Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

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. Full Story »

Posted by Jack Dinkmeyer
Tags Help
Stats Help
Anonymous sourcesHelp: 2
Editorial Help

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Silhouette_sml
4.7
by Peter Halligan - Sep. 10, 2007

Great journalism..this guy should be a national icon for revealing the true shock and awe of a president who lied to his people and comdemned a foreign country already punished by 12 years of sanctions to its knees. It only lacks a reference to Hans Blix (the UN weapons inspector) to prove a non_US centric version of events. Bush/Blair have shamed their own people and have brought back memories of Hitler/Mussolinie. The truth is almost being told here.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Member_photo_thumb
3.2
by Kaizar Campwala - Sep. 6, 2007

This is a dramatic story, but problematic journalistically. The two CIA sources are anonymous. Moreover, Blumenthal doesn't present interviews with any other sources opposing or otherwise.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Silhouette_sml
5.0
by Paul Keene - Sep. 6, 2007

A very well sourced and presented article. Wish more articles were this easy to verify. As an aside, this article meshes very cleanly with other insider information that has been brought to light over the last six years.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.2
by Lisa Flay - Sep. 6, 2007

Just another piece of evidence, albeit well sourced evidence, that the motive for going into Iraq wasn't WMD.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Mmonday_thumb
4.1
by Mark Monday - Sep. 6, 2007
See Full Review » (12 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.0
by Donald Carl Isenman - Sep. 7, 2007
See Full Review » (11 answers)
Jack_dinkmeyer_thumb
3.0
by Jack Dinkmeyer - Sep. 6, 2007

Good journalism that quotes a variety of sources. Gives a very interesting perspective about the runup to Iraq. Even then, it seems Bush followed his own view of reality.

See Full Review » (3 answers)
Silhouette_sml
2.2
by Tom Grey - Sep. 6, 2007

No discussion of mis-information from a gov't agent, no talk about complying with prior UNSC resolutions.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.6
by Francis Scalzi - Sep. 6, 2007

Along with Joe Conason and VERY FEW other columnists, Sidney Blumenthal is by far the very best of true journalistic commentators today. The Internet offers many valuable bloggers and commentators who have escaped from from the "mainstream" media, but their audiences are relatively small and easily drowned out or ignored by TV and newspapers, as compared to a Blumenthal writes cogent stories for both the Internet and European print media. His commentaries nearly always present ... More »

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Ahura_thumb
4.0
by Ara Gregorian - Sep. 8, 2007
See Full Review » (1 answer)
Silhouette_sml
5.0
by Gene Brown - Sep. 7, 2007

Bush / Cheny caused the death of more Americans than 9/11.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Silhouette_sml
1.7
by Steve Walser - Sep. 7, 2007

Consider the source- Sydney Blumenthal widely considered one of the more partisan Clinton operatives. Tellingly anonymous CIA sources and the "small" detail that the NIE report prepared just after this alledgedly explosive information was developed, did not "bother" to include the supposed "fact" that the CIA knew that Saddam did not have WMD. This story provides nothinbg more than fodder for those who have already made up their minds, based on other faulty reporting, that "Bush ... More »

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Silhouette_sml
5.0
by Kalman Fortoloczki - Sep. 10, 2007
See Full Review » (6 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.9

Good
from 13 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
4.0
Facts
4.2
Fairness
3.7
Information
4.2
Sourcing
3.8
Style
4.2
Accuracy
5.0
Balance
3.6
Context
3.9
Popularity
3.8
Recommendation
4.1
Credibility
4.2
# Reviews
5.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!