text of Tenet's statement

[trof]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/937835.asp

[NYC]

1. Key sentence:

"Officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues," Tenet said. "Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa."

[Spazito]

2. If I am reading this right....

that statement only confirms that the discussion regarding it being "technically correct" that the British said... then this statement confirms that they deliberately lied because they knew the British paper was wrong. After reading Tenet's statement, nothing has changed. The * administration deliberately mislead the American public in the SOTU Address!

[NYC]

3. Absolutely correct.

.

[Gin]

4. You are right on....Tenent said...they couldnt use our info..so they went

looking for another source..and...the English document was factually correct...meaning...bush repeated what was in it word for word..not that it was in reality correct..

This is not what it appears to be.

I am sure there will be more to come.

[Avalux]

5. Stupid Media

Did they not read the entire statement and understand what it said before shooting off their mouths?

[sandnsea]

6. So who included it in the speech?

"officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct — i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed."

Looks to me like the National Security Council which would be poor Condi. Tsk Tsk Tsk.

[kentuck]

7. Why did he feel it necessary to add this statement ?

"...Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials."

Was he asked to put this into his statement ????

[dansolo]

14. Normal and wide distribution

"Normal and wide" distribution, but not to the President, the Vice-President, or senior Administration officials? Are we seeing "plausable deniability" in action here? Even if this were to be true, are we to believe that even if no one in the Administration were explicitly briefed on this, that it wouldn't have gotten to them somehow?

[diamond14]

8. seems rather whoosey...a restatement of the complexities involved

...there are many more questions needing to be answered now...the CIA people answer to shrub, and this is just a list of the process, the HOW it happened...it includes an admission that it was a lie (it shouldn't have been put into SOTU)...why did the CIA have to try harder to get some clearly unacceptable words out of the SOTU? ...it actually suggests some pressure from the WH...and who cares HOW the lies happened...it all stops at shrub's desk and he's the one who LIED.

can't imagine that this would let shrub off the hook...

1. the explanation is way too complex for the average American to grasped

2. it's a repeat of other major issues...especially the part about blaming the whole thing on the brits...

3. the explanation is much simpler...bush* lied (how and why that happened is bush*'s problem, shrub is in charge and these people work for him, so it's up to him to set up the system of bringing important issues - like WAR - to his attention)...

so it's really simple, and the two-page explanation was WAY TOO LONG (and may contain some other damaging information) and it's all about this:

bush* lied, people died....

[kentuck]

9. He simply said the CIA should have taken out the sentence......

He didn't say who put it in. He also said "changes were made". If changes were made, why wasn't the important change made?

[DemoTex]

10. All this makes Bu$h look very bad in another way, too.

Bu$h is obviously nothing more than a mouthpiece. He learns the speech, practices it, and stands in front of Congress and delivers it (with the help of a teleprompter). It appears that at no time during this process does Bu$h get intelluctually involved with the speech that is his Constitutional duty to deliver to Congress. Notably absent is any scintilla of critical thinking on the part of George W. Bu$h. Imagine Bill Clinton so slipshod! It just would not happen!

[Cocoa]

12. right!

I keep thinking, who works for who here?

[wellstone_democrat]

13. they haven't even *pretended* otherwise

have you noticed? The "misled" has come perilously close the last couple of days to a blanket: "he doesn't know about this stuff, give the guy a break you hyenas" on the part of Replicants, the WH AND the PRESS! (Sorry, I still think this got lame coverage with the Reps framing the "single sentence" rather than reporters going after this substantive issues involved)

PS I miss your "two burning, two turning" tagline under that plane

[ElsewheresDaughter]

11. now the question is.....

Does Tenet have a cushy job awaiting him in the Carlyle Group like Carlucci did????

edit grammer