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?
Well, Cathryn, I'm just not sure that the word "responsibility" has any simple meaning in the context of all this.
Despite the bogus column written by Doug Thompson, I never believed for a minute that the President intentionally misrepresented any facts in his State of the Union address. I think that Mr. Tenet's statement supports the President on that point. When all is said and done, I'm confident that there will be few people here in America that will conclude that the President was guilty of any intentional wrongdoing.
However, that being said, it is something more than just a trifle when any president makes a mistake about matters of war and peace in a State of the Union address. And for that we are going to take a hit politically.
It's of the utmost importance now that we acknowledge any mistakes that were honestly made, promptly and forthrightly disclose whatever facts are relevant and disclosable, answer legitimate questions, and then move on to the important issues that this country faces.
The people of this country have grown to trust this President and I don't think that this incident will sever the connection of trust that he has made with them.
I agree with you that the issue needs to be dealt with. How would you suggest doing so?
You want a scandal and a Watergate? Let's find out who arranged for Wilson to go to Niger.This was worded poorly, apologies. Let me try again:
You know where there might be a scandal and a Watergate? Let's find out who arranged for Wilson to go to Niger.I did not mean to imply that you want a scandal, if anyone took it that way.
The Euros and "the rest of the world" - two entities I personally could give a sh/t about - seem to care a helluva lot more than the American electorate about whether we find the WMD we and everyone else know Saddam had. Last poll I saw, over half of all Americans believe we did the right thing by enforcing the provisions of the '91 ceasefire in Iraq, whether or not we find the damned things.
Hmm. I didn't read it that way. What I gleaned from the statement was that Tenet was saying, rather, that his mistake was that his people did not finally insist upon taking it out. They had nothing to do with putting it in. So his mistake could not then logically cause Bush to use the faulty information--it only allowed Bush to use it.
Other than finding out why Wilson was sent to Niger, that is.
Straw defends UK dossier uranium claims
The controversy centers around whether President Bush ought to cite foreign intelligence when our own agency cannot confirm to the level required for a president to publicly comment on.
I say President Bush owed the American people this information.
Tenet never says the information is not true, only that they did not have sufficient information to meet that high threshold.
Pres Bush has to take responsibility for the overall working of the government. That means that if a part of the government is not working or messed up, it is up to the President to fix it or replace it.
Obviously the President can not personally know every little detail of the millions of details that occur in the government. This is just not possible. He has to appoint people he believes he can trust, and then trust the information that he gets from them. If one or more of them prove that they can not be trusted, then the President should replace them.
The press is making a very big deal out of this one very minor statement because a large part of the press wants to tear down the President, and they have not found anything else to effectively attack him on.
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.
That's a pretty personal admission, in my opinion.
We don't know that that was connected to the current Democrat assault. It just looks like it is highly likely.
That's right, it was the overly patriotic and conservatively biased media that duped us Americans into attacking Iraq under false pretences.
Silly me, here I am thoughtfully analyzing the information available over the two decades against my own experiences and coming to the same conclusion Bush did.
If only we were as intelligent as those powerful media pundits.
True, except for maybe this guy, who I think is a reporter or journalist. He seems to have devoted considerable study to the matter.
He'd be gone right now if this whole debacle really was all his fault (as they contend) and caused this much trouble.
The conversation would go something like "you ex rat sonofabitch, it's your gudddamm job to provide us with reliable data and you fuxed up, not pack your $**t and get the hell out of my sight. Look at all the trouble you you got us into".
Instead they're best buddies still.
Will that make all you naysayers happy???
I'm with Jim...and I don't so much as care about the whole world as much as what he said to me.
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.