Book George J. Tenet

[Fish]

By Karen DeYoung (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/karen+deyoung/)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 28, 2007; Page A01
White House and Pentagon officials, and particularly Vice President Cheney, were determined to attack Iraq from the first days of the Bush administration, long before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and repeatedly stretched available intelligence to build support for the war, according to a new book by former CIA director George J. Tenet.
Although Tenet does not question the threat Saddam Hussein posed or the sincerity of administration beliefs, he recounts numerous efforts by aides to Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to insert "crap" into public justifications for the war. Tenet also describes an ongoing fear within the intelligence community of the administration's willingness to "mischaracterize complex intelligence information."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042700550.html?referrer=email

[SUBMAN1]

I never doubted that they intended to attack Saddam since the beginning of the Bush Admin. Did you? I mean, they gave him 13 years to comply with the UN resolutions (I bet some people here will say that we should have given him more time to comply! Hahahaha!:D), and Saddam snubbed his nose at it. Go figure.

-S

[bradclark1]

Thats not the reason they gave though is it. You might think it's okay to be fed lies and suck it up but I don't.
This is also the second book to say these things so it just reaffirms.

[SUBMAN1]

Thats not the reason they gave though is it. You might think it's okay to be fed lies and suck it up but I don't.
This is also the second book to say these things so it just reaffirms.
I don't think they lied. i think they gave what was classified as questionable intelligence - things they could not prove one way or the other. And I think Guebatz is you link to the fact that they weren't lying, just didn't have the full story where everything was. What you are dealing with is a combination of things. The WMD's was simply what was on the intelligence table at the time, so that was given as the reason to go finish the job.

-S

PS. Another thought - probably limiting their reasonings as explained to the public in such a narrow focus is part of the problem. They should have put all their reasoning on the table at the time. Problem was that 9/11 was fresh on everyones minds so they probably figured they need not muddy the waters - this is where you political screw up came from.

[OddjobXL]

When someone suspects something but tells you they know it for a fact, that's a lie. And not "muddying up the waters" means, to me, not telling us the truth because it would get in the way of getting the war they wanted. When they cite evidence that's very much in dispute as gospel, well, they're now reaping what they sowed. I don't think any impartial person can compare what the Bush administration actually knew with what they actually claimed to know and think to themselves "What a bunch of straight-shooters."

We may disagree on what we think they went to war for and we can disagree on whether or not it was a necessary or counter-productive effort. But the litmus test for me on whether someone's paying attention to the world in a responsible way is how skeptical they are about the honesty of the effort that got us into Iraq.

[bradclark1]

My thought on the whole thing is if you are going to take your country to war you had better be 100% right because people are going to die based on your decision. Because Saddam was a ***** does not make him a clear and present danger, it just made him a huge pain in the butt. That isn't reason enough to invade a country and try to do it half assed and on the cheap.

[The Avon Lady]

Will the real George Tenet please stand up: Tenet Takedown (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/28/tenet-takedown/).

[Skybird]

Nothing new in this story. We know since years that intel was massively manipulated from politicians in order to fit their agenda, that Bush did not so much took the information the intel gave him, but that he fed the intel what he wanted it to say, and that the war against Iraq was a planned and much wanted issue for the Republicans since the mid 90s and was just kept in a desk drawer during the Clinton years ("Wolfowitz-doctrine"). Yes, it's the same Wolfowitz who promised to fight corruption in the IMF, and now is under siege by almost everybody at the IMF for having acted corrupt himself. What speaks against Tenet is that he accepted to have himself manipulated that way, and that he steps forward so late now.

[The Avon Lady]

We know since years that intel was massively manipulated from politicians in order to fit their agenda
Where do we know this from?

What was this agenda?
that Bush did not so much took the information the intel gave him
Where do we know this from?

Why was everyone in the Clinton adminstration saying the same things about Saddam being a massive threat?

Ears wide shut.
but that he fed the intel what he wanted it to say, and that the war against Iraq was a planned and much wanted issue for the Republicans since the mid 90s and was just kept in a desk drawer during the Clinton years ("Wolfowitz-doctrine").
Again when the Clintonites were themselves telling the American public that Saddam is a living time bomb.
Yes, it's the same Wolfowitz who promised to fight corruption in the IMF, and now is under siege by almost everybody at the IMF for having acted corrupt himself.
Apples and oranges?
What speaks against Tenet is that he accepted to have himself manipulated that way, and that he steps forward so late now.
Once again we must plunge into the memory hole (http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/).

I know! Clinton was a Wolfowitz stooge! That explains everything! Now that's evil!

[Skybird]

AL, give it up. It all was so often on display that I have stopped counting.

[The Avon Lady]

AL, give it up. It all was so often on display that I have stopped counting.
Au contraire. Your repeated accusations fly in the face of documented fact. Apparently you've stopped reading and listening, too.

[U-533]

http://egyptmonth.com/mag05012001/nile3.jpg Denial is spreading across the world...:smug:

I...I couldn't help it I have been waiting all morning to do this....:shifty:
:rotfl: :sunny:

[moose1am]

Bush and his HANDLERS knew that the American Public would not support a new war UNLESS they scared the CRAP out of everyone.

That's why you saw Dick Cheney talking about "MUSHROOM CLOUDS".

They are doing the very same thing with IRAN these days.

Why didn't the GOP do this when the Soviet Union first got thier nukes, which they stold from the USA?

Once the cats (nuclear technology) is out of the bag it pretty hard to get it back in.

Many people in the past 5 years have said the same thing that Tenet is saying. Bush and his cronies wanted to take Saddam out before they were appointed to office.



Thats not the reason they gave though is it. You might think it's okay to be fed lies and suck it up but I don't.
This is also the second book to say these things so it just reaffirms.
I don't think they lied. i think they gave what was classified as questionable intelligence - things they could not prove one way or the other. And I think Guebatz is you link to the fact that they weren't lying, just didn't have the full story where everything was. What you are dealing with is a combination of things. The WMD's was simply what was on the intelligence table at the time, so that was given as the reason to go finish the job.

-S

PS. Another thought - probably limiting their reasonings as explained to the public in such a narrow focus is part of the problem. They should have put all their reasoning on the table at the time. Problem was that 9/11 was fresh on everyones minds so they probably figured they need not muddy the waters - this is where you political screw up came from.

[The Avon Lady]

That's why you saw Dick Cheney talking about "MUSHROOM CLOUDS".
Cheney? We don't need no stinkin' Cheney!

To, repeat children, in the words of darling Bill Clinton, just from one single transcript (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html):
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.
Spoken like a true neocon leader. :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

http://egyptmonth.com/mag05012001/nile3.jpg Denial is spreading across the world...:smug:
Which will eventually lead to the agony of de feet.

http://www.yogaisyouth.com/blog/archive/feet.jpg

[waste gate]

Which anyone can tell you is the best arguement for a strong


DE
http://www.tnfenceworks.com/stuff/zahomestead2.jpg

[goldorak]

@ The Avon Lady :

You might want to read the Project for a New American Century, http://www.newamericancentury.org/.
And in particular the articles from the period 1997-2000 way before the 9-11 terrorist attacks on us soil.
The neocon doctrine is all laid out for you to read.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm

[The Avon Lady]

@ The Avon Lady :

You might want to read the Project for a New American Century, http://www.newamericancentury.org/.
And in particular the articles from the period 1997-2000 way before the 9-11 terrorist attacks on us soil.
The neocon doctrine is all laid out for you to read.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm
If you wish to point out something that shows that something I said above is incorrect, then please do. Don't send me to a page with endless article links.

[Skybird]

Just some more "documented facts" (AL) as a reminder.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020900689.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902250_pf.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-feith6apr06,0,6863264.story?track=mostviewed-homepage

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,druck-459824,00.html

[waste gate]

Here is where we play 'my sources are better than your sources'.

Is everything in print a fact? By that logic Skybird should be a very religious soul, which we know he isn't, because the Bible, Torah and many other religious writings have been printed millions of times.

[The Avon Lady]

Which anyone can tell you is the best arguement for a strong


DE
http://www.tnfenceworks.com/stuff/zahomestead2.jpg

Which can only be achieved through strategic

http://johnbokma.com/mexit/2005/03/31/mannequin-arm.jpghttp://www.daniellesplace.com/Images4/letterA72.gif[img]http://www.foodprocessing-technology.com/projects/necco/images/Canada-Mints-12-oz.jpg

[The Avon Lady]

Just some more "documented facts" (AL) as a reminder.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020900689.html
And what was the CIA telling the adminstration at this same time? The article doesn't say.

What was everyone telling Clinton during his tenure. See the Clinton transcript above.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902250_pf.html
Precisely. Look what this article says about the CIA.

And just what happens to be the topic of this thread?

And what intel organization did the subject of this thread run for way too long?

Connect the dots.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-feith6apr06,0,6863264.story?track=mostviewed-homepage
In the article's own words:

"Many of the activities of the intelligence unit Feith headed are now well-known. But the release of the full inspector general's report provides more detail about how a group of Pentagon officials and on-loan intelligence analysts were able to shunt aside contradictory reports and convince top administration officials that they had powerful evidence of connections between Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda."

But wait a minute! You just said above that "intel was massively manipulated from politicians in order to fit their agenda" and here the article states just the opposite.

Hmmmm............................
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,druck-459824,00.html
Here you bore me with the Libby trial? And what does this have to do with Tenet and this thread? And must I bother looking up the links showing what a liar Joe Wilson was to begin with?

And Der Spiegel thought this was the "trial of the year"? Desparation. This fizzzled out to the nothing that was predicted by so many who recognized it for the witch-hunt that it was. But that's another thread, if you really want to bother.

Thanks for the supporting links! :up:

[OddjobXL]

You know that Clinton did genuinely work with the international community on his reaction to Iraq. There was no international outcry against it. There were no UN inspectors demanding more time before being forced out by the, not Iraqis, but Americans. Most importantly of all was that Clinton didn't get us into this goddamn mess.

Rhetoric is an important diplomatic tool as is military action. Balancing the two is a tricky act but it's far more of an act to pretend, in an obvious charade, that you're interested in peaceful resolutions, with force as a last resort, when in fact you've got an attack that's going to go forward no matter what happens. Coalition of the Willing? Is that what you end up with when no established world body is willing to go along with your unilateral actions? How did those mine-exploding monkeys from Morocco work out?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21268-2003Mar24?language=printer

Comparing the two Presidents and their actual courses of action is disingenuous at best.

