Welcome to Precinct 134, a political blog focusing on Chandler, Arizona and the surrounding community.

Monday, October 02, 2006

Three for the history books.

It appears that the painstakingly posed and very costly image of Republicans is coming apart more and more every day, it seems. It's what happens when you try to gild inferior materials, I guess.

Three items:

1. Condoleezza Rice said she had no recollection of a July 2001 debrief by CIA Director George Tenet of an "imminent attack by Al Qaeda". She said she thought it "imcomprehensible" that she would have heard such a debrief and failed to act on it.

Well, guess what?
A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.
So much for Rice's attempt to cover up her incompetence, and so much for the Republican myth that they tried to do everything they could. Rice told Tenet to tell Rumsfeld and Ashcroft but never followed up on the dire threat.

Update: The more truth that's uncovered, the worse it gets for the Bush Admin. We now know that Ashcroft and Rumsfeld actually WERE briefed in a follow-up briefing by Tenet.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

...The State Department's disclosure Monday that the pair was briefed within a week after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was told about the threat on July 10, 2001, raised new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have claimed they never received or don't remember the warning.

So it's official now: the Bush Administration was explicitly warned and did NOTHING. They exhibited gross negligence, incompetence and abysmally bad judgment on dealing with the terrorist threat and continue to try to cover it up with lies.

2. We've all heard by now about how Republican Congressman Foley has resigned for having allegedly sent sexually predatory emails and other correspondence to minors. We've also heard, now, about how the Republican leadership in Congress knew about some of his earlier behavior years ago, yet chose to not investigate further and instead covered it up.

Now we've learned that Congressman Tom Reynolds' (R-NY) chief of staff, Kirk Fordham tried to get ABC to suppress release of the most damaging emails in exchange for getting an "exclusive" interview on Foley's resignation.
Congressman Reynolds let his own chief of staff secretly work for a child predator in an effort to cover-up the worst evidence of the predator's sexual wrongdoing. Without that evidence, this case might not have broken wide open. Add Reynolds to the list, alongside Hastert and Shimkus, of members of Congress who need to resign now.
Which raises the question: how can Republicans be trusted to keep our country safe when they willfully choose to not even keep the ir own summer interns safe from sexual predators?

3. And finally, how about them Taliban? Well, it seems that some Republicans actually want to sit down at the negotiating table with the terrorists. Let me repeat that: while our troops are getting their behinds shot off and blown up by Taliban/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq, Senator Frist says we need to welcome these chaps into the Afghan government.

Maybe we can set them out tea and crackers, too, Senator?

Strangely, after declaiming ponderously for years that those of us who said that the war wouldn't be won militarily were terrorist appeasers, al Qaeda sympathizers, unpatriotic and unAmerican, the much vaunted but military-experience-challenged Republican leadership now flip flops on the issue. Only thing is, they actually want to extend a warm and hearty handshake to the people that have been killing us.

To recap:

1. Condoleezza Rice lied about not being briefed on the danger before 9/11. She most certainly was, (as were Ashcroft and Rumsfeld!) but the White House chose to do NOTHING about it.

2. Republican leadership in the House appear to have been trying to cover up sexual predation of minors by one of their members. Instead, when they had credible evidence of a reason to investigate a danger to their pages, they chose to do NOTHING about it.

3. Republican leadership in the Senate appears to be actively and explicitly championing appeasement of the Teliban in Afghanistan.


Not much more to say, is there?

6 Comments:

Blogger Geo said...

I am also opposed to granting them any type of control in the new government.

I'm glad we agree. To do so would be appeasement, plain and simple.

I thought the Republicans were against that sort of thing. Evidently not.

12:16 AM  
Blogger Michael Bryan said...

Good post. I disagree about talking to the Taliban however. As long as anyone who has fought US troops is excluded from the government, and cutting off all aid and support to al qaeda are part of the deal, it makes eminent sense. The only reason not to do so is symbolism for domestic consumption.

10:31 AM  
Blogger Geo said...

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your comment. (Thanks also for yours, scc!)

There are surely important realpolitik issues in play. And if politics makes for strange bedfellows, then realpolitik makes for some downright surreal ones, at times.

I think the criteria you mentioned are particularly germane. Namely, "as long as anyone who has fought US troops is excluded from the government, and cutting off all aid and support to al qaeda are part of the deal...".

That would be a bare minimum, from my view. I'd add to that group anyone who provided material support to people who fought against us. I suspect many Taliban fall into that category.

Of course, quite in addition to the constitution of government issue is the blatant hypocrisy expressed by the Republican leadership. They have done their best to demonize Democrats and Independents (and some sensible Republicans) who have urged greater diplomacy, or who have suggested that a military victory isn't the right way to be thinking about this struggle.

The Republican leadership has been doing their best to frame that kind of talk as "appeasement". Now, only when it's way past the point that it's abundantly clear to everyone and their own political survival is in jeopardy, do they finally embrace elements of the opposition position they've been spitting on for years.

The Kissingerian funk wafting off of all of this is nauseating. Of course, now we have a more contemporary exemplar of this trope, vividly illustrated in the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

Plus ça change...

10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) How do you go from recieving a brief to knowing about being attacked before hand... an awfully big leap

2) previous legislators have an actual physical sex encounter with pages in the past and only get censure. The differance? Dem controlled congress and Dem transgressors.. neither lost their jobs - one even got re-elected. And you want to bring out a rope because someone is cybering in IM? puh-lease.

3) Trying to move a militant group into the political arena is the only way to solve Afghanistan long term. It's what is working in Iraq (yeah I expect you differ in opinion there).

3:23 PM  
Blogger Geo said...

ChanderVeteran said...

1) How do you go from recieving a brief to knowing about being attacked before hand... an awfully big leap



Well, if you had read, you would have seen that the brief was about an imminent al Qaeda attack. No "leap" required.

Strange that you don't find it objectionable that key members of the Bush Admin were given a very pointed, alarming brief on an imminent attack by al Qaeda and then completely dropped the ball. Or that they lied about receiving the brief afterwards to cover up the negligence of their inaction.

I also find it remarkable that you would simply dismiss Foley's behavior - or the Republican cover up - because someone else did it once and got away with it. That's just a very, very strange way to view the Rule of Law.

It's also a strangely dismissive attitude to take toward sexual predation of minors. I don't know of many parents that would agree with your take on it.

Finally, you don't have to "expect I differ in opinion" because I've done you the courtesy of stating my opinion explicitly. Meanwhile, your comment doesn't seem to really advance the discourse beyond what I've already said.

Namely, you don't address Frist's hypocrisy, which is pretty well demonstrated. Nor do you address who should be "drawn into the political arena" vs. who should be prosecuted as criminals vs. who should be hunted down as enemy combatants.

It sounds like you're basically just letting the Republicans get a free walk. Instead of holding them accountable in the face of demonstrable evidence of their negligence and/or hypocrisy on key issues of public safety and security, you're doing your best to excuse away their transgressions.

Sorry, but personally I don't feel comfortable with that. You evidently do. So yes, our opinions do differ rather dramatically on these issues.

Thank you for your comments.

4:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You make it sound like the senior staff never get briefs, esp briefs about possible threats.. and that this one should stand out among many. Considering the many attacks performed against us. and the pre-9/11 mindset. I don't find it at all amiss that people just mailed it in - so to speak - concerning alqaieda. It's not like we saw any serious reaction in the prior 8 years by Clinton (who I voted for twice I might add)

Simply dismiss Foley's behavior? Hardly. While taudry and poor judgement.. the age of consent in Washington is 16. Even if there had been physical sexual conduct, it hardly would have been against the law. I simply brought up the precidence with which congress was operating that was established while under Democrat control.. Foley's transgressions are below that of previous offenders and has and will pay a far higher price. Do I think he was trolling for young people for sex.. sure, does that make him a despicable person, sure. But his acts, under current law, do not appear to be illegal.

As far as making adjustment with previous enemies.. obviously its more convoluted than just giving amnesty. But you either have to allow them an "out" or you have to slaughter them to a man. Or perhaps you have some other option?

11:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Copyright 2006 © Geo's Precinct 134
All Rights Reserved.
eXTReMe Tracker