Bush administration knew Iraq had no WMD’s

This video from the USA says about itself:

Tyler Drumheller, now-retired CIA officer, appears on 60 Minutes to talk about the Bush Administration’s phony, manufactured “intelligence” that they used as the justification to invade Iraq.

Treason, anyone?

From daily News Line in Britain:

Thursday, 27 December 2012

Bush, Cheney and Rice were personally told that Iraq had no WMDs

THE US ThinkProgress website has published the text of the ‘60 Minutes’ TV interview with former CIA official Tyler Drumheller who revealed that in October 2002 a very highly placed Iraqi government official revealed that Iraq had no wmds and that Bush, Cheney, and Rice were personally told this information.

In October 2002, the CIA had made, what it termed, a major intelligence breakthrough on Iraq’s nuclear programme.

Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister made an agreement to reveal Iraq’s military secrets to the CIA. Tyler Drumheller was in charge of the operation and was questioned on ‘60 Minutes’ by Ed Bradley.

The transcript shows that Drumheller said: ‘This was a very high inner circle of Saddam Hussein, someone who would know what he was talking about.’

Bradley: You knew you could trust this guy?’

Drumheller: We continued to validate him the whole way through.

Bradley: According to Drumheller, CIA Director George Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high level meeting at the White House.

Drumheller: The President, the Vice President, Dr. Rice.

Bradley: And at that meeting?

Drumheller: They were enthusiastic because they said they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis.

Bradley: And what did this high level source tell you?

Drumheller: He told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction programme.

Bradley: 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 programme for weapons of mass destruction?

Drumheller: Yes.

Bradley: There’s no doubt in your mind about that?

Drumheller: No doubt in my mind at all.

Bradley: It directly contradicts, though, what the President and his staff were telling us.

Drumheller: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.

Bradley: Drumheller expected the White House to ask for more information from the Iraqi foreign minister. He was taken aback by what happened.

Drumheller: The group that was dealing with preparations for the Iraq war came back and said they’re no longer interested. And we said, Well, what about the intel? And they said, Well, this isn’t about intel anymore. This is about regime change.

Bradley: And if I understand you correctly, when the White House learned that you had this source from the inner circle of Saddam Hussein, they were thrilled with that.

Drumheller: The first we heard, they were. Yes.

Bradley: But when they learned what it was that he had to say, that Saddam did not have the capability to wage nuclear war, weapons of mass destruction?

Drumheller: They stopped being interested in the intelligence.

Bradley: The White House declined to respond to Drumheller’s account of Naji Sabri’ s role, but Secretary of State Rice has said that Sabri, the Iraqi foreign minister-turned-US spy, was just one source, and therefore his information wasn’t reliable.

Drumheller: They certainly took information that came from single sources on uranium, on the yellowcake story and on several other stories that had no corroboration at all, and so you can’t say you only listen to one source, because on many issues they only listened to one source.

Bradley: So you’re saying that if there was a single source and that information from that source backed up the case they were trying to build, then that single source was okay, but if it didn’t, then the single source was not okay because he couldn’t be corroborated.

Drumheller: Unfortunately, that’s what it looks like.

Recently Mike Barker made a Freedom of Information request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office [in Britain] in relation to two letters written by Sabri.

Dated 2 September 2012 it asked to ‘Please confirm these extracts from two letters from Dr Naji Sabri, Minister for Foreign Affairs under President Saddam Hussein, sent to Kofi Annan Secretary General to the UN.

‘Letter dated 11 June 2002 from the Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General.

‘On instructions from my Government, I have the honour to transmit to you, enclosed herewith, a letter dated 11 June 2002 from Mr Naji Sabri, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq, concerning threats by the United States of America to use its nuclear capability against a number of States, including Iraq.

‘I should be grateful if you would have this letter and its annex circulated as a document of the Security Council.

‘(Signed) Mohammed A. Aldouri.’

The letter stated: ‘Secretary-General

‘On 10 March 2002 United States newspapers leaked information on a confidential report by the United States Department of Defense (the Pentagon) entitled “Re-evaluation of the nuclear situation”, in which it is stated that the Administration of President George W Bush had ordered the Department of Defense to prepare contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against China, Iraq, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Russian Federation and the Syrian Arab Republic, and that the Department of Defense had submitted the report to the Senate on 8 January 2002. Later, senior United States Administration officials confirmed the information in the report
‘(Signed) Naji Sabri’

The second letter stated: ‘Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq’

September 16, 2002.’

‘Mr. Kofi Annan,

‘The Secretary General of the United Nations

‘Dear Secretary-General, held in your office in New York on 14 and 15 September 2002, with the participation of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States. . .

‘I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.

‘The Government of the Republic of Iraq has responded, by this decision, to your appeal, to the appeal of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, as well as those of Arab, Islamic and other friendly countries.

‘The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction…

‘This decision is also based on your statement to the General Assembly on 12 September 2002 that the decision by the Government of the Republic of Iraq is the indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction and, equally importantly, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of the sanctions imposed on Iraq and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 687(1991).

‘To this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.

‘In this context, the Government of the Republic of Iraq reiterates the importance of the commitment of all Member States of the Security Council and the United Nations to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq, as stipulated in the relevant Security Council resolutions and article (II) of the Charter of the United Nations.

‘I would be grateful if you bring this letter to the attention of the Security Council members.

‘Please accept, Mr Secretary-General the assurances of my highest consideration.

‘Dr Naji Sabri

‘Minister of Foreign Affairs

‘Republic of Iraq’

While Iraq wanted peace, the US and the UK were determined to go to war and commenced the destruction of Iraq and its infrastructure shortly afterwards, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and turning millions into refugees.

USA: Condoleezza Rice in Chevron-Saddam Hussein corruption scandal

Condoleeza Rice oil tanker

From Jeff Ballinger’s blog in the USA:

Condi Snoozed While Chevron Paid Off Saddam

Near the end of her [Condoleezza Rice‘s] decade on Chevron’s board (she joined it in 1991 while a professor at Stanford University), the corporation cooked up the very responsible-sounding “The Chevron Way to a Strong Board.”

As chairman of the “Public Policy Committee,” she should have been tuned in to the open secret of kickbacks being paid to Saddam starting in June 2000 (everyone in the industry knew, according to investigators quoted in this morning’s International Herald Tribune).

While she left the board to head the National Security Council seven months later, there was plenty of time to keep Chevron from buying millions of barrels of crude from Iraq and sending around $20 million to Saddam’s private accounts and “pet projects” like aiding Russian whacko bigot, Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

In this video, Rumsfeld greets Saddam Hussein.

“The Chevron Way to a Strong Board”, after all, emphasized “ensuring that management and the CEO lay the company’s problems out on the table,” according to CEO at the time, Kenneth Derr.

Sounds really thoughtful and, like most Corporate Social Responsibility blather, aimed at concrete problems.

Problem is, even the top officials can be faked out or lack interest in flagging the most blatant acts of cupidity.

Chevron will pay around $25 million to settle the charges – an amount the company will recoup hundreds of times over if the Iraq oil law goes forward with Production Sharing Agreements in the legislation.

In a more just world, such a spectacular failure of “Corporate Social Responsibility” would occasion a spate of investigative reports about how other corporations (shoe, apparel, electronics, toys, etc.) are cheating workers or abusing the environment while pledging that contractors are “clean” and “green.”

Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush: here.

Children die as ‘collateral damage’ from Saddam Hussein hanging

Rumsfeld meets Saddam Hussein

By Clare Hurley:

Collateral damage—Texas child hangs himself after viewing Saddam Hussein lynching

11 January 2007

A 10-year-old boy in Texas hanged himself from his bunk bed in an apparent accident after having seen the execution of Saddam Hussein on television.

The child of Guatemalan immigrants, Sergio Pelico was found dead on New Year’s Eve by a relative who was watching the children while their mother Sara Pelico DeLeon was at work.

He had pulled a slip-knotted rope around his neck, mimicking what he had seen on TV.

Essentially the same tragic scenario was played out in at least three other countries in the wake of the televised broadcast from the Iraqi execution chamber.

Also on New Year’s Eve, a 9-year-old Pakistani boy, Mubashar Ali, hanged himself with the help of his 10-year-old sister.

Three days later, 15-year-old Moon Moon Karmarkar hanged herself from a ceiling fan in the suburbs of Kolkata, India.

And in Saudi Arabia, a 12-year-old boy in Hafr al-Baten, near the Kuwaiti border, climbed on a chair and hung himself with metal wire from a door frame in his family’s home.

Security officials said that the child had watched coverage of Saddam Hussein’s hanging.

The kind of people who ‘rejoice’ in death penalties should think very hard on consequences like this.

USA: big business, dead soldiers and the Iraq war, cartoon

Saddam Hussein hanged; slaughter in Iraq goes on

Donald Rumsfeld meets his pal Saddam HusseinTonight, Saddam Hussein was killed by hanging in Baghdad, Iraq.

A media show was built around the killing by the US occupiers and their allies.

Not coincidentally, the execution was at about the same time as the 3,000th US soldier dying in Iraq, to take away people’s attention from that sad milestone.

Some points:

  • The death penalty is wrong in principle, so also in this case.
  • There was no fair trial to properly establish the crimes of Saddam Hussein and his associates in Iraq, in the United States, and elsewhere.

    For instance, Saddam’s 1980s crimes against Kurds in northern Iraq, partly committed with poison gas made in the USA of his then allies, were not investigated.

    He was now only sentenced for the 100+ deaths in Dujail; the results of a show trial, in many respects like his own trial.

  • All human rights organizations agree that the trial was a farce (See Comment #1 below this entry).

    The nazi criminals in 1945 in Nuremberg, whose crimes were far worse, got a fair trial.

    Unlike with Saddam’s trial, their lawyers were not murdered.

    Judges which governments may not have liked, were then not dismissed; etc.

    People like Rumsfeld, Bush, and Blair deserve a trial like in Nuremberg; not like in the Green Zone of Baghdad.

  • The war will go on.

    Like Saddam Hussein’s fall did not stop the torture in Abu Ghraib jail, quite to the contrary.

    Like Saddam Hussein’s arrest did not stop the war, quite to the contrary.

    As Saddam was hanged, US soldiers kept dying.

    As for “removing” Saddam Hussein by bloody war: why not in the same way as happened with Pinochet; the Greek colonels’ dictatorship; the Portuguese NATO fascists; Marcos in the Philippines; Mobutu in Congo; Suharto in Indonesia; apartheid in South Africa; Washington’s bloody stooges in Bolivia recently and Venezuela of the 1980s and early 1990s: by the people?

    Oh, duh, because people like Cheney and Rumsfeld supported these dictators for ages.

    Like they supported Saddam Hussein, already a CIA asset in the 1960s

    So, again, Saddam’s removal by the people, like what happened to the dictators of Indonesia, Greece, etc. would have been much better than this war with over 600,000 Iraqi dead and counting; thousands US dead and counting …

  • Today’s news:

    A 29-year-old ex-soldier who had served 12 months in Afghanistan, upset over orders to deploy to Iraq, was shot to death [by police] December 26 after a night-long standoff at a house in Maryland [USA].

    James E. Dean was notified earlier this month to report to Fort Benning, Georgia, on January 14, 2007, for service in Iraq.

    Robert Fisk on Saddam Hussein: here.

    An Iraqi Kurd, ex presiding judge in the Saddam case, on the execution: here.

    Richard Dawkins on the execution: here.

    The Vatican opposes Saddam’s hanging: here.

    EU official: hanging ‘barbaric‘.

    Even Gerrit Zalm, Dutch Vice Prime Minister, of the VVD, arguably the most pro Bush party in Dutch politics, called the hanging ‘barbaric‘.

    More reactions: here.

    And here.

    Iraqi girl blogger Riverbend on the state of Iraq now: here.

    One year after the hanging: here.

    Tariq Aziz, the former foreign minister and deputy prime minister of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime, was found guilty last week and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on charges stemming from the 1992 execution of 42 businessmen accused of manipulating prices. It was yet another legal travesty in the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Court: here.