Long a Target Over Faulty Iraq Intelligence, Ex-C.I.A. Chief Prepares to Return Fire [George Tenet]

New York Times ^ | 02/12/07 | MARK MAZZETTI and JULIE BOSMAN

[Enchante]

Mr. Tenet is not expected to take on Mr. Bush, with whom he developed a close bond during early morning intelligence briefings in the Oval Office. But Mr. Tenet’s friends said he had been surprised when Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice, appearing on Sunday talk shows last September, fingered him in justifying Mr. Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq.

In the interview on “Meet the Press,” Mr. Cheney said: “George Tenet sat in the Oval Office and the president of the United States asked him directly, he said, ‘George, how good is the case against Saddam on weapons of mass destruction?’ The director of the C.I.A. said, ‘It’s a slam dunk, Mr. President, it’s a slam dunk.’ ”

Mr. Cheney added, “That was the intelligence that was provided to us at the time, and based upon which we made a choice.”

Promotional materials for the book promise that Mr. Tenet will give the “real context” for that episode.

[Enchante]

Just a few hints about Tenet's forthcoming book.....

[Enchante]

This seems like a specious distinction (below) unless it was explained clearly and in detail in the Oval Office that Tenet did NOT mean that there was actually "slam dunk" evidence about WMDs..... you tell someone it's a "slam dunk" case and they do not think you mean merely the PR presentation to the public, they think you mean the genuine SUBSTANCE of the case.

"One person who has read early drafts of the book said Mr. Tenet defended himself by carefully parsing the “slam dunk” comment: he said he was not telling Mr. Bush that there was rock-solid evidence that Mr. Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, only that the president could make a “slam dunk” case to the American public about these weapons programs.

[woofie]

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is

[CutePuppy]

It's simply a fallback position for Democrats to immunize themselves against "losing in Iraq"... just like "losing in Vietnam" it's all because it was "unjust' and "illegal" war, and President Bush "lied us into war" based on "flawed, sexed up, falsified and misleading intelligence" about Saddam's WMDs just like Johnson did with "Gulf of Tonkin".

If war is not "unjust' and "illegal" than they can't demand that we're losing it, they have to have a cause and effect. Kosovo was "good bombing / war / action" because we, supposedly, "won". Vietnam and Iraq are "lost wars" because the reasons for these are impure and ego-driven. So all depends on the outcome, and they have to fit outcome to the "goodness" of intentions for the war and, conversely, fit "goodness" of the intentions or reasons for the war to the outcome. So here they impugned the reasons for war to impugn outcome, then by beating the drum convinced themselves and then many others (sadly, many here on FR as well) that the we are "losing" the "war in Iraq".

They have to fit it in nice box, like in kindergarten:
"right" war has to be won, because it's "right",
any war that is lost is lost because it was "wrong", "illegal", "unjust" to begin with.

Democrats = Liberals: Intentions = Outcome, Outcome = Intentions.

[Tut]

Well, George Tenet shouldn't feel alone. I remember the last ISG report there was this part that I remembered reading.

Senior military officers and former Regime officials were uncertain about the existence of WMD during the sanctions period and the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom because Saddam sent mixed messages. Early on, Saddam sought to foster the impression with his generals that Iraq could resist a Coalition ground attack using WMD. Then, in a series of meetings in late 2002, Saddam appears to have reversed course and advised various groups of senior officers and officials that Iraq in fact did not have WMD. His admissions persuaded top commanders that they really would have to fight the United States without recourse to WMD. In March 2003, Saddam created further confusion when he implied to his ministers and senior officers that he had some kind of secret weapon.

• Prior to December 2002, Saddam told his generals to concentrate on their jobs and leave the rest to him, because he had “something in his hand” (i.e. “something up his sleeve”), according to Minister of Military Industrialization ‘Abd-al-Tawab ‘Abdallah Al Mullah Huwaysh.
• Saddam surprised his generals when he informed them he had no WMD in December 2002 because his boasting had led many to believe Iraq had some hidden capability, according to Tariq ‘Aziz. Saddam had never suggested to them that Iraq lacked WMD. Military morale dropped rapidly when he told senior officers they would have to fight the United States without WMD.
• Saddam spoke at several meetings, including those of the joint RCC-Ba’th National Command and the ministerial council, and with military commanders in late 2002, explicitly to notify them Iraq had no WMD, according to the former presidential secretary. Saddam called upon other senior officials to corroborate what he was saying.
• In Saddam’s last ministers’ meeting, convened in late March 2003 just before the war began, he told the attendees at least three times, “resist one week and after that I will take over.” They took this to mean he had some kind of secret weapon. There are indications that what Saddam actually had in mind was some form of insurgency against the coalition.

I am fairy sure that Iraq started 2002 with WMDs. What happened to them between 2002 and 2003, my guess is they were shipped out of the country. It looked like to me, there was no one more surprised than Saddams generals who would have to fight that war.... after being so badly beaten just a few years before.

[haroldeveryman]

"Mr. Boren said that in the weeks before the Iraq war, he warned Mr. Tenet that since he was not a member of Mr. Bush’s closest circle of advisers, the White House would make him the scapegoat if things went badly in Iraq."

It is well established that the actual problem with intelligence is much more basic and general than this. The problem is a dysfunctional CIA infrastructure (not Tenet's fault) that resulted from the demolition of the agency in the 1970's by the Church Committee, followed by further weakening during the Carter and Clinton administrations. Leave it NYT to spin what resulted from a serious absence of human intelligence as Cheney and Rice "making (Tenet) a scapegoat".

[cookcounty]

If the Bush administration told a lie about WMD, they were guilty of simply repeatng a lie invented by the Clinton administration.

[dynoman]

"I am fairy sure that Iraq started 2002 with WMDs. What happened to them between 2002 and 2003, my guess is they were shipped out of the country. It looked like to me, there was no one more surprised than Saddams generals who would have to fight that war.... after being so badly beaten just a few years before."

Lots of info here in posts and links.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782982/posts

[Leisler]

The CIA sucked way before Carter.

Frankly the CIA, the OSS, the entire intelligence bureaucracy has sucked since before WWII.

Think of a bureaucracy like the Post Office, only that does no real work and no one knows what the heck they do and there is no history or way of measuring efficiencies.

What do you get?

[beckaz]

Tenet is just a word-parsing hack who learned and was appointed by the "best".

And Bush can only blame himself.

How can you blame Tenet (and you should big time) after you honored him with a Medal of Freedom (while going after Libby and Ramos etc..)?

Bush and our side just don't know how to play that game. Quick, invite Tenet again to the WH for some other honor and Teddy around too. (sarc off)

[Tarpon]

So? How many books do you think he would sell if he told the truth?

[Enchante]

If he told the truth he’d get bad reviews (or no reviews at all), the MSM would trash him or ignore him, and he’d lose his chance to “cash in” on the ‘RAT propaganda machine. Of course, since he was always a tool of the ‘RATs from the start, President Bush & co. were quite unwise to try to be “bi-partisan” and keep this guy after Jan. 2001.

Among the many loathsome things about the MSM is the almost complete lack of curiosity, factual reporting, and insight about the intel and counter-terrorism record of the Clintonistas, 1993 - 2001. Just the fact that the 9/11 Omission-Commission allowed itself to be restricted almost entirely to bashing the Bush admin. showed what a fraudulent propaganda effort the MSM and ‘RAT partnership is.....

[GOPJ]

What’s your take on the Tenet book buzz?

[Enchante]

From what’s come out in the past couple of days it sounds like Tenet is aggressively defending CIA interrogations and holding of terrorist prisoners, which is good — I just think that case should have been made in public years ago! It also sounds like he is putting some of the Clintonista failures under scrutiny (about slashed budgets for counter-terrorism, etc.) so that is good, too. Unfortunately, the DBM will take whatever critical comments he supposedly makes about VP Cheney and Condi Rice and make that the whole story. They won’t report on or emphasize anything that doesn’t fit their propaganda story.....

[GOPJ]

Unfortunately, the DBM will take whatever critical comments he supposedly makes about VP Cheney and Condi Rice and make that the whole story. They won’t report on or emphasize anything that doesn’t fit their propaganda story.....

You're right, it's what they'll do...