Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction | Salon.com, By Sidney Blumenthal

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. …

CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, who was “excited” about the report. Nonetheless, McLaughlin expressed his reservations. He said that Sabri’s information was at odds with “our best source.” That source was code-named “Curveball,” later exposed as a fabricator, con man and former Iraqi taxi driver posing as a chemical engineer.

The next day, Sept. 18, Tenet briefed Bush on Sabri. “Tenet told me he briefed the president personally,” said one of the former CIA officers. According to Tenet, Bush’s response was to call the information “the same old thing.” Bush insisted it was simply what Saddam wanted him to think. “The president had no interest in the intelligence,” said the CIA officer. The other officer said, “Bush didn’t give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up.” …

These taps “validated” Sabri’s claims, according to one of the CIA officers. The officers brought this material to the attention of the newly formed Iraqi Operations Group within the CIA. But those in charge of the IOG were on a mission to prove that Saddam did have WMD and would not give credit to anything that came from the French. “They kept saying the French were trying to undermine the war,” said one of the CIA officers.

The officers continued to insist on the significance of Sabri’s information, but one of Tenet’s deputies told them, “You haven’t figured this out yet. This isn’t about intelligence. It’s about regime change.” …

One of the former senior CIA officers told me that despite the certitude of the three Republican senators [Orrin Hatch, Saxby Chambliss and Pat Roberts], the Senate committee never had the original memo on Sabri. “The committee never got that report,” he said. “The material was hidden or lost, and because it was a restricted case, a lot of it was done in hard copy. The whole thing was fogged up, like Curveball.”

While one Iraqi source told the CIA that there were no WMD, information that was true but distorted to prove the opposite, another Iraqi source was a fabricator whose lies were eagerly embraced. “The real tragedy is that they had a good source that they misused,” said one of the former CIA officers. “The fact is there was nothing there, no threat. But Bush wanted to hear what he wanted to hear.”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/?source=whitelist

Kudos again to Eugene Robinson, this time for fighting the Republican re-write of history by people who weren’t even there. (Or were high at the time.) mjh

Eugene Robinson – Good Morning, Vietnam! – washingtonpost.com

But seeking support for the war in Iraq by reminding the nation about Vietnam? I’d feel better if I thought this was just some exquisitely subtle, deeply cynical gambit, yet I have the sinking feeling that Bush actually believes the nonsensical version of history he’s peddling. I fear the man is on a mission to rewrite the past. …

[Bush said:] “Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility — but the terrorists see it differently.”

Lest anyone think this was merely a random rhetorical spasm, outgoing White House political czar Karl Rove wrote an article in the conservative National Review last week that included this passage: “If the outcome [in Iraq] is like what happened in Vietnam after America abandoned our allies and the region descended into chaos, violence and danger, history’s judgment will be harsh. History will see President Bush as right, and the opponents of his policy as mistaken — as George McGovern was in his time.”

What?

For the record, the illegal U.S. bombing of Cambodia destabilized that country and boosted the Khmer Rouge, who eventually took power and exterminated those “millions” in the “killing fields.” The monstrous Khmer Rouge regime was finally ousted by . . . none other than the communists who took power in Vietnam after the American withdrawal. Oh, and it was Richard Nixon who negotiated and began the U.S. pullout. Gerald Ford presided over the fall of Saigon. Both of them were Republicans, as I recall.

And George McGovern, who never got to be president, was right.

Bush, Rove, Dick Cheney and the other principal architects of the Iraq war never served in Vietnam — in fact, they went to great lengths to put distance between themselves and the military adventure they now describe as both necessary and noble. At the moment, though, I’m less concerned about their hypocrisy than their distortion of history.

To say the United States should not have withdrawn its forces from Vietnam is to say that there was something those forces could have done — something beyond napalm, carpet-bombing, destroying villages in order to save them — that would have led to some kind of “victory.” Of course, Bush and the others don’t say what that special something might have been, because they don’t know. They’re seeing nothing but a historical mirage.

Bush seems to want to return to a golden age when America confidently threw its weight around wherever, whenever and however it pleased. The problem is that no such golden age existed. American power has always had its limits, and there have always been some wars that simply couldn’t be won.

Bush and his enablers seem to forget that it was Dwight D. Eisenhower — a man with a bit more experience in running a war than the tinhorn generalissimos now occupying the White House — who realized that the most we could achieve in Korea was a stalemate. [mjh: Curiously, the Journal left this one paragraph out without inserting an ellipsis. Was “tinhorn generalissimos” too galling?]

George W. Bush wants us to remember Vietnam? Fine, then let’s remember those iconic images — the Viet Cong prisoner being executed in cold blood with a pistol shot to the temple, the little girl running naked and screaming from a napalm attack. Let’s remember how little we really understood about Vietnamese society. Let’s remember how wrong the domino theory proved to be. Let’s remember how much damage prolonging an unpopular war did to our armed forces and our nation, and how long it took us to recover.

Thanks for the reminder, Mr. President. When you talk about “victory” in Iraq and the Petraeus report discerns a light at the end of the tunnel, we’ll think of Vietnam.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300802.html

I recommend the full text or audio of this report on the Republican presidential candidates. mjh

NPR : GOP Presidential Hopefuls Debate, Thompson Runs, by Mara Liasson

The biggest fireworks of the night came in this exchange between Congressman Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Paul is the lone anti-war candidate in the Republican field and wants U.S. troops out of Iraq now.

“We’ve dug a hole for ourselves and we’ve dug a hole for our party,” Paul said. “We’re losing elections and we’re going down next year if we don’t change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy and we have to wake up to this fact.”

Huckabee responded sharply: “Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important [to] … the Republican party.”

“We have lost over 5,000 Americans killed in – we’ve lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan, in Iraq and plus the civilians killed,” Paul retorted. “How many more you want to lose? How long are you going to be there? How long – what do we have to pay to save face? That’s all we’re doing, is saving face. It’s time we came home.”

A mixture of boos and applause that followed indicates just how divided even a Republican audience in New Hampshire is over the issue of Iraq.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14204597

ABQjournal NM: Bush Manual Shows Disparities, By Jeff Jones, Journal Politics Writer, Copyright © 2007 Albuquerque Journal

One hundred seventy yards. A distance approaching the length of two football fields.

That’s how far away police kept protesters from President Bush’s motorcade in Los Ranchos de Albuquerque on Monday while a smaller group of Bush supporters waved flags within a few feet of the presidential procession.

None of the major law agencies involved in security for Bush’s $350,000 fundraising stop for Sen. Pete Domenici— including Albuquerque police, the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Department and the Secret Service— had a clear explanation for the distance disparity. …

Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White, county chairman of Bush’s 2004 re-election effort, said the Secret Service makes the final calls for security at presidential events.

Sheriff’s Department Chief Deputy David Linthicum said the Secret Service, in consultation with the Sheriff’s Department, decided the small pro-Bush group could stay in its location across from the Abraham driveway.

Linthicum said the Secret Service, Albuquerque police and the Sheriff’s Department agreed on where the protesters would gather.

He said that to his knowledge, keeping the protesters out of the president’s sight didn’t factor into the decision but that he wasn’t at the
meeting at which the decision was made.

Eric Zahren, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said he was not familiar with all the specifics from the Los Ranchos event. But he said his agency by policy doesn’t discriminate between Bush protesters and Bush backers.

“We work in concert with our local (police) partners in identifying … public viewing areas outside our secure perimeters,” Zahren said. “We make no distinction as far as purpose, message or intent of any particular group.”

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/590148nm08-30-07.htm

ABQjournal Opinion: Bush Yardstick Keeps Foes Out of Sight, Mind

Should a country founded on citizens’ right to political dissent have an official measurement for keeping protesters out of sight and out of mind while flag-waving supporters get a front-row spot?

If the treatment of critics and supporters who turned out for a visit from President Bush in Los Ranchos last week is any indication, the answer is yes. …

[P]ut the anti-war folks in the floppy hats on the dirt shoulders of Rio Grande NW, 170 yards away from the entrance to Los Ranchos’ Mayor Larry Abraham’s home where a GOP event is scheduled. Put the pro-Bush folks in the school uniforms across from the gate where everyone attending the fundraiser for Sen. Pete Domenici goes through. …

[N[one of the agencies involved in security for Monday’s event explained why, exactly, the 70 folks with the neon-pink peace signs, the “Impeach Cheney” placards and the “Good Riddance to Gonzales” signs were kept almost two football fields away from the motorcade’s route while the flag-waving kids with the “God Bless George Bush! We Pray for You!” poster were posed a few feet from the motorcade.

http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/editorials/590986opinion09-01-07.htm

White House Manual Details How to Deal With Protesters – By Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writer

Not that they’re worried or anything. But the White House evidently leaves little to chance when it comes to protests within eyesight of the president. As in, it doesn’t want any.

A White House manual that came to light recently gives presidential advance staffers extensive instructions in the art of “deterring potential protestors” from President Bush’s public appearances around the country.

Among other things, any event must be open only to those with tickets tightly controlled by organizers. Those entering must be screened in case they are hiding secret signs. Any anti-Bush demonstrators who manage to get in anyway should be shouted down by “rally squads” stationed in strategic locations. And if that does not work, they should be thrown out.

But that does not mean the White House is against dissent — just so long as the president does not see it. In fact, the manual outlines a specific system for those who disagree with the president to voice their views. It directs the White House advance staff to ask local police “to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in the view of the event site or motorcade route.” [mjh: ALL of America is a “Free Speech Zone.”]

Not bragging, but I may have gotten closer to Bush with a protest sign than anyone else in America. I stepped out into the street with my hastily made sign and thrust it towards his car that passed within 10 feet. Granted, the sign was small. Read the whole excellent adventure: mjh’s blog — Send Bush to Mars!. mjh