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?

[ladyinred]

Just a brief reading on yet another long thread I came into too late! This entire Tenet thing is one of the most ridiculous things I have seen yet! So the President makes a comment in a speech that he believes is true, that Tony Blair still says is true, that the rat party decides to blow up into something about nothing.

I recall many reasons stated for going to war with Iraq, not the least of which was the fact that he had not complied with the agreement at the end of Gulf War 1. That was the only reason needed actually, so the rest is moot. Every leader in the universe has said over the years that he was developing WOD including Saddam himself. Yet suddenly, because we haven't found a smoking missile, Bush is a liar and we never should have gone to war?

Please tell me, dear friend that the people on this forum are not really naive' enough not to know what the real agenda is with all of this? Surely they know this is the democrats trying to bring down a republican administration because they want the power back to continue their march to socialist utopia they began years ago, and nearly achieved with WJC until sadly that outdated document called the constitution got in their way and termed him out into the streets with only a couple of three mansions to live in with the White House furnishings they carted out with the samsonite.

Why is it pray tell, that after all of this time, people here don't get it? Are they really this dense, or is there some other reason that they seemingly are believing this absolutely asinine nothing story the media is falling all over itself with? Hmmm, certainly makes me wonder about the true agendas of some of the posters around here lately. While I will admit there might be some who simply believe anything they hear on the news, I am afraid I have to suspect that there are others among us who know better, but are agents for the other side posing as friendly (and not so friendly) concerned citizens, who just feel they have to question things so they won't be kool aid drinkers.

What thinks you oh astute one? Pardon the length of this, but I am making up for lost time as I have been on another thread about some Table, and taking care of a very sick hubby in the middle of it all.

[nopardons]

Please send my very best regards to your lovely hubby ( who is a doll!) and a hug; if he can bear it.

Great post, articulate, astute, clever, factual and spot on. I applaud you.

The problem, beside a few provocatuers, is that some people are stupid, ill informed, ill educated, tooooooooo young and/or gullible, have their own misguided agendas; not to mentional the irrational, delusional bunch, to whom reality is fantasy and fantasy...reality.

[ladyinred]

I will convey your regards to Chads. He is in bad shape, think he will have to return to the hospital if not better in the morning. Thanks friend, and nite, nite.

[MEG33]

Some of us have made the same points(perhaps not so well!)Hope all goes well with your husband.

[nopardons]

My continued prayers for you both.

Try to get some much needed sleep, dear friend.

[MaineVoter2002]

Does anybody have links or text of Richard Gephardt back in the fall when he had claimed that he saw clear evidence of a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda?
The day it had come out I read it in Newsmax. Please post if you know. Thanks

[MaineVoter2002]

Gephardt: *Lots Of* Intelligence Ties Iraq to Al-Qaeda

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/10/6/102835

House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., said Sunday that he*d seen "lots of intelligence" that ties Saddam Hussein*s regime in Baghdad to Osama bin Laden*s al-Qaeda terrorist network.
"There*s lots of intelligence and it*s additive as you go along, of meetings between Iraqi military and intelligence officials and members of al-Qaeda," the top House Democrat told ABC*s "This Week."
Though Gephardt sounded convinced of the Iraq-al-Qaeda terror links, he cautioned, *"There*s no smoking gun. I don*t think you*ll have one. If we*d had a smoking gun on 9/11 we would have done something about it."
The House leader, who broke ranks with fellow congressional Democrats last week to support President Bush*s policy of preemptive action against Iraq, explained, "Your standard of proof of what you*re looking for here has to go down, given that we live in a world of terrorists and terrorism."
Saying that he feared Baghdad would share its biological, chemical and nuclear technology with groups like al-Qaeda, Gephardt warned, "We have to prevent a weapon of mass destruction from being detonated in the United States - we have to do everything in our power to avoid that."

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/10/6/102835

[MEG33]

Well..Imagine that!

[Sir Gawain]

I almost feel sorry for some of these people.

[lentulusgracchus]

Is that what you're referring to?

Yes. The investigator who went public.

[Abundy]

Why do I get the feeling "somebody" has a column due tomorrow and that they're trolling for factoids and/or reactions.

Could it be because there are points being made that you don't agree with and cannot refute with facts?

...

...

...

Nah, that couldn't be it...you must be right as always.

