Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[jreeves]

CIA’s primary mission is to collect, analyze, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist the President and senior US government policymakers in making decisions relating to national security. This is a very complex process and involves a variety of steps.

First, we have to identify a problem or an issue of national security concern to the US government. In some cases, CIA is directed to study an intelligence issue—such as what activities terrorist organizations are planning, or how countries that have biological or chemical weapons plan to use these weapons—then we look for a way to collect information about the problem.

There are several ways to collect information. Translating foreign newspaper and magazine articles and radio and television broadcasts provides open-source intelligence. Imagery satellites take pictures from space, and imagery analysts write reports about what they see–for example, how many airplanes are at a foreign military base. Signals analysts work to decrypt coded messages sent by other countries. Operations officers recruit foreigners to give information about their countries.

After the information is collected, intelligence analysts pull together the relevant information from all available sources and assess what is happening, why it is happening, what might occur next, and what it means for US interests. The result of this analytic effort is timely and objective assessments, free of any political bias, provided to senior US policymakers in the form of finished intelligence products that include written reports and oral briefings. One of these reports is the President’s Daily Brief (PDB), an Intelligence Community product, which the US president and other senior officials receive each day.

It is important to know that CIA analysts only report the information and do not make policy recommendations—making policy is left to agencies such as the State Department and Department of Defense. These policymakers use the information that CIA provides to help them formulate US policy toward other countries. It is also important to know that CIA is not a law enforcement organization. That is the job of the FBI; however, the CIA and the FBI cooperate on a number of issues, such as counterintelligence and counterterrorism. Additionally, the CIA may also engage in covert action at the President’s direction and in accordance with applicable law.

The US Congress has had oversight responsibility of the CIA since the Agency was established in 1947. However, prior to the mid-1970’s, oversight was less formal. The 1980 Intelligence Oversight Act charged the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) with authorizing the programs of the intelligence agencies and overseeing their activities.

https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/todays-cia/what-we-do/index.html

 

[jreeves]

And retained by Bush who gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Just so you know I was responding to this post from DCD;
But, they are in the Executive Branch, report to the President, and their performance is managed by, and accountable to, people that Bush appointed to manage those agencies.

 

[jreeves]

Just so you know I was responding to this post from DCD;
But, they are in the Executive Branch, report to the President, and their performance is managed by, and accountable to, people that Bush appointed to manage those agencies.

Bob Woodward, in his book Plan of Attack,[32] wrote that Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence against Saddam Hussein amounted to a "slam dunk case." After several months of refusing to confirm this statement, Tenet later stated that this remark was taken out of context.

 

[Teri B.]

9/11, the first gulf war there was less soliders in Kuwait than we anticipated, North Korea come on there is a long list....does that mean Bush was responsible for all of these...LOL

You've completely lost me. What in the world does this have to do with whether the President picks someone to head the CIA who will do his bidding?

 

[jreeves]

You've completely lost me. What in the world does this have to do with whether the President picks someone to head the CIA who will do his bidding?

The inference is this, if the President controls the CIA then he could have cooked up intelligence for his political purposes. Well my point by the previous post was the President responsible for cooking those intelligence failures as well?

 

[Teri B.]

The inference is this, if the President controls the CIA then he could have cooked up intelligence for his political purposes. Well my point by the previous post was the President responsible for cooking those intelligence failures as well?

I guess they'd have to be examined on an individual basis. But 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda, not Iraq, per the 9/11 Commission, and since we all saw the buildings fall, I'm pretty sure there's no confusion about that intelligence. The first Gulf War was triggered by Sadam's invasion of Kuwait, which was pretty evident, since Kuwait didn't have to surmise they were invaded. Korea was before I was born, and admittedly I'm woefully ignorant about that.

Look, I'm not saying that there weren't suspicions and even intelligence that suggested Sadam might have WMDs, but a large portion of the intelligence that was used to make the case for war was bogus, like the yellow cake, the mobile labs, Curveball, etc., and Bush was warned the intelligence wasn't reliable. The Admin. ignored what they didn't want to acknowledge, and THEY MADE A CONNECTION TO 9/11 THAT DID NOT EXIST.

 

[jreeves]

I guess they'd have to be examined on an individual basis. But 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda, not Iraq, per the 9/11 Commission, and since we all saw the buildings fall, I'm pretty sure there's no confusion about that intelligence. The first Gulf War was triggered by Sadam's invasion of Kuwait, which was pretty evident, since Kuwait didn't have to surmise they were invaded. Korea was before I was born, and admittedly I'm woefully ignorant about that.

Look, I'm not saying that there weren't suspicions and even intelligence that suggested Sadam might have WMDs, but a large portion of the intelligence that was used to make the case for war was bogus, like the yellow cake, the mobile labs, Curveball, etc., and Bush was warned the intelligence wasn't reliable. The Admin. ignored what they didn't want to acknowledge, and THEY MADE A CONNECTION TO 9/11 THAT DID NOT EXIST.

I think you misunderstood, the intelligence failures in those three that I cited, are this; before 9/11 the intelligence community failed to notify the President and Congress that there was an immeninent attack from AQ, in the first Gulf War the intelligence community failed in its calculation of Iraqi troops in Kuwait(less troops than they believed), regarding North Korea the intelligence community believed they were years away from developing an actual Nuke. That's my point, intelligence failures happen all the time, it doesn't mean there is a consiparcy theory that the President is dictating policy through the CIA.

 

[Teri B.]

I think you misunderstood, the intelligence failures in those three that I cited, are this; before 9/11 the intelligence community failed to notify the President and Congress that there was an immeninent attack from AQ, in the first Gulf War the intelligence community failed in its calculation of Iraqi troops in Kuwait(less troops than they believed), regarding North Korea the intelligence community believed they were years away from developing an actual Nuke. That's my point, intelligence failures happen all the time, it doesn't mean there is a consiparcy theory that the President is dictating policy through the CIA.

Wrong. They WERE warned about 9/11:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E5D9143AF931A25751C0A9639C8B63

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

But where the really big lie comes in, is the Admin. connecting this war to 9/11, without a shred of evidence. That part, the part that was compelling to the American people and the Congress, was completely fabricated.

 

[steeliniraq]

So if I understand this all right Bush is wrong and lied and didnt do the right thing. IF THAT IS THE CASE SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ELECTING A EVIL, LYING, PRESIDENT AFTER HE LIED TO START A WAR?

 

[jreeves]

Wrong. They WERE warned about 9/11:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E5D9143AF931A25751C0A9639C8B63

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

But where the really big lie comes in, is the Admin. connecting this war to 9/11, without a shred of evidence. That part, the part that was compelling to the American people and the Congress, was completely fabricated.

Under the heading ''the next three to five years,'' Mr. Clarke spelled out a series of steps building on groundwork that he said had already been laid, adding that ''success can only be achieved if the pace and resource levels of the programs continue to grow as planned.''

As far as Clinton goes he failed to combat terrorism, USS Cole bombing, African embassy bombings and cutting and running from Somali all proved to the terrorists that we were a paper tiger as I seem to remember Bin Laden saying.
The strategy paper recounted past Qaeda plots against Americans abroad and at home and said an informant had reported ''that an extensive network of al Qida 'sleeper' agents currently exists in the U.S.'' After reviewing steps taken since 1996 to combat Al Qaeda, the document listed further actions required to make the network ''not a serious threat'' within three to five years.
Mr. O'Hanlon called Mr. Clarke's memorandums a set of ''very dry data points. There's not a heightened sense of, 'Now our homeland is at risk.'''

Mr. Clarke did not respond to a request for comment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The President DID NOT link Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. In fact he specifically stated over and over there WAS NO LINK. Another talking point liberal lie.

 

[maineman]

The President DID NOT link Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. In fact he specifically stated over and over there WAS NO LINK. Another talking point liberal lie.

Cheney most certainly linked Iraq with Atta .... that IS linking Iraq with 9/11. period.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The President DID NOT link Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. In fact he specifically stated over and over there WAS NO LINK. Another talking point liberal lie.

BushCo. never directly linked the Taliban to 9/11 either. There is no evidence the Taliban knew about the 9/11 attack in advance, or assisted in executing it. Bush merely told us that the Taliban were harboring and aiding those who attacked us on 9/11. WHICH WAS TRUE.

