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

Here’s another reason for Gonzales to resign.

Here’s a hilarious Fark thread on the increasing desperation of the Truthers in the wake of the Oakland bridge collapse:

I heard the tanker driver took driving lessons but didn’t want to learn how to park.

[Via LGF, who has a great graphic]

[A couple minutes later]

Oh, my gosh. There is a web site devoted to it. I’m pretty sure that it’s satirical, but with these people it’s hard to tell. Either way, it’s pretty funny.

Stanley Kurtz has a review of Evan Coyne Maloney’s documentary on political correctness run amok on college campuses:

I was struck by the scientist who said that her students were able to figure out her politics simply by noting what she did not say. Just by teaching her subject, without adding extraneous leftist political harangues, she had revealed herself to be a closet Republican. You won

Not that that’s a bad thing. Also known as “Cinco de Pinko.”

At Free Republic. The comments are a hoot:

Then and now:

One of the things that I’ve long criticized George Bush for was keeping so many losers on from the Clinton administration, Tenet being foremost, but Norm Mineta another. In the case of Tenet, it isn’t clear if this was part of “changing the tone in Washington,” or misplaced loyalty to a family friend. (Dan Goldin was yet another, but at least there he had the excuse that it’s hard to find a NASA administrator, not to mention the fact that he’d been appointed by his father.) Either way, it was a disaster.

Sunday night, Tenet gave the impression that any thought of Saddam and al Qaeda

Lileks, on fellow Minnesotan Garrison Keillor’s double standards and Bush derangement:

One can make the argument that the current Iraq strategy won