posted on April 27, 2007 02:56:17 PM new
Very interesting......
But Mr. Tenet largely endorses the view of administration critics that Mr. Cheney and a handful of Pentagon officials, including Paul D. Wolfowitz and Douglas J. Feith, were focused on Iraq as a threat in late 2001 and 2002 even as Mr. Tenet and the C.I.A. concentrated mostly on Al Qaeda.
Mr. Tenet describes helping to kill a planned speech by Mr. Cheney on the eve of the invasion because its claims of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq went “way beyond what the intelligence shows.”
“Mr. President, we cannot support the speech and it should not be given,” Mr. Tenet wrote that he told Mr. Bush. Mr. Cheney never delivered the remarks.
"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
The book recounts C.I.A. efforts to fight Al Qaeda in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks, and Mr. Tenet’s early warnings about Osama bin Laden. He contends that the urgent appeals of the C.I.A. on terrorism received a lukewarm reception at the Bush White House through most of 2001.
Mr. Tenet hints at some score-settling in the book. He describes in particular the extraordinary tension between him and Condoleezza Rice , then national security adviser, and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, in internal debate over how the president came to say erroneously in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa
posted on April 27, 2007 03:26:19 PM new
"The book recounts C.I.A. efforts to fight Al Qaeda in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks, and Mr. Tenet’s early warnings about Osama bin Laden. He contends that the urgent appeals of the C.I.A. on terrorism received a lukewarm reception at the Bush White House through most of 2001."
Pres. Bush was only in office for about 9 months. There is mention of " ...years before the Sept. 11 attacks ..." What about those years? Was any action taken?
posted on April 27, 2007 05:17:12 PM new
Great question. lol
The President took office on Jan 19 or 20th 2001. 9-11 of course happened less than 8 months later.
I, too, would LOVE to hear what was done YEARS BEFORE.....lol lol lol
That would have included the FIVE attacks by AQ on American interests.....5-8 times [according to who's doing the tellin'] binladen was offered to clinton and he refused him.
THOSE years?????
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 27, 2007 05:22:35 PM new
"Nor, he adds, "was there ever a significant discussion" about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion"
And, imo, the reason that would have been was because the 'world body' was getting ready to REMOVE sanctions that had been in place. Remember, saddam was BUYING their votes in the UN....with real good oil contracts. Think they were going to piss saddam off then? Nope.
saddam also had a pipe-line....selling oil to Syria at the time we invaded...we discovered that. So....more money that wasn't going through the UN either.
While the liberal mantra is ALWAYS 'containment'.....they refuse to acknowledge that 'containment' wasn't 'containing' anything.
As we later became aware of with the corruption involved in the oil-for-food....liberal feel-good program....that wasn't being used for the 'starving children' either.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 27, 2007 05:37:51 PM new
when President Clinton received a similar briefing (to one Bush admin. received) in 1998 he immediately mobilized the intelligence and law-enforcement communities in response.
The 9-11 Commission report's finding is that the Clinton administration both responded forcefully to the 1998 warning and left Bush a strategy for pursuing Al Qaeda.
posted on April 27, 2007 05:41:21 PM new
Maybe 'those years' were ALL the years/times clinton gave saddam "one last chance". Seems he did that quite a number of time...more and more 'one last chances.....lolol
And FWIW:
Friday, April 27, 2007 9:01 a.m. EDT
White House Dismisses Tenet's Claims
A senior White House counselor on Friday dismissed former CIA Director's George Tenet portrait of a Bush administration that rushed to war in Iraq without serious debate.
"The president did wrestle with those very serious questions," Dan Bartlett said.
Asked about Tenet's upcoming book, excerpts of which were reported Friday in The New York Times, Bartlett called the former CIA chief a "true patriot" but suggested he might have been unaware of the breadth of the prewar debate that led Bush to dismiss other options, such as diplomatic means, for reining in Saddam Hussein.
"I've seen meetings, I've listened to the president, both in conversations with other world leaders like (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair as well as internally, where the president did wrestle with those very questions," Bartlett said on NBC's "Today" show.
"This president weighed all the various proposals, weighed all the various consequences before he did make a decision."
Tenet complains that his now-infamous "slam dunk" phrase, used at a 2002 White House meeting, has been misrepresented and used to shift blame to him.
Explaining his remark for the first time in an interview taped to air Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes," Tenet said he was referring broadly to the case that could be made against Saddam - not the presence of his alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Tenet said the administration misrepresented his comment and used it to shift blame as the debate heated up about the legitimacy of the Iraq invasion. Tenet, who served as CIA chief from 1997 to 2004, called the leak of the remark to journalist Bob Woodward "the most despicable thing that ever happened" to him.
Bartlett played down the significance of the "slam dunk" remark, saying the decision to go to war was shaped by intelligence reports and "a whole body of evidence and behavior by Saddam Hussein that led President Bush to believe that he had to be removed by force."
As to Tenet's take on the remark, Bartlett said, "I am a bit confused by that because we have never indicated the president made the sole decision based on the slam dunk comment."
taken from NewsMax.com/
Associated Press.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 27, 2007 05:49 PM ]
posted on April 27, 2007 06:03:30 PM new
"Maybe 'those years' were ALL the years/times clinton gave saddam "one last chance". Seems he did that quite a number of time...more and more 'one last chances.....lolol"
Your just jealous because the Commission says Clinton was more aggressive than Bush. He's a manly man
posted on April 27, 2007 06:09:16 PM new
"Nor, he adds, "was there ever a significant discussion" about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion"
And, imo, the reason that would have been was because the 'world body' was getting ready to REMOVE sanctions that had been in place. Remember, saddam was BUYING their votes in the UN....with real good oil contracts. Think they were going to piss saddam off then? Nope."
The quote pertains to debate and discussion WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION not the "world body."
posted on April 27, 2007 06:13:19 PM new
Now THAT would be funny, CC, IF it weren't so very, very sad.
After FIVE attacks during clintons admin...and NOTHING was done....even when our WAR SHIP was bombed....and to ME that's an declaration of war IF I've EVER seen one....
...I certainly would NEVER even think of clinton as being agressive. He was a GREAT TALKER....but NOT a doer.
=======
Is this the delenta plan you're talkig about?
It sure appears to me that while it was drafted during the clinton admin. they NEVER put it into place themselves.
August 27, 1998: Delenda Plan to Combat al-Qaeda Is Prepared
Following the cruise missile attack on al-Qaeda targets on August 20 (see August 20, 1998), immediate plans are made for follow up attacks to make sure bin Laden is killed.
However, on this day, Defense Secretary William Cohen is advised that available targets are not promising. Some question the use of expensive missiles to hit very primitive training camps, and there is the concern that if bin Laden is not killed, his stature will only grow further.
As discussions continue, counterterrorism ?tsar? Richard Clarke prepares a plan he calls ?Delenda,? which means ?to destroy? in Latin. His idea is to have regular, small strikes in Afghanistan whenever the intelligence warrants it.
The plan is rejected.
Counterterrorism officials in the Defense Secretary?s office independently create a similar plan, but it too is rejected. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]
The Delenda Plan also calls for diplomacy against the Taliban, covert action focused in Afghanistan, and financial measures to freeze bin Laden-related funds.
These aspects are not formally adopted, but they guide future efforts. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 27, 2007 06:19:16 PM new
kozersky,SAID
"Pres. Bush was only in office for about 9 months."
Now Bush has been in office for over 6 years and still our Ports and Borders are not secure in fact they are still wide open.
Sorry, there is just too much proof that Bush has worried more about tax cuts for the rich than securing our country.
Years ago guys like Richard Clark and Paul O'Neill even General Powell were saying the same thing Tenet is saying now. Now retired Generals and other government officials are also saying Bush is not doing a good job fighting terrorist.
Its come to the point that its very hard for anyone to make a solid argument defending the worst President ever George W Bush.
Even his own father Sr Bush has given up trying to defend him. I do feel sorry for old man Bush.
posted on April 27, 2007 06:19:17 PM new
And while the liberals/dems ALWAYS want to ONLY use diplomacy, for decades and decades - like with Iraq - their diplomacy SUCKS.
clinton's 'lawyering' and FEAR of starting an unpopular war was what kept him from being aggressive with the AQ AND with saddam. Giving him more and more 'last chances'.
And that's been documented several places.
And 9-11 was the result of his being a 'paper tiger'.
Plus on top of that....his old sandy burger, you know THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT THIEF, probably removed the papers on just this subject so the 9-11 commission NEVER saw them.
Gosh...that might have made clinton look bad....like the coward he was.
edited to add:
When this administration was falsely accused of having been given this so called knowledge and plan on how to deal with AQ.....Condi Rice IMMEDIATELY responded:
"Condoleezza Rice fires back, telling the editorial board of "The New York Post," "We were not left with a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda."
But she stopped short of calling President Clinton a liar.
[taken from a CNN transcript at the time]
===========
She should have called him a LIAR....I sure would have. But then I don't have to act like a diplomat either. I can call a spade a spade...and a liar a liar.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 27, 2007 06:33:39 PM new
"The quote pertains to debate and discussion WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION not the "world body."
ROFLOL....I know that. DUH.
What would have been the point of CONTAINING him...when the world body was ready to vote to STOP the sanctions that had already been put in place.
That was the point.
It would have been stupid to even discuss it.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 27, 2007 07:25:37 PM new
"It would have been stupid to even discuss it."
Earth to Linda-the quote pertains to WAR WITH IRAQ!!!! No discussion or debate among the President and his advisors/cabinet about W-A-R!! Not containment, not Saddam but INVADING IRAQ.
posted on April 27, 2007 07:39:30 PM new
CC - Try and keep up.
I already copied and pasted exactly what I was addressing.
Which was this statement in your article.
"Nor, he adds, "was there ever a significant discussion" about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion."
Now....maybe YOU'RE back on track.
No response to the PLAN that even THEY didn't adhear to? But somehow you expect this admin. should have?????
LOL LOL LOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 27, 2007 07:51:40 PM new
""Condoleezza Rice fires back, telling the editorial board of "The New York Post," "We were not left with a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda."
But she stopped short of calling President Clinton a liar"
She lied, Linda. The plan was declassified the day before she testified before the 911 Commission and clearly showed that it was received by the Bush administration.
posted on April 27, 2007 07:58:18 PM new
CC Neither YOU nor anyone else can PROVE she lied.
First of all....each and every paper that is printed doesn't hit the desk of the President NOR the Sec. of State....and especially not the NEXT DAY.
Get real. Please.
No answer to the PLAN that clinton supposedly gave to the Bush admin. for dealing with AQ???? LOL LOL
Maybe since THEY didn't use THEIR 'plan'.....that's why no one else wanted to. lol lol
Back to your conspiracy theories woman.....you're better at that than dealing with FACTS as reported, documented and actually happened.
THEY rejected THEIR PLAN.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 27, 2007 08:02:04 PM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC - Try and keep up.
"I already copied and pasted exactly what I was addressing.
Which was this statement in your article.
"Nor, he adds, "was there ever a significant discussion" about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion"
My mistake--I misread your post and thought you were talking about the statement that they did not discuss/debate war.
Is it really necessary to be so snide with the "try and keep up"? Really, Linda. What is this need you have to disparage everyone who does not agree with you?
posted on April 27, 2007 08:22:50 PM new
YOU apply double standards constantly...like screaming how you don't want anyone speaking for you yet YOU take it upon yourself to speak for "most" Americans...
Sad that you're so immature that you still can't face the facts....there ARE double standards.
posted on April 27, 2007 09:02:21 PM new
"CC Neither YOU nor anyone else can PROVE she lied."
From the 911 Commission Report:
Asked by Hadley (Rice's ass't) to offer major initiatives, on January 25, 2001 Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper, and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan, to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. Clarke laid out a proposed agenda for urgent action by the new administration:
Approval of covert assistance to the Northern Alliance and others.
Significantly increased funding to pay for this and other CIA activity in preparation of the administration’s first budget, for Fiscal Year 2002.
Choosing a standard of evidence for attributing responsibility for the U.S.S. Cole and deciding on a response.
Going forward with new Predator reconnaissance missions in the spring and preparation of an armed version of the aircraft.
More work on terrorist fundraising.
Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al Qaeda was a “first order threat” and not a routine problem being exaggerated by “chicken little” alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001. Rice and Hadley said this was because the Deputies Committee needed to work through the many issues related to new policy on al Qaeda. The Principals Committee did meet frequently before 9/11 on other subjects, Rice told us, including Russia, the Persian Gulf, and the Middle East peace process.
posted on April 27, 2007 09:12:34 PM new
And I still don't see your answer as to why IF that was a 'plan' the clinton admin. drew up....then THEY wouldn't/didn't follow it themselves.
If memory serves me right....there were problems between clark and clinton....and at some point clinton did something that embarrassed clark. I don't recall, right now, what it was.
But whatever.....at that time the FBI and the CIA weren't allowed to 'share info' with one another.
This President changed that rule/law so better communication came about between the two agencies.
I believe, in part, that's why we haven't had any further attacks.
edited to add: Also...this Pres. did do what one suggestion was...and that was put holds on muslim charities funds that were suspected of financially supporting terrorist organizations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by linda_K on Apr 27, 2007 09:16 PM ]
posted on April 27, 2007 09:19:02 PM new
Read the last paragraph. Rice responds to Clarke's requests for Principals Meeting to discuss these plans. She couldn't respond if she had not received them.
posted on April 27, 2007 09:20:26 PM new
"And I still don't see your answer as to why IF that was a 'plan' the clinton admin. drew up....then THEY wouldn't/didn't follow it themselves"
And I still don't see your answer about Cheney's lies on videotape so we are even.
posted on April 27, 2007 09:25:03 PM new
That's an assumption on your part, CC. No proof. You're trying to connect dots when you may not have all the circumstances.
And try not to be childish....you didn't answer me so we're even.
I did answer you. I mentioned tapes being distorted...pieces of what was said being 'strung' together to give different meaning...to falsify what was actually said IN FULL. etc. etc.
It appears to have gone over your head in your glee to shoot the WA Times and O'Reilly down.
So we're not even.
But I'll take your NON ANSWER as you admitting you have no clue why they'd expect the Bush admin to follow some plan they formed that even THEY didn't want to follow.
posted on April 27, 2007 09:34:21 PM new
Linda, It is not an assumption. The plans were forwarded to Condoleeza Rice at her request and Clarke subsequently attempted to make appointments with her to discuss them. She new he wanted to call a principal's meeting ASAP to discuss these plans, but apparently was in no hurry to convene a meeting for this purpose. These plans were forwarded in January 2001, so apparently Rice thought it was important enough to request the information in the first month in office. Either she lied or has a severe memory problem.
posted on April 27, 2007 09:43:31 PM new
then you start with this CRAP
earth to linda.
And then you expect me to speak in a civil tone to you"
Earth to Linda is such an innocuous phrase, unlike WACKO, TRAITOR, COWARD,CHICKEN, DUMB, TRY TO GRASP, and so many other words you throw out every day. I am surprised you are so sensitive. Talk about a double standard.
posted on April 27, 2007 09:46:46 PM new
CC - We still are in disagreement about WHEN they were SENT.
Your article says:
Asked by Hadley (Rice's ass't) to offer major initiatives, on January 25, 2001 Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper, and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan, to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice.
I take that to mean they were REQUESTED on Jan 25. I don't take that to mean they were RECEIVED on that date.
After all....Bush didn't even take possession of the WH until the 20th. How fast do you expect them to 'get right into the meat of ALL the thousands of issues an admin. faces when they first walk in the door? lol
And what I am saying about the problem with clinton and clarke....had something to do with this same issue. clarke was whining that those in the clinton admin. wouldn't listen to him/make time for him either.
Could be no one in either administration wanted to meet with him. AGAIN....if memory serves me clinton didn't meet with his security advisor until he had been in office for TWO YEARS. So he certainly wasn't in a big hurry to 'listen' either.
But you will believe what you want to believe...as will I.
Condi Rice strikes me as a very honest woman. I will not believe she lied until I see SOLID proof of it. This other is nothing but political bantering, imo.
Both sides do it....and right now the dems are on their witch hunt.
lol
