intelligence failure or policy failure?

[Mavdog]

the truth had to come out sooner or later. did the white house believe they could hide it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ex-CIA agent says WMD intelligence ignored
Fri Apr 21, 5:39 PM ET

The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein, a former senior CIA official said according to CBS.

Tyler Drumheller, who headed CIA covert operations in Europe during the run-up to the Iraq war, said intelligence opposing administration claims of a WMD threat came from a top Iraqi official who provided the U.S. spy agency with other credible information.

The source "told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller said in a CBS interview to be aired on Sunday on the network's news magazine, "60 Minutes."

"The (White House) group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested," he was quoted as saying in interview excerpts released by CBS on Friday.

"We said: 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said: 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change'," added Drumheller, whose CIA operation was assigned the task of debriefing the Iraqi official.

He was the latest former U.S. official to accuse the White House of setting an early course toward war in Iraq and ignoring intelligence that conflicted with its aim.

CBS said the CIA's intelligence source was former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri and that former CIA Director George Tenet delivered the information personally to President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top White House officials in September 2002. They rebuffed the CIA three days later.

"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy," the former CIA agent told CBS.

U.S. allegations that Saddam had WMD and posed a threat to international security was a main justification for the March 2003 invasion.

A 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, to which the CIA was a major contributor, concluded that prewar Iraq had an active nuclear program and a huge stockpile of unconventional weapons.

No such weapons have been found, however, and U.S. assertions that they existed are now regarded as a hugely damaging intelligence failure.

But Drumheller, co-author of a forthcoming book entitled "On the Brink: How the White House Has Compromised American Intelligence," rejects the notion of an intelligence failure.

"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure," he told CBS. "This was a policy failure."

[dude1394]

Why o' why didnt' this agent convince the 9/11 panel? Why because he's full of crap that's why.

And that Colin Powell...guess we outta get that uncle tom as well. Obviously he's just a puppet...

Keep swinging libs.

[Mavdog]

was this agent asked to testify to the 9/11 panel? was he still employed at the agency then?

colin powell has stated he was given a bunch of bs.

an ostrich mentality isn't a good way to look at things...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

was this agent asked to testify to the 9/11 panel? was he still employed at the agency then?

Who the heck knows...All I know is an independent bi-partisan committee says he's full of crap.

colin powell has stated he was given a bunch of bs.

Yea but that's not what you are proposing. We all know the intelligence turned out to be wrong. You (and this cretin) are saying

"The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein, a former senior CIA official said according to CBS."

Show me where Colin has said that the White House ignored intelligence because they were intent on "ousting" Sadaam Hussein.
And of course all poor itty bitty Sadaam Hussein had to do was show what the hell happened to his WMD and programs. But you'd rather we stick OUR head in the sand and wait for a nuke over NY.

THANK GOD you democrats aren't in power, thank you lord, thank you.

an ostrich mentality isn't a good way to look at things...

It sure isn't and that's what you wanted us to do after 9/11. Hope like hell that Sadaam wasn't telling the truth about his WMD.

Of course we did go to war with the full agreement and cooperation of your fellow liberal head in the sand democrats, until it got tough. And then as they alwasy do, they want to run home to momma and make political hay out of it.

Cowards.

Not to mention is "C"BS reporting it. I think I'll have to see certified documentation before they get credit again.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Who the heck knows...All I know is an independent bi-partisan committee says he's full of crap.

no, you are wrong. the commission said NOTHING about this man. they made a judgement about the information they were given.

Yea but that's not what you are proposing. We all know the intelligence turned out to be wrong. You (and this cretin) are saying

"The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein, a former senior CIA official said according to CBS."

Show me where Colin has said that the White House ignored intelligence because they were intent on "ousting" Sadaam Hussein.
And of course all poor itty bitty Sadaam Hussein had to do was show what the hell happened to his WMD and programs. But you'd rather we stick OUR head in the sand and wait for a nuke over NY.

uh, colin powell used the words "regret" about his statements and that the Iraq presentation was a "blot on his record". he admits the information was bs, the fact you won't admit the same is a good question.

read the article again. the point was that the intelligence was NOT wrong. just ignored due to it not fitting the plan of "regime change". some of us are aware of that item, some of us want to act like it doesn't exist. you're clearly in the later camp. the ostrich camp...

"a nuke over NY"??? let's see, he had no nukes and we have no evidence he was aligned with terrorists. other than the facts being against you, I guess you have a point

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, you are wrong. the commission said NOTHING about this man. they made a judgement about the information they were given.

Semantics...what they said is that his assertion is full of crap.

uh, colin powell used the words "regret" about his statements and that the Iraq presentation was a "blot on his record". he admits the information was bs, the fact you won't admit the same is a good question.

Again I'm not arguing that the intelligence was wrong, just that there wasn't some nefarious mission by the white house to overlook, hype or do anything other than act on the best intelligence they had. Again (and again and again and again) the same intelligence that every other country also believed.

read the article again. the point was that the intelligence was NOT wrong. just ignored due to it not fitting the plan of "regime change". some of us are aware of that item, some of us want to act like it doesn't exist. you're clearly in the later camp. the ostrich camp...

And that is what I'm arguing about, that is the political assertion you are trying to make that is bs, always has been.

"a nuke over NY"??? let's see, he had no nukes and we have no evidence he was aligned with terrorists. other than the facts being against you, I guess you have a point

Clever "aligned" with terrorists. He had a terrorist training camp at salman pak(sp), he was paying suicide bombers, our (and the rest of the worlds..including the CIA's) said he had weapons programs.

Again..thank you lord, for keeping democrats out of the white house.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Semantics...what they said is that his assertion is full of crap.

nope. they said nothing about this mans assertion, as his assertion wasn't made when the committee met.

talk about semantics, your point that a commission that held its hearings over 2 years BEFORE this revelation determined the revelation was wrong is absolutely illogical.

Again I'm not arguing that the intelligence was wrong, just that there wasn't some nefarious mission by the white house to overlook, hype or do anything other than act on the best intelligence they had. Again (and again and again and again) the same intelligence that every other country also believed.

wonder why all those countries "believed" the intelligence about wmd? possible due to relying on what they were given...by the white house. your logic reminds me of the mother on tv who keeps claiming her son couldn't possibly have committed the crime he is accused of because he told her he didn't...in spite of the evidence, she keeps saying he didn't do it because he told her he didn't.

Clever "aligned" with terrorists. He had a terrorist training camp at salman pak(sp), he was paying suicide bombers, our (and the rest of the worlds..including the CIA's) said he had weapons programs.

lmao! the senate committee said these claims on salmon pak being a "terrorist training camp" were bogus.

yep, an ostrich mentality. sorry to hear it.