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?
And the CIA certainly didn't think Wilson's visit put an end to the question:
See post #900 where Tenet says
"Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad..."
He will probably tell them the truth (as I guess it--:0): That he so despises George W. Bush that he became a citizen in order to vote against him.
He will probably tell them the truth (as I guess it--:0): That he so despises George W. Bush that he became a citizen in order to vote against him.
without additional information it does not signify anything to me. you are the one making the assumptions - i'm just asking questions.
sorry to disturb your slumber.
Why the nasty tone?
Your comment "without any additional information" is baseless since I've linked you directly to George Tenet's statement.
But I see you are not on a fact finding mission and now are including personal insults in you replies. That ends my conversation with you.
Well, gee, it's in the link I gave you. 10pm Eastern.
my apologies.
Your comment "without any additional information" is baseless since I've linked you directly to George Tenet's statement.
tenet did not comfirm nor deny wilson's claim that the office of vp had inquired specifically about the uranium story. he just stated that "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."
what i am curious about is whether chenney's office did indeed make a request which *prompted* wilson's mission as wilson claimed and tenet did not deny (it should be remembered that wilson did not claim he was sent directly by the office of vp). and if so, why was chenney's office not briefed on the results of wilson's mission as one might expect. if you have information that addresses this question i would like to hear about it, but i will guess that you are satisfied by tenet's suggestion that wilson's mission did not "resolve the issue." i would like to hear wilson's and other intelligence insiders' response to that.
btw - thanks for the link to wilson's interview with hannity last october. it does cast parts of his recent op/ed in a different light. it does make me less likely to rely on wilson's information.
I thought the issue at hand more particularly was Wilson's trip to Niger, which I heard him discussing with Alan Colmes I believe it was, and the fact that he came up empty. Yes, I agree that that outcome doesn't disprove the general charge against Saddam, or burden Bush unduly with the 'Rat charge that "he's been lying to us". To my mind, this whole flap blew up because Bush backed up a bit on something he said in the State of the Union about a particular lead that turned out to be bogus on further inspection. And no, I agree that it doesn't constitute the whole of the British lead on Saddam's nosing around Africa, and I further agree that it's doubtful that Wilson, in the time allowed, could lead a thorough appraisal and recension of the British warning from our own sources and resources, even if he'd been commissioned by CIA -- or Cheney's office, or whoEVER sent him -- to do that, which he wasn't.
This is a really good example of how the 'Rats can get people chasing their tails about "he said -- she said", as if the future of the world depended on it. I'm really sick of Left journopolemicists getting a free ride on this stuff. I think that these flaps that they create to "get" people ought to feature outcomes that, when they're unfavorable to their favored theory of "Bush lied", ought to have some real career consequences attached for whoever floated the canard. I have in mind the 88% dropoff in their platinum album's sales that the Dixie Chicks have suffered since Natalie Maines shot her mouth off in Europe and repudiated her president in front of a crowd of unfriendly foreign nationals.
I've got an even better offer for them. We'll take Jennings, if they'll swap us BC, the Yukon, and the prairie provinces for everything east of the Hudson ("Blue America"). That should just about settle things. They'd get 24,000,000 obnoxious, think-alike Socialist people, some big cities, most of the Ivy League and some serious "heaviosity" (to quote Woody Allen, one of the East Coast's sage-saints [<urping noises>], and we get a clear shot from Florida to Alaska and about 8,000,000 honest farmers and miners. Canada would wind up with about 43,000,000 Socialists, or about enough chips on the table to join the European Union if they want, and we'd be down to about 265,000,000 -- or about 235,000,000, after we kick the 30,000,000 Mexican and Central American squatters out. Then we'd only be five times as large as Canada, and they'd feel a whole lot better about things. ;^)
</off-topic>
and what were these "several instances of evidentiary support" of a reconstituted nuclear program that were highlighted in SOTU?
let's take a look:
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."
that is the sum and total of bush's SOTU presentation on iraq's attempts to reconstitute its nuclear program. what you refer to as "several instances" is really just 3 points:
1) IAEA confirmation in "1990s" of nuclear program ( deceptive reference to iraq's pre-1991 program, dismantled after first gulf war)
2) uranium from africa (CIA: forgery, IAEA: forgery)
3) aluminum tubes (CIA: for centrifuges, IAEA: not sutiable for centrifuges)
sorry, but it doesn't look very compelling to me. keep an eye on it - sure. take out suspect weapons sites - sure. invade and occupy for years at $4B a month - no thanks, i pay enough taxes as it is.
Go back to the DU.
translation: i can't answer your question honestly, so you must be a democrat who hates bush.
i have not commented on the overall intelligence picture as it stood early this year. i merely pointed out that, if there was compelling evidence of an active nuclear program at that time, bush did not mention it in his SOTU address, while at the same time he did mention a handful of very weak and somewhat deceptive points (which you apparently don't deny). i find that questionable. if you equate that with "hatred of bush" that's your problem.
and you, unable to support your position in the argument (or even clearly recognize what it is) turn immediately to name calling and strawmen.
goodbye.
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.