On The Brink
Tyler Drumheller, the recently retired CIA Chief for the European Division during the build up for the war in Iraq is out with a great new book, On the Brink. Tyler's account takes you inside the CIA during the month before 9-11 and through the start of the war in Iraq. He was in charge of all U.S. clandestine operations in Europe, including Turkey. But beyond a look back at what went wrong with Iraq from an intelligence perspective, Tyler offers a devastating critique of how the Bush Administration has engaged in an unprecedented politicization of the CIA. In corrupting the intelligence community the Bush Administration has put the nation at greater risk and hobbled an important government resource.
Tyler's book is unique because it offers the first insider's account about the events surrounding the build up to the war in Iraq, including the backstory on Curveball (the Iraqi fabricator) and the interactions with our British and Turkish allies. (Although CIA censors prevented Tyler from naming specific countries, a careful reader can easily pick out who is who.) On the Brink is a perfect companion to the other books published this year recounting the fabrication and failure that is Iraq--Fiasco (by Tom Ricks), Hubris (by David Corn and Michael Isikoss), Cobra II (by Bernard Trainor and Michael Gordon), Imperial Life in the Emerald City (by Rajiv Chandrasekaran), The One Percent Doctrine (by Ron Suskind), and State of Denial (by Bob "late to the party" Woodward). Taken as a whole, these volumes tell a disturbing and horrifiying story of how our nation's security has been hijacked and squandered by the very people sworn to protect it. Tyler fleshes out the intelligence portion of the story.
Tyler fought an uphill battle in trying to get this book out. CIA editors did their best to quash the story and keep it off the shelves before the November elections. Notwithstanding the bureaucratic and procedural obstacles erected to thwart the book, Tyler still manges to tell a compelling story.
On the Brink is not another bash Bush book. Drumheller makes it very clear that George W. Bush alone is not the cause of the fiasco unfolding along the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates. Within the CIA, Tyler points an unwavering finger at George Tenet and his deputy, John McLaughlin. They were warned by Tyler that Curveball, the source claiming firsthand knowledge of mobil biological weapons labs in Iraq, was a fraud. And they did nothing. When the full story of the debacle surrounding Iraq is finally told, Tenet and McLaughlin will deserve the scorn of their countrymen rather than medals of freedom. They failed to stand strong when it counted and enabled a flawed President to take our country to war in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This was not an easy book for Tyler to write. He genuinely liked Tenet and was not about to tell tales out of school. He also was old-school; committed to protecting sources and methods. He writes with a measure of humility that is a virtue not commonly found in Washington, DC. But he has performed a public service. He traces the dismantling of the intelligence communtiy by political operatives and sounds an important alarm, reminding all who will listen that we need a professional intelligence service staffed by talented men and women if we are to safely navigate the troubled waters of the 21st Century.
Translation:
The mobile biological weapons labs were a lie.
It was known to be a lie within the CIA.
It was known to be a lie by Tenet and McLaughlin.
And there the chain stops. Tenet sat in the UN behind Colin Powell to give credibility to his speech.
Tenet knew that the story of the labs was a lie. Or he clearly knew that it could be a lie.
Did Tenet ever mention this to Powell, at or before the UN Speech?
Did Powell ever ask?
Or did Powell simply go along to get along, and shut his mouth. Asked no questions?
We know that Tenet met with President Bush and V.P. Cheney.
Did Tenet ever get around to mentioning that the weapons labs were lies, or might be lies?
Did President Bush know the Mobile Labs were lies? Was he told they might be lies?
If you know something might be a lie, but present it as fact anyway, does that mean that you are recklessly indifferent to the truth or falsity of your assertions?
If so, how is that different from lying?
Where's SFCWallace when you need him>
October 30, 2006 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enabled and begun by Tenet and continued by Goss. Giving the Medal of Honor to George Tenet? Damn I wouldn't be surprised if Bush tries to name CIA Headquarters after Goss. El Presidente Bush and his Junta has turned CIA into a nice little propaganda tool for the RNC and in doing so compromed the reputation/effectiveness of the institution and puts our nation in greater peril. I just hope when the Junta goes out with a whimper in 2 years that some of the good people run out of Langley decide to come back. Their service to our country is far more important than any use (abuse) that partisan politicians might have in store for them if they do not give the answers desired (aka forced to lie or risk losing their job). They should never again be trivialized by term limited executives like they have been for the last 5+ years. And between now and then hopefully more will stand up and be counted...
October 30, 2006 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tenet, Powell, Bush, Cheney, McLaughlin have all failed the American people. SFC is probably home worshipping in front of the Buddha-like shrine he's probably built in honor of George W. Moron.
Tom
October 30, 2006 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
We know to be angry at those whose best is excuse is only following orders. Unlike after WWII, however, those who gave the orders are alive and well, and unlike their followers, they're in the political arena, where voters have decisions to make. Let's hammer home the distinction.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 30, 2006 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If you know something might be a lie, but present it as fact anyway, does that mean that you are recklessly indifferent to the truth or falsity of your assertions"
A while ago Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt wrote a tiny little book called "On Bullshit"
His analysis, in part, is that the bullshitter and the liar are not the same: the bullshitter is much worse. Have not read the little tome for a while so forgive me if I do not do justice to Frankfurt's analysis. It seems that a bullshitter is in fact indifferent to truth and falsity. His/her aim is not to communicate information (which by definition is veridical). His/her aim is to mold people's personal belief systems in such a way that it is advantageous to him/her and/or to some "cause" they are promoting. A liar merely wants to deceive some person or persons to believe a falsehood. The bullshitter simply mixes lying and truth as different flavors in his/her narrative. The bullshitter is indifferent to the primordial function of language: to convey truth.
October 30, 2006 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am still waiting for someone to tell me the story behind the sudden resignation of Porter Goss:
the top 3 guys at the CIA are fired, and it is all ho-hum, nothing to see here.
The Washington Press are worthless.
October 30, 2006 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The function of language is to facilitate communication, language does not care about truth.
The point about bullshitting is well taken though. Bullshitting attempts to completely undermine the concept of truth. A liar knows very well what the truth is, a bullshitter doesn't care.
October 31, 2006 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are two aspects to this - there's the lying, and I agree that one has to take an absurdly narrow definition of "lying" not to conclude this counts as a whopper.
But there's also the hubris and, in my opinion, a betrayal of the country by staking national credibility on demonstrably unreliable evidence.
This article here is a useful summary. Some of the key points:
- Curveball was an asset of the German intelligence service, and someone who the CIA had apparently never interviewed;
- The Germans repeatedly warned us that Curveball was "crazy";
- Many of Curveball's allegations were stories he had probably gleaned from the internet;
- Curveball had not witnessed any WMD production;
- Post-invasion, Curveball's personnel files confirmed he was a low-level engineer, dismissed in 1995 (and his WMD allegations post-dated his firing).
Got it? The Germans (then chairing the UN Security Council) had told us Curveball was a frabricator, and we presented Curveball's evidence back at them as fact.
Can quite understand why Drumheller has it in for his former bosses - after all, he had to deal with the fall-out from this brazen mendacity. And I hope this has been sufficiently explained in his book.
October 31, 2006 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want to see the book come out on how the Neocons have infiltrated and politisized NPR and CPB. It might make good reading, and is just as big a threat to the USA. If the people knew what the government was doing.... but there is no one left to report it to the general public except Pacifica News Service, and no one listens to them.
October 31, 2006 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boys, as far as I'm concerned, its all lying to me.
As far as I'm concerned, lets lay to rest forever any notion that the US government was mistaken or mislead or suffered bad intelligence.
It was lies. The war was based on lies. The occupation is based on lies. 650,000 people dead for lies. 500 billion spent for lies. 3000 American soldiers killed for lies.
October 31, 2006 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, but the point is that most Americans did not or could not believe that their government would lie about such matters.
They were led by the nose to that belief by Bullshitters like Rush and Fox News. Those people also knew that the administration was lying.
They didn't care.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
October 31, 2006 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is that utter lack that is of most concern. That is what most people do not understand and/or have a hard time believing.
I don't know how many times friends or family of mine have said "But they WOULDN'T do that!"an thusly dismissed my concerns about this administration. It has happened so many times, however, that now these same people that used to dismiss my concerns bring their concerns about this administration to me.
I think a similar type of thing is happening across the country as people overcome their incredulity. That incredulity is exactly what this administration has counted on, and probably continues to do so to some extent.
LOL, perhaps they are experiencing some incredulity of their own. They just can't BELIEVE the American public have caught on to them.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
October 31, 2006 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I seem to recall that both Democratic and Republican governments lied to American citizens about bombing North Vietnam, invading Cambodia and Laos, about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and a bunch of other little things.
Then there was the nifty set of Republican lies about Iran Contra.
Why are Americans so gullible. There's such a nifty history of lies.
October 31, 2006 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know what you mean and this phenomena has puzzled me for some time. One hypothesis I have is that most people are intellectually lazy, they want to go about their routine, day to day business without being too challenged. Authority figures are of value to them in doing this. Questioning authority is frightening to most people for many reasons not the least of which is that it will force them to actually do some hard intellectual work.
Also, many people see their interests as aligned with authority figures. This is reinforced by the mass media. The feedback loop created by the comfort the media instills, the comfort that the viewer is aligned with the majority (which is likely evolutionarily hard wired)encourages more viewing of the message. To question authority is to be cast adrift.
All of this could be viewed with compassion under certain circumstances I suppose. However present circumstances require something more than, what I see as reprehensible, intellectual lassitude.
Are they looking for a new authority? Are they still not willing to engage in the arduous task of critical thinking? Once the media starts to hint at the possibility that the current authorities might not be authorities, that they might have been wrong, the lazy will scurry to find the shelter of some other leaders. Don't confuse this with a loss of incredulity. Alas.October 31, 2006 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am endlessly fascinated by human nature and the way our minds work. When I exercise in the morning, I've been listening on tape to the book Stumbling on Happiness by Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert. One of the points Gilbert makes is that, whenever there is a factual ambiguity to be exploited, we each tend to see in this ambiguity what we want to see. This seems to me what's so dangerous about people with ideologies of all stripes and the will to power and those on the receiving end who aren't curious and don't have the desire or capacity to think critically but just want someone, some authority figure, to come to the rescue and make everything ok.
Even so, the lengths to which this administration is willing to go to exploit the magical thinking and rabid denial of those in this country who, for their own needs, are prone to support them is, to say the least, shocking. What the rest of us can do about any of this other than stand up and give voice to how we see what's true and what isn't is still unclear to me.
None of this is an abstract concern to me. Several months ago I moved my extreme right-wing, fundamentalist, FOX-addicted, Bush supporting father in with me because he is ill and needed to be cared for. We've been sparring over politics and religion and human nature ever since. Just the other day, he tells me, much to my surprise, he is voting the Democratic ticket and agenda in this election. He said he's never seen things worse in this country and though he's still not sure why things are this bad he thinks it's because the current government lacks any checks and balances and the people running things must therefore accept responsibility. For me, this is genuine shock and awe.
October 31, 2006 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just Americans. Propaganda has been used on people on a large scale certainly since the time of WWI.
Tom
October 31, 2006 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good for your dad for being open-minded enough to change.
Tom
October 31, 2006 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is also true that people view authority figures as "winners" and people like to be on the side of a winner.
Also, note Rove's, and perhaps other Repub operatives and politicians, saying that their party will retain the majority in both legislative branches following the Nov. election. Given the "winner" phenomenon, the purpose of and the response to the message are predictable. What is inexplicable is the "winner" phenomenon itself.
October 31, 2006 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here lies the problem. We need to put that notion to bed. All Americans need to come to the realization that government can not be trusted, not ever. During the lead up to the war, too many Americans just sat there eating up Bush's bullshit with a shovel. They crapped their pants at the talk of mushroom clouds and remote controlled airplanes. No one in Congress or the press challenged the Bush administration's assertions.
The White House banged the war drum, Congress sung the melody and the Press took notes and clapped when it was all over. This was a complete break down in our government.
But it's not just the government's fault. I protested the war prior to the invasion in Seattle. All around the world people were protesting the war. Not everyone was clueless, but too many were completely clueless. We need more critical thinkers in this country.
My point is that we all need to be engaged in sustaining our republic. We need accept the failure in Iraq as a failure on all Americans. I know I could have done more. Then we need to figure out a way to move forward and make certain it doesn't happen again.
October 31, 2006 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I protested in New York. I remember the police snipers on the roofs quite clearly.
You need to remember the utter aggressiveness with which the Iraq war was presented. It's taken three and a half long years for us "Libs" to gorw a pair and serve it back to them.
How to do more? How about zero tolerance for agressive tactics, like the President of the United States calling half of his constituents traitors.
It didn't work too well for Joe Lieberman, and I hope we kick his sorry butt on Tuesday.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
October 31, 2006 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before my time, I'm afraid. I didn't realize what liars we had in government ntil Condi Rice said (paraphrasing) "we never expected them to use planes as weapons."
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
October 31, 2006 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thats why we have books. For the history. But let's face it, this is an administration which has turned lying into, not an art form, but an assembly line. They've adapted the mass production techniques abandoned in factories to this stuff. It's almost impossible to keep up.
October 31, 2006 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vietnam was a complete con job, just as Iraq is. See Robert Scheer's column today at truthdig.com.
Tom
November 1, 2006 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me, this sounds as the basic receipt for anarchy.
Who will gain from that?
November 1, 2006 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this worked the same abroad: The Americans WOULDN'T do that!
This may explain not only why quite a few were supportive or ambivalent (like myself) of the idea of invading Iraq, but also the shock and disappointment in the following years.
- Particularly, I would say, many are stunned by the mutedness and weakness of the institutions (including the political opposition on federal level) that were expected to protest and correct the transgressions.
November 1, 2006 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the early days of my career, a senior practitioner took out a nickel and showed it to me.
He said, "IN GOD WE TRUST, everyone else pays cash."
I always took that to be a committment to skepticism and rationalism.
To refuse to trust the government is not the same as a rejection of government or its works.
Rather, it is a rejection of the notion of uninformed consent. It is rejection of the notion of submission through faith.
Ronald Reagan said 'trust but verify' and I think that he had the right of it, in that one case.
The point is that we should not have to rely on the good faith of the government, but should be entitled to question or challenge its assertions.
The Government, like any other party, should be tested and tested regularly. And where soft spots or untruths appear, these should be probed relentlessly.
The only guarantee of an honest faithful government is regular scutiny and transparency.
The argument is not for Anarchy, but for diligence.
November 2, 2006 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
November 2, 2006 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only guarantee of an honest faithful government is regular scutiny and transparency.
Transparency is what I believe in.
To me it is the basis for trust in a government for the people, by the people.
November 12, 2006 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
... since Bush and Cheney do not run "an honest faithful government" they do not want any transparency.
Tom
November 12, 2006 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink