View Full Version : Why did George Tenet resign?
Roguish Lawyer
06-03-2004, 14:40
Pursuant to NDD's request.
Explain your answer and discuss if you wish.
NousDefionsDoc
06-03-2004, 14:56
EXCELLENT poll question!
Dissatisfied with his non-performance. I never understood why they kept him in the first place. We need a war fighting DCI.
Ambush Master
06-03-2004, 15:00
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
EXCELLENT poll question!
Dissatisfied with his non-performance. I never understood why they kept him in the first place. We need a war fighting DCI.
Totally agree on this. We need a DCI that can keep up with the likes of Rummy !!!
NousDefionsDoc
06-03-2004, 15:07
Wild Bill Donovan
Sacamuelas
06-03-2004, 15:16
voted "dissatisfied with performance".
My WAG is that he was intially kept on as a potential political cover if attacks took place. Current Admin. could not be attacked by former Pres. billy c. and his cronies quite as viciously because Tenet was his selection for the job too. It worked BTW.
Now its time to make some changes... time for fresh perspectives.
Roguish Lawyer
06-03-2004, 15:28
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Wild Bill Donovan
Esteemed member of the New York bar, among other things. :)
http://foia.fbi.gov/donovan.htm
NousDefionsDoc
06-03-2004, 15:35
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Esteemed member of the New York bar, among other things. :)
http://foia.fbi.gov/donovan.htm
I think you'll find all great men had to overcome significant obstacles to achieve their goals.
D9 (RIP)
06-03-2004, 15:38
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Dissatisfied with his non-performance. I never understood why they kept him in the first place. We need a war fighting DCI.
Who they replace him with will answer whether he was scapegoated or they were dissatisfied with him. If someone more hawkish, on the Rumsfeld model, is chosen then I agree with you NDD. On the other hand, if a less-assertive Colin Powell style director is appointed I think it indicates he was scapegoated.
My suspicion is the latter, unfortunately. I think the Bush administration, on the heels of Abu Ghraib and the relentless Left-slanted media barrage, is looking to show the American public he is less the cowboy than his accusers would have us believe. I think the administration is smarting from a black-eye they think has been brought on by the Rumsfeld-style tough-talking assertiveness (a trait, for all his many flaws, I thought Tenet possessed. He seemed to stick up tot he media pretty well). we get a less assertive, media conscious, director as a replacement then I don't think it bodes well.
NOTE: I think it would be the correct thing for the administration to put in a Rumsfeld style director. It is with regret that I suspect we will see the appointment of someone unlike him.
I voted dissatisfied with performance, and seems Saca beat me to it with the reasoning.
Bet there will be people coming out of the woodwork from the far left that think he's a scapegoat.
Roguish Lawyer
06-03-2004, 15:45
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I think you'll find all great men had to overcome significant obstacles to achieve their goals.
LMAO!
I never knew the "Donovan" from the Donovan Leisure firm in New York was a war hero. Donovan Leisure was a prominent Wall Street firm before it folded in 1998. It was known for, among other things, secretly buying up the Florida land on which Disney World was built.
NousDefionsDoc
06-03-2004, 15:56
Originally posted by D9
Who they replace him with will answer whether he was scapegoated or they were dissatisfied with him. If someone more hawkish, on the Rumsfeld model, is chosen then I agree with you NDD. On the other hand, if a less-assertive Colin Powell style director is appointed I think it indicates he was scapegoated.
My suspicion is the latter, unfortunately. I think the Bush administration, on the heels of Abu Ghraib and the relentless Left-slanted media barrage, is looking to show the American public he is less the cowboy than his accusers would have us believe. I think the administration is smarting from a black-eye they think has been brought on by the Rumsfeld-style tough-talking assertiveness (a trait, for all his many flaws, I thought Tenet possessed. He seemed to stick up tot he media pretty well). we get a less assertive, media conscious, director as a replacement then I don't think it bodes well.
NOTE: I think it would be the correct thing for the administration to put in a Rumsfeld style director. It is with regret that I suspect we will see the appointment of someone unlike him.
What if Rumsfeld hisownbadassself took the job. LOL
Airbornelawyer
06-03-2004, 15:58
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
LMAO!
I never knew the "Donovan" from the Donovan Leisure firm in New York was a war hero. Donovan Leisure was a prominent Wall Street firm before it folded in 1998. It was known for, among other things, secretly buying up the Florida land on which Disney World was built.
Our Paris office used to be Donovan Leisure's. We got it in the going-out-of-business sale. They still act like they're not part of the same firm, but maybe they're just being French.
DoctorDoom
06-03-2004, 16:26
x
He would have been kept on if Bush did not have to make some gesture before heading over to Europe.
This will assuage the Europeans. The Europeans will play nice and one arrow gets removed from Kerry's quiver.
Tenet may have dropped the ball a few times, but damnit at least he was out there making plays. Those critical of him need to remember that the administration he was appointed under gave approx .5 shit about international relations in general and intelligence in particular and HUMINT specifically.
NousDefionsDoc
06-03-2004, 19:24
Then he shouldn't have taken the job. He should have been fired on day 1 of the Bush admin. Especially after all the incidents just prior. If he was so shit hot and they wouldn't let him do his job, why didn't he resign?
Because the guy right before him did.
NousDefionsDoc
06-03-2004, 19:42
SO?
So, if you are committed to the long term welfare of an organization, do you quit like the guy before you and hope that somehow you make the point that he did not? Or do you stick it out and do what you can? I know which leader I would respect.
NousDefionsDoc
06-03-2004, 20:21
Originally posted by Jimbo
So, if you are committed to the long term welfare of an organization, do you quit like the guy before you and hope that somehow you make the point that he did not? Or do you stick it out and do what you can? I know which leader I would respect.
LOL - you think Tenet was committed to the Agency?
It does not matter what I think. I read in Ronald Kessler's new book that a number people there thought he did a good job of sticking up for them on a number of occasions.
NousDefionsDoc
06-03-2004, 20:33
Watch your OPSEC.
The Reaper
06-03-2004, 20:34
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Watch your OPSEC.
Hahaha!
Not me this time.
TR
rubberneck
06-04-2004, 09:03
While he does deserve some of the blame for the failures of the past, clearly a great deal of blame should reside at Clinton's feet. Starting with the Torrecelli principle through the lack of funding for HUMINT the CIA was in no shape to fight the war on terrorism.
If the President is looking for a "War Time" DCI he should look no further than Rudy Guliani. His take no prisoners and accept no excuses management style is what the CIA needs right now. He also has enough star power with the American public to neutralize the medlesome nature of some on Capital Hill.
The Reaper
06-04-2004, 09:46
Originally posted by rubberneck
If the President is looking for a "War Time" DCI he should look no further than Rudy Guliani. His take no prisoners and accept no excuses management style is what the CIA needs right now. He also has enough star power with the American public to neutralize the medlesome nature of some on Capital Hill.
I think Rudy (or Powell, or Condi) would be much more effective as VP than as a DCI, and could help the ticket a LOT more than Cheney.
Can you see the Dems if Cheney stepped down for health reasons and Dr. Rice were picked as the VP partner on the ticket? :D
TR
D9 (RIP)
06-04-2004, 09:59
Originally posted by Jimbo
He would have been kept on if Bush did not have to make some gesture before heading over to Europe.
This will assuage the Europeans. The Europeans will play nice and one arrow gets removed from Kerry's quiver.
OMG.....
It hurts.....
But I actually........
AGGGGR-EE-E.
[passes out]
D9 (RIP)
06-04-2004, 10:01
Today's (June 4, 04) WSJ has an editorial mentioning Guliani, and the need for a shake-up in the Agency. There's also mention of the creation of a new OSS style division within the Agency.
Careful, it seems that we are on unstable ground regarding restructuring agencies based upon partisen positioning. I have also read that there are many who would like to see an MI-5 structure put in place. OSS/MI-5/CIA????
Wild Bill D. would know what to do...."help us Obiwan you're our only hope".
Maya
NousDefionsDoc
06-04-2004, 13:01
Originally posted by Maya
Careful, it seems that we are on unstable ground regarding restructuring agencies based upon partisen positioning. I have also read that there are many who would like to see an MI-5 structure put in place. OSS/MI-5/CIA????
Wild Bill D. would know what to do...."help us Obiwan you're our only hope".
Maya
Why does it seem we're on unstable ground?
Is it really wise to have another agency? This reminds me of the USSR under Khruschev- if he couldn't solve a problem, he would create another agency to deal with it, thereby making more problems and expanding upon an inefficient system.
I remember someone telling me about 'stove piping', where agencies would 'sit on' intel and other resources to make sure that they got the credit, and presumably funding increases, for dealing with it. Another view, therefore, is that the more agencies there are, the less intelligence is shared.
On the other hand, a well-formed agency can be more efficient internally and keeps the other agencies efficient through healthy competition.
Just some thoughts,
Solid
The reason I think that we may be on unstable ground is that we are in an election year. Many things occur under such intense times where any action, even bad ones, may be undertaken for popular opinion. I do not think that W is as prone to this as a general rule but when I look at his immigration policies it makes me unsure as to the what ifs.
Maya
NousDefionsDoc
06-04-2004, 19:43
but when I look at his immigration policies it makes me unsure as to the what ifs.
OH NO YOU DIN"T!
NousDefionsDoc
06-05-2004, 05:47
Geopolitical Diary: Friday, June 4, 2004
George Tenet resigned Thursday as director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. His leaving was not routine. Such resignations are usually carefully orchestrated, with the departing worthy standing behind the president while
praise is heaped on them. This time, the president simply and unexpectedly announced Tenet's departure -- and hours later, Tenet announced the same to the CIA staff. Apparently, President George W. Bush and Tenet met Wednesday
evening, something happened, and Tenet left Thursday.
This is not simply a matter of the president finally cleaning house in the intelligence community. And it is not simply a matter of long-term problems being dealt with -- if it were, more cover would have been given. Nor is it obvious that Tenet was fired. That may be the case, but there are circumstances under which he would have resigned.
This one isn't simple. It is, however, important.
Theory No. 1: Tenet and the CIA have been hammering home the fact that Ahmed Chalabi was a double agent for Iran. On Wednesday, the agency leaked the story that Chalabi had compromised a National Security Agency operation that had broken Iranian codes. The target of these attacks was not just Chalabi, but the Defense Department in general, and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in particular. Wolfowitz runs a small intelligence shop headed by Abe Shulsky, who had championed Chalabi. If they were sponsoring a double who was compromising NSA code-breaking, that was quite an intelligence disaster.
It is possible that Bush decided that Tenet had simply gone too far in washing dirty laundry in public. The president is not going to clean out the Defense Department and therefore regarded Tenet's attacks as too extreme. Hence, Tenet was fired. The alternative explanation of this theory is that the CIA had the goods not only on Chalabi, but on the DOD disaster as well.
Tenet met with Bush and laid out the story, expecting the president to clean house; Bush refused, and Tenet -- disgusted -- quit.
Theory No. 2: This has nothing to do with Chalabi and everything to do with former Ambassador Joe Wilson, whose CIA agent wife's cover allegedly was blown by a White House aide. An investigation was going on to find out who had leaked Valerie Plame's name. Interestingly, the president was reported
to be hiring a lawyer in the case -- not necessarily incriminating in any way, but certainly not a great PR move for a president to have to make.
Assume for the moment -- with only this little evidence -- that the
investigation was moving toward the president in some way. Tenet, aware of the implications of the Justice Department findings, and belonging to a culture that regards protecting cover as a sacred obligation, confronted Bush. After years at the agency, Tenet was not going down covering the Plame affair.
Theory No. 3: The president actually is cleaning house. He has fired Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and now he is firing Tenet. He will fire other people. He is doing this with the coordination and grace that have marked most other PR efforts in the Bush administration. In other words, it looks far worse than it actually is and, instead of turning the page, is spawning endless speculation.
In any case, a major figure in the history of the U.S.-Islamist war is out. The Sept. 11 attacks happened on his watch, but so did the first phase of the Afghan war. Tora Bora was also on his watch, but so was the destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime. Of course, the entire guerrilla war in Iraq surged on his watch, but so did the capture of Hussein. In our view, history will judge Tenet as a capable man who, facing extraordinary times, simply
could not rise to extraordinary heights. The most interesting part of his tenure, in the end, might well be in his leaving.
NousDefionsDoc
06-05-2004, 06:03
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
4 June 2004
CIA Deputy Director for Operations Announces Retirement
McLean, VA, 4 Jun -- James L. Pavitt, a 31-year veteran of CIA who has served as the Agency's Deputy Director for Operations (DDO) for nearly five years, announced today that he will be retiring this summer.
Pavitt, 58, who was named DDO in August 1999 after serving as the Associate Deputy Director for Operations (ADDO) for two years, has served longer in that position than any DDO in the last 30 years. Pavitt made the decision to retire about a month ago and his departure is unrelated to Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet's resignation announcement yesterday.
In remarks today, Pavitt said he "could not be prouder of the men and women of America's clandestine service."
"I am so proud of the risks they have taken and the extraordinary work they do, often under the most difficult and dangerous circumstances imaginable, to keep our nation safe," Pavitt said. "The creativity, resourcefulness, and courage they display each and every day to acquire the information our
country needs has saved many lives. The unique work they do must remain secret, but people need to know that they are a national treasure. It has been a privilege to lead them for the last five years."
Director Tenet said today, "Jim Pavitt's contributions to this Agency and to the country during a long and distinguished career have been enormous. He has led our country's clandestine service with verve and creativity, rebuilding the infrastructure to recruit, train, and sustain officers who
collect the human intelligence that is so vital to protecting our nation and American interests. He has worked tirelessly to strengthen our collection capabilities, and it has been an honor to serve with him."
Pavitt, a native of St. Louis, joined the CIA in 1973 as a Career Trainee. He served in a variety of intelligence assignments in Europe, Asia, and Headquarters. In 1990, Pavitt was detailed to the National Security Council as the Director for Intelligence Programs. In June 1992, President Bush appointed him Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and NSC Senior Director for Intelligence Programs.
Prior to becoming the ADDO in 1995, he served as Deputy Director of the DCI Nonproliferation Center, which is now known as the DCI Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center. Before that, he served as Chief of the Counterproliferation Division in the Directorate of Operations.
NousDefionsDoc
06-05-2004, 06:10
This to me is an indicator of something when looking at Tenet's resignation:
WASHINGTON, DC: According to the United Press International (UPI), FBI Director Robert Mueller wants to create an intelligence service within the FBI that would operate separately from other parts of the agency.
Outlined by Mueller during a hearing of a House subcommittee last Thursday, the FBI would create a directorate of intelligence with clear authority over all FBI intelligence activities, including language translators and analysts, the Washington Post reported.
Mueller did not provide the committee with cost estimates or many details, and FBI officials said it is too early to predict what the price of the restructuring might be. Mueller's proposal appears to be an alternative to a number of other ideas being circulated by Congressional sources that would establish a "MI-5" internal intelligence agency within the United States.
Re: STRATFOR's assessment
It seems George and Meredith have been smoking some good stuff.
NousDefionsDoc
06-06-2004, 09:27
"Our record is not without flaws," he said. "The world of intelligence is a uniquely human endeavor . . . and we all understand the need to always do better. We are not perfect, but one of our best-kept secrets is that we are very, very, very good."
Good Tenet quote I thought...
NDD
quote:
"OH NO YOU DIN"T!"
OK what about W's immigration policy gives you a sense of solid thinking and not playing up to the Hispanic vote? I am 99% behind W but we are all human, and I don't have to agree with everything to still support the man.
Back to Tenet: I read Stratfor's summary and still think that it is due to poor preformance, even with the other senarios presented. GW has to start holding folks accountable for the voters to have confidence in him as a leader. Somethimes you need to draw that line in the sand and hold to it. He kept folks on from the last administration out of a false sence of 'working together' in my humble opinion, he should have placed people he knew in those positions of extreme importance.
Maya