[The Avon Lady]

You know that Clinton did genuinely work with the international community on his reaction to Iraq. There was no international outcry against it. There were no UN inspectors demanding more time before being forced out by the, not Iraqis, but Americans. Most importantly of all was that Clinton didn't get us into this goddamn mess.
Read carefully my points above. I'm not arguing about this.
Rhetoric is an important diplomatic tool as is military action. Balancing the two is a tricky act but it's far more of an act to pretend, in an obvious charade, that you're interested in peaceful resolutions, with force as a last resort, when in fact you've got an attack that's going to go forward no matter what happens.
Yet to be proven. Just repeated ad infinitum.
Coalition of the Willing? Is that what you end up with when no established world body is willing to go along with your unilateral actions? How did those mine-exploding monkeys from Morocco work out?
Again, whether I agree or disagree with this specific point, that's not what's being discussed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21268-2003Mar24?language=printer

Comparing the two Presidents and their actual courses of action is disingenuous at best.
As above.

[Skybird]

However, AL. It's all a conspiracy against the poor misunderstood conservatives. :lol:

But sme facts are clear, and there is little you can do to reinterpret them:

Since 2001, three wars have been launched, two of which (Iraq, Lebanon) are lost to catastrophic levels, third of which (Afghanistan) is currently getting lost, too. This is due to bad preparation, sometimes lousy military execution, lacking knowledge about the enemy, misjudgement, flawed and/or forged intel and incompetent expectations.

The exact opposite of what these wars were planned to achieve, has been achieved.

1. Bush is no democrat, but republican. 2. Clinton did not order the Iraq war, but Bush et. al. 3. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are not the trinitary God.

There are more enemies and terrorist than before, and they use Iraq as a training ground, as a justification and as a motivation. The world is less safe than before this silly WOT. The wars have not destroyed terrorists, but are breeding more and more of them.

But all that just is because of liberal simpletons, selfish europeans, democrats winning the majority, and too many Skybirds that are so stubborn and do not believe every precious link they get.

Good to know that it never is the responsible people's fault who gave the orders! :up:

[The Avon Lady]

However, AL. It's all a conspiracy against the poor misunderstood conservatives. :lol:

But sme facts are clear, and there is little you can do to reinterpret them:

Since 2001, three wars have been launched, two of which (Iraq, Lebanon) are lost to catastrophic levels, third of which (Afghanistan) is currently getting lost, too. This is due to bad preparation, sometimes lousy military execution, lacking knowledge about the enemy, misjudgement, flawed and/or forged intel and incompetent expectations.

The exact opposite of what these wars were planned to achieve, has been achieved.
I'm mostly in agreement with you here. I have said so here in the past.
1. Bush is no democrat, but republican.
Do tell!
2. Clinton did not order the Iraq war, but Bush et. al.
That's not the point that's being brought up here. Again, read carefully the points I was replying to and what I highlighted to substantiate them.
3. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are not the trinitary God.
Well, you've got the wrong gal in the first place to use that as example :p but, again, I agree. I have little, if any, good to say about the competence of these 3 in their positions on Iraq and the ME. That being said, however, does not make them Satin-in-the-flesh either.
There are more enemies and terrorist than before,
As you should really know, there most likely would have been plenty more even without the war in Iraq. And as I've pointed out, there might have been a bright side to the Iraq follies in concentrating the terrorists to swarm to that neck of the woods and not to the rest of the world.
and they use Iraq as a training ground,
They also use Sudan, Lebanon, Syria and even Pakistan, and many more places as a training ground. And the number of enemy Islamic terrorists being killed in Iraq is quite large. Again, there is a silver lining in this dark cloud.
as a justification and as a motivation. The world is less safe than before this silly WOT.
Possibly. I am not saying no nor yes. I can imagine the scenario going either way had this war not taken place.
The wars have not destroyed terrorists, but are breeding more and more of them.
Once again, yes and no.
But all that just is because of liberal simpletons, selfish europeans, democrats winning the majority, and too many Skybirds that are so stubborn and do not believe every precious link they get.
You're half right. There's a double punch here, coming from both sides. But no matter what, that's not an excuse for repeating lies that have no foundation in the events thar have taken place.
Good to know that it never is the responsible people's fault who gave the orders! :up:
Quote me where I promoted such an idea.

Time to lean back and do some reading: Civilization and Its Enemies - The Next Stage of History (http://www.amazon.com/Civilization-Its-Enemies-Stage-History/dp/0743257499/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9003456-3280644?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177871997&sr=1-1).

G'nite.

[bradclark1]

The big difference about Clinton and Bush is that Bush invaded and Clinton didn't. It doesn't matter what others thought Bush is the one that let himself be manipulated by Cheney and Rumsfeld and wrongfuly acted on it then changed the reasons for the invasion by the week and conservitives still suck it up.
Now you have Tenet's book and Woodwards book saying the same things and they haven't been proved wrong yet. Because it doesn't fit your conservitive agenda ya'll sluff it off as liberal propaganda. Duh!
So no matter what is said or shown fools cover their eyes and plug their ears. Just as you conservitives were wrong about the elections, history will show that this administration played the American congress and public for suckers.

[The Avon Lady]

The big difference about Clinton and Bush is that Bush invaded and Clinton didn't.
The question is based on what did Bush make that decision. Go back and see what the Clinton adminstration was saying both during its term and afterwards with Bush in office, right up to the war. Go and read what Tenet himself said then versus what he's saying now.

Or keep sticking your head in the sand.
It doesn't matter what others thought Bush is the one that let himself be manipulated
There's that word again. Once again, document it.
by Cheney and Rumsfeld
And then ask yourself where Cheney and Rumsfeld themselves were getting intel from. It's not too difficult to answer that.
and wrongfuly acted on it
And here's the fine print. Did they act wrongfully or did they misassess intel or did they act correctly on misassessed intel? While the outcome of all these scenarios might be the same, the burden of responsibility isn't and neither are the ramifications for mending the system for the future.
then changed the reasons for the invasion by the week and conservitives still suck it up.
Document these week by week changes, please.
Now you have Tenet's book
Which shows a complete contradiction between what the man is saying now versus what he said back on the job in February 2003 to WP reporter Dana Priest, when he was at the helm of intel.

By the way, a small point, Tenet fantasizes (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/593daqmw.asp), much like the Bu****ler crowd.

Finally, if you can remove the blinkers from your eyes, read Tenet Tries to Shift the Blame. Don't Buy It. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702052.html) Note the author.
and Woodwards book saying the same things and they haven't been proved wrong yet.
Are you referring to a particular point in the book (EDIT: such as the reference to Woodward mentioned in the Washington Post link above) or just the usual wall-to-wall smear?
Because it doesn't fit your conservitive agenda ya'll sluff it off as liberal propaganda. Duh!
If "my" conservative agenda is to stick to facts, so be it. And you?
So no matter what is said or shown fools cover their eyes and plug their ears.
What goes around, comes around. What haven't I stated that's factual?
Just as you conservitives were wrong about the elections, history will show that this administration played the American congress and public for suckers.
Waiting and, repeat, I am not a fan of this adminstration.

[The Avon Lady]

Clip from the new Tenet 60 Minutes interview (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/30/video-tenet-says-iraq-wouldnt-have-had-nukes-until-2007-or-2009/).

EDIT: Tenet's 2007-2009 estimate is what's stated in this declassified NIE document (http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd-nie.pdf), from 10/2002. Easier to read summation of key document text here (http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html). Read it through and through. This is what the CIA was telling the administration, not the other way around.

[bradclark1]

Clip from the new Tenet 60 Minutes interview (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/30/video-tenet-says-iraq-wouldnt-have-had-nukes-until-2007-or-2009/).

EDIT: Tenet's 2007-2009 estimate is what's stated in this declassified NIE document (http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd-nie.pdf), from 10/2002. Easier to read summation of key document text here (http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html). Read it through and through. This is what the CIA was telling the administration, not the other way around.
Read the confidence levels at the bottom of the text.

We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

I'm not sure how you can asses he has WMD or is expanding if you can't detect portions of the program?

[The Avon Lady]

Clip from the new Tenet 60 Minutes interview (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/30/video-tenet-says-iraq-wouldnt-have-had-nukes-until-2007-or-2009/).

EDIT: Tenet's 2007-2009 estimate is what's stated in this declassified NIE document (http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd-nie.pdf), from 10/2002. Easier to read summation of key document text here (http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html). Read it through and through. This is what the CIA was telling the administration, not the other way around.
Read the confidence levels at the bottom of the text.

We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

I'm not sure how you can asses he has WMD or is expanding if you can't detect portions of the program?
Excellent question. The answer is simple: read what you quote in its context.

It is one of the "High Confidence" points. Now read them all together:
Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.

Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material.
If they were most highly confident about all these points, the lack of detection means something went stealth and that should have been an obvious panic button pusher.

[bradclark1]

It is one of the "High Confidence" points. Now read them all together:
Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.

Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material.
If they were most highly confident about all these points, the lack of detection means something went stealth and that should have been an obvious panic button pusher.
To you it does. You are doing nothing but making a guess. No proof and that one statement points out in a big way that the other two statements are questionable.

[The Avon Lady]

It is one of the "High Confidence" points. Now read them all together:
Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.

Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material.
If they were most highly confident about all these points, the lack of detection means something went stealth and that should have been an obvious panic button pusher.
To you it does. You are doing nothing but making a guess. No proof and that one statement points out in a big way that the other two statements are questionable.
It requires nothing more than the simple reading of 4 lines of English.

And, repeat, these points are marked by intel as being highly confident in their accuracy.

In fact, there would have been very little for any president to "guess" if these points were considered accurate and the safety of 300,000,000 fellow countrymen was assumed at stake.

[bradclark1]

It requires nothing more than the simple reading of 4 lines of English.

It requires nothing more then simple then reading the second line to question the other three.

And, repeat, these points are marked by intel as being highly confident in their accuracy.
Where is your proof? Everything I've read said it had always been shakey intel. Of course if you point to the above lines I'll once again point to the second line so please provide something else.

In fact, there would have been very little for any president to "guess" if these points were considered accurate and the safety of 300,000,000 fellow countrymen was assumed at stake.
What clear and present danger to the U.S. did Saddam pose? Being a pain in the butt doesn't count.

[The Avon Lady]

It requires nothing more than the simple reading of 4 lines of English.

It requires nothing more then simple then reading the second line to question the other three.

And, repeat, these points are marked by intel as being highly confident in their accuracy.
Where is your proof? Everything I've read said it had always been shakey intel. Of course if you point to the above lines I'll once again point to the second line so please provide something else.
I'm afraid I'm stuck trying to point out the obvious to you. The main title of the section containing the sentence you singled out is "Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate". The subtitle of the section containing the sentence you singled out, which contains the other 3 sentences, which you wish would magically disappear, is "High Confidence".

Do the math.
In fact, there would have been very little for any president to "guess" if these points were considered accurate and the safety of 300,000,000 fellow countrymen was assumed at stake.
What clear and present danger to the U.S. did Saddam pose? Being a pain in the butt doesn't count.
Dictionary definition:

loop - see "loop"

:roll:

[The Avon Lady]

Georgie Porgie pudding and pie,
Kissed the girls and made them cry
When the boys came out to play,
Georgie Porgie ran away.

More disputations on tenets recollections (maybe that should be "recollections" in scare quotes): Tenet Strikes Out (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGVlNjM5MTVkNDA3YjJlNTI3ZDAwODkxNzY1MWVhOGI=).

[bradclark1]

Dictionary definition:

loop - see "loop"

:roll:
Yeah, I agree.

[The Avon Lady]

Contentions against Tenet's book are now being picked up by the mass media (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070429/ap_on_go_ot/tenet_book;_ylt=Al1YUsQopYAjB0WIZH8iC_Ws0NUE). That bottom of that article sums it up:

A half-dozen former CIA officers — including counterterrorism experts Larry Johnson and Vince Cannistraro — are urging Tenet to dedicate a significant portion of his royalties to soldiers and families of those killed or wounded in Iraq.

"We agree that the war of choice in Iraq was ill-advised and wrong headed. But your lament that you are a victim in a process you helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership," they wrote.

[Heibges]

The Project for the New American Century is a think tank which comes up with new threats do justify increases in defense spending.

You wouldn't think they would allow so many cowards and draft dodgers on their principles list though?

For Tenet to have real credibility, he should have made this stink a lot earlier. Like before we invaded.

[The Avon Lady]

The Project for the New American Century is a think tank which comes up with new threats do justify increases in defense spending.

You wouldn't think they would allow so many cowards and draft dodgers on their principles list though?
Please explain. :hmm:

EDIT:
For Tenet to have real credibility, he should have made this stink a lot earlier. Like before we invaded
Now, that I understand.

[Heibges]

The Project for the New American Century is a think tank which comes up with new threats do justify increases in defense spending.

You wouldn't think they would allow so many cowards and draft dodgers on their principles list though?
Please explain. :hmm:

EDIT:
For Tenet to have real credibility, he should have made this stink a lot earlier. Like before we invaded
Now, that I understand.

Because Jeb Bush, Dan Quayle, and Dick Cheney avoided service in Vietnam like the plague. Now that they are old, they are all for sending young boys off to fight god knows where for god knows what. In my opinion, this makes them draft dodgers and cowards.

George Bush had the audacity to smear John McCain over his being a POW.

In the words of Colin Powel "("I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units..."

This of course had the added benefit of destroying the relationship between the RA and the NG: severly weakening the Army.

[The Avon Lady]

The Project for the New American Century is a think tank which comes up with new threats do justify increases in defense spending.

You wouldn't think they would allow so many cowards and draft dodgers on their principles list though?
Please explain. :hmm:

EDIT:
For Tenet to have real credibility, he should have made this stink a lot earlier. Like before we invaded
Now, that I understand.

Because Jeb Bush, Dan Quayle, and Dick Cheney avoided service in Vietnam like the plague. Now that they are old, they are all for sending young boys off to fight god knows where for god knows what. In my opinion, this makes them draft dodgers and cowards.
Could be but that alone doesn't invalidate their decision to go to war and the reasons why this war was declared was spelled out to the public more than once.
George Bush had the audacity to smear John McCain over his being a POW.
Where was this?
In the words of Colin Powel "("I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units..."
Like this guy, too (http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm)?

Oops. :roll:
This of course had the added benefit of destroying the relationship between the RA and the NG: severly weakening the Army.
Sorry. What are these abbreviations?

EDIT: What does any of the above have to do with Tenet, which is the subject of this thread?

UPDATE: If you wish to use Powell as your inspiration, allow me to remind you of this interview (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/16/iraq/main612209.shtml). As an aside, note Powell's disagreement with Bob Woodward's claims.

While we're at it, here are some more Powell quotes of yesteryear:

“‘The biggest s.o.b. on the block’ rule. America should enter fights with every bit of force available or not at all.” (Time, April 19, 2001).

“Go in full force from the beginning rather than escalate yourself into a quagmire. Or don’t go in at all.” (Slate Magazine,March 27, 1999).

“Overwhelming U.S. force assures success at minimum risk to Americans in uniform.” (Boston Globe, Jan. 19, 2001).

[Heibges]

Bush Supporters Called McCain “The Fag Candidate.” In South Carolina, Bush supporters circulated church fliers that labeled McCain “the fag candidate.” Columnist Frank Rich noted that the fliers were distributed “even as Bush subtly reinforced that message by indicating he wouldn’t hire openly gay people for his administration.”

McCain Slurs Included Illegitimate Children, Homosexuality And A Drug-Addict Wife.
Among the rumors circulated against McCain in 2000 in South Carolina was that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually black, that McCain was both gay and cheated on his wife, and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict.”

Bush Campaign Used Code Words to Question McCain’s Temper.
“A smear campaign of the ugliest sort is now coursing through the contest for the presidency in 2000. Using the code word "temper," a group of Senate Republicans, and at least some outriders of the George W. Bush campaign, are spreading the word that John McCain is unstable. The subtext, also suggested in this whispering campaign, is that he returned from 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam with a loose screw. And it is bruited about that he shouldn't be entrusted with nuclear weapons.”

Bush Supporters Questioned McCain’s Sanity.
“Some of George W. Bush's supporters have questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain's fitness for the White House, suggesting that his five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam drove him insane at the time.”

Bush Supporters Spread Racist Rumors About McCain’s Daughter.
Bush supporters in South Carolina made race-baiting phone calls saying that McCain had a “black child.” The McCains’ daughter, Bridget, was adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. In August 2000, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the McCains “are still seething about Bush supporters in South Carolina spreading word of their dark-skinned adopted daughter.”

Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute.
In 2000, McCain operatives in SC accused Rove of spreading rumors against McCain, such as “suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute,” according to the New Yorker.

After Rove Denied Role In McCain Whisper Campaign, Reporters Concluded He Was Behind It.
A December 1999 Dallas Morning News linked Rove to a series of campaign dirty tricks, including his College Republican efforts, allegedly starting a whisper campaign about Ann Richard being too gay-friendly, spreading stories about Jim Hightower’s involvement in a kickback scheme and leaking the educational history of Lena Guerrero. The article also outlined current dirty tricks and whisper campaigns against McCain in South Carolina, including that “McCain may be unstable as a result of being tortured while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.” (DMN, 12/2/99) After the article was published, Rove blasted Slater in the Manchester, NH airport, “nose to nose” according to one witness, with Rove claiming Slater had “harmed his reputation,” Slater later noted. But according to one witness, “What was interesting then is that everyone on the campaign charter concluded that Rove was responsible for rumors about McCain.”

Rove Was In Close Touch With McConnell, McCain-Feingold’s Chief Opponent.
Senior White House adviser Karl Rove was in close contact with Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) during McConnell’s effort to fight the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill in the U.S. Senate. According to Newsweek, though Rove and Bush have publicly kept their distance from McConnell on the issue, “sources tell Newsweek that Rove is, in fact, in close touch with McConnell as GOP experts study the bill for hidden land mines.”

Bush Campaign Accused of Using Push Polls Against McCain.
College of Charleston student Suzette Latsko said she received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself as an employee of Voter/Consumer Research, and that the caller misrepresented McCain’s positions and asked if Latsko knew McCain had been reprimanded for interfering with federal regulators in the savings and loan scandal. Voter/Consumer Research is listed as a polling contractor on Bush’s Federal Election Commission filings; the Bush campaign has paid Voter/Consumer Research $93,000 through December 31, 1999. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer denied the call was a push poll, but said it was important that the Republican Party remember McCain’s role in the S&L crisis.

Bush Campaign Acknowledged Making Phone Calls.
Tucker Eskew, Bush’s South Carolina spokesman, acknowledged the Bush campaign made such calls, but claimed they were not “push polls.” Eskew added, “Show me a baseless comment in those questions.”

Bush Used Fringe Veterans Group to Attack McCain as “Manchurian Candidate.”
“In the case of Ted Sampley, the same guy who did Bush's dirty work in going after Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries is doing the job against Kerry this year. Sampley dared compare McCain, who spent five years as a Vietnam POW, with ‘the Manchurian Candidate.’”

Sampley Called McCain a “Coward” and a Traitor.
“Sampley… accused McCain of being a weak-minded coward who had escaped death by collaborating with the enemy. Sampley claimed that McCain had first been compromised by the Vietnamese, then recruited by the Soviets.”

RA= Regular Army
NG= National Guard

Clinton is definitely a draft dodger too. He lacked to guts to say he believed the Vietnam War was wrong, and pretty much tried to dodge the issue.

I fully agree with Powel that you should come big or stay home. Unfortunately, in a civil war in another country, it is not possible to bring full military power to bear.

Just trying to provide background on the types of folks involved in the "Project for a New American Century".

Bob Woodward is a funny character. He worked in Naval Intelligence, and used to brief Alexander Haig long before he was at the Washington Post. I thought for years that Haig was Deepthroat. I would take anything Bob Woodward says with a grain of salt.

[The Avon Lady]

OT: I just had to laugh when I saw Frank Rich mentioned.

Back on topic, some more verbatim quote from Tenet's new book that will make some people here wonder why they were so happy to bring the subject up in the first place:

Page 328:

The absence of evidence and linear thinking, and Iraq’s extensive efforts to conceal illicit procurement of proscribed components, told us that a deceptive regime could and would easily surprise us. It was never a question of a known, imminent threat; it was about an unwillingness to risk surprise.

