Comments (45)

bordersmuggler wrote on May 14, 2007 11:16 AM:

The 9/11 investigation needs to be reopend.

Question: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Chabuka wrote on May 14, 2007 11:28 AM:

I love Mr. Waxman, but how much longer can he pretend that this administration is concerned with the Laws...? It is more than obvious that this administration snicker at his attempts at accountability and justice. Their actions are on course with Mr. Nixon's ...."if the President (or his male/female courtisans) does it, that means its not illegal"
Or is it all just a "big show" on the Democratic side..to fool the voting public into believing that the Democratic party really is the party of the people...and that our voting for them was not a waste of time...?

LTO wrote on May 14, 2007 11:29 AM:

Fireworks before the Fourth!

Code word "paint", as in "paint them as the liars they are".

Anonymous wrote on May 14, 2007 11:31 AM:

Question 1 - Why did you allow Cheney to abuse your analysts?
Question 2 - Why did you allow scrubbed NIE to mislead Congress into voting for authorization of use of force in Iraq?
Question 3 - Why did you let Colin Powell lie to the UN?

Spencer's Mom wrote on May 14, 2007 11:33 AM:

After watching this talking head make the talk show circuit, it sickens me to think that he will personally profit over his own unwillingness to come clean when it could have mattered to thousands of Americans, millions of Iraqis, our national treasury and our world respect.

Tenet should have opened his mouth back when he knew Bu$hCo was cooking the intelligence to force us into an illegal, immoral war.

His statements that he didn't read the SOTU address until well after it was made is pure bullsh*t.

If Tenet and Powell had any courage back then, they could expect some respect from us now.

Too late...

PEACE

code word: "male" as in, no woman would have gotten us into this failed war.

reino wrote on May 14, 2007 11:35 AM:

Question 1 - Since you served your country so poorly, will you return the salary and the value of the benefits you received?

Also, why are we issuing a subpoena for Rice when she ignored the last one? Shouldn't we issue an APB instead?

wlgriffi wrote on May 14, 2007 11:37 AM:

So Tenant is going to have another forum for the same old same old. Haven't we we got it yet? That wasn't him sitting behind Powell at the UN. He was out of town when Bush gave his State of the union speech. He's a team player. And of course the pundits will be on air to explain all this to us.

Dennis wrote on May 14, 2007 11:38 AM:

Not that anything will come of it, at least in this country, but don't think for a minute that those who brought on this war by manipulating the intelligence for it are not thinking of being charged as war criminals.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

RW wrote on May 14, 2007 11:41 AM:

I can always remember how Rice answered the question of "What was the Title of the NDB" and she tried to dodge it, minimize it and then had to divulge it begrudingly and then said it was only historical....

readerOfTeaLeaves wrote on May 14, 2007 11:49 AM:

For all the negative remarks here, isn't it the case that Tenet has not yet discussed this issue in public, under oath?

Tenet, no matter what his past errors and failures, will be an impressive contrast with Condi. Game on.

eyeball wrote on May 14, 2007 11:55 AM:

yeah, RW, that was a beaut! she said that jive like she believed it. i wish i had that up on youtube. it's an alltime classic.

think tenet will pipe a question about Perle to the committee in advance? har.

what a show that's going to be. the repubs in the house will have to defend bush for hours. they must be ready to mutinee. i think the dems are doing a brilliant boa constrictor on the last 18 mos. of dWi. bushies want to run out clock. dems can make that hurt.

Propagandee wrote on May 14, 2007 11:57 AM:

Condi will ignore the subpoena as something she couldn't imagine being served with as Secretary of State, just as she couldn't imagine airplanes flying into buildings when she was National Security Adviser.

Imagine that.

citizensue wrote on May 14, 2007 11:59 AM:

Tea Leaves:

Only if he (Tenet) acts like the hero patriot he is pretending to be. I fear this is just one more step in the self mythologizing of Geroge Tenet. I hope he'll call them out forcefully, but.......

Just maybe we'll have our "Seven Days in May" moment?

Dan wrote on May 14, 2007 11:59 AM:

@Spencer's Mom, I hate this war as much as anyone and I'm a male. Question: Now that you've started making generalizations about my gender, can I start making nasty generalizations about yours? I wouldn't anyway. By the way, Condi would have gotten us into this war. Several female republicans stand up on the floor of The House and beat the war drum daily.

