Friday, April 27, 2007
Fall-Up Guy
George Tenet refutes the White House line on his (in)famous "Slam-Dunk" prophecy claiming it has been used out of context by various, most notably Darth Cheney, administration hacks. Tenet may be trying to absolve himself from blame in the Iraq scandal but, at the end of the day, his clumsy fingerprints are all over the scene of the crime. That one cliched phrase could bring down this close 'Bush Family' ally is not worthy of scrutiny, Tenet got out from under whilst the going was turning from good to sloppy but his key role in the lead up to war is irrefuteable. The '02 NIE was most probably doctored or, at the very least, the necessary caveats for the far-reaching speculatives removed. The fact that most of the explosive intelligence contained within the NIE was single sourced and from mostly dubious, self-interested parties can only lead to one conclusion - the whole thing was an horrendous con-job. That it partially cited several other intelligence sevices from around the world gave only scant credence to a document that, at its time of publication and digestion, was being roundly refuted and ridiculed by non-partisan experts from both here and abroad. I remember reading at the time a lot of the articles and papers cited in the recent, brilliant Bill Moyers documentary and was always wary of this administrations claims. It wasn't difficult to find those counter claims to the 'Aluminum Tubes', 'Mobile Chemical Labs', 'Yellowcake', 'Meetings in Prague', 'Al Qaida in Iraq' etc. I merely logged on to a European web-site or went to the BBC on-line with which Blair was having a terrible time. There for all to see was proof positive that American intelligence was at best faulty and at worst completely fabricated. When Powell went to the UN I watched amazed that the same stuff I had seen debunked only days and weeks before was being regurgitated by a once well respected statesman and who sat behind him through the whole tawdry ordeal, Mr. Tenet and lordy, Negreponte. Right then the rest of the world knew that a pile was about to be unloaded. That Powell's reception was cool and the aftermath mixed - at least they weren't rolling around the aisles in paroxisms of laughter - Tenet should have known that the jig was up. Right then he should have gone public and blown the whole flimsy operation wide open, then he may have garnered our respect. To write a book that continues to defend this buffoon of a president whilst attacking his personal tormentors within the cabinet and with nary a tilt to his own shortcomings and failings, after 27,000 casualties on our side alone smacks of the cruelest and most cynical arrogance. When it really mattered - you kept your mouth shut - now... who gives a damn about another internal republican scandal, it's difficult just keeping up with the ones we already have.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I'm laughing right out loud at your use of the word "non-partisan" in the same sentence as Bill Moyers. Well, I guess it's not the same sentence, but you get the point.
Nobody's non-partisan. It seems to me that you associate the word "non-partisan" with partisans you agree with.
Well-intentioned souls like us can argue until our last breaths about the NIE, and "single-sourced...mostly dubious, self-interested parties". Here's the truth. That's the nature of intelligence. We didn't have perfect information before Iraq. We still don't now. Intelligence-gathering is a process of assembling a narrative out of dissociated bits of information gleaned from dubious, self-interested sources and about people who are trying desperately to conceal their aims.
In a perfect world, no one would ever have to make a decision without all the facts. In real life, people have to make choices based on incomplete information.
At the time that the Administration was contemplating Iraq, the received wisdom of our intelligence, as well as that of every other meaningful intelligence agency in the world was that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD, and that he was actively collaborating with bin Laden. Those views did not originate with the Bush administration.
Leaders have to make judgement calls. Bill Clinton opted not to take out bin Laden repeatedly during the '90's when it would have been easy. We got 9/11 as a result.
On September 10, 2001, America's biggest security issue was Saddam Hussein. We had thousands of troops there enforcing sanctions, we had to go back and bomb the shit out of him again in 1998, Richard Clarke and Bill Cohen were convinced that that aspirin factory Clinton bombed was a joint venture with Saddam and bin Laden, I could go on and on. And all because we lacked the balls to do what we should have done in 1991.
Bush made the right call. We were absolutely right to take out Saddam. Was the intelligence wrong? What difference does it make? Sooner or later, we were going to have to either lift the sanctions, at which time Saddam would have reconstituted all his WMD capability, or stay there and babysit forever while the country completely disintegrated.
Better to give the Iraqi's a chance for freedom, which in the long run is the antidote to bin Ladenism.
The great irony is, by the standards of just about any military campaign in history, OIF is a stunning success. We accomplished our primary military objective almost immediately. We've struggled with the incredibly difficult job of building a new democracy from the ground up, but it is taking shape.
We seem to be about to surrender Iraq to al Qaeda not because they are defeating our soldiers but because we can't stop them from slaughtering defenseless civilians.
It seems to me that that is why we must stay and prevail. We cannot allow ourselves to reward that savagery, or we will surely see more of it.
Bipartisan was in the sentence before and was related to a completely different subject than the Bill Moyers show, which, I am sure you neglected to watch because you are still spouting false intelligence claims. The problem with the intelligence gathering within this administration was; rather than assembling they left it up to Doug "The stupidest man on the fucking planet" Feith to dissemble all the reliable intelligence in favor of what Cheney wanted to hear. If your lack of faith in intelligence existed before the war, perhaps you would not have been so gung-ho at the time and so trusting in this group of leaders now. The fact that we failed to plan for the aftermath of our glorious victory over this third rate power, who's ties to Al Qaida have been completely and utterly refuted, is the reason we can not allow them to continue this debacle. For such a smart guy, I remain puzzled at your consistent backing of this failed policy, we will not be defeated if we remove our combat forces from Iraq rather, we will be more able to go after the real threat which is and always has been Al Qaida, who continue to grow in strength, sophistication and reach - see Algeria. Whilst, we flounder in a sectarian civil war losing men, materiel and prestige.
By the way... good to have you back!!!
Sigh...England and America, two countries separated by a common language. Did you even read anything I wrote? What did I say that was false?
And, by the way, how do you know with the metaphysical certainty you seem to posses, that there were no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Since when is it possible to prove a negative?
You're locked on to your Daily Kos talking points like Rosie O'Donnell on the last biscuit with gravy.
The fact is, RC, you can't know that. By the way, I'm not saying that I know there were ties. The point I was trying to make is that under the best of conditions, intelligence rarely if ever gives us certainty. Under Clinton appointee Tenet, the CIA had just about gotten out of the covert agent business. The fact is, we had no idea what the fuck was going on in Iraq. Bin Laden and Saddam could have been gay lovers for all we knew.
Let me ask you this. If tomorrow new information came to light proving beyond doubt that Saddam had WMD and had a collaborative relationship with bin Laden, would you reverse course and support the war?
Somehow I doubt it. I think you're so caught up in hating Bush that you've lost your ability to think objectively on this matter.
I think it's beyond stupid at this late date to be debating "intelligence". We did not know for sure, but our best guess was that Saddam had WMD and ties to bin Laden. Again, those beliefs did not originate with the Bush Administration. Go back and read accounts of the bombing of the al Shifa plant. That was believed to be a joint venture between Saddam and bin Laden.
Now, all that "intelligence" has gone down the memory hole. Why? Could there be politics at play?
Anyway, the larger point is this: I reject the entire paradigm where we tolerate an overt, active enemy of the United States and the free world in general like Saddam that we could rely on "intelligence" to determine the precise moment to defend ourselves.
He was a monster. He was unrepentant.
And why on earth are good liberals such as yourself so bent on defending the worst human rights violator on the planet? For shame!
So I will go on defending this war. I believed in 2003 that it was the right thing to do. I still believe so today. I felt it would take about ten years to get a democratic Iraq up on its feet, and that it would be worth the blood and treasure to do so because the prize would be a Mideast moving towards modernity and hence a much freer, safer and more peaceful world.
Finally, RC, the principal battlefield against al Qaeda in the world is Iraq. That is beyond dispute. There is nowhere else where our troops are engaged with them. At the end of the day, I somehow doubt the American people really want to lose this war to them, despite their weariness.
Firstly - I am not a 'Bush Hater', I was for him before I was against him with regards to the aftermath of 9/11. I wanted us to decimate the Taliban and dismantle - with extreme prejudice - Al Qaida. I am not a terrorist loving dirty fucking hippy and never have been. I have digested and absorbed more than my fair share of Real-Politik over the years and understand the necessities inherent in an ideological struggle. These are 'long wars', incremental and fought on many fronts - black-ops, espionage, military engagements and diplomatic engagements all play a part. I was fully invested in the GWOT and remain steadfast in my contempt for Al Qaida and it's spawn. Neocons and patriotic fabulists like your good self do not hold a monopoly on outrage and moral justification nor do you have a monopoly on the solutions to rid ourselves of this scourge. That this administration attacked Iraq and attacked anyone who refused to countenance their actions was enough for me to question their true intentions in this 'great game'. To stabilize and democratize the middle east was/is a lofty goal far beyond the comprehension and capabilities of this administration and perhaps any administration whose only strategy is to find a target rich environment and bomb it back to the stone age without thought or planning for the aftermath and the effect those actions may have on its allies and strategic partners in the region. It's not the constant display of arrogance, hubris and incompetence I despise about this administration, its the total lack of honesty, the systemic aversion to reality and the suicidal adherence to failed policy. I'll ask you a few simple questions; if we had found WMD and a 'Nucular' program and established links between Al Qaida and Iraq in '03, would we still be there? Would you and the American people be interested in nation building after the glorious victory and ticker-tape parades? Would you be interested/fully invested in Middle East stability and democratization once Chalabi was installed in Iraq and we had secured the oil fields. Where would we have gone next to satisfy the blood lust and assauge our irrational fears about the end of civilization? When will we stop utilizing the Book of Revelation as a foreign policy tool?
That this administration attacked Iraq and attacked anyone who refused to countenance their actions was enough for me to question their true intentions in this 'great game'.
Why? There was ample reason to attack Iraq. And whom did the administration attack, exactly? I'd say what they did was to make their case and put it to a vote.
I can't speak for the rest of the country, but for me, the nation-building was really the point of the whole exercise. That's why I agreed with the strategy of using "boots on the ground" as opposed to simple annihilation from the air. So, I don't really think things would have gone any differently if we had found WMD.
I'll agree that it was a lofty goal, and I think the real reason you guys all hate the chimp was because he actually tried it.
Deep down, I know that you know that spreading freedom over there is the best hope we have of someday living in peace with those people. If all the administration wanted to do was bomb them into the stone age, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble, and Bush would be riding at about 80% in the polls right now.
It just makes you crazy that the guy actually did the right, honorable thing and won't be bullied out of it.
Phoooey!
Post a Comment