A fine specimen of a false dilemma, there. I think it’s quite clear to anyone who’s paying attention that Bush is a liar, and he’s an incompetent boob.
Heh. 
Well, you won’t get an argument from me about that. I was just trying to give Dubya the benefit of the doubt. In the interest of fair and balanced something-or-other…
The article reports the claim of factual correctness and carefully attributes that claim to Tenet. Let’s take a closer look at it:
Unfortunately, the president did not say the British had said Iraq sought uranium, which could be interpreted as leaving room for doubt. He said the British had learned Iraq sought uranium. Reasonable listeners took this as meaning that the British had uncovered something the president believed to be true. Indeed, there is no plausible reason for him to have included this statement in his speech if he did not intend the key allegation, Iraq sought uranium, to be taken as truth. If he knew it wasn’t, that’s lying, no matter how you parse it.
Not according to this CNN article (bolding mine):
Funny how not even your CBS cite says he was told. What do have to counter Tenets claim that Bush and other senior admin weren’t told of CIA’s skepticism?
Maybe for Lefties that see/hear what they want to see/hear.
The point, Monster, is that Bush is responsible for the actions of his advisers. Or at least the consequences of those actions. He’s the boss. It’s his job to know what’s going on in his organization.
If you’re trying to claim that his advisers knew the claim was false, but didn’t tell him (which I don’t buy, by the by), that makes him incompetent.
If he knew, he lied. Pick your poison.
And by the way, this…
gave me a good chuckle. (Hint: a certain piece of cookware made certain allegations…)
On what exact day did GeeDubya find out, from whatever source, that the allegations in the “Niger report” were fraudulent? That should be easy to figure out, since that would be the day that GeeDubya “clarified” the previous position. That would be the day that he went before the TV cameras and told us all the truth. Anybody here remember that?
According to Colin Powell, whose previous reputation for integrity now appears to be so much used toilet paper, a week later he decided not to include the “Niger report” in his speech to the UN because, after careful review, it did not measure up to the situation. Did he call GeeDubya and share these doubts with him? Note well that he did include other elements of sheer Bushwah (the dreaded “aluminum tubes”, for instance) but decided that this particular bit of drivel was unworthy.
So when were they going to tell us?
They found a hydrogen trailer, elucidator, and a bearing from a centrifuge. It’s all been proven. Get over it. Move on.
I don’t see “knowing what’s going on in his organization” as part of the job requirements of the President.
How does it make him incompetent if he isn’t advised properly by his advisers? Sure, there may be reasons that could be argued that Bush is incompetent, but the actions of his advisors sure isn’t one of them.
And unlike many members of this board who love to make assumptions and jump to conclusions about what is REALLY going on, I have no such silly delusions about what I know and don’t know.
I agree, if he knew, he lied.
I’m a pot calling a kettle black? Really? Then please point out to me where I am acting like a Righty that sees/hears what I want to see/hear?
Or are you simply condemning me for not sharing your opinions?
If not him, who? Karl Rove? Ari Fliesher? Condi Rice?
Whose responsibility do you think it is? Does he have a Cabinet position unfillled, the Secretary for Knowing Shit?
Fearless Misleader didn’t say he had so pretty strong hunches, he didn’t say he was making an educated guess, he said he knew Saddam was an immediate threat to the US, he knew that Saddam was in cahoots with Bin Laden, he knew that we had no other option in this dreadful emergency than immediate invasion, right now!
:rolleyes:
Not even when it leads to war?
Really? So in your opinion, the President has no responsibility to make sure that what he tells the American people is true? That’s an…interesting position.
He appointed them. He’s their boss. If they screw up, it reflects badly on his judgement. To quote a wise bug, “First rule of leadership: Everything is your fault.”
How about all of the above have certain responsibilities with varying degrees of importance? They’re the ones that are supposed to know the minute details of what is happening in their respective sections of the Executive branch, and then relay to the President relevant, necessary information.
If Bush was formerly an intelligence analyst, you would have a point. Seeing as he’s NOT an intelligence analyst, and in fact relies on his advisors to receive information from CIA intelligence analysts, he’s SUPPOSED to act on information he is briefed on.
If the CIA’s uncertainty about the Niger Uranium was relayed to the president in a skewed manner, or not relayed to the President at all, then we have every reason to expect the President to say with certainty what he was briefed on, and to act on it.
I never said that the President is not responsible for actions that his administration undertakes. I simply stated that the President’s job doesn’t require him to know everything his organization is doing.
Can you tell me what presidents in the past knew exactly what his organization was doing?
No, I didn’t say that, nor did I come close to implying the president has no responsibility. So please don’t put words in my mouth.
You said it’s his job to know what’s going on in his organization. I disputed that, because the sheer number of things going on in the Executive branch of the government (let alone all the various agencies of the government) makes it simply impossible for one man to possibly know it all.
It reflects badly on his judgement, perhaps. I’d even go as far as to say he shares a certain amount of responsibility. However, I’m a firm believer in circumstances. If they screwed up by NOT doing what the President told them to do, or expected them to do, then how is he responsible for that? The only responsibility I can think of that the President would have under such a circumstance would be to punish the person(s) responsible.
Like I said. Key allegation: “Iraq sought uranium.” Who says this is false?
Tenet: “…without taking into account the agency’s own serious doubts that the British report was accurate.” (from your quote.) What is not accurate. Using this as proof of anything is sophistry. People here will claim that the Administration was at fault for not listening to the CIA about uranium purchases, regardless of what’s actually been said. Tomorrow the same people will complain the Administration relies too heavily on the CIA’s assertion that the mobile biological weapons facilities are actual weapons facilities, because everyone knows the CIA doesn’t know what it’s doing. 
Despite all this outrage, the “key allegation” is probably true.
Oh, good! Tee has some previoiusly undisclosed facts to offer, but in his haste to protect Fearless Misleader, neglected to cite them. Advise us, toot sweet, from whence do you glean this priceless information? Recoiling minds want to know!
Bah. Pure nitpicking.
Read for context. I clearly didn’t mean “Bush must intimately know every detail of every employee of the Executive Branch.” We were discussing whether or not he was responsible for the content of his speech.
Fine, so you’d have us believe Bush is an innocent dupe, led astray by corrupt or incompetent advisers. I say again, does that make him a guy we should want as a leader?
If you’re saying I’m “nitpicking” for denying that my opinion is what you said it was, fuck you.
I clearly didn’t mean “Bush must intimately know every detail of every employee of the Executive Branch” either. And at this point, we were on a far more general subject than something as specific as the content of his speech. You said:
That’s just a bit more broad than just the content of his speech. I can’t come to any conclusion by reading this post other than you feel that under any circumstance, Bush should’ve known the validity of the content of his speech, ignoring the fact that Bush has no way of analyzing the data himself, and that there are others responsible for making sure of said validity. Sure, he’s responsible for the consequences of using invalid data, but if he didn’t know it was invalid, or even led to believe it was valid (until after the fact), how does it make him incompetent for relying on that data? (note: I don’t know if this is what happened or not. I take everything I read with a healthy dose of skepticism)
I’ve already stated that I feel the President is responsible for any actions he takes. In some circumstances and to various degrees he is responsible for the actions of his advisors, and the consequences of those actions, because like you said he’s the boss. I don’t agree that he is responsible under every circumstance, as you seem to imply.
Tell me, if you were President, how would YOU make sure that you knew what all your subordinates in the Executive Branch were doing, let alone all the various agencies and subagencies that you depend on every day to do your job? I know for a fact that I would find it difficult, if not impossible, to keep track of it all and still be able to function as an effective President.
In my haste to reply I forgot to respond to this one.
No, that’s not what I’d have you believe, because I feel that is an inaccurate reading of the evidence that we have available. Be free to believe as you wish though, I don’t really care. Just as long as you don’t misconstrue my arguments, ideas, and beliefs, it has no effect on me.
Incidentally, Britain still maintains that Iraq did seek to buy uranium in Africa, based on evidence different from what the US has.
We may never know for sure whether Iraq made efforts to buy uranium in Africa. But, it’s just silly to find a scandal in Bush’s sharing of Britain’s “reliable information” report with the American people. The Democrats must desperate indeed to find fault with Bush, if this is the best they can do.
Of course, a certain amount of media and voters will give credence to any charge or attack. In the short run these complaints will work politically. They put Bush on the defensive. But, in the long run, I wonder whether these exaggerated charges will help the Democrats or whether they will boomerang.
Fine. I happily admit that my previous post, taken literally, is overly broad. I submit, however, that no one not bending over backwards to excuse GWB would read it as you did.
Yeah, I can see why you’d like for me to be saying that, because that’s pretty easy to refute. I’m not though.
**
I don’t know. It’d be a pain in the ass, and that’s why I never want to be President. That’s not an excuse though.
But if I was President, I’d like to think I’d make damn sure I knew what I was talking about, if I was thinking about starting a war. And if I fucked up and misled the people, either intentionally or on purpose, I’d expect to have my ass handed to me.