The Nation

CIA chief George Tenet should have left a long time ago. But that doesn't mean he should be the fall guy now.

When Tenet announced his resignation after seven years in the job, he claimed that there was one reason--and one reason alone--for his quitting: his family. In Washington, few believed that. The timing of his departure was rather convenient in that the CIA is about to be blasted by several reports due out in the coming weeks. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has wrapped up its investigation of the prewar intelligence on WMDs. The 9/11 Commission's final report has to be released by the end of July. The administration's chief WMD hunter in Iraq is scheduled to produce a report this summer. And the various investigations into the prison abuse scandal in Iraq could implicate CIA officers. Tenet had good reason to skedaddle before all this incoming arrives. He reportedly tried to argue against the findings of the Senate report (which Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman of the intelligence committee, has characterized as scathing), but ultimately he gave up.

Tenet remained in the spy chief's chair longer than he should have. He should have submitted his resignation--or been fired by George W. Bush--after 9/11, and then again after it became clear there were few, if any, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. (See this previous Capital Games column for a reminder of how a pre-9/11 CIA screw-up prevented the FBI from chasing after two of the 9/11 hijackers at least 18 months before the September 11 attacks.) But Bush kept supporting Tenet and insisting that the prewar intelligence had been "good" and "solid."

Bush's defenders have pointed to Tenet's prewar declaration to Bush (per Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack) that the WMD case was a "slam-dunk." This, the Bush-backers claim, proves that Tenet, not Bush, is the one to blame for those embarrassingly absent WMDs, that Bush was not disingenuous or deceitful. He was merely misinformed by his CIA director.

That is not the full story. Bush repeatedly exaggerated the case presented to him by the CIA. He, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice took bad intelligence and made it worse. I have written about this extensively elsewhere (click here to see a catalogue of such Bush misrepresentations), but one notable example is Bush's claim that Iraq had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq produced by the CIA in October 2002 concluded that Iraq had biological weapons, but it was referring to a biological weapons development program. A development program is not the same thing as a "massive stockpile." But that did not stop Bush from claiming Iraq was sitting on a giant arsenal of bioweapons. By the way, the White House conceded last summer that neither Bush nor Rice ever bothered to read the entire 90-page NIE (which contained information challenging the view that Iraq was loaded to the gills with weapons of mass destruction).

******************************

After you read this article, check out David Corn's NEW WEBLOG on the Bushlies.com site.

******************************

Tenet was not responsible for the many exaggerations and misstatements Bush and his gang used to grease the path to war. Tenet and the CIA, for example, did attempt to stop Bush from claiming in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq had been shopping for uranium in Africa, but the White House kept the false charge in the speech.

With the announcement of his resignation, Tenet continues to be the central figure in the WMD controversy. This might be viewed as Tenet's last favor for Bush. But Tenet chose a politically inconvenient time to depart. Most CIA-watchers in Washington expected him to leave (or flee) after the election. By saying good-bye now, Tenet tarnished the first good week the White House had in months.

"Good week" is a relative term. This week, the news broke that Bush has consulted with an outside lawyer about the White House/CIA leak investigation, which is still under way; front-page headlines shouted that Bush would be keeping US troops in active duty longer than the usual rotation; and Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, the favorite Iraqi of the neocons and the Pentagon, was accused of being a spy for Iran and disclosing to Tehran that US intelligence had broken a key communications code used by Iran. (The Chalabi episode seemed to mark Tenet's ultimate triumph over Chalabi, a longtime foe. After The New York Times reported the Chalabi allegations, Chalabi accused Tenet of leaking the information to destroy him.) Still, the appointment of a new government in Baghdad allowed Bush to talk about something that he could depict--or spin--as a hopeful sign. And Bush was on his way to what would, no doubt, be a stirring commemoration of D-Day in Europe. By the middle of the week, Bush campaign aides and other Republicans were saying they believed that Bush--politically--had hit bottom and, with the establishment of the new government in Iraq, was finally pulling out of a months-long nosedive. Then came the Tenet bombshell, which, within hours, was followed by reports that James Pavitt, head of the CIA's operations directorate, would also be resigning.

This is not the sort of news--chaos at the CIA!--that Karl Rove and the White House would prefer to see at the end of a "good week." It could be expected to dominate the weekend chat shows. So if Tenet was being pushed by the White House to leave, it seems he decided to announce his departure time at a time of his own choosing--which sure was not in sync with White House political interests. Does that mean anything? Was it a not-too-hidden signal? Maybe Tenet will explain so in his book. (No, there is not any word that he is pulling a Richard Clarke. That would be a true surprise.)

After Tenet made his announcement, the first indications out of the administration were that Bush would allow the deputy director, John McLaughlin, to serve as acting director for a while, and that no replacement for Tenet would be nominated until after the election. Such a decision may be politically dicey. That would leave Bush open to the charge that he is prosecuting the war in Iraq and the so-called war on terrorism without filling an essential position. (McLaughlin is not generally regarded as director material.) The smart political move would be for the White House to pick Representative Porter Goss, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, for the job. Goss is a former CIA case officer. His committee has been critical of the CIA's prewar intelligence without causing discomfort for the White House. Goss could probably win confirmation quickly. But one cause of concern for the White House might be that any confirmation hearing before the election--whoever Bush nominates--might bring yet another round of attention to those never-found WMDs. (Some neocons quickly suggested that former CIA chief James Woolsey or Michael Leeden, an Iran-contra alumni now ensconced as a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute--aka Neocon Central--be handed the job. This is evidence some neocons live in a bizzaro, fantasy world. Can any neocon cheerleader of the war who was a fan of Chalabi--a suspected Iranian spy--serve as CIA chief? Woolsey's law firm even was a registered foreign agent representing Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress in Washington.)

The White House knows there will be a wave of bad news when the Senate report on the prewar intelligence is released. Why set up the opportunity for another? But it is not yet clear whether the Senate report will go beyond lashing the CIA. Last year, Democrats demanded that the committee not only examine the CIA's performance but also examine the Bush administration's use--or abuse--of the intelligence. Roberts resisted for weeks, and then relented. But how thoroughly did his presumably reluctant investigators pursue that end of the inquiry?

Tenet was responsible for the performance of the CIA regarding 9/11 and the WMDs in (or not in) Iraq. But it was Bush who kept Tenet in the post. More importantly, Bush should be accountable for how he used the material he got from the CIA. It is undeniable that Bush, when presenting his prewar case against Iraq, made false statements that went far beyond the information Tenet and his CIA produced. So Bush could use a fall guy. Is Tenet going out into the cold to become the patsy or to avoid being the mark? Whatever the true reason for Tenet's exit--and maybe he really is quitting for his family--the fellow who still needs to assume responsibility for the WMD scam is the man who received and accepted Tenet's resignation letter.

********************

DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! An UPDATED and EXPANDED EDITION is NOW AVAILABLE in PAPERBACK. The Washington Post says, "This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research....[I]t does present a serious case for the president's partisans to answer....Readers can hardly avoid drawing...troubling conclusions from Corn's painstaking indictment." The Los Angeles Times says, "David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case." The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations....Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." And GEORGE W. BUSH SAYS, "I'd like to tell you I've read [ The Lies of George W. Bush], but that'd be a lie."

For more information and a sample, go to the official website: www.bushlies.com. And check out Corn's NEW WEBLOG on the site.

The pioneering genius of political advertising, Tony Schwartz, used to preach that the most effective ads don't seek to convey information but to reach into the target audiences' mind to pluck the "responsive chords" already there. And Bill Schneider, the shrewd public opinion analyst, has said, "What the American people want most in a President is what they didn't have in the last one."

So perhaps one way of plucking the "responsive chords" of those four-in-ten Republicans who now say they would reconsider their support for Bush in November is to ask them such "responsive chord" questions as the offhand sampling below.

Would you rather have a President:

Who can change his mind when his vision of reality turns out to be mistaken? Or one who dares not change for fear of appearing weak?

Who believes that evidence necessary to justify a war has to be carefully weighed?Or one who is satisfied when his CIA director tells him the evidence is a slam-dunk?

Who fires advisors who have misled him? Or one who fears to reveal that he knows they have misled him?

Who asks a variety of wise men and women to advise him as well as God? Or one who thinks that it is enough that he hears and recognizes God's voice?

Who goes back to the Constitution for guidance on liberty and values? Or one who goes instead to religious fundamentalists?

Who, when considering healthcare policy, gives first priority to the health of children and parents? Or one who gives first priority to the interests of the drug and insurance corporations?

Who either confides in and trusts his Secretary of State or else replaces him? Or one who does not give his Secretary of State information that he discloses to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia?

Who, when on 9/11 he hears that Washington and New York are under deadly attack, takes charge immediately? Or one who, not knowing what to do, goes on reading to a third-grade class he is visiting?

Who can remember his mistakes, hence moves to remedy them? Or one who says he cannot remember any, hence cannot do any remedying?

Who claims victory when it is won? Or one who claims it before it is won?

Who gives a high priority to humane programs like keeping veterans off welfare? Or one whose priorities run instead toward insuring that corporate contributors like Halliburton receive profitable contracts?

Who faces the media frequently and accepts the obligation to inform press and public? Or one who fears the press and relies on one-liners to divert it?

Who reads some of the newspapers that oppose--or support--him. Or one who does not read any paper?

Who seeks advice from a wide array of energy experts and experienced people? Or one who draws heavily on the oil industry?

Who tries to understand the variety of Americans and the variety of their problems and needs? Or one who thinks his circle of friends is representative of America?

Who appoints a diverse committee to investigate how 9/11 could have happened? Or one who stacks the committee with allies and cronies?

Hopefully some of these questions will spark some "responsive chords." I also welcome readers' suggestions for questions. Click here to send them to me (one per reader!) and I'll post a sampling in the coming weeks.

(I also want to thank Nation Editorial Board member Michael Pertschuk, the former Chair of the FTC, co-founder of the invaluable Advocacy Institute and resident of a battleground state, for his suggestion that we try this project.)

* * *

Clarification: Several vigilant readers have complained that my weblog of June 2, "It's Not a War on Terror," is inaccurate because I mention Roosevelt telling Americans during World War II that they had nothing to fear but fear itself. They point out that his famous remark, which went, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," was from his first Inaugural Address in 1933, as the country confronted the Great Depression. I was paraphrasing Roosevelt in a general, not time-bound, way to illustrate how he used hope and courage--not fear--to inspire and lead America through the war and the Depression. Roosevelt's belief that it was dangerous to exploit fear is as relevant to the war years as it is to the Depression. Just think of his idea of the right to freedom from fear, how he made that a pillar of his Four Freedoms--and stood by that belief during the war years.

It's time to stop calling the post 9/11 struggle against terrorism a "war." Iraq is a (disastrous) war; Afghanistan was a brief one. But the struggle against stateless terrorists is not the same thing. And framing it as a war, as columnist Matt Miller argued earlier this year, "was a conscious decision made by Bush and Karl Rove and others in the first days after 9/11."

Rove understood that if the indefinite struggle against terror was generally framed as a "war," it would become the master narrative of American politics giving the GOP the chance to achieve "a structural advantage, perhaps in perpetuity" over Democrats.

The "war" metaphor, as retired American ambassador Ronald Spiers wrote in a provocative piece last March in the Vermont Rutland Herald, "is neither accurate nor innocuous, implying as it does that there is an end point of either victory or defeat.... A 'war on terrorism' is a war without an end in sight, without an exit strategy, with enemies specified not by their aims but by their tactics.... The President has found this 'war' useful as an all-purpose justification for almost anything he wants or doesn't want to do; fuzziness serves the administration politically. It brings to mind Big Brother's vague and never-ending war in Orwell's 1984. A war on terrorism is a permanent engagement against an always-available tool."

It's easy to see how this Administration has used the "war" as justification for almost anything. Just last week, Amnesty International's annual report exposed how the US has been flouting international human rights standards, "resulting in thousands of women and men suffering unlawful detention, unfair trial and torture--often solely because of their ethnic or religious background"--and all in the name of the "war on terrorism."

Labor rights have also been rolled back on behalf of the "war." Remember that Orwellian statement by the Undersecretary of the Treasury for Security in announcing that the Administration had denied 60,000 airport security screeners their collective bargaining rights. "Mandatory collective bargaining," retired Admiral James Loy said, "is not compatible with the flexibility required to wage the war on terrorism."

As I watched the celebration of Washington's WWII memorial this Memorial Day weekend, I was reminded of how, during the despair of World War II, a greater threat to the existence of our country than what we face today, President Roosevelt gave America a vision of hope and told us that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Yes, we all live in the shadow of September 11--a crime of monumental magnitude. But terrorism is not an enemy that threatens the existence of our nation; our response should not undermine the very values that define America for ourselves and the rest of the world.

This Administration has shamelessly exploited America's fear of terrorism for political purposes. ( It is as if, to paraphrase Roosevelt, this team has nothing to fear but the end of fear itself.) But a hyper-militarized war without end will do more to weaken our democracy, and foster a new national security state, than seriously address the threats ahead.

Yet few political leaders have the courage to say that what we face is not a "war" on terrorism, or that this President, as Ambassador Spiers said, "has found this 'war' an all-purpose justification for almost anything he wants or doesn't want to do." But by failing to challenge the "war" framing, we allow it to seep into the national psyche and let Rove and Co. get away with couching virtually all foreign policy discourse in terms of terrorism. The media also plays a role: "War" is the term used routinely not only by Fox "news" anchors and pundits but also in our top print outlets. It's then amplified in sensationalized TV wall-to-wall graphics.

It's a hopeful sign that John Kerry not so long ago questioned whether the "war" on terror is actually a war at all. "I don't want to use that terminology," he said. In his view, what we are engaged in is "not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering operation, law enforcement, public diplomacy effort." Kerry is right. It is time to end this political hijacking of our language and concentrate on the real struggle ahead.

As Shirin Ebadi, a champion of women and children's rights, the first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize and someone who has stood up to the fundamentalists in her native land of Iran, said the other day: "Governments don't just repress people with false interpretations of religion; sometimes they do it with false cant about national security."

See "Clarification" in the "Editors' Cut" for June 8.

Arizona's pioneering system of full public financing of political candidates, called the Clean Elections Act, is under fierce attack by wealthy special interests with deep pockets and national conservative ties that run all the way from Tom DeLay to Bush's fundraising machine. They've raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to put a constitutional referendum on the November ballot that could crush America's best hope for people-powered democracy.

As the lead editorial in the new issue of The Nation argues, progressives now need to rally like-minded citizens to defend Arizona's exemplary model of civic empowerment.

Thousands of small contributions can help beat back this big-donor funded attack on democracy. The Public Campaign Action Fund is asking people to contribute the manageable sum of five dollars (or more) to help keep Arizona "clean" and, if you have the time, to ask your friends to pitch in too.

Why five dollars? Under the Clean Elections Act, five dollars is the most a voter can give a candidate. Small donors mean as much to candidates as big donors because candidates take no big money from special interests whatsoever. Talk about the great equalizer. The bank president can't give more than the teller in his bank. Now you can understand why well-heeled developers, insurance companies, Bush "Pioneers" and corporate lobbyists are so hellbent on overturning the Act.

Please help thwart their efforts to undo a terrific democratic reform in Arizona. And check out The Action Fund's homepage for a range of ways you can help decrease Big Money's choke-hold on politics in the US today.