Goss' failure to deliver
Zowie!
Porter Goss abruptly announced his resignation this afternoon, after less than two years as CIA Director. Actually, I guess it would be more accurate to say that George Bush, looking extremely... well, constipated is the word I'd choose, announced Mr. Goss' departure for him. Is it just me, or has it grown unbearably painful to watch this President stumble his way through any public appearance lately? I mean (slipping into Jon Stewart's Bush-impersonation voice), "Ya see, the CIA is well-known for its secrecy and accountability"?!?! It's frightening to know that this is the man at the helm.
But I digress.
The fact that this announcement, like so many negative events before it, came on a Friday afternoon is reason enough to suspect that something more is afoot with the Director than a simple case of homesickness. Think Progress is already making a case that Goss' sudden move may have some connection to the growing Cunningham scandal, and I'm certain that we'll see a great deal of additional speculation and analysis along those lines in the days and weeks ahead.
Once the media is done with the BIG STORY of Patrick Kennedy's substance abuse, that is. (Fairness alert: Anyone who takes an Ambien and then gets behind the wheel of a car is, in a word, an idiot. Good God - when will the ridiculous personal antics of the Kennedy family stop undercutting whatever momentum the Democratic Party has going for it at a given time?)
Oh hell! Digressing again. Now where was I...
Right. Goss' resignation. Hey, chances are that the Cunningham connection will prove to have had at least some bearing on today's surprise decision. But I'd like to float one other thought that I'm certain won't arise in any WaPo editorials or FOX talk-show debates or The Situation Room, but is one that's potentially terrifying.
In his 19 months as our top spy, Goss has failed to deliver any hard evidence to support Administration claims about Iranian nuclear weapons programs. Unlike his predecessor, poor Porter has been unable to uncover a "slam dunk" smoking gun that would allow this White House to do what it does best - plant the seeds of fear in the general populace, invoke the platitudes of "9/11" and the greater "war on terror," and send thousands of American boys to die needlessly for what is, from the start, a stage-managed bit of political theater designed solely to keep the neo-cons in power.
And time (i.e. the run-up to November's mid-term election) is growing short.
It seems suspiciously coincidental that the current CIA Director would suddenly abandon his post at the precise moment that debate over proposed U.N. Security Council action against Iran has commenced in earnest - and the U.S. has stepped up its rhetoric about the need for "swift and decisive action." The miraculous appearance sometime soon of previously overlooked evidence "confirming" the sinister intentions of Iranian President Ahmadinejad would undoubtedly give Bush and Co. much-needed leverage in convincing a skeptical Russia and China to acknowledge the urgency of intervention.
Such "evidence" would also afford the Commander in Chief another rousing "bullhorn on the rubble" photo op (absent, we pray, the rubble), just in time to rally the nation around the idea of Republican superiority in matters of national security.
Several days ago, friend Star A. Decise wrote at The Enigmatic Paradox about an impending "October Surprise," which Ms. Star predicts will involve massive troop withdrawals from Iraq. And such a move would give the incumbent ruling Party a generous bump in autumn popularity.
But it would also require a tremendously successful spin campaign by the Republican machine to be seen as anything other than a tacit admission of defeat. So, while Ms. Star makes a compelling argument for this scenario, it would seem to me far more strategically advantageous for Bush to simply open a second front against Spoke #2 in the infamous Axis of Evil, and reclaim some of that "War President" glory - and positive poll numbers - he so desperately covets.
It seems logical that an uncooperative Porter Goss may have stood in the way with his failure to produce an Iranian "aluminum tubes" story. Oh well, Porter - no medal for you. Lord knows that I hope I'm wrong, and that my tendency to see conspiracies everywhere is simply the product of an overactive imagination.
But we should all watch closely for any upcoming intelligence "discoveries" damning Tehran that magically appear under the reign of Goss' successor. And let's keep our fingers crossed that any "evidence" trumpeted by the new CIA Director will be viewed with greater skepticism than we possessed in the winter of 2002/2003.
Porter Goss abruptly announced his resignation this afternoon, after less than two years as CIA Director. Actually, I guess it would be more accurate to say that George Bush, looking extremely... well, constipated is the word I'd choose, announced Mr. Goss' departure for him. Is it just me, or has it grown unbearably painful to watch this President stumble his way through any public appearance lately? I mean (slipping into Jon Stewart's Bush-impersonation voice), "Ya see, the CIA is well-known for its secrecy and accountability"?!?! It's frightening to know that this is the man at the helm.
But I digress.
The fact that this announcement, like so many negative events before it, came on a Friday afternoon is reason enough to suspect that something more is afoot with the Director than a simple case of homesickness. Think Progress is already making a case that Goss' sudden move may have some connection to the growing Cunningham scandal, and I'm certain that we'll see a great deal of additional speculation and analysis along those lines in the days and weeks ahead.
Once the media is done with the BIG STORY of Patrick Kennedy's substance abuse, that is. (Fairness alert: Anyone who takes an Ambien and then gets behind the wheel of a car is, in a word, an idiot. Good God - when will the ridiculous personal antics of the Kennedy family stop undercutting whatever momentum the Democratic Party has going for it at a given time?)
Oh hell! Digressing again. Now where was I...
Right. Goss' resignation. Hey, chances are that the Cunningham connection will prove to have had at least some bearing on today's surprise decision. But I'd like to float one other thought that I'm certain won't arise in any WaPo editorials or FOX talk-show debates or The Situation Room, but is one that's potentially terrifying.
In his 19 months as our top spy, Goss has failed to deliver any hard evidence to support Administration claims about Iranian nuclear weapons programs. Unlike his predecessor, poor Porter has been unable to uncover a "slam dunk" smoking gun that would allow this White House to do what it does best - plant the seeds of fear in the general populace, invoke the platitudes of "9/11" and the greater "war on terror," and send thousands of American boys to die needlessly for what is, from the start, a stage-managed bit of political theater designed solely to keep the neo-cons in power.
And time (i.e. the run-up to November's mid-term election) is growing short.
It seems suspiciously coincidental that the current CIA Director would suddenly abandon his post at the precise moment that debate over proposed U.N. Security Council action against Iran has commenced in earnest - and the U.S. has stepped up its rhetoric about the need for "swift and decisive action." The miraculous appearance sometime soon of previously overlooked evidence "confirming" the sinister intentions of Iranian President Ahmadinejad would undoubtedly give Bush and Co. much-needed leverage in convincing a skeptical Russia and China to acknowledge the urgency of intervention.
Such "evidence" would also afford the Commander in Chief another rousing "bullhorn on the rubble" photo op (absent, we pray, the rubble), just in time to rally the nation around the idea of Republican superiority in matters of national security.
Several days ago, friend Star A. Decise wrote at The Enigmatic Paradox about an impending "October Surprise," which Ms. Star predicts will involve massive troop withdrawals from Iraq. And such a move would give the incumbent ruling Party a generous bump in autumn popularity.
But it would also require a tremendously successful spin campaign by the Republican machine to be seen as anything other than a tacit admission of defeat. So, while Ms. Star makes a compelling argument for this scenario, it would seem to me far more strategically advantageous for Bush to simply open a second front against Spoke #2 in the infamous Axis of Evil, and reclaim some of that "War President" glory - and positive poll numbers - he so desperately covets.
It seems logical that an uncooperative Porter Goss may have stood in the way with his failure to produce an Iranian "aluminum tubes" story. Oh well, Porter - no medal for you. Lord knows that I hope I'm wrong, and that my tendency to see conspiracies everywhere is simply the product of an overactive imagination.
But we should all watch closely for any upcoming intelligence "discoveries" damning Tehran that magically appear under the reign of Goss' successor. And let's keep our fingers crossed that any "evidence" trumpeted by the new CIA Director will be viewed with greater skepticism than we possessed in the winter of 2002/2003.
posted by Bob P @ 7:00 PM
2 Comments:
The key date, at least when it comes to non-proliferation, isn't when Iran can build the bomb but when it has mastered construction of the complex cascades of centrifuges needed to enrich uranium gas into fissile material. After that, it's almost impossible to verify whether or not Iran is building bombs or nuclear power plants, as the country claims, or both.
As is so often the case in either/or decisions, the "both" options is the siren song of those too timid to decide. But I digress.
We must presume that the Iranian atomic era begins not with the construction of a bomb but with mastering the techniques to make the ingredients. By the time the music stops and the next administration finds its seats, the assumption will have to be that Iran has joined the nuclear club.
Iran has reason to be paranoid. It is one of the world's richest countries, sitting atop an ocean of oil and gas. But it is located in one of the world's most unstable and unpredictable regions. It is the victim of recent aggression - the 1980 Iraqi invasion that sparked one of the deadliest wars of the 20th century. That conflict caused an estimated one million casualties - more than one in 10 Iranians were killed or wounded - and indelibly scarred the country's psyche.
Woe be to the analyst who pays too little attention to national pysche. More often than we care to admit, it's a road map to the future. But I digress.
But just because Iran has reason to be paranoid doesn't give it cause to build nukes, to misuse the aphorism. Iran's claim that it is needs nuclear power plants to hedge against the eventual and immutable exhaustion of its oil and gas supplies simply isn't credible, to be diplomatic about it. The country has 10 percent of the world's estimated oil reserves and, after Russia, the second largest gas fields. It will be pumping oil and gas long after the magic of the so-called petrochemical age has given way to some other technological wizardry.
And, as both Russia and the U.S. have discovered, nuclear power is an expensive servant - or, more accurately, a demanding master masquerading as a servant. It was sold to America and the world as a way to provide electricity "too cheap to meter." But it ends up costing at least as much as conventional energy - although an exact price comparison is impossible since governments provide vast and unquantifiable subsidies. Further, nuclear waste so far is a problem without a solution, a haunting difficulty that will plaque generation upon generation to come. Finally, as The Hue and Cry notes, if Iran is being honest about its intentions, there would have been few reasons for it to quickly reject Russia's offer to provide reactor fuel.
The only conclusion is that Iran wants the bomb. The increasingly unpopular mullahs, who sacrificed the revolution's future on the altar of the Iraq war, are compensating by wrapping the national identity in the nuclear flag.
But that's all a digression. While I'm more doubtful about Iran that you are, I enjoyed the post. It provides food for thought. Thanks.
Ms. Star,
Truth be told, I realize that I come across as overly trusting of Iran, and its public statements rejecting any desire for a nuclear arsenal. While it is possible that it was merely a fierce sense of nationalistic pride that spurred Tehran's dismissal of several Russian enrichment offers, your conclusion is equally plausible.
The problem I've had with the Iranian "crisis" from the start is that I trust the Bush Administration's powers of judgment and prognostication even less. Its recent track record is one of abysmal hyperbole, egregious error, and out-and-out lying, often for nothing more than partisan political gain.
And I simply cannot support an attitude which rejects out of hand the idea of direct negotiation. To me, the only moment that it's too late to talk is the moment when an act of physical aggression has taken place. In the same way that Iran's rejection of the Russian offer may signal an actual plan to develop a weapon, U.S. refusal to talk with Tehran is a clear indication that there is no real desire to address the situation through diplomatic means.
As I've written before, this juvenile attitude is not only dangerous, but is a tragic waste of a surprising opportunity. I hate to keep praising Pat Buchanan, but his approach is unassailable to me. If the U.S. were to actually offer to partner with a fellow NPT signator in the development and oversight of a peaceful nuclear fuel cycle it would either call Iran's bluff in a convincing fashion, or lead to an easing of tension with the Muslim world, an unexpected ally in the Middle East, an elimination of the fear of nuclear conflict, and a huge step in the protection of Israel.
And, to be completely undiplomatic, why wouldn't Iran want a bomb? And, honestly, so what if they obtain one? Does that automatically make the Iranians the greatest threat to world peace of all time? Would that fact catapault them past the former Soviet Union as an evil force unreceptive to diplomatic conversation?
Only if they have been needlessly isolated, embargoed, sanctioned, punished, banished by the West. I mean, we both grew up in an era of mutually assured destruction. Yet it was constant communication and negotiation that really won the day in the end and kept us all alive.
In either case, the current approach of the Bushies is one that I simply cannot support, because I believe that it is one which, carried to its ultimate conclusion, will put this nation and the globe itself in even more danger - all in the name of world peace! We're supposed to be the adults here - and it's terrifying that we continue to act like the other petulant child in this scenario.
Thanks as always for weighing in.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home