Journal pudge's Journal: 60 Minutes Interview with George Tenet 12
This guy who interviewed George Tenet for 60 Minutes, Scott Pelley, said a lot of really really dumb things in the interview.
He accused George Tenet, to his face, of "making up" the intelligence about Iraq's WMD. Since they didn't know it for sure and it was only an educated guess based on intelligence, they "made it up!"
He told a baldfaced lie, that the CIA had shot down the claim behind the "16 words" about uranium, and that Joe Wilson "debunked" that claim (as anyone following this stuff knows, the 16 words claim was, according to all evidence, based on separate evidence from the evidence that the CIA and Wilson knew about).
Then they talked about the "slam dunk" comment, and I don't get what the fuss is. Tenet says that his point was that the public case for war would be a "slam dunk," that it was (or would be, by the time Powell gave his presentation to the UN) very strong. Tenet fully admits that he believed the public case for WMD was strong; that he believed Iraq had WMD; that he stood behind the intelligence; that the intelligence was wrong.
And yet
Which is true, and which he admits is true.
The reporter says, "Who was out to get you, George?" And I am left wondering how this makes it look like anyone is out to get him. All Tenet's quote does is show us what he freely tells us anyway: that he was wrong about WMD.
Maybe Tenet thinks he is being made a scapegoat, but I don't see that at all. I see the CIA being (rightfully, as Tenet himself admits) blamed for most of the intelligence failures. Every time I see Tenet and his "slam dunk" comment being brought up, it's only in the context of saying "we thought the case for WMD was strong; even the Director of the CIA thought it was strong," which, again, Tenet admits is true.
I agreed with most of what Tenet said, I just didn't understand his anger toward people he thought betrayed him, because I don't see the evidence of betrayal.
But back to Pelley. He said a great many nonsensical things. I was reminded of why I hate CBS News and 60 Minutes. I only watched to hear Tenet. I won't be setting a Season Pass any time soon
Corroboration! (Score:1)
Not only that, but Wilson's official report apparently corroborated the 16 words! I still don't get how he's been able to get away with the garbage he wrote for the NY Times.
Re: (Score:2)
You're being misleading. But, thanks to your addition of the word "apparently," you're less misleading than the Washington Post [mccarthy.vg]. Congratulations :)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment is confusing to me.
I agree with Jamie and Joe Wilson here, actually. Don't get me wrong. I very much dislike Joe Wilson. But from my standpoint, it is a pretty big stretch to take what Joe Wilson said and turn that into "Iraq sought uranium from Africa." All we know is that Mayaki said that an unknown businessman approached him to meet with an Iraqi delegation, and that Mayaki believed it might involve uranium. That is hardly proof that Iraq was actually seeking uranium. Indeed, at the meeting, there was no discussion
Re: (Score:1)
For a guy who loves to pick apart the statements of others, I'm surprised at your comment. Please go back and read what I said. I agree with your statement. My statement above agrees with your statement. I said nearly the same thing:
I said that Joe Wilson
Re: (Score:2)
But from my standpoint, it is a pretty big stretch to take what Joe Wilson said and turn that into "Iraq sought uranium from Africa."
For a guy who loves to pick apart the statements of others, I'm surprised at your comment. Please go back and read what I said. I agree with your statement. My statement above agrees with your statement. I said nearly the same thing:
And if this were the only evidence of Iraqis trying to acquire uranium, then I'd agree that it's pretty flimsy...
Well, no. You are saying this claim is pretty flimsy IF it is the only evidence. I am saying it is pretty flimsy regardless.
I said that Joe Wilson corroborated the 16 words. The 16 words didn't refer to Wilson at all. They referred to the Brits.
We don't know what the 16 words referred to precisely, other than that the Brits say they did NOT refer to the forged documents. They may have been related to what Wilson uncovered, or something completely different. They words can minimally, though not interestingly, corroborate the broad claim that Iraq was trying to seek uranium, but, IMO, not the 16 words in particular, becau
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know what the 16 words referred to precisely
We know the specific country in Africa was Niger (later administration statements implied this was the case).
And we know, whatever they referred to, it was so flimsy it should not have been included in the State of the Union.
Everybody acts like Wilson disproved the Niger thing. My intended point was that he did no such thing
And I do agree with that!
He debunked the 16 words by showing they were hollow.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know what the 16 words referred to precisely
We know the specific country in Africa was Niger (later administration statements implied this was the case).
I think that is correct, without looking it up.
And we know, whatever they referred to, it was so flimsy it should not have been included in the State of the Union.
Well ... I don't like your word choice. It is not that the evidence is flimsy that was the problem, it is that we were unable to corroborate the evidence ourselves. The evidence could be very strong, for all we know, but it doesn't matter how strong it is if the CIA can't look at it and form its own conclusion.
Everybody acts like Wilson disproved the Niger thing. My intended point was that he did no such thing
And I do agree with that!
He debunked the 16 words by showing they were hollow. No, he did not. How could he possibly have shown that, since he had no information that demon
Re: (Score:2)
when one of your closest allies shares something with you regarding one of the most pressing issues the nation is dealing with, and an independent investigation (Wilson) finds some evidence that agrees (at the very leasts doesn't contradict) with that information, I think it's not unreasonable to say that...
The informational content of your assertion is zero, since there could be no evidence which would contradict or disagree with the information we have. We are told that someone says Iraq sought uranium in Africa, but are not told when, where, or given even the slightest scrap of information about the source of that information. The only thing that could contradict this is the classic case of an impossible negative proof: showing that Iraq never sought uranium in Africa. That can't be done.
When you are re
Re: (Score:1)
I think you've misunderstood what I said. There is some evidence (even if you and I don't have access to it). The only thing we know is that the Brits, even after looking into it after the flap occurred, still stand by it. We (the US) did our own investigation into the matter, and found some corroborating evidence, which you may judge to be as flimsy as you like,
Another baldfaced lie (Score:2)
I found some other crazy idiot who is saying all kinds of dumb stuff. For example, he writes that in:
That's totally wrong! Bush spoke of uranium being sought, not purchased. Totally different! And everyone who has paid any attention would know that!
This guy continues:
In "fact," this is a strawman (since Bush didn't say that) and false (since we
Re: (Score:2)
he writes that in:
That's totally wrong! Bush spoke of uranium being sought, not purchased. Totally different! And everyone who has paid any attention would know that!
Correct.
I hold reporters to a higher standard than pundits. That's not to excuse WFB, but to say that Pelley's "crimes" here are worse, to me.
This guy continues:
In "fact," this is ... false (since we don't know whether what he said was true -- it might be, who knows, anything's possible).
Correct.
For anyone to think that, he must really not be paying any attention at all, or be really dumb, or be a liar.
Correct. In this case, I think it is obviously the former. We know WFB is not dumb, and I see no reason why he would lie about this. And so he is not paying attention, and is being irresponsible.
And what's also just awful (according to you), this crazy idiot characterizes the 16 words as "untrue":
As you've said, pudge, this is "a baldfaced lie, that the CIA had shot down the claim behind the '16 words'," because "the 16 words claim was, according to all evidence, based on separate evidence from the evidence that the CIA [...] knew about."
Correct. Note that I, quite carefully, did not call Pelley a liar. I said this claim is a lie. I hope my meaning was clear, especially given that I focused