Posted on 02/23/2004 4:58:38 PM PST by RWR8189
Edited on 02/23/2004 7:53:53 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
Get an unlisted number and the govt can't find you, got to remember that.
Various FR threads detail why.
Yeah, sure. I see lots of demands to fire Tenet, and bald assertions that he's deficient, but what I don't see is relevant or substantive criticism. Your own example is not only entirely anecdotal, it's also in the FBI's department. (Plus, how do you know these people "openly talk[ing] about jihad" are not being monitored already.)
What we have is Tenet's track record.
He began the process of reviving HUMINT after it had been gutted by his predecessors; he literally pounded the witness table in hearings urging policy makers to take the offensive against al-Qaeda, and identifying Bin Laden as the country's single most important covert threat, years before 911; he promoted Coffer Black, the Khartom station chief, to head the CIA's Counterterrorism Center precisely because of his expertise on al-Qaeda and his aggressiveness; he increased the staff of the Counterterrorism Center from a few dozen employees to over 300, again years before 911, while also integrating FBI employees on special assignment and actively addressing institution infighting that undermined the center; etc, etc, etc.
Oh, yeah, unlike the technophobic Freeh at the FBI (who DID need to be fired) Tenet has been a consistent booster of modernization and innovation. He supported and pushed development of the Predator drone, for instance. With a less far sighted Director (who would have deferred to the Defense Dept's plodding development of similar but ultimately overly complex and less effective systems) we wouldn't have had that vital resource available, which has been responsible for smoking many high level al-Qaeda operatives.
Another example of his embrace of effective innovation is Tenet's promotion of In-Q-Tel, a nonprofit org established in '99 that funds CIA technology and software projects and incorporates private sector innovations. Prior to this, private firms with cutting edge technologies avoided the CIA because of it's cumbersome procurement procedures.
Along the same line, Tenet installed the ex-marine and retired millionaire investment banker A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard as the CIA's executive officer with a charge to cut through the Agency's bloated bureaucracy. Among other bold reforms, Krongard eliminated an entire directorate -- the powerful but bloated and sluggish fourth directorate, of administration -- so that (as in a private firm) the CIA's various divisions now report directly to higher management.
Again, you could not possibly be more absolutely wrong. Far from being a "disastrous failure," Tenet is unquestionably the best director the CIA has had in decades. Firing him would be a boon to Bin Laden, but not to the American people. The only thing "disastrous" would the plummeting morale in the Agency, and the intelligence community generally, if Tenet is scapegoated.
...Well, I should say, "IMHO," rather than "unquestionably." (But, I firmly believe I'm right on this.)
The CIA At War by Ronald Kessler
Yes, and as the top intelligence figure, Tenet will have to demonstrate that a hard-nosed and thorough "lessons learned" process and been professionally carried through. He's pledged to do that. I don't have too much problem with those who want to keep the pressure on, or with good faith criticism, but there are many (and not only 'Rats) who are trying to give Tenet the "bum's rush".
How George Tenet Brought the CIA Back From the Dead
Amid controversy and two wars, he's led a classic turnaround by running the Agency like a business.
Bill Powell
Published: 09/29/2003
A followup by the same reporter:
The Trials of Tenet
The CIA director finds himself in the middle of two controversies.
Bill Powell
Published: 10/13/2003
He certainly seems to be well liked within the Agency, and has been well spoken of by many former CIA and intelligence figures.
Senator Shelby, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, wanted Tenet replaced when Bush took office (I'm not up to date on what Shelby's position is now) but it may be telling that even this critic had some pretty good things to say about Tenet. Shelby's argument was -- because the CIA Director putatively heads the country's entire intelligence apparatus (incl, IIRC, FBI, NSA, Defense Intell, and multiple other agencies) but has no direct or formal power over any agency other than his own -- that the job requires someone with more political "pull," a more powerful and connected figure. For instance a Colin Powell, a Dick Cheney, or someone that can use his or her status to influence policy over the many separate intelligence agencies.
Thank you for the ping. It is good to read an alternative view, and with specifics no less.
Here is my question. Did the CIA leave Bush in the lurch after the Iraq war? First they claimed detailed knowledge of WMD in Iraq. Then, when the time came to deliver, they just said, "Sorry, we were wrong."
The story falls flat. Although people can argue that the original claim wasn't definitive, the truth is that it was about as unequivocal as anything you ever see in intelligence.
So
- Did the CIA lead Bush on originally?
- Why did the CIA not come up with any WMD evidence after the war? This was completely unsupportive of Bush, since the implicit expectation was that they would back up the initial WMD claims as necessary.
- What does Tenet have to do with this, if anything? I know "the buck stops here", but the CIA has many little cliques, enveloped in secrecy, which keep things hidden from one another. It must be a very difficult organization to manage, and even if some people there pulled a fast one on Bush, Tenet may not be the one to blame.
- Why is Bush so committed to Tenet if he doesn't get some loyalty in return?
Tenet certainly owes Bush dedicated and professional service, but I don't think we want the CIA Director in the position of having to "defend" the President. You've seen the 'Rats accusing the Administration of trying to "politicize" intelligence (while they are doing so themselves in spades). Let's keep those charges firmly in the realm of cynical and hypocritical smears, and also remember that making the intelligence apparatus too political does degrade their product.
When the 'Rats grilled Tenet over missing WMDs in recent hearings, the Director took exactly the right approach. He promised to provide a thorough and professional review of intelligence failures vis-a-vis Iraq (as indeed he should) when the facts are in, and would address them in the next annual intelligence assessment. When the 'Rats attempted to implicate Tenet or the intelligence product wrt supposed policy failures, Tenet again gave the correct response. He doesn't make the policy.
- Why did the CIA not come up with any WMD evidence after the war? This was completely unsupportive of Bush, since the implicit expectation was that they would back up the initial WMD claims as necessary.
- What does Tenet have to do with this, if anything? I know "the buck stops here", but the CIA has many little cliques, enveloped in secrecy, which keep things hidden from one another. It must be a very difficult organization to manage, and even if some people there pulled a fast one on Bush, Tenet may not be the one to blame.
I doubt it. It doesn't work in a way that would facilitate such nefarious sabotage, at least not in the Bush administration. Policy makers, from Bush on down, ask too many questions, and such deception, if intentional, would be exposed. Recall how the 'Rats have been claiming that Administration officials, especially Cheney, tried to "pressure" the CIA to come up with certain conclusions by visiting CIA headquarters? What really happened was that Cheney (and other officials, incl Powell, but most often Cheney) went there to go over the intelligence and ask questions in order to understand exactly what they were looking at.
They would put Cheney into a room, and then bring in the actual analysts who had produced the assessments, and who were most familiar with the raw intelligence. Far from being threatening to the CIA, or interpreted as "pressure," analysts and Agency officials welcome that level of interest in their product, and are happy to interact, answer questions, and help policy makers better understand it. Anyhow, the analysts are not, at least wrt to a serious minded Executive, able to anonymously manipulate the the product, simply because they are not anonymous. Cheney and others sit down with them, and sometimes go over the raw intelligence together (as do their superiors in the Agency). Furthermore, policy makers will often ask questions that haven't been addressed in the analysis, which may require the raw intelligence to be reevaluated (and/or more intelligence to be gathered) and this may well involve other analysts, or various others looking over the original analyst's shoulder.
In short, the kind of conspiracy you're suggesting just wouldn't work (I don't think) even if someone in the Agency wanted to do it to damage the Administration.
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.