or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
August 24, 2006
Six Questions For Michael Scheuer On National Security
Ken Silverstein of Harper's recent spoke to Michael Scheuer, chief of the bin Laden unit at the CIA's Counterterrorist Center from 1996-99. The interview took place at an International House of Pancakes:
1. We're coming up on the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Is the country safer or more vulnerable to terrorism?On balance, more vulnerable. We're safer in terms of aircraft travel. We're safer from being attacked by some dumbhead who tries to come into the country through an official checkpoint; we've spent billions on that. But for the most part our victories have been tactical and not strategic...
In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There's our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world’s oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies.
This reminds me of a crazy fantasy I have. In this fantasy, a White House reporter stands up at a press conference and asks Bush the most mindbogglingly obvious question imaginable:
Mr. President, the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit has referred to U.S foreign policy as bin Laden's indispensable ally. I'm sure you don't agree with this characterization, but could you explain for us your understanding of why he says that?
Of course, I know it's literally impossible for White House reporters to ask the President of the United States mindbogglingly obvious questions. It's like wanting them to travel faster than the speed of light. Still, I dream my dreamy dreams.
Posted at August 24, 2006 07:59 AM | TrackBackMr. President, the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit has referred to U.S foreign policy as bin Laden's indispensable ally. I'm sure you don't agree with this characterization, but could you explain for us your understanding of why he says that?
BUSH: The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. [...] We're not leaving, so long as I'm the President. [...] Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged, nor cares about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job was done would send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster, and that's what we're saying. [...] We're not going to leave Iraq before the job is done, and we'll complete the mission in Iraq. [...] I repeat what our major general said -- or leading general said in the region. He said, "If we withdraw before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here." I strongly agree with that. [...] The idea is to try to help change the Middle East. [...] The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. [...] And one way to defeat that -- defeat resentment is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government. Now, I said going into Iraq that we've got to take these threats seriously before they fully materialize. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him. Now, the question is how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.
I think he'd say something like that.
Posted by: Lame Man at August 24, 2006 08:38 AMWell, a couple of days ago there was this unfortunate incident:
...You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
Q What did Iraq have to do with that?
THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Q The attack on the World Trade Center?
THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken....Posted by: abb1 at August 24, 2006 08:41 AM
abb1, I saw that. Notice the language he uses: "nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ORDERED the attack." He still leaves it open that they suggested that Saddam aided or supported in some way the attacks, which they did!
Also, I would like to see the follow up by Ken:
"But at no point was Iraq a threat to the US. So, how are we 'taking the threads before they materialize' if we go after the wrong target?"
I guess I am as much of a dreamer as Jonathan.
Posted by: Dimitria at August 24, 2006 10:54 AM
Logic is so passé.
You just have to have faith.
What is so obvious is that there is a mutual friendship between bin Laden and Bush. Bin Laden single handedly reelected Bush and Bush did his utmost to help bin Laden. They have both been indispensable to each other. And when you think about it the best and easiest way to destroy America was to ensure Bush was reelected.
Posted by: rob payne at August 24, 2006 01:31 PMCountries that oppress Muslims such as India? Uh, what? If that's going to be our criteria for what counts as oppression, I'm not really sure where to stop. I agree with his main point, but that's a very broad brush.
Posted by: Saheli at August 24, 2006 04:18 PMGeorge is a politican, he will say anything, tell you any lie. Lies involve NO reason, no commonsense. Ken's question asked for commomsense and the truth. George,s lie wandered off to nowhere as all lies do. WE have NO recourse, he NEEDS no remedy. (call your Senator or Congressman, see how their answers to your questions jive)
Posted by: Mike Meyer at August 24, 2006 06:54 PMI think you should interview Thomas Friedman in an IHOP, Jonathan. Let us know if he sings the praises of globalization and stiffs the waitress.
Posted by: Jonathan Versen at August 24, 2006 08:43 PMSheuer still pushes the excuse that Fearless Leader was sold a 'bill of goods' by George Tenet and since he was told lies, that makes passing them on completely excusable. Make no mistake that the CIA is not the gang of bumbling idiots these Bushanistas are making them out to be. Big Daddy Bush will always be in charge and he runs a very tight ship!
Posted by: JLaR at August 25, 2006 12:58 AMJon, when Eric gets back to the briefing room I'll ask him to put the question to Tony. He's never had an opportunity to ask Bush anything, but there's a first time for some things.
Posted by: weldon berger at August 25, 2006 02:26 AMJonathan, I thought I'd drop you a link to Fortune Cookie Neoconservatism. I think you could have written it better, but it's right up your alley nonetheless.
Posted by: Noumenon at August 25, 2006 06:12 AMThey don't ask because the answer is also mindbogglingly obvious: "He says that because because he doesn't understand the world we live in".
Posted by: Steve at August 25, 2006 10:49 AM
