I found this on Frontline Revelarts

[Robert A Whit]

Revelarts, this is as near a confession that Bush was not informed of Drumheller’s beliefs as I can find. He admires Tenet and believes in Tenet yet Bush says in his book that Tenet persuaded him most that Saddam was loaded with WMD.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/drumheller.html#3

Everybody I've talked to said the role of the DCI is to speak truth to power. The great thing that George Tenet did was he got face time with the president of the United States. The implications of that are he might be able to speak truth to power at a critical moment. ... If there was ever a fulcrum moment for George Tenet, that's the moment, isn't it?
Unfortunately, that's the case. Now, the person that you're talking to has to be receptive to what you're saying, but you have to try. It's the hardest thing I've ever had in my career to do, frankly, personally, ... because I really do like the guy. I admire the guy; I really do. But again, as you said, there's no way to get around it.
Around what?
Around [the fact that] if they had these doubts, they should have told the president. You know, I wish he'd come out and say it, because knowing him, I can't believe he didn't [say anything], because that would be his nature. But I wasn't there, so I don't know. That's the other part of the equation: Only George was there. To have a debate within the service, that's not unusual; that's part of what intelligence work is. ... It should have been figured in, and George is the one who should have done it. Or if it was done and it was ignored, then that's a different issue. But that I don't know. Again, that's the murky part of it.

[revelarts]

It's hard to say what Bush didn't know. I've stated in the past that Bush may not have been in the loop for all of the best intel, just as Gen Powell and col. Wilkerson were out of the loop and feed "curveball" and other crap.
Chenney and Rumsfeld however , I'm convinced, knew full well that the WMD threat was hype. Tennant as well.

I don't know which is worse the President NOT knowing his people are feeding him bad intel and pushing his country into war with it.
Or a President knowing the intel's bad and pushing your country into an aggressive war of invasion with it.

[Robert A Whit]

It's hard to say what Bush didn't know. I've stated in the past that Bush may not have been in the loop for all of the best intel, just as Gen Powell and col. Wilkerson were out of the loop and feed "curveball" and other crap.
Chenney and Rumsfeld however , I'm convinced, knew full well that the WMD threat was hype. Tennant as well.

I don't know which is worse the President NOT knowing his people are feeding him bad intel and pushing his country into war with it.
Or a President knowing the intel's bad and pushing your country into an aggressive war of invasion with it.

Some points.
1. Bush came to office understanding that the USA official policy was to get rid of Saddam.
2. Naturally since Saddam kept shooting at the aircraft of both the USA and Britain, it is easy to see why the congress was bipartisan with Bush against Saddam and gave him full power to use an invasion to remove Saddam.
3. All presidents rely on the intelligence. They will act to save this nation if the intel is so solid.
4. Bush was in the loop with the best intel.
5. A nation that wants war will have war. The USA had been primed since 1990 to go to war with Saddam. Saddam was at the time considered the worst global problem.

I dunno but with so many Americans wanting war, how could Bush done different?

Cheney gets the blame but Cheney was not the boss.

[revelarts]

Some points.
Robert A Whit 1. Bush came to office understanding that the USA official policy was to get rid of Saddam.
Who's policy? After Bush 1 nearly everyone was agreed that it made no sense. and in the campaign W was against "nation building"

Robert A Whit 2. Naturally since Saddam kept shooting at the aircraft of both the USA and Britain, it is easy to see why the congress was bipartisan with Bush against Saddam and gave him full power to use an invasion to remove Saddam.
Only After months of WMD hype.

Robert A Whit 3. All presidents rely on the intelligence. They will act to save this nation if the intel is so solid.
Yes, but it wasn't solid. it was lies. the only question is did he know or not.

Robert A Whit 4. Bush was in the loop with the best intel.
Then he knew what Powell said to the U.N. was a pack of lies.

Robert A Whit 5. A nation that wants war will have war. The USA had been primed since 1990 to go to war with Saddam. Saddam was at the time considered the worst global problem.
A president that want's wars can try really hard to gin it up, the people had been primed with lies after 911 that saddam was threat.
many people in the U.S. did not want to go to war with Iraq. most were ready to attack Afghanistan but Iraq was the administrations war not the people's.

Robert A Whit: I dunno but with so many Americans wanting war, how could Bush done different?
After making Saddam a boggieman many americans were still not ready to go back into Iraq.
And as Bush himself stated
"I'm the decider", He requested congressional authorization. the people didn't petition congress to go to war with Iraq.
And Iraq NEVER attacked us. The "bush doctrine" was begun "preemptive war".

Robert A Whit: Cheney gets the blame but Cheney was not the boss.
Your right, but everyone should get credit where credit is due.

[Robert A Whit]

Robert A Whit 1. Bush came to office understanding that the USA official policy was to get rid of Saddam.
Who's policy? After Bush 1 nearly everyone was agreed that it made no sense. and in the campaign W was against "nation building"

A] USA policy signed into law by Bill Clinton. Actually what Bush did had wide support in the congress and the public.

