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?

[lentulusgracchus]

Let's go back to the 16 words, where was it stated that American intelligence had quantified the sale of African uranium?

It didn't, but you're fighting a lost battle. The President has taken down his own words, and that is the definitive judgment as to whether they should have been uttered.

It wasn't, it was British intelligence, and stated as such in the SOTU.

Fine. But efforts to verify the British intel failed, the President said, and so the statement should have come out.

Condoleeza Rice was on CBS pointing out that the British had multiple sources for their belief besides the forged documents someone had given the Italians, and she restated the argument that there's good reason to believe Saddam was nosing around West Africa looking for yellowcake and other internationally controlled materials. I'm not arguing with her, I'm asking (if you'll check my original post):

1. Why is Dick Cheney getting involved with the State of the Union address and underlying intelligence issues?

2. Why is the DCI putting his hand up to take the hit for a statement in the State of the Union that the President thinks shouldn't have been left in?

To which I now add:

If Condi Rice is confident, even deleting all references to the forged documents someone was peddling, that Saddam Hussein was active in shopping for radioisotopes in Africa, then doesn't that point to a simple rewrite of the statement rather than retraction? Let me be clear that I don't think the President has a whole lot to apologize for here -- but if he wants to be seen as "in charge", he ought to be claiming that the buck stops on his desk, rather than lying low while George Tenet roasts over the bonfire of the left-wing vanities. He only feeds the perceived potency of the latent accusations, by appearing to avoid them. He ought to come out instead and give these clowns a four-minute remedial course in antiterrorist epistemology and then remind them pointedly (for the benefit of the audience) that there's an election in 2004 they can declare for, if they are so bitterly disappointed in his having been elected in 2000.

Note to self: At least we can't complain that Peter Jennings isn't even a citizen anymore. The turkey-butt finally took his oath. Wonder how he'll explain that to his Canadian relatives?

[Dstorm]

Well I didn't know that, what kind of paper is the Washington Dispatch? This whole story is nothing but a DNC driven smear, aided by their lackeys in press such as Ms Crawford.

[MEG33]

Your last statememnt about PJ really depressed me.Have we no standards at all!!

[Quix]

Actually, she comes across to me as one of the most conservative individuals of her age that I know of. And I find her quite articulate and consistent in her conservative views.

A person doesn't have to be right of Barry Goldwater for me to consider them conservative. I find her heart-felt, persistently stated values congruent if not similar and even the same as my own and as those of a list of other fine folk on here. It surprises me that anyone would think otherwise of her.

[Quix]

Burp.

errrr . . . too many Cheerios.

Ping.

[Quix]

Did you read where I asserted that I'm convinced that Saddddammmnn DID SEARCH FOR, TRY TO ACQUIRE etc. uranium. I was convinced of it before the war. I'm still convinced of it.

Also, I asserted that the administration may well have intel that they dare not disclose at present regarding such matters.

I suspect CAT feels the same way, though I haven't asked her.

I don'nt expect her to win the Pulitzer Prize in the next week but I still respect her opinions, writing and values as those of a wonderful sister conservative.

Throw rocks at her if you see fit.

I may not remain silent when you do.

But she's been well trained to have an amazingly tough hide. She'll survive your rocks and likely even learn from an odd one or two now and then.

[philosofy123]

You guys must realize that our honeymoon with the press over the Iraq war is over, simply because it is now presidential election time. They need to support the Democrats. It is easy to know this by watching the late night comedy shows; during the war, Bush was God, now it is time to poke fun of him. Simply let them do, at the end the public will vote for him again, this time with a great majority.

[jmc813]

This isn't CC's site, she doesn't get to make the rules and her opinions are LIBERAL/LEFTY !

Even though I'm reading this late, thanks for a good Monday morning laugh.

[jmc813]

Well, you'd better take that up with Jim. His lastest dictates call for no more Bushbashing

?

[Amelia]

Did you read where I asserted that I'm convinced that Saddddammmnn DID SEARCH FOR, TRY TO ACQUIRE etc. uranium....Also, I asserted that the administration may well have intel that they dare not disclose at present regarding such matters.

I suspect CAT feels the same way, though I haven't asked her.

You apparently haven't read the article this thread is based on.

In the article, Ms. Crawford suggests that "faulty intelligence" caused President Bush to suggest Saddam was trying to buy uranium, and wonders if that means that President Bush "is either incompetent or is simply not paying attention?"

The other option Ms. Crawford suggests is that President Bush has "been conned by Tenet" - if not, "what is the alternative?"

You can ask "Cat" if you want to, but I think all you need to do is read what she's written - she apparently thinks that the statement about Saddam trying to buy uranium was mistaken.

I don'nt expect her to win the Pulitzer Prize in the next week but I still respect her opinions, writing and values as those of a wonderful sister conservative.

I agree that Ms. Crawford shows great potential as a writer. I'm not always sure about her conservative values however, unless she's one of those who is so far to the right that she now agrees with the left.

[jethropalerobber]

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.

there is every possibility you are correct about this.

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...

wilson had said this (from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941956/posts):

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report."

okay, so the vice president did not directly request that wilson be sent, but it seems it was his inquiries that led to wilson being sent (assuming wilson's statement is accurate). what difference does it really make?

[Quix]

PERHAPS

I was overly generous with CAT but I don't think so.

I considered your cited parts just her conjectures and ponderings of possibilities rather than her convictions. I felt the piece was primarily designed to get some discussion going to help refine her own perspective as she worked on writing about the topic. I see such a process healthy and largely constructive and essentially harmless.

OK, CAT--how far off base am I?

[Quix]

It has been interesting to see the knives come out in force again.

I sure hope you're right about the voters. I see too many of them being far too fickle.

But prayer and patriots, I believe will make up the difference. We shall see.

I REALLY FEEL WE MUST WORK HARD *NOW* TO DEFEAT Shrillery Hellery Antoinette de Fosterizer de Marx, de Sade. Waiting until close to election time will be tooooo much harder.

Blessings,

[Scenic Sounds]

she apparently thinks that the statement about Saddam trying to buy uranium was mistaken.

In fairness, I think it should be pointed out that, if she believed the statement was mistaken, the White House shared her view on that question:

"Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech," a senior Bush administration official said last night in a statement authorized by the White House.

Washington Post, July 8, 2003

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Let it all out...the 'coverup' is worse than the 'crime'. There have to be more people involved in this error. Who? Why? I fear we may be seeing a 'modified limited hangout'.

Like who forged the document.

[Amelia]

I felt the piece was primarily designed to get some discussion going to help refine her own perspective as she worked on writing about the topic.

Be careful, it seems to me that others suggested the same thing early in the thread, and their comments were seen as personal attacks.

[Amelia]

In fairness, I think it should be pointed out that, if she believed the statement was mistaken, the White House shared her view on that question

True, but apparently for different reasons.

The White House didn't say that the statement was based on "faulty intelligence", just intelligence that our sources had been unable to verify.

Indeed, the Brits still stand by their intelligence, and the administration seems to believe it valid as well.

I believe the White House's point currently is not that the statement was untrue in any way, but that statements based on foreign intelligence shouldn't be included in the SOTU address?

[philosofy123]

She is the most hated female in this country. Do not worry about her.

[Quix]

i THOUGHT the attitudes of some were unworthy attacks.

And the shrill questioning beyond what I felt was warranted, fitting of her conservative orthodoxy.

I decried the haughtiness in some of the wording.

[justshe]

Do you see the issue that others have been raising, that although CC might have raised points A, B and C in her thesis, she conspicuously left out points D and E?

The discussion that she was attempting to elicit, imo, narrowed the field of discussion.

The additional issue has involved CC not disclosing her role as a 'journalist'. Many have seen that as disingenous and raised the spectre of her motive.

Did she leave out that information, intentionally? Did she not see the information as germaine to her discussion piece? IF she left it out intentionally, for what reason(s)? Would the inclusion of the information limited the discussion? If a 'full' discussion was being solicited, what role did her role as a journalist, or her own personal bias, play in 'limiting' the options she offered?

Way too many questions have not been answered, imo. And when they were asked, they apparently were viewed as a personal attack. Some were, some were not. But all questions were viewed, imo, thru that 'personal attack' prism.

And the defenders accused the accusers of NOT addressing the topic....while, for the main part, the defenders focused almost entirely on points having nothing to do with the topic. So a circle of finger pointing ensued.

All in all....a poorly designed topic compounded with a lack of full disclosure on the part of the writer, almost guaranteed a total fiasco.

The fiasco was achieved.