NYT: C.I.A. Held Back Iraqi Arms Data, U.S. Officials Say (H2O Man??)

[iconoclastic cat]

Hmm...does this mean the fight is on?
****

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/06/politics/06INTE.html?hp

C.I.A. Held Back Iraqi Arms Data, U.S. Officials Say
By JAMES RISEN

ASHINGTON, July 5 — The Central Intelligence Agency was told by relatives of Iraqi scientists before the war that Baghdad's programs to develop unconventional weapons had been abandoned, but the C.I.A. failed to give that information to President Bush, even as he publicly warned of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons, according to government officials.

The existence of a secret prewar C.I.A. operation to debrief relatives of Iraqi scientists — and the agency's failure to give their statements to the president and other policymakers — has been uncovered by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The panel has been investigating the government's handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq's unconventional weapons and plans to release a wide-ranging report this week on the first phase of its inquiry. The report is expected to contain a scathing indictment of the C.I.A. and its leaders for failing to recognize that the evidence they had collected did not justify their assessment that Mr. Hussein had illicit weapons.
****

[Radical Activist]

1. Passing the buck?

I wonder if it will work.

[iconoclastic cat]

2. That goes beyond passing the buck.

If Syndey Bristow has taught us anything, it's that you don't Cheney with the CIA! (Slap!Slap!Slap!)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

3. Bullcrap. Tenet told FratBoy not to use information on Iraqi WMDs in...

...his State of the Union address because that information coulc not be verified. Tenet also told Powell not to use the same information in his speech to the UN for the exact same reasons. The NeoCons used the information on Iraqi WMDs that was fabricated by British intelligence and the NeoCon, Pentagon-based OSP.

This is nothing but a story fed to the NY Times attempting to shift the blame away from the NeoCons to Tenet and the CIA.

I'll be interested to see what the CIA leaks to the press over the next few days.

[Octafish]

27. Tenet won't be covered by Executive Privilege on July 11.

Wonder if he's up to outing the BFEE for what it is?

Tenet's Perjury and Resignation

by Mark Levey
published by Democrats.com

Reporters for the major papers may have missed the first page of the biggest story since the 9/11 attacks. When his resignation becomes effective July 11, 2004, CIA Director George Tenet will no longer be covered by Executive Privilege. He may then be compelled to testify about what he as a Director of Central Intelligence told the President regarding several matters about which both he and Bush have thus far displayed a startling lack of candor.

Tenet will no doubt be pressed to truthfully answer what he said to George W. Bush in the weeks before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Owing to his perjury before the 9/11 Commission, Tenet has also forfeited his qualified immunity on topics relevant to his meetings with the President in August and early September 2001. This will give potential prosecutors enormous leverage. In exhange for his true testimony about this, and what he knows about the Bush White House's illegal outing of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame, we should expect Tenet to ask for and receive immunity from prosecution.

Tenet's perjury and resignation presents Congressional investigators and a special prosecutor with an unexpected opportunity later this summer to finally get to the truth of what the President was actually knew and when he knew it. This is also, of course, the Bush White House and the Republican's worst nightmare.

The widely-known but as yet unspoken truth in Washington is that Tenet committed perjury in his April 14 statements before the 9/11 Commission. The CIA Director raised his right hand and was sworn-in before that official inquiry. He stated repeatedly he had not met with President Bush in August 2001. When given several opportunities by Commission members to correct or retract his story during his sworn testimony, he did not do so. It wasn't a momentary memory lapse or slip of the tongue. Tenet lied repeatedly under oath. That is the very definition of perjury. But, within hours it was apparent that public records contradicted Tenet's statement about his meetings with Bush. CIA aides called reporters later that afternoon and offered that Tenet had "misspoken." The alternative explanation given was that Tenet had "temporarily forgotten," and that is what was reported in the newspapers. The story was all but buried.

CONTINUED...

http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040615Levey.shtml

[seemslikeadream]

32. OOOPS - There it is!

July 11, 2004

[Octafish]

47. Hope he doesn't go solo kayaking anytime soon.

Otherwise, he might end up like Abe Vigoda in dat movie.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. The word I've gotten over the years is that Tenet is fiercely loyal to....

...his fellow employees in the CIA, and they to him. After all, he's been in the CIA organization since 1977-1978...quite a long time by CIA standards.

There were several incidents that indicated that all was not well between the NeoCons and the CIA, but IMHO, it was Plame incident that really set Tenet off. I can't recall the last time, if ever, that the CIA made a formal request to the DoJ to begin a formal investigation of the Executive Branch. Since that point in time, there have been almost daily leaks hitting the media...and part of the media is still operating under Operation Mockingbird.

Additionally, I find it exceedingly odd that in stating that Tenet "lied repeatedly under oath" the author of this article has apparently sided with the NeoCons. Haven't the NeoCons lied repeatedly on virtually every issue since they took control in December 2000?? Why would anyone believe them now? Why does Mark Levy believe them?

I would ask whether or not the documents allegedly proving that Tenet was present during any of the meetings in August were forged or actually exist in any form. Remember, the NeoCons are trying like hell to pin the blame for Iraq on Tenet and the CIA.

[Octafish]

45. Tenet can say he was "ordered" to lie.

Which is what Smirko wanted him to say. Now that the record's clear -- who said what when -- the trails all lead back to the pretzeldunce. West Virginia's Sen. Rockefeller also put the badministration on notice for lying about this issue.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller: WMD Flap 'Far From Over'
Democrat Calls Rice 'Dishonorable' for Blaming CIA Director

July 13, 2003 -- In a conversation with NPR's Steve Inskeep, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) -- the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee -- says the White House unfairly made CIA director George Tenet the scapegoat for faulty intelligence on Iraq.

Rockefeller also told Inskeep that National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice "had to have known" a year before Bush's 2003 State of the Union address that intelligence claiming Iraqi agents were attempting to purchase uranium from African officials was bogus.

Referring to recent White House and CIA statements meant to defuse the controversy, Rockefeller said, "I think it raises more questions than it settles, and I think it's far from over.

"I cannot believe that Condi Rice... directly, from Africa, pointed the finger at George Tenet, when she had known -- had to have known -- a year before the State of the Union."

"The entire intelligence community has been very skeptical about this from the very beginning," Rockefeller says. "And she has her own director of intelligence, she has her own Iraq and Africa specialists, and it's just beyond me that she didn't know about this, and that she has decided to make George Tenet the fall person. I think it's dishonorable."

CONTINUED...

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1335540.html

[seemslikeadream]

48. Do you think this is correct? Octafish or Media_Lies_Daily

Mithras61 (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-06-04 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #11

22. I was under the impression that executive privilege only extends...


for 6 weeks after the advisor is no longer a sitting advisor. That means Tenet would be free to testify, under compulsion if necessary, after about the end of August. If my math is correct, that would put it right before the Repukelican Mational Convention. I wonder, do you suppose that has any impact on the timing of the resignation?

[whistle]

4. Why would the CIA deliberately deceive the country...

...if not ordered to do so? They would have to be prepared to be discovered, but if they (meaning at the highest levels, Tenet)were following orders, then as serious as that might be, I could see that happening. Make the case for going to war with Iraq out of the long term interests of the United States. But tenet got fried at the 9/11 hearings and he is not I believe going down without taking those responsible for the orders down with him.

[demgrrrll]

13. I agree. I have been following these threads with great interest.

This story does not make sense. The White House usually likes to get out in front of a bad story to try and muddy the waters.

[iconoclastic cat]

15. I think what may be happening here goes beyond the White House.

They couldn't get in front of hedgehog. They're paralyzed. All they can do is shriek that someone else messed up. The most convienent head (right now): why, the CIA!
Bad. Dumb. Stupid.

On edit:
Demgrrl: By "beyond the WH," I mean that what has been posted on these threads indicates that we are witnessing a fight not between factions (Bushco v. Tenet) but institutions (Repub elite v. Intelligence).

[H2O Man]

5. It's show time!

The serious business is at hand. I suspect we're going to have some interesting conversations here this week! (I was just getting ready for bed .... but when I see things like this, I have a hard time moving away from the old computer!)

[acmavm]

11. Good, I'm glad you checked in. I spent most of the afternoon reading

the posts from this weekend and thinking about what everyone had to say. I even e-mailed the threads to a friend of mine, I'm waiting to hear what she has to say, as well as some friends I asked her to share them with.

So, what does this mean really. Did not the really damaging information that led up to the invasion come out of the OSP, Feith's little operation of misinformation and bulls***? Aren't they the clowns who were taking everything Chalabi said and using it to base their justification for war?

Does this mean that we're going to have an all-out battle between the CIA and the republican controlled senate? Do you think that they'll come out and actively debunk these stories? They'll have to if they want to protect their organization because the bush* cabal has long wanted to revamp the intelligence agencies, to bring them under their control. Like Rumsfeld did to the Pentagon.

By the way, what is the significance of July 14th? I can only think of Novak and the story he broke, Bastille Day, and the fact that the original Sedition Act was enacted on July 14, 1798 (repealed in 1921).
The significance of that date has been driving me crazy all day.

[H2O Man]

16. Good points.....

Now: will the CIA have a fight with the senate? I bet that there are a few fellows in the White House hoping they do. But the CIA only engages in fights it needs to take part in. There is some parts of this -- the publicity -- that may cause a CI response. But it may come in ways that the Senate doesn't expect.

More important will be to expose the White House officials. Publicly. The media has not given a significant amount of coverage, for example, to the book by the "anonymous" CIA source. His identity became public over the holiday weekend. He is a high-ranking, highly respected man who was responsible for some of the operations relating to Usama bin Laden.

The timing of events in the next ten days will be fascinating to watch unfold. Don't waste any time or effort trying to figure out the significance of 7-14. If I'm right, you'll know soon enough. If I'm wrong, folks might start calling me Wovoka on here.

[acmavm]

26. Okay, regarding the book by the not-so-anonymous CIA agent, it would

seem that a lot of this crap is in response to that book. In fact, didn't Clarke say that Tenet was in the Oval Office about 14 times 'with his hair on fire'? That's why all this is so insane. There were two CIA analysts who spoke out last week about Ashcroft telling them that he didn't want to hear anymore crap about Al Quaeda when they tried to tell him how important a threat they were.

This is just insane. It's like the proverbial nerd on the playground going up to the school bully, who's Barney Badass, and slapping him across the face. The Senate panel is picking a fight with the people who know where the bodies are buried, literally.

These clowns are either spouting off this stuff because they are in extreme panic mode and pathetically desperate, or they're soooo sure that they can pull this off that I wonder where they get their chutzpah. Either way, nothing good can come of this. Maybe they've decided that they need to help the administration revamp the intelligence agencies to maintain control of what comes out of there. How in the hell can they come out with a report like this and never even mention the OSP? Feith was pretty proud of himself and his contribution to justifying the invasion. What, does this now all just go away? There's too much public record of what was said, and the books that have since been written make this whole report a total farce.

Is it desperation or a big smug attempt to make bush* look like he was victimized and duped, therefore not responsible for the frigging mess we're in now?

[iconoclastic cat]

33. Both!

These clowns are either spouting off this stuff because they are in extreme panic mode and pathetically desperate, or they're soooo sure that they can pull this off that I wonder where they get their chutzpah.

Personally, I think it's a little from column A, and a little from column B.

My guesses for the mindsets of those involved:
Cheney/Libby: Cocky, arrogant
Bush: Isolated, paranoid
Rove: Tranquil
Rice: Asleep
Rumsfeld: Depressed
Ashcroft: Terrified
The Senate Repubs: Golems
The Senate Dems: Twitterpated
The CIA: Wrathful
Fitzgerald: Wrathful
The American people: Waking up from a bad hangover with an awful taste in their mouths

[merh]

40. Could the senate panel reasoning in releasing this info be that

they want Bush's nomination for the CIA to be approved without contest? Could it be that they think putting the CIA in such a bad light will make the dems and all others roll over and approve his nomination without a fight?

[TacticalPeek]

37. The Senate is a quirky institution.

IIRC, Rockefeller and the dems on the intel committee can do some things on their on, without R's. I guess it's a special thing for this committee because of the interplay of secrecy, natsec and possible politicization. Something like that.

Maybe Rockefeller and Robertson have made peace enough for the dems to hold off so far, because as you said before, our constitutional foundations are in play. Similar to how some press are apparently holding back some horrible pics and videos, news self-censored because it's so bad that if the world had them, it would be - well, bad.

In both cases, there could be a degree of "You know what we could do. Don't make us do it." The threat would hope to achieve a 'civic' benefit close to what action would achieve, like if the intel dems started issuing subpoenae, or network news showed video of coalition torture of children. Moral/political blackmail, sorta.

Whether this context applies or not, this 'CIA failed us' is mighty weak wind. "If only we'd known!", really.

This administration is officially on record to wit:

Saddam would only use WMD if attacked, not otherwise. (Tenet letter to Graham before IWR vote)

Saddam would not transfer WMD to terrorists unless his regime's demise was imminent. (Tenet letter)

Saddam had nothing to do with 911. (Oops)

Saddam had no WMD and no WMD programs. (Kaye report)

No one in the administration ever said Saddam was an imminent threat to US natsec.

