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.

 

CIA Did Not Fail - The U.S. Was Deceived Into The Iraq War

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I am beyond sick of hearing the media parrot the White House line (and various committee lines) that the CIA is at fault for getting Bush into the Iraq war. That is a flat out LIE. It was Cheney and his minions who pressured CIA analysts into saying what they wanted to hear. It was cherry picking at its best, pure and simple. It is beyond Orwellian that they keep promoting this fallacy - and that the mainstream media continues to push that line.

CIA DID NOT FAIL - THE U.S. WAS DECEIVED INTO THE IRAQ WAR
NEW YORK - Having presided over the two worst intelligence disasters since Pearl Harbor 9/11 and the misbegotten invasion of Iraq the Bush Administration and its apologists are now whining, `OK, we were wrong about Iraqs weapons and supposed threat, but so was everybody else. Besides, it was all CIAs fault.

No so. The Iraq weapons fiasco was absolutely not caused by an `intelligence failure, as the White House and the recent Senate whitewash claim. It was not an understandable mistake made by all, as a rigged British `inquiry concluded.

US national security and CIA were corrupted and blinded by extremist ideology, cowardice, and careerism. The failure at CIA was not of the organization, but its leadership.
www.ericmargolis.com...

[edit on 20-7-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 08:31 AM
link   
As I remember clearly before the war started there was a pic of bush poking his head into rice saying "# sadam we're going to get him" or something relatively close I remember him saying the "f" word and then iraq thing..

And then another one was Bush told the Cia or whoever to find a way to make sure there is justification for going to Iraq.. Even the CIA knew what he meant by that... Any means necessary, and i'd imagine that included falsifying documents then playing stupid...

They must really think we're stupid.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   
The only strategery they have is Goebbel's big lie. Tell the big lie enough times and the sheep will believe it.

Do a google search on OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS. You'll find all kinds of damning information to back up my contention.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Like I say before and I say again, regardless of the CIA fiasco, this president came to the white house with a personal financial and revenge agenda to get Sadamn out of power to finish what daddy bush didnt finish and pay back with the Iraqi oil to the organizations that financed his place in the white house.

So it did not matter what the CIA did or not did, bush can not hide behind the I had the wrong information because everybody knows his hidden agenda.


And this is my oppinion



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   
"A special intelligence unit at the Pentagon provided private prewar briefings to senior White House officials on alleged ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda without the knowledge of [the] CIA Director

it bypassed usual channels to make a case that conflicted with the conclusions of CIA analysts."

(OSP) was created by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to help create a case to invade Iraq. OSP evolved from the Northern Gulf Affairs Office, which fell under the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia policy office. It was renamed and expanded to the Office of Special Plans in October 2002 to to handle prewar and postwar planning. The name change was done to 'mask' its true mission."

Rumsfeld has strong ties to the Intelligence Community, as well as to the Atlantic Institute, besides being member of the Bilderberg group. He is a financial supporter for the Center for Security Policy. Rumsfeld was one of the signers of the January 26, 1998, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) letter sent to President William Jefferson Clinton.

In his March 9, 2003, article "Family ties connect US right, Zionists", Jim Lobe writes:

"As godfather of the [neo-con] movement, Irving Kristol played mentor to Norman Podhoretz, the long-time but now-retired editor of Commentary, the influential monthly publication of the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Originally identified with the anti-war left in the mid-1960s, Podhoretz converted to neo-conservatism late in the decade and transformed the magazine into a main source of neo-conservative writing, despite the overwhelming majority of the Jewish community itself rejecting those positions.

"Podhoretz and his spouse, Midge Decter, a polemical powerhouse in her own right, created a formidable political team in the 1970s as they deserted the Democratic Party, and then, as leaders of the Committee on the Present Danger -- like PNAC a coalition of mainly Jewish, neo-conservatives and more traditional right-wing hawks like Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- helped lay the foreign-policy foundation for the rise of Ronald Reagan. After Reagan's victory, Decter and Rumsfeld co-chaired the international offshoot of the committee, called the Coalition for the Free World

Interesting Points... I didn't know that stuff... My oh my, and conservative are defending this? The more and more political groups polarize from eachother the more the gap widdens and you can bet your ass this is just the tip of the iceburg...



