| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| George Tenet's sniveling, self-justifying new book is a disgrace |
| 2007-05-02 |
| By Christopher Hitchens |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #3 "George Tenet's sniveling, self-justifying new book is a disgrace." Nuff Said |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-05-02 11:01 |
| #2 I'd like to recuse myself (with better results than Wolfowitz is having) first: I've known George for a long time, saw much evidence that far from being a Beltway back-stabber he had decent instincts and a lot of real human passion for doing the job right (in contrast to many of his Clinton-admin. colleagues). Having said that, and leaving aside that the 60 Minutes performance was probably regrettable - and that it seriously misled folks about the contents of the book, which contains mostly solid if familiar vindication for US policy on almost all key Iraq issues - I have a separate problem. Did this book have to be written, now? I may well be in the dark about his phenomenon, as I tend to never read or pay attention to this genre, but does EVERY senior official write a book after they leave office? How many DCIs have done it? Turner, Gates - I can't think of any others. And unless, again, I'm in the dark on this, I don't believe either of them waded directly into issues du jour. It's the self-directed nature of the whole thing that bugs me. Fer crissakes, could a senior national security official just leave office and be thankful for their opportunity to serve, and have the confidence, thick skin, and perspective to live with the unfair brickbats that come with the duty? What I would have liked to see George do (he may yet) instead of a book defending himself is get out and give the educational lecture the administration has failed to deliver. The concept of pre-emption is simple common sense, and most people get it, even now. But Dubya has paradoxically damaged US political will in this respect by refusing to stay in the game after the fall of Baghdad and the non-discovery of WMD stocks. Apparently George actually states what the administration, under a non-stop tsunami of slander and distortion (that goes on to this day), has never bothered to point out: Iraq was about post-9/11 risk tolerance, not "imminence" of a threat. But the key point that leaps out of this goes unsaid: intelligence is ALWAYS uncertain, ALWAYS limited, OFTEN completely wrong, and this on occasion REQUIRES pre-emption, it doesn't invalidate it. Coming from George, at this point, a key element here would too easily be labeled special pleading - but it wouldn't be. Bush and his cronies had the guts and vision to actually implement a pre-emption action that carried great risks. Yet they have lacked the patience, attention, or something to stay with the project, and explain to the public that until the mass-casualty terrorist threat is squelched, the precentage move may sometimes be to act on what will surely be imperfect intelligence. It parallels, sadly and perfectly, their other failures, notably the situation where they rightly UPHOLD the Geneva Conventions yet refuse to smack down the illiterate slander that they've trashed them. (rant over) |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-05-02 00:48 |
| #1 Tenet knows how the kiss-up and kiss-down game is played. And, for a rather mediocre man, he did well enough out of the arrangement while it lasted. Hitchens is a master. The entire article is death by a thousand rapier slashes... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-05-02 00:17 |