Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush doubted WMD reports- (misled by tenet)
ny post ^ | 4/17/2004 | BRIAN BLOMQUIST

Posted on 04/18/2004 12:49:16 AM PDT by vp_cal

Edited on 05/26/2004 5:20:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

April 17, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - CIA director George Tenet confidently assured a skeptical President Bush before the Iraq war that it was a "slam-dunk case" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to a bombshell new book by Bob Woodward. Tenet provided his ironclad guarantee to the president after an aide led a Dec. 21, 2002, intelligence presentation at the White House featuring communication intercepts, satellite photos and diagrams.


(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush43; bushtenetiraqwmd; prewarinelligencee; tenet; tenetiscolflagg; wmd
is this for real???
1 posted on 04/18/2004 12:49:17 AM PDT by vp_cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
Saddam lived, although his sons were later killed

Depends on your perspective. I would say his sons were killed earlier, based on the timeline.

2 posted on 04/18/2004 12:57:58 AM PDT by Glenn (The two keys to character: 1) Learn how to keep a secret. 2) ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
---------- April 17, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - CIA director George Tenet confidently assured a skeptical President Bush before the Iraq war that it was a "slam-dunk case" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to a bombshell new book by Bob Woodward. Tenet provided his ironclad guarantee to the president after an aide led a Dec. 21, 2002, intelligence presentation at the White House featuring communication intercepts, satellite photos and diagrams.

The president then turned to Tenet and said, "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?"

"It's a slam-dunk case," Tenet replied, prompting Bush to press him again, "George, how confident are you?"

"Don't worry, it's a slam-dunk case," the nation's top spymaster repeated.

----------

The president didn't want Tenet to know what Rumsfeld was working on, and White House National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice knew only vaguely that Rumsfeld was doing some work on Iraq.

----------

So on one hand Tenet was giving Bush rock solid can't miss info that Saddam had weapons of mass destructions to go to war. But on the other he didn't want Tenet to know Rumsfeld was working on plans for the war. Yeah that sounds likely. And who did Woodward get this info from? Long Rod or Fat Frank?

3 posted on 04/18/2004 1:13:33 AM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's floats, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
Why would anyone talk to Woodward? My understanding is that the Bush administration is extremely security-counscious and unlikely to give interviews on such a topic to reporters, much less a Watergate reporter of dubious reputation.
4 posted on 04/18/2004 1:15:04 AM PDT by skr (Pro-life from cradle to grave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal; Luis Gonzalez; JohnHuang2; rdb3; mhking; Trueblackman; BlkConserv; radiohead; Tuco-bad; ...
One thing from Woodward's writing that is instructive of the liberal mindset is that Woodward clearly doesn't understand vetting a concept.

To liberals, everyone is either supposed to be all for something (e.g. global warming treaties, abortion, UN resolutions), or else everyone is supposed to be all against something (e.g. death penalty, prayer in school, war, etc.).

Thus, the liberal mindset, as illustrated by Woodward in his writing, perceives open, honest, full debate (i.e. "vetting") as if it was a rift in the Bush Administration.

But you don't want JFK-style groupthink in your Administration. That's how you get the Bay of Pigs disaster.

Instead, you want the strongest case argued for a big decision (e.g. going to war) and you want the strongest possible case presented to you against such a decision (e.g. not going to war).

In this manner a key decision maker like the President can more accurately weigh which argument is best for our nation.

So people like Powell in the Center-Left and people like Cheney on the Right have equally valuable advisory roles to and for our President.

We want both sides presented to President Bush, after all. We want that full debate to occur inside the White house, by our own people, prior to making a big decision.

But this is beyond the comprehension of the far Left. They see such debate dichotomies as major "rifts" in our Administration.

In short, their intellectual myopia blinds them to the larger truth. They don't "get us."

5 posted on 04/18/2004 1:15:21 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
* When Bush ordered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to come up with a plan to go to war with Iraq - right in the middle of the ground war in Afghanistan - Army Gen. Tommy Franks was so upset, he unleashed a string of obscenities.

I highly doubt this.

I hope General Franks calls him on it. I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that it might be actionable.

6 posted on 04/18/2004 1:32:44 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skr
Why would anyone talk to Woodward?

Because they didn't want to look like they were afraid of him, IMHO.

7 posted on 04/18/2004 1:35:41 AM PDT by L.N. Smithee (Just because I don't think like you doesn't mean I don't think for myself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
I agree, I doubt Tommy Franks ever acted like this, and I'm sure Tommy Franks will be questioned about this and shoot it down.

During the build up to invading Iraq, everyone knew ousting the Saddam Regime would be a lot easier than proping up a new Government and changing the midset of a people who have been brutalized for nearly 30 years.

8 posted on 04/18/2004 2:02:22 AM PDT by MJY1288 (2 Things You Wont Find at a Kerry Campaign Rally... A Leader, and an American Flag in the Crowd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; vp_cal; MJY1288; archy; Travis McGee
I can believe General Franks was not enthusiastic about invading Iraq. The last person who wants to go to war is an experienced soldier. The swearing might have been a way to get his mind working on the problem, though. $%^&&!#$#$% so THAT'S what we'll do. Etc...
9 posted on 04/18/2004 3:08:26 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
The hind sighters and ankle biters are out in full force. There is no way that Woodward or his so called sources can truly cover the totality of an extremely complicated situation: i.e., How to take it to the perps, vs. sitting around waiting for another terrorist attack to happen.
10 posted on 04/18/2004 3:17:07 AM PDT by tkathy (nihilism: absolute destructiveness toward the world at large and oneself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
There’s going to be a panic here as these three hit books take their toll and the Democrat feeding frenzie begin… until the Iraqi war crimes trials begin this summer and everyone remembers why it was such a threat to the world.
11 posted on 04/18/2004 3:52:44 AM PDT by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
Knowing a little bit about war plannings, both as an historian and having some contact with the process on active duty and working with a civilian contractor, I find anyone getting upset about this risable. Plans are constantly updated, and should be. If I were president and was told the plan for war with almost any country was out of date (especially as was probably the case with Iraq because the forces available were no longer as large as in the past), I'd order it updated. These plans take months to prepare, even to update. Bush would have been irresponsible if he didn't have updated plans for almost every contingency in the middle east, even for every contingency in Europe and Asia.
12 posted on 04/18/2004 4:00:26 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo [Gallia][Germania][Arabia] Esse Delendam --- Select One or More as needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
Bush cleared everyone out of the Oval Office except the vice president before making his decision.

"I think we ought to go for it," Cheney is quoted as saying, and Bush followed his advice.

So the President and Vice President are alone and Woodward is capable of quoting them. I simply don't believe any of these descriptions of events compiled by Woodward.

13 posted on 04/18/2004 4:02:57 AM PDT by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
Darn I was hoping OLD Bobby would be telling us WHO sent Joe Wilson to Africa to gather "intel" on yellowcake.

All those "rumors" about Powell leaving look like threats coming out of the State Department.

The elected and media liberals have one continuous drumbeat, how secret the Bush administration is. Obviously, somebody within the administration figured out who the "moles" were and they could not get their hands on President Bush's secret "intel"....

No wonder the liberals and their media have been after President Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney, Rummy and now Condi.

Maybe we will get somebody who will clean out the State Department during the next four years.
14 posted on 04/18/2004 4:09:53 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Instead, you want the strongest case argued for a big decision (e.g. going to war) and you want the strongest possible case presented to you against such a decision (e.g. not going to war).

Excellent point. And sometimes one takes the opposite side just to explore the arguments, even when they don't believe the other side is correct. It's called playing Devil's Advocate and it exposes holes in logic, motive and plan.

And I find it hard to believe that Powell ever referred to other members of the Bush staff as Gestapos. If they did, that is crossing the line and they should be fired for insubordination. Arguw the facts- sure. Ad hominem name-calling ist verboten.

15 posted on 04/18/2004 4:36:30 AM PDT by RobFromGa (There isn't always an easy path, but there is always a right path.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
If this is the most dirt Woodward could dig out and 'interpret', it seems weak and petty more than informative or being a bombshell.
16 posted on 04/18/2004 4:54:46 AM PDT by TomGuy (Clintonites have such good hind-sight because they had their heads up their hind-ends 8 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead
And who did Woodward get this info from?

Nixon.

17 posted on 04/18/2004 5:07:43 AM PDT by alrea (Arafat definition of Mideast Peace: exploded child suicide bomber body part)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
Excerpts from Woodward's book have been around for a couple days now. President Bush and any administration officials who are misquoted or maligned should be all over Woodward right away like white on rice. Procrastination infers admission of Woodward's innuendos.

The general public doesn't have the history and discernment we have regarding Woodward's deep-throatisms. Damage has already been done.

However, given the history of compassionate conservatism afforded the media by high Republican PR mavens, I'm not holding my breath.

Our side may have instant-response teams overseas, but in matters domestic, Republican party leaders and their media specialists historically wait around, hem and haw, look the other way and ignore any PR damage, hoping it'll all go away.

Sure, the book may well be forgotten by November, but death by a thousand cuts is not just a silly saying without basis.

Administration spokesman teams should be all over the tube and op-ed columns this coming week counteracting Woodward's domestic terror assault. We'll see if that happens.

Leni

18 posted on 04/18/2004 5:38:52 AM PDT by MinuteGal (Paradise is not lost! You'll find it May 22 aboard "FReeps Ahoy 3". Register now for the cruise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
Unnamed sources in an unnamed publication reveal that Woodward has a gerbil for a secret lover.

This has the same credibility level as Woodward's BS.

19 posted on 04/18/2004 5:43:52 AM PDT by verity (A Vote for Kerry is a vote for National Suicide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
To my conservative mind, the comments by Tenet regarding WMD's, if true, exonerate Bush.

But liberals will focus upon Bush's lack of certainty in their existence, and the fact that he chose to wage war in Iraq anyway, and thus will spin it accordingly.

BTW, the WMD's were in Iraq. Saddam not having the time to prepare for war during his final days when he realized the US truly was going to invade, buried some in the desert and drove the rest to Syria in a successful last ditch attempt to stick it to the US.

Saddam (who probably can't believe his own good fortune and the ridiculously fair nature of the west) will have another crack at screwing the US in his upcoming trial.

20 posted on 04/18/2004 6:06:30 AM PDT by TOUGH STOUGH (A vote for president Bush IS a vote for principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verity
Yep, Woodward's greatest scam is getting his fiction sold as non-fiction
21 posted on 04/18/2004 6:09:57 AM PDT by GreyFriar (3rd Armored Division -- Spearhead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead; All
Everyone is forgetting that up until now, we have been told that Cheney strong-armed the CIA to manufacture intel to back the war in Iraq.

.

Now Woodward tells us Tenet assured Bush that it was a "slam dunk?"

.

Any chance that Woodward is trying to draw out Tenet? Or is this Woodward's way of supporting Bush, while making $ at the time.


22 posted on 04/18/2004 6:11:49 AM PDT by Spotsy (Bush-Cheney '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
Woodward has the same credibility that Breslin has. He created the mythical Deep Throat and caused the resignation Nixon. This is another fable created by this whacked out Lunatic Lib fiction writer pretending to be a reporter.

This is just the latest chapter in the Lunatic Libs attempt to electronically lynch GW and his cabinet members with lies, myths, fables and spinning of all three.
23 posted on 04/18/2004 6:42:20 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (America can't afford a 9/10 John F'onda al Querry after 9/11.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
"So the President and Vice President are alone and Woodward is capable of quoting them. I simply don't believe any of these descriptions of events compiled by Woodward."

Woodward has permanently damaged his brain with too many chemicals. He has these fantasies about what people do in private and presents them as fact.

He got by creating the mythical Deep Throat, and he is trying fable creation again in this book.


24 posted on 04/18/2004 6:46:34 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (America can't afford a 9/10 John F'onda al Querry after 9/11.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
If this is true, then he wasn't misled by Tenet. Tenet was wrong. Two very different things.
25 posted on 04/18/2004 6:48:37 AM PDT by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
Considering Woodward's reputation, this book belongs in the Fiction aisle.
26 posted on 04/18/2004 6:54:24 AM PDT by ovrtaxt ( Communism has bowed the knee to Jesus. *** Allah is next.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spotsy
Any chance that Woodward is trying to draw out Tenet? Or is this Woodward's way of supporting Bush, while making $ at the time.

When you are talking about Woodward, who knows what to believe. I am guessing there might be more calls for Tenet's head. What does Tenet do? Does he quit? Does make Bush fire him? Does he say Woodward is a liar? Is Woodward hoping Tenet tries and bring down Bush with him. Tenet seems like a classy guy. But how much can you really trust a Clinton appointee. This could get real interesting.

27 posted on 04/18/2004 7:16:04 AM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's floats, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
I'd like to know why President Bush spent time allowing Woodward to interview him? Did he know Woodward was going to do another one of these books? And Bush is the only one identified-the others chose to remain anonymous 'sources'. There's always some fiction in these things, but a large part of this is to be believed by the people. I am always skeptical of everything I read, knowing there is some incorrect information in these books. As for Franks, I believe he's given interviews recently saying how Bush was not eager to go to war as the media and critics claim with Iraq, but when approached with the possibility said he agreed. Franks himself has cited Saddam Hussein's repeated verbal threats in speeches, etc. over the decade since the Gulf War and mentioned how it showed intent, so General Franks knows Iraq was a legitimate target(he's the only one in the circle who has mentioned Saddam Hussein's threats to our safety-I wish the President and his team would highlight that as part of his hostilities and why Iraq was a threat to us). As for doubts about the WMD-this President is not the only one to mention this threat. Clintoon and his lousy administration were repeatedly warning of Iraq and WMD, the world intelligence was consistent on it, the UN, John F'n Kerry, Demonrats are all on record in belief that Iraq was a threat WITH WMD. I'm sick of this claim that somehow the Bush administration made it up when all are on record with this. The media will continue to attempt to do damage to this President with this book and all the rest. I just hope Bush will call the Demonrats and their comments on the threat Saddam Hussein's Iraq was with WMD and their complete hypocrisy.
28 posted on 04/18/2004 8:00:39 AM PDT by bushfamfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"To liberals, everyone is either supposed to be all for something (e.g. global warming treaties, abortion, UN resolutions), or else everyone is supposed to be all against something (e.g. death penalty, prayer in school, war, etc.)."

Collectivism.

"But you don't want JFK-style groupthink"

Collectivism.

"In this manner a key decision maker like the President can more accurately weigh which argument is best for our nation."

Individualism.

Left vs. right.

29 posted on 04/18/2004 8:06:46 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Sin Pátria, pero sin amo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vp_cal
In my opinion, the biggest problem was getting Powell to buy in by making him argue the case to the UN. At his speech he really drilled into the WMD (the rolling laboratories, etc.), over and over and over again. If he had spoken of human rights, or Saddam's refusal to permit verification, the Bush Administration would not have been on the defensive over the failure (so far) to uncover them.
30 posted on 04/18/2004 8:26:57 AM PDT by Piranha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
Of course reality or Truth has nothing to do with this RATmedia operation to destroy the President. The latter is the ONLY important factor.
31 posted on 04/18/2004 9:23:12 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic RATmedia agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Come on, a guy who can interview a man in a coma could hardly be stopped from quoting from a conversation he never heard. Maybe he has been reading Thucydides.
32 posted on 04/18/2004 9:24:41 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic RATmedia agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
RATmedia selects WHO will be on the shows. It will NEVER give Bush an even break.
33 posted on 04/18/2004 9:26:57 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic RATmedia agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TOUGH STOUGH
To my conservative mind, the comments by Tenet regarding WMD's, if true, exonerate Bush.

Bush hasn't fired Tenet. How can Bush be exonerated until that happens?

34 posted on 04/18/2004 10:24:42 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Spotsy
The two points aren't necessarily separate regardless of whether they are true. It's possible that Cheney strong-armed and that Tenet cited it as slam dunk as a part of the strong-arming.
35 posted on 04/18/2004 10:26:11 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
I think the allegation is that Cheney told Tenet to mislead Bush. It might explain why Tenet still has a job. You can't very well fire your VP.
36 posted on 04/18/2004 10:27:28 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
The comments about Tenet should exonerate Bush even in the minds of liberals, if they are true and if there really were no WMD's. But liberals want Bush to be guilty so those comments won't even exonerate Bush in the Liberal mind even if WMD's are eventually found, as I believe they will be.

BTW, just because they haven't been found in mass quantities yet, does not mean they won't be and it also does not mean that Tenet was wrong. Bush probably believes they were there, are yet to be found and in that case sees no justification for firing Tenet.

37 posted on 04/18/2004 10:40:59 AM PDT by TOUGH STOUGH (A vote for president Bush IS a vote for principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
I'd be really interesting where you came up with that unusual spin on what is in this article, seeing as the article neither states that nor hints at it.
38 posted on 04/18/2004 12:05:24 PM PDT by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Just explaining a easy-to-get-to way to having it that Tenet mislead Bush and that Cheney strong-armed the CIA. I didn't say it was true, but it's certainly possible, and it does explain the inexplicable-- Tenet's job security. It's not like I said Tenet's mind was controlled by space aliens.
39 posted on 04/18/2004 2:25:09 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
I'd also say that it's public knowledge that there was incorrect info on WMD from our "sources." Kay has talked about how pissed he is about this guy and about the fact that he's living just fine right now free from punishment. Chalabi has also made statements that could be interpreted that he was part of a plot to get Bush to do something he wasn't totally sold on.
40 posted on 04/18/2004 2:28:42 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: TOUGH STOUGH
What you said (that Bush hasn't given up on finding WMD and so hasn't cause for firing Tenet) is certainly possible.
41 posted on 04/18/2004 2:30:42 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Yeah, I am sure that is it.

You are really full of it.

42 posted on 04/18/2004 3:18:00 PM PDT by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Southack
I read Woodward's book on Greenspan...I've never seen such fluff. Woodward seems seems singularly incapable of grasping his subject matter.

His books are to writing what cotton candy is to food.

43 posted on 04/18/2004 6:18:27 PM PDT by AdamSelene235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson