Now it's a battle for the truth

[DoYouEverWonder]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/06/1075854070686.html

February 7, 2004

It is unnerving to watch the world's most powerful intelligence chief with his back to the wall. But when the CIA's director, George Tenet, stood up at Georgetown University to explain his handling of the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons, there was little doubt he was on the defensive and his career was on the line.

<snip>

Tenet set about strenuously defending many of the flawed claims in the prewar US National Intelligence Estimate of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The claims in that document, released in October 2002, were repeatedly exploited by President George Bush, Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, and Britain's Tony Blair before the Iraq war.

At the end of each claim, Tenet offered his "provisional bottom line" on what he now knows. In all but one case, the intelligence estimate was grossly exaggerated or plain wrong. On chemical weapons, his prewar estimate claimed "Saddam has probably stocked a few hundred metric tonnes of CW agents". Now, Tenet conceded, "we have not yet found the weapons we expected".

<snip>

Now Bush has agreed to Kay's proposal for an independent inquiry into the prewar intelligence, pitting the White House and some powerful Republican players against Tenet. Kay's split with the CIA chief brings into the open a power struggle between the CIA and the White House over who will take the blame for the failure to find any WMD in Iraq.

<snip>

Yesterday Tenet insisted the intelligence agencies told the White House that "Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009".




Looks like the battle lines are being drawn. Let the finger pointing begin.

One of the things in the article that bugs me is why is Joe Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hanging out with David Kay? Is the CEIP siding with Bu$hCo?

Oh and remember that mushroom cloud Condi warned us about, now Tenet says Saddam was 5 - 10 years away from being able to make a nuke? How did 5 - 10 years become an imminent, immediate, grave, serious, we can't wait for inspectors to do their job, level of threat?

[SpiralHawk]

1. "My provisional bottom line..."

That was clearly Tenet's mantra yesterday.

Gotta wonder if that is a "limited hangout option"?

Newspeak. Doubleplusbaloney. A pack of foma.

[Dhalgren]

2. Foma uttered by a Granfalloon.

.

[HereSince1628]

3. So Tenet will lose CIA job and become . . . well richer

If the Tenet takes the hit the pres you must acquit.

How gold is Tenet's parachute? I am guessing he'll be a member of the Defense Policy Board and a major lobbiest for companies interested in TIA (who knows he may even get a job with Trireme), and an adviser to oil companies on pipeline security on the west coast of South America...

[salinen]

4. Tenent may be looking

to become the next Ollie North or Gordon Liddy. Screw your country and gain a talk show.

[The Stranger]

5. Wake up, people. Rove is trying to make Tenet and the CIA take the fall.

WAKE UP PEOPLE. This article is flat fucking wrong. The intelligence was not exagerrated -- it was carefully crafted and must be read in its entirety and in context. The CIA was on record prior to the invasion of Iraq specifically stating that Iraq posed no imminent threat and any nuclear weapons program was several years away, if that. All probabilities of chemical weapons were just that -- probabilities and estimates based on what knowledge they had. They never came close to the "500 tons of Sarin" that Bush insisted existed -- and which was a blatant and unadulterated lie made to the country during the 2003 State of the Union.

WAKE UP PEOPLE. Intelligence analysis is about nuances and reasoned estimates. Tenet is trying to wake everyone up to this. Bush and the NeoconNazis are about Black and White thinking to kneejerk and fear people into supporting mass murder. Bush and the NeoconNazis intentionally and deliberately cherrypicked some facts from the intelligence analyses and removed the meticulous qualifications and nuanced estimates as to probability.

WAKE UP PEOPLE. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were so hungry to murder and maim that they proposed setting up their own intelligence agency because the CIA would not give them the fabricated intelligence they needed to justify invading Iraq. The CIA was not complicit in the illegal Iraq war, but now the NeoconNazis are trying to make it take the fall. The intelligence was not flawed -- but it was misrepresented by the NeoConNazis.

[htuttle]

6. There seem to be two headline spins circulating from Tenet's testimony

It's either the Bush-friendly:

A) TENET STATES CIA NOT PRESSURED INTO PROVIDING FALSE INTELLIGENCE

Or the Bush-contradicting:

B) TENET STATES CIA NEVER STATED IRAQ AN IMMINENT DANGER

Big difference between the two. I've seen ABC use headline A type, and yahoo.com news use both on different articles

[Tims]

18. The Houston Chronicle went with headline (B)

and this is Bush country. Many of the news websites I've seen today went with headline (A).

[nolabels]

12. Don't worry too much, a lot of us found some weird bedfellows

The astonishment of knowing this was coming after the inevitable failure of the * and cabal in the Iraq debacle. Noting all the postings and stories from the press. Finding out about the the Office of Special Operations was one hell of comedy. I keep on wondering to myself though, you about that word. "Special" sounds so much like the other one, "Specious" it was. Some of best weapons (assets) the spooks have is conspiratorial freaks (many here might even own up to that title here on occasion). The spooks came out right away with armies of their old retired even, saying this stuff is none of our doing, we are opposing it, in short.

Thou the spooks have lots of operatives in the press, they don't own or control the majority of it though. I would say that the guys that do own so much of it see this as a major danger. They and the creditability they would be losing major chunks if it played out like could is probably their concern (they must have a guilty conscience, they know and remember how big a role they played in the build up of this) This is turning out to be the thing a lot people said it would be. A battle of spooks against the Neo-cons and an Iraq spinning out of control.

[Zhade]

16. Tenet isn't trying to wake up anyone. He's one of them.

If he was trying to wake people up, don't you think he'd make the same (absolutely correct) points you're making?

[reprobate]

7. Anyone see BBC World News last night?

They had a former CIA analyst (can't remember name, Leonard?) on who said that 1)CIA upper mngmnt (Tenet?) skewed intel because they knew what white house (Cheney?) wanted to hear.

And 2) White house ignored much of what intel gave them and used what they thought would further their rush to war.

I think the intel agencies are about to hang the maladministration out to dry.

[rocktivity]

8. I agree, Reprobate

Am I supposed to believe that the CIA deliberately gave false intel to embarrass the Pretzel-Dunce? If he did such a thing, it's because a superior (Cheney or Bush) told them to. Tenet's back may be against the wall, but I doubt he's going to slink away quietly while The Bush Regime snickers, "Well, what did you expect from a Clinton appointee?" I think intel has a big fat "October surprise" of their own coming up.


rocknation

[Malva Zebrina]

9. I watched Tenet

and to tell you the truth, I can understand why there are two different takes on his speech at Georgetown U.--it was confusing to me--I had no idea what he was promoting--defense against Bush's accusations, or offense, implicitly supporting Bush.

I think many people think Bush never did say "imminent threat" as he stated. I think people need to be confronted with that lie, because it is almost gone down the memory hole and people do not remember who said what about Saddam-most do not read DU-it has been near a year--the quotes side by side with the lie might help to straighten it out.

[librechik]

11. I agree--it was the very essence of duplicity

After watching with disgust and drawing my own conclusion that Tenet was covering up for Bush, I was surprised to read analyses which said he was drawing a line in the sand and claiming the CIA was innocent of the bad intel charges.

I don't know what to think now, except that bastard was sitting on Powell's right haqnd when he lied to the UN.

[The Stranger]

13. Look, this is very, very important.

If someone walks inside and his or her clothes are wet, I can make a reasoned analysis that it is raining outside. I must also, however, consider the possibility that the person has just taken a shower, or his or her hair has the appearance of being wet when in fact it is not.

I would not conclude "without doubt" (as Cheney repeated over and over and over) that it was any particular one of these without proof. Instead, I would consider the evidence underlying each and try to make reasoned determinations based on what I knew and what I could reasonably assume. Nothing else. Or I would try to find out more (send in the UN inspectors).

Bush went to war over it. Bush cherrypicked the possibilities and preemptively concluded that the person had just taken a shower so that he could have his preemptive war. Bush stated unequivocally it could not be rain without even trusting people outside who told him it was raining (Blix, Ritter, Kaye). Bush concluded that the person's hair was wet despite never having examined it.

Tenet is trying to wake you up to the fact that all sides were presented, but Bush chose to kill and wage war based on only part of the picture -- part of the picture that was not only possibly wrong at the time, but has been proven to be wrong now.

Wake up, people.

[BigDaddyLove]

15. This is what is galling me as well.........

It is clear that Tenet is saying that they gave everything that they had on Iraq, and then (as now) there was not enough (or any at all really) proof that Saddam has WMD's, and the Bush administration decided to ignore reality and instead plunge forth with it's pre-formulated idea to invade.

Why is the debate about 'intelligence failure' at all, when will people realize that there's nothing wrong with the info that the CIA gave Bush in the first place? The CIA was right then, there was no threat.

