ADVERTISEMENT

George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush & Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public

THE_DEVIL

HB King
Gold Member
Aug 16, 2005
66,236
83,231
113
Hell, Michigan
www.livecoinwatch.com
link

For a dozen years, the Bush-Cheney crowd have been trying to escape—or cover up—an essential fact of the W. years: President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their lieutenants misled the American public about the WMD threat supposedly posed by Saddam Hussein in order to grease the way to the invasion of Iraq. For Bush, Cheney, and the rest, this endeavor is fundamental; it is necessary to protect the legitimacy of the Bush II presidency. Naturally, Karl Rove and other Bushies have quickly tried to douse the Bush-lied-us-into-war fire whenever such flames have appeared. And in recent days, as Jeb Bush bumbled a question about the Iraq War, he and other GOPers have peddled the fictitious tale that his brother launched the invasion because he was presented lousy intelligence. But now there's a new witness who will make the Bush apologists' mission even more impossible: Michael Morell, a longtime CIA official who eventually became the agency's deputy director and acting director. During the preinvasion period, he served as Bush's intelligence briefer.

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball on Tuesday night, Morell made it clear: The Bush-Cheney administration publicly misrepresented the intelligence related to Iraq's supposed WMD program and Saddam's alleged links to Al Qaeda.

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in 2003: "We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Here's the conversation that followed:

MATTHEWS: Was that true?

MORELL: We were saying—

MATTHEWS: Can you answer that question? Was that true?

MORELL: That's not true.

MATTHEWS: Well, why'd you let them get away with it?

MORELL: Look, my job Chris—

MATTHEWS: You're the briefer for the president on intelligence, you're the top person to go in and tell him what's going on. You see Cheney make this charge he's got a nuclear bomb and then they make subsequent charges he knew how to deliver it…and nobody raised their hand and said, "No that's not what we told him."

MORELL: Chris, Chris Chris, what's my job, right? My job—

MATTHEWS: To tell the truth.

MORELL: My job—no, as the briefer? As the briefer?

MATTHEWS: Okay, go ahead.

MORELL: As the briefer, my job is to carry CIA's best information and best analysis to the president of the United States and make sure he understands it. My job is to not watch what they're saying on TV.

The discussion went on:

MATTHEWS: So you're briefing the president on the reasons for war, they're selling the war, using your stuff, saying you made that case when you didn't. So they're using your credibility to make the case for war dishonestly, as you just admitted.

MORELL: Look, I'm just telling you—

MATTHEWS: You just admitted it.

MORELL: I'm just telling you what we said—

MATTHEWS: They gave a false presentation of what you said to them.

MORELL: On some aspects. On some aspects.

There's the indictment, issued by the intelligence officer who briefed Bush and Cheney: The Bush White House made a "false presentation" on "some aspects" of the case for war. "That's a big deal," Matthews exclaimed. Morell replied, "It's a big deal."

And there's more. Referring to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and other administration officials that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, Morell noted, "What they were saying about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda publicly was not what the intelligence community" had concluded. He added, "I think they were trying to make a stronger case for the war." That is, stronger than the truth would allow.

Morell's remarks support the basic charge: Bush and Cheney were not misled by flawed intelligence; they used the flawed intelligence to mislead.
 
Hardly news...the saddest part about it is it won't change anyone's mind. They should have been investigated and charged. And Jeb should be drop-kicked to the curb for covering for them.
 
Was there ever a point in time where Bill Clinton spoke up and said 'hey, wait a minute - that doesn't sound entirely correct'?

After all, Clinton was privy to all of the same intelligence up until January 2001.
 
Was there ever a point in time where Bill Clinton spoke up and said 'hey, wait a minute - that doesn't sound entirely correct'?

After all, Clinton was privy to all of the same intelligence up until January 2001.
Maybe, maybe not. But this guy is smart enough to only discuss how Bush dealt with the info. If he mentioned Clinton, he'd likely catch the dead very soon thereafter.
 
Was there ever a point in time where Bill Clinton spoke up and said 'hey, wait a minute - that doesn't sound entirely correct'?

After all, Clinton was privy to all of the same intelligence up until January 2001.

This is not a Red vs. Blue issue. It's an Us vs Them issue. You are behaving exactly how They want you to
 
All I got out of that is Matthews likes to interrupt, similar to O'Reilly, Grace and other talk shows I ignore.
 
It's over. Let it go. Old news. Who cares?

You're right. No one cares...:rolleyes:

511363430_cd2aeb6461_b.jpg
 
This is not a Red vs. Blue issue. It's an Us vs Them issue. You are behaving exactly how They want you to
I'm just wondering why Dems obsess over what Bush/Cheney knew and said but completely disregard what Clinton and other top Dems knew and said.
 
I'm just wondering why Dems obsess over what Bush/Cheney knew and said but completely disregard what Clinton and other top Dems knew and said.

That's like comparing Sandusky's wife to Sandusky. Both disgusting human beings. Can't read OP's mind, but if that's what he's thinking then shame on him too
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it, and we are f***ing slow learners


This is what I've been hearing about Obama for seven years now. And anything about Hillary, or Kerry.

If it's a Republican, what they did in a schoolyard 50 years ago matters to his presidential run.
 
How we know US wars are started with lies known to be false as they are told:

In addition to the illegality of US wars, we know from the disclosed evidence of our own government that all claims for current US wars were known to be lies as they were told to the American public and not “mistaken intelligence.” Read this and this for more complete documentation; here’s the summary for lies to initiate War Crimes on Iraq and Afghanistan:

There were four basic claims of facts presented by US political “leadership” to invade Iraq:

  1. Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), a scary-sounding name for specific chemical and biological weapons.
  2. The US intercepted aluminum tubes that could only be used to refine nuclear material; irrefutable evidence that Iraq had restarted a nuclear weapons program.
  3. Saddam had attempted to purchase enriched uranium from Niger; more evidence that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons development.
  4. Saddam had links to Al Qaeda, the alleged terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11.
Here’s what we now know about the evidence from which those claims were made:

  1. George Tenet, Director of the CIA, acknowledged that all US intelligence agency reports “never said there was an imminent threat.” This was based on a long history of intelligence reports, the facts that the chemical and biological weapons under consideration were relatively weak without a delivery system, and that Iraq was highly motivated NOT to use them against the US given their understanding such use would provoke war with the world’s most powerful military. Because all 16 US intelligence agencies stated in writing in their official National Intelligence Estimate report there is no evidence of any imminent threat, and US leaders used an argument of WMD as a reason for war without documentation of evidence while refuted by every US intelligence agency’s official report, that means this claim was a lie known to be false as it was told.
  2. The Bush administration claim of aluminum tubes that could only be used as centrifuges to refine fissionable material for nuclear weapons is directly refuted by the best expert witnesses available, the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Their conclusion is that the tubes in question had diameters too small, the tubes were too thick, using aluminum as the material would be “a huge step backwards,” and the surface was anodized that made them impossible to serve this purpose. They also found that the tubes were easily explained for conventional use, as the specifications perfectly matched tubing for other purposes. The Senate Committee on Intelligence agreed that this claim had no basis from any available evidence. See also here. When the US makes a war-reason without explanation and the evidence is refuted by the two leading expert agencies before the war, that means this claim was a lie known to be false as it was told.
  3. This claim, repeated by President Bush in the 2003 State of the Union Address, was based on the “Niger documents.” These papers were written in grammatically poor French, had a “childlike” forgery of the Niger President’s signature, and had a document signed by a foreign minister who had been out of office for 14 years prior to the date on the document. The forgeries showed-up shortly after the Niger embassy in Rome was robbed, with the only missing items being stationery and Niger government stamps. The same stationery and stamps were used for the forged documents. The CIA warned President Bush on at least three occasions to not make the claim due to the ridiculous evidence. In addition, if Saddam really was making an illegal uranium purchase, it’s likely that both Saddam and the Niger government officials would insist on not having a written record that would document the crime. Republican US Ambassador to Niger, Joseph Wilson, confirmed this information and reported in detail to Vice President Cheney’s office and the CIA. When President Bush and other “leaders” use this claim as a war reason without explanation while analysis of the evidence with all available experts conclude it’s crude forgery, that means this claim was a lie known to be false as it was told.
  4. As to the claim of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, all US intelligence agencies reported that no such relationship existed (and here). When Vice President Cheney makes an unsubstantiated war-reason while all 16 US intelligence agencies officially report no such evidence exists AND compelling evidence exists to refute the claim, that means this claim was a lie known to be false as it was told.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015...unlawful-wars-propaganda-as-usual-4-of-7.html
 
Did Clinton go to war with Iraq? Wasn't that Junior?
Well, he did green light a 4-day barrage of Tomahawk missiles and bombing strikes against Iraq in December 1998 designed to weaken a WMD program that Democrats now insist never existed.

My point is this - if Republicans were blatantly fabricating details of Iraq's weapons program, Clinton would have known and could/would have spoken out about it. Instead, he consistently corroborated Republican claims about the weapons. In July 2003, four months after we launched the invasion, Clinton was interviewed by Larry King and said the following - "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Why would he say that if he didn't think it was true?
 
Well, he did green light a 4-day barrage of Tomahawk missiles and bombing strikes against Iraq in December 1998 designed to weaken a WMD program that Democrats now insist never existed.

My point is this - if Republicans were blatantly fabricating details of Iraq's weapons program, Clinton would have known and could/would have spoken out about it. Instead, he consistently corroborated Republican claims about the weapons. In July 2003, four months after we launched the invasion, Clinton was interviewed by Larry King and said the following - "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Why would he say that if he didn't think it was true?


Because we don't have a clue about what is really true. We're stuck pontificating on an off topic board related to our favorite state university about the inner workings of one of the most powerful governments in the world.

We got this.
 
I posted a link a few days ago about the death of the CIA analyst who kept telling anyone in the agency that "Curveball", was a bogus source of information. Nobody paid attention to him. War is what Bush and Cheney wanted. That war is hanging around the neck of Jeb Bush no matter how hard he flops around from position to position.
 
Well, he did green light a 4-day barrage of Tomahawk missiles and bombing strikes against Iraq in December 1998 designed to weaken a WMD program that Democrats now insist never existed.

My point is this - if Republicans were blatantly fabricating details of Iraq's weapons program, Clinton would have known and could/would have spoken out about it. Instead, he consistently corroborated Republican claims about the weapons. In July 2003, four months after we launched the invasion, Clinton was interviewed by Larry King and said the following - "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Why would he say that if he didn't think it was true?
Wasn't the reason for the missile attack a result of the USS Cole incident? Clinton did not blunder and invade Iraq. Junior did.
 
Wasn't the reason for the missile attack a result of the USS Cole incident? Clinton did not blunder and invade Iraq. Junior did.
It is one thing to say Bush made a mistake by invading Iraq. It is an entirely different accusation to say he lied about intelligence in order to justify it. Virtually all the credible evidence shows that this was not the case. Probably the most compelling of this evidence is what Bush's political enemies did and said. The ones who had access to the same intelligence Bush did never questioned the warnings about WMD; what they -- Kerry, Clinton, Harkin, et al -- said was that invading Iraq wasn't the proper reaction to the WMD programs.
 
Wasn't the reason for the missile attack a result of the USS Cole incident?
No. It was not, unless it was a preemptive retaliation. The USS Cole bombing occurred nearly two years later. In Yemen.

Why would we spend four days bombing the shit out of Iraq for something that happened in Yemen?
 
It is one thing to say Bush made a mistake by invading Iraq. It is an entirely different accusation to say he lied about intelligence in order to justify it. Virtually all the credible evidence shows that this was not the case. Probably the most compelling of this evidence is what Bush's political enemies did and said. The ones who had access to the same intelligence Bush did never questioned the warnings about WMD; what they -- Kerry, Clinton, Harkin, et al -- said was that invading Iraq wasn't the proper reaction to the WMD programs.
Aluminum tubes. Clear lie. He knew it when he said it. Case closed. Bush lied.
 
Aluminum tubes. Clear lie. He knew it when he said it. Case closed. Bush lied.
No. You need to check your facts. A case can be made that Rice knew there were other potential uses for the tubes, but it isn't a particularly strong case. Definitely not even an argument can be made to support what you just wrote here.
 
Wasn't the reason for the missile attack a result of the USS Cole incident? Clinton did not blunder and invade Iraq. Junior did.
A lot of critics said at the time that it was an attempt by Clinton to divert attention from the Monica scandal. Not everybody agreed. Newt Gingrich, among others, defended the attack.

It occurred because of meetings between Saddam's top CBW guru and OBLs reps related to a pharmaceutical facility. It appeared that it was going to be used to create WMD.

This is the same connection, by the way, that Democrats derided as nonexistent when Dubya referred to it.
 
Hardly news...the saddest part about it is it won't change anyone's mind. They should have been investigated and charged. And Jeb should be drop-kicked to the curb for covering for them.
Like everybody went off on just one thing Cheny said? This whole thing with Sadaam built up for 5-6 years and not just one briefing from the CIA.
 
Like everybody went off on just one thing Cheny said? This whole thing with Sadaam built up for 5-6 years and not just one briefing from the CIA.
Like everybody went off on just one thing Cheny said? This whole thing with Sadaam built up for 5-6 years and not just one briefing from the CIA.
Titan..The fact of the matter is that Junior (probably because Cheney told him to do so) was looking for ANY excuse to invade Iraq and depose Saddam...from Day #1 of his administration. Paul O'Neill described the first fullcabinet meeting Junior held in Feb of 2001....He assigned EVERY cabinet officer present to write a scenario that would justify the USA to invade Iraq..........7 months before 9/11. I believe you can read this for yourself in O'Neills book, "The Price of Loyalty"...about p. 42, if memory serves me correctly. Invading Iraq and deposing Saddam was 100% Junior's idea Yet, you and yours choose to look to Bill Clinton as advocating an attack on Iraq. Clinton was LONG GONE from office and Junior was firmly (or was it Cheney) in control of things.
 
By Eric Margolis

August 14, 2015
https://www.addtoany.com/share_save...Tell the Truth for a Change, Jeb&description=
Gov. Jeb Bush repeated one of the biggest falsehoods of our time during the recent presidential candidate debate: “we were misled (into the Iraq War) by faulty intelligence.”

US intelligence was not “misled.” It was ordered by the real, de facto president, Dick Cheney, to provide excuses for a war of aggression against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

PM Tony Blair, forced British intelligence services to “sex up” reports that Iraq had nuclear weapons; he purged the government and the venerable broadcaster BBC of journalists who failed to amplify Blair’s lies. Bush and Blair reportedly discussed painting a US Air Force plane in UN colors and getting it to buzz Iraqi anti-aircraft sites in hope the Iraqis would fire on it. Bush told Blair that after conquering Iraq, he intended to invade Iran, Syria, Libya and Pakistan.

In fact, Iraq had no “weapons of mass destruction,” save some rusty barrels of mustard and nerve gas that had been supplied by the US and Britain for use against Iran. I broke this story from Baghdad back in late 1990.

Tyler Drumheller, who died last week, was the former chief of CIA’s European division. He was the highest-ranking intelligence officer to go public and accuse the Bush administration of hyping fabricated evidence to justify invading Iraq.

Drumheller was particularly forceful in denouncing the Iraqi defector codenamed “Curveball,” whose ludicrous claims about mobile Iraqi germ laboratories were trumpeted before the UN by former Secretary of State Colin Powell. “Curveball’s” claims were outright lies and Powell, whose career was ruined by parroting these absurd allegations, should have known better.

“Curveball” was an ‘agent provocateur’ clearly sent by a neighbor of Iraq to help promote a US attack on that nation. Whether it was Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Israel that sent Curveball,” we still don’t know. All three fabricated “evidence” against Iraq and passed it to Washington. That is where US intelligence was indeed misled. But that’s only a minor part of the story.

A Washington cabal of pro-Israel neocons, oil men, and old-fashioned imperialists joined to promote a grossly illegal invasion of oil-rich Iraq. One of its senior members, former Pentagon official Paul Wolfowitz, admitted that weapons of mass destruction was chosen as the most convenient and emotive pretext for war. Orders went out to CIA and NSA to find information linking Iraq to 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction.

Some of the worst torture inflicted on suspects kidnapped by CIA’s action teams was designed to make them admit to a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. There was, of course, none. But administration officials, like the odious Condoleeza Rice, kept broadly hinting at a nuclear threat to America.

Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, polls showed a majority of Americans believed Iraq was threatening the US with nuclear attack and behind 9/11. Amazingly, a poll taken just before the US attacked Iraq showed that over 80% of self-professed evangelical Christians supported war against Iraq. So much for turning the other cheek.

Most of the US media, notably the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, amplified the lies of the Bush administration. TV networks were ordered never to show American military casualties or civilian dead. Those, like this writer, who questioned the rational for war, or who wouldn’t go along with the party line, were blanked out from print and TV.

For example, I was immediately dropped from a major TV network after daring mention that Israel supported the 2003 Iraq war and would benefit from it. I was blacklisted by another major US TV network at the direct demand of the Bush White House for repeatedly insisting that Iraq had no nuclear capability.

Very few analysts, journalists, or politicians took time to ask: even if Iraq had nuclear weapons, how could they be delivered to North America? Iraq had no long-range bombers and no missiles with range greater than 100kms. Perhaps by FedEx? No one asked, why would Iraq invite national suicide by trying to hit the US with a nuclear weapon.

The most original answer came from George W. Bush: nefarious Iraqi freighters were lurking in the North Atlantic carrying “drones of death” that would attack sleeping America. This hallucination was based on a single report that the bumbling Iraqis were working a children’s model airplane that, in the end, broke and never flew. What inspired such a phantasmagoria? Pot, too much bourbon, LSD, or thundering orders from Dick Cheney to find a damned good excuse for invading Iraq.

For Cheney and his oil pals, conquering Iraq would secure the Arab world’s biggest oil reserves for Uncle Sam and offer a central military base in the region. For Washington’s bloodthirsty neocons, pulverizing Iraq would remove one of Israel’s most determined enemies, crush the only Arab nation that might challenge Israel’s nuclear monopoly, and cost Israel nothing. Invading Iraq produced the slow disintegration of the Mideast so long sought by militant Zionists.

margolis.jpg
It all worked brilliantly, at least from Israel’s viewpoint. Not, however for the US. Bush’s invasion shattered Iraq, led to al-Qaida and ISIS, and left Washington saddled with a $1 trillion-dollar bill instead of the $60 million cost estimated by Wolfowitz. The Mideast is in a tailspin, Palestinians are totally isolated, and Egypt, the region’s key nation, run by an Arab-fascist military dictatorship.

Tyler Drumheller was the only senior CIA officer to stand up and tell Americans they were lied into an unnecessary, illegal war. Today, we have Iraqi déjà vu anew as the lie factories and fear mongers work overtime to promote war with Iran.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/08/eric-margolis/tell-the-truth-for-a-change-jeb/
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT