Cry havoc and let loose the books of war
Sometimes, to paraphrase from the Bible, ones cup, runneth over. In terms of interesting revelations, and I don’t mean the former Rep. Mark Foley, we have learned that Henry Kissinger has not confined his advice giving to his consulting business. Instead he has been called on by the Bush White house to give advice. Let’s hope he does better there than he did in Vietnam.
We also know thanks to a partially declassified National Intelligence Estimate that Iraq is a veritable Chia pet for creating terrorists; just add occupying American troops and stand back and watch the insurgents bloom.
What else? Well, as it turns out President Bush actually lied to the American people about the situation in Iraq. Yes, I’m shocked, shocked I say!
And the former national security advisor and present secretary of state Condolleza Rice may have shrugged off meeting with then Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet and his deputy Cofer Black in July 2001 who wanted to warn about a coming Al Qaeda attack. And, for that matter, Defense Secretary. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about a week after Rice.
Since much of the above comes from Bob Woodward’s newly published book “State of Denial” it is worth spending a moment to consider the reception it is getting from inside the Beltway. Unlike 2002 when he published “Bush at War” or 2004, when he published “Plan of Attack”, which were well thought of and even recommended by the Bush administration this one is a 180 degree reversal. Since Woodward has long enjoyed schmoozing with Washington elites and working with them, as opposed to confronting them, the book should be seen as further evidence of the splintering of the Bush dream world, where administration spin is dutifully regurgitated by the mainstream media outlets.
To get a better sense of just how bothered the administration is by Woodward’s book consider some excerpts from the news shows:
NBC NIGHTLY NEWS, OCTOBER 2, 2006
ANDREA MITCHELL: All the president’s men in a state of denial today over “State of Denial.
”TONY SNOW [White House press secretary]: Flat wrong. Absolutely wrong.
MITCHELL: The White House issued a press release headlined “Five Key Myths in Bob Woodward’s Book.” For instance, denying that Condoleezza Rice was told of a possible terror threat on July 10th, 2001, two months before 9/11.Today Rice, enroute to Saudi Arabia, said it was incomprehensible that she would ignore such a warning. But Woodward has documents proving that a CIA briefer told Rice of an impending attack.
LARRY KING LIVE, CNN, OCTOBER 2, 2006
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: You got a lot of juicy gossip in the book and people will have all the time they want to go through it but the fundamental question about whether the president is “in denial,” flat wrong, absolutely wrong. (END VIDEO CLIP) LARRY KING: Want to respond to Mr. Snow?LARRY KING: WOODWARD: Well, the evidence going way, way back is that there is a kind of denial. Let me give you an example and there are dozens in the book.. November 11, 2003, now this is six months, eight months after the invasion the top CIA man, a guy named Rob Rischer (ph), who is head of the division for the Near East for the Middle East for the CIA, this is one of these operatives you never hear about or see, been to Iraq, went to the seven bases we had and he came back and briefed President Bush and the NSC.
And, he said there’s an insurgency out there. Don Rumsfeld, who was there said, “Well, I’m not sure I agree with you.” The CIA man gets out The Pentagon’s manual which says, look, an insurgency is defined this way, popular support, ability to strike at will, ability to move at will, and says it meets all of these criteria.
President Bush says “Well, I don’t think we’re there yet and I don’t want any of my cabinet officers saying there’s an insurgency. I don’t want to read about it in “The New York Times.”
Related posts:
On or about July 2, 2003, so shortly after announcing “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq, Bush was asked to respond to reports that insurgents would attack US troops still in Iraq. He said, “[B]ring them [the attacks] on. We’ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.”
This is classic “chickenhawk” stuff. Safely ensconced in Washington DC, Bush goaded the insurgents to attack the American men and women dangerously deployed to Iraq. Bush was willing to do such a thing, because he was, and is, in such denial that he thought the insurgents posed no serious threat to American military forces (just as his vice-president thought that the Iraqi citizenry virtually would unanimously greet the American forces as liberators). Tens of thousands of American, coalition, and Iraqi deaths later, we know just how wrong Bush was, and just how deep is his denial.
Comment on October 4, 2006 @ 10:49 am