Give the Medal Back George
Like the Titanic the Bush Administration is foundering. The latest rat heading overboard is former CIA chief George Tenet, who abandons for good the Bush Administration's Ship of Fools and enters the water as another former administration official prepared to come clean on how the Bushies tried and generally succeeded in cooking the intelligence. Oh yeah. He's selling a book.
You probably cannot tell but I am outraged by this Johnny-come-lately jerk off who will assuage his guilt by dishing the dirt on what the Bush Administration really knew as he rakes in book royalties. My friend, Brent Budowsky, also is not a happy camper.
Tenet will start spilling his guts Sunday night on Sixty Minutes, which kicks off his publicity tour to hawk his book. But we don't have to wait till Sunday because David Ignatius offered an early preview last Sunday during an interview with Chris Matthews. Ignatius said that the book is:
going be very tough. George Tenet has been doing a slow burn ever since he left the CIA. He's been angrier and angrier as he saw himself being essentially made the fall guy on WMD in Iraq. And he's gonna come back saying he and his agency, the CIA, were pushed, again and again, by Cheney and Cheney's people to give him the answers that they wanted. And he's got chapter and verse on that."
He added: "He will tell a story that I think will make people's hair curl. But he's been waiting a long time to tell this....And he'll also say---this is a very important part of this---that, on the question of what would happen in Iraq after the invasion, the CIA pretty consistently warned, 'You have trouble ahead. You will not be able to unite this country. Sunnis and Shiites are gonna be 'at daggers.
Sorry George. Too little and way too damn late. You had ample opportunity to blow the whistle on the Bush bullshit but you played ball. I do not give a damn whether you did or did not say the case for war was a "slam dunk". You signed off on Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations. You, more than any other U.S. Government senior official, were in the unique position to know that the Secretary of State was selling a pack of lies. And you sat behind him nodding affirmatively like a bobblehead doll.
You were asleep at the switch in January of 2003 as the Bush Administration pushed and cajoled analysts and managers to let them make the bogus claim that Iraq was on the verge of getting its hands on uranium. You said nothing until your July 11, 2003 statement, which concluded with the following:
Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct -- i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.
You were the Alberto Gonzalez of the intelligence community--a grotesque mixture of stupidity, incompetence shielded by a genial personality. Decisions were made, you were in charge, but you have no idea how decisions were made even though you were in charge. Curiously, if Ignatius is correct, you focus your anger on the likes of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice but you leave George W. out of the line of fire. If that is true you are a genuine coward.
This is not a case of Monday morning quarterbacking. You demonstrated in October of 2002 that you understood the game when you called the White House and stopped the President from using a speech in Cincinnati to make the case that Iraq was buying uranium. Somewhere between October 2002 and January 2003 you rolled over and decided to play ball.
Peter Eisner and Knut Royce in their recently published book, The Italian Letter, report that the former Deputy Director for Intelligence under Tenet, John Gannon, said:
"How this stuff (Niger story) got through the system and how it got into the State of the Union could only have happened because leadership failed and failed badly. I think it failed at the Director of Central Intelligence level. You certainly didn't have a director there who was encouraging people to tell it like they saw it and bring all the information to the top so that it could fairly be evaluated."
Which is it George? Were you bullied or one of the bullies? You cannot claim that you were bullied into acting by the administration, when at the same time, you were helping carry the Bush Administration water and pushing back on concerns about the intel. In the end you allowed suspect sources, like Curveball, and other intel to be used based on very limited reporting and evidence. You broke with CIA standard practice and insisted on voluminous evidence to refute this reporting rather than treat the information as suspect. You helped set the bar very low for reporting that supported favored White House positions, while raising the bar astronomically high when it came to reporting that did not support the solution favored by Bush and Cheney.
George Tenet, you failed to use your position of power and influence to protect the intelligence process. What should you have done? Yyou could have gone to Senator Rockefeller or Senator Daschle or Congresswoman Harman or any number of legislators and briefed them on the truth. But you remained quiet. By your silence you helped build the case for war. You betrayed the CIA officers who collected the intelligence that made it clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat. You betrayed the analysts who tried to withstand the pressure applied by Cheney and Rumsfeld. You betrayed the CIA itself by allowing active duty employees like Michael Scheur to write books critical of Bush, which contributed to the perception that the CIA was a politicized gang eager to embarrass the Bush Administration.
Most importantly and tragically, you betrayed your country. Instead of resigning in protest you provided the Bush Administration the pretext of respectability and became the scapegoat for their misdeeds. Your silence contributed to the willingness of the public to support the disastrous war in Iraq which has killed more than 3000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
So now you are going to correct the record with your book? Not so fast George. Why don't you start by returning the Medal of Freedom hung around your neck by George W. in December 2004? Bush claimed you received the award because you:
played pivotal roles in great events, and [your] efforts have made our country more secure and advanced the cause of human liberty.
The reality of Iraq demonstrates that fruits of your efforts have in fact made our country less secure. The damage to the credibility of the CIA is serious but can eventually be repaired. The U.S. soldiers who died or have been maimed in the streets of Fallujah and Baghdad cannot be fixed. The dead have passed into history. Many of the wounded will live the rest of their lives missing limbs, blinded, mentally disabled, and physically disfigured. I second Brent Budowsky's suggestion--if you have any shred of decency left you should dedicate the proceeds of your book to the veterans and their families who are paying the price for your failure to speak up when you could have made a difference. That would be the decent thing to do.
Well Tenet got in his max retirement time, right? I'd love to see what his portfolio looks like...if you could find it.
In his new act of ratting out GW's crew I figure Tenet is, like the old RCA dog, still hearing his master's voice. If one only knew how GW got that black eye in 2001, one should bet if wasn’t from choking on a peanut and passing out. It very likely was a reward for being snookered, in my opinion.
Got any idea what possibility I'm referring to LJ?
Whenever two people meet, there are really six people present. There is each man as he sees himself, each man as the other person sees him, and each man as he really is.
William James
April 20, 2007 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
A commendable post. I concur with all but one of your thoughts.
My exception is in your condemnation of Tenet for not blaming Bush personally. I suspect that Tenet saw enough of Bush "up close and personal" that he knows Bush doesn't have the brains to have come up with any of the deviousness that is the hallmark of Cheney and Rove.
April 20, 2007 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Tenant had many failings, but he was also operating in an extraordinary environment where the leaders of the administration he worked for considered the Iraq War a manifest destiny, with that end justifying any means.
As for the book, better late than never. Perhaps it will serve to mitigate some of the continuing disasters, or even prevent new ones. Perhaps it will inspire Colin Powell or others still in the administration or Pentagon to speak up or resign in protest.
He should think about giving the medal back.
Tenet had many failings, but he was also operating in an extraordinary environment where the leaders of the administration he worked for considered the Iraq War a manifest destiny, with that end justifying any means.
As for the book, better late than never. Perhaps it will serve to mitigate some of the continuing disasters, or even prevent new ones. Perhaps it will inspire Colin Powell or others still in the administration or Pentagon to speak up or resign in protest.
He should give the medal to one of the families of our fallen troops.
April 20, 2007 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Tenet - sold his country down the drain to suck in with W and got a frigging medal for it (and I believe postponed his book in return, if I remember my reading of Hubris correctly).
Tom
April 20, 2007 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should give the medal to one of the families of our fallen troops.
He should not dishonor any of the fallen in that way. He really should imbed it in a cow turd, cover it with plastic, and send it to Crawford, Texas after it has had enough time to "ripen" when the shrub or his brain-dead wife open it.
Of course if they see a package from him they should know better, and it will probably by blown up by the SS (that would be the Secret Service).
It would truly be an honorable act for him to return the medal, face to face with that apalling coward who is our fake commander-in-chief. Wow! What a fantasy! Things like that just don't happen these days, do they?
Jan
April 20, 2007 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...but he was also operating in an extraordinary environment where the leaders of the administration he worked for considered the Iraq War a manifest destiny."
So you do the ethical thing and resign in protest.
Tom
April 20, 2007 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tenet is no winner. But let's get the dirt out.
April 20, 2007 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
kent roberts,larry this is going to get you fired.hah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 20, 2007 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What?
Jan
April 20, 2007 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. The future matters far more than the past, and it's best for the future that the truth comes out, one way or another. I'd celebrate Dick Cheney's memoires if they were honest, complete and really blew the lid of this tragifarce of a regime.
April 20, 2007 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Tenet wasn’t shoveling shit then, he sure is now. To act as if he was unaware of how the bona fides of the CIA and its intelligence was being cooked is just a bit incredulous now. If he was unaware, he is an inept idiot.
April 20, 2007 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't hold your breath for this one:
I'd celebrate Dick Cheney's memoires if they were honest, complete and really blew the lid of this tragifarce of a regime.
It would be too self-incriminating, and besides, he is incapable of honesty.
Jan
April 20, 2007 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all struggle for redemption. Expressed in Christian terms, forgiveness is only available with the acknowledgment of sin. So, let's wait and see whether Tenet acknowledges his own culpability in this whole matter. If he does, then I will be thankful that someone from this administration was capable of learning and capable of regret.
I understand that it has taken a long time. I know that this is a book deal. I'm not asking that he be given another medal or that he ever be considered for another assignment. I'm just saying that I have done things that I regret and my hope is that redemption is always available...if you're willing to seek it genuinely and in a spirit of humility.
April 20, 2007 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Borg speaks with one voice....
April 20, 2007 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the sentiment of your comment, Clay, but tell me, how many thousands died as a result of your regretted actions? It seems to me that the cost of Tenets lack of what it takes to be a man is much too high for him to have any realistic chance for redemption - at least in this life.
Hoppy in Sacramento
April 20, 2007 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has always mystified me that Tenet sided so sheepishly with Bush/Cheney against his own analysts, who were much more skeptical of the intelligence involving Iraq, and far more suspect of the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars in the Bush government favored sons, Chalabi and "Curveball".
You are correct that there is no redemption for this perdidious betrayal of America, - but I am more than interested in what damage Tenet can wrought on what tiny shred of credibility the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars in the Bush government still hold.
It will be essential to compare the reams of hollow praises the Bush government heaped on Tenet a few years ago, against the slime and partisan attacks that are sure to follow if this book is even close to an honest rendition of the policy contamination, and "cooking of intelligence" that we all know the fascsist OSP/OSI/WHIG cabals conjured and ruthlessly stuffed down the throat of every American.
Tenet will never be redeemed, but he could go a long way towards earning some forgiveness should he provide the smoking gun that would defang and dethrone Cheney, and/or Bush through impeachment procedings.
April 20, 2007 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let Tenet keep his medal. I hope his book makes a ton of money. This will underline in history what George Tenet is all about: a self-serving narcissist who chose personal enrichment over country at a time when the choice meant something. The best that can be said about him is that he's no longer in government.
April 20, 2007 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
These were your best lines.
April 20, 2007 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Tenet and his Gold piece, for his involvement in the spilling of innocent blood, reminds me of another betrayal
(Matthew 27:3-5) 3 Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing he had been condemned, felt remorse and turned the thirty silver pieces back to the chief priests and older men, 4 saying: “I sinned when I betrayed righteous blood.” They said: “What is that to us? You must see to that!” 5 So he threw the silver pieces into the temple and withdrew, and went off and hanged himself.
April 20, 2007 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Faustian deals should be made with Tenet to "out" the Bush Mafia.
