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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Well ECK, you're right except you're missing one important element. Valerie Palme and her husband Joseph Wilson. Cheney sent Wilson to Niger to find evidence of Yellowcake and came back empty handed. Cheney found this unexeptable. Now, why Tenet Resign? This is one of the best articles I've ever read on Iraq and the WMD's and the reason why Tenet resigned. It's long but it's worth the read.

Blood in the Water

by Michael C. Ruppert

July 15, 2003, 0100 PDT (FTW) - The speed with which CIA Director George Tenet accepted responsibility last Friday for clearing George W. Bush's January 28 State of the Union Speech containing the bogus Iraq-uranium statement based upon forged documents was matched by the speed with which major news agencies - many of which had already been serving as conduits for CIA leaks - released stories that guaranteed deeper and more hostile probes. The writing appears to be on the wall for a beleaguered and disarrayed presidency, as key administration officials including Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice either wittingly or unwittingly line up like chess pieces to take the fall for a doomed King.

A multitude of stories appearing within hours of the Bush/Rice statements and Tenet's "confession" disclosed that the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence) had successfully and personally argued for the removal of a similar line three months before the State-of-the-Union speech. His admission is not credible.
www.fromthewilderness.com...




posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Here's another good article by Ruppert on Palme and Tenet Resigning.

JUNE 8, 2004 1600 PDT (FTW) - Why did DCI George Tenet suddenly resign on June 3rd, only to be followed a day later by James Pavitt, the CIA's Deputy Director of Operations (DDO)?

The real reasons, contrary to the saturation spin being put out by major news outlets, have nothing to do with Tenet's role as taking the fall for alleged 9/11 and Iraqi intelligence "failures" before the upcoming presidential election.

Both resignations, perhaps soon to be followed by resignations from Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage, are about the imminent and extremely messy demise of George W. Bush and his Neocon administration in a coup d'etat being executed by the Central Intelligence Agency. The coup, in the planning for at least two years, has apparently become an urgent priority as a number of deepening crises threaten a global meltdown.

www.fromthewilderness.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Anyone read Fahrenheit 451? Remember how the wars were being fought to keep the people happy, so that they would not lose all their luxuries? And the reason nobody questioned anything is because no books of abstract thought were left.

Well, when you start talking about the reasons justifying a war, that is what you are left with, abstract thought. Claiming luxuries are worth human lives, give me a break. Life is important, everything else is excess.

But life and experience seemed to be tossed out the windows these days, in exchange for luxury.

I don't really have much more of a point than that, just that people keep saying 1984 here we come, but if you want to know how that could start read Fahrenheit 451.

Just posted in response to people who feel the oil in Iraq is important than life.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 05:46 AM
link   
EastCoastKid, you are correct, the CIA was not and is not at fault for Bush's (vietnam) war with Iraq, the citizens of the United States are not at fault for "this man's war", George W Bush & Co are the one's that are at fault !! G W Bush is not intelligent enough to plan this war, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld are the one's,......, Bush was only interested in getting revenge, he wanted Saddam at all cost and the other bloodsuckers wanted the oil, so they hatched the plan of stating that Saddam had WMD's and planned to use them against the United States,... maybe the world. Next they tried to convince the U N of Saddam's plans for use of the WMD's and Saddam needed to be stopped, BUT, that scam they tried to pass-off to the U N, failed, so Bush stated " We'd go it alone " and forced our (our family-members , not none of theirs) troops to attack a country that WAS NOT doing anything to us. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld keep stating that our troops are laying down their lives for our country,......... That is THE BIGGEST PILE OF BS that has crossed Bush & Co's lips to this day, our family-member's were forced to fight and die for OIL and REVENGE for these so-called leader's of the USA that are in office at this time.

Is it worth all the lifes lost for Bush & Co's revenge and oil ? NO
!!!
Do I as an American born citizen want 4 more years of Bush's retarded leadership ? When he$$ freezes over. Do I need someone to me over the head , to get me to see the truth of whats happening behind the closed doors in the oval-office ,..... NOPE !!! G W Bush & Co has to leave office as of Nov. 3 ., and we need to bring our troops home !!!!



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 12:54 AM
link   
BLAME BUSH goes the song of the ill informed....

NO blame for members of congress for passing the $$$ needed to wage this war? Not one democrat voted to authorize the President the authority and funds to wage war?

If Bush wanted to invade, he would have had his 90 days to do so without anyones concent under the warpowers act, but congress could then demand an immediate withdrawl after that time.

Yet CONGRESS gave the power and blank check for this?
No blame for them? only the guy at the top eh?
What a narrow view of the dynamic workings of our government.
Another informed voter there. yikes!



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 01:29 AM
link   
ECK, did you just fall from the turnip truck yesterday?

Everyone from Clinton to Bush to Kerry were in agreement that Iraq had chemical/biological weapon capabilities, were working on nuclear capablities, and was a threat to the west. Nobody, and I mean nobody, denied that. Unless you are an highschool student, unaware of the facts from 1990 and on and are at the mercy of left-wing socialist teachers, you should know that.

The fact that the intelligence community of the U.S. has been crippled from the previous administration is also nothing that is deniable, neither is the fact that froeign intelligence gave us additional reason to believe Hussein was a grave threat to the West, not only because of his chem,/bio weapons, but because of his ties to terrorist groups who would be more than willing to use his special weapons to slaughter as many westerners as they could.

The fact that he owned those weapons are not deniable, yet you still refuse to recognize that fact and ask the only logical question, and that would be; Where are they now?


df1

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The fact that he owned those weapons are not deniable, yet you still refuse to recognize that fact and ask the only logical question, and that would be; Where are they now?

Don't you think a more relevant question would be; Who sold him those weapons in the first place? It strikes me as disingenuous not to note that Saddam purchased most all WMDs he ever had from the US via the
Reagan/Bush administration which sort of mutes the drum you wish to bang.
.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Actually, let us clarify a couple things.

First off, Hussein did not buy most of his "WMD's" from the Reagan/Bush admins, that is a continously pushed fallacy, and were it true, it has nothing to do with the situation at hand, so, no, I do not agree with your attempted point.

Secondly, these are not WMD, but "special weapons". While one may say that all weapons of mass destruction (the H-bomb, for example) are special weapons, not all special weapons are weapons of mass destruction.

Anyway, why in the world does it make a difference to you where Hussein got any material with which to build chemical weapons (the only material he received from the U.S., and a limited supply, to boot. He received no biological weapons material)? Are you unfamiliar with the times, or are you too keen on pushing some political agenda, even at the expense of the historical truth? The U.S. aligned itself with several states that were not like our own, but were counter to the overall threat of the time - Soviet expansion. But to attempt to defend Hussein for this reason is like blaming Colt for the actions of a murderer - it defies logic and reason.


df1

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Actually, let us clarify a couple things.

First off, Hussein did not buy most of his "WMD's" from the Reagan/Bush admins...

Which country(s) do you think were the source of Saddams WMDs?



Secondly, these are not WMD, but "special weapons".

Please enlighten us; which special weapons that weren't WMDs caused the US to go to war in Iraq?


He received no biological weapons material)?

So sending Hussein chemical weapons and the raw materials to make biological weapons in violation of the UN meets with your approval?


are you too keen on pushing some political agenda

Actually I see myself as refuting a political agenda.


But to attempt to defend Hussein for this reason is like blaming Colt for the actions of a murderer - it defies logic and reason.

First, I offered no defense of Hussein. And second, your analogy is faulty. Colt does not sell weapons to people then encourage those people to go out and become and murders, whereas the US sold weapons to Hussein then encouraged him to become a mass murder. A big difference as I see it.

I did not vindicate Hussein's actions, nor did I ever approve of his actions. I do demonize the men that sold him the weapons, as they are same men that are prosecuting this bout of death & destruction in Iraq 2 and they are the same men (cheney/rumsfeld) that reaped untold profits from Iraq 1. Excuse me if I missed their honorable motives, but then I don't see yours either.

Please Disregard My Comments, As I Will Make No Further Replies. I Did Not Realize That This Was Changed A Mudpit Thread When Responding.
.


[edit on 16-8-2004 by df1]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Better idea, stop reading liberal rags and learn about Hussein's chemical/biological buildup on your own. While you're doing that, realize that there are many years between the years of the Cold War and now. As a matter of fact, there have been many years that have passed since the first war with Hussein, and after that war, Hussein thumbed his nose at the allied coalition and the U.N., took continuous shots at allied planes patrolling the no-fly zones, refused to cooperate with the inspectors while playing cat and mouse games with his special weapons. Whatever material that was given to Hussein during the Cold War is totally irrelavent to today, you merely wish to muddy the water, ignore the facts and twist the argument.



[edit on 16-8-2004 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The fact that he owned those weapons are not deniable, yet you still refuse to recognize that fact and ask the only logical question, and that would be; Where are they now?

Don't you think a more relevant question would be; Who sold him those weapons in the first place? It strikes me as disingenuous not to note that Saddam purchased most all WMDs he ever had from the US via the
Reagan/Bush administration which sort of mutes the drum you wish to bang.
.


As far as Mud, pal, allow me to quote your entire faulty, not to mention irrelevant post, and you take a look and tell me who strayed from the point.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The fact that he owned those weapons are not deniable, yet you still refuse to recognize that fact and ask the only logical question, and that would be; Where are they now?

Don't you think a more relevant question would be; Who sold him those weapons in the first place? It strikes me as disingenuous not to note that Saddam purchased most all WMDs he ever had from the US via the
Reagan/Bush administration which sort of mutes the drum you wish to bang.
.


As far as Mud, pal, allow me to quote your entire faulty, not to mention irrelevant post, and you take a look and tell me who strayed from the point.


And, if you intend on doing the cut/paste segemnted quote crap and ask meaningless questions rather than formulate your own rational thoughts that are based in fact and history, at least try and read the post and quote and entire sentence, rather than edit to the point you take half a sentence and STILL manage to misunderstand.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join