Nbadan
11-10-2006, 01:24 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/11/08/GR2006110801501.jpg
Donald Rumsfeld’s most obvious contribution to the office of Secretary of Defense was perhaps the demonstration of how it can be used to mold intelligence data to conform with administration priorities rather than reality. This process, as described in detail (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030331fa_fact1) by Seymour Hersh in “Chain of Command” (http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/09/20040914_b_main.asp), produced a great deal of “evidence” that was in tune with the Bush administration’s desire for war with Iraq and greatly facilitated the molding of public opinion to support that war. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that George Bush has tapped as Rumsfeld’s successor a man who has proven, during his many years of service with the CIA, his ability and inclination to utilize the CIA for the propaganda producing purposes which George Bush will need to drum up support for his foreign policies, thus continuing in Rumsfeld’s tradition.
Gates’ role in manipulating intelligence data for the Reagan administration
Robert Gates commenced his experience in the art of manipulating CIA analysis for use as propaganda during the Reagan/Bush administration, when he was appointed by CIA Director William Casey in 1982 as the Deputy Director for Intelligence. His activities in the Bush/Reagan CIA are described in detail by Robert Parry in his book, “Secrecy & Privilege – Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq” (http://www.secrecyandprivilege.com/) and in his more recent article, “The CIA’s DI Disgrace”. (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/071304.html)
Ronald Reagan was very similar to George W. Bush in his strict adherence to ideologies, and the consequent dismissal of any evidence that conflicted with those ideologies. The central theme of his foreign policy was that the Soviet Union was an Evil Empire, intent upon sponsoring international terrorism, planning a preemptive nuclear strike against the United States, and gaining a foothold in Central America in order to facilitate its imperial ambitions.
But the CIA analysts in the Directorate of Intelligence (DI) posed a big problem to Reagan’s theme because their intelligence contradicted it. As discussed by Soviet CIA analysts Carolyn Ekedahl and Melvin Goodman, they could find no evidence that the Soviet Union was considering a nuclear strike against us, and far from sponsoring international terrorism, the consensus was that the Soviet Union actively tried to discourage acts of terrorism by their clients because of the bad publicity that it entailed.
That kind of information was greatly frowned upon by Ronald Reagan and William Casey. Not only did it conflict with their ideological views, but it impeded their ability to obtain cooperation from Congress in their attempts to assist right wing governments and paramilitaries to keep and gain control of Central American countries such as El Salvador and Nicaragua, respectively.
Thus, in his efforts to change the functions and purpose of the CIA, William Casey enlisted the help of Robert Gates by putting him in charge of the DI. The strategy was fairly simple. Just make it clear that one’s career depends upon producing intelligence that conforms with the administration’s views. And purge those who either fail to understand this basic idea or who fight against it. In other words, though it was never put in these words, objectivity independence were not prized characteristics in a CIA analyst. Gates translated this philosophy into Orwellian action with his severe criticism of analysts who displayed “a pronounced tendency to confuse objectivity and independence with avoidance of issues germane to the U.S. government policymakers.”
Consequences
The consequences of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld manipulation of intelligence data was a disastrous war in Iraq and a skyrocketing national debt. Similarly, the consequences of the Reagan/Bush/Casey/Gates manipulation of intelligence data was the long continuation of a disastrous war in Central America and the skyrocketing of our national debt.
In our financial support and military training of the Contras and other right wing causes in Central America we sponsored groups with abysmal human rights records and little support among the populations that they desired to lead. The trillions of dollars that we put into military spending, including the unworkable missile defense system known as “Star Wars”, probably did our country little good, while leaving two future U.S. presidents with a massive national debt to deal with. And our interest in helping Islamic fundamentalists to counter Soviet interests in Afghanistan led to our training of the Islamists in the techniques of terror and our ignoring of Pakistan’s move towards becoming a nuclear power, both which have now come back to haunt us, with Pakistan’s facilitation of North Korea’s nuclear program and the terror threat posed by al Qaeda.
How would Robert Gates perform as Defense Secretary?
As Deputy Director of Intelligence, Robert Gates’ manipulation of intelligence data to support Ronald Reagan’s views of reality resulted in disasters that are comparable to those perpetrated by Donald Rumsfeld from his manipulation of intelligence data to support George W. Bush’s views of reality. In addition to that, Robert Parry also discusses good evidence to support the belief that Gates was involved in several other scandals, including Iran-Contra, the Reagan/Bush “October Surprise” (in which the Reagan administration conspired with Iranian rulers to withhold return of our hostages until after the Carter vs. Reagan presidential election), and the covert supply of weapons to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq during their war with Iran. In conclusion, I see little reason to believe that Robert Gates will turn out to be substantially different than Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense.
Donald Rumsfeld’s most obvious contribution to the office of Secretary of Defense was perhaps the demonstration of how it can be used to mold intelligence data to conform with administration priorities rather than reality. This process, as described in detail (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030331fa_fact1) by Seymour Hersh in “Chain of Command” (http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/09/20040914_b_main.asp), produced a great deal of “evidence” that was in tune with the Bush administration’s desire for war with Iraq and greatly facilitated the molding of public opinion to support that war. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that George Bush has tapped as Rumsfeld’s successor a man who has proven, during his many years of service with the CIA, his ability and inclination to utilize the CIA for the propaganda producing purposes which George Bush will need to drum up support for his foreign policies, thus continuing in Rumsfeld’s tradition.
Gates’ role in manipulating intelligence data for the Reagan administration
Robert Gates commenced his experience in the art of manipulating CIA analysis for use as propaganda during the Reagan/Bush administration, when he was appointed by CIA Director William Casey in 1982 as the Deputy Director for Intelligence. His activities in the Bush/Reagan CIA are described in detail by Robert Parry in his book, “Secrecy & Privilege – Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq” (http://www.secrecyandprivilege.com/) and in his more recent article, “The CIA’s DI Disgrace”. (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/071304.html)
Ronald Reagan was very similar to George W. Bush in his strict adherence to ideologies, and the consequent dismissal of any evidence that conflicted with those ideologies. The central theme of his foreign policy was that the Soviet Union was an Evil Empire, intent upon sponsoring international terrorism, planning a preemptive nuclear strike against the United States, and gaining a foothold in Central America in order to facilitate its imperial ambitions.
But the CIA analysts in the Directorate of Intelligence (DI) posed a big problem to Reagan’s theme because their intelligence contradicted it. As discussed by Soviet CIA analysts Carolyn Ekedahl and Melvin Goodman, they could find no evidence that the Soviet Union was considering a nuclear strike against us, and far from sponsoring international terrorism, the consensus was that the Soviet Union actively tried to discourage acts of terrorism by their clients because of the bad publicity that it entailed.
That kind of information was greatly frowned upon by Ronald Reagan and William Casey. Not only did it conflict with their ideological views, but it impeded their ability to obtain cooperation from Congress in their attempts to assist right wing governments and paramilitaries to keep and gain control of Central American countries such as El Salvador and Nicaragua, respectively.
Thus, in his efforts to change the functions and purpose of the CIA, William Casey enlisted the help of Robert Gates by putting him in charge of the DI. The strategy was fairly simple. Just make it clear that one’s career depends upon producing intelligence that conforms with the administration’s views. And purge those who either fail to understand this basic idea or who fight against it. In other words, though it was never put in these words, objectivity independence were not prized characteristics in a CIA analyst. Gates translated this philosophy into Orwellian action with his severe criticism of analysts who displayed “a pronounced tendency to confuse objectivity and independence with avoidance of issues germane to the U.S. government policymakers.”
Consequences
The consequences of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld manipulation of intelligence data was a disastrous war in Iraq and a skyrocketing national debt. Similarly, the consequences of the Reagan/Bush/Casey/Gates manipulation of intelligence data was the long continuation of a disastrous war in Central America and the skyrocketing of our national debt.
In our financial support and military training of the Contras and other right wing causes in Central America we sponsored groups with abysmal human rights records and little support among the populations that they desired to lead. The trillions of dollars that we put into military spending, including the unworkable missile defense system known as “Star Wars”, probably did our country little good, while leaving two future U.S. presidents with a massive national debt to deal with. And our interest in helping Islamic fundamentalists to counter Soviet interests in Afghanistan led to our training of the Islamists in the techniques of terror and our ignoring of Pakistan’s move towards becoming a nuclear power, both which have now come back to haunt us, with Pakistan’s facilitation of North Korea’s nuclear program and the terror threat posed by al Qaeda.
How would Robert Gates perform as Defense Secretary?
As Deputy Director of Intelligence, Robert Gates’ manipulation of intelligence data to support Ronald Reagan’s views of reality resulted in disasters that are comparable to those perpetrated by Donald Rumsfeld from his manipulation of intelligence data to support George W. Bush’s views of reality. In addition to that, Robert Parry also discusses good evidence to support the belief that Gates was involved in several other scandals, including Iran-Contra, the Reagan/Bush “October Surprise” (in which the Reagan administration conspired with Iranian rulers to withhold return of our hostages until after the Carter vs. Reagan presidential election), and the covert supply of weapons to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq during their war with Iran. In conclusion, I see little reason to believe that Robert Gates will turn out to be substantially different than Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense.