Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

CIA Told Bush There Were No WMD In Iraq In 2002

Posted by Mustang Bobby at 5:57 AM on September 6, 2007.


Mustang Bobby: A CIA officer says, "Bush didn't give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up."
dumbass

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Also in PEEK

Is Palin a Step Backwards for Women in Power?
Suzanne Braun Levine SuzanneBraunLevine.com

Bush's White House Spying on Iraqi Prime Minister
Amanda Think Progress

Fox News: 'McCain's TV Commercials Contain ... Out-Right Lies'
Steve Benen Washington Monthly

This post, written by Mustang Bobby, originally appeared on Shakesville

Remember that joke film clip that President Bush made for the Radio and Television Correspondents' dinner in 2004 wherein he made a mockery of the search for WMD's...looking under a chair in the Oval Office and so forth? Well, it turns out that that was about as seriously as he took the CIA and their intelligence that there were no WMD's in Iraq before he sent us to war. This is according to an exclusive in Salon.com by Sidney Blumenthal.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.

Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs.

Here's the money quote:

"The president had no interest in the intelligence," said the CIA officer. The other officer said, "Bush didn't give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up."

The distorted report was also used as the basis for briefing members of Congress in the debate over the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, basically cooking the books to convince even the skeptics that Saddam Hussein had WMD's.

Even a leading opponent such as Sen. Bob Graham, then the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who had instigated the production of the NIE, declared in his floor speech on Oct. 12, 2002, "Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity." Not a single senator contested otherwise. None of them had an inkling of the Sabri intelligence.

So when the supporters of the president claim that even Democrats voted for the war, we now know that they were doing so based on fraudulent evidence and that the president knew it.

On Sept. 8, 2006, three Republican senators on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- Orrin Hatch, Saxby Chambliss and Pat Roberts -- signed a letter attempting to counter Drumheller's revelation about Sabri on "60 Minutes": "All of the information about this case so far indicates that the information from this source was that Iraq did have WMD programs." The Republicans also quoted Tenet, who had testified before the committee in July 2006 that Drumheller had "mischaracterized" the intelligence. Still, Drumheller stuck to his guns, telling Reuters, "We have differing interpretations, and I think mine's right."

One of the former senior CIA officers told me that despite the certitude of the three Republican senators, the Senate committee never had the original memo on Sabri. "The committee never got that report," he said. "The material was hidden or lost, and because it was a restricted case, a lot of it was done in hard copy. The whole thing was fogged up, like Curveball."

While one Iraqi source told the CIA that there were no WMD, information that was true but distorted to prove the opposite, another Iraqi source was a fabricator whose lies were eagerly embraced. "The real tragedy is that they had a good source that they misused," said one of the former CIA officers. "The fact is there was nothing there, no threat. But Bush wanted to hear what he wanted to hear."

The Bush apologists will now blame the CIA and George Tenet for getting it all wrong, and Dick Cheney will mutter something about Syria and secret caves.

We've gone beyond ridiculous to the criminally insane.

Digg!

Tagged as: wmd, bush, cia, tenet, iraq war

Mustang Bobby is a regular blogger for Shakesville.


Is Palin a Step Backwards for Women in Power?
Sarah Palin is a milestone, for we achieve true gender equality when an incompetent woman goes as far as an incompetent man.
Post by Suzanne Braun Levine. September 5, 2008.
Bush's White House Spying on Iraqi Prime Minister
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino wants to make it clear, the White House IS NOT denying spying on Maliki.
Post by Amanda. September 5, 2008.
Fox News: 'McCain's TV Commercials Contain ... Out-Right Lies'
Wait, we're seriously talking about Fox News? The Fox News?
Post by Steve Benen. September 5, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Gee
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Sep 6, 2007 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... made up his mind.. and didn't let anything change it. Naw... that doesn't sound like Bush at all.......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» you have to...sickofsleaze Posted by: wilmafromkansas
A Question...
Posted by: porgygirl on Sep 6, 2007 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've wondered about this for a long time:

Iraq was under unbelievably cruel sanctions in the years after the first gulf war. The U.S. (thanks, Madeleine Albright) spearheaded the noble quest to keep them from getting medical equipment, school supplies, water purification supplies, etc. Children died by the hundreds of thousands.

In the run-up to this godforsaken war, did anyone ever explain how Saddam managed to get the material for WMDs? If the sanctions didn't stop that from happening, what the hell were we supposedly doing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Question... Posted by: Beagle17
thekidde
Posted by: thekidde on Sep 6, 2007 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And Pelosi says "Impeachment is off the table" - Bush isn't the only coward in D.C.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: thekidde Posted by: rinthy
» the goods Posted by: Brasilaaron
» RE: the goods Posted by: baldo
» And why do you think that is? Posted by: EKSwitaj
No weapons?
Posted by: motamanx on Sep 6, 2007 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all sort of knew this, didn't we? It was CHENEY who cooked the info. I don't know how he does the stuff he does, but can get some (bad) shit done, eh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what's doubly disturbing
Posted by: warrior woman on Sep 6, 2007 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's doubly disturbing is living in an area where the pro-Iraq occupation is being relived in commercials by Fleisher's group. While recounting the lies over and over again through the use of the wounded and those who've lost loved ones, they attempt to paint a picture that we have to stay all the while the media is positioning us toward Iran. Note how yesterday's attack is told, weapon's thought to have come from Iran. Most people that I talk to are in a fog and don't believe that we would be so stupid as to start another war. Hang on to your shorts because that's where we're going. Somebody with guts needs to get moving in Congress. At minimum take away the power to fight another war. We all know, however, what they should be doing. We have little hope of courage coming out of this crew, they live in la la land.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

