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 ...
These people are all about themselves and the administration that they loved so much Clinton/Burgler.
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.
When we captured Saddam Hussein, we found the WMD.
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.
 |
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.
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?
Bingo!
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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....
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??????
"MSM payback for Bush destroying one of their inside sources."
BINGO.
Look for the MSM to really crank up the propaganda machine now.
Argh. Cant spell this morning. Sorry
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.
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....
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.
Drumheller is not the recently fired CIA analyst. Her name was Mary O. McCarthy.
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?
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.