so who is more dangerous to *... tenet or kay?

[salin]

A week ago I would have said tenet. Kay's news, while bad, was framed to protect the whitehouse. But tenet, while giving himself a teensy inch of wiggle room, has framed his argument as responding point to point to rationalize why the claims were on "good intel" (even if wrong) and that HE ALONE briefs pres on intel... and that he had never heard of OSP ...

Now - go - run - to lbn... little piece from the bbc... kay (in response to tenet)... lobs one point into the discussion of an investigation... that it has to include the politics as well as the intelligence.

I stand corrected. I would have guessed the real danger to the admin on this front would come from Tenet. Doesn't seem to be the case (though I hope to be wrong down the line). Seems that the handpicked inspector (picked due to his ideological zeal in support of neocon dreams) may be the one who does the damage...

[Stevendsmith]

1. The are both good soldiers

They present no real danger to Bush. Everything they say is vetteed by the White House.

[salin]

3. not so sure

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3464807.stm

I think he is crossing a line.

[salin]

4. I titled this poorly... argh... Kay Queries White House War Talk

Color my crazy but I think that this is big!!!!!!!!!

[reprehensor]

2. Neither.

Tenet is holding on to his job post 911 when practically anyone else in the world would have been sacked. My impression is that he is trying to muddle the issue of bad-intel sufficiently to make it a non-issue. Unfortunately for him, Americans are dying on a daily basis due to the decision to invade Iraq, whatever the reasons were. Is he attempting to repay a favor?

Kay is a company man. Playing along. His mission, shift blame to intel. Not damaging to * at all.

[enough]

5. Kay seems to be shifting position somewhat

He's not sticking to that "CIA owes the president an apology" stuff.

From BBC link:

The White House may have ignored some aspects of intelligence on Iraq in the run-up to war, former chief US weapons inspector David Kay has suggested.

snip>

A new commission to study intelligence failures should ask whether political leaders manipulated data, Mr Kay said.

snip>

Speaking in Washington on Thursday, 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."

He said the issue of whether politicians manipulated data to make the case for war "is an important question that needs to be understood".

more>