Tenet's Mouth is Moving, But We Can't Understand the Words

| 4 Comments | No TrackBacks

Prepare yourself for the deluge. As was the case with the high-profile books by former Bush administration officials Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill that slammed the president for being almost criminally inept, the political press is about to get some fresh red meat tossed into its Beltway cage: former CIA chief George Tenet's imminent tell-all.


The book, "At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA," which has already plugged into the hype machine fed by the big papers and a 60 Minutes piece that will air on Sunday night, is critical of the way the Bush administration treated Tenet, making him a "scapegoat," he claims, for the war in Iraq.


The funny thing is, while every one is talking about the book, no one has actually read it yet, since it's embargoed until Monday. Or everyone, that is, except the embargo-busting New York Times. As the paper did back in September 2006 when it scooped The Washington Post by buying a copy of Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack," before publication, an unnamed Times reporter has again managed to buy a copy of the book "at retail price in advance of publication."


Nevertheless, the Times doesn't tell us much. A little nastiness about Cheney, a little complaint about the infamous "slam dunk" line Tenet uttered in a 2002 Oval Office meeting, and a few more choice tidbits. But this is only the first probing mission in what we expect to be a full, combined arms assault by the national media on Tenet's book in the next couple of weeks.


But considering what the Times story does give us, some important context is missing. We're told that Tenet gives a "detailed account" of the "slam dunk" meeting, which has been help up by Bush administration officials as proof that American intelligence agencies were convinced that Saddam had WMD.


The Times reports that the meeting featured a presentation by deputy C.I.A. director, John McLaughlin, who outlined "a proposed public presentation" about how to sell the war to the public "that left the group unimpressed. Mr. Tenet recalls that Mr. Bush suggested that they could 'add punch' by bringing in lawyers trained to argue cases before a jury."


Then, quoting from Tenet's book: "I told the president that strengthening the public presentation was a 'slam dunk,' a phrase that was later taken completely out of context."


The Times leaves it at that, but there's much more to the story, specifically Tenet's changing story about the meeting itself.


The "slam dunk" line was initially reported in April 2004 in a Washington Post excerpt of Bob Woodward's book, "Plan of Attack," and at the time Tenet questioned the accuracy of the quote. Then, in an April 2005 speech at Kutztown University, Tenet changed his tune and admitted using the phrase, lamenting that "those were the two dumbest words I ever said."


Just a year later, in 2006, Ron Suskind reported in his book, "The One Percent Doctrine," that "Tenet and McLaughlin don't remember the [2002 White House] meeting very well. Tenet, though outnumbered by what the president and other advisers claim they heard, doesn't actually remember ever saying 'slam dunk.' Doesn't dispute it. Just doesn't remember it. McLaughlin said he never remembered Tenet saying 'slam dunk' either."


Later in the book, Suskind (giving voice to Tenet, one assumes), makes the case again, saying that on April 19, 2004, the day the words "slam dunk" appeared in the Post, Tenet "wondered how the president could recall so clearly something Tenet himself didn't remember saying."


While we understand that the Times was merely trying to scoop everybody by running snippets from Tenet's book, it sure left a hell of a lot of history on the cutting room floor.


Will empires fall over the question of what Tenet said? No. That ship has long since sailed, and whether or not he uttered the phrase "slam dunk," the impression that he did, or the overall sentiment that the phrase conveyed, is really all that matters.


Still, the former head of the CIA seems to be dancing as fast as he can on this question, and has been for years. It's time someone called him on it.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://www.lq-beta2.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/simon1/managed-mt/mt-tb.cgi/1127

4 Comments

Paul,

There's been no comment at CJR about the Bill Moyer's Journal piece on the selling of the war. It was one of the most devastating indictments of main stream journalism that I've seen. Any take on it?

What "take" is there to be had in McLearyland, other than the obvious one...


Namely, that the noble "professional journalists" of the MSM were duped into "falling" for a "lie" by the "criminally inept" Chimpy Bushitler who fabricated evidence in order to have the personal satisfaction of being able to laugh at images of dead Iraqi babies (like we all know he does) and line his pockets with oil money...


What other explanation could there be for the press' willingness to accept the intelligence that Bush accepted?....


Of course...


We won't talk about all the Democrats who vouched for the existence of Iraqi WMD's and who voted to authorize the war... (Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Byrd, Kennedy, Murtha.. Etc)


Ole' Chimpy duped all these poor, noble public servants with his sneering lies too!.... So they get a free pass... We loves us some dupes... As long as they're liberal dupes, that is...


Time for a mantra...


Bush Lied!... (Though nobody seems to be able to put one of these "lies" in quotes....)


I guess the only thing sillier than stumping for a mentally deficient President like Chimpy... Is apologzing for a press corps who fell victim to the cunning of a such retardation...

The Tenet "revelations" are mostly about a guy who thew in his lot with the administration and in the aftermath did not like that he was one of them. As far as I can tell from the accounts in advance of his book, he does not contest his "slam dunk: remark but rather the inconvenient fact that is was leaked to Woodward and others.
Ultimately, Tenet got a big pay day--so what is he explaining about ethics and reputation?
For more see my blog, reflectivepundit.com

Do you really want to revisit the "Bush lied" argument again, Padi? Did you not get enough egg on your face last time? Or did you think that we've forgotten?

http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/skepticism_is_but_step_one_in.php

Your only defense then was that it wasn't precisely a lie, he just used bait and switch to confound the information. Still, that makes it no less a deception. Willful omission of information is still a lie.

Does Bush lie? Let us count the ways:

1. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. - Lie

2.
REPORTER: Last week you told us Secretary Rumsfeld would be staying on. Why is the timing right now, and how much does it have to do with the election results?

BUSH: You and Hunt and Keil came into the Oval Office and asked me to question one week before the campaign. Basically, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? The reason why is I did not want to make a major decision in the final days of the campaign. The only way to answer that question, and get it on to another question, was to give you that answer. The truth of the matter is as well, that is one reason I gave the answer. The other reason why is I had not had a chance to visit with Bob Gates yet. I had not had my final conversation with Don Rumsfeld yet at that point. I had been talking with Don Rumsfeld over a period of time about fresh perspectives. He likes to call it fresh eyes. - Translation "I lied to you and the American people so you'd stop asking me uncomfortable questions so close to an election".

3. There is no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American soldiers in Iraq. - Lie

It's abundantly obvious that anything coming from this President's mouth must be viewed with skepticism if not suspicion and held up to the closest of scrutiny. Through design or incompetence Bush is as untruthful as one can be without being held accountable for his deceptions.

Leave a comment

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by published on April 27, 2007 1:56 PM.

Counting the Dead in Iraq was the previous entry in this blog.

Why NBC Was Right to Air Cho Package is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.