Public was misled, claim ex-CIA men

The Times (U.K.) ^ | 05/31/03 | Tim Reid

[zip]

The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity group

I've noticed all anti Bush/anti American/anti everything groups are all "vets for peace", Academia for world peace", scientists for environmental sanity" or some such bs. In this case it's "for sanity".

Where were these wonderful truthsayers when it started coming down?????

[EverOnward]

"This is horsesh*t, from the slams against Rumsfeld to the slams against Cheney."

Agreed. And if you are not in a position to know it, .... I'll just assume you are.

[Tempest]

What a funny article. A bunch of FORMER CIA employees are making CLAIMS based on HEARSAY. Ohhhhh I'm convinced. . .

[trebb]

I wish they had misled us into thinking it was the French who needed to be liberated...

[EverOnward]

"If they no longer work for the CIA how can they know the intelligence was 'cooked'?"

The whole story is fabricated. CIA employees can be prosecuted for divulging classified information and should be.

[Tempest]

I found that quite strange too when I did a search for the "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" assclowns.

It seems that the leftist are the ones whom are ohhh so willing to be mislead and used as tools.

I'm really, really NOT surprised. :D

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks!

The lefties are working overtime!

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Clinton Undead Haunting Pentagon

[El Gato]

Note "ex-CIA". Are these klintonistas or just disgruntled "ex" employees?

One of them at least, Ray McGovern, used to brief President Reagan, starting right after he was elected, even before the inaugeration. He was a 26 year CIA employee, '64-90. He's a bit out of the loop I would guess. A search on his name produced a lot of lefty sites, but also some far right, "Bush is Evil" type sites. In fact he seems more one of the latter types.

I used to serve with a bunch of folks with varying amounts of experience as military intelligence officers, and petty much uniformly, all were critical of the CIA. "East Coast Elitists" was on of the gentler terms. Just as Clancy portrays them, a lot of Irish Catholics (as was one of my Colonel friends) from Boston University. (he went to a Catholic small college in Texas) The kind of people that got along well with Bush I, but not necessarily with Bush II.

[RLK]

intelligence was “cooked” to persuade Congress to authorise the war.

---------------

And to mislead the American people.

That's my suspicion.

[ladyinred]

The latest talking points are sweeping the planet! Think they think we don't notice they are all saying exactly the same thing? LOL
BTW: Who lied to Bill Clinton who also said Saddam had WMD?

[ampat]

Something is rotten in Iraq. If Saddam didn't have the WMD's anymore, either they were moved to another country, or destroyed. What reason would they have for hiding the fact that they were destroyed? It doesn't make sense.
They are either in another country or still buried in Iraq, and may never be found.

[zip]

He's a bit out of the loop

Understatement. I was out of the loop within weeks of leaving NSA. If he was still getting information 12 years later then we have "sources" that must be convicted of ...........That is criminal conduct. This shouldn't be treated as a political game, it is criminal activity.

[realpatriot71]

Move along folks - nothing to see here . . .

[aristeides]

McGovern appears regularly as a guest on the Charlie Warren talk show on WMAL radio in D.C. He strikes me as quite left-wing.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

OH BARF!

[realpatriot71]

You know, honesty seems like too much to ask from this administration. They obviously felt it necessary to invade Iraq, and it WASN'T because they wanted to free the Iraqi people (HA!) - our government could give a sh!t about the Iraqi people - and if anyone wants to swallow that one hook line and sinker, I've got a bridge I'd like to talk to sell you. The invasion of Iraq was a purely strageic world political move on the part of the Administration to keep the Muslims in line - period. It give the US control of plenty of oil (and NO the war WASN'T only about about for Bush and his oil buddies, although, I'm sure it turned out to be a nice perk - [who got the contracts?]) which doesn't leave us in a position to be blackmailed by the Saudis anymore. It gives us the excuse to have a few hundred thousand troops in region to prevent any extra Muslim foolishness. To top it off, with Iraq out of the way, the biggest obstactle to Israeli/Palestinian peace is out of the way. And since Saddam was such a bad guy, no one cares, because he's gone and the Iraqi people are free now.

In short we invaded Iraq for purely pragmatic reasons, because we saw after 9/11 that leaving that part of the world to itself wasn't going to keep the crazies out of our country. All I want is for the administration to be honest and admit this. No one will be too pi$$ed (maybe the Dems), because it makes pragmatic sense to American security. I just ask them to stop lying to us about it that's all, and that seems to be too much to ask.

Principle . . . it's a dying value . . .

[harrowup]

...In intelligence, there is one unpardonable sin — cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy.

Just some more blame game nonsense between State and DOD. The CIA has never realized even ten cents the dollar spent on their sources, aka asses since the expense accounts are so fungible.

Every damn crook in the business points his finger at someone else...after the fact.

[oceanview]

and the other point to consider, if Saddam had the ability to move this material out of the country at will, why oppose the UN effort, bring war upon yourself, and lose your country and the wealth from all of the oil imports? why do all of that, if all you had to do was move the stuff out or hide it so that no one can find it (as appears to be the case so far), and then tell the UN to come in with as many inspectors as they want. why did Saddam do this? the answer likely lies in the unstated objectives for this war.