Tenet Chose Power Over Honor

The New Republic: Ex-CIA Chief Could Have Spoken Up Long Ago

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Ronald Steel.

---

The spectacle of George Tenet desperately — and far too tardily — trying to salvage his reputation raises important questions about political responsibility in the American system of government. Tenet, immortalized to his eternal embarrassment for having assured George W. Bush that it would be a "slam dunk" case to prove that Saddam Hussein was acquiring "weapons of mass destruction," now maintains, in a newly published book, that it was all a big misunderstanding.

But what he "really meant" is now far beyond the point. If his oft-quoted words were wrongly interpreted, he had plenty of time to correct the record when the White House first began using them to justify the invasion of Iraq. At that time Tenet's correction would have carried weight.

As head of the CIA, and thus the nation's chief intelligence officer, Tenet was in a better position than anyone else in the American government to know the state of Saddam Hussein's arsenal. It was not only his job, but his duty, to ensure that the critical decisions over war and peace were being made on correct — rather than on politically motivated and distorted — judgments.

Yet he did not object when the intelligence reports of the organization he directed were manipulated to justify a war launched on false premises. Indeed, he sat literally at Colin Powell's right hand at the United Nations when the then-secretary of state staked his own reputation — and that of the nation he represented — on what Tenet knew, even at the time, was a distortion of the truth. Instead, Tenet kept his silence. For, this he was rewarded by Bush, who pinned the Presidential Medal of Freedom on his chest as he eased him out the door. The award might properly be called the Presidential Medal of Silence.

Now, four years later, after the death of some 3,000 American servicemen and women and at least 100,000 Iraqis, the devastation of a once-prosperous nation, the radicalization of millions of Muslims against the United States, the weakening of our traditional alliances, the swelling of the recruitment pool for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, the erosion of our own civil liberties, and a growing threat to our safety at home, Tenet lamely tells us that the quote was taken out of context.

And whom does he blame? Not the self-declared Decider who rewarded him with a medal, but Vice President Dick Cheney. To be sure, Cheney has been a relentless promoter of the war who directed efforts within the administration of justify it. But it is hardly an act of courage to blame the most suspect, and even disliked, public figure in America — rather than Cheney's ostensible boss, whom Tenet extols as a leader "absolutely in charge, determined and directed."

The sad thing about Tenet is not so much that he was a genial enabler, telling his superiors what they wanted to hear and providing cover for an operation they were intent on pursuing. Rather, it's that he exemplifies the rule that those in high places will endure virtually any humiliation before surrendering a position of power.

Occasionally lower-level officials may resign as a matter of personal conscience (and there were a number of these during this war). But in only two cases over the past century has a secretary of state resigned in protest over a presidential decision deemed harmful. The first was William Jennings Bryan in 1915, because he feared that Woodrow Wilson was leading the nation into war by his belligerent policy toward Germany's use of submarines against British shipping during World War I.

The second was Cyrus Vance, who opposed Jimmy Carter's quixotic and ill-fated effort in 1980 to send a helicopter team to Tehran to rescue diplomats held hostage in the U.S. Embassy by student radicals. When Carter, with disastrous results, ignored his counsel, Vance resigned as a matter of principle.

Why did only Bryan and Vance leave the government rather than implement policies they believed to be wrong? Are American officials more craven than those of other democracies? Probably not. But the American system leaves them nowhere else to go if they cannot bear to leave the suburbs of powers — except to become lawyers or lobbyists.

In a parliamentary system, high officials often have an elected seat in the legislature. If they leave the government, they still have a bully pulpit, maintain a public role, and may even try to supplant the leader they once served. In America, the choices are stark: Return to the Podunk from which you came, join a think tank or find an office on K Street.

No wonder that they linger in their appointed posts, swallow their pride, and behave like good soldiers. Nearly everyone wants to be invited back to play another day. Troublemakers are unwelcome. That is the American way. George Tenet is no more cowardly than most. Even bumped from the team, he still prefers a cold seat on the bench to exile in the bleachers.

[opfor311]

"You have some faulty information. The IAEA publicly exposed the Niger yellow-cake claim as a sloppy hoax, in the weeks ahead of the illegal invasion.

Re: "BRITISH intelligence reported that Saddam attempted to obtain yellowcake in Africa, which they still maintain to this day"

Yet there remains zero actual support for this allegation, so you look pretty silly if you are still relying on this baseless claim."
Posted by FeelFree1

Ever read the Butler Report? Hardly baseless.
All that IAEA debunked was the obviosuly forged document obtained from Italy. However, as the Times of London reported on April 9th, 2006:

"Some time in 2002, however, they obtained another apparently incriminating document, the source said. This was a letter purporting to be from al-Zahawie relating to a visit to Niger in 1999 to discuss the possible supply of uranium. This did not constitute evidence that Niger had agreed to supply yellowcake but it did indicate Saddam was trying to obtain it.

The letter, deemed %u201Ccredible%u201D by the Butler inquiry into Iraq intelligence, appears to be the evidence that led to Bush%u2019s claim in January 2003 that the British had %u201Clearnt that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa%u201D."

[opfor311]

"You have some faulty information. The IAEA publicly exposed the Niger yellow-cake claim as a sloppy hoax, in the weeks ahead of the illegal invasion.

Re: "BRITISH intelligence reported that Saddam attempted to obtain yellowcake in Africa, which they still maintain to this day"

Yet there remains zero actual support for this allegation, so you look pretty silly if you are still relying on this baseless claim."
Posted by FeelFree1

Ever read the Butler Report? Hardly baseless.
All that IAEA debunked was the obviosuly forged document obtained from Italy. However, as the Times of London reported on April 9th, 2006:

"Some time in 2002, however, they obtained another apparently incriminating document, the source said. This was a letter purporting to be from al-Zahawie relating to a visit to Niger in 1999 to discuss the possible supply of uranium. This did not constitute evidence that Niger had agreed to supply yellowcake but it did indicate Saddam was trying to obtain it.

The letter, deemed %u201Ccredible%u201D by the Butler inquiry into Iraq intelligence, appears to be the evidence that led to Bush%u2019s claim in January 2003 that the British had %u201Clearnt that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa%u201D."

[feelfree1]

opfor311,

You have some faulty information. The IAEA publicly exposed the Niger yellow-cake claim as a sloppy hoax, in the weeks ahead of the illegal invasion.

Re: "BRITISH intelligence reported that Saddam attempted to obtain yellowcake in Africa, which they still maintain to this day"

Yet there remains zero actual support for this allegation, so you look pretty silly if you are still relying on this baseless claim.

[feelfree1]

opfor311,

You have some faulty information. The IAEA publicly exposed the Niger yellow-cake claim as a sloppy hoax, in the weeks ahead of the illegal invasion.

Re: "BRITISH intelligence reported that Saddam attempted to obtain yellowcake in Africa, which they still maintain to this day"

Yet there remains zero actual support for this allegation, so you look pretty silly if you are still relying on this baseless claim.

[feelfree1]

opfor311,

You have some faulty information. The IAEA publicly exposed the Niger yellow-cake claim as a sloppy hoax, in the weeks ahead of the illegal invasion.

Re: "BRITISH intelligence reported that Saddam attempted to obtain yellowcake in Africa, which they still maintain to this day"

Yet there remains zero actual support for this allegation, so you look pretty silly if you are still relying on this baseless claim.

[opfor311]

toldyouso21:
"3. Italy, the CIA and the UN repudiated the yellow cake data in 2002 (I heard it on world news tonight at least 4 months before Bush's lying speech) Bush was aware of it for over 2 weeks. When he gave the speech that included it--the insertion was blamed on a speech writer. Less than 2 weeks later, the claims were again repeated by Bush to the American people. Fool us once....Bush and Co knew exactly what they were doing. These were not mistakes or faulty Intel, this was not even cherry picking. These were lies, told deliberately to drum up support and provide the rationale for war."

3. The only thing ever refuted on the yellowcake matter was the document purporting that Niger has SOLD yellowcake to Iraq. There has never be ANY refutation of Iraq attempting to buy yellowcake from Niger, and there are even captured Iraqi documents showing that they did attempt to buy yellowcake. The famous 16 words the the SoTU address indicated that BRITISH intelligence reported that Saddam attempted to obtain yellowcake in Africa, which they still maintain to this day.

Part 2 of 2

[opfor311]

toldyouso21:
1. "Bush received several NIE reports about Saddam, the connection to 9/11 and Al Qaeda and even the assessment of Iraq--he deliberately perverted the documents and quoted things as coming from them that were not there. He also did this during the war, until finally he was called on it in 2005 and revelations about previous misspeaks were finally told."
1. The president (any president) does not usually receive NIE's which usually run around 75 to 100 pages in length. Presidents usually get a excerpt from the Intel in a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) which runs about one to two pages. While a few of the issues to which you refer may have been on the PDB's (such as the difference in opinion between State and the CIA on the aluminum tubes), most was not. As to deliberately perverting what was in the NIE's, it is entirely possible that he garbled them without intent to deceive. I have been known to do that on occasion (as has every other man over the age of 40).
"2. The Germans warned the CIA and Bush about Curve ball and the fact that most of what he said was bogus, this was ignored by Bush"
2. On this, we have no clear indication that Curveball was ever directly mentioned in any brief to the POTUS, and in fact, probably was not, since there was no need to know the source. Also Curveball was only a confirmation source for imint that we already had, his trustworthiness was less vital than if he were the primary source.

Part 1 of 2

[toldyouso21]

According to the article, Curveball was set up in a hotel in another country and was met by American government officials that recorded what he said, and supposedly, when he faltered--they "told" him what he should say and what would be required to be known in order to be believed. All of this was reported, and there for any American or anyone else to read. I read it online in 2005. The saddest fact, about this war and the tragedy of it, is how ignorant the average American is about the war, the circumstances and what even has been going on, from the use of WP in Fallujah, to the interviews with the Rendon group as they not only brag about being paid to spread propaganda in Iraq, but talk about other assignments to create unrest, havoc or precipitate violence in Nicaragua, it is woefully clear that the reason Bush et al could easily lead Americans by the nose is that most of us don't pay attention, do not question and have little to no interest in actually being aware of what is going on around us. Fox news or CNN--it is a dangerous thing to only eat the information that people with an agenda feed to you.

[toldyouso21]

what was the origin of this intel? who told them or how did they "disover" that mobil labs existed?
Posted by neoconRcrazy at 07:58 AM : May 10, 2007


That information came from curveball and had already been debunked by the Germans and that was shared with the US. Bush et al knew this and in fact an article in 2005 revealed that Curveball (an Iraqi informant that pretended to be a scientist but was actually a truck driver) was delusional, a liar and had already been caught in numerous lies--on top of that, he was PAID for the information and even after America was told it was Bogus--since that was not what Bush wanted to hear, the proof of it being a lie was conveniently discarded.

[toldyouso21]

Intel can be wrong. It isn't because they wanted to mislead you, but that people can jump to the wrong conculsions, espacally when they don't have all of the facts. Posted by Opfor311 at 07:01 PM : May 09, 2007

This is true--intel can be wrong and thus lead good people to do stupid things based on faulty premises. Unfortunately in Bush's case this excuse does not hold. Here is why:

1. Bush received several NIE reports about Saddam, the connection to 9/11 and Al Qaeda and even the assessment of Iraq--he deliberately perverted the documents and quoted things as coming from them that were not there. He also did this during the war, until finally he was called on it in 2005 and revelations about previous misspeaks were finally told.

2. The Germans warned the CIA and Bush about Curve ball and the fact that most of what he said was bogus, this was ignored by Bush

3. Italy, the CIA and the UN repudiated the yellow cake data in 2002 (I heard it on world news tonight at least 4 months before Bush's lying speech) Bush was aware of it for over 2 weeks. When he gave the speech that included it--the insertion was blamed on a speech writer. Less than 2 weeks later, the claims were again repeated by Bush to the AMerican people. Fool us once....Bush and Co knew exactly what they were doing. These were not mistakes or faulty intel, this was not even cherry picking. These were lies, told deliberately to drum up support and provide the rationale for war.