Monday, August 06, 2007

BlogSwarm: The Two MOST Disasterous Anniversaries?

Today, August 6, is of course the anniversary of the first Atomic bombing, on Hiroshima, August 6, 1945.

It is also the anniversary of the announcement to the assembled Busheviki in Crawford, Texas, in 2001, that according to intelligence sources reported in the Presidential Daily Briefing that day, "Bin Laden (Is) determined to strike in US." This clear warning the Busheviki met with hubristic arrogance, telling the intelligence briefers that they had "covered their asses;" then-National Security Advisor Condi Rice later dismissed it as of 'merely historical" significance (which remark ought forever to have poisoned her path to any further positions of leadership or authority, except in Disneyland.)

It would be difficult, and will take a very long time, to assess which event will ultimately have the greater, more toxic effect.


Anonymous said...

Actually, the famous August 6th PDB wasn't a clear warning at all. It was ass-covering of the worst sort by Tenet and a hideously-inept CIA.

Tim Weiner, who's masterpiece history of the CIA, "Legacy of Ashes" describes the memo as "weak reporting" and "a history". The freshest intel in that memo dated from 1999.

Democrats have routinely covered for the CIA because they've leaked highly classified documents that were targeted at the Administration. Because you have done this, you have perpetuated the legacy of an inept, clown-car intellegence agency that was outwitted by Men in Caves.

If a Democratic Administration comes to power in 2009, the country will still be ill-served by these clowns. Democrats and Republicans could have insisted on a top-to-bottom cleanout of CIA. But they didn't. As such, you folks are still concentrating on blue smoke and mirrors like the August 6th memo and the Valerie Plame case, while the CIA is able to skate by, as incompetent today as it was during the Bay of Pigs.

WGG, Rogue Scholar & Tokin Lib'rul said...

it always puzzles and amuses me that the left has been required to make its stand against the crimiinal/political machinations of the busheviks defending a CIA officer.
Not unlike, perhaps, the aclu defending william calley (i know, it dint happen, it's just an illustration; and the apt comparison is not w/Skokie, either).
i know this doesn't wholly answer your critique.