7) He actually has personal problems and is retiring b/c of them. Not likely, but it as option for those who don't always try and read something extra into everything or don't have all kinds of conspiracy theories running though their heads.
I thought of adding that, but if so, the timing is...interesting, to say the least. McNamara-ish. I would think that, were this true, they would relieve him of actual duties but postpone any official announcment until after the election. The political fallout of this for the sake of needing to announce it right now would seem extremely unjustified.
An excerpt from the WaPo The official announcement was unconvincing to a former C.I.A. chief, Stansfield Turner, who held the post under President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Turner said the resignation is "too significant a move at too important a time" to be inspired by nothing more than personal considerations. "I think he's being pushed out," Mr. Turner said in an interview on C.N.N. "The president feels he has to have someone to blame." Mr. Turner went on, "I don't think he would pull the plug on President Bush in the midst of an election cycle without being asked by President Bush to do that."
Something's fishy about this... Again from the WaPo Mr. Bush announced the resignation in a way that was almost bizarre. He had just addressed reporters and photographers in a fairly innocuous Rose Garden session with Australia's prime minister, John Howard. Then the session was adjourned, as Mr. Bush apparently prepared to depart for nearby Andrews Air Force Base and his flight to Europe, where he is to take part in ceremonies marking the 60th anniversary of the Normady invasion and meet European leaders — some of whom have been sharply critical of the campaign in Iraq. But minutes later, Mr. Bush reappeared on the sun-drenched White House lawn, stunning listeners with the news of Mr. Tenet's resignation, which the president said would be effective in mid-July. Until then, Mr. Bush said, the C.I.A.'s deputy director, John McLaughlin, will be acting director.
MacB, you keep claiming that the NIE report talks about no ties between AQ and Iraq; and while that might be true, I think it simply because thats not what the report is about. The NIE report was an estimate of WMD programs that Sadaam had...not an estimate of AQ Sadaamish collaboration.... Could you please explain what you mean when you say the NIE report said there was no connection between AQ and Iraq, cause I'm not getting it... Here's a link to the NIE report.... http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
That is not the NIE report, twhy, that is the CIA report on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs. They were simultaneous, but not synonomous. For the 350th time: From the exerpts released July 18th, 2003; Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war. Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks—more likely with biological than chemical agents—probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives. • The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been, directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory. Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida—with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States—could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct. • In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.
Could you please provide the link to the document from the CIA website? Once again, we've bickered on the wording with this so we go round and round that tree again.
Twhy: I think you are confused. The NIE report is NOT a CIA report. It's an accumulation of the intel developed by six US intelligence agencies ( sub divided into 15 agencies), one of which is the C.I.A. As such, it would not be found on the C.I.A. website; it is not exclusively a C.I.A. property. The exerpts I posted for you were released by Dan Bartlett, White House Director of Communications. Just google for National Intelligence Estimate, Iraq and you'll find plenty of links, at least to the exeprts released by the White House.
Ok, thanks for the straightening, the world makes a little bit more sense now....but, why are you then claiming that the CIA tried to warn (espc. Tenet) tried to warn the WH about AQ/Iraq threat? at the same time I foudn this excerpt from the producers of the NIE report.... Full link...http://www.odci.gov/nic/articles_iraq_wmd.htm
1) NP on the informing: To be honest, I sort of owe you an apology. Prior to our discussion of the NIE report, I had gained a little respect for, if not your knowledge of this matter, at least your desire to acquire it, tempered as it is ( I believe) with a faith in our war/administration I do not share. But when I posted the NIE report, and you tried arguing that it didn't say what it said, but focused on the WMD aspect, I initially suggested you might not have read it all, but when you reasserted your position, I think I sort of wrote you off as yet another war supporter who ignores what is in front of their eyes if it's inconvenient. It turns out that you simply had been misdirected and misinformed, and for confusing that with selective perspective, I apologize. Seriously. I am galed that you posted a link to what you had been reading as the NIE report. 2) I don't understand the wording of your subsequent question: The CIA/Tenet contributed to the NIE, signicantly, and it assesses their findings in conjuction with other agencies. It would be incompatible for the CIA to believe A while the NIE report states B. The NIE deals with matters about which the agencies agree. I'm not sure if this addresses your question or not. 3) Re; the last quote. Again unsure of your point. Are you offering a refreshing assurance that we will be infomred they were wrong?
I'll blindly look the way if I want to... No really, I think both sides have valid points to be made for or against the war; and in the end, I think it probably was the correct decision, although I don't like how everything is being carried out right now... The subsequent question was you were saying that Tenet was responsible for telling the admin. that AQ/Iraq were not in league, and from the CIA report of 2002, it looks as if determining that connection was not the chief role of the CIA, who seemed to focus their efforts on the WMD... of course, what part they had in that decision is hard to tell. The quote was to show that the makers of the NIE report did not want WMD to fall into the wrong hands, so there was some concern that Sadaam and friends could share the wealth with T's, which seems to qualify the statements you posted from the NIE report.
Interesting comments coming from the republicans... "Simply put, I think the community is somewhat in denial over the full extent ... of the shortcoming of its work on Iraq and also on 9/11. We need fresh thinking within the community especially within the Congress, to enable the intelligence community to change and adapt to the dangerous world in which we live." — Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan. "He served his country a long time. History will tell what the implications of his tenure were. ... It's too early to make that snap judgment. I think history will either vindicate him or say 'hey, there was a problem there.'" — House Speaker Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "There were more failures of intelligence on his watch as director of the CIA than any other DCI in our history. I have long felt that, while an honorable man, he lacked the critical leadership necessary for our intelligence community to effectively operate, particularly in the post 9/11 world," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. "In light of intelligence failures leading up to 9/11 and those concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, I welcome the change at the top of the agency." Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., former CIA operations officer. "I do think that this is a positive move, for him personally and for the agency. His resignation also will give the president the opportunity to implement other needed reforms in the intelligence community to improve its operation." — Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.
"This was payback for him making us look bad after it broke that we got duped by Chalabi and gave away national security secrets to the Iranians even though he warned us about him and we refused to listen" -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. I love Rep. Simmons comments, btw. Either he is an idiot or he is lying.
If Bush thinks Tenet was successful, one hates to think what he thinks unsuccessful would be - 20 hijackers instead of 19?
Just had a amfootball moment. Saw the end of a report that said one of the CIA's deputy Directors is going to resign tomorrow. Didn't catch a name.
but we've been hearing about intelligence failures left and right. Madmax. Max, I hope you aren't implying that the intelligence failures were on the left, too!
