Bush Deputy CIA Director admits we were lied to in the run up to the Iraq War

[Bowfinger]

No it wasn't a "failure of intelligence" as Republicans are trying to frame it. Dick Cheney cherry-picked, shaped intelligence and outright lied to get us into the war he and Bush wanted.

I believe this is a smoking gun
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...on_iraq_wmd_lies_do_you_think_its_a_joke.html

Republicans are still trying to claim a "mistake" when the deputy Director admitted VP Dick Cheney went on Meet The Press and made a claim that was not true.

Thought I'd bump this again since (maybe) the Bush apologists are done deflecting.

 

[bshole]

Thought I'd bump this again since (maybe) the Bush apologists are done deflecting.

I second that. I am still perplexed why treason/criminal charges have not been filed against any of these villains. It is completely inexecusable.

The CIA officer sitting across from me at the Silver Diner in McLean, Virginia, seemed nothing like Hollywood’s portrayal of an intelligence agent. It wasn’t so much his appearance—bearded, bald, with glasses and a brown plaid shirt—that belied Ben Bonk’s occupation. Rather, it was the tears in his eyes.

“Maybe if they hadn’t deceived me, I could have done something,’’ he told me. “Maybe I could have stopped the Iraq War.”

Bonk, a former deputy director of the agency’s Counterterrorist Center and an officer responsible for intelligence on Iraq in the year leading up to the U.S. invasion in 2003, spoke with me on background in June 2010 about events leading to the disastrous war. He died eight months later. Under our agreement, everything he told me is now on the record.

And Bonk’s statements—about deceptions that prevented solid intelligence on Iraq from reaching President George W. Bush, as well as other information kept from the public during the buildup to war—are once again in the news as candidates for the Republican presidential nomination fumble with questions about whether that invasion was a mistake. This has been asked of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Senator Marco Rubio, each time with a qualifier: “Given what we know now...”



But with that parenthetical, reporters are perpetuating one of the greatest falsehoods in history. The real question should be: “Given what we knew then...” Bush hawks knew there was no good intelligence establishing that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). And in what could easily be interpreted as near-treason, they never told the president about the weakness of the intelligence, several former high-ranking officials from the administration have told me.

Plenty of the best-informed intelligence sources were certain the WMDs were a fantasy. French intelligence knew it; so did Russia and Germany. The strongest human intelligence collected by the CIA—which secretly came from the Iraqi foreign minister, Naji Sabri, and Iraq's head of intelligence, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti—was detailed, correct and ignored. Instead, the administration built its case on Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi (the infamous “Curveball,” a man German intelligence had warned the CIA was unreliable) and Muhammad Harith, a former Iraqi intelligence officer whose information was dismissed by British intelligence as a fabrication 10 months before the war began.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So pathetic that such intelligent people were bamboozled by a stammering idiot.

 

[Bowfinger]

So pathetic that such intelligent people were bamboozled by a stammering idiot.

You're lying again.

 

[dank69]

So pathetic that such intelligent people were bamboozled by a stammering idiot.

Are you saying there was some way for Hillary and company to know that Bush wasn't going to use the AUMF as a last resort?

 

[bshole]

So pathetic that such intelligent people were bamboozled by a stammering idiot.

How could we believe that our own president and cabinet could be capable of such evil? That we had an elected a man so devoid of morals and full of hubris that he would concoct a war out of lies?

What is more pathetic is that the world has not dragged these criminals into the Hague and charged them with crimes against humanity. The Iraq war was NOT a mistake, it was an act of nearly unprecented evil. These men are traitors and scum. That they are not rotting in cages is an affront to human decency.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The main reason they were so easily bamboozled by the stammering idiot is the previous administration/Congress believed that Saddam had WMDs and was looking to add to what he had.

 

[senseamp]

Nothing new for me, I already knew that Republicans are unfit for office.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Those who were bamboozled are not fit for office either.

 

[cabri]

How could we believe that our own president and cabinet could be capable of such evil? That we had an elected a man so devoid of morals and full of hubris that he would concoct a war out of lies?

What is more pathetic is that the world has not dragged these criminals into the Hague and charged them with crimes against humanity. The Iraq war was NOT a mistake, it was an act of nearly unprecented evil. These men are traitors and scum. That they are not rotting in cages is an affront to human decency.

Yet those that continue to perpetuate the situation are granted a pass. Why?

Iraq has been shown to have feet of clay (politically and militarily). Yet the present administration continues to prop it up.

Same is with Afghanistan.

The lessons not learned and mistakes of Vietnam is being repeated

 

[chucky2]

Those who were bamboozled are not fit for office either.

I'm not sure you could really claim they were bamboozled though, these are Politician after all - beyond all else, by a vast margin, is their priority for getting re-elected. After 9/11 the country, that is, the people who vote to elect these things called Politician, wanted someone to pay. Mountains in Afghanistan really aren't that sexy, especially not in little media clips. Iraq though, now that the average voter is familiar with. Thinking these things called Politician didn't want to vote for us going to smash up Iraq, and thus, please very large %'s of their constituency, going a very long ways to getting them re-elected, is naïve. So it's not that they were bamboozled...it's that they were "bamboozled". It's "" because had Iraq gone well but no WMD found, we'd not be inundated with these same Pols crying huge crocodile tears that they were bamboozled and just couldn't have looked into intelligence on their own before making a major decision for the country, but rather were completely hoodwinked by the dumbest mofo to walk the face of the earth (if Bush detractors are to be believed), No, instead, we'd be inundated with the same exact Pols patting themselves on the back on how they made the right call and 'Everyone knew Saddam had to go, that he has a bad dude, Human Rights, Clear and Present Danger, etc' and zero in the media would be questioning it.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Typical Right reaction: it's not the fault of the person who did something wrong, it's the person who was wronged for allowing it to happen.

Which would explain why the Right loves to bash and place the blame on rape victims instead of the rapists.

 

[thraashman]

Typical Right reaction: it's not the fault of the person who did something wrong, it's the person who was wronged for allowing it to happen.

Which would explain why the Right loves to bash and place the blame on rape victims instead of the rapists.

What was Iraq wearing? How much did it have to drink? Are we sure Iraq didn't give consent to being invaded before it passed out?

 

[Jhhnn]

Interesting, because to hear Obama tell it, one would think the withdrawal was a major foreign policy achievement for him, and that Bush had nothing to do with it.

Anything to blame shift to Obama, huh?

If he claimed it to be a victory (you haven't shown that he did) then he was just making the best of the hand he was dealt.

 

[Jhhnn]

Those who were bamboozled are not fit for office either.

Which would be pretty much a majority of the population at the time & every Rightie who opens their mouth on the subject today. Witness the usual suspects in this thread & many more. Witness Jeb fer crissake.

Once chumped, they stay chumped unless they have an epiphany & come to their senses.

Might want to try it yourself. Either you're prepared to admit that we were victims of a monstrous deception, or not. Pick one, becuse you can't have both.

 

[xBiffx]

Who is claiming that?

Are you serious?

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not sure you could really claim they were bamboozled though, these are Politician after all - beyond all else, by a vast margin, is their priority for getting re-elected. After 9/11 the country, that is, the people who vote to elect these things called Politician, wanted someone to pay. Mountains in Afghanistan really aren't that sexy, especially not in little media clips. Iraq though, now that the average voter is familiar with. Thinking these things called Politician didn't want to vote for us going to smash up Iraq, and thus, please very large %'s of their constituency, going a very long ways to getting them re-elected, is naïve. So it's not that they were bamboozled...it's that they were "bamboozled". It's "" because had Iraq gone well but no WMD found, we'd not be inundated with these same Pols crying huge crocodile tears that they were bamboozled and just couldn't have looked into intelligence on their own before making a major decision for the country, but rather were completely hoodwinked by the dumbest mofo to walk the face of the earth (if Bush detractors are to be believed), No, instead, we'd be inundated with the same exact Pols patting themselves on the back on how they made the right call and 'Everyone knew Saddam had to go, that he has a bad dude, Human Rights, Clear and Present Danger, etc' and zero in the media would be questioning it.

Oh, please. The fear mongering campaign leading up to the invasion was epic, one of the most effective propaganda efforts in history. Congress knew full well that the Bushistas had public opinion on their side, regardless of the truth of the matter.They also made the WoT into a partisan issue with all the with us or against us rally around our tough on Terrar president you soft headed terrorist coddling fools. Congress was marched up against the midterms where Dubya put the gun to their heads, the AUMF.

I'm sure some knew that much of it was fabrication. Few had reason to suspect it was *all* fabrication, that the Bushistas would march us to war solely on the basis of lies. They were mistaken. The only stupid people I'm seeing today are those who still defend it because they can't admit to having elected psychopathic leadership.

 

[senseamp]

Those who were bamboozled are not fit for office either.

Typical diversion. :thumbsup: Put fraudsters and fraud victims in same group. Right wing propaganda conditioned you well. Goebbels would be proud.

 

[Newell Steamer]

What was Iraq wearing? How much did it have to drink? Are we sure Iraq didn't give consent to being invaded before it passed out?

If it was an invasion, a country who didn't want to be invaded, would have repelled it. So, clearly, it wanted it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Which would be pretty much a majority of the population at the time & every Rightie who opens their mouth on the subject today. Witness the usual suspects in this thread & many more. Witness Jeb fer crissake.

Once chumped, they stay chumped unless they have an epiphany & come to their senses.

Might want to try it yourself. Either you're prepared to admit that we were victims of a monstrous deception, or not. Pick one, becuse you can't have both.

Considering that I was in the military during GH Bush's Presidency, I believed Saddam had WMDs/was trying to secure means of manufacturing more. I continued believing such during 8 years of the Clinton Presidency, many in cabinet positions and Senate/Congress believed this was the case as well, many mentioned such in their speeches and comments to the press considering the subject. It was not hard to believe the same could still be the case during GW Bush's Presidency as well. I think all this prior supposed knowledge made it easier to believe what was being put forth and getting the votes to authorize the war against Iraq. However, those who voted for it must admit they did not research this issue far enough and voted "Yes" to protect their political hides.

I never agreed with going to war against Iraq and always thought this was GW trying avenge the threats against his father by Saddam. Though once we were at war I believed we needed to do all we could to ensure the troops had what they needed to do their job and be safe while doing so.

I fully supported going in to Afghanistan and was disappointed that we didn't do everything to eliminate Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership.

 

[Jhhnn]

Considering that I was in the military during GH Bush's Presidency, I believed Saddam had WMDs/was trying to secure means of manufacturing more. I continued believing such during 8 years of the Clinton Presidency, many in cabinet positions and Senate/Congress believed this was the case as well, many mentioned such in their speeches and comments to the press considering the subject. It was not hard to believe the same could still be the case during GW Bush's Presidency as well. I think all this prior supposed knowledge made it easier to believe what was being put forth and getting the votes to authorize the war against Iraq. However, those who voted for it must admit they did not research this issue far enough and voted "Yes" to protect their political hides.

I never agreed with going to war against Iraq and always thought this was GW trying avenge the threats against his father by Saddam. Though once we were at war I believed we needed to do all we could to ensure the troops had what they needed to do their job and be safe while doing so.

I fully supported going in to Afghanistan and was disappointed that we didn't do everything to eliminate Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership.

You're still making excuses. Pandering to public sentiment about supposed Iraqi WMD's & nuclear programs is one thing. Actually going to war is entirely another. 9/11 was the perfect excuse & we both know it. You can't shift the blame from the perps to the hostages.

We elected psychopaths to the most powerful positions on the planet & events provided them with the opportunityto engage in long sought military aggression. We have to deal with that if we're to avoid it in the future. Voting for anybody who defends those psychopaths would be incredibly stupid. The candidate is either just as stupid as the voter or a psychopath in their own right, neither one being who we want.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

...or created by Obama when he prematurely withdrew forces that were keeping the peace...

holy shitsnacks, that's a reach and a half.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You're still making excuses. Pandering to public sentiment about supposed Iraqi WMD's & nuclear programs is one thing. Actually going to war is entirely another. 9/11 was the perfect excuse & we both know it. You can't shift the blame from the perps to the hostages.

We elected psychopaths to the most powerful positions on the planet & events provided them with the opportunityto engage in long sought military aggression. We have to deal with that if we're to avoid it in the future. Voting for anybody who defends those psychopaths would be incredibly stupid. The candidate is either just as stupid as the voter or a psychopath in their own right, neither one being who we want.

No problem, I'll do my part and not vote anyone for that authorized the US to go to war against Iraq. Though I'm sure you'll excuse any Democrat who voted for the Iraq war because the were a victim...........amirite????

 

[bshole]

holy shitsnacks, that's a reach and a half.

Yea apparently leaving after more than a decade is akin to premature ejaculation in his world.

 

[cabri]

You're still making excuses. Pandering to public sentiment about supposed Iraqi WMD's & nuclear programs is one thing. Actually going to war is entirely another. 9/11 was the perfect excuse & we both know it. You can't shift the blame from the perps to the hostages.

We elected psychopaths to the most powerful positions on the planet & events provided them with the opportunityto engage in long sought military aggression. We have to deal with that if we're to avoid it in the future. Voting for anybody who defends those psychopaths would be incredibly stupid. The candidate is either just as stupid as the voter or a psychopath in their own right, neither one being who we want.

Sounds like we should not consider any politician that voted for the Iraq conflict. those that did either are willfully blind, politically corrupt or naive.

None with any of those three conditions should be considered.