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?

[cyncooper]

there is a lot of information, uh, here, uh, that wouldn't have been discussed, if, uh, I hadn't posted this, uh, thread.

Actually all of this information has been posted elsewhere and discussed, yet the misinformation was posted prominently as a vanity and I, for one, am making comments to prevent the harm those types of false statements can cause. (Like the accusation that the president made a false statement in his SOTU speech. An accusation that was not true.)

[Neets]

Stop answering comments people make directly to you Dane.

You keep forgetting the rules.

You can only post to the person who started the thread...

[Neets]

You are spot on...beat me to the punch Cyn..

[cyncooper]

See my 793. You are correct, Cheney (of course) didn't send him, NOR was he apprised of the "findings" (such as they were, which wasn't much) of Wilson.

[Dane]

Jesse L. Jackson, president and CEO, Rainbow-PUSH Coalition, and Jonathan Jackson, Rainbow-PUSH Coalition

I know this is an aside, but isn't it strange that Jesse's wife didn't accompany him to a White House dinner, especially when he was appointed Clinton's ambassador to Africa. What was the date of this dinner?

JMO, this was probably during the love child fiasco.

[Cathryn Crawford]

What was the date of this dinner?

Good point.

[lentulusgracchus]

Was the source of this information Scheer? Was it Wilson? Was it someone directly related to not just liberal but far-left political movements?

I saw some articles in the local paper, a television interview of Wilson I think it was, and heard a late-night radio interview a day or two before by Alan Colmes.

See my exchange with cyncooper and MEG33 above.

[roughrider]

Well, you came up with a LIE in a State of the Union Address, namely Clinton's lie about the missiles not being pointed at our children that night. If someone in the White House reads this, and reminds everyone about that one, maybe this will die down. You see, those keeping this alive are just trying to make the SOTU into the ONE speech (or sworn testimony, I might add) that is too sacrosanct to contain even erroneous intelligence, let alone lies. You can lie during sworn testimony at deposition, and that is not even a misdemeanor, but throw in a line in a SOTU that contains an error or gaffe, that is grounds for impeachment.

The real giveaway is the fact that the Niger documents were found to be forgeries prior to the invasion of Iraq, and AFTER the SOTU. No one yipped and yapped about the comments being in the SOTU until the beginnings of the election cycle began, but those who wanted to hang it on Bush had a problem: CLINTON LIED ALL THE TIME. How to get around that when Billy Boy is doing all of that fundraising. EUREKA! Here's a line in the SOTU that mentioned Niger! That's the ticket! We paint the SOTU as some solemn speech that absolutely is FORBIDDEN to contain any iota or error, mistakes, gaffes, or any nit whatsoever! Yeah, that's how we'll put it out to the media, and let them do the rest. That's why they keep saying "STATE OF THE UNION! STATE OF THE UNION!"

The fly in the ointment was they forgot Clinton lied in one of those, too.

[Dane]

Dane, you are right. I won!

Whatever Cathryn, I guess in your world the winner is the team who get the least runs in a baseball game or the golfer who uses the most strokes to get the ball in the hole. That's your right as an American to believe if you want.

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.

UH,

yes Cathryn. This is a DNC/liberal media tempest in a teapot, that was discussed and debunked with a plethora of threads for several days before you started your vanity thread.

Oh that's right that wouldn't be a legitimate opinon in Cat world, nevermind.

[justshe]

You seem to be forgetting your cardinal rule, as posted on another website:

We can flip the computer off or disconnect the internet. It's not personal - unless you allow it to be.

[Neets]

Yea, well it's kinda different over here donchyano!!!!!

[Cathryn Crawford]

...which should be proof to you that I wouldn't be posting to people on this thread unless I wanted to be. :-)

[Dane]

...which should be proof to you that I wouldn't be posting to people on this thread unless I wanted to be. :-)

So you are basically admitting that this is a personal vendetta.

[bvw]

Dane, you speak with an overconfidence that doesn't fit you. It's 10 sizes too large in the neck. Jim's shirt doesn't fit you well at all and you shouldn't be borrowing it without permission.

Jim has the strong neck, and he's stuck it out plenty for good cause. You can't grow big shoulders and neck by wearing a big man's shirt.

Go do some hard work yourself -- some heavy lifting, that's the way.

[Dan from Michigan]

So you are basically admitting that this is a personal vendetta.

Projecting??????

[justshe]

...which should be proof to you that I wouldn't be posting to people on this thread unless I wanted to be.

---

Excuse me....but if you are NOT taking this personally, than HOW can you view yourself as under attack? It is one or the other. Either you don't care...or you DO care. I quote from your post #799:

I got to watch certian people make fools of themselves by attacking me.

I recognize this is totally off topic....but YOU brought it up.

[Dane]

Dane, you speak with an overconfidence that doesn't fit you. It's 10 sizes too large in the neck. Jim's shirt doesn't fit you well at all and you shouldn't be borrowing it without permission

Huh? Why are you bringing Jim Robinson into this? You are the one who pinged me back in reply #747, I gave my opinion of your reply #747.

Sheesh, execute me for giving my opinion.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

...which should be proof to you that I wouldn't be posting to people on this thread unless I wanted to be. :-)

Two of your most memorable posts on this thread were when you claimed outright that it wasn't a thread for humor or innocuous banter, only for serious discussion, and when you chose to ridicule someone for their writing style.

Were you just being harmless, or dictatorial then?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Sorry, Dane... this was supposed to be for CC.

...which should be proof to you that I wouldn't be posting to people on this thread unless I wanted to be. :-)

Two of your most memorable posts on this thread were when you claimed outright that it wasn't a thread for humor or innocuous banter, only for serious discussion, and when you chose to ridicule someone for their writing style.

Were you just being harmless, or dictatorial then?

[Dane]

Projecting??????

Huh? It was Cathryn in reply #812, who basically admitted that she is getting personal.

If anything it is Cathryn who is doing the projecting.

Look I was just minding my own business when bvw's personal ad hominem reply #747 came up. I replied and gave my opinion in reply #773. The Cathryn jumped in on reply #776.

I didn't start it, and if you think that saying the opinion that someone allegorically got her head handed to herself on a plate, is personal, that's your right to believe.

But it was my opinion of the plethora of replies on this thread.