|
What Sen. Joseph Lieberman said
|
View this Thread in Original format
| LazFX |
What Sen. Joseph Lieberman said
| quote: |
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Sunday, April 22, 2007
"There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist extremism.
There is something profoundly wrong when there is so much distrust of our intelligence community that some Americans doubt the plain and ominous facts about the threat to us posed by Iran.
And there is something profoundly wrong when, in the face of attacks by radical Islam, we think we can find safety and stability by pulling back, by talking to and accommodating our enemies, and abandoning our friends and allies.
Some of this wrong- headed thinking about the world is happening because we're in a political climate where, for many people, when George Bush says "yes," their reflex reaction is to say "no."
That is unacceptable."
— Sen. Joseph Lieberman Washington DC March 12, 2007
SOURCE |
|
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
I don't quite understand how anyone can think he's correct, when we've got Tenet releasing his new book, and all over the news.
This illustrates exactly what I've been saying for years: we can not trust people in authority to use classified or sensitive information correctly.
There is too much incompetence and general human error for that sort of thing; it's the blind leading the blind. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
I don't quite understand how anyone can think he's correct, when we've got Tenet releasing his new book, and all over the news. |
Why did it take George Tenet so many years to come out and say that he was mis-understood, taken out of context, whatever you want to call it, etc, etc...? Frankly I don't think it matters b/c the only people who will really believe him are likely to be the very people who so reviled him when they thought he was pushing for war in the first place. But seriously, if he was mis-quoted or what have you and, as he says, he was dragged through the mud and his career was ruined, why has it taken him so long to come out and defend himself? Did it take him years to concoct the story? Was he just lazy? Is he full of ? In any event, I'll therefore agree that we can't trust him and many others in a position of authority. |
|
|
| Swamper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
But seriously, if he was mis-quoted or what have you and, as he says, he was dragged through the mud and his career was ruined, why has it taken him so long to come out and defend himself? Did it take him years to concoct the story? Was he just lazy? Is he full of ? In any event, I'll therefore agree that we can't trust him and many others in a position of authority. |
It takes years to write a proper book - not to mention - making sure that when it's released there is sufficient demand to keep it from the bargain bin 2 months after publication. After all, it's only been recently that opposal to the Iraq War has gained acceptance as being "o.k." instead of 'unpatriotic'. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Swamper
It takes years to write a proper book - not to mention - making sure that when it's released there is sufficient demand to keep it from the bargain bin 2 months after publication. After all, it's only been recently that opposal to the Iraq War has gained acceptance as being "o.k." instead of 'unpatriotic'. |
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it takes "years" to write a "proper" book. Bob Woodward hasn't had any problem publishing books in a shorter time frame. Joe Wilson didn't take so long. I haven't heard so much as a peep from Tenet until last week. You'd think, book aside, that he would've tried to defend himself a lot earlier. Otherwise it just looks a bit disingenuine, imho. I'd be more inclined to believe something like, "he feared for his life" over him just sitting on his ass and not saying anything for the last 3 years. It's not like he had a job to worry about. |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
I can't wait to read his book.
On topic: I think Lieberman is an oddball. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it takes "years" to write a "proper" book. Bob Woodward hasn't had any problem publishing books in a shorter time frame. Joe Wilson didn't take so long. I haven't heard so much as a peep from Tenet until last week. You'd think, book aside, that he would've tried to defend himself a lot earlier. Otherwise it just looks a bit disingenuine, imho. I'd be more inclined to believe something like, "he feared for his life" over him just sitting on his ass and not saying anything for the last 3 years. It's not like he had a job to worry about. |
Not to defend Tenet, but perhaps the clearance from the CIA and White House has something to do with the time lapse, though I don't know that for certain.
I've seen some of his quotes here and there as well as his 60 Minute interview. Hate to say it, but much of what he's saying is stuff that a lot of folks already knew, especially in his criticism against the VP office (seems to be a bit less critical of Bush in comparison). He does seem to be attempting to shift the blame away from him as much as possible, which certain CIA members take a bit of disagreement with on that:
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_web...r_to_georg.html
Not that it was hard to anticipate him coming out with a book that would blame others. Some parts I think Bush supporters will like, other parts the liberal folks will like more. Overall his points of contention should probably be taken with a grain of salt. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
Tenet should have been -canned Sept 12, 2001.
| quote: | Imperfect Storm
By The Editors
Poor George Tenet. Everyone has been quoting his infamous comment in the Oval Office that the intelligence on Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction programs was a “slam dunk.” As he has made clear in his book, At the Center of the Storm, and Sunday night’s 60 Minutes segment, Tenet considers this very unfair — “despicable,” even — since his comment supposedly wasn’t about the intelligence itself but about the ease with which the public presentation of the intelligence could be strengthened.
This is a distinction without a difference. If the underlying intelligence wasn’t reliable, why was Tenet so slam-dunk certain that the presentation of it could be improved? Tenet’s words became so widely cited not because Bush officials wanted to pin the war on him, as Tenet believes, but because it is the easiest way to make a thumbnail argument that there was a broad consensus behind the judgment that Saddam had WMDs. This is what Vice President Cheney was getting at when he quoted Tenet’s “slam dunk” remark during the Meet the Press appearance that Tenet angrily invoked last night.
Tenet shouldn’t be so offended when people quote his words, since they reflect an essential truth — that he indeed had no doubt that Saddam had WMDs. But Tenet is now engaged in a classic instance of self-serving Beltway memoir-writing, settling scores against Dick Cheney and the “neocons” who were allegedly impervious to the facts so diligently assembled by the CIA.
Tenet says that the war wasn’t really about weapons of mass destruction. It’s true that the case for war wasn’t built entirely on Saddam’s possessing WMDs — as the war’s supporters have long pointed out. But this was certainly the most important element in the case. The alarming 2002 National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq’s weapons capabilities was a key part of the debate prior to the war. When Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the United Nations — with Tenet sitting behind him — there was a reason he devoted so much time to talking about Saddam’s weapons programs. George Tenet might not like to be reminded that his CIA thought it was a slam dunk that Saddam had dangerous weapons, and that this played a decisive role in going to war, but there’s no getting around it.
Sunday night, Tenet gave the impression that any thought of Saddam and al Qaeda’s cooperating was pure fantasy. You never would have known that in October 2002 Tenet wrote a letter to Sen. Bob Graham that said: “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’ida going back a decade”; “Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa’ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression”; “We have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa’ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad”; “We have credible reporting that al-Qa’ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities”; and so on.
That was then. Now that the war has proved difficult and unpopular, Tenet feels safe in attacking its advocates. In a widely quoted anecdote, he says he saw Richard Perle exiting the White House on September 12, when Perle told him Iraq should be punished for the attack since it bore responsibility. Perle says this couldn’t have happened because he was in France at the time, as Bill Kristol has noted. (Tenet apparently has a problem getting the facts straight even in his post-CIA life).
Tenet is especially harsh on Dick Cheney’s supposed tendency to go beyond the intelligence. But when he warned that a Cheney speech about links between Iraq and al Qaeda went too far, it wasn’t delivered. As for President Bush’s controversial 16 words about the British learning that Saddam sought uranium from Niger, Tenet didn’t bother to read the State of the Union speech before it was delivered, and so didn’t advise the White House to keep them out.
The fundamental problem wasn’t that the administration wanted to go beyond the intelligence, but that the intelligence itself was flawed. George Tenet bears a large measure of responsibility for this, as he headed an agency that had no clandestine service to speak of and was unimaginative and plodding in its analysis. But some of his explanations for getting it wrong are sound, even if self-serving.
As he explained on 60 Minutes, intelligence is inherently uncertain, or it wouldn’t be intelligence. No one was attempting to lie about the intelligence; as he said, it would have been crazy to send Colin Powell with to the U.N. if the claims Powell made weren’t thought to be true. And in a line from his book that will be neglected, Tenet writes, “Intelligence professionals did not try to tell policy makers what they wanted to hear, nor did the policy makers lean on us to influence outcomes.”
Given the limits of our intelligence capabilities to this day, interrogations of terror leaders are crucial. Tenet says they have been more important than the information gathered by the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the CIA put together, and have saved American lives. He is adamant that the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques don’t amount to torture, and he is correct to note the difficulty of getting information from hardened thugs trained not to talk (but ready to ask for legal representation, as Khalid Sheik Mohammed did upon capture).
In the end, it was a mistake for President Bush to keep George Tenet on as CIA director after he took office in 2001, let alone award him a Medal of Freedom. Tenet was primarily a political player who didn’t understand what it took to revive the CIA. He presided over two debacles — 9/11 and the flawed intelligence about Iraq — and contributed to the administration’s dysfunction with his internal bureaucratic warfare. If he seemed defensive in his 60 Minutes interview, it was because he has a lot to be defensive about. |
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Tenet should have been -canned Sept 12, 2001. |
That's the bull thing I don't get about the whole "slam dunk" comment he's trying to defend. If in fact Cheney or anyone else out of context, why the didn't Tenet tell Woodward that BEFORE Woodward went public and put it in his book?
Tenet's being disingenuous at best here, along with other moments. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
If in fact Cheney or anyone else out of context, why the didn't Tenet tell Woodward that BEFORE Woodward went public and put it in his book? |
who knows? everything and everyone inside the beltway are probably not as interconnected as you think. Woodward was an outsider brought in by the administration for no other reason but to write a book. his consideration for a lot of things was probably unnoticed. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it takes "years" to write a "proper" book. Bob Woodward hasn't had any problem publishing books in a shorter time frame. Joe Wilson didn't take so long. I haven't heard so much as a peep from Tenet until last week. You'd think, book aside, that he would've tried to defend himself a lot earlier. Otherwise it just looks a bit disingenuine, imho. I'd be more inclined to believe something like, "he feared for his life" over him just sitting on his ass and not saying anything for the last 3 years. It's not like he had a job to worry about. |
Good.
So you agree with me.
These people can not be trusted. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
Lieberman is a tard, I loathe him.
By the way: Don't be surprised if he's one of the "VIPs" soon to be unearthed in "the Madam"'s report :D ;) haha, it's always the ones that talk about "values" and "morality" the most :) |
|
|
|
|
