Rediscovered testimony given by CIA director in 2001

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Nov 18, 2005.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Rediscovered testimony given by CIA director in 2001 suggests manipulation of pre-war intelligence.

    President George W. Bush’s attempt Friday to silence critics who say his administration manipulated prewar intelligence on Iraq is undercut by congressional testimony given in February 2001 by former CIA Director George Tenet, who said that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or other countries in the Middle East, RAW STORY has found.

    Details of Tenet’s testimony have not been reported before.

    Since a criminal indictment was handed up last month against Vice President Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, for his role in allegedly leaking the name of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson to reporters in an attempt to muzzle criticism of the administration’s rationale for war, questions have resurfaced in the halls of Congress about whether the president and his close advisers manipulated intelligence in an effort to dupe lawmakers and the American public into believing Saddam Hussein was a grave threat.

    The White House insists that such a suggestion is ludicrous and wholly political. It has launched a full-scale public relations effort to restate its case for war by saying Democrats saw the same intelligence as their Republican counterparts prior to the March 2003 invasion.

    But as a bipartisan investigation into prewar intelligence heats up, some key Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), have unearthed unreported evidence that indicates Congress was misled. This evidence includes Tenet’s testimony before Congress, dissenting views from the scientific community and statements made by members of the administration in early 2001

    SOURCE
     
  2. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    The Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act was a Democrat act to gut the CIA and other spy organizations. To talk about intelligence failure without discussing the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act is very misleading.

    And it has been clear for a long time that the far-right wants to declare this war illegal and immediately withdraw from Iraq.

    So do the Democrats, who voted to a man to give the Arabs a timetable for our withdrawal.

    Perhaps Korea can be considered a success since we did save South Korea but North Korea exists today thanks to China and the refusal of Truman to attack China. However, one has to agree with MacArthur that there is no substitute for victory and that we could have defeated China by bombing the supply depots and railheads in Manchuria.

    Viet Nam is even more disgraceful because all of the Democrats including the Kennedys said that Viet Nam had to be saved but we withdrew not only our men but also our promise of support for South Viet Nam, which resulted in a communist bloodbath that is still going on today, even against the Catholic church in Viet Nam.

    I think that Cuba is another example of US withdrawal in the face of victory because John Kennedy promised US air support for the invasion of Cuba by ex-patriates but at the last moment withdrew the promise without telling the invasion forces at the Bay of Pigs, who died for lack of air support.

    What would happen if we withdrew from Iraq? There would be a widespread bloodbath in Islamic countries as the forces of terror would attack anything not Islamic.

    Furthermore, the American word of support would be dishonored totally. There would be no more help from allies because the American record of not fighting until victory would be established for the last 50 years.

    The Democrats sat in Congress and most of them spoke support for the war.

    The opposition to the war is strongest among the far-right, which has always been against the war, and among the far-left, which is against all war, except those to eradicate Christianity from the USA.

    I have repeatedly asked the far-right to discuss the gutting of the intelligence services by US Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho.

    Here is what Walter Williams said about Sen. Church:

    Emasculation of our intelligence services began during the Senator Frank Church (D.Idaho) and Representative Otis Pike (D.N.Y) committee hearings in the 1970s. As a result of those hearings Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1979. Liberal Democrats in control of the Congress wanted to protect Americans against domestic spying; what they ended up doing was to protect terrorists and others who might do us harm. You say, "What do you mean, Williams?" For example, suppose there's a person who hasn't engaged in spying or terrorism, but is a member of an organization that does. Herbert Romerstein says FISA provides that only leaders of the organization can be wiretapped, not the rank and file. Therefore, had bin Laden been in the U.S., the FBI could have wiretapped him, but not the rank and file men who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

    http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/01/intelligence.html

    The far-right only attacks the GOP. Supposing the GOP reverts to the minority status that they had from 1932 until the election of Bush and the election of GOP majorities in the 2 houses of Congress--how does that help the far-right? Republicans are not going to ever accept the far-right into their ranks and Democrats are going to consider the far-right as uneducated and they are not going to welcome them into the Democrat Party either, since the looney bin of the Democrat Party is fully occupied by the far left already.
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    This ought to be interesting, even considering the source.

    I seem to remember some CIA guy saying something that included the words "slam dunk". I guess he's about to admit he was lying when he said that.
     
  4. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    In other words, you don't care whether we went to war based on lies? You think that American soldiers and Iraqui civilians should continue to die so we can save face? We heard all this during the last few years of Viet Nam. It turned out that everyone would have been much better off if we had pulled out years earlier. The rabble in the streets (U.S. citizens exercising their First Amendment rights) turned out to be right and the war machine was wrong.

    Saving face is not a good reason for continuing this failed attempt to establish U.S. dominence in the Mideast. We've already allienated the world. I believe our position in the world would improve if we left Iraq in an orderly fashion starting ASAP.
     
  5. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    It's not that I don't care.

    It's just that I know it didn't happen.

    Anyone who genuinely thinks we were lied into this war maybe should check their own GQ (gullibility quotient), if not their IQ.
     
  6. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    We did not go to war on lies. We had bad evidence because of the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act passed by the Democrats under Idaho US Senator Frank Church after the Viet Nam war when it said that having spies was an act of war but it has since been proven that not having spies was an act of stupidity.

    If the Democrats want to run in 2006 on an immediate withdrawal platform, then they will find willing allies in the far-right. The Democrats supported the war and voted for it. They cannot change that fact. No one lied to them about anything. The whole world agreed with our CIA.

    The Democrats are solely responsible for the intelligence failure. They were the ones who acted to render the CIA a hollow orgainization, just as the Democrats ran a hollow army in the 1930s.

    The lies here are the lies of Democrats who refuse to take responsibility for what they did when they had total majorities for 70 years.
     
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Everyone (almost everyone) expects the democrats to lie CMG nothing new there. Just curious, you seem to be very informed about Frank Church so I was wondering if you could anwser a question, how many CFR members were in on the Church committee?
     

Share This Page

Loading...