BOO!!!!!

Scared you didn't it Lorie?

Yeah, but that was based on Bush's lies! If Bush hadn't lied about the real situation in Iraq, Tenet never would have thought that!

Can we get some trolls in here who are above the age of ten? Actually I would expect better than that "boo" comment from my six year old. But then, she is very smart for six.

Well, we know the terrorist threat didn't scare Bill Clinton, at least not enough to prioritize it above his intern diddling. (And yes, diddling is a technical term.)

This was fun, but I've gotta run. Later.

Tenet has done such a good job. He prevented the Cole bombing. The embassy bombings. 9/11 was prevented. OOPS! This great CIA man, with his integrity and trust protected, missed all the main opportunities. If any organization is to be blamed for the terrorist attacks against the US, it is the CIA that is to blame. Just as the dimmers say FEMA's Brown was responsible for not anticipating the disaster of Katrina. Now Tenet is trying to re-write his history. His leadership has lead to the ineffectiveness of our intelligience community. We have listened to him in the past and he was wrong, why listen to him a believe him now? ww

Lori, you should do a little research before you make stupid comments. Maybe like watching the actual interview?

Tennet said that Saddam could buy a Nuke by then. That is not what the Administration was arguing. Cheney said Saddam had reconstituted his bio and nuke programs.

If they thought Saddam was actively pursuing a Nuke on the black market, where is the evidence (Senate Select Committee findings)? Why didn't they make that argument?

So liberals are now arguing that Hussein would try to buy a whole nuclear weapon, but won't even consider the possibility of him attempting to buy yellow-cake uranium?

Interesting.

"I get that the point Pelley was trying to make ... was that the Vice President was citing numbers other than what he was getting from the CIA...Maybe he was relying on numbers Great Britain or some other entity had shared with the administration..."

Lorie, Cheney had his own "evidence" factory in the basement of the Pentagon. It was a neocon operation (OSD) with Douglas Feith as the project manager. They cherry-picked info and commissioned counterfeit intelligence reports to be transmitted through third parties (SISMI: Italian intelligence) to add veracity. SISMI is the source of the MI6 info, too. It was an international neo-con job. CIA was only used to co-sign the Intelligence Estimate to Congress, and as functionary in assisting the State Department's public presentation of the case. So there are no "maybe"s about it.

Here's one of the more famous "secret memos" that Feith and the OSD itself "LEAKED" to be published in the neocon Weekly Standard (from where it was intended to take on a PUBLIC life of its own. It did.) See, once made public, the administration can discuss the exposited details. A positive spin machine.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

This grasping at straws is a little sad.

I'm reminded of those stories about a Japanese soldier discovered 20 years after the end of WWII isolated on an island in the South Pacific who didn't realize the world had moved on.

Tenet also said Perle told Tenet the day after 9/11, out in the hallway that "we" are going after Saddam. Problem is, Perle was out of the country until 9/15. OOPS. Those pesky facts to prove Tenet is lying to save whatever "integrity" he had left. ww

"Tennet said that Saddam could buy a Nuke by then."

What, was he waiting for them to go on sale?

Yes so!..First of all there is probably a built in bias to the C.I.A. to overestimate the military potential of a country on the Administration's 'axis of evil'. In a like manner, the CIA was criticized by Moynihan and others on the Intelligence Committee for vastly overestimating the threat of the Soviets in the 70's and 80's during the cold war. Also, it is highly likely Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon in 5 to 7 years, if they really were determined. It took Pakistan only a couple of years, to do so, after India acquired its nuclear bomb.

How about, "before the threat becomes imminent".

So when did the word "could" become the definition for "would".
Keep spinning lorie, don't let the facts get in your way.

jeff, can you read? He did not use the word "could", he used the word "will". Which in American English, is colloquial for "shall".

There is a minor difference between saying someone will not have something before a date, and saying that they will have something on that date, but the difference is not what you are suggesting it is. It is in fact much more minor. Try comprehending the quote above again.

"I realize that is an oversimplification,"

No, "You guys must want Saddam back" is the #1
daily, oversimplified rebuttal to the ham-handed
Iraq venture. #2 is; "the surge is working".

How liberal Democrats trashed the CIA and Republicans helped:

The CIA has recently been pressured into accepting the idea of devoting the bulk of its attention to such global issues as pollution, health, natural resources, and endangered species. In 1991, President Bush signed a directive to this effect and the Agency quickly fell into line, creating a National Intelligence Officer for Global and Multilateral Issues. According to Robert Gates, the CIA was planning in 1992 to devote 40 percent of its resources to international economics and only 34 percent to Russia and the other successor states to the Soviet Union. One can only view such a shift of emphasis as a desperate attempt to find a make-believe role for the CIA in the post-Soviet world. [Note the leftist fantasy that the world is all sweetness and light since the demise of the USSR. ed.] But intelligence has only one function: to uncover foreign threats to national security. International terrorism and nuclear traffic clearly come within its purview. Global economic or environmental problems just as clearly do not: along with other ills afflicting humanity and the earth, they are best left to international organizations. Richard Pipes, "What to Do about the CIA," Commentary Mar. 1995

Leftists [Democrat congress] urge the diversion of huge amounts of CIA resources to pet causes, Republicans [Bush I and RINOS] placate them, and now these same politicians have the temerity to whine about "intelligence failures." Newsflash: It's not the CIA's fault. The blame lies at the feet of weenie politicians.

Lighten up on the moonbats. They had a bad week. One of their leading propaganda outlets had to admit the surge is workins and Rosie O'Donut got shot out of the saddle twice. Lost her job and found out that fire (heat) will melt steel. It couldn't have happened to a better person and the damage it took to prove heat melts steel couldn't have happened to a better place.

If Saddam had 'built' a nuclear bomb or Saddam had 'bought' a nuclear weapon is different, how? Wouldn't we now be facing a nuclear armed idiot, well facing another nuclear armed idiot, but this one would have used it to prove a point, or to watch the bunch of you in NYC/LA/Chicago/Dallas/SF or any large city sizzle just for fun.

Jeff Blogworthy.

Richard Pipes (CFR, Team B) was a disinformation agent specializing in over-rating military capabilities of everyone under the sun(or under the bed, inside the closet, etc.) Widely discredited since the fall of the Warsaw Pact, when it was shown that his "intelligence" had no basis in reality and was only good for selling weapons systems to the Pentagon. It was many of his contracted programs that were exhibits A-Z for what needed to be cut. Much of the Bloat was courtesy of R Pipes. A real skunk and educated idiot. Made things up. Like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Libby. Even their methods were the same. Parasitic.

PS. Commentary is a neo-con front.

Now that's funny.

You know what the evidence was that Pakistan was close to getting nukes? A nukular test.

And who was deputy chief of the CIA while they were developing the nukes and who was chief of the CIA while they were finishing up the development of nukes and during the nukular test?

The same guy who had no idea that Libya had such a huge nukular program.

His initials are G. T. and he just wrote a book even more self-serving than Krusty the Clown's biography.
I look forward to his mea culpa on Pakistan and Libya or to the NYTimesWashPostCNNABCCBSNBCetc. pointing it out if it's not in there.

Sorry, I just like to make myself laugh.

bryanD,

Come to think of it, you are probably right. I also heard he was an agent of the Vatican, hired to pave the way for the Antichrist. Good fact checking post BTW.

Tennet said that Saddam could buy a Nuke by then.

What is your source on that? Because every other report on Tenet's statements I've seen says "make", like this direct quote:

"We made two judgments that get overlooked these days. We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009."

You also seem to to be saying that Cheney was lying about the intelligence community's opinion on whether Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs. Yet that same Tenet speech includes statements like this:

In the estimate, all agencies agree that Saddam Hussein wanted nuclear weapons. Most were convinced that he still had a program and if he obtained fissile material he could have a weapon within a year. ... Most agencies believed that Saddam had begun to reconstitute his nuclear program, but they disagreed on a number of issues, such as which procurement activities were designed to support his nuclear program.

If you are being told that the guy next door is building a bomb and he is going to blow you and your family up, and you have lots of differing opinions about how long it is going to take to build the bomb, do you take all the different assessments and choose to believe the ones that say it will take a year, rather than the ones that say it will take a month?

Clearly, you wait several years once the dust has settled and use hindsight to deem which one was appropriate. Of course, that prevents nothing but at least you get to feel good about yourself.

(I still recall Kerry, in the midst of the '04 Presidential race, responding to an question as to whether taking military action against Saddam was the correct course of action to which he responded that it depended on the outcome.)

Scrapiron, Jeff Blogworthy you are always blaming Democrats for been distracted or diverting funds from catching terrorists but how about your own side...President Bush March '3,2002 "And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban." and now "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." No it's not worthwhile for the decider or would be for Romney to spend alot of effort to find Bin Laden, but it is worthwhile to spend from one trillion to two trillion dollars, on the war in Iraq, to remove one person, who wasn't involved in 9/11. Makes sense?

No it's not worthwhile for the decider or would be for Romney to spend alot of effort to find Bin Laden, but it is worthwhile to spend from one trillion to two trillion dollars, on the war in Iraq, to remove one person, who wasn't involved in 9/11. Makes sense?

Note from the discussion above that action against Saddam was about removing a potential threat not some type of retaliation for 9/11.

Steve Crickmore:

"Makes sense?"

Makes a lot more sense than spending trillions tilting at global warming windmills in lieu of national security. At least Saddam was a bona fide threat. In case you forgot Saddam was in direct violation of the terms of a cease fire agreement and, although he was not directly involved in 9/11, he was certainly an al-Qaeda supporter and enabler. To say Saddam "wasn't involved in 9/11" is a false oversimplification.

It is tantamount to saying that Iran "is not involved" presently in killing our troops. No, they only supply the weapons, personnel, and operating base.

dork, the speech you link to included this:

Keep in mind that no intelligence agency thought that Iraq's efforts had progressed to the point of building an enrichment facility or making fissile material. We said that such activities were a few years away. Therefore it's not surprising that the Iraq Survey Group has not yet found evidence of uranium enrichment facilities.

Also, Tenet said this on 60 Minutes:
"Well, I don't know what's happening here," Tenet says. "The intelligence community's judgment is 'He will not have a nuclear weapon until the year 2007, 2009.'"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/25/60minutes/main2728375_page4.shtml

Tenet said "have" and not "make".

He also said this about Valerie Plame:
"She's one of my officers. That's wrong. Big time wrong, you don't get to do that," Tenet says. "And the chilling effect that you have inside my work force is, 'Whoa, now officers names are being thrown out the door. Hold it. Not right.'"

BIG TIME WRONG!

Clearly, you wait several years once the dust has settled and use hindsight to deem which one was appropriate. Of course, that prevents nothing but at least you get to feel good about yourself.

(I still recall Kerry, in the midst of the '04 Presidential race, responding to an question as to whether taking military action against Saddam was the correct course of action to which he responded that it depended on the outcome.)

Bwahhahahahahahah....Mike you do so know how to make the lefties look like the fools they are. And I had forgotten all about Kerry doing that. Thanks for that midday laugh.

Scrap Iron-

Rosie O'Donut got shot out of the saddle twice.

And the horse she rode in on...

Because you know-will it ever walk again?

The intelligence community's judgement is he will not have nuclear weapons until the year 2007, 2009.
George Tenet

Here is what this means:

If Saddam started full-scale nuclear weapon production in 2002, the earliest he could build one by would be 2007, 2009.

Of course, we know now (and knew then if we had actually paid attention to anyone besides the administration) that Saddam was not capable of full-scale nuclear weapon development. It's painfully obvious that hiding a nuclear program is virtually impossible (see Iran). Think of all the centrifuges and the electricity needed to power them (that reminds me of what a crock the aluminum tubes farce was; by the way, who got that wrong? hint: not the CIA).

That is most likely what he meant. He was correct in his statement but it does not mean Saddam would or could have had one by 2007.

It's painfully obvious that hiding a nuclear program is virtually impossible (see Iran).

Except that Iraq hid their earlier program quite successfully.

Barney, You're being officially called out. (and I do mean officially)

You said:

----------------

Lori, you should do a little research before you make stupid comments. Maybe like watching the actual interview?

Tennet said that Saddam could buy a Nuke by then.
-----------------

You insulted one of the site's authors and you lied to do it.

Tenet never said Saddam would purchase a nuke, you made that up out of whole cloth.

You owe Lorie an apology.

Paul, come on. If you take away blatant dishonesty, Barney has nothing to say.

"It's painfully obvious that hiding a nuclear program is virtually impossible (see Iran)."
sean nyc/aa

See: Libya. Of course, with out removing Saddam, we wouldn't have that example....

Tenet is a nutball from what I determined from the interview. He confirms that Saddam would have had a nuke by now, yet he questions whether we should have gone after the bastid. He was a useful idiot, though, with his slam dunk declaration. This gave Bush/Cheney a get out of jail free card from the CIA director himself.

Likewise you could look to N. Korea. Without Clinton and Carter, we wouldn't have that example, either..

I am sorry I posted a smarty pants comment earlier and then took off, but had quite a few errands to do today and will be heading back out shortly for carpool. Thanks Paul, for correcting Barney. I liked Brainy435'