Maybe this is how Bush “fires” people ? They want to “see their family” or “personal reasons” are given ?
No. This is how it’s done by all presidents of both parties. It’s how it’s done in major corporations around the world. It’s is nothing but pure idiocy to imply this is something unique to Bush.
Cite?
Thats what I thought, too.
And he doesn’t want to be in charge and blamed for it…
I’m not sure if you can ‘consult’ with a lawyer without paying them.
It’s likely that he’s talking to a lawyer that he’s paying.
Lawyers offer free consultations every day. I will grant that Bush is probably not talking to a lawyer who needs to drum up business, but I believe that if any money changed hands it would be reported. Consult with does not equal retained.
Bush says that Tenet did “a superb job”. Two weeks ago he said that Rumsfeld has done “a superb job”. Is the Bush administration like one of those kindergarten classes where everyone gets a gold star? What’s he gonna say about people who are doing jobs better than Rumsfeld and Tenet have done? They did a “supercalifragilistic-expealidocious job”?
I hope Tenet isn’t bailing in the face of something catastrophic. After all, it’s literally his job to know things that we don’t.
I hope his replacement is someone from the inside that actually knows how the CIA functions and not a cronyesque political appointee. Whether your ideology can tolerate the CIA or not, we need someone at the helm there that knows what they are doing. I would prefer someone with a Directorate of Operations background.
You may be correct - I see here that Scotty is saying as much:
So the WH is certainly making the distinction between “retaining” and “contacting” a lawyer, which seems a very subtle distinction to me, a spin that seems to imply that Bush and Sharp just exchanged voice mail or perhaps waved to each other in the park or something. 
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5123701/
In the story linked to, Bush himself says that he would probably hire him (the attorney) but hasn’t done so as yet.
After the examples of O’Neill and Clarke, I just can’t wait to read Tenet’s book…
Publishers will be salivating for that one.
In 3 weeks, he’ll release a book and work for CNN, then all the righties will say that everything he says is a lie to promote himself. Yay!
As far as I know, though, other presidents and corporations didn’t/don’t claim to be the big new thing in taking personal responsiblity.
If this is really Tenet’s own unexpected choice… well this could be the start of a few bombshells. The relationship with the administration had always been rocky, and Tenet was a lot closer to guys like Clarke than he was to the big players in the Bush administration.
Yes, but that portrayal is at least very misleading. This conversation happened months after the Bush administration had been selling the WMD issue to the American public as a slam-dunk. The particular conversation in question was about particular evidence with which to prove the case to the UN and others: it isn’t evidence that Tenet was the one selling the WMD issue to people in the administration.
Damn, that’s awesome! That guy can play a mean classical guitar.
Idiocy, or maybe just genuine ignorance of how these things usually work. I’m willing to cut the guy a break.
But yeah, John’s right. It is a major deal for someone in American politics to resign in protest or in disgrace; while I’m sure there have been examples of such behavior more recent than Nixon, I’m having trouble thinking of them. Jocelyn Elders, maybe? But that was, after all, a sex scandal, not a scandal of policy corruption or incompetence, and therefore was already a major deal.
Daniel
I figured it out! It was Gore that asked him to resign:
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/108574581888130.xml
When the almost barely President asks you to resign, especially a personal friend, you just can’t say no.
I agree with John that this is fairly standard practice. It should also be noted that it is used not only for “firings” but also for resignations for other reasons…such as frustration in being asked to carry out policies one does not find justifiable. For example, it has been noted that working at the EPA during the Bush Administration seems to be an excellent way to get in touch with one’s need to spend more time with one’s family.
Issue 1: The Novacio leak: Morton - Does the Prince of Darkness have dirty hands?
Oh never mind
The Prince of Darkness? Richard Perle? He’s got bloody hands.
I guess I just get tweaked when one of key members of the “Bush is stupid” chorus makes a comment like that. At any rate, there was probably a more tactful way of saying what I said.
I can think of a couple of ways to read this one:
1-Tenet falls on his sword, become’s Bushco’s convenient scapegoat vis-a-vis all the intelligence failures concerning 9/11, Iraq, and the more recent scandals – Plame, Chalabi and maybe even some of the Abuh Gharbi fallout (the CIA knew?).
Of course, in the above scenario, and more especifically, regarding the Iraq intel, we know that Tenet was just following orders by looking for reasons to invade – moreover his council was ignored when it conflicted with the WH’s agenda. The Niger yellow-cake tall tale comes to mind.
OTHO, Rove & Co are counting/hoping that the short memory of the undecided voters will have already erased those facts. If that’s the case and the spin works, it will seem that Bushco finally tackled the intel problem head-on and should be given a clean slate.
Beyond that, I have little doubt that some of the most hardcore ideologues will only have their “suspicions” confirmed: Never trust a Democrat. And even less if he’s a former Clinton appointee.
All is well now.
2-Tenet resigns for self-preservation motives. With his inside info, knows that we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg and he’s trying to put as much distance as possible between himself and the backwash.
If that’s the case, I expect him to become a whistleblower, though perhaps not in the traditional sense, books, interviews, etc., but rather though well placed leaks. Why? 'cause as has already been mentioned, his resignation, coming as it does at such a late date, would very much hurt his credibilty. IOW, why did he stay on for so long if he knew that the state of affairs was so messed-up? Does that not make him an accomplice anyway?
At any rate, I suspect we’ll be seeing some serious fallout from this one. Yet another Battle of The Spin looms ahead.
As an aside, while I very much doubt Gore’s speech had much of anything to do with his resignation, the timing is certainly er…interesting?
Buckle your seatbelts, this flight’s getting bumpier by the minute. Crash and burn in Nov? I for one, certainly think so. Or should that be, hope so? Guess I have a really hard time believing that the man who lost the popular vote in 2000 could possibly have garnered additional support during the four year train-wreck he’s reponsible for.