Then, BushCo. told us that Saddam was harboring, aiding, and training al qaeda. And that the lead 9/11 hijacker met with Iraqi intelligence agents. WHICH WERE FALSE.

The 2006 Iraq Intelligence review explicity stated that Saddam considered radical global islamic jihadists a threat to his own regime. That he never trained or harbored them. In addition, the 2002 NIE stated that Saddam would be unlikely to ever give WMD to Al Qaeda, unless he were attacked or invaded by the US.

The falsehoods, innuendo, and lies that you, Bush, Cheney, etc told us about Saddam and Al Qaeda were false, yet were used as justification to send thousands of americans to their deaths. And to spend upwards of a trillion dollars of taxpayer money. Shameful.

 

[Teri B.]

The President DID NOT link Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. In fact he specifically stated over and over there WAS NO LINK. Another talking point liberal lie.

Seriously? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell had been said this repeatedly. I already posted a clip of Tim Russert getting Cheney to finally admit there was no connection.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/kerry.powell.iraq/index.html

I honestly can't believe y'all are still arguing about this. This is so 3 yrs. ago.

 

[mattskramer]

The President DID NOT link Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. In fact he specifically stated over and over there WAS NO LINK. Another talking point liberal lie.

Mr. Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September.

Examples are listed here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

 

[Alpha1]

Cheney most certainly linked Iraq with Atta .... that IS linking Iraq with 9/11. period.

Wrong ...and as stated close to a lie in its implication...

A foreign intell service linked Iraq to Atta....Cheney repeated that claim, stating "we just don't know".....

so put Cheney's comment into context....

 

[Shogun]

for real.. put it on a t shirt and wear it to the polls later this year. I want you to make that case to every voter you pass on the sidewalk leading into the voting booth.

 

[Alpha1]

BushCo. never directly linked the Taliban to 9/11 either. There is no evidence the Taliban knew about the 9/11 attack in advance, or assisted in executing it. Bush merely told us that the Taliban were harboring and aiding those who attacked us on 9/11. WHICH WAS TRUE.

Then, BushCo. told us that Saddam was harboring, aiding, and training al qaeda.
OUR intell and foreign told Bush and the US this....

And that the lead 9/11 hijacker met with Iraqi intelligence agents. WHICH WERE FALSE.
Czech intell made these claims, not Bush and not Cheney...Czech intell

The 2006 Iraq Intelligence review explicity stated that Saddam considered radical global islamic jihadists a threat to his own regime. That he never trained or harbored them.
What was learned in 2006 in irrelevant to decisions made in 2001/2002

In addition, the 2002 NIE stated that Saddam would be unlikely to ever give WMD to Al Qaeda, unless he were attacked or invaded by the US.

The NIE of 10/2002 also plainly stated, "BAGHDAD HAS BW AND CW" and giving it to others ? So what? Your just as dead no matter where it comes from...

The falsehoods, innuendo, and lies that you, Bush, Cheney, etc told us about Saddam and Al Qaeda were false, yet were used as justification to send thousands of americans to their deaths. And to spend upwards of a trillion dollars of taxpayer money. Shameful.

Some of what EVERYONE told you about Saddam and AQ were false...Clinton, Gore, Peloci, Bush, Cheney, etc....what prevents you assholds from telling the truth and in context...???

 

[maineman]

Wrong ...and as stated close to a lie in its implication...

A foreign intell service linked Iraq to Atta....Cheney repeated that claim, stating "we just don't know".....

so put Cheney's comment into context....

His repeating the claim DID link Iraq and 9/11.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Some of what EVERYONE told you about Saddam and AQ were false...Clinton, Gore, Peloci, Bush, Cheney, etc....what prevents you assholds from telling the truth and in context...???

Everyone? LOL. It may be that you were fooled into thinking that Saddam was aiding, harboring, and training Al Qaeda. You get your news from Matt Drudge and the RNC website.

Me? I wasn't fooled like you were. I get my information from multiple sources, including credible middle east experts. And unlike you, I was fully aware in 2003 that Saddam was very, very unlikely to harbor, train, and assist Al Qaeda. Lots of people (not you apparently) knew in 2003 that the alleged ties between Saddam and al qaeda were tenuous at best, outright exaggerations and falsehoods at worst.