ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Scott Pelley Has a Problem with Comprehension

In his interview of George Tenet on Sunday's 60 Minutes, it became clear that Scott Pelley has a serious problem with comprehension - the act or action of grasping wit the intellect.

This is demonstrated in one simple exchange between the former CIA director and Scott:

SCOTT PELLEY, CBS' "60 MINUTES": January '03, the President, again: "imagine those 19 hijackers this time armed by Saddam's Hussein," is that what you're telling the President?


[narrating voice]

The Vice President up the ante, claiming Saddam had nuclear weapons when the CIA was saying he didn't.

PELLEY: What's happening here?

TENET: I don't know what's happening here. The intelligence community's judgment is he will not have nuclear weapons until the year 2007, 2009.

PELLEY: That's not what the Vice President is saying.

TENET: Well I can't explain it.
First, Tenet tells him that the CIA predicted that Saddam would have nukes by 2007 or 2009. Now, I know this comes from the CIA - the very organization that has been so terrible at anything relating to intelligence for several decades (from recognizing the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait to the first WTC bombing to the Khobar Tower bombing to 9/11) - but, let's give them the benefit of the doubt that this information is somewhat correct. Or let's put a margin of error on the statement and say that Saddam would have nukes by 2010 or 2012.

Scott either doesn't understand what he's just heard or is too busy trying to find evidence for his point that Chimpy W. McBushitler took us to war on lies - LIES!!!! - that he ignores information that is being provided to him throughout the course of the interview.

Second, Pelley's accusatory question is erroneous to begin with. I'd appreciate it if someone could point to the statement where Dick Cheney said that Saddam "had nuclear weapons." What Cheney did say was that Saddam was in the process of trying to reconstitute his weapons programs and that it would be more costly to try and take out Saddam in a few years - after which time he may have developed nuclear weapons as part of his arsenal:
There’s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.

Now, I realize that facts are difficult for people with agendas. But, words mean things (as a famous broadcaster is known to say). The CIA informed the administration that Saddam was likely to develop nuclear weapons in a few years time (let's hypothesize that it was 5-10 years instead of the 4 to 6 years according to Tenet himself). Combined with the fact that Saddam was harboring a known Al-Qaeda operative in Iraq; had previous working relationships with other terrorist organizations; had previous experience in using weapons of mass destruction; had just received aluminum tubes which the CIA and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory believed to be for the purposes of nuclear enrichment; and was seeking to dismantle the very box that we had put him in, it would be irresponsible for Bush to allow Saddam to continue to remain in power.

The MSM continues to ignore the facts - facts which they report on the buried pages of their own newspapers and which are exposed in the very books and bipartisan committees from which they like to cherry pick information damaging to the Bush administration.

Anchoress also has this post about the NYTimes admitting that Saddam was closer to nukes than we had expected.

Tip of the hat to Lori Byrd at Wizbangblog

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler