Showing posts with label Bush administration Lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush administration Lies. Show all posts

Friday, December 19, 2008

Gonzales, Rice Lied to Congress About Niger Intelligence



No shit, Sherlock. I doubt we could count all the lies they've told to Congress, the 9/11 commission and on countless TeeVee news shows, to the American people.


By Jason Leopold
The Public Record
Thursday, December 18, 2008



Condoleezza Rice was verbally warned by a high-ranking CIA official in September 2002 that allegations that Iraq had sought large quantities of yellowcake uranium from Niger were untrue and that she, as national security adviser, should not allow President George W. Bush to cite it in a speech he gave that month about the supposed threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, according to new evidence obtained by Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The Niger uranium claim was removed from two speeches Bush gave in September 2002 after Rice spoke with the CIA official who advised her the intelligence was unreliable.


However, it was cited by President George W. Bush in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union Address as what became known as the “Sixteen Words”: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Rice and other White House officials blamed the CIA and claimed they were never advised the agency had doubts about the authenticity of the intelligence.

Those 16 words helped the Bush administration win support from Congress to launch a preemptive strike against Iraq and directly led senior Bush administration officials to leak the undercover status of CIA operative Valerie Plame after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, exposed the Niger uranium allegations as bogus.

The White House has never provided a full accounting of how the Niger story, despite warnings from several government agencies that it was unreliable, wound its way to the White House from strange-looking documents that surfaced in Italy and became a key element in Bush’s case for war.

Waxman subpoenaed Rice last year in order to compel her to testify about whether she knew in advance that the Niger intelligence was unreliable. Rice refused to comply with the subpoena and Waxman held her in contempt.

When the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence launched a formal inquiry into the Niger uranium claims after Wilson publicly accused the White House of “twisting” the intelligence to win support for the Iraq war, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales told Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, in a letter that the CIA “orally cleared” the uranium claim “for use by the President” in both speeches. Gonzales had responded to the committee’s questions on behalf of then-National Security Adviser Rice, who was one of several top officials who vetted Bush’s speeches.

But new evidence obtained by Waxman suggests that Gonzales and Rice may have lied to Congress when they claimed the CIA green-lit use of the uranium claim in Bush's September 2002 speeches, in which Bush urged Congress to authorize the use of force in lraq.

Waxman said Rice received a telephone call on Sept. 24, 2002, from Jami Miscik, then-Deputy Director of Intelligence at the CIA, who told Rice to remove the uranium reference. Miscik is now an adviser to President-elect Barack Obama's transition team. Sept. 24, 2002 is also the date former British Prime Minister Tony Blair released a 50-page dossier claiming Iraq had a cache of chemical and biological weapons and the capability to unleash weapons of mass destruction within 45-minutes, allegations that turned out to be untrue.

“During an interview with the Committee, Miscik...stated that [National Security Council] officials who worked with Rice at the NSC "wouldn't take [the uranium claim] out of the speech,” Waxman wrote in an 11-page memo to members of the Oversight Committee. "Ms. Miscik stated that she spoke with Dr. Rice directly over the telephone on September 24, 2002. Ms. Miscik explained that the CIA's reasons for requesting that the removal of the uranium claim "had been conveyed to the NSC counterparts" before the call began and that she and Dr. Rice "were getting on the phone call with that information.

“As a result, Miscik was asked to explain directly to Dr. Rice "the reasons why we didn't think this was credible,” Waxman added. “Ms. Miscik stated, "[i]t was clear that we had problems or we at the most fundamental level wouldn't have been having the phone call at all." According to Ms. Miscik, the CIA's reasons for rejecting the uranium claim, "had been conveyed to the NSC counterparts" before the call, and Dr. Rice was "getting on the phone call with that information." Ms. Miscik told Dr. Rice personally that the CIA was "recommending that it be taken out." She also said "[i]t turned out to be a relatively short phone call" because "we both knew what the issues were and therefore were able to get to a very easy resolution of it."

Yet Rice "asserted publicly she knew nothing about any doubts the CIA had raised about this claim prior too the 2003 State of the Union address," Waxman's memo says. Gonzales "asserted to the Senate — on her behalf — that the CIA approved the use of this claim in several presidential speeches.

“Unfortunately, Dr. Rice resisted efforts by the Committee to obtain her testimony about these matters. Thus, I am not able to report to you how she would explain the seeming contradictions between her statements and those of Mr. Gonzales on her behalf and the statements made to the Committee by senior CIA and NSC officials.”

Despite the verbal warnings Rice was given, she penned an Op- Ed January 23, 2003 claiming Iraq was actively trying "to get uranium from abroad" to help further strengthen the administration's case for a U.S. led invasion of Iraq.

“Writing on Dr. Rice's behalf on January 6, 2004, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales addressed the uranium claim in the Rose Garden speech. He asserted: "On September 24, 2002, CIA officials orally cleared the [uranium claim] for use by the President." Mr. Gonzales wrote: The language cleared by CIA was identical to the language proposed for clearance by White House staff, except that it appears that CIA may have suggested that the second sentence read "in the process" rather than "of the process.”

Waxman has spent the past five years investigating the Niger intelligence, specifically, the genesis of the “Sixteen Words.”

During the course of the Waxman's investigation, committee investigators questioned John Gibson, who was Director of Speechwriting for Foreign Policy at the National Security Council. Gibson told investigators that he “he tried to insert the uranium claim into this speech at the request of Michael Gerson, chief White House speechwriter, and Robert Joseph, the Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation, and Homeland Defense at the NSC.”

“According to Mr. Gibson, the CIA rejected the uranium claim because it was "not sufficiently reliable to include it in the speech." Mr. Gibson stated that the CIA "didn't give that blessing," the "CIA was not willing to clear that language," and "[a]t the end of the day, they did not clear it."

During a closed-door briefing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence back in July 2003, Alan Foley, the former director of the CIA's nonproliferation, intelligence and arms control center, said he had spoken to Joseph, a day or two before President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address and told Joseph that detailed references to Iraq and Niger should be excluded from the final draft. Foley told committee members that Joseph had agreed to water down the language and would instead, he told Foley, attribute the intelligence to the British.

Gibson also told investigators that Gonzales’s claims to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the intelligence was cleared by the CIA were “incorrect.”

“He told the Committee that "the CIA had never cleared" the use of the uranium claim,” Waxman wrote in his memo. “During her interview with the Committee, Ms. Miscik made the same point, stating that the White House assertions were "not accurate" and "misleading." She explained further: "We had not cleared on this speech until the discussion that Dr. Rice and I had."

In July 2003, five days after Wilson’s column was published in The Times, Rice blamed the CIA for failing to vet the Niger claims. Former CIA Director George Tenet accepted responsibility, which many people interpreted as Tenet falling on his sword to protect the president.

Two weeks later, however, the CIA revealed that agency officials sent then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley two memos in October 2002, warning him not to continue peddling the Niger claims to the White House because the intelligence was not accurate. Hadley, who didn't heed the CIA's warnings at the time, said during a press conference on July 23, 2003, that he had forgotten about the memos.

Waxman’s committee deposed Tenet in June 2007 and the former CIA director said he spoke with Hadley personally and told him to remove the uranium claims from a speech Bush was prepared to give in Cincinnati in October 2002.

"In his deposition, Mr. Tenet provided new details about the explicit nature of these warnings," Waxman wrote. "According to Mr. Tenet, his staff at the CIA approached him and asked him to intervene. They stated: [W]e need to get this stuff out. We don't believe this. 'We need to get it out of the speech. It's not coming out. Can you call Mr. Hadley? Mr. Tenet explained that he called Mr. Hadley to direct him to remove the language. He told the Committee: [S]taff came down to say there was specific language that they wanted out and, essentially, I called Mr. Hadley up. It was a very short conversation. And I said Steve, take it out. We don't want the President to be a fact witness on this issue.”

Mr. Tenet stated further: "The facts, I told him, were too much in doubt." According to Mr. Tenet, the President's speech in Cincinnati did not include the uranium claim because the CIA had explicitly informed the White House that it was not cleared for a Presidential speech. Mr. Tenet stated: "We sent two memos to Mr. Hadley saying, this is why you don't let the President say this in Cincinnati."

