the Baghdad briefing, and that he could not, from his own knowledge, repeat the assertion made there that the elite Quds brigade of Iran's Republican Guard force is providing bomb-making kits to Iraqi Shiite insurgents."We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this," he said. "It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit." Military officers who spoke to reporters in Baghdad, Monday, on condition of anonymity, said the high-powered projectile bombs are made with parts manufactured in Iran and that intelligence indicates the parts are sent to Iraq with the approval of senior Iranian officials. The officials said the bombs, whose projectiles can pierce the skin of an armored vehicle, have killed 170 American troops. [SNIP] From:voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-12-voa20.cfm?CFID=145141026&CFTOKEN=61107267------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ More:FLASHBACK: Pace Contradicted Rumsfeld Over Iranian Involvement In IraqPosted by Nico February 16, 2007 10:29 am On Sunday, anonymous administration officials presented evidence purportedly showing that weapons have been smuggled into Iraq with “the approval of senior Iranian officials.” The next day, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace seemed to contradict this claim, saying that he has not seen evidence that the Iranian government “clearly knows or is complicit” in the weapons smuggling.As it turns out, we’ve seen this exchange before. In March 2006, Pace and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held a Pentagon press briefing, during which Rumsfeld warned reporters that Iran was “putting Iranian Quds Force-type people” into Iraq. When a reporter asked Pace whether the Iranian forces in Iraq were “backed by the central government,” Pace responded frankly, “I do not know.” Rumsfeld was then asked the same question, and provided a very different answer: “Well, of course. The Revolutionary Guard doesn’t go milling around willy-nilly, one would think.” Read the transcript:SEC. RUMSFELD: I will say this about Iran.They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq. And we know it, and it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment. … They’re putting Iranian Quds Force-type people into the country. … The Quds Force. The Revolutionary Guard types. … Q Do you believe it’s backed by the government, or are they individual elements not backed by the central government? GEN. PACE: I do not know. … Q Do you think this is backed by the central government in Iran? What’s your — SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, of course. The Revolutionary Guard doesn’t go milling around willy-nilly, one would think. One year later, the Bush administration admits there is no evidence showing that officials in Iran’s central government are directing the weapons smugglers. “I do not know whether or not the Quds force was ordered from the top echelons of government,” President Bush said Wednesday. Yet the fact that Rumsfeld nonchalantly pushed that claim demonstrates once again how the most senior Bush officials have been willing to overlook facts to pursue their ideological agenda.Source:thinkprogress.org/2007/02/16/rumsfeld-pace-iran/
|
|