Let's try and make USEFUL comments that don't perpetuate gender struggles. Are you really that insecure about being a female that you have to overcompensate with such nonsense?

bordersmuggler wrote on May 14, 2007 12:01 PM:

Mr. Tenet, you are under oath. Please answer the question, yes or no. Was 9/11 an inside job?

eyeball wrote on May 14, 2007 12:04 PM:

Don't worry sue -- both sides of the committee hate him and will mince him up. he'll have to fob off the blame for "slam dunk" on white house. lots of nasty headlines, leaking, public recrimming, boat-jumping to ensue. its karma time.

litigatormom wrote on May 14, 2007 12:12 PM:

So far, Tenet's story has been:
1. I told the WH that the Niger story was bogus and the Al Qaeda-Saddam connection was bogus, and it wasn't my job to correct the public record when Bush and Cheney kept saying this stuff because ... I'm not a policy guy?
2. I didn't resign when they kept saying this stuff that I knew wasn't true because I was trying to do my job ... which is to give the WH the best intelligence it can ignore.
3. I really did think that Saddam had WMD, and I thought it was a "slam dunk" for us to declassify more info so that the public would think so too. I thought that every thing that Colin Powell said to the UN was true, because we had spent days cutting out the REALLY bullshit stuff, and I feel bad that I let him say all this stuff that turned out wasn't true, but how could I know it wasn't true -- just because Bush was kicking out the weapons inspectors before they were done?
4. I told them the occupation wasn't going to be easy. I did nothing when they ignored all my intelligence about it, because I'm not a policy guy and I was trying to do my job....
5. Condi Rice is a bitch.

bobh wrote on May 14, 2007 12:12 PM:

What I think will come to pass is this:

As soon as the Senate gets close to real impeachment material - boom - that traitor Lieberman switches sides. Than we're left with the Hous to muddle through - we all know how focused their hearings were.

litigatormom wrote on May 14, 2007 12:15 PM:

I don't think Lieberman becoming a Rethug at this point necessarily changes control of the Senate. I think Reid and Boehner worked out a deal on that at the start of the session.

At least, I fervently hope so.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 14, 2007 12:17 PM:

Mr. Tenet, this question involves possible treason by the President of the United States. Would you recount your dealings with Mr. Bill Murray of the Paris bureau in January, 2001?

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/50651/#more

the real cookie wrote on May 14, 2007 12:20 PM:

Hey Dan, while I agree Spencer's mom didnt need to point out the obvious fact that men got us into this and every other war, I just wonder why you find that so insulting? I aint saying that if we women had the power we wouldnt do it too, merely that it is not historically proven (barring a couple of anomolies) that we would. I am willing to give it a go and have you guys take the back seat for a while. What do you say?
:-)

Anonymous wrote on May 14, 2007 12:26 PM:

No fucking way will Condi testify- no fucking way. Tenet is going to be his usual combative self- folks better be prepared.

leta wrote on May 14, 2007 12:41 PM:

will he be under oath? and that bodes the question...will he tell the truth to save his all important "place in history", which seem to be the very reason he wrote his book.

EdNSted wrote on May 14, 2007 12:57 PM:

Why am I skeptical?

eyeball wrote on May 14, 2007 12:57 PM:

NICE summation, Lit'gator Mom. so who's the bigger crook, tenet or gonzales?

tenet: i knew bush wud say any old s h i t to hit iraq so i collected a little deniability on the side in case the war went to hell ... which it was bound to, not that this was my problem.

gonzo: i serve at the pleasure of the prez and he gets pleasure watching karl play political appointee pinball with me, and i'm down with that, yes sir i am, because it's a hack's life.

PJ White wrote on May 14, 2007 1:02 PM:

Condi refuses to testify? She ignored a subpoena already and is just being served with another? Why not have the Sergeant at Arms serve it and if she refuses, haul her worthless lying ass before the committee?

Screw Condi She and her "husb", uh, the President have certainly screwed us.

sc: screw. I know, it's almost too good to be true!

nofltwlt wrote on May 14, 2007 1:29 PM:

This ass-wipe should take the fifth.

George Tenet was a coward not to shut down Bush's boutique war.

Dan wrote on May 14, 2007 1:36 PM:

One of the reasons the comment irritated me is that I think Hilary will get the nomination. She is not my favorite democratic candidate, but I think that she will win the nomination. I am doing my best to tell my friends and coworkers that gender shouldn't make a difference for Hilary and "blackness" shouldn't make a difference for Obama (not won't, but shouldn't). I try to get them to look at it as just the person with the best ideas, experience, education, etc should win. This I do as a male who understands that Hilary's gender should not hurt her in persuit of the presidency even though there are plenty of males who wouldn't see it that way. I think comments like the one above only serve to hurt the cause of gaining respect for women. It amounts to women getting angry if men say that they are in some way better suited for something than women and then turning around and claiming to be better suited than men for something based solely on gender. People are people, capable or incompetent, smart or stupid, etc as a result of a vast array of factors and gender is not one of the more influencial factors in my view. Neither is race or sexual preferance IMHO.

