It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did The CIA Give Our President Disinformation, To Force This War And Discredit Him?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   
www.opinionjournal.com...


Okay, just maybe the Bush "whackers" think I've gone off the deep end here...but I found this editorial at the Wall Street Journal, while digging for "ammo" to hold up my arguements in another forum. Frankly, the brilliance of this piece amazes me! Why couldn't it happen?



[edit on 5-10-2005 by Toelint]

[edit on 5-10-2005 by Toelint]




posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   
It would not surprise me in the lest bit.



disinformation n.
1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion.
2. Dissemination of such misleading information.
3. Careful control of information and perception of any target group to ensure the desired outcome as opposed to a truthful honest outcome.
4. Also used internally against government, military officials and agents; designed to provoke misleading conclusions.
I think I saw more than I was supposed to. --Anonymous



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   
There are videos that exist of Bush 43 administration officials, notably of Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, stating pre-09/11/01 that Iraq was not a threat. So why would Bush listen to the CIA afterwards with conflicting information and not his own staff?

www.thememoryhole.org...

What happened is that Bush wanted this war no matter what information came about and he got it. Damn the consequences. He doesn't care that he is discredited and knew going into these battles that this would be a likely outcome.

He is still the President of the United States, isn't he? There is no clamor to see him impeached or be charged with any type of crime is there? He's doing just fine without need for credibility.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
www.opinionjournal.com...


Okay, just maybe the Bush "whackers" think I've gone off the deep end here...but I found this editorial at the Wall Street Journal, while digging for "ammo" to hold up my arguements in another forum. Frankly, the brilliance of this piece amazes me! Why couldn't it happen?



[edit on 5-10-2005 by Toelint]

[edit on 5-10-2005 by Toelint]


The CIA has been known to miss lead Presidents before, JFK for one so its quite possible yes.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
``

what is more important to my mind...is the fact that some viewpoints

seem to have a much longer electronic 'shelf-life' than others.

Take this apparent, intell community & CIA disinformation spin
targeted at the Republican Administration of GW Bush.
What's not brought up is the fact that pre-Bush, both the CIA &
FBI intell communities knew of 'Able Danger' but kept the intell
from the Clinton Administration also.
So, i don't really think the CIA has a position to 'mislead' either
Administrations(1992-2000 or 2000-2008), in supplying some info and playing-down/omitting other info, according to any agenda.
The intell communities were committed to job-preservation & pay-raises & retirement....first & foremost!
No one was sticking out their neck, or bucking the system, or doing something radical, like 'connecting the dots', that type of characterization would label the person as not-a-team-player or other ostracizations.

that message re: (www.thememoryhole.org- - -in previous post by fFrith)
....in essence, GW Bush ammassed a huge war chest for the 1st term,
because +50% of the nation wanted a new President GW Bush to somehow go into Iraq and
finish off what his father GHW Bush didn't do in GulfWar I (1991)
there was a great wealth of individuals & corps. & thinktanks/foundations
which 'bankrolled' the GW Bush & neo-con machine...
in the process,
some of the regime's actions went maybe too far, but thats what
articles like(www.opinionjournal.com) this are for...
a historical record that one can attach their
policy image to, for political gain/cover.....



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I personally doubt it for a couple of reasons.

First Bush Sr. still (apparently) get his CIA briefings, but I guess he could have been deceived as well (I think not, if anybody knows what's going on it's him). Then again he could have been deceiving his son but I doubt that too.

Second, I really don’t think he needs to be deceived, he wanted this war WMD’s or not
IMO and the CIA would have been ordered to find or fabricate a reason.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frith
There are videos that exist of Bush 43 administration officials, notably of Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, stating pre-09/11/01 that Iraq was not a threat. So why would Bush listen to the CIA afterwards with conflicting information and not his own staff?

www.thememoryhole.org...

What happened is that Bush wanted this war no matter what information came about and he got it. Damn the consequences. He doesn't care that he is discredited and knew going into these battles that this would be a likely outcome.

He is still the President of the United States, isn't he? There is no clamor to see him impeached or be charged with any type of crime is there? He's doing just fine without need for credibility.


