New interview with Pentagon whistleblower

[JoyJuice]

From the article:

"This was a very high inner circle of Saddam Hussein. Someone who would know what he was talking about," Drumheller says. ​

"You knew you could trust this guy?" Bradley asked. ​

"We continued to validate him the whole way through," Drumheller replied. ​

According to Drumheller, CIA Director George Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high-level meeting at the White House, including the president, the vice president and Secretary of State Rice. ​

At that meeting, Drumheller says, "They were enthusiastic because they said, they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis." ​

What did this high-level source tell him? ​

"He told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program," says Drumheller. ​

"So in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle that he didn't have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?" Bradley asked. ​

"Yes," Drumheller replied. He says there was doubt in his mind at all. ​

From the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report (pages 146 and 147 of the PDF):

The 60 minutes story focused on the account of the former Chief of CIA’s Europe Division(Chief/EUR) who claimed that the source described above “told us that [Iraq] had no active weapons of mass destruction program”. This story was followed by numerous other media appearances by the former Chief/EUR such as, CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight and Anderson Cooper 360 degrees, and MSNBC’s Hardball, in which he claimed that the source said Iraq had no WMD programs.

Concerned that something might have been missed in our first Iraq review, the Committee began to request additional information from the Intelligence community and to question current and former CIA officers who were involved in this issue. As noted above, the Committee has not completed this inquiry, but we have seen the operational documentation pertaining to this case. We can say that there is not a single document related to this case which indicates that the source said Iraq had no WMD programs. Both the operations cable and the intelligence report prepared for high-level policymakers said that while Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapon “he was aggressively and covertly developing such a weapon”. Both documents said that ‘Iraq was producing and stockpiling chemical weapons” and they both said Iraq’s weapon of last resort was mobile launched chemical weapons , which would be fired at enemy forces and Israel. The sources comments were consistent with the nuclear, chemical and missile assessments in the October 2002 WMD NIE. The only program not described as fully active was the biological weapons program which the source described as “amateur”, and not constituting a real weapons program.

The former Director of Central Intelligence testified before the Committee in July 2006 that the former Chief/EUR “had mischaracterized [the source’s] information” and said the former Chief/EUR never expressed a view to him, as the former Chief/EUR has claimed publicly, that the source’s information meant Iraq did not have WMD programs. The Committee is still exploring why the former Chief/EUR’s public remarks differ so markedly from the documentation.

Yes, he had no ACTIVE weapons program. The conflation by the hearing ran by the Bush Protection Agency is quite clear. Moreover those reports where created by the Office of Special Plans, the one that the agents had so much heartburn with because of one sided vetting of intelligence and the one that created the NIE report. So of course they're going to match. It's like using a forgery to authenticate a forgery.

Naji Sabri's statments about Saddam having nothing is consistent with what he had always maintained, why would he tell the CIA different and where's the quotes? Moreover, it has been proven that he was right all along.

There are just far tooo many people saying the same thing, but, please, please I hope they conduct investigations as to the Whitehouses and their admins manipulation of evidence as promised some 3 years ago.

As far as Tenet saying he wasn't told? I mean, what's the point, here's the Niger issue that Drumheller voiced concerns about to Tenet:

On the eve of the U.N. speech, Drumheller received a late-night phone call from Tenet, who said he was checking final details of the speech. Drumheller said he brought up the mobile labs.

"I said: 'Hey, boss, you're not going to use that stuff in the speech . . . ? There are real problems with that,' " Drumheller said, recalling the conversation.

Drumheller recalled that Tenet seemed distracted and tired and told him not to worry.

The following day, Tenet was seated directly behind Powell at the U.N. Security Council as the secretary of state presented a detailed lecture and slide show about an Iraqi mobile biological weapons program.

What's the point? They were going to fix the facts around policy and Tenet was well on board.

 

[k]

Back in October 2002 Rumsfeld had a meeting at the Pentagon...one of the issues discussed was that WMDs may not be found in Iraq.

Enough said.

 

[oldbetang]

Yes, he had no ACTIVE weapons program.

As the Senate Report points out, we didn't know that prior to the invasion.The intelligence said that "Iraq was producing and stockpiling chemical weapons” and Iraq’s weapon of last resort was mobile launched chemical weapons , which would be fired at enemy forces and Israel".

Naji Sabri's statments about Saddam having nothing is consistent with what he had always maintained, why would he tell the CIA different and where's the quotes? Moreover, it has been proven that he was right all along

.

The Senate Report contradicts what you are saying. The information provided by Naji Sabri to the CIA included the following main points:

• Although Iraq was aggressively and covertly attempting to develop nuclear weapons, they were not in possession of such a weapon at the time.
• Saddam's Nuclear Weapons Committee informed him that a Nuclear Weapon would be ready within 18-24 months of acquiring the fissile material. The return of UN inspectors would cause minimal disruption because Iraq was expert at denial and deception.
• Iraq was currently producing and stockpiling chemical weapons.
• Iraqi scientists were dabbling with biological weapons with limited success, but the quantities were not sufficient to constitute a real weapons program.
• Iraq's weapon of last resort were mobile launchers armed with chemical weapons which would be fired at enemy forces and Israel.

As far as Tenet saying he wasn't told? I mean, what's the point, here's the Niger issue that Drumheller voiced concerns about to Tenet:What's the point? They were going to fix the facts around policy and Tenet was well on board.

