What Washington Politics Saw as a Slam Dunk

A “slam dunk” at the heart of a particular debate reveals to us a cross- section of American politics. I speak of the discord stemming from covert attempts to shirk responsibility for the Iraq War. It is a conflict that implicates the former president, the former vice president, the former director of the CIA and a star reporter. We could even say that all interesting elements have been laid out in a perfect arrangement. Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s recently published autobiography, “In My Time,” raised the issue once more, stirring renewed interest in a quiet dispute. The way in which the dispute’s biggest beneficiary spins his take on events has sparked a new debate.

Indicating certainty, “slam dunk” is now a term associated with former U.S. President George W. Bush’s resolve to go to war in Iraq. On Dec. 21, 2002, three months before the start of the war, a CIA report on Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction reached the Oval Office. When Bush commented on the unsatisfactory quality of the report, the then-director of the CIA, George Tenet, assured him that it was a “slam-dunk” case. And because it was linked to responsibility for the Iraq War, the initially trivial comment mushroomed into an authentic debate. Upon being pressed for further intelligence, Tenet casually repeated that it was a “slam dunk,” alluding to the perceived ease with which the administration could sell the war to the public.

With a different, controversy-sparking interpretation of “slam dunk” was Bob Woodward, a journalist who rose to prominence for his investigative reporting on the Watergate scandal. Woodward’s “Plan of Attack,” published in 2004, recounts the scene in the Oval Office: After Bush asks if the CIA report is “the best we’ve got,” Tenet allegedly mimes throwing a ball and assures him, twice, that the case is a “slam dunk.” This scene incited a fiery public reaction as WMDs remained undiscovered in Iraq, and responsibility for the war had yet to be claimed. Tenet suffered the consequences of faulty intelligence and ultimately resigned from the CIA, while the phrase “slam dunk” came to signify the 9/11-related disgrace of the CIA.

Three years later, Tenet wrote “At the Center of the Storm,” the memoir through which he attempted to restore his good name. He claimed that the Cheney camp had rallied with Woodward to turn the blame for the Iraq War onto the CIA and distorted the meaning of “slam dunk.” This was not inconceivable, given Cheney’s hard-line drive to lead the country to war since the 9/11 attacks. Tenet also argued that Woodward’s book, which relied only on unverifiable “insider” information, was used to create a scapegoat for the war.

In his autobiography, Cheney depicts the fateful Oval Office scene in the same way as Woodward, though making additional insinuations that Tenet has a habit of flattering the president. Cheney writes that when Bush pressed Tenet for more evidence that Iraq was in possession of WMDs, the former CIA director replied with his “slam dunk” remark. What’s more interesting, however, is that Cheney’s take differs from George W. Bush’s portrayal of the scene in his memoir, “Decision Points.” In this book, Bush claims to have said, “Surely we can do a better job of explaining the evidence against Saddam,” a comment with which Tenet simply agreed by replying, “It’s a slam dunk.” Taking Bush’s account into consideration, it is difficult to avoid questioning the connection between Cheney and Woodward. Although the target of Cheney’s account was Tenet, the arrow has unintentionally turned out to hit Woodward. As time passes, the slam dunk comes to shed more light on Washington politics.