justgreenleaf
Posted by: justgreenleaf on Sep 6, 2007 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not insane, just criminal. And incredibly arrogant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why let Congress off the hook?
Posted by: CJC on Sep 6, 2007 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have had hundreds of reports of the lies of the Bush administration about Iraq. It doesn't matter whether it's Cheney or Bush, they've lied and lied and lied.

Why have Congress and the media been so gullible and so complaisant (and I don't mean complacent)? All the boneheads, Democrats and Republicans alike, who voted in Oct 2002 to give Bush a free hand and who continue to fund the war because they don't have the spine to call his bluff have the blood on their hands too.

So do all the other "enablers" (as Paul Krugman so aptly calls them) who haven't had the courage to stand up and say the emperor and his minions are stark naked. While all these officials are mincing their words and are more concerned about their own careers than speaking the truth (just think George Tenet, but he's not the only one!), Americans and Iraqis are dying and otherwise having their lives destroyed, and our bridges are falling down and there's not enough money (or so says Bush) to fund health care for American children because a trillion dollars is going up in smoke (and lining corporate pockets).

It's shameful. When will we say "stop"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why let Congress off the hook? Posted by: monkeywrench
grounds
Posted by: walldodger1969 on Sep 6, 2007 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wouldn't this be another reason for IMPEACHMENT!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

May God and the world forgive us for G.W. Bush..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Sep 6, 2007 9:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree Bush was hell bent on attacking Iraq for his own personal and family reasons and also due to his unbridled greed as a Texas Oil thief ..

He is now hell bent on attacking Iran and he will and this Congress will sit by and let it happen opening Pandora's box and pushing the world towards Armageddon..

Impeachment..was our only salvation America's salvation..

It will be Bush's destiny to change the balance of power in the world and bring about war that will kill millions and millions perhaps even billions..as foretold..1/3 of the earth population all for this punk rich ignorant douche bag..

May God have mercy on us for inflicting this piece of shit upon the world, and may all those fucking Supreme Court Judges that committed the fraud that installed him, burn in hell for what they've done..Scalia most of all..!

Sorry Jesus...but that's how I feel..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

they didn't care about WMDs or connections to terrorists.
Posted by: MobileSucks on Sep 6, 2007 12:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Wesley Clark recently revealed on "Democracy Now":

"About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, 'Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second.' I said, 'Well, you're too busy.' He said, 'No, no.' He says, 'We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq.' This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, 'We're going to war with Iraq? Why?' He said, 'I don't know.' He said, 'I guess they don't know what else to do.' So I said, 'Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al Qaeda?' He said, 'No, no.' He says, 'There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.' He said, 'I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments.' And he said, 'I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.' So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, 'Are we still going to war with Iraq?' And he said, 'Oh, it's worse than that.' He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, 'I just got this from upstairs'--meaning the Secretary of Defense's office--"today." And he said, 'This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.' I said, 'Is it classified?' He said, 'Yes, sir.' I said, 'Well, don't show it to me.' And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, 'You remember that?' He said, 'Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!'"

*this from Paul Krassner's "Assholes of the Week" column.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We've gone beyond ridiculous to the criminally insane.
Posted by: Schroeder on Sep 6, 2007 8:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Criminal? Yes. Insane? No, that would only mean that bush, cheney, et al. would get treatment, not incarceration. Sociopaths they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Call Nancy Pelosi
Posted by: JackieGiles on Sep 6, 2007 9:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell her aide to ask her what more Bush would have to do to deserve impeachment and what she thinks the Founders meant by providing for impeachment as a remedy for high crimes and misdemeanors. Isn't plunging America into a war based on lies and causing the deaths of 3,800 (+/-)Americans, countless Iraqis, giving his buddies in the business of war an undeserved "windfall", and planning to profiteer on it all and "refill the old coffers" afterl eaving office an impeachable offense? If not WHAT IS?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Call Nancy Pelosi
Posted by: JackieGiles on Sep 6, 2007 9:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell her aide to ask her what more Bush would have to do to deserve impeachment and what she thinks the Founders meant by providing for impeachment as a remedy for high crimes and misdemeanors. Isn't plunging America into a war based on lies and causing the deaths of 3,800 (+/-)Americans, countless Iraqis, giving his buddies in the business of war an undeserved "windfall", and planning to profiteer on it all and "refill the old coffers" afterleaving office an impeachable offense? If not WHAT IS?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]