58% wish the Bush presidency was simply over

[Alex+R 0]

Bush went in under bad intel selective intel that Iraq had WMD's and 9/11 involvement and he did so without the approval of the UN and had mild allied support.

now it's accurate.

Even more accurate.

all intel is selective. there's so much of it one has to look for a common thread. also note that other countries intel services supported the conclusion they had wmd's

The intel was dressed up to support the goal of going into Iraq. There's no clearer piece of evidence than that of the testimony of one Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi - an Al-Oaede operative - which was more valuable to W than the analysis of the DIA regarding that specific testimony. The Saddam - AlQaeda link was constructed and publicly supported on numerous occasions by the President on that particular testimony that the DIA had dismissed as nonsense. Bush trusted the word of the enemy over the evaluation of the Intelligence Agency in order to beef up the case for war. He cannot stand there blaiming he was misled by the intelligence community if he wants to be taken seriously.

Well, he IS being taken seriously, at least by folks like Chuckles.

I cannot believe we are still talking about this as if it were a contentious point. Lawling.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bush went in under bad intel selective intel that Iraq had WMD's and 9/11 involvement and he did so without the approval of the UN and had mild allied support.

now it's accurate.

Even more accurate.

all intel is selective. there's so much of it one has to look for a common thread. also note that other countries intel services supported the conclusion they had wmd's

The intel was dressed up to support the goal of going into Iraq. There's no clearer piece of evidence than that of the testimony of one Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi - an Al-Oaede operative - which was more valuable to W than the analysis of the DIA regarding that specific testimony. The Saddam - AlQaeda link was constructed and publicly supported on numerous occasions by the President on that particular testimony that the DIA had dismissed as nonsense. Bush trusted the word of the enemy over the evaluation of the Intelligence Agency in order to beef up the case for war. He cannot stand there blaiming he was misled by the intelligence community if he wants to be taken seriously.

And the Downing Street memo - as good an admission of guilt by a government as you're ever going to get.

Edited January 30, 2007 by erekose

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A lot of Americans have lost sight of the enemy (they think it's Bush)

Bush hasn't done anything to create that distrust I suppose...

This country is going to go downhill quick if people can't get beyond the minutiae of the partisan divide.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Bush went in under bad intel selective intel that Iraq had WMD's and 9/11 involvement and he did so without the approval of the UN and had mild allied support.

now it's accurate.

Even more accurate.

all intel is selective. there's so much of it one has to look for a common thread. also note that other countries intel services supported the conclusion they had wmd's

The intel was dressed up to support the goal of going into Iraq. There's no clearer piece of evidence than that of the testimony of one Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi - an Al-Oaede operative - which was more valuable to W than the analysis of the DIA regarding that specific testimony. The Saddam - AlQaeda link was constructed and publicly supported on numerous occasions by the President on that particular testimony that the DIA had dismissed as nonsense. Bush trusted the word of the enemy over the evaluation of the Intelligence Agency in order to beef up the case for war. He cannot stand there blaiming he was misled by the intelligence community if he wants to be taken seriously.

Well, he IS being taken seriously, at least by folks like Chuckles.

I cannot believe we are still talking about this as if it were a contentious point. Lawling.

lawl all you want, alessandra. you have no background in the intel community

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Neither did Alastair Campbell

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush went in under bad intel selective intel that Iraq had WMD's and 9/11 involvement and he did so without the approval of the UN and had mild allied support.

now it's accurate.

Even more accurate.

all intel is selective. there's so much of it one has to look for a common thread. also note that other countries intel services supported the conclusion they had wmd's

The intel was dressed up to support the goal of going into Iraq. There's no clearer piece of evidence than that of the testimony of one Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi - an Al-Oaede operative - which was more valuable to W than the analysis of the DIA regarding that specific testimony. The Saddam - AlQaeda link was constructed and publicly supported on numerous occasions by the President on that particular testimony that the DIA had dismissed as nonsense. Bush trusted the word of the enemy over the evaluation of the Intelligence Agency in order to beef up the case for war. He cannot stand there blaiming he was misled by the intelligence community if he wants to be taken seriously.

Well, he IS being taken seriously, at least by folks like Chuckles.

I cannot believe we are still talking about this as if it were a contentious point. Lawling.

lawl all you want, alessandra. you have no background in the intel community

Well, the DIA, I suppose, has a bit of credibility in terms of intel. The DIA advised the President that al-Libi's claims about AQ receiving explosives as well as bio and chem weapons training in Iraq are #######. This was Feb of 2002. The President disregarded that particular advice and went around the country during the following months leading up to the illegal attack on Iraq and sold to the public as credible fact what he's been told is nonsense.

That's not being provided bad intel as he'd like to claim today - it's disregarding the very good intel he's gotten.

As they say: Fool me once...

Edited January 30, 2007 by ET-US2004

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's not being provided bad intel as he'd like to claim today - it's disregarding the very good intel he's gotten.

And yet more damning testimony:

"We Probably Gave Powell the Wrong Speech"

The former chief of the CIA's Europe division, Tyler Drumheller, discusses the United States foreign intelligence service's cooperation with Germany, the covert kidnapping of suspected terrorists and a Bush adminstration that ignored CIA advice and used whatever information it could find to justify an invasion of Iraq.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Drumheller, do you still dare to travel to Europe?

Drumheller: Yes, absolutely. I was a great friend of the Europeans. I grew up in Wiesbaden. I love Germany very much.

SPIEGEL: Arrest warrants have been issued in Europe for a number of your former colleagues. They are suspected of involvement in the illegal kidnappings of suspected terrorists as part of the so-called "renditions" program. Doesn't this worry you?

Drumheller: No. I'm not worried, but I am not allowed to discuss the issue.

SPIEGEL: One of the cases is the now famous kidnapping of Khalid el-Masri, a German-Lebanese who was taken into custody at the end of 2003 in Macedonia and later flown to Afghanistan. How could the CIA allow an innocent person to be arrested?

SPIEGEL: The renditions program saw the kidnapping of suspected Islamist extremists to third countries. Were you involved in the program?

Drumheller: I would be lying if I said no. I have very complicated feelings about the whole issue. I do see the purpose of renditions, if they are carried out properly. Guys sitting around talking about carrying out attacks as they smoke their pipes in the comfort of a European capital tend to get put off the idea if they learn that a like-minded individual has been plucked out of safety and sent elsewhere to pay for his crimes.

SPIEGEL: We disagree. At the very least, you need to be certain that the targets of those renditions aren't innocent people.

Drumheller: It was Vice President ####### Cheney who talked about the "dark side" we have to turn on. When he spoke those words, he was articulating a policy that amounted to "go out and get them." His remarks were evidence of the underlying approach of the administration, which was basically to turn the military and the agency loose and let them pay for the consequences of any unfortunate -- or illegal -- occurences.

SPIEGEL: So there was no clear guidance of what is allowed in the so called "war on terrorism"?

Drumheller: Every responsible chief in the CIA knows that the more covert the action, the greater the need for a clear policy and a defined target. I once had to brief Condoleezza Rice on a rendition operation, and her chief concern was not whether it was the right thing to do, but what the president would think about it. I would have expected a big meeting, a debate about whether to proceed with the plan, a couple of hours of consideration of the pros and cons. We should have been talking about the value of the target, whether the threat he presented warranted such a potentially controversial intervention. This is no way to run a covert policy. If the White House wants to take extraordinary measures to win, it can't just let things go through without any discussion about their value and morality.

SPIEGEL: Perhaps the White House wanted to gloss over its own responsibility.

Drumheller: Let me give you a general thought: From the perspective of the White House, it was smart to blur the lines about what was acceptable and what was not in the war on terrorism. It meant that whenever someone was overzealous in some dark interrogation cell, President (George W.) Bush and his entourage could blame someone else. The rendition teams are drawn from paramilitary officers who are brave and colorful. They are the men who went into Baghdad before the bombs and into Afghanistan before the army. If they didn't do paramilitary actions for a living, they would probably be robbing banks. Perhaps the Bush Administration deliberately created a gray area on renditions.

SPIEGEL: Investigations in the European Parliament and the German parliament, the Bundestag, are trying to ascertain the extent to which European governments cooperated with the CIA after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. How close is the relationship?

Drumheller: On terrorist issues very closely -- we did some very good things with the Europeans. Two weeks after Sept. 11, August Hanning (the head of the German foreign intelligence service, the BND) came with a delegation to discuss how we can make cooperation better. Elements of the Bush administration developed the view that European personal privacy laws were somehow to blame, that the Europeans are too slow. We can be very frustrating to work with. I always said, 'Stop preaching to them.' The Europeans have been dealing with terrorism for years, we can learn from their successes and failures. Its not a good spy story, but it's actually how you do this.

SPIEGEL: How important is Europe to the CIA?

Drumheller: The only way we will ever be able to protect ourselves properly is if we can get a handle on the threat in Europe, since that is the continent where fanatics can best learn their most crucial lesson: How to disappear in a Western crowd. Europe has become the first line of defense for the United States. It has become a training ground for terrorists, especially since the war in Iraq has heralded an underground railroad for militants to go and fight there. It is being used for young fanatics in Europe to be smuggled into Iraq to fight Americans and, assuming they survive, to return home, where they present a more potent threat than they did before they left. Since the odds against penetrating the top of al-Qaida are phenomenally high, we must pursue the foot soldiers.

SPIEGEL: But given the uproar in Germany and all over Europe, it looks highly unlikely that they will cooperate fully with the CIA.

Drumheller: The guys who attacked the World Trade Center didn't fly from Kabul to New York. They came from Hamburg. So the value in befriending the local intelligence services in Europe instead of alienating them is clear: We need to ensure that they are telling us everything they know.

SPIEGEL: But it was your agency that was coming up with all the wrong information concerning Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. To what degree is the intelligence community responsible for the disaster?

Drumheller: The agency is not blameless and no president on my watch has had a spotless record when it comes to the CIA. But never before have I seen the manipulation of intelligence that has played out since Bush took office. As chief of Europe I had a front-row seat from which to observe the unprecedented drive for intelligence justifying the Iraq war.

SPIEGEL: One of the crucial bits of information the Bush administration used to justify the invasion was the supposed existence of mobile biological weapons laboratories. That came from a German BND source who was given the code-name "Curveball." An offical investigation in the United States concluded that of all of the false statements that were made, this was the most damaging of all.

Drumheller: I think it is, it was a centerpiece. Curveball was an Iraqi who claimed to be an engineer working on the biological weapons program. When he became an asylum-seeker in Germany, the BND questioned him and produced a large number of reports that were passed here through the Defense Intelligence Agency. Curveball was a sort of clever fellow who carried on about his story and kept everybody pretty well convinced for a long time.

SPIEGEL: There are more than a few critics in Washington who claim that the Germans, because of Curveball, bear a large part of the repsonsibility for the intelligence mess.

Drumheller: There was no effort by the Germans to influence anybody from the beginning. Very senior officials in the BND expressed their doubts, that there may be problems with this guy. They were very professional. I know that there are people at the CIA who think the Germans could have set stronger caveats. But nobody says: "Here's a great intel report, but we don't believe it." There were also questions inside the CIA's analytical section, but as it went forward, this information was seized without caveats. The administration wanted to make the case for war with Iraq. They needed a tangible thing, they needed the German stuff. They couldn't go to war based just on the fact that they wanted to change the Middle East. They needed to have something threatening to which they were reacting.

SPIEGEL: The German government was convinced that "Curveball" would not be used in the now famous presentation that then US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave in 2003 before the United Nations Security Council.

Drumheller: I had assured my German friends that it wouldn't be in the speech. I really thought that I had put it to bed. I had warned the CIA deputy John McLaughlin that this case could be fabricated. The night before the speech, then CIA director George Tenet called me at home. I said: "Hey Boss, be careful with that German report. It's supposed to be taken out. There are a lot of problems with that." He said: "Yeah, yeah. Right. Dont worry about that."

SPIEGEL: But it turned out to be the centerpiece in Powell's presentation -- and nobody had told him about the doubts.

Drumheller: I turned on the TV in my office, and there it was. So the first thing I thought, having worked in the government all my life, was that we probably gave Powell the wrong speech. We checked our files and found out that they had just ignored it.

SPIEGEL: So the White House just ignored the fact that the whole story might have been untrue?

Drumheller: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy. Right before the war, I said to a very senior CIA officer: "You guys must have something else," because you always think it's the CIA. "There is some secret thing I don`t know." He said: "No. But when we get to Baghdad, we are going to find warehouses full of stuff. Nobody is going to remember all of this."

SPIEGEL: After the war, the CIA was finally able to talk to "Curveball" -- something the BND had never allowed before. What was the result?

Drumheller: In March 2004, a fluent German-speaking officer, one of my best guys, who had a scientific background went to Germany and worked for about two weeks. Finally, at the end of it, Curveball just sort of sat back and said: "I don't have anything more to say." But he never admitted. People here always ask, was he polygraphed? Well, lie detector tests aren't used very much in Germany.

SPIEGEL: Do you think it would have make a difference if the Germans had allowed you to question Curveball earlier?

Drumheller: If they had allowed us to question him the way we did in March of 2004, it would have. Maybe the whole story would have turned out in a different way.

SPIEGEL: In your book, you mention a very high-ranking source who told the CIA before the war that Iraq had no large active WMD program. It has been reported that the source was Saddam Hussein's foreign minister, Naji Sabri.

Drumheller: I'm not allowed to say who that was. In the beginning, the administration was very excited that we had a high-level penetration, and the president was informed. I don't think anybody else had a source in Saddam's cabinet. He told us that Iraq had no biological weapons, just the research. Everything else had been destroyed after the first Gulf War. But after a while we didn't get any questions back. Finally the administration came and said that they were really not interested in what he had to say. They were interested in getting him to defect. In the end we did get permission to get back to the source, and that came from Tenet. I think without checking with the White House, he just said: "Okay. Go ahead and see what you can do."

SPIEGEL: So what happened?

Drumheller: There were a lot of ironies throughout this whole story. We went on a sort of worldwide chase after this fellow, and in the end, he was in one place, and our officer was in another country asking for permission to travel. I called up people who were controlling operations, and they said: "Don't worry about it. It's too late now. The war is on. The next time you see this guy, it will be at a war crimes tribunal."

SPIEGEL: Should you have pressed harder?

Drumheller: We made mistakes. And it may suit the White House to have people believe in a black and white version of reality -- that it could have avoided the Iraq war if the CIA had only given it a true picture of Saddam's armaments. But the truth is that the White House believed what it wanted to believe. I have done very little in my life except go to school and work for the CIA. Intellectually I think I did everything I could. Emotionally you always think you should have something more.

TYLER DRUMHELLER

Martin H. SimonTyler Drumheller, 54, had a 25- year career working for the CIA. In 2001, he was promoted to become the American intelligence agency's chief of European operations. The spectacular kidnappings of suspected al- Qaida terrorists -- including the German- Syrian Mohammed Haydar Zammar and the German- Syrian Khaled el- Masri -- by CIA commandos happened under his watch. Drumheller, who retired in 2005, recently published his memoir, "On the Brink," in the United States.

Source

[Robor007 0]

This quote sure doesn't beat around the Bush (pun intended )...

"Drumheller: The agency is not blameless and no president on my watch has had a spotless record when it comes to the CIA. But never before have I seen the manipulation of intelligence that has played out since Bush took office. As chief of Europe I had a front-row seat from which to observe the unprecedented drive for intelligence justifying the Iraq war."

It's almost like a bad movie plot where you're watching and say, 'Oh, come on... This is stupid. There's no way that could ever happen'. Sure looks like it did though...

[eric&gen 0]

Bush and his wife in bed how he addresses the nation have alot in common. All talk and no action. lol

[yogib37 3]

a wet dream come true for the bashbots

I'm sure Hanoi Jane and Tim Robbins love it too.

Hey, your boy sucks. Told you that all along and it seems more and more Americans come to realize just how much he sucks. No boost from the State of the Union Address. That tells you just how much in the hole he really is. And yet the moron keeps on digging. Unbelievable.

Well, I can say for sure he is consisit at his job, He is staying the course.. He is just keep digging and digging and digging...He so deep he does not know which way is up. Maybe he thinking that he made the turn on his hole and soon he will break free and see the light of day again

:lol:

[garya505 2]

Talk is cheap. If you really believe Bush is wrong then you should get your buddies in the government to cut funding for the war. But they wont do that now, because we have an election coming up and they dont want to get blamed for losing the war. By just making it a political issue without regard to the consequences, and taking no action and no responsibility for anything, they can just sit back and blame everything on Bush.

Edited January 30, 2007 by garya505

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Talk is cheap. If you really believe Bush is wrong then you should get your buddies in the government to cut funding for the war. But they wont do that now, because we have an election coming up and they dont want to get blamed for losing the war. By just making it a political issue without regard to the consequences, and taking no action and no responsibility for anything, they can just sit back and blame everything on Bush.

Sure Bush and the Bushies would love nothing as much as being able to pin their fcuked up war on someone else. The logic seems to be: I broke it and now you have to fix it. And if you can't fix what I broke then that's your fault.

Bush's (rather Rove's) strategery at this point is to set the stage for assigning the blame for what is a lost adventure - and has been such since the day we went in w/o a viable plan. That, I believe is the reason they propose what the vast majority of experts believe to be a mistake and that is why they do not follow the advice of the Baker commission. They want Congress to step in and put an end to it so they can wash their hands of the blame and point to the mistake of Congress instead.

Congress should not engage in this blame game the White House is looking desperately to initiate.

[garya505 2]

Talk is cheap. If you really believe Bush is wrong then you should get your buddies in the government to cut funding for the war. But they wont do that now, because we have an election coming up and they dont want to get blamed for losing the war. By just making it a political issue without regard to the consequences, and taking no action and no responsibility for anything, they can just sit back and blame everything on Bush.

Sure Bush and the Bushies would love nothing as much as being able to pin their fcuked up war on someone else. The logic seems to be: I broke it and now you have to fix it. And if you can't fix what I broke then that's your fault.

Bush's (rather Rove's) strategery at this point is to set the stage for assigning the blame for what is a lost adventure - and has been such since the day we went in w/o a viable plan. That, I believe is the reason they propose what the vast majority of experts believe to be a mistake and that is why they do not follow the advice of the Baker commission. They want Congress to step in and put an end to it so they can wash their hands of the blame and point to the mistake of Congress instead.

Congress should not engage in this blame game the White House is looking desperately to initiate.

Like I said, if they really believe the war is a total lost cause and want to end it and cut our loses ASAP, they can just cut funding and bring it to a quick end. They won't do that because it will cost them the election and they know it.

[Alex+R 0]

Talk is cheap. If you really believe Bush is wrong then you should get your buddies in the government to cut funding for the war. But they wont do that now, because we have an election coming up and they dont want to get blamed for losing the war. By just making it a political issue without regard to the consequences, and taking no action and no responsibility for anything, they can just sit back and blame everything on Bush.

Sure Bush and the Bushies would love nothing as much as being able to pin their fcuked up war on someone else. The logic seems to be: I broke it and now you have to fix it. And if you can't fix what I broke then that's your fault.

Bush's (rather Rove's) strategery at this point is to set the stage for assigning the blame for what is a lost adventure - and has been such since the day we went in w/o a viable plan. That, I believe is the reason they propose what the vast majority of experts believe to be a mistake and that is why they do not follow the advice of the Baker commission. They want Congress to step in and put an end to it so they can wash their hands of the blame and point to the mistake of Congress instead.

Congress should not engage in this blame game the White House is looking desperately to initiate.

Like I said, if they really believe the war is a total lost cause and want to end it and cut our loses ASAP, they can just cut funding and bring it to a quick end. They won't do that because it will cost them the election and they know it.

I don't understand. How will this cost them the election?

[Henia 11]

Only 58%? I was thinking the number was much higher...I know I would like to see a new president in office (soon)