CNN interviewee: CIA leaked Iraq NIC reports

[Renew Deal]

That's big. Wayne Madsen and others have speculated that the CIA is in a process of regime change in the US. They are doing what they do in other countries. That's frightening on some level.

:tinfoilhat: :scared: :tinfoilhat:

[dave123williams]

1. Not if it dumps Bush...

That fucker had the nerve to blame Iraq on 'bad intelligence' when there was a vocal presence in the intel community that was trying to tell him that invasion was STOOOOOPID.

[dennis4868]

17. but but but....

Tweety said tonight that Bush got bad intel from the CIA and he did not mislead us into the war.....why should I believe you when the TV tells me every night that Bush is decisive and resolute?

[dave123williams]

21. There's enough people around who aren't buying the party line...

I understand you're playing devil's advocate...but the truth will out. Everybody knows Iraq was agenda driven, not intelligence driven.

Decisive? Bad decision after bad decision. Resoloute? In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I'd characterise him in much the same way, but I'd use the words 'Impulsive' and 'Stubborn'. The hallmarks of wisdom, these are not.

[Pirate Smile]

2. They are not going to let * continue to lie about what his Administration

knew and didn't know about the prospects for Iraq. They were told it may be a complete quagmire and they did it anyway.

Now if the CIA was making stuff up, that would be a different thing but the liars are Bush and his gang.

[Catfight]

3. I would think if someone outed my comrade for political gain and

then forced my boss to resign for political gain, somehow I might be really tired someday and forget to check some threats here and there. I think the CIA most likely isn't up Bush's butt therefore he'd love to clean house before the clean the White house. OMHO

[henslee]

4. Link?

[Renew Deal]

5. It was during Newsnight

No transcript yet.

[Rose Siding]

6. Is that like the NIE?

National Intelligence Estimate? Are they different?

Novak fingered the probable leaker for that one yesterday-

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak27.html

[Renew Deal]

8. I was wondering the same thing.

They said National intelligence council.

[Rose Siding]

9. WP follows this line tomorrow-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58183-2004Sep28?language=printer

[riverwalker]

7. payback's a bitch

for all the above and lingering resentment of daddy bu$hco's disasterous term as head of CIA.

[11cents]

12. The anger's not at Bush Sr.

I think it was Ray McGovern, one of the fiercest ex-CIA critics of the Bushling, that said he considered George H.W. Bush to have been scrupulous about keeping politics out of his job when he was head of the CIA. Bush Sr. wasn't CIA chief very long, and his tenure wasn't particularly disastrous. Not everything is about the dynasty; this is all about Junior and his friends.

[JohnnyRingo]

10. Kere's a link I'm hesitant to pass along.....

....By El Douchebag Novak:

It tells the basic story though, with Novak siding with the poor "president" of course.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak27.html#

excerpt:
"A few hours after George W. Bush dismissed a pessimistic CIA report on Iraq as ''just guessing,''
the analyst who identified himself as its author told a private dinner last week of secret, unheeded
warnings years ago about going to war in Iraq. This exchange leads to the unavoidable conclusion
that the president of the United States and the Central Intelligence Agency are at war with each other...

Modern history is filled with intelligence bureaus turning against their own governments, for good or ill.
In the final days of World War II, the German Abwehr conspired against Hitler. More recently,
Pakistani intelligence was plotting with Muslim terrorists. The CIA is a long way from those extremes,
but it is supposed to be a resource -- not a critic -- for the president."

On Edit:
I didn't see Party_line's reply the first time through...sorry for the dupe

[Demi_Babe]

11. I posted this is another thread

Bush ignored warnings on Iraq insurgency threat before invasion

Intelligence suggested country faced years of tumult

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Wednesday September 29, 2004
The Guardian

The Bush administration disregarded intelligence reports two months before the invasion of Iraq which warned that a war could unleash a violent insurgency and rising anti-US sentiment in the Middle East, it emerged yesterday.
The warning, delivered in two classified reports to the White House in January 2003, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council, the same advisory board that warned the Bush administration last month that the violence in Iraq could descend into a civil war.

That forecast radically departs from George Bush's upbeat assertions that the situation is improving in Iraq, and he initially dismissed the assessment as a "guess".

The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, suggested the assessment was the work of "handwringers".

The revelation yesterday that the White House was similarly cavalier about prewar warnings could hurt Mr Bush in the run-up to tomorrow's presidential debate, which is focused on foreign policy.

The Democratic challenger, John Kerry, has led a dogged effort to shift the election agenda from the "war on terror" to the chaos in Iraq, and yesterday's report at last provides him with a new opening.

One of the prewar assessments said it would take years of tumult before democracy was established in Iraq, and the country could revert to its tradition of authoritarian rule. According to the New York Times, it also warned that the new authorities in Iraq could face a guerrilla war waged by remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime, and other militant groups.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1315023,00....


GET ON IT KERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Roland99]

14. Your link is broken.

Try this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1315023,00.html

[LittleClarkie]

13. It's a spook's way of campaigning

Welcome aboard, spy guys! Y'all get a cookie.

[AlCzervik]

15. The CIA is gonna keep on leaking stuff out thats bad for

*, once it starts, it doesn't stop. * welcome to Nixon land.

[Roland99]

16. .

And Bush has said he would do it all over again, too.

Even though he knew of predictions of an uprising? Even though Saddam had NO WMDs? Even though Abu Ghraib destroyed our humanitarian stance of removing Saddam?

[wabeewoman]

19. Fool me once....

shame on you, eh, ah oh. No wonder he couldn't remember the saying!! Its bad enough to do something with the whole world telling you not to but then to find out you are wrong and say you would do it again. This is bush's Achilles heel and I hope Kerry can use it.

[AirAmFan]

23. Great ad tagline. Congratulations! "It's bad enough to do something the whole

world told you not to. But then to find out you were wrong, and thousands of people have died because of your mistake, and you say you would do it again?

George W. Bush--had ENOUGH?"

[frylock]

18. and the ratfuckers become the rat..

if the CIA wants to lend a hand in ousting the current Amerikan regime, well then I, for one, welcome our new ant overlords.

[DeepModem Mom]

20. Good, but I fear the CIA may have met its match in the Bush cabal...

and Karl Rove.

[RafterMan]

22. Ehhh

that depends. We know they hate him -- it's been clear since the Plame case first came up. The question is whether this latest is their full broadside or just a trial balloon.


If, in October, we get pictures of Bush and a choirboy, or if he breaks out in those weird boils, or we hear a tape of him speaking in tongues I think we'll know the bureaucracy has come through for us.

If, on the other hand, they spend the month just nipping at his heels, you may be right. They may be in for some serious trouble next term.