With CIA Push, Movement to War Accelerated (WP: Woodward, Part 2/5)

More upsetting revelations from the upcoming Woodward book:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22552-2004Apr18.html

Excerpt:

In effectively casting a vote for military action as the only feasible way of removing Hussein, the CIA contributed to the gathering momentum that carried the United States to war in Iraq. It would make other contributions as well -- by successfully establishing a network of informants inside Iraq whose lives were in jeopardy as long as Hussein was in power; and by providing the evidence for what became the Bush administration's main rationale for the war: that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Probably could old Poppy.

The perfect guy to set up Nixon.

Right Woodward???????

m/t

<<Libby said that Mohammed Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 attacks, was believed to have met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer and cited intelligence of as many as four meetings. The others knew the CIA had evidence of two meetings perhaps, and that there was no certainty about what Atta had been doing in Prague or whether he had met with the Iraqi official. Libby talked for about an hour.

Armitage was appalled at what he considered overreaching and hyperbole. Libby was drawing only the worst conclusions from fragments and silky threads.

On the other hand, Wolfowitz, who had been convinced years ago of Iraq's complicity in anti-American terrorism, thought Libby presented a strong case. He subscribed to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's notion that lack of evidence did not mean something did not exist.

The most important response came from Karen Hughes. As a communications exercise, she said, it didn't work. The sweeping conclusions at the head of each section were too much. The president, she said, wanted it to be like the old television series "Dragnet": "Just the facts." Let people draw their own conclusions.

So who then should present the public case? Rice and Hadley pondered that. The case would have to be made to the United Nations, so the chief diplomat, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, was the logical choice. Hadley believed there were additional reasons to choose Powell. First, to have maximum credibility, it would be best to go counter to type and everyone knew that Powell was soft on Iraq, that he was the one who didn't want to go. Second, Powell was conscious of his credibility, and his reputation. He would examine the intelligence carefully. Third, when Powell was prepared, he was very persuasive.

"I want you to do it," Bush told the secretary of state. "You have the credibility to do it." Powell was flattered to be asked to do what no one else could.>>

but for others who are not on to Bush as we are, this book is valuable, and damaging. Woodward has used his fame and access, in my opinion, in service to the country in this book -- and he's getting the attention of our entire "mainstream" media, with his credibility unquestioned.

I think this was intentional to keep the focus on the present and the current narrative of an anti-intellectual Christian Soldier on a private vendetta for glory over his dad's nemesis.

Focus, focus, focus. In a world of too many cable TV channels and a high noise floor of 'messages,' it paid off to stay on point, pun intended- (Remember? Bush* told Woodward he 'wasn't on point' regarding bin Laden...)

...attempting to slow the rapid advance to war. Additionally, Tenet had told the NeoCons repeatedly that there wasn't any evidence of Iraqi WMDs and tried unsuccessfully to keep Junior from using the "16 words" in his State of the Union Speech and to keep Powell from mentioning WMDs as if they existed in his speech to the UN. I also believe that Clarke has corroborated Tenet's version of events as well.

Somebody's lying here, and IMHO, Tenet's not the one.