CIA Withheld Info About Iraqi Weapons from Bush

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
by James Risen
The New York Times

WASHINGTON -- The CIA was told by relatives of Iraqi scientists before the war that Baghdad's programs to develop unconventional weapons had been abandoned, but the CIA failed to give that information to President Bush, even as he publicly warned of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons, according to government officials.

The existence of a secret prewar CIA operation to debrief relatives of Iraqi scientists -- and the agency's failure to give their statements to the president -- has been uncovered by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The panel has been investigating the government's handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq's unconventional weapons and plans to release a report this week on the first phase of its inquiry.

The report is expected to contain a scathing indictment of the CIA and its leaders for failing to recognize that the evidence they had collected did not justify their assessment that Saddam had illicit weapons.

CIA officials, saying that only a handful of relatives made claims that the weapons programs were dead, play down the significance of the information collected in the secret debriefing operation. That operation is one of a number of significant disclosures by the Senate investigation.

The Senate report, intelligence officials say, concludes that the agency and the intelligence community did a poor job of collecting information about the status of Iraq's weapons programs, and that analysts at the CIA and other intelligence agencies did an even worse job of writing reports that accurately reflected the information they had.

Among the many problems that contributed to the committee's harsh assessment of the CIA's prewar performance were instances in which analysts may have misrepresented information, writing reports that distorted evidence in order to bolster their case that Iraq did have chemical, biological and nuclear programs, according to government officials.

The Senate found, for example, that an Iraqi defector who supposedly provided evidence of the existence of a biological weapons program had actually said that he did not know of any such program.

In another case concerning whether a shipment of aluminum tubes seized on its way to Iraq was evidence that Baghdad was trying to build a nuclear bomb, the Senate panel raised questions about whether the CIA had become an advocate, rather than an objective observer, and selectively sought to prove that the tubes were for a nuclear weapons program.

While the Senate panel has concluded that CIA analysts and other intelligence officials overstated the case that Iraq had illicit weapons, the committee has not found any evidence that the analysts changed their reports as a result of political pressure from the White House, according to officials.

The Senate report is expected to criticize both the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, and his deputy, John McLaughlin, and other senior CIA officials, for the way they managed the agency.

Tenet has announced his resignation, effective July 11, and McLaughlin will serve as acting director until a permanent director is appointed. The CIA has scheduled a farewell ceremony for Tenet on Thursday, just as reverberations from the report are hitting the agency.

The possibility that Tenet personally overstated the evidence has been investigated by the Senate panel, officials said. He was interviewed privately by the panel, and was asked whether he told Bush that the case for the existence of Iraq's unconventional weapons was a "slam dunk."

In his book Plan of Attack, about the Bush administration's planning for the war in Iraq, Bob Woodward reported that Tenet reassured Bush about the evidence of the existence of Iraq's illicit weapons after Bush had made clear he was unimpressed by the evidence presented to him in a December 2002 briefing by McLaughlin.

"It's a slam-dunk case!" Tenet is quoted as telling the president.

In his interview with the Senate panel, Tenet refused to say whether he had used the "slam-dunk" phrase, officials said.

In hindsight, the Senate panel and many other intelligence officials now agree that there was little effort within the U.S. intelligence community before the war to question the basic assumption that Saddam was still seeking to produce illicit weapons. Evidence that fit that assumption was embraced; evidence to the contrary was ignored or seen as part of a clever Iraqi disinformation campaign.

Yet there were some people inside the intelligence community who recognized the need for better evidence. In 1998, the United Nations withdrew its weapons inspectors from Iraq, severely hampering the CIA's ability to monitor Iraqi weapons efforts. Charlie Allen, the agency's assistant director for collection, began searching for new sources of information.

He pushed for several new collection programs, including one that called for approaching members of the families of Iraqi scientists believed to be involved in secret weapons programs, the officials said.

Beginning in 2000, the relatives told the agency that the scientists had said that they were no longer working on illicit weapons, and that those programs were dead.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
585
Tokens
I abanded buying fireworks this year to. That doesn't mean I didn't have a stockpile of them from last year to shoot off this year. Let us all not forget... weapons of mass destruction HAVE been found. Do a google search.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
What is it again? Something like 22 shells have been found? NONE of which have been proven to have been made after Gulf I. If I remember correctly, sarin does not have a shelf life long enough to still be harmful if they are pre-Gulf I. That, and 22 shells hardly constitutes a 'stockpile'; any 'grave and gathering threat' that they pose most certainly could not be argued to be so certainly aimed at Americans to justify an invasion.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
What people forget to realize is Saddam Huessain WAS a WMD.
It wouldn't matter if he had all that shit or not.He has proven he would use it if he had the chance.He has proven to be a sociopathic homicidal maniac.end of story.

Should the Son of Sam, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy et all be allowed to have guns?

After 9/11 (Really before 9/11) there shouldn't be any more fxckin around with these people....WHAT THE FXCK IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND??
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,103
Tokens
It wouldn't matter if he had all that shit or not.He has proven he would use it if he had the chance.

thats funny as shit

he would be free if he had the chance

he would like his sons to be alive if he had the chance

if bush was in front of him he would like to hit him if he had the chance

premptive mindreading??

so the north korean, iranian, syrian leaders are thinking about blue skys, red roses and apple pie
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,917
Tokens
Patriot,

These people just don't get it. If Sadaam had done something with his WMD's they would be the first one's out here crying "Why didn't Bush do something" and that there was plenty of evidence of WMD's. Hell they're crying about the 7 minutes lost after the first plane hit the WTC. Osama had some nuts with box cutters and look what he was able to accomplish. The sarin shells that were found weren't even marked which is scary. Do people realize that Iraq has weapon depots that are as large as Manhattan?

Do people understand we are in a DIFFERENT world post 9/11? Do people understand that folks like Sadaam or Osama or the other nuts out there will do anything to try and hurt us? Do people realize what would happen if either of these nuts disrupted the Middle East Oil supply? Wake up folks...we got rid of a dangerous regime and will be better off in the long run for it!!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
300
Tokens
If Iraq has weapon depots that are aa large as Manhattan, why haven't we been able to find them? I'm sure the Bush administration has searched as hard as they can so they could regain some credability.
Maybe the families of the nearly 900 people that have died in this unecessary fiasco should be contacted to determine if they are better off in the long run.
You right wingers seem to think that only George Bush can protect us from an uncertain future. Didn't he get us in this situation in the first place?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,917
Tokens
Eltonio,

From what I've read Iraq had approx. 130 huge weapon depots. Two of them are the size of Manhattan!! and many of them approx 5 x 5 miles!! They were also famous for NOT marking any real nasty stuff. It's ****ing scary. The real nasty stuff we are looking for could be stored in places as small as a swimming pool or at most a small warehouse.

Bottom line is this regime was extremely dangerous and the U.S. is not taking any more chances after 9/11. And planting our rear end right in the middle of the dangerous neighborhood is going to make others think twice about screwing with us. Again picture what would happen to the WORLD if the Middle East oil supply is disrupted.
 

"The Real Original Rx. Borat"
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,882
Tokens
I agree that we are better off in the long run for getting rid of Sadaam. The real reason was that he posed a greater risk to his neighbors rather than us and the insulting of Sr. Bush and the fact that they have oil was a joke.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
I would be better off in the long run if the bank would give me its money; this does not make it right or remotely justfiable for me to hold the bank up.

Contrary to the hackneyed saying, we are not living in a "different world" than pre-9/11 The only thing that has changed appreciably is the level of paranoia and asinine reactionary policy implementation by the U.S. and most of the rest of the G8. Take a step back, look over the last three decades, and you'll see that the only way in which the world has significantly changed since 9/11 is that ever since then the terrorists have been winning.


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,917
Tokens
The terrorists are winning hmmmmm? Ask the following folks that question...

1. 2/3 of Al Qaeda Leadership
2. Sadaam, his two sweet children and the Baathist thug regime.
3. The Taliban
4. Don't forget Mr. Khadafi

And YES we are living in a different post 9/11 world because we have been finally AWAKENED to the fact that there are people out there, who if given the opportunity, would like nothing better than to wipe the U.S. off the map. You may not like our policies post 9/11 Mr. Phaedrus but to say the game hasn't changed dramatically is naive.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
585
Tokens
What about the radoiactive substances we just learned about this week? Did we not just find radioactive substances used for medicinal ( scary stuff if you ask me ) and 'industrial' use. All of in in powder form... interesting.

How about the 1.95 tons of uranium just discovered in late June. Dirty bomb type stuff maybe?

