Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligence (1 Viewer)

[aps]

The Bush administration ignored pre-war intelligence? That can't be!

So Tyler Drumheller, who is the former head of the CIA's European operations, stated that George Tenet informed Bush and Cheney that someone from Saddam Hussein's inner circle (Former Minister Naji Sabri) had stated that Iraq had no active programs for WMDs. Apparently, Bush and Cheney ignored that intelligence and stated that it was going to proceed with the plans to go to war and that the issue was now regime change. What's interesting is that this allegedly occurred in September 2002.

Let's not forget that in October 2002, Bush outlined the Iraqi threat while speaking in Ohio. There, he talked about Saddam reconstituting his nuclear weapons and how we could get hit with a friggen mushroom cloud. He went into detail about how we were all in danger of being attacked and that we could not sit still and must attack first. (Here's the website for the speech so you can see his lengthy discussion on how Saddam Hussein had WMDs: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)

Anyway, this former CIA employee will be on 60 Minutes on Sunday night. I am definitely going to watch it.

Prewar Intelligence Ignored, Former C.I.A. Official Says

By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: April 22, 2006

WASHINGTON, April 21 — A former top official of the Central Intelligence Agency has accused the Bush administration of ignoring intelligence assessments about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs in the months leading up to the Iraq war.

Tyler Drumheller, the former head of the C.I.A.'s European operations, is the second C.I.A. veteran in recent weeks to attack the White House's handling of prewar intelligence. The criticism comes as the administration is already facing complaints from retired generals who have criticized the decision to go to war in Iraq and charged that civilian policy makers at the Pentagon ignored the advice of uniformed officers. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/22/washington/22intel.html

 

[Binary_Digit]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

...someone from Saddam Hussein's inner circle (Former Minister Naji Sabri) had stated that Iraq had no active programs for WMDs.

Is there a good reason why they should have believed the WMD assertions of someone from Hussein's inner circle?

 

[scottyz]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

Is there a good reason why they should have believed the WMD assertions of someone from Hussein's inner circle?

Is there any reason we should have believed Chalabi?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

Is there any reason we should have believed Chalabi?

I'm not sure, you'll have to ask Bush. But the DSM probably offers a hint.

 

[aps]

So did anyone watch 60 Minutes last night? This guy was unbelievably credible.

From CNN:

But Drumheller said it was not unusual for the administration to rely on single-source stories when those stories confirmed what the White House wanted to hear.

He cited a report the CIA received in late 2001 that alleged Iraq had bought 500 tons of uranium-containing compounds from Africa.

"They certainly took information that came from single sources on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all," he said. . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/

Here's a great description of last night's interview:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml

Oh, and for those that keep saying that Joe Wilson was wrong or have called him a liar, sorry, but what he said is true--there was no deal (from the website above).

"So, let me see if I have it correctly. The United States gets a report that Saddam is trying to buy uranium from Africa. But you and many others in our intelligence community quickly knock it down. And then the uranium story is removed from the speech that the President is to give in Cincinnati. Because the head of the CIA, George Tenet, doesn't believe in it?" Bradley asked.

"Right," Drumheller appeared.

It then appeared in the State of the Union address as a British report. Drumheller, who oversaw intelligence operations for the CIA in Europe doubts the British had something the U.S. didn't. "No. I don’t think they did," he says.

The British maintain they have intelligence to support the story —but to this day, they have never shared it. [Gee, I wonder why]

Tsk tsk

 

[aps]

I wonder why the repubs/cons on this message board keep ignoring this thread (besides the fact that I started it ). You can't attack his credibility because he has a lot of it. He thoroughly embarrassed the president and the vice president last night. It was fantastic!

 

[KCConservative]

I wonder why the repubs/cons on this message board keep ignoring this thread (besides the fact that I started it ). You can't attack his credibility because he has a lot of it. He thoroughly embarrassed the president and the vice president last night. It was fantastic!

I didn't ignore it. I read every bit of it before it died this morning.

 

[aps]

I didn't ignore it. I read every bit of it before it died this morning.

LOL Is it me, or the topic that caused it to die? hehehehehehhe

I know, Bush isn't running again. :lol:

 

[Binary_Digit]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

Oh, and for those that keep saying that Joe Wilson was wrong or have called him a liar, sorry, but what he said is true--there was no deal (from the website above).

Actually Joe Wilson did lie. Twice. First he said the names and dates were wrong on the N iger reports, but the truth was he didn't actually see the documents at the time. And second, he said his wife had nothing to do with his being selected for the trip, but the truth is she recommended him to her boss at the CIA.

Also, pertaining to the Bush's SoTU address, the issue is not about a deal, it's about an attempted deal. Bush said they sought uranium, and they did. The N igerian officials told Wilson that Iraq had approached them about it.

 

[aps]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

Actually Joe Wilson did lie. Twice. First he said the names and dates were wrong on the N iger reports, but the truth was he didn't actually see the documents at the time. And second, he said his wife had nothing to do with his being selected for the trip, but the truth is she recommended him to her boss at the CIA.

Also, pertaining to the Bush's SoTU address, the issue is not about a deal, it's about an attempted deal. Bush said they sought uranium, and they did. The N igerian officials told Wilson that Iraq had approached them about it.

Do you have evidence or a website to back up your allegations above?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

Do you have evidence or a website to back up your allegations above?

Sure thing:

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the ***** intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." "Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,"

Wilson wrote: "Apart from being the conduit of a message from a colleague in her office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about *****'s uranium industry, Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter." And former CIA officer Larry Johnson elaborated:
Another false claim is that Valerie sent her husband on the mission to *****. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report issued in July 2004, it is clear that the Vice President himself requested that the CIA provide its views on a Defense Intelligence Agency report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from *****. The Vice President's request was relayed through the CIA bureaucracy to the Director of the Counter Proliferation Division at the CIA. Valerie worked for a branch in that Division. The Senate Intelligence Report is frequently cited by Republican partisans as "proof" that Valerie sent her husband to ***** because she sent a memo describing her husband's qualifications to the Deputy Division Chief.

The Senate Report was critical of Wilson because his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his description of the information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA's account. Wilson told the Senate his findings refuted the notion Iraq had sought uranium from *****. The intelligence report actually confirmed that Iraq had approached ***** for increased trade, which was interpreted by the PM as seeking uranium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_wilson

 

[Gill]

Let's not forget that in October 2002, Bush outlined the Iraqi threat while speaking in Ohio. There, he talked about Saddam reconstituting his nuclear weapons and how we could get hit with a friggen mushroom cloud.

Are you sure that Bush was not telling the truth?? More and more documents captured in Iraq are being translated. They reveal that Saddam went to great lengths to hide various programs from UN inspectors. Here’s a recent translation of a document relating to a program instituted in early 2001:

Page 3
In the Name of God the Most Merciful The Most Compassionate
The Republic of Iraq
The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission
To: The Respected Mr. Chairman of the Engineering Department
Subject: Simulation Reactor
An inspection was made to the suggested hall to build the Simulation Reactor and that contain recently laundry equipments (Laundry) and the hall was closed and the location abandoned and neglected for a long time and based on this it requires the following:
1. Remove all the laundry equipments and machines.
2. The structural division should inspect the hall and to repair and remodeling and fortify the building after determining the cost of these works.
3.Transfer the equipments and systems specialized in the control of 14 TAMUZ Reactor from storage 14a to the location of the hall and by phases.
4. Distribute the engineering and technical staff proposed for work in the project to the days of the week where engineer will be dedicated for one day.
5. Dedicate one of the technicians to fully work in the location.
6. Prepare the timeline schedule to finish the project and for the duration of a full year.
Please review and comment
With regards
Signature…
Adnan Salim Girgis
director of the Electronic Support Division

Page 11, dated September 9 2001, discusses the approval of the Chairman of the IAEC to build the Nuclear Reactor Simulator
In page 7, there is discussion in a secret memo dated May 30, 2002, warning that this nuclear program in totally prohibited by the UN resolutions.

In case you've forgotten, Tamuz is the nuclear reactor destroyed by the Israelis in the 1980's.

 

[Stinger]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

Do you have evidence or a website to back up your allegations above?

I have cited the evidence over and over and over to you and plenty of others around here and it remains unrebutted.

Why do you keep asking for evidence? And then when it is provided you don't rebut it or offer evidence otherwise, just pop up in another forum asking for the same evidence again.

Try rebutting what Digital response with this time.

And try this

It turns out Bush was right about Iraq's quest for uranium

Apr 17, 2006
by John Leo

In a surprising editorial, The Washington Post deviated from the conventional anti-Bush media position on two counts. It said President Bush was right to declassify parts of a National Intelligence Estimate to make clear why he thought Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. And the editorial said ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson was wrong to think he had debunked Bush on the nuclear charge because Wilson's statements after visiting ***** actually "supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."......................................... ...

Testifying before the Senate intelligence committee, Wilson said that the former prime minister of ***** told him he had been asked to meet with Iraqis to talk about "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries. Everybody knew what that meant; ***** has nothing much to trade other than uranium........................................... ...........................

Saddam Hussein had already acquired a large amount of uranium from ***** once before, in 1981, so he knew where to go. Amid suspicions that Saddam was trying to revive his nuclear program, Iraqis made a 1999 visit to *****. The head member of the visiting Iraqi team was Saddam's senior public envoy for nuclear matters. Hmmm.....................................

The forged documents claiming an Iraq-***** connection were so crude that they could never have fooled the CIA or British intelligence for very long. Who would do this, and do it so badly? Nobody knows. But if the forgeries were meant to distract from other evidence that Bush was right, then they certainly worked. Look around in American journalism, and you will find great certitude that the forgeries destroyed Bush's claim. That certitude can only be founded on the belief that Tony Blair, the U.S. Senate intelligence committee and the special investigative team of Parliament were all liars when they said there was substantial non-forged evidence backing Bush's claim. The investigative team was headed by the highly regarded Lord Butler, who served as a Cabinet minister under five prime ministers. It concluded that Bush's 16 words about Iraq's uranium shopping were "well-founded."

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/johnleo/2006/04/17/193811.html

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

Are you sure that Bush was not telling the truth?? More and more documents captured in Iraq are being translated. They reveal that Saddam went to great lengths to hide various programs from UN inspectors. Here’s a recent translation of a document relating to a program instituted in early 2001:


Page 11, dated September 9 2001, discusses the approval of the Chairman of the IAEC to build the Nuclear Reactor Simulator
In page 7, there is discussion in a secret memo dated May 30, 2002, warning that this nuclear program in totally prohibited by the UN resolutions.

In case you've forgotten, Tamuz is the nuclear reactor destroyed by the Israelis in the 1980's.

Oh so, Saddam had the desire to one day build a reactor. Oh my God, the horrors in some third rate dictator looking to build a reactor one day. Saddam must have been the only dictator on earth looking to do so one day. Nevermind the fact that given Iraq's capacity at the time, maybe Saddam's grandchildren could have realized the dream.:roll:

Its a joke. Its flat laughable that there are still a few holdouts out there unwilling to admit that we were wrong. Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States. It is debatable as to whether the Administration was honestly mistaken or knowingly missleading the American People, but the fact that no weapons or facilities have been found is no longer debatable.

 

[Gill]

Its a joke. Its flat laughable that there are still a few holdouts out there unwilling to admit that we were wrong.

Very true....Are you ready to admit you were wrong??

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

I have cited the evidence over and over and over to you and plenty of others around here and it remains unrebutted.

Why do you keep asking for evidence? And then when it is provided you don't rebut it or offer evidence otherwise, just pop up in another forum asking for the same evidence again.

Try rebutting what Digital response with this time.

And try this

It turns out Bush was right about Iraq's quest for uranium

Apr 17, 2006
by John Leo

In a surprising editorial, The Washington Post deviated from the conventional anti-Bush media position on two counts. It said President Bush was right to declassify parts of a National Intelligence Estimate to make clear why he thought Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. And the editorial said ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson was wrong to think he had debunked Bush on the nuclear charge because Wilson's statements after visiting ***** actually "supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."......................................... ...

Testifying before the Senate intelligence committee, Wilson said that the former prime minister of ***** told him he had been asked to meet with Iraqis to talk about "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries. Everybody knew what that meant; ***** has nothing much to trade other than uranium........................................... ...........................

Saddam Hussein had already acquired a large amount of uranium from ***** once before, in 1981, so he knew where to go. Amid suspicions that Saddam was trying to revive his nuclear program, Iraqis made a 1999 visit to *****. The head member of the visiting Iraqi team was Saddam's senior public envoy for nuclear matters. Hmmm.....................................

The forged documents claiming an Iraq-***** connection were so crude that they could never have fooled the CIA or British intelligence for very long. Who would do this, and do it so badly? Nobody knows. But if the forgeries were meant to distract from other evidence that Bush was right, then they certainly worked. Look around in American journalism, and you will find great certitude that the forgeries destroyed Bush's claim. That certitude can only be founded on the belief that Tony Blair, the U.S. Senate intelligence committee and the special investigative team of Parliament were all liars when they said there was substantial non-forged evidence backing Bush's claim. The investigative team was headed by the highly regarded Lord Butler, who served as a Cabinet minister under five prime ministers. It concluded that Bush's 16 words about Iraq's uranium shopping were "well-founded."

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/johnleo/2006/04/17/193811.html

So Saddam was looking for uranium, yet was unable to obtain it. Oh, the horrors. :roll:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

Very true....Are you ready to admit you were wrong??

Being that pretty much 99% of the World, and even the President would agree that Iraq had no WMD when went in. It would seem that you are the holdout.

 

[Gill]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

Being that pretty much 99% of the World, and even the President would agree that Iraq had no WMD when went in. It would seem that you are the holdout.

No, I agree that everyone, including me, agree that Iraq had no WMD when we went in. What I, and many others, believe is that Saddam was actively pursuing WMD right up to the time of our invasion.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

No, I agree that everyone, including me, agree that Iraq had no WMD when we went in. What I, and many others, believe is that Saddam was actively pursuing WMD right up to the time of our invasion.

Of course he always had a desire for them. He wanted to stay in power and WMD would have been a fear tactic to help him stay in power. However, he was obviously after ten years getting nowhere. Thus he was by definition contained. There is no reason to believe that despite the oil for food scandal, that Saddam would have ever been able to substatially reconstitute his WMD programs and stockpilles so long as sanctions and inspections were in place. The entire war was predicated on the notion that Saddam had not disarmed despite the sanctions and inspections. Of course, we know now that was simply not the case. Thus, the war was elective and unnecessary.

 

[Gill]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

Of course he always had a desire for them. He wanted to stay in power and WMD would have been a fear tactic to help him stay in power. However, he was obviously after ten years getting nowhere. Thus he was by definition contained. There is no reason to believe that despite the oil for food scandal, that Saddam would have ever been able to substatially reconstitute his WMD programs and stockpilles so long as sanctions and inspections were in place. The entire war was predicated on the notion that Saddam had not disarmed despite the sanctions and inspections. Of course, we know now that was simply not the case. Thus, the war was elective and unnecessary.

Then how do you explain the above letter and the dozens more that have been translated that support Bush's reasons for going to war?

Wait... let me guess. They are a neocon conspiracy, planted by the CIA.

 

[aps]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

Sure thing:






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_wilson

Binary, thank you for looking this up and posting it (you too, Stinger). I'll address this later when I have more time to do my own research.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

Then how do you explain the above letter and the dozens more that have been translated that support Bush's reasons for going to war?

Wait... let me guess. They are a neocon conspiracy, planted by the CIA.

Did Bush tell all of us that Saddam does not really have any WMD, but he wants them and thats why we need to go to war?

Of course not. We were warned of massive stockpiles of WMD and failed inspections and sanctions. This turned out to be not the case. The goal of containing Saddam was not to reverse his desire to have weapons of mass destruction. It was to prevent him from getting them. As we now know, they did just that.

 

[Gill]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

Did Bush tell all of us that Saddam does not really have any WMD, but he wants them and thats why we need to go to war?

Of course not. We were warned of massive stockpiles of WMD and failed inspections and sanctions. This turned out to be not the case. The goal of containing Saddam was not to reverse his desire to have weapons of mass destruction. It was to prevent him from getting them. As we now know, they did just that.

No, you are wrong my friend. There are mountains of evidence that Saddam was using the Oil for Food money to reinstate his WMD programs. As the letter above clearly shows, he actively hid his programs from the UN inspectors.

If his own son-in-law had not defected, his WMD programs would have been much more advanced than they were.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: Another former CIA employee accuses the Bush Admin of ignoring pre-war intelligen

No, you are wrong my friend. There are mountains of evidence that Saddam was using the Oil for Food money to reinstate his WMD programs. As the letter above clearly shows, he actively hid his programs from the UN inspectors.

If his own son-in-law had not defected, his WMD programs would have been much more advanced than they were.

Obviously, even though he was using Oil for Food money, it was still not effective. All that money and he still had not WMD stockpiles or the facilities to create them. All he had was a desire for them. Thats it. If a desire for WMD was a significant threat to the United States, then we have a lot to worried about because half the dictatorships on earth want them.

 

[Middleground]

Are you sure that Bush was not telling the truth?? More and more documents captured in Iraq are being translated. They reveal that Saddam went to great lengths to hide various programs from UN inspectors. Here’s a recent translation of a document relating to a program instituted in early 2001:


Page 11, dated September 9 2001, discusses the approval of the Chairman of the IAEC to build the Nuclear Reactor Simulator
In page 7, there is discussion in a secret memo dated May 30, 2002, warning that this nuclear program in totally prohibited by the UN resolutions.

In case you've forgotten, Tamuz is the nuclear reactor destroyed by the Israelis in the 1980's.

Frankly, Gill, I don't even know why I'm bothering with you. When I had you cornered in another thread, you simply disappeared despite my urging to get a reply. Is that what you do when you don't have a response? It's better to ignore than to be wrong? If that's how you work, then I don't regard your posts to have any value whatsoever.

Having said that, I cannot let you post this stuff without a link. Can you please post it, or am I going to be ignored again?