If true, this story illustrates why the machinery of intelligence and covert action should always be kept separate from the other instruments of policy and national power.Another issue - how in the world is Tenet as head of the CIA, or anyone working for him, going to give objective reports on the situation there if Tenet is stamping his name on diplomatic initiatives like the"Tenet Plan"?
It is also one of those times when one looks back at the decision to involve DCI George Tenent directly in negotiations in the Middle East (in his titular capacity, no less) as the height of folly.
Historians generally don't analyze events until they have historical perspective, because the distance allows them to see a broader picture. Most of the journalists doing the best work today are the ones outside of the Washington cliques (Murray Waas, Charles Savage, Knight Ridder/McClatchy), because they are able to be most objective. Similarly, good intelligence is aided by distance that allows objectivity, something you can't get when you are reporting on plans that you wrote yourself.