Saddam had a lot of toys that could easily be used to cowardly kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people. Hell I'm sure Germany slipped him some real nice toys while they were building Saddam those bunkers and/or those worm holes he had. And France, yes France, these guys stink!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
585
Tokens
"terrorist winning"

I have no idea of what book you just read but tell me your not thinking:

"Let the terrorist win, that way we don't have to do anything about them." HMMM.. that's some deep thinking there!

or maybe it this:

"If we all lived under communism, terrorist would never get to leave their country and therefore never be able to attack my country."
 

"The Real Original Rx. Borat"
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,882
Tokens
By saying that the terroist are winning I beleive that Phaedrus's point is that the main goal of a terrorist other than their eventual goal whatever that may be, is to instill terror and fear and to hamper the normal operations of their target. He does not mean " we killed more guys than you". It is your inability to see through the clutter and get to the gist of the matter that is the reason for much of your miguided thoughts. You can't even understand what he meant by " the terorists are winning" how can you expect to understand the nature of the conflict and what the hell is really going on?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
posted by SENDITIN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The terrorists are winning hmmmmm? Ask the following folks that question...

1. 2/3 of Al Qaeda Leadership
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not snake in the garden, S., it's a Hydra. Cutting off the head will do you no good -- ask Heracles.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
2. Sadaam, his two sweet children and the Baathist thug regime.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Terrible people to be sure, but not terrorists. Not guerillas. The guerillas are getting along fine absent the strong hand of Hussein to keep them in check.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
3. The Taliban
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alive and well and no doubt loving the fact that Karzai, backed by the "last superpower" and the mutual congratulation society that is NATO cannot even produce the standard of living that Afghanis enjoyed under a brutally repressive Islamic theocracy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
4. Don't forget Mr. Khadafi
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I'm sure he feels very humble, having gotten away with decades of supporting terrorism in exchange for writing a cheque from his oil proceeds and saying "I'm sorry" to the cameras. That's quite a victory we forged there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And YES we are living in a different post 9/11 world because we have been finally AWAKENED to the fact that there are people out there, who if given the opportunity, would like nothing better than to wipe the U.S. off the map.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You wake up, the room might be different from your dream, but the room didn't change.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You may not like our policies post 9/11 Mr. Phaedrus but to say the game hasn't changed dramatically is naive.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, life has changed dramatically now that the terrorists are calling the shots. That much is true. And if you think that the most massive increase in state power since the Civil War is a victory, if thousands of dead Americans in terrorist attacks and fighting same is a victory, that the transformation of disdain for America as a fashion statement into hatred of America as a raison d'etre is a victory, then it's you who are being naïve.


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,917
Tokens
That's not snake in the garden, S., it's a Hydra. Cutting off the head will do you no good -- ask Heracles.

Under that logic we shouldn't bother looking for Osama and his #2. I heard that same argument when they took Gotti down. You can't tell me that taking the "A" team off the field doesn't hurt bad.


Terrible people to be sure, but not terrorists.

You're playing word games...how about some of the most dangerous people in the world who if they had the chance wouldn't hesitate to wipe us off the face of the earth.


Alive and well and no doubt loving the fact that Karzai, backed by the "last superpower" and the mutual congratulation society that is NATO cannot even produce the standard of living that Afghanis enjoyed under a brutally repressive Islamic theocracy.

Maybe they should run in the upcoming elections and see how well they do.


Yes, I'm sure he feels very humble, having gotten away with decades of supporting terrorism in exchange for writing a cheque from his oil proceeds and saying "I'm sorry" to the cameras. That's quite a victory we forged there.

Did you forget the small fact that he gave up his weapons program which our Clinton depleted CIA had no clue about? I guess he was in a giving mood that day.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,917
Tokens
By saying that the terroist are winning I beleive that Phaedrus's point is that the main goal of a terrorist other than their eventual goal whatever that may be, is to instill terror and fear and to hamper the normal operations of their target. He does not mean " we killed more guys than you". It is your inability to see through the clutter and get to the gist of the matter that is the reason for much of your miguided thoughts. You can't even understand what he meant by " the terorists are winning" how can you expect to understand the nature of the conflict and what the hell is really going on?


Why don't we take a little poll and see how many people in the U.S. are now "instilled with fear" and aren't going about their day to day operations? People are doing the same stuff today as they have in the past. Are you saying that waiting longer in an airport line is making the terrorist winners?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,810
Messages
13,573,485
Members
100,871
Latest member
Legend813
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com