Interview with 27-year CIA veteran

[Gonad the Barbarian]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/062603B.shtml

Sorry if this has been posted here before, it's dated 6/26 but I don't remember seeing it here. An extremely good read, especially relevent considering what transpired with Tenet today.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Thanks... great interview.

Reading that whole article, was like wow... this administration is the most incompetant adminstration ever.

It's hard to quote any specific juicy tibits, because they're all juicy.

Oh heres one...

PITT: We were talking a little while ago about Andy Card and marketing wars in August, and you stated that the decision to make war in Iraq was made in the summer of 2002. General Wesley Clark appeared on a Sunday talk show with Tim Russert on June 15, and Clark surprisingly mentioned that he was called at his home by the White House on September 11 and told to make the connection between those terrorist attacks and Saddam Hussein. He was told to do this on the day of the attacks, told to say that this was state-sponsored terrorism and there must be a connection. What do you make of that?

McG: That is really fascinating. If you look at what he said, he said, ?Sure, I?ll say that. Where?s the evidence?? In other words, he?s a good soldier. He?s going to do this. But he wanted the evidence, and there was no evidence. Clark was not only a good soldier, but a professional soldier. A professional soldier, at his level at least, asks questions. When he found out there was no evidence, he didn?t say what they wanted him to say.

Contrast that with Colin Powell, who first and foremost is a good soldier. But when he sees the evidence, and knows it smells, he will salute the President and brief him anyway, as he did on the 5th of February.

 

[aswedc]

Thanks... great interview.

 

[Trezza]

if he was in the CIA for 27 starting with Kennedy 1960's how does he know about everying that happened in the past 4 years?

1960+27=1987
2001-27=1974

hmm well i know that kennedy wasn't president in 74 and i also know that the WTC didn't get destroyed in 87 so unless my maths wrong this guy is alittle out of date? prehaps?

This guy Mcgovern seems like he was a CIA guy but doesn't it sound like ... i don't know giving himself more credit than he deserves. What this guy is saying is his opinion on what happened. I mean he compares himself to Colin Powell.

"Trust me i know Colin powell and he is not a Colin Powell"

 

[DealMonkey]

If McGovern is for real, this administration is in for a world of hurt. I'll betcha the false intel about Iraq buying uranium is just the tip of the iceberg. People are really gonna start digging now...

One of my favorite quotes:

McG: On August 6, the title of the briefing was, ?Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US,? and that briefing had the word ?Hijacking? in it. That?s all I know about it, but that?s quite enough. In September, Bush had to make a decision. Is it feasible to let go of Tenet, whose agency flubbed the dub on this one? And the answer was no, because Tenet knows too much about what Bush knew, and Bush didn?t know what to do about it. That?s the bottom line for me.

Bush was well-briefed. Before he went off to Texas to chop wood for a month like Reagan did in California, he was told all these things. He didn?t even have the presence of mind to convene his National Security Council, and say, ?OK guys, we have all these reports, what are we going to do about it?? He just went off to chop wood.

He went off to CHOP WOOD?! Jesus tapdancing christ!

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Wow, I'm glad some folks are have taken the time to read this, but I thought it would get more responses than this.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Trezza
if he was in the CIA for 27 starting with Kennedy 1960's how does he know about everying that happened in the past 4 years?

Maybe he actually, you know, pays attention?

 

[Tripleshot]

This is telling.

" So there it was. ?What?s the problem? We?ll take these reports, we?ll use them to brief Congress and to raise the specter of a mushroom cloud. You?ll recall that the President on the 7th of October said, ?Our smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.? Condoleezza Rice said exactly the same thing the next day. Victoria Clarke said exactly the same thing on the 9th of October, and of course the vote came on the 11th of October.

Don?t take my word for it. Take Henry Waxman?s word for it. Waxman has written the President a very, very bitter letter dated the 17th of March in which he says, ?Mr. President, I was lied to. I was lied to. I was briefed on a forgery, and on the strength of that I voted for war. Tell me how this kind of thing could happen?? That was March 17. He hasn?t received a response from the White House yet. "

But do you really think any of this is going anywhere?

 

[oblizue]

Interesting indepth read.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: oblizue
Interesting indepth read.

Agreed. Thanks, GtB.

 

[UltraQuiet]

If this guy knows so much let's put him under oath and let him testify.

After all he's only been out of the loop for what thirteen, fourteen years.

I guess when someone's telling you what you want to hear, any drivel will do.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
I guess when someone's telling you what you want to hear, any drivel will do.

So this would apply to the current administration and their justification for war w/ Iraq?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
I guess when someone's telling you what you want to hear, any drivel will do.

So this would apply to the current administration and their justification for war w/ Iraq?

No, it would have to do with the other two sentences in my post, that little blurb at the top called the 'Topic Title' and the corresponding link to an article that the thread creator linked to.

Do you get it now or do you need me to use smaller words?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
I guess when someone's telling you what you want to hear, any drivel will do.

So this would apply to the current administration and their justification for war w/ Iraq?

No, it would have to do with the other two sentences in my post, that little blurb at the top called the 'Topic Title' and the corresponding link to an article that the thread creator linked to.

I suspect he was pointing out your apparent hypocrisy, since you seem to eagerly swallow whatever drivel comes out of the White House.

 

[Phuz]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
If this guy knows so much let's put him under oath and let him testify.

After all he's only been out of the loop for what thirteen, fourteen years.

I guess when someone's telling you what you want to hear, any drivel will do.

Why don't we put Bush under oath and see what kind of drivel he'll spout out?
Who the hell do you think is responsible this mess, a 27 year old CIA veteran, or your GD president?

But hey, I guess when someone's telling you what you want to hear, any drivel will do.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
I guess when someone's telling you what you want to hear, any drivel will do.

So this would apply to the current administration and their justification for war w/ Iraq?

No, it would have to do with the other two sentences in my post, that little blurb at the top called the 'Topic Title' and the corresponding link to an article that the thread creator linked to.

I suspect he was pointing out your apparent hypocrisy, since you seem to eagerly swallow whatever drivel comes out of the White House.

I suspect you don't know what the fsck you're taliking about. Check that. I know you don't know what you're talking about.

Why don't we put Bush under oath and see what kind of drivel he'll spout out?
Who the hell do you think is responsible this mess, a 27 year old CIA veteran, or your GD president?

But hey, I guess when someone's telling you what you want to hear, any drivel will do.

1. I agree. Let's put Bush under oath.
2. Neither. I mostly hold Saddam responsible for this mess but there's plenty of blame to go around.
3. Nobody is telling me what I want to hear.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
If this guy knows so much let's put him under oath and let him testify.

After all he's only been out of the loop for what thirteen, fourteen years.

I guess when someone's telling you what you want to hear, any drivel will do.

I was waiting for a post like this. This 'drivel' is coming from someone who for 27 years was paid & trusted by the CIA to take peices of information and paint a plausible, accurate picture from it. Sure, there is some speculation on his part, but to dismiss it as drivel is assinine.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
I guess when someone's telling you what you want to hear, any drivel will do.

So this would apply to the current administration and their justification for war w/ Iraq?

No, it would have to do with the other two sentences in my post, that little blurb at the top called the 'Topic Title' and the corresponding link to an article that the thread creator linked to.

I suspect he was pointing out your apparent hypocrisy, since you seem to eagerly swallow whatever drivel comes out of the White House.

I suspect you don't know what the fsck you're taliking about. Check that. I know you don't know what you're talking about.

Awwww, was it the "...eagerly swallow..." part that made you uncomfortable? Heh

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I suspect he was pointing out your apparent hypocrisy, since you seem to eagerly swallow whatever drivel comes out of the White House.

I suspect you don't know what the fsck you're taliking about. Check that. I know you don't know what you're talking about.

Awwww, was it the "...eagerly swallow..." part that made you uncomfortable? Heh

LOL. At least I spelled "come" with an "o".

 

[DealMonkey]

*milk shoots outta nose*

Waaa ha ha ha hahahahaha! ... ahem. Good one bow

 

[UltraQuiet]

Awwww, was it the "...eagerly swallow..." part that made you uncomfortable? Heh

No it's the obvious lack of intelligence in your posts that disgusts me.

LOL. At least I spelled "come" with an "o".

After hundreds of letter's to your boyfriends, I'm surprised you remember how to spell it with an "o".

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
After hundreds of letter's to your boyfriends, I'm surprised you remember how to spell it with an "o".

Actually, I spell "it" with an "i". I spell "lame" with an "a". And I spell "infantile putz" with every vowel except "o".

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
After hundreds of letter's to your boyfriends, I'm surprised you remember how to spell it with an "o".

Actually, I spell "it" with an "i". I spell "lame" with an "a". And I spell "infantile putz" with every vowel except "o".

What's the matter little boy. It was funny a minute ago when you and monkey were jerkin' each other off. Not so funny now?

 

[DealMonkey]

Nope, it's still funny

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Nope, it's still funny

Yep.