Tenet says he regrets 'slam dunk' comment ("dumbest words I ever said")

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/28/tenet.weaponsremark.ap/index.html

KUTZTOWN, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Former CIA Director George Tenet said he regretted assuring President Bush in 2002 that he had "slam dunk" evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"Those were the two dumbest words I ever said," Tenet told about 1,300 people at a Kutztown University forum Wednesday. The theory was a leading justification for the war in Iraq. Such weapons were never found.

Tenet, who left the CIA in July after seven years as director, also said apathy toward terrorism -- including congressional restrictions and budget and personnel cuts -- had sapped U.S. intelligence efforts for most of the last decade.

"The atrophy was tremendous," said Tenet, 52. "We were nearly bankrupt." The CIA's assessment of Iraq's capabilities was not developed "for political reasons or a craven desire to lead the country to war," he said.

[Stephanie]

1. Who believes he actually said it?

I sure don't.

[wiggs]

23. Read his whole statement carefully

And read what was reported at the time....

....it can be interpreted that he used the words "slam dunk" in connection with MAKING THE CASE for Iraq WMD. Not whether or not there ARE wmd in Iraq. Rather, it's a "slam dunk" that the lie could be successful.

From most accounts, the original cia info was full of qualifiers and disclaimers. Tenet would know about these. At the time, I remember discussions about how intelligence is right only 50% of the time. It is an inaccurate art with lots of backup info...this is well known. It seems highly unlikely that the CIA director would guarantee a conclusion based on the flimsy evidence that we know about.

Please....the evidence we all saw was crap and most knew it at the time. There's nothing remotely slam dunk about it. This is revisionist history.

I don't buy it either. Tenet is protecting the whole disgusting process and major players involved.

[wtmusic]

2. Does it bother him at all that he enabled that "craven desire"

to go to war???

Maybe a few years doing volunteer work would ease your conscience, you fucking hypocrite

[theliberalavenger]

16. He's *denying* that the craven desire existed

In other words: you can tell when he is lying because his lips will move.

[wtmusic]

17. Actually it sounds like he's passing the buck

now that he has nothing to lose--

The CIA's assessment of Iraq's capabilities was not developed "for political reasons or a craven desire to lead the country to war," he said.

So let's see...is it my career, or killing 100K foreigners? Shall we flip a coin?

[arewenotdemo]

26. Precisely.

And if there were a hell, Tenet deserves a place alongside the major instigators of this tragedy.

[Jo March]

3. Well, I'm sure all of the families of the dead feel much better

I know that I do.

:sarcasm:

[ewagner]

4. Wrong on everything Tenet!

Wrong about "Slam Dunk".

and also wrong about the "atrophy"....if you had been a competent administrator, you would have allocated your resources properly.

You're an ass-kissing boob Tenet....

[Eliot Spitzer 2006]

5. He said it alright

But that doesn't exonerate the President from believing all of the intelligence.

[Stephanie]

7. Really?

Were you in the room?

[Eliot Spitzer 2006]

12. No, but I don't believe Tenet is a liar

[leveymg]

9. Until he comes clean on what he told * before 9/11, he's still on the

shit-list.

Welcome to DU, ES 06!

That having been said, could you ask your namesake why the NY District Attorney hasn't actually convened a grand jury to investigate the 3,000 counts of negligent homicide, perjury, and obstruction of justice that occurred within that jurisdiction? Those crimes of 9/11 are all, by the way, offenses under the NY Criminal Code, so Mr. Spitzer could prosecute if he would. :hi:

[Eliot Spitzer 2006]

11. I don't understand your question

Who would the NY District Attorney bring charges against? The terrorists who committed the 3,000 counts of homicide that day are already dead. BTW, I think Eliot Spitzer will be an excellent Governor for the State of New York and one day, an excellent President or U.S. Attorney General. He's one person who actually gets things done and fights for the small investor. He's made a lot of positive changes in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt.

[Stephanie]

13. The question is, why did Bush do nothing in the face of all the warnings

in the summer of 2001? He retreated to his ranch and hid out while warnings were flowing in from US allies all over the world. I would like to see Spitzer look into this on behalf of the murdered New Yorkers, since nobody else will.

[Eliot Spitzer 2006]

15. Oh, I understand now.

I am sure your desire for justice is heart felt and sincere; however, Eliot Spitzer can not investigate the president for not preventing an attack any more than FDR could have been prosecuted for not preventing Pearl Harbour. Elected officials are not liable for preventing every possible occurence which could harm people. Elected officials are held liable by the people - that's what elections are for. Don't hold it against Eliot for not going after the president - he's had 10 out of 10 successful prosecutions so far and is doing a lot of good.

[Stephanie]

18. It's "Harbor" - just FYI

I'm sure your reply is heartfelt and sincere as well. However, sitting presidents can indeed be prosecuted in civil court, as the Republicans changed the rules in order to go after Clinton. You might remember Paula Jones. If you stick around DU for a while you might learn why we feel Bush is liable. You could start by googling "new Pearl Harbor"

[Eliot Spitzer 2006]

19. Sitting President can not and should not be held liable

for actions they take as President. It's that whole seperation of powers thing. Impeachment is the only proper recourse for Presidents if they violate the law. Clinton is not a good comparison as he was being charged with something which happened prior to his presidency. But I'll google a new Pearl Harbor and take a look.

[Stephanie]

20. Impeachment is okay by me

The charge would be treason.

[leveymg]

21. You're wrong about Clinton. It was the mistatement to Starr that led to

the impeachment. Remember, "I did not have sex with that woman."? That happened long after he entered office.

Perjury and obstruction - yes, those are other charges that could be levied by Spitzer against Bush and his top officials in conjunction with the crimes of 9/11.

Your memory's a bit selective about this, E.S. '06.

[Eliot Spitzer 2006]

22. You're right about Clinton's "misstatement" and obstruction charges

being the reason for his impeachment. It was not "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" - that was a public statement and not part of his deposition during the Paula Jones discovery. I agree with another poster that Bush could be impeached but I do not agree with those who feel that criminal charges could be brought.

[leveymg]

27. Immunity of public officials is qualified, except for Judges and

prosecutors. The principle that criminal charges could be levied against a sitting President was established in US v. Nixon, which forced that President's resignation.

In my opinion, Bush is open to charges for the extremely serious criminal charges that may spring from 9/11.

I looked at this closely a couple years ago when I researched the article, "The Crimes of 9/11." Would be glad to go into detail on the subject of culpability of public officials for crimes and qualified immunity case law, if you wish.

[leveymg]

14. Negligent homicide on 911 - that doesn't ring any bells for you?

Okay. Read this - should answer your question:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0302/S00079.htm

:bounce:

[whistle]

6. Did Dick Cheney, John Bolton or any other BushCo person....

...put those words in Tenet's mouth?

<snip>
Tenet, who left the CIA in July after seven years as director, also said apathy toward terrorism -- including congressional restrictions and budget and personnel cuts -- had sapped U.S. intelligence efforts for most of the last decade.

"The atrophy was tremendous," said Tenet, 52. "We were nearly bankrupt." The CIA's assessment of Iraq's capabilities was not developed "for political reasons or a craven desire to lead the country to war," he said.
<end>

Seven years of this type of treatment and budget funds strangulation sounds to me like Tenet and the CIA were ripe for exploitation.

[burn the bush]

8. oh, he's sorry he said it. thousands of people have died but he's

sorry. So, I guess everything is ok now.

[Toots]

10. Congress authorizes expenditures not the President and who had control

of congress for the last Decade?

"Tenet, who left the CIA in July after seven years as director, also said apathy toward terrorism -- including congressional restrictions and budget and personnel cuts -- had sapped U.S. intelligence efforts for most of the last decade"

Congress (A Republican Congress) cut funds for fighting terrorism every year for the last decade. Why is this not news?

[d_b]

24. Tool.

See you in seventh circle, shithead.

[Disturbed]

25. "a craven desire"

That is an interesting characterization, no?

Doesn't it mean a cowardly desire to invade a sorveign country under false pretenses?

Isn't he now accusing Bush and his Junta of that?