Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CIA warned Bush of no weapons in Iraq: retired official (ZOT!!! Retread too dim to change m/o.)
AFP ^

Posted on 04/22/2006 6:32:17 AM PDT by Andy5000

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Central Intelligence Agency warned US President George W. Bush before the Iraq war that it had reliable information the government of Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, a retired CIA operative disclosed.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cia; intelligence; iraq; prewarintelligence; retardretread; troll; war; zot; zotme; zotmeharder; zotmeharderbaby; zotmelikethedogiam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-187 next last
This is going on CBS on Sunday. Yawn.
1 posted on 04/22/2006 6:32:24 AM PDT by Andy5000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Andy5000

Must be the recently retired (fired) CIA agent who was leaking stuff to the Washington Post.


2 posted on 04/22/2006 6:33:30 AM PDT by Ma3lst0rm (Consensus does not the truth make.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000

Bush is paying a high price in not completly purging the CIA and Defense of Clinton rump swabs..


3 posted on 04/22/2006 6:34:04 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000

I have never seen such a concerted effort to destroy any President in my lifetime!


4 posted on 04/22/2006 6:34:50 AM PDT by petkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
"Bush is paying a high price in not completly purging the CIA and Defense of Clinton rump swabs.."


Not to mention "we the people".

Unfortunately most are protected by civil service as they are career employees.




5 posted on 04/22/2006 6:36:31 AM PDT by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ma3lst0rm

Richard Clarke, muddying the water to distract from or at least crossfire the recent CIA firing, his co-fellow at CSIS.


6 posted on 04/22/2006 6:36:47 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000

And of course, based on the CIA's stellar record, GWB should have taken the information on faith. Yeah, despite all the other infromation to the contrary, watching the sanctions start to unravel through the duplicity of certain "allies," GWB should gamble the safety of the nation in a post-Sept. 11 world because one report of many said, "nope, no weapons."

Idiots!


7 posted on 04/22/2006 6:37:19 AM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Too soon to remember??? How about TOO SOON TO FORGET!" from Mr. Silverback)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

I suppose that's why the CIA director at the time said it was a "slam dunk"...


8 posted on 04/22/2006 6:39:15 AM PDT by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000
Wait a minute; my recollection is that the former CIA Director Tenet, on the run up to the war in Iraq assured Bush ... finding evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would be a "Slam Dunk".
9 posted on 04/22/2006 6:40:20 AM PDT by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000
They never stop, do they. This was clearly going to be the anti-Bush story of the weekend, day, hour? The media, disgruntled bureaucrats, and Democratic operatives were once again collaborating.

Then that pesky McCarthy story broke. Damn, don't you hate it when that happens.
10 posted on 04/22/2006 6:40:29 AM PDT by Patriot from Philly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000


The CIA?

You mean the same bunch that was leaking secret information in an attempt to undermine Bush?


11 posted on 04/22/2006 6:40:44 AM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000

MSM payback for Bush destroying one of their inside sources.


12 posted on 04/22/2006 6:41:30 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000

Nice pic they put with the story. MSM...blech!


13 posted on 04/22/2006 6:42:26 AM PDT by tsmith130
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000
Tyler Drumheller (the "retired" CIA operative and past head of CIA spying in Europe) has had an axe to grind over this for quite some time.




14 posted on 04/22/2006 6:43:24 AM PDT by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000
"....a retired CIA operative disclosed". Is this the same CIA who failed us on 9/11? Is this the same CIA who failed to notice that the Soviet Union was rotting from the inside when it completely imploded in 1989? Is this the CIA who failed to warn us about China stupendous growth and need for natural resources that will put both countries at economical and military odds? Are we still depending on the CIA and MSM to keep Americans safe? Why?
15 posted on 04/22/2006 6:43:27 AM PDT by Chgogal (The US Military fights for Freedom of the Press while the NYT lies about the Military and cowers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000

Retired CIA operative? That could be anyone.


16 posted on 04/22/2006 6:43:49 AM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000

The Clintonistas in the CIA are smarting a bit from yesterday's firing, and hoping to mitigate the damage. Since we know what they're up to, I doubt every word out of their treasonous mouths.


17 posted on 04/22/2006 6:45:46 AM PDT by MizSterious (Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000
The Central Intelligence Agency warned US President George W. Bush before the Iraq war that it had reliable information the government of Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, a retired CIA operative disclosed.

Well, of course not. In the 14 months we wasted trying to get the UN to go along what weaponry that wasn't buried in the Iraqi desert was moved to Syria and Lebanon and buried. The Iraqi nuke scientists/program were moved to Libya, until Qadafy dropped dime on them and ratted them out.

Jeez, don't these guys pay attention?

18 posted on 04/22/2006 6:46:53 AM PDT by Thermalseeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
"Retired CIA operative? That could be anyone."


