See that good looking dude on the left? He's got FAR BETTER THINGS to do than conduct Freepathons! Come on, let's get this thing over with.
Posted on 07/12/2003 12:52:33 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford
George Tenet's admission last night that it was his mistake that caused President Bush to use faulty intelligence in his State of The Union address is interesting at the same time as it is convienent. In the statement itself, which is lengthy and filled with reasons as to the intelligence failure, Tenet wholeheartedly takes responsility for his agency.
"Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the President's State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency. And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President. "
On the face of it, this admission seems like the perfect solution to the growing problems for both the Bush and Blair administration. It's all CIA's fault, they can claim. But is that really viable?
On the face of it, perhaps. But Bush is the President. He has to take final responsibility, doesn't he?
If Bush can truly claim to know absolutely nothing, then don't we have a serious problem - wouldn't that imply that Bush is either incompetent or is simply not paying attention?
For discussion purposes - has Bush been conned by Tenet? And if he has, isn't that rather serious?
And if he wasn't conned by Tenet, what is the alternative?
See that good looking dude on the left? He's got FAR BETTER THINGS to do than conduct Freepathons! Come on, let's get this thing over with.
I am very sorry about this, both because I think overturning the government of Iraq was righteous and because I cannot imagine a national security team other than Jeff Head, myself, section9 and Travis McGee who could do it better.
Anyone else in the political system would certainly be worse, and likely much worse.
That having been said, I don't agree with the "who cares, it doesn't matter" crew. GWB made his whole military plan contingent on WMD (in front of me and the whole world), and if there are none there, he is going to be hung by it.
When a dem lies people shrug it off and say politicians lie all the time. I don't think Bush did lie (ie he didn't know) because he had no reason to, there were enough reasons to go after saddam without that - reasons posted below by democrats - only 4 from my usual aresenal:
Gore repeats that Saddam MUST GO - June 2000
The Democrats' Case Against Saddam Hussein (Dems nailed, yet again)
Al Gore followed suit on Monday, albeit in much stronger terms, expressing concern that "[the President] is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq." Gore went on to add, "no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such choice is not presented in the case of Iraq" [speech, 9/23/02].
Saddam Abused His Last Chance, Clinton -clear and present danger to safety of people everywhere 1998
Why the CIA changed their minds to the point it made its way into the State of the Union, I don't know. You can't get to the top of the CIA and be that stupid -- to think that no one will ever find out?
I would rather see Bush shut his mouth about it than personally pass blame the way he did yesterday with his own words. This paragon of virtue is the same as any other pol, when his ass is on the line he'll lie and blame others.
Very unbecoming and in poor taste if you ask me.
"An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq's transgressions. Conversely, a firm response would enhance deterrence and go a long way toward protecting our citizens from the pernicious threat of proliferation. . . . Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].
"Let me be clear about several things right up front," he said. "First, CIA approved the president's State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my agency. And third, the president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound."
That statement says, in no uncertian terms, that the Bush administration is hoping that this stops with Tenet.
I don't see that happening. The media smells blood.
Obviously, Bush is not going out around the world gathering covert intelligence...he depends on the CIA to get that information to him.
Now, if Bush can't trust the CIA, that's a different problem, and one that needs to be dealt with.
Nah, he's not claiming to know absolutely nothing. Any President is going to have to rely a lot on intelligence summaries. From what I understand, the CIAs reservations on the Al Qaeda - African uranium connection were buried in footnotes.
I just don't think this is that big a deal.
However, if you want to talk about whether Bush should have purged Tenet and other Clintonites from the CIA some time ago, that's a fair question. Tenet does appear to have reciprocated Bush's loyalty in this matter, though.
I don't see that happening. The media smells blood.
It has no legs. The media can think what they want. It's their ratings.
On the face of it, perhaps. But Bush is the President. He has to take final responsibility, doesn't he?All of these questions proceed from an assumption that I am unwilling to make- namely that the statement in the SOTU was significant to anyone. I have seen no evidence of it.If Bush can truly claim to know absolutely nothing, then don't we have a serious problem - wouldn't that imply that Bush is either incompetent or is simply not paying attention?
I saw no one, after the SOTU speech, crooning to the media that "I support going to war with Iraq because they tried to buy uranium from Niger".
Instead, I recall the Congress voting to authorize the use of force, several weeks prior to the SOTU speech.
As you know, I have serious concerns about the state of our intelligence. But taking responsibility for something that was 100% accurate (Britian had said what Bush said they said, and to this day they are standing by what they said- she Straw's comments today --they are on my blog if you missed them), that while accurate may have been somewhat less than compelling if the entire context was known, about a single point in a significantly larger mosaic, seems to be more deserving of a response of "when are you guys going to actually act like you are serious about our country and not just a bunch of partisan hacks?"
If we are to focus on the Niger/uranium thing, though, I am one thousand times more interested in, and concerned by, how it came to be that Wilson, a diplomat, came to be sent to perform an intelligence verification operation, when he had no expertise in uranium, no experience in field operations, and no experience in detection of forged documents. And why this guy, who didn't even see the documents he is claiming to know are false, is being given such credence. And why just about everyone involved in screaming "there is a coverup here", such as Wilson, turn out to be long time Democrat partisans and far-left activists.
You want a scandal and a Watergate? Let's find out who arranged for Wilson to go to Niger.
Unfortunately, we all know just how powerful the media is in this country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.