Following his conversation with Hadley, one of Tenet's aides sent a follow-up letter to Rice, Hadley, and Bush's speechwriter Mike Gerson highlighting additional reasons the language about Iraq's purported attempts to obtain uranium from the African country of Niger should not be used to try and convince Congress and the public that Iraq was an imminent threat, Tenet wrote in his book, At the Center of the Storm.

"More on why we recommend removing the sentence about [Saddam's] procuring uranium oxide from Africa," Tenet wrote in the book, apparently quoting from a memo sent to the White House. "Three points: (1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of French authorities; (2) the procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions...And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them the Africa story is overblown and telling them this was one of two issues where we differed with the British."

The Niger case began in early 2002 when CIA officials were looking for people with the right connections to check out the claims that Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger.

The CIA’s counter-proliferation unit selected Joseph Wilson, a former senior diplomat in both Iraq and Africa, where Wilson’s wife worked as a covert officer, who used “non-official cover” to track dangerous weapons in the Middle East. “Non-official cover” assignments are considered some of the CIA’s riskiest.

After agreeing to undertake the unpaid assignment, Wilson traveled to Niger in February 2002, met with a number of high-level contacts and returned with the conclusion that the Niger suspicions were almost surely false. Wilson’s assessment matched with other internal reviews.

But the White House continued to peddle the bogus uranium claims and attacked officials who said the intelligence the claims were based upon was unreliable.

That led to a battle that pitted the White House against former Ambassador Wilson, which finally came to the surface on July 6, 2003, when Wilson wrote a New York Times op-ed revealing his February 2002 trip to Niger and directly challenging Bush’s use of the bogus yellowcake story.

In the following days, even as the administration was forced to backtrack on the Niger claims by acknowledging that the information should not have been included in Bush’s State of the Union, Bush’s aides and allies stepped up the campaign to discredit Wilson.

That was the angle that right-wing columnist Robert Novak took in an article on July 14, 2003, that relied on information from Armitage and White House political adviser Karl Rove to report that Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA and had a hand in arranging her husband’s trip to Africa.

Waxman said in his letter Thursday that the new evidence on Niger proves that Bush’s “core arguments” for invading Iraq was “illegitimate.”

“For more than five years, I have been seeking answers to basic questions about why the President made a false assertion about such a fundamental matter,” Waxman wrote. “As the President's National Security Advisor at the time, Condoleezza Rice asserted publicly that she knew nothing about any doubts the CIA had raised about this claim prior to the 2003 State of the Union address. And former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales asserted to the Senate - on her behalf - that the CIA approved the use of the claim in several presidential speeches. The Committee has obtained evidence that just the opposite is true.

“This evidence would appear to raise serious questions about the veracity of the assertions that Mr. Gonzales made to Congress on behalf of Dr. Rice about a key part of the President's case for going to war in Iraq.”




(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. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Bushlies Cause Main Ally, Britain, Embarassment

Bushlies have caused us all embarrassment, if not worse!

By David Connett
Sunday, 6 July 2008

David Miliband persistently gave me the brush-off, saying we could rely on US assurances: Andy Tyrie, Conservative MP on the Foreign Secretary

GETTY

'David Miliband persistently gave me the brush-off, saying we could rely on US assurances': Andy Tyrie, Conservative MP on the Foreign Secretary



MPs are to launch an investigation into US activities on Diego Garcia after accusing Washington of lying about extraordinary rendition flights from the British-controlled island in the Indian Ocean. They described false assurances given by the US about its use of Diego Garcia for the controversial flights as "deplorable".


Following one of the strongest British condemnations of the US rendition policy, by which terror suspects are sent overseas for interrogation, the influential Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) plans to scrutinise Whitehall's supervision of US activities on Diego Garcia, including all flights and ships serviced from there.


The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, was forced to apologise to the Commons in February after it was revealed that two US "extraordinary rendition" flights had landed on UK territory in 2002. Britain had previously been told that no such flights had passed through its territory.


His apology came after the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, admitted that two suspects had been on flights to Guantanamo Bay and Morocco in 2002 that had stopped to refuel on Diego Garcia. In a report published today, the MPs conclude that it is "deplorable that previous US assurances about rendition flights have turned out to be false. The failure of the US administration to tell the truth resulted in the UK government inadvertently misleading our select committee and the House of Commons."


