Log in or Sign up

SabanFan's sad signature

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by red55, Aug 23, 2009.

Page 7 of 11

LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 15, 2007

Messages:

12,992

Likes Received:

2,461

I guess these people are just making up shyt and lying about Bush as well. And you guys are telling the truth..

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction | Salon

CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.

Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs. That false and restructured report was passed to Richard Dearlove, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on it as validation of the cause for war.

Secretary of State Powell, in preparation for his presentation of evidence of Saddam's WMD to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, spent days at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., and had Tenet sit directly behind him as a sign of credibility. But Tenet, according to the sources, never told Powell about existing intelligence that there were no WMD, and Powell's speech was later revealed to be a series of falsehoods.

Both the French intelligence service and the CIA paid Sabri hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least $200,000 in the case of the CIA) to give them documents on Saddam's WMD programs. "The information detailed that Saddam may have wished to have a program, that his engineers had told him they could build a nuclear weapon within two years if they had fissile material, which they didn't, and that they had no chemical or biological weapons," one of the former CIA officers told me.

On the eve of Sabri's appearance at the United Nations in September 2002 to present Saddam's case, the officer in charge of this operation met in New York with a "cutout" who had debriefed Sabri for the CIA. Then the officer flew to Washington, where he met with CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, who was "excited" about the report. Nonetheless, McLaughlin expressed his reservations. He said that Sabri's information was at odds with "our best source." That source was code-named "Curveball," later exposed as a fabricator, con man and former Iraqi taxi driver posing as a chemical engineer.

The next day, Sept. 18, Tenet briefed Bush on Sabri. "Tenet told me he briefed the president personally," said one of the former CIA officers. According to Tenet, Bush's response was to call the information "the same old thing." Bush insisted it was simply what Saddam wanted him to think. "The president had no interest in the intelligence," said the CIA officer. The other officer said, "Bush didn't give a **** about the intelligence. He had his mind made up."

But the CIA officers working on the Sabri case kept collecting information. "We checked on everything he told us." French intelligence eavesdropped on his telephone conversations and shared them with the CIA. These taps "validated" Sabri's claims, according to one of the CIA officers. The officers brought this material to the attention of the newly formed Iraqi Operations Group within the CIA. But those in charge of the IOG were on a mission to prove that Saddam did have WMD and would not give credit to anything that came from the French. "They kept saying the French were trying to undermine the war," said one of the CIA officers.
Click to expand...

Did Bush Lie Us into War?

HNNHistory News Network Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.Newsletter Submissions Advertising Donations Archives Internships About Us FAQs
Search HNN: Breaking News

Departments
News
HNN Articles
Hot Topics
Roundup
Blogs
Books
Features
HNN Videos
Student Shortcuts
Teacher's Lounge
Jobs
Print this Page

Log In6-16-03

Did Bush Lie Us into War?
By John Dean
Mr. Dean served as White House counsel under President Richard Nixon. His latest book is: The Rehnquist Choice: The Untold Story of the Nixon Appointment That Redefined the Supreme Court (2002)

HNN FUND RAISING DRIVE
If you like the service HNN provides, please consider making a donation.

President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) go away -- unless, perhaps, they start another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMD are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMD is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.

President Bush's Statements On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

United Nations Address, Sept. 12, 2002:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002:

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, Oct. 7, 2002:

"The Iraqi regime... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003:

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Should The President Get The Benefit Of The Doubt?

When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no-words posture was convincing to many Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them.

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses -- including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.

On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the president of the United States? My answer was that they should give the president the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.

First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's thought. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the president for his own review and possible revision.

Second, I explained that -- at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton -- statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the President is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the president's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the president had. For example, on Jan. 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In addition, others in the administration were similarly quick to back the president up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMD -- and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there were any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would say: "I have been advised," or "our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?

After all, no WMD have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find -- for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify and production equipment also existed.

So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist?

There are two main possibilities. One, that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.
Click to expand...

I hate to even debate about this, because its pointless, but you guys should at least be more honest about it, instead of pointing the finger at Democrats.

LSUMASTERMIND, Aug 24, 2009

#61
SabanFan The voice of reason

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

26,080

Likes Received:

1,247

luvdimtigers said: ↑

Not just my opinion, Paul Pillar, National intelligence officer for East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005 has stated that Bush and Cheney ignored substanial disagreement that existed in the intelligence community.

Bottom line, you don't start a pre-emptive war on a half assed hunch. Iraq was never a threat to us. That's American lives your playing with, not toy soldiers. You do something like that, you'd damn well better be right, and W wasn't
Click to expand...

LSUMASTERMIND said: ↑

And there is proof that he did and still pushed for the invasion. Dont sit here and act like the guy was totally innocent and was misled through out this. That is dishonest.

There is plenty of proof of his knowledge after the report and he still pushed for the invasion.
Click to expand...

Of course there were dissenting viewpoints. No one said there weren't. Just because he came down on the side of WMD's doen't mean he lied or ignored the opposing views. There are always opposing views. And, as I said, he made the decision he did, at his own peril.

SabanFan, Aug 24, 2009

#62
DRC TigerNator

Joined:

Oct 11, 2003

Messages:

4,745

Likes Received:

374

LSUMASTERMIND said: ↑

There is plenty of proof of his knowledge after the report and he still pushed for the invasion.
Click to expand...

Which proof is not acknowledged by the Democrats in the Senate who would want to pin this point on Bush in a big way. There are no corroborative facts to support this theory. I guess you believe the Senate Democrats who signed off on the Intelligence Committee reports are in cahoots with Bush?

DRC, Aug 24, 2009

#63
DRC TigerNator

Joined:

Oct 11, 2003

Messages:

4,745

Likes Received:

374

LSUMASTERMIND said: ↑

By John Dean
Click to expand...

I quit reading right there. :lol:

DRC, Aug 24, 2009

#64
LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 15, 2007

Messages:

12,992

Likes Received:

2,461

DRC said: ↑

Which proof is not acknowledged by the Democrats in the Senate who would want to pin this point on Bush in a big way. There are no corroborative facts to support this theory. I guess you believe the Senate Democrats who signed off on the Intelligence Committee reports are in cahoots with Bush?
Click to expand...

Just because you cover your tracks and ass, doesnt make it less obvious. Cahoots no, but just outright wrong, Yes! It was popular at the time, all Dems didnt make that mistake. Im the first person who will say lets go kick some azz, but he was wrong and bull headed with this and your bias is preventing you from admitting that.

LSUMASTERMIND, Aug 24, 2009

#65
DRC TigerNator

Joined:

Oct 11, 2003

Messages:

4,745

Likes Received:

374

LSUMASTERMIND said: ↑

Just because you cover your tracks and ass, doesnt make it less obvious. Cahoots no, but just outright wrong, Yes! It was popular at the time, all Dems didnt make that mistake. Im the first person who will say lets go kick some azz, but he was wrong and bull headed with this and your bias is preventing you from admitting that.
Click to expand...

Of course he was wrong and bull headed. I will be the first to admit he "puffed the goods" too but, your bias refuses to admit there is no evidence or facts to back up this claim. Where were are all these "high ranking officials and unnamed sources" when they had the chance to testify to the Senate Intelligence Committee? All those things you posted may as well be posts from blogs. Its not real evidence.

DRC, Aug 24, 2009

#66
LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

Joined:

Jun 8, 2008

Messages:

44,037

Likes Received:

18,027

DRC said: ↑

Incorrect. You need to read the senate intelligence committee reports instead of the news media.
Click to expand...

so i read it, and it says "most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 NIE (national intelligence estimate) Iraq's continuing programs for weapons of mass destruction either overstated or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic tradecraft led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

that is just a snippet, and from what i can tell, there was not enough information from the intelligence community to determine that Iraq had WMD's nor was there enough information to accurately link Saddam to Al Queda. But we went to war anyway. Im glad the policy of the last administration was to shoot first and ask questions later. Still seems like the Bush Administration made up a bunch of garbage because they saw Iraq as a potential target before the 9/11. They used 9/11 as a propaganda to get Americans on board, and Congress, so everything i have read in the media concerning this has pretty much been spot on.

LaSalleAve, Aug 24, 2009

#67
DRC TigerNator

Joined:

Oct 11, 2003

Messages:

4,745

Likes Received:

374

LaSalleAve said: ↑

so i read it

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
Click to expand...

You need to start with the 2004 report to get the proper perspective on the flow of events. Its like walking into a movie half way through and you dont know whats going on.

DRC, Aug 24, 2009

#68

1 person likes this.
LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 15, 2007

Messages:

12,992

Likes Received:

2,461

DRC said: ↑

Of course he was wrong and bull headed. I will be the first to admit he "puffed the goods" too but, your bias refuses to admit there is no evidence or facts to back up this claim. Where were are all these "high ranking officials and unnamed sources" when they had the chance to testify to the Senate Intelligence Committee? All those things you posted may as well be posts from blogs. Its not real evidence.
Click to expand...

signed..

Johnny Cochran and OJ simpson

LSUMASTERMIND, Aug 24, 2009

#69

1 person likes this.
luvdimtigers Founding Member

Joined:

Jul 30, 2006

Messages:

2,574

Likes Received:

308

LSUMASTERMIND said: ↑

Just because you cover your tracks and ass, doesnt make it less obvious. Cahoots no, but just outright wrong, Yes! It was popular at the time, all Dems didnt make that mistake. Im the first person who will say lets go kick some azz, but he was wrong and bull headed with this and your bias is preventing you from admitting that.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the dems were spineless, they refused to challenge the president or at the very least suggest he slow down in his rush to war, particularly when the weapons inspectors were allowed back in.

They were afraid to be called unpatriotic, so instead of doing their job, they went along with the popular rhetoric.

luvdimtigers, Aug 24, 2009

#70

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 7 of 11

Share This Page