I wouldn't read his book much less buy it so could profit from breaching his oath of office to the American People.
I believe the Australian who was recently released from Gitmo cannot publish a book about what happened to him there. That was part of his plea agreement, I think.
The Bushies are trying to reach into the future to drag back some validation for their evil deeds.
We aren't even the audience to whom these apologetics are being directed. It's to our descendants. We already know the truth.
April 20, 2007 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let us not forget that President Bill Clinton also got some really righteous "intel" from George "Can't Identify Anything" Tenet, like the bombing co-ordinates for the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Then, too, I remember well when Bogus Bill tried to bomb "suspected" Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and several cruise missles ended up blasting some Pakistani villages, instead. "Gee," I reflected at the time: "it seems bad enough when you can't hit the target you aim at, but when you can't even hit the country you aim at, well what does that say about why no one in their right mind should let you have anything to do with explosive ordnance and/or delivery systems for the same?
I go all the way back to Francis Gary "U-2" Powers and the Bay of Pigs. I also spent eighteen months in the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent (Vietnam 1970-1972), so you'll pardon me for my long-held belief that we should just abolish the C.I.A. as a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars. I didn't need any C.I.A. to clue me in on Deputy Dubya Bush's monumental incompetence and mendacity, and neither did millions of other reasonably intelligent and informed people world-wide. What? Somebody considered this brain-dead bumpkin and his Rasputins Cheney and Rove a secret or something?
Anyway, either our spooks don't know shit from Shinola, or even when occasionally they do, the idiot Presidents who employ them don't want to hear what they know anyway. So why bother? The C.I.A. has had many directors every bit as bad or worse than George Tenet and will have many more, too, if we foolishly allow this bureaucratic backwater to continue as a national treasure for practically every nation on earth except ours.
April 21, 2007 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
'Hi, I'm George Tenet and I just wrote a 'cover your ass book' because I need to cover my ass since I'm partially responsible for the deaths of over 3200 American troops, the maiming for life of over 5,000, and the loss of hundreds of billions from our treasury, not to mention perhaps 100,000 Iraqi dead, and my former bosses are putting all the blame on me.
I have a good mind to give my Medal back!'
I hope he strangles on it.
I'm waiting to see how tough the interviewers are going to be on Tenet when he does his book tour.
I also hope some industrious journalist compares what Tenet's books says to what Tommy Franks' book said.
April 21, 2007 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this book and round of media publicity it gets brings our forces in Iraq home earlier by a single day I'll thank Tenet for that: not because it redeems him, redemption isn't my department, but because it may save a few of them.
If it strengthens the congressional opposition to the war the way Gonzales' testimony has discredited the Department of Justice's behavior and led conservative Senators to call for his resignation, I'll thank him for that, too.
If it moves the country further toward demanding that Bush and Cheney be impeached, I'll be grateful. Any nail in the coffin of this corrupt regime pounded in by any hammer wielded by any hand is useful.
Having said that, nothing would make a better statement than Tenet returning the Medal. It would be a superb gesture if he announced he was doing so on 60 minutes. Lacking that initiative, I wonder if any of those interviewing him across the next several weeks will ask him if he plans on doing this.
aMike
April 21, 2007 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, Mr. Johnson. I'm glad you got that off your chest.
I hope you haven't spent all of your justifiable outrage on Tenent, I'd take Mr. Budowsky's suggestion much further. Every cent made in profit by the Bush's the Cheney's, the Rumsfelds, the Rove's, every blood-soaked dime made off this immoral war by any and all concerned should be split among the soldiers, their families, and the Iraqi's.
After all isn't that what blood money is for? To pay off the victims?
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
April 21, 2007 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read my comment, Hoppy. If Tenent acknowledges that he went along and that thousands died as a result. If he lays bare the lie for all to see, don't you think he is at least on the path? It's redemption if (1) he's honest that he screwed up big time and (2) by exposing what happened, he empowers us to begin to repair the problem and to not repeat it. Let's wait and read the book.
I understand you are angry with Tenent. I am too. But the world hasn't a prayer if we are dominated by our anger. Regarding your statement that he "[has behaved too badly] to have any realistic chance for redemption..." Where do you draw the line and conclude that someone shouldn't even bother to seek redemption? What kind of world will we have if trying to change your life for the better is something that no one should even bother with? Maybe we should just make all prison sentences life terms then, right?
If this is just a money making book deal and Tenent is posturing to make himself look good, then forget him.
April 21, 2007 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...perhaps 100,000 Iraqi dead..."
Maybe up to 900,000 Iraqi dead.
Tom
April 21, 2007 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
kent roberts,horsecrap,no one struggles with anything,i`m not struggling from 3 tours in nam,everything is great,everybody ought to go to war.
April 21, 2007 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
kent roberts,well i believe george tennet got a medal and a suitcase full of shut up money.
April 21, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I am outraged by this Johnny-come-lately jerk off"
Larry,
It's one word, not two - jerk-off.
Gotta keep the facts straight for his next commendation.
April 21, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The two steop between Powell and Tenet is very interesting. Powell presents various "facts" to the U.N. most of which turn out to be false. He has Tenet sit behind him as sort of voucher for the truthfulness of the claims. Now Powell and Tenet want to run from their acts.
Reading both "Cobra II" and "Ghost Wars" besides Tenet's incompetence and dishonesty what really comes across is a systematic ineptitude at the CIA over 25 years. To some extent this was a reaction to Vietnam. It was also a product of directors like William Casey and others like Cheney and Rumsfeld pushing for certain outcomes. However, there seems to be a real CIA problem that has nothing to do with the Church Commission or any other limitations on the agency.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
April 21, 2007 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not why he's pissed. What steams him is the White House and its minions blaming everything on "bad intelligence work."
April 21, 2007 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's "Tenet" not "Tenent."
April 21, 2007 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say more the political pressure than inherent ineptitude.
We have to distinguish between employees and management at CIA. Management responds to pressure too easily would be the diagnosis. No cure I can see, given that it seems unworkable to design US intel as an independent agency like SEC or such, and even those give way to pressure.
So we're stuck with assigning responsibility where it belongs--US administrations, i.e. presidents and their cabinets. It was not CIA management that decided to enter Afghanistan with only CIA and Special Forces, with limited resorces, and with those then stripped for the Iraq adventure.
Reading Cobra I was struck by how the author could complain about lack of help from the Pentagon and still call Bush supportive. That was wishful thinking on his part; the failures of Cobra and Iraq are not those of CIA.
April 21, 2007 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder why in the Hell he keeps the medal. Maybe he thinks that, Iraq aside, he deserved it for his career as a whole. But, people have already pointed out that Iraq wasn't his first major intelligence failure.
But, whatever his rationale, what is the actual value of the medal to him? He's retired. If he wants to work in some other field, having or not having given up the medal isn't going to make a difference.
Given the objections he's raising in his book, vanity is the only thing that would make him keep the medal. And it's the kind of vanity that makes his untrustworthy.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
April 21, 2007 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree about your assessment of why he left Bush out. Because he knows Cheney and Rumsy were the leaders of this campaign, and it was Bush that they used as the jester's face to pull it off. So while people hate Bush, they ignore the hand up his ass.
April 21, 2007 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Larry for the heads up on Sunday's show. I'll be recording that for sure. Then I put it on my GTenet shelf next to his testimony before congress, his seated position behind that charlatain show Powell did at the UN, and then I have to go get a stack of tapes for his upcoming FoxNews appearances. We'll track his every word on the upcoming book promotion.
I want to hear him explain why Gen. Nicolo Pollari went straight to Stephen Hadley when the Europe branch offices of the CIA had already debunked the intel from Rocco Martino.
I want to hear him apologize to Valerie Plame for standing by while she was outed.
I want to hear him apologize to Joe Wilson for having endure beatdown after beatdown on Intel that Tenet knew was bunk.
Then I want to hear that squeeky cell door at Abu Ghraib close with him hog-tied naked to Rove, Cheney, Rumsy, and Bush and we'll paste pictures of Jeff Gannon to their cell. We'll play Dixie Chicks 24 hrs a day to keep them up. Then when we finish waterboarding Gonzales for his testimony, we'll throw him in ta boot.
One can dream.
April 21, 2007 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, Tenet is not the first DCI that played White House politics to have access. The general pattern, with limited exceptions, goes back to the first national intelligence chief, "Wild Bill" Donovan of the WWII OSS. Donovan's organization was only loosely under the Joint Chiefs; the formal Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was created by the same National Security Act of 1947 that created the CIA.
Before WWII, the White House staff was small enough that direct Presidential access was fairly practical for senior government officials. Things began to change in WWII, and Donovan, a prominent Republican, created the best presentation graphics shop in wartime DC, so FDR liked to see his briefings. The pattern of tailoring intelligence delivery to appeal to Presidential tastes has been sometimes useful, but more often a problem, since Donovan. The 9/11 Commission Report actually makes reasonable reference to this problem, but it doesn't come across as a critical issue.
I have no simple answer. The British have a well-established tradition of their senior intelligence directors having direct access to the Monarch and the PM, but they have the advantage of a system that dates back to Sir Francis Walsingham about 1585, and has become custom.
There was so much intelligence transition in the Truman administration that it's hard to draw any real conclusions. Eisenhower, the product of a top-level military staff system, probably had the best handle on national intelligence and the strongest National Security Council system. Bush 41, with his experience as DCI, probably was next best.
The Kennedy Administration overdid their "New Look", sweeping out some things that Eisenhower had gotten working fairly well. Allen Dulles, the incoming DCI, was something of a loose cannon, but Eisenhower had him fairly well controlled. Soon after the change of Administrations, Dulles introduced the predecessor of today's President's Daily Brief, the President's Intelligence Checklist (aka pickle), and reestablished Donovan's attention-catching briefings. McGeorge Bundy, Dean Rusk, and Robert McNamara were not conducive to managing intelligence.
When Dulles was fired over the Bay of Pigs, John McCone, the only significant Republican in the Kennedy inner circle and one of the strongest DCIs, got the process under better analytical control. The practical need for showmanship, however, caused him to resign under LBJ, with whom McCone felt little rapport. Since then, DCIs have walked a delicate line between what the President wants to hear and how the President wants information presented. Bush 41, with his experience at DCI, did get more control than most other presidents. There is a real damned if you do, damned if you don't situation: a DCI (DNI) that has no unfiltered access is in no position to get across critical information that the political staff doesn't want heard. A DCI that passes the political staff may do so only by putting forth the party line.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
April 21, 2007 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great article. Thank you.
April 21, 2007 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I'll correct
April 21, 2007 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
American soldiers are good at what they do, which is to blow things up and kill people. They have vastly better body armor, armed vehicles and total control of the air. If they are not killing large multiples of their own casualties then something is seriously wrong.
So start doing the math. We have 3300 dead some 24,000 wounded, many who would be dead absent medical care unavailable to their opponents. In purely military terms if they have not on their own killed say three to five times their own numbers something is not right. And of course there are always civilian casualties. If I am a raving warmonger and my guys have only killed 100,000 then I should be well and thoroughly pissed. Even the bloodthirtiest hero of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists understands the concept of 'kill ratio', cause it is how you get to the next level of your first person shooter.
And this does not even count Iraqi on Iraqi violence. This will remain a dilemma for war supporters; lowballing Iraqi casualties just ends up labeling our troops as inept, while actual reporting starts putting total deaths over Saddam's cumulative total. Which probably largely explained why the US Military from the very start refused to release figures for Iraqis killed, because the argument "Saddam was a monster who killed his people" gets weaker and weaker as the body count goes up.
To sum up. I opposed this war from before it started and yet I hope to hell we have killed more than 100,000 Iraqis. Because if that is all we can do against an insurgency God help us if North Korea sends tanks across the DMZ. Somehow I don't suspect the Army and Marines have actually lost their core competency. They are good at killing people and the end result will naturally be lots of people killed. Otherwise what they hell are they spending that $10 billion a month on?
April 21, 2007 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"... I opposed this war from before it started and yet I hope to hell we have killed more than 100,000 Iraqis."
Unbelievable!
Tom
April 21, 2007 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remember an occasion in 1991, where an Air Force pilot received the Distinguished Flying Cross for not shooting down an aircraft that the AWACS told him to kill. He felt there was something wrong about the identification, and closed in for visual identification -- and confirmed in was a Saudi aircraft.
If you are assuming that the US military kills everything that comes into its range, then I suggest going back to the basic command and control manuals. Our weapons are sufficiently lethal that great care must be taken to avoid "blue-on-blue", fratricide, or killing our own people. To assume free-fire on everything is ludicrous. If the goal were to kill everything possible, there would be no precision guided weapons, no Small Diameter Bombs, or other weapons intended for minimum lethality.
Your hope makes no military sense.
Apples and asparagus. The tactics and weapons against a conventional armored thrust are totally different from those used against an insurgency. You may have forgotten that in 2003, the invading force rather handily defeated the armored components of the Iraqi forces.
Go back to Sun Tzu. The best general wins without killing.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
April 21, 2007 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
I am glad he's doing a slow burn. He should do a slow burn in hell for keeping silent before the war and worse, before the election when that medal was enough to buy him off
I am glad he's slowly burning. Preview of coming attractions for George Tenet
April 21, 2007 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well that's all neat and tidy. Since Christian forgiveness apparently knows no bounds I guess nobody should worry about past behavior.
Lee Atwater gave us Karl Rove. Good thing Lee atoned on his deathbed or we might really have some problems.
April 21, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forgive or forget? Are you serious?
April 21, 2007 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could care less about Tenent's redemption. That's between him and his god. Unlike you I don't pretend to be his god's proxie. I just want to know if they still allow people like him to have a last cigarette as he stands in the morning sun with a blindfold on between the brick wall and a firing squad.
April 21, 2007 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Tenet, Alberto Gonzales; book ends to the Bush administration.
April 21, 2007 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is all an excellent argument for Congressional oversight. If the DCI had to report to a Senate Select Committee, instead of the President, there would be less opportunity to cherry-pick intel. The President doesn't actually need this information first hand. Considering the CIA's track record he could use a ouija board and get a better Daily Breifing.
April 21, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't use a ouija board?
April 21, 2007 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least the Borg had some kind of brain.
April 21, 2007 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOUTUBE ALERT - YOUTUBE ALERT
Can some talented hero (or heroine) PLEASE get that up on youtube!!
P.S. and let Valerie play Lynndie England's role in the leash segment (she's earned it).
April 21, 2007 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otherwise what they hell are they spending that $10 billion a month on?
You take a cold hard look at what many people would prefer not to look at -- the fact that our military is a blunt weapon and not designed to work as firemen or law enforcement. At least, that's what I bring away from reading your post.
Soldiers in Iraq are wearing many hats:
1. Contractors: repair and upkeep of schools and clinics unfinished/abandoned by contractors.
2. Dept of State: While the Dept of State employees hide out in the Green Zone, soldiers become their proxies -- or try to do their jobs. One commander talked about how he sent to the Dept of State person responsible for his area his list of needs and suggestions. She never responded and didn't even bother to visit with him when in the area. Obviously, none of his suggestions were implemented.
3. Security: They are providing the security that rightfully belongs to the Iraq government and its military and police forces. They end up mediating between opposing sects. Protocol for this interface with Iraqis probably doesn't even exist except in the delusions of our politicians.
4. Soldiers: This would be where they defend themselves against insurgents and any other whackjobs -- remember, there was a healthy black market of thugs and thieves operating under Saddam who didn't just roll up their operations when the U.S. invaded.
I do not think that the quality of our military is measured by one set of actors or soldiers currently involved. The one area in which our military excels is in the "Lessons Learned" category with plenty of unfiltered documentation.
So whoever inherits this train wreck theoretically would be able to rebuild and restore our military to proper levels of readiness. That is, if our government has the financial resources and can attract new personnel.
But getting back to your question about what our government is spending the money on, it doesn't seem to be as advertised by the Bush administration.
April 21, 2007 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Tenet: affable ass...
April 21, 2007 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to disagree with both the reporting and the track record. Getting back to the original statute would be a start, with the DCI (no, the DNI is not what I regard as a great step forward) and Chairman of the JCS being statutory advisors to the National Security Council, composed of:
Historically, strong NSCs had a decent staff, with an Executive Secretary with real responsibilities and an assortment of supporting committees. Many of the key committees, such as the Operations Coordinating Board under Eisenhower, had the deputies to the NSC principals as its members. The US Intelligence Board, under the DCI, coordinated Community activities. There typically was a deputies committee, such as the 303 Committee or 54/12 Group, to approve covert action and special reconnaissance. I don't want to get into the full history, but there have been a number of workable structures. Under some administrations, there has been decent Congressional coordination.
The Senate Select Committee simply does not have a large enough staff to do detailed cross-checking. An organization could be created for this purpose, quite likely built from some version of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which historically has been bipartisan, with principals not all in government.
The mechanics of the Daily Briefing don't lend themselves to a Congressional structure, if for no other reason than it is daily. Presidents that actually use the system have made good use of daily briefings; don't judge by Bush 43 alone. In general, the PDB/PICL was prepared by the CIA Office of Current Intelligence, which also runs the 24/7 Watch Center; other intelligence agencies also have closely coupled Watch Centers.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
April 21, 2007 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would say Dulles and Richard Helms are "persons of interest" in the JFK assassination. Dulles, who LBJ appointed to the Warren Commission, was not too happy about being fired after the Bay of Pigs by the President who cancelled the air cover for the invasion. Helms was head of covert operations.
Tom
April 21, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's just me, but this torture-fantasy stuff further up in the comments is truly reprehensible.
Ben Cronin
April 21, 2007 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with those who say we should wait. He may not have fully understood the implications of what Bushes scheme was. He may have felt as others, to send a message to Saddam, comply with the inspections, "we have evidence."
G Tenet may have believed as others that War could be avoided, diplomatic efforts would work, President Bush assured the Nation, that was his goal. Tenet, may have been snookered, as so many were.
If his book reveals a man deeply troubled, and he makes the case for mercy then why not extend mercy.
I know I sure make many mistakes and I have done things I regret.
If his admittng a wrong in his book is a way to do, what is right, it is better than a man who continues to cover over his errors.
(1 Timothy 5:22) Never lay your hands hastily upon any man; neither be a sharer in the sins of others; preserve yourself chaste.
(James 4:17) Therefore, if one knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him
(James 2:10-13) 10 For whoever observes all the Law but makes a false step in one point, he has become an offender against them all. 11 For he who said: “You must not commit adultery,” said also: “You must not murder.” If, now, you do not commit adultery but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of law. 12 Keep on speaking in such a way and keep on doing in such a way as those do who are going to be judged by the law of a free people.
13 For the one that does not practice mercy will have [his] judgment without mercy.
Mercy exults triumphantly over judgment.
April 21, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it, really?
Strikes me as reasonable parody.
Nobody's implying it should actually be done, just that it would be satiric just desserts.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
April 21, 2007 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Earned it... and rehearsed it.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
April 21, 2007 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the history, Howard.
But, does who reports to who matter if the ultimate authority already has a course of action and interpretation of events in mind?
That seems to be the issue here. Tenet caved to Bush and he should be eternally sorry for it.
But, it seems to me that Bush was going to see what he wanted to see no matter who told him what, no matter how many times.
That Bush manipulated intelligence is horrible. That Tenet allowed it is unforgivable. But the truth is, Bush would have made any case for what he did with any information he had and anything reported to him that undermined his agenda would have been classified and thus not known by the public.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
April 21, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
But "ljohnson" is one word. ONE!
Sorry, just a bad joke. I'm not calling you a jerkoff.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
April 21, 2007 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
Much appreciate you laying the truth out there in a no-bullshit style.
I'm of the opinion that Colin Powell ought to have his ass kicked as well. He knows a lot about what went on in the run-up to invading Iraq, and he has not exactly been a profile in courage in telling the story.
Is it 2008 yet?
April 21, 2007 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tenet certainly was no paragon here. It may take some time to sort out, well after the fact, who doctored what.
Remember that the National Security Advisor is a statutory member of the National Security Council, and is expected to give expert, and preferably neutral, advice to the Council, since the incumbent (other than Henry Kissinger) has no major agency constituency. Presidents are rarely going to be experienced in reading intelligence documents; Eisenhower and Bush 41 were exceptions.
Rice would have been on distribution for the President's Daily Brief, but she also received the more detailed intelligence community documents, which are not presented in as journalistic a style as the PDB. You can look at examples at the George Washington University National Security Archive. Rice said that she did not read the appendices to the estimates, but these often contain many caveats. NIEs and such also often have signifcant footnotes, called reclamas, in which one or more intelligence agencies may dissent from a conclusion.
Feith did his own "analysis", which apparently was presented by Cheney. In other words, Bush 43, who is not exactly a threat to Thomas Jefferson's status as Presidential intellect, may have been getting bad and conflicting advice, from people with a bias, and did not have the management skill or intellect to challenge.
I agree. Harry Truman's desk had a sign that applies to Bush more than to Tenet: "the buck stops here."
I'm honestly not sure what Tenet could have done -- and he indeed might have done something -- to stop the juggernaut. Gone to the Congressional leadership, given the Republican rubber-stamping? Gone public? Explained to GWB that a Jug-ger-naut is like a cattle stampede?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
April 21, 2007 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you.
Those references are the same kind of thinking that the torturers used to justify thier actions. That kind of behavior is never ok, or funny, and I think the reference to Valerie is especially disgusting.
Jan
April 21, 2007 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Larry. You got it right. Anything Tenet has to say now is too little, too late.
April 21, 2007 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
A little off point, but I feel compelled to state some obvious facts that have not yet fully worked there way into the current discourse regarding Iraq.
The failure to update our collective consciousness regarding the “situation on the ground” is allowing the necons to continue the argument on their terms.
To wit: “We must win the war in Iraq.” Response: there is no “Iraq”. In addition to over 200,000 killed with no end of that in site , over THREE MILLION PEOPLE HAVE FLEED IRAQ. Their best and brightest.
Baghdad will indeed be safe as the genocide and emigration is completed.
Why are our troops policing the remnants of this destroyed county?
April 21, 2007 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
One wonders what he would say.
My wife was talking to an old friend the other day who told her that he actually met Cheney. It seems that the VP wanted to learn how to fly fish and this guy was an expert. Somehow during the instructional session the talk turned to politics, and Cheney learned that his instructor was -gasp- a Liberal Democrat.
Cheney apparently told him "You're the only one I've ever met that I liked."
Will Rogers he's not.
-Dave Adams-
April 21, 2007 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That would be the decent thing to do."
That says it all. Bushites are not "decent." They are Bushites. They are a malignant cancer consuming the healthy organs of this country.
Consider all the cronies and acolytes of George Sr. and his seed, (Think Silverado Savings Scandal, Harkin Savings Scandal, the Florida election 2000, the Ohio election 2004, bin Laden, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Korea, habeas corpus, Gitmo... and what the Bishites have been doing to our Constitution.
Not “decent” doesn’t begin to describe the harm Bushites have done to this country and will continue to do though their followers for many years to come.
“There is a cancer growing” in this country, it is spreading its malignancy from the White House and is consuming not just this country but is reaching around the world.
April 22, 2007 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey. Maybe on Bush's last day in office, all the people he has given medals and keepsakes to, can stand in front of the WH and toss them over the fence in protest.
They they can go and apologize to Kerry and the 25 million Americans who voted for him.
April 22, 2007 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, don't hold your breath.
Tom
April 22, 2007 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jan,
While I like your comments a lot, there's nothing that is "never ok, or funny," as I see it. I just don't think any topics are ever "out of bounds," and the notion of torture being turned on the torturers, not as serious policy but as a joking image, does make me chuckle.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
April 22, 2007 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, if the Bushies threw their medals over a fencepost, it would only be after they'd sold those medals, on favorable terms, to a defense contractor or lobbyist.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
April 22, 2007 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The lessons we are going to learn from this are very hard.
If 3300 Americans have been killed you can bet very large amounts of money that they have killed multiples of that. If not they are not doing their jobs as trained and their commanders should be relieved of duty.
"IF you are assuming that the US military kills everything that comes into its range, then I suggest going back to the basic command and control manuals."
Well I suggest you reading some news reports about Haditha, Afgani wedding parties, and bombing Canadians. I am not suggesting that US troops are lighting up everything in sight, on the other hand little to nothing is coming out of Iraq to suggest that fire discipline is job one. We rolled in with force protection rules of engagement that allowed US troops to take out any vehicle perceived to be a threat and just about every news report coming out of this war pretty much suggests that US troops and even more US contractors took that license pretty freely.
If there is anyone out there that really believes that US soldiers are dying at anywhere near one to one ratios to Iraqis and still remotely supports this war than you are frankly delusional.
As to 2003 it appears that little attempt was made to mount a serious defense by armor. Which given total US air superiortity made perfect sense. Armed vehicles in formation would have been sitting ducks for Apaches and fighter bombers. Instead it increasingly looks like Saddam order his generals to prepare for guerilla war and insurgency, one which they look to have won.
April 22, 2007 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom. My statement was meant to shock. I'm glad it worked.
People from the beginning of this war have willfully blinded themselves to the calculus. For the very first news reports it was clear that force protection was the number one priority. Which translated means that US lives were more important than avoiding casualties to non-combatents.
You may not have thought much about what it means to blow up a house at night that is known or suspected to harbor insurgents. Well what it means in all likelyhood is blowing up families. Just about every time you read about a "precision" air strike on an "insurgent" target in an inhabitated area you are talking women and children likely killed. You may not like to think about that, or in worse case maybe you don't care, but in the end you can't ignore it.
We did indeed blow up a wedding party in Afghanistan. Sure the military denied it but the video is undeniable. You have videos recovered from the wreckage showing musicians and partyers, you have video the next day showing those same individuals clearly recognizable by their clothes dead. The ratio that day was US 0, Afghans 40. And that was not an isolated case.
You may hate the math but the fact is that if the military is functioning with at least minimum competence the level of US casualties we have experienced will translate to at least 100,000 Iraqi's dead. It has to.
Look when broken down to brutal reality war is about sending 19 year olds from Tennessee to shoot 13 year olds from Ramadi. And both sides come out hurt.
I never want to send our Army to war unless to protect vital national security or at last resort to prevent genocide. Because not only don't I like funerals in Tennessee, I hate whole Ramadi families being buried in joint graves. But if we have to send the Army to war you hope they can do it at minimum cost to themselves. Which means killing more of them than they kill you.
Don't like the math? Don't support wars of choice.
April 22, 2007 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The lid has been off for a good while now, however men without honor or principle cannot be expected to do the right thing and resign. They need to be tossed or frog marched out of our public offices.
If this citizenry waits for a groundswell of opposition and crushing disproval from the media they will wait for until the 12th of never. The media will get on board only when they fear loosing their influence entirely...that is to say when the task is nearly accomplished.
Congress will only act when their offices have been flooded with millions of letters, and thousands of citizen delegations demanding impeachments and unhampered investigations as well as huge mass, peaceful demonstrations in the capital demanding impeachments, evenhanded justice and a return to the rule of law.
If the citizens are unwilling to do these things then they are going to have to lean to live with the merchants of greed infesting our capitol and accept becoming a Fascist banana republic. Any hope that absent strong public action succeeding administrations no matter the party will be significantly better is a forlorn one. These elitists currently in control of the capital and the media are convinced they can still con us despite all they have done and usurped… if they are right and can, then we are done.
I shall tell you a great secret, my friend. Do not wait for the last judgment, it takes place every day.
Albert Camus
April 22, 2007 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was 50 million. We lost by 6 million, during a fear mongering campaign by skilled propagandists who, apparently, were also using the courts to suppress voter turnout.
April 22, 2007 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It might be just a little more effective if they did it before his last day; say on July the 4th of 2007 for example.
Jan
April 22, 2007 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that this is relevent, but whom did George Tenet torture?
As to your opinion that there is never any subject that cannot be the butt of a joke, I simply and heartily disagree. I can think of several that happened just this week.
Jan
April 22, 2007 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
George never gave me anything except a headache. Can I toss an empty Excedrin bottle? :-) (He gave me a royal pain somewhat lower as well, but it's Sunday and I don't deign to mention where).
aMike
April 22, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh, not for me...all evidence is evidence....sing Georgie boy, sing!!!!
Please caged bird, let your voice flow....
April 23, 2007 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chuckie,
You said: "I agree with those who say we should wait. He may not have fully understood the implications of what Bushes scheme was. He may have felt as others, to send a message to Saddam, comply with the inspections, "we have evidence." "
In fact, the UN Inspectors WERE in Iraq prior to the invasion of 2003. In fact, the inspectors HAD been there since 2002 and WERE inspecting sites that had formerly been off-limits. Additionally, the UN Inspectors were acting on the "intelligence" that the Bushies provided about the "new" sites where they (the Bushies) alleged the WMD were secreted.
The UN Inspectors were forced to leave before they HAD the opportunity to finish their inspections because Bush decided to start the war.
April 23, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Squeky,
BINGO! The intelligence from the professional intel analysts, from what I can determine, was ABSOLUTELY on the mark. It was the Bushies who played loose and fast with the reports.
Intel reports are, of necessity, filled with caveats -- words such as if, could, if (such and such) happens, this could result in. The Bushies conveniently removed this caveats to significantly alter the conclusions of the intelligence they were provided with. This was a deliberate transgression on the part of the Bushies to skew the intelligence so it would "support" what they wanted to have happen.
This is absolutely unforgiveable. Even if they were to apologize for it now, it would be difficult to excuse their behavior since it has ultimately led to the deaths of thousands.
April 23, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan,
Like your solution, but I would also add that Tenet should engrave it with: "F**k you George."
April 23, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
CSampson,
Regardless of who made the calls, the buck still stops with Dubya. Remember, he has told us several times that HE is the "Decider-in-Chief" and that his job is to make the decisions.
Bush should not be forgiven for his role in this -- whether he made the decision or not. To not hold him responsible, is to continue the enabling pattern that Bush has exhibited all of his life.
April 23, 2007 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make an extremely important point that most people, who have not worked with intelligence documents, don't realize: raw reports, and analytical reports below those intended for the highest policymakers, are full of caveats, reclamas and other footnotes, appendices, etc. Indeed, an experienced reader can glean additional information from the classifications, codewords, and distribution control markings -- even on a redacted document, the length of the redacted field is often a likely tipoff to the caveat.
In fairness, a President or Cabinet officer will usually not know how to use that additional information, and rely on a briefer, such as the DCI or National Security Advisor, to put it in context. With respect to the 9/11 warning estimates, Rice said she did not read the appendices, which still might have been alright if she had staff go through them and brief her.
Unfortunately, the briefer, whether Cheney, Tenet, or Rice, can skew what is given to the President. A wise President occasionally cross-checks the accuracy of briefings by having some other cleared reviewer check the source materials.
What am I saying? A wise president? Is there wisdom anywhere in the White House?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
April 23, 2007 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US armed forces are the best at what they do. However, in Iraq they are being used in a counter insurgency role and as the Lebannon action last summer showed, modern weaponry has given guerilla and irregular forces a big leg up since the 1960s and 1970s. The kill ratios are probably down. Unfortunately there is no simply answer to this. The Russians have shown us one answer in Chechnya. Very ugly. Their answer is to destroy the village and build it fresh. We are trying to find a better way, but it ain't easy. It isn't even clear that a Chechan solution would work in Iraq in that unlike the Russians we would have less control over who and what would fill the vaccume of the destroyed real estate. Persians? Saudis? Kurdish immigrants?
The best thing to do now is pull back, let the civil war unfold and intervene specifically and with massive force on bases and troop concentrations that we know are Al Quada. We need to regain our ability to manouver. Right now we are strategically immobilised, we need to regain the momentum. I agree with General Odom that this can only be achieved with strategic withdrawl, probably to Kuwait and the Kurdish regions.
April 23, 2007 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
On paper, I agree with you. But isn't it true that the power is only as good as the holding of the agreements? If the Constitution says, The fundamental power lies with the President, but everyone is dancing to the VPs tune, what use is the Paper the Constitution is written on.
And thus, you come to the same conclusion I feel, as I do most seriously hold Mr. George W. Bush accountable for the lives of many, the ruin of two countries, Iraq and ours, and many other crimes. Please do not mistake me.
But for years I have read and watched people point at Bush with too much time spent making Cheney seem like a boogey man instead of putting the light right on him and thus exposing who has lead the stage for Bush to be the chearleader from Yale all over again.
He ruined our state before going to Washington.
Again, i fundamentally agree with you, I just make the point that those that lend agreement to a different notion make that reality. It's up to us to take responsibility for putting it back in order.
Kucinich is supposedly filing articles of impeachment in the morning, and we'll see who stands up to support it. I'd like to hold each congress member accountable if they don't support this unique moment to show the world that we have some dignity left and see what is needed to restore it.
Or maybe I'm dreaming, but i'm not the only one.....
bless you for your convictions.
April 23, 2007 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are referring to the image I was drawing in simulating the administration in their own treatment at Abu Ghraib of Iraqis...get a sense of humor friend. because I'm not kidding about locking them up in an Iraqi jail, but the picture described afterwards was purely poetic. If Gonzo thinks that waterboarding for information is a pretty good idea, and Congress can't get him to 'fess up, why are you more offended with a blogger's comments, and not on the phone to Congress when he testifies that its ok to waterboard.
I'm not amused with dubious outrage.
But I wish you well none the less
April 24, 2007 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which Sunday is Tenet on Sixty Minutes?
Tom
April 24, 2007 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 29th.
April 24, 2007 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink