Why are there so many whistleblowers these days? I mean, wasn’t this supposedly the most clamped-down White House in history? I guess when you have so many scandals, it’s inevitable that when people leave, they’re going to tell what they know, especially if the policies of the White House under which they served meant the deaths of thousands of people.
If you watched 60 Minutes last night, you saw former CIA official and head of European Covert Operations, Tyler Drumheller, tell Ed Bradley that the Iraq invasion wasn’t prompted by an intelligence failure, but by the Bush administration’s need to cherry-pick CIA information to support its desire to depose Saddam Hussein. Of course, this is not the first time we’ve heard this. So who are we to believe — the testimony of several ex-government officials, or a White House that is desperate to cover up its criminal activities?
You can read the whole interview here and come to your own conclusions on whether or not Drumheller has anything to gain by telling his story, but it is just another voice in the ever-growing choir that is singing against Bush’s claims that it was all an intelligence failure that led him to initiate the invasion of Iraq to find Saddam’s WMD. As soon as Bush found out, before the invasion, that Saddam had no WMD and did not even have a plan to reconstitute any such program, Drumheller says that he was told, “this isn’t about intel anymore. This is about regime change.” That certainly wasn’t stated by the White House as the reason for the invasion. The Bush administration only adopted that line in a failed attempt to rewrite history and save face with the world once it was obvious that Saddam Hussein had zero WMD.
Lies, lies and more lies…
Continuing the numerous cover-ups, the Bush White House has gone on another “PR offensive” to coincide with its recent personnel shakeups. Time magazine has printed the new roadmap for the administration, written by newly-appointed White House Chief-Of-Staff, Josh Bolten. Perhaps the scariest bullet point is strategy number four, reclaim security credibility. How does Bush plan to do that? Easy. Put pressure on Iran to stop its nuclear programs. That alone sounds like a good idea, but it’s the lack of any attempt at diplomacy in the past that has me worried most about this. Justapose bullet point four with Sy Hersh’s recent article in the New Yorker on Bush’s attack plan for Iran, and I think we have the potential makings of WWIII.
I just hope that the November elections come before Bush has “regained his security credibility” is given free reign to launch an attack that might end the world as we know it.
Don’t you right-wingers miss peace and prosperity?