29 September 2003
Do you have specific information to bring to our attention that suggests White House involvement?
It's always the tiny little details that fester and eventually blow up in a presidency's face. Little things like a "third-rate burglary," for instance. Having just re-read The Final Days, however, one realizes that it can take an incredibly long period of slow increments for such an infection to spread to the head, and the crook in question can get a second term anyway--even if he loses most of it because of his stupid mistakes.
But one can argue that Nixon got caught because he wasn't nearly the coherent thinker he tried to present himself as being: indeed, if you look closely at the conversations taped in the Oval Office between himself, Erlichman, Dean and Haldeman, after you're done being amazed at their almost sociopathic disregard for the Constitution even in ordinary conversation, you're struck by just how clumsy Nixon would think, when he did so out loud. One brainfart after another. This was the imperial presidency, and it was never long for this world in hindsight.
Not so with the corporate presidency we have now, which is brilliant in only two things: disingenuousness and secrecy. Today's press briefing concerned the outing of a CIA agent because of her husband Joseph Wilson's criticism of the White House Niger uranium story--long since proven to be false and looking like it's not going away, ever--by conservative columnist and Crossfire co-host Robert Novak, who cited "senior administration sources." The controversy is concerning who this was. Most bets are on Dick Cheney or Karl Rove.
But the White House isn't saying. The constant refrain of the present press secretary, when asked questions regarding whether the White House would appoint an independent counsel(now, conveniently, no longer required by law) to investigate this matter, was:
Do you have specific information to bring to our attention that suggests White House involvement?
They also made it clear they will not investigate this matter unless pushed to do so. Translated, this all means: "You have nothing solid and we won't give it. Come and get us." Do they suppose the press will not?
Notice too they don't deny Rove was involved. They just know it'll be very hard to prove, and that Novak can stand upon refusal to reveal his sources. And they're smug about it.
It's nice, I suppose, if you're an intelligence professional, to know that your White House will put your family at risk should you cross them, and I bet it provides a powerful incentive to tell them the truth even if it doesn't suit their aims. I bet it's not at all intimidating.
I wonder: what kind of gutless CIA do we have that doesn't give a damn about the security of its own personnel? Is George Tenet more concerned with keeping his job than the reputation and effectiveness of the agency he has managed to head through two administrations?
And what kind of intelligence can we expect to receive from the agency, and how useful could it be, if this results in their only telling the administration what it suits their political agenda to hear? Will this in any way help national security? Or does this administration even care about national security?
Feel safer? ¶ September 29, 2003
It's always the tiny little details that fester and eventually blow up in a presidency's face. Little things like a "third-rate burglary," for instance. Having just re-read The Final Days, however, one realizes that it can take an incredibly long period of slow increments for such an infection to spread to the head, and the crook in question can get a second term anyway--even if he loses most of it because of his stupid mistakes.
But one can argue that Nixon got caught because he wasn't nearly the coherent thinker he tried to present himself as being: indeed, if you look closely at the conversations taped in the Oval Office between himself, Erlichman, Dean and Haldeman, after you're done being amazed at their almost sociopathic disregard for the Constitution even in ordinary conversation, you're struck by just how clumsy Nixon would think, when he did so out loud. One brainfart after another. This was the imperial presidency, and it was never long for this world in hindsight.
Not so with the corporate presidency we have now, which is brilliant in only two things: disingenuousness and secrecy. Today's press briefing concerned the outing of a CIA agent because of her husband Joseph Wilson's criticism of the White House Niger uranium story--long since proven to be false and looking like it's not going away, ever--by conservative columnist and Crossfire co-host Robert Novak, who cited "senior administration sources." The controversy is concerning who this was. Most bets are on Dick Cheney or Karl Rove.
But the White House isn't saying. The constant refrain of the present press secretary, when asked questions regarding whether the White House would appoint an independent counsel(now, conveniently, no longer required by law) to investigate this matter, was:
Do you have specific information to bring to our attention that suggests White House involvement?
They also made it clear they will not investigate this matter unless pushed to do so. Translated, this all means: "You have nothing solid and we won't give it. Come and get us." Do they suppose the press will not?
Notice too they don't deny Rove was involved. They just know it'll be very hard to prove, and that Novak can stand upon refusal to reveal his sources. And they're smug about it.
It's nice, I suppose, if you're an intelligence professional, to know that your White House will put your family at risk should you cross them, and I bet it provides a powerful incentive to tell them the truth even if it doesn't suit their aims. I bet it's not at all intimidating.
I wonder: what kind of gutless CIA do we have that doesn't give a damn about the security of its own personnel? Is George Tenet more concerned with keeping his job than the reputation and effectiveness of the agency he has managed to head through two administrations?
And what kind of intelligence can we expect to receive from the agency, and how useful could it be, if this results in their only telling the administration what it suits their political agenda to hear? Will this in any way help national security? Or does this administration even care about national security?
Feel safer? ¶ September 29, 2003
Post a Comment