Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 941 next last
To: nailspitter
Your #362 sums up exactly my understanding and I agree with your observation that it has been handled a bit clumsily, but nothing to warrant the dipsey-doodles being performed by the nuts in the media and the expected demwits.
621 posted on 07/12/2003 9:41:24 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
It was the legal "analysis" of this doofus that drove me nuts. Pathetic really.
622 posted on 07/12/2003 9:41:38 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: pdids
You may wish to re-study the law:

For their actions were covered under the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Which is very clear in it's meaning that "any controversy or contest" concerning the naming of members of the electoral college must be decided based on "laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors."
623 posted on 07/12/2003 9:42:13 PM PDT by Refinersfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: Torie
No, hell no, but then my support for the endeavor came from considerably deeper wells of belief, and of a certain moral perspective about foreign policy, and the role of America on this planet.

I agree with most of your post. But, I suspect that the tempest in the teapot is more with the media and democrat operatives who are desperate to make President Bush into his father. But, he is not his father. War is hell and there will be more trouble in Iraq but things are not as bad as the media would like for us to believe.

624 posted on 07/12/2003 9:42:45 PM PDT by Lauratealeaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
I think you ought to lay off this whole thing. At first I was one who tried to allay your fears, but it's clear that you have some motives that are not relevant to discussing politics or conservatism in general. How would you like it if your daughter were treated like this? You sounded the alarm on this young woman, and you got a host of other people to come in to ridicule her. I don't even know who Catheryn is, but I am appalled by what I see here. This has nothing to do with your love of country. It has to do with something else, and frankly, it's revolting.
625 posted on 07/12/2003 9:42:59 PM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: pdids
Kiss me.
626 posted on 07/12/2003 9:43:50 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: Lauratealeaf
This thingie along with the ongoing body count without publicized progress revealing a light at the end of the tunnel has registered in the polls against Bush. It cannot be easily dismissed from that perspective.
627 posted on 07/12/2003 9:44:38 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: huck von finn
You sounded the alarm on this young woman, and you got a host of other people to come in to ridicule her. I don't even know who Catheryn is, but I am appalled by what I see here. This has nothing to do with your love of country. It has to do with something else, and frankly, it's revolting.

I am appalled that the Tenet Fiasco Discussion Thread was posted. It was meant to echo on Free Republic what we have been hearing in the liberal media. We have a right to disagree and to point out the poster's possible motives. PhiKapMom is right. You are wrong.

628 posted on 07/12/2003 9:46:21 PM PDT by Lauratealeaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
the CIA operative had returned with the finding of bogus.

Hopefully by now you've seen much information about Joseph Wilson, who is NOT a CIA operative, btw, and his "report" was certainly not conclusive or the end of the matter. The fact remains that the U.S. and Britain are sure (Britain VERY sure, U.S. unable to substantiate enough to pronounce it true, yet) that Iraq was in fact seeking to obtain uranium in Africa.

629 posted on 07/12/2003 9:46:44 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: huck von finn
Look, CC asked for everything she's gotten and more.PKA's daughter didn't post a vanity, which is spurious, banal, and libelous and demand that ALL answers be " civil "; so back off.
630 posted on 07/12/2003 9:48:03 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
back off.

Take your own advice.

631 posted on 07/12/2003 9:48:48 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
Posted that article from Limbacher on Hillary that came to me through Conservative Book Service here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/945167/posts?page=12

632 posted on 07/12/2003 9:50:21 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (Bush Cheney '04 - VICTORY IN '04 -- $4 for '04 - www.GeorgeWBush.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Lauratealeaf; huck von finn
"I am appalled that the Tenet Fiasco Discussion Thread was posted."

Then why make that point and move on?

"It was meant to echo on Free Republic what we have been hearing in the liberal media."

How do you know? Can you read minds?

"We have a right to disagree and to point out the poster's possible motives."

Yes you do, as do I and all others.

"PhiKapMom is right."

Says you.

"You are wrong."

