And on top of that, praised them and honored them as if they were patriots instead of untrustworthy Clintonista hacks:
Posted on 05/05/2007 9:44:37 PM PDT by Enchante
Mr. Tenet's account of all this gives the reader no idea of the substance of our critique, which was that the CIA's analysts were suppressing information. They were not showing policy makers reports that justified concern about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Mr. Tenet does tell us that the CIA briefed Mr. Cheney on Iraq and al Qaeda in September 2002 and that the "briefing was a disaster" because "Libby and the vice president arrived with such detailed knowledge on people, sources, and timelines that the senior CIA analytic manager doing the briefing that day simply could not compete." ...."We weren't ready for this discussion."
This is an abject admission. He is talking about September 2002 -- a year after 9/11! This was the month that the president brought the Iraq threat before the United Nations General Assembly. This was several weeks after I took my staff to meet with Mr. Tenet and two-dozen or so CIA analysts to challenge the quality of the agency's work on Iraq and al Qaeda.
Mr. Tenet savages the staffer from my office who presented that critique, although elsewhere he sanctimoniously derides "despicable" political attacks on hard-working professionals. He misstates her credentials, which include 20 years of experience as a professional intelligence analyst. (He calls her a "naval reservist," which she was not.) He garbles the title of her briefing: It was not "Iraq and al-Qa'ida -- Making the Case" but the perfectly neutral "Assessing the Relationship Between Iraq and al Qaida." Mr. Tenet puts in her mouth the haughty and foolish assertion that the al Qaeda-Iraq issue was "open and shut" and "no further analysis is required." I was there, and she didn't say anything even close to that. The whole point of her presentation was to urge further analysis.
(Excerpt) Read more at dougfeith.com ...
Tenet is a professional liar. He is precisely what the clintons place in positions of power by appointment because they will lie to their graves to protect and empower the democrats.
Everyone of these people have turned on him and made all of us look like naivete fools.
“....He is precisely what the clintons place in positions of power by appointment because they will lie to their graves...”
I think Tenet wouldn’t have dared to write this book except for the fact that Berger got away with the National Archives heist.
Feith points out some severe deficiencies in Tenet’s self-serving account. Feith and others in the DoD have had to put up with an immense amount of abuse from others; it’s nice to see someone fighting back!
fwiw, I am reading Tenet’s book now and there are some useful chunks of info, whatever the deficiencies might be when he is busy savaging some of his bureaucratic rivals as neo-cons, etc. Of course, it’s hard to know what’s reliable given the conflicts of Tenet’s memories with Feith, Perle, et al, but the item below I suspect will stand up:
Tenet completely eviscerates Tyler Drumheller’s account of supposed pre-war distrust of the Iraqi exile code-named “Curveball” who gave info on supposed mobile bio-weapons labs, etc. (Dumbheller became a media darling for his claim that HE was brilliant enough to warn that “Curveball” was completely unreliable, etc.] Tenet describes how not only did Drumheller NEVER indicate the slightest concern about “Curveball” despite TWENTY-TWO face-to-face meetings with Tenet, but how in May 2003 AFTER the Iraq invasion Tenet received a set of “talking points” from Dumbheller and his assistant asking Tenet to THANK a high-level German security official for all the great access and info from “Curveball”...... in other words, even weeks AFTER the shooting war started, Dumbheller was not questioning “Curveball” on bona fides, quality of info, etc. The whole media campaign conducted by Dumbheller, gratefully swallowed by liberal dupes and enablers in the MSM, was concocted long AFTER Dumbheller had a chance to do a Joe Wilson style flip flop about “Curveball”....
I am reading this book now too, and so far I am just not impressed with Tenet at all. I’m having trouble making sense out of what he is saying. Why was he in charge of the CIA in the first place? Thanks for pointing out that there is some useful info here, because I was about to quit reading.
And why did he continue in the cover-up of Clinton's disastrous failure to deal with the terrorists?
Just imagine the level of incompetence that must exist in highly critical and sensitive positions — if an obvious incompetent imbecile like Tenet can rise to such a lofty and in the public eye position as CIA boss!
We are being badly served by grossly overpaid jerks..
Well, I’m working the late shift tonight, and I’d better do my two or three tasks. :’)
Someone like Reagan had a sound conceptual basis, with solid and long standing convictions that Communism was evil and needed to be defeated, and that a thriving Capitalism, less encumbered by socialist taxation, was the engine that could defeat them. This conviction motivated his seeking the office of President in the first place, and gave him a sound basis for action, less encumbered by the feelings of those around him.
Bush is a more trusting person, more sociable, less driven by ideology. He took the office of President as a good manager, with proven skills on gaining cooperation across party isles. He got one mission, after he arrived, when 19 Jihadists flew planes into buildings. But otherwise, he is more attuned to working with what seem to be competent managers than to the more lonely missions of a great leader.
He's a bit too nice a guy, and too decent a manager.
He still doesn't get just how evil is the destructive influence of the left.
It’s a Bush family trait of believing that public service has no party line. It’s the old school belief that those in public service were there TO SERVE THE PEOPLE.
Maybe that used to be true to some extent .. but it no longer applies .. since the Clintons came to town and made all things political .. every appointment Clinton made was for the sole purpose of gaining the Clintons an advantage; a protection; a spying eye; an insider view. Nothing was left to chance.
Every appointment the Clintons made was solely for their personal strategic benefit.
I just don’t believe George W. Bush realized how entrenched the Clinton cabal was within the govt, and he was relying on the “public service” motive in people .. while the Clinton gang has no such lofty ideals; but rather were only there to obtain power.
It will always be remembered as one of the failings of Bush’s office. And .. even though I can understand it .. it still frustrates me too.
Thanks.
...regardless....W chose to keep him around. Therefore, I hold him responsible.
I’ve done two of them, now it’s time for number three. After that, I can get back to my first love, surfin’ the web. ;’)
In addition to being a liar, the guy seems really emotionally unbalanced. His body language and speech patterns in that CBS interview and even the one on OReilly appear to indicate that he is completely convinced of much of what he is saying despite it being almost childish in its naivety.
How does a guy like that get promoted? Just continuing to sign on to whatever program is in place and not oppose his bosses?
The idea that the WH was dumping on him or throwing him overboard is literally paranoid hallucinations. The WH has, for 5 years, refused to hold him accountable for his utter failure with Islamofascism and 9/11. They refused to hold him accountable for the WMD debacle. They refuse to hold him accountable for the complete lack of HUMINT in arab countries.
What do you want to bet the DC madame has him on her client list.
Exactly right......but the question then remains.....WHY ON GOD'S EARTH WAS HE LEFT IN HIS POSITION ONCE GWB TOOK OFFICE?????
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.