Sunday, May 14, 2006

The Real Patriots Are Calling Out the Real Traitors

Today, as he so often does, Frank Rich asks the question that is on the tip of the national tongue, Will the real traitors please stand up?
Today we know who the real traitors were: the officials who squandered American blood and treasure on an ill-considered war and then tried to cover up their lies and mistakes.
Rich says, "The public has turned on the war in Iraq. The administration's die-hard defenders are desperate to deflect blame for the fiasco" on the journalists who have exposed the incompetence of our current leadership. Bush, Cheney, William Bennett, Porter Goss and the administration's mouthpieces Faux News and the Wall Street Journal have all been pillorying 'leakers' and 'irresponsible publications' for aiding and abetting the 'enemy'.

Rich says Americans are increasingly more persuaded by the message than the messengers.
We can see this charade for what it is: a Hail Mary pass by the leaders who bungled a war and want to change the subject to the journalists who caught them in the act. What really angers the White House and its defenders about both the Post and Times scoops are not the legal questions the stories raise about unregulated gulags and unconstitutional domestic snooping, but the unmasking of yet more administration failures in a war effort riddled with ineptitude. It's the recklessness at the top of our government, not the press's exposure of it, that has truly aided the enemy, put American lives at risk and potentially sabotaged national security. That's where the buck stops, and if there's to be a witch hunt for traitors, that's where it should begin.

Journalists and whistle-blowers who relay such government blunders are easily defended against the charge of treason. It's often those who make the accusations we should be most worried about.
This has been said before, and it's the message that richly deserves to be catapulted!

6 Moderated Comments:

Blogger Malfrat said...

Following your link, I see that Rich pounds on Porter Goss and his track record of polices in countervention of American national interests. Pointing out that Goss served the Bush-Cheney dictum of politics above policy, Rich demonstrates Goss's anti-American sabotage of the CIA satisfied his role as assigned by the White House. Rich's conclusion, which should be ours as well, is that whatever the Bush wrecking crew does, or whomever they appoint, should not be above suspicion, ipso facto.

5/15/2006 07:43:00 AM  
Blogger Beach Bum said...

With Bush's numbers sinking like few presidents before I'm starting to worry that some "October surprise" might be in the works to raise the Repubs chances in November. It's clear to me that Bush/Cheney will do anything to keep power and nothig they do will be good.

5/15/2006 10:58:00 AM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

A very pregnant point you just made, B.B. When I find some time to put the synapse you just triggered in my head on paper, I'm definitely going to credit this comment!

5/15/2006 09:18:00 PM  
Blogger Muggins said...

Not sure why Frank Rich is the
authority on who's a traitor and
who's a patriot. I would like
to see more substance and less
name calling in discussion of
topics, but I don't seem to get
my way that often.

"anti-American sabotage of the CIA"
is a strong accusation. Do you have
any specifics, or are we expected
to accept such hyperbole as truth?


5/18/2006 04:51:00 PM  
Blogger Malfrat said...

Muggins, since you asked about my use of "anti-American":

Generally speaking, the White House is supposed to rely on the CIA and the State Department for intelligence abroad.

Under Bush's watch, Cheney and Rumsfeld set out to circumvent this process so completely that it came to resemble a virtual reality circus with four features:

·They would construct a new intelligence agency based in the Pentagon

·They would bypass the usual State Department intelligence controls

·Cheney would go up against CIA Director Tenet and get him to cherry-pick and even alter raw intelligence reports.

·Finally, by the creation of a black propaganda shop, they would erase the usual divide between political and secret intelligence.

For the first function, Rumsfeld created the Office of Special Plans (OSP), run by William Luti and headed by neocon Douglas Feith. The OSP did not just select questionable intelligence out of context.

The same process occurred in the State Department. The neocons knew that they had to find a way around Secretary of State Powell. There, John Bolton became their Douglas Feith.

The last part of this superimposed intelligence structure was Rumsfeld's black propaganda machine, originally titled Office of Strategic Intelligence (OSI).

CIA chief Tenet let all this happen on his watch and called it a "slam-dunk". After Tenant got his Medal of Freedom for keeping his mouth shut, Porter Goss was assigned to purge all of the leakers who dared to whisper the truth about how Cheney and Rumsfeld stampeded the CIA like so many cats into making up the intelligence to suit the policy.

Because the policy of invading Iraq was (a) detrimental to American national interests and (b) based upon demonstrated lies (c) deliberately conceived, I call this mistreatment of the CIA by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Goss, as anti-American.

Question asked and answered.

5/18/2006 09:16:00 PM  
Blogger Muggins said...

One of the strategies for fighting
the terrorists is being carried
out in Iraq. The U.S. Army,
Navy and Air Force cannot alone
defeat al Qaeda. The reason
is that al Qaeda has advanced
asymmetrical warfare, which is
another way of stating that
they've improved upon guerilla

The terrorists don't do their fighting on battlefields. They don't wear uniforms. They hide
in impenetrable frontiers and
in neighborhoods that are foreign
to uniformed troops from western

We don't know exactly where they
are, and neither do we know where
they'll strike next. The whole
point to savage terrorism is to
defeat the enemy by eroding their
will to fight.

So, how do we fight al Qaeda?
We do it by establishing and
promoting democracy in the Middle
East, and hopefully around the
world. Because, given the choice
between the Taliban-style
dictatorship and the failed
dictatorships there were in Iraq,
or is now in Syria and Egypt,
the common man will not want to
get involved. Why should he
risk his life for one dictatorship
or another? But with democracy,
he might see that finally a
nation will focus itself on
the welfare of the entire country,
and that a man can be free,
speak his mind, and his children
might grow up in a country where
the economy has a chance to
thrive. Demaocracy offers a
choice to the people who now
stand by and let al Qaeda set
up in their neighborhoods.

That is the importance of an
Iraqi democracy. That's why
al Qaeda does not want Iraq
to become a democracy.
Democracy is a key strategy
in fighting these terrorists.

So, it was not traitorous to
invade Iraq. As much as the present Administration in Wash DC
is incompetant, it inherited a
depleted and disfunctional CIA
from prior Administrations. It's
just now, with this world war
we're in, that the awful organization of the U.S. intelligence community, along with
the intel in other countries,
has been such a dismal failure.
This failure is personified by
George Tenet of "It's a slam dunk"
fame, who Bush should have replaced
his first day in office. Bureacracies are difficult to manage, and the biggest bureacracies
are the most difficult.

5/18/2006 10:51:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home