IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New NY Times on ex-CIA chief George Tenet's book.
[link|http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27intel.html?hp=&pagewanted=print|NY Times].

Like all memoirs, it's undoubtedly self-serving, but it sounds plausible that Bush and Cheney (and by implication, [link|http://whyareweback.blogspot.com/2005/11/who-told-woodward-slam-dunk-bit.html|Woodward]) did take his "slam-dunk" comment out of context.

From the Times link:

Mr. Tenet says he decided to write the memoir in part because the infamous \ufffdslam dunk\ufffd episode had come to define his tenure at C.I.A.

He gives a detailed account of the episode, which occurred during an Oval Office meeting in December 2002 when the administration was preparing to make public its case for war against Iraq.

During the meeting, the deputy C.I.A. director, John McLaughlin, unveiled a draft of a proposed public presentation that left the group unimpressed. Mr. Tenet recalls that Mr. Bush suggested that they could \ufffdadd punch\ufffd by bringing in lawyers trained to argue cases before a jury.

\ufffdI told the president that strengthening the public presentation was a \ufffdslam dunk,\ufffd a phrase that was later taken completely out of context,\ufffd Mr. Tenet writes. \ufffdIf I had simply said, \ufffdI\ufffdm sure we can do better,\ufffd I wouldn\ufffdt be writing this chapter \ufffd or maybe even this book.\ufffd

Mr. Tenet has spoken rarely in public, and never so caustically, since stepping down in July 2004.

Asked about Mr. Tenet\ufffds assertions, a White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe, defended the prewar deliberations on Thursday. \ufffdThe president made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein for a number of reasons, mainly the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and Saddam Hussein\ufffds own actions, and only after a thorough and lengthy assessment of all available information as well as Congressional authorization,\ufffd the spokesman said.


Tenet isn't stupid, and he's not a political buffoon. Recall he was appointed by Clinton. While he clearly wants to rehabilitate his reputation, I'm willing to give his account the benefit of a doubt since it's well within the Bush Administration's character to spin the blame onto others.

It'll be interesting to see if Cheney feels the need to attack Tenet now, or whether he feels he can simply ignore him. I wonder if the House or Senate Intelligence committees will find anything to feed any future investigations.... Realistically, though, I'd be surprised.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Tenet's been hawking the book on TV.
To me, the only interesting thing that he has said is that when he was at the White House on 9/12/2001, Richard Perle was there to say Saddam's regime had to be brought down. Tenet was shocked because knew damn well Saddam had nothing to do with al Qaeda or 9/11.

I continue to fault Tenet with being a Bush "team player" in the selling of the Iraq war. The picture of him sitting behind Colin Powell at the UN, a low point in US's diplomatic credibility, will not leave me. If he had any substance, Tenet should have resigned and gone public on the Iraq BS before the war started.

Alex

When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis
New I understand the sentiment.
The thing that got me about the CBS interview was how passionate he was about the threat of bin Laden. He apparently still has nightmares about the 9/11 situation....

If he feels that passionate about al Qaeda 5.5 years later, I'm not surprised that he didn't feel like rocking the boat on Iraq. Perhaps he felt it was his mission to stay at CIA as long as he felt he could make progress on the war on al Qaeda, and that going along with Iraq was the price to pay for that.

Let's not forget that Saddam was [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=47900|acting] for all the world like he did have something to hide, in the view of many people. Perhaps Tenet thought that even though Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11, there was more than enough justification for bringing him down and it wouldn't be the disaster it's turned out to be. I don't know.

It is curious, though, how Tenet could be so passionate about 9/11 and yet (apparently) so incapable of going around Rice and Cheney and others to tell Bush exactly what he thought about Iraq when he apparently met with him every day...

