I Didn't Do It

George Tenet is the latest guy to use the "Bart Simpson" excuse, saying that his famous statement of "It's a slam dunk!" was taken out of contest. From the NY Times:

“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

Mr. Tenet admits that he made his famous “slam dunk” remark about the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But he argues that the quote was taken out of context and that it had little impact on President Bush’s decision to go to war. He also makes clear his bitter view that the administration made him a scapegoat for the Iraq war.

A copy of the book was purchased at retail price in advance of publication by a reporter for The New York Times. Mr. Tenet described with sarcasm watching an episode of “Meet the Press” last September in which Mr. Cheney twice referred to Mr. Tenet’s “slam dunk” remark as the basis for the decision to go to war.

“I remember watching and thinking, ‘As if you needed me to say ‘slam dunk’ to convince you to go to war with Iraq,’ ” Mr. Tenet writes.

As violence in Iraq spiraled beginning in late 2003, Mr. Tenet writes, “rather than acknowledge responsibility, the administration’s message was: Don’t blame us. George Tenet and the C.I.A. got us into this mess.”

Mr. Tenet takes blame for the flawed 2002 National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq’s weapons programs, calling the episode “one of the lowest moments of my seven-year tenure.” He expresses regret that the document was not more nuanced, but says there was no doubt in his mind at the time that Saddam Hussein possessed unconventional weapons. “In retrospect, we got it wrong partly because the truth was so implausible,” he writes.

I believed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons, too. Not that many, just enough to keep his neighbors nervous. As Tenet says, it was the "nuance" in the narrative that was twisted and politicized. But I am looking forward to reading his book - in the bookstore, not thinking I am going to buy this one - to see how much he lets out on the issue.

I'm sure that this book is Tenet's attempt to clear his name in the annuals of history. I hope it was worth a Medal of Freedom to wait this long and come out with what he says is the truth. As Arianna Huffington notes, he could have - and should have  - resigned rather than continue his appearance of supporting the president, if this is how he really felt.

Comments

[Maxtrue]

Here is the US Code By this definition, Saddam and every country in the world had/has WMD. Can someone explain to me why our government considers almost ANYTHING a WMD?

Also Tenent is comvinced AQ is trying very hard to buy WMD to use here. Does he mean an explosive with nails, or a nuke? Elsewhere, you have attacked the notion that AQ has already used "WMD" in Iraq, but look at US code definitions of WMD.

Again, why does US code define WMD without any reasonable application of the "mass" part? Why has this code been allowed to stand? Under these definitions, your alarm over new secrecy laws concerning WMD are even more alarming.

[Grandjester]

Maxtrue,

Wow. WOW. I had no idea that WMD were defined to such narrow parameters. Guess we were wrong here to dis the claims that Clorine bombs are WMD as they have a chem component and more than 1/4 Oz of explosive, by the code definition, WMD. I particularly like the "Vector" component, release some mosquitos, WMD.

So by our own definition, we are using WMD constantly (depleted uranium slugs immediately come to mind).

[Catzmaw]

True, Tenet used one of the best Bart Simpson defenses, but I'm still waiting to hear his version of "It was like that when I got here" and "It's my first day" (Homer's favorite excuse).

[NVH]

Look all, the Code says it that way so some punk ass lawyer can't come into court and say UBL, when we get him, didn't use a WMD against us on 9/11. If they quantified the "mass" you'd have motions to measure etc...basic premise is you put the law on the books so that it doesn't hinder the more important part of capturing him. It just gives you the means to go and get them. You don't want the cop saying "Even if we get him, we can't prosecute him for it, b/c it wasn't enough Fuel Air Mix / ANFO / Chem / Bio, whatever"....Suffice to say though that the way it's written a really good lawyer can find the loophole. Anyway, my ex cop take on it...

[Citizen Tom]

US Legal Code? Not applicable.

Instead of changing his tune, Tenet should have stuck with his original story. With that "slam dunk" remark, he committed himself. In any case, he still believed Iraq had WMD. So what is his point? If Tenet believed Iraq had WMD, why shouldn't Bush?

