Bush turns on his own CIA for his personal VENDETTA......
Destroys agent to punish REAL HERO
Who's Unpatriotic Now?
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
Tuesday 22 July 2003
Some nonrevisionist history: On Oct. 8, 2002, Knight Ridder newspapers reported on
intelligence officials who "charge that the administration squelches dissenting views, and that
intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White
House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that
pre-emptive military action is necessary." One official accused the administration of pressuring
analysts to "cook the intelligence books"; none of the dozen other officials the reporters spoke
to disagreed.
The skepticism of these officials has been vindicated. So have the concerns expressed before
the war by military professionals like Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, about the
resources required for postwar occupation. But as the bad news comes in, those who promoted
this war have responded with a concerted effort to smear the messengers.
Issues of principle aside, the invasion of a country that hadn't attacked us and didn't pose an
imminent threat has seriously weakened our military position. Of the Army's 33 combat
brigades, 16 are in Iraq; this leaves us ill prepared to cope with genuine threats. Moreover,
military experts say that with almost two-thirds of its brigades deployed overseas, mainly in Iraq,
the Army's readiness is eroding: normal doctrine calls for only one brigade in three to be
deployed abroad, while the other two retrain and refit.
And the war will have devastating effects on future recruiting by the reserves. A widely
circulated photo from Iraq shows a sign in the windshield of a military truck that reads, "One
weekend a month, my ass."
To top it all off, our insistence on launching a war without U.N. approval has deprived us of
useful allies. George Bush claims to have a "huge coalition," but only 7 percent of the coalition
soldiers in Iraq are non-American - and administration pleas for more help are sounding
increasingly plaintive.
How serious is the strain on our military? The Brookings Institution military analyst Michael
O'Hanlon, who describes our volunteer military as "one of the best military institutions in human
history," warns that "the Bush administration will risk destroying that accomplishment if they
keep on the current path."
But instead of explaining what happened to the Al Qaeda link and the nuclear program, in the
last few days a series of hawkish pundits have accused those who ask such questions of aiding
the enemy. Here's Frank Gaffney Jr. in The National Post: "Somewhere, probably in Iraq,
Saddam Hussein is gloating. He can only be gratified by the feeding frenzy of recriminations,
second-guessing and political power plays. . . . Signs of declining popular appreciation of the
legitimacy and necessity of the efforts of America's armed forces will erode their morale.
Similarly, the enemy will be encouraged."
Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war
that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of
aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden - who really did attack America - and Kim Jong Il - who
really is building nukes.
And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife.
Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports
of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings. Since then
administration allies have sought to discredit him - it's unpleasant stuff. But here's the kicker:
both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them
that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they
identified as a C.I.A. operative.
Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife is true (he refuses to confirm or
deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That
happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic.
So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson, but also to send a
message.
And that should alarm us. We've just seen how politicized, cooked intelligence can damage our
national interest. Yet the Wilson affair suggests that the administration intends to continue
pressuring analysts to tell it what it wants to hear.
Dear President Bush...
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH...... |
