Another Senior CIA Official Hating America
Accountability-promising Bush-supporters love to dodge their responsibility for the war in Iraq by blaming everything on the CIA. You know, the same bureau from which they’re outing agents.They won’t talk to you about the Downing Street Memos, because the British are total liars. They will blame congress getting fooled as well, despite the fact that Congress doesn’t see the same intelligence as the President. They’ll tell you that Bush reacted to the threat as any other president would have, yet a senior intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia says the intelligence was clearly manipulated.
Almost on a daily basis, high-ranking generals, ambassadors, senior intelligence officers and the like are actually spilling the truth about how Cheney, Rummy, and Wolfie wanted this war and were going to cherry-pick what they needed, using 9/11 as an irrational, emotional background to get it.
Although for the past several months, more Americans regret having gone to war than the few that still support it, there are literally millions of our fellow citizens who ignore all of what has developed since the invasion. They’re convinced Iraq was or has attacked us, that 9/11 was related to Baghdad, that Al Qaeda was running free in Iraq before the war, and that Iraq was a fanatical Islamic state, similar to Iran and Saudi Arabia.
I’ve even had some conservatives tell me, right here on this site, that we’ve found WMD’s in Iraq. I’m not kidding.
Therefore I’m convinced there is a small population that no matter what evidence is presented to them, they’re always going to side with the federal government (as long as there is a Republican in office), never question or even be absolutely certain about war, and no amount of casualties is going to change their mind.
So when the latest from the chief of European CIA operations, 26-year veteran Tyler Drumheller was aired Sunday on 60 Minutes, conservatives told you that 60 Minutes is a liberal newsmagazine that smeared their President’s unaccounted for, and frankly, shameful military record, and consequently anything they report on should be ignored. They will shoot the messenger because they can’t debate the message, while sites like Powerline and Little Green Footballs will do everything they can to dig up dirt on Drumheller himself. The line of generals, war heroes, CIA experts and other whistleblowers to Swift-Boat is getting longer and longer every day.
For the rest of us who are still paying attention, here’s some of what you may have missed on 60 minutes:
"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it’s an intelligence failure. It’s an intelligence failure. This was a policy failure…The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fitinto the policy,” said Drumheller.
"So, let me see if I have it correctly. The United States gets a report that Saddam is trying to buy uranium from Africa. But you and many others in our intelligence community quickly knock it down. And then the uranium story is removed from the speech that the President is to give in Cincinnati. Because the head of the CIA, George Tenet, doesn't believe in it?" (Ed) Bradley asked.
"Right," Drumheller appeared.
It then appeared in the State of the Union address as a British report.
"The American people want to believe the president. I have relatives who I've tried to talk to about this who say, 'Well, no, you can’t tell me the president had this information and just ignored it,'" says Drumheller. "But I think over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time."
So the liberal media must have eaten this up right? After all, this is more or less a smoking gun!
Well... (from media matters):
-None of the three major networks reported on the story on either their morning shows or evening news broadcasts. (Remarkably, this included CBS, the network that originally aired Drumheller's disclosure.)
-While CNN.com ran an April 23 article on the 60 Minutes interview, CNN and Fox News have yet to mention the story on the air. The April 24 edition of Countdown with Keith Olbermann included MSNBC's only report on the story. Drumheller, however, is scheduled to appear on the April 25 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews.
-The New York Times published an April 22 article on the Drumheller interview, based on partial transcripts released by CBS. But no major newspaper -- on either April 23, 24, or 25 -- printed an additional article on the story.
-Both the Associated Press and United Press International published brief April 23 articles on Drumheller's revelations before his 60 Minutes interview aired on CBS. UPI ran a subsequent article on April 24. These represent the only wire reports on Drumheller's disclosure.

7 Comments:
Yep, that's the "liberal" media for ya. Nice work, Jeremy. You summed up our dilemma in a nutshell. People don't want to hear the truth.
I wonder what would happen if everyone in America woke up and actually saw what is going on?
You're right, the evidence is stacked pretty damned high and no one seems to want to deal with it. Everyone is getting hurt in this deal, but for some reason that I do not understand, they are not raising hell.
PTC, and POP…I was saying to someone the other day, as more and more of this evidence gets out there – I mean, think about what you read and hear on an almost DAILY basis regarding all the fuckups, cover-ups, lying, bad appointments, etc etc – it’s amazing to me that Bush is even at a 32% level, and that there are people out there actually defending him.
I’m honestly waiting for Bush supporters to say, “"OK OK!! We can't do this with a straight face anymore. We're totally fucking kidding! We had you going though! You should have seen the look on your faces! Especially when we defended the outing of a CIA agent...God that was hard to fake our way through! Jesus Christ let's impeach this guy before it's too late!"
If only, Jeremy ! If only!
Now a technical question: does the senate intelligence committee get the access though to intelligence provided to the president? What about their failure to speak up?
Yeah regardless I don't know about people that can support this administrations actions...
EB that's a good question, and again, even though the SIC is more active in terms of intelligence that Congress sees, I don’t believe they see what the President and his cabinet see.
I also think – and correct me if I’m wrong – that like all other committees, there tend to be more Republicans than Dems, due to the makeup of both Houses. So to answer your question, yes, the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee should have been more aggressive
And don’t get me wrong. I blame the Democrats who voted to AUTHORIZE (note to Bushies: they did NOT vote for war, they voted for the President to go to war IF DIPLOMACY WAS EXHAUSTED, and there is a huge, huge difference) the power to go to war. They should have been asking more questions.
However, the charge to go to war was led by Republicans, and specifically this president. It was their war, their urging, and their scare tactics, and their overlooked intelligence. Guys like Kerry and Edwards were not on the senate floor begging to go to war with Iraq, they were asking for caution and diplomacy first. You Republicans broke it, now you fucking own it.
Jeremy, was it this Drumheller or someone else, maybe it was posted on Buzzflash, that said that McCain new the evidence of WMDs was false. Look, they wanted to get this war on and they did. They tricked the Dems by making them look weak on terrorism if they didn't give Bush the authority. The Dems should have stuck to the old rules, but again, they wanted to look tough on terrorism. The Republicans have a gang of followers spewing out one liners like "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here," because they are basically racist and oil greedy just like their leader. They would love to wipe the Arab world off the map, turn all Arab countries into parking lots and grab the oil. They know it deep in their hearts, but they claim their motivations to support the BushCo is to protect YOU.
assistance begins hoes convinced enigmatic calculating jpsc communicate stephen durch implicitly
lolikneri havaqatsu
Post a Comment
<< Home