Whenever you read The NY Times, keep in mind that that paper has an agenda. Bush did not make Tenet the scapegoat. Bush has said WMD or no WMD we had enough reason to go into Iraq. Moreover, we did find WMD in Iraq. The stuff we found was old, but we still found some WMD.

In any such action, a leader will make mistakes. One mistake Bush made was to use the existance of Iraqi WMD as a major justification for the invasion. WMD provided and an easy, emotional appeal, but absent hard proof new WMD existed and you have a hard time justifying the invasion because of WMD.

Our principle reason for invading Iraq was Saddam Hussein. Consider that WMD is not that hard to produce or hide. Just because we did not find any new stocks of WMD does not mean there was not any WMD. In fact, it is rather presumptuous to presume we know there were not any new stocks of WMD. Hussein certainly had plenty of time to dispose of and hide the stuff. With the cooperation he got from the Russians, he could have easily hidden or gotten rid of anything he had.

And that is the point. Because WMD is easy to hide and move, Hussein posed a WMD threat. Hussein had the motive. We were at war with him. We were enforcing an embargo of Iraq. Hussein had the means; he could produce WMD, and no qualms about making connections with terrorists. He had paid the surviving relatives of suicide bombers. And Hussein had the propensity; he had committed extreme acts. He had started two unprovoked wars with his neighbors.

[Maxtrue]

Look, I'm a Liberal Independent (chicken hawk if you insist) and I keep an eye on this blog for INSIGHT, not to pick a fight. The Democrats are in Congress now, so why don't they deal with our absurd definition of WMD? If they don't, the new secrecy laws will COVER EVERYTHING, there will be ZERO informed debate and men in black vans will take you all away for discussing reasonable facts. While I do think AQ will try to screw us in EVERY WAY their money and operational cells can, I understand CW, neutron bombs and bioweapons are not that easy to acquire and deploy. By OUR definitions, AQ has already used WMD in Iraq. Don't just blame the NYT or WaPo. Perhaps you all can begin at the beginning and frame this topic in a thread clearly so the PUBLIC who visit can really get a clue about what to believe.

When I asked you last month what are the tactical advantages (for us and for terrorists/nasty regimes) of using neutron bombs (how radioactive, EMP, how hard are they to fabricate, etc.) I was being serious. How would we know where CW or radioactive bombs came from (Syria and Iran, NK and Pakistan have them) if used by terrorists (will we really be able to))? I wasn't kidding or trying to be "political". By your account, we might not even be able to discuss those questions anymore out side of unsupported fantasy.

When I mentioned torture several months ago, I was talking about "enhanced interrogations" concerning specific individuals engaged in real time operations to kill us and who are not covered under the Geneva Convention. Tenent just mentioned this for the reasons I mentioned, not because he or I, advocate torture.

The US code on WMD, I believe is derived from the 1948 UN definition. I know the military does not operationally agree with the Federal code, but watch them use it when it comes to secrecy. It is interesting how the Left and Right are tearing Tenent a new one, selectively discounting what they don't want to hear. Don't you think he MIGHT know something we don't about our adversaries?

In any case, polls and consensus are not what should drive policy. Facts should direct policy. When Turkey invades Kurdistan, some will say, "why the F*** didn't anyone talk about the 200,000 Turkish troops massing on the Iraqi border BEFORE we pulled out? When Reid says our retreat will encourage parties to negotiate a political settlement, who here actually believes AQ will do that? Or Sadr? I'm not striking out any political agenda. I do expect those with a military background stand up to absurd claims from both sides that are made for political reasons. Instead, it seems that your progressive take on things sometimes becomes a Right-bashing festivus. Hell, that's just my arm chairish, inexpert opinion.....