Page 325-326:

Perhaps the most widely misunderstood section of the NIE dealt with yellowcake, an element that can be enriched to make nuclear weapons-grade uranium. The Estimate included an account of Saddam’s reported attempts to procure yellowcake from the African nation of Niger, taken from a September 2002 paper by the Defense Intelligence Agency. That account, told in a few paragraphs on page twenty-four of the document, was not a major pillar of the NIE. The Estimate noted that Saddam already had access to large amounts of yellowcake in Iraq—550 tons of it, enough to produce as many as 100 nuclear weapons. This yellowcake was supposed to be under seal by international inspectors, but that was at best a flimsy wall of protection.

Although it would looms large in subsequent criticisms of the NIE, the Niger yellowcake was not among the half dozen reasons cited why all agencies, with the exception of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), believed that Iraq was resuming its nuclear weapons program. Even INR wrote in the NIE that it believed Iraq was pursuing “at least a limited effort” to “acquire nuclear weapons related capabilities” and that the evidence indicated “at most a limited reconstitution effort.”

We assessed that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and that if he had to make his own fissile material he probably would not be able to do so until 2007 to 2009. However, we indicated in the NIE that we had only moderate confidence in that judgment. We also indicated that INR thought that, although Saddam clearly wanted nuclear weapons, there was inadequate evidence to prove that he had an ongoing integrated and comprehensive program to develop them.

If Saddam could obtain fissile material elsewhere, it would not be hard for the regime to make a weapon within a year. After all, we believed that some terrorist groups could do so if they came into possession of the all-important highly enriched uranium or plutonium.

Page 324-325:

In early 2001, Iraq had been caught trying to clandestinely procure sixty thousand high-strength aluminum tubes manufactured to extraordinary tight tolerances. The tubes were seized in the Middle East. The Iraqi agent tried in vain to get the tubes released, claiming they were to be used in Lebanon to make race car components. Whatever their intended use, under UN sanctions, Saddam was prohibited from acquiring the tubes for any purpose. All agencies agreed that these tubes could be modified to make centrifuge rotors used in a nuclear program. CIA analysts believed that these tubes were intended for the enrichment of uranium. Others thought they were intended to make rockets. To test the theory, CIA brought together a “red team” of highly experienced experts from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory—people who had actually built centrifuges. Their assessment was that the tubes were more suited for nuclear use than for anything else. The Department of Energy’s representative at the NFIB delivered his agency’s assessment that the tubes were probably not part of a nuclear program. He was not a technical expert, however, and, despite being given several opportunities, he was unable to explain the basis of his department’s view in anything approaching a convincing manner.

Finally, here are 2 mea culpas, from page 322:

"In hindsight, even though policy makers were not showing much curiosity, that was the time we should have initiated a new series of analytical reports on Iraqi WMD and other issues regarding the implications of conflict in Iraq. This was my responsibility. But back then, I was consumed with al-Qa’ida—the people really trying to kill us—and I didn’t pay enough attention to another gathering storm.

...................

I reluctantly agreed and on September 12, 2002, directed the National Intelligence Council staff to initiate a crash project to produce an NIE on the “status of and outlook for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs.” The NIE was to answer two key questions on nuclear weapons: Did Saddam have them, and if not, when could he get them? I expected no surprises.

[waste gate]

What is wrong with this picture?!

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20070430/capt.sge.tte93.300407062837.photo00.photo.default-358x512.jpg?x=241&y=345&sig=BWukTHsb9qpa4CMc8y0PIQ--

[The Avon Lady]

What is wrong with this picture?!

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20070430/capt.sge.tte93.300407062837.photo00.photo.default-358x512.jpg?x=241&y=345&sig=BWukTHsb9qpa4CMc8y0PIQ--
Cuff lengths on sleeves are not the same. :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

In yesterday's Melanie Phillips article, That non-existent connection (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1509), after posting verbatim quotes from all over Tenet's book, she sums up the mad-hatter world nicely:

There is already a huge amount of evidence that has been published, in various books (by Laurie Mylroie, for example, or Stephen F Hayes) and by the Weekly Standard itself, strongly suggesting a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. None of this has been reported by the mainstream western media. These revelations by George Tenet — who has no reason to make them up since they detract from his attempt to hole Bush below the water-line— have been ignored by the mainstream media. That is because the line that there was never a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda is one of the structural supports for the Big Lie disseminated by the mainstream media that we were taken to war on a lie. If they were forced to acknowledge the evidence for such a connection, the whole story they have constructed about Iraq would crumble, and the prism through which they have consistently distorted the presentation of the Iraq crisis — which has done so much to aid the Islamist enemy — would be shattered along with their own stellar reputations.

They therefore simply air-brush all the evidence for this connection out of public consciousness altogether. But it exists. Even George Tenet acknowledges it. And one day history will judge just who has been on the wrong side of it.

[Ishmael]

In yesterday's Melanie Phillips article, That non-existent connection (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1509), after posting verbatim quotes from all over Tenet's book, she sums up the mad-hatter world nicely:

There is already a huge amount of evidence that has been published, in various books (by Laurie Mylroie, for example, or Stephen F Hayes) and by the Weekly Standard itself, strongly suggesting a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. None of this has been reported by the mainstream western media. These revelations by George Tenet — who has no reason to make them up since they detract from his attempt to hole Bush below the water-line— have been ignored by the mainstream media. That is because the line that there was never a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda is one of the structural supports for the Big Lie disseminated by the mainstream media that we were taken to war on a lie. If they were forced to acknowledge the evidence for such a connection, the whole story they have constructed about Iraq would crumble, and the prism through which they have consistently distorted the presentation of the Iraq crisis — which has done so much to aid the Islamist enemy — would be shattered along with their own stellar reputations.

They therefore simply air-brush all the evidence for this connection out of public consciousness altogether. But it exists. Even George Tenet acknowledges it. And one day history will judge just who has been on the wrong side of it.

Then, by your own argument, we should be able to withdraw our troops now. Here are the reasons we were given to go to war.

1. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction:

Not any more. There are no WMDs in Iraq these days, unless you count those chlorine-gas car bombs the insurgents are using now.

2. Saddam Hussein is a bloody-handed dictator providing material support to Al-Qaeda.

Problem solved. Saddam is overthrown & dead. He's not providing material support to anybody.

3. Iraq will be safer with a freely-elected democratic government.

Iraq has a freely elected government, an army & a police force. It is ultimately the Iraqi people's responsibility to run their own country, security etc. Why should US taxpayers pour billions dollars and thousands more lives into a hole in Mesopotamia when all the original goals of invasion have been achieved?


So, to quote a banner on the USS Abe Lincoln(commanded by my old division officer),

"Mission Accomplished" We can begin withdrawing troops immediately. Let the Iraqis sort the rest out for themselves.

Oh, there's widespread sectarian violence(read civil war)? That's for the various factions in the country to sort out, not the US government & military.

Oh, al-Qaeda is still active in Iraq? Once again, a matter of internal security for the sovereign nation of Iraq. They should have a much easier time accomplishing this than US forces. They actually speak & read Arabic.

Oh, 16 of 18 studied reconstruction projects were either never finished or so poorly done as to be useless? With US withdrawl, the Iraqi government can rebuild on it's own with it's own citizenry and oil revenues without using corrupt no-bid contracts from American corporations. They can always use their own corrupt corporations and eliminate the middle man.

So everything is just hunky-dory. All US aims in Iraq are achieved. Therefore, there is no further need for a US military presence in Iraq.

[The Avon Lady]

In yesterday's Melanie Phillips article, That non-existent connection (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1509), after posting verbatim quotes from all over Tenet's book, she sums up the mad-hatter world nicely:

There is already a huge amount of evidence that has been published, in various books (by Laurie Mylroie, for example, or Stephen F Hayes) and by the Weekly Standard itself, strongly suggesting a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. None of this has been reported by the mainstream western media. These revelations by George Tenet — who has no reason to make them up since they detract from his attempt to hole Bush below the water-line— have been ignored by the mainstream media. That is because the line that there was never a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda is one of the structural supports for the Big Lie disseminated by the mainstream media that we were taken to war on a lie. If they were forced to acknowledge the evidence for such a connection, the whole story they have constructed about Iraq would crumble, and the prism through which they have consistently distorted the presentation of the Iraq crisis — which has done so much to aid the Islamist enemy — would be shattered along with their own stellar reputations.

They therefore simply air-brush all the evidence for this connection out of public consciousness altogether. But it exists. Even George Tenet acknowledges it. And one day history will judge just who has been on the wrong side of it.
Then, by your own argument, we should be able to withdraw our troops now.
Where did you see me say otherwise, other than objecting to the publication of a withdrawal timetable?
Here are the reasons we were given to go to war.

1. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction:

Not any more. There are no WMDs in Iraq these days, unless you count those chlorine-gas car bombs the insurgents are using now.

2. Saddam Hussein is a bloody-handed dictator providing material support to Al-Qaeda.

Problem solved. Saddam is overthrown & dead. He's not providing material support to anybody.

3. Iraq will be safer with a freely-elected democratic government.

Iraq has a freely elected government, an army & a police force. It is ultimately the Iraqi people's responsibility to run their own country, security etc. Why should US taxpayers pour billions dollars and thousands more lives into a hole in Mesopotamia when all the original goals of invasion have been achieved?
Are you asking me or the adminstration?

Again, I'm for backing up and out in a strategic manner. The adminstration continues to think that they're one day going to turn Iraq into a true democracy.
So, to quote a banner on the USS Abe Lincoln(commanded by my old division officer),

"Mission Accomplished" We can begin withdrawing troops immediately. Let the Iraqis sort the rest out for themselves.

Oh, there's widespread sectarian violence(read civil war)? That's for the various factions in the country to sort out, not the US government & military.

Oh, al-Qaeda is still active in Iraq? Once again, a matter of internal security for the sovereign nation of Iraq. They should have a much easier time accomplishing this than US forces. They actually speak & read Arabic.

Oh, 16 of 18 studied reconstruction projects were either never finished or so poorly done as to be useless? With US withdrawl, the Iraqi government can rebuild on it's own with it's own citizenry and oil revenues without using corrupt no-bid contracts from American corporations. They can always use their own corrupt corporations and eliminate the middle man.

So everything is just hunky-dory. All US aims in Iraq are achieved. Therefore, there is no further need for a US military presence in Iraq.
And again, in general, I agree. So whydja type so much? :p

[Ishmael]

Who says we can't find civilized harmony on this board?

[The Avon Lady]

*cough cough * (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/22/tenets-cia-failure-follow-the-money/)

:nope: