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?
The lastest lowdown on this subject is, that the rules for grants of this money are being changed so that a "group" can't use it for any project that is earmarked for killing the un-born, BUT any group may place it in their general funds. And then these funds "can" but used to oversee "all" projects.
Do you have a link? Specifically, do you have a link about the following statement you made -- "BUT any group may place it in their general funds".
please..
"How dumb do you think I am?"
I am not even going to touch this one with a ten foot pole.
"Guess you think I have a source at Newsmax now that you seem to infer"
No, some of us find it funny that you would use a Press Release for a Book, as an attack post.
"My original premise stands. CC is a member of the media, she posted a vanity that has a suspect headline, and some of us, including myself, did not know she was a member of the media. I don't normally go around reading threads that have posters on them that are Anti-Bush! She accused me of plagerism when I put her quote in quotes and attributed it to her!"
Then what where you doing here in the first place?
"So you can quit your all knowing attitude. I posted this because it discusses Hillary's candidacy and some people on here think we should be bi-partisan and not take out the RATs. I don't happen to agree with that!"
And this has to do with the subject of this thread how?
"I am a George W. Bush Republican and proud of it!"
That's nice...
There is more information in this article. Nothing definitive, but more information.
You are intent on making a mountain out of a molehill by ignoring certain information and emphasizing or distorting other aspects of the story. That is what the dems and media are doing, too, all in an effort to harm the president.
This country is not defined by any president.
Well if you don't sais qua then we're all in trouble. This is the first time I've ever heard of a lawyer not sais qua in a long time. This could trigger the end of the world.
Did I say that? I simply said that logic was lacking. That's patently obvious now.
[Tenet]:But in the interest of completeness, the report contained three paragraphs that discuss Iraq's significant 550-metric-ton uranium stockpile and how it could be diverted while under IAEA safeguard. These paragraphs also cited reports that Iraq began "vigorously trying to procure" more uranium from Niger and two other African countries, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons. The NIE states: "A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure 'uranium' (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out the arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake." The Estimate also states: "We do not know the status of this arrangement." With regard to reports that Iraq had sought uranium from two other countries, the Estimate says: "We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources." Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: "Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."
Show me where Bush and Rice said that they believe that Iraq was not trying to get Uranium from Africa. They have only said that if the CIA believes that Iraq was not trying to get Uranium from Africa then they should have said so.
Sending me a ping and link here on the open forum would be best.
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.