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?
For some reason you have chosen to attack me and accuse me of something I have not done...unless it is supporting President Bush, which apparently to you is an offense.
Let me say this: I have tried as hard as I can over the last four years to answer attacks on the President and on myself in as reasonable a manner as possible. You are free to disagree with the President, and you are free to speak your mind here. Jim Robinson is the last word on what is acceptable, not me.
But I will say this: I will not be cowed or allow guilt to be heaped on my head, because I support the President. If you don't like it that I do support him, well that's too bad. You are entitled to your own opinion...but you are not entitled to mine.
All right then, tell it your way.
Many thanks MEG33. He had surgery and is experiencing complications.
JMO, but you read like a whiny liberal democrat.
I was only allowed to post the title, not the text as by rules set by the website. (see post 754)
But my problem was not the "Opium" issue, but can be summed up by Rep. Ron Paul's words below.
http://www.counterpunch.org/paul2.html
November 6, 2001
Underwriting the Taliban
By Rep. Ron Paul
Even before September 11th, most Americans were well aware of the hostility that many Middle Eastern nations have for the U.S. Our experiences with Iran, Libya, Iraq, and now Afghanistan have understandably soured many Americans on the entire region. Indeed, the majority of anti-American sentiment in the post-Cold War era originates in the Middle East. What many Americans don't realize, however, is the extent to which their own foreign aid tax dollars are spent funding our current and future enemies in the region.
We should recognize that American tax dollars helped to create the very Taliban government that now wants to destroy us. In the late 1970s and early 80s, the CIA was very involved in the training and funding of various fundamentalist Islamic groups in Afghanistan, some of which later became today's brutal Taliban government. In fact, the U.S. government admits to giving the groups at least 6 billion dollars in military aid and weaponry, a staggering sum that would be even larger in today's dollars.
Bin Laden himself received training and weapons from the CIA, and that agency's military and financial assistance helped the Afghan rebels build a set of encampments around the city of Khost. Tragically, those same camps became terrorist training facilities for Bin Laden, who uses some of the same soldiers our military once trained as lieutenants in his sickening terrorist network. Our heroic pilots are now busy bombing the same camps we paid to build, all the while threatened by the same Stinger missiles originally supplied by our CIA. Once again, the stark result of our foreign aid, however well-intentioned, was the arming and training of forces that later become our enemy.
Our foolish funding of Afghan terrorists hardly ended in the 1980s, however. Millions of your tax dollars continue to pour into Afghanistan even today. Our government publicly supported the Taliban right up until September 11. Already in 2001 the U.S. has provided $125 million in so-called humanitarian aid to the country, making us the world's single largest donor to Afghanistan. Rest assured the money went straight to the Taliban, and not to the impoverished, starving residents that make up most of the population. Do we really expect a government as intolerant and anti-west as the Taliban to use our foreign aid for humane purposes? If so, we are incredibly naive; if not, we foolishly have been seeking to influence a government that regards America as an enemy.
Incredibly, in May the U.S. announced that we would reward the Taliban with an additional $43 million in aid for its actions in banning the cultivation of poppy used to produce heroin and opium. Taliban rulers had agreed to assist us in our senseless drug war by declaring opium growing "against the will of God." They weren't serious, of course. Although reliable economic data for Afghanistan is nearly impossible to find (there simply is not much of an economy), the reality is that opium is far and away the most profitable industry in the country. The Taliban was hardly prepared to give up virtually its only source of export revenue, any more than the demand for opium was suddenly going to disappear. If anything, Afghanistan's production of opium is growing. Experts estimate it has doubled since 1999; the relatively small country is now believed to provide the raw material for fully 75% of the world's heroin. How tragic that our government was willing to ignore Taliban brutality in its quest to find "victories in the failed drug war.
U.S. taxpayers have a right to know exactly what we're getting for our foreign aid dollars. Have we helped bring peace and prosperity to Afghanistan? Have we eased suffering there? Have we added to stability in the region? Have we earned the love or respect of the Afghan people? Have we made an ally of the Taliban government? The answer to all of these entirely reasonable questions is a resounding NO. Afghanistan is in chaos, its people starving, and its government is now an outright enemy of the United States. As we yet again find ourselves at war with forces we once funded and supported, the wisdom of foreign aid must be challenged. Peaceful relations and trade with every nation should be our goals, and the first step in accomplishing both should be to stop sending taxpayer dollars overseas.
Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.
Which means that any and all money went to the Taliban. Just like what happen with Iraq. It was only after 11/Sept/2001 that we went the extra mile to see that the food got to those in the most need.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2001/n10042001_200110045.
To which I will give credit to Bush for his part in doing so.
Well excuse me, Cathryn.
Anyway bvw's reply #747 sounds like something I would hear from Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi. Using big words and grandiose prose to basically say, "How dare you have your own opinion, you big meanie".
You will notice that in all my replies that I gave my opinion, and that was that this whole SOTU flap is a DNC tempest in a teapot and nowhere did I say someone should be banned or tarred and feathered.
I also stated in one of my replies allegoriclly that could you send me a postcard when you reach your destination called "a perfect world".
And you are right. You have added to this thread's intelligence immensely. Let's see...here were your comments.
To: Mind-numbed Robot; Dan from Michigan; Cathryn Crawford
Even if you are technically correct it is still unrealistic
Maybe Dan and Cathryn will send you a postcard when they reach that destination called, "the perfect world".
383 posted on 07/12/2003 6:50 PM CDT by Dane
And, let's not forget...
To: Quix; Cathryn Crawford
Personally, I think you demean yourself by throwing rocks at her.
Uh she was the one who decided to throw the first rock. There is a plethora of threads about this DNC/liberal media tempest in a teapot.
I can't help if you don't like the fact she got her head handed to her on a plate on this thread.
426 posted on 07/12/2003 8:23 PM CDT by Dane
Can I ask you a question? Why do you, uh, preface your, uh, questions with, uh, uh?
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.