Tenet-onitis
Fascinating disconnect between Russert and Tenet on MTP this morning.
There is still a huge failure of comprehension going on about the whole issue of the intelligence about Iraq.
First and foremost, perhaps Tenet's book will put to rest for good the notion that there were no ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. At least in the opinion of the CIA, there was frequent contact and interaction by al Qaeda and Iraq in the decade leading up to 9/11, and thereafter.
Tenet's distinction is "command, control and direction". And so the CIA can observe a long history of contacts and conclude that they did not add up to an operational role for Iraq in 9/11. Fine.
Perhaps what people don't get is that an operational role for Iraq in 9/11 was never a necessary precondition for war. In an era of WMD, post 9/11, the possibility that Saddam could get WMD to al Qaeda, or some other terrorist group, was a sufficient cause to take him out, particularly when taken in the context of our long and very troubled history with him.
And by the way, given the rather sorry record of the CIA in just about every instance in which we trusted them to figure something out, perhaps a bit of Feithian skepticism was warranted.
It is not inaccurate to say that we have no proof that Saddam was involved in 9/11, but he could have been. He certainly seemed interested in taking credit for it among his own people, even to the point of commissioning huge murals commemorating the event.
Russert seems intent on accusing either Tenet or the administration of knowingly overstating the case for war. Here we can see Russert's Democrat South Buffalo Irish Catholic White Guilt roots at work. See, we're a big powerul, white (mostly) superpower who went to war against a little, weak, brown nation. One of the key tenets (sorry, couldn't resist) of the DSBICWG code is that we're always for the "little Guy" The Catholic thing comes from the Catholic code of just war, which states that "imminent danger" is a necessary precondition for war. Gosh, no good Catholic (can you say "John Kerry"?) would ever knowingly vote for a preemptive war. With all proper deference to past popes, there's a new definition of "imminent". I don't think they foresaw the confluence of terrorists and WMD.
Of course, the Democrat thing comes from the obvious political advantage of smearing the opposition. You can almost hear them pant with lust at the thought of the long-term implications of hanging an "unjust, failed war" on a Republican. You destroy the one remaining political advantage of Republicans, namely that they are perceived as stronger on security issues.
Finally, your classic South Buffalo debating technique is of the "When did you stop beating your wife" variety. Assume the premise. So, today's discussion was in the nature of a post-mortem. It's already a "failed policy".
Nonsense. War is a messy business. Anyone can blow themself up in a crowded marketplace. That tactic will only succeed if we agree to allow it to.
There's a big danger in all of this, namely that you so damage the institution of the Presidency that you tie the hands of the next president, who very probably will face similar decisions to the ones Bush faced. The fact is, given the nature of our enemy, it is very unlikely that we will ever have perfectly clear cut, Pearl Harbor-like clarity about when and where to use force.
There's a biblical story in the Old Testament wherein David, future king of Israel, is opposing King Saul. David's men come to him with the news that they have located Saul, and have the opportunity to kill him in his sleep.
David demurs. Wisely, he reasons that if he lets this go forward, when he becomes king he'll never get a good nights' sleep himself.
Rather than tearing ourselves to pieces over the past, rather than looking for someone to blame for a policy that could still succeed, we should be filled with gratitude for the successes we've had--no further attacks since 9/11, a spectacular economic recovery, tremendous losses inflicted on Al Qaeda, planes flying in the sky for God's sake!--and for the bravery and heroism of those who risk it all, every day, to keep us safe and free.
Fascinating disconnect between Russert and Tenet on MTP this morning.
There is still a huge failure of comprehension going on about the whole issue of the intelligence about Iraq.
First and foremost, perhaps Tenet's book will put to rest for good the notion that there were no ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. At least in the opinion of the CIA, there was frequent contact and interaction by al Qaeda and Iraq in the decade leading up to 9/11, and thereafter.
Tenet's distinction is "command, control and direction". And so the CIA can observe a long history of contacts and conclude that they did not add up to an operational role for Iraq in 9/11. Fine.
Perhaps what people don't get is that an operational role for Iraq in 9/11 was never a necessary precondition for war. In an era of WMD, post 9/11, the possibility that Saddam could get WMD to al Qaeda, or some other terrorist group, was a sufficient cause to take him out, particularly when taken in the context of our long and very troubled history with him.
And by the way, given the rather sorry record of the CIA in just about every instance in which we trusted them to figure something out, perhaps a bit of Feithian skepticism was warranted.
It is not inaccurate to say that we have no proof that Saddam was involved in 9/11, but he could have been. He certainly seemed interested in taking credit for it among his own people, even to the point of commissioning huge murals commemorating the event.
Russert seems intent on accusing either Tenet or the administration of knowingly overstating the case for war. Here we can see Russert's Democrat South Buffalo Irish Catholic White Guilt roots at work. See, we're a big powerul, white (mostly) superpower who went to war against a little, weak, brown nation. One of the key tenets (sorry, couldn't resist) of the DSBICWG code is that we're always for the "little Guy" The Catholic thing comes from the Catholic code of just war, which states that "imminent danger" is a necessary precondition for war. Gosh, no good Catholic (can you say "John Kerry"?) would ever knowingly vote for a preemptive war. With all proper deference to past popes, there's a new definition of "imminent". I don't think they foresaw the confluence of terrorists and WMD.
Of course, the Democrat thing comes from the obvious political advantage of smearing the opposition. You can almost hear them pant with lust at the thought of the long-term implications of hanging an "unjust, failed war" on a Republican. You destroy the one remaining political advantage of Republicans, namely that they are perceived as stronger on security issues.
Finally, your classic South Buffalo debating technique is of the "When did you stop beating your wife" variety. Assume the premise. So, today's discussion was in the nature of a post-mortem. It's already a "failed policy".
Nonsense. War is a messy business. Anyone can blow themself up in a crowded marketplace. That tactic will only succeed if we agree to allow it to.
There's a big danger in all of this, namely that you so damage the institution of the Presidency that you tie the hands of the next president, who very probably will face similar decisions to the ones Bush faced. The fact is, given the nature of our enemy, it is very unlikely that we will ever have perfectly clear cut, Pearl Harbor-like clarity about when and where to use force.
There's a biblical story in the Old Testament wherein David, future king of Israel, is opposing King Saul. David's men come to him with the news that they have located Saul, and have the opportunity to kill him in his sleep.
David demurs. Wisely, he reasons that if he lets this go forward, when he becomes king he'll never get a good nights' sleep himself.
Rather than tearing ourselves to pieces over the past, rather than looking for someone to blame for a policy that could still succeed, we should be filled with gratitude for the successes we've had--no further attacks since 9/11, a spectacular economic recovery, tremendous losses inflicted on Al Qaeda, planes flying in the sky for God's sake!--and for the bravery and heroism of those who risk it all, every day, to keep us safe and free.
Labels: Tenet-onitis
posted by alwaysright at
6:25 AM
1 Comments:
Please tell me you did not use the term 'Feithian skeptisism'. I'm about to blow chunks. I must admit you are ballsy... you must be about the only person on the planet trying to justify an argument using Feithian logic. Is that an oxymoron or just a moron?
Tenet is a worn-out, hollow shell isn't he. I say we disregard everything he has ever said or intends to say. There will be many, more reliable, witnesses to the events of those years coming out of the woodwork in the future and quite frankly we both need someone with a little more credibility than Tenet to latch our proverbial wagons to...!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home