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?
I'm sorry for being unclear.
I was saying Cathryn's statement that we had not heard from the NSC much was false when Condi Rice has commented all week about it, and granted a 50 minute interview with multiple reporters yesterday morning. I should have cut off the part I was responding to as follows(The following is what Cathryn Crawford stated):
Speaking of the NSC...we haven't heard too much about this from them
I then pointed out that was false.
I don't much care for Tenet's passive voice, "was sent to the region by CIA"--come on, Tenet, you are CIA.
Who hired Craig Livingstone?
No, I mean, who sent Joseph C. Wilson?
The brouhaha smacks of a partisan ambush engineered by hacks from top to bottom.
Terry McCauliffe, George Tenet, Joseph C. Wilson--this isn't intelligence--this is Embarrass the CINC.
Yet Bill Gertz on Fox last night says he is not optimistic that any heads will roll on this matter.
Hope you get a chance to read the posts.
Cathryn writes this barbara striesand all the time. She thinks she has a grasp of what's 'really going on'. When in reality she embarrasses herself time after time with incorrect facts usually gleaned from parts of the media that dislike President Bush.
Young skull full of mush, let's hope over the years things firm up in there.
The men around here that take women like you and me to task for supporting our president are angry we don't fall for the kook hype about GWB. Women who do are held up as paragons of intellect.
I posit CIA is salted with Clinton moles bent on at the least embarrassing Bush and at the worst facilitating [another] security breakdown.
Woolsey was adamant Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent and was booted to make way for that POS Deutch--whom John Millis called "the worst DCI for counterintelligence". Millis, the career CIA case officer and Goss' COS sucked a shotgun in a bathtub of the Breezeway Motel in Alexandria, Virginia.
A similar shoot-the-messenger cover-up was instigated at FBI with SA James M. Fox.
[see also Coleen Rowley]
I suggest the outing of Aldrich Ames and Richard Hanssen was to cover for the remaining moles.
The sending of Joseph C. Wilson was no small matter. His negative finding has the credibility of a Jimmy Carter on Cuba, Madeleine Albright on North Korea, and Scott Ritter/Hans Blix on Iraq.
It was done to put to bed a damaging trail of evidence.
And to let Democrats in dirty diapers play Yellowcake Yellowcake.
That is the key point. Bush said in his speech that the British had evidence that Iraq had tried to buy, not that they bought. In an earlier post Wilson was quoted as saying that one former official he talked to said he didn't doubt that Iraq was trying, there were rumors, but that he doubted they could ever be successful.
Just the fact that they were trying to buy uranium is enough to implicate them as seekers of nuclear weapons, else no need for uranium. Plus the British still insist they are correct and have other collaborating evidence.
Oh, brother. I believe it. What a mishmash of misstatements, half-truths, and lies it will have to be to make a case againt President Bush, but I'm sure they'll give it their all.
They're probably already working out "Scandal" and (in their fondest dreams) "Impeachment of a President" graphics and music.
You may not like me, but please don't plagarize me.
Why would you say that to anybody about those particular words?
I used that phrase just yesterday.
How in the world can you claim ownership of the phrase "smell blood"?
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.