Democrats & Liberals Archives

Wasn't Asked, Didn't Tell

The head of the CIA was never asked his opinion about the invasion of Iraq?
The Secretary of Defense was never asked if he thought it was a good idea to send our military into Iraq? Are you buying that?


Tenet and Rumsfeld are rats, and I don’t mean the intelligent rodents we’re all familiar with but the self-serving, immoral, manipulating kind of rat who knows only self preservation and deceit. Not only does this type of rat jump ship but it tries to deny being on board in the first place.
We look back at the saber rattling and fear peddling from Condeleeza Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz, Bush and Tenet during the runup to war. We remember the grave assessments, the fear mongering, the “mushroom cloud” danger that was not only imminent but more importantly “known” to this administration.
Why is it that the rats that have jumped this ship now claim to either not to have been asked about their opinions about the war or claim to have been somehow tricked into going along with the war due to faulty intelligence from the CIA.
Tenet was the director of the CIA right?
So Bush apologists, which one is it?
Did the director of the CIA pass along faulty intelligence reports to an incompetent administration that was unable to determine their accuracy, while half the country and most people around the world with no CIA reports knew it was false, or did the Whitehouse create it’s own intelligence agency, inside the Pentagon to manipulate intelligence to fit the already stated goal of going into Iraq and now claim not to have any knowledge of this push for war?

Rumsfeld then:
“"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist."

Rumsfeld now claims he wasn’t asked for an opinion on whether the United States should have invaded Iraq.
His incoherent ramblings sure make him seem like he was totally on board.

Tenet then:
Sat behind Colin Powell when he delivered the “Yellow cake” fantasy to the U.N. driving the point to those who still were not convinced that we should launch a preemptive strike and occupation in Iraq.

It was Tenet who failed this nation but had no problem receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom as a reward for his incompetence or out right deception of the United States people. If he was not on board why not come out years ago? Why not resign in protest? He states in his book that he thought that while he and the Bush administration were lying to the American public to lead us into war, we the people would be better served if he stayed on the job. So he kept his job and apparently his mouth shut.

Tenet and Rumsfeld believe just as most of our politicians and so called leaders think. They are under the impression that we, the American people, are idiots.
Tenet lies to the American people, gets a damn medal for it and is now going to make money from the same people he lied to by writing a book that is meant to convince us he isn’t the same guy we saw trying to convince us to attack Iraq.
Rumsfeld tells us he was not asked if we should attack Iraq. The Secretary of Defense who helped write Iraq policy and the war plan was kept out of the loop?
This would explain why it’s gone so well, if it were true. They didn’t ask him if he thought it was a good idea? We're supposed to believe this?

What’s next? Condi coming out and saying mushroom cloud was taken out of context?
Cheney coming out and saying the word “know” in WMD question was meant to be “no.”
Maybe Powell could say he thought "yellow cake" was desert.
"Mission accomplished" means welcome to the clusterf**K.
"Last thoes" means they're getting pissed and better at killing us.
I think America knows where Rumsfeld's and Tenet’s loyalty was, and is now. It's a "slam dunk."

Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at May 1, 2007 7:16 PM
Comments
Comment #218955

Tenet was right about one thing. There was never any discussion within the administration about whether invading Iraq was a good idea. They ALL thought it was.

The one thing that really demonstrates that is the “slam dunk” exchange:

“Nice try,” Bush said. “I don’t think this is quite - it’s not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from.” Card was also underwhelmed. The presentation was a flop…. Bush turned to Tenet. “I’ve been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we’ve got?”

From the end of one of the couches in the Oval Office, Tenet rose up, threw his arms in the air. “It’s a slam dunk case!” the DCI said.

Bush pressed. “George, how confident are you?”

…”Don’t worry, it’s a slam dunk!”

…The president later recalled that McLaughlin’s presentation “wouldn’t have stood the test of time.” But, said Bush, Tenet’s reassurance - “That was very important.”

“Needs a lot more work,” Bush told Card and Rice. “Let’s get some people who’ve actually put together a case for a jury.” He wanted some lawyers, prosecutors if need be. They were going to have to go public with something.

Bush doesn’t think Tenet has a good case for Iraqi WMD, but his response isn’t, “Gee maybe we better make sure we’re right before we go runnin’ off half-cocked.”

No, Bush’s response is to get some trial lawyers to sex it up so he can scare the bujeesus out of people.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 1, 2007 2:57 PM
Comment #219029

The big problem is, Bush went in search of proof for what he already believed, and that’s what he asked of the intelligence establishment. When they wouldn’t play ball, he put the pressure on. when they couldn’t get the reports they wanted, they went on fishing expeditions. When the information wasn’t that credible, but supported their position, they downplayed the crediblity problems.

They opened themselves up to this, and continue to leave themselves and America open to these kinds of problems because they ask for confirmation of what they already believe where they should be looking for signs of what’s true or not, independent of what they think.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 2, 2007 7:59 AM
Comment #219037

He’s the first guy to retire, not step down, and then say the Bush administration was full of it. This isn’t an honorable man, but now that he’s still stepped up to the plate with the truth. It would have been a lot easier to say nothing.

Btw, I’m not an editor, but wanted everyone to be aware of this excellent article on Rove’s roots in the Nixon administration.

http://campaigningforhistory.blogs.nytimes.com/

Posted by: Max at May 2, 2007 9:47 AM
Comment #219043

Hello Andre and all,

The combination of George Tenet’s book, At the Center of the Storm, Eisner & Royce’s The Italian Letter and the books and research of many others in recent years now provides enough of a foundation for everyone to finally discern that 9:11 was a “false flag” operation against both the American public and the Muslim world. Likewise, the uncanny synchronicity of Al Qaeda’s videos and other activities perfectly timed to reinforce and support the Bush/Cheney administration’s political needs coupled with the actions of the Bush admin actually serving to strengthen Al Qaeda’s position, now makes perfect sense. The apparent mistakes and chaos that have characterized the Iraq war, the easily prevented resurgence of the Taliban, and permitting Bin Laden to escape Tora Bora to a safe haven in Pakistan all fit the same pattern. It’s hard to maintain a state of continuous war if you allow your made-to-order enemies to be defeated too early. It is likewise hard to remain a “war president” if your wars end too soon!

The letterhead used to forge the “Yellowcake letter” that was then used to help “sell” the Iraq war was stolen in Rome on 1/1/2001, more than nine months before 9:11 and before Little W. became president. Consequently, the use of the “Yellow-Cake Lie” was obviously discussed and planned before then! The import of this fact is that the Niger embassy in Rome was burglarized, before Bush became president, to lay the groundwork for the web of deception used to sell the Iraq War, after 9:11. More importantly, it is highly unlikely that the Iraq war could ever have been sold to the American public, without something like 9:11 happening first. Any excuses of other uses for the stolen letterhead are laughable since the letterhead burglary would have been pointless, without 9:11. This evidences foreknowledge of those attacks, a full nine months before they occurred, among other things!

Read more…

Posted by: Seven Star Hand at May 2, 2007 10:44 AM
Comment #219054

Seven Star Hand-
False Flag? No. Politicians don’t need false flag operations to make events occur that they can take advantage of. Nothing about the way the Bush Administration benefited from 9/11 attacks requires that the events be caused by them.

Iraq was already a top priority for the Bush Administration long before 9/11. The evidence indicates that they were going for Iraq as a target ten days after Bush’s inauguration, but you could have guessed that they wanted to go long before that from the people Bush chose to staff his administration.

The Bush administration could not have properly managed a good coverup of such a false-flag operation. Given how well they’ve covered up other atrocities of poor governance, I have my doubts that they wouldn’t get sold out on this particular issue, especially with the resentment they’ve stirred up with plenty of career professionals in the bureaucracy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 2, 2007 12:47 PM
Comment #219141

Andre’, I believe it. When an organization is built on loyalty instead of competence, such an organization tends to give people their opinions, rather than ask for them. Has this not been the management paradigm of the Bush administration? Is this not why so many have been fired and replaced within it since 2001 for offering opinions not given to them by their superiors?

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 2, 2007 9:47 PM
Post a comment