P.S. NVH does touch on why the US code is written that way. I think it screws up things more than it helps. Here is one use:

here

[Grandjester]

It's all just bullshit for lack of a better term. Take OBL, do we go after some WMD excuse or just hit him up for 3000+ premed murder in the 1sts? On Saddam we and the Iraqis f'd that one up about as much as possible. If you want a lynching, ala Mussolini/Cheuchesu (however the f you spell it, I'm lazy this morning) give him to the mob and be done with it or go the Milosovic route and hand him over to the Hague for the nebulous crimes against humanity schtik. Don't cobble together some show trial like we got and THEN end up with the same damn lynching, it's just counterproductive.

The thing that really gets me about the gitmo, shoe bomber, american taliban, 20th hijacker, aussie kangaroo skinner and on and on, is that are our cases so fucking weak that we have to play these fucking games? Put them on trial, in a regular federal court, with a jury, on tv. Nothing hidden, prove our damn case and execute or lock them away or free them as the chips fall. We have done this shit before, Nuremburg trials and all that...

[Maxtrue]

And if the Fed's case against this clinic bomber is so weak we have to bring in WMD to send this ass to jail, what the hell is wrong with OUR judicial system? Once you start calling little bombs with nails WMD, then banning information about WMD would include me telling you where one can buy an M-80 for the Fourth of July. I don't remember McVeigh being charged with using a WMD, nor do I think the DOD would like the press reporting we use WMD in Iraq every day. Sloppy BS leads to sloppier BS until there is no discourse, just a whole lot of sloppy BS. I believe this was the point of another thread here.

Some blogs actually humorously delighted in Bin Laden's attempt to take out Cheney (if that is indeed the case). And by our definition, once again, he used a WMD.

[J.]

I was going to do a blog post on this issue of "WMD" tomorrow, but let me just state a few things. First, the US Code referenced above is the DoJ definition post-Oklahoma City, and as NVH accurately states, it's defined in a way to make sure the cops can bust just about anyone using anything in any quantity. It is not derived from the 1948 definition, which says any WMD is something equal to an atomic weapon.

The DOD really didn't have a formal definition for WMD, seeing it more as an arms control term, prior to the 1990s. When DoJ started using their term for WMD and got it into the US Code, it got OSD going, and I think there is another US Code definition elsewhere (will have to check). But the military has always seem WMD as NBC weapons that pose particular military concerns due to their use and destructive power - unless you check JP 1-02, where they still have HE in the equation (idiots). The National Military Strategy to Combat WMD says only NBC weapons, but the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (see here) says WMD/E (effects) DOES include HE.

This reflects the great confusion in DOD as to whether you mean a nation-state's WMD program (which does not include E and may be massively destructive) or a terrorist WMD program (which might include E and not be massively destructive). And to get to the bottom line of Max's first comment (which I've been trying to get to), no one wants to define a metric for WMD (say, like 1000 casualties as a result of one incident) because they're intellectual cowards and want to define it the most convenient way possible at any given point in time.

That is to say, they have no academic honesty to state "it is thus" because it would defeat their weak-ass arguments and policy statements.

[Grandjester]

With McVeigh, recall that we had a conviction a little over two years after the bombings (only the federal case, the "civilian" deaths were never put to trial), two more years to settle appeals, two more until death penalty implemented.

Done and done.

We have had some of the guys going on six years now and haven't gotten to even a drumhead trial.

[Grandjester]

And correct me if I am wrong, but the WMD in the code definition DOES NOT include airliners.

So OBL & Co. would be up for hijacking/murder but NOT WMD for 9/11!?!?!

[Maxtrue]

Thanks J. Yes, please clear this up in an intelligent post that us ordinary people can understand. Am I right that in light of present US codes, the secrecy proposals you linked would include items covered under the federal code concerning WMD?

explosives

Does this help the average Joe in reasonably defining WMD?

I do see the reasoning behind NVH's remark, but I see a domestic bomber of a US clinic is being charged with planting a WMD. Does the proximity of said explosive to a Federal Highway or public school figure into the application of this Federal code? Should it be relevant? Are there State laws concerning WMD?

It might make sense to distinguish between WMC and WMD. For instance, a hacker could cause significant casualties by screwing with computer-controlled systems by knocking out air traffic control in several airports simultaneously or releasing valves at major nuclear or chemical plants (though the effect might be similar to actual weapons). After-effects to people and environment as well as initial lethality ought to be considered in reasonable definitions of WMC and WMD. Of course you guys no all this far more than me. Just wondering.

So McVeigh wasn't charged with using a WMD because the latest US Code was written after his attack. And the use of Polonium in England, if it had been against a US national, would be considered a WMD as would be Bin Laden's supposed attack on Cheney and AQ's use of gas on any US soldiers according to the present Federal Codes, but not the UN. Hhmmm.

I await your new thread. Again thanks…

Sorry to steer this thread a bit away from Tenent. Still I would love to know how easily the US COULD determine where any CW or radioactive weapon came from, if terrorists used them here. We all know the Corleone mantra, which says we'll nuke Tehran if we get hit. I think this is stupid. I also think this is why many feel disrupting terrorists over seas and containing the progress of hostile regimes and their WMD programs is a better hedge than retaliation once we are hit. Perhaps you can post a thread on that one too. Defense Tech has posted a number of experts who think it will quite difficult to really know which one of our many adversaries participated in any eventual WMC or WMD attack here or against our assets and allies abroad. We all know greedy criminal organizations could sell this crap for enough money. Tenent brought that up in his 60 Minute interview.

[Grandjester]

Maxtrue,

I do believe that processed Uranium and Plutonium have distinct properties (a fingerprint if you will) that would allow us to determine origin, if we were to take the time to do so after an attack.

Fuck Tenent, he should have spoken up five years ago. Or at the very least the moment he left Govt., no he had to get the book deal. He'll just be marginalized through use of the talking head shows.

[Maxtrue]

If you are right about Tenent, it is sad that someone with that character ran our country's most important spy agency. I must confess, his excuse for not reading Bush's State of the Union speech was a bit of a stretch. I am also aware that the CIA warned what would happen if we had a bad post war plan (see FIASCO). Did Tenent yell at the administration about this? I hope that J can, in the future, post a thread about what possible terrorism COULD happen and how we could figure out were it came from. We're screwed if it was some sold off Russian or Chinese stock. I hear there are secret facilities in Syria and Iran (and NK), In the future, please explain how we know what those fingerprints are. I’ll cross-refernece it at Defense tech. Same for CW and biological weapons. It would go a long way in explaining to the public why these facilities and programs do not have to be contained or destroyed to deter such material from getting in terrorist's hands. Reports indicate AQ's strategy would be a false flag operation to get Iran screwed and visa versa. How smart are we?

That seems to be the reasoning at work today, not that we think any country has the balls to fire at us from their territory.

[NVH]

oh shit, I might have a friend here after all in Citizen Tom. I tend to lean with him on this issue guys, sorry. We could pick apart the argument but he does a good job of separating the reasons why people still support what we are doing and can still support Bush despite mistakes, and calling for impeachment.
Maxtrue, I really thought you were screwing around asking those questions about neutron bombs, and well I disagree using THIS site for educational purposes with all the opinions flying around on it, mine included, but we can go back and seriously consider your questions if you want or we'll at least know in the future to do so. Just post another comment on those issues and let the fireworks begin.
Tenet, and Clarke, were politicians first, privy to the intelligence briefs of the guys they staffed for. That's it. No chance they were ever in the field doing ops and shit like the guys that should be running those agencies and posts should have been.
And look, the whole US code law, secrecy, whatever, it's a tool in the box on how to get these guys, yeah, they don't think it thru all the way, but we were playing a reactive role at that point, and as we get these a holes back on their heels and start getting proactive we'll get better and defining these, nobody worry too much yet, the amount of paperwork that has to get done with this is gigantic and even then, more than likely, common sense will prevail, have a little bit of faith. Okay, where's those old Maxtrue posts...