The only way they could get the CIA to clear it was to say “yeah we know its wrong but the British have said it, so we are quoting them”
They just found a form of words that they could get past the CIA.
Yhat sort of misrepresentation is a lie.
You really think it’s that simple?
Lacking a cite, I’ll cheerfully bet you a Benjamin or two that it’s not that simple, and wait for one to turn up. Like the speech repeatedly being sent down to the CIA for clearance, with them pointing out the problems, and then finally them saying, “we’ve done our duty; we’ve let the C-in-C know the problems; he wants us to rubber-stamp it, and we’ll do so.” Or being ordered to give their clearance against their better judgment, or something.
I’m willing to bet they didn’t just get this speech for the first time, and send it back to the White House with an “approved by CIA” sticker on it. Not in this town, where CYA is an ingrained survival instinct.
Yeah, once the it was changed from, “Iraq tried to purchase uranium,” to, "The British said that Iraq tried to purchase uranium.’
That made it a factually accurate statement.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by blowero *
** “Bush-bashing frenzy” **[/QUOTE
I think i’ve seen that film, or maybe i’m thinking of ‘Assmaster: lock and lube’
This does, in fact, seem to be Tenet’s argument. Frankly, it sounds like something Terl would say.
Had a little too much kerbango this morning Ben ?
Zat right???
Wow!
Who knew it would be so easy to make money on this board?!
Seen today’s newspapers yet?
P.S. I wonder what great new “big” story the liberal media will pounce upon (or invent) this week.
:rolleyes:
Who called him uneducated? I called him stupid.
Since you’re such a font of information that everyone knows (re: Bush’s degrees), what sorts of grades did he get?
**
Hey, I can cite opinion pieces too! (Requires NY Times registration)
You really don’t think this is a big story? It was on the front page today (but I guess that “liberal media” just put it there 'cuz they’re so gosh-darn liberal).:rolleyes:
Tenet said in a statement: “These …words should never have been included in the text written for the president…”. But here’s where it gets interesting: Tenet says that the CIA knew the evidence was very weak, and RAISED THOSE CONCERNS with the administration. He says the CIA went along with the final text of the speech only because of the technicality that they were citing a British intelligence report. He now acknowledges that was a mistake.
Condoleezza Rice, however, is claiming that the only changes sought by the CIA were to remove specific reference to amounts of uranium and countries from which Iraq was seeking to obtain it, implying that the CIA NEVER RAISED ANY CONCERNS about the reliability of the evidence itself. Well, SOMEBODY has to by lying - they can’t both be right. I’m having a hard time with the idea that Tenet came clean about the false evidence, but then decided to lie about the CIA voicing their original concerns about including it in the speech. It seems much more likely that the administration knew it was weak evidence and opted to include it anyway, going with the misleading statement that it relied on British sources. And Tenet is now taking the fall for Bush so that he can save his job. In today’s L.A. Times:
“…some officials in the intelligence community had said earlier Friday that a statement from Tenet taking the heat off Bush might be the only way for the CIA director to save his job.”
But it really doesn’t matter which scenario you believe, because the President should ultimately be responsible for the words he utters. I could forgive him for mistakenly giving incorrect information in a speech written by someone else if it were regarding a relatively inconsequential matter, but this speech was made for the purpose of JUSTIFYING THE INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY, IN VIOLATION OF THE WISHES OF THE U.N. - So if Bush indeed were the hapless victim of false information that was fed to him, that, in my opinion, does not excuse him. For something as important as that, he should have been sure. This is just the same “I was out of the loop” crap that Reagan was spewing during the Contragate scandal. At least Reagan had the excuse that he was probably suffering from Alzheimer’s at the time.
I forgot this:
Even a cursory check of the bogus report would have immediately identified it as a forgery. It was signed by people who weren’t even in office during the date of the document. I mean, shouldn’t that be the FIRST thing you check, to see if it’s signed by the right person? Personally, I think they would have been better off admitting they lied, because the alternative is admitting that they’re a bunch of bumbling idiots.
Someone refresh my memory on all these “Bush-bashing frenzys” we’ve apparantly had before the uranium thing. I guess I missed the paper on those days.
bowero not suggesting doubt, but can you cite that Condie Rice stuff about what the CIA wanted. Thats relatively minor, I suppose, but the contradiction is very interesting. As in maybe they didn’t get thier stories straight.
The real sad thing is:
The Niger forgeries were exposed BEFORE the war began.
The “Dodgy” Dossier was also exposed BEFORE the war began.
The UN inspectors where labeled INCOMPETENT because they couldn’t find the MASSIVE storage of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons, mounted on the ICBMS that could reach US in 45 mins.
And now,… they have trouble finding even a PIECE of PAPER that even mentions something like “Hey, Mr Saddam, we can make a strong stink bomb if you like”
Wake Up! Smell the coffee. You have been LIED to.
The question is: Do you care?
I think you should. You should teach the president that you SIMPLY CANNOT TAKE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FOR A RIDE.
Don’t let him of the hook
As others have pointed out already – Tenet might be taking the blame for not fighting hard enough to keep the bogus uranium intel out of the speech, but who was fighting harder to keep it in?
Oh, by the way.
The forgery was apparently made by a Nigerien (?) ambassador to Italy and sold to an italian official who sold it to the british.
Anybody saw the movie “Taylor of Panama” ?
A British (?) agent stationed in Panama starts fabricating false intelligence and makes lots of money out of it.
Cite, please, Chaos Want to check that out a bit. And its the “tailor” of Panama, from the John LeCarre book. Not nearly so good as Alec Guinnes as Our Man in Havana.
How come real spies are never as smart as George Smiley?
What? My word not enough? 
sorry about the omission.
Good thing you asked for the cite, casue after re-reading it, I noticed that my recollection was not very good.
There are many connections and it’s all fuzzy:
niger->italy->france->britain (whew!)
Super movie. From Graham Greene’s book.
It was all in the same L.A. Times article today (Saturday). Here’s the section I was referring to (in part):
Because they live in a real world that is not scripted to be just so.
Actually I have a great deal of respect for the Agency people I know. Smart, capable, interesting folk – I am sure even the ones I know but don’t are as well.
However, stretched thin on the human resources, IMO. Too little money to those folks you think of as spies, a la the movies, too much to big damned dishes and the like.