Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

[Nbadan]

What did he know and when did he know it?

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.
By Sidney Blumenthal


Sep. 06, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, 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.

Salon (http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/print.html)


The Prez. wasn't gonna let 'truthiness' get in the way of his war.

[mavs>spurs2]

You didn't need to post an article for me to believe this shit

I've known this since before the war even started

[ChumpDumper]

It would be nice if the CIA had the first and last word on intel regarding Iraq, more precisely the members of the CIA that were dealing with the evidence or lack thereof objectively. Unfortunately there was a whole other intel apparatus that had as much or more influence on Bush's decision-making that was created inside the the DoD specifically to second-guess everything the CIA did in favor of the conclusion Iraq had WMDs in 2001-2003.

[Booharv]

I'm surprised I hadn't heard that yet. That article came out last week too.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Sep. 06, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, 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.

Whether this is true or not remains to be seen. I have always felt that Bush never relayed some information to Congress. This is where I think he was dishonest about the Iraq war. Bush didn't lie rather he withheld information that would have caused many people to reconsider war with Iraq.

[boutons_]

"Bush never relayed some information to Congress"

of course not. dubya, dickhead, rummy cherry picked/lied about supporting evidence and classified/suppressed all contrary evidence. Congress did not have the same information that the WH did, because the WH made damn sure Congress was in the dark, Repugs and Dems.

Iraq was NEVER rally about US security, it was always about the oil. Invading Iraq was neo-cunt/PNAC/AEI/Repug plan in the 1990s. 2001 WTC was just another false pretext exploited to support the 1990s plan to grab the Iraq oil.

[smeagol]

This war is a major fuck up.

I'm surprised in a country such the US, where the three branches of Congress should work independently, shit like this happens.

[Buenos Hairys]

In Argentina Running Water We Have

[clambake]

Boutons has been right all along. Damn. I salute you , sir.

[Wild Cobra]

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.
Stop salivating you Bush haters. Do you really expect anyone to believe the word of someone from the inner circle of the enemy?

[Saddam's Ghost]

That asshole!

[ChumpDumper]

Stop salivating you Bush haters. Do you really expect anyone to believe the word of someone from the inner circle of the enemy?Even if we waterboarded him?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Stop salivating you Bush haters. Do you really expect anyone to believe the word of someone from the inner circle of the enemy?


Yet we turned around and believed the guy who said we would be greeted as liberators... one gave us information that did not fit the agenda and one did....hmmm

DOn't forget the Iranian spy, I mean our all and friend Chalabi duped us also..seems to me that we listened to those who supported our vision and ignored those wo were party poopers...

[boutons_]

WC says don't believe the guy who was exactly right, and believe dubya who hasn't gotten one fucking thing right about Iraq in 4+ years?

Gen Pace is now admitting he was wrong about:
a) US greeted as liberators
b) had enough troops

War-architect/promoter Wolfowitz said the US invasion would self-financing from the Iraqi oil.

etc, etc, etc. (Maybe what he really meant was once the US military enabled the US oilcos to get their grubby hands on Iraqi oil, the oilcos would "finance" Wolfowitz him "self". :lol

Repug/conservative/neo-cunt reality: up is down, good is bad, white is black.

dubya has been wrong and lying all along, dubya is and will be wrong and lying until 20 Jan 09.

[fyatuk]

Well, considering the various intelligence directors are supposed to give the intelligence subcommittees the exact same information they give to the President, it's highly disturbing that the intelligence directors ignored that part of their jobs and allowed Bush to push them around or what not.

That being said, you can never really trust "former" anythings to be telling the whole truth. That, and it's Salon, so meh.

[Ignignokt]

Even if we waterboarded him?


What does torture have to do with this. Did the guy get tortured when giving the info?

[clambake]

torture ends when you say what they want to hear

[ChumpDumper]

What does torture have to do with this. Did the guy get tortured when giving the info?If he was tortured, the information would have to be considered reliable. I just don't know why we didn't torture Saddam enough so he would tell us where he was hiding Osama.

[Wild Cobra]

Yet we turned around and believed the guy who said we would be greeted as liberators... one gave us information that did not fit the agenda and one did....hmmm
No, the intelligence community places levels of belief on the gathered intelligence, and assesses it from there. This guy must have already been deemed not just supply information that Saddam wanted leaked.

We really don't know, but that fits the possibilities better than your automatic assumption of deceit on our side.


DOn't forget the Iranian spy, I mean our all and friend Chalabi duped us also..seems to me that we listened to those who supported our vision and ignored those wo were party poopers...
If you are talking about what I think....

Actually, I'm not going to guess. What are you talking about? I cannot think of anything that fits what you imply or say.

Now when it comes to credibility, there is General Sada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada ). He is completely credible, yet the left ignores what he has to say.

[ChumpDumper]

No, the intelligence community places levels of belief on the gathered intelligence, and assesses it from there. This guy must have already been deemed not just supply information that Saddam wanted leaked.If this intel made it all the way up the chain to a presidential briefing, the CIA must've been pretty confident about it.



Now when it comes to credibility, there is General Sada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada ). He is completely credible, yet the left ignores what he has to say.Why is he completely credible? He took part in the invasion of Kuwait that led to hundreds of US deaths, who knows how many Kuwaiti deaths and $5 billion damage to Kuwait -- all this after he says he became a Christian. Who knows what else he did taking orders from Saddam Hussein.

But he said what you wanted to hear, so he's "competely credible."

[Wild Cobra]

OK, let’s assume for a minute that president Bush knew there was no WMD. What about the democrats? An article by Larry Elder, a respected Libertarian talk show host, has the following:

Howard Dean:


I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. (Hussein) is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given.

General Clark:


There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self-defense. . . . Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. . . . When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval. . . . There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.

John Rockefeller:


There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
Link to article for above quotes:

On WMDs: What Did the Democrats Say? (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3474)

Link for more Clark quotes:

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HOLDS A HEARING ON U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAQ (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/clark.perle.testimony.pdf), SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

I selected these myself:



Now, Saddam has been pursing nuclear weapons and we've been living with this risk
for over 20 years.




The problem of Iraq is not a problem that can be postponed indefinitely, and of
course Saddam's current efforts themselves are violations of international law as
expressed in the U.N. resolutions. Our President has emphasized the urgency of
eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to
encourage the United Nations to act on this problem and in taking this to the United
Nations, the president's clear determination to act if the United States can't --
excuse me, if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage for under girding
ongoing diplomatic efforts.




We've got to make sure that in addressing the operational problem we're effective in
going after the larger strategic problem. And so, the critical issue facing the United
States right now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons
programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaida or our efforts to deal with
other immediate mid and long-term security problems.
I'd like to offer the following observations by way of how we could proceed. First of
all, I do believe that the United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be
strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing U.S. determination to
act if the United Nations can not act. The use of force must remain a U.S. option
under active consideration.




This is a very important question and particularly because we're trying to not
only eliminate the weapons of mass destruction but end up with a situation in which
we're net better off than we are today. We have to look at this question very
seriously. I think much depends on the circumstances of the military operation itself
as to what the impact will be and how long it will take. I think the broader the
coalition, the stronger the preparations in advance, the smoother the operation is
likely to be, the more rapid Saddam's army will collapse, and the less humanitarian
hardship is likely to be imposed.




We've already seen a replay or a (inaudible) to this in what happened in 1991 with
the Shia rebellion in southern Iraq when they thought we were coming in to help
them liberate Iraq, and so we have to imagine a complete breakdown of order. That
will be accompanied no doubt by a breakdown in the distribution of services, water,
food. It's possible that Saddam Hussein may use biological weapons. If so, it's very
possible he would use them against his own people. In an effort to impede our
advance, he might very well try to solve the problem of the Shias in the south
through the use of biological weapons.




I think your question about doctrine are very important questions but as you
observe and I agree, there's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this
is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the
actions they deem necessary in their self defense. Every president has deployed
forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if
necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary.

Sorry, I didn't take the time to reformat for the missing carraige returns.

After these years of proving the democrats agreed there was WMD, the Looney Left still makes it out as if Bush Lied. Apparently, democrats are too stupid and/or lazy to use their resources to fact check. Shouldn't that disqualify them from holding office? There are quotes to be found of both Clinton's, Kerry, and so many others.

[Holt's Cat]

The Democrats weren't exactly innocent victims in this, though that's the spin.

[ChumpDumper]

We've got to make sure that in addressing the operational problem we're effective in going after the larger strategic problem. And so, the critical issue facing the United States right now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaida or our efforts to deal with other immediate mid and long-term security problems.Too bad the Bush detracted from our focus on Al Qaida or our efforts to deal with other immediate mid and long-term security problems.
This is a very important question and particularly because we're trying to not only eliminate the weapons of mass destruction but end up with a situation in which we're net better off than we are today. We have to look at this question very seriously. I think much depends on the circumstances of the military operation itself as to what the impact will be and how long it will take.Too bad Bush didn't take that question very seriously.

The decision to invade and occupy Iraq was highly questionable at best. The fact it was carried out in a completely half-assed manner by Bush makes it an incredibly stupid decision.

And the Democrats were poll-driven pussies. What else is new?

I was right about this all along.

Scoreboard.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, the intelligence community places levels of belief on the gathered intelligence, and assesses it from there. This guy must have already been deemed not just supply information that Saddam wanted leaked.

We really don't know, but that fits the possibilities better than your automatic assumption of deceit on our side.


If you are talking about what I think....

Actually, I'm not going to guess. What are you talking about? I cannot think of anything that fits what you imply or say.

Now when it comes to credibility, there is General Sada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada ). He is completely credible, yet the left ignores what he has to say.

google chalabi.. I


f I understand correctly this General who is 'credible' never actually saw what he was talking about. His story is that he knew people who saw what he claimed..again you want to believe him? A stretch?

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

Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our Iraqi people...I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria. Iraq had some projects for nuclear weapons but it was destroyed in 1981. (When asked if there was any chance there were nuclear weapons or on their way to nuclear weapons when USA invaded, he said): Not in Iraq. [4]

[ChumpDumper]

Why are we messing around with these hearsay stories?

We have Saddam in custody! We can ask him!

Oops.