Robert A Whit 2. Naturally since Saddam kept shooting at the aircraft of both the USA and Britain, it is easy to see why the congress was bipartisan with Bush against Saddam and gave him full power to use an invasion to remove Saddam.

Only After months of WMD hype.

Congress spent a lot of time hyping up the public including the most senior Democrats.

Robert A Whit 3. All presidents rely on the intelligence. They will act to save this nation if the intel is so solid.
Yes, but it wasn't solid. it was lies. the only question is did he know or not.

Bush did not know. The most senior including congress closely examined the evidence and Bush acted on the collected evidence. All but a particular small group agreed.

Robert A Whit 4. Bush was in the loop with the best intel.
Then he knew what Powell said to the U.N. was a pack of lies.

No that is not true. Do you believe Powell would lie as you claim?

Robert A Whit 5. A nation that wants war will have war. The USA had been primed since 1990 to go to war with Saddam. Saddam was at the time considered the worst global problem.
A president that want's wars can try really hard to gin it up, the people had been primed with lies after 911 that saddam was threat

Oh god no. We were primed when we attacked Saddam during his fathers time in office.


many people in the U.S. did not want to go to war with Iraq. most were ready to attack Afghanistan but Iraq was the administrations war not the people's.

Bush took on Afghanistan with air power. But boots on the ground ... hardly any there. While any war this country engaged in had detractors, the majority backed Bush.

Robert A Whit: I dunno but with so many Americans wanting war, how could Bush done different?
After making Saddam a boggieman many americans were still not ready to go back into Iraq.
And as Bush himself stated
"I'm the decider", He requested congressional authorization. the people didn't petition congress to go to war with Iraq.
And Iraq NEVER attacked us. The "bush doctrine" was begun "preemptive war".

Too bad you have not read the books I recommended you read. You are accepting the talented Democrats version of events.

Robert A Whit: Cheney gets the blame but Cheney was not the boss.
Your right, but everyone should get credit where credit is due.

History is too recent for those of us knowing it very well to allow things to stand that simply are not correct. This is my mission. Take my view on Iraq. I personally would not have approved the attack but I am not the president.

[revelarts]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasi on_of_Iraq


January 2003

Protests in Portland, Oregon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland,_Oregon) in March 2006


Approximately two-thirds of respondents wanted the government to wait for the UN inspections to end, and only 31% supported using military force immediately. This same poll showed that a majority believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but did not expect UN inspectors to find them. These numbers indicated a dramatic drop in support, as, two months prior, most polls showed about two-thirds of those polled supporting military action. However, about 60% of those polled also supported, if necessary, the use of military action to remove Saddam from power which closely mirrored recent polls taken by Time Magazine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Magazine), CNN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN), Fox News (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News), USA Today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Today), CBS News (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_News), and other news organizations.[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] Polls also showed that most Americans did not think that Saddam was co-operating with inspectors.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasi on_of_Iraq#cite_note-7)

Polls also suggested that most Americans would still like to see more evidence against Iraq, and for UN weapons inspections to continue before making an invasion. For example, an ABC news poll reported than only 10% of Americans favored giving the inspectors less than a few weeks; 41% favored giving them a few weeks, 33% a few months, and 13% more than that.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasi on_of_Iraq#cite_note-Polling_Report-2)
A consistent pattern in the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion was that higher percentages of the population supported the impending war in polls that offered only two options (for or against) than in polls that broke down support into three or more options given (distinguishing unconditional support for the war, opposition to the war even if weapons inspectors do their job, and support if and only if inspection crews are allowed time to investigate first).
Some polls also showed that the majority of Americans believed that President Bush had made his case against Iraq. The Gallup poll, for example, found that 67% of those who watched the speech felt that the case had been made, which was a jump from 47% just prior the speech. However, many more Republicans than Democrats watched the speech, so this may not be an accurate reflection of the overall opinion of the American public. An ABC news poll found little difference in the percentage of Americans who felt that Bush has made his case for war after he had made his speech, with the percentage remaining at about 40%.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasi on_of_Iraq#cite_note-Polling_Report-2)
February 2003

President George W. Bush addresses the nation (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html) from the Oval Office, March 19, 2003, to announce the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." The Senate committee found that many of the administration's pre-war statements about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were not supported by the underlying intelligence.


Following Powell's February 5 speech at the UN, most polls, like one conducted by CNN and NBC, showed increased support for the invasion. Tim Russert, NBC's Washington bureau chief, said the increases in support were "largely" due to president Bush's State of the Union speech in January and to Powell's presentation on February 5, which most viewers felt offered strong evidence for action against Iraq. Bush's approval ratings climbed seven points, and support for the invasion increased by four points. Only 27% opposed military action, the smallest percentage since the polls began in April 2002. The percentage of Americans supporting an invasion without UN support jumped eight points to 37%. 49% of those polled felt that President Bush had prepared the country for war and its potential risks, a 9 point jump from the previous month.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasi on_of_Iraq#cite_note-8) A Gallup poll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_poll) showed the majority of the population erroneously believed Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11.




Where did the public get the idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?
who was on TV promoting that idea strongly? Mostly the Bush administration and freinds. Where did people get the idea that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. MOSTLY the Bush Administration. (saddam's people met with Al qeada in Prague... therefoooore...)
Were there democrats that supported the war yes yes yes, Were they leading the call to war? NO. they were following hoping not to look weak and spotty compared to the Butch Chicken hawk NeoCon on the right.

[Robert A Whit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasi on_of_Iraq




Where did the public get the idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?
who was on TV promoting that idea strongly? Mostly the Bush administration and freinds. Where did people get the idea that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. MOSTLY the Bush Administration. (saddam's people met with Al qeada in Prague... therefoooore...)
Were there democrats that supported the war yes yes yes, Were they leading the call to war? NO. they were following hoping not to look weak and spotty compared to the Butch Chicken hawk NeoCon on the right.

Well, in the 90s, it was Bill Clinton and his crew. So much so he signed a public law declaring an end to Saddam. Naturally the new president Bush, believing the Clinton crew must know what is going on, kept the sanctions going. Naturally Saddam kept shoting at our aircraft. This is an act of war.

At first, like Bill Clinton, Bush did not have the guts to end the problem. But as we now know, Bush changed his mind and ended the Saddam problem. \\
i remain puzzled as to your whitewash of democrats.

[revelarts]

Well, in the 90s, it was Bill Clinton and his crew. So much so he signed a public law declaring an end to Saddam. Naturally the new president Bush, believing the Clinton crew must know what is going on, kept the sanctions going. Naturally Saddam kept shoting at our aircraft. This is an act of war.

At first, like Bill Clinton, Bush did not have the guts to end the problem. But as we now know, Bush changed his mind and ended the Saddam problem. \\
i remain puzzled as to your whitewash of democrats.

:rolleyes:
Clinton was wrong too. . why must i alway repeat the the democrats are just as bad. when i criticize a republican.

If 2 people rape a woman. talking about the one doesn't mean You've "white washed" or forgotten about the other.
but i like to give credit where credit is due. When we talk about Clinton's role i'll point the finger his way for what he did.
You've been defending Bush. I'm defending neither.



<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mOMGyxIaBxE?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Cheney 1994 after Bush seniors invasion, when Cheney was sane.
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6BEsZMvrq-I?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

[Robert A Whit]

[QUOTE=revelarts;654307]:rolleyes:
Clinton was wrong too. . why must i alway repeat the the democrats are just as bad. when i criticize a republican.

If 2 people rape a woman. talking about the one doesn't mean You've "white washed" or forgotten about the other.
but i like to give credit where credit is due. When we talk about Clinton's role i'll point the finger his way for what he did.
You've been defending Bush. I'm defending neither.
/QUOTE]

What blame do you place on Colin Powell, given he spent an enormous amount of time at CIA closely examining the entire evidence and he told Bush to go ahead?

[Kathianne]

Just going to dive in.

Bush 43 entered office assuming the mantle of a domestic president. He had 0 plans on dealing with Saddam or foreign affairs beyond day-to-day stuff.

He ran on that and seriously that is what he wanted to focus on, domestic. He wanted to address illegal immigration, if he'd been able to focus, he would have run into problems with his base much earlier on. He got around to in 2nd term and did run into problems with his base.

Nope, 9/11 changed Bush's focus. It wasn't about 'getting Saddam' it really was in preventing any repeats. Iraq was not behind 9/11 and never was mentioned for being so. What basically happened was that since Afghanistan and bin Laden were now going to be the priorities, Iraq couldn't remain on hold, as it had been since the 'cease fire.' Another Korea was not going to work.

[revelarts]

[QUOTE=revelarts;654307]:rolleyes:
Clinton was wrong too. . why must i alway repeat the the democrats are just as bad. when i criticize a republican.

If 2 people rape a woman. talking about the one doesn't mean You've "white washed" or forgotten about the other.
but i like to give credit where credit is due. When we talk about Clinton's role i'll point the finger his way for what he did.
You've been defending Bush. I'm defending neither.
/QUOTE]

What blame do you place on Colin Powell, given he spent an enormous amount of time at CIA closely examining the entire evidence and he told Bush to go ahead?

As I mentioned above Gen. Powell was not in "the loop". He was feed bad intel by Tenet. Col Wilkerson states this Flatly in multiple interviews. He said Powell and He he badgered Tenet and his people on whether or not the info they were going to present was rock solid and they were Assure it was. When it was known by tenent and many in the CIA and Elsewhere that it was NOT.
Col Wilkerson says Powell INSISTED that Tenent come with him and sit behind him in the U.N..
this was suppose to show where the info came from Gen. Powell was .

[revelarts]

Just going to dive in.

Bush 43 entered office assuming the mantle of a domestic president. He had 0 plans on dealing with Saddam or foreign affairs beyond day-to-day stuff.

He ran on that and seriously that is what he wanted to focus on, domestic. He wanted to address illegal immigration, if he'd been able to focus, he would have run into problems with his base much earlier on. He got around to in 2nd term and did run into problems with his base.

Nope, 9/11 changed Bush's focus. It wasn't about 'getting Saddam' it really was in preventing any repeats. Iraq was not behind 9/11 and never was mentioned for being so. What basically happened was that since Afghanistan and bin Laden were now going to be the priorities, Iraq couldn't remain on hold, as it had been since the 'cease fire.' Another Korea was not going to work.

what did Rice and Gen. Powell say in the interviews.
that Saddam was not a threat. "...he was contained..." "...Not able to project..."

911 didn't MAKE him any more of a threat. period.
yet after 911 in contrast to the Administration previous assessment suddenly.. Bush
"...Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. "

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021007-8.html

the "realities" given in that and other speeches were a mix of old news, half truths, lies and over hyped fears and suspicions used to try to convince the public that Saddam was a threat that needed to attacked ASAP or else.



According to NBC's chief Pentagon correspondent, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that his "interest is to hit Saddam Hussein" just hours after the attacks on September 11, 2001, "even though all indications pointed at al-Qaida as the guilty party," a Rhode Island newspaper reports. At the annual Business Expo at the Rhode Island Convention Center Tuesday, NBC's Jim Miklaszewski "advanced a theme garnering attention since former CIA director George J. Tenet made his public revelations last week," writes Tom Mooney for the Providence Journal.
"Some things are right on the mark, when he says the Bush administration appeared predisposed to attack Iraq," Miklaszewski says of Tenet's book At the Center of the Storm.
The NBC correspondent's "information" comes from "off the record" notes given to him from an unidentified person who was "in the White House situation room in the hours after the attacks."
"However, the notes describe, Miklaszewski said, then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld vowing to avenge the terrorist attacks by voicing frustration that attacks against the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983 and the attack on the Cole, in 2000, had gone unavenged," Mooney writes. "Reading from his notes, Miklaszewski quoted Rumsfeld as saying five hours after the terrorist attacks: 'My interest is to hit Saddam Hussein at the same time we go after al-Qaida.'"...


Rumsfiled:
"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Hours_after_911_attacks_Rumsfeld_allegedly_0502.ht ml





...Both Cheney and President Bush are strongly disputing suggestions that the commission's conclusion that there were no Iraqi fingerprints on the 9/11 attacks contradicts statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday, saying that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," the president said. (Full story (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/Bush.alqaeda/index.html))

In his CNBC interview, Cheney went a bit further. Asked if Iraq was involved in 9/11, he said, "We don't know."....



Since we all know many people are only half paying attention to what the President and Cheney say, is it any surprise that many THOUGHT they said Saddam had a hand in 911. so they believed we should attack them. I've seen interviews with some 911 victim family members, who believed Bush said saddam was involved and therefore they fully supported the attack on Iraq. it wasn't until later that they realized "that's not exactly what they said".
The implication was there. It was misleading in the extreme for many people.
AND flies in the face of the OVERWHELMING evidence that the Saudis DID have connections with the 911 attacks. yet were rarely -NEVER?- mentioned as having terrorist ties with Alqeada, Harboring or FUNDING terrorist etc

Add to that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfiwitz had already written in the PNAC document during the Clinton admin. that they thought a new pearl harbor like event would be a good excuse to attack Iraq.
sadly we had a Pearl harbor type event.
and quotes from Rumsfled to "USE IT".

I'm not sure what else we need to close the circle on the games played on, officials in gov't, the U.S. public and the world to convince folks to go war with Iraq.

[revelarts]

Just going to dive in.

Bush 43 entered office assuming the mantle of a domestic president. He had 0 plans on dealing with Saddam or foreign affairs beyond day-to-day stuff.

He ran on that and seriously that is what he wanted to focus on, domestic. He wanted to address illegal immigration, if he'd been able to focus, he would have run into problems with his base much earlier on. He got around to in 2nd term and did run into problems with his base.

Nope, 9/11 changed Bush's focus. It wasn't about 'getting Saddam' it really was in preventing any repeats. Iraq was not behind 9/11 and never was mentioned for being so. What basically happened was that since Afghanistan and bin Laden were now going to be the priorities, Iraq couldn't remain on hold, as it had been since the 'cease fire.' Another Korea was not going to work.

CNN: Gov Bush Jan 2000 Iowa caucus
BLITZER: It's almost exactly nine years since your dad, the president of the United States, accepted a cease-fire with Saddam Hussein in Iraq in exchange for full Iraqi agreement to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. But for the last year, there have been no weapons inspection teams in Iraq at all. If you were president today, what would you do about it?
BUSH: I would continue to keep the pressure on the Iraqi government. I would continue to insist that inspectors be left -- allowed into the country. I would continue to insist that Iraq complied with the cease-fire arrangement.
BLITZER: But they're in violation of the agreement right now.
BUSH: Absolutely. Absolutely. And we shouldn't be sending mixed signals. And if any time I found that the Iraqi's were developing weapons of mass destruction, they wouldn't exist any more.
BLITZER: Who wouldn't exist, the weapons?
BUSH: The weapons of mass destruction, yes. I'm not going to -- they just need to hear that from a potential president, that if we catch them in violation of the agreement, if we in any way, shape or form find out that they're developing weapons of mass destruction that there will be action taken, and they can just guess what that action might be.
BLITZER: And you're not going to spell it out here today?
BUSH: No, sir.
BLITZER: You're not going to spell it out here today?
BUSH: No, sir.



http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../16/le.00.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/16/le.00.html)

[Robert A Whit]

Just going to dive in.

Bush 43 entered office assuming the mantle of a domestic president. He had 0 plans on dealing with Saddam or foreign affairs beyond day-to-day stuff.

He ran on that and seriously that is what he wanted to focus on, domestic. He wanted to address illegal immigration, if he'd been able to focus, he would have run into problems with his base much earlier on. He got around to in 2nd term and did run into problems with his base.

Nope, 9/11 changed Bush's focus. It wasn't about 'getting Saddam' it really was in preventing any repeats. Iraq was not behind 9/11 and never was mentioned for being so. What basically happened was that since Afghanistan and bin Laden were now going to be the priorities, Iraq couldn't remain on hold, as it had been since the 'cease fire.' Another Korea was not going to work.

Got to pretty much agree with that.

Bush also had huge plans to improve education.

[Robert A Whit]

[QUOTE=Robert A Whit;654310]

As I mentioned above Gen. Powell was not in "the loop". He was feed bad intel by Tenet. Col Wilkerson states this Flatly in multiple interviews. He said Powell and He he badgered Tenet and his people on whether or not the info they were going to present was rock solid and they were Assure it was. When it was known by tenent and many in the CIA and Elsewhere that it was NOT.
Col Wilkerson says Powell INSISTED that Tenent come with him and sit behind him in the U.N..
this was suppose to show where the info came from Gen. Powell was .

I would not go so far as to claim he was out of the loop but given he spent several weeks on his own at the CIA to learn the truth, and told Bush it is a go, we know that Bush was no better informed than Bush or for that matter the congress. I find no reference to your Col. Wilkerson in any of my books. Powell as a General had plenty of pull. Bush did a fair amount of badgering too trying to be certain. Tenet told Bush, it's a slam dunk.

I would not claim Tenet knew there was no WMD. I still believe that Gen. Sada told the truth when he stated publically that Saddam moved it shortly ahead of the invasion to Syria. As to Tenet being at the UN, sure but I don't know why he went but tend to doubt he did it due to Powell. Maybe he just liked Powell and felt it might send the signal the CIA backed him up. But Bush had no reason to doubt Powell or Tenet.

[Robert A Whit]

what did Rice and Gen. Powell say in the interviews.
that Saddam was not a threat. "...he was contained..." "...Not able to project..."

911 didn't MAKE him any more of a threat. period.
yet after 911 in contrast to the Administration previous assessment suddenly.. Bush
"...Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. "

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...0021007-8.html (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021007-8.html)

the "realities" given in that and other speeches were a mix of old news, half truths, lies and over hyped fears and suspicions used to try to convince the public that Saddam was a threat that needed to attacked ASAP or else.

You said Gen. Powell was out of the loop so why are you speaking of his statements? When he got into the loop (your statement) at the CIA he informed Bush it was true.

We don't know what Saddam would have done since he was tried and hung.

For some odd reason you bend over backwards favoring Powell and perhaps Condoleeza Rice yet keep this going against Bush who knew as much as he was told.

[Robert A Whit]

Don Rumsfeld would have been an idiot to not suggest Iraq be looked at in the wake of 911.

Bush however tabled Iraq and said he planned to deal with Afghanistan.

Naturally since the USA policy was to get rid of Saddam, in a public law signed by Clinton, once Afghanistan was out of the way, they wanted Iraq to conform to the UN resolutions and finally resolution 1441 was created by the UN and Bush took that as agreement that Saddam must go.

[Robert A Whit]

Revelarts, you still want to put the blame on Bush. This is very sad that you cherry pick what you think supports your angst against Bush and favors your claims. Such as this claim by Revelarts.


Add to that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfiwitz had already written in the PNAC document during the Clinton admin. that they thought a new pearl harbor like event would be a good excuse to attack Iraq.
sadly we had a Pearl harbor type event.
and quotes from Rumsfled to "USE IT".

PNAC documents don't matter at all. They did not want some pearl harbor like event to cause war with Iraq. That takes from the PNAC to just make up things.

Records from the meetings with Cheney and Rumsfeld attending show that it would be derelict to not bring up Iraq since he had for a long time been the target of the USA. What you don't understand because you stubbornly refuse to read the books that really help you, is that Bush took out Saddam for several reasons.
1. Bush believed that Saddam was a grave and gathering danger.
2, Bush was sick of the daily war actions by Saddam in shooting at our aircraft.
3. Bush took the UN resolutions far more serious than did Saddam.
4. Saddam had a way of looking guilty. Even if he had no WMC, he gave off vibes he had it, such as by being a pain in the ass to the inspectors and making sure he hid important things. I can't explain why but Saddam acted petulant as if he could flip us the bird and nothing would happen.

Bush invaded.

Your entire aim is to blame Bush. Nobody else, just Bush.

Read the books. I listed them for you. Sooner or later you must learn the truth. You won't believe posters but at least educate yourself.

[revelarts]

...


Kathianne reference for one of my quotes
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

[QUOTE=Robert A Whit;654310]

As I mentioned above Gen. Powell was not in "the loop". He was feed bad intel by Tenet. Col Wilkerson states this Flatly in multiple interviews. He said Powell and He he badgered Tenet and his people on whether or not the info they were going to present was rock solid and they were Assure it was. When it was known by tenent and many in the CIA and Elsewhere that it was NOT.
Col Wilkerson says Powell INSISTED that Tenent come with him and sit behind him in the U.N..
this was suppose to show where the info came from Gen. Powell was . Powell may have been misled on that but his betrayal by supporting Obama smacks of the lowest kind of treachery IMHO. I ONCE THOUGHT HE WAS THE GUY THAT SHOULD BE THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT. Damn sure gave that one up when he stabbed everybody in the back by supporting Obama in his first election.Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=654310#post654310)

As I mentioned above Gen. Powell was not in "the loop". He was feed bad intel by Tenet. Col Wilkerson states this Flatly in multiple interviews. He said Powell and He he badgered Tenet and his people on whether or not the info they were going to present was rock solid and they were Assure it was. When it was known by tenent and many in the CIA and Elsewhere that it was NOT.
Col Wilkerson says Powell INSISTED that Tenent come with him and sit behind him in the U.N..
this was suppose to show where the info came from Gen. Powell was .


[QUOTE=revelarts;654369] Powell may have been misled on that but his betrayal by supporting Obama smacks of the lowest kind of treachery IMHO. I ONCE THOUGHT HE WAS THE GUY THAT SHOULD BE THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT. Damn sure gave that one up when he stabbed everybody in the back by supporting Obama in his first election.Tyr

I used to also admire Gen. Powell. But perhaps it is that he is black that he sold out the USA to help Obama. Obama is still to this day the most incompetent president in my lifetime.

[revelarts]

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you, Colonel Wilkerson, talking about your having written that speech for Colin Powell, how you put it together. And at that time, because there was so much skepticism, did you have doubts about what you were writing?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON: Absolutely, Amy. My whole team had doubts. In fact, we asked the question early on, why wasn’t this our ambassador at the United Nations, John Negroponte, as Adlai Stevenson had done for Kennedy during a far more serious crisis in October 1962, the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis? And we all laughed and answered our own question immediately. It was because no one in the Bush administration had high poll ratings, amongst the American people or the international community. Colin Powell’s ratings were up there with Mother Teresa at the time, in the low seventies, sometimes even going up into the high seventies, low eighties. So this is the reason they put him in New York.

And I didn’t write the speech. That belongs to his speechwriters. I actually orchestrated the entire team—the White House team, the CIA team and so forth—out at Langley at CIA headquarters. And the way we did that was under the leadership and under the respect for and really the umbrella of George Tenet, the director of Central Intelligence/head of the CIA. And George was constantly asked by me, by Colin Powell, by Rich Armitage, by Condoleezza Rice and others—she was national security adviser at the time—in front of everyone on that team, "You stand by this, George? You corroborate to the Secretary of State that you have multiple sources independently determining each one of these facts that we’re giving?" And we threw lots of the facts out. We threw literally a third of the presentation out. The unfortunate thing is that we left in what George was most convincing on, and that was the mobile biological laboratories, the existing stocks of chemical weapons, and worst of all, an active nuclear program. And as I said, I will regret that to my grave.
AMY GOODMAN: How did the intelligence get so contaminated, manipulated? How was it so wrong?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON: In my view, you have to look at each one of the so-called pillars of the presentation, the three that I just named being the most prominent. "Curveball," we didn’t even know that term when George Tenet was presenting us the information about the mobile biological labs. Curveball, as we all know now, was an agent being run by the BND, the CIA’s equivalent in Germany. And the Germans, as well as the CIA station chief in Germany—or in Europe, actually, Tyler Drumheller, had expressed their dismay with and lack of reliability of Curveball. And yet, we went ahead and used that information. George Tenet or John McLaughlin, his deputy, never said a word about Curveball to us. They simply gave us four independently corroborable sources for the existence of the labs. They even gave us drawings, and so forth, of those labs, that had supposedly come from an Iraqi engineer who was injured in an accident that occurred in one of the labs that actually kill people, testifying to the lethality of the ingredients being used in the labs. So, we had all of this prima facie, circumstantial, if you will, evidence that George Tenet and his team presented to us, indeed representing the entire 16—at that time, 16-entity U.S. intelligence community.
The same on the chemical stocks, the same on the active nuclear program, aluminum tubes of which was a big aspect of. Colin Powell doubted them so much that John McLaughlin actually brought one of them in and rolled it around on the DCI’s conference table and explained to the Secretary of State how the metal in that tube was so expensive that it was impossible to believe that Saddam Hussein would be spending that much money on tubes that were simply for rocket shielding, which was the other explanation of what the tubes were for. So, the DCI and the deputy DCI spent a lot of time and effort trying to convince the Secretary of State not to throw things out of the presentation. Unfortunately, we left enough in that made us really sort of the laughing stock of the world afterward.


http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/30/ex_bush_official_col_lawrence_wilkerson

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_CBKFS5SFlU?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>


Former Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski assigned to the pentagon

...back in May 2002, when as a Lt Colonel in the Air Force, I was assigned to the Near East South Asia office, the home of what would become the Office of Special Plans. What the Pentagon senior civilian staff and the President were saying about Iraq that summer did not match the intelligence I'd been looking at regularly for well over four years. Furthermore, it did not pass the logic test.

It appeared that a small group of people, politically appointed neoconservatives who missed the political clarity of the Cold War, and saw 9-11 as a "new Pearl Harbor," were itching for an invasion of Iraq.

Had I been paying attention, I would have known that these particular civilians had been itching for an invasion of Iraq for some time. Some had even been in government before the current regime, such as House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former CIA Director James Woolsey. But I never suspected that the intelligence system would be corrupted to the extent it was in 2002, and that the mainstream media and leaders of both political parties would genuflect to a war president, and salivate at the thought of more war overseas.

I never thought that so many would lie so much, and so loudly, for so little. I was unfamiliar with the political process in Washington. I was unfamiliar with the fundamental nature of defense spending, and our long-term strategies for base building abroad. And lastly, I had never heard of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby that had extremely close ties to many of the policy decision-makers overseeing Iraq invasion planning and propaganda, influence over a great many legislators in both parties, and at the time, was actively lobbying for an American toppling of Saddam Hussein.

I moved my retirement date up a few months and just after I retired, in July 2003, Knight-Ridder newspapers published an op-ed where I discussed the functional isolation of the policy-makers, their cross-agency cliques of likeminded ideologues, and the groupthink that afflicted them in the rush to war.

I realize today that I was far too kind...

[Robert A Whit]

Revelarts, clearly in reading your tomes, the blame goes to the senior man at the CIA. George Tenet is your actual target.

But he had spent years knowing of the Saddam WMD so in my opinion, Tenet did not believe that Saddam had got rid of all of it. Most of us felt Saddam lied and lied and in a nation the size of Iraq, had it hidden. It still might happen that a dump to hold that stuff exists in Iraq or perhaps Syria as Gen. Sada claimed in his book.

[revelarts]

Just going to dive in.

Bush 43 entered office assuming the mantle of a domestic president. He had 0 plans on dealing with Saddam or foreign affairs beyond day-to-day stuff.

He ran on that and seriously that is what he wanted to focus on, domestic. He wanted to address illegal immigration, if he'd been able to focus, he would have run into problems with his base much earlier on. He got around to in 2nd term and did run into problems with his base.

Nope, 9/11 changed Bush's focus. It wasn't about 'getting Saddam' it really was in preventing any repeats. Iraq was not behind 9/11 and never was mentioned for being so. What basically happened was that since Afghanistan and bin Laden were now going to be the priorities, Iraq couldn't remain on hold, as it had been since the 'cease fire.' Another Korea was not going to work.


the adminstration was trying to make the alqeada connection in Powels U.N. speech

AMY GOODMAN: You said in 2009—I think this is what you’re getting to now—in the Washington Note, an online political journal, you talked about how finding a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qaeda became the main purpose for the abusive interrogation program that the Bush administration authorized in 2002.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON: In summer of 2002, my FBI colleagues, my CIA colleagues, who will speak the truth to me, have told me that. I’ve also gleaned it from other methods that I can’t talk about here on the television. Someday they will come to light, and historians will record them. But let me explain to you how Colin Powell dealt with that in his presentation, to return to that infamous moment again. We were throwing out—he had pulled me aside in the National Intelligence Council spaces in the CIA, put me in a room, he and I alone, and he told me he was going to throw all the presentation material about the connection between Baghdad and al-Qaeda out, completely out. I welcomed that, because I thought it was all bogus.
Within about an hour, George Tenet, having scented that something was wrong with the Secretary vis-à-vis this part of his presentation, suddenly unleashes on all in his conference room that they have just gotten the results of an interrogation of a high-level al-Qaeda operative, and those results not only confirm substantial contacts between an al-Qaeda and Baghdad, the Mukhabarat and Baghdad, the secret police, if you will, but also the fact that they were training, they were actually training al-Qaeda operatives in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Well, this was devastating. Here’s the DCI telling us that a high-level al-Qaeda operative had confirmed all of this. So Powell put at least part of that back into his presentation.

We later learned that that was through interrogation methods that used waterboarding, that no U.S. personnel were present at the time—it was done in Cairo, Egypt, and it was done by the Egyptians—and that later, within a week or two period, the high-level al-Qaeda operative recanted everything he had said. We further learned that the Defense Intelligence Agency had issued immediately a warning on that, saying that they didn’t trust the reliability of it due to the interrogation methods. We were never shown that DIA dissent, and we were never told about the circumstances under which the high-level al-Qaeda operative was interrogated. Tenet simply used it as a bombshell to convince the secretary not to throw that part, which was a very effective part, if you will recall, out of his presentation.



http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/30/ex_bush_official_col_lawrence_wilkerson

[Kathianne]

the adminstration was trying to make the alqeada connection in Powels U.N. speech


http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/30/ex_bush_official_col_lawrence_wilkerson

Rev, I know where you are coming from, I just don't see what you see.

I worked on Bush's campaign, I personally attended 5 of his appearances. I was paid for part of the time that he was campaigning. I really, really listened.

He had little interest in foreign affairs, he was all about the end of Cold War and time to focus on the challenges at home, including immigration reform and education.

When he finally was allowed to claim victory, again he emphasized domestic policies and challenges at home. He was all about other countries picking themselves up and doing the same. Certainly was pro-trade, but not pro-intervention.

The summer of 2001 was as boring as one can remember. Top stories were Chicago heat and Monica Lewinsky making purses or hats or something. The only 'news' regarding Washington was NCLB discussions and the fact that Bush still had not named many ambassadors and judges.

Not once were terrorism or the Middle East a focus, including Iraq.

September changed that, at least until his 2nd term.

[revelarts]

Rev, I know where you are coming from, I just don't see what you see.

I worked on Bush's campaign, I personally attended 5 of his appearances. I was paid for part of the time that he was campaigning. I really, really listened.

He had little interest in foreign affairs, he was all about the end of Cold War and time to focus on the challenges at home, including immigration reform and education.

When he finally was allowed to claim victory, again he emphasized domestic policies and challenges at home. He was all about other countries picking themselves up and doing the same. Certainly was pro-trade, but not pro-intervention.

The summer of 2001 was as boring as one can remember. Top stories were Chicago heat and Monica Lewinsky making purses or hats or something. The only 'news' regarding Washington was NCLB discussions and the fact that Bush still had not named many ambassadors and judges.

Not once were terrorism or the Middle East a focus, including Iraq.

September changed that, at least until his 2nd term.

I'm not saying you are wrong about the focus in the Bush campaign. I'm not saying the front burner issues he talked about were aggressive foriegn policy. I know it wasn't. I voted for THAT guy.
All I'm saying is that the few times when Bush did talk about about Iraq in the campaign he did make a few fairly aggressive statements.
That Chenney, Rumsfled, Wolfiwitz and others of Bush's team had Made EXTREMELY aggressive statements about Iraq ... in writing before 2000. And that after 911 the evidence seems to show shows those guys lead the rest of the gov't by the nose to get everyone on board a fast train to war against Iraq, no matter the facts. Just where or why Bush got on the train i'm still not sure. However he did make lots of untrue/misleading statements about Iraq after 911. Whether he knew they were untrue, i can't say for sure. But he did lead the march toward war where it wasn't justified on the information it was promoted with.
And MANY in the gov't knew, it seems clear to me.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by revelarts http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=654415#post654415)
the adminstration was trying to make the alqeada connection in Powels U.N. speech


http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/3...ence_wilkerson (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/30/ex_bush_official_col_lawrence_wilkerson)


Rev, I know where you are coming from, I just don't see what you see.

I worked on Bush's campaign, I personally attended 5 of his appearances. I was paid for part of the time that he was campaigning. I really, really listened.

He had little interest in foreign affairs, he was all about the end of Cold War and time to focus on the challenges at home, including immigration reform and education.

When he finally was allowed to claim victory, again he emphasized domestic policies and challenges at home. He was all about other countries picking themselves up and doing the same. Certainly was pro-trade, but not pro-intervention.

The summer of 2001 was as boring as one can remember. Top stories were Chicago heat and Monica Lewinsky making purses or hats or something. The only 'news' regarding Washington was NCLB discussions and the fact that Bush still had not named many ambassadors and judges.

Not once were terrorism or the Middle East a focus, including Iraq.

September changed that, at least until his 2nd term.

Many people close to Bush will verify that. Good books explain a lot. And cross checking said books is awesome.

I clearly accept Kathianne's explanation.