Posted on 03/20/2006 6:13:32 PM PST by AZRepublican
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In the period before the Iraq war, Saddam Hussein's foreign minister Naji Sabri, was a secret paid source of the CIA, "NBC Nightly News" reported on Monday.
Citing unnamed current and former U.S. intelligence officials, NBC said Sabri provided details of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction that turned out to be more accurate than CIA estimates.
Intelligence sources said Sabri was paid more than $100,000 through an intermediary in a September 2002 deal brokered by the French, NBC reported.
Sabri may have thought he was working with the French, but some U.S. intelligence officials believe he knew it was the CIA, NBC said.
The CIA questioned Sabri through a go-between about Saddam's WMD program, the report said.
According to the intelligence sources, Sabri indicated that Saddam had no significant weapons program and that while the deposed Iraqi leader desperately wanted a nuclear bomb it would have taken more time for him to build one than the CIA's several-months-to-a-year estimate, NBC reported.
Both the CIA and Sabri said Saddam had stockpiled chemical weapons, but both were wrong, NBC said.
WMD were the main justification for President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq three years ago, but no such weapons have been found.
Citing intelligence sources, NBC said the CIA's brief relations with Sabri ended after he refused to defect to the United States. The agency had been hoping for a public relations coup, the network said.
Sabri was not named among the former senior Iraqi officials on the U.S. most-wanted list of 55 Iraqi fugitives.
NBC said it found Sabri teaching at a university in the Middle East, but was not revealing his location for security reasons.
Sabri declined to be interviewed or to comment as did the CIA, NBC said, adding that the agency also would not say why it did not listen to Sabri's warnings.
A CIA representative had no comment on the report.
Thanks for saving me a cut-and-paste. My take is that the CIA is playing CYA, as always, with the help of the MSM. They were right -- sort of, by not listening to the "warnings" of whatever -- but Bush was totally, absolutely, incorrigibly wrong.
Saddam did, but he didn't. It's all in focus now. /sarc
Like hell, Bush knew. Karl Rove didn't even think there would be an insurgency after we knocked out Saddam. I know first-hand because I questioned him about it.
LOL, yes they all lied to go into Iraq so everyone could find out they lied.
Makes sense to me!
Then, it goes on to say: " According to the intelligence sources, Sabri indicated that Saddam had no significant weapons program and that while the deposed Iraqi leader desperately wanted a nuclear bomb it would have taken more time for him to build one than the CIA's several-months-to-a-year estimate, NBC reported. "
Maybe he's down playing it a little?, Taking the cash and lacing lies with a sprinkle of truth? But then:
" Citing intelligence sources, NBC said the CIA's brief relations with Sabri ended after he refused to defect to the United States. The agency had been hoping for a public relations coup, the network said. "
A falling out perhaps? But strangest of all:
" Sabri was not named among the former senior Iraqi officials on the U.S. most-wanted list of 55 Iraqi fugitives.
Maybe he is still performing services for the CIA?
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/Audio-transcripts/DOCEX%20Saddam%20030306.pdf
Here is what to make of all this - A complete false-premise the MSM / DEM's will not stop using......NOR will the GOP/RNC stand up and fight against.
The WMD equation was merely one of more then a dozen reasons we moved on Iraq (to remove Saddam).
If Sabri was so knowledgeable, why did Sabri get this wrong?????
EXACTLY! Fercryinoutloud! We bitch and moan because the LSM doesn't report the truth. Then they friggin put it in print that the CIA was warned by Saddam's henchmen that they were stockpiling chem weapons and trying to get nukes.....and WE hardly notice it!
Most people read the article, see its slant, and think it must be anti-Bush. The facts of the article are PRO-BUSH, but written in plain sight to hide them?
There is no sedition or treason anymore.
These people at NBC are the lowest scum of the Earth.
WELL where is bagdad bob I am sure he is willing to tell all for those who want something to write...
And wouldn't you know... their great "source" has connections to the French.
No? You mean it isn't so long as said "agent" supports the idiot party line?
The article is poorly written. I think it is saying that :
Saddam had no active program but stockpiles of chemical weapons.
No nukes, but the capability to build one in less than a year? That to me would indicate a nuke program.
George Tenet needs to explain this...
Why is NBC putting our intelligence assets at risk by identifying them. Loose Lips sink ships.
Even after the fact, the man's life may be in danger from his former comrades.
Not to mention how other current intel assets and people we try to recruit in the future will take this revelation--e.g. The US will not or cannot keep its secrets, so my life may be on the line.
Old tricks are the best tricks. Double agents are nothing new. This is counter intelligence effort to discedit the US and it allies. The old Iraqi regime was using him to divert attention and is probably still doing so. They are still putting up a fight so why not work the media angle.
Isn't it more than just a little suspect that this "undisclosed report" comes to light right after the release of the Saddam tapes and documents?
At the time, would his word have been sufficient to counter the intelligence of nearly the entire world, given that he was addressing the UN General Assembly claiming Bush was lying and starting the war for oil?
Still, comparing what Saddam said on the tapes and what this "source" said back then, it appears they do not match. Maybe this "source" knew more than Saddam did himself?
We went to Iraq because Saddam failed to abide by the cease-fire agreement and because of his ties with terrorists. WMD became the issue which helped us decide to go sooner rather than later when Saddam would be more of a threat to our troops. Even the WH has allowed the left to distort this truth.
I say we invade Iraq and make that SOB prove that there are no WMD's.
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.