If Hilary wins the nomination you bet your rear I will vote for her. I think she's a fine candidate, just not my fav. So yes, l'd be willing to give it a shot. :-)

bobh wrote on May 14, 2007 1:39 PM:

While ladies might like to say men get us into wars...it would be easy enough for them (they outnumber us) to VOTE a bloody woman in for once and put their money where their mouth is. Use your votes ladies, for once and shut up about men being warmongers when you have the opportunities and RIGHTS to vote them out of office...

trillian wrote on May 14, 2007 1:48 PM:

I'd like to know why, on the eve of War, he didn't watch the President's State of the Union address as he said on the Meet the Press.

I'm a middle aged soccer Mom and I managed to watch it. He's head of the CIA and didn't?
Why not? What was so darned important?

Dan wrote on May 14, 2007 1:50 PM:

When I walk up to the basketball court in my local park and I want to join the game I don't say "You are all ugly and stupid. Can I get in the game?" It's not good strategy.

I would like the democrats to win the White House in '08. I think Hilary will be our candidate. Comments that are abrasive to men (a large voting segment, I think we can agree) don't help to get a woman elected. Others can try the "You are all ugly and stupid." strategy, I will try to help get past all the gender crap altogether.

The Oracle wrote on May 14, 2007 2:20 PM:

George Tenet actually may be able to provide some insight into certain things:

1) The committee should ask him to describe any differences he may have noticed between the last eight months he served under President Bill Clinton and the first eight months of the Bush administration, up to the 9/11 attacks.

2) Since George Tenet's book had to be approved by the CIA before publication, could he tell us how much was edited out of his book by Bush officials trying to cover their asses? Anything related to the Iraq War, both pre- and post-?

I believe George Tenet is an honorable man, who, like so many others, ran into the buzzsaw of the most corrupt and deceitful administration in American history. So, any light he might shine into this darkness will be much appreciated.

Dan wrote on May 14, 2007 2:29 PM:

Ask him to point out the differences between what W knew and what congress knew at the time of the vote to authorize. Dispell that "Congress saw the same intel." crap that keeps coming out of the White House. Draw back the curtain on how congress was deceived into war. Then congress can rescind the authorization.

Sharon A wrote on May 14, 2007 3:46 PM:

Waxman is playing by the book on subpoenaing Rice over and over again. It keeps her in the hot seat having to come out publicly to say again that she's not going to appear and why.

My aunt had a technique for those she believed was lying to her. She made the person repeat the lie again and again more slowly. It is subtle and intimidating.

Rice is building an unflattering record of refusing to answer to the public regarding these critical matters. Each time she snubs the People, it merely delays her day of reckoning, compounding the interest on the balance of angst built up in our nation's citizens.

She seems to have made a Faustian deal to stand as a political lightning rod on the White House.

Maybe BushCo will buy her another pair of shoes for her efforts. [yes, I'm snarking]

georgia wrote on May 14, 2007 3:52 PM:

What I want from Tenet is a copy of the Iraq invasion-eve speech that Cheney was going to give, but didn't because the CIA could not substantiate its claims.

phil james wrote on May 14, 2007 3:57 PM:

trillian says:
I'd like to know why, on the eve of War, he didn't watch the President's State of the Union address as he said on the Meet the Press.

I'm a middle aged soccer Mom and I managed to watch it. He's head of the CIA and didn't?
Why not? What was so darned important?

Let me suggest an answer: He's lying.

And by the way. That answer is a universally applicable answer which is equally true of the answer to any question provided by any current and, with few exceptions, former members of the Bush Administration, whether or not they are under oath. To be fair to Tenet though, this particular answer is of a slightly higher quality than others of its ilk by virtue of the fact that it is so obviously, self-servingly BS.

OyToTheWorld wrote on May 14, 2007 4:48 PM:

Could someone PLEASE explain to me to me how one simply "ignores" a supeona?

bess wrote on May 14, 2007 4:54 PM:

http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/06/80439.aspx
Chris Matthews March 6, 2007:
Could it be that Cheney feared that if the country knew it was his inquiry that led to the Africa trip then he, the president’s right-hand man, could be expected to have gotten a full report on the trip’s findings.

In that case, Cheney would have known a year ahead of time that there was no deal by Saddam Hussein to buy uranium yellowcake in Niger. He should therefore have kept the president from making that assertion in his 2003 State of the Union that “British intelligence” reported a Saddam effort to buy uranium from Africa. That assertion of a nuclear threat from Iraq is what tilted this country toward war.

I asked George Tenet, the CIA director, to explain why the vice president never got a report on a CIA fact-finding trip that was triggered by his inquiry. Tennet’s reply was “Ask him!”

Hopefully, Henry Waxman will ask Tenet about this. The country needs to know whether Cheney recieved Wilson's report.

TexasDemocrat wrote on May 14, 2007 5:00 PM:

There needs to be a drum beat, like Neocons did with "upperdown vote" for this testifying stuff...quicker than a court ruling is a good opinion poll followed by "questions"...America believes Condi should testify on prewar intelligence, why is she ignoring the will of the American people??? Etc etc

dadefreese wrote on May 14, 2007 8:15 PM:

Here's my question for Tenet. When the IAEA said in early March 2003 that their investigations of the Bush claims re: Iraq's non-existent nuclear program resulted in a nearly complete thrashing of the mushroom cloud rhetoric.....

what did Tenet tell the Bush team about how completely the IAEA demolished the false Bush talking points.

The SOP for the Bushians has been to blame faulty intel, but in this case, the intel was reviewed up and down and shown to be laughably bad. What did the Bush team do with that knowledge....aside from initiate the invasion 2 weeks later.

Matthew Cowan wrote on May 14, 2007 8:52 PM:

I'd like to see Tenet asked why he gave weapons inspector David Kay a windowless office with no telephone when Kay returned from Iraq declaring that there were no WMD. I'd also like to see Tenet asked about other pressure he put on Kay.

Sara wrote on May 14, 2007 11:32 PM:

In his book, Tenet reveals one other instance when the CIA kept Niger Yellow Cake out of a Bush speech, it was September 29, 2002 in the Rose Garden when Bush announced that Dick Gephardt would be co-authoring the Use of Force resolution in the House. Tenet discovered this while reviewing CIA records during the prep of his book. CIA paper suggests it was Condi who took the language out of this effort to push the Yellow Cake story.

With respect to the Cincinnati Speech, the dealings were with Hadley and Gearson -- and apparently there is much more CIA paper, including the Tenet warning not to make the President a Fact Witness on this story.

As Tenet describes the SOTU -- He didn't listen to the speech because he went home early, had dinner and went to bed as he was dead tired from working several seven day weeks for 14 hours per day. He remembered being very delighted that as a non-Cabinet member (he was in the Clinton Administration) he was not obliged to attend formal events.

He describes after the event investigations of how the Niger story got into the speech, and discovered that the CIA analyist (Alan Foley) who reviewed the 16 words, only was authorized to check for leaking sources and methods -- not for meaning or content. Since it was referenced to the Brits, CIA did not evaluate THEIR sources or methods or meaning or content. In otherwords, if the President wanted to say, Tony Blair tells me that the Moon is made of Green Cheese -- that would be fine, CIA would have no objections, The statement would say nothing about CIA sources or methods.

For us, this is a grand lesson on how we got parsed into war. It is also a lesson on how you can compartmentalize functions to absurdity -- review a speech only for methods and sources, and not for the truth of the words -- And by the way, the CIA documents on this all went to Condi, Hadley and Gearson. So Condi was in the speech content loop.

As to the Cheney Speech never given -- apparently what Tenet objected to was that Cheney intended to go over the top on connections between Saddam and bin Laden. Pre-invasion, this was the battlefield on which the forces of Wolfie and Feith fought with Tenet and CIA. Tenet shut down that speech by going directly to Bush. In his mind that was a more critical issue than the WMD matters. It is worth reading Tenet's descriptions of the various battles in this war between DOD and CIA.

In Tenet's book he also notes he made a phone call to Condi in mid-June just as the Niger Yellow Cake matter began to heat up, and told her it was time to disentangle the President from his 16 words in the SOTU. This seems to be after the Kristoff NYTimes piece, and at the same time or slightly before Walter Pincus published in the WaPo. Tenet knew Pincus was sniffing around the subject, as were others. Condi eventually told him that they would not move off the 16 words, and that the decision came from above her level. That can mean only Cheney or GWB. I think this is why Waxman wants to have a little visit under oath with Condi.

parrot wrote on May 15, 2007 12:20 AM:

I'd like to see the Congress vote a contempt citation for the Secretary of State. Since when does an executive officer of the United States get to decide whether they want to respond to a subpoena from the Congress?

tjallen wrote on May 15, 2007 9:59 PM:

Ask Tenet:
Why was the pre-war advice and WMD inspection results of Your Own Scott Ritter ignored, given short shrift, and ridiculed?

Larry Ray wrote on May 17, 2007 3:44 PM:

05 MAY 2007

There is no question George Tenet more than failed as an American, as Director of the C.I.A. and as a man. His willful breach of his responsibilities as Director is at the very least shameful and disgraceful. More directly, criminal. By making a conscious decision and taking deliberate steps to “go along to get along” with the Bush/Cheney plan to lie to the world regarding Iraq’s WMD program, the links between Sadaam Houssein and Al Queida, and much more, Mr. Tenet has betrayed us all.

George Tenet:

You are fully aware of the importance of HUMINT to any Nation’s National Security. Additionally, you are aware of how painstaking , frustrating, and dangerous fieldwork is. Developing effective relationships requires highly skilled, dedicated, and very responsible people on both sides of every bridge irrespective of the Countries involved. You simply sold us all out. The fact you were threatened to go along or else is no excuse. Consider the careers and efforts of all the analysts, supervisors and other personnel that did the best they could to resist the Criminally Maniacal Frenzy with which Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others have bullied their way to a baseless war with IRAQ for power and personal monetary gain just to start with. Face the facts – you are a thief, you are a coward, a proven risk to our National Security, and you tarnished the office of Director of Central Intelligence. Moreover negatively impacting the integrity, faith and confidence the world intelligence community previously placed in the office of the Director of the C.I.A. Hence essentially abrogating an important asset once available to all field personnel, more significantly to anyone working on a critically sensitive matter. Mr. Tenet you made your own decision to stand with and be part of a group of “Men Without Honor”. You all have gone way too far. I am confident you will all be held accountable.

You and all others involved in this “Treasonous Scheme” have the blood of more than 3,750 dead U.S. Military Personnel, more than 26,000 wounded United States Military Personnel. American sons, daughters, moms and dads. Additionally, the blood of several hundred thousand Iraqis. Our country has yet to realize the psychological effects this will have on Military Personnel fighting in Iraq. You have debased the United States and everything it stands for. Shame on you.

Mr. Tenet it is abundantly clear that you are looking for cover and will find nowhere to hide, in what amounts to an ill-fated exit strategy. You have faced off with everyone in the Intelligence sector in a fight over not only our Professionalism, our National Integrity and National Pride but also our Personal Integrity and Personal Pride as well. Accept the obvious. You state that you value your reputation. Actions mean something, your words mean nothing. Your only chance to redeem any morsel of dignity or self respect is to submit your personal request to the F.B.I. for an immediate appointment so the Bureau can fully debrief you regarding all crimes you may have played a role in, also the identities and details of all who committed any other criminal acts you have knowledge of, including a particular Country Club on Long Island where you have had meetings, again the identities of all attendees and the nature of those meetings. Next the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence so that the process to properly assess the damage done to our National Security can begin. On one particular trip in1999 I landed in Eastern Europe and was picked up by my contact; his driver proceeded to take us to a pre-agreed location for an early dinner meeting. I realized within minutes we were heading in the wrong direction. My contact then told me they knew what I wanted. The contact told me what it was. They were specifically correct. I had been intentionally compromised. Not a good situ. Due to the relationship being very mature and reliably effective for all concerned, I am still here. I learned how I may have been compromised that day and qualified the information over the next several months. Of further insult, some people tried to convince me that the F.B.I. was responsible for the compromise. Who could they be? You do know, George, I know you do.

I strongly suggest that you come forth with all of the information you are aware of regarding the damage that has been done to our National Security by you and others. If you have any sense of what is right left in you, that is. Perhaps you should start with why you resigned so abruptly in June of 2004. Coincidentally, it was at about this time that I was briefed on a potential deal between Rudolph Giuliani and President Bush, which included appointing Bernard Kerik as Head of Homeland Security. You were amongst us who knew that the destruction that would come of that simply could not be tolerated. You also knew why.

By the way, how is it that you were a Clinton install, and President Bush kept you on – what was the nature of this phenomenon? It is essential you step forward and brief the FBI on the multinational Matrix project.

Appalled,
Larry Ray