All over the place

Ask Sim what he thinks of CIA veteran and author Michael Scheuer, and you'll discover some not-so-hidden animosity towards the man and most especially, towards his development of rendition as the policy du 'jour for intelligence gathering. So I wonder at his response to a piece published today, in of all places, the Washington Times.

As for me, I couldn't stop shaking my head. When I think of Scheuer the first thing that comes to mind are his books; very critical of the Administration and their handling of terror in general and Iraq specifically. So imagine my surprise when I read his op-ed today and see him praising CIA director Porter Goss and skewering one of his many supporters' favorite arguments about Iraq!

To wit:

CIA Director Porter Goss has been criticized for telling Time that he had an "excellent" idea of Osama bin Laden's location, while inferring that U.S. respect for Pakistan's sovereignty prevented action to capture or kill him. Now, I tend to believe Mr. Goss's statement was part of a concerted U.S. government effort to press Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to do the always undefined "more" to eliminate bin Laden. Mr. Goss' comments followed harsh criticism of Pakistan's inaction by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and in a volley from the U.S. gadfly ambassador inKabul, Zalmay Khalilzad, now on his way to Iraq to replicate the disaster he created in Afghanistan.

Though Mr. Goss' words are part of Washington's never-ending quest to find foreigners to do its dirty work, the CIA chief did do a great, even heroic service for Americans by saying the U.S. government had too much respect for Pakistan's sovereignty to kill bin Laden on its territory. Mr. Goss' statement is the most frank to date that the U.S. leaders care more about currying international opinion than protecting American lives. While some say Mr. Goss' statement was a clumsy mistake, I see it as a warning to Americans from a man of integrity who has seen both parties' leaders refuse to act to defend Americans when given the opportunity.

The truth is that under both Bill Clinton and President Bush the U.S. government has valued the good opinion of the world over American lives. Mr. Clinton and his merry band of national security advisers cum economic hucksters — Sandy Berger, Leon Fuerth, Richard Clarke, George Tenet, et al. — always assigned Americans to the gallows if they could preen before international opinion, sell huge amounts of weapons to Arab tyrants or close an oil deal somewhere in the world. No need to take my word, simply give a close read to the September 11 commission report to see the number of chances the Clintonites had to kill or capture bin Laden in 1998-99 that's right, 1998-99 and the absurd reasons they came up with to both keep bin Laden alive and keep Americans on al Qaeda's bull's-eye.

And Mr. Bush and the tough-talking, gun-slinging Republicans? More of the same. The intelligence community gave Mr. Bush's national security team precise locational data on Abu Musab Zarqawi nearly every day for the year preceding the invasion of Iraq. No action followed because Bush officials were sweet-talking the Germans and French into joining us in Iraq. The parents of soldiers and Marines killed by Zarqawi's forces are now mourning because the Bush crew like Mr. Clinton's before it valued European support and good-will over their kids' lives.

Did I read this right? What about this:

So, all praise and honor to Mr. Goss for telling the truth about the willingness of U.S. leaders to sacrifice American lives in favor world opinion, Pakistani sovereignty and arms sales. Mr. Goss words create an opening for the media and through unlikely members of Congress to examine the instances above and find just how cheaply America lives are held by our political elites. Whether or not this overdue study is conducted, Mr. Goss will be remembered as the CIA director who had the patriot's courage to warn Americans that their children's lives, at home and abroad, are regularly sacrificed by the favor-currying leaders of both parties.

Unlike his bosses, Mr. Goss clearly prefers to be remembered as an American citizen, not a Citizen of the World. Well done, Sir.

So only the recently appointed head of his former employer, who he has also criticized since leaving, actually puts American lives before foreign opinion?. Interesting. As is his opinion of the current and prior Administration on that point.

But what really got me was the fourth paragraph. Let us revisit: And Mr. Bush and the tough-talking, gun-slinging Republicans? More of the same. The intelligence community gave Mr. Bush's national security team precise locational data on Abu Musab Zarqawi nearly every day for the year preceding the invasion of Iraq. No action followed because Bush officials were sweet-talking the Germans and French into joining us in Iraq. The parents of soldiers and Marines killed by Zarqawi's forces are now mourning because the Bush crew like Mr. Clinton's before it valued European support and good-will over their kids' lives.

The left--as best I can tell--or at least certain elements of the left, love Scheuer. His criticisms of the Administration on Iraq validate much of their real criticisms (read: Everything but the Halliburton-Israel-Oil-for-Cheney conspiracies).

One of those chief criticisms from the left regards the unilateral nature of an American 'rush to war'. Yet Scheuer seemingly implies today that the UN effort in 2002 and delays endured while we wrangled over a second resolution in spring '03 was in fact a betrayal of American interests (in the sense that lives have been lost at the hands of Zarqawi who we could have gotten had we moved earlier--unilaterally). Am I the only one who feels the irony?

Come to think of it, Sim's response isn't the only one I wonder about. What are the usual suspects thinking?