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?
Prove it? That is what you are saying to quite a few posters on this pathetic thread. Are you Cathryn Crawford's Renfield?
You just demostrated your lack of intelligence.
I can envision exactly how it happened.
At the very least, Tenet should be fired, or forced to resign. Wouldn't you agree?
Prove it? That is what you are saying to quite a few posters on this pathetic thread. Are you Cathryn Crawford's Renfield?
1) She's a friend of mine and many on this thread are lying about her. I defend my friends.
2) If this thread is so pathetic, why are you responding to it?
There are ethics rules which govern journalists and it's likely one of those rules would include disclosure of one's profession.
If you think I demonstrated my lack of intelligence because I didn't click on the poster's name to see what her profession is, okay. That's not is generally meant by disclosure, but okay. I'm dumb.
BTW, I'd love to be your portfolio manager.
I don't know for a fact on what she supported or not .. but that post was her article, so how was it taken out of context?
IMO of reading it .. she wasn't a supporter .. but that's just my opinion
I've read something in this regard, to the effect that it was actually Cheney who ordered the CIA to investigate, and then the CIA sent Wilson. Is that what you're referring to?
Well, I certainly hope so, SS. To be honest, I think most people would have had that simple impression if the media wasn't working overtime to make them think otherwise.
I listened to Michael Medved (a brilliant conservative radio talk show host) the other day, and he put this issue in context by playing clips of that entire section of the speech. There was no lie or even inaccurate information (check the wording of the sentence if you doubt me) in the SOTU address, but people have that impression now, thanks to the media.
As we are all aware, journalists can be breathtakingly irresponsible, and unfortunately they have more power than they probably should.
Sometimes we have to do hard things for good reasons. Like cleaning toilets to prevent germs.
The Fedayeen Clinton are more aggressive and tenacious than the Fedayeen Saddam.
Of course, anyone who mentions ethics and journalists in the same sentence (like me) should probably be banned for terminal stupidity!
First, you make it sound as if this is her profession. She submits editorials. Any joe-schmo can submit editorials. That doesn't make them a journalist. Second, it's plainly stated on her profile page. The fact wasn't hidden. It's no one's fault but your own if you don't look at the information that's one click away.
Main Entry: au·dac·i·ty
Pronunciation: o-'da-s&-tE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties Etymology: Middle English audacite, from Latin audac-, audax Date: 15th century 1 : the quality or state of being audacious : as a : intrepid boldness b : bold or arrogant disregard of normal restraints 2 : an audacious act -- usually used in plural
Taking something out of context doesn't help your arguement.
I don't see that happening. The media smells blood.
YOU ARE PART OF THE MEDIA! DO YOU SMELL BLOOD?
That is from my post to you. Now explain how that is plagerizing when you posted that on an open forum. Nice of you to claim plagerism for using your words in quotes to ask you a question on this vanity thread when you didn't bother to disclose you were a journalist.
BTW, I don't like or dislike you, but when a Journalist does a vanity thread and doesn't disclose they are a journalist, I don't appreciate it.
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.