It doesn't take long, and Richard Perle comes up with his own answer to George Tenet's book. Never mind how much fact he leaves out. Let me see, how to begin: Prior to 9/11/2001, AG John Ashcroft was publicly reported in the New York Times as cutting counter terrorism funding. Richard Clarke confirms in his book, "Against all Enemies" that this was so. The fact that AG Ashcroft didn't seem to be very interested in the threat of terrorism as posed by Al Qaeda must also have meant that neither was anyone else in the Bush administration all that interested. Again, Mr. Clarke takes note of it, as does other writers. Post 9/11/2001 and publicly before the 9/11 Commission, AG Ashcroft tried attacking former President Clinton as the man solely responsible for why Ashcroft hadn't taken a greater interest in the threat of terrorism. Ashcroft's policy decisions in running the Justice Department, had nothing to do with the CIA. Nor can Ashcroft blame his screw ups on the preceding administration.
Bob Woodward writes 2 admiring books about GW Bush and finally a realistic portrayal of the sort of mess GW made of the war on terror as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the messes that can be applied to the Bush administration: letting over 100 Saudis leave the U.S. in the days post 9/11/2001 as noted in Vanity Faire. Michael Moore would take not of it as did the Inland Northwest Inlander. It was also publicly revealed that GW wanted censored Saudi involvement in supporting terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. Just as various news magazines also reported that GW fought with the 9/11 victims over compensation and the right to sue the Saudi government because 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers had come from that country.
Yes, dear readers, this comes from reading newspapers and news magazines such as Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. Where the public knowledge had existed all along, why is Perle attacking Tenet over issues that the rest of the country could easily educate itself on?
When Richard Armitage outed Valerie Plame Wilson out of some petty revenge because Ambassador Joe Wilson had serious questions regarding shipments of yellowcake uranium out of Niger and into Hussein's hands? Would Mr. Perle respect the fact that in Armitage's doing so, he let his ideology trump the law and called into question national security itself? Yet, Perle can blithely attack Tenet who's organization Armitage had done the utmost damage to, as though Valerie Plame Wilson never existed. The incident had simply never happened. And yet, Time Magazine as well as the New York Times found themselves in a peck of trouble with the Special Prosecutor assigned to investigate what laws if any were broken in the vendetta style outing of Ms. Wilson. With Armitage at last admitting that he destroyed her "cover." Since Ms. Wilson worked on WMD intelligence, that was a serious blow indeed to our effectively dealing with that aspect of terrorism. GW seems a little too willing to commit to war with the CIA. The very people who are supposed to guide his policy decisions on crucial matters. Or why did GW decide to let the CIA hang out to dry when Iraq failed to be the land of OZ as GW would like it to have been ("The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.") Tenet asserted that he is not the guy who could make policy decisions, only provide intelligence to guide policy decisions. So why is Perle attacking Tenet over a matter, say Iraq, that Tenet could in no way have "made policy for." If Perle would like to attack anyone for the mess that is Iraq today, he could actually begin with himself. After all, wasn't he one of the people who tried to argue that the Iraqi people would love us as liberators?
Finally, in an excerpt of Tenet's book as found in Time magazine Tenet discusses the lack of understanding of the Democratic process as coming from the Bush administration vis a vis Iraq. Tenet happened to be absolutely correct. On CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," prior to the invasion of Iraq, Dobbs hosted people who argued what we, (the west) must do for Iraq. Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld wished to create in Iraq a western style democracy. Yes, on Lou Dobbs show, those ideologues representing the Bush administration, argued what we in America should do vis a vis Iraq. Literally, what we would impose on that people. Perle doesn't bother taking those facts into account, but Tenet most assuredly did.
Bob Woodward writes 2 admiring books about GW Bush and finally a realistic portrayal of the sort of mess GW made of the war on terror as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the messes that can be applied to the Bush administration: letting over 100 Saudis leave the U.S. in the days post 9/11/2001 as noted in Vanity Faire. Michael Moore would take not of it as did the Inland Northwest Inlander. It was also publicly revealed that GW wanted censored Saudi involvement in supporting terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. Just as various news magazines also reported that GW fought with the 9/11 victims over compensation and the right to sue the Saudi government because 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers had come from that country.
Yes, dear readers, this comes from reading newspapers and news magazines such as Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. Where the public knowledge had existed all along, why is Perle attacking Tenet over issues that the rest of the country could easily educate itself on?
When Richard Armitage outed Valerie Plame Wilson out of some petty revenge because Ambassador Joe Wilson had serious questions regarding shipments of yellowcake uranium out of Niger and into Hussein's hands? Would Mr. Perle respect the fact that in Armitage's doing so, he let his ideology trump the law and called into question national security itself? Yet, Perle can blithely attack Tenet who's organization Armitage had done the utmost damage to, as though Valerie Plame Wilson never existed. The incident had simply never happened. And yet, Time Magazine as well as the New York Times found themselves in a peck of trouble with the Special Prosecutor assigned to investigate what laws if any were broken in the vendetta style outing of Ms. Wilson. With Armitage at last admitting that he destroyed her "cover." Since Ms. Wilson worked on WMD intelligence, that was a serious blow indeed to our effectively dealing with that aspect of terrorism. GW seems a little too willing to commit to war with the CIA. The very people who are supposed to guide his policy decisions on crucial matters. Or why did GW decide to let the CIA hang out to dry when Iraq failed to be the land of OZ as GW would like it to have been ("The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.") Tenet asserted that he is not the guy who could make policy decisions, only provide intelligence to guide policy decisions. So why is Perle attacking Tenet over a matter, say Iraq, that Tenet could in no way have "made policy for." If Perle would like to attack anyone for the mess that is Iraq today, he could actually begin with himself. After all, wasn't he one of the people who tried to argue that the Iraqi people would love us as liberators?
Finally, in an excerpt of Tenet's book as found in Time magazine Tenet discusses the lack of understanding of the Democratic process as coming from the Bush administration vis a vis Iraq. Tenet happened to be absolutely correct. On CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," prior to the invasion of Iraq, Dobbs hosted people who argued what we, (the west) must do for Iraq. Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld wished to create in Iraq a western style democracy. Yes, on Lou Dobbs show, those ideologues representing the Bush administration, argued what we in America should do vis a vis Iraq. Literally, what we would impose on that people. Perle doesn't bother taking those facts into account, but Tenet most assuredly did.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment