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?
You're absolutely right and I think we've learned from this episode that including "faulty intelligence" ("intelligence that our sources had been unable to verify" - see post 884) in a president's State of the Union is a very risky mistake.
I'm willing to bet that doesn't happen again next year.
True, and most people don't like being accused, even implicitly, of being stupid, do they?
We agree again. ;-)
I thought Nigerian officials were from Nigeria?
However, Tenet says Wilson's report was not conclusive and the VP was NOT briefed on it.
i don't contest any of that. tenet did indeed correct wilson's false assumption.
what i was speaking to is the matter of the vice president's apparent interest in the reliability of the uranium story. it was that interest that led to wilson's being sent to africa, though some here try to claim that the CIA was just doing this all on their own, without any connection to the white house.
Wilson's credibility is shot.
Hang on and I'll be showing what he was saying last fall about Iraq and their attempts to build up their nuclear program----and his statement that Saddam absolutely positively had chemical and biological weapons.
Just a sec.
We also had to consider that the former Nigerian officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.
Bush Nuke Basher Admitted Saddam Sought the Bomb
Though former acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq Joseph C. Wilson's op-ed in the Times warned that Bush might have led the U.S. to war "under false pretenses" by ginning up a bogus nuclear threat, he was singing a different tune during an appearance on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" nine months ago.
~snip~
WILSON: Well, first of all, Sean – just a second. Just let me be very clear. He has chemical weapons.
HANNITY: Right.
WILSON: He has biological weapon capability ...
HANNITY: Right.
WILSON: ... and may have biological weapons. He doesn't have nuclear weapons, to the best of anybody's knowledge, even though he has an aggressive program to try and get them.
HANNITY: He's working hard to get them, but – but, I mean, if we don't ...
WILSON; That's right. [End of Excerpt]
I'm willing to bet that doesn't happen again next year.
I still take exception to referring to it as "faulty intelligence" - the Brits still stand by it, and so far as I've seen no one has proven it incorrect.
It probably won't happen again next year, but I'd be willing to bet that "they" find something else to criticize.
As I understand it, the question in the SOTU address was not whether or not there was any trade on-going, but whether or not Saddam had attempted trade.
I'm not disagreeing with your viewpoint, but there is a difference there.
I think that you and I still have reason to hope that the intelligence is someday proved to be accurate. In the meantime, though, let's not include it in any of our State of the Union addresses.
You know, all of this just seems right now to be a much bigger deal than it really is. As I said in a prior post, the American people want an honest president, but they don't expect a perfect president. Any president who is so risk-averse as to never make any mistakes is a president who can't help us very much.
It probably won't happen again next year, but I'd be willing to bet that "they" find something else to criticize.
LOL. "They" had better find "something else to criticize" the President about if they wish to beat him next year. This issue certainly isn't going to do it for them. ;-)
I'd send you to the head of the class, but you're the teacher. : )
Did you see the interesting Wilson interview with Sean Hannity I posted right at #907? It looks like even Wilson agreed back in October that Iraq had "an aggressive (AGGRESSIVE says Wilson!) program to get them "(nuclear weapons).
You watch MSNBC, huh?
Hmmmmm. It figures. ;-)
Yes, I saw that. I also heard news reports telling about nuclear facilities in Iraq had been looted, and saying the looters were suffering from the symptoms of radiation poisoning.
Some days I have to, because all those "Fox News Alerts" over nothing make me too nervous.
Today I switched to MSNBC, even though it's way early, because I don't want to take a chance on missing mhking on Scarborough Country tonite. :-)
Well, you're very smart and I trust you, but I'm not sure that I trust myself to be so adventurous.
Maybe if you can tell me exactly when mhking will be on, I could justify chancing it for a while. ;-)
See my post #907.
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.