Something Smells: Tenet Personally Told White House to Remove Uranium from Oct 7 Speech

[tnitsuj]

from MSNBC

"National security adviser Condoleezza Rice and other officials asserted this week that the president?s statement was justified at the time because the CIA cleared the address in its entirety, including the uranium claim. They said the CIA never told the White House that the claim was suspicious.
But U.S. officials told NBC News? Andrea Mitchell that Tenet himself advised Rice?s top deputy, Steven Hadley, to remove a reference to the uranium report from a speech Bush delivered Oct. 7 in Cincinnati, establishing that the nation?s top intelligence officials suspected that the allegation was false more than three months before they approved Bush?s repeating it in his nationally televised address on Jan. 28.
The Washington Post reported Friday that the CIA also told British officials about its doubts and passed word along to several U.S. agencies before the State of the Union address."

 

[krunk7]

Plausible deniability is rule number one. I'm sure there will be plenty of conflicting claims by credible sources before this is over with. Only an in depth public investigation (preferably criminal) will flush the rats out of the woodwork and reveal the truth. Notice I haven't made a claim to what that truth is.....however, the first party to balk at an investigation is usually the one that would benefit the least. Think about what fools the Democrats would be if they insisted on an investigation and Bush & Co. were completely vindicated. The Bush Administration should welcome an investigation with open arms if they are innocent....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: krunk7
Plausible deniability is rule number one. I'm sure there will be plenty of conflicting claims by credible sources before this is over with. Only an in depth public investigation (preferably criminal) will flush the rats out of the woodwork and reveal the truth. Notice I haven't made a claim to what that truth is.....however, the first party to balk at an investigation is usually the one that would benefit the least. Think about what fools the Democrats would be if they insisted on an investigation and Bush & Co. were completely vindicated. The Bush Administration should welcome an investigation with open arms if they are innocent....

Krunk7 - I take it you are one of those people who think that cops searching vehicles is OK too. The "if you have nothing to hide..." arguement is faulty logic in a supposedly "free" society.

CkG

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: krunk7
Plausible deniability is rule number one. I'm sure there will be plenty of conflicting claims by credible sources before this is over with. Only an in depth public investigation (preferably criminal) will flush the rats out of the woodwork and reveal the truth. Notice I haven't made a claim to what that truth is.....however, the first party to balk at an investigation is usually the one that would benefit the least. Think about what fools the Democrats would be if they insisted on an investigation and Bush & Co. were completely vindicated. The Bush Administration should welcome an investigation with open arms if they are innocent....

Krunk7 - I take it you are one of those people who think that cops searching vehicles is OK too. The "if you have nothing to hide..." arguement is faulty logic in a supposedly "free" society.

CkG

A cop searching a car for no reason is a slightly different situation than an investigation into a President making a case for war using evidence that definately was false.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: krunk7
Plausible deniability is rule number one. I'm sure there will be plenty of conflicting claims by credible sources before this is over with. Only an in depth public investigation (preferably criminal) will flush the rats out of the woodwork and reveal the truth. Notice I haven't made a claim to what that truth is.....however, the first party to balk at an investigation is usually the one that would benefit the least. Think about what fools the Democrats would be if they insisted on an investigation and Bush & Co. were completely vindicated. The Bush Administration should welcome an investigation with open arms if they are innocent....

Krunk7 - I take it you are one of those people who think that cops searching vehicles is OK too. The "if you have nothing to hide..." arguement is faulty logic in a supposedly "free" society.

CkG

In a free society, isn't it the duty of the press, the people, and the government to investigate the actions of thier elected officials when thier is a question such as this. I don't see how that has anything to do with your 4th ammendment analogy. Try again please.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: krunk7
Plausible deniability is rule number one. I'm sure there will be plenty of conflicting claims by credible sources before this is over with. Only an in depth public investigation (preferably criminal) will flush the rats out of the woodwork and reveal the truth. Notice I haven't made a claim to what that truth is.....however, the first party to balk at an investigation is usually the one that would benefit the least. Think about what fools the Democrats would be if they insisted on an investigation and Bush & Co. were completely vindicated. The Bush Administration should welcome an investigation with open arms if they are innocent....

Krunk7 - I take it you are one of those people who think that cops searching vehicles is OK too. The "if you have nothing to hide..." arguement is faulty logic in a supposedly "free" society.

CkG

You know, I'm pretty sure that the Patriot Act(s) were passed on much the same premise you just mentioned. If we, as Americans, are supposed to give up our civil liberties in a time of war, then the current administration should have no problem with an independent, non-partisan investigation of the recent intelligence failures. What's good for us (as citizens) is just as good for them (the government). The real problem here is the lack of transparency in the current administration as well as their consistant stonewalling and thwarting of various investigations. What do they have to be so secretive about?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: krunk7
Plausible deniability is rule number one. I'm sure there will be plenty of conflicting claims by credible sources before this is over with. Only an in depth public investigation (preferably criminal) will flush the rats out of the woodwork and reveal the truth. Notice I haven't made a claim to what that truth is.....however, the first party to balk at an investigation is usually the one that would benefit the least. Think about what fools the Democrats would be if they insisted on an investigation and Bush & Co. were completely vindicated. The Bush Administration should welcome an investigation with open arms if they are innocent....

Krunk7 - I take it you are one of those people who think that cops searching vehicles is OK too. The "if you have nothing to hide..." arguement is faulty logic in a supposedly "free" society.

CkG

A cop searching a car for no reason is a slightly different situation than an investigation into a President making a case for war using evidence that definately was false.

Didn't say it was - It was meant to show that the "if you have nothing to hide..." arguement is based on faulty logic. My issue was not that we can't or shouldn't investigate if appropriate - the issue is that krunk7 implied guilt because the Admin balked at the investigation.

tnitsuj- No it isn't the duty of the press, et al to investigate. We have the right to but not the duty to. Our duty is to elect officials to represent us. Read my explanation of the search issue - it wasn't meant in the way you are implying. Try again please

CkG

 

[mastertech01]

How many congressmen have openly claimed that they supported the action in Iraq based on that one finite detail of the address? How many Americans did state that this was the one telling factor that swayed thier opinion and support for action?

Other than making a huge vacuum sound sucking up anything that could be found to discredit Bush, what real effect was this single detail in the whole address given by him?

The information of that one detail was found to be false, but does that mean that it isnt likely that Saddaam Hussein was over the 12 years since the 1st Gulf War, trying to rebuild his arsenals and to maintain his grip of fear that others in the region and the world that he had the intention and capability to develop WMD and the will to use them?

He had many opportunities to come clean, but elected to bluff the world, just as North Korea is today, to keep the world fearfull of his regime. An agressive, loud dog growling, snapping, salivating, and terrorizing constantly will eventually be put down as a mad dog, whether he is rabid or not. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

I am certain that every war waged by every country over the centuries has been wrought with misinformation of some kind developed through intelligence. I see people laying the blame on the President for the 9-11 disaster because his intelligence community failed to react to information, yet in the same breath criticize him for reacting on intelligence recieved. When will you accept that no means of gathering intelligence is flawless?

The US had the power and the courage to finally put down the beast who murdered many.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: krunk7
Plausible deniability is rule number one. I'm sure there will be plenty of conflicting claims by credible sources before this is over with. Only an in depth public investigation (preferably criminal) will flush the rats out of the woodwork and reveal the truth. Notice I haven't made a claim to what that truth is.....however, the first party to balk at an investigation is usually the one that would benefit the least. Think about what fools the Democrats would be if they insisted on an investigation and Bush & Co. were completely vindicated. The Bush Administration should welcome an investigation with open arms if they are innocent....

Krunk7 - I take it you are one of those people who think that cops searching vehicles is OK too. The "if you have nothing to hide..." arguement is faulty logic in a supposedly "free" society.

CkG

You know, I'm pretty sure that the Patriot Act(s) were passed on much the same premise you just mentioned. If we, as Americans, are supposed to give up our civil liberties in a time of war, then the current administration should have no problem with an independent, non-partisan investigation of the recent intelligence failures. What's good for us (as citizens) is just as good for them (the government). The real problem here is the lack of transparency in the current administration as well as their consistant stonewalling and thwarting of various investigations. What do they have to be so secretive about?

I don't disagree with anything you said perse I don't like the "Patriot" Act and I would like more transparent government also. The fact is though that just because they are blocking investigations doesn't imply guilt, as there may be issue that are larger than you and I.

Remember, that if the info is available to us then it is available to the the "enemy" (<--sarcastic if you didn't realize it)

CkG

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
How many congressmen have openly claimed that they supported the action in Iraq based on that one finite detail of the address? How many Americans did state that this was the one telling factor that swayed thier opinion and support for action?

Other than making a huge vacuum sound sucking up anything that could be found to discredit Bush, what real effect was this single detail in the whole address given by him?

The information of that one detail was found to be false, but does that mean that it isnt likely that Saddaam Hussein was over the 12 years since the 1st Gulf War, trying to rebuild his arsenals and to maintain his grip of fear that others in the region and the world that he had the intention and capability to develop WMD and the will to use them?

He had many opportunities to come clean, but elected to bluff the world, just as North Korea is today, to keep the world fearfull of his regime. An agressive, loud dog growling, snapping, salivating, and terrorizing constantly will eventually be put down as a mad dog, whether he is rabid or not. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

I am certain that every war waged by every country over the centuries has been wrought with misinformation of some kind developed through intelligence. I see people laying the blame on the President for the 9-11 disaster because his intelligence community failed to react to information, yet in the same breath criticize him for reacting on intelligence recieved. When will you accept that no means of gathering intelligence is flawless?

The US had the power and the courage to finally put down the beast who murdered many.

The point is not whether this was misinformation but deception, and it pretty much casts doubt on all the other "intelligence" presented to support the case for going to war. Think about it, the uranium lead was false, and we have not found ANY WMD, so was WMD info bogus as well? Makes you think doesn't it. Well it should. No one would have supported this war and put American lives at risk in a pre-emptive strike to remove a dictator, no matter how bad he was. As I and many others have said before, if that was the case we should have gone into the Congo. Altruism can go only so far.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: mastertech01
How many congressmen have openly claimed that they supported the action in Iraq based on that one finite detail of the address? How many Americans did state that this was the one telling factor that swayed thier opinion and support for action?

Other than making a huge vacuum sound sucking up anything that could be found to discredit Bush, what real effect was this single detail in the whole address given by him?

The information of that one detail was found to be false, but does that mean that it isnt likely that Saddaam Hussein was over the 12 years since the 1st Gulf War, trying to rebuild his arsenals and to maintain his grip of fear that others in the region and the world that he had the intention and capability to develop WMD and the will to use them?

He had many opportunities to come clean, but elected to bluff the world, just as North Korea is today, to keep the world fearfull of his regime. An agressive, loud dog growling, snapping, salivating, and terrorizing constantly will eventually be put down as a mad dog, whether he is rabid or not. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

I am certain that every war waged by every country over the centuries has been wrought with misinformation of some kind developed through intelligence. I see people laying the blame on the President for the 9-11 disaster because his intelligence community failed to react to information, yet in the same breath criticize him for reacting on intelligence recieved. When will you accept that no means of gathering intelligence is flawless?

The US had the power and the courage to finally put down the beast who murdered many.

The point is not whether this was misinformation but deception, and it pretty much casts doubt on all the other "intelligence" presented to support the case for going to war. Think about it, the uranium lead was false, and we have not found ANY WMD, so was WMD info bogus as well? Makes you think doesn't it. Well it should. No one would have supported this war and put American lives at risk in a pre-emptive strike to remove a dictator, no matter how bad he was. As I and many others have said before, if that was the case we should have gone into the Congo. Altruism can go only so far.

I would have supported the war.

Guess your intel was wrong about "No one would have supported this war...". So what other lies have you been telling, LilBlinbBlahIce?

CkG

 

[krunk7]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: krunk7
Plausible deniability is rule number one. I'm sure there will be plenty of conflicting claims by credible sources before this is over with. Only an in depth public investigation (preferably criminal) will flush the rats out of the woodwork and reveal the truth. Notice I haven't made a claim to what that truth is.....however, the first party to balk at an investigation is usually the one that would benefit the least. Think about what fools the Democrats would be if they insisted on an investigation and Bush & Co. were completely vindicated. The Bush Administration should welcome an investigation with open arms if they are innocent....

Krunk7 - I take it you are one of those people who think that cops searching vehicles is OK too. The "if you have nothing to hide..." arguement is faulty logic in a supposedly "free" society.

CkG

The connection between public office and private rights do not apply.

When someone in public office begans balking at the public's right to know, than, yes, I think that is indicative of wrong doing. However, when a private citizen balks at the public's right to his private affairs that is merely a justifiec claim to her right to privacy.

mastertech01: this is my thread addressing the difference in the two situations-->
It's not that long

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Guess your intel was wrong about "No one would have supported this war...". So what other lies have you been telling, LilBlinbBlahIce?

In other words, any opinions that differ from yours are "lies". His point is valid and you know it.

While there is undobtedly a small core of warmongers and Bush-worshippers who would go to war for any reason, we all know that Bush's support for this war came from lies about Iraq. Iraq had no significant connections to al Qaeda and 9/11, Iraq had no nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program, and Iraq was not a threat to the United States or our allies. Based on information available at the time, we didn't know for sure whether Iraq still had any significant stocks of usable chemical or biological weapons. We did know that they lacked any credible delivery mechanisms, and we believed they had no significant program to manufacture bio/chem agents.

If Congress and the public had been given the truth, we would not have invaded Iraq. That's a fact, not an assertion.

Cognitive dissonance can be overcome.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: krunk7

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: krunk7
Plausible deniability is rule number one. I'm sure there will be plenty of conflicting claims by credible sources before this is over with. Only an in depth public investigation (preferably criminal) will flush the rats out of the woodwork and reveal the truth. Notice I haven't made a claim to what that truth is.....however, the first party to balk at an investigation is usually the one that would benefit the least. Think about what fools the Democrats would be if they insisted on an investigation and Bush & Co. were completely vindicated. The Bush Administration should welcome an investigation with open arms if they are innocent....

Krunk7 - I take it you are one of those people who think that cops searching vehicles is OK too. The "if you have nothing to hide..." arguement is faulty logic in a supposedly "free" society.

CkG

The connection between public office and private rights do not apply.

When someone in public office begans balking at the public's right to know, than, yes, I think that is indicative of wrong doing. However, when a private citizen balks at the public's right to his private affairs that is merely a justifiec claim to her right to privacy.

mastertech01: this is my thread addressing the difference in the two situations-->
It's not that long

The situation doesn't matter - I'm saying that the "if you have nothing to hide..." argument is logically faulty.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: krunk7

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: krunk7
Plausible deniability is rule number one. I'm sure there will be plenty of conflicting claims by credible sources before this is over with. Only an in depth public investigation (preferably criminal) will flush the rats out of the woodwork and reveal the truth. Notice I haven't made a claim to what that truth is.....however, the first party to balk at an investigation is usually the one that would benefit the least. Think about what fools the Democrats would be if they insisted on an investigation and Bush & Co. were completely vindicated. The Bush Administration should welcome an investigation with open arms if they are innocent....

Krunk7 - I take it you are one of those people who think that cops searching vehicles is OK too. The "if you have nothing to hide..." arguement is faulty logic in a supposedly "free" society.

CkG

The connection between public office and private rights do not apply.

When someone in public office begans balking at the public's right to know, than, yes, I think that is indicative of wrong doing. However, when a private citizen balks at the public's right to his private affairs that is merely a justifiec claim to her right to privacy.

Exactly, well said.

 

[MonkeyK]

I would have supported the war.

Guess your intel was wrong about "No one would have supported this war...". So what other lies have you been telling, LilBlinbBlahIce?

CkG

Really? Even considering that without even a notion of self-defense, the war violates international law?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Guess your intel was wrong about "No one would have supported this war...". So what other lies have you been telling, LilBlinbBlahIce?

In other words, any opinions that differ from yours are "lies". His point is valid and you know it.

While there is undobtedly a small core of warmongers and Bush-worshippers who would go to war for any reason, we all know that Bush's support for this war came from lies about Iraq. Iraq had no significant connections to al Qaeda and 9/11, Iraq had no nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program, and Iraq was not a threat to the United States or our allies. Based on information available at the time, we didn't know for sure whether Iraq still had any significant stocks of usable chemical or biological weapons. We did know that they lacked any credible delivery mechanisms, and we believed they had no significant program to manufacture bio/chem agents.

If Congress and the public had been given the truth, we would not have invaded Iraq. That's a fact, not an assertion.

Cognitive dissonance can be overcome.

Aha! Thanks for the beautiful quote! It speaks quite loudly.

In other words, any opinions that differ from yours are "lies".

Oh and to you labeling anyone who would have supported the war w/o WMD as a Bush worshiper or war monger is blatantly ignorant of the Iraq situation. The Iraq situation is deeper than the "now" (post 9/11) and you know it, but you won't admit it.

CkG

Edit - I forgot this gem too.

I guess you are the true psychic(since I was accused of it the other day).

If Congress and the public had been given the truth, we would not have invaded Iraq. That's a fact, not an assertion.

How do you know this would have become fact?

 

[krunk7]

"you" implies an individual. We are discussing a public office. I am not suggesting an investigation into Bush's private life and I wouldn't. I am demanding an investigation into allegations that the President deceived the American Public.

edit: I also find it odd that no one seems to recall that it was Rumsfield and Reagan that trained the Al' Queda forces in the Afghan revolution against Russia in the late eighties and military equipment and tech to Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war in the early eighties. Not once did Rumsfield express any concern over the fact that this equipment (mainly helicopters) were used in the gassing of Kurds and Iranian troops. The man is a moral void.

double edit: before anyone brings it up, I know Rumsfield resigned in 1984 and that Al' Queda were trained in approx. 1988, sorry. I was simply typing fast

 

[jahawkin]

Something smells bad.....When Condi Rice was on Meet the Press a few weeks back, she had the following to say about the Niger documents:

We did not know at the time?no one knew at the time, in our circles?maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery.

Oh really Condi??

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: krunk7
"you" implies an individual. We are discussing a public office. I am not suggesting an investigation into Bush's private life and I wouldn't. I am demanding an investigation into allegations that the President deceived the American Public.

I give up - you obviously don't see that just because it is being blocked doesn't mean they are guilty, which you imply by saying "The Bush Administration should welcome an investigation with open arms if they are innocent.... ".

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]I guess you are the true psychic(since I was accused of it the other day).

If Congress and the public had been given the truth, we would not have invaded Iraq. That's a fact, not an assertion.

How do you know this would have become fact?

Just taking a page from the Powell playbook. "These are facts, not assertions" is so much more satisfying than acknowledging that he was merely offering Bush-Co opinions and wishful-thinkings.

 

[Moonbeam]

If Congress and the public had been given the truth, we would not have invaded Iraq. That's a fact, not an assertion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know this would have become fact?
--------------
Wow, arguing with you, Caddy, is a real waste of time. Why not argue there are fish on the moon.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If Congress and the public had been given the truth, we would not have invaded Iraq. That's a fact, not an assertion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know this would have become fact?
--------------
Wow, arguing with you, Caddy, is a real waste of time. Why not argue there are fish on the moon.

Yep it is a waste of time for you - You can't back up your claims and neither can Bowfinger

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: krunk7
"you" implies an individual. We are discussing a public office. I am not suggesting an investigation into Bush's private life and I wouldn't. I am demanding an investigation into allegations that the President deceived the American Public.

I give up - you obviously don't see that just because it is being blocked doesn't mean they are guilty, which you imply by saying "The Bush Administration should welcome an investigation with open arms if they are innocent.... ".

CkG

Would it be more clear if he phrased it, "The Bush Administration has a responsibility to welcome an investigation with open arms if they are innocent.... "?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If Congress and the public had been given the truth, we would not have invaded Iraq. That's a fact, not an assertion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know this would have become fact?
--------------
Wow, arguing with you, Caddy, is a real waste of time. Why not argue there are fish on the moon.

Prove that there aren't! Go on, I challenge you. If you can't prove it, then we know there are fish on the moon.

Damn. Now how do we bomb the moon?