No one in the administration ever said Saddam had nuclear weapons. (Cheney MTP slides)


Seems like when your CIA director says Saddam will not use WMD against us, and that our attacking him might put WMD in terrorist hands, who needs to know what relatives of Iraqi scientists are saying? What's the need-to-know? When CIA sends secret info to WH, what are the chances that it reaches Chalabi's weasels? And then where?

I know this is not their best shot, but they are leading with their chin.

[andino]

6. I believe that the proper response to this is

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WITH PREVENTIVE WARS!!!!

[acmavm]

7. Okay, this is a senate panel, right? So, where did these guys get the

the information upon which their finding based? From 'relatives' interviewed by the CIA? Interesting.

If I recall correctly, the info that justified the invasion of Iraq was reported as coming from Feith's bunch before the war. Anyway, that was the scuttlebutt at the time.

So, Tenet is really going to be the fall guy? What a load. If Tenet has one iota of love for this country he would set the record straight on this. He would spill his guts about everything he knows in regard to the crap this administration has pulled. Because I also remember that the CIA supposedly said that there wasn't enough information to conclude that Saddam had nuclear weapons, or that he had started the WMD factories up again.

How much credence do we give the findings of this panel? The senate is under control of the republican party, so does it now follow that any 'investigation' on anything would give the administration a pass and throw the blame somewhere else.

Also, if by any chance Tenet did have a hand in any underhanded tactics I would seriously suggest that someone somewhere find a statute that would allow his prosecution. Maybe facing a threat like that he would consider telling all that he knows about what went on during the lead up to the invasion.

[iconoclastic cat]

12. I refuse to believe that Tenet or the CIA were simply incompetent.

Does Bushco not get that this isn't Inspector Clouseau they are dealing with? How could he think that the world's premiere intelligence agency would lie down and be peed on by the Republican toadbots?

This isn't just stupid---they (Bushco) are setting up a constitutional crisis (not my idea; I just learned this on another thread). Gee, let's pit our lackeys in Congress and our (dwindling) bunch of pals on the Supreme Court against our very own True Believers, who happen to be able to do things that make the movie "Spartan" look like a Benny Hill skit! Good freakin' idea!

Too many cultural references? Sorry.

[Zorra]

8. It's bullshit: Link -

Published on Wednesday, October 9, 2002 in the Guardian/UK
White House 'Exaggerating Iraqi Threat'
Bush's Televised Address Attacked by US Intelligence
by Julian Borger in Washington

Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are being put under intense pressure to produce reports which back the administration's line, the Guardian has learned. In response, some are complying, some are resisting and some are choosing to remain silent.

"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence.

In his address, the president reassured Americans that military action was not "imminent or unavoidable", but he made the most detailed case to date for the use of force, should it become necessary.

But some of the key allegations against the Iraqi regime were not supported by intelligence currently available to the administration. Mr Bush repeated a claim already made by senior members of his administration that Iraq has attempted to import hardened aluminum tubes "for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons". The tubes were also mentioned by Tony Blair in his dossier of evidence presented to parliament last month.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1009-01.htm

[scarletwoman]

9. Time to take a closer look at this reporter, James Risen.

Like H2OMan, I was about to shut down the 'puter and go to bed, and I'm not up to doing the research right now.

But I'm very curious to know what other stories his byline appears on, especially those with "White House sources say..."

Does anyone know if he appeared on the NYT's "oops" list along with Judith Miller, et al?

Hope the night owls will keep this thread kicked...

sw

[iconoclastic cat]

14. Risen has had an interesting career...

I love Google, those fascist bastards:

(my comments in blue.
****
Some vitae:

http://intellit.muskingum.edu/alpha_folder/R_folder/risenplusj-z.html

Risen, James, and David Johnston. "Bush Has Widened Authority of C.I.A. to Kill Terrorists." New York Times, 15 Dec. 2002. <http://www.nytimes.com>

"The Bush administration has prepared a list of terrorist leaders the Central Intelligence Agency is authorized to kill, if capture is impractical and civilian casualties can be minimized, senior military and intelligence officials said. The previously undisclosed C.I.A. list includes key Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as well as other principal figures from Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups, the officials said.....
(more)
****
This was interesting, too:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1264.htm

The CIA's Copy Desk and 'The NY Times'

****
Okay, what is going on? This is too wierd. The CIA has been his freakin' copy desk? Going over his articles? And now he starts slamming them?

This is just nuts. It's like a very, very dangerous food fight out there!

[scarletwoman]

18. This one caught my eye:

Risen, James, and Judith Miller. "Pakistani Intelligence Had Links to Al Qaeda, U.S. Officials Say." New York Times, 29 Oct. 2001. {http://www.nytimes.com}

According to U.S. officials, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) "has had an indirect but longstanding relationship with Al Qaeda.... The intelligence service even used Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan to train covert operatives for use in a war of terror against India, the Americans say."

It's true information (ISI & Al Qaeda), as far as it goes, but what is ALWAYS left out is the close relationship between the CIA and the ISI. The CIA basically created the ISI.

So, is Risen a disinfo agent? OR, (and this is something I've been wondering about for quite awhile), are there at least two different factions battling WITHIN the CIA?

It really is too late at night for me to pursue this any further tonight -- but I'm really grateful that you started this thread, there CLEARLY is something afoot.

I'll check back tomorrow for sure!

G'night,
sw

[iconoclastic cat]

20. Yeah, I saw that.

Very interesting.

[kodi]

10. bush didn't use cia data, he used a secret defense dept group's data

the lines here are consciously being blurred.

the data on the presence of wmd in iraq bush/cheney based their rhetoric upon came from rumsfield's group led by doug feith. this data is what cheney, powell and bush pointed to frequently in the fall of 2002 as causa belli. it was constantly attacked as unsubstaniated by cia and medias sources.

so now its the cia's fault that they did not convince bush/cheney that there was no evidence of wmd in iraq, even though they debunked the data bush/cheney used?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. That NeoCon, Pentagon-based intelligence group is the OSP.

[Stephanie]

17. I smell bullshit

.

[iconoclastic cat]

19. Smells like...

a crazy summer! Get out the box of wine!

This reminds me of that end scene in "Fight Club."

[Zorra]

21. More

Cheney-Gate Escalates As
Probe Becomes Official
By Jeffrey Steinberg
Executive Intelligence Review
11-11-3

An Oct. 31 Knight-Ridder wire service charged that top officials in Cheney's office were putting tremendous pressure on Roberts to block any probe of White House abuse of the intelligence process, and focus all blame for the Iraq failures, instead, on the CIA.

With Roberts being pulled in two directions, Rockefeller produced the five committee votes required to launch a further inquiry, and Roberts, at that point, signed on.

* The role of the Office of Special Plans (OSP), the Pentagon unit under Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith that was tasked with Iraq war planning and pre-war intelligence assessments. The OSP was headed by William J. Luti, who came to the Pentagon from the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney in mid-2001, where he was a Special Advisor for National Security Affairs and Mideast Policy.

The chief intelligence analyst in the unit, Abram Shulsky, assembled a team of full-time and ``personal service contract'' employees, drawn from the neo-conservative scene in Washington. There are widespread allegations that the OSP conducted ``out of channel'' intelligence gathering, drawing upon Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, a group widely discredited in the eyes of the CIA, the State Department, and even the Defense Intelligence Agency; and on intelligence flows from a parallel rogue intelligence unit created in the Office of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, at Feith's initiative.

http://www.rense.com/general44/prob.htm

There was no failure of intelligence
US spies were ignored, or worse, if they failed to make the case for war
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday February 5, 2004
The Guardian

Kay's testimony was the catalyst for this u-turn, but only one of his claims is correct: that he was wrong. The truth is that much of the intelligence community did not fail, but presented correct assessments and warnings, that were overridden and suppressed. On virtually every single important claim made by the Bush administration in its case for war, there was serious dissension. Discordant views - not from individual analysts but from several intelligence agencies as a whole - were kept from the public as momentum was built for a congressional vote on the war resolution.

Precisely because of the qualms the administration encountered, it created a rogue intelligence operation, the Office of Special Plans, located within the Pentagon and under the control of neo-conservatives. The OSP roamed outside the ordinary inter-agency process, stamping its approval on stories from Iraqi exiles that the other agencies dismissed as lacking credibility, and feeding them to the president.

At the same time, constant pressure was applied to the intelligence agencies to force their compliance. In one case, a senior intelligence officer who refused to buckle under was removed.

Never before had any senior White House official physically intruded into CIA's Langley headquarters to argue with mid-level managers and analysts about unfinished work. But twice vice president Cheney and Lewis Libby, his chief of staff, came to offer their opinions. According to Patrick Lang: "They looked disapproving, questioned the reports and left an impression of what you're supposed to do. They would say: 'you haven't looked at the evidence'. The answer would be, those reports aren't valid. The analysts would be told, you should look at this again'. Finally, people gave up. You learn not to contradict them."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1141401,00.html

[Zorra]

23. I think Tenet is going to take the rap. n/t

[iconoclastic cat]

28. Do you think he'll hari-kari himself for Bush? Really?

Zorra:
Your post a minute ago indicates that the CIA is being set up. Do you think Tenet will go down for Bushco? Why would he accept that? Why would the CIA accept it? (I'm not being sarcastic---I just want to hear more.)

[Zorra]

35. Yes. Tenet is basically already gone.

I don't think the CIA is going to accept it - just Tenet.

I found this interesting:

Sept. 16, 2001:

MR. RUSSERT: The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said this is a failure of great dimension in terms of intelligence. Will George Tenet remain as director of the CIA?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I think George clearly should remain as director of the CIA. I think--I've had great confidence in him. I've watched him operate now and worked closely with him for the last seven or eight months. I think he and his people do superb work for us. And I think it would be a tragedy if somehow we were to go back now in the search for scapegoats and say that George Tenet or any other official ought to be eliminated at this point. I don't think you can say that.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html

[iconoclastic cat]

39. Zorra: follow the link in #36! seemslikeadream has it!

[AVID]

22. Is this the new Plame thread?--nt

[iconoclastic cat]

29. Maybe! The other one is near 300 already.

[never cry wolf]

24. This is a total whitewash

This committee is a joke, it was set up to place blame elsewhere. Do you think they will even have a mention of the Office of Special Plans and their role? Their charge was very narrow. The chairman is Pat Roberts and vice chair is Rockefeller.

NOTHING will come out from this comittee that will cast a shadow on the admin, nothing.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/

[iconoclastic cat]

30. I don't think that what the Senate does will cast the shadow...

I think this will spring some leaks. The Senate won't be the source of the bad news for Bush---the leaks will. The Senate will continue to graze.

[iconoclastic cat]

25. If anyone wants the 2 threads discussed in this one:

If anyone wants the 2 threads discussed in this one:

If and when indictments come down in the Plame case-thread2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1920799

If and when indictments come down in the Plame case, (first thread)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1902738

[Zorra]

31. More:

Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings

A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak
January 28, 2004

FEBRUARY 23 & 24, 2001 – COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED: "I think we ought to declare a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added Saddam "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States."

SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 – CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED: Vice President Dick Cheney said that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" – a confirmation of the intelligence he had received.

SEPTEMBER 2001 – WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans "in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States…The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community." The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically "cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest" while officials deliberately "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence."

2002: Intel Agencies Repeatedly Warn White House of Its Weak WMD Case

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889

[iconoclastic cat]

34. New Jersey Dem has a thread that relates directly

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x666930

NewJerseyDem (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-05-04 10:27 PM
Original message
Senate Intel Report Due Soon



http://www.rollcall.com/issues/50_1/news/6110-1.html (subscription required)

The Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to release its report assessing the accuracy of pre-Iraq war intelligence Thursday, but a partisan showdown over the Bush administration’s alleged manipulation of data to make the case for war is likely to occur later in the year.

[iconoclastic cat]

36. And seemslikeadream has the nuts!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=667009#667029

[shraby]

42. One other thought

Plame and this report on the CIA may both lead to the Iran leak or vice versa when the ties to Chalabi come into the picture, info on who met with whom and when just might make one big ball of yarn.

[phiddle]

43. Josh Marshall nails it (as usual):

..."But it now turns out that while the White House claimed the CIA was too cautious and naive about the dangers emanating from Iraq, in fact, the Agency was hoodwinking the president into believing the worst about Iraq and keeping him and his advisors in the dark about the weakness of their claims.

You might say that it turns out that the CIA was doing to President Bush what many of us were under the impression President Bush and his advisors were doing to the country.

This is the ironic and tragic tale told by James Risen in Tuesday's New York Times.

Somehow I thought that our best reporters had learned a lesson about peddling self-interested government leaks without applying common sense, context or critical, dissenting voices. But apparently not."

His last para makes it clear that Josh doesn't believe this story at all.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com

[scarletwoman]

44. Morning kick....

This is fascinating, watch the propaganda machine in action!

sw

[donhakman]

46. Who will avenge the CIA