Why Bush can't fire Tenet and Hadley

[gulliver]

Bush can't fire (or accept the resignation of) Tenet and Hadley for knowingly allowing the Niger/uranium line in the State of the Union. If Bush did that, he would be saying it is a firing offense. As soon as he fired Hadley, for example, it would come out that Cheney knew and probably even Bush himself. Then what?

I haven't heard either Bush or Cheney say that they didn't know. Has anyone else?

[pw]

1. Why should he fire them?

They both did exactly what they were supposed to do. You're acting as if pushing false information into a speech is considered a problem in this administration. It's just getting caught that's a problem, and even that is a monior one, apparently.

[wndycty]

2. I agree

By firing or accepting the resignations of Tenet and Hadley the administration would be acknowledging the seriousness of the matter.

[caledesi]

5. Exactly. They will get a promotion instead.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

3. Agreed, their only move is to downplay this...

Firing either one would imply that they think it was a big deal. They don't have much choice there. But I think (hope) this strategy will backfire, that most of us (not just at DU) DO see this as serious and even more serious that the WH lets it slide. This is I think why Dean continued to suggest Tenet should resign, to underscore the seriousness of the offense.

I heard a radio talk show host yesterday ask his listeners if they thought the president should be held accountable for all the words in the SOTU. My question would be, would you want a President who WOULDN'T hold himself accountable for every word in that speech? Seems obvious.

[bunnyhop]

4. You're assuming logic applies here and it doesn't

Bush can come out and say "tenet knew about this lie and he's fired but it's ok that cheney and i knew about the lie and still used it." And neither the dems nor the media will say a word.