Thanks Larry for writing this. Please don't shut up.The American news media remains untethered to the meaning of the very words uttered by the people they are interviewing. Kind of a gravity optional lifestyle, I guess. Too rich and exotic for my humble tastes, I guess. Thank you again, Mr. Johnson.

The strange thing is the public thinks people like Tenet and people in the federal and state governments are smarter than they are.

I always thought Tenet was qualified until the 60 Minutes interview. Then I can't understand how people like him get appointed. He's a suckup. Period. And that interferes in his ability to do his job.

After the Bush 43 administration, one myth has been shattered for good. That of higher education. The myth that degrees matter over good judgment. And the proof starts at the top.

Instead we find they've been studying at con-school and learning the rules of the con-game:
Rule No 1 - You can't con an honest man

Rule No 2 - Feed the Greed

Rule No 3 - Always give the mark an out

Rule No 4 - Never give a sucker an even break

Rule No 5 - It's all in the detail

Rule No 6 - Don't have anything in your life you can't walk away from in a second

Rule No 7 - Always look out for number one

Rule No 8 - It's not just about the money

Tenet is but a dot in the tome of history, he doesn't rate a sentence, much less a word. Same goes for Powell, Rice, Gonzales and the rest of the gang of Bu$h.

However, I would like to see if someone in Congress can figure out if what Tenet says in his book contradicts anything he ever said under oath to Congress. That would be a can of worms worthly of an investigation. No telling who could get dragged into it.

Tenet is a has been liar.

LJ

My biggest problem with all of this dust up, beyond the very real human costs, is that I truly expected much more of Tenet as Director.

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

Raphael.M said:

I always thought Tenet was qualified until the 60 Minutes interview. Then I can't understand how people like him get appointed. He's a suckup. Period. And that interferes in his ability to do his job.

From Philip Zimbardo:

“I respect Just Authority, but Rebel against Unjust Authority.”

In every situation, work to distinguish between those in authority who, because of their expertise, wisdom, seniority, or special status, deserve respect, and those unjustauthorityfigures who demand our obedience without having any substance. Many who assume the mantel of authority are pseudo-leaders, false prophets, confidence men and women, self-promoters, who should not be respected, but rather disobeyed and openly exposed to critical evaluation. Parents, teachers, and religious leaders should play more active roles in teaching children this critical differentiation. They should be polite and courteous when such a stance is justified, yet be good, wise children by resisting those authorities that do not deserve their respect. Doing so, will reduce mindless obedience to self-proclaimed authorities whose priorities are not in our best interests.

lucifereffect.com/guide_tenstep.htm

Best Defense

• Question yourself - is this authority truly an expert? How truthful is he or she?

   

• Direct attention away from symbols and toward evidence for authority status

   

• Be aware of attempts of others to appear more trustworthy or credible than they are

   

• Seek independent evaluation of authority deserved status

   

• Be sensitive to changes in authority behavior, demands over time, from initially acceptable to ultimately abusive and unjust.

lucifereffect.com/guide_cialdini-e.htm

~OGD~

If Tenet's reason for accepting the Medal is true, that he accepted it for 'all' the members of the CIA in recognition of their good works in the War on Terror, and this is also why he won't return it to Bush, then he should give the medal to the CIA so they can put it in a display case in the lobby at Langely.

"Tenet, Rice, Powell and some others are worse than the Cheneys, Wolfowitzes, Perles Feiths, Libbys etc. ..."

... although my gut feeling is that they are all war criminals and should be sent to the ICC. Don't forget Rummy.

Tom

This is the smartest post I've read on the whole subject. Thank you for using his own damn words to hang him.

I appreciate what you said about the young men and women whe believed him. You can't imagine the bitter disillusionment many of them have suffered since being sent into hell on a lie and then finding out for themselves, the hard way, the truth.

This is a fundamental betrayal of men and women who have no choice but to trust that their civilian leadership will not send them to fight and die for anything less than life or death reasons.

Every time I see the apologists parading in front of the cameras trying to get sympathy for their precious reputations, I want to respond in much the same way Elvis did when he saw something on TV he hated.

Zimbardo was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now in March about a film he made back in the 70s about guards and inmates.

Understanding How Good People Turn Evil: Renowned Psychologist Philip Zimbardo On his Landmark Stanford Prison Experiment, Abu Ghraib and More

Excellent interview.

Didn't they go over all these in Hustle last night?

. . . men and women who have no choice but to trust that their civilian leadership will not send them to fight and die for anything less than life or death reasons.

Over the past sixty or so years men (and women) have been sent to "fight and die" in numerous places overseas. Please list which of those conflicts meet your test of having been matters of "life and death." And state who's "life and death" (real or metaphorical) were at risk?

Then, upon consideration of your answers to those questions kindly explain how it is that you came to teach your children to rely upon the proposition you've stated, above.

Actually, from Season 1 for long-time viewers, and they're on the show's website at AMC. Too bad Adrian Lester's left the show.

But, the Bush 43 administration has been one long con job on the country. They and their accomplices have stolen billion$$$.

Congratulations, Ellen. This is easily the rudest, most patronizing, most presumptuous and most mean-spirited comment I have seen in weeks.

Why do you behave in this mean-spirited manner? This is not a rhetorical question; I really wish to know why you do this.

Before we condemn Mr. Tenet, let's look at who else was "bullshitting" the nation into going to War against Iraq. I'm simply posting these direct quotes and letters verbatim. I openly admit that I am a JFK, moderate (gasp!!!) Democrat and realize I will surely be flagged as a troll for posting a dissenting opinion on this site, but I am not commenting or giving my opinion in any way on these quotes. Let the reader interpret and remark on these War provoking statements as they were directly printed in the New York Times. Compare them to any comments made by Tenet or the Bush administration and then ask is only ONE SIDE to blame in this fiasco of a War we are in?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

On May 3, 2007 - 6:16pm Rhetoric buster said:

Congratulations, Ellen. This is easily the rudest, most patronizing, most presumptuous and most mean-spirited comment I have seen in weeks

Congratulaions Rhetoric. This is easily the most ludicrous interpretation of a post I have seen in weeks.

My opinion is that for as long as I remember CIA had several functions:

a. collecting information that the Administration can use in decision making, especially about hostile and unfriendly countries

b. operations, basically, dirty tricks perform for the cause of freedom

c. combination of the two: collecting nasty information, true or false, that can be used against unfriendly and hostile countries, and placing them in circulation and securing their place in the "common wisdom".

CIA was quite good at a and c, and had a number of successful action of kind b (although it is a subject of debate how well these operation served the cause of freedom).

If you want moral guidance, CIA was never the proper agency to turn to. If you want to select the course of action, ditto. A President has to find the moral compass and a grand strategy in his own head, and/or in his inner circle.

It was decided, probably during the tenure of Bush the Elder, that Iraq qualifies for b. and c., especially c. Ideally, sanctions, justifies by c. would grip Iraq like wise until the regime there would change, hopefully to our satisfaction. Sanctions were topped with no-fly zones etc. and all were justified by horrible stuff that Saddam stubbornly harbored (but did he?).

To that end, CIA and M6 basically paid for crap told about Saddam. CIA was also in possession of defectors' testimony that contradicted that crap. Links with al-Qaeda were "documented" in a similar fashion.

Clinton was using this stuff rather judiciously, if not necessarily wisely. At some point it was clear that Busheviks want to use the crap as the basis of a disastrous policy and moronic strategy, and what could a CIA head do? For all I know, CIA personel is basically forbidden to spill the beans, even after they resign.

Such truthful and cynical picture is basically a total no-no for the entire political class. We cannot rely on the Executive to tell the truth, only that they will lie according to some sensible plan. This seems to be the assumption of the news organization: this and that statement was preposterous, but overall, there had to be a sensible plan behind it, so the patriotic duty was to support it.

It is interesting to know what happen to Scott Ritter. Is he a defector from the cause of Noble Bullshit?

