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?
What I see here is a career diplomat with some Democrat connections through Al Gore in 1985/6 (during the period when Gore was contemplating his eventual 1988 campaign), who was tapped by Clinton for his African Safari joke-extravaganza in 1998, because of Wilson's heavy experience as a Foreign Service professional in Francophone Africa. He was heavy, he was available, he was a Democrat.
All of which raises the interesting question of why he was tapped for a sensitive fact-finding mission by Cheney's office. BTW, I'm not going to call Wilson a liar automatically because he ran errands once for the Gorebot, or because he set a Lucullan table for Clinton's pre-impeachment, "if they indict me I'll be tried in D.C." Afrocentric political orgy, when Wilson stands up and makes a statement of fact like, "I was tasked by Cheney's staff".
If Cheney's people sent him to Niger, okay, they sent him to Niger. I think he's not the right guy for them to have sent: after all, Olympia Snowe tagged along on Clinton's African Queen outing -- does that make her a stooge of Maxine Waters and John Conyers? But I'd wonder at Snowe's judgment, especially since the black vote in Maine is politically underwhelming, so that she didn't really need to go unless she were trying to live up to some fantasy of herself as the embodiment of Garry Trudeau's Lacey Davenport character.
But they sent Wilson, and if Wilson says X and Y, they do you automatically assuming he must be lying about either X or Y because he once sent an article, in his spare time, to The Nation? I wouldn't automatically assume Lynne Cheney is lying about national-security policy because someone comes in and says, well, she wrote an article for National Review.
My point is that you have identified a problem with the source of the comments, but that doesn't per se show that he is a political hack on a par with the lizardy Sidney Blumenthal, or a shill like Eleanor Clift.
Bill Clinton used, abused, and discarded a hell of a lot of people in D.C. -- including his entire cabinet, during the Lewinsky scandal. What makes you think Wilson is a willing Clinton shill, or that he's working on retainer for Terry McAuliffe? The African connection is interesting, but Wilson came from the Foreign Service corps and was obviously tapped for his experience and his contacts by both Clinton and Dick Cheney. You could as easily have called Wilson a Bush shill, for having once served as chief of mission in Baghdad under April Glaspie during the Desert Shield buildup, after which he was rewarded for his service with marks of distinction and with a slot at a prestigious foreign-service school.
Furthermore, anyone who says, well, the problem is Wilson, still has to explain why the State Department wouldn't touch the Italo-British yellowcake story the first time around. It wasn't just Wilson.
Bottom line, I understand your reservations, but I don't think that what you and National Review and PhiKapMom have dug up about his background and c.v. add up to evidence of a witting desire to undermine the Administration by press release. I don't think you've impeached the source yet.
Uh for emphasis. Such as when you started this thread, thinking that you had just found the rosetta stone or sliced bread.
My first thought was,
"Uh Cathryn, this has been talked to death, for the last three days on a plethora of threads on FR and shown to be a DNC/liberal media tempest in a teapot."
Uh, get the point, Cathryn.
Two communist mentors of Hillary's, Not that it has anything to do with this, but I always like to point out when they are around.
Excellent post, thanks for providing the list of all of the interesting people at this dinner.
That is easier to understand than that Cheney's people had sent him, given the political baggage from the Clinton trip. My understanding was that he got the initial call from someone on Cheney's staff, but if it was from CIA instead, fine, so be it. What is more important is understanding that a) Cheney himself apprehended the importance of getting it right, if the President were going to make a statement to the national audience about it, and took steps to verify immediately, and b) Wilson checked sources in Niger and reported back that he couldn't substantiate the story.
If someone is lying, that's germane as hell, but so far I don't see a capital-punishment case here. I do find it interesting that it was Cheney's people, not the President's, who were vetting the speech on this item. Division of labor?
Uh Cathryn, exageration of my starting my sentences with the word, uh, for emphasis, to make my point, maybe funny to you , but, don't give up your day job to become the next Robin Williams, just yet.
Sarcasm is not your forte. An insecure need to be the center of attention is though, IMO.
Let's go back to the 16 words, where was it stated that American intelligence had quantified the sale of African uranium?
It wasn't, it was British intelligence, and stated as such in the SOTU.
Cheney didn't send him to Niger.
In Tenet's Statement he says:
In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn.
End excerpt:
That individual is Joseph Wilson.
Further, in the just released letter from Jack Straw he referred to a 1999 incident involving Wilson that Wilson did not disclose in his NY Times op-ed. I am of the opinion that it was that 1999 episode that prompted the counter-proliferation unit to select Wilson as he did in fact have contacts and his presence wouldn't be suspicious. Also note Tenet says the findings (and they weren't in-depth or wide-ranging) of Wilson were not shared with Cheney's office or the president or other senior officials.
My criticism of Wilson is he's overblown the role he played and his "findings" as if they were the end-all and be-all of the uranium procurement question.
I could really care less about you or the 10 or so of your supporters think.
The fact is that about 3/4's of the replies from a plethora of different posters on this thread rebuke your contentions.
That is what counts.
It appears that you yourself contribute to the inane banter on the thread. This shows very good conversational skills on your part. You can be an insightful writer.
The quote in the SOTU speech is that he sought uranium, not that he bought uranium.
That is what counts.
Dane, you are right. I won! I got intelligent people to post intelligent replys in an intelligent way, and, to make it even better, I got to watch certian people make fools of themselves by attacking me.
I'm sorry if I sound too happy about it - but this has been an enlightening thread, in more ways than one.
Now, do you have a legitimate opinion on the matter? I welcome disagreement - as a matter of fact I enjoy it - and I'd like to hear your point of view.
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.