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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
On the Brink : How the White House Has Compromised American Intelligence (Hardcover)
by Tyler Drumheller, Elaine Monaghan
List Price: $25.95
Price: $16.35 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
You Save: $9.60 (36%)
Regardless of whatever Bush had done and regardless of whatever would happen, there would always be CIA officials who could say "we warned him about that!"
"Disclosed" and not "alleged"? That's enough for me.
The fact that this bozo is even getting air time is a nefarious quest by the MSM to destroy this President.
Everyone KNOWS there were varying opinions about Saddam having WMD. However the OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS of both our Intelligence agencies and every other country in the world was that HE DID and there was NO DOUBT he would use them or reconstitute them again somewhere down the road.
ONE BIG PROBLEM... 9/11 Commission and its 25lb "book of facts". Lying liar from the party of satan!
GEORGE TENET: "It's a "slam-dunk" Mr. President"! Don't you hate it when documented History gets in the way of a SEE-BS fabrication!?
LLS
Perhaps Monica's daddy is proud that every time his name is mentioned.....people think of something else.
How is it the CIA knew, but Saddam's generals, every elected democrat in the nation, and the rest of the civilized world didn't know?
Gee ... I wonder .. will CBS also discuss the documents from Iraq that are being translated??
And will they discuss Mary McCarthy from the CIA who was just fired???
Hmmmm?? How can that be .. wasn't it George Tenant who said, "it's a slam dunk" ..??
So if the HEAD OF THE CIA was saying that .. then Bush WAS NOT WARNED THERE WERE NO WMD - and besides .. THERE WAS WMD! - AND AT LEAST 15 OTHER INTEL AGENCIES HAD THE SAME INFO WE DID!
"The Generals" are just trying to pass the buck because they don't want to be held responsible for the mess we're in now - the mess that Rumsfeld and Bush are trying to clean up.
Tyler Drumheller (UPCOMING BOOK FOR SALE OF COURSE)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060874996/sr=8-1/qid=1145725005/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1215947-7178354?%5Fencoding=UTF8
What is his middle name?
I did a search on political moneyline. http://www.fecinfo.com/
Now CIA is in Virginia,
so I think this *MAY* be the same guy who contributed to democrats..........
23 . DRUMHELLER, TYLER S
6/9/2005 $500.00
VIENNA, VA 22182
BUSINESSMAN [Contribution]
MARK PRYOR FOR US SENATE
[View Image]
24 . DRUMHELLER, TYLER S
5/11/2005 $300.00
VIENNA, VA 22182
[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF MARY LANDRIEU INC
[View Image]
Maybe someone else better at this stuff can find more on this guy. I bet he is a Clintoon apointee too. Or at least climbed the ladder under Bubba.
Hmmmm....
Did U.S. Bomb Sudan in Error?
Report alleges White House ignored warnings that Bin Laden and chemical weapons links were unproven
By TONY KARON
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 27, 1999
That damned factory in the Sudan keeps coming back to haunt the White House. The New York Times on Wednesday carried a detailed account of how the Clinton administration decided to bomb the Al Shifa chemical plant in 1998 despite warnings by senior intelligence and security personnel that there was insufficient evidence linking it to either Osama Bin Laden or the manufacture of chemical weapons. Under pressure from international protest and media inquiries, administration sources have backpedaled substantially on both claims since the August 1998 strike, which, together with a similar raid on Bin Laden's Afghanistan camps, was launched in retaliation for the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But the Times report also carries allegations from U.S. officials that Secretary of State Albright encouraged State Department intelligence analysts "to kill a report being drafted that said the bombing was not justified."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,33302,00.html
Maybe al Queda got word that Clinton Administration were going to strike with missiles. Why not move the chemical weapon out of the building and embarrass the United States.
It's been done before.