As you all know, George Tenet has a new book coming out where apparently he does the kiss-kiss with GW (don't want to cross those Bushies!) but mainly is out to protect his own ass. Now that Iraq is obviously a bust and the pre-war intel was baked like a deep-dish pizza, anyone associated with the machinations leading up to the war want to do their best to distance themselves from the fiasco. In this case, Mr. Presidential Medal of Freedom winner (hah!) wants to make clear his "slam dunk" statement was taken completely out of context (how dare those dastardly devils!) and gosh darn it, he's appalled!

Oh brother. How many years later do we have to hear this guy cry foul, perhaps prompted by as mentioned the Iraq fiasco fast unfolding, but also likely due to his need to offer up something, anything to justify the $4 million advance on the book.

Does anyone really care what any of these folks have to say at this point? It seems as if all of them lie and the fact is they were all involved in the hoodwinking and cookery of the intel from the start and I don't recall any of them crying foul then (of course not counting the likes of Richard Clarke).

But Tenet states, "There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat." Recall John DiIulio complained of a lack of any serious policy discussion within the White House. The question becomes: is anything ever seriously discussed within the most powerful house in the world? Oh, right, political strategy and tactics. Almost forgot.