A Mild Rebuke
The Washington Post has been carrying water for the current regime with disappointing regularity, and it looks like it intends to continue doing so. It's editorial today signals that intent quite clearly.
THE U.S. intelligence agencies failed catastrophically not once but twice in this decade: first, in not anticipating or preventing the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; and again in their misreading of Saddam Hussein's arsenal. So it wasn't surprising that Congress, trailed by President Bush, would demand a shake-up of the CIA and its affiliated services. Shake-ups are by definition traumatic. But it's far from clear that the trauma inflicted by Porter J. Goss, the CIA director who quit Friday after less than two years on the job, was transforming the agency in a positive way. His departure, which neither he nor Mr. Bush cared to explain, offers an opportunity for improvement.
...But some [reports] are all about Mr. Goss -- in particular, the arrogance with which he and his coterie of congressional aides swept into Langley and the experienced agents who left as a result. And under Mr. Goss's tenure, the nation and its reputation were severely wounded by CIA secret prisons operating beyond any law and by a failure to discipline CIA employees who abused foreign detainees. Mr. Goss was more interested in tracking down leakers than punishing torturers. [Emphasis added]
It is certainly understandable that WaPo would take a swipe at Mr. Goss's determination to root out leakers. The firing of the latest alleged leaker was part of the regime's avowed intention to stop the publication of leaks by threatening not only the whistleblowers but the news outlets that publish the information offered. Mary McCarthy was fired because the CIA believed she was the one who told Washington Post reporters all about the secret prisons and renditions run by the CIA, a story that garnered the reporters and the paper a Pulitzer Prize.
The editorialist, however, fails to mention two important issues about Mr. Goss's tenure, specifically its beginning and its ending. Porter Goss was sent to the CIA to change it, all right, but to make it more loyal to this particular regime than to the nation as a whole. His memo to all CIA employees insisting on that loyalty to the White House received some attention by the press at the time, but it was soon forgotten. It is not even alluded to in the editorial.
The extremely unusual circumstances of his abrupt departure is dismissed entirely by the phrase, "which neither he nor Mr. Bush cared to explain." Why was that? Shouldn't that be explored, especially since most of Washington and a lot of other places believe that Mr. Goss was either directly or indirectly involved with a developing scandal involving poker parties and hookers at the Watergate Hotel (of all places) while Mr. Goss was a member of the House Intelligence Committee. If true, wouldn't that explain why the powers that be didn't want to discuss the rapid departure? Wouldn't telling the paper's readers that this was a possible reason be important?
Apparently the Washington Post is less interested in informing its readers than in maintaining its links to the Emperor and his minions. It is hard to imagine this paper ever being referred to as Pravda on the Hudson, as being the paper that broke the real Watergate story. And how sad is that?
THE U.S. intelligence agencies failed catastrophically not once but twice in this decade: first, in not anticipating or preventing the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; and again in their misreading of Saddam Hussein's arsenal. So it wasn't surprising that Congress, trailed by President Bush, would demand a shake-up of the CIA and its affiliated services. Shake-ups are by definition traumatic. But it's far from clear that the trauma inflicted by Porter J. Goss, the CIA director who quit Friday after less than two years on the job, was transforming the agency in a positive way. His departure, which neither he nor Mr. Bush cared to explain, offers an opportunity for improvement.
...But some [reports] are all about Mr. Goss -- in particular, the arrogance with which he and his coterie of congressional aides swept into Langley and the experienced agents who left as a result. And under Mr. Goss's tenure, the nation and its reputation were severely wounded by CIA secret prisons operating beyond any law and by a failure to discipline CIA employees who abused foreign detainees. Mr. Goss was more interested in tracking down leakers than punishing torturers. [Emphasis added]
It is certainly understandable that WaPo would take a swipe at Mr. Goss's determination to root out leakers. The firing of the latest alleged leaker was part of the regime's avowed intention to stop the publication of leaks by threatening not only the whistleblowers but the news outlets that publish the information offered. Mary McCarthy was fired because the CIA believed she was the one who told Washington Post reporters all about the secret prisons and renditions run by the CIA, a story that garnered the reporters and the paper a Pulitzer Prize.
The editorialist, however, fails to mention two important issues about Mr. Goss's tenure, specifically its beginning and its ending. Porter Goss was sent to the CIA to change it, all right, but to make it more loyal to this particular regime than to the nation as a whole. His memo to all CIA employees insisting on that loyalty to the White House received some attention by the press at the time, but it was soon forgotten. It is not even alluded to in the editorial.
The extremely unusual circumstances of his abrupt departure is dismissed entirely by the phrase, "which neither he nor Mr. Bush cared to explain." Why was that? Shouldn't that be explored, especially since most of Washington and a lot of other places believe that Mr. Goss was either directly or indirectly involved with a developing scandal involving poker parties and hookers at the Watergate Hotel (of all places) while Mr. Goss was a member of the House Intelligence Committee. If true, wouldn't that explain why the powers that be didn't want to discuss the rapid departure? Wouldn't telling the paper's readers that this was a possible reason be important?
Apparently the Washington Post is less interested in informing its readers than in maintaining its links to the Emperor and his minions. It is hard to imagine this paper ever being referred to as Pravda on the Hudson, as being the paper that broke the real Watergate story. And how sad is that?
posted by Diane at 4:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home