Andy Tyrie, a Tory MP, welcomed the report last night. Mr Tyrie, chair of the parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition, said: "In October 2007, I started asking questions about Diego Garcia. I was very concerned that Britain and British territory could have become complicit in America's programme of extraordinary rendition, whereby people have been kidnapped around the world and taken to places where they may be maltreated or tortured. The Foreign Secretary persistently gave me the brush-off. He said we could rely on US assurances. My allegations were correct. The Foreign Secretary's brush-off was not just misplaced, it was a disgrace."


He continued: "We must get to the bottom of British involvement in rendition. The Foreign Secretary's latest attempt to do so is wholly inadequate. We must have confidence that the US has not been using our airports to service their planes to or from a rendition, but the Foreign Secretary has refused to even ask the Americans if this is the case. This is yet another issue on which a weak and indecisive Prime Minister should have given leadership."


The FAC said the Government should also do more to support exiled inhabitants who were forcibly removed from Diego Garcia and adjoining islands when the US established a military base there.


In addition, it called for a public inquiry into allegations of official corruption in the Turks and Caicos islands, a British overseas territory in the Caribbean. MPs who visited the islands described the allegations as "very serious", saying they had experienced "a palpable climate of fear" while there, and warning they would take action against anyone who tried to intimidate witnesses who had spoken to them.


They also demanded evidence from the Foreign Office that it was fully investigating allegations of corruption in Bermuda and Anguilla, accusing the Foreign Office of being "too hands-off" in its administration of overseas territories.


(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. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Israel Knew About NIE Before Bush Says He Was Informed

What a total crock! How can anyone possibly believe this?

Of course, let's take a stroll in Bushland for a moment and pretend that it is true. What does it say about this administration? The N.I.E on Iran was known to Israel before our own president knew about it? Who gave it to them? Why isn't the government looking for the person who gave Israel this information. Seems, does it not, that that would be a treasonous act? If the president didn't even know about it, he could not have ordered the NIE released to Israel?

Who gave the NIE to Israel?

Report: Israeli Defense Officials Knew At Least a Month Ago About NIE Findings, Weeks Before Bush Claims He Was Informed

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

December 6, 2007

According to the authoritative Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, "Israel has known about the report for more than a month. The first information on it was passed on to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and to Shaul Mofaz, who is the minister responsible for the strategic dialog with the Americans. The issue was also discussed at the Annapolis summit by Barak and U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and it seems also between Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert."

To say the least, this would put Bush in the unexplainable position of claiming he just found out about the NIE, while his administration had told the Israelis weeks ago that the Iranian nuclear bomb program was stopped in 2003. In short, Bush is basically wanting us to believe that he was the last to know about this "bombshell" intelligence finding.

Furthermore, the one mainstream media company that regularly seeks out the story behind the story (McClatchy Newspapers), reported this story on Nov. 4: "Experts: No firm evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons."

Yet, Bush would have us believe a diligent newspaper reporter knew about the NIE findings before he did.

This is just one in a long series of lies and deceptions that the Bush Administration has inflicted on the American people.

Let's just take three examples that had disastrous consequences.

1) Bush originally claimed that he had received no warning about a potential 9/11, but it turned out later that he and Condoleezza Rice were briefed about the determination of Osama bin Laden to strike in the United States and to use hijackings. That was in the summer just before the fateful day of September 11th. Bush and Rice did nothing to put airports on heightened security. When a reporter actually pressed Bush on the summer warning, Bush claimed, as did Rice, that if they had been specifically warned that planes were going to be specifically flown into the World Trade Center Towers that they would have done something. Reporters didn't manage to summon the common sense to challenge him that the 9/11 tragedy was a result of hijackings, and that they had been warned about likely hijackings by Al-Qaeda and did nothing to heighten security at airports. In fact, Bush reportedly dismissed a CIA briefer from his Crawford Ranch, telling him derisively that now that he [the briefer] had covered his ass by warning Bush he could leave.

2) In the fall before the infamous and false Niger statement in Bush's State of the Union that tried to tie Saddam Hussein to the acquisition of uranium to make a nuclear bomb, George Tenet and the CIA warned the White House that the claim was dubious at best. It was removed, as a result, from an October speech Bush was going to make. But seeking to ratchet up fear among Americans about a potential Iraqi nuclear bomb, the White House knowingly reinserted the claim several months later in the State of the Union address. Rice, Bush and Cheney claimed that they had never been told that it was an unfounded assertion.

