Ex-CIA employees' letter to Tenent

If only. No, whilst that article was chilling and a confirmation of many people's worst fears about what went on before the invasion, there'll be plenty who'll be happy to pick holes in it.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time this kind of thing has tarnished the `integrity' (and I use that word figuratively) of the Bush administration. They were adequately forewarned of an imminent terrorist threat before 9/11 too, and did absolutely nothing about it. A large-scale terrorist attack would certainly have helped the Bush agenda and it did just that - provided an excuse to invade the Middle East. No way were they going to move on the information they were given.

Same thing here. To acknowledge the truth about the total, complete and utter lack of WMDs in Iraq, which was known well before the war started, would be to interfere with an agenda that was moving along very nicely. Depose our former ally, exercise control over the oil wells of the Middle East, and establish ourselves at the forefront of military, political and economic power in the world. The fact that it has backfired so incomprehensibly badly could also have been foreseen, but like so much else, was utterly ignorned. What a sorry state of affairs this administration has overseen.

The only thing is, whilst most of us learn from our 20/20 hindsight, both fore- and hindsight are advantages this government seems to be doggedly unwilling to utilise.

I couldn't agree with you more. Thus the reason I did not want this war in the first place. It is all for naught.

So now Bush knew 9-11 was going to happen and just let it happen?
Kind of like FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen so he just let it happen so we could get into WWII.

Statements like the above are paranoid and totally ridiculous IMO. And you have absolutely no proof of that besides your dislike of Bush.

This entire War and 9-11 could have been avoid if Clinton's administration had taken the, (and I quote the article) "8 different chances for the U.S. military to kill Osame Bin Laden
between May of 1998 and May of 1999".

I know, it is very easy to: could a, should a, would a, isn't it?

I feel that because Clinton was such a wuss after the USS Cole and the 1993 NY Trade Center bombing it emboldened the terrorists.

Actually, I don't make off-the-cuff comments unless I feel I have enough evidence to back me up. As I've stated plenty of times before. Bush did not know 9/11 was going to happen and I didn't say that. I said he was given information by his agents of a high-scale terrorist attack. Don't put words in my mouth - he knew something big was coming. I didn't say he knew what.

I think its just a bunch of whining that has come along 4 years too late. What difference does it make that we know this information NOW rather than in 2003? We're already at was, there isn't an opportunity that we're going to pull out any time soon.

Then what? Is Tenant or someone else from the government going to sit there and say "oops, we did make a mistake, don't worry it won't ever happen again"? It's happened its done with, there's no turning back and reminising about the past. Besides, they won't learn from their mistakes. We had the warnings about Pearl Harbor, but they got blown off. We had the warnings about the WTC and Pentagon, but that information was blown off.

Why not write a letter to Tenant stating How to get us out of this war and publish it? Articles like this P me O. They're pointless as all they do is help the conspiracy theorists inflate their egos and brainstorm new possibilities. The only place this should be is in U.S. governmental history books, NOT on CNN.

Bush had only been in office for a few months. Clinton had been in office for 8 years. Any info Bush got at that point was from the Clinton administration's intelligence. Who's really to blame IF there was actual evidence to support that claim? And what exactly should have been done that didn't trample on the rights of US citizens?

But, as for the letter, unfortunately I do find it completely believable. I'm sure the pressure comes from just about every Administration to do what they *want* to do. But, like the letter says, it is the job of the CIA to gather facts and nothing more - certainly not to manipulate the intelligence the way they apparently did to suit the Administration's desires. I've heard that what George Tenent was referring to with "slam dunk" as being able to convince the American people of the case for war. I don't know why he thinks that's any better than how it was used.

Once again, though, at the time there were no countries who had pointed evidence that Saddam did not have WMD, or did not believe that he had WMDs at the time. If there were, they didn't say anything. No one really disputed the intelligence, just the action that should have been taken or not taken.

Just wanted to add, too, that before the conspiracy theories come out about George Tenent always being in Bush's back pocket, please remember that he is a holdover from the Clinton Administration. He was not appointed or nominated by Bush. Maybe he was just a butt-kisser, I don't know. But he wasn't hand-picked by Bush to red stamp whatever Bush wanted to do.

He had been in power for 8 months, yes. But it doesn't matter whose intelligence he was given. Once he was in power the intelligence was his and it was up to him what to do with it. And, uh, `a daily intelligence briefing provided to President George Bush on August 6 2001, mentioning 'recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York' and a CIA-FBI investigation into a tip-off to the US embassy in the United Arab Emirates alleging an al-Qaida cell was in the US 'planning attacks with explosives'' should have had a bit more attention paid to it, I'm thinking.

Perhaps had something been done sooner - oh, I don't know, like some investigation - the rights of US citizens wouldn't be being trampled on now with such policy as The Patriot Act - signed into law 45 days after 9/11.

Heidi there were plenty who contested the existence of WMDs - Bush was repeatedly and emphatically advised NOT to go to war on that premise as the evidence was simply too flimsy. Sure, he can only do as much as he can with the intelligence he is given - he can't just ignore it because it doesn't suit his agenda. George Tenent may well be totally corrupt and a product of manipulation, but the buck lies with the ultimate leader - it always does. That is the inherited responsibility of ruling anything - from a classroom to a nation. It's not always fair, but that's the way it is. Especially with something this important, that would affect the world as much as it has.

Well, silly me...

I thought the letter was addressed to George Tenent. I thought the article, the basis of the thread, was about the CIA. I didn't think it was just another ho-hum bash Bush thread. I'll bow out, then. We've already been over this subject.

BTW, the World Trade Centers weren't federal buildings. And generally speaking, no one considered airplanes to be "explosives" prior to 9/11. What exactly do you want - for Bush to have telepathically figured this stuff out himself? The intelligence did NOT point to people here on legal visas planning to hijack airplanes using simple cutting tools to ram into buildings. A plan, yes. But then again, there were reports of "plans" for years...

I haven't read it, but have heard commentary on the book from both sides. One side says that the book shows how the Bush administration tried and succeeded in manipulating the intelligence to justify what they wanted. The other side says that the book shows that there was justification via the intelligence available at the time, and Tenent himself all but spoon fed the administration that justification. And then there is this letter that really lays a lot of blame on Tenent himself for not standing up and saying something to the administration about the veracity of the intelligence.

Something I've been thinking about most of the day. Sarah said that the blame lies soley on Bush, and of course she's right in a sense. He is the man at the top. But, he's not a spy. He's not the collector of intelligence, nor the verifyer of intelligence. George Tenent was that man, the head of the CIA. As I said, it is not the CIA's job to interpret the intelligence, but present the information they have. It seems to me, going by the information that I have (which I admit is not anywhere near complete), that Tenent became the ultimate "yes man" and didn't do his job as far as the intelligence is concerned. Tenent was supposed to be a trusted source of information, and you're only as good as the information you're given to make your decision on.

Heidi, I've had a little re-think since my post last night. I do believe the buck stops with the president (whoever the president may be) as the ultimate leader is always considered responsible. I did say in my first post that this isn't always fair and I have to add that you can't always be responsible for what happens under your care.

I remember a post ages ago, where Cindy said that Kofi Anan's son's activities could be almost squarely blamed on Mr Anan - because you always know what is going on right under your nose. Well, I didn't agree then and I don't know - you don't always know what's going on under your nose and Mr Tenent may well be a good example of this.

Being the head of the CIA would (I imagine) be a position that requires a high level of autonomy and independent action. Although it may not be clearly delineated that it is NOT your job to interpret intelligence, you don't get to that position by simply gathering and reporting alone. If Tenent had an agenda - and it seems clear he did - then his responsibility for helping to lead his government astray is huge, and he should be thoroughly investigated.

I don't excuse Bush for many things and certainly not this war, and I'm not excusing him now - but I do agree that the entire responsibility for some things cannot always be fairly laid directly upon his shoulders.