Tenet assails Cheney in book

[Rrramon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27intel.html?hp

WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.

“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

Mr. Tenet admits that he made his famous “slam dunk” remark about the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But he argues that the quote was taken out of context and that it had little impact on President Bush’s decision to go to war. He also makes clear his bitter view that the administration made him a scapegoat for the Iraq war. (cont'd at link)

So here we have the ex-director of the CIA, which is implicated by several of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, coming out with a book that is decidedly not on the administration's side.

My question to the board's conspiracy theorists is, since Tenet is clearly bitter about the administration's blaming him for the bogus pre-war intelligence, and if he had caught wind of a conspiracy to carry out/cover-up 9/11, wouldn't bringing it up now be a pretty good way to get back at them?

I guess my point here is that while many CTers imagine the government as this monolithic entity whose members are always on the same page, it is always much more chaotic, complicated and bureaucratic than that. When Bush et al pointed the finger at the CIA about the flawed intelligence that they themselves had been trumpeting, they pissed off a significant number of people within that agency, including its director. Why is no one leaking any "9/11 truth" in response?

 

[WildCat]

Slightly off topic, but who does Tenet think would take the side that Saddam was an "imminent threat" to the US? To debate something, there has to be people on both sides of the argument.

 

[lozenge124]

It's a shame Tenet didn't resign and speak out back in 2003, instead of sitting behind Colin Powell at the UN in tacit approval.

 

[gnome]

Slightly off topic, but who does Tenet think would take the side that Saddam was an "imminent threat" to the US? To debate something, there has to be people on both sides of the argument.

Suitable rigor, especially for a war policy, should include anticipating and addressing opposing points of view, even if one does not believe them, to test the strength of one's own reasoning.

To answer your question substantively--did you mean that nobody would take the side that Saddam was not an imminent threat? Or that nobody would take the side that he was?

 

[CurtC]

I think he meant that no one would take the side that Saddam was an imminent threat. He was an irritant to be sure, but it's hard to imagine someone actually claiming that he was an imminent threat.

 

[FactCheck]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27intel.html?hp




So here we have the ex-director of the CIA, which is implicated by several of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, coming out with a book that is decidedly not on the administration's side.

My question to the board's conspiracy theorists is, since Tenet is clearly bitter about the administration's blaming him for the bogus pre-war intelligence, and if he had caught wind of a conspiracy to carry out/cover-up 9/11, wouldn't bringing it up now be a pretty good way to get back at them?

I guess my point here is that while many CTers imagine the government as this monolithic entity whose members are always on the same page, it is always much more chaotic, complicated and bureaucratic than that. When Bush et al pointed the finger at the CIA about the flawed intelligence that they themselves had been trumpeting, they pissed off a significant number of people within that agency, including its director. Why is no one leaking any "9/11 truth" in response?

Which leads me to the conspiracy to cherry pick evidence around the policy to go to war. With so much evidence around this why not go after Bush on this? Why invent an absurd conspiracy?

This is also the reason we need to fight these conspiracy theories. Because people will conflate the conspiracy to cherry pick evidence with conspiracy theories. I want to see a full investigation on this. Tenet is just one of many whistleblowers here.

http://www.debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm

 

[thinkingaboutit]

Slightly off topic, but who does Tenet think would take the side that Saddam was an "imminent threat" to the US? To debate something, there has to be people on both sides of the argument.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/iraqimminent.html

Along with Bush, I'd say Condi, Rumsfeld and others for sure. They were certainly trying to make that case at the time.

 

[Rrramon]

Slightly off topic, but who does Tenet think would take the side that Saddam was an "imminent threat" to the US? To debate something, there has to be people on both sides of the argument.

Well, my understanding is that the admin. was preaching this routinely in the run-up to the war.

 

[pgwenthold]

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/iraqimminent.html

Along with Bush, I'd say Condi, Rumsfeld and others for sure. They were certainly trying to make that case at the time.

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

OK, it's an "immediate" threat, as opposed to imminent

 

[Brainster]

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/iraqimminent.html

Along with Bush, I'd say Condi, Rumsfeld and others for sure. They were certainly trying to make that case at the time.

The LA Times got it wrong (what a shock). Here's the speech, and the only time Bush used the word "imminent" is here:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Bush was very careful not to say the threat was imminent. You can certainly make the case that Cheney was a lot less circumspect.

 

[pgwenthold]

BTW, focusing on the fact that they did not explicitly say "imminent" is the type of word-smithing that the right accused Bill Clinton of doing.

See my comment above. Rumsfeld says he is an "immediate" danger. That's not the same as imminent?

I saw a website that was discussing Fleischer's response when a reporter asked: "Is Saddam an imminent threat?" Answer: "Absolutely."

Now, the website says, yeah, he affirmed it, but notice he never actually said it himself.

This is nonsense. Ari Fleischer absolutely stated in this answer that Saddam was an imminent threat, and no amount of dodging changes that. Moreover, remember that the press secretary speaks for the president, so if Ari Fleischer said it, it came from the White House.

 

[Trigood]

BTW, focusing on the fact that they did not explicitly say "imminent" is the type of word-smithing that the right accused Bill Clinton of doing.

See my comment above. Rumsfeld says he is an "immediate" danger. That's not the same as imminent?

I saw a website that was discussing Fleischer's response when a reporter asked: "Is Saddam an imminent threat?" Answer: "Absolutely."

Now, the website says, yeah, he affirmed it, but notice he never actually said it himself.

This is nonsense. Ari Fleischer absolutely stated in this answer that Saddam was an imminent threat, and no amount of dodging changes that. Moreover, remember that the press secretary speaks for the president, so if Ari Fleischer said it, it came from the White House.

Exactly right, pgwenthold.

And what was Colin Powell's performance at the U.N. if not an attempt to prove once and for all that Saddam was an imminent threat?

Can we not argue over whether they used that specific word, when those who lived through that time vividly remember the constant drumbeat for war?

I almost don't even need George Tenet telling me they didn't consider the option of containment. I knew that at the time; who didn't know that?

I do, however, remember George Tenet playing their little game for many moons after the war started. I remember particularly one speech he gave at Georgetown University (I think) in front of a crowd of adoring students, probably some time in late 2003 or early 2004, when it was becoming more and more clear that there had been no WMDs. Tenet kept talking about how they had discovered and proven the WMDs and everyone in the audience kept fawning over him. I couldn't believe the things he was saying; I kept thinking, isn't this all a lie? Don't we already know this is a lie? What Alice in Wonderland world is this guy coming from? What the heck is he talking about? I really couldn't even sit through the whole thing; it made me sick to my stomach.

Then he accepted that Presidential Medal of Freedom from the White House.

I'm glad he's come clean now; however, it's a bit late.

Edited: Georgetown Univ.

 

[gumboot]

I like to think of the invasion of Iraq as a pre-emptive move... that is the threat wasn't immediate, but was intended to be addressed before it arose...

On the one hand you have a dictator, operating in defiance of the UN for over a decade, with the precise status of his illegal weapons unknown. This dictator started secular, vocally anti Islamic terrorism, but is increasingly using religious rhetoric and trying to appeal to radical Islamic followers. He's started dabbling in terrorism - providing funds to families of Palestinian terrorists.

On the other hand, you have the United States, confident from their rapid demolition of the Taliban, still shaken by the nasty wake up call of a horrific terrorist attack, and terrified of more attacks occurring.

The two worst case scenarios for the US Administration are as follows:

1) Invade Iraq unnecessarily, get several thousand American soldiers killed, cause the deaths of tens of thousands of foreigners, and make a right mess of Iraq. Be forever known as a war mongerer.

2) Deal with a nuclear or biological/chemical terrorist attack in a US city costing the lives of tens of thousands of American civilians.

Frankly, were I El Presidento... I'd rather run with a 99% chance of 1) occurring than a 1% chance of 2) occurring.

-Gumboot

 

[gnome]

The LA Times got it wrong (what a shock). Here's the speech, and the only time Bush used the word "imminent" is here:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Bush was very careful not to say the threat was imminent. You can certainly make the case that Cheney was a lot less circumspect.

I love how the alternative to invasion is "Trusting the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein". Like we were going to pack up and leave him alone to his own devices.

 

[pomeroo]

I have often been reproached for arguing politics in the conspiracy forum, and I've been trying to mend my ways. I can't resist making an observation about Saddam Hussein.

The man got his ass whupped in 1991. Almost all of his expensive toys were smashed and he was thoroughly humiliated. He learned a lesson. That lesson, according to him, was that he should have put off invading Kuwait until he had nuclear weapons.

Yeah, he wouldn't have caused any problems down the road.

 

[Trigood]

I have often been reproached for arguing politics in the conspiracy forum, and I've been trying to mend my ways. I can't resist making an observation about Saddam Hussein.

The man got his ass whupped in 1991. Almost all of his expensive toys were smashed and he was thoroughly humiliated. He learned a lesson. That lesson, according to him, was that he should have put off invading Kuwait until he had nuclear weapons.

Yeah, he wouldn't have caused any problems down the road.

I totally agree with the statement in bold (my emphasis). The next two sentences may very well be true as well, I dunno.

However, you seem to be implying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the argument above justifies the war as initiated by GWBush.

What you do not elaborate on, is how one gets from potential nuclear weapons, no evidence for which existed despite an incredibly extensive weapons inspection system (arguably the most extensive in history), to an imminent threat that required immediate invasion on March 20, 2003.

Non sequitur.

(And I was going to avoid politics as well...sheesh... But I do love your new avatar, Ron... cute little guy, is that a seal? Are you protesting the seal hunt?)

ETA: George Tenet on 60 Minutes tonight.

 

[Trigood]

For those who wish to further discuss the politics of this issue, you may want to go to a thread I opened in the Politics subforum:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80839

Specifically, I am going to add some info with regard to an NPR debate on security vs liberty. These issues correspond rather directly to Gumboot's post above.