Bush doubted WMD reports- (misled by tenet)

ny post ^ | 4/17/2004 | BRIAN BLOMQUIST

[vp_cal]

April 17, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - CIA director George Tenet confidently assured a skeptical President Bush before the Iraq war that it was a "slam-dunk case" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to a bombshell new book by Bob Woodward. Tenet provided his ironclad guarantee to the president after an aide led a Dec. 21, 2002, intelligence presentation at the White House featuring communication intercepts, satellite photos and diagrams.

[vp_cal]

is this for real???

[Glenn]

Saddam lived, although his sons were later killed

Depends on your perspective. I would say his sons were killed earlier, based on the timeline.

[pepperhead]

---------- April 17, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - CIA director George Tenet confidently assured a skeptical President Bush before the Iraq war that it was a "slam-dunk case" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to a bombshell new book by Bob Woodward. Tenet provided his ironclad guarantee to the president after an aide led a Dec. 21, 2002, intelligence presentation at the White House featuring communication intercepts, satellite photos and diagrams.

The president then turned to Tenet and said, "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?"

"It's a slam-dunk case," Tenet replied, prompting Bush to press him again, "George, how confident are you?"

"Don't worry, it's a slam-dunk case," the nation's top spymaster repeated.

----------

The president didn't want Tenet to know what Rumsfeld was working on, and White House National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice knew only vaguely that Rumsfeld was doing some work on Iraq.

----------

So on one hand Tenet was giving Bush rock solid can't miss info that Saddam had weapons of mass destructions to go to war. But on the other he didn't want Tenet to know Rumsfeld was working on plans for the war. Yeah that sounds likely. And who did Woodward get this info from? Long Rod or Fat Frank?

[skr]

Why would anyone talk to Woodward? My understanding is that the Bush administration is extremely security-counscious and unlikely to give interviews on such a topic to reporters, much less a Watergate reporter of dubious reputation.

[Southack]

One thing from Woodward's writing that is instructive of the liberal mindset is that Woodward clearly doesn't understand vetting a concept.

To liberals, everyone is either supposed to be all for something (e.g. global warming treaties, abortion, UN resolutions), or else everyone is supposed to be all against something (e.g. death penalty, prayer in school, war, etc.).

Thus, the liberal mindset, as illustrated by Woodward in his writing, perceives open, honest, full debate (i.e. "vetting") as if it was a rift in the Bush Administration.

But you don't want JFK-style groupthink in your Administration. That's how you get the Bay of Pigs disaster.

Instead, you want the strongest case argued for a big decision (e.g. going to war) and you want the strongest possible case presented to you against such a decision (e.g. not going to war).

In this manner a key decision maker like the President can more accurately weigh which argument is best for our nation.

So people like Powell in the Center-Left and people like Cheney on the Right have equally valuable advisory roles to and for our President.

We want both sides presented to President Bush, after all. We want that full debate to occur inside the White house, by our own people, prior to making a big decision.

But this is beyond the comprehension of the far Left. They see such debate dichotomies as major "rifts" in our Administration.

In short, their intellectual myopia blinds them to the larger truth. They don't "get us."

[Ken H]

* When Bush ordered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to come up with a plan to go to war with Iraq - right in the middle of the ground war in Afghanistan - Army Gen. Tommy Franks was so upset, he unleashed a string of obscenities.

I highly doubt this.

I hope General Franks calls him on it. I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that it might be actionable.

[L.N. Smithee]

Why would anyone talk to Woodward?

Because they didn't want to look like they were afraid of him, IMHO.

[MJY1288]

I agree, I doubt Tommy Franks ever acted like this, and I'm sure Tommy Franks will be questioned about this and shoot it down.

During the build up to invading Iraq, everyone knew ousting the Saddam Regime would be a lot easier than proping up a new Government and changing the midset of a people who have been brutalized for nearly 30 years.

[risk]

I can believe General Franks was not enthusiastic about invading Iraq. The last person who wants to go to war is an experienced soldier. The swearing might have been a way to get his mind working on the problem, though. $%^&&!#$#$% so THAT'S what we'll do. Etc...

[tkathy]

The hind sighters and ankle biters are out in full force. There is no way that Woodward or his so called sources can truly cover the totality of an extremely complicated situation: i.e., How to take it to the perps, vs. sitting around waiting for another terrorist attack to happen.

[elfman2]

There’s going to be a panic here as these three hit books take their toll and the Democrat feeding frenzie begin… until the Iraqi war crimes trials begin this summer and everyone remembers why it was such a threat to the world.

[CatoRenasci]

Knowing a little bit about war plannings, both as an historian and having some contact with the process on active duty and working with a civilian contractor, I find anyone getting upset about this risable. Plans are constantly updated, and should be. If I were president and was told the plan for war with almost any country was out of date (especially as was probably the case with Iraq because the forces available were no longer as large as in the past), I'd order it updated. These plans take months to prepare, even to update. Bush would have been irresponsible if he didn't have updated plans for almost every contingency in the middle east, even for every contingency in Europe and Asia.

[Quilla]

Bush cleared everyone out of the Oval Office except the vice president before making his decision.

"I think we ought to go for it," Cheney is quoted as saying, and Bush followed his advice.

So the President and Vice President are alone and Woodward is capable of quoting them. I simply don't believe any of these descriptions of events compiled by Woodward.

[Just mythoughts]

Darn I was hoping OLD Bobby would be telling us WHO sent Joe Wilson to Africa to gather "intel" on yellowcake.

All those "rumors" about Powell leaving look like threats coming out of the State Department.

The elected and media liberals have one continuous drumbeat, how secret the Bush administration is. Obviously, somebody within the administration figured out who the "moles" were and they could not get their hands on President Bush's secret "intel"....

No wonder the liberals and their media have been after President Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney, Rummy and now Condi.

Maybe we will get somebody who will clean out the State Department during the next four years.

[RobFromGa]

Instead, you want the strongest case argued for a big decision (e.g. going to war) and you want the strongest possible case presented to you against such a decision (e.g. not going to war).

Excellent point. And sometimes one takes the opposite side just to explore the arguments, even when they don't believe the other side is correct. It's called playing Devil's Advocate and it exposes holes in logic, motive and plan.

And I find it hard to believe that Powell ever referred to other members of the Bush staff as Gestapos. If they did, that is crossing the line and they should be fired for insubordination. Arguw the facts- sure. Ad hominem name-calling ist verboten.

[TomGuy]

If this is the most dirt Woodward could dig out and 'interpret', it seems weak and petty more than informative or being a bombshell.

[alrea]

And who did Woodward get this info from?

Nixon.

[MinuteGal]

Excerpts from Woodward's book have been around for a couple days now. President Bush and any administration officials who are misquoted or maligned should be all over Woodward right away like white on rice. Procrastination infers admission of Woodward's innuendos.

The general public doesn't have the history and discernment we have regarding Woodward's deep-throatisms. Damage has already been done.

However, given the history of compassionate conservatism afforded the media by high Republican PR mavens, I'm not holding my breath.

Our side may have instant-response teams overseas, but in matters domestic, Republican party leaders and their media specialists historically wait around, hem and haw, look the other way and ignore any PR damage, hoping it'll all go away.

Sure, the book may well be forgotten by November, but death by a thousand cuts is not just a silly saying without basis.

Administration spokesman teams should be all over the tube and op-ed columns this coming week counteracting Woodward's domestic terror assault. We'll see if that happens.

Leni

[verity]

Unnamed sources in an unnamed publication reveal that Woodward has a gerbil for a secret lover.

This has the same credibility level as Woodward's BS.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

To my conservative mind, the comments by Tenet regarding WMD's, if true, exonerate Bush.

But liberals will focus upon Bush's lack of certainty in their existence, and the fact that he chose to wage war in Iraq anyway, and thus will spin it accordingly.

BTW, the WMD's were in Iraq. Saddam not having the time to prepare for war during his final days when he realized the US truly was going to invade, buried some in the desert and drove the rest to Syria in a successful last ditch attempt to stick it to the US.

Saddam (who probably can't believe his own good fortune and the ridiculously fair nature of the west) will have another crack at screwing the US in his upcoming trial.