Posted on 05/03/2007 2:41:15 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
In his new book At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA George Tenet depicts President Bush's decision to invade Iraq as a foregone conclusion, but he seemed to have a different version of events when I interviewed him just after the invasion.
Strongly implying that he was against the war from the beginning, the former director of Central Intelligence writes that, as far as he knows, the Bush administration never had a "serious debate" about the "imminence of the Iraqi threat" or even seriously considered the implications of an invasion or the possible consequences.
Moreover, Tenet writes, there seemed to be a "lack of curiosity in asking these kinds of questions." After 9/11, Tenet writes, the decision to go to war became a "runaway freight train."
As noted in a May 2 NewsMax story, Dick Cheney's Real Role, the United States did not invade Iraq until a year and a half after 9/11.
Even though he saw Bush at least once a day, six days a week, Tenet admits in the book that he did not raise any objections to Bush's decision.
"Such decisions properly belong to the policy-makers, not to intelligence officials," Tenet writes. But in an interview for my 2003 book, The CIA at War: Inside the Secret Campaign Against Terror, Tenet presented what appears to be a different account.
Prior to my interview with him, Tenet, as director of Central Intelligence, had given no television interviews and only six print interviews, all before 9/11. However, Tenet approved cooperation on my book, including interviews with a range of CIA officials and tours of some CIA facilities.
The book depicted the CIA's response to terrorism before and after 9/11 and detailed how Tenet had begun to turn the agency around after the CIA, under President Clinton, had withered and become risk-averse.
The first of my two interviews with Tenet for the book took place on May 15, 2003 in the office of Bill Harlow, then the CIA's director of public affairs. Harlow would later collaborate with Tenet on his book. Having commenced on March 20, the invasion of Iraq had just ended on April 9, when U.S. troops occupied Baghdad.
Asked how President Bush operates, Tenet told me then, "He's terrific. We see him six days a week. He's a terrific leader. He's very steeped in our business. He's very supportive of everything we've done and everything we're doing."
These remarks echo what Tenet says about Bush in his book. Only a few sentences of these comments appear in my book.
Going beyond what he said in the book and what I quoted in my book, Tenet said of Bush in our interview at the agency, "He listens. He acquires data. He is always interested in competing views, but he then decides. He doesn't get paralyzed. When we're good, we go. I think there's a lot to be said for this style of leadership."
When I interviewed Tenet, war critics had already begun to question the decision to invade, insisting that diplomacy or sanctions would ultimately work instead. Friends and family members of Tenet and other CIA officers had lined up on opposing sides.
"There were people in my family who didn't agree [with the war]," Tenet told me. "That's part of America. It's great."
Pressed about the opposition to the war and whether going to war was the right thing to do, Tenet went on in our interview: "Going to war is a pretty serious decision for anybody to take. The reason this is a great country is people can express those views. The debate is important and healthy. All I can offer," Tenet said, "is this is not a president who went to war frivolously. He thought about it. He understood the consequences. He understood the potential for the loss of life. He deeply cared about the people who would execute the mission."
But in his book, Tenet lists among the possibilities and issues that the administration allegedly did not consider, "Was it wise to go to war? Was it the right thing to do?"
Asked now for comment, Bill Harlow said, "He was talking about the humanity of the president. The president certainly is not going to send men and women into battle lightly. When he talks in the book about a lack of debate, he's not talking about sending troops to war uncaringly. What he is saying is there was not a sufficient debate within the administration about what happens next: Do we have enough troops on the ground to prevent chaos and anarchy? What is going to happen in the region? What will happen if the Iraqis war among themselves? That's the debate that wasn't happening."
Clearly, Harlow said, there was a public debate about whether to go to war. The Senate debated and voted on the question, he noted.
"So he was not saying there was never any discussion [within the White House] of do we go to war," Harlow said. "It was the next step. What are the implications of it? Are we prepared for what comes next? The criticism is not aimed at the president. It's aimed at the administration's failure to think through what comes after the initial invasion."
In the book, Tenet says there never was a significant discussion within the administration regarding "enhanced containment or the costs and benefits of such an approach" versus going to war and what that would entail.
Harlow acknowledged to me that Tenet didn't know what discussions Bush himself might have had about the questions he is raising now.
"Maybe he was having them," Harlow said. "He just says he wasn't present for them, and other senior officials at the agency also weren't present for them."
Also, Tenet was not privy to deliberations in Bush's own mind, Harlow said.
Harlow said Tenet wrote the book from the perspective of his current position as a Georgetown University professor after reviewing everything he has learned since the invasion. That includes examining tens of thousands of documents as part of the research for the book.
"He is not saying that this is something he thought at the time and focused on at the time," Harlow said. "Everything looks different in hindsight," he said. "He's writing this book looking back and asking what are the lessons we can learn. This is not about pointing fingers at George Bush," Harlow said. "This is about the process of government and what the National Security Council, the State Department, and the Defense Department were thinking," he said. "George admires the president, and I think the feeling is mutual. You know George better than that. It's so the country can do better in the future. That's all this is about."
In an interview this week, former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card told me that the issues raised by Tenet were discussed, but predictions of what would happen after the war were all over the lot.
"There were predictions that ran the gamut about what would happen in Iraq on whether there would be sectarian strife and civil war," Card said. "There were some who said that there was going to be sectarian strife and some who said there would be close to a civil war," Card said.
"There were others who dismissed that," Card said, predicting that Saddam's army and the Iraqis would embrace the Americans.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of NewsMax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.
His ‘60 minutes’ statements regarding his meeting with Richard Perle on 9/12/01 is also a lie. Perle was in France at the time.
He has 2 sides to his mouth and lies from both.
It could be that is what it takes to rise to the top of Christians In Action.
We went to war to not only remove Saddam, but to lance the boil on the ass of civilization that the Middle East had become. Yes it is painful, but the boil is large and filled with infection and pus. Someday it may be healthy again.
In the meantime, the oppressive countries surrounding Iraq that are threatened by the new free societies are not taking the challenge lightly. Their control and power are at risk, they must fight or die. Many seem surprised by this outcome.
Then there is the balance needed to keep the oil flowing into the world market. It is tricky to do surgery on the cow, while we are milking it. Keeping our few allies in the region happy, while we beat the feces out of al Qaeda. It’s a delicate balance.
Our other option was to whine bitch and moan to the UN about it for eternity and hope to stop terrorist attacks against allies and the US targets world wide. Pretty much a game of whack a mole with little success possible. I’ve heard a report recently of over 300,000 terrorists are now dead. As Martha would say “It’s a good thing.”
The plan to draw al Qaeda into fighting in Iraq remains brilliant, the execution of our efforts get a much lower grade. Why? Because we have asked those fighting for our freedom to fight with both hands tied behind their backs with rules of engagement that our enemies exploit with glee.
Then there is the loser party in America and their media sycophants that miss few chances to stab the freedom fighters in the back and to celebrate the enemies successes. Why do they do this? Because the loser party has become quite insane from being denied power.
(/rant off)
Even if you're an atheist trying to make some sacastic remark, I'm still at a total loss as to what this means?
One seldom sees a mention that Tenet was a Clinton appointee - wonder why? Bush deserves whatever damage Tenet does for not replacing him when he came in office.
I agree, however Bush has handled it terribly by his "moderation" of war. You can't reason with these people because the evil deception is ingrained so deeply in their souls all life has become to them is to get revenge. Just like their God is portrayed.
This war might last generations, and will just get worse because now free societies can not afford to allow these oppressive regimes to win. No one in America seems to understand what this means. The anti-war, moderates, and left, don't have a clue about what the enemy is trying to do. Most ignorantly they just don't care, and think they're just going to live their lives as they always have and will never have to face a time where we will have carnage and war in our streets!
I ask myself every day, why we haven't had any trouble on Main St. America? Is security that good, or is our enemy really not trying to force these issue here? Has some of the most recent problems actually been terrorism disguised? What is happening?
I'm sorry, I'm just not following. Clueless about what? Is Chirstians In Actions an actual term? Or just a play on Central Intellegence Agency?
I really don't mean to be so thick!
C:\Telnet Tenet
Connecting To Tenet...Could not open connection to the host: Connect Failed
(A little bit of computer humor)
I think we have not seen another attack because of stepped up security and the fear that this president will retaliate. I shudder to think what will happen if a dem gets elected in 2008.
Its just a play on CIA. Old nickname so to speak.
You got that right.
I think it has far more to do with us being in their neighborhood with a large military presence, as opposed to any security measures that have been put in place here. We've invited all the would-be thugs and terrorists of Allah to meet our professional military on the battlefield in Iraq. Despite all the problems we've encountered, this will go down in history as a brilliant military strategy.
If the traitor party is ever successful in their retreat, IOW, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, we will see them come here. In fact, I'd bet they are already here waiting.....
Nah, it’s those legions of crack TSA agents making the world safe for democracy. /sarc
I’m sorry the fault is mine for not being clear. It is a play and has little to do with Christians.
Double Ditto, and don't forget the Medal Of Freedom biz which basically shuts you up when the guy decides to go on the attack: "Prez thought I did a great job!!".
I never did understand why Tenet was kept from one administration to another, a clear conflict of interest in more than one way.
Tenet is a liar and I believe he is covering up their mistakes.
My thoughts are, because of the mistakes that led up to 9/11, perhaps they don’t want the public to know the full truth because they could open themselves up to lawsuits from the families that were killed on that day.
I personally believe there is a major cover up. If there wasn’t, with all of the charges that Bush and Cheney misled us into war in Iraq, don’t you believe that they would have had Bush and Cheney impeached by now if that really was the case?
I believe Tenet has done what he does best, obfuscate the facts. The guy is a damn liar and I hope eventually there is a real investigation into the matters and those who made the mistakes and failed us get what they deserve.. But I won’t hold my breath because these guys have a way of taking care of their own, so to speak. Like not wanting to get into Clinton’s affairs.
There is only one way to get to the truth, and that would be for lawsuits to be filed against people like Tenet who try to cover up the facts and leave us with eternal debate.
Tenet is a fraud, like his ‘Rat masters, writing revisionist “history” to serve their new narrative. What he said in that relatively candid May 2003 interview sounds like the real story, so far as it can be had from a career bureaucrat who is a master of self-preservation and advancement. The 3 most significant points Tenet makes in May 2003, which completely undermine his revisionist history, are:
1) He knows President Bush to be immersed in details and welcoming of various views, contrary to what he is claiming now about the WH as a whole;
2) He asserts that he did not view his role as CIA director to have any involvement with “policy” as opposed to intel, so why would we think he had been included in any policy debates about Iraq that he claims never occurred (i.e., he was not a participant, that’s all);
3) He did not have any serious qualms about going into Iraq or about the pre-war intel....... that is, no qualms until the going got tough and then he has a $4 million book advance to justify.
Tenet has embarrassed and disgraced himself and his nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.