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?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

We should all see things with such clarity as you do. This tempest and every one between now and election day is being orchestrated by the DNC with the cooperation of the media. The Thompson story is really just a small nugget of how all of the machinations work. There will be numerous whispers and innuendo that get churned up into controversies. The goal is to confuse the voters, and make them doubt Bush's abilities.

[Refinersfire]

Betty,

First, Thank you for your well thought out reply. IMHO only, that is what Ms. Crawford was hoping for when she posted this thread.

Second, the only reason I came to this thread, as I try to stay away from he said, she said threads, was I saw someone attacking in the most stupid manner..again..IMHO only.

For here you have someone that clearly is 100% GOP, so much as that her tag line ask for others to send money to her choice. But what does she do, does she politely show other posters why he/she is her choice, no. Does she debate them is a civil manner, no. She attacks someone who "may" see things different then she does. And then wants others to come and "voiced" thier displeasure with this writer. Over a stupid little IMHO only, so-called point. Going so far as to hold her children up as models, to show how "bad" this other poster is. (It reminds me of my 1st grade playground days)

Talk about playing right into the hands of Ms. Clinton and her comments about how the GOP can't debate her over the cost of running the Government, only personal attacks.

If Mom really wants us to send money to Bush, she may want to remember that some of need a reason to Vote for him. Not just that he's not Hillary. Because some of us have read the bills signed into Law, and see where , when it comes down to it, he isn't alot different than what was there before, (and is some cases, he's worse on Constitutional issues) outside the personal behavior issue.

[Refinersfire]

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

You know, I re-read this thread this morning and all but fell off my chair after I saw what I wrote. Talk about two things that oppose each other.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

The revelation that the vast majority of journalists are registered Democrats should have opened the eyes of the voters.

[quebecois]

"So, you think that Bush is just a pawn, hopelessly manipulated by the neoconservatives?"

That is a rather uncouth way of putting it, but yes. Throughout history, leaders have often been manipulated by aggressive and ideologically driven courtiers who have various political agendas. They slant intelligence, backstab other aides who aren't "on the team" and manipulate the views that the leader hears in order to guide him to the desired decision. That is what the "Office of Special Plans" was all about.....distorting intelligence so as to control what reaches Bush, so as to influence his decisions.

It worked rather nicely (for the neo-cons, that is).

[Refinersfire]

I checked some this morning and haven't found the story on the boards so far. I will check more later today when I get back.

Thanks...

[Pan_Yans Wife]

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

If the purpose of the thread was to hear the opinions of Freepers, then I don't think so. In fact, the thread dies slowly, because of lack of substantial argument. It is hard to have a discussion, when only half of the people are discussing the issue, and they support the same position. The silence on the other side is deafening.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Here is my acknowledgement to you that I have read and am reading these posts.

However, due to the idiocy that most of the people (not referring to you, necessarily) on this thread have posted, in that they have turned it into a chat/insult thread, I'm not posting too much.

However, may I say to you and to others that what you have posted was the whole point of the thread - to argue and discuss, rationally, the different aspects of this incident.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Hmmmm...I don't think that Bush is so stupid as to be manipulated in such a way.

[optimistically_conservative]

quebecois makes a good point, historically, and there is little doubt that the "vision" thing in foreign affairs has largely centered around the philosophy and perceptions expressed a decade ago in PNAC by those now in the administration.

The strength of this administration, IMHO, has less to do with the intellectual fortitude of GWB to fend off neoconservative indoctrination, but the intellectual strength of Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. to provide the President with equally powerful points of view based on the same set of facts. In a way, I envy GWB the opportunity to interact with this group and decide between and among their courses of action.

I expect to hear more "He Knew" and "Bush Lied" attacks leading up to the heat of the election season, especially if the market continues to improve and if the unemployment trend turns downward. With that expectation, every screed along those lines will be viewed cynically. The only last "doom and gloom" issue left the Democrats will be the difficulties in Iraq. Propagandizing Iraq into Vietnam for political purposes will p*ss me off. I can only hope it infuriates the majority of the voting public as well.

[Amelia]

Hmmmm...I don't think that Bush is so stupid as to be manipulated in such a way.

But wasn't that the entire premise of this thread? That either Bush was dishonest and hiding behind Tenet, or that he was so stupid he did get manipulated into making such a mistake?

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?

[ruoflaw]

ref: your 77....Exactly. The dems and the liberal press are working together to attack President Bush once again.

[Cathryn Crawford]

I was referencing the specific poster, who was implying that Bush has been manipulated by the neocons all along.

I simply wanted to know what people thought of the situation, and what the solution was. There seems to be three camps:

1) There was no fault by anyone, and this entire charge is ridiculous.

2) This charge is going to be Bush's downfall, and we should prepare for his impeachment.

3) This is a bump, a fairly serious one, but it can be dealt with if the correct people in the CIA are taken to task (in whatever way is found appropriate by Bush and his advisors).

[Amelia]

I was referencing the specific poster, who was implying that Bush has been manipulated by the neocons all along.

And I was simply pointing out that your original article, question, or whatever it is basically implied the same thing.

Please go back and read what you wrote to begin with - it seems to me that you included no possible scenario in which the administration was blameless or that this is a tempest in a teapot stirred up by the media or the Dems.

It seems to me that your original possibilities are that Bush is a dupe, a dunce, or dishonest.

[Zack Nguyen]

I think that CIA is being unfairly maligned. NSA Condoleeza Rice, DIA, NRO, NSA, Sec Def, I am sure, all got to look at the President's speech before it was delivered. They all receive the same, or very similar, intelligence briefings. Rice, who originally threw this hot potato in Tenet's lap, no doubt was aware of the alleged attempt by Saddam to restart his nuclear program. It sounds like no one said anything.

Perhaps I am wrong here, but I doubt that this is just CIA's problem.

[Sir Gawain]

Just ignore her. She supports Party over the Constitution. You can't argue with someone that has no principles and never finds fault with their saviour.

[Dont Mention the War]

2) This charge is going to be Bush's downfall, and we should prepare for his impeachment.

Anyone that believes this one is either a DUer in wolf's clothing or clinically insane. Even assuming the absolute worst - that Bush blatantly, knowingly, willingly LIED when he used the uranium line in the SOtU, with 100% knowledge that the entire charge was 100% false (something we already have proof is simply not the case) - it still wouldn't be ILLEGAL, or even particularly RELEVANT, given that Congress authorized the war months earlier and there were dozens upon dozens of unquestionably legitimate reasons to take out Saddam anyway.

And, I'll add, the GOP controls the House. Anyone here seriously think they're going to vote to impeach the president over this single line in a single speech?

[Lauratealeaf]

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

She answered you but she did not acknowledge the arguments.

[Lauratealeaf]

There will be numerous whispers and innuendo that get churned up into controversies. The goal is to confuse the voters, and make them doubt Bush's abilities.

This is true and I think the reason this thread was posted.

[roughrider]

All right, let's try to make the argument that Mr. Bush's supporters should have made, even though I thought this was the wrong war, in the wrong place, and at the wrong time.

What I find fascinating with this stuff about the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS is the implied argument being set forth by those scandalizing this one sentence in that speech. This implied argument is as follows:

1. Somehow, erroneous information in a STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS should make us all act like stereotypical ladies gardening clubs when a mouse suddenly makes an appearance. We are all supposed to shriek, hike up our skirts, and jump up on our chairs. These people get "the vapors" over the possibility that Bush put something in the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS that might have been in error. The implication is that the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS is NOT ALLOWED to contain any errors, and that it is some kind of "holy writ" that must be 100% pure of any errors. On what basis is that argument made? I think I know, and it has something to do with PERJURY on the part of a former Chief Executive.

2. Somehow, a LIE, if Bush lied, is something horrific only if it appears in THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS. I would like to know what makes that speech any more immune from politicians lying, exaggerating, or fudging. I watched some cluck on MSNBC constantly making the distinction of the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS being infiltrated by either errors or lies, as if, somehow, that was against one of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, when most of these commentators think the TEN COMMANDMENTS are optional.

This attempt to elevate the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS to some kind of "Holy Grail" is so contrived that is has to be some kind of political spin. Let these people show that ALL OTHER STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESSES have been devoid of erroneous information, lies, exaggerations, etc., then they can start talking about the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS being something of an INFALLIBLE SPEECH, not unlike the Pope's pronouncements on faith and morals to Roman Catholics.