You mean there isn't a movement to impeach Bush? You're joking, right? Of course, there may well be a difference between impeachment, and arrest? Ya think??


Google search the term:Impeach Bush
You'll get floored by what comes up!


[edit on 5-10-2005 by Toelint]



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janus
The CIA has been known to miss lead Presidents before, JFK for one so its quite possible yes.


JFK also tried to make his own money... How could the CIA lie to bush when his father was an ex director? Its not like the Bush family didnt have all the connections inside and around the CIA. Not to mention Skull and Bones heroin trafficking.

Its more likely the current intellegence re-org was just done to give Bush a lasting presence there when he leaves office and to facilitate his administration while in office. It seems he learned from Kennedy's mistake. if you want to sieze power you better get the guards in on it.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
It's not very difficult to see...go back and watch Dateline or 60 minutes with the Project For a New American Century good ol boys from the late 90's or 2000.
They spell it out right there.

Richard Clarke even said the day after 9/11 Bush was insisting everyone just focus on Iraq. How conveinnnent.

Powel knew he was lying in front of the UN about Iraq in 2002, and Im sure he is deeply embarassed about it. Powel referred to the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowtiz pack as a bunch of "F---ing Crazies". And he's right.

It's not so much Bush...Bush just does what hes told to do, its a pervasive and subversive element within the government that is claling all the shots.
Any sane person in the government and millitary knew Iraq had no WMD's as of 2002 nor was a threat nor was al Qaeda or 9/11 related.

And remember the bogus Uranium Nigeria thing?



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   
the cia consistently pressured the administration because german and french intel all pointed in the same direction. the adminstration acted under this pressure and thus made the mistake of actually going to war, they needed oil.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I would hazard a guess that they're paving the way for a Democrat to take office in '09.

I don't think anything ever happens on accident where the government is concerned.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   
its just the CIAs incompetence to do the job right where they were created to gather intelligence. they use old maps that help bombed the Chinese embassy that almost got us into a war with China. they provided info that the pharmacy plant in Sudan is linked to Osama wen proved false and that it was a children's medicine plant. the CIA was surprised about the Indian nuclear test. President Bill Clinton found out about the missile launch by the North Koreans through the use of the CNN before the CIA came over to inform him of the surprise missile launch in 98. so its pretty much CIAs fault. i could go on that embarrassed many presidents.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
I would hazard a guess that they're paving the way for a Democrat to take office in '09.

I don't think anything ever happens on accident where the government is concerned.


I agree. I don't think its a conspiracy to say that for the last century at least, a powerful shadowy cabal of rich families, elite bankers and globalists have had a hand in putting into power those who would best serve their immediate basic needs. CFR got Carter into power, Bilderberg groomed Clinton for presidency, JP Morgan got Wilson elected just so he could enact the corrupt Federal Reserve act.

Did the CIA give Bush bad intel?
Its a true conspiracy theory that Iraq had WMD, links to al Qaeda, 9/11 connection, Nigerian Uranium, imminent danger to the US, etc. I think the honets peopl eint he CIA were saying 'hold on here, these are not true!' They had Powel play the stooge at the UN, and forced the issue til people just gave up.

There are so many shadow government, above government, and compartmental aspects of the CIA and millitary complex that to call it all intelligence failure is a total white wash. If some element of the US adminsitration were co,plicit in the 9/11 attacks as a lot of evidence suggests, then making up info to go into Iraq is a grain of sand in a giant ocean.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   
PNAC + Carlyle Group + Halliburton=War

Donald Rumsfield=PNAC
Bin Laden family + Bush family=Carlyle Group
Dick Cheney=Halliburton

A neurotic love triangle................


[edit on 8-10-2005 by Metaphor322]



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
If the Bay of Pigs, Beirut, and Tehran arn't proof our Intel community is flawed, then what is?



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Metaphor322
PNAC + Carlyle Group + Halliburton=War

Donald Rumsfield=PNAC
Bin Laden family + Bush family=Carlyle Group
Dick Cheney=Halliburton

A neurotic love triangle................


[edit on 8-10-2005 by Metaphor322]


I got a better one for ya:

CIA+Pakistani ISI+impressionable young muslims=Osama and al Qaeda
Bushes+bin Ladens=part of Carlyle
PNAC=Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz=Hey, we need a new pearl harbor
PNAC+al Qaeda=pretext for war
Haliburton+Carlyle+Unocal+goodness knows who=winners of war
al Qaeda, civilians, civil liberties=not much to gain

"Intelligence Failture"...oh man. Please check out the PBS documentary on John O'Neil...its clear a line was crossed where inteliigence failture turned into
consciously acted stiffling and complicity:
www.pbs.org...


[edit on 9-10-2005 by 8bitagent]

[edit on 9-10-2005 by 8bitagent]



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I bow with respect to 8bitagent.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   
From what I understand, it was quite the contrary with most of the intelligence pointing away from an immediate threat but the White House pushed the intelligence community for facts that supported it. I don't have any first hand knowledge about the environment at the CIA, but in the late 90s I heard it was mostly a head-down attitude, i.e. dont take risks and wait for promotion. If the same mentality filtered through the intelligence community shakeup I could see President Bush getting exactly what he wanted. This is all second hand though, it could be wrong as I haven't had much time to spend on the subject lately. In any case whats done is done; there is plenty of information that we are not privy to.

I think people tend to give the CIA too much credit. It is still a massive bureaucracy. They have enough trouble implenting policy set forth by the administration, let alone masterminding their own, executing it and keeping covert all at the same time.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 02:50 AM
link   
US citizen + 'bad intel' = dead US citizens

For every bad piece of intel, there are hundreds that we never hear of. Did anyomne happen to hear the bit about BUsh in his last address stating how many AQ attacks have been averted here and abroad.

Whether it came from the CIA or another agency, it is alos a matter of politics in the workplace. We have alread yseen that they did not maove on many of the 9/11 hijackers based on not enough evidence or not wanting to move in too fast.

There is someone who made the decision to concentrate on others or other threats at the time that lead to the failures that caused 9/11. The threat is here each an every day.

Why did the CIA not know about the suicicde bombing at OU, and what ties of that will never be released.

Bush is doing the best he can in the government structure that he is provided. All I can say, is if this is the best go't we can have that is 'connected', what are we going to have when someone else is in there, and are feeling around in the dark for answers.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
US citizen + 'bad intel' = dead US citizens

For every bad piece of intel, there are hundreds that we never hear of. Did anyomne happen to hear the bit about BUsh in his last address stating how many AQ attacks have been averted here and abroad.

Whether it came from the CIA or another agency, it is alos a matter of politics in the workplace. We have alread yseen that they did not maove on many of the 9/11 hijackers based on not enough evidence or not wanting to move in too fast.

There is someone who made the decision to concentrate on others or other threats at the time that lead to the failures that caused 9/11. The threat is here each an every day.

Why did the CIA not know about the suicicde bombing at OU, and what ties of that will never be released.

Bush is doing the best he can in the government structure that he is provided. All I can say, is if this is the best go't we can have that is 'connected', what are we going to have when someone else is in there, and are feeling around in the dark for answers.


We need to always apply the cliche Occam's Razor to notions; and for the longest time I bought the whole "intelligence failure" white wash.
But there is really two things going on here. Those brave honest and smart people in intelligence, FBI, CIA, etc who TRY so hard to thwart terrorists(again, like Richard Clarke, the late John O'Neil, Sybyl Edmonds, etc)
and those few in the top who TRY their best to stifle investigation.
We know for a FACT in 2001 that investigation into al Qaeda was cut off when it was most crucial. The US knew, they knew 9/11 was coming at least by July, definately by August. Yet everything was done to make sure there was nothing done.

I can just imagine how frustrated, saddened and disheartened so many in the FBI, CIA, etc are at all thats been going on. And here we the public are either taught to think it was a total surprise attack, and then those who thought it was an intelligence failure.

I have faith that someday, we'll have an administration not marred by total corruption, greed, and nefarious schemes...but one that tries with earnest to be for the benefit of mankind in general. However, there are always those above government(like in JFK's administration) who have the final say.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join