Again, says you.
633 posted on 07/12/2003 9:51:23 PM PDT by Refinersfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
Maybe YOU should take some GOOD advice, kiddo, and go off to LP. You'll like that forum much better and feel right at home. :-)
634 posted on 07/12/2003 9:51:37 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
"Posted that article from Limbacher on Hillary that came to me through Conservative Book Service here:"

Now I see how it works... Someone is trying to sell a book, so attacking a person you don't agree with is ok... nice game plan.
635 posted on 07/12/2003 9:53:09 PM PDT by Refinersfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: Refinersfire
Then why not make that point and move on? Sorry about that.
636 posted on 07/12/2003 9:55:43 PM PDT by Refinersfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: huck von finn
How inconsistent that such a thing would happen! And for anyone who wondered why intelligence sharing between the US and UK seemed shady, take a look at this article, just out from UK:

Frankly, no, I wasn't thinking it was shady, I was thinking it was protecting their sources. Obviously Blair must have told Bush they were very certain of their information.

Now, since the Straw letter that I posted a link to keeps getting ignored, and you post a link to a Guardian story that misrepresents that letter, I'm going to post the article and letter here. And btw, the Guardian article is the second I've seen say this is straining U.S. and British ties. That is wrong. I perceive Blair and Straw are supporting the U.S. by, for example, the release to the public of this letter:

Straw defends UK dossier uranium claims

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has defended the Government's decision to include in its first Iraqi dossier claims that Saddam Hussein tried to get uranium from Africa.

CIA director George Tenet has apologised for allowing President George Bush to refer to the alleged trade between Iraq and Niger in his most recent state of the union address, after it emerged that evidence for the claim was based on forged documentation. (my comment here about the forged document. U.S. has said they have other information aside from that document--fragments they call it)

Mr Straw acknowledged that the CIA did express reservations about the use of the claim in the British Government's September dossier. But he insisted that it was based on what British officials regarded as reliable intelligence that had not been shared with the US.

In a letter to Donald Anderson, chairman of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, Mr Straw said: "I am writing to deal with two points relating to the statement in the Government's September Iraq dossier that 'Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa'.

"First, press reporting has claimed that this statement is contradicted by the report of a US envoy, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who visited Niger in early 2002 to investigate the subject on behalf of the CIA. I want to make clear that neither I nor, to the best of my knowledge, any UK officials were aware of Ambassador Wilson's visit until reference first appeared in the press, shortly before your hearings last month. In response to our questions, the US authorities have confirmed that Ambassador Wilson's report was not shared with the UK.

"We have now seen a detailed account of Ambassador Wilson's report. It does indeed describe the denials of Niger government officials in early 2002 that a contract had been concluded for the sale of yellowcake to Iraq. But, as CNN have reported, Ambassador Wilson's report also noted that in 1999 an Iraqi delegation sought the expansion of trade links with Niger - and that former Niger government officials believed that this was in connection with the procurement of yellowcake.

"Uranium is Niger's main export. In other words, this element of Ambassador Wilson's report supports the statement in the Government's dossier.

"Second, the media have reported that the CIA expressed reservations to us about this element of the September dossier. This is correct.

"However, the US comment was unsupported by explanation and UK officials were confident that the dossier's statement was based on reliable intelligence, which we had not shared with the US (for good reasons, which I have given your committee in private session). A judgment was therefore made to retain it.

"Finally, may I underline that the JIC's (Joint Intelligence Committee) assessment of Iraq's efforts to reconstitute its nuclear programme did not rest on the attempted acquisition of yellowcake alone. The Government's dossier catalogued a range of other procurement activities, and referred to intelligence that scientists had been recalled to the programme in 1998. You will be aware of the recent discovery of technical documentation and centrifuge parts - necessary for the enrichment of uranium - buried at the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist in Baghdad."

637 posted on 07/12/2003 9:58:53 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: nopardons; Cathryn Crawford

Maybe YOU should take some GOOD advice, kiddo, and go off to LP. You'll like that forum much better and feel right at home.

Nah. She's just fine over here.

638 posted on 07/12/2003 10:00:13 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
No, she most assuredly is not.
639 posted on 07/12/2003 10:01:12 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
No, she most assuredly is not.

According to.....?????

640 posted on 07/12/2003 10:03:27 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("Crashed and Burned, eh gungrabbers?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson