 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Another smoking gun...
>> When no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq, President Bush insisted that all those WMD claims before the war were the result of faulty intelligence. But a former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller ? a 26-year veteran of the agency ? has decided to do something CIA officials at his level almost never do: Speak out.
He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not....
"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller.
Drumheller says he doesn't think it mattered very much to the administration what the intelligence community had to say. "I think it mattered it if verified. This basic belief that had taken hold in the U.S. government that now is the time, we had the means, all we needed was the will," he says. <<
Bush and co. (he names Cheney as well) were cherry-picking to support the pre-ordained conclusion, just as I've said for over a year now!
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Discussion is locked
1 - 30 of 34 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
credibility than you DK. They're still saying Dan Rather was right.
- Collapse -
KP. "Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago [as a 26-year vveteran of the Agency] He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didn?t"
How much more credible can you get? Oh, that's right -- anyone who doesn't march behind our President over the cliff in lockstep with the other lemmings is ipso facto not credible? as the polls show, the public finally realizes that Bush's credibility on matters that count is far lower than Clinton's ever was.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
The way things work is it's the job of naysayers to refute an authoritative report, not basically say "I don't believe it because it doesn't fit my beliefs!"
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
When you don't have anything to refute the argument, you expect someone else to do the digging.
How about you digging deeper and showing us how wrong everyone else is?
Dave presented a hypothesis based on a credible source. How about you presenting an alternative with a credible source? Not just saying that it isn't true and I'm not going to bother proving it. And I'm not interested in "I've proven it before and I'm goint into it again" type of "argument".
Diana
- Collapse -
I believe it's been referenced before. Tenet and one other (McLaughlin maybe?) at CIA dispute the story. The informant "Curveball" was given to us by the German Intelligence people but CIA was not allowed to actually see him until after the Iraq invasion.
There. Someone else can do the lifting for a change. When I provide links, ala the Plame affair, they get ignored anyway. I was similarly accused of not knowing what I was talking about then, but when I provided evidence, a deafening silence.
Relying on ONE source who may be biaed anyway (again, look it up) is far from prudent.
- Collapse -
It's entirely consistent with Richard Clarke's account, and the story about the forged Niger papers is entirely consistent with Joe Wilson's investigation -- and we all know how he was rewarded for his efforts. This reminds me of global warming -- all credible evidence from the true experts is debunked, while those with an agenda are cited as "authority." Tenet got a Presidential Medal of Freedom for his part in the CIA's shoddy work in paving the path to the War in Iraq -- do you really think he's going to admit the whole process was a sham with a preconceived result?! BTW, this dedicated career employee worked for the CIA more than 3x as long as Tenet, who first entered the Agency's doors as its Deputy Director in 1995.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
same old crap. They are cherry-picking themselves and missing the whole picture.
Give it up already.
Oh yeah, what was your case for leaving Saddma in power again?
- Collapse -
and that this story came out in the news a year ago. It's been disputed by Tenet and others in the CIA. The informant came through German intellgence.
- Collapse -
dictators in power. Who should we take out next? Which axis of evil is next?
And who is cherry-picking? If it doesn't fit my paradigm, it's not credible.
The fact that he has a book to sell means he's lying?
Diana
- Collapse -
Saddam was breaking the terms of the end of the first Gulf War. He was firing missiles at our (and British) planes in the No Fly Zone where he wasn't supposed to have weapons. He was giving the UN weapons inspectors a hard time rathger than cooperarting with them ,as he agreed to do. He was killing people by the thousands, etc. an dnot folloewing the rules of Oil for Food, among other things.
We should deal with other dicatators in a logical way. It was logical and necessary to attack Iraq at this time.
So it DOES fit a logical and credible paradigm.
Your answer does not give a credible rationale for leaving Saddam in power, yet clearly that is what DK and others on the left would have had us do.
I've answered this several times now.
- Collapse -
What timetable do you recommend we use with them? Should we give them 10-12 years and then zap 'em?
Diana
- Collapse -
I will assert that, if this is true on the part of the president
''He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not.''
that this article is cherry picked by yourself. How could you miss such such an obvious opportunity for others to note your own hypocracy?
- Collapse -
The premise of the article is that Bush ''cherry picked'' the intelligence that supported his conclusion, plan, whatever rather than to consider all the intelligence in coming to an unbiased conclusion. My assertion is that Dave is guilty of ''cherry picking'' articles that support his conclusion that Bush is, in about every way, a total failure rather than consider that some articles speak otherwise. Thus, Dave K. is doing exactly what he is criticizing Bush for doing...at least that's what I am seeing here.
- Collapse -
It just seems logical that one should not accuse one of a wrongdoing while doing a similar one themselves. Would you criticize a driver for running a red light while you were driving 60 in a 35 zone? Your hypocracy would be showing and, even if your point was valid, why should anyone listen to you?
- Collapse -
whether yours was a statement or a question. As you said
''One cherry-picking is OK and the other isn't?''
If you look at your sentence, it's missing the interogative so it's not written as a question. If you take out the question mark, it definately becomes a statement. I know this might sound nit-picky but, in these forums, I cannot hear your verbal inflections that could have made this more clear to me so I made no presumptions. In any event, my point has nothing to do with whether or not ''cherry picking'' is or isn't ''ok''. It's about critizing a person for doing so while doing so at the same time. I don't see how one can expect to be convincing this way. Hope that sound at least halfway logical. 
- Collapse -
but when the president decided that it was not tolerable for this regime to remain in violation of all these U.N. resolutions, I'm right there with him with the use of force," he said.
So, no matter what Saddam was going down!
- Collapse -
Whenever someone takes the time to debunk/demonstrate the other side to these cherry-picked hit pieces, they go ignored. Not just on this topic.
- Collapse -
tion evaluating Intel from Iraq. The number of news items on this issue and the number of insiders who have come forward from Richard Armitage through George Tenet all the way to this guy are all saying the same thing. Even the outgoing Administration SecDef said Rumsfeld said "I only have one question, what's going on in Iraq." If that doesn't give you a clue to Bush's intentions then you haven't got a clue.
Rob
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic