Beware of men and women who begin to explain their failures with the word “we”… and their successes with the word “I”.
I had already heard enough about George Tenet to believe that buying his book would not shed any new light, but there it was staring at me at Costco…. and priced so cheaply. Although I try to follow both sides of any discussion, I came away from Reading his book thinking that it was just “Fahrenheit 911” in a different form.
When I read or listen to someone, I look for the subtle little things that the authors omit that might be revealing about their motives, purposes and objectives. Although Mr. Tenet’s book drowns in minutia, one can’t help but come away with the conclusion that his learning curve regarding today’s realities was decidedly slow…. way too slow.
It just seemed like he thought that everything could be negotiated and that all men and women can be reasonable. I thought he said he was Greek? He should know better. Although as human beings go, he appears to be the kind of warm fatherly type you might enjoy as an in-law, but to me, he just seemed hopelessly naive for the job he accepted.
Some folks distort their record with outright falsehoods, but I seem to sense that Mr. Tenet is prone to leaving something out that might change the readers evaluation of his performance or perspective. He talks about cutting his teeth as a Senatorial Staffer but he fails to tell you WHO he worked for and I can only wonder why? You can’t even find a mention of his mentor in Mr. Tenet’s index. For the record, George Tenet worked for the late Senator John Heinz. This name should sound familiar… John Kerry married into that family.
Do you see where George may have an ax to grind?
In no particular order, here is my listing of some of the major difficulties I had with George Tenet’s explanation of his time in the CIA:
1) He would say that he “assumed” this or that about someone or a situation. Doesn’t he remember the old “ass-u-me”… when you assume you make an ‘ass’ out of ‘u’ and ‘me?’
2) When managers use the word ‘we’, they often use it to deflect any criticism of themselves. It reminds me of the California ‘Governators’ credible opponent in his first election who explained the runnaway spending by saying,” I guess we spent too much.” The people responded to that wisdom in the election by electing Arnold by a huge margin.
3) Any street kid with a level of credibility wouldn’t fall for what this George bought. Tenet never recognized that he was ‘being played’ until a lot of wasted time passed by. His entire experience with Arafat was darkly amusing. I am reminded that George Tenet’s real experience was the softness of political life, which I am sure he thought was pretty tough.
4) To George Tenet’s credit he positions himself as a ‘people person.’ However, what is really necessary at the CIA is the dispassionate, logical and strategic thinking of James Bond’s legendary MI-5’s “M”. We needed “M” and we got “Mr. Rodgers.”
5) Probably George Tenet’s blinding fault is his belief in the political process in negotiations with terrorists. Negotiation is a sign of weakness, not a ‘first resort.’
6) He credits the Clinton Administration with too much. Under Bill Clinton’s administration, they were only proactive in attacking American Citizens. Ruby Ridge and Waco are two very sad reminders.
7) He criticized the Bush Administration from trying to distance themselves from the Clinton Administration’s positions, strategies and tactics. So, George, maybe you don’t know, but that was a really good idea.
8) George is fond of saying that he ( excuse me… “WE” at the CIA) are ‘policy implementers’ and not ‘policy makers.” This doesn’t sound like an organization that rewards initiative… just compliance. Maybe that is why Dick Chaney sat in many of the regular meetings, to keep an eye on things. Did you feel ‘shadow managed?’
9) There is a lot of complaining in the book about being asked to get ‘involved in this and that’ and the implication was that George felt that certain things weren’t part of the CIA’s mandate. Well, sometimes– like in the private sector — it includes ‘duties as assigned.’ Not taking responsibility and initiative is less of a problem than sitting back and ‘reacting’. You can’t get the ‘bad guys’ by waiting for every order to cme from ‘the hill.’
11) I won’t argue about the naughty, dirty little business that the world of the CIA finds itself, but to complain about not wanting to get into an ‘Iran-Contra Mess’ is the type of inside-the-box thinking that made the Vietnam War and Clinton’s Administration a joke.
12) On Page 318 of your book, you quote a memo that you fired off and now proudly recall as a warning of the consequences of an invasion of Iraq. Hmmmm, first, the results are not as you portray them and the last time I looked at a map, the ‘good guys’ are on four sides of Iran. Enough said.
13) Your priorities seem to mirror your politics. You hardly mention the threat of Iran or ever talk about Cuba, although you seemed preoccupied regarding North Korea as long as it distracted us from discussing the possible invasion of Iraq. You seemed to relish the fact that the new administration under Jimmy Carter dismissed the CIA head George H.W. Bush.
14) Probably one of the biggest failings of George Tenet’s tenure in the CIA was that he never ‘got personal’ with Osama Bin Laden. The fact is that — unless you care to talk about it — I don’t think you ‘got personal’ with anyone.
In summary, I find it discouraging to find a virtually untrained person to head up the CIA for so long. George Tenet is a man without any military or real field experience that sat in a lot of meetings in Washington and allowed his ignorance of the world to leave us all unprepared. I do question why he wrote a book that so clearly displayed his flaws and limitations. I will say that George Tenet seems like a fine man… just not the one for which he was appointed. In the end, he was merely a politician when something more was needed.
Roger Freberg
PS. My critique is not ment as a criticism of the CIA or the men and women who serve there… only a criticism that a politician with limited real world experience was chosen to head such a central position to our nation’s security with predictable results.
Share on Facebook