When will someone stop allowing Bush to point fingers, and just fucking say "You lied Motherfucker"?

Why is this issue being allowed to be debated as an 'intelligence failure' and not being called what it is? Dammit!!!!!!

[The Stranger]

17. I am afraid that Bush's shell game even has the Democrats, including

Nancy Pelosi confused, and people here on these boards are tempted to attack Tenet without engaging what he is saying.

The simpleton message by the simpleton Resident in Chief seems to be winning yet again. We are ruled by our least common denominator.

[nolabels]

19. If Tenet had a good moral bone in his body he would resign

And no we are not confused so much as we are taking up wagers to see how deep they will go. If Tenet was forced to resign that would be bad for * and cabal, he creates a slight firewall for them. He is in deep and knows he will be a nothing if has to leave, the whole look on his face shows that much. If he left, * and cabal would have to bring in a green outsider, that would be even more disastrous for them, witness their new press secretary.



http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=488318

[Malva Zebrina]

21. If body language has any significance I would say that the fact that

Tenet , over and over, nodded his head in the manner of saying "NO" side to side, may have some significance as to his tendencies.
But, why do we have to "guess" at it. at all of it?

Someone needs to come along and state clearly that Bush lied. That is the right thing to do.

[nolabels]

14. The CIA Ate My Homework

Playing with a two edged sword is not safe, it can cut you on both ends

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9884
The CIA Ate My Homework

Robert Dreyfuss is a freelance writer based in Alexandria, Virginia, who specializes in politics and national security issues. He is currently working on a book about America's policy toward political Islam over the past 30 years.

Can President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the Pentagon neoconservatives get away with blaming the Central Intelligence Agency for the mess in Iraq?

They’re trying.

In the year and half before the war began in March, Cheney and the neocons constantly disparaged the CIA for underestimating the threat posed by Iraq. In public and in private, they lambasted the agency for overcautiousness. Behind the scenes, they pressured analysts—not to mention George Tenet, the CIA director, whose spine seems made of soft clay—to find more, more, more evidence of Iraq’s WMD and of Iraq’s (nonexistent) connections to Al Qaeda. They created a mini-intelligence unit inside the Pentagon, staffed by neoconservative ideologues such as Abram Shulsky and David Wurmser, to scour mounds of intelligence tidbits and extract incriminating evidence to prove what wasn’t provable. They treated Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress as a virtual Oracle of Delphi, giving credence to the lying defectors and bogus intelligence he produced, even as the CIA warned that Chalabi was a fraud. They gave credence to the cockeyed theories of Laurie Mylroie, who believed not only that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 but that he was the mastermind behind Tim McVeigh’s Oklahoma City bombing, too. And, disregarding CIA warnings, they convinced Bush to say that Iraq was secretly trying to buy uranium for A-bombs in West Africa, even though the documents they cited were forged.

Now, believe it or not, they want you to think that it was the CIA that got it wrong. That it was the CIA that presented the White House with alarmist intelligence about the supposed threat from Iraq. And that—acting on the CIA’s conclusions—the White House and Pentagon went to war. David Kay, who helped lead the snark hunt in Iraq that failed to find a thing, now says that the CIA owes Bush an apology, that he could find no evidence of political pressure on the CIA, and that it was all just a big mistake. “Sorry, world,” says Kay. “It was the CIA’s fault.”

Yet Bush isn’t quite ready himself to go to war with the CIA—don’t expect him to demand an apology anytime soon.
(snip)


That part about he was drawing a line in the sand and claiming the CIA was innocent of the bad intel charges will change when the neo-cons find they are still lossing, and think they can win with more ammo

[Eloriel]

10. The Carnegie Endowment

You should take a look at their board members. I don't think they're so clean anymore -- lots of neocons, IIRC. (I could be wrong -- someone can take a look and see.)

[bpilgrim]

20. the TRUTH - UNCOVERED ------------------------------> mp3

http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/UNCOVERED.-.The.War.in.Iraq.mp3

we should all send this to the commitie looking into the intel failures :evilgrin:

get a vcd here...
http://mall.GlobalFreePress.com

:hi:

peace

[loudnclear]

22. We must not allow McCain and other admin apologists frame this issue

We are letting the administration and media frame the issue once again. Any investigation MUST include the "use" of intel as well as the quality of the intel. If you misues even excellent intel you can get the same results that we are faced with today. Chaos and unnecessary loss of lives and resources.