[edit:] Cleaned up a cut-and-paste fragment.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who's ordered a copy of the book.)
Expand Edited by Another Scott May 1, 2007, 03:51:40 PM EDT
New Re: incapable of going around Rice and Cheney
Yep, "that's not how things work in the White House" is a lame excuse.
Alex

When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis
New He is/was a career beaucrat
His explanation of the slam dunk statement still puts him in the middle of selling - lying about - the war to the American people. He is a smart man, he had to know about the worst case scenarios of the war and he still sold it. And he is out selling his book now. He evade the torture question. Bottom line, he is not doing enough to rehabilitate his image and credibility.
Seamus
Expand Edited by Seamus May 1, 2007, 09:55:44 PM EDT
New He's argument on the slam-dunk
was that the case against Hussein was a "slam-dunk"...not that Saddam had WMD.
New That's the point
He was stating emphatically that his stmt wasn't what lead Shrub to invade Iraq, as he felt the administration had been implying. His explanation that the discussion where he made the stmt was not about whether Saddam had the WMDs, but was about the case against Saddam clearly puts him in the middle of selling the war to the American people.

If he knew as much as he did about the actually intelligence and had the concerns he said he did, then he shouldn't have been as involved in selling the war. He did what was expected of him, rather enthusiastically.
Seamus
New OTOH, reasonable people knew it was bull
shit. The Economist is not exactly a great place to get advice from. It can be a great place to get information from, but their track record on advice sucks rocks big time, and has for years now. It was very very clear to me that the Iraq case was bogus, and it was certainly very clear to the majority of Canadians, and looking at the world reaction in the runup to that steaming pile it was pretty clear to most people in the West that the cabal was using fear to stampede your country into a strategic error of monstrous proportions.

Tenet participated in it, when he could have saved your country enormous heartache and pain. He could have sunk them by doing the principled thing, which would have permitted the U.S. to put the resources into the real w.o.t. instead of the massive clusterfuck that you're involved in in Mesopotamia. Instead, he let his groupthink and need to support the team at all costs to keep his job going blind him to the very real and obvious (I mean, look at what I predicted would happen; I'm far from some ivy-league policy expert and I got it better than those guys did) consequences of that decision to your country.

As for what your media was saying, the object lesson to the American People of this is that you (as in, your citizenry) need to abandon them in favour of other sources of information and/or use the public ownership of the airwaves to punt those motherfuckers out so that you can get some truth-tellers on the tube instead of the corporate flack soothsayers that you've got now.
New Yes, many here had it right. I wasn't one of them.
New Public ownership of what?
The airwaves? You're kidding, right? Have you been following what is happening to our "public" airwaves?
bcnu,
Mikem

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
New Just heard him interviewed on NPR
What a weasily bastard.
New He's going to be on Lehrer's NewsHour on Thursday.
I'm looking forward to seeing Jim interview him.

Cheers,
Scott.
New "Weaselly".
New The CIA lost all credibility in 1991.
The CIA's raison d'etre was the CCCP. That was their prime (if not only) focus. They failed to predict the collapse and worse, vastly overestimated the CCCP's capability to wage nuclear war with the US as was evidenced by what we found after the demise of the Soviet Union. Why anyone would believe a word they say is beyond me. Tenet is a self serving turd. As one former CIA deputy put it, "Tenet's worried about his reputation? He should be worried about the more than 3,000 dead US soldiers and at least 100,000 dead Iraqi citizens who died because of what he did."
bcnu,
Mikem

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
New Christina Shelton gives her view of a briefing to Tenet.
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062901947.html?hpid=opinionsbox1|Washington Post]:

Saturday, June 30, 2007; Page A21

On Aug. 15, 2002, I presented my part of a composite Pentagon briefing on al-Qaeda and Iraq to George Tenet, then CIA director. In his recent book, "At the Center of the Storm," Tenet wrote that I said in opening remarks that "there is no more debate," "no further analysis is required" and "it is an open-and-shut case."

I never said those things. In fact, I said the covert nature of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda made it difficult to know its full extent; al-Qaeda's security precautions and Iraq's need to cloak its activities with terrorist networks precluded a full appreciation of their relationship. Tenet also got the title of the briefing wrong. It was "Assessing the Relationship Between Iraq and al-Qa'ida," not "Iraq and al-Qa'ida -- Making the Case."
\t
[...]

That day I summarized a body of mostly CIA reporting (dating from 1990 to 2002), from a variety of sources, that reflected a pattern of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda, including high-level contacts between Iraqi senior officials and al-Qaeda, training in bomb making, Iraqi offers of safe haven, and a nonaggression agreement to cooperate on unspecified areas. My position was that analysts were not addressing these reports since much of the material did not surface in finished, disseminated publications.

Tenet revealed in his book that the CIA's terrorism analysts "believed to be credible the reporting that suggested a deeper relationship" between al-Qaeda and Iraq but that the agency's regional analysts "significantly limited the cooperation that was suggested by the reporting." Therefore, according to Tenet, an alternative view existed within the ranks of his analysts.

Tenet's response to my presentation was to attempt to denigrate my credentials. I was not a "naval reservist," as he wrote in his book, assigned to the Pentagon for temporary duty. In fact, I was a career intelligence analyst for two decades, and I spent half of that time in counterintelligence. I did not draw conclusions beyond the reporting, as he suggested. I addressed the substantive material in the reports.

Tenet claimed that the body of reporting did not prove an "operational" relationship existed. I never said it did. The use of the caveat "operational" became a convenient -- albeit transparent -- way to discount the credibility of the 1990s reporting and the relationship as I had described it. In his book Tenet maintained that there was no evidence of Iraq's having "authority, direction, and control of al-Qa'ida operations." I don't recall anyone inside or outside the intelligence community ever making that claim.


It doesn't look good for Tenet's version of events...

Cheers,
Scott.
New Thomas Powers throws a few more logs on that fire
[link|http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/07/02/tenet_iraq/index.html?source=newsletter| Salon]
What George Tenet really knew about Iraq

Unraveling the former CIA chief's cover story about bogus intelligence -- and the grand scheme that launched the war.

Editor's note: This piece will appear in the July 19, 2007, issue of the New York Review of Books. It has appeared on TomDispatch.com.

By Thomas Powers



July 2, 2007 | How we got into Iraq is the great open question of the decade, but George Tenet in his memoir of his seven years running the Central Intelligence Agency takes his sweet time working his way around to it. He hesitates because he has much to explain: The claims made by Tenet's CIA with "high confidence" that Iraq was dangerously armed all proved false. But mistakes are one thing, excusable even when serious; inexcusable would be charges of collusion in deceiving Congress and the public to make war possible. Tenet's overriding goal in his carefully written book is to deny "that we somehow cooked the books" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. If he says it once, he says it a dozen times. "We told the president what we did on Iraq WMD because we believed it."

But repetition is not enough. Tenet's problem is that the intelligence and the war proceeded in lockstep: no intelligence, no war. Since Tenet delivered the (shockingly exaggerated) intelligence, and the president used it to go to war, how is Tenet to convince the world that he wasn't simply giving the boss what he wanted? Tenet naturally dislikes this question, but it is evident that the American public and Congress dislike it just as much. Down that road lie painful truths about the character and motives of the president and the men and women around him. But getting out of Iraq will not be easy, and the necessary first step is to find the civic courage to insist on knowing how we got in. Tenet's memoir is an excellent place to begin; some of what he tells us and much that he leaves out point unmistakably to the genesis of the war in the White House -- the very last thing Tenet wants to address clearly. He sidles up to the question at last on page 301: "One of the great mysteries to me," he writes, "is exactly when the war in Iraq became inevitable."

Hans Blix, director of the United Nations weapons inspection team, did not believe that war was inevitable until the shooting started. In Blix's view, reported in his memoir "Disarming Iraq," the failure of his inspectors to find Saddam Hussein's WMD meant that a U.S. invasion of Iraq could certainly be put off, perhaps avoided altogether. For Blix it was all about the weapons. Tenet's version of events makes it clear that WMD, despite all the ballyhoo, were in fact secondary; something else was driving events.

Tenet's omissions begin on day two of the march to war, Sept. 12, 2001, when three British officials came to CIA headquarters "just for the night, to express their condolences and to be with us. We had dinner that night at Langley, ... as touching an event as I experienced during my seven years as DCI." This would have been an excellent place to describe the genesis of the war, but Tenet declines. We must fill in the missing pieces ourselves.

The guests that night were David Manning, barely a week into his new job as Tony Blair's personal foreign policy advisor; Richard Dearlove, chief of the British secret intelligence service known as MI6, a man Tenet already knew well; and Eliza Manningham-Buller, the deputy chief of MI5, the British counterpart to the FBI. Despite the ban on air traffic, Dearlove and Manningham-Buller had flown into Andrews Air Force Base near Washington that day. But David Manning was already inside the United States. The day before the attack on the World Trade Center, on Sept. 10, he had been in Washington for a dinner with Condoleezza Rice at the home of the British ambassador, Christopher Meyer. Early on Sept. 11 Manning took the shuttle to New York, and from his airplane window on the approach to Kennedy Airport, he saw smoke rising from one of the World Trade Center towers. By the time he landed the second tower had been struck.

It took a full day for the British embassy to fetch Manning back to Washington by car, and he arrived at Langley that night carrying the burden of what he had seen. It was a largish group that gathered for dinner. Along with the three British guests and Tenet were Jim Pavitt and his deputy at the CIA's Directorate for Operations; Tenet's executive secretary Buzzy Krongard; the chief of the Counter Terrorism Center, Cofer Black; the acting director of the FBI, Thomas Pickard; the chief of the CIA's Near East Division, still not identified; and the chief of the CIA's European Division, Tyler Drumheller.

[3 pp. More]


Not that much of this will matter, either.
(I no longer even guesstimate what "the effect might be" of each New Book, the revised cross-indexed revelations, etc.)

Even the hot new series (New Yorker, Wash Post et al) diagramming the Cheney Massaging of the Decider's stuff-to-decide, his virtual 'cooking' of the food supply to our Pinnocchio - - may make no more difference than the rest have. It's looking as if, no matter What material is next detected, inspected and collated, the response shall remain:

the young kids shall continue to
Die Die Die Die Die Die Die Die Die Die Die Die Die Die Die Die Die Die Die Die

in an environment (now) where it is simply Impossible to discern friend from foe, and where every decent constructive action is erased overnight.

while the despicable old-pols / deer-in-headlights, awash in What-Ifs shall
Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab.

Too inane to be 'Greek Tragedy' - no guts to be seen.
We have created the Fully-automated Contemptible Society.

     NY Times on ex-CIA chief George Tenet's book. - (Another Scott) - (15)
         Tenet's been hawking the book on TV. - (a6l6e6x) - (11)
             I understand the sentiment. - (Another Scott) - (10)
                 Re: incapable of going around Rice and Cheney - (a6l6e6x)
                 He is/was a career beaucrat - (Seamus) - (2)
                     He's argument on the slam-dunk - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                         That's the point - (Seamus)
                 OTOH, reasonable people knew it was bull - (jake123) - (5)
                     Yes, many here had it right. I wasn't one of them. -NT - (Another Scott)
                     Public ownership of what? - (mmoffitt)
                     Just heard him interviewed on NPR - (crazy) - (2)
                         He's going to be on Lehrer's NewsHour on Thursday. - (Another Scott)
                         "Weaselly". -NT - (CRConrad)
         The CIA lost all credibility in 1991. - (mmoffitt)
         Christina Shelton gives her view of a briefing to Tenet. - (Another Scott) - (1)
             Thomas Powers throws a few more logs on that fire - (Ashton)

This is a test of the Emergency LRPD System. This is only a test.
69 ms