|
Voices |
|
"As Mr. Tenet develops his
arguments, supposedly helping the Bush administration well along in its
damage control operations, he offers the usual expected smoke that
intelligence is an art, not a precise exacting science.” |
|
Twaddlespeak! TENETS OF
NONSENSE BY GEORGE!
Posted February 7, 2004 thepeoplesvoice.org
By: Ted Lang
You
would think that anyone as distinguished as CIA Director George Tenet,
speaking to what is increasingly morphing into a crisis, would leave even
the most critical and accomplished analyst hanging on each and every
brilliant word uttered. Thankfully, the New York Times, in a February
5th posting, as well as some other sites, provided America with his
recitation at a news conference at Georgetown, which was originally recorded
by e-Media.
A response to America was
indeed in order for the quickly sinking Bush administration in an election
year that is beginning to get away from them. And what better venue
than this? There was no swearing in of the witness and
cross-examination was both cordial and casual. No evidence was
presented, and no penalty for perjury was utilized to ensure truth. What was offered as a “press conference” was nothing more than a pep
rally usually reserved for new spook recruits.
The need for this
“thirty seconds over Georgetown” retaliatory strike was to prove to the
American people that an administration, whose entire operational survival is
based upon secrecy, can really “open up” when it has to. Of
course, the issue never was, nor will it ever be, the operational mission
statement or philosophy of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The issue was, and
continues to be, the selective use by the Bush administration of
intelligence they chose to ignore, and which proved 100 percent correct
regarding the 9-11 terrorist acts, versus intelligence cherry-picked and
manufactured to convince Congress and the American people to empower
President George Bush to launch an unprovoked invasion of Iraq. The
statements of both former Secretary Paul O’Neill and Chief weapons
inspector David Kay must be taken together before considering any remarks
made in defense of the Bush administration’s actions.
O’Neill offered that the
Bush administration targeted Iraq from the time of the president’s
inauguration, giving validity to the charges that the Project for the New
American Century had secretly conspired against Iraq to favor Israel.
And not only has the Bush administration heavily intimated that Iraq was
responsible in part for 9-11, the “white paper” promised by Secretary of
State Colin Powell proving al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden’s complicity has
never been produced. Why offer to provide evidence and then pretend
such an offer was never made?
And considering the false
accusations against Iraq concerning 9-11, and the number one priority of the
Bush administration to topple Saddam and invade Iraq, why has the Bush
administration fought so hard to sabotage the efforts of the 9-11 Kean
commission, and to keep its findings secret? Taking all these things
together, how can Director Tenet’s speech present any case defending the
Bush administration without first addressing these basics? A more
poignant assessment may disclose that perhaps Mr. Tenet was really defending
his agency, and not at all giving aid and comfort to Mr. Bush. Let’s
consider some of the insightful candor in statements made during his speech.
He begins with, “I have
come here today to talk to you and to the American people about something
important to our nation and central to our future: how the United States
intelligence community evaluated Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs
over the past decade, leading to a national intelligence estimate in October
of 2002. I want to tell you about our information and how we reached our
judgments. I want to tell you what I think, honestly and directly.”
When considering the
forgoing indictments of Bush administration prevarications and obfuscations,
what does the philosophy of our intelligence community have to do with any
of that? Who cares how the intelligence community evaluated Iraq?
This is a moot point! The United States Constitution was violated via
President George Bush’s aggressively insisting that Iraq presented a clear
and present danger, which it did not. It is not the job of the
American people to evaluate and filter intelligence – that’s the
president’s job.
It is redundant to point
out the Bush administration’s selective use of intelligence, but the same
selective use of intelligence is now likewise presenting a major problem for
the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom. And
it has already been determined that the same selectivity was employed by
Blair and his government as is the case with Bush and his administration.
But Tenet feels the American people “deserve to know, because intelligence
has never been more important to the security of our country.” What
he wants us to know is how intelligence works, but again, that’s not the
issue. The issue is the dishonesty and secrecy of the Bush
administration! Tenet evades that
completely and offers, “Before talking about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction, I want to set the stage with a few words about intelligence
collection and analysis, how they actually happen in a real world. This
context is completely missing from the current debate.” As stated,
it has no relevance!
As Mr. Tenet develops his
arguments, supposedly helping the Bush administration well along in its
damage control operations, he offers the usual expected smoke that
intelligence is an art, not a precise exacting science. Of course, it
would have served America better had President Bush prefaced his arguments
for war in the same manner. He proceeds, “Let me be clear: Analysts
differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates
were spelled out in the estimate. They never said there was an
imminent threat. [Emphasis added].
But President Bush led the
nation to believe there was an imminent threat, irrespective of whether or
not he actually used that precise term. Tenet then goes through three
scenarios upon which the threat assessment was based, it being obvious that
these were indeed “estimates,” “hypothesis,” and “judgments.”
But these are used to throw up the smoke screen President Bush will, in all
likelihood, use later in the week on a Sunday morning talk show, to
camouflage his and his PNAC neoconservative cabal’s continuing intentions.
Tenet states, “But before we start, let me be direct about an important
fact. As we meet here today, the [David Kay] Iraq Survey Group is
continuing its important search for people and data. And despite some
public statements, we are nowhere near 85 percent finished.”
Having correctly assessed
Rush Limbaugh’s assistance, I listened to the beginning of his show, and
it is this segment in Mr. Tenet’s speech where the Large One shouts:
“Stop the tape! Stop the tape! Did you hear that?!”
What Mr. Limbaugh was so excited about, was the utterance of an accurate and
precise number, coming from the director of an agency that just went through
a complete dissertation on the imprecise and judgmental nature of its
efforts. Unquestionably, the number 85 is a definite number, and a
high one when considering a base of 100 representing complete accuracy.
But Tenet offered they were “nowhere near that number.” Then what
is the real number, and of what value is “85?” Why offer any
number at all?
Mr. Kay’s findings coincide with the “estimates”
and judgmental considerations of the U.N. as well, which President Bush and
Tony Blair chose to ignore. Yet Tenet offers, “Our community said
with high confidence that Saddam was continuing and expanding his missile
programs, contrary to U.N. resolutions. He had missiles and other systems
with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions and he was seeking missiles with
even longer ranges.” Why is regard for the violation of U.N.
restrictions so important now when Bush and Blair summarily ignored U.N.
pleas for patience to allow their own inspectors time to search?
When further referring to David Kay’s ISG, Tenet
says, “In fact, David Kay just last fall said that the Iraq Survey Group,
quote, ‘discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi
regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if
Operation Iraqi Freedom had not occurred, dramatically breached U.N.
restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War.’” Again, why
now such great concern for U.N.? And notice the indefinite terms,
“conclude,” “was committed,” “system improvements,” and “would
have?
Again Tenet: We have also found that Iraq had plans
and advanced design work for a liquid-propellant missile with ranges of up
to 1,000 kilometers; activity that Iraq did not report to the U.N. and which
could have placed large portions of the Middle East in jeopardy.
More concern for the United Nations: “We have
confirmed that Iraq had new work under way on prohibited solid-propellant
missiles that were also concealed from the United Nations.” Was this
actual work, or are we discussing drawings and schematics?
What is easily discernible in Tenet’s effort is an
attempt to sound out seemingly solid explanations that most Americans find
too tiring to examine in depth. That is precisely the intent. It
is all smoke, leaving lots of comfortable room to not only twist and boogie
out of any tight spots, but to take the whole issue of PNAC, Iraqi oil,
Israeli supremacy, and the Bush administrations lies, falsehoods and
propaganda issues completely off the table. And later in his
dissertation, Tenet alludes to the complicity of Bush’s predecessor in
restricting the intelligence community such that the Bush administration
became an innocent victim.
But the real issues are not being discussed. The
American people are not questioning intelligence methods or philosophy –
they are questioning politicians’ methods and lack of honesty and
integrity. And the polls are beginning to reflect this. Let’s
hope the pressure can be maintained. Let’s see if we can all follow
Vice President Dick Cheney’s advice to President Bush. Let’s all
see if “we can stay on focus.”
-###- © Copyright
THEODORE E. LANG 2/5/04 All rights reserved. Ted Lang is a political
analyst and a freelance writer.
|
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site contains copyrighted articles and information about environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. This news
and information is displayed without profit for educational purposes, in accordance with, Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
Thepeoplesvoice.org is a non-advocacy internet web site, edited by non-affiliated U.S.
citizens. editor |
|