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?

[marron]

why just about everyone involved in screaming "there is a coverup here", such as Wilson, turn out to be long time Democrat partisans and far-left activists.

I am just starting to work my way through this thread; but I was struck from the beginning by the fact that Wilson asked the Government of Niger, who said there was no sale. Then he asked the mining company, who confirmed that there was no sale. Based essentially on their denials, he rejected the CIA claims out of hand. It couldn't have happened, because had they sold yellow-cake to Saddam, they would have told him so.

Does that not strike anyone else as rather naive for a professional diplomat?

And now, based on Wilson's faith in their denials, we are going to impeach a president? I don't think so. If you were Saddam, and you were out to obtain nuclear materials, you would look to corrupt non-governments, you would look to the Russian mafia, and you would look to your allies. The evidence is that all of these were happening.

There have been a number of high-profile seizures of nuclear materials coming out of the ex-Soviet countries, there have been arrests of uranium smugglers carrying small amounts of uranium with an apparent German source. German nuclear scientists have been convicted of working for Saddam.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Bush said in his speech that the British had evidence that Iraq had tried to buy, not that they bought.

Didn't he even use the words, "the British believe"? Am I mistaken?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

ROTFL

[William McKinley]

Does that not strike anyone else as rather naive for a professional diplomat?

No, it sounds results oriented.

[Mo1]

Ping!

[Miss Marple]

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

I have been reading this entire thread. I have a question. If Tenet should be fired or forced to resign, and that is the LEAST that you think should happen, what more stringent measures do you believe should be taken?

[marron]

Apparently the Brits are still standing by their report....so who knows what to believe at this point!

Do you remember the Czech intel report of Atta's meetings with Iraqi intel? The CIA denies it, and continues to deny it. Czech intel has reaffirmed it and continues to stand by their story. In this case, British intel says it is so, and stands by their story. The CIA doubts it, not because it didn't happen, but because they themselves did not see it. So they now have a choice; they can believe their colleagues in British and Czech intelligence, or they can research the issue themselves, or they can just deny it out of hand, and hang the president out to dry.

Something may be going on here, more than meets the eye .

[huck von finn]

I checked, and it's called "Burden of Proof." I think there's a subtitle somewhere too, but I couldn't find it this time.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

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.

Your excellent parody illustrates how some agencies freeze and do nothing. To do nothing leaves nothing to criticize, except the doing of nothing for which they have an excuse. They are unlikely to be blamed for that.

[cyncooper]

So, it later proved false or maybe it was proved false even before it was given, but that never reached Bush or he wouldn't have said it.

Your comments are excellent, except the above. There were forged documents, but the British intelligence had *additional* sources.

Please see my link at #30 where Jack Straw has written of such and even cites the much discussed Joseph Wilson---as ultimately supporting their paper.

As of today Britain stands by their intelligence, and per Wendell Goler in Africa he said this very morning that administration officials still believe Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa.

[Uncle Bill]

"Do you want Freepers to provide you comments for your next article so you can use to bash President Bush and/or CIA Director Tenet!"
48 posted on 07/12/2003 1:24 PM PDT by PhiKapMom

It's terrible.

Past time for Tenet to resign IMHO! He is way over his head at the CIA it seems!
5 posted on 10/16/2002 7:34 AM PDT by PhiKapMom
Source

[cyncooper]

It was Cheney who pursued the uranium-sale angle and bought the story nevertheless when his investigator had warned him off and the people at CIA and State didn't want to sign off on it.

Wrong. There is no evidence any investigator (former Gore aide Wilson) warned Cheney off.

And I repeat yet again that the uranium sale angle has not been debunked.

[Peach]

Your post was a good one and the "more than meets the eye" may be along the lines of what Laurie Mylroi mentioned yesterday on FNC. She believes that the administration does not understand the damage that continues to be done by Clintol appointee holders in the State Department and intel community. She said that until they are gone, it's unlikely Bush will get the intel he needs to make his case(s) as the CLinton appointees still love their guy and want to shine up his legacy. (as though that's possible now)

[Scenic Sounds]

I find it rather amusing that some of the same people who whined over President George H. W. Bush's "failure" to remove Saddam Hussein during his presidency are the same ones who are finding fault with the man's son for finishing the job.

It is rather amusing and the important thing is that you not find it rather surprising. LOL.

Proof positive that you just can't win with some folks.

You've got that right. You know, there are folks out there who think and who are going to continue to think that the President lies every time he opens his mouth. I know people like that.

Fortunately, most folks aren't like that and these are the folks that are important in an election. I am absolutely convinced that a large majority of voters have grown to see this President as a man of integrity. We can trust these people to fairly judge a story like this one.

Perspective is crucial. I expect to hear Al Sharpton call the President a liar. I think I'd be disappointed if he didn't. I just smile. ;-)

[nailspitter]

I haven't read all the hundreds of posts, and maybe I should. This is only about my fourth post on FreeRepublic, so if I'm commiting some sort of breach by not reading everything before I post, let me know. My feeling is that Bush didn't lie at all. He stated a fact. He said that the Brits had found that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa. I believe those are about his exact words. The Brits still believe this to be true. So where is the lie, mistake error, etc.? Perhaps since our CIA couldn't confirm it, it shouldn't have been in the speech. That's a simple mistake. But since the Brits did tell us about the attempt to purchase uranium, and since they still believe it, there is certainly no lie or scandal involved. Bush simply repeated what the British told him. I think we've handled this all wrong. Tenet isn't to blame, there's really very little to blame anyone for. Bush should simply have said that the British believed then and still believe today that Iraq wanted to buy uranium in Africa. Our CIA wasn't sure, but Bush felt that the British intelligence was valid, and still does. If the Dems want to err on the side of Saddam not being a bad guy, then let them make that case to the American voter. End of discussion.

[Peach]

Good fourth post! To further what you said about perhaps if the CIA couldn't verify the intel it shouldn't have been in the State of the Union, although as you mentioned the Brits stand by that story - I thought folks here would find it interesting that based on another thread on FR this evening - we always have a CIA agent sit in on M15/British intel meetings.

[Lauratealeaf]

Excellent post. I agree.

[Neets]

Oh please .. she put up the thread and asked for the discussion.

Are we not allowed to discuss and ask questions?

Yes, but only one poster at a time per thread per hour per day.

Other wise it could be construed as ganging up, piling on, taunting, baiting, etc.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Thanks for referencing your post #30. I have been posting and hopping around to answers and have skipped somethings.

[Mo1]

There have been a number of high-profile seizures of nuclear materials coming out of the ex-Soviet countries, there have been arrests of uranium smugglers carrying small amounts of uranium with an apparent German source. German nuclear scientists have been convicted of working for Saddam.

If I recall .. doesn't Germany have interest in those uranium mines in Niger?