George Tenet is the newest of a long chain of key people involved in Anti-terrorist and/or war matters. Most of them Republicans, so it can’t be because of political reasons, I wonder why then?
He’s a Clinton appointee and a long time in the job. Longer than most last in that job. Since it’s an election year, I’ve gotta believe Bush asked him to quit. But he has said he was not going to continue after the election anyway, no matter who wins the Presidency.
You wonder why George Tenet quit? Officially, it was for “personal reasons”.
However:
Your job is to administer a company that processes and distributes information and data.
Simple, right? Wrong.
The information you broker is often times very, very difficult to obtain. It is often inaccurate or comes from sources of dubious credibility. You have incredible technology at your disposal and portions of an enormous sub-contractor (the U.S. military) but they are inherently suspicious of your company.
Your staff is composed of people, mostly young, mostly bright, who ar trying to move up in their careers. Unfortunately, your budget does not allow you to pay them what some other businesses in the same induxtry does, so they are often times going elsewhere.
The information you broker is of critical importance and cannot be diseminated in the public sector- only to your clients, among them the largest governments in the world.
You do the best you can to gather, analize and distribute this information but are generally ill equipped, prohibited or otherwise incapable of acting on it.
Should something negative develop in the course of using this information to one of your clients, they will publicly blame you even though the nature of the information means you cannot publicly defend yourself.
And finally, the information you broker can and will affect the lives and deaths of millions, perhaps billions of people all over the world.
Welcome to your new job as Director of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Langley, Virginia.
Boo-hoo. You’re breaking my heart, Tom. I can’t believe that anyone would be so hard-hearted as to criticize the paragons of virtue and nobility who compose our government. Surely everyone can see that all of our leaders are always wise, good, competent, and honest. If it sometimes seems otherwise, it’s only because we ourselves are not wise enough to recognize their goodness.
Sheesh. You’d think that noone in a position of power had ever screwed up, or was a bad guy.
The Central Intelligence Agency delivers a fine product, better than any other comapny in the same business in the world.
The cost of doing business is on the right hand wall as you walk in the front door. Those stars on the wall.
If the people who get the product are too stupid to use the product correctly, it isn’t the agency’s problem.
“Don’t shoot the messenger”.
**The Central Intelligence Agency delivers a fine product, better than any other comapny in the same business in the world. **Sometimes. Often, maybe even usually. Sometimes they muck everything up. When they do, they should face the music the same as everyone else.
**If the people who get the product are too stupid to use the product correctly, it isn’t the agency’s problem. **I agree whole-heartedly.
“Don’t shoot the messenger”. Unless they screw up the message.
Look, I’m not bashing the CIA. I think all this belly-aching over the “intelligence failures” leading to 9/11 is utter and complete nonsense, for example. It’s an intelligence agency, for God’s sake, not a den of infallible fortune tellers.
On the other hand, I don’t agree with the reasoning that since their job is hard, they’re above criticism, or the facing the consequences of their actions.
What is amazing is that the people doing most of the criticising are the same people who voted to cut their budgets, limit the kind of agents they could develop, and restrict the information they could share.
What is amazing is that the people doing most of the criticising are the same people who voted to cut their budgets, limit the kind of agents they could develop, and restrict the information they could share.
Those things should be restricted. I don’t want a secret intelligence agency running around unfettered by the limits of law.
And while I see your point, and agree with it to some extent, I don’t think it applies in Tenet’s case. When asked about Iraq, did he say, “Gee, wish I could help, but you’ve cut my budget, and restricted my methods, so to be honest, intel is pretty sketchy.” Or did he say that the existence of WMDs is a “home run.”?
“Or did he say that the existence of WMDs is a ‘home run?’”
You’re confusing your sports metaphors, Vitus. He said it was a “slam dunk.”