I don't care who was for it when. It was obviously a dumb idea to invade Iraq in March 2003. It was also easy to find it was obviously dumb back then to anyone who read Knight-Ridder and/or the European press (and knew history).

Tom

Although I don't give any of the politicians you quote a pass, because they had far more recources than the average American to check out the intel they got, they were getting intel from Tenet, filtered through the Bush regime's machine.    They should have pushed for truth and they didn't, but they were led down the path to hell by this criminal administration.  Yes, many of those who voted for war were cowards --> what if they suspected/feared that Bush was wrong, but then again what if Saddam -- what?  Sent a nuke to the US?  Ridiculous!  THERE WAS NO IMMINENT DANGER!  Our attack was illegal under the UN charter!

Remember it was PNAC's goal long before 911 to attack Iraq.  They put everything they had into justifying this war.  Looking back, how absurd was it for Condi and Bush to both use the phrase "...the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud..."  That double sound-bite should have alerted any intelligent person.

A second point of rebuttal is this:  Even if Madelyn Albright, Bill Clinton et al once said that Saddam was working to get WMD's, their solution was not to go to war.  This war is a debacle!  It is a disaster!  It is a fiasco!  I would remind you that before George could attack with the "Shock and Awe" he had to first throw the Weapons Inspectors out of the country.

There were 10 different ways to deal with Saddam; Bush could only see one and it is a disaster.  If you wanted to be complete in your quotes you might have googled many of the European press's assessment of the Iraq WMD likelihood.  Too bad our Senators and Congresspeople didn't do it as well.

Jan

My view -- consistently maintained over the past year or so -- is that Mr. Larry Johnson is a shill for a once-and-future competent and loyal intelligence agency, something the United States hasn't enjoyed since the OSS went out of business.

Like the snake it is, the President's secret Praetorian guard -- our CIA -- should be stepped on and put out of its misery. Its few competent employees can be transferred to the Department of State where they should have been in the first place. The rest can get jobs with Blackwater.

You're entitled to your opinion, but are you sure you read this part of Ellen's comment?

Then, upon consideration of your answers to those questions kindly explain how it is that you came to teach your children to rely upon the proposition you've stated, above.

Deanie Mills made no mention of anyone's children, or teaching anyone. Ellen's entire comment did nothing to actually state why she disagreed or objected, but did plenty to gratuitously insult and condescend.

CVille Dem,

The points you raise here are reasoned, intelligent, respectful and indicate that you are discussing the matter in good faith. They are also points not raised by Ellen, and Ellen's comment had none of the above qualities. Please re-read her comment. Her intent was clearly to gratuitously heap contempt on the original commenter, without actually discussing anything. For example:

Then, upon consideration of your answers to those questions kindly explain how it is that you came to teach your children to rely upon the proposition you've stated, above.

Disgusting!

It appears that after all these decades George W. Bush has managed to answer Higgins' question. With an all-volunteer army, and with the American people ready to vote in "tax-cutters" and vote out any politicians who successfully institute a military draft, and Iraqi oil production below what it was when we invaded Iraq four years ago, having "us" "get it for them" becomes highly problematic.

The flaw in Higgins question is that he mistakenly believed, just like George W. Bush on 5/1/2003, that taking a nation's oil or plutonium or food is as cost-free and as painless and as simple as pressing a button. In the real world it's just not so.

Not interested in nuance? Like the difference between US Attorneys and main Justice, like the difference between agancy scientists and political appointees, CIA is run by its management, which kowtowed for job security over integrity.

Any appointee that the WH made, or liked, must go.

... and morality?

Tom

1- Americans want and expect their government to guarantee a secure form of 'energy', not particularly oil and all of its vagaries, which gives Americans something they don't want...reliance on countries that are often our enemy for that oil.

2- How much of the military's alleged 'incompetency' was the act of the military following the civilian control?
Tommy Franks said he had to submit 3 different plans for the invasion of Iraq before the third was finally accepted by Rummy. Shineski was fired because he wanted more troops. The only "incompetence" I can see on the part of the military is that they didn't resign rather than go along with Bush's Folly.

3- If America thinks it has an "Imperium" in the
Arabian Gulf you had better be prepared to live with the threat/reality of terror attack for as long as that alleged "Imperium" exists.

4- To say that oil companies are, 'at most collateral beneficiaries' in the Iraq war is like saying;

"The Scalpel Manufacturer is, at most, a collateral beneficiary of your appendectomy."

If the oil companies are the collateral beneficiaries, who are the primary beneficiaries of the Iraq war?

On May 3, 2007 - 10:01pm Ellen said:

"Ah, well. That's simply a matter of competence and of accurately computing the cost-benefit ratios."

Nah, its Bush again following the Adolescent World View; "whatever I choose to not believe is simply not true."

~

Have you ever read the work of Joost A. M. Meerloo???

Try this Chapter ... specifically the section titled: The Totalitarian Leader

~OGD~

~

It's a moot point to the "entity" you've directed that question ...

Do not hold your breath waiting for a reasonable and rational reply.

~OGD~

I think you may be directing your attention toward the intelligence function; I'm more concerned with Ops -- the secret organization answerable almost solely to the President and his (her?) desires.

And I don't care who the President happens to be. Any polity that allows its Executive to operate a secret army is on its way to authoritarianism.

Cat got your tongue?

~OGD~

The point is what? Bush's moronic invasion was justified? I think not. This was obviously an attempt to link Saddam with Al Qaeda to con the American people into a war. Give it up.

Tom

So, I've been seeing and hearing George Tenet just about everywhere hawking his new book. From what I can tell he's pretty much saying he saw the house was on fire but didn't do anything about it because he wasn't a firefighter.

Do I have that about right?

Well, no offense, but your post does seem to amount to a lot of sloppy thinking.

(I should note that I consider al Qaeda affiliates to include Ansar al Islam, EIJ, LET, Abu Sayyaf, etc.)

Please feel free to justify that assertion. Can you explain which groups you consider Al Quaeda affiliates and which are not.

For instance, is the IRA an Al Quaeda affiliate? How about Hezbollah? Hamas? The PLO?

- the guy did praise 9-11

True enough. And Americans praised President Clinton for bombing the living crap out of Iraq on a recreational basis. There's a bit of history there.

Put it this way, Saddam would have praised an asteroid hitting the earth as long as it intended to hit America a few hours earlier.

He didn't like America, largely because America had done Iraq pretty harshly. 3000 people died on 9/11? 500,000 Iraqi children had died for US imposed sanctions that no amount of good behaviour would ameliorate.

- was impressed with the USS Cole attacked

So? I mean seriously, so what? The Cole bombing was impressive. It was one of those hollywood action film things. It was amazing to see it carried off in real life.

- constantly railed against the U.S. and urged attacks against

So, its okay for America to bomb Iraq. It's not okay for Iraq to complain about being bombed?

- had camps for suicide bombers in Baghdad and elsewhere

I'm sorry, I have to call bullshit on this one. Honestly, how much training does it take to be a suicide bomber?

"Mustapha, we are sending you to suicide bomber camp so that you will learn to do it properly. Remember, pull this string, and if that doesn't work, pull the backup string. It will be an intensive ten week training course in how to pull a string."

Really, it strikes me that this is some windy confabulation that upon closer examination will turn out to be a mixture of lies and sloppy inferences.

- and has had HUNDREDS of members of his regime turn up as al Qaeda leaders post invasion (detailed on my site www.regimeofterror.com)

There are hundreds of Al Quaeda leaders? Who knew.

The question, without bothering to look at your site, is what you actually mean by that.

Do you acknowledge that the Iraqi Insurgency is over 90% indigenous, and that Al Quaeda represents only a fraction of the foreign element... perhaps 3%?

Or are you claiming that the whole of the Iraqi Insurgency is Al Quaeda, which strikes me as a proposition which invites ridicule.

I just find it totally unbelievable that NONE of these former Saddam officers, including his VP and head of Mil Intel, had ANY links to al Qaeda prior to the invasion.

Meaning what? It you're arguing that Saddam's officials had heard of Al Quaeda, then you're right.

If you're suggesting that Saddam's officials may have received letters from Al Quaeda and put those letters in files... well probably. Al Quaeda sends out lots of letters.

Had Saddam's officials replied? Possibly. Had Saddam's officials sent messages to Al Quaeda? Possibly.

Did it amount to any sort of operational conversation in a meaningful sense? In short, did it amount to more than the sorts of conversations that the CIA had with Al Quaeda? Apparently not.

If you are arguing that Iraq supplied intelligence, funding, training or weapons to Al Quaeda, then there's a burden of proof. There isn't actually any. The wmd case is a clear demonstration of the dangers of making such sincere but unfounded conclusions.

I think during the JFK, LBJ, and Nixon eras some of the Ops were not known to the Presidents.

Tom

Why he kept quiet until NOE is what is so puzzling. I suspect it had to do with a sense of job security, and now Iraq is a mess!

Chat away:

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-national-scene-george-tenet-slams.html

The GOP as a culture that bends individual will plays the partisan frat system as enabled by Democrats. The Democrats do the same when they get someone into office. There are no sacred cows in the partisan con game. The lies fly. The party system produces a lot of bad leadership decisions.

Re Zimbardo: Zimbardo himself could be a con without intending it, writing a book of simplistic categorizations. He could be creating artificial classes of "authorities" to serve himself in publishing a book while missing the subtleties of real people. He probably did not intend to have that effect, and yet it could be so. And surely there's value in his principles to be taken and applied with a grain of salt.

Back to Tenet and Larry: have the Best Defense principles been applied to both of them? Who is using the name CIA for notoriety? Who is no longer in CIA? Who spent a career there? Where did the lies start etc. etc.

Everyone wants to be the moral exception; the hero who stayed; the hero riding in; the hero who blew the whistle; the irreverent anti-hero at some point. I think it has more to do with what someone does in their lives, and not what they say or who they attack. And much of what people do, especially those who would not self-serve has no preserved chain of evidence to it. Neither do they want to be cheapened to prove it. About them we'll never know.

Double standards?

csampson,

Go to the website ikez78 published. I think this poster may be Laurie Mylorie :-)

Howard,

exactly, but they didn't have to go to Iraq for preparation.

"Iraq operations may be an excellent recruiting tool."

On the PBS Bill Moyers show about the press and the lead up to March 2003 Ted Kennedy is seen saying this in October 2002. The press barely reported it. It was obvious to me, most of my students and friends back then.

Tom

And Mr Tenet was on MTP this morning with Timmy Russert and it all sounded scatalogical to me. Russert attempted to follow Tene's misstatements and lack of statements from a timeline before 9/11. My first thought, who approved this book being printed? Do not intelligence officials have to get their work approved before it goes to print? Obviously it was not unacceptable to the White House?

It seemed that Mr Tenet was less hesitant to criticize Cheney than his president, Mr Bush. He is still proud of his Freedom Medal, for what that is worth? The word that best describes Mr Tenet, in my opinion, is "traitor". He knew all the comments were false and he said nothing. Now he wants to sell a book and he has to walk a fine line between not criticizing the White House and, at the same time, acepting a certain amount of responsibility himself. It left a bad taste in my mouth.

Tenet's only redemption lies in joining the anti-war and pro-impeachment forces. He also needs to donate proceeds from this book to families of killed and wounded Americans (and Coalition forces) along with Iraqis who have been killed and wounded in the War of Choice Tenet could have prevented.

Otherwise, he can turn himself into the ICC.

Tom

Thanks John,

Actually I did go to the reignofterror site and its pablum basically. He links to only one Govt. source, a Senate Intel report that clearly states:

"concluded that the CIA's methodological approache for assessing a possible Iraq-al-Qa'ida relationship was reasonable and objective. The Committee noted that the CIA acknowledge the lack of specific information on bin Ladin's and Saddams views of a relationship and that the CIA based assessments of Iraq's links to al-Qaida on circumstantial evidence"

Then the report goes on to demonstrate that Saddam did not like or trust Al-Qaida, but merely was satisfied that they had been successful at attacking the US. The testimony included is Saddam's and Tariq Aziz. But the author on reignofterror commits an immediate ad hominem cirumstantial attack on both to continue his belief, "they are cronic liars, therefore they must be lying again" he presumes. He forgets that liars often tell the truth too.

But what is most telling about his article is the over use of document reference to Mr. Douglas Feith, a person of much suspicion now due to his work in the "office of special plans". He is currently under investigation by Congress.

I'm sure in a few months this same poster will refer to debunked "scientists" on global warming who say, "its ok to burn all the oil you want, this bitch is tough, she can take it, we aren't causing it, its Al Gore, Al Gore, the great satan who makes you think this"

The entire site is filled with links to intellectually dulling pablum that are from innuendo of less than principles, and from people who have been stoic in their resolve to destroy Iraq, the US military thru degradation over time, and the financial stability of this country, in favor of being right, loyal to the talking points, loyal to Cheney, the team, and the ideology of US global domination.

Ops don't happen in a vacuum, Ellen. The problem is, when it happens, abuse of the agency and its functions.

I could do without some of the masonic symbolism in DC that makes the government seem like a Dan Brown novel. But then, abuse of power seems to run in every culture, every party and every idealist. Even idealists like yourself whose ideals are not so ideal. Well, neither are all of my takes on what would be ideal. That's why we're collectively writing these things out -- to learn, to check and balance our individual understandings -- at least we ought to be trying to learn.

On one hand, some say military intervention is the travesty of US oppression on the world. We say, war is not necessary except for national defense. War is a last resort. War ought to be rarer than not. And we'd be right. Then take it too far. Say: and while we're at it, while we're finally getting a handle on executive self-control, restoration of checks and balances by giving the declaration of war power some heft, let's go further in the other direction and just lop off CIA operations branch. The praetorian guard? That's just not so.

The intelligence community has been mishandled because of politics, and because of partisan extremes. The neocons are another outgrowth of partisan pyramidical power-building in backlashing response to the most recent ideologic errors made by the other extreme. It's as if the pendulum swings left and right in the executive branch over the decades, and it comes unhinged and wobbly at some extreme or another, and hits some piece of china on the shelf, or a valuable heirloom, knocking it off. The fact is, if we fix the party system by abolishing its hold on the candidate selection process and limit their roles (parties) to issue education, we'd be better off.

Giving of political monies shouldn't be prohibited, but it should be strictly controlled, completely open, and fully disclosed. That, and undue relationship influence from corporate spheres to executive, is what is corrupting foreign policy decisions. The Constitution is a legal document, not a damned party platform. It is an elegant governmental design, for something that is supposed to work. We've got a bunch of non-constitutional entities mucking up that government and disregarding that constitution. The parties are really a shadow government between /behind the real one, and keeping the people distant. Their consent to what we have now is in doubt. Their consent was to that government designed by that constitution, and to the law issued as a result of exercised powers in that constitution which are not self-destructive of it.

Political party reform should equalize corporate interests' power with individual donors' power in setting limits. For instance, the employees of a corporation should be prohibited from giving money to candidates with influence over their employers' contracts, and the corporation itself should get one donation opportunity for each candidate, each PAC, and each 527. Then, each unaffiliated individual natural person ought to have as much or more giving latitude as any corporation.

One of my professional mentors, now in his nineties, was born in the US but educated in Germany. In the late thirties, he was presented to Hitler as an athlete and graduate student, and was singularly unimpressed. He returned to the US in 1938.

Anyone of any appreciable age can look back and wonder if they should have done things differently. My advisor had been a wrestler and was immensely powerful. While he recognizes that he would have been dead moments later, he still believes he could have snapped Hitler's neck, and that, had he only known the future, would have been dying in a worthy cause.

Yet, of course, we are always told assassination is a terrible thing. Apparently, it's better to wait until hundreds of thousands, or tens of millions, die.

One might argue with my example, saying that it wasn't government-sponsored. A more complex example is OPERATION ANTHROPOID, where agents of the Czech government-in-exile, with British support, assassinated Reinhard Heydrich, then the Nazi ruler of Czechoslovakia, and widely considered the most evil and most competent man in the Nazi leadership. It appeared that it was only a matter of time before he replaced his boss, Himmler, and might even succeed Hitler.

It was not only his potential that caused the decision to assassinate him, but the cold reality that he knew how to use the carrot and stick, such that Czechoslovakia was cooperating more and more under his rule. The government in exile knew there would be reprisals, although they did not necessarily expect Lidice and mass deportations.

Every member of the mission was killed, or committed suicide to avoid capture. Was their act moral? Was the decision to send them moral? Was the knowledge that there would be reprisals, but that losing Heydrich would be a massive blow to the Nazi system, moral? Does Aquinas' Principle of Double Effect apply? Was that a licit covert operation?

If it was licit, should the abuses of covert operations mean that such actions should not be available to a more competent President of the United States?



Turning to your political financing points, Mike, I wonder if it's even fair to say that the parties are a shadow government. Party reforms from roughly 1964 to 1972 made the Presidential conventions much more significant. Yes, there were smoke-filled rooms of brokers, but I wonder if the process by which some of those dealmakers got there was inherently more representative that today's primary process. The primaries tend to draw extremists, tend to demand much money over an extended period, and, IMHO, corrupt the process. Perhaps the appropriate balance between the existing primary systems and the Old Pols' convention is a shorter primary period and a national primary day, perhaps with instant runoff or a convention to pick among the top two or three. If the latter, the parties might regain a role affecting ideas, rather than being no more than a fundraising organization inviting ethically corrupt giving.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Exigence will dictate extreme actions, but that does not mean those practices should be codified in law. They must remain extra-judicial and the actors should be liable for sanction, if the action was not justified by desperate circumstance.

In other words, if it's that essential, one should be willing to do the time for the crime. Since all laws have grey areas, legalizing such actions expands the grey zone dangerously.

And the "if we had known" scenarios for Hitler or Stalin employ a fallacy similar to the one inside the "ticking bomb" scenario for torture. That is that we never know enough to reliably certify extreme action as necessary.

I can't answer any of those--that's my point.

Grey areas will remain, and it's a bad idea to try and pin them down to policies.  Killing a commander can be humane if it stops a battle, but if done for an unjustified conflict it's different. Also, decapitation could lead to serious disorder by leaderless forces, and makes it hard to find someone who will surrender.

So I do not abjure absolutely certain morally questionable acts, but do feel they can never be fully legitimate. Some guys do need killing, but which, and how? 

Wouldn't be his first time...

~OGD~

snip

To complete a thought I'd left undone: Those who say war ought to be a last resort and then remove one of the factors that help make it so, self-contradict.

I would at least have hoped your friend might have gotten away with kicking Hitler in the ball(s) before giving him the easy out of the broken neck. Would have to be fast and furious takedown, using the "Fuehrer" as a human shield to his own guard.

Pretty interesting link to the Heydrich history:

Here

Analysis cannot tell us how not to do what the U2 song so sagely warns against: "become a monster so the monster will not break you." That must be done on the scene in calculating how to do the best thing to stop the monster. After Heydrich came the reprisals. Savagely, they accelerated what was already underway. Heydrich's assassination attempt showed that the Czechs and the Jews of Europe were not going to sit tight in the snake's cage and die as frozen hampsters. It shows British special operations training and ruthlessness (possible botulin poison in the grenade that blew the Mercedes metal into Heydrich). The reprisals showed what was in the heart of the Reich more publicly, and, probably accelerated resistance elsewhere.

~

Geez ... Certain folks sure do read into others' words and thereby interpret intentions which they wish to believe is the Gospel according to Woody.


~OGD~

ps: Thanks for the "troll rating" ... it supports the contention that "it's" gettin' to ya' ... Now I'll run along and go spank my bottom...