3) Bush claimed, earlier this week, that he was just given the findings of the NIE document a few days ago. HE may be parsing words here by sticking to a technical truth: he was just given the final NIE document, as a document, last week. But he was briefed in August about what would be in the report, including the "bombshell" finding that Iran was not now developing a nuclear weapon.

Once again, Bush plays fast and loose with the truth, in order to ensure that the facts will never get in the way of his and Cheney's "Masters of the Universe" agenda.

Israeli officials knew that the combined American intelligence agencies had concluded that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program four years ago, while Bush and Cheney continued to push for an attack that would probably ignite the Middle East.

Americans have once again been played for fools by the Bush Administration on matters of utmost importance to our national security.

The question remains that since the Director of Homeland Security had vowed not to release the NIE (obviously because it made Bush and Cheney out to be liars and undercut their exhortation to stop World War III by starting it with a limited air nuke attack on Iran), why was it suddenly released without explanation?

In an interview, Cheney hinted that the fear that it might be imminently leaked was behind the startling public appearance of the document and its damning [to the Bush Administration] findings: "Cheney said the assessment was released because “there was a general belief that we all shared that it was important to put it out — that it was not likely to stay classified for long, anyway." [BuzzFlash italics]

One can speculate that the intelligence community or Pentagon brass had had enough of catastrophic decision making by Bush, Cheney and their extremist aides -- almost all personally blinded by their zealotry in military and intelligence matters.

We can only hope that this is the real explanation, because that would mean that there is a real mutiny taking place and that the military and the spooks are determined not to allow the worst to happen. Nevertheless, all it would take is an attack that could be blamed on Iran and the Joint Chiefs and all the Intel. agencies would be helpless to stop the madmen in the White House.

Perhaps the Bush Administration, faced with a simmering rebellion or an imminent leak, had to fire the smoking gun themselves, in order to spin it the best that they could.


(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. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

EFPs Not Coming From Iran

More Bushlies for war

Explosive charge blows up in US's face
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - When the United States military command accused the Iranian Quds Force in January of providing the armor-piercing EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) that were killing US troops, it knew that Iraqi machine shops had been producing their own EFPs for years, a review of the historical record of evidence on EFPs in Iraq shows.

The record also shows that the US command had considerable evidence that the Mahdi Army of Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had received the technology and the training on how to use it from Hezbollah, rather than Iran.

The command, operating under close White House supervision, chose to deny these facts in making the dramatic accusation that became the main rationale for the present aggressive US stance toward Iran. Although the George W Bush administration initially limited the accusation to the Quds Force, it has recently begun to assert that top officials of the Iranian regime are responsible for arms that are killing US troops.

British and US officials observed from the beginning that the EFPs being used in Iraq closely resembled the ones used by Hezbollah against Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, both in their design and the techniques for using them.

Hezbollah was known as the world's most knowledgeable specialists in EFP manufacture and use, having perfected this during the 1990s in the military struggle with Israeli forces in Lebanon. It was widely recognized that it was Hezbollah that had passed on the expertise to Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups after the second Intifada began in 2000.

US intelligence also knew that Hezbollah was conducting the training of Mahdi Army militants on EFPs. In August 2005, Newsday published a report from correspondent Mohammed Bazzi that Shi'ite fighters had begun in early 2005 to copy Hezbollah techniques for building the bombs, as well as for carrying out roadside ambushes, citing both Iraqi and Lebanese officials.

In late November 2006, a senior intelligence official told both CNN and the New York Times that Hezbollah troops had trained as many as 2,000 Mahdi Army fighters in Lebanon.

The fact that the Mahdi Army's major military connection has always been with Hezbollah rather than Iran would also explain the presence in Iraq of the PRG-29, a shoulder-fired anti-armor weapon. Although US military briefers identified it last February as being Iranian-made, the RPG-29 is not manufactured by Iran but by the Russian Federation.

According to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, RPG-29s were imported from Russia by Syria, then passed on to Hezbollah, which used them with devastating effectiveness against Israeli forces in the 2006 war. According to a June 2004 report on the well-informed military website Strategypage.com, RPG-29s were already turning up in Iraq, "apparently smuggled across the Syrian border".

The earliest EFPs appearing in Iraq in 2004 were so professionally made that they were probably constructed by Hezbollah specialists, according to a detailed account by British expert Michael Knights in Jane's Intelligence Review last year.

By late 2005, however, the British command had already found clear evidence that the Iraqi Shi'ites themselves were manufacturing their own EFPs. British Army Major General J B Dutton told reporters in November 2005 that the bombs were of varying degrees of sophistication.

Some of the EFPs required a "reasonably sophisticated factory", he said, while others required only a simple workshop, which he observed, could only mean that some of them were being made inside Iraq.

After British convoys in Maysan province were attacked by a series of EFP bombings in late May 2006, Knights recounts, British forces discovered a factory making them in Majar al-Kabir north of Basra in June.

In addition, the US military also had its own forensic evidence by the autumn of 2006 that EFPs used against its vehicles had been manufactured in Iraq, according to Knights. He cites photographic evidence of EFP strikes on US armored vehicles that "typically shows a mixture of clean penetrations from fully-formed EFP and spattering ..." That pattern reflected the fact that the locally made EFPs were imperfect, some of them forming the required shape to penetrate but some of them failing to do so.

Then US troops began finding EFP factories. Journalist Andrew Cockburn reported in the Los Angeles Times in mid-February that US troops had raided a Baghdad machine shop in November 2006 and discovered "a pile of copper discs, five inches in diameter, stamped out as part of what was clearly an ongoing order".

In a report on February 23, NBC Baghdad correspondent Jane Arraf quoted "senior military officials" as saying that US forces had "been finding an increasing number of the advanced roadside bombs being not just assembled but manufactured in machine shops here".

Nevertheless, the Bush administration decided to put the blame for the EFPs squarely on the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, after Bush agreed in autumn 2006 to target the Quds Force within Iran to make Iranian leaders feel vulnerable to US power. The allegedly exclusive Iranian manufacture of EFPs was the administration's only argument for holding the Quds Force responsible for their use against US forces.

At the February 11 military briefing presenting the case for this claim, one of the US military officials declared, "The explosive charges used by Iranian agents in Iraq need a special manufacturing process, which is available only in Iran." The briefer insisted that there was no evidence that they were being made in Iraq.

That lynchpin of the administration's EFP narrative began to break down almost immediately, however. On February 23, NBC's Arraf confronted Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, who had been out in front in January promoting the new Iranian EFP line, with the information she had obtained from other senior military officials that an increasing number of machine shops manufacturing EFPs had been discovered by US troops.

Odierno began to walk the Iranian EFP story back. He said the EFPs had "started to come from Iran", but he admitted "some of the technologies" were "probably being constructed here".

The following day, US troops found yet another EFP factory near Baqubah, with copper discs that appeared to be made with a high degree of precision, but which could not be said with any certainty to have originated in Iran.

The explosive expert who claimed at the February briefing that EFPs could only be made in Iran was then made available to the New York Times to explain away the new find. Major Marty Weber now backed down from his earlier statement and admitted that there were "copy cat" EFPs being machined in Iraq that looked identical to those allegedly made in Iran to the untrained eye.

Weber insisted that such Iraqi-made EFPs had slight imperfections which made them "much less likely to pierce armor". But NBC's Arraf had reported the previous week that a senor military official had confirmed to her that the EFPs made in Iraqi shops were indeed quite able to penetrate US armor. The impact of those weapons "isn't as clean", the official said, but they are "almost as effective" as the best-made EFPs.

The idea that only Iranian EFPs penetrate armor would be a surprise to Israeli intelligence, which has reported that EFPs manufactured by Hamas guerrillas in their own machine shops during 2006 had penetrated eight inches of Israeli steel armor in four separate incidents in September and November, according to the Intelligence and Terrorism Center in Tel Aviv.

The Arraf story was ignored by the news media, and the Bush administration has continued to assert the Iranian EFP charge as though it had never been questioned.

It soon became such an accepted part of the media narrative on Iran and Iraq that the only issue about which reporters bother to ask questions is whether the top leaders of the Iranian government have approved the alleged Quds Force operation.

Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in June 2005.

(Inter Press Service)

(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. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.