We have Drumheller's word against Tenet's and actual documentation. I'll go with the latter.

 

[oldbetang]

Back in October 2002 Rumsfeld had a meeting at the Pentagon...one of the issues discussed was that WMDs may not be found in Iraq.

Enough said.

LOL! Well that settles it then!

 

[JoyJuice]

As the Senate Report points out, we didn't know that prior to the invasion.The intelligence said that "Iraq was producing and stockpiling chemical weapons” and Iraq’s weapon of last resort was mobile launched chemical weapons , which would be fired at enemy forces and Israel".

Point missed. Of course the CIA intell provided to the Senate is the same intell vetted by the Office of Special Plans who charge is was to fix the facts around policy. Again, there are too many agencies, scientists, agents, foriegn officials saying the same thing for there not the fixing of facts.

The Senate Report contradicts what you are saying. The information provided by Naji Sabri to the CIA included the following main points:

• Although Iraq was aggressively and covertly attempting to develop nuclear weapons, they were not in possession of such a weapon at the time.
• Saddam's Nuclear Weapons Committee informed him that a Nuclear Weapon would be ready within 18-24 months of acquiring the fissile material. The return of UN inspectors would cause minimal disruption because Iraq was expert at denial and deception.
• Iraq was currently producing and stockpiling chemical weapons.
• Iraqi scientists were dabbling with biological weapons with limited success, but the quantities were not sufficient to constitute a real weapons program.
• Iraq's weapon of last resort were mobile launchers armed with chemical weapons which would be fired at enemy forces and Israel.

What page is that on?

 

[k]

LOL! Well that settles it then!

A "lol" is the response? Wonder how many troops who are missing their limbs, hearing, and/or sight think its funny? Wonder how many wives, mothers, husbands, sisters, brothers and friends whom buried their loved ones think its funny that our Sec of Def stated FIVE MONTHS before the invasion that WMDs may not be found. That's just hilarious isn't it?

 

[oldbetang]

A "lol" is the response? Wonder how many troops who are missing their limbs, hearing, and/or sight think its funny? Wonder how many wives, mothers, husbands, sisters, brothers and friends whom buried their loved ones think its funny that our Sec of Def stated FIVE MONTHS before the invasion that WMDs may not be found. That's just hilarious isn't it?

What's hilarious is you introducing an alleged meeting at the Pentagon that allegedly discussed the possibility that WMD may not be found ,as if it somehow settles the matter. It does absolutely nothing to dispute actual documentation from the time that indicated that Iraq had WMD'S and WMD programs.

 

[oldbetang]

What page is that on?

Pages 145 and 146 of the PDF.

 

[JoyJuice]

Pages 145 and 146 of the PDF.

While the report is vague as for example by what they mean by WMDs, obviously there is disagreement to what was said and one more time, what is there intelligence source? The scrubbed intell from the Office of Special Plans again? As time has gone on we have uncovered exactly what Naji Sabri claimed, this is from March 2006:

But on that very trip, there was also a secret contact made. The contact was brokered by the French intelligence service, sources say. Intelligence sources say that in a New York hotel room, CIA officers met with an intermediary who represented Sabri. All discussions between Sabri and the CIA were conducted through a "cutout," or third party. Through the intermediary, intelligence sources say, the CIA paid Sabri more than $100,000 in what was, essentially, "good-faith money." And for his part, Sabri, again through the intermediary, relayed information about Saddam’s actual capabilities.
The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.
The sources say Sabri’s answers were much more accurate than his proclamations to the United Nations, where he demonized the U.S. and defended Saddam. At the same time, they also were closer to reality than the CIA's estimates, as spelled out in its October 2002 intelligence estimate.
For example, consider biological weapons, a key concern before the war. The CIA said Saddam had an "active" program for "R&D, production and weaponization" for biological agents such as anthrax. Intelligence sources say Sabri indicated Saddam had no significant, active biological weapons program. Sabri was right. After the war, it became clear that there was no program.
Another key issue was the nuclear question: How far away was Saddam from having a bomb? The CIA said if Saddam obtained enriched uranium, he could build a nuclear bomb in "several months to a year." Sabri said Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, but would need much more time than that. Sabri was more accurate.
On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong.

..as mentioned before, this would have all come out if not for the roadblock by the GOP controled congress from conducting the perpetually promised second phase of the 9/11 hearing on exactly how the intell was used. There's obviously a reason for that.

 

[oldbetang]

While the report is vague as for example by what they mean by WMDs, obviously there is disagreement to what was said and one more time, what is there intelligence source? The scrubbed intell from the Office of Special Plans again? As time has gone on we have uncovered exactly what Naji Sabri claimed, this is from March 2006:
..as mentioned before, this would have all come out if not for the roadblock by the GOP controled congress from conducting the perpetually promised second phase of the 9/11 hearing on exactly how the intell was used. There's obviously a reason for that.

That MSNBC piece stands out in its omission of two specifics points of concern: 1)Iraq was producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, 2) Iraq's weapon of last resort were mobile launchers armed with chemical weapons which would be fired at enemy forces and Israel. Both of those were documented claims made by Sabri. Other than those two omissions , how do the claims in the article , from "the Source" ,differ from those laid out in the Senate Report?