/sarcasm

[hoosiermama]

I've pinged you to a thread you might be interested in:

JUDGE FINDS OSAMA-SADDAM LINK
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944785/posts?page=77

[William McKinley]

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 not only think this is possible, I think this is likely what happened.

[BigWaveBetty]

Read my post again. I never said Mr. Blair was right, just that he is sticking by his intel that tells him Saddam was trying to purchase nuke materials.

If he really cared about what clinton wants or thinks, Blair would have sided with Amb. Wilson and others to discredit GWB. Since trying to discredit GWB is clinton's full time job at this point.

Politics is such a tricky thing, sure Blair likes to suck up to the toon, it makes his leftie buddies gleeful. However Blair is smart enough to know which side his scone is buttered on. That would be the side where he sides with the U.S. no matter who's prez because he understands the importance of ridding the world of terrorists.

Sorry I don't buy that crock of horsesh**.. you know that strips and never changin thingy...

Don't be such a nave, sometimes politicians do what's right.

Then there's this little tidbit in the July 11th Washington Post story about the CIA's effort to get the British to strip the reference to the Niger purchase from their official government dossier:

"We consulted about the paper and recommended against using that material," a senior administration official familiar with the intelligence program said. The British government rejected the U.S. suggestion, saying it had separate intelligence unavailable to the United States.

Putting the two stories together it seems reasonable to believe that the CIA was running around warning various people at various times about the "sketchy" nature of the Niger intel, but that there also still existed at least some evidence in September 2002 suggesting that the Niger story wasn't totally bogus. It also seems that there was some general confusion among the various high-level players in the administration as to who had seen which drafts of the speech, when they'd seen them and what they'd approved or thought had been approved.

Based on what we know so far, you can either believe that a mistake was made by allowing a claim based on questionable intelligence into Bush's State of the Union OR you can believe the President of the United States got up in front of the world and knowingly used information that had already been proved to be completely fraudulent to bolster the case for going to war.

In my mind the more plausible answer is that the administration failed to properly coordinate and vet the intelligence used in the speech. A mistake was made. The administration has admitted such. Does the fact that it was the SOTU magnify the mistake? Yes. And does the fact that it was related to the issue of going to war magnify the error even more? Of course.

It is certainly the right of liberals and Democrat presidential candidates to believe there was a vast conspiracy to mislead the American public and to scream "BUSH LIED" at the top of their lungs, but it strikes me as a little overly dramatic (even bordering on hysterical) and may not play quite as well with the public as they hope.

*************************

Hmmmmmmm, a little overly dramatic, sounds like a certain 19 year old journalist.

[bvw]

Bullies, single or in pack, do get more vicious and aggressive with each new scalp hung from their belt. There is a clique on FR, is has gone bully.

This discussion is not about Bush, Iraq, Tenet, Niger, Liberals, Democrats, or anything in the outside world. It is 100% group dynamics.

Freeper Malsua, an experienced non-FR forum adminstrator, speaks to group dynamics at reply 209 on another thread. He however identifies the wrong clique. The clique operating extremely divisively for FR is pretty clear, obvious -- the ping lists, joint appearances, and commonality of expressions make it obvious.

The complicating factor is that no one wants to be kicked off of FR, yet the owner seems to have taken one side in this very in-house argument.

I hope things correct, that the clique is defanged, yet as experience with bullies suggests, the opposite is taking place.

* * *

"Go, stranger, and tell the Lacedaemonians that we lie here in obedience to their law"

[Pan_Yans Wife]

For by sticking by Clinton.. He keeps "his" morals intact.

How can you use the word Clinton and morals in the same sentence?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

old conservative southern dems

Ah, but even the South is shifting. We Georgians gave McClelland his hat in the last election. Miller will be going, next. The times are changing.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Sorry for not pinging you. I don't really have a ping list that I am maintaining. I posted that last one, before stumbling off to bed for the night. I will try to do better, next time. :)

[cyncooper]

I haven't read posts since I retired last night, but I hopped over here to report that Rumsfeld and Rice are on Sunday talk show threads explaining what some of us explained here on this thread to refute the faulty premise of the opinion piece that this thread is based on: That is the only reason the sentence should have been omitted was because of the propriety of referencing foreign intelligence in a SOTU address. Not because the information was "erroneous" or "flawed".

Will the author of this thread article ever even acknowledge these arguments?

[optimistically_conservative]

this room full of people whose job is to get this speech done. They've been shaving and polishing this thing for two months.

I see you and I have sat in that same room before ...