Replies

Exactly what was the screw-up? And what is the appropriate punishment, and for whom?

The British are STILL standing by their intelligence, as Jack Straw said in an article posted here today. They have OTHER evidence of Iraq trying to procure nuclear material.

As near as I can tell, this statement in the speech was correct, and the only reason the CIA feels it should not have been included is because THEY couldn't document it.

This does not seem to me to be anything more than a misunderstanding, and it had NO effect on Congress vote, since they voted the October PRIOR to this State of the Union speech.

So please explain to me what the screw-up actually is, other than a phrase was included in the speech that the CIA couldn't verify.

Exactly what was the screw-up?

Tenet's bad intelligence about the uraninum from Niger.

And what is the appropriate punishment, and for whom?

Whoever cleared it(Tenet or his top assistants, or intel officers) needs to either be fired, resigned, or to use a sports term...'booted upstairs' if they are team players. That is Bush's responsibility as President/CEO. I'd like to see Tenet gone myself, but I'm a little biased against Klinton's people in general.

As near as I can tell, this statement in the speech was correct, and the only reason the CIA feels it should not have been included is because THEY couldn't document it.

Bush was put in a bad situation here. I don't put him in the Klinton league here, and I really don't want to use the term lie for this. Bush said what he thought was right based on the information he had.

As near as I can tell, this statement in the speech was correct, and the only reason the CIA feels it should not have been included is because THEY couldn't document it.

If there is conflicting statements, the best thing to do is to err on the side of caution. Iraq has a history of nuke finding missions, and that should have been enough to go on. I don't care about WMD's personally(I supported the war based on Al Qaieda ties), but I do care about credibility.

As for the English intelligence, I'd like to see the other evidence unless it would compromise their sources.

This is a tempest in a teapot, except with the voters, where it has registered in the polls, negatively, for Bush. Thus the tempest has burst the teapot. The public has a considerable confusion about Iraq. They went for it because they trusted Bush, really. Forces are at play to erode that trust, and to the extent it erodes, so does the support for Iraq. Does it have any impact with me personally? No, hell no, but then my support for the endeavor came from considerably deeper wells of belief, and of a certain moral perspective about foreign policy, and the role of America on this planet.