Cheney's "Other Priorities"

Could this be evidence of intramural bureaucratic warfare within the Executive Branch, specifically, between the CIA and the Bush Administration? I'm wondering whether the bureaucrats of the CIA--meaning the working stiffs who collect the data, do the analyses and write the reports, not the Mob politicians like Porter Goss and his crowd of enforcers--are fighting back against the obvious Administration plan to pin the rap for disaster in Iraq on the intelligence itself rather than on the Administration's misuse of it, as in "the Democrats had the same intel we did."

(We could ask why, if the intel was so bad, George Tenet got a Medal of Freedom, but we won't.)

The irony of the CIA, formerly directed by Bush 1, being a finger in the eye of Bush 2 would be sweet indeed. The Agency may actually have some loyalty to the Bushes through its association with H.W.; after all, they did name their headquarters after him. And some of that loyalty might rub off onto George the Stupid. But I doubt there's any love lost among the bureaucrats for Cheney, who's really at target-center of this affair.

I'm thinking that some memo-leaker somewhere in the Agency thinks it's important that the public not be deceived about the quality of the Agency's product, at least enough to say, "When we're wrong we're wrong, but when we're right we like to get some credit. We were right on a lot of things about the situation in Iraq before the war, and we don't like being tarred as misinformed by people who know damn well that we were right but who, having 'other priorities' for this war, chose to disregard what we told them. Which is their right, of course, but they shouldn't ask us to lie back and enjoy it when they tell the world that it was us who fucked things up, not them."

The current memo indicates that Cheney & Co. (a wholly independent subsidiary of Bush Inc.) knew shortly after 9/11 that there was no operative connection between the regime of Saddam Hussein and al-Queda. Yes, the memo notes, Hussein was a sponsor of terrorism, in that he did support Abu Nidal, who as I recall died peacefully in a Baghdad apartment not long before the current chaos. And yes, Saddam Hussein did provide monetarily for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. All for the cause, as it were.

But the report said that Saddam wasn't in league with Osama bin Laden, and if there's anybody who knows its former asset Osama bin Laden, it's got to be the CIA.

Quick, hide that fucking report!

It's clear that just getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not enough for Cheney and the boys. That could have been done through other means such as the fomenting of a peaceful revolution like those that took place before our eyes in the East Bloc states during the collapse of Communism. Nary a shot was fired in anger, as everyone well knows. Those revolutions--against heavily militarized and repressive governments--proved that military force is not the political be-all and end-all that warmongers like Cheney apparently think it is.

(Let's recall where those peaceful revolutions occurred: East Germany, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary, Rumania, Czechoslovakia. Gee, even the Soviet Union itself. We can't say Yugoslavia , I think, because of what came later. Did I miss any? Yes! Albania!)

Not to mention that Saddam has been in custody for, what? Two years?

No, in fact a peaceful revolution is exactly what Cheney (and Rumsfeld et al.) did not want for the simple fact that while revolution would not have excluded the United States as a player completely, it would still have rendered us more of an equal partner rather than the controlling entity. And the whole point of this real-life war game from its conception fifteen or twenty years ago has been American control of Iraq and its oil: the primacy of American interests over all others. That means we have to do it right now before anybody else can get in there and that means we need American boots on the ground, no time for diplomacy or Hans Blix or any of those other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. For what else are the Marines useful for if not to protect American corporate power in those parts of the world where the rule of a gun is more effective than the rule of the people? (Thank you, Smedley Butler.)

Which is also why talk about a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops must be busting Cheney right in the gut: "What do you mean, withdrawal? We're there for fucking ever, you idiot!"

Talk about fighting the last war. The lizard Cheney is stuck in the Nineteenth Century, worshiping William McKinley on an altar provided by Citibank.

Will the bureaucracy take Bush-Cheney down from within while the rest of the civilized world takes them down from without? Stay tuned!


Post a Comment

<< Home