Apparently George Tenet is as incompetent as an ex-CIA chief as he was when he ran the agency, when it comes to getting the story right. Doug Feith reviews his book:

Echoes of “slam dunk” so vex former Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet that he has written a book. Had he never blurted those words to the president, Mr. Tenet tells us, he might not have written it. He wants to explain what the words meant and how they had so little importance on that December 2002 day in the Oval Office. Along the way, he wants to explain the intelligence community’s role in the lead-up to the Iraq war. His book does so, mainly through revelations he did not intend.

…The date, the physical descriptions, the quotation marks are all, in the words of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “Mikado,” “merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.”

…Fairness, evidently, was not Mr. Tenet’s motivating impulse as an author. His book is defensive. It aims low — to settle scores. The prose is humdrum. Mr. Tenet includes no citations that would let the reader check the accuracy of his account. He offers no explanation of why we went to war in Iraq. So, is the book useless? No.

What it does offer is insight into Mr. Tenet. It allows you to hear the way he talked — fast, loose, blustery, emotional, imprecise, from the “gut.” Mr. Tenet proudly refers to the guidance of his “gut” several times in the book — a strange boast from someone whose stock-in-trade should be accuracy and precision. “At the Center of the Storm” also allows you to see the way he reasoned — unimaginatively and inconsistently. And it gives a glimpse of how he operated: He picked sides; he played favorites. The people he liked got his attention and understanding, their judgments his approval; the people he disliked he treated harshly and smeared. His loyalty is to tribe rather than truth.

Read the whole thing.

[Sunday morning update]

More claims that Tenet is lying.

I didn’t watch it. Yeah, I know it was on, but it’s just too early for me to care. And I also think that these so-called “debates” are a bad joke. Particularly when the questions are loaded by liberal moderators.

But NRO did, and had a lot of live blogging on The Corner (no, not even going to link to specific posts–scroll, if you care). But Rich Lowry had some post-debate thoughts, and this was one that resonated strongly with me:

Rudy’s getting hit hard on his Roe answer. But it wasn’t a gaffe and it perfectly represented his view

I didn’t watch it. Yeah, I know it was on, but it’s just too early for me to care. And I also think that these so-called “debates” are a bad joke. Particularly when the questions are loaded by liberal moderators.

But NRO did, and had a lot of live blogging on The Corner (no, not even going to link to specific posts–scroll, if you care). But Rich Lowry had some post-debate thoughts, and this was one that resonated strongly with me:

Rudy’s getting hit hard on his Roe answer. But it wasn’t a gaffe and it perfectly represented his view

I didn’t watch it. Yeah, I know it was on, but it’s just too early for me to care. And I also think that these so-called “debates” are a bad joke. Particularly when the questions are loaded by liberal moderators.

But NRO did, and had a lot of live blogging on The Corner (no, not even going to link to specific posts–scroll, if you care). But Rich Lowry had some post-debate thoughts, and this was one that resonated strongly with me:

Rudy’s getting hit hard on his Roe answer. But it wasn’t a gaffe and it perfectly represented his view