WASPs and Daggers

More evidence of just how skilled an operator George Tenet can be. (As if the fact that Tenet still has a job -- despite being a Clinton holdover, the tragedy of 9-11, and faulty intelligence on Iraqi WMDs -- wasn't evidence enough.)

George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, told a Senate committee on Tuesday that he had privately intervened on several occasions to correct what he regarded as public misstatements on intelligence by Vice President Dick Cheney and others, and that he would do so again.

. . . .

[Tenet said:] "You have the confidence to know that when I believed that somebody was misconstruing intelligence, I said something about it. I don't stand up in public and do it. I do my job the way I did it in two administrations.

"And policy makers — you know, this is a tough road. Policy makers take data. They interpret threat. They assess risk. They put urgency behind it, and sometimes it doesn't uniquely comport with every word of an intelligence estimate."

Behold the WASP dagger, skillfully employed. The soft takedown of Cheney is masterful, of course, but that's not what grabbed me. Taking down Cheney is almost too easy: Cheney repeatedly puts himself so far in front of the Administration that he's not so much scouting the road ahead as exploring the undiscovered country. (Undoubtably, Cheney intends to draw some flack from Bush by presenting himself as an easier target.)

No, what got me was Tenet's statement that the "policy makers" -- not him, not the CIA -- determine the "ugency" of a particular threat. I provide data, he says. Others interpret it. They weigh it against other priorities. Whether one priority is more "urgent" than another is not my call. It is a pure question of policy.

The main intelligence failing, of course, was in assessing the urgency of the Iraqi WMD threat. But Tenet takes himself completely out of "urgency analysis". The central intelligence failing on WMD is not even "intelligence" matter, according to Tenet. I didn't fail.

* * * * *

There's going to be a high profile scapegoat for the Iraqi WMD debacle. (The Bush Administration may not want one, but vengance and politics demand it.) It's not going to be Cheney, for this would be a virtual admission of error. Cheney's controversiality also makes him useful as a contrast to Bush.

After yesterday's performance, I'm now convinced that the scapegoat will not be Tenet either. You cannot engage in a he-said-she-said with the scapegoat for the scapegoating to be effective. It looks petty. It looks political. It looks wrong. Tenet's testimony provided the "he said." That's why it's so masterful.

There are probably two more candidates for the scapegoat: Rice and Wolfowitz. I'm betting that it will be Wolfowitz -- in contrast to Rice, he's a relative outsider to Bush's Texas team. But I don't think he deserves it. Despite my disagreements with Wolfowitz on several foreign policy matters,* the man's good at his job.

I'm frankly not so sure about Rice.

Let the betting commence.

von

Update: Minor changes to improve flow.

*I tend to prefer the measure and caution of the Bush '41 administration -- in contrast to what I see as the ficklosity of Clinton and the rashness of Bush '43.

Comments

[bob mcmanus]

A good article, with good analysis.

Tenet's is one of the best, if not the best I have ever seen. Runsfeld is excellent too. Notice how little real damage Rumsfeld has sustained in 4 years.

My guess really was Cheney; I still consider that a possibility. Tenet's testimony is very direct, as these things go. They may need a change in order to win the election. And I am not so sure Cheney really wants to be VP for four more years.

I see Rice as very important to the President. When Cheney and Rumsfeld say opposite things, Rice is the person the President trusts to have Bush's interests foremost. I don't think Bush lets her go.

[Edward]

If Cheney takes the fall, would Rice conceivably run for VP?

[Slartibartfast]

I think the mystery why Tenet still has a job goes back a bit further, to the days when he allowed John Deutch to not only retain his security clearance but to continue to work as a consultant for the CIA. If you're unfamiliar with the tragically inept case of John Deutch, just google "John Deutch laptop" (sans quotes) and read. It's just unbelievable that the CIA knew this thing had happened, and three years later hadn't gotten to the bottom of the case. Three years. Not only that, the standard of evidence seems to be the opposite for the CIA (or at least Deutch) as it is for the DoD. In the DoD, if you've exposed classified information, it's assumed to be compromised unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. This is apparently not the standard in the case of Deutch.

If you've exposed classified information, and you can't demonstrate positively that it hasn't been compromised, there's typically one level of punishment, which can involve loss of clearance, depending on how serious it was and the level of classification. Deutch was so incredibly clueless and careless that he never should have been allowed to work with classified data again.

[Slartibartfast]

Oh, great post, von. I don't have a great deal of predisposition to like or dislike Tenet, aside from what he did in the case of Deutch. It ought to be said, though, that the predisposition of the intel community is not to make unqualified statements about their intel unless the conclusion is so obvious so as to go without saying. So the CIA's refusal to ride on the WMD bandwagon is pretty much in character. They might have been right in doing so, but the truth of the matter wasn't discovered until after we went in and looked.

[praktike]

It's great for him that Tenet is such a skilled operator, I suppose, but I'd rather have someone who stands up for what is right even if it costs him his job. As such, fuck him.

And yeah, Wolfowitz is the logical fall guy, especially after his recent performance on Capitol Hill. He already had a reputation for being disorganized (that's why he was passed over for SecDef), so it would be relatiely easy to pin the Iraq reconstruction problems on him as well.

[von]

I think the mystery why Tenet still has a job goes back a bit further, to the days when he allowed John Deutch to not only retain his security clearance but to continue to work as a consultant for the CIA.

I definitely agree, Slartibartfast. Tenet is an all-star at keeping his job. He's the Michael Jordan (early 90s era), a guy who can hurt you inside or outside and do it all with flair. You think Clinton was smooth? Tenet is the smoothest -- made all the smoother by the fact he doesn't exude a warning charisma. You'll never see it coming and, when he puts the knife in, it's downright boring.

Oh, Bob, I agree that Cheney may go.

von

[rilkefan]

I want to put a dime down on "Nobody goes" - not even Powell. I think the time to clean house a bit was after Saddam's capture, when Bush was riding high. Now it might be interpreted by the chattering class as chum - why stop at ___. Anyway, I don't see how sacrificing Wolfowitz accords with the line that events in Iraq are going well, not exactly according to plan perhaps but plans are anyway only provisional.

Also note that the admin may lose enough face on the Plame affair (or [just to dream] the Miranda affair, or the continued failure to create jobs) that they'll need to dump someone of significance, and there has to be a limit on jettisoning dead weight before an election - it makes it look like the balloon is doomed to go down.

[dmbeaster]

Rilkefan already bet my position. They can't even cut Wolfowitz because that would be an admission of at least some failure, and I assume that they are fearful that once they cross that line, how do they keep the damage limited to Wolfowitz? (especially since I doubt Wolfowitz will help by publicly falling on his sword). They are committed to the line that they did nothing wrong.

After all, that has been the MO for this administration -- why would it change now despite the apparent obviousness of the need to make such a change?

So take the bets, but Bush and crew will announce the hanging is called off just as you are at the edge of your chair waiting for the result.

Cheney pushed out or resigning? That is a fantasy.

Powell is already gone, whether Bush is relected or not.

[praktike]

Good point about Wolfowitz. No way he would fall on his sword. But perhaps offending Republican Congressmen would be enough.

Who's Powell? Isn't he the chair of the FCC or something?

[bob mcmanus]

At this time, with these poll numbers, and a true nightmare of a budget to work out, Republican congressman are easily offended. :)

The most interesting political news recently:

Karen Hughes is back. This is a lady who would clean out the cabinet and the West Wing and the entire Congress to protect Bush.

[JKC]

I agree with Parktike and dmbeaster: no-one's apt to go for this. Well, except for Colin Powell, whose only fault was to remain loyal to the rest of the Bush League.

If someone else were to go, though, I'd bet on Dr. Condoleeza "We Had No Idea They'd Use An Airplane As a Weapon" Rice.

[von]

If someone else were to go, though, I'd bet on Dr. Condoleeza "We Had No Idea They'd Use An Airplane As a Weapon" Rice.

The same Condoleeza Rice who didn't read the NIE (c'mon, how, she's only the National Security Advisor)? Yeah, as my post implied, I'm not a fan. (Though I think that she's the least likely to go.)

[Phillip J. Birmingham]

If Cheney takes the fall, would Rice conceivably run for VP?

I doubt it. One of the really conservative folks on a newsgroup I follow has this fantasy that if they ran Rice or Bobby Jindal, it would make the DNC's heads pop. I told him that the only pop he would hear would be the air rushing back into the space where the Council of Conservative Citizens used to be.