Slamming Tenet

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 7:20 AM

Somewhere out there, there must be someone defending George Tenet. I'm just having trouble finding that person (or persons).

Let's see: Liberals are ticked off. Conservatives feel betrayed. Ex-CIA types are angry. White House officials are playing defense. That pretty much runs the gamut, doesn't it?

I can't get beyond the following: Whatever Tenet's strengths and weaknesses as CIA director, he quit three years ago. He accepted a presidential medal of freedom and then remained silent--until now, when he's peddling a book. If he felt so strongly about these intelligence issues, about the rush to war in Iraq, about the way he says he's been besmirched, why didn't he speak out before now? How does he justify having remained silent?

It's fine for Tenet to attempt to set the record straight. But it's a slam dunk that he would have won more respect had he done it long ago. The Iraq issue, after all, has consumed the country for the last three years as the war has gone from bad to worse. And Tenet was MIA.

Until his big "60 Minutes"/Time/Brokaw/Gibson/Larry King rollout this week.

Tenet says he needed time to get his thoughts together. A lot of time, apparently.

National Review is aggravated with Tenet:

"Tenet shouldn't be so offended when people quote his words, since they reflect an essential truth -- that he indeed had no doubt that Saddam had WMDs. But Tenet is now engaged in a classic instance of self-serving Beltway memoir-writing, settling scores against Dick Cheney and the 'neocons' who were allegedly impervious to the facts so diligently assembled by the CIA.

"Tenet says that the war wasn't really about weapons of mass destruction. It's true that the case for war wasn't built entirely on Saddam's possessing WMDs -- as the war's supporters have long pointed out. But this was certainly the most important element in the case . . .

"In the end, it was a mistake for President Bush to keep George Tenet on as CIA director after he took office in 2001, let alone award him a Medal of Freedom. Tenet was primarily a political player who didn't understand what it took to revive the CIA. He presided over two debacles -- 9/11 and the flawed intelligence about Iraq -- and contributed to the administration's dysfunction with his internal bureaucratic warfare. If he seemed defensive in his 60 Minutes interview, it was because he has a lot to be defensive about."

Bill Kristol says the book should perhaps land in the fiction section:

"According to Michiko Kakutani's review in Saturday's New York Times,

"' On the day after 9/11, he [Tenet] adds, he ran into Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative and the head of the Defense Policy Board, coming out of the White House. He says Mr. Perle turned to him and said: 'Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. They bear responsibility.'

"Here's the problem: Richard Perle was in France on that day, unable to fly back after September 11. In fact Perle did not return to the United State until September 15. Did Tenet perhaps merely get the date of this encounter wrong? Well, the quote Tenet ascribes to Perle hinges on the encounter taking place September 12: 'Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday.' And Perle in any case categorically denies to THE WEEKLY STANDARD ever having said any such thing to Tenet, while coming out of the White House or anywhere else."

Power Line's John Hinderaker sounds like he was never a fan:

"So, it appears that, along with his other failings, George Tenet is a liar. Some will say that President Bush's biggest mistake was trusting the key post of Director of Central Intelligence to a Democrat."

Captain Ed is in fact-checking mode:

"Tenet has yet to see his book hit the stores, and it already has serious credibility issues. He misidentifies a Defense Department analyst as a 'naval reservist' in an attempt to belittle her credentials. Tenet can't seem to understand that Iran-Contra involved arming the mullahs, not the dissidents. It's a great display of why the CIA seems to have been rather incompetent during the years of his leadership. If the boss can't get his facts straight, how can he have advised two presidents with any degree of competence at all?"

Arianna says Tenet should have fallen on his sword:

"Does this sound familiar? A senior Bush administration official plays a key role in selling the Iraq war debacle to the American public, resigns a few years later, and then tries to distance himself from Bush and the war by writing a book or talking to Bob Woodward, portraying himself as a poor, hapless victim who knew the truth at the time and really, really wanted to tell it, but, somehow, just had no choice but to go along . . .

"He's about four years too late. Tenet seems to believe there's a major distinction between lying and standing by silently while others lie, and then proudly receiving a Medal of Freedom from the liars.

"He could have simply resigned and freed himself to 'tell the truth.' Tenet acts as if resignation were not an option. But it was. And the passion and anger he displays now in the service of book sales could have been used then in the service of his country."

The Nation's David Corn doesn't like the cover price:

"Should Americans have to pay to get the truth about how their government failed them?

"In a few days, former CIA director George Tenet's new book goes on sale. For $30.00, a reader will be able to find out what really happened in that December 2002 meeting at the White House when Tenet used the phrase 'slam dunk.' Or what really happened with the prewar WMD intelligence and how it was used--or abused--by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and others...

"But here's an out-of-the-box question: don't the citizens of the United States deserve to know what happened in the run-up to the war (and to 9/11) for free? Tenet may feel--as he claims--damn lousy about the screwed-up National Intelligence Estimate that helped pave the way to war in Iraq. But he did not feel bad enough to resign--or to disclose earlier what had gone wrong. He sat on the story and now is peddling it for personal profit.

"Tenet should have long ago been questioned openly by a congressional committee about all this--though no Republican committee chair would have dared--or he should have spilled all to 60 Minutes and other media, as a public service, not as an advertisement for his book."

Ex-CIA agent Larry Johnson has posted an open letter to the author:

"If you are committed to correcting the record about your past failings then you should start by returning the Medal of Freedom you willingly received from President Bush in December 2004. You claim it was given only because of the war on terror, but you were standing next to General Tommy Franks and L. Paul Bremer, who also contributed to the disaster in Iraq . . .

"If reflection on these matters serves to prick your conscience we encourage you to donate at least half of the royalties from your book sales to the veterans and their families, who have paid and are paying the price for your failure to speak up when you could have made a difference. That would be the decent and honorable thing to do."

Dinesh D'Souza joins the criticism:

"Tenet got the WMD issue completely, disastrously wrong. And now this fellow is back with a new book that seeks to divert attention from his own failures by charging that the Bush administration had its own unrelated reasons to invade Iraq. Not just the fear of WMDs, you see, but other motives."

By the way, in response to e-mails I've been getting with such subject lines as "America Hater," I misspoke yesterday on Washington Post Radio. When I said that Tenet's insider account validated years of stories by journalists of questionable patriotism, I meant that's how some in the administration might view the media reports. I believe that patriotism actually requires journalists to aggressively question what government does, especially on a grave matter like war, despite the inevitable criticism.

At last, to spice up the campaign, courtesy of Mike Allen, a Fred Thompson story with a sex angle:

"Advisers to Fred Thompson have begun exploring a range of staffing options -- including talking to potential campaign managers -- as the actor and former Tennessee senator firms up his plans to enter the Republican presidential contest, according to people involved in the conversations.

"Thompson has not made a final decision but is on track to be ready to announce his candidacy in June or July, his advisers say. Thompson has already been polling better than some of the announced GOP candidates, and his entry would shake up a field that has left many Republican faithful dissatisfied.

"Thompson also has begun inoculating himself against potential attacks from rivals. During a question-and-answer session with House members on April 18, Thompson was asked about his colorful dating history from 1985 to 2002, while he was divorced.

" 'I was single for a long time, and, yep, I chased a lot of women,' Thompson replied, chuckling, according to an attendee who took notes. 'And a lot of women chased me. And those that chased me tended to catch me.' "

Well, it beats a candidate who kept chasing women and failing.

The New York Times also takes note of Thompson's behind-the-scenes maneuvering. I bet Tommy Thompson, who is running, wonders why he's losing the Thompson Primary.

Isn't it too early for the press to be bored with the existing candidates? The Wall Street Journal has another of those will-Michael-Bloomberg-run pieces:

" 'More people are willing to consider an independent today than in 1992,' says Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who worked for Mr. Perot, and then for Mr. Bloomberg in 2001. He predicts the mayor could get as much as 25% of the popular vote.

"Mr. Bloomberg, who is 65 years old, denies he is running, although the New York gossip columns regularly quote 'friends' claiming otherwise."

No one has ever accused Michael Wolff of subtlety, and this Vanity Fair piece on Rudy pulls no punches:

"There's no politician more fun to write about than Rudy Giuliani. He's your political show of shows--driven to ever greater public outlandishness by a do-anything compulsion always to be at the center of attention. At some point, when he was New York's mayor, it seemed to stop mattering to him that this attention was, for his political career, the bad kind of attention. Politics appeared no longer to be his interest; to prove, over and over again, that it's his right--his art, even--to be at the center of attention was. Even this does not really explain the implausibility, and entertainment, of Rudy as a politician.

"The explanation for what makes Rudy so compelling among people who know him best--including New York reporters who've covered him for a generation, and political pros who've worked for him--is simpler: he is nuts, actually mad.

"Now, this line should be delivered with the proper timing (smack your head in astonishment when you deliver it). And it implies some admiration and affection: he's an original. But it is, too, a considered political diagnosis: every student of Rudy Giuliani--indeed, every New Yorker--has witnessed, and in many cases suffered, his periods of mania, political behavior that, in the end, can't have much of a rational explanation."

Another Rudy problem: Putting out a list of supporters that includes some non-supporters.

At the same time, we are learning more about Mrs. Giuliani:

"One week shy of her 20th birthday," the Daily News reports, the fresh-faced nursing school graduate ran off with a medical equipment salesman, tying the knot for $70 at a Las Vegas wedding chapel.

"Now, two husbands and one live-in-lover later, Judith Stish Ross Nathan Giuliani has hitched her star to the man who is the GOP front-runner for the 2008 presidency . . .

"After several high-profile missteps - including the former mayor's odd pronouncement and quick retraction that he would let Judith sit in on cabinet meetings if she wanted - she has become scarce on the campaign trail.

"Sources close to the campaign say Judith Giuliani is as driven as her husband in his quest for the White House.

"Her critics say she is a prima donna who won't be contained under the hot glare of a presidential campaign, and they worry she could spell big trouble for the candidate."

I must make sure never to say the White House is shopping for a war czar; according to national security adviser Stephen Hadley, it is looking for an implementation and execution manager.

The Nation's William Greider tackles the recent criticism of Harry Reid:

"The Senate majority leader is being portrayed as an awkward duck who doesn't look the part and can't talk it either. Harry Reid, it's true, is given to saying the most inappropriate stuff, opinions that disturb Washington pundits and the third-string political consultants who appear of TV talker shows. They tut-tut and scold. The kinder ones think he must have misspoken. Others insist Democrats should give him the hook and replace Reid with a more responsible leader.

"What did the man say? 'This war is lost.' 'The president is in a state of denial.' A few years back, Reid shockingly called Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan 'one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington.'

"What do these and other outrageous remarks have in common? They are all true. A political leader who speaks the truth in unambiguous ways is naturally suspect in the capital city. But he ought to become a hero in the hinterland where citizens dwell. People who care need to rally around Harry Reid now and express their feelings because the political establishment is coming after him. White House slime agents are leading the campaign."

The D.C. Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, has her own Web site, with such headings as "The Government's Ambush of Jeane" and "The Full Story Behind Jeane's 'Threat' to 'Make Life Miserable.' " I like this particular line from the LAT piece on her escort service:

"She explained the complexities of the law to the Associated Press this way: 'You can pay an escort to come to your home, get naked and get a massage and you haven't broken any laws, assuming you stay on your stomach.'"

I'm accustomed to the semi-annual dose of bad circulation numbers for newspapers, but as Editor & Publisher reports, it seems particularly depressing this year. The Dallas Morning News, down 14.2 percent (!) The San Diego Union-Tribune, down 6.5 percent. The Newark Star-Ledger, down 6 percent. The Miami Herald, down 5.5 percent. The San Jose Mercury News, down 4.9 percent. The L.A. Times, down 4.2 percent. The Boston Globe, down 3.7 percent. The Washington Post, down 3.4 percent.

On the plus side: The New York Post, up 7.6 percent; the New York Daily News, up 1.3 percent; the Wall Street Journal, up 0.6 percent, and USA Today, up 0.2 percent.

Well, at least people are still reading the Web site. Right? Right?