Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

CNN: David Kay says Intel community owes Pres Bush an apology

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
heidiho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 05:57 PM
Original message
CNN: David Kay says Intel community owes Pres Bush an apology
Just heard that on CNN headline news.

They will manage it so that Bush will be the duped one, not the American people - not the families who lost their children and husbands in this unjust war but

Bush was duped by the intelligence community.

Poor George Bush. He didn't mean to lead us into a war that was unjust - he just got bad intelligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BigBigBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wow
Maybe he got the "small planes" talk from Karl.

Why is it every ex-admin official who releases bad news, promptly "modifies" his statement a day or two later?

I mean, seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
montanacowboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. How Long will the CIA bend over
for this clown? will they take it again and again and again? right, he got bad intelligence - sure - we all know who invented the intelligence, cramming it down the CIA's throat. Do these repukes have no shame at all? David Kay, George's poodle trying to save his master. Gag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
frank frankly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
30. that is the question, isn't it
maybe part of the CIA isn't tangled into the BFEE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. Rule one: Don't piss off the CIA.
Trying to pin this on the CIA is gonna backfire big time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
32. The CIA isn't taking this lying down
Don't be surprised if they come up with an "October surprise" of their own.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bushwakker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #32
54. I'm sure over in Langley
they're just happy to take the fall for the Chimp? The WH is treading on thin ice with these boys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Goldom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. yeah,
Bush definately has 'bad intelligence', that's for sure. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
beanball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
26. Shrubs gray matter
come now the pretzeldent is a Yale man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
berner59 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. You could have seen this coming...
Edited on Mon Jan-26-04 06:02 PM by berner59
But the Dems will jump on it and say others thought it always needed more investigation...he won't have a leg to stand on when it's done...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leetrisck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. bush should resign immediately - no apology
from anyone for a so-called mistake like this than can ever make up for what has happened. A total disaster for our military, our country, the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. Kay is a @##$%!!!! liar!
Edited on Mon Jan-26-04 06:04 PM by w4rma
BushCo HIRED a bunch of their own neo-con intelligence folks (Office of Special Plans) to filter out anything that didn't adhere to their ideology. They called themselves, "the cabal".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
29. Why is it..
that we all know this stuff, but the media is still giving Bush a free ride. Listening to ABC news tonight: just maybe kinda Bush didn't pay as much attention to a little bit of intelligence from a couple of people who said Saddam may have possibly not had so many WMDs. And that was the entirety of the criticism of the administration - the rest was all about how the intelligence community screwed up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. David Kay is a Bush administration shill and a liar
Frankly, if he said rain is wet, no one should trust it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bluzmann57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. Well I think that bush owes us an apology
So its all down to lack of intelligence now? On whose part? Kay's? Bush's? Roves? All of the above?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KeepItReal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
10. Kay better be the #1 Apologist
I remember the way Kay dogged out weapons inspector Scott Ritter (who knew those "WMD" claims were suspect) and Kay personally guaranteed that the "WMD" would be found.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. but but ...bushco created the office of special plans
so they could bipass the CIA intel ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. Just one word for this take: rot!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dudley_DUright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
13. While I certainly agree that W "got bad intelligence"
(probably from his mother's side of the family), the claim Kay is making is laughable to anyone that knows anything about the workings of the W whitehouse. Bush and especially Cheney were pushing this war from day 1 of the administration and browbeating the intellegence community into given them what they wanted to hear. Just read "The Price of Loyalty".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Dudley, you made me laugh on a bad day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dudley_DUright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. What else can you do when faced with this BS?
For me, every day is a bad day as long as W is in charge. As that sage Jimmy Buffett says; "If we couldn't laugh, we would all go insane".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
14. I know this is an effort to switch the blame
But this makes Bush look pathetic, like he's not the one in charge.(Well, he isn't, but maybe others will see what we've known from Day 1.) The buck is supposed to stop with the president, and it NEVER stops with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
15. Crap on a cracker.
And the CIA ain't eating this lunchmeat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
17. A response from the Intel Community
Or at least a veteran of the intel community

Dear pResident Bush:
I'm sorry, but you're a fucking idiot.

I'm sorry, but your jackals in the White House cooked the books to justify going to war.

I'm sorry, but you're a bloodthirsty monster who planned to go to war in Iraq from the moment you decided to run for President.

I'm sorry, but there are 500 of our men in a hole in the goddamn ground because you screwed the country.

I'm sorry, but you're a dishonorable piece of shit who needs to go to death row in Terre Haute for 600 counts of premeditated murder.

Now get your sorry ass down to the police station and take your advisors with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Qutzupalotl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. Well said.
BTW, if you're a veteran of the intelligence community, please go get your face on TV...PBS NewsHour or something. We need you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #25
38. I never worked Middle Eastern targets, I have no "cred" in this fight
If I was a Middle East/North Africa specialist, I'd make a decent talking head, but as a Sovietologist?

Then again...Condi Rice is a Sovietologist (and a crappy one to boot, she's a total expert in Ronald Reagan's Soviet Union, which was nothing like the real one) and her ugly face is on every talking-head show in America.

Anyone know any news-show producers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
18. I guess the CIA better apologize
Edited on Mon Jan-26-04 06:12 PM by htuttle
If they don't, the Bush administration is going to blow the covers of the rest of their NOC agents, just like they did to Valerie Plame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
19. Won't fly
As much bs as it is for the regime to now try to pin the blame for the fraudulent invasion on the CIA, even if you give the thugs that argument, they lose.

People trusted the president to do the right thing. He stood before them and made claims and insisted military action ("shock and awe") was now necessary, and necessary "now!" The people took him at his word, and they have been betrayed, and they know it.

Shifting blame now, like some kid caught red-handed insisting "I didn't do it," will not win the moron support, and will hardly satisfy the waking sheep who had supported him.

Only the freepers and ldotters and coulters and faux news whores will buy this. And as they try to feed it to the drowsy masses, they will see their sales and influence and relevance plummet.

Karma is a beautiful thing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
20. After the first attempt...
to put the blame on the intel agencies, those groups started leaking like a sieve about how they had felt pressure by the WH to produce "evidence" which fit with the WH plan, and who they had told the WH the evidence was bull-poop.

If the WH keeps trying to push, intel WILL push back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
21. I knew it...everyone would be blamed but Bush
From bragging about surrounding himself with competent people to portraying him as your favorite drinking buddy...they were building up his defense against any blame.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
22. Please God, Let Them Press For An Apology
Edited on Mon Jan-26-04 06:20 PM by loindelrio
In the lead up to the (beginning of the) war there were indications, if one looked beyond the headlines and sound bites, that the intelligence community was upset with the way their intelligence was being politicized. Yes, they blew the call, but most intelligence is just probabilities of this or that to be used (or twisted, in this case) as a decision making tool by policy makers.

The military/diplomatic/intelligence corps is generally comprised of professionals looking out for what they think is best for the country, not political hacks. Could this be the event causing a critical mass of these professionals to open up, giving all of us that oppose the administration our McCarthy moment?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
laruemtt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
24. i've never seen such a bunch of
enablers in my life. people always covering up for him. * has to be allowed to hit rock bottom before he can face his demons, all gazillion of 'em. but he can't be allowed to involve other human beings when he hits. everybody's getting hurt except *!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
27. My husband is ready to go to war with David Kay.
and he doesn't even work for the CIA!

I just heard Kay tell Brokaw that the person most hurt by this was the Chimp. What bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
28. Which intelligence agency?
Would that be the "Office of Special Plans", a hand-picked team of intelligence liars that were nothing more than Bush*-Cheney stooges?

Or would that be the CIA who as far as I can tell said from day one there was no clear evidence that Iraq had WMDs.

Bush* is gonna apologize to himself and this is all going to go away? I don't think so :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #28
41. It would be the CIA. OSP is infallible.
They're gonna blame the people farthest from Bush. The Office of Special Plans is one of the cruelest jokes I've ever seen--a whole room full of people being paid to tell the boss what he wants to hear.

I do not think the CIA would have any qualms about leaving Barney's head on Bush's pillow. They're about sick of Bush's shit anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
randr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
31. Now exactly where does the buck stop now? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Snappy Donating Member (322 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
33. CIA
This isn't good news for anyone. Blaming the CIA for faulty intell will cast a long shadow on their competence. They were already dissed for not for seeing the colapse of the Evil Empire. Now, how can the American people trust anything the CIA has to report about Syria, Iran, North Korea? The Neo Fascists have put themselves in a box now trying to fend off their culpability of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

The American people are by and large ignorant and many are downright stupid but after a while one would hope that enough Americans will catch on to the con job that the Neo Fascists have laid on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
34. TORO TURD!!! There was no WMD and he KNEW it!!!
Otherwise, he would have allowed the inspection process to proceed. But he couldn't let that happen because without WMD, there was no reason to invade, and without an invasion, there was no reason to take their oil. And there was NOTHING Saddam could have done that would have stopped it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
35. It's time
for all of us to demand Bush's RESIGNATION.

Nothing less will do, either he knew and is culpable or he didn't and he's incompetent..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
36. I'm sorry your kids are dead, I just got bad intelligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Corgigal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
37. Cheney was hanging out at the CIA
for months before the war started. Even the CIA was amazed how often Cheney showed up because they mentioned (New Yorker article around a year or so ago) how they never had a sitting Vice President visit them before.

He was cherry picking, plain and simple. Then they turned around to try to bit the hand that fed them. It's going to be fun to watch this play out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
39. GOP: "The Party of Personal Responsibility"
Or so they told us over and over...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #39
51. buck passing
The GOP passes the buck so quickly and so often and with such skill that it leaves one's head spinning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OneTwentyoNine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
40. Forget the apology Kay,we WANT a full blown investigation...
Nice try bud at sweeping the whole thing under the apology rug and moving on. Bullshit...if your NOW saying that the CIA doesn't know shit from shineola then I guess we need a big ass investigation now don't we??

We can't trust the President and we can't trust the CIA to keep us from starting unjust Wars. Sounds to me like one hell of an investigation needs to begin ASAP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DrBB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
42. I bet Rove wishes he would just shut up
Gee Mr Kay, you mean all along it was the CIA that was pushing for war in Iraq, and Bush never woulda even thunk of it otherwise? Okay. Great story. Only one little problem with it, even if you can find anyone stupid enough to believe it. Namely, you're saying, see, that it was a MISTAKE.

Oh but Dave, that's not the party line, see. The party line is that it doesn't MATTER that there were no WMDs, because it was RIGHT to attack Iraq for, well, other reasons 'n' stuff. Which we think of a new one every week.

So, like, which bad answer is it? Is it that we were WRONG to go into Iraq and it was the CIA's fault? Or were we RIGHT to go into Iraq, but somehow it was the CIA's fault for being wrong about WHY we did it?

Does any of this add up, even for a right-wing, Fox-addled nitwit?

"I'm no O'Neill!" says the ever-loyal Mr Kay. But you've done even more damage than he did, shithead. If the CIA is "to blame," there must be a mistake that they're to blame FOR, yes? Kinda necessarily follows by the nature of logic 'n' stuff.

And that mistake would be called "Iraq."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-04 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
43. They manufactured that intel with the OSP/ Long memory & Articles here:
Can all be found here:
The spies who pushed for war

Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force

Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian

As the CIA director, George Tenet, arrived at the Senate yesterday to give secret testimony on the Niger uranium affair, it was becoming increasingly clear in Washington that the scandal was only a small, well-documented symptom of a complete breakdown in US intelligence that helped steer America into war.

It represents the Bush administration's second catastrophic intelligence failure. But the CIA and FBI's inability to prevent the September 11 attacks was largely due to internal institutional weaknesses. This time the implications are far more damaging for the White House, which stands accused of politicising and contaminating its own source of intelligence.

According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior members of the administration created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency. snip

The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.

In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.


No weapons in Iraq? We'll find them in Iran

By Neil Mackay Sunday Herald

Sunday 01 June 2003

Ironically, it was the ultra-hawkish US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who let the cat out of the bag when he said on Wednesday: 'It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy (WMDs) prior to the conflict.' If that was true then Saddam had fulfilled the criteria of UN resolution 1441 and there was absolutely no legal right for the US and UK to go to war. Rumsfeld's claim that Iraq might have destroyed its weapons makes a mockery of the way the US treated the UN's chief weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix. The US effectively told him he wasn't up to the job and the Iraqis had fooled him.


With September 11 as his ideological backdrop, Rumsfeld decided in autumn 2001 to establish a new intelligence agency, independent of the CIA and the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP). He put his deputy, Wolfowitz, in charge. The pair were dissatisfied with the failure of the CIA among others to provide firm proof of both Saddam's alleged WMD arsenal and links to al-Qaeda.


That was the policy blueprint, but to deliver it Rumsfeld turned to the Office of Special Plans. Put simply, the OSP was told to come up with the evidence of WMD to give credence to US military intervention. But what do conventional intelligence experts make of the OSP? Colonel Patrick Lang is a former chief of human intelligence for the Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) in the 1990s. He was also the DIA's chief of Middle East intelligence and was regularly in Iraq. He said of the OSP : 'This office had a great deal of influence in a number of places in Washington in a way that seemed to me to be excessive and rather ill-advised. 'The regular organisations of the intelligence community have very rigorous rules for how you evaluate information and resources, and tend to take a conservative view of analytic positions because they're going to dictate government decisions. 'That wasn't satisfactory in Secretary Rumsfeld's Pentagon so he set up a separate office to review this data, and the people in this office, although they're described as intelligence people, are by and large congressional staffers. They seemed to me not to have deceived intentionally but to have seen in the data what they believe is true. I think it's a very risky thing to do.'


In a further curious twist, an intelligence source claimed the real 'over-arching strategic reason' for the war was the road map to peace, designed to settle the running sore of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The source said: 'I believe that Britain and America see the road map as fundamental. They were being told by Ariel Sharon's government that Israel would not play ball until Saddam was out of the picture. That was the condition. So he had to go.'



"They are running their own intelligence operation, including covert action, and are using contractors outside the government to do some of the leg work," said a former top CIA official. "Their area of work has been concentrated on Iraq, which is why the intelligence on WMD was so bad, but they have a much broader portfolio. The office is undergoing some scrutiny from inside the government given its poor track record and the lack of 'sanity checking' their products with the intelligence community. A lot of material they produce is not shared with CIA, not coordinated, and finds its way into public policy statements by the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney."

more . . .


White man's burden - EXCELLENT Ha'aretz article to bookmark

Edited on Wed Jul-09-03 10:29 PM by Tinoire
This excellent analysis is an absolute keeper!


In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also admire Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan. They tend to read reality in terms of the failure of the 1930s (Munich) versus the success of the 1980s (the fall of the Berlin Wall).

Are they wrong? Have they committed an act of folly in leading Washington to Baghdad? They don't think so. They continue to cling to their belief. They are still pretending that everything is more or less fine. That things will work out. Occasionally, though, they seem to break out in a cold sweat. This is no longer an academic exercise, one of them says, we are responsible for what is happening. The ideas we put forward are now affecting the lives of millions of people. So there are moments when you're scared. You say, Hell, we came to help, but maybe we made a mistake.

((William Kristol))

Kristol is pleasant-looking, of average height, in his late forties. In the past 18 months he has used his position as editor of the right-wing Weekly Standard and his status as one of the leaders of the neoconservative circle in Washington to induce the White House to do battle against Saddam Hussein. Because Kristol is believed to exercise considerable influence on the president, Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he is also perceived as having been instrumental in getting Washington to launch this all-out campaign against Baghdad. Sitting behind the stacks of books that cover his desk at the offices of the Weekly Standard in Northwest Washington, he tries to convince me that he is not worried. It is simply inconceivable to him that America will not win. In that event, the consequences would be catastrophic. No one wants to think seriously about that possibility.


((Charles Krauthammer))
And what if the experiment fails? What if America is defeated?

This war will enhance the place of America in the world for the coming generation, Krauthammer says. Its outcome will shape the world for the next 25 years. There are three possibilities. If the United States wins quickly and without a bloodbath, it will be a colossus that will dictate the world order. If the victory is slow and contaminated, it will be impossible to go on to other Arab states after Iraq. It will stop there. But if America is beaten, the consequences will be catastrophic. Its deterrent capability will be weakened, its friends will abandon it and it will become insular. Extreme instability will be engendered in the Middle East.

You don't really want to think about what will happen, Krauthammer says looking me straight in the eye. But just because that's so, I am positive we will not lose. Because the administration understands the implications. The president understands that everything is riding on this. So he will throw everything we've got into this. He will do everything that has to be done. George W. Bush will not let America lose.



The CIA declined to say how the agency eventually obtained the documents. Officials at several other U.S. agencies, including the State Department, declined to say whether another U.S. government agency possessed or viewed them before Bush's speech last January.


Published on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 in the Times/UK
America's Weapons Evidence Flawed, Say Spies
by Tim Reid in Washington


Present and former CIA officials, quoted in The New York Times and The New Yorker magazine, claimed that a small number of powerful neo-conservative ideologues in the Pentagon were so determined to prove the existence of a banned weapons program and links to al-Qaeda that they manipulated intelligence.

According to a report written by Seymour Hersh, the veteran New Yorker investigative reporter, the Pentagons Office of Special Plans (OSP) relied too heavily on suspect intelligence provided by Iraqi defectors with links to the Iraqi National Congress, an opposition group headed by Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi exile.


One former CIA official told Mr Hersh: One of the reasons I left was my sense that they (OSP) were using the intelligence from the CIA and other agencies only when it fits their agenda. They were so crazed and so far out and so difficult to reason with . . . as if they were on a mission from God. If it doesnt fit their theory, they dont want to accept it.


Patrick Lang, a former head of Middle Eastern affairs in the Pentagons Defense Intelligence agency, told Nicholas Kristof, of The New York Times, that when experts wrote reports skeptical about the existence of weapons of mass destruction they were encouraged to think it over again.


Published on Sunday, June 8, 2003 by The Sunday Herald
Revealed: The Secret Cabal Which Spun for Blair
by Neil Mackay

Britain ran a covert 'dirty tricks' operation designed specifically to produce misleading intelligence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction to give the UK a justifiable excuse to wage war on Iraq. Operation Rockingham, established by the Defense Intelligence Staff within the Ministry of Defense in 1991, was set up to 'cherry-pick' intelligence proving an active Iraqi WMD program and to ignore and quash intelligence which indicated that Saddam's stockpiles had been destroyed or wound down.

The existence of Operation Rockingham has been confirmed by Scott Ritter, the former UN chief weapons inspector, and a US military intelligence officer. He knew members of the Operation Rockingham team and described the unit as 'dangerous', but insisted they were not 'rogue agents' acting without government backing. 'This policy was coming from the very highest levels,' he added.


Sources in both the British and US intelligence community are now equating the JIC with the Office of Special Plans (OSP) in the US Pentagon. The OSP was set up by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to gather intelligence which would prove the case for war. In a staggering attack on the OSP, former CIA officer Larry Johnson told the Sunday Herald the OSP was 'dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace', adding that it 'lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam'.

He added: 'It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated.' Johnson said that to describe Saddam as an 'imminent threat' to the West was 'laughable and idiotic'. He said many CIA officers were in 'great distress' over the way intelligence had been treated. 'We've entered the world of George Orwell,' Johnson added. 'I'm disgusted. The truth has to be told. We can't allow our leaders to use bogus information to justify war.'



America And Impeachment

` Kent Southard, Bush Watch

The simple, unadorned facts are these - the only 'intelligence' source that professed unequivocally that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD and an ongoing nuclear weapons program was the Pentagon's Office of Special Programs, established by Donald Rumsfeld and which had no agents in the field, only a half-dozen 'analysts' that were actually Republican congressional staffers. Their reports were contradicted by every other intelligence organization in the world, including our CIA and DIA and Britain's MI6. The only source for OSP's 'intel' was Ahmed Chalabi, a convicted swindler who left Iraq during the Eisenhower administration, and who had been promised by the Bush administration to be the top candidate to rule Iraq should Saddam Hussein be overthrown.


This was all obviously known by the Bush administration, and accordingly it is also obvious that the administration lied through its teeth about the reasons for warring on Iraq, lied in every generality and every particular. Virtually every member of this administration that wanted this war is also a signator of the Project for a New American Century, whose plan formulated some years ago calls for domination of the world's oil supply, starting with an invasion of Iraq.

These are the simple, unadorned facts. Either the American people demand an Impeachment of this president and vice-president and they are removed from office; or else the America of the founding fathers is finished, and we might as well admit it. --06.16.03

Remember Bush in Iraq with that Plastic turkey? Chalabi was there, fat pig applauding that idiot ( )


Posted June 19, 2003

More Missing Intelligence
by Robert Dreyfuss


According to the former official, also feeding information to the Office of Special Plans was a secret, rump unit established last year in the office of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel. This unit, which paralleled Shulsky's--and which has not previously been reported--prepared intelligence reports on Iraq in English (not Hebrew) and forwarded them to the Office of Special Plans. It was created in Sharon's office, not inside Israel's Mossad intelligence service, because the Mossad--which prides itself on extreme professionalism--had views closer to the CIA's, not the Pentagon's, on Iraq. This secretive unit, and not the Mossad, may well have been the source of the forged documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake uranium for weapons from Niger in West Africa, according to the former official.


Astonishingly, the Bush Administration did not even bother to prepare and internally publish an intelligence estimate about postwar Iraq. (An "estimate," in intelligence jargon, is a formal evaluation produced after sifting, sorting and analyzing various bits and pieces of raw intelligence. So-called National Intelligence Estimates are produced by a unit that reports immediately to Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet.) "Back in the old days, there would have been an estimate," says Raymond McGovern, the twenty-seven-year CIA warrior who formed Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity this past January. "In their arrogance, they didn't worry about it."


Other sources concur. "There was no intelligence estimate done, and there weren't a lot of questions being asked," says Melvin Goodman, a former CIA analyst with the Center for International Policy. "And I know for a fact that at CIA and NSA , none of them thought that postwar Iraq would be governable." Goodman says that CIA and DIA experts on Iraq were not called in by the Pentagon, and no intelligence roundtables were held to evaluate the situation. Most of the intelligence about how easily the INC and its allies could assume power in Iraq was coming from the INC itself, says a former State Department official. "And I know for a fact that when the subject came up, intelligence officers were extraordinarily skeptical of the exiles' information."


On the eve of the invasion, there was something akin to panic at the Norfolk,Virginia-based US Joint Forces Command, which was responsible for supporting the Pentagon's Iraq task force, then headed by retired Gen. Jay Garner. "They were scared shitless," says a former US official who was in close contact with the command. "They were making it up as they went along." He adds, "There was a great deal of ignorance. They didn't know the names of the tribes, much less how they relate to each other. They didn't have the expertise, and they didn't have enough time to assemble the expertise."



Bush 'skewed facts to justify attack on Iraq'

A growing number of US national security professionals are accusing the Bush Administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq.

A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terror groups.

This team, self-mockingly called the cabal, "cherry-picked the intelligence stream" in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defence Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence.
The INC, which brought together groups opposed to Saddam, worked closely with the Pentagon to build a case against Iraq. "There are current intelligence officials who believe it is a scandal," Mr Cannistraro said.

Cheney Investigated Forged Niger Uranuium Document

As though this were normal! I mean the repeated visits Vice President Dick Cheney made to the CIA before the war in Iraq. The visits were, in fact, unprecedented. During my 27-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, no vice president ever came to us for a working visit.

During the '80s, it was my privilege to brief Vice President George H.W. Bush, and other very senior policy makers every other morning. I went either to the vice president's office or (on weekends) to his home. I am sure it never occurred to him to come to CIA headquarters.

The morning briefings gave us an excellent window on what was uppermost in the minds of those senior officials and helped us refine our tasks of collection and analysis. Thus, there was never any need for policy makers to visit us. And the very thought of a vice president dropping by to help us with our analysis is extraordinary. We preferred to do that work without the pressure that inevitably comes from policy makers at the table.

Cheney got into the operational side of intelligence as well. Reports in late 2001 that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger stirred such intense interest that his office let it be known he wanted them checked out. So, with the CIA as facilitator, a retired U.S. ambassador was dispatched to Niger in February 2002 to investigate. He found nothing to substantiate the report and lots to call it into question. There the matter rested until last summer, after the Bush administration made the decision for war in Iraq.

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11

(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.
Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." (Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hours after 9/11 attack)

A call to maintain CIA independence.

As the White House searches for every possible excuse to go to war with Iraq, pressure has been building on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates to fit a political agenda. In this case, the agencies are being pressed to find a casus belli for war, whether or not one exists.

"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," Vince Cannistraro, the agency's former head of counterterrorism, told The Guardian, a London newspaper.

This confirms what Knight-Ridder reporters found: "A growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war," the news service reported recently. "They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary."

U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed
The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he added in a phone interview. He said the CIA had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.

Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of Central Intelligence Agency counterterrorist operations, said he knew of serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up "fraudulent" intelligence, "a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi."
They believe the administration, before going to war, had a "moral obligation to use the best information available, not just information that fits your preconceived ideas."


The top Marine Corps officer in Iraq, Lt. Gen. James Conway, said on Friday U.S. intelligence was "simply wrong" in leading military commanders to fear troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons in the March invasion of Iraq that ousted Saddam.

Richard Perle, a Chalabi backer and member of the Defense Policy Board that advises Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, defended the four-person unit in a television interview.

CIA had doubts on Iraq link to al-Qaida

The debunking of the Bush administration's pre-war certainties on Iraq gathered pace yesterday when it emerged that the CIA knew for months that a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida was highly unlikely.

As President George Bush was forced for the second time in days to defend the decision to go to war, a new set of leaks from CIA officials suggested a tendency in the White House to suppress or ignore intelligence findings which did not shore up the case for war.

Ex-CIA Officers Questioning Iraq Data

A small group composed mostly of retired CIA officers is appealing to colleagues still inside to go public with any evidence the Bush administration is slanting intelligence to support its case for war with Iraq.

Members of the group contend the Bush administration has released information on Iraq that meets only its ends -- while ignoring or withholding contrary reporting.

They also say the administration's public evidence about the immediacy of Iraq's threat to the United States and its alleged ties to al-Qaida is unconvincing, and accuse policy-makers of pushing out some information that does not meet an intelligence professional's standards of proof.

"It's been cooked to a recipe, and the recipe is high policy," said Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA veteran who briefed top Reagan administration security officials before retiring in 1990. "That's why a lot of my former colleagues are holding their noses these days." ---

Public was misled, claim ex-CIA men

A GROUP of former US intelligence officials has written to President Bush claiming that the US Congress and the American public were misled about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the war.

The groups members, most of them former CIA analysts, say that they have close contacts withsenior officials working inside the US intelligence agencies, who have told them that intelligence wascooked to persuade Congress to authorise the war.

The manipulation of intelligence has, they say, produced a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions. They write in the letter to Mr Bush: While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes, never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorise launching a war.

You may not realise the extent of the current ferment within the intelligence community and particularly the CIA. In intelligence, there is one unpardonable sin cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy. There is ample indication that this has been done in Iraq.

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

U.S. diplomats also tried to stop this invasion:

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation

Letter of Resignation (Mary Wright)

U.S. Mongolian Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq (Fourth U.S. Diplomat)

Third U.S. Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq Policy

Second US Diplomat Resigns in Protest
U.S. diplomat resigns over Iraq war plans

Niger-Uranium Timeline



Richard Perle

In 1968 the neocons backed the late Senator Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota for president. In 1972, they mobilized their support behind the late Senator Henry Jackson from Washington. Both Humphrey and Jackson represented staunch anti-Soviet and pro-Israeli positions in the party...Senator Jackson's aides, Richard Perle and Elliott Abrams, who later became major figures in the Reagan foreign policy team, attempted to torpedo any effort by the Nixon and Carter administrations to improve relations with the Soviet Union or to launch peace efforts in the Middle East. From Jackson's office, the two led the campaign to use the issue of Jewish immigration from the Soviet Union to sabotage detente between Washington and Moscow...The neoconservatives formed the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (CDM) in 1973, aimed at rallying anti-Soviet and pro-Israeli Democrats in opposition to the McGovern liberals. That year also saw the beginning of the neoconservative drift toward the Republican Party, whose leaders saw in recruitment of the neocons an opportunity to improve Republican status in the media and in academic circles...It was the Carter administration's foreign policy agenda, including its efforts to improve the relationship with the Soviets and to accommodate the national interests of the Palestinians, that accelerated the political transition of the neocons from the Democratic to the Republican Party. Carter did not bring any members of the CDM into his administration...
The CDM, with the help of neoconservative columnists like Krautharnmer and Safire and of the New Republic, was the driving force behind a coordinated effort to weaken public support for Carter. For example, Michael Ledeen...whose name would surface later as one of the instigators of the IranContra affair (a note here - he was the Mossad-CIA link during the Iran-Contra scandal, and the man who got convicted spy J Pollard his Department of the Navy job) wrote an article in the New Republic which revealed ties between the late Billy Carter, the president's alcoholic brother, and Libyan government officials...At the same time, members of the CDM and other neoconservatives played a leading role in shaping the agenda of the Reagan administration...In addition to Kirkpatrick, who got her job as US representative to the UN after an article she published in Commentary caught Reagan's interest, other neocons occupied top positions in the Reagan foreign policy team. One was Max Kampelman, a former aide to Humphrey who was appointed to the position of director of arms control, and who was later replaced by another neocon, Kenneth Adelman. Richard Perle became the assistant secretary of defense. Richard Pipes, a regular Commentary contributor, joined the National Security Council. Elliot Abrams served as assistant secretary of state for human rights and later as assistant secretary for hemispheric affairs, where he played an active role in the Iran-Contra was the end of the Cold War that spelled disaster to the neocons, now at risk of being deprived of their favorite enemy...Enter the Middle Eastern bogeyman. - neoconservative intellectuals have focused on the need for the US to confront the new transnational enemy from the East, radical Arab nationalism and Islamic "fundamentalism," or what Krauthammer termed the "global intifada." The operational implication of this type of reasoning is that the original intifada can be forgotten. The neocons' main antagonists in the successful effort to get the United States to start shooting in the campaign to contain Saddam were the so-called "paleoconservatives," such as Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran, who since the end of the Cold War had been advocating a less activist American foreign policy...Most US proponents of sanctions, whether liberal or conservative, feared that a war in which thousands of Arabs died at American hands would, in the long run, increasingly isolate Washington in the region. Ironically, the only way to prevent such negative results of the neocon agenda would be decisive efforts by the Bush administration to follow up the rollback of Saddam with an Israeli-Palestinian settlement based upon land for peace. It is just such efforts, however, that the neocons can be counted upon to oppose..."

That was 1991 - the neocons kept on trying, and got their big chance after the G W Bush victory and 9/11.
A few more details about the main characters:

<snipped, you'll have to read the rest here: >


An entire history to be found here: PNAC Links Archive


More here:

The spies who pushed for war

Matcom's Dad (Ex CIA) Weighs In On "SPIES WHO PUSHED FOR WAR"

BFEE/PNAC Mob's sleazy "Office of Special Plans" exposed by Guardian

Plenty, plenty more in the archives. Dear God, oh please let a few DUers have their say when this "apology" is made!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Pobeka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
44. What the? Kay is a WMD investigator, *not* a CIA investigator!
Edited on Tue Jan-27-04 12:03 AM by Pobeka
Somehow, Kay has become the investigator into the operations of the CIA?

When did that happen? What a bunch of bull.

I hope someone clobbers the GOP big time with this one.

On edit: I based my reaction on the NY Times article this morning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
45. Not hardly.
David seems to have forgotten that the U.S. has about 10 different intelligence agencies that use different methods to provide verification (or non-verification) of each other's findings. A properly functioning executive branch would never rely on one source of intelligence to launch a military attack. This White House had years of raw intelligence data from multiple sources including foreign to analyze and verify at will over a period of years. They obviously failed at this duty. The raw intelligence data could not possibly support the White House WMD claims when there were no WMD. I doubt that ALL the analysts and managers at ALL those intelligence agencies would agree to promote a pack of lies contradicting their raw data. Bushco simply was not interested in the truth and thus did not seek it. Instead they did what they privately WANTED to do using national resources. Nobody owes them an apology and the mere suggestion is reprehensible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
46. This is what fascists do. They scapegoat the most
convenient agency or individual to take the fall for their evil deeds. What ever happened to the buck stops here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
47. The CIA is irrelevant
Dick needs to send out orders for military brass to drop the hatchet on all them extra agencies, they will save on middle-man costs. The entire Intel community can be ran by four guys in the basement of Pentagon
Dems Scrap Plans To Look Into Claims White House Manipulated Intel On Iraqi Threat
by Jason Leopold
After collecting the intelligence data, the Office of Special Plans then sent the information it gathered directly to Vice President Dick Cheneys office and to the office of National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice without first vetting the information through the CIA, the intelligence officials said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
48. How about an apology for the 8000 missing pages?
Published on Sunday, December 22, 2002 by The Sunday Herald (Scotland)
America Tore Out 8000 Pages of Iraq Dossier
by James Cusick and Felicity Arbuthnot

THE United States edited out more than 8000 crucial pages of Iraq's 11,800-page dossier on weapons, before passing on a sanitized version to the 10 non-permanent members of the United Nations security council.


Last week, Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan accepted that it was 'unfortunate' that his organization had allowed the US to take the only complete dossier and edit it. He admitted 'the approach and style were wrong' and Norway, a member of the security council, says it is being treated like a 'second-class country'.

Although Powell called the Iraqi dossier a 'catalogue of recycled information and flagrant omissions', the non-permanent members of the security council will have no way of testing the US claims for themselves. This will be crucial if the US and the UK go back to the security council seeking explicit authorization for war on Iraq if breaches of resolution 1441 are confirmed when the weapons inspectors -- this weekend investigating 10 sites in Iraq, including an oil refinery south of Baghdad -- deliver their report to the UN next month.

A UN source in New York said: 'The questions being asked are valid. What did the US take out? And if weapons inspectors are supposed to be checking against the dossier's content, how can any future claim be verified. In effect the US is saying trust us, and there are many who just will not.'


Although the five permanent members of the security council -- the US, the UK, France, China and Russia -- have had access to the complete version, there was agreement that the US be allowed to edit the dossier on the ground that its contents were 'risky' in terms of security on weapons proliferation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #48
50. That's how it seemed to me too
The five perms are the same part of the vacuous state of leadership in world affairs. A toothless paper Tiger. The only way things are going to get better is if the populations of world at large take all matters into their own hands

(yes, we know the REVOLUTION will not be televised)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
49. Bullshite... most of the crap intelliegence came from
the Pentagons office of special operations. It was scripted by Wolfowitcz, Cheney and others.

They are trying to BLAME the CIA... give me a break.

This was a WH job from the word GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #49
53. correct intel from OSP..."Office of Special Plans" NOT the this
Edited on Tue Jan-27-04 08:41 AM by ElsewheresDaughter

They were a pretty shadowy presence. Normally when you compile an intelligence document, all the agencies get together to discuss it. The OSP was never present at any of the meetings I attended. - Gregory Thielmann, a senior official in the state department's intelligence

"That office was charged with collecting, vetting and disseminating intelligence completely outside of the normal intelligence apparatus. In fact, it appears that information collected by this office was in some instances not even shared with established intelligence agencies and in numerous instances was passed on to the national security council and the president without having been vetted with anyone other than political appointees"- Democratic congressman David Obey


Soon after September 11, a small intelligence office was created by the Pentagon to assess the threat that Iraq allegedly posed to the U.S. It remained relatively secret during the first year of its existence, known only by Donald Rumsfeld's inner circle of neoconservative ideologues. Sources within the intelligence community told reporters that the group, known as the Office of Special Plans, cherry-picked intelligence from questionable sources to support the case for invading Iraq. The intelligence team's conclusions were presented directly to the White House and National Security Agency without first being vetted by other intelligence agencies, like the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The office was also blamed for the administration's lack of post-war plans in Iraq and accused of undermining the administration's policy towards Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bushwakker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
52. More like the other way around
How anyone can fll for this is beyond me - and I don't think many will. This pr campaign by Kay was no doublt orchestrated by the WH. they might regret opening up this can of giant worms. Bush owes the world an apology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Stuckinthebush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
55. Hey, matcom!
What does your father have to say about this?

I'm sure his buddies are all trying to get at the front of the line to apologize, right?

Boy...the Bush administration keeps digging and digging themselves into a deeper hole with the CIA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Malva Zebrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-04 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
56. this is really sad eh?
we are supposed to believe that the most wealthy, powerful, almighty, country with a huge military industrial complex has a piss poor intelligence agency? This is not a plausable denial on the part of Kay and indirectly Bush. Instead it makes them all look like petulant little kids playing in the sandbox. The sad part is that all sorts of justifications to the murder of thousands of innocent people, plus over five hundred troops on a criminal invasion of a country on a lie(s)--and that lie came from George Bush, Colin Powell, Condoleea Rics, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and the whole dirty rotten lot of them. Now they , in all confidence, hand out this bull shit, knowing it is likely they will get away with more outrageous lies in order to cover up the previous lies.

I don't for one minute believe we have such a crummy intelligence service or agencies. I hope they do go after Bush for trying to pin it on them--a coward like Bush always putting the blame on someone else--the sailors hung the "mission accomplished" banner, ets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jan 16th 2018, 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC