1
   

VIDEO - 60 Minutes Exposes Bush's Pre-War WMD Lies

 
 
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 03:23 pm
April 24, 2006

VIDEO - 60 Minutes Exposes Bush's Pre-War WMD Lies
David Edwards


Click on image to play video.

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/cbs_60m_cia_bush_cherrypicked_060423a2_med.jpg

Better late than never, CBS News' 60 Minutes details how the Bush inner-circle misused dubious intelligence to convince the American people to back a preemptive war on Iraq.

Ed Bradley interviews Tyler Drumheller, a retired CIA official who saw first-hand evidence of how the Bush team used selective (and discredited) intelligence to support war plans which had already been set.

This 13 minute video is the complete broadcast from Sunday night's edition of 60 minutes.

source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 749 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 04:21 pm
Just name one lie, just one lie that Bush told! You can't do it!
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 04:31 pm
Quote:
Just name one lie, just one lie that Bush told! You can't do it!


Roxxxanne, have you been out drinking with Brandon9000 ? Smile
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 04:42 pm
I'll say it again for anybody who might have missed it.

Poisoning the US senate office building with anthrax was an act of war. We needed to take the Iraqi regime out the day after 9-11 and the only thing which really prevented that was the pathetic condition which Slick KKKlinton had left our military in. It took two years of building before we could do it.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 04:49 pm
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/Z/Z/cbs_eye.jpg
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 08:05 pm
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

Quote:
Yesterday evening I noted the Tyler Drumheller inteview on 60 Minutes and asked why little or none of what he had to say had made it into the reports of either the Robb-Silbermann Commission or the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reports on Iraqi WMD intelligence. As I reported in that post, Drumheller was interviewed by the Robb-Silbermann Commission three times prior to the issuance of its report and twice by the Senate Committee, though in the latter case only after its summer 2004 report came out.

Now, a number of readers have written in to ask whether it might not be the case that only staffers or investigators on the Robb-Silbermann Commission interviewed in Drumheller. In that case, perhaps his information never made its way up to the Commissioners themselves.

Not so.

I called Drumheller back today and asked him who from the Robb-Silbermann Commission interviewed him.

He told me that at his main interview -- where he discussed everything he discussed on 60 Minutes -- he was interviewed by the entire commission. That means Sen. Robb was there, Sen. McCain, Judge Silbermann, everybody. (You can see the complete commission roster here.)

On two other occasions, said Drumheller, he was interviewed by commission staffers. But he estimated that his interview before the full commission went on for between two and three hours. And he assured me that they heard everything that 60 Minutes viewers heard yesterday evening and more.

Why his account didn't get into their report is something they can answer. But they can't say they didn't hear it.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2006 12:51 am
This administration really is lying scum, isn't it?


I knew it, but kind of didn't want to ....but here is the real smoking gun.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2006 01:16 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
Just name one lie, just one lie that Bush told! You can't do it!

If you claim that someone told lots of lies, but are unable to give even one specific statement that's a lie, the meaning is pretty clear.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2006 06:45 am
freedom4free wrote:
Quote:
Just name one lie, just one lie that Bush told! You can't do it!


Roxxxanne, have you been out drinking with Brandon9000 ? Smile


No, I believe Gunga is Brandon's drinking partner....
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2006 07:06 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
Quote:
Just name one lie, just one lie that Bush told! You can't do it!


Roxxxanne, have you been out drinking with Brandon9000 ? Smile


No, I believe Gunga is Brandon's drinking partner....


Drinking...kool-aid, that is.
0 Replies
 
paull
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2006 10:26 am
As usual, 60 min does a good job of confusing the issue. Drumheller admits that attempting to buy yellowcake and purchasing it are equally odious. The "16 words that are in the state of the union address" refer to an attempt to buy it. What Joe Wilson "proved" while drinking tea with officials with no inclination to share information with him was that Niger didn't sell any, as if they would keep that information in their Blackberry anyway. Nearly every reference to uranium in the 60 minutes report concerns a completed purchase, not the still credited attempt to purchase it beginning in 1999. Please pay attention to the preponderance of lies and illogical assumptions that form the anti invasion "case":



"Plame's Lame Game
What Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife forgot to tell us about the yellow-cake scandal.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 12:27 PM ET

Two recent reports allow us to revisit one of the great non-stories, and one of the great missed stories, of the Iraq war argument. The non-story is the alleged martyrdom of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Wilson, supposed by many to have suffered cruel exposure for their commitment to the truth. The missed story is the increasing evidence that Niger, in West Africa, was indeed the locus of an illegal trade in uranium ore for rogue states including Iraq.

The Senate's report on intelligence failures would appear to confirm that Valerie Plame did recommend her husband Joseph Wilson for the mission to Niger. In a memo written to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations, she asserted that Wilson had "good relations with both the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Mines [of Niger], not to mention lots of French contacts." This makes a poor fit with Wilson's claim, in a recent book, that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." (It incidentally seems that she was able to recommend him for the trip because of the contacts he'd made on an earlier trip, for which she had also proposed him.)

Wilson's earlier claim to the Washington Post that, in the CIA reports and documents on the Niger case, "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong," was also false, according to the Senate report. The relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after he made his trip. Wilson now lamely says he may have "misspoken" on this. (See Susan Schmidt's article in the July 10 Washington Post.)

Now turn to the front page of the June 28 Financial Times for a report from the paper's national security correspondent, Mark Huband. He describes a strong consensus among European intelligence services that between 1999 and 2001 Niger was engaged in illicit negotiations over the export of its "yellow cake" uranium ore with North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and China. The British intelligence report on this matter, once cited by President Bush, has never been disowned or withdrawn by its authors. The bogus document produced by an Italian con man in October 2002, which has caused such embarrassment, was therefore more like a forgery than a fake: It was a fabricated version of a true bill.

Given the CIA's institutional hostility to the "regime change" case, the blatantly partisan line taken in public by Wilson himself, and the high probability that an Iraqi delegation had at least met with suppliers from Niger, how wrong was it of Robert Novak to draw attention to the connection between Plame and Wilson's trip? Or of someone who knew of it to tell Novak?"


Now, if it had been as easy to sweet talk Saddam out of power as it was to get Monica to use her kneepads all this would have been avoided, and Wilson and Drumheller would be on the winning team instead of sitting in the Loser's Lounge. We had to elect a real president with a vision more expansive than his next squirt to do so, we did, twice, and are better off for it, imo.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2006 11:30 am
Quote:
"We No Longer Believe"

Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing the reports -- based on other sources -- that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA.

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words.

Soon after, on July 6, 2003, former ambassador Wilson went public in a New York Times opinion piece with his rebuttal of Bush's 16 words, saying that if the President was referring to Niger "his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them," and that "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Wilson has since used much stronger language, calling Bush's 16 words a "lie" in an Internet chat sponsored by the Kerry campaign.

On July 7, the day after Wilson's original Times article, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer took back the 16 words, calling them "incorrect:"

Fleischer: Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.

And soon after, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that the 16 words were, in retrospect, a mistake. She said during a July 11, 2003 White House press briefing :

Rice: What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now.

That same day, CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush's speech:

Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written
for the President.

Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British.

The Senate report doesn't make clear why discovery of the forged documents changed the CIA's thinking. Logically, that discovery should have made little difference since the documents weren't the basis for the CIA's original belief that Saddam was seeking uranium. However, the Senate report did note that even within the CIA the comments and assessments were "inconsistent and at times contradictory" on the Niger story.

Even after Tenet tried to take the blame, Bush's critics persisted in saying he lied with his 16 words -- for example, in an opinion column July 16, 2003 by Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post :

Kinsley: Who was the arch-fiend who told a lie in President Bush's State of the Union speech? . . .Linguists note that the question "Who lied in George Bush's State of the Union speech" bears a certain resemblance to the famous conundrum "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?"

However, the Senate report confirmed that the CIA had reviewed Bush's State of the Union address, and -- whatever doubts it may have harbored -- cleared it for him.

Senate Report: When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting.

The final word on the 16 words may have to await history's judgment. The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.


http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2006 11:40 am
dlowan wrote:
This administration really is lying scum, isn't it?


I knew it, but kind of didn't want to ....but here is the real smoking gun.


Let me guess ... CBS has a memo?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Apr, 2006 08:46 pm
good guess....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » VIDEO - 60 Minutes Exposes Bush's Pre-War WMD Lies
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 11:14:39