Ex-CIA Officer: We Knew There Were No WMD
Posted by Joe Rospars on April 24, 2006 at 10:15 AM
Explosive news on the WMD front, with a former top CIA official making the case that the agency knew there were no weapons of mass destruction but the facts were ignored by the White House:
A retired CIA official has accused the Bush administration of ignoring intelligence indicating that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no active nuclear program before the United States-led coalition invaded it, CBS News said Sunday.
Tyler Drumheller, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe, told "60 Minutes" that the administration "chose to ignore" good intelligence, the network said in a posting on its Web site.
Drumheller said that, before the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003, the White House "ignored crucial information" from Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, that indicated Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. [...]
"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "
Drumheller said the administration officials wanted no more information from Sabri because: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy." [...]
"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure," Drumheller told CBS' Ed Bradley. "This was a policy failure. I think, over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time."
Let's tack that on to the sordid history of the Bush administration and WMD:
Bush Administration Touted Capture of Mobile "Biological Laboratories," Declaring "We Have Found the Weapons Of Mass Destruction." On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction." The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war." [Washington Post, 4/12/06]
... Even When They Knew It Was Not True. "But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true. A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement. The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories." [Washington Post, 4/12/06]
At President Bush and Vice President Cheney's Request, Scooter Libby Leaks Previously Classified Information From the National Intelligence Estimate. Scooter Libby testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of his July 8 meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller to disclose portions of the classified NIE because the Vice President thought that it was "very important" for them to come out. Libby testified that while at first he advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE, Vice President Cheney advised him that President Bush authorized Libby to disclose "the relevant portions of the NIE." Libby testified that the circumstances of his conversation with Judith Miller-getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material-were "unique in his recollection." [Government's Response to Defendant's Third Motion to Compel Discovery, 4/5/06]
... Even As The Information Was Being Discredited By Other Officials In the Administration. President Bush's order authorizing Scooter Libby to reveal "previously classified intelligence about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium came as the information was already being discredited by several other officials in the administration, interviews and documents from the time show." A senior intelligence official involved in drafting the estimate said the drafters knew there were serious doubts about the accuracy of that claim. [New York Times, 4/9/06]
High Ranking CIA Officer Said Bush and Cheney Were Told That Iraq Had No Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Tyler Drumheller, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe said that, before the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other high ranking officials were told that Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, had told the CIA that Iraq had "no active weapons of mass destruction programs." [CNN 4/23/06]
... But They Said They "Were No Longer Interested." "'The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' Drumheller said the administration officials wanted no more information from Sabri because: 'The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy.'" [CNN 4/23/06]
Comments (29) «
I saw the last of this interview,and it`s just further proof of what I knew in my gut.I`m still baffled by the the fact that even though these things are being disclosed to the public nothing is being done!These people should be removed from office!The harm they have done to this country could possibly be so deep in so many areas that we may never be able to recover?This country feels like a shell of what it use to be.
virgo, that's what we are facing the decline and fall of the America.
Once the Great Decider makes up his mind to blow up something, it doesn't matter what the facts are. Our nation, and any other weak country he wants to toy with, lives and dies by his whims of power and glory forever and ever.
He's not only stupid, he's dangerous. I wonder what the rest of the world is going to do about him? And don't think they aren't examining the options. Either we take care of the "the situation" at the polls this fall or the other world powers will.
Our generals, intelligence agents, scientists, and economists are warning us that the end is coming. Only fools would not heed the alarm.
The Bush bunch knew about this, lied to the public thinking they would find some leftovers when they got there, but they didn't. Now it's the same thing with Iran. Intelligence says one thing and the crazy's are telling us they have the bomb, just like Hussein had the bomb. Do you think the real purpose of Iraq and now Iran is to drive up oil prices? I do. Naturally some people would have to die and be crippled but none of the big boys, so what do they care?
Are any of you actually suggesting that we should have left Iraq alone? Your precious Democratic Congressmen and Senators authorized this war on the same intelligence.
While not linked directly to 9/11, the Iraqi regime was cozy with terrorist organizations bent on your destruction as Americans. Of the thousands of captured documents being translated, this is becoming more and more clear.
Let's "focus on the future," as our right wing war-monging friends would say.
OK...Iran. What's next?
Joe Biden said on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" that he didn't think there was a concensus even among Democrats in Congress that president "Duh" needs to come to them for fresh authorization to war with Iran.
I say..."WTF?"
Do these people even know what their job description is? Have they ever even read the Constitution? In light of what we know know for a fact that this rotten, stinking, lying, corrupt band of imperialists did to get us into the Iraqi quagmire, not even goddamned Democrats have the stones to tell this Christo-fascist that "No - declaring war is OUR job, you lying bastard, and this time we'll make the decision. You are not the Great Decider when it comes to war."
Really? Has it gotten that bad in this country?
Wouldn't it be interesting to see what the USSC, that growing, merry band of "Strict Constructionists" would have to say about Bush declaring yet another war because he hears Jesus calling?
Check that. They'd probably vote with him and that would be the official start of the United Christian Crusaders of America.
Ryan34,
You should listen more closely to your beloved Fuehrer. He didn't say Saddam was linked to some nebulous, faceless bunch of terrorists. He said they were linked to al Qaeda. Over and over again. And so did all of the lying bastards who work for him.
And that "Democrats voted for the war" meme - Babe...you're about five talking points behind. I mean, after all, that's the past - so "yesterday."
Brian111 -
Tell us - and don't lie just because your oh-so likable Liar in Chief does as reflexively as a wren chirps - tell us at what point you listened to Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice and all the rest of that mob say for the umpti-billionth time that we were going to war to protect ourselves from WMD's, the possibility of a mushroom cloud over Boston, and because Saddam was in league with al Qaeda - at what point did you jump up with your fists clenched and shout "NO GODDAMIT! I want Saddam's ass becuase he was bad to the Kurds."
Let me ask this another way. And tell the truth - at what point in the past five years did you figure out that when they were talking about the poor treatment of Kurds that they weren't talking abuot Saddam leaving tons of cottage cheese out in the desert to spoil?
Ah...Ditto Head History Revisionism. That and the smell of napalm in Iran...it's such a refereshing way to start the day.
But hey - we don't have a "liberal" president lying about blowjobs anymore, so things are ever so much better now.
"Brian, Ryan, and Lyin'". You should start a band.
So declassifing Secert information is not illegal, but isn't it illegal to expose or put undercover agents in danger?
The Vice President has been in the business of producing poor intellegence for a long time.
Although the Team B report contained little factual data, it was enthusiastically received by conservative groups such as the Committee on the Present Danger, whose members included Ronald Reagan, and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. But the report turned out to be grossly inaccurate.
In fact, he's been wrong on quite a few issues regarding national security.
In the first Bush administration, the CIA claimed that Soviet spending on weapons started declining in 1988 and that the number of Soviet strategic launchers was staying the same or declining. Then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney argued publicly that the Soviet Union's efforts to modernize its strategic nuclear weapons were "robust and continuous."[7] Moreover, Cheney asserted that there was "absolutely no evidence" that Gorbachev's ascension had altered Soviet strategic planning.[8]
So declassifing Secert information is not illegal, but isn't it illegal to expose or put undercover agents in danger?
Posted by stragtowinelec on April 24, 2006 at 06:44 PM
If she is in so much danger, why is she constantly being photographed in public and why hasn't she moved?
This report has been obvious for years now. Remember what the inspectors were saying before the invasion of Iraq - no WMDs left that we know of. They were getting help from the NSA (satallite surveillance),and the CIA and there agents. The Weapons Inspectors were protrayed in such a way that the public dimissed there claims. But, they were actively investigating all reports of possible WMDs with the direct assistance from different agencies within the Intellignce Community.
I think the country should ask "What would President Reagan do?"
When faced with the Iran/Contra scandals he fumigated the White House and apologized to the nation.
When faced with the insolvency of Social Security he raised payroll taxes and funded it to 100% of promised benifits (including COLAs) till 2040.
When faced with huge budget deficits, he rejected supply-side economics and reinstituted more progressive taxes including taxes on capital and corporations.
When we lost 241 marines in Lebanon, he brought our people home.
Brian111 (a/k/a Dijilli):
What fun! Let's take a few Democrats' plans for getting out of the mess your Feuhrer put us into, and then we can compare and contrast them to your leader's plan which is...what? Oh yes - 14 "enduring" bases in Iraq, "pod" airfields in multiple countries surrounding the first two of "enduring" battlefields, and continuing to fight the war on terror(ism) until "total victory" is achieved, even thought he's told us more than once that this war will never end.
We could do that all night, I suppose, and get a lot of yucks out of it. But frankly, in that the people who your Christo-fascist hero surrounded himself with were begging to attack Iraq back in 98, years before 911, before al Qaeda had attacked us, and in that back then they were honest enough to tell us they wanted to do so to protect the oil reserves for our own selfish economic purposes, and didn't think it even necessary to mention the "poor Kurds" (your only remaining rationale for this stupid fucking war), your premise is flawed...so why bother? You want us to start with the theory that your coke-snorting, lying alkie Bushbaby led us into Iraq for humanitarian purposes. But that bull, and you know it as well as we do. Maybe you don't. Maybe you really have the "Bush religion". In that case, Seig Heil, baby.
But I reject the premise that Bush and the rest of you oil-guzzling, America uber allis neocons have any interest at all in leaving Iraq, so why should I defend any Democratic ideas about achieving that objective? Apples and oranges.
As for those who I hate (another old meme - geez, you really do need to keep up!), I really don't HATE Bush. He is what he is. A useful idiot. I don't even hate Cheney, the man with the fingers in the finger puppet. What I HATE are people who pretend they love American democracy when by every thing they say and do they betray a love for autocracy and unbending might. I love my country, and I therefore hate sedition. You folks want to turn this country into Iran west with a cross, and I hate you for that.
Now run along and play nice with the other neocons. And save a few nukes for North Korea, would you?
Posted by brian111 on April 24, 2006 at 08:16 PM
The Iraqi's know how to take of themselves. We'll insure their international borders while they get about doing it - nothing more.
They didn't have suicide bombers before we came and they'll likely not have any after we leave.
Posted by brian111 on April 24, 2006 at 10:20 PM
They are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves - more capable of dealing with suicide bombers than we are - they know who the bad guys are better than we.
Have you lost faith in them already? Have you lost faith in democracy - albeit what will be a uniquely Iraqi form of Democracy? Freedom has a life of it's own and Iraqis will take it heart and make it their own
We're in the way - it's time to get out of their way.
Those who protested the war didn't like being lied to and didn't like the fact that there was no public debate about whether or not a Democratic Iraq would do any good at surpressing al-Quida -
what we got was visions of mushroom clouds - hardly a public debate worthy of a democracy.
----
But if you insist - by all means - find a GOP presidental candidate 2 years from now willing to "stay the course" - I doubt you'll find one - but if do - work hard to get him nominated - I doubt you'll succeed
I come from a Republican family, Brian - and I have lots of Republican friends - and I know how they feel.
As to which Democratic candidate will do this - none have declared yet - let alone laid out a plan
This Explain the sickness that drives W and his neocon band of phsycos
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1215-03.htm
Published on Sunday, December 15, 2002 by the Toronto Star
Don't Let Bush Light Iraq Fire
by Linda McQuaig
Shooting frogs with BB guns was apparently pretty standard entertainment for young boys in Texas in the 1950s. But for added amusement, George W. Bush and his friends used to tuck firecrackers into the mouths of frogs, throw them in the air, and watch them explode.
Historians will be most unkind to phsyco boy wonder
What is most scary to me is what this band of neocons may have already done and what they may be capable of doing in the very near future to stay in power.
DOCUMENTARY: 9/11 LOOSE CHANGE
Whether you accept the official 9/11 explanation or not, Loose Change is a fascinating look at unexplained issues surrounding 9/11 that you won't see on "the news."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848
Posted by brian111 on April 24, 2006 at 11:59 PM dorsano, thought you might enjoy this
I'm familar with Frank Luntz's work, Brian. After all, I knew this adminstration was lying back when almost 60% of Americans thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11
I'll steal one of Frank's lines
"They are not campaigning yet".
If you really want to save the GOP majority in the House - you should spend more time talking to your neighbors and less time on the blog
We've all made up our minds.
No doubt you've seen the newest poll released today - This president now has a 32% approval rating and a 60% disapproval rating
You better get crackin my friend, the GOP is losing its base.
As regards to immigration, Brian - I suggest that you look to Nebraska - and to Chuck Hegel
I sincerely hope that the GOP rises to the task and delivers a pragmatic solution to the immigration issue - something along the lines of the President's guest worker program.
Even though the president is pretty much a lame duck at this point, I believe that he can bring along his base to do the right thing.
I think it would be good for immigrants - good for the GOP - and good for the country.
Those immigrants that do become new American citizens under the President's guest worker programs are likely to hold the GOP in some affection and they will in time change the party itself into something that is less anti-government and more populist
That's good for America - and that's where my loyalties lie.
Here's something that you might be interested in Brian GOP urges price-gouging probe on gas
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congressional GOP leaders on Monday formally called on President Bush to launch an investigation into possible price gouging by oil companies, after gas prices shot up nearly 25 cents a gallon in two weeks.
I thought that the invisible hand that guides the free market protected us from stuff like this?
The GOP has two systemic problems today that will lead to its downfall if not addressed
1). We can't very well expect GOP candidates to do much good when we elect them if the candidates themselves believe that government can't do much good.
2). If the GOP candidates are going to delegate the responsibilities of government to the free market and multi-national corporations, why should we pay their salaries and their health care benefits and their retirement benefits?
Brian111 -
Again, your premise is flawed and I reject it out of hand. Bush created this mess, not Democrats. That he and his cohorts were able to coerce Democrats to vote for the authorization through multiple, layered lies is irrelevant - strict party line votes would have approved the authorization resolution in both houses in any event. And besides - it is his war, he was proud of it, and he still is. So it's his. All his.
That said, no one asked who the alternative to Saddam would be when we toppled him. No one cared who the alternative to Hitler would be when he was finally opposed. When a maniac is in charge the first order of business is to remove the maniac. We'll worry about the alternative plan afterward, thank you.
Now there are several from which we might choose, from a staged national withdrawal, to a regional demilitarization, to a complete and immediate pullout, to cross-border redeployment. Will any of them have the effect of leaving Iraq safe and democratic and secular? Of course not. That's exactly the tragedy of the Bush neocon fantasy. So I'll take any alternative to "stay the course." Any one at all. The faster we get out the better. If a sliver causes an infection you remove the sliver first and worry about the infection second.
We're the sliver.
Oh, and incidentally - if you think the issues surrounding the war and American hegemony resolve down to simple "liberal" conservative differences, you are really the perfect O'Reilly Factor viewer. You clearly hate liberals. You hate the liberal government that invented the middle class lifestyle you enjoy. You spend every waking hour ignoring facts and living on pure, raw neocon emotion. And I don't know why, but you also seem to hate principles of American democracy.
say - why DO you live in this country, anyway? There are plenty of other countries where blind allegiance to central governmental power is expected. Wouldn't you enjoy thsoe places so much more?
But hey - even if you stay here, have a nice day, will ya, ya big lug? We all love you.
The evidence is massive and irrefutable that this administration in cooperation with the Democratic leadership involved this country in an illegal war. The Democratic party policy of "remain quiet" is cowardice. The time has come to yell, scream do whatever it takes to prevent these crazies from invading Iran. What is it going to take to cause our party to stand up to the insanities being committed daily?
Why is this thread taken over by this regurgitator of rehashed "facts" which have been, several times over, proven not to be factual.
We need to focus on this legislative election, get control of the Congress and impeach Bush so we can find out who we need to indict and what we need to apologize for.
Then we can develop plans and pass the necessary legislationtoto fix our international relations, and get multi-national corporations under control.
At the same time we need to do the necessary indictments needed to punish the guilty.
No op-plan suceeds with a such plethora of unknowns.
An impeachment is an investigation to find out facts, which thanks to Bushie obfuscation and prevarications are in short supply.
Arguing with the willfully ignorant is a non-productive exersize in time-wasting twaddle, and takes one's mind off the real issues.
We need to deal with this legislative campaign and then get the facts we need to fix this royal mess.
Speaking of lowlifes and scumbags, has anyone heard of the Enzi Bill? It is appearantly the brainchild of Mike Enzi R-Wyo.
My cousin sent a article from our hometown paper, which tends to be conservative in spite of the fact it's named The Democrat.
I did a quick Google, and it turns out that the bill, in the name of "leveling the playing field" will do away with any state control over medical care.
It's being opposed by AARP, Families USA, the American Cancer Society, and attorneys general and insurance comissioners of several states.
Why, if the Republicans are for smaller government like they claim, to they keep dreaming up bills which put more and more of our lives in the uncaring hands of the federal government?
We need to get back to sanity in government, especially in the Federal government.
Even before the White House and President (what a joke) George W Bush announced the lies about WMD, people with any sense knew we were going to war with Iraq. It was inevitable, when Saddam put out a contract on George Bush, Sr, years earlier. The administration just waited for the right excuse to start a war and lo and behold, Osama bin-Laden initiated the attack on the World Trade Center. The only thing sad about the lie told by Bush, is that brave men and women of the Armed Forces are losing their lives and limbs to IED's and insurgents, in Iraq. To hear them speak of this war, they are proud to serve in Iraq and to hear Bush speak about this Iraq war, he is fighting for freedom of the Iraqi people, but when he had the chance to fight for freedom, in Vietnam, he didn't want to sacrifice himself, so he went to his father and had him pull strings to get him into a safer gig with the Texas Air National Guard. We need to call George W Bush to answer for his actions and if found guilty, he should be put in federal prison.
LEAVENWORTH KANSAS, THE NEW WEST WING OF THE WHITE HOUSE!!!
You have to admit it would be a great headline.
That's why this election year is so important. without control of the legislature we will never get the justice that this country deserves.
No one has ever answered the obvious question about Bush lying about WMD.
If he actually knowingly lied about WMD, wouldn't he have simply planted the WMD to cover up his lie? Generally, when you lie you don't expect to get caught. Even if he didn't think of planting WMD as part of the original lie, wouldn't Bush have eventually planted WMD after all of the negative pub about not finding it.
The anwer is that he didn't lie about it. There were many reasons to go into Iraq. I believe Bush etc polled the nation ahead of time on various reasons to go to war (12 years of violating UN, Saddam funds murder bombers, your'e with us or against us, etc) and they one that sold best was WMD.
There were claims about WMD and claims that there were no WMD (Ritter, etc). He relied to much on the claim of WMD, and discounted the no WMD claims because in a post 911 world he believed we need to kick ass in the middle east and prove that we stick around even if we suffer losses.
There have been lots of mistakes, but I don't think he lied about WMD.
Bush lied. Then he deliberately went out of his way to attempt to discredit anyone who questioned him. His idea of a cover up is get Karl Rove to spin things so that anyone who questions him about anything is viciously attacked.
He is arrogant enough to think if he keeps telling the Big Lie loudly enough that there are people who will believe it. Obviously, in some cases it works.
The bottom line is that there was no imminent threat. There was no legal, or moral reason to go into Iraq.
We attacked the country of Iraq in what was loosely termed a "pre-emptive strike" after the Bush administration had in hand information that showed Iraq was not capable of bombing the US, and had no ties to Saddam Hussein or his organization.
Basically, bottom line, Bush is a liar and a murderer, and needs to be impeached, removed from office and imprisoned, like any other war criminal.
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
