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?
Are you stating that this one revelation of attempts to procure uranium in Africa was the basis of going to war?
On what do you base this assertion?
Again, I fail to see how you arrive at that conclusion. Jack Straw did not say that, nor did I.
However his points put the lie to the media driven "erroneous information" talking point.
No, but it was a...BIG ONE...!
And therefore let the lies about him fly?
It would be useful, or at least interesting, information to know which members of the news media (or entire news organizations) are trying their damndest to remain one-way "purveyors of truth" and believe that the public is merely to consume their words and shut up, not respond.
Oh, that's understood. What's also undertood is that despite these admirable personal qualities, President Bush is also sometimes dead wrong.
With regard to the African uranium flap, I don't happen to think that's the case. This is a middling molehill. However, I think that can be demonstrated without unnecessary appeals to personality, based on the facts available to us.
What do you mean?
My priority has been to discuss this particular issue.
From the NYT Article:
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
Now everything else I've read indicates that the papers that are now known to be a forgery, said that Saddam had attempted to procure uranium.
So, knowing what we know about Wilson, is it possible he reported back, (supposedly verbally to Cheney's office), that no, a sale did not take place? When the intel supposedly said that Saddam had attempted to procure a sale? I know, it's parsing, but Wilson going to Niger for eight days and drinking mint tea and asking questions...well forgive me if I don't exactly place my highest level of confidence in this guy.
Further, did he ever submit a written report?
Did he ask if they bought uranium or if he tried to buy uranium? I clearly remember the nuclear issue being that Saddam was attempting to restart his nuclear program.
*sigh* More questions than answers I know.
Oh, and yes. Tenet needs to go. 9-11, no bin Laden, Saddam's in the bunker, oh I guess not, Saddam's in the tunnel, oh I guess not, we lost him, we didn't pull this line from the speech...the list is not short. Too much is at stake to leave this Clinton holdover in such an important position as this. Time to clean house.
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.