Tenet's new book

[Gan]

So what does everyone think about Tenet's new book and his recent interview?

I know Backlash touched on it briefly in another thread, but not much else has been brought up.

Is the book just full of lies?

Is it straight talk from someone in the inside?

Or is it just someone looking to make a buck and score a vendetta against those who fired him?

[Warriorbird]

All three.

[TheEschaton]

I haven't heard anything about this new book. Details?

[Back]

Is the book just full of lies?

Is it straight talk from someone in the inside?

Or is it just someone looking to make a buck and score a vendetta against those who fired him?


All three.

Oddly enough I think this is the best answer. Its hard to balance the accusations with the pleas of innocence. One thing is for sure, he was a major player in the run up but now wants to throw Cheney under the train-wreck.

The CIA must have gone over the book with a fine tooth comb so there is no way to vet anything he said. They could very well have left untruths alone by default as anything factual that should not go in the book would have to be taken out. But even then how far can you trust the head of the spooks?

Unfortunately it only obfuscates the big picture and offers no real conclusions. Should be a best seller though, or at least make a hefty chunk of change. A bunch of CIA personnel wrote Tenet to demand he donate half the profits of the book to veterans groups of the Iraq war in protest. But then that could also be a ruse to absolve the current CIA of wrong doing.

[Gan]

One of the main reasons why I ask is that Tenet's interview and book was used recently to justify new 'evidence' that would give justification to Waxman's issue of a subpoena to Condoleza Rice, even after previous questions have already been provided.

So, I'm wondering if the information in his book is credible enough to base things such as subpoenas as well as further investigations, or is it just someone out to make a buck and slam his ex-employer at the same time?

[Back]

One of the main reasons why I ask is that Tenet's interview and book was used recently to justify new 'evidence' that would give justification to Waxman's issue of a subpoena to Condoleza Rice, even after previous questions have already been provided.

So, I'm wondering if the information in his book is credible enough to base things such as subpoenas as well as further investigations, or is it just someone out to make a buck and slam his ex-employer at the same time?

It raises more questions than presents answers. I’ll grant you that.

But even then Rice never really answered those questions concretely at her confirmation. A Republican controlled Congress at the time.

[Gan]

It raises more questions than presents answers. I’ll grant you that.

But even then Rice never really answered those questions concretely at her confirmation. A Republican controlled Congress at the time.

So you're saying that she was only confirmed because of the Republican majority?

[Back]

So you're saying that she was only confirmed because of the Republican majority?

I’m saying oversight of the Executive branch was pretty much vacant during the Republican controlled Congress in the past few years, yes.

[Parkbandit]

It's a book, and thus should automatically be considered factual information, as long as that information supports whatever my opinion is.

This is Mabus.

[Gan]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Richard Perle said Friday that former CIA Director George Tenet is attempting to "shift responsibility" for his failure to anticipate the September 11, 2001, attacks and recognize the threat terrorists posed to the United States.

The former assistant secretary of defense, singled out in Tenet's book for immediately linking former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, disputed Tenet's recollection.

"He simply makes up things I never said and places them on a date I wasn't even in the country," Perle said on CNN's "The Situation Room." (Watch Perle call Tenet "sloppy by nature" (javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/politics/2007/05/04/blitzer.perle.interview.cnn','2009/05/03');) http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.5/main/icon_video.gif (javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo(' play','/video/politics/2007/05/04/blitzer.perle.interview.cnn','2009/05/03');','2007/05/04');))

In Tenet's book about his tenure at the CIA, "At the Center of the Storm," he writes that the day after the 9/11 attacks, Perle told him, "Iraq has to pay the price for what happened. They bear responsibility." (Watch Tenet say he was a fall guy (javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/politics/2007/05/02/blitzer.tenet.interview.cnn','2009/05/01');) http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.5/main/icon_video.gif (javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo(' play','/video/politics/2007/05/02/blitzer.tenet.interview.cnn','2009/05/01');','2007/05/04');))

"It never happened," Perle said Friday. "I never said the things that he attributes to me."

He said he was in France at the time of the attacks and did not see Tenet until a week later, when he encountered the CIA director coming into the White House as he was leaving. "We didn't converse at all," Perle said.

"He's just got it completely wrong," Perle said. "I never believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, and by the time I returned to the U.S., it was pretty clear that it was [Osama] bin Laden. Indeed, bin Laden was claiming credit."

He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that Tenet's book is "riddled with inaccuracies" and that the former CIA director is "uncomfortable, as he should be, with the failure not only to anticipate 9/11 specifically, but the failure to understand the extent of the terrorist threat, and so he wants to shift responsibility."

more...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/04/perle.tenet/index.html

[Kranar]

Who has read it?

[Gan]

I've only read excerpts, I dont feel like contributing to this guys pocketbook.

If I come across a freebie I'll read it.

[Warriorbird]

Same here. I'm not about to spring for it. Maybe if the library gets it.

[xtc]

Tenet was one of the longest serving CIA Directors and he served under two Presidents. I will probably pick up the book.