That's "patricide", no? Sorry to be nit-picking :-)

An interesting quick read:

Remarks By George Bush
41st President of the United States,
At the Dedication Ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence
26 April 1999

excerpt:

The Soviet Union is no more. Some people think, "what do we need intelligence for?" My answer to that is we have plenty of enemies. Plenty of enemies abound. Unpredictable leaders willing to export instability or to commit crimes against humanity. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, narco-trafficking, people killing each other, fundamentalists killing each other in the name of God. These and more. Many more. As our analysts know, as our collectors of intelligence know - these are our enemies. To combat them we need more intelligence, not less. We need more human intelligence. That means we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. (Applause)

Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.

And when it comes to the mission of CIA and the Intelligence Community, George Tenet has it exactly right. Give the President and the policymakers the best possible intelligence product and stay out of the policymaking or policy implementing except as specifically decreed in the law.

narco-trafficking

The drug war is completely off the public radar.  Even as  Afghanistan grows more and more,  drug wars are even less important!!

Yup. I wrote about this a few days ago at my blog. I think there's something to it. But most of all, CI knows the full extent of Bush and Cheney's lies. They had to put up with the pressure. (And they are known to not play nicely with other children on all occasions. See "Running with Scissors through Central America.")

Not so fast. Try this link:
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/difficultwords/data/d0009660.html where 'parricide' is defined as "parricide:
n. killer or killing of parent, close relative, or king, etc. parricidal, a."
The same site defines 'patricide' as "patricide:
n. killing or killer of own father; traitor or act of treason. patricidal, a"

I would have to do some etymological research but a snap judgement would have me believe that 'parricide' derives from 'parentes' i.e. parents, or more generally ancestors while 'patricide' derives more directly from 'pater' i.e. father.

Does he get 72 virgins?  I just can't accept that if he does.  Maybe one virgin, but any more isn't right.  Sorry, it's just the way I feel. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

No, he'll get 72 Republican hookers...

And hopefully get diseased by every one of them...

This will prove God has a sense of humor.

Part of one comment above refers to the idea that if Bush launches the Iran war, it's all over for the US. We should focus on this. How can we assure that he cannot do this? I fear it will be our October 06 surprise.
Then any significance of who wins in the Nov 06 and 08 elections will be
tragically too late.

I don't know about the psychological motive to destroying the U.S., but there's definitely a pattern of marginalizing the CIA when it reports intelligence that an administration doesn't like. During the 80s when story after story reported that the USSR was in economic and social decline, these same people (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Woolsey, Podheritz) were claiming that the USSR was a military threat unsurpassed by any other - they were the evil empire. Later, when the USSR did fall apart, these same people were complaining that the CIA had no idea that was happening and failed to inform the Reagan administration.

It's very convenient to blame the CIA, because by its nature and regulations, it can't publicly fight back or set the record straight. The fact that there is so much leaking now, by the CIA, is a sign of how disruptive and damaging this kind of blame is.

I've given up on psychoanalysis of public figures from 1000 miles away. However, actions, especially of pathological liars like Bush and Rummy, speak oh so much louder than words.

I have to say I find it hyper-ironic that "left" or even liberal commenters weep and wail with lament on the decimation of the CIA - this agency toppled democratic governments around the world for 50 years.

What would Iran look like today if the CIA didn't topple Mosadeh (sp) in '53? She might be our closest ally! The CIA is basically just an arm of Presidential power - a particularly filthy one at that, because Presidents get to play dumb about it or say that interfering abroad without Congressional authorization is "classified."

Harry Truman truly cursed the U.S. by creating the "National Security State" with the Joint Chiefs, NSA and CIA. When all you have is the metaphorical hammer of Generals and spies, every thing in the world turns into a proverbial nail that must be pounded in by either spying or war. Spying and war have become the centerpiece of the US's identity to the world and even to itself. Anyone right of Noam Chomsky would call me "naive" at best and "idiotic" at worst for asserting that the CIA, Joint Cheifs and NSA are the greatest threat to the lives and liberty of not just US citizens but the entire globe's population.

Here's something else that's even more "naive": The idea that destabilizing democracies and waging war after war after war after war of choice won't "blowback" (the CIA's term for Karma) on to the US.

In the good old days when Yale and CIA were joined at the hip, proper CIA staffers had names like "Sebastian Wofflespoon III". Now they hire somebody out of The Sopranos credits actually called "Dusty Foggo". No wonder you get a lower class of cock-up.

Bush 41: Plenty of enemies abound. ... Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, narco-trafficking, people killing each other....

The Bush Wit is the gift which keeps on giving. That peculiar witless wit.

It's ultimately humiliating for the country to be saddled with this low rent psychodrama - a far more directly humiliating thing than people around the world wondering about Clinton's cock. This is flailing pathos which affects millions of destinies. The psycho stuff is a sideshow, but don't imagine for a second that this pathetic character - as such - isn't at the front of minds all around the world. It's a Very Special Dr Phil for a worldwide audience.

This is no criticism of Mark for pointing this out (on the contrary). This isn't overwrought at all. It's there. Bush's dad's name is on the very building, for pity's sake.

Interesting to compare Bush and George Allen in this context. Allen seems to be the same kind of resentful, bullying, con artist as W, but with less sublimation of these qualities (I think Allen is quite a bit less intelligent). I can see why nominating Allen in '08 makes a kind of progressive (small 'p') sense - it's a whittling away of pretense.

Great stuff Mark. I've never seen this mentioned either.

I don't know how old you are, but I remember that time very well. I distinctly remember Norm Podheritz (sp?) writing an article for a major newspaper in which he criticized the CIA for there view that the USSR was on the ropes. That was in fact, one reason why Reagan was so adamant that it was an "evil empire". All other reports were to the contrary. I also remember a report on PBS which had information sourced to a CIA leak, that the "feared" Russian pilots were draining their planes of anti-freeze in order to make liquor. When the USSR did fall, the Reaganites claimed that the CIA had either not informed them or missed the signs entirely - how can the CIA prove that they did inform him? It can't, other than by leaking to the press.

His term at CIA (and as VP during Contragate) is almost as well noted for massive drug smuggling by the CIA.

Which, according to some accounts, has now resumed on the watch of Bush Junior under the control of a Porter Goss relative in Geneva, Switzerland. (At least, the guy's last name is Goss - coincedence? I think not.)

Assume whatever you want. I remember quite a few stories in the 80s about the conflict between the Reagan admin and the CIA. I mentioned Podhoretz as one example. I can't say I care all that much.

I can't say I care all that much.

That's a shame. We spend forty plus billion dollars a year on the CIA. I'd have thought you'd want to get something useful for that kind of money.

The "right information"? I think you'd better reread the NIE.

Somehow, your $40 billion faith-based justification doesn't impress me.

b