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?
It seems to me that Bush has answered this charade by saying that the CIA vetted the speech, not as a pass-the-buck-gesture but to say that the intelligence was there whether this particular piece of it proved reliable or not. The left is insisting that Bush lied and that U.S. troops died as a result. Bush didn't gather the data, the British did. Bush didn't analyze the data, the British and the CIA did. Bush passed the speech by the CIA before he delivered it. The CIA approved. Where is the confusion?
So, it later proved false or maybe it was proved false even before it was given, but that never reached Bush or he wouldn't have said it. He is too smart to get into this trap. The left is trying to do to Bush what they did to Trent Lott.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/944614/posts Text of CIA Director Tenet's Statement
Also in the fall of 2002, our British colleagues told us they were planning to publish an unclassified dossier that mentioned reports of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa. Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion, but our colleagues said they were confident in their reports and left it in their document.
She's a conservative writer, and her columns are almost always posted on here for discussion.
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?
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?
I don't believe for one minute - in spite of what the press keeps trying to tell me - that President Bush is "incompetent" or "simply not paying attention". You're certainly welcome to ask the questions - but Cathryn, frankly, I think it indicates something about you that you would.
You're a Texan. Is this really a possibility in your mind - that your former governor/your president could be an incompetent boob?
You know I think you're very bright, and perhaps you feel as though you're being objective when you frame questions that way, but it makes someone like me feel as though I may as well be reading the Washington Post.
I don't read the Washington Post, and there's a reason I don't.
We see these sort of implications constantly in the mainstream press. I wish we could dispense with them among conservatives.
I theorize it a little differently: Bush is supporting Cheney; Tenet is taking an arrow for Cheney because Cheney has already been stuck repeatedly over his Halliburton connections.
"The buck stops here", but Tenet is the one putting his hand up. It was Cheney who pursued the uranium-sale angle and bought the story nevertheless when his investigator had warned him off and the people at CIA and State didn't want to sign off on it.
Both Bush and Tenet are covering for Cheney.
Makes you wonder who is really calling the shots, and whether the GOP hasn't quietly inverted some political roles behind the scenes, so that leadership of the Party and Administration really comes from Cheney's office. If so, that would mean the Administration has made Cheney a sort-of prime minister and head-of-government in the political sphere, if not in the constitutional sphere. But I'm just thinking out loud.
I can easily imagine something exactly like that happening. But not because of anything sinister. Somewhere in the White House is this room full of people whose job is to get this speech done. They've been shaving and polishing this thing for two months. Nearly every damned sentence has to be checked or cleared with somebody, sometimes a half-dozen agencies. We need to make sure Senator Foghorn doesn't hear this for the first time in this speech or he'll never support it; we have Bush saying here that 17 children in Junction Switch, Mississipppi were saved by the heroics of this fireman who will be sitting next to Laura... who has their names, and how do we know there were 17 and not 16 or 18?
That goes on for weeks. Eventually the people in this room start getting both defensive and burned out. Now when they're on the phone they almost care less about the facts than they do finding the Minimum Necessary Change that will get the reviewing agency to sign off on the damned thing. Good! One more sentence put to bed.
Is Tenet privy to these discussions? Is Bush? Is Condoleezza Rice? Hell no... the speech is Tuesday. Today Israel bombed the Palistinians, the Palistinians rocketed the Israelis, Senator Foghorn is going off the reservation on tax reform... the fun never stops at the highest levels of government. So these are all under-assistant deputy speech writers talking to deputy assistant policy planners.
Anyone who has ever seen even a medium-sized bureaucracy in action has no trouble envisioning how this kind of stuff could happen. It happens every day, everywhere. It's time to get the damned thing out the door... if I change this will you say yes? Bam, out it goes.
Up until now I always thought you were a rational poster.
He's the CEO. Head of the exec branch of govt. The buck stops with the president, whoever it is. The people like Tenet work for him.
The responsibility lies with Bush and his team. What he does, is what I am waiting on.
FMCDH
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.