The Tenet Fiasco - Discussion Thread

self

[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?

[LS]

Jim, you flat know better. Bush did NOT make our whole Iraq effort contingent on WMDs. That is simply not a true statement.

He put equal weight, throughout, on WMDs AND terrorist links, and the latter have been proven completely; the former have been proven plenty to my satisfaction (ricin in the Tigris, cannistes everywhere, gas clothing, biolabs). If I were a juror, I'd convict Saddam on having WMDs based on that evidence.

[Sandy]

And in this investigative column you could write you might ask other members of the DC press corp about that talking point memo you all recieved from the DNC asking you to help bring down this President.

Get a grip for crying out loud. She writes an opinion column for an online conservative news site. That hardly makes her an investigative reporter, and it certainly doesn't make her a part of the DC press corp. If anything, the press corp would reject her on principle. Duh.

[onyx]

RE: Your valid post #48! I've been viewing Ms. Crawford's posts with some degree of disgust, and now thanks to your "eagle-eye" I now know why!

What say you, Ms. Crawford?

[Sparta]

Good catch about just who the journalist is around here smelling blood.

So I'm guessing you also have not read her posts or columns on FR?

[Cathryn Crawford]

Re-read it again. Notice my question to the poster:

The neocons had ulterior motives in pushing for the invasion of Iraq. They slanted all of the intelligence data that made its way to Bush in order to get him to come to the desired conclusion. Now that the spotlight is on the neocons and their distortions, they are trying to cover their tracks by having Tenet and the CIA fall on their swords and take the blame.

So, you think that Bush is just a pawn, hopelessly manipulated by the neoconservatives?

[kesg]

I think this mistake -- and that's all it was, and even then only on a small part of the total case for going to war -- is being blown way out of proportion, probably for political purposes by people (mostly leftists and libertarians) who never supported the war in the first place and have no constructive solutions to offer (as opposed to mindless slogans and bromides) for the national security problems caused by regimes such as Saddam's. It doesn't change the fact that the war was about enforcing the Bush Doctrine against one if its worst offenders.

[Peach]

I didn't know she was press either and it should have been disclosed up front.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[wingnuts'nbolts]

Oh look .. A human internet filter .

[PhiKapMom]

You mean just like this comment she made:

"So, you think that Bush is just a pawn, hopelessly manipulated by the neoconservatives?"

Remember that is a member of the press asking the question not one of us women who don't know when to come in out of the rain according to some!

I have a daughter that was in journalism and one that is now in journalism and these questions are background type questions to write a column or an article. I know some journalist that are on here and when they post they post as Freepers -- they don't write vanities and then ask leading questions.

[ApesForEvolution]

I say stone her for mixing her life activities of posting at FR with writing editorials for a blog. I'll bet that before today, you had never HEARD of the Washington Dispatch. If you had, you would know that she writes editorials for them. And if you ever read a handful of her numerous posts on FR, you wouldn't have even had to visit her FReeper page. Get a grip.

[Dog]

Scroll up and read the opening.....note the title The Tenet Fiasco what the hell is that supposed to mean ??

All he did was place in the record what he and his agency did in the matter.....the only ones who think this is a FIASCO is the DC press corp they won't have that summer impeachment they so hoped for.

[Peach]

It would take a REAL journalist to ask the DNC why their ads take the president's comments out of context and don't quote complete sentences. As in they left out the little bit about "British intelligence shows..."

[ApesForEvolution]

It certainly takes all types.

[huck von finn]

A little simplistic, but that's a fairly good example of what happened, if I'm reading the Tenet statement correctly. And it's terrible.

Also though, you used WH to indicate White House, but Tenet mentions the National Security Council specifically. Who was working to keep the sentence in?

[PhiKapMom]

Here is a sample of her work:

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_4881.shtml

Iraq: The Bush Administration’s Weapon Of Mass Destruction

---

Exclusive commentary by Cathryn Crawford



Mar 28, 2003


We all know the Bush administration's stated reasons for going to war: Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship, his proliferation of WMD's, his attempts to build or acquire nuclear weapons. We also know the argument of the protestors: that this entire war is based on the United States’ lust for control of an oil rich nation. However, there is another premise, one that deserves much more attention than it has received. The basic theory is this: that the Reaganites, hawks, neoconservatives – however you wish to classify them - in the Bush Administration are using the downfall of Iraq as their own private weapon of mass destruction - the mass destruction of any government in the Middle East that they deem to be a threat to democracy and stability within the region.

The hawks, characterized by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Scooter Libby, found themselves at a distinct advantage after September 11, 2001. Suddenly they had a fully legitimate reason to do exactly what they had wanted to do for so long: completely restructure the Middle East. Consider the change in rhetoric concerning the regime in Saudia Arabia; our relationship with them went from being characterized as America’s "good friend in the Middle East" on September 10, to the Saudi family being suspected Al-Qaeda supporters on September 12. Coincidence? I don't think so. The hawks are using public rhetoric and private recriminations to set up the public for a series of American led attacks – whether they be financially, diplomatically, or militarily – on certain governments in the Middle East.

The chances of the current Operation Iraqi Freedom expanding into a regional war seem to be astounding. And the influential hawks that produce America's foreign policy have no qualms about admitting it. Richard Perle, resident fellow at AEI and one of Donald Rumsfeld’s main advisors at the Pentagon, says that with victory for the United States in Iraq, "We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.' " Perle is a man who know of which he speaks, as he was actively involved in the Pentagon before, during, and after the first Gulf War. The implication of that statement is that regimes like Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia could be the first to fall, followed shortly by Libya and Sudan...and so on and so forth.

The strategy in and of itself is brilliant. It began with the downfall of the Taliban. Do you remember all the talk of Afghanistan being ‘only the beginning’? Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and company were quite serious when they said it. They were preparing the American people for a long campaign against dictatorships in every Middle Eastern country, with the long-term goal being the spread of democracy.

The Bush Administration has begun a chess game of monumental proportions. It is breathtaking in its sheer audacity. The premise is that America can and will reshape the Middle East in the coming years, and, thereby, reshape the entire world. The entire issue of worldwide American-imposed peace is a volatile one. Many countries view us as a bully, pushing our democracy and values on other nations. However, the real question is: Which is preferable - Pax Americana, or less-than-perfect and sometimes brutal governments?

[Mo1]

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.

Your link doesn't work for me ... I'll have to go find the thread

But if I recall .. Tenet didn't say that at the time they knew it to be false .. but that at the time they had reservations" about it?

There is a difference.

Plus if I recall Saddam and Iraq has been obtaining or trying to obtain nuke materials going back to the 80's (isn't that why Israel bombed them) and that there was other info/documents that Iraq was trying to obtain these materials

[Cathryn Crawford]

Speaking of the NSC...we haven't heard too much about this from them, and the NSC and State would have seen this before Bush.

[ex-snook]

"As in they left out the little bit about "British intelligence shows..." "

Sort of a cop out isn't it when we checked it out ourselves.

[ApesForEvolution]

It is a fiasco. Anytime a door is left open, as insignificant as it is, when it requires a delayed response of attrtition from an intelligence agency Director, it IS a fiasco. However, the game is on and how it plays out is important to the perceptions surrounding the RATS' favorite issue and thus a snowball turning into an avalanche scenario needs to be avoided.