CIA director George Tenet has admitted that the organization long had doubts about the supposedly proven claim that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Africa. Furthermore, he has admitted that the CIA reviewed President Bush's claim in the State of the Union address, that he is responsible for the approval process, and that he, ultimately, is responsible for the failure to warn the administration. Fair enough, and, yes, he is responsible. This isn't a political point, but an organizational one. In our culture, the person who runs a group is responsible for what the group does. A CEO generally claims credit for the success of a business, so it would seem that the leader is also responsible for the failure. This would seem a prime element of personality responsibilty. Yet we see George Bush say that he has confidence in Tenet. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer says, "The president has moved on."
The main argument for the invasion of Iraq was the imminent danger the US faced because of weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's willingness to work with terrorists. If the underpinnings of this argument are cracking under the pressure of supporting the rationale, then we must look at whether there needs to be some change. Saying that the president has moved on smacks of the arrogance of a major corporate CEO, except without the reasonable excuse that the CEO is the one to make such a call, assuming that corporation's board of directors agrees. In Bush's case, he serves because of the vote of the public. There is no excuse for trying to gloss over a serious problem in the security and decision making processes of this country. The issue should be bigger than politics, and it is receiving criticism from both sides of the aisle. Why would Bush protect someone who was, after all, a Clinton appointee? I can see two answers. One is that he agreed to keep the man on, and so feels loyalty. Such feelings are commendable, but they are not acceptable when they subvert proper attention to the public good. The other reason would be politics, of course. Bush took a serious step by involving the country in a war and claimed a secret provocation. To take action would be to emphasize that perhaps other areas of intelligence have been shoddy, and that much of the reason he could get reelected might rest on a sham. For that reason, Bush should follow Tenet's example and get to the bottom of the problem, bring it out in the open for the people to see, admit wrong, and then to apologize for it.
George Bush may have moved on, but he might find that the country and leaders in both major political parties may not have.
Even so, the Guardian has taken a biased spin on the entire affair. Look at the lead:
The CIA chief, George Tenet, yesterday took the blame for President George Bush's discredited claim that Saddam Hussein had tried to procure uranium from Africa.
The paper eventually did remember that the claim was actually that of Britain in the fourth paragraph. But by then, the emotional cast had been made. Those looking for an unbiased view of US policies and activities should remember that just because a publication is in another country is no guarantee that it can be, or even wishes to be, objective.
12:12:39 PM 
|
|
