Bush: we need some way to make this war ?

[Ivan Seeking]

Bush: "we need some way to make this war"?

...We have the minutes of his discussions with Tony Blair, the British prime minister. On the 31st of January, 2003, where the president says, there really, really aren't any weapons of mass destruction to be found, but we need some way to make this war. Maybe, yes, that's a good idea, maybe we'll paint one of our you toos (ph) with U.N. colors and hope that it gets shot down. Or maybe we'll get a defector out that will attest to the presence of weapons of mass destruction. Or there's an outside chance we can just assassinate Saddam Hussein. That's on the record. The British will vouch for that.

We also have the Downing Street memos where the head of British intelligence came back from consultations with George Tenet in July 2002 and said, the intelligence and the facts are being fixed around the policy.[continued]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/04/acd.02.html
-RAY MCGOVERN, FORMER CIA ANALYST

This is the guy who attacked Rummy yesterday. He was on Anderson Cooper last night and his quote above is from that discussion. Note that the page credits this comment to Cooper, but it was McGovern who said this. He claims that we have "proof" that Bush knew there were no WMDs before we went into Iraq.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

As for the exchange yersterday between McGovern and Rummy, I find it interesting that Rummy "knew" where the weapons were when Saddam occupied the country, but now that we have been there in full force for three years, according to Rummy, it "appears" that there were no WMDs after all.

 

[Gokul43201]

I've never seen Rumsfeld look this disconcerted before.

 

[Pengwuino]

Wow opinion from random people seems to carry a lot of weight around here

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://faculty.schreiner.edu/tomwells/ray_mcgovern_bio.htm

Random?

 

[Pengwuino]

Didn't think i'd ever see you promoting such a religious persons point of view on things ivan!

And considering he lectures on things using Michael Moore as a source, i wouldn't call him very legitimate

 

[Ivan Seeking]

His allegations at the conference yesterday have been confirmed. He also claims that Bush's statements are on the record.

Your objections are silly.

 

[Pengwuino]

I'd like to see those records...

If you considered this is the first time such statements that are so dramatic have been brought up, you'd appreciate my doubts

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ray’s duties at CIA included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President’ Daily Brief (PDB). These, the most authoritative genres of intelligence reporting, have been the focus of press reporting on “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq and on what the president was told before 9/11. During the mid-eighties, Ray was one of the senior analysts conducting early morning briefings of the PDB one-on-one with the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

Ray received his B.A., summa cum laude, from Fordham College and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Designated a Distinguished Military Graduate, he was commissioned upon graduation and served as an infantry/intelligence officer in the US Army from 1962-64. Ray holds an M.A. in Russian Studies from Fordham University and a certificate in Theological Studies from Georgetown University. He is also a graduate of the Harvard Business School’s Advanced Management Program.

At his retirement ceremony, Ray received the Intelligence Commendation Medal and a letter from then-president George H. W. Bush wishing him well in his transition to non-profit work in inner-city Washington. Ray served on the board of Bread for the City from 1989-94, the latter two years as president, before becoming co-director of the Servant Leadership School.

From the link above.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'd like to see those records...

So would I and a lot of other people. If true, I think this constitutes grounds for war crimes charges; or at the least, grounds for immediate impeachment.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well I am sure if they were true, the democrats would have brought it up by now. I have a feeling this will just be another one of those allegations that were never backed up by fact.

 

[George Jones]

Well I am sure if they were true, the democrats would have brought it up by now. I have a feeling this will just be another one of those allegations that were never backed up by fact.

Like the ones made by the Bush administration?

Regards,
George

 

[Pengwuino]

Like the ones made by the Bush administration?

Regards,
George

nice comeback What is this, comedy hour?

 

[BobG]

Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

If you're writing that paragraph, I think it's a 'slam dunk' that the 'they' of "We know where they are" means "weapons of mass destruction". If you're speaking those words in response to a question, I don't think it's quite as certain, which is why reporters ask questions to clarify an answer.

It doesn't necessarily mean Rumsfeld had evidence that these sites had weapons of mass destruction. It could mean that Rumsfeld was certain they would find evidence at those sites. The former would be a lie, while the latter would be wrong. Of course, the latter could have been a lie as well, with Rumsfeld stalling for time for a new excuse.

Rumsfeld might well have been lying, but I don't think McGovern really caught him on anything.

 

[SOS2008]

Didn't think i'd ever see you promoting such a religious persons point of view on things ivan!

And considering he lectures on things using Michael Moore as a source, i wouldn't call him very legitimate

WTF?

The minutes posted in the OP, along with the Downing Street Memo and other evidence, including verification from other credible sources (in addition to McGovern) show Bush knew there were no WMD before the invasion. (I'll try to remember to post the transcripts from last night when these come available.)

Rumsfeld might well have been lying, but I don't think McGovern really caught him on anything.

I think McGovern did catch Rumsfeld red-handed, per excerpts from transcripts from the night before last:

RAY MCGOVERN, FORMER CIA ANALYST: You said you knew where they were.

RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were. And we were...

MCGOVERN: You said you knew where they were. Near Tikrit, near Baghdad and northeast, south and west of there. Those are your words.

RUMSFELD: My words, my words were that...

ROBERTS: Well, we looked up what his words were and found that in an appearance on ABC's "This Week," three years ago, Rumsfeld said this.

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

ROBERTS: With what appeared to be the facts on his side, McGovern kept going. An exchange that lasted a full two minutes and 35 seconds.

MCGOVERN: I'd like an honest answer.

RUMSFELD: I'm giving it to you.

MCGOVERN: We're talking about lies and your allegation that there was bulletproof evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. Was that a lie? Or were you mislead?

ROBERTS: Hold on. Did Rumsfeld ever say bulletproof? According to the "New York Times," he did. September 27, 2002, in Atlanta. And a month later he admitted saying it. But a year after that, he told the National Press Club, bulletproof? Not me.

RUMSFELD: Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the prewar period. That is a fact.

MCGOVERN: Zarqawi? He was in the north of Iraq in a place where Saddam Hussein had no rule. That‘s where he was.

RUMSFELD: He was also in Baghdad.

MCGOVERN: Yes, when he needed to go to the hospital.

Come on, these people aren‘t idiots. They know the story.

RUMSFELD: You are-- Let me give you an example. It‘s easy for you to make a charge. Why do you think that the men and women in uniform every day when they came out of Kuwait and went into Iraq put on chemical weapon protective suits? Because they liked the style? They honestly believed that there were chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people previously, he'd used them on his neighbor the Iranians, and they believed he had those weapons. We believed he had those weapons.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/04/acd.02.html & http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/04/acd.02.html

McGovern went on to say troops acted on what they were told, so troop behavior cannot be used as evidence of anything. I agree.

This is not making #1 headline news because of fatigue, timing, etc. The Dems are being smart and keeping their eye on the ball, which is the 2006 elections. Then as more and more information like this comes out, they can push past the likes of Pat Roberts :yuck: and get a real investigation going.

In the meantime, I'd like to know why Republicans hate America so much?

 

[Gokul43201]

Pengwuino, I just don't get what you're objecting about. Every single news show about this has confirmed that Rumsfeld did make the statements that McGovern attributed to him.

And now, Rumsfeld says "I never said that".

Yeah, we've heard that line before. What is this, like the 15th time he's said, "I never said that", or "I had no idea about that", that's panned out to be untrue ?

And since when did people who've spent close to 3 decades, working in the CIA become random guys ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In the meantime, I'd like to know why Republicans hate America so much?

Please refrain from making such blanket statements. This is the sort of thing that has threatened the very existence of this forum a few times now.

 

[Astronuc]

It doesn't necessarily mean Rumsfeld had evidence that these sites had weapons of mass destruction. It could mean that Rumsfeld was certain they would find evidence at those sites. The former would be a lie, while the latter would be wrong. Of course, the latter could have been a lie as well, with Rumsfeld stalling for time for a new excuse.

I'd be inclined to believe the latter.

Clearly the Bush administration did not have incontrovertible evidence of weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, they had strong motivation to believe that there were WMD present, and all they needed was to find one potential nuclear or chemical warhead.

Bush had mentioned using US troops with regard to a dictator before the November election, and then, according to former Treas. Secretary Paul O'Neill, brought up Iraq during the first cabinet meeting (~Jan 01). The implication is that Bush had planned to invade Iraq and get Hussein well before 9/11/01.

By the time of the invasion on March 03, they had high hopes of finding WMD. Wishful thinking perhaps.

However, there appears to be strong indication that certain circumstantial evidence for Iraq's nuclear and chemical programs was indeed fabricated or embellished.

 

[SOS2008]

Please refrain from making such blanket statements. This is the sort of thing that has threatened the very existence of this forum a few times now.

Though that statement followed my comments about Pat Roberts, fair enough that it was a blanket statement. I will rephrase it to say: Why do so many Republicans hate America so much? When Republicans like Roberts, who are supported by a core base in that party, stand in the way of needed corrections to actions that have resulted in loss of lives and treasure or constitutional rights, then my statement is true and I stand by it. We must do what is in the interest of our country, not a party. I guarantee you I will not support Dems who are soft on illegal immigration (which I suspect could also be said of you, edward and others deemed "liberal" in this forum), so I expect those across the aisle to get real too.

Back to the topic...and getting real... There have been many other credible sources in addition to McGovern who have spoken out about lies fed to Americans, going back a couple of years:

The Man Who Knew
Feb. 4, 2004

"The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I call faith-based intelligence. They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show." Greg Thielmann

One analyst, Greg Thielmann, told Correspondent Scott Pelley last October that key evidence cited by the administration was misrepresented to the public.

Thielmann should know. He had been in charge of analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Powell's own intelligence bureau.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

More recently:

Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 10, 2006; Page A01

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

..."It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html

And more:

A Spy Speaks Out
Former Top CIA Official On "Faulty" Intelligence Claims

April 23, 2006

"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."

(CBS) When no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq, President Bush insisted that all those WMD claims before the war were the result of faulty intelligence. But a former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller - a 26-year veteran of the agency - has decided to do something CIA officials at his level almost never do: Speak out.

He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml

Back to McGovern, here is more on that:

COOPER: More now on the man who confronted Secretary Rumsfeld... I spoke with Mr. McGovern earlier tonight about what Secretary Rumsfeld now thinks about the case he made for the war.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: Do you think he still believes that there were WMD?

MCGOVERN: I think still is the wrong word there.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: You don't think he ever believed it?

MCGOVERN: No.

It's very clear that this was a very cynical attempt to do what they wanted to do, namely, make war on Iraq, and that they decided to do that shortly after 9/11.

And when my former colleague Paul Pillar, who was the most senior national intelligence officer for the Middle East and for counterterrorism, when he says, as he did just yesterday, that there was an organized campaign of manipulation of the intelligence to prove a tie between Iraq and al Qaeda, the objective, of course, to make the American people think that Saddam Hussein has something to do with 9/11, when Pillar comes out with that information, then I think we need to make sure the American people know that we knew at that time there was no such tie. And what Don Rumsfeld said at that time was that the evidence was bulletproof.

----------

COOPER: I mean, there are those who say, well, look, there was -- well, not on the al Qaeda thing, but, on WMD, there were plenty of administrations in the past and plenty of people in Congress and elsewhere in other intelligence services who believed there were WMD in Iraq.

MCGOVERN: Yes. The WMD issue is separate and distinct from this.

COOPER: Yes, of course.

MCGOVERN: The WMD thing was a matter of the vice president forcing the head of CIA to acquiesce in what the vice president wanted the administration to say.

Now, the vice president visited CIA headquarters 10 times. People ask me, is that unusual? I say, no, it's not unusual. That's unprecedented.

COOPER: How can you prove, though, a lie?

I mean, you're -- you're -- you're alleging an intent to mislead, a belief that they knew there were no WMD, that they knew Saddam wasn't really an imminent threat, and they chose to go to war anyway, and they -- they faked, they manipulated, they hand-picked intelligence.

Others will argue, you know, they -- maybe they -- you know, they believed they had it, and -- and so they looked for the intelligence that matched their belief, but -- but that they actually did believe it?

MCGOVERN: Thanks for that question, because we now have documentary proof that the president knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq well before the invasion.

We have the minutes of his discussions with Tony Blair, the British prime minister, on the 31st of January 2003, where the president says, there really -- really aren't any weapons of mass destruction to be found, but we need some way to make this war. Maybe -- yes, that's a good idea. Maybe we will paint one of our U-2s with U.N. colors and hope that it gets shot down, or maybe we will get a defector out that will attest to the presence of weapons of mass destruction. Or there's an outside chance we can just assassinate Saddam Hussein.

That's on the record. The British vouch for that. We also have the Downing Street memos, where the head of British intelligence came back from consultations with George Tenet in July of 2002 and said the intelligence and the facts are being fixed around the policy.

The evidence on ties between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, OK, that's what we're really talking about; 69 percent of the American people believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 when we went to war with Iraq. That was exactly what the administration wanted.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/04/acd.02.html

It is said that Goss was not doing his job satisfactorily. Do you suppose the job of "cleaning house" and suppressing "leaks" is where he has failed? In any event, how much evidence will it take to convince Republicans that Bush should be impeached?

By the time of the invasion on March 03, they had high hopes of finding WMD. Wishful thinking perhaps.

Wishful, yes, and if WMD were not found they knew we would already be at war (oooops too late), and they could spin other reasons to justify why we should be there, such as insinuating connection between Saddam and 9-11, or simply that Saddam was Satan, and it worked.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, I want to see those minutes. He says the Brits will confirm the claim.