This diary is but another effort to tell the truth regarding plamegate. President Bush and his aides say that they were mistaken in their use of the "16 words" in the State Of The Union address. That would be all well and good if we didn't know George Tenet told them not to include those 16 words just three months earlier for a speech in Cincinnati. As is noted
here
The president prepared to weigh in with a speech planned for Oct. 8, in Cincinnati. But there was a hitch. Bush's advisers inserted, in an effort to build the case for war, a line claiming that the White House had discovered the Iraqis had sought to acquire uranium ore from Niger to build nuclear warheads.
The CIA director, George Tenet, vetted the speech and had the reference to Niger removed, because, he told the White House, the evidence was shaky. In fact, the CIA had sent an experienced former ambassador, Joseph Wilson, to Niger in February to investigate the claims, and he had briefed the CIA on his deep skepticism about the reports.
So, if the CIA actually told the administration that Wilson's trip actually bolstered the claim, why would Tenet want it taken out of the speech? Answer, he wouldn't.
Sec. of State Rice, Sept, 28 2003, Meet The Press;
Dr. Rice:...in October for the Cincinnati speech, not for the State of the Union, but the Cincinnati speech, George Tenet asked that this be taken out of the Cincinnati speech, the reference to yellow cake. It was taken out of the Cincinnati speech because whenever the director of Central Intelligence wants something out, it's gone.
MR. RUSSERT: How'd it get back in?
DR. RICE: It's not a matter of getting back in. It's a matter, Tim, that three-plus months later, people didn't remember that George Tenet had asked that it be taken out of the Cincinnati speech and then it was cleared by the agency. I didn't remember. Steve Hadley didn't remember. We are trying to put now in place methods so you don't have to be dependent on people's memories for something like that
Question: why would they send the Cincinnati speech to Tenet for vetting but not the State Of The Union? Draw your own conclusions there.
Now, on to the Senate Intelligence Report and there assertion that it was justified for top policy makers to grill analyst's on intelligence. Specifically, that it would enhance the quality of said intelligence by forcing the analyst's to "get it right."
Question: Why would top policy makers have to go to these analyst's, wouldn't it be entirely more appropriate for their direct supervisors to grill them?