What is an American?

So are you saying that kay lied when he said that he had found evidence that saddam's wmd had been moved to syria? If so, on what grounds do you believe him when he says anything else?


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml

How about what a 26 year veteran of the CIA serving at the time of Bush has to say...

CBS) When no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq, President Bush insisted that all those WMD claims before the war were the result of faulty intelligence. But a former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller — a 26-year veteran of the agency — has decided to do something CIA officials at his level almost never do: Speak out.

He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not.


"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it’s an intelligence failure. It’s an intelligence failure. This was a policy failure," Drumheller tells Bradley.

Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didn’t:

"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller.

Drumheller says he doesn't think it mattered very much to the administration what the intelligence community had to say. "I think it mattered it if verified. This basic belief that had taken hold in the U.S. government that now is the time, we had the means, all we needed was the will," he says.

The road to war in Iraq took some strange turns — none stranger than a detour to the West African country of Niger. In late 2001, a month after 9/11, the United States got a report from the Italian intelligence service that Saddam Hussein had bought 500 tons of so-called yellowcake uranium in order to build a nuclear bomb.

But Drumheller says many CIA analysts were skeptical. "Most people came to the opinion that there was something questionable about it," he says.

Asked if that was his reaction, Drumheller says, "That was our reaction from the very beginning. The report didn't hold together."

Drumheller says that was the "general feeling" in the agency at that time.

However, Vice President Dick Cheney thought the story was worth investigating, and asked the CIA not to discount the story without first taking a closer look. So, in February 2002, the agency sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate.

"If Saddam Hussein had acquired 500 tons of yellowcake uranium in violation of U.N. sanctions, that would be pretty serious, wouldn’t it?" Bradley asked Wilson.

"Absolutely. Certainly. And the fact that there was an allegation out there that he was even attempting to purchase 500 tons of uranium was very serious, because it essentially meant that they were restarting their nuclear programs," Wilson replied.

Wilson spent eight days in Niger looking for signs of a secret deal to send yellowcake to Iraq. He spoke to government officials who would have known about such a transaction. No one did. There had been a meeting between Iraqis and Nigerians in 1999, but Wilson was told uranium had never been discussed. He also found no evidence that Iraq had even been interested in buying uranium.

"I concluded that it could not have happened," Wilson says. At the end of his eight-day stay in Niger, Wilson says he had no lingering doubts.

When he returned, Wilson told the CIA what he had learned. Despite that, some intelligence analysts stood by the Italian report that Saddam Hussein had purchased uranium from Niger. But the director of the CIA and the deputy director didn’t buy it. In October, when the president’s speechwriters tried to put the Niger uranium story in a speech that President Bush was scheduled to deliver in Cincinnati, they intervened.

In a phone call and two faxes to the White House, they warned “the Africa story is overblown” and “the evidence is weak.” The speechwriters took the uranium reference out of the speech.

It continues...there was no evidence of WMDs and Bush knew it...
 
Werbung:
As to smuggling out the WMDs...didn't happen either...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/iraq/main643989.shtml

(AP) As the hunt for weapons of mass destruction dragged on unsuccessfully in Iraq, top Bush administration officials speculated publicly that the banned armaments may have been smuggled out of the country before the war started.

Whether Saddam Hussein moved the WMD — deadly chemical, biological or radiological arms — is one of the unresolved issues that the final U.S. intelligence report on Iraq's programs is expected to address next month.

But intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never "a piece," said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.

The administration acknowledged last week that the search for banned weapons is largely over. The Iraq Survey Group's chief, Charles Duelfer, is expected to submit the final installments of his report in February. A small number of the organization's experts will remain on the job in case new intelligence on Iraqi WMD is unearthed.

But the officials familiar with the search say U.S. authorities have found no evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein transferred WMD or related equipment out of Iraq.

A special adviser to the CIA director, Duelfer declined an interview request through an agency spokesman. In his last public statements, he told a Senate panel last October that it remained unclear whether banned weapons could have been moved from Iraq.

"What I can tell you is that I believe we know a lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria. There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points," he said. "But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say."

Last week, a congressional official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said suggestions that weapons or components were sent from Iraq were based on speculation stemming from uncorroborated information.

President Bush and top-ranking officials in his administration used the existence of WMD in Iraq as the main justification for the March 2003 invasion, and throughout much of last year the White House continued to raise the possibility the weapons were transferred to another country.

For instance:

# Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in early October he believed Saddam had WMD before the war. "He has either hidden them so well or moved them somewhere else, or decided to destroy them ... in event of a conflict but kept the capability of developing them rapidly," Rumsfeld said in a Fox News Channel interview.

Eight months earlier, he told senators "it's possible that WMD did exist, but was transferred, in whole or in part, to one or more other countries. We see that theory put forward."

# Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed concern the WMD would be found. However, when asked in September if the WMD could have been hidden or moved to a country like Syria, he said, "I can't exclude any of those possibilities."

# And, on MSNBC's "Hardball" in June, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said: "Everyone believed that his programs were more active than they appeared to be, but recognize, he had a lot of time to move stuff, a lot of time to hide stuff."

Since the October report from Duelfer, which said Saddam intended to obtain WMD but had no banned weapons, senior administration leaders have largely stopped discussing whether the weapons were moved.

Last week, the intelligence and congressional officials said there was evidence indicating that somewhat common equipment with dual military and civilian uses, such as fermenters, was salvaged during post-invasion looting and sold for scrap in other countries. Syria was mentioned as one location.

The U.S. intelligence community's 2002 estimate on Iraq indicated there were sizable WMD programs and stockpiles. The officials said weapons experts have not found a production capability in Iraq that would back up the size of the prewar estimates.

Among a series of key findings, that estimate said Iraq "has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged" during a 1998 U.S.-British bombing campaign and "has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production."

Although the U.S. had little specific information, the estimate also said Saddam probably stockpiled at least 100 metric tons, possibly 500 metric tons, of chemical weapons agents — "much of it added in the last year."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/

WASHINGTON - As the hunt for weapons of mass destruction dragged on unsuccessfully in Iraq, top Bush administration officials speculated publicly that the banned armaments may have been smuggled out of the country before the war started.

Whether Saddam Hussein moved the WMD — deadly chemical, biological or radiological arms — is one of the unresolved issues that the final U.S. intelligence report on Iraq’s programs is expected to address next month.

But intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

Search draws to a close
The administration acknowledged last week that the search for banned weapons is largely over. The Iraq Survey Group’s chief, Charles Duelfer, is expected to submit the final installments of his report in February. A small number of the organization’s experts will remain on the job in case new intelligence on Iraqi WMD is unearthed.

But the officials familiar with the search say U.S. authorities have found no evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein transferred WMD or related equipment out of Iraq.

A special adviser to the CIA director, Duelfer declined an interview request through an agency spokesman. In his last public statements, he told a Senate panel last October that it remained unclear whether banned weapons could have been moved from Iraq.

“What I can tell you is that I believe we know a lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria. There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points,” he said. “But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say.”

Last week, a congressional official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said suggestions that weapons or components were sent from Iraq were based on speculation stemming from uncorroborated information.

White House pushed smuggling theory
President Bush and top-raking officials in his administration used the existence of WMD in Iraq as the main justification for the March 2003 invasion, and throughout much of last year the White House continued to raise the possibility the weapons were transferred to another country.

For instance:

* Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in early October he believed Saddam had WMD before the war. “He has either hidden them so well or moved them somewhere else, or decided to destroy them ... in event of a conflict but kept the capability of developing them rapidly,” Rumsfeld said in a Fox News Channel interview.

Eight months earlier, he told senators “it’s possible that WMD did exist, but was transferred, in whole or in part, to one or more other countries. We see that theory put forward.”
* Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed concern the WMD would be found. However, when asked in September if the WMD could have been hidden or moved to a country like Syria, he said, “I can’t exclude any of those possibilities.”
* And, on MSNBC’s “Hardball” in June, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said: “Everyone believed that his programs were more active than they appeared to be, but recognize, he had a lot of time to move stuff, a lot of time to hide stuff.”

Claims subside
Since the October report from Duelfer, which said Saddam intended to obtain WMD but had no banned weapons, senior administration leaders have largely stopped discussing whether the weapons were moved.

Last week, the intelligence and congressional officials said evidence indicating somewhat common equipment with dual military and civilian uses, such as fermenters, was salvaged during post-invasion looting and sold for scrap in other countries. Syria was mentioned as one location.

However, the U.S. intelligence community’s 2002 estimate on Iraq indicated there were sizable weapons programs and stockpiles. The officials said weapons experts have not found a production capability in Iraq that would back up the size of the prewar estimates.

Among a series of key findings, that estimate said Iraq “has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged” during a 1998 U.S.-British bombing campaign and “has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.”

Although the U.S. had little specific information, the estimate also said Saddam probably stockpiled at least 100 metric tons, possibly 500 metric tons, of chemical weapons agents — “much of it added in the last year.”

Same report..two newspapers..sorry...lies and spins yet again.
 
Hey Palerider, if Saddam had these WMD's, why did he not use them against U.S. troops when he had nothing to lose by doing so?
 
Ill just jump in here and leave a few comments.
I dont doubt that it is islamic propaganda. Both sides use them. It is a matter of type. While the Islamic terror groups seem to enjoy a more grisly form of it.

As for WMDs, and where they are...reading everything that I have on it, I have come to the conclusion that there was not an operating program after 98 at the very latest. If Saddam had them, he would have used them. If Syria has them, they would have likely used them against Israel last summer.

Even if they were moved to Syria, under the rationalization used by the Bush Administration in Iraq, it would justify an invasion, overthrow, to whatever country has them.

Does anybody really buy into the idea that Iraq is about WMDs? While it may have been %90 of the justification. It was a very small factor in the real reasons.
 
Hey Palerider, if Saddam had these WMD's, why did he not use them against U.S. troops when he had nothing to lose by doing so?

Because he expected to come out of this thing alive and in charge exactly as he did last time. He knew that if he used wmd that any possibility of being alive, much less in charge on the other side of this thing would vanish.
 
Boy, you really had to search for that. The Winnipeg Sun?

This is what he said, quote, "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons,"
Sounds to me like that can hardly account for the major stockpiles the Bush administration claimed were in Iraq. You're grabbing at straws, why not just admit, along with everyone else, that intelligence was faulty?

No, I used the winnipeg source because it is more liberal than the telegraph. Why didn't you post the whole quote?

""We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

In one sentence he says he is not talking about a large stockpile and in the next he states that a lot of material went to syria before the war and in the end, he states that he really doesn't know what went to syria but it is a major issue that needs to be resolved. Tell me, when that issue was resolved, what was the verdict?

Sounds like waffling and an attempt to disregard what he knows to be a very big problem to me.
 
No, I used the winnipeg source because it is more liberal than the telegraph. Why didn't you post the whole quote?

""We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

In one sentence he says he is not talking about a large stockpile and in the next he states that a lot of material went to syria before the war and in the end, he states that he really doesn't know what went to syria but it is a major issue that needs to be resolved. Tell me, when that issue was resolved, what was the verdict?

Sounds like waffling and an attempt to disregard what he knows to be a very big problem to me.
I didn't post the whole quote because it's obvious, when reading it, he's referring to a small stockpile. Anyway, forget Kay, how about this:


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."
Is this all lies as well? You also didn't address anything Cookie brought up, all lies again? I realize some of the information overlaps, but sooner or later you're going to have to admit that everyone can't be lying.
 
I didn't post the whole quote because it's obvious, when reading it, he's referring to a small stockpile.

You were the one that brought kay into the discussion, don't run away just because he has turned against you. And it is obvious that he is talking about a "small" stockpile? Which part of "a lot of material went to syria before the war" is describing a "small" stockpile? And "small" is a relative term. Small in comparison to what?

Is this all lies as well? You also didn't address anything Cookie brought up, all lies again? I realize some of the information overlaps, but sooner or later you're going to have to admit that everyone can't be lying.

On the question of whether saddam has WMD:

"Don't worry, it's a slam-dunk," - George Tenet

And why would I need to admit that everyone can't be lying? The only ones who seem to be sure that he doesn't are the ones who didn't know in the first place.
 
Werbung:
You were the one that brought kay into the discussion, don't run away just because he has turned against you. And it is obvious that he is talking about a "small" stockpile? Which part of "a lot of material went to syria before the war" is describing a "small" stockpile? And "small" is a relative term. Small in comparison to what?
Small in comparison to the outlandish claims made by the administration. Claims that turned out to be long on hype and short on substance. Remember Condaleeza Rice's mushroom cloud remark? So called "facts" were shaped and reshaped to fit a policy that had already been decided upon. Unfortunately, in the wake of 9/11, Bush administration lies, er, statements were accepted as truth by the so called "liberal" mainstream media conservatives like to complain so much about.



palerider said:
On the question of whether saddam has WMD:

"Don't worry, it's a slam-dunk," - George Tenet

And why would I need to admit that everyone can't be lying? The only ones who seem to be sure that he doesn't are the ones who didn't know in the first place.
So, none of the reports interest you, including the Iraq Survey Group, not surprising considering the conclusions. How about the Downing Street Memo? The memo recorded the head of MI6 as expressing the view, following a trip to Washington, that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." The memo also quoted British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin".

I'm not surprised that you cling so stubbornly to a discredited belief, as stubbornness is a characteristic you have put on display in the past. However, in this case, you're allowing it to fly in the face of logic.
 
Back
Top