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?

[Mo1]

Also noted was the fact that Wilson NEVER provided a report

That part I found to be odd myself

[Dog]

William that is in the Tenet statement from last evening ...its over on Breaking News.

[PhiKapMom]

My whole argument is that a journalist wrote a vanity with a title that is leading and that journalist did not disclose she is a journalist.

Have you heard of "Ethics in Journalism?"

[faithincowboys]

Well, why isn't Tenet's statement taken at face value?

Tenet vetted the speech and that's that.

The people that hope Bush did something nefarious only have their hopes, no facts.

[LanPB01]

I predict this thread will long be remembered for the way a reasonable question from Ms. Crawford was turned into a circus and a chorus of shouts like, "She didn't admit she's in the press!" Inspector PhiKapMom could go on to be HUGH!

[Dan from Michigan]

He's a Klinton appointee which automatically puts him on my suspicion list.

At least one part of the intelligence data was inaccuarate. One of the reasons given for the war in Iraq(Which I support).

Now I still do support this because of the ties of Saddam to the Al Quieda(sp), but bad intelligence is unacceptable. Period.

[Sparta]

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.

Where is the attack on Rumsfeld? It's simply restating his widely known views. She didn't attack them or defend them.

[PhiKapMom]

She just accussed me of plagerizing what she said when I put it in quotes. But now they say she is not a journalist?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

The new target must be Cathryn since TLBSHOW is gone.

Target of what?

Sir G, if Cathryn posts a thread, I'm fairly sure she's willing to take the heat for whatever she says in her parent post. People are free to disagree with her, and they do - and I'm surprised you have a problem with that. I thought that's what we were here for.

I wouldn't compare her to TLBSHOW, in any case.

[Mo1]

She asked a question .. I see nothing wrong with that .. Alot of Freepers do this when something doesn't had up for them or they have a disagreement with ..

The simple solution is to answer or not

[Mo1]

I wouldn't compare her to TLBSHOW, in any case.

Me either ..

[huck von finn]

I wish I could point you to what I have read, but the information overload has been astonishing. From what I remember, though, I read something about Cheney's desire to check into the uranium matter and asking the CIA to do so. Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger and came back in fall of 2002 with a "negative" report. Negative on the uranium claim. The CIA claimed that his findings were forwarded to the appropriate offices.

[PhiKapMom]

It will long be remembered as someone who writes for the Washington Dispatch putting up a vanity thread and not disclosing that she writes which makes her a member of the press.

[Nick Danger]

At the very least, Tenet should be fired, or forced to resign. Wouldn't you agree?

Over this? Why? Nothing happened here.

This is a manufactured tempest in an artificial teapot. A media that's full of seriously desperate partisan Democrats tried to make a scandal out of something that is so trivial that one suspects that most people are laughing out loud at Dan, Peter, and Tom as they try to make something out of this.

This is at least as dumb as last year's "Bush knew!" fiasco, where the same partisan hatchet-throwers in the media tried to sell us the patently absurd notion that the President of the United States sat idly by as terrorists proceeded with their plan to kill thousands of Americans... this so his buddies could make money selling oil, or some such nonsense.

This time it's that the President of the United States conspired with the Neocon Hawks (AKA "the jooz") to deliberately bamboozle the American people into a war... this so he could watch American troops die (because that's fun for him) and so his buddies could make money selling oil, or some such nonsense.

I'm sorry, but this stuff is nuts.

How important was this sentence in the process that led to war? The vote in Congress had already taken place. This was a throw-away line on the subject of whether Saddam Hussein did or did not have a nuclear weapons program, something that is not even in dispute.

No, this is the media going nuts with another kookburger conspiracy theory about a guy they viscerally hate. If they didn't have gigantic microphones and typewriters with which to spray their nonsense, JimRob would be banishing them to libertypost for being a bunch of conspiracy wackos.

[Sparta]

My whole argument is that a journalist wrote a vanity with a title that is leading and that journalist did not disclose she is a journalist.

She's not a journalist, she's an opinion columnist. She's not on the front page of a newspaper, she's in the editorial section.

Have you heard of "Ethics in Journalism?"

Again, she's not a journalist. She's an opinion writer.

[Cathryn Crawford]

William, ping to 252...

[Mo1]

Now I still do support this because of the ties of Saddam to the Al Quieda(sp), but bad intelligence is unacceptable. Period.

True .. but this wasn't the only intelligence they had

[PhiKapMom]

You left out the last paragraph with the word audacity in it!

[Sir Gawain]

People are free to disagree with her, and they do - and I'm surprised you have a problem with that.

Disagreeing about the topic is fine. Pinging one's buddies and inferring some agenda on the part of the poster who "should've disclosed" info that is on her profile page is not productive.

These people don't realize how dumb they make themselves look when they're claiming a coverup with the info one click away.

[Sparta]

I've already dealt with the audacity comment. She meant it as boldness, nothing negative about it.