|
Kucinich, Maloney
and Sanders
Go After Cheney
[Sept 25 , 2003 1530 PDT (FTW) -- The heat is building to dump
Cheney for the 2004 Presidential race. Under fire for
continuing compensation fro Halliburton and for a fistful
of lies about Iraq , the evidence is building solidly
and the heat being placed on the Vice President is
building up. We hope this effort
continues and grows stronger in the coming months.
Special thanks to TRUTHOUT ( www.truthout.org )
for bringing this letter to light. And special praise
to Dennis Kucinich who is running much stronger in
the hearts and minds of the people than FOX, ABC, or
any other media organ will acknowledge. Representatives
Kucinich, Maloney and Sanders are members of the Subcommittee
on National Security, Emerging Threats and International
Relations. Kucinich is the ranking member. - MCR]
-----
Wednesday 17 September 2003
The Honorable
Dick Cheney
Vice President
Office of the Vice President of the United States
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Washington , DC 20501
Dear Mr. Vice
President:
On July 21, 2003
, we sent a letter to you inquiring about your role in
the dissemination of the disinformation that Iraq purchased
uranium from Niger . We asked you ten questions relating
to your direct personal visits to CIA 's Iraq analysts;
your request for an investigation of the Niger uranium
claim that resulted in an investigation by a former U.S.
ambassador, and your several high-profile public assertions
about Iraq 's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. To
date, we have not received your response to our inquiries.
Since our last
letter to you, you spoke at the A merican Enterprise
Institute and once again made reference to the already
proven false assertion that Iraq was reconstituting its
nuclear weapons program. In order to legitimize the war,
you cited findings listed in the National Intelligence
Estimate (NIE), some of which had been refuted months
before you cited them.
Most recently,
on September 14, 2003 , after almost a year of repeating
the claim, you finally admitted the inaccuracy of your
previous assertions on Iraq 's nuclear capabilities when
you appeared on Meet the Press. The chronology shows
that you knew or should have known that the claim was
false when you first made it on Meet
the Press in March
2003. We would like to inquire as to why your admission
took so long to be made publicly. We would also like
answers to our previous questions about your role in
the dissemination of the nuclear uranium claim.
I. Concerning "unusual" personal
visits by the Vice President to CIA analysts.
A ccording to The Washington
Post, June 5, 2003 , you made "multiple" "unusual" visits
to CIA to meet directly with Iraq analysts. The Post reported: "Vice
President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple
trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts
studying Iraq 's weapons programs."
These visits were unprecedented.
Normally, Vice Presidents, yourself included, receive regular
briefings from CIA in your office and have a CIA officer
on permanent detail. In other words, there is no reason
for the Vice President to make personal visits to CIA
analysts. According to the Post, your unprecedented visits
created "an
environment in which some analysts felt they were being
pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's
policy objectives."
On 'Meet
the Press' on Sunday September 14, 2003, you dismissed The
Washington Post article by suggesting that your frequent
trips to the CIA were because of a longtime interest
of yours in the field of intelligence. You also denied
that your visits to the CIA had any impact on the changing
of intelligence:
"In terms of asking
questions, I plead guilty. I ask a hell of a lot of questions.
That's my job. I've had an interest in the intelligence
area since I worked for Gerry Ford 30 years ago, served
on the Intel Committee in the House for years in the '80s,
ran a big part of the intelligence community when I was
secretary of Defense in the early '90s...Shouldn't be any
pressure. I can't think of a single instance. Maybe somebody
can produce one. I'm unaware of anywhere the community
changed a judgment that they made because I asked questions."
Questions:
1) How many visits
did you and your chief of staff make to CIA to meet
directly with CIA analysts working on Iraq ?
2) What was the
purpose of each of these visits?
3) Did you ever
meet with CIA analysts working on other intelligence
matters, such as A l Qaeda?
4) Did you or
a member of your staff at any time request or demand
rewriting of intelligence assessments concerning the
existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ?
II. Concerning
a request by the Vice President to investigate intelligence
of Niger uranium sale, revealing forgery one year ago.
This alleged sale of
uranium to Iraq by Niger was critical to the administration's
case that Iraq was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program.
During the period of time you reportedly paid visits to
CIA , you also requested that CIA investigate intelligence
that purported to show Iraqi pursuit of uranium from Niger
, and your office received a briefing on the investigation.
A ccording to The New York Times of May 6, 2003 , "more
than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an
investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. Ambassador
to A frica was dispatched to Niger ."
The ambassador "reported
to the CIA and State Department that the information was
unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged," according
to the Times. Indeed, that former U.S. Ambassador,
Joseph Wilson, wrote in The New York Times, July
6, 2003 , "The
vice president's office asked a serious question. We were
asked to help formulate the answer. We did so, and we have
every confidence that the answer we provided was circulated
to the appropriate officials within our government."
Moreover, your
chief of staff, Mr. Libby, told Time magazine this week
that you did in fact express interest in the report to
the CIA briefer. Our understanding is that Standard
Operating Procedure is that if a principal asks about
a report, he is given a specific answer.
On Meet
the Press on Sunday September
14, 2003 , contrary to Ambassador Wilson and Mr. Libby,
you denied receiving A mbassador Wilson's findings in
February, or March of 2002. You also denied sending Ambassador
Wilson to look into the claim.
"I don't know
Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson... I get a daily
brief on my own each day before I meet with the president
to go through the intel. A nd I ask lots of question. One
of the questions I asked at that particular time about
this, I said, "What
do we know about this?" They take the question. He
came back within a day or two and said, "This is all
we know. There's a lot we don't know," end of statement...
And Joe Wilson -- I don't who sent Joe Wilson."
Questions:
5) Who in the
office of Vice President was informed of the contents
of Ambassador Wilson's report?
6) When did you
personally become informed of A mbassador Wilson's findings?
7) If the staff who took your question
said, "This is all we know. There's a lot we don't
know", why did you continue to use the shaky uranium
claim in your public statements over the past year?
8) What efforts
were made by your office to disseminate the findings
of Ambassador Wilson's investigation to the President,
National Security Adviser, and Secretary of Defense?
III. Speech by
the Vice President to the American Enterprise Institute
on July 25, 2003
In a speech to
the American Enterprise Institute on July 25, 2003 ,
you read from several sections of the October 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE). You said that the Administration
could not ignore the findings in the NIE because doing
so would be irresponsible. You said:
Those charged
with the security of this nation could not read such
an assessment and pretend that it did not exist. Ignoring
such information, or trying to wish it away, would be
irresponsible in the extreme. A nd our President did
not ignore that information -- he faced it... A gainst
this background, to disregard the NIE's warnings would
have been irresponsible in the extreme. A nd our President
did not ignore that information -- he faced it, and acted
to remove the danger.
You cited the
following sections of NIE as findings the President could
not ignore:
" Baghdad
has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles
with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions. If left unchecked,
it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade...
Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained
its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program,
and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the
view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its
nuclear weapons program... Iraq is continuing, and in
some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear
and missile programs contrary to U.N. Resolutions."
What is concerning
about your speech is that in your attempt to legitimize
the cause for war with Iraq , you cited intelligence
listed in the National Intelligence Estimate that had
already been refuted before you spoke. Even more disturbing
is that it was your office, the Office of the Vice President,
that learned of the false uranium story seven months
before the NIE was written and issued in October 2002.
Furthermore,
questions have been raised about the intent of the drafting
of the NIE document. Former CIA -analyst Ray McGovern
, in an article printed in The Miami
Herald on August
8, 2003 wrote:
Start with the fact that there was
no NIE before the decision for war last summer. Such decisions
are supposed to be based on the conclusions of NIEs, not
the other way around. This time the process was reversed...
The marketing rollout for the war was keynoted by the vice
president, who in a shrill speech on A ug. 26 charged, "Saddam
has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons." A
NIE was then ordered up, essentially to support the extreme
judgments voiced by Cheney, and its various drafts were
used effectively to frighten members of Congress into voting
to authorize war.
Because it appears as if the NIE may
have been drafted so as to support certain claims for the
war in Iraq , using it as a supporting document for intelligence
that the President "could not ignore" is misleading
and irresponsible.
9) Since your address
to the AEI was delivered several months after the nuclear
uranium claim had been disputed, on what basis did you
make the claim that the President "could not ignore" the
false nuclear findings in the NIE?
IV. Assertions
by the Vice President and other high-ranking members
of the Administration claiming Iraqi nuclear weapons
program.
The President's
erroneous reference to the faked Niger uranium sale in
his State of the Union address was only one example of
a pattern of similar assertions by high-ranking members
of the administration, including you. The assertion was
made repeatedly in the administration's campaign to win
congressional approval of military action against Iraq
.
For instance, you said to the 103d
National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on
A ugust 26, 2002, "they [the Iraqi regime] continue
to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years
ago... we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts
to acquire nuclear weapons... Should all his ambitions
be realized... [he could] subject the United States or
any other nation to nuclear blackmail."
In sworn testimony
before the House Armed Services Committee, just weeks
before the House of Representatives voted to authorize
military action against Iraq , Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld testified on September 18, 2002 :
"He [Saddam]...
is pursuing nuclear weapons. If he demonstrates the capability
to deliver them to our shores, the world would be changed.
Our people would be at great risk. Our willingness to
be engaged in the world, our willingness to project power
to stop aggression, our ability to forge coalitions for
multilateral action, could all be under question. And
many lives could be lost."
Questions:
10) Since your address
to the VFW occurred nearly 7 months after Ambassador Wilson
reported his findings to the CIA and State Department,
what evidence did you have for the assertion that Iraq
was continuing "to
pursue the nuclear program" and that Saddam had "resumed
his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons"?
11) Since the Secretary
of Defense testified to Congress that Iraq was "pursuing
nuclear weapons" nearly 8 months after Ambassador
Wilson's briefing to CIA and the State Department, what
effort did you make to determine what evidence the Secretary
of Defense had for his assertion to Congress?
Further refutation
of the authenticity of the forged Niger documents came
from IAEA Director General ElBaradei, when he reported
to the U.N. Security Council on March 7, 2003 : "These
documents, which formed the basis for reports of recent
uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger , are in fact
not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific
allegations are unfounded... we have found no evidence
or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons
programme in Iraq ." Yet on March 16 -- nine days
afterwards -- you again repeated the unfounded assertion
on national television (Meet the Press, Sunday, March 16,
2003 ). You said:
"We think Mr. ElBaradei frankly
is wrong," and "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact,
reconstituted nuclear weapons."
On September
14, 2003 , after almost a year of repeating the nuclear
claim, you finally retracted your position on Iraq's
nuclear capabilities when you appeared on Meet
the Press.
When asked about your March 16, 2003 Meet the Press interview
in which you accused Mohammed ElBaradei of being wrong
about Iraq not having reconstituted its nuclear weapons
program, you said:
"Yeah. I
did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show weapons
capability. We never had any evidence that he had acquired
a nuclear weapon."
Question:
12) What accounts
for the length of time it took you to publicly retract
the Niger uranium claim?
We hope you will
take the opportunity to answer these questions about
your role in the dissemination of false information about
Iraq 's nuclear program to justify the war in Iraq.
We look forward to a response.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on National Security,
Emerging Threats and
International Relations
Carolyn B. Maloney
Member
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on National Security,
Emerging Threats and
International Relations
Bernie Sanders
Member
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on National Security,
Emerging Threats and
International Relations
The
PARTY'S OVER
Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies
By Richard Heinberg
Now Available!
HERE
|
