There's only so much a girl can read in a day, so I admit to not fully understanding what all the ire directed toward former CIA director George Tenet is about... It seems to me that his book only beefs up all the claims made by the UN, the Clinton Administration, France, MI6, Russia and the Bush Administration about al Qaeda in Iraq before the war, etc...?
Christopher Hitchens wrote an absolutely unapologetically scathing article about Tenet over on Slate:
"...So, the only really interesting question is why the president did not fire this vain and useless person on the very first day of the war. Instead, he awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom! Tenet is now so self-pitying that he expects us to believe that he was "not at all sure that [he] really wanted to accept" this honor. But it seems that he allowed or persuaded himself to do so, given that the citation didn't mention Iraq.
A highly irritating expression in Washington has it that "hindsight is always 20-20." Would that it were so. History is not a matter of hindsight and is not, in fact, always written by the victors. In this case, a bogus history is being offered by a real loser whose hindsight is cockeyed and who had no foresight at all." (source)
Regardless of the (many) mistakes made, I don't think we can pin all the blame on one guy (and I feel like that's what people are trying to do). I still blame Jamie Gorelick's wall more than any missteps at the CIA... But maybe I'm forgetting things? Am I way off here?