Marijuana.com

Higher Logic

CIA Official Reveals Bush, Cheney, Rice Were Personally Told Iraq Had No WMD in Fall 2002
23 April 2006 | 60 Minutes | Source | Video

Tonight on 60 Minutes, Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA’s Europe division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq’s foreign minister—who agreed to act as a spy for the United States—had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program.

BRADLEY: According to Drumheller, CIA Director George Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high level meeting at the White House.

DRUMHELLER: The President, the Vice President, Dr. Rice…

BRADLEY: And at that meeting…?

DRUMHELLER: They were enthusiastic because they said they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis.

BRADLEY: And what did this high level source tell you?

DRUMHELLER: He told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program.

BRADLEY: So, in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam’s inner circle that he didn’t have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?

DRUMHELLER: Yes.

BRADLEY: There’s no doubt in your mind about that?

DRUMHELLER: No doubt in my mind at all.

BRADLEY: It directly contradicts, though, what the President and his staff were telling us.

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.

Read the full transcript here.

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

Read this blog and watch the video in the blog. Even the troops can see through the bullshit...

I guess it's hard to bring facts into something faith-based, we all know how that turns out.

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

 

Niteshift

So you believe the CIA when they say what you want and don't believe them when they disagree with you?

You believe "high level" Iraqis when they say what you want, but dismiss them as US stooges when they disagree with you?

Wow.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

Higher Logic

Good job, way to give some input Anyways, back to reality.

2point4

It's hard to give a response to the WMD thing. That argument could go back and forth forever.

I do, however, like to see that our military has their issues with the administration as well. After watching that video, I've come to realize that I haven't seen the military complain enough about the problems over there. I usually hear Bush speaking on behalf of the troops. He'll say things are looking good, or some other cockamamey lies. It's funny then to hear the journalists share a completely different side of the story.

I don't remember what episode, but this season on Real Time with Bill Maher, he had a guy live on satellite from Baghdad. Here's one thing he said:

"There were many mistakes made, but my feeling is that if this fails, as I have to say, on the balance of the odds, it seems now likely to do, it's probably not going to be because of American mistakes, but because the mission was impossible in the first place." – John Burns

Now, based on fact alone, this guy is actually there in Iraq, on the battlefields, watching what unfolds day after day. Bush isn't, nor should the president of our country be no matter who it is. I think this time, however, I'll believe the guy that isn't George Bush...er...I mean the guy that's there.

Higher Logic

The WMD issue can't go back and forth, there's only one answer, one truth to everything. Some people think that Bush just made an error, that he relied on faulty intelligence even though the intelligence community as a whole said the exact opposite. This report is stating that he damn well knew there wasn't any WMDs and that it was the administration's agenda to go to Iraq the entire time, they just needed to garner public support. That's not an error, it's called lying. And I don't think the military is allowed to voice their opinion, they're binded by military rule and part of that has to do with talking out against it something. Something like that, not sure exactly, but that's what I remember when reading the forms at the recruiter's station.

 

Little Nicky

I saw that same 60 minutes interview and it just re-enforced my belief that there would have been no evidence that could have been shown to GW to stop him from going to war. Our war was with Osama Been Forgotten, not Saddam.

2point4

I didn't know they weren't allowed to speak out. I'm surprised to hear that.

So we have the freedom of speech unless we are willing to die for this country? If we are willing to fight for 300 million Americans and their rights, we gotta keep our mouth shut while doing it?

Plainsman1963

Yes. Anybody that has served can testify to that. We temporarily gave up some of our rights to protect the rights of the civilians.

That is why you only see a few retired Generals speaking out against Bush and his Administration. The Uniform Code for Military Justice replaces the Constitution in some respects.

Article 88 of the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 888 makes it a crime for a military officer to use contemptuous words against the President, Congress, etc.

As well, we gave up the right to peaceful assembly, and petition (1st); protection against unreasonable search and seizure (4th); and our right to a trial by jury (VI), among others.

__________________


"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe

Posting Guidelines

Higher Logic

Correct, because when you sign up for the armed forces you aren't a civillian anymore, you give up your rights as one and abide by military law. As Plains said, it's why you only see the retired members of the service speaking out. I think it has to do with the Hatch Act, but maybe Niteshift knows a bit more about it. When you signup with the military you are their property. You can't come and go as you want, you are ordered around and you can be punished without a trial or jury. Free speech rights are limited and you can be punished for even being honest.

Plainsman1963

But now that I'm no longer in the military, I can say "In my opinion, Bush is an idiot" to my heart's content.