|
Washington Lied
An Interview with Ray
McGovern
By MARC PRITZKE
Editors' Note:
Former CIA official, Ray McGovern, has leveled serious accusations at the
Bush administration in connection with the war in Iraq. McGovern served as
a CIA analyst for almost 30 years. From 1981 to 1985 he conducted daily
briefings for Ronald Reagan's vice president, George Bush, the father of
the incumbent president. The following interview originally appeared in
Die Tagesspiegel, one of Berlin's largest daily papers. Imagine this
appearing in the Sunday edition of the New York Times.
The US Senate
Intelligence Committee this week began hearings on the dispute over the
search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What do you expect will
come of this?
Nothing. The committee chairman, Republican Pat Roberts, has
already refused to ask the FBI to investigate allegations that Iraq has
tried to obtain uranium from Niger. This, despite the fact that in making
these allegations, administration officials knowingly relied on crudely
forged documents.
In a Memorandum
for President Bush dated May 1 you speak of a "policy and intelligence
fiasco." What do mean by that?
Take, for example, the business about the aluminum tubes that Iraq
tried to obtain. According to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice,
these were "only suited to nuclear weapons programs." But nuclear engineers
have been virtually unanimous in deciding that the pipes are not suitable
for that. Despite this, President Bush on October 7, 2002 said that Iraq
could possibly produce a nuclear weapon within a year.
These are deliberate distortions. Lies. When a US president decides
it is necessary to go to war, he has to procure intelligence to prove the
need for war.
And what happens,
in your experience, if the "proof" is too thin?
In that case it gets inflated. So, for example, an incident in the
Tonkin Gulf involving a North Vietnamese "attack" on a US warship--which
"attack" never took place--nonetheless was deliberately used by President
Johnson to get Congress' endorsement for war with North Vietnam.
This current administration had decided by September 2002 to make
war on Iraq--five months before Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech at
the UN. What was missing was the intelligence basis to justify the decision
for war.
But the intelligence is still not conclusive. And in the case of
the uranium Iraq was said to be seeking, it was based on forged documents.
That didn't make any difference. In retrospect, the train of
thought in the White House at the time is clear: How long can we keep the
forged documents from the public? A few months? In that case we can use the
documents to get Congress to endorse war with Iraq and then wage it and win
it before anyone discovers that the "evidence" was bogus.
In addition, the administration has very artfully taken advantage
of the trauma of September 11. So, for example, al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein
were always mentioned in the same breath, without any proof of a connection
between the two.
Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels said that, if you repeat
something often enough, the people will believe it. On October 7, 2002 Bush
said, without any evidence to support it, that what is to be feared is that
in Iraq's case, the "smoking gun" could come in the form of a "mushroom
cloud." National Security Adviser Rice repeated this on October 8, and
Pentagon spokesperson Victoria Clarke did so on October 9. On October 11
Congress voted for war.
And no one saw through this?
This is largely the fault of US mainstream media. No one told the
people what was really going on.
But doesn't the US press have a reputation for good investigative
reporting?
It did once. But that reputation goes back 30 years to the time of
Vietnam and Watergate. The investigative reporting of those days is a
thing of the past. The mainstream press now marches to the drumbeat of the
administration.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
|
 |