The guy above is George Tenet but you can just call him scapegoat. More on this later.
The press has suddenly and mysteriously awakened from their "liberal" benumbed state of stupor. This uranium thing is abruptly the talk of the town. Now it didn't surprise me that the democrats were behind the drive to expose this little oversight on the part of dubya to include this piece of data in his State of the Union address. (Of course it wasn't dubya's fault mind you) No, what got my attention was when Senator McCaine arrogantly exhorted an investigation into the person/persons responsible for burying the uranium nonsense. McCaine's recommendation once this egregious person is located: Fire him....Why does staunch dubya supporter McCaine suddenly demand "justice"?
Does it occur to anyone else in the hereabouts that this whole controversy over the uranium thing plays perfectly into the bushies hands? rich pure&simple first wrote about the intelligence snafu back in May and predicted that the blame for the war would somehow fall on the intelligence communities. I wouldn't be surprised to find out (though I never will) that Rove or his likes leaked this "sound bite" to begin with. What else could account for the instantaneously renewed media interest?
Arguably the mention in the State of the Union Address may have provided the decisive "turning point" in the mass Americans support for "dubya's war". Here is the offending paragraph:
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb(?). The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa(!). Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production(?). Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.(?) [Question marks added]
I don't mean to depreciate this argument. But recall what it was meant to bolster. Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Period. He allegedly had atomic weapons and bio-weapons posing an immense and immediate threat to the United States and the world in general. What dubya hoped blue-collar Americans would cohere was that if Sadam was importing uranium, the purpose had to be for manufacture of more A-bombs.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Clearly WMD have not been found. I postulate that they won't be found because they simply didn't exist. Go here to view my "how to build an A-bomb FAQ". Everyone in the hereabouts has followed the various spins beginning with WMD's (launch capability within 45 minutes) to WMD programs to potential WMD programs.
The Iraqis have been liberated right? And that's a good thing right? So now all that's left is to find the guy responsible for "allowing" our ruler to make his totally innocent slip-o-the-tongue mention of that uranium thing in his address to America and fire him. And that, my four or five readers, is exactly what is going to happen. His name is Tenet and you heard it here first.
The firing of George Tenet will not placate nor mollify rich p&s. As most of you know, I work with the military. The military has a pretty specific chain of command. If this war had backfired (and I can't conceive of how that could have happened), the blame would not have fallen on PFC Johnston who was five minutes late delivering diesel to the tank - Nope it would have fallen on Gen. Franks. Responsibility for failure or kudos falls on the head man. If bush wants to play like a soldier man (and I think we all know what I'm referring to here) then he ought to behave like one.
8:54:12 AM 
|
Welcome To The Club
