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?

[Scenic Sounds]

Well, no, it won't be. It will be because he can't roll over in bed at night without someone bitching about the way he did it.

ROFL. He has that problem, too?

[Can you tell I'm frustrated? : )]

Of course, but maybe it will help to remember that the President is just as tough as you are.

Well, almost as tough as you are. ;-)

[Cathryn Crawford]

If they are inaccurate now, then of course they were inaccurate when spoken.

[William McKinley]

Time will tell indeed.

There is a scandal coming all right.

And it is going to be about how the anti-capitalists (communist and anarchists) have managed to infiltrate the political process as much as they have. We've gone through this before. In the 1900s, in the 1950s. I guess the cycle is about to run again. It's overdue.

[Cathryn Crawford]

You know, William, I'm getting it.

[Fred Mertz]

Check out my #48 -- this person is a columinist for the Washington Dispatch who put up this thread! She is part of the media!

Thanks for the warning PKM. I think I'll start heading for the hills! And to think that I've actually exchanged private freepmail with this media person. HARUMPH! < /sarcasm>

[LanPB01]

I feel the real story on this thread, more so than your lack of journalistic integrity, is my inability to stop hitting on women like yourself.

[William McKinley]

Yeah, I see it.

I also notice that Japan Today picked up on that one, right away. I guess ol' whatshisname the editor didn't learn.

[deport]

If they are inaccurate now, then of course they were inaccurate when spoken.

---

But were they known to be inaccurate when spoken. That's the key...... not that they've been proven inaccurate now.

[Cathryn Crawford]

That means that the error is even more grevious.

[huck von finn]

So am I--at least more so than I did before.

[William McKinley]

http://williammckinley.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_williammckinley_archive.html#105805018784512917

[deport]

That means that the error is even more grevious.

---

Really...... You mean finding out that something you were led to believe is not what it really is? Sorry, How you feel about the Easter Bunny? Tooth Fairy?

Knowledge/facts change as more info is gleamed.

[Cathryn Crawford]

You are putting intelligence about terrorists and potential enemies of the US on the same level as the Easter Bunny?

[Cathryn Crawford]

Thanks.

[Mo1]

Having doubts and refusing is my point

[Dog]

Freepmail William..

[Nick Danger]

if there was a mistake made, it needs to be admitted, and the proper actions taken to right it.

OK, I'll be happy to do that right here. Lucky for us, I was able to arrange with Scotty to have the deputy assistant policy planner at the CIA — the one who signed off on this language — beamed right into the thread. So you can listen in while I try to make sure this never happens again.

As you know, the decision to leave the sentence about the Nigerian uranium in the SOTU speech has caused the President and the agency a great deal of embarrassment.

I'm sure you've seen the uproar in the media over it. Yesterday the Director chose to take personal responsibility for the decision, and of course that reflects on all of us here and subjects the entire agency to some level of shame.

I want you to know that the Director and I both understand very well that you could not possibly have imagined that this kind of an uproar could occur over something like this. Leaving the sentence in the speech can today be seen as a mistake, but only because interim events have caused it to become one. In the ordinary course of events, the decision you made would have been a routine one that disappeared into the past along with thousands of other decisions we all make every day.

We hope you learn something from this. This is a rough town, and people play hardball. As you review these things, you need to look past whether they are factual or supportable. You have to ask what sort of hay your worst enemy could make with something if they took it out of context and harped on it.

You see what happened here. Subsequent to your approving the item, some documents supporting the estimate were determined to be forgeries. A deep political rift had opened up in the country over the war and its purposes, and your sentence -- now thought to be false -- became a cudgel in the hands of certain partisans in the media.

You have to expect this. It is how the town works. There is always going to be a reporter out there who wants to make his mark by skewering the Agency, or the President, or some policy. These people will seize on anything ever said or written, no matter how peripheral or trivial, and try to blow it up into the next Watergate.

No one is going to hold you accountable for what happened here. There is no way you could have foreseen it. Learn the lesson from it, imagine enemies watching over your shoulder every time you review these kinds of things, and hopefully you won't be the guy who draws the lightning next time.

[Scenic Sounds]

Well, the distinction you make between an inaccurate statemenet made knowingly and one made inadvertantly is an important one when it comes to measuring integrity. The problem here is that all inaccurate statements to some extent affect credibility.

[Mo1]

But were they known to be inaccurate when spoken. That's the key...... not that they've been proven inaccurate now.

They weren't known at the time

[cyncooper]

See my #292.