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
A vast number of conservatives do not have a clue who and what is actually driving this presidency. Neo Conservatives are anything but conservative.

I'm just sitting back and eagerly waiting to see how the company fixes BushCo. You don't F@*% with the CIA in this way. I don't care who you are.



[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Well they did # with the CIA and now george Tenent has resigned, why would he resign? I guess if the the theory about Bush's dad being involved in the JFK murder scandel maybe the Bush's do hold some water of the CIA? Afterall his father was pretty far up the chain. Not to mention Bush's ggrandfather and the nazi connections. I guess whenever you put a Bush in the office it's bound to reek or rotten fish... lol.. i'm fired!



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   
let's not forget that Bush father has ties with the CIA also.

George Bush Appointed CIA Director
On January 30, 1976, former Texas representative George Bush was named Director of the Central Intelligence Agency by President

Tenent resigned perhaps because he knew that the things were going to roll down the hill.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Tenet was a technocrat, a yes-man. He stifled those analysts who were trying to get the truth to the president in docs like the NIE. Footnotes were removed, for example, which expressed skepticism and outright dissent on certain points.

I truly believe they're gonna stick it to Mini-Machiavelli Rove and his band of thugs over the outting of CIA NOC Valerie Plame. Patience is entailed. The case is being made. It'll be fun to watch them squirm and piss themselves when the indictments come down.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Hmm ok, the USA had weak intel...
So did Brittian,
so did the rest of the UN that signed the last resolution against Iraq.

Arm chair, after the fact that there was only one way to know for sure, revisionist history....

I think when most of the world agrees that there was a WMD problem, this idea didnt just make itself up over night...that it would seem to have some substance to it as it came from many sources.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
It wasn't just the U.S. and U.K. who said that Iraq had WMD; Russia, India, and Israel thought so as well; and the U.N. thought so too. Among U.S. Presidents, Bush Jr., Clinton, and Bush Sr. all three said that they thought Iraq had WMD.

I'm not saying there wasn't political posturing going on, but c'mon...



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I seem to remember that the war was started BEFORE the UN had a chance to finish the investigation into WMD. I also seem to remember Canadians and many other countries getting 'bashed' for not supporting the US in thier invasion on Iraq.(Don't get your panties in a knot- I know first hand how well you spoke of us Canadians after we didn't go to Iraq) So saying that the UN 'believed' that Iraq had WMD is not founded. We could all believe, but it does NOT give the right of a PUSHY gun-happy country to go blowing up another country. Now, I know, it isn't the US public, but those heads of state that were elected who decided this.
Regardless of WHO did it, maybe Cheney maybe Bush maybe the CIA. I guess it hardly matters now hey?
Are American lives worth a little oil?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I am also sick and tired of the constant blaming on others.

Bush knew exactly what he was getting himself into and it was not the failure of the CIA for "bad intel." A president has to be a smart decision maker... Unfortunely Bush has a personal political agenda.

I am tired of the Bush regime making everything a conspiracy.. from 9-11 to Iraq.. there seems to be always these "Investigations" coming out....

3,000 people or so in WTC attack died... the familes damaged..... and the Bush regime has the right to play games with them? 900 Troops dead in Iraq for no apparent purpose... how can you install democracy in a country where all the new government leaders get eliminated by rebel forces shortly after taking power.

Was installing democracy the idea of the Iraq Invasion? No

It's not about lack of intel.. it's really about a lack of common sense.

[edit on 22-7-2004 by RedOctober90]



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedOctober90
I am also sick and tired of the constant blaming on others.


Was installing democracy the idea of the Iraq Invasion? No

It's not about lack of intel.. it's really about a lack of common sense.

[edit on 22-7-2004 by RedOctober90]


Well said!
It seems it is easier to blame someone than take responsibility.

LO



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Hmm ok, the USA had weak intel...
So did Brittian,
so did the rest of the UN that signed the last resolution against Iraq.



The intel was not weak. It was thoroughly cooked. This was known well before the invasion. Revisionist historians be damned. Those who wished not to see the truth, did not. And some still refuse to.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   
9/11 --> invade Afghanistan
9/11 --> invade Iraq
Surround Iran
Have Moore make a movie and start getting people turned on to the Saudi role.
Attack Iran, slaughter Iran
Release blacked out pages of 9/11 report talking about Saudi Arabias role.
Invade Saudi Arabia.
Control a hell of a lot of oil.
They lied about Iraq, they lie about 9/11, who benefits from 9/11? Big oil and military contractors! Who benefits from something usually causes that something to happen.
Bush has ties to big oil and military contractors, of course the CIA didnt fail, Bush and the boys just want to make lots of money for their friends and families. Isnt that what secret society members do for one another? The same secret society Kerry is also a member of! Nothing is going to change until we the people wise up and throw them all out of office!



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Well said DirtyDevil. Yet people still bicker over the republican/democrat/Bush bashing while we focus on the core issues at hand that matter.

The true intel was pushed aside as usual.. just like how the Intel Services ignored all the prime warnings from actual concerned FBI/CIA agents about 9-11.

The intel services appear to be backwards.. processing junk information but ignoring real intel. I do not understand the politics of this at all.. it is idiocy to the highest level.

I was not decieved by the Iraq War, I knew exactly what the purpose was before they even set foot in there.

[edit on 23-7-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 23-7-2004 by RedOctober90]



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
9/11 --> invade Afghanistan
9/11 --> invade Iraq
Surround Iran
Have Moore make a movie and start getting people turned on to the Saudi role.
Attack Iran, slaughter Iran
Release blacked out pages of 9/11 report talking about Saudi Arabias role.
Invade Saudi Arabia.
Control a hell of a lot of oil.
They lied about Iraq, they lie about 9/11, who benefits from 9/11? Big oil and military contractors! Who benefits from something usually causes that something to happen.
Bush has ties to big oil and military contractors, of course the CIA didnt fail, Bush and the boys just want to make lots of money for their friends and families. Isnt that what secret society members do for one another? The same secret society Kerry is also a member of! Nothing is going to change until we the people wise up and throw them all out of office!


Well DD the one problem with your theory is that GW Bush is just not smart enough to come up with a scheme that good
.

If that were really the plan and the US is succesful in doing it then US will be the leader of the entire world more or less. That is if you are right and the US is succesful.

I don't think they are that smart or that devious.

X

[edit on 26-7-2004 by Xeven]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
If the CEO of a company costs his corporation billions of dollars and then says "Well the reports I was reading were full of faulty information", wouldn't you fire that CEO anyway?


How can you pass the buck on something like this? Wouldn't you think that if they were going to be putting American lives on the line, they would have carefully made 100% sure that there actually were WMDs?

I love how they were calling it "faith-based intelligence". Sounds better than "broad speculation".



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:23 AM
link   
But those of us paying attention to the world for the past 20 yrs, understood both saddam, and the UN.

We've seen countlesslies, deceptions, and waffling around with the iraq issue for well over a decade.

The fact that the UN had imposed sanctions and was demanding (on paper) compliance from saddam on his WMD programs means what?
THAT THE UN BELIEVED THERE WAS SOMETHING TO LOOK FOR THERE!!!

If there was no intel pointing the finger at saddam for WMD then the UN never would have agreed to put inspectors in in the first place, OR have put up repeated sanctions against iraq.

For those that say, "ohh the USA could have allowed inspectors more time to conclude their investigations".....
so 5 years worth or searching thru saddams shuffle and hide games was not enough time? 6 months more would have solved the case eh? Mabey saddam would have come around in a year?
Saddam was NEVER going to cooperate with the inspections if he had the wmd or not.

To those that say the intel was "cooked" or "slectevly interpreted",
please explain to me then how so many countries in the world thru the UN were willing to declare this as a problem for so many years?

Also, why isnt the fact that the USA has serial #'s for chem shells we sold to saddam that have never been accounted for disturb you MORE than if we found the whole pile of them?

The fact that we knew he had these things, yet they are nowhere to be found implies all sorts of "where did they go" questions....and if your sitting back waiting for a dictator to be generous and tell you, then your not concerned enough that these weapons might already be in your back yard. In a few years when 6 of these shells get tossed into a city, and we find the fragments that show they used to be in saddams arsenal...
I hope "we told you so" is a comfort to the dead and their families.

lets hit a few specifics
Ladyorchid asks,


Are American lives worth a little oil?

YES!!!! YES!!! YES!!! All the US lives lost "for oil" are worth it...ALL of our lives in the USA are DOMINATED by oil use and products. Try living withous using them...go on try...good luck with that.
Remember the great depression? now multiply that by 3 and you might get an idea of what would happen if the USA was suddenly without oil....the trickledown effect on the rest of the planet would be devastating as millions die from starving because noone can afford to mass produce/ship food to the grocerie stores....as an american, our leaders weather domocrat or republican have sworn to protectAmerican interest first before others...that means doing what it takes to make sure America gets to suck the last drop out of the planet if nessisary. Every citizen contributes to our dependance on oil, so until you personally start to live differently and cut back petrolium product usage...dont bother to whine about fighting for the oil that makes your minivan, suburban dwelling, microwave, couch potato lives comfy and possible. American lives are worth ALL the oil as ALL of America needs this to survive.

Red october shares my sentimant but for different reasons here,


I am also sick and tired of the constant blaming on others.


Me too. So since the USA did provide WMD's to saddam and prop up his regime for so long, we contributed directly to the problem. We helped cause this problem and therefore should accept the responsibillity of cleaning up our mess. Iraq is our mess. Iraq is a complex situation with many ramifications, it has been that way for decades of our involvment, and it will remain so for decades more. We cant simply stop interactions with Iraq, and have a responsibillity to ourselves to do what is in our national security interests reguardless of other nations concerns....are other nations looking out for the USA? no theyre looking out for themselves(hello Germany, France and Russia....did you enjoy blocking the US in the UN so that you could continue to ripp off the world thru the food for oil scam?) Again, this scam IS our problem as our "allies" were saying one thing to us and doing another behind our backs....This doesnt concern you?
so stop blaming others and say gee, the USA does have some responsibillity in Iraq, and did long before Bush jr got to office.

Jakomo asks a presumptive question,


Wouldn't you think that if they were going to be putting American lives on the line, they would have carefully made 100% sure that there actually were WMDs?

Yes, Id think that this was not a light decision, but how do you suggest they make 100% sure there were WMD's, when we couldnt be 50% sure there werent? I think thats the point about the whole UN inspection issue...exactly how long, thru know deceptions, do you look for things before either reaching a conclusion or taking action on your info(or lack of intel) If we knew the answer to this question BEFORE the war, then we'd have a device that could predict the future. I could use this device daily.
This is a crap question thats slanted to bash Bush.
This assumes that Bush knew EVERY DETAIL of life in Iraq....how could they? decisions are made daily that affect peoples lives, often times without 100% information, and sometimes based only on a hunch. Thats life. There is no way for any government to know everything and make every decision "correctly". There are plenty of historical evets where the "known" was shown later on to not be the way it was percieved at the time. (the world is flat, man will never fly, fire was alive...etc etc.) So what? NOONE can predict the future.

The only people that were decieved are the ones that think that Iraq is meaningless to American national interests.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join