Curious George - Not Bush

Former CIA director George J. Tenet appeared on “60 Minutes” on Sunday and defiantly whined about being throw overboard by Bush and his capos as a way to blame him and the CIA for everything Iraq. Like an ex-wife Tenet lashed out at the abuse he took from the likes of Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and their hatchet men who gave his "slam dunk" line about WMD intelligence to the press openly and as often as they could.

What say you George? "The hardest part of all of this has just been listening to this for almost three years. Listening to the vice president go on 'Meet The Press' on the fifth year of 9/11, and say, 'Well, George Tenet said, slam dunk.' As if he needed me to say slam dunk to go to war with Iraq," Tenet tells Pelley. "And they never let it go. I mean, I became campaign talk. I was a talking point. You know, 'Look at what the idiot told us, and we decided to go to war.' Well, let's not be so disingenuous. Let's stand up. This is why we did it. This is why, this is how we did it. And let's tell, let's everybody tell the truth." The truth being worth $4 million dollars for Tenet which is what he got for writing his book and letting the country know just how the jackels at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue eat one their own. "Men of honor don't do this," Tenet said of him being thrown under the bus. And where did he get the idea these were men of honor? Probably the same place the intelligence about Iraqi WMD came from - the department of let's pretend.

Well boo f-ing hoo George. You spent the second longest time as CIA director, you got your Medal of Freedom (that you could have refused) from the very dishonorable people who threw you over the cliff and then you pocketed $4 million for information that would have been quite valuable to the American public three years ago - you know when a presidential election was going on. Men of honor also resign when their conscience guides them to do the right thing. Guess what you did, or rather didn't do?

Don't worry George. You care more than the American public. According to Nielsen’s television ratings the Tenet interview led the time-slot albeit with a below-average 10.8 million viewers, ranking second in the time period among adults 18 to 49, behind ABC’s “Funniest Home Videos,” which drew 8.4 million total viewers. Got that - behind "Funniest Home Videos." It did beat “Along Came Polly” but that was a god awful movie and I at least could turn it off. Alas, "W: The Sequel" still has 20 months to go.

Republican "Logic"

Republicans have never been good at logic because logic involves reasoning and sound judgment. Two concepts that are eternally on the Republican endangered ideas list. The famous, or infamous, Reagan supply-side economic theory argues that selective tax cuts raise revenues and are good for the economy. The idea that some tax cuts are good has now, by Republican “logic,” been transformed into the demonstrably false proposition that all tax cuts always increase revenues and are always good for the economy -- in times of peace, war, surplus or deficit. All evidence to the contrary is merely an inconvenient truth for Republican “logic. Tax cuts get votes today while the cost for the tax cuts is paid for by someone else many years later. Fiscal recklessness does have some logic to it even if it’s craven political logic.

In the 1980s Republicans argued huge defense spending increases were needed to defeat the Soviet Union and win the Cold War. The Berlin Wall did fall but not simply because of bigger defense budgets. Hungary decided to remove its border restrictions with Austria, allowing any East German to get to the West through this back door land bridge. Once the flow of people started, East German border guards, faced with thousands of their own protesters wanting the same thing, simply opened the gates of the Berlin Wall and a post-Cold War world. The Republican argument is that the spending increases were justified since we won the Cold War. But if defense spending increases didn’t defeat the enemy then they would also have been justified -- they would have just been “keeping up” with the threat from the other side. Thus Republican “logic” argues for increased defense spending always, in every year, in times of peace and in times of war, hot or cold, because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Spend to achieve victory, spend to not fall behind.

Now add to that the new Republican “logic” of war everywhere, all the time, without end. Otherwise the terrorists “win.” Just listen to Vice President Dick Cheney talking to Rush Limbaugh on his radio show: “[The Democrats] seem to think that we can withdraw from Iraq and walk away from it. They ignore the lessons of the past. Remember what happened in Afghanistan. We'd been involved in Afghanistan in the eighties, supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets and prevailed. We won. Everybody walked away, and in the nineties, Afghanistan became a safe haven for terrorists, an area for training camps where al-Qaeda trained 20,000 terrorists in the late nineties, and the base from which they launched attacks on the United States on 9/11. So those are very real problems, and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point, it seems to me, simply would play right into the hands of al-Qaeda.” His “logic,” the “logic” of the Republican party is a permanent occupation of countries where we intervene militarily. Withdrawal after invading only emboldens the terrorists even if we “win.” “We won,” Cheney says of Afghanistan but we “walked away.” What Cheney proposes is that after we “win” in Iraq, or anywhere else, we can’t just “walk away” – we have to stay there forever. And since military action and occupation inevitably creates more terrorists, we must stay to fight them as well so they cannot claim victory. Cheney’s “logic” is so exquisitely circular that it makes Catch-22 seem like a reasonable proposition.

Bush and Cheney, backed up by the Republican party, advocate permanent occupation and endless war. Under their logic a “win” only demands you continue your military intervention in that country lest the terrorist claim victory. This isn’t nation building, this is empire building and since they haven’t even done the former I’d bet everything I own they’ll never accomplish the latter even if it were a good idea - which it isn’t.

The Iraq war is Bush’s war. It’s Cheney’s war. America has spoken in every poll and in the 2006 election – this isn’t America’s war anymore and they want out. Bush is opposed to congressional deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq because his intention is to stay there forever. Otherwise the terrorists “win.” With “logic” like that I can’t understand why his approval rating hovers around 30%. It should be much, much lower.

Cut and run as fast as we can

If you know who Hugh Hewitt is you know he is, in the words of Andrew Sullivan an "empty gas-bag of ideology." Imagine the self-importance and pompousness of William Buckley crossed with the anti-intellectual vaudeville qualities of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and that's Hewitt. Another thing Hannity, Rush, and Hewitt have in common is that none of then have ever served in the military but lecture people on military affairs. Hewitt has a long resume. Among his positions was executive director from groundbreaking through dedication of the Nixon Library. In 1990 Hewitt proposed ideological screening of researchers wishing to use the library resources; for example, Hewitt said Bob Woodward would not be admitted because he was "not a responsible journalist."

Here, again in the words of Andrew Sullivan, is a "priceless" interview on Hewitt's radio show. He tries to pick apart Lt. General William Odom (ret.) on Iraq and Iran. Let's just say it doesn't go so well for Hewitt. It's hilarious to hear another mighty chickenhawk try to go toe-to-toe with a Lt. Gen. and one who headed the NSA under President Reagan. Take a few minutes and listen to the interview or read the transcript. It's well worth it if you want to hear why we should cut-and-run as fast as we can out of Iraq. And this from a three-star general who is an America first hardliner.

Some of the better parts of the interview:

Lt. Gen. Odom: We have made [Iraq] much worse.

Hewitt:: Much worse than Saddam?

Odom: Yeah.

...

Lt. Gen: Odom: Look, I mean, I…this a kind of a pointless argument. I mean, the issues…all of your things can be true. They don’t make it any better for us. We are on a path to suffer every month we stay. The defeat we face will be larger, and we will put off the time at which…and where we will have even less resources to recover. If you remember the Second World War, Hitler had 600,000 troops thrown into Stalingrad, refused over four, five months to withdraw them, at the plea by, from his generals, and he ends up losing them all. If he had withdrawn them as they said, asked him to do, and let Stalingrad go, he could have shortened his lines by seven or eight hundred kilometers, and had nearly, had over 600,000 troops survive. Now that’s…a military commander that doesn’t know when to retire from one area so he can approach the conflict from another area, is not a smart commander. And it seems to you’re advocating a kind of policy where you have a president who jumps off the Empire State Building, and he goes by the 50th floor, and he says I’m on course. Well, I want a president who knows how to change course.

Hewitt: I’m actually just trying to figure out what you think Iraq would look like if after four months hence, we leave, what it would look like in a year?

Odom: It’s going to look worse if we stay.

Hewitt: I know that, but what do you think it will look like? I know you believe that…

Odom: I don’t know. I don’t know. You don’t know, and it’s just a guess. And I don’t see killing more Americans based on your guess.

...

Lt. Gen Odom: ...I'm saying the big scare in Southeast Asia was that there will be a whole group of countries that became pro-Soviet bloc, and pro-Chinese. Well, two more went communist, but they were not pro-Chinese. We were pursuing a war to contain China, the Soviet policy had become containing China. We were presenting a half a million U.S. troops in pursuit of Soviet foreign policy objectives. Right now, we are pursuing al Qaeda and Iranian foreign policy objectives in Iraq.

...

Hewitt: Would Libya have disarmed its nukes and chemical weaponry, General, if we…

Lt. Gen Odom: It’s not analogous. If you are trying to [apply] a general rule to cause something to happen in all countries, that is…you know, I’d flunk you on a sophomore international relations course.

Hewitt: I’m asking whether or not you thought the Libyan disarmament had anything to do with our invasion of Iraq?

Odom: None.

...

Hewitt: Are you gambling with Israel’s future, then, to allow a radical regime…

Lt. Gen. Odom: No, Israel’s gambling with its future by encouraging us to pursue this policy.

Hewitt: So Israel should not take unilateral action, either?

Odom: That’s up to them, but I think it’ll make it worse for them. Israel’s policies thus far have made its situation much worse. If you read all of the Israel press, you’ll find a lot of them there are firmly in my camp on this issue. And I’ve talked to many Israelis who are very sympathetic with the view I have on it. You’re making it much, much worse for Israel.

Hewitt: Are you familiar…

Odom: If I were an Israeli right now, given Olmert’s policies and Bush’s policies, I would fear for my life.

Hewitt: Are you familiar with…

Odom: So I would say the policy you’re advocating is a very serious threat to Israel.

Take a listen and see if you can hear the difference between the Moe, Larry and Curlys who run this country and pontificate from behind a microphone and a former head of the National Security Agency, a Lt. General with a PhD and a few strategic and historical thoughts in his head. It's like listening to the Daily Curmudgeon and everyone else. Does that make me Curly or the other guy?