Checkmate, CIA?

Perhaps it's early, and only time will tell. But I think Tenet’s testimony has, in fact, harmed Bush much more than we know, and much more than the initial revelation by David Kay that Iraq had no WMDs. I also think the two might have been orchestrated.

Here's why. Dr. Kay’s admission obviously hurt Bush and raised a fuss, because many people who had taken it on faith that Hussein at least had something were now forced to face the proposition that the war may not have been as necessary as they once thought.

But there was no blame attached to that. There was still the possibility, and the actual statement by Kay, that “we were all wrong”. The White House could, and did, echo this. The White House obviously thought that, even though they initiated a war based on faulty premises, they could get away with it as an “honest mistake”.

But in essentially blaming bad intelligence, Kay (and the White House) forced Tenet’s hand. Tenet then testified that the intelligence was NOT faulty, and that Iraq was NOT considered an imminent threat by the CIA. Despite couching his testimony in language that appeared to validate the war and defend Bush (and even held out the desperate hope that WMDs might still be found), the implication is clear. If the evidence was NOT faulty, and if we now know that there were no weapons, then the evidence can be made to jibe with this lack of weapons. If that is the case, then Bush misled when he said repeatedly that there DEFINITELY WERE WMDs and that immediate war was necessary. This was not explicitly mentioned by Tenet, but defending the CIA’s position of “no imminence”, and stating that the WMD evidence was qualified with many caveats, implicitly implicated the White House for all statements made to the contrary.

Although seemingly defending the CIA and the White House both, some have described Tenet’s testimony as “a warning shot” across the bow of the White House that they not lay the blame on the CIA.

Follow this with David Kay’s statements yesterday after Tenet’s speech (http://www.nola.com/iraq/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0604_BC_Iraq-Intelligence&&news&emergency):

“David Kay, the former CIA adviser for the Iraqi weapons search, said Thursday that the commission should look into whether political leaders manipulated intelligence data. ‘I think that is an important question that needs to be understood,’ he said at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.”

And from the BBC, he specifically refers to the contradiction between the CIA’s claim of no imminence and the White House’s repeated statements implying an imminent threat (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3464807.stm):

“Mr Kay said the apparent contradiction ‘raised the possibility that the intelligence community had been telling the White House one thing and the White House had been hearing something else.’”

One wonders if this hasn’t all been orchestrated by the CIA, with David Kay playing a part (after all, he does work for them) to bring the issue to the fore that today’s AP article now calls “a top campaign issue: Did the Bush administration accurately describe that intelligence in making the case for war?”

I realize that the “imminence” issue came up some weeks ago, when Bush and his gang started saying “we never said ‘imminent’. But now that the Dr. Kay has testified that there were no WMDs, it moves beyond that. Now the White House has to claim not just that they didn’t “say imminent”, but that they were going off of bad intelligence regarding Iraqi WMDs and the threat posed by them (however they described it). In reality, it was the White House hand that was forced. Saying "we were going off of bad intelligence" is a lot more damaging than saying "we never said imminent". The CIA then says that, no, the intel was good, leaving anyone paying attention to draw the obvious conclusion.

Imagine a game of chess:

Move – CIA (Kay): No WMDs

Move – White House: We were all wrong. Oops! Honest mistake. Move on.

Move – CIA (Tenet): The evidence was sound. We never said the threat was imminent. But the war was still justified.

Move – White House: See! The war was justified!

Move – CIA (Kay): So… if the threat was not imminent… if our evidence did not say with 100% assurance that Iraq had WMDs (and indeed was highly qualified)… then why did you repeatedly say otherwise? Perhaps we weren’t “all wrong" after all.

Checkmate? If for no other reason than the fact that possible White House deception on Iraq has now become "a top campaign issue"?

moves than that, but yes the screws are turning.

So all that is left is getting the report typed up and leaked with the Bush good guy message before the election - and then have the ream report released after the election.

But how do you get all that on a bumper sticker?

How's that?

Plus, while it can't all be boiled down to a bumper sticker, most of the pertinent questions are being mulled over by a majority of the voters as we speak due to stories like these coming out:

"Hmmmnnn. If the evidence was good, and if there weren't any WMDs, then why did Bush tell us there were?"

"For that matter, if there weren't any WMDs, why was the war necessary? If the threat was NOT imminent, then why was the war necessary?"

CLINTON LIED, AL GORE LIED, JOHN KERRY LIED; what is your point?

Just can't handle the truth, it seems.

now, tell me, how many people died when clinton lied?

and what lies of gores are you referring to? Internet? Love Story?

perhaps you should refresh my memory, Rush.

"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

So much for that 'higher standard' huh?

I can't wait to take you fools down in November.

The pendulum swing is coming.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

That you should not justify bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior.

The people may be turning against the Shrub Junta but it does not mean a win for the Democrats.

Given a choice between Shrub and a Shrub Lite, many will not vote. A "draw" in chess goes not to the challenger.

that it breaks out to spread its greasy ugh effect onto more members of the republican party... ala 1974. The reason it didn't get to that level with the Clinton investigations is that there was a concurrent "yuck" effect at the overreaching efforts (so obvious) by starr et al that as much yuck was directed to the GOP. In this whole ugly mess - like Watergate - it isn't a partisan witch hunt. The true believers will call it such - but the stuff coming out doesn't look trumped up. Rather it starts to make a series of things that have made the public more uncomfortable while trying to stand as one behind a "war time president". that is... it rings true.

I like your scenario and hope that it is true. My head is still spinning from this whole turn of events that started last Friday. A couple of things still puzzle me.

At every speaking engagement, Bush* still brings Kay into the picture and uses his testimony to justify the war.

On the other hand, Kay's most recent remarks seem to be pulling away from the strict "intelligence failure" line he used last friday.

....and just a while ago (maybe an hour ago) McCain says that the commission will also look into how the intelligence was used as well as how right/wrong the intelligence actually was.

My personal sense of this is that it is a very ....dynamic (for lack of a better word) situation. It's changing by the hour and Bush*'s performance while announcing the members of the commission show me that he is not happy with the way things are going.

I'm trying to mentally get out in front of this but it seems to be changing rapidly. The only thing I can predict at this point is that if Kay is seen as too much of a loose cannon, then the next step for the administration is to totally discredit him. If they do that then they can fall back on the weak support given in Tenet's speech to justify their position and just ride it out until the election is over....then wait until March '05 to deal with any damage control after the final report comes out.

What do you think of that scenario?

... this to bring Bush down. But I also think they are going to defend themselves and not be left taking the blame on this.

I also think that, as you say, the Bush admin position may be to "just ride it out until the election is over". With as many times as they have been caught in contradictions, as many times as they have been forced to backtrack, stonewall and re-cast their positions, "riding it out" is about their only option. Unfortunately for them, however, it may no longer be enough.

and I don't think they expected his most recent comments, at all.

However, there has been a large part of the public that has grown uneasy with the war buildup and the war. Suddenly these pieces are hit with the public saying... yes.. those things should be looked at (why? because it suddenly "makes sense") So simply discrediting one player (al beit a major one)... won't take the public's momentous shift in opinion away.

Worse is the number of times in the press we have seen the term "credibility gap" being used... against the admin. And not just about the war. About the budget (lying of its size... keeping war costs out again... lying about the reason for the large size ... etc.) About the jobs growth. About the Medicare bill (gee, it is one-third LARGER in cost??) The list goes on.

In addition - the Plame investigation is moving towards the indictment stage... inside the vice presidents office. Although the charges (legitimate) are due to outing an agent - those aware of the story understand (and Wilson keeps going on the air to make sure the public knows the story) that the intent was discrediting. A major effort to discredit Kay - suddenly would be very, very transparent.

I have some faith - borne out by the public's final view of the Clinton hunt (that it was distasteful... and in the end hurt repubs more than Clinton) - that at a certain tipping point... the public as a whole sees through the manipulation. And in this case it is directly due with continued, arrogant, overreach at the hands of this radical administration.

I don't share your faith. After the Reptilian, er Republican, attacks on Clinton, the Repukes have gained total control of the government: The White House, the congress, the courts, the statehouses.

How were they hurt?

The Democrats need to learn from this. Although people will say such negativity bothers them, in the end it really doesn't. In fact, Americans prefer people who fight. Too many times the Democrats are right on the issues but look like utter wimps in public. The 2002 election was the classic example.

... hunting did hurt Repubs. The impeachment did not resound with voters, and Republicans experienced surprising losses in the 1998 mid-term elections. Yes, they regained the WH in 2000, and then (barely) Senate, so the "hurt" was short-lived. Yes, this was due largely to very negative campaigning (which dems can learn something about, if only that they need to fight back and go on the offensive more).

But the Clinton-hunting obsession brought an end to "the Republican Revolution", with Newt and the Contract with America" being the chief casualties.

an illegitimate fight - they over reached and at some point it became ridiculous in much of the public's eyes (hence Clintons continued high ratings.)

That is the difference - there is so much coming out.. at their own hands - that it will become harder and harder to frame this as a partisan hunt... that same sense of backlash over illegitimacy won't be there (except with their faithful) or will be countered with their own disgust.

It was the witch hunts that hurt. They over-reached, as you said.

What I was saying in response to the other poster was that the fighting helped the Repubs, in that they know how to take the campaign to the opposition and attack. I think Dems can learn from that, although i don't think we need to go as insanely negative as they have. It should be enough to just challenge every false accusation and respond (forcefully and relentlessly) with attacks BASED ON POLICY.

and Newt resigned.

It was short lived - but there was a brief backlash.

still allowed the framing to remain, in many ways, on the CIA by spending so much time, point by point rationalizing how they gathered intel on the main charges.

However - just read speculation that the OSP question was a plant. That tying its origins (from the questioner) to Mother Jones (while it has appeared in so many other places) on the surface enabled the discrediting dodge. But it ensured that the shadowy pentagon unit was embedded right into the transcript. Including Tenet's deniability of knowledge (not that it didn't exist, but that he wasn't aware of it... ya right george you score zero as the head of an intel agency if we are to believe you didn't know... but the wording is important.)

At each turn where events looked bad for bushco (eg when "Bush Knew" first took off regarding the Pheonix memo and the Minnesota FBI memo)... I have avoided the... "this is the one!" mentality. But I think we really may be on the cusp of the "this is the one"... and it is one that ties so many other on the edge stories together that it has the potential not just to crush this adminstration and the neocons... but the coalition of voting blocks that have become solidified behind the GOP.

I have a different take on how Tenet responded to the OSP question. What I thought I heard him say was that Washington was a casino(?) of information. The President gets his intelligence from me (6 days a week) and then he said (pretty close to quote) "...about the others, I don't know."

I think that meant that he had no idea what others in the "casino" were providing to the pResident. It wasn't that he didn't know about OSP just that he didn't know what OSP had told the pResident.

Anybody else get the same impression?

I didn't hear the whole speech- just read accounts. That certainly does then fit the "setup/plant" scenario for the question, doesn't it. It is a much larger door for the political explanation than I had realized.

Thanks for recalling that part of the speech!

I remember when the Plame Affair broke. Plenty of us were euphoric or at least heartily saying that "This is the one."

I guess we'll see. Bush's war chest can pay for allot of strong-arming and obfuscation.

We're really looking at the surface of a flowing river here. There's so much going on under the radar all up and down the Bushco infrastructure. I agree this looks like the big one, but too frequently in the last three years I've woken up on a given morning to discover what I believed to be true has been officially declared untrue.

and try to help along areas of the story (and thus the common public knowledge) however and whereever we can... be it through getting ideas/efforts pushed by organizations such as MoveOn... or communicating with sympathetic press folks to try to get consideration of different story aspects (not common, but has happened)... by individual actions with congressional reps... getting involved with the local party and any congressional campaigns to help frame issues and ward off the effects of huge $$ for campaigns... which means getting more and more people involved on the ground to fight the propoganda through word of mouth discussions. I think these elections - and NOT just at the presidential level - are ripe for a groundswell of activist activity - in which we as a collection of individuals who are well informed, and have the ability to develop themes and ideas at places like DU - which may help shape local framing of issues... At this point in time, with these and other stories.. I think the time is coming where we can collectively make a huge impact.

relating to the Tenet speech have foucused on the "No Imminent Threat" theme. This paints the admin. into the uncomfortable situtation of having to explain why the whole country had the idea that Iraq WAS an imminent threat based on everything the admin said. Much in the same vain as having to explain why much of the country believed the Iraq-9/11 link that didn't exist. And the Iraq-Al Quaeda link etc.

I still want to see the OSP injected into more articles and more of the public dialogue. Very key point to how the "Blue Ribbon Panel" will function. If that part of the story is well ingrained in the public psyche... then they can not simply ignore it - and the political ramifications.

Then the same issues (and role of the group) bleed into the poor post-war planning (remember - Hagel and Lugar have taken them to task for having NO developed post-war plans and/or contingency plans). There is a big possible domino effect onto HOW this adminsitration "develops policy" (eg on ideological theory, faith with active rejection of discussion of alternative scenarios.) But for those discussions to be forced... the discussion of OSP by this panel (and others) HAS to be forced... that, I think, only happens when it is such common knowledge that any investigation ignoring it will be seen as patently bogus from the beginning.

I'm putting on my dancing shoes! ;-)

maybe it is time to do another google.news search (recent items) on the OSP - see where it appears...

antiwar.com (great read, btw)... Neocons Busted! http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=1919 (14 hours ago)

dissidentvoice.org... Intelligence Failures for Dummies http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb04/Amr0206.htm (omy read this... goes quote and source on asserting intel was good!) (2 hours ago)

nyt.com (Krugman!) Get Me a ReWrite http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/06/opinion/06KRUG.html?ex=1076734800&en=867a2b6f3186a673&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE (13 hours ago)

falls church news press (metro dc) White House Report: 'Bogus Use of Intelligence,' Not CIA, to Blame for WMD Claims http://www.fcnp.com/348/comm2.htm (22 hours ago)

Democracy Now - CIA's Tenet: Iraq Posed No Imminent Threat; Hunt for WMD Must Go On http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/06/1527224 (4 hours ago)

Boston Globe - Will Holmes or Watson be investigating? http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/06/will_holmes_or_watson_be_investigating/ (13 hours ago)

Decautur Daily Democrat - (Gene Lyons) Feeding the herd with an empty bucket http://www.decaturdailydemocrat.com/articles/2004/02/06/news/opinion/editorial02.txt (3 hours ago)

Alternet - Countering Intelligence http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17764 (Feb 5)

Asia Times (Jim Lobe) The day Cheney was rocked to the core http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FB07Aa03.html (8 hours ago)

Axis of Logic - (Jim Lobe) Chutzpah, Thy Name Is Perle http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_4996.shtml

and that is just the first page... :D

Now when we see multiple hits to msnbc.com; cbsnew.com etc - then we know it has fully gone mainstream.

Thanks!

"According to former official, also feeding information to the Office of Special Plans was a secret, rump unit established last year in the office of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel. This unit, which paralleled Shulsky's – and which has not previously been reported – prepared intelligence reports on Iraq in English (not Hebrew) and forwarded them to the Office of Special Plans. It was created in Sharon's office, not inside Israel's Mossad intelligence service, because the Mossad – which prides itself on extreme professionalism – had views closer to the CIA's, not the Pentagon's, on Iraq. This secretive unit, and not the Mossad, may well have been the source of the forged documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake uranium for weapons from Niger in West Africa, according to the former official." according to Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski in a dreyfuss report from the first link in message above.

Uh oh, looks bad for OSP. LOL

You might even think treasonous, seeing how Israel is a foriegn power.

What reason did Bush* give for forming his own special intelligence agency (OSP)? Evidently he wasn't satisfied by what he was getting. I think the OSP needs to be brought up more often and let them defend it's existence.

Asking for Tenet's resignation.

Do you think that's what forced Tenet to step forward?

Sorry, could someone explain to me on what legitimate grounds Kerry called for Tenet's resignation?

Is there a suggestion anywhere that the CIA failed to deliver authentic intelligence and analysis?

The operative word here is "authentic".

Why is this whole debate missing a hard lock on the one central fact that George Bush made the decision to go to war in Iraq. He is responsible. Whether he knew he was going to war on the day he entered the oval office, or whether he carefully decided the invasion after reviewing his so-called "intelligence". Any way yo look at it, it was Field Commander Gourd-crotch who lit that fatty and took a long hard drag when everyone but his butt-buddies were telling him it was a REALLY bad idea.

Accountability anyone?

of government.

I read the reports of the speech here, and heard excerpts and was as convinced as everyone that Tenet had fallen on his sword. Depressed, I listened to NPR anyway and what do my ears hear? Why it's a solid, reasoned review of Tenet's speech with all the salient points taken in context and the summary of these comments were all BAD for bush*! It's as if the CIA has access to the "librul media" like the conservatives do, except they use it less but to better effect.

It was like Tenet sent out talking points to the media so they didn't get "off script". I was/am shocked.

The moral of the story: DON'T FUCK WITH THE CIA!

The wingnuts aren't boasting about what Tenet said yesterday so there's obviously a great deal of confusion. I would bet their brains have short-circuited and are unable to comprehend the true MEANING of it all.

Should be the next voter question.

And its the same god-damned people who did TEAM B exercises under Ford. Not surprisingly, there are the exact same biased results.

Then it was about Russian ICBM submarine capability, now its about Iraq WMD capability.

Call it suspicion by association but its Cheney, Wolfowitz and company all over again. Using the same premise...the CIA and DIA are too careful, they underestimate threats, we need a fresh, alternative group to compete with that...yeah, and once its establised it becomes not a competitive source, but the only source of intelligence.

Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, on national security???? Line up against the wall mother-f!@$er today is your Valentine's Day!

...it may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I think it means we may have finally turned the corner.

Like never before, questions about the rationale for this war have been brought to the forefront. Many people are seriously starting to ask "Was the war necessary?"and "Did the Bush administration mis-lead us?"

That these questions are being asked could be the end for them, and I think both the Kay and Tenet statements have caused these questions to be asked by more people than ever. They were not oblivious to this when they said what they said.

I wonder what big dog Clinton is thinking about all of this. I'd really like to have a whole afternoon with him to get this thoughts on this crap.

but is a must read. It is a lot of stuff we already know, but written by an ex-neoconservative and it is very, very good. Good thing to do on a Friday night.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040223&s=lind

I'm also going to post it under articles.

it has been quite revealing in the weakness of bushco's
strategy

Once someone finally starts yelling "OSP! OSP!" then the finger starts to point to Cheney....the Queen moves into Checkmate on this issue.

Plame outing = looking to Cheney's office.

Bribery charges for Halliburton brought in Europe = Cheney.

Bird-hunting w/ Scalia before court hearing over energy papers = Cheney.

Rotten WMD intelligence through OSP/Pentegon = Cheney.

This apple is ROTTEN! And one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch!

:bounce: YIPPEEEE!!! BRING 'EM ON!!! :bounce:

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

:thumbsup:

.. statements of yesterday. Thanks for that, too.

In conclusion (to the thread), I don't know if I really feel this is all a conscious effort by the CIA to bring Bush down.

But I do feel that the CIA is better at chess than the White House.