Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<They invented sex during the day, lingerie and the tongue. Can't we admit we could learn something from them?>> Not to mention... great wine and pastries... God, I do so love the French...
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The whole point is that the assertions should not have been unqualified.> No, the whole point is that the assertions weren't unqualified, because they reflected the best estimates of the CIA. That some are now claiming there were lots of qualifications is hindsight. <Yes, but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about the final section of the letter that was in response to questions from Senator Bayh.> We never narrowed the conversation. <Yes, because they knew of the qualifications, knew that the letter would be submitted to the senate just before the vote on authorization, and did nothing to stop the dissemination of misleading information that it represented.> They may have been aware of some qualifications, but assumed they were minor and the information was not misleading. If you have any actual evidence that this was not the case, please present. Otherwise you're just casting unwarranted aspersions. <When he was still employed in the Bush administration?> Of course. It's not like the information changed between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. It didn't. The Clinton administration believed that Saddam had WMD's and supported terrorsim, and so did the Bush administration. Both did so because that's what the CIA told them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The whole point is that the assertions should not have been unqualified.>> <No, the whole point is that the assertions weren't unqualified, because they reflected the best estimates of the CIA. That some are now claiming there were lots of qualifications is hindsight.> No, it's not. Tenet said that he knew of the qualifications AT THE TIME, and should have insisted at the time that they be in there. He didn't, and that was a screw-up on his part, but not an indication that he didn't know the qualifications existed and should have been included. <<Yes, but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about the final section of the letter that was in response to questions from Senator Bayh.>> <We never narrowed the conversation.> No, you attempted to widen it - also known as "moving the goalposts." <<Yes, because they knew of the qualifications, knew that the letter would be submitted to the senate just before the vote on authorization, and did nothing to stop the dissemination of misleading information that it represented.>> <They may have been aware of some qualifications, but assumed they were minor and the information was not misleading. If you have any actual evidence that this was not the case, please present. Otherwise you're just casting unwarranted aspersions. > You're assuming a lot more than I am in that first sentence, of course. I know Tenet and others have said that these qualifications were serious and should have been included. And you're attempting mind-reading on the Bushies, frankly. <<When he was still employed in the Bush administration?>> <Of course. It's not like the information changed between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. It didn't. The Clinton administration believed that Saddam had WMD's and supported terrorsim, and so did the Bush administration. Both did so because that's what the CIA told them> Actually, that's not exactly true. The doubts that Iraq had WMD's were actually amplified during the Bush administration because of what the inspectors found (and didn't find), particularly just prior to the war. People like Gen. Zinni have expressed amazement that the Bushies were so clear in their statements when he said that the evidence wasn't clear at all, and getting murkier all the time. The Clinton people assumed he had WMD because Saddam didn't show that he destroyed them. This is a reasonable assumption, but not proof, of course. And if you're going to take the monumental step of invading and occupying a country, you'd better damn sure have proof, not just an assumption, even a reasonable one. And if anything, the evidence pointing toward that assumption got murkier during Bush's years in office, NOT clearer.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Tenet said that he knew of the qualifications AT THE TIME, and should have insisted at the time that they be in there. He didn't, and that was a screw-up on his part, but not an indication that he didn't know the qualifications existed and should have been included.> If he knew that at the time, he should have made that clear at the time. <No, you attempted to widen it - also known as "moving the goalposts."> Where did either of us ever state or imply we were only talking about part of the letter? <I know Tenet and others have said that these qualifications were serious and should have been included.> I know what they said and wrote at the time, versus what they are now claiming in hindsight. Again, the Clinton administration believed that Saddam had WMD's and supported terrorsim, and so did the Bush administration. Both did so because that's what the CIA told them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Tenet said that he knew of the qualifications AT THE TIME, and should have insisted at the time that they be in there. He didn't, and that was a screw-up on his part, but not an indication that he didn't know the qualifications existed and should have been included.>> <If he knew that at the time, he should have made that clear at the time. > Indeed he should have. Again, I'm not giving Tenet a pass here; merely pointing out that he's not the only one at fault and shouldn't be scapegoated as though he were. And the reason he isn't alone in this case is because he and the CIA in general had made their qualifications known on Iraq/al Qaeda ties to the administration previously. So that when the administration saw this letter to be presented to Congress they ALSO would have seen the omission of the qualifications - and made no attempt to rectify their omission. <<No, you attempted to widen it - also known as "moving the goalposts.">> <Where did either of us ever state or imply we were only talking about part of the letter?> Right from the beginning of this mini-thread when I mentioned the letter in regards to being in response to the questions of Sen. Bayh. <<I know Tenet and others have said that these qualifications were serious and should have been included.>> <I know what they said and wrote at the time, versus what they are now claiming in hindsight. > You're misuing the term "hindsight." Hindsight is something you didn't know at the time in question, but now can see clearly. That does not cover this situation, since Tenet knew of the qualifications at the time. So this is not a question of "hindsight" but of "screw-up." And not just Tenet's screw-up. <Again, the Clinton administration believed that Saddam had WMD's and supported terrorsim, and so did the Bush administration. Both did so because that's what the CIA told them.> And again you're trying to muddle the issue by going to generalizations, and again it's transparent. I mentioned specifics in my last three paragraphs that you didn't even address, instead just falling back on your "again" generalizations - they were misleading in their generalization before, and repeating them doesn't change that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Please show me where the CIA issued all these qualifications prior to the release of the letter in question. If you can't do that, than all this is hindsight and CYA on the part of the CIA.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 In a comic detective novel I just wrote, I give a nod to the French by having my hero drive a red, 1978 LeCar. I hope the French shower me with champagne and escargot after it's published!
Originally Posted By DAR <<In a comic detective novel I just wrote>> John is this going to be published.
Originally Posted By jonvn The french don't shower themselves, you think they are going to shower someone else?
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Well, JohnS1, I'll throw a couple of snails at you, if you want.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Please show me where the CIA issued all these qualifications prior to the release of the letter in question. If you can't do that, than all this is hindsight and CYA on the part of the CIA.> I'm going by what Tenet said in his book. And sure, there's plenty of CYA in that book. But it's not "hindsight," because Tenet knew the qualifications should have been in there at the time.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Tenet knew the qualifications should have been in there at the time.> Well, that's his story now. I don't see anything in those statements that needs qualifying.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "John is this going to be published?" I haven't even approached an agent or publisher yet, but I hope so!
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 Ok you two, it is time to take it elsewhere. We are supposed to be discussing stop laying the French or something like that.
Originally Posted By ecdc ^^^LOL! Good luck, John! When it gets published, let us know. (Try www.agentquery.com if you haven't already.)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Tenet knew the qualifications should have been in there at the time.>> <Well, that's his story now. I don't see anything in those statements that needs qualifying.> Tenet did. And he did at the time. So...um... lay off the French.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <We are supposed to be discussing stop laying the French or something like that.> That would indeed be a different topic. Many French people are quite attractive.
