|
|||||||||||
________________________________________________________ 3. Should you believe ‘former CIA
officials’ such as Raymond McGovern and Vincent Cannistraro? Many people publicly criticize the CIA and the US
government. This is not surprising. But these days, quite a few of these
critics are people who, we are told, used to work for the CIA. This is
remarkable. McGovern and Cannistraro -- media darlings -- are both examples
of this phenomenon. Now, consider the following two mutually exclusive
hypotheses: Hypothesis 1:
‘Former CIA’ people are telling the truth. Hypothesis 2:
‘Former CIA’ people are telling lies. I find the second hypothesis more immediately
plausible, but a scientific preference for this hypothesis will nevertheless
require a demonstration, or a series of them. I will offer one.
Raymond McGovern is described by the press as “a
retired CIA agent”[4] who “for 27
years [was] serving seven U.S. presidents and routinely presenting the
morning intelligence briefings at the White House.”[5] More specifically, “Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst from
1963 to 1990 [and] during the ’60s his responsibilities included analysis of
Soviet policy toward Vietnam.”[6] At this time, “Mr McGovern worked near the very top of
his profession, giving direct advice to Henry Kissinger during the Nixon
era.”[7] Later “Ray McGovern
[became] one of President Ronald Reagan’s intelligence briefers from 1981-85”[8] when he was in charge of “preparing the President’s
daily security brief.”[9] He also
“briefed President Bush’s father [i.e. Bush Sr.] in the White House in the
1980’s.”[10] Close
contact with Bush Sr. during those years probably explains why “Ray McGovern
counts himself a personal friend of George [H.W.] Bush, the president’s
father,”[11] but
remarkably this does not inconvenience his new identity as “outspoken Bush
[Jr.] critic Ray McGovern.”[12] Finally, although Raymond McGovern is supposedly
“distinguished as a Soviet specialist and cold warrior,”[13] this is not his only specialty, for he is also called
“Ray McGovern, former CIA chief for the Middle East.”[14] As mentioned earlier, Raymond (Ray) McGovern “is on
the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity,” or
VIPS.[1] This is a group of supposedly disaffected ‘former CIA
officials,’ now supposedly concerned citizens, who say they want to save US
Intelligence. Raymond McGovern publishes prolifically, attacking the US
government left and right, and VIPS produces a constant stream of
‘memoranda,’ published in various places, addressed to the president of the
United States and other officials, telling them what they ought to be doing. According to a New York Times piece dated 30 May
2003 and entitled “Save our Spooks,” members of VIPS are very upset that the
Bush administration allegedly used phony intelligence to justify the war on
Iraq. “The outrage
among the intelligence professionals is so widespread that they have formed a
group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, that wrote to President
Bush this month to protest what it called ‘a policy and intelligence fiasco
of monumental proportions.’”[2] McGovern and VIPS have also repeatedly accused the
US government of lying, and they strike a rather sanctimonious pose. Here’s
McGovern: “. . .no other
President of the United States has ever lied so baldly and so often and so
demonstrably [as George Bush Jr.]. . .The presumption now has to be that he’s
lying any time that he’s saying anything.”[3] The impression one gets is not only that Raymond
McGovern hates Bush Jr., but that he is really very offended by lying. I am naturally not suggesting that the US government
is honest, but the question for us is this: When ‘former CIA officials’ such
as McGovern and other members of VIPS make various sorts of claims on their authority
as ‘former CIA officials,’ should we believe them? To get a sense for
that, let us get a better sense for Raymond McGovern. “Ray McGovern [is] a former CIA operations officer,”[15] which is to say that “Ray McGovern [is] a 27-year
veteran of the CIA’s clandestine service.”[16]
What is the CIA’s clandestine service? As the Washington Post
explains, “[The Central
Intelligence Agency’s] Directorate of Operations, the agency’s clandestine
service. . ., manages the agency’s counterterrorism center, espionage and
paramilitary operations.”[17] The New York Times explains why the US ruling
elite likes the CIA’s clandestine service so much: “The appeal of
covert operations is that they are relatively cheap [and] do not require
American troops.”[18] In theory, American troops cannot be launched
against another country without congressional authorization and, moreover,
American troops tend to be relatively visible. So “the appeal of covert
operations” run out of the CIA is that they allow the US ruling elite to
subvert democratic politics and do all sorts of things in secret that the
United States citizenry may not agree with in the least. For example, it
allows the CIA to engage in “paramilitary operations” that will employ
terrorists in order to destroy foreign countries. Here follow three examples
from a long list: 1) the CIA’s 1953
right-wing coup against the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadeq in
Iran, which was followed by the US-sponsored and
repressive right-wing dictatorship of the Shah; 2)
the CIA’s 1954 right-wing coup against the democratic government of Jacobo
Arbenz in Guatemala, which was followed by a US-sponsored and repressive
right-wing dictatorship; and 3) the
CIA training and financing of the Nicaraguan Contras, a terrorist force
composed of Anastasio Somoza’s right wing thugs. Somoza was a US-sponsored
repressive right-wing dictator who had been ousted by the Sandinista
movement. The US-trained Contras slaughtered innocent Nicaraguan peasants
wholesale for no greater crime than opposing the repressive Somoza regime
under which they had suffered for many years. Those who work for the CIA clandestine service are
professional liars. This means that, rather than rush to accept the argument
put forward by “Ray McGovern, a 27-year veteran of the CIA’s clandestine
service,” we should examine it carefully. I do this next.
Bush Jr.’s administration used the following
argument to justify the attack on Iraq: that Iraq was trying to get uranium from
Niger for use in nuclear weapons. The intelligence on that, we've been told,
was based on a forgery. Raymond McGovern and VIPS have told everybody that
they are very upset about this forgery, and McGovern recently wrote the
following: “Who authored
the forgery remains a mystery -- but one that our Republican-controlled
Congress has avoided trying to solve. . . So those
searching for answers are reduced to asking the obvious: Cui bono? Who stood
to benefit from such a forgery? A no-brainer -- those lusting for war on
Iraq. And who might they be? Look up the ‘neo-conservative’ writings on the
website of the Project for the New American Century. There you will find
information on people like Michael Ledeen, ‘Freedom Analyst’ at the American
Enterprise Institute and a key strategist among ‘neoconservative’ hawks in
and out of the Bush administration. Applauding the invasion of Iraq, Ledeen
asserted -- with equal enthusiasm -- that the war could not be contained, and
that ‘it may turn out to be a war to remake the world.’”[19] McGovern is very clear. Those with a motive to
produce the Iraq-Niger deception, he says, are the so-called
‘neoconservatives’ (‘neo-cons’ for short). The author of this deception, he
accuses, was none other than neo-con Michael Ledeen: “Beyond his
geopolitical punditry, Ledeen’s curriculum vitae shows he is no stranger to
rogue operations. A longtime Washington operative, he was fired as a
‘consultant’ for the National Security Council under President Ronald Reagan
for running fool’s errands for Oliver North during the Iran-Contra
subterfuge. One of Ledeen’s Iran-Contra partners in crime, so to speak, was
Elliot Abrams, who was convicted of lying to Congress about Iran-Contra.
Abrams was pardoned before jail time, however, by George H. W. Bush, and he
is now George W. Bush’s deputy national security adviser. Ledeen is said to
enjoy easy entrée to the office of the vice president as well as to his
friend Abrams.” What is McGovern's message here? That Ledeen was
involved with the Iran-Contra scandal, and is still friends with the leaders
of that conspiracy, who are known to be enormous liars. McGovern continues: “During a
radio interview with Ian Masters on April 3, 2005, former CIA operative
Vincent Cannistraro charged that the Iraq-Niger documents were forged in the
United States. Drawing on earlier speculation regarding who forged the
documents, Masters asked, ‘If I were to say the name Michael Ledeen to you,
what would you say?’ Cannistraro replied, ‘You’re very close.’ Ledeen has
denied having anything to do with the forgery. Yet the company he keeps with
other prominent Iran-Contra convictees/pardonees/intelligence contractors
suggests otherwise.” Ledeen wanted the war against Iraq, says Raymond
McGovern, so he had a motive, hence he must be the forger. Anybody familiar
with criminal law understands that showing motive does not convict a person
of a crime, for there is usually more than one person with a plausible motive
(McGovern himself says we have a whole multitude of them here: the
‘neoconservatives’). So the job for an investigator is to find, among those
who had a motive, the person or persons to whom the evidence actually points.
In lieu of referring us to any evidence that Michael Ledeen forged anything,
however, McGovern merely repeats a third-party accusation against Ledeen,
which is supposedly authoritative because made by “former CIA operative
Vincent Cannistraro.” Now this is a bit awkward, because Vincent
Cannistraro, like McGovern, was “a member of the CIA’s clandestine service.”[20] So
a professional liar from the CIA clandestine service is asking you to believe
an accusation against Michael Ledeen because it comes from another
professional liar from the CIA clandestine service, Vincent Cannistraro. This
does not build a strong case against Ledeen... It gets worse. As pointed out above, McGovern tells us that Michael
Ledeen’s friend “Elliot Abrams… was convicted of lying to Congress about
Iran-Contra,” by way of laying down the principle that people associated
with the Contra program are liars. With this principle in hand, McGovern
argues that, given “the company [Ledeen] keeps with other prominent
Iran-Contra convictees/pardonees/intelligence contractors” his denials about
being the Iraq-Niger forger may be dismissed. But if Iran-Contra people are
liars, what falls apart is Vincent Cannistraro's accusation against Ledeen,
because Cannistraro in fact ran the Contra program! You read correctly. I shall review the relevant
facts.
Before 1984,Vincent Cannistraro was a “CIA agent in
Central America”[21] and “a
member of the CIA’s clandestine service”[22] -- right when the CIA’s clandestine service was training
the Contra terrorists in Central America. This suggests that Vincent
Cannistraro had something to do with training the Contras. He did. The man at
the very top of the Contra structure was Lt. Col. Oliver North, and “Following the
1984 flap over a CIA-sponsored manual for the contras that advocated
assassination, North helped arrange a job on the NSC staff for Vincent
Cannistraro, the CIA officer who had run the agency’s task force on the
contras.”[26] So we see above that, indeed, Cannistraro was the
guy responsible for creating the Contra force on the ground. What sort of a
job did Cannistraro get with Oliver North at the NSC in 1984? Vincent
Cannistraro became “Director of NSC [National Security Council] Intelligence
from 1984 to 1987.”[23] In other
words, in the year 1984, Oliver North brought Vincent Cannistraro from
the CIA’s clandestine service and made him the highest intelligence official
in Ronald Reagan’s NSC. Did this have anything to do with North's Contras,
whom Cannistraro had just been creating and training in the field? You would
think so, because Ronald Reagan “transferred the Contra program from the CIA
to the NSC after congressional authorization for the CIA’s Contra program
expired in mid 1984,”[24] And
indeed: “Cannistraro...
was assigned... to work with North on Contra affairs, and in his role of
coordinating intelligence programs throughout the administration, he headed
several inter-agency meetings on aid for the rebels.”[25] Please take note of the word ‘headed’ -- as in
‘directed,’ ‘led,’ ‘presided over,’ ‘managed,’ and ‘ran.’ Cannistraro was
running the Contras from start to finish. McGovern tells us that Michael Ledeen is a “longtime
Washington operative [who] was fired as a ‘consultant’ for the National
Security Council under President Ronald Reagan for running fool’s errands for
Oliver North during the Iran-Contra subterfuge.” So Ledeen was running
errands for Vincent Cannistraro, for it was Cannistraro who was
running the Contra program from the National Security Council. But
Cannistraro is the one accusing Ledeen? What a piece of theater! McGovern tells you that people associated with the
Contra program are liars so that you will dismiss Ledeen's denials and accept
Cannistraro's accusation. But Ledeen is a relatively minor figure in the
Iran-Contra conspiracy, whereas Cannistraro happens to be Mr. Contra.
There are two possibilities, here: Hypothesis 1:
Raymond McGovern never knew and still doesn’t know that Cannistraro was
running the Contras, in which case Raymond McGovern is not very smart. Hypothesis 2:
Raymond McGovern knows that Cannistraro was running the Contras but he
doesn’t tell us because he wants Cannistraro’s accusation to appear credible
against Ledeen’s denials. In this case, Raymond McGovern is dishonest. Whichever hypothesis we choose, it has already been
established that adopting the outspoken Raymond McGovern’s opinions about
anything will be risky, to say the least. But which hypothesis is more plausible? That can be
decided. “Ray McGovern
was a member of the CIA for 27 years and he served as the ‘All Intelligence
Agent’ during the Reagan administration. He was responsible for briefing the
President, the Vice President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Cabinet and
National Security Advisor.”[27] So let’s see. We have to ask ourselves the
following: Is it really possible that Raymond McGovern, a man who “worked
near the very top of his profession,”[7]
this being the intelligence gathering profession, and who “served as
the ‘All Intelligence Agent’ during the Reagan administration,” never knew
and still doesn’t know that Vincent Cannistraro, in the same Reagan
administration, was running the Contra program? Hold that thought. We also learn above, since the secretaries of
Treasury and Defense are included in “the Cabinet,” that McGovern was
briefing every senior member of Reagan’s National Security Council (NSC) on
intelligence matters.[28] So is it possible that Raymond McGovern never
knew and still doesn’t know that Reagan (or North) brought Cannistraro to
the NSC to continue running the Contra program in the year 1984, even
though in the same year of 1984 McGovern, the ‘All Intelligence Agent’
during the Reagan administration,” was doing intelligence briefings for
everybody at the NSC? . . .even though Cannistraro first ran the Contra
program as a CIA clandestine service operation and Raymond McGovern is a
“27-year veteran of the CIA’s clandestine service”?[16] . . . . . .even though the Contra program was a cold
war effort and Raymond McGovern is a “distinguished... cold warrior”?[13] . . . . . .
. .even though Cannistraro’s Contra role was scandalously reported in
the papers while Raymond McGovern was still a Reagan administration official? . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .even
though Raymond McGovern (and any 10-year-old), using the publicly available
online media search-engine Lexis-Nexis, can find out in five minutes (as I
did) that the mainstream press reported in the 80s that Cannistraro had been
running the Contra program? I think that Raymond McGovern knows perfectly well
that Vincent Cannistraro was running the Contra program. People should now definitely ask themselves what the
point of Raymond McGovern’s dishonest public activities might be. But from
here onwards what people should certainly not do is automatically
believe anything that Raymond McGovern says. Neither should people soften
their skepticism for the Western mass media, which, as we have seen,
incessantly pushes Raymond McGovern as a trusty ‘expert.’
Why does the media do this? Is it because the
mainstream Western media cannot do the analysis I have just presented, where
I demonstrate that McGovern is dishonest? But that was trivial to do, and the
mainstream media has resources that easily eclipse my own. The most innocent hypothesis
here would be that the media is spectacularly lazy and/or incompetent. And
yet we must reject that hypothesis, because the mainstream media is also
quite fond of Vincent Cannistraro, and it is impossible that the media does
not know that Vincent Cannistraro created and ran the Contra terrorists
because. . .they -- the media -- reported on this. Next I examine the astonishing manner in which the media covers up
Cannistraro's Contra history. After that we shall take a look at what both
McGovern and Cannistraro say about the Arab-Israeli conflict all over the
same media. Continue to part 4: Footnotes and Further Reading [1] “Cheney
Wasn’t Involved Either... Right”; By Ray McGovern; t r u t h o u t |
Perspective; Wednesday 20 July 2005. [2] Save Our
Spooks , The New York Times, May 30, 2003 Friday, Late Edition -
Final , Section A; Column 6; Editorial Desk; Pg. 27, 727 words, By
NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF; E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com [3] NO PRESIDENT
HAS LIED SO BALDLY AND SO OFTEN AND SO DEMONSTRABLY' Ray McGovern: voicing
the concerns of the CIA, Independent on Sunday (London), November 9, 2003,
Sunday, FOREIGN NEWS; Pg. 19, 469 words [4] Standing for
principle sparks a crisis, Chicago Sun-Times, December 21, 1997, SUNDAY, Late
Sports Final Edition, SHOW; PAPERBACKS; Pg. 24; NC, 837 words, BY DOLORES
FLAHERTY AND ROGER FLAHERTY [5] Q & A /
RAY McGOVERN, former CIA analyst: ‘We’re trying to spread a little
truth’, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 7, 2003 Sunday, Home
Edition, Pg. 2F, 948 words, DAN CHAPMAN [6] How lies
replaced intelligence at the CIA; RAY McGOVERN; Ray McGovern was a CIA
analyst from 1963 to 1990. During the ‘60s his responsibilities included
analysis of Soviet policy toward Vietnam. , The Boston Globe, October 7,
1999, Thursday, ,City Edition, OP-ED; Pg. A27, 822 words, By Ray McGovern [7] NO PRESIDENT
HAS LIED SO BALDLY AND SO OFTEN AND SO DEMONSTRABLY’ Ray McGovern: voicing
the concerns of the CIA, Independent on Sunday (London), November 9, 2003,
Sunday, FOREIGN NEWS; Pg. 19, 469 words [8] Missing:
Iraq WMD, American credibility, St. Petersburg Times (Florida), June 8, 2003
Sunday, PERSPECTIVE; Pg. 1D, 1578 words, DAVID BALLINGRUD [9] NO PRESIDENT
HAS LIED SO BALDLY AND SO OFTEN AND SO DEMONSTRABLY’ Ray McGovern: voicing
the concerns of the CIA, Independent on Sunday (London), November 9, 2003,
Sunday, FOREIGN NEWS; Pg. 19, 469 words [10] Save Our
Spooks , The New York Times, May 30, 2003 Friday, Late Edition -
Final , Section A; Column 6; Editorial Desk; Pg. 27, 727 words, By
NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF; E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com [11] THE EPIC
SLAUGHTER IN IRAQ ALSO DESERVES AN INQUIRY; THE OVERVIEW, Independent
on Sunday (London), August 24, 2003, Sunday, COMMENT; Pg. 22, 1157 words,
JOHN PILGER [12] A CONSUMMATE
BUREAUCRAT ADEPT AT CURRYING FAVOUR, The Independent (London), June 4, 2004,
Friday, First Edition; NEWS; Pg. 4, 658 words, ANDREW GUMBEL IN LOS ANGELES [13] THE EPIC
SLAUGHTER IN IRAQ ALSO DESERVES AN INQUIRY; THE OVERVIEW, Independent
on Sunday (London), August 24, 2003, Sunday, COMMENT; Pg. 22, 1157 words,
JOHN PILGER [14] Comment&Analysis:
There was no failure of intelligence: US spies were ignored, or worse, if
they failed to make the case for war, The Guardian (London) - Final Edition,
February 5, 2004, Guardian Leader Pages, Pg. 26, 1185 words, Sidney
Blumenthal [15] TERROR
SUSPECTS’ TORTURE CLAIMS HAVE MASS. LINK, The Boston Globe, November 29,
2004, Monday, THIRD EDITION, Pg. A1, 1448 words, By Farah Stockman,
Globe Staff [16] US
INTELLIGENCE SHAKE-UP MEETS GROWING CRITICISM, The Boston Globe, January 2,
2005, Sunday, THIRD EDITION, Pg. A1, 1016 words, By Bryan Bender, Globe
Staff [17] The
Washington Post, August 09, 2002, Friday, Final Edition, A
SECTION; Pg. A01, 2035 words, The Slowly Changing Face of the CIA
Spy; Recruits Eager to Fight Terror Are Flooding In, but Few Look the
Part, Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writer. [18] Hallucinations
About Iraq, The New York Times, July 28, 1998, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final,
Section A; Page 14; Column 1; Editorial Desk , 370 words [19] “Cheney
Wasn’t Involved Either... Right”; By Ray McGovern; t r u t h o u t |
Perspective; Wednesday 20 July 2005. [20] “Vince
Cannistraro, a former member of the CIA's clandestine service and one-time
director of intelligence programs at the National Security Council.” --
Associated Press, March 2, 1997, Sunday, AM cycle, Washington Dateline, 788
words, CIA cuts off more than 1,000 informants, many for criminality, By JOHN
DIAMOND, Associated Press Writer, WASHINGTON [21] United Press
International, June 15, 1987, Monday, AM cycle, Washington News, 519 words,
Walsh draws testimony from NSC officials, By LORI SANTOS, WASHINGTON [22] “Vince
Cannistraro, a former member of the CIA's clandestine service and one-time
director of intelligence programs at the National Security Council.” --
Associated Press, March 2, 1997, Sunday, AM cycle, Washington Dateline, 788
words, CIA cuts off more than 1,000 informants, many for criminality, By JOHN
DIAMOND, Associated Press Writer, WASHINGTON [23] “Director of
NSC Intelligence from 1984 to 1987, [Vincent] Cannistraro went on to serve as
chief of operations for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center and to lead the
CIA's investigation into the bombing of Pan Am 103...” -- From a PBS
interview that may be read here: [24] Kornbluh,
P., and M. Byrne. 1993. The Iran-Contra Scandal: The declassified history.
New York: The New Press. (p.xviii): President Reagan “transferred the Contra
program from the CIA to the NSC after congressional authorization for the
CIA’s Contra program expired in mid 1984.” [25] United Press
International, June 15, 1987, Monday, AM cycle, Washington News, 519 words,
Walsh draws testimony from NSC officials, By LORI SANTOS, WASHINGTON [26] Tale of Two
White House Aides: Confidence and Motivation; North Viewed as a Can-Do Marine
Who Went Too Far in Zealousness, The Washington Post, November 30, 1986,
Sunday, Final Edition Correction Appended, FIRST SECTION; PAGE A1, 2694
words, David Ignatius, Washington Post Staff Writer, FOREIGN NEWS, NATIONAL
NEWS, BIOGRAPHY [28] “The
National Security Council is chaired by the President. Its regular attendees
(both statutory and non-statutory) are the Vice President, the Secretary of
State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs [i.e. the National
Security Advisor]” |
Notify
me of new HIR pieces!
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
|
||||||||||