Yeah, but in this case the guy is named in the article.

Nice try, no cigar.




19 posted on 04/22/2006 6:47:56 AM PDT by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat

I wouldn't be surprised. The media has used unnamed contacts in the CIA far too often.


20 posted on 04/22/2006 6:49:52 AM PDT by Ma3lst0rm (Sometimes calls for civility is just an excuse not to take the necessary action.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000
If this is the same "CIA" that Ms. McCarthy was involved in, I'm really not surprised at all.

These people are all about themselves and the administration that they loved so much Clinton/Burgler.

21 posted on 04/22/2006 6:53:26 AM PDT by zerosix (Romans 5:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000
Until I see some proof, I don't believe a word out of this guy's mouth.

Secondly, this is the last straw for me:  seriously.  The entire CIA needs to be defunded and disbanded as a government agency and rebuilt as a new agency from the ground up.

Not everyone in the agency is worthless but the number of leaks, dissemination of information, and sheer incompetence shown by the agency over the last several years has become a high enough percentage to convince me that it is no longer functioning as it was intended.

22 posted on 04/22/2006 6:54:27 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (Base. All Yours = Mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000

When we captured Saddam Hussein, we found the WMD.


23 posted on 04/22/2006 6:54:52 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000

geez... these folks drive me nuts...

Even if, hypothetically, we were 100% absolutely positive at that moment there were no WMDs in Iraq that would have been...

IRRELEVENT

As the President clearly spelled out in advance we weren't going over there to stop an imminent threat... we went to prevent.


24 posted on 04/22/2006 6:55:09 AM PDT by JWinNC (www.anailinhisplace.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000
Drumheller admitted that Sabri was just one source, but pointed out that the administration would not shy away from other single-source information if it suited its policy goals.

Anytime I hear or read a sentence like the one above, I just yawn. The tone is so blatantly, obviously political that it should be ignored. How many times does one have to know for a fact from the IAEA that Iraq had "X" amount of WMD's in the 90's and destroyed "Y" amount of them, with the difference yielding a positive number.

25 posted on 04/22/2006 6:57:47 AM PDT by HawaiianGecko (Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000

Oh, did they tell Bush those long lines of trucks headed for Syria in the weeks before we attacked held WMD's, so no problem? What about gassing hundreds of thousands of Kurds? That wasn't evidence of WMD's? Who's kidding who?


26 posted on 04/22/2006 6:57:55 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat

Bingo!


27 posted on 04/22/2006 6:58:20 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000

CBS is trying to sell this as new information. Do a quick search on the CIA proponent. He's been shopping this story around for a long time.


28 posted on 04/22/2006 6:59:28 AM PDT by putupjob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: petkus

"I have never seen such a concerted effort to destroy any President in my lifetime!"

I agree with you but I think its going to fail too.


29 posted on 04/22/2006 6:59:41 AM PDT by DarthVader (Conservatives aren't always right , but Liberals are almost always wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000

That the CIA said there were no WMD should have been enough to convince Bush that Iraq did have WMD.

The CIA's record for accuracy is shaky.


30 posted on 04/22/2006 7:00:13 AM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

Qadafy dropping a dime that the Iraqi nuke scientists/program was moved to Libya in the runup to the war won't come up on CBS Sunday morning. Not a peep.


31 posted on 04/22/2006 7:01:41 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

MSM payback for Bush destroying one of their inside sources.



Exactly.......they are going to try to make this firing sound like she was fired because she tried to warn this Admin....


32 posted on 04/22/2006 7:01:51 AM PDT by mystery-ak (Army Wife and Army Mother.....toughest job in the military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious

Most of us here know the facts but the everyday joe just listens and believes everything they are told. I hate to be the "doom and gloom" person but I cant help acknowledging that the forces agains this President and his administration are so strong I think he is losing this battle. He has lost his will and way to fight. Im sad that his "up yours" attitude is completely gone. He is not fighting anymore guys. (At least I dont see it) Can someone help me out of my funk??????


33 posted on 04/22/2006 7:01:57 AM PDT by newconhere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

"MSM payback for Bush destroying one of their inside sources."

BINGO.

Look for the MSM to really crank up the propaganda machine now.


34 posted on 04/22/2006 7:02:57 AM PDT by girlangler (I'd rather be fishing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newconhere

Argh. Cant spell this morning. Sorry


35 posted on 04/22/2006 7:02:57 AM PDT by newconhere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: putupjob

Yup, just another case of somebody trying take 5 minutes of fame and vault it into a profitable career. MSM likes folks that will say anything for fame.


36 posted on 04/22/2006 7:05:47 AM PDT by stevestras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000
Yawn, you go with the preponderonce of the evidence, and whats prudent at the time. Some sources said no, some said yes, most said probably, so what do you go with? With the yes, of course! To do otherwise would be criminally negligent.

But the truth isn't whats important to the MSM, the "story" is, and they are all reading from the same script. Its part of the groupthink that envelopes the MSM, a culture they don't even understand exists, because once immersed, it is self reinforcing. It wouldn't be so bad if they could at least admit it to themselves, but no, they hold themselves up as that paragons of virtue and truth....

37 posted on 04/22/2006 7:09:43 AM PDT by Paradox (Removing all Doubt since 1998!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000
adds to earlier accusations that the Bush administration used intelligence selectively

Well, duh! All decision makers, from the guy who runs the local hardware store, all the way up to the President of The United States use information selectively. If all of the information is consistent, and paints the same picture, there won't be much for the decision maker to do. His job is to take intelligence that sometimes conflicts with other intelligence, and, by golly, select the more credible evidence and then act accordingly.

Far be it from the drive-by media to note that the intelligence which Bush did select, which indicated that Saddam had WMDs, was the same evidence that most of the world had, and which virtually everyone, including Bill Clinton, John Kerry and the rest of the democrat hierarchy, believed.

Another point, which is, to me, the most sorely-neglected fact relating to the run-up to the war, is that the onus was on Saddam to prove that he had disposed of the WMDs which he previously admitted that he had (some of which he had used on the Kurds, on the marsh Arabs, and on Iran.) He never produced a satisfactory accounting of what he had done with these weapons. The only safe course for the world to pursue was to believe he still had them, which the world did believe. The fact that only The United States and a few true allies had the guts to act on this does not detract from the fact that Saddam was not in compliance with U.N. Resolution 1441. That the French, Russians, and most of the world (including many top U.N. officials) were enjoying huge monetary benefits from the fraud-ridden Oil for Food program does not mean that Bush, Blair, et al were in the wrong. Au contraire.

38 posted on 04/22/2006 7:14:28 AM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (Abortion is to family planning what bankruptcy is to financial planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ma3lst0rm

Drumheller is not the recently fired CIA analyst. Her name was Mary O. McCarthy.


39 posted on 04/22/2006 7:18:17 AM PDT by beckett (Amor Fati)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000

Aren't there laws against things like slander? If I wrote something that was a lie and published it, couldn't I have sometype of legal action or criminal action taken against me?


40 posted on 04/22/2006 7:18:32 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: BluH2o

And we have. See FR keyword WARLIST and now, also see PreWarDocs


42 posted on 04/22/2006 7:20:40 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000
Paul Wolfowitz once revealed that during policy discussions on how to proceed in Iraq some pro-regime change participants pointed out that putting all your eggs in the WMD basket might prove problematic if a robust and active program was not discovered on the ground in Iraq once our troops went in. Others contended that the whole WMD thing would just be a side story after victory had been achieved, soon to be forgotten.

Clearly those who put forward the "problematic" scenario were right. Would that George W. Bush had had the foresight to understand what he was getting himself into, but foresight is not his forte.

43 posted on 04/22/2006 7:26:55 AM PDT by beckett (Amor Fati)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny

A politicized intelligence agency is what is worthless. The president - any president - needs the most accurate information he can get to make the proper decisions.


44 posted on 04/22/2006 7:27:19 AM PDT by Western Phil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus

You bet. W should've cleaned house upon arrival. His first mistake was not taking his enemies seriously.


45 posted on 04/22/2006 7:30:54 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia; Howlin; Peach

You'll like this...

Guess who has a book coming out? Tyler Drumheller. "On the Brink : How the White House Has Compromised American Intelligence (Hardcover)"

We can preorder it though. Imagine that.

Sigh.


46 posted on 04/22/2006 7:30:58 AM PDT by eyespysomething (American liberals like everything about the struggle for freedom except the struggle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: beckett

How can you say this was a problematic scenario? There were WMD. See FR keywords WARLIST and PreWarDocs. They are all posted here.


47 posted on 04/22/2006 7:32:26 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Andy5000

"The White House had embraced a British report that Iraq had purchased 500 tons of uranium from the African nation of Niger, allegedly to restart its nuclear weapons program."

No, the British claimed that Iraq had shown an interest in buying uranium, that's all that Bush put forth.

Facts are dangerous things.


48 posted on 04/22/2006 7:32:34 AM PDT by rightazrain (Link me to some proof so I can put my rumor to rest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: putupjob

Yea, just did a google search on Tyler Drumheller and found all kinds of articles.


49 posted on 04/22/2006 7:33:12 AM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething

Oh, brother. It just never stops, does it? It almost scares me just what lengths they will go to lie and undermine the government.


50 posted on 04/22/2006 7:34:03 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-187 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson