| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| George Tenet's Imaginary Encounter |
| 2007-04-30 |
| By William Kristol Scott Shane reported in Saturday's New York Times that former CIA chief George Tenet's dramatic description in his book, At the Center of the Storm, of an August 2002 presentation at the CIA by defense undersecretary Douglas Feith and his staff, is at the very least misleading. In order to suggest that Feith's staff was utterly out of its depth, Tenet characterized the main briefer, Tina Shelton, as a "naval reservist." In fact, she had been a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst for almost two decades. Tenet also claimed that Shelton said in her presentation of Iraq-al Qaeda contacts, "It is an open-and-shut case." Shelton and Feith both deny she said that. One person who served in government with Shelton told The Weekly Standard today he finds it "inconceivable" that Shelton, an experienced analyst, would have made such an unequivocal assertion. The Weekly Standard has now learned of a second, more stunning error in Tenet's book (which is due to appear in bookstores tomorrow). According to Michiko Kakutani's review in Saturday's Times, On the day after 9/11, he [Tenet] adds, he ran into Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative and the head of the Defense Policy Board, coming out of the White House. He says Mr. Perle turned to him and said: "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. They bear responsibility." Here's the problem: Richard Perle was in France on that day, unable to fly back after September 11. In fact Perle did not return to the United State until September 15. Did Tenet perhaps merely get the date of this encounter wrong? Well, the quote Tenet ascribes to Perle hinges on the encounter taking place September 12: "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday." And Perle in any case categorically denies to The Weekly Standard ever having said any such thing to Tenet, while coming out of the White House or anywhere else. According to Kakutani, Tenet concludes by paraphrasing Daniel Patrick Moynihan's comment: "Policymakers are entitled to their own opinions--but not to their own set of facts." How many other facts has George Tenet invented? |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #8 On 9/11 Bush probably should have fired Tenet. Unfortunately, he probably reasoned that, given the immediate need to attack al Queda in Afghanistan and elsewhere, he probably thought he could not afford the short term impact on organizational effectiveness associated with making a change at that time. I am sure his decision was also influenced by the fact that his father thought well of Tenet. This is likely why he did not fire Tenet on 1/20/01 as well, though the politician in him probably saw value in keeping on an old Clinton hand until he and his team had a full grasp of the national security program. According to Bob Woodward, Tenet did not have his a-players working Iraq for years prior to the invasion. This resource allocation decision came after Saddam had completely fooled the CIA in 1990/1991 by concealing a robust program and while the Air Force was patrolling the no-fly zone and often exchanging fire. I cannot understand what was more important. Now we see Tenet as primarily concerned with a) cashing in on a book deal and b) making sure that he is back in the good graces of his fellow lefties on the dc cocktail circuit. Patriotism, the need to protect intelligence, the importance of being fact based: none of these things matter to him. What a horrible decision Bush made in hiring and keeping this man in such a critical position I assume that there are patriotic, aggressive people working for the CIA on the ground in the crappiest corners of the Earth. However, at the leadership level in DC, they are more interested in attacking the Bush admin with lame ops like the Plame/Wilson affair and this book than attacking the otherwise vulnerable governments of our enemies, like Iran. It may be unreformable. |
| Posted by: JAB 2007-04-30 15:41 |
| #7 TENNET: I don't know what's happening here. The intelligence community's judgement is he will not have nuclear weapons until the year 2007, 2009. "The CIA has recently been pressured into accepting the idea of devoting the bulk of its attention to such global issues as pollution, health, natural resources, and endangered species. In 1991, President Bush signed a directive to this effect and the Agency quickly fell into line, creating a National Intelligence Officer for Global and Multilateral Issues. According to Robert Gates, the CIA was planning in 1992 to devote 40 percent of its resources to international economics and only 34 percent to Russia and the other successor states to the Soviet Union. One can only view such a shift of emphasis as a desperate attempt to find a make-believe role for the CIA in the post-Soviet world. [Note the leftist fantasy that the world is all sweetness and light since the demise of the USSR. ed.] But intelligence has only one function: to uncover foreign threats to national security. International terrorism and nuclear traffic clearly come within its purview. Global economic or environmental problems just as clearly do not: along with other ills afflicting humanity and the earth, they are best left to international organizations". Richard Pipes, "What to Do about the CIA," Commentary Mar. 1995 |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-04-30 12:39 |
| #6 Tenent likes to deflect blame on others; However, His Tenure at CIA predates Bush by a few years and he missed many intelligence events. The attack on the USS Cole, Somalia militias, embassy bombings, etc. If we knew nothing about these events then what in the hell were our intelligence assets directs at? The culture and mindset at CIA and State Department lead directly to leaving this country vulnerable to attack. Prior to 9/11 they would never have taken a threat from a jihadi seriously because it would paint them in a racists light. How can we suffer these blunders and NOBODY in intelligence isn’t called to account? I heard about Gen Odom becoming the latest General/Celeb to Monday morning quarterback the war on terror. Well folks I served under Gen Odom the mid-late 1980s and I heard him give a speech about Glasnost. He claimed that it was “nothing new” and there was “no fundamental change” in the function of the Soviet State. He like other Intelligence “Professionals” had painted a picture about the Soviet Union and they were not about to change it for anyone. Tenent and his gang of idiots did know anything because they had painted a picture of terrorists and they could not (for the life of them think) that they were capable of large-scale attacks. I would really like to read some of the post-embassy bombing reports as to who, what, why, and how it was carried out. That would tell you everything you wanted to know about their culture and mindset. I will bet they blame Bush for that too. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-04-30 11:40 |
| #5 Just say "George Tenet of Tenet Accords." |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-04-30 10:25 |
| #4 You gotta like this. George Tenet Sings Toby Keith by Jed Babbin Posted: 04/30/2007 From what he's said about it, former CIA director George Tenet’s memoir sounds like a country song minus the good music. His "Sixty Minutes" interview made me think of that sorrowful line in one of Toby Keith’s songs: “Yeah, I wish somehow I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then.” |
| Posted by: Sherry 2007-04-30 10:20 |
| #3 I'm not against the administration having it out for Saddam from the beginning. Hell, I think we should have taken him out in '96 at least. But to lie about it to hawk a book to the liberal-unhinged is beyond disgusting and bordering on sedition. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-04-30 10:02 |
| #2 When I heard Tenet yesterday all over the telly I said to myself: "Self, methinks that guy is hawking his book." |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-04-30 09:55 |
| #1 ...Sadly, all this means is that the MSM will ignore the facts entirely in order to make it appear as if the White House had it in for Saddam from the beginnning. While I'm on this subject, let me ask a question -it's always assumed that Bush goes after Saddam because Saddam (among other things) tried to kill his father. Frankly, would you have a lot of respect for a man who WASN'T pis*sed at the man who threatened to kill his father? Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-04-30 09:34 |