Booman Tribune

Bush Knew Iraq Was No Threat

by BooMan
Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 01:25:05 PM EST

Let's pretend for a moment that George W. Bush is not our President. Instead, let's posit some hypothetical President in his stead. How would a mature person go about determining whether a country like Iraq might pose an imminent threat to the security of America?

I suppose he would call a meeting and ask his intelligence chiefs to do an assessment of the country's intentions and capabilities. And then, I suppose, he would call another meeting or ask for a report to be drawn up that would present the conclusions of our various intelligence agencies.

Well, as Murray Waas reports, that is exactly what Bush did. He just decided to ignore their assessments and do the one thing that they said might turn Iraq into a threat. And, oh yeah, he repeatedly lied to the American people, too.

The second classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was also a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, this one focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists.

The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources.

The single dissent in the report again came from State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, which believed that the Iraqi leader was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland even if [his] regime's demise is imminent" as the result of a U.S. invasion.

On at least four earlier occasions, beginning in the spring of 2002, according to the same records and sources, the president was informed during his morning intelligence briefing that U.S. intelligence agencies believed it was unlikely that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States.

However, in the months leading up to the war, Bush, Cheney, and Cabinet members repeatedly asserted that Saddam was likely to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or to provide such weapons to Al Qaeda or another terrorist group.

I don't think we even need to complicate things by going deeper into this. The plain facts are that the intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that Iraq posed no threat to the homeland. They also unanimously agreed that Saddam Hussein had no role in 9/11 and that he had no working relationship with al-Qaeda. The Bush administration and sympathetic reporters told the American people the opposite. And then they launched an attack on Iraq which the intelligence agencies had said was the only thing they could conceive of that might lead Iraq to attack America.

Is that keeping us safe?

In some ways this is old news. What makes it new is Murray Waas has gained access to some of the most sensitive documents of the government: Presidential intelligence summaries. And they show that the President was well informed on both the view that Iraq posed no threat and that there was strong dissent over whether the famous aluminium tubes were thought to be for uranium enrichment. Until now, the administration has either denied knowledge of these facts or has sought to spin them.

The summaries stated that both the Energy and State departments dissented on the aluminum tubes question. This is the first evidence that Bush was aware of the intense debate within the government during the time that he, Cheney, and members of the Cabinet were citing the procurement of the tubes as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program.

In his address to the U.N. General Assembly on September 12, 2002, the president asserted, "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."

On October 7, 2002, less than a week after Bush was given the summary, he said in a speech in Cincinnati: "Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen' -- his nuclear holy warriors.... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

On numerous other occasions, Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and then-U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte cited Iraq's procurement of aluminum tubes without disclosing that the intelligence community was split as to their end use. The fact that the president was informed of the dissents by Energy and State is also significant because Rice and other administration officials have said that Bush did not know about those dissenting views when he made claims about the purported uses for the tubes.

On July 11, 2003, aboard Air Force One during a presidential trip to Africa, Rice was asked about the National Intelligence Estimate and whether the president knew of the dissenting views among intelligence agencies regarding Iraq's procurement of the aluminum tubes.

Months earlier, disagreement existed within the administration over how to characterize the aluminum tubes in a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell gave to the U.N. on February 5, 2003. Breaking ranks with others in the administration, Powell decided to refer to the internal debate among government agencies over Iraq's intended use of the tubes.

Asked about this by a reporter on Air Force One, Rice said: "I'm saying that when we put [Powell's speech] together... the secretary decided that he would caveat the aluminum tubes, which he did.... The secretary also has an intelligence arm that happened to hold that view."

Rice added, "Now, if there were any doubts about the underlying intelligence to that NIE, those doubts were not communicated to the president, to the vice president, or to me."

Yes. Except that they were...and now we have proof.

the one-page summary, several senior government officials said in interviews, was written specifically for Bush, was handed to the president by then-CIA Director George Tenet, and was read in Tenet's presence.

In addition, Rice, Cheney, and dozens of other high-level Bush administration policy makers received a highly classified intelligence assessment, known as a Senior Executive Memorandum, on the aluminum tubes issue. Circulated on January 10, 2003, the memo was titled "Questions on Why Iraq Is Procuring Aluminum Tubes and What the IAEA Has Found to Date."

The paper included discussion regarding the fact that the INR, Energy, and the United Nations atomic energy watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, all believed that Iraq was using the aluminum tubes for conventional weapons programs.

This is what 'fixing the facts around the policy' looks like. And, I might add, that half the intelligence the Bush administration relied on, rather than ignoring, was absolute crap. So, they fed bad intelligence into the system through people like Ahmed Chalabi and the Niger forgerist, and when they still didn't get the casus belli they needed for war, they just lied about or distorted what the intelligence services had advised them.

Add it all up, and add up all the death, injury, misery, ill-will, and expense that resulted from Bush's decision to go to war. How could anyone not call for his impeachment?



Display:
Also available in orange.
by BooMan on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 01:41:10 PM EST
Let's see, he was warned about jet's flying into buildings, he knew Iraq was no threat, he knew katrina was . . . How much does it take for us to turn this into a feeding frenzy of opportunism by his own fleeing ex-suppporters?
by Jaded Prole (partisanpoet@excite.com) on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 01:46:09 PM EST
What does it take to impeach? A little bit of "eyecandy" everyday. Most defeatist say it can`t happen, it can`t be done,.. bla bla bla.
I think a lot of people don`t realize it can be done. If they knew what it takes legally & that just bringing any action toward that end is part of the end in itself, I think there would be more action.
A month ago I emailed you to crosspost "KAGRO X"s impeach diarys
[I don`t know how to], but received no reply. It seems more people are coming around, but what it will take is beyond me. It has gone too far already that any sane person might give up. Luckily I`m just crazy & giving up is not an option for me.

The difference between theists and atheists is that the atheists don't set the theists on fire for refusing to agree with them.
by KNUCKLEHEAD on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 01:57:29 PM EST
to all the people that write me and receive no reply, I apologize.  I often get several hundred emails a day.  And I have to limit what I respond to.  
by BooMan on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 02:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey MR. BOO, the above post was NOT a reprimand in any way. I realize the enormity of your tasks plus, If you get to have a life, the unknown travails you have therein. What I was saying is that people are involved in putting out information for all to peruse & that I was trying to get a larger crowd to do the perusing. {Is that a word?]
I don`t have a bad bone in my body,,,, just some real sore ones.

The difference between theists and atheists is that the atheists don't set the theists on fire for refusing to agree with them.
by KNUCKLEHEAD on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 02:48:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
no worries.  I just feel bad that people take the time to send me thoughtful emails and I don't have time to acknowledge most of them.
by BooMan on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 04:10:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
in the House of Representatives, I've made it a point to keep in touch with my rep. He's a conservative Democrat, and I think some of the old-style conservatives are coming around. I'm willing to join with them some way if it will get impeachment started. Still hoping for a "critical mass," I guess.

There are LIVES in the balance. Click here. Watch. Listen.
by cotterperson on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 02:17:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Impeachment should wait until after Cheney resigns for "health" reasons, and before they can get a replacement confirmed.  That's the only chance we have of getting someone better (although I'm pretty much resigned to President McCain if Bush is forced from office).  Bush's presidency is dead now anyway so there isn't much more harm he can do unless he decides to unilaterally invade Iran to raise his approval numbers.
by Shalimar (srbaxley@yahoo.com) on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 02:23:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But W has the overwhelming heaping pile of shit of evidence in this succinct statement:
He tried to kill my Daddy

and I guess he ran with that in conjunction with some twisted version of 17th century French thought and came up with l'état c'est mon père and an attack on poppy is an attack on the state.  soooo, toootally justified.

--
Albert Yee
Philadelphia, PA
http://dragonballyee.com/blog
by albert (dragonballyeeATgmail.com) on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 02:18:53 PM EST
For someone who tried to one-up the old man, he sure did a "heckovajob." He`s so much worse. Mission accomplished.

The difference between theists and atheists is that the atheists don't set the theists on fire for refusing to agree with them.
by KNUCKLEHEAD on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 02:53:29 PM EST
Boo Man said: How could anyone not call for his impeachment?

But the question is WHY... haven't they eliminated him through impeachment or some other means.

And the answer is the American public is not opposed to this man. It voted for him twice and there are no calls by the public in the form of demonstrations or the government in terms of simple opposition to his policies. The government supports this man, Democrat and Republican. Why is that?

This is why the American People are responsible for what their government does and why the American people deseerve the blame as much as Bush. Bush is an American elected by the American people and those who opposed him pay taxes and support the government.

It is the fault of the American People.

by Stu Piddy on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 04:26:43 PM EST
is it my fault?
by BooMan on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 04:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well . . .

You have correctly established that invading Iraq was not done in the interest of America . . . can you now bring yourself to identify who was for it, who it was done for, and why ? ? ?

The Iraq invasion was just another symptom . . . why is it still so hard to talk about the disease ? ? ?

by Deward Hastings on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 05:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, YOU  are more than any of us to blame...in fact ....it is all YOUR fault.

Yes, YOU know what you've done, Booman. Why don't you confess now! Our Great President suffers for you and would make the greatest sacrafice one could give.  And he is making that sacrafice, he is giving his life 24/7 for YOU in public and personal service so that YOU can be free. Free of damnation, freed from YOUR own sinful surreptious inclinations.  He is suffering for YOUR sins, taking on the burden of YOUR guilt,  but...with everyone pointing the finger at HIM....while YOU. Judas in disguise go trapesing around Philadelhia on your Schwinn Sting Ray Mountain Hybrid 3 speed  while sipping Hawiaan Kona from your fancy Williams Sonoma stainless steel thermos and spouting rabble from you power book in trendy WIFI  freindly neighborhood bars ....and you just let him hang there ...suffering, twisting, bleeding from the hand and feet ,slowly twisting in the wind.

Jesus Died for Your SIns, And now George Bush has to do it all over
again..

 All because of YOU!

by Stu Piddy on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 05:15:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
okay, I just wanted to clear that the reason that Bush is still in office is my fault.  I drink too much coffee, that's why.
by BooMan on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 05:30:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So all our problems and the worlds for that matter would be solved if Boo stopped drinking coffee?  Maybe if you go to de-caf it will make the world a little bit better.

Mundane Doesn't Describe It
by Family Man (FamilyMan1atbellsouthdotnet) on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 05:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]
Menu
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password





Find textbooks at Alibris!

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES

Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos
by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.


Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")



Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)


Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)


"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen


The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review


BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual

$79.95 * Sale: $59.95


Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)


The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!


The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan


Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----


Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review


Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey


1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus



Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"


Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)


The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids

by Madeline Levine


Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com

:





We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Alibris - Books You Thought You'd Never Find
Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:
www.Patagonia.com


Listed on BlogShares

© 2009 Booman Tribune