Bush: CIA Director George Tenet Resigns

George Tenet resigned on Wednesday, citing personal reasons. He will serve until mid-July.

Tenet has been CIA director for the past 7 years, and has been at least partially responsible for the lapses of September 11th and the less-than-stellar Iraq intelligence.


Question for Debate: Will Tenet's departure help our intelligence efforts, or harm them?

I think that it will harm them. I believe that Tenet did his job to the best of his ability. The CIA does not make policy. They inform the policy makers on what they know. Tenet's department never said there was an imminent threat in Iraq.

From Tenet's speech at Georgetown University on 2-5-04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...6-2004Feb5.html

"Let me be clear: Analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the estimate."

"They never said there was an imminent threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy-makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests. No one told us what to say or how to say it."



I think that he is possibly a fall guy, or someone that is simply frustrated.

It is sad to see him go. His job was to provide the president information. The president makes decisions based on his own interpretaion of that information.

Will Tenet's departure help our intelligence efforts, or harm them?

I think the answer is it depends.

Tenet's resigination in and of itself is a good thing, the CIA needs to be shaken up, cleaned up, and streamlined. However, it really depends on who Bush replaces him with. If the new director just wants to tend to business as usual then this will actually hurt us due to loss of experience, but if he wants to come in there and shake things up it could be a good thing.

I'm sure there are some legislative actions that need to be taken to "fix" the CIA, but a lot of it must be done internally too.

The way I see it, there is a serious Either/Or situation here.

Either: There was a massive intel failure about the WMD in Iraq and the imminent threat of their deployment, as this turned out to be fictional.

If that is the case, Tenet presided over one of the most impressive intel failures in history (two in fact, if you count 9/11) and should have been fired LONG ago.

Or: There was NOT an Intel failure, Tenet presented the facts clearly and reasonably (as he says he did in Mule's post above) in which case Bush is responsable for lying to the People of the US and the world, drawing conclusions not present and misrepresenting the Inelligence he was given.

If that is the case, Bush should be impeached.


I cannot see my way out of this binary choice, either Tenet screwed up royally, or Bush lied. Is there a realistic third option that I am not seeing here?

If not, then why is nobody being held acountable?

Tenet hasn't been doing a very good job in reorganizing the CIA in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Under new management, i think the CIA can come back.

The CIA needs reorganizing and Tenet resigning is a start

Bush and Tenet have a close relationship. Bush has met with Tenet more time this week than Clinton did in his last year in office, if that tells you anything.

I don't think Tenet was fired or forced out. Tenet has never taken a vacation while CIA director. I heard his son was graduating from High School this month and he wanted to spend some time with him before he went off to college.

As for the topic for Debate: Will Tenet's departure help our intelligence efforts, or harm them?

Despite Tenet's close relationship with Bush, I have long felt that he should go. Externally, I see little change in the way business is done by the CIA. A shake up is necessary for real change to occur.

Remember that the CIA is a huge organization. Real change is not possible in such a place without a pretty big shake up. Hopefully, Tenet's departure will spur that change.

You don't revamp the intelligence arm of this country overnight. I do think Tenet made progress in that area, but I agree with Amlord (did I just do that again?) that it was time to go.

His "slam dunk" persuasion of Bush on the Iraq/WMD question (as quoted in Woodward's book) made me want to twist his head off.

I can't fault the guy for leaving. 7 years is a long term for most DCI's and his was probably in dog years due to some of the events during his tenure.

As for the question at hand, it will depend on two things: Bush's choice for successor and time. I do think the CIA and FBI are well on their way to reconciling the disconnects that contributed to 9-11 and whoever steps in should likely continue that course, perhaps accelerating it if funding and resources can be provided. The CIA and FBI are going to be the two most critical arms in the WoT and we need someone leading those organizations with the vision to see those efforts continue and bear fruit.

Doc

Bush and Tenet have a close relationship. Bush has met with Tenet more time this week than Clinton did in his last year in office, if that tells you anything.

That seems pretty outlandish. I would love to see some supporting facts before it "Tells me anything".

Remember that the CIA is a huge organization. Real change is not possible in such a place without a pretty big shake up. Hopefully, Tenet's departure will spur that change.

This I agree with. Not only is the CIA a large org. it is part of a larger organization, and without a pretty big shake up, real change is not possible.

I don't believe this will change anything ONE IOTA. But what I think it does is to have a convenient scapegoat.

Now why would I say something like that? 2 reasons come to mind.

1. Joseph Wilson was sent by the CIA to investigate claims about Iraq trying to buy uranium in Niger.



Thus the uranium claim was false but was left in the Presidents speech. Is this the CIA fault or the adminstration?

2. The case of Chalabi giving false information to the Bush adminstration.

Did this information come from the CIA or Chalabis friends in the Bush adminstration?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1225600,00.html



It appears, more and more each day that Chalabi fed his neocons a steady diet of propaganda(it appears he is in the same league as Goebbels during WWII)and they fell for it(hook,line and sinker).

Since the CIA considered him a charlatan, who gave this info to Bush. DUH.

So in both of these lapse of correct intelligence, the CIA was not at fault. It was the people behind Bush who are running the adminstration.

Now to get back to the original question. With Tenet resigning will this change anything? NO!

What will it take to change all this erroneous or bad intelligence? Where does the buck stop? You are very correct if you guessed, THE PRESIDENT.

Question for Debate: Will Tenet's departure help our intelligence efforts, or harm them?
Wow. I tend to agree with several other posters; I think Tenet was the guy designated to fall on his sword. It neatly gives Bush the ability to say he took action over the guy responsible for giving him "bad information" if he needs to, and avoids him having to acknowledge that nasty "R" word (responsibility).

As for whether it will harm or hurt us, it depends who Tenet's successor will be. The name being floated around is retiring U.S. Rep. Porter Goss of Florida Miami Herald. I don't know much about him, but from the article it looks as if he has support from both sides of the aisle. If that is truly the case, he may be just what the country needs at this time. Time will tell.

Not that this isn't a plausible story, but I wonder what this writer's sources were. Based on the this article he appears convinced that the following are facts:

1) Chalabi has been working with the government for years and was well compensated.
2) The CIA considered him a bad informant.

That is news to me, I'll have to look around and see if there is anything to support those claims.

Hello all. New to the board, though I've occasionally lurked. I don't have a lot of time to post so please don't get offened if you reply to my post and I don't respond for a while.

A few of my thoughts from what I've read.

In regards to vermilions either or:


The key word here is estimate. Five of our six intelligence agencies estimated a high degree of threat from Iraqi WMD. One did not. Was it an intelligence failure? It was the best estimate they could come up with. Even if the estimates turn out to be wrong I don’t think we can conclude the CIA made a mistake. If five out of six agencies estimate threat, what else could Tenet do but conclude a high degree of threat. Of course, Slam-Dunk my have been a bit of an overstatement.

If the President is told that 5 out of 6 agencies estimate a high degree of threat, what else should he do but conclude a high degree of threat. Having reached that conclusion, what then. Hope for the best, or act. In a post 9-11 world I think hoping for the best would be have been too risky.

I think your either or is neither nor.

In regards to popeye:


I’m not sure of your logic. You conclude the CIA was not at fault for the uranium claim - even though the quote you post includes Tenet taking responsibility?



By the way, isn’t it true that British intel still stands by their assessment of the Iraqi attempt to purchase Uranium for Niger? Maybe the Brits are right and Wilson is wrong.

Tenet is resigning because he wants to spend more time with his family.

Sheesh. I thought only pro athletes used that lame excuse.

The question isn't WHY George Tenet resigned. The question is WHY he didn't resign SOONER.

Since taking over as director of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1997, Tenet has presided over an astonishing litany of intelligence disasters. Some were fiascos because the CIA didn't know what was about to happen: India and Pakistan's nuclear tests in 1998, al-Qaida's bombings that same year of two American Embassies in East Africa, the attacks of Sept. 11. Others occurred because the agency permitted the use of bad intelligence: President Clinton's strike on Sudan's Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo war, and the current dustup over Tenet's failure to strike a disputed statement from President Bush's State of the Union address.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085805/

That was written in July 2003. Before no WMD stockpiles, before Abu Gharaib and before the 9/11 Commission's report comes out this summer.

In an election year, nothing happens in Washington that doesn't have political ramifications. Bush has been talking about "reforming" the CIA and the intelligence community and Tenet's sudden dash for the exits gives him the chance to do so.

Stay tuned for further developments...

Will Tenet's departure help our intelligence efforts, or harm them?

Tenet's departure won't have an impact either way. Friends or not the 'slam dunk' comment he made to Bush is out of line in a professional setting but I don't perceive a massive failure in our intelligence agencies.



IA's must adhere to international/federal law when arresting suspects, or kill them if necessary, as the case may be. Bringing intelligence information to the table doesn't decide policy in itself; the administration decides that. The FBI, CIA, DIA, NRO, NSA and others:



Intelligence is always presented in three forms: least likely, most likely, and most dangerous. Cherry picking intelligence, or data mining, to make a strong case for war by playing up one source...




(Why the CIA dislikes Mr. Chalabi.)



...and ignoring another source that makes the "smoking gun" sound bite from the lips of Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, and Bush less believable...



...proves, as far as I'm concerned, that intelligence cannot substantiate administrative decisions to declare full-scale wars.





And now the moment you've all been waiting for. La pièce de résistance!

All it can do is help. Tenet was so gutless and shameful to allow Powell to deliver those atrocious lies about WMDs in Iraq to the UN General Assembly, all the while sitting behind him knowing that they were lies.

Perhaps the next director will have a spine and bring some sort of dignity back to the joke that is the CIA.

Everybody puts too much power for change in these top level exec types. Really, thier only real usefullness is bringing home the budget for thier organization. Ask any person that works in a large department of a state or fed or even private company (think GM), the top brass rarely have any effect on the day to day job of the poeple actually do the work, and there are layer of self serving managers that really effect a job. For instance, every 6 years or less, we get a new CEO at our hospital, we always consider them "temp employees" that we have to work around in order to get our job done, we know what our job is and he doesn't, as much as he may even try. Consider my hospital is rather small, and a budget of around 66 million per year, it is not exactly a dinosaur.

They always try to make changes, and are never really succesful, because he/she doesn't understand the actual poeple that work for him/her. And this an organization where everybody pretty much agrees on what our job is and how we do it, much less an organization with so many competing philosophies.