Skip to comments.
The Tenet Fiasco - Discussion Thread
self
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?
TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: attackedbyharpies; banningkeywords; skullofmush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520, 521-540, 541-560 ... 941 next last
To: PhiKapMom
I hope I'm wrong about Rummy.
Alas, others wiser than I have indicated privately that they are convinced I'm not wrong.
In any case, I do pray for him. I hope he's 100% on the side of God, country and right. I'd love for my hunches about him to be wrong.
But Tinker Air Force base personnel are only human, too. We can all be fooled by appearances etc. Life is getting curiouser and curiouser in our era. God alone knows where the mirrors and smoke start and stop.
Maybe I'll call my friend and see if I can get any more out of him on the phone than I can get out of him on email.
He seems particularly tight lipped for some reason about Rummy.
But he has indicated that personality-wise, I'm not far off about Rummy's personality--but then, that's evident on TV often enough. He doesn't seem to hide much of his personality.
521
posted on
07/12/2003 8:03:02 PM PDT
by
Quix
(LIVE THREAD NOW STARTED. UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
To: Quix
Wow! Who wrote your profile page for you?
Good cloak, but you have to remember to keep up the facade when you post something, or it doesn't disguise you at all.
522
posted on
07/12/2003 8:03:27 PM PDT
by
arasina
(I'm not sure if I really care for indecisive people. Maybe I do; maybe not.)
To: Dan from Michigan
Exactly what was the screw-up? And what is the appropriate punishment, and for whom?
The British are STILL standing by their intelligence, as Jack Straw said in an article posted here today. They have OTHER evidence of Iraq trying to procure nuclear material.
As near as I can tell, this statement in the speech was correct, and the only reason the CIA feels it should not have been included is because THEY couldn't document it.
This does not seem to me to be anything more than a misunderstanding, and it had NO effect on Congress vote, since they voted the October PRIOR to this State of the Union speech.
So please explain to me what the screw-up actually is, other than a phrase was included in the speech that the CIA couldn't verify.
To: Dan from Michigan
Change the word "underlings"(Spell check screw up too) to EMPLOYEES.
524
posted on
07/12/2003 8:03:44 PM PDT
by
Dan from Michigan
("Crashed and Burned, eh gungrabbers?")
To: Cathryn Crawford
Since British intelligence came up with the Iraq-Niger uranium claim, I'm more inclined to believe it than I would had the shit-for-brains collective at the Tenet-run CIA come up with it...
525
posted on
07/12/2003 8:04:01 PM PDT
by
kdmhcdcfld
(Any rebroadcast of this tagline without the express written consent of FreeRepublic is prohibited.)
To: Cathryn Crawford
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/945136/posts Here is what was said:
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
This puts a whole new spin on it, doesn't it? The word was sought, not bought. Read the thread, Cathryn.
To: Pan_Yans Wife
The Rats know all about lying, and by saying that they wouldn't have allowed the war to happen without the yellow cake quote, they are being extremely disingenuous, since they voted in the fall to support the President on using force... not AFTER his SOTU speech, like they want their constituents to believe. The Rats don't care about the truth or not
Ann Coulter was on Geraldo tonight and asked the other guest ( I foget his name, but work for Gore) why did the Dems vote for the war 4 months before they knew about this report .. she must have asked that question 5 times and he couldn't/wouldn't get off his talking points to answer the questions
And I can't help notice the "serious" look the rat talking heads have these days .. they look more like a deer caught in headlights if you ask me
527
posted on
07/12/2003 8:05:46 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
To: huck von finn
I was carrying on as though I was advising the POTUS, but what I heard was the same tacit endorsement that Bush gave Lott awhile back....right before Trent 'saw the light'.
528
posted on
07/12/2003 8:06:58 PM PDT
by
ApesForEvolution
("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
To: Mo1
And I can't help notice the "serious" look the rat talking heads have these days .. they look more like a deer caught in headlights if you ask me Here is the problem then. The liberals want the press to shut up, but they aren't done, yet. So, the liberals will just have to ride it out.
To: Sir Gawain
The new target must be Cathryn since TLBSHOW is gone.Look, stop the bellyaching. Cathryn Crawford posted a vanity and people are discussing it, some heatedly.
I'll point out for the umpteenth time that she made certain statements in her piece that have been directly contradicted and she has not made even a reference to them---she is outright ignoring them.
Now, you may think it unfair for people to take issue when someone posts a vanity that contains errors and remarks that seem to indicate an agenda (like, oh, the TITLE).
I call it discussion or debate.
To: Dan from Michigan
Dan.
Don't throw good energy after bad. Arguing with agendized moe-moes is a waste of life-force, there's nothing to gain.
531
posted on
07/12/2003 8:08:36 PM PDT
by
AAABEST
To: Pan_Yans Wife
Here is the problem then. The liberals want the press to shut up, but they aren't done, yet. So, the liberals will just have to ride it out HUH???
532
posted on
07/12/2003 8:08:45 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
To: Dan from Michigan
Tenet(Klintonite) admitted something else.And what did Tenet "admit"?
To: JLAGRAYFOX
#46 Your post has it right. It does give me a chance to repeat my previous insight. (Did Clinton ever admit a mistake ? NO ). Herewith. An avowed radical
Saul D Alinsky published a book in 1971, it was
Rules for Radicals . Vintage Books, Random House Pulishing.
Chapter entitled "Tactics". The 13th rule. Pick the target, freeze it,personalize, and polarize it. I will merely quote my last statement. The left still controls the debate and they are as corrupt as all get out. I pray we are not lost and damn the naysayers.
To: Mind-numbed Robot
They've been making statements in their own inhouse, obscure documents for more than 50 years.
Their plans/outline that I read 35 or so years ago have more than 70-90% come true already. They haven't too many chunks to go before their plans are realized in a world government.
BTW, it was my job as acting head of the Univ Special Collections section of the library to store and be able to retrieve meaningfully for various researchers such documents--as well as to be able to offer some assessment as to various levels of relevance and credibility. I don't recall anyone coming back to me and complaining about how far off I was in such matters. Some asserted I was too cautious and conservative.
In hindsight--I was too cautious and conservative. I didn't put much stock in all such back then. I thought it was very fringe junky stuff indeed. Seeing so much come true in the following 35+ years has adjusted that attitude considerably.
You can track the specifics down at the better conspiracy sites and I can't even tell you which one's I'd consider better. It all weary's me so much I don't delve very deeply into it any more. I just sort of keep a tab on the tips of those massive icebergs enough to have some cursory feel for the current status and trends.
Their sequential step-by step progress has seemed inexorable.
I don't frequent conspiracy sites much. But the more balanced of them probably have the outline down reasonably accurately.
But it seems to me . . . just looking at the world's economic system; the SLAG--the chip implant SLave tAG; various levels of citizen surveillance; advances of socialism and more covert methods of tyranny to some degree; the political manoeuvers of UN type levels of things; various geopolitical issues, dynamics and changes . . . what thinking person REALLY can sanely deny the rush to a one world government?
535
posted on
07/12/2003 8:11:27 PM PDT
by
Quix
(LIVE THREAD NOW STARTED. UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
To: Lauratealeaf
Thanks for the yellow cake. Transferred right under each one's nose. Right here in FreeRepublic even. :-)
536
posted on
07/12/2003 8:11:32 PM PDT
by
arasina
(I'm not sure if I really care for indecisive people. Maybe I do; maybe not.)
To: Miss Marple
Exactly what was the screw-up? Tenet's bad intelligence about the uraninum from Niger.
And what is the appropriate punishment, and for whom?
Whoever cleared it(Tenet or his top assistants, or intel officers) needs to either be fired, resigned, or to use a sports term...'booted upstairs' if they are team players. That is Bush's responsibility as President/CEO. I'd like to see Tenet gone myself, but I'm a little biased against Klinton's people in general.
As near as I can tell, this statement in the speech was correct, and the only reason the CIA feels it should not have been included is because THEY couldn't document it.
Bush was put in a bad situation here. I don't put him in the Klinton league here, and I really don't want to use the term lie for this. Bush said what he thought was right based on the information he had.
As near as I can tell, this statement in the speech was correct, and the only reason the CIA feels it should not have been included is because THEY couldn't document it.
If there is conflicting statements, the best thing to do is to err on the side of caution. Iraq has a history of nuke finding missions, and that should have been enough to go on. I don't care about WMD's personally(I supported the war based on Al Qaieda ties), but I do care about credibility.
As for the English intelligence, I'd like to see the other evidence unless it would compromise their sources.
537
posted on
07/12/2003 8:13:31 PM PDT
by
Dan from Michigan
("Crashed and Burned, eh gungrabbers?")
To: Mo1
Listen, this is a tempest in a teapot. Anyone with a brain knows that. And, when people like Coulter go on air and skewer the left, just wait until the other Republicans get started.
We know that there is no basis in fact to the Bush lied scenario, that is so easy to discern. The longer they beat this drum, the more rabid and confused they seem to the voters. This is going to calm down, but before it does, we get to see McCauliff and Hathaway make FOOLS of themselves, and they are the Clinton's lapdogs. This can't go on much longer, they are loosing their credibility, fast.
I love it... the media is screaming, and the left is going to have to scramble HARD to clean up the mess they started.
To: Senator Pardek
Those who claim male and female brains are essentially the same are mostly female. This thread proves it.![](http://www.aseret.homestead.com/files/EngineersView.jpg)
Just one of the "gals" trying to give you some insight into the inaccuracy of your statement.
539
posted on
07/12/2003 8:14:47 PM PDT
by
arasina
(I'm not sure if I really care for indecisive people. Maybe I do; maybe not.)
To: Mind-numbed Robot
I've had a hunch for a decade or 3 that the National Geographic was going to be used in a more and more overt way as a manipulation tool of the masses as it always has been vis a vis evolution.
Look at the Board of Directors of the Nat Geo. Track those people down in the various international government and corporate boards etc. that they are on. Check out the globalist leanings of those organizations.
The ingrownness of this "old boy's club" would be enough to cause some alarm in most thinking people.
You can do that without paying a single visit to a single conspiracy site.
Add in the Club of Rome, Bilderberger's group etc. . . it can get interesting.
540
posted on
07/12/2003 8:14:47 PM PDT
by
Quix
(LIVE THREAD NOW STARTED. UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520, 521-540, 541-560 ... 941 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson