Would You Buy, Well, ANYTHING From This Man?

by Michael Graham April 30, 2007 @ 11:16

Me, neither.

If there is a bigger weasel, a more gutless coward, a more shameless ingrate in public life than failed CIA Director George Tenet, I don't know who it is. This guy is the Barney Fife of the fight against terrorism. He missed everything.

Don't take my word for it. Here's Michael Sheuer, famous neo-con hater, in the right-wing Washington Post:


"What troubles me most is Tenet's handling of the opportunities that CIA officers gave the Clinton administration to capture or kill bin Laden between May 1998 and May 1999. Each time we had intelligence about bin Laden'swhereabouts, Tenet was briefed by senior CIA officers at Langley and by operatives in the field. He would nod and assure his anxious subordinates that he would stress to Clinton and his national security team that the chances of capturing bin Laden were solid and that the intelligence was not going to get better. Later, he would insist that he had kept up his end of the bargain, but that the NSC had decided not to strike."


Since 2001, however, several key Clinton counterterrorism insiders (including NSC staffers Richard A. Clarke, Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon) have reported that Tenet consistently denigrated the targeting data on bin Laden, causing the president and his team to lose confidence in the hard-won intelligence. 'We could never get over the critical hurdle of being able to corroborate Bin Ladin's whereabouts,' Tenet now writes. That of course is untrue, but it spared him from ever having to explain the awkward fallout if an attempt to get bin Laden failed. "

Now the same guy who never went after Osama, who never fought to topple the Taliban when it mattered, and who didn't have the decency to resign after the worst intelligence failure in American history is re-writing history to make himself the guy who tried to tell us....uh, well, something.

He tells us today that he was astonished when Bush officials linked Al Qaeda and Iraq. It was bogus and he told, er. somebody (but not the president, who he personally briefed every morning). That's what Tenet said on "60 Minutes." But here's what he said in a letter to fellow Democrat Bob Graham in 2002:


“We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’ida going back a decade”; “Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa’ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression”; “We have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa’ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad”; “We have credible reporting that al-Qa’ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities”


Gee, maybe all these reports from the CIA are the reason that Hillary Rodham Clinton said "Saddam Hussein has given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members" in 2002? Maybe?

What would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic is that George Tenet--so desperate to do the kind of sucking up that built his political career--is now getting it wrong again in his desperation to bash Bush and win media friends. Today he mocks the notion of fighting Iraq as part of the fight against Al Qaeda, but listen to these words from Tenet in the months leading up to the war:


Tenet described Abu Musab Zarqawi, the main character in the administration’s case that Iraq is working with al Qaeda now, as it had not done in the past, as a “senior al Qaeda associate.” Zarqawi sought medical care in Baghdad, has met with Osama bin Laden, has been financially supported by al Qaeda and has taken “sustenance” from Iraq. But Zarqawi, he pointed out, is not under the control of Hussein.”
Hey, didn't that Zarqawi guy turn out to be some kind of Al Qaeda operative? Didn't he kill Coalition soldiers in Iraq, and behead journalists and commit numerous terrorist attacks? But wait--you just told me he was in Iraq when we got there, George. I thought there wasn't any Iraq/Al Qaeda action until we showed up? I thought George W. Bush created Al Qaeda in Iraq, right?

When a miserable failure of a political hack like George Tenet starts throwing sand to cover his own escape, things are going to get ugly, we know that. What I want to know is, if giving the guy the Medal of Freedom won't buy his loyalty, what will? There used to be honor among hacks. The boss gets your back, doesn't fire you, sends you out with a big retirement and a commendation, and you get some cushy job in the private sector and keep your mouth shut.

But this cretin takes the bribe and still stabs the boss in the back. Even Whitey Bulger wouldn't do that.

Finally, there is the fundamental question of character. Why would I believe anything this weasel has to say? When Clinton refused to go after Osama, Tenet could have resigned, or complained publicly--done something that was risky, but mattered. He chose to keep his job.

When Bush was supposedly "ignoring" Tenet's warnings about Al Qaeda (his book says yes, his testimony to the 9/11 Commission says no), he could have resigned, held a press conference, etc. When the Bushies were doing whatever magic mind-control on him to keep him saying things defending the decision to invade Iraq, Tenet could have quit. If he had, it could well have stopped the war, or moved the date back at least.

But at every turn, Tenet the Hack won out over Tenet the Hero. Now he's going to make a million dollars playing a guy in bookstores and on TV that he never had the courage to play in real life.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Tenet Lied, The Media Never Tried

by Michael Graham April 30, 2007 @ 09:45
George Tenet has said so many things that are demonstrably untrue that it's almost embarrasing to point them out. But being the shameless kind of guy that I am, I'll do it.

Start here with his "I ran into a guy in Washington who was actually in France at the time."

Then go to "I don't know nuthin' about no Al Qaeda in Iraq."

Then try "Bush was trying to start a secret war against Iran!...except he wasn't."

And finish up with Michael Sheuer's "slam dunk" (pardon the pun) take down of the World's Most Shameless Hack.

If you're still taking this idiot seriously, just remember what he did on September 12th, 2001. He DIDN'T resign.

'Nuff said.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Sen. Obama: Just One Clue Away

by Michael Graham April 27, 2007 @ 09:50

Of the many, many dopey things said at the Democratic presidential debate in Orangeburg, SC, Sen. Obama's answer to the Iraq question stands out for its utter cluelessness:


But look, we are one vote away -- we were one signature away or 16 votes away from ending this war. One signature away. Now, if the president is not going to sign the bill that has been sent to him, then what we have to do is gather up 16 votes in order to override his veto.


Uh, no, Senator. You're not just "one signature away" from ending the war because you know--and have known for months--that President Bush is going to veto the Democrats' "surrender first" Iraq war bill. Saying you're just "one signature away" is like John Kerry saying he's just "one state's electoral votes" away from being president. In other words, you're NOT.


The same with the talk of "gathering up 16 votes" to override Bush's veto and push through the Obama plan. Senator, there AREN'T 16 GOP US senators who are going to vote with you. The vote was 51-46--a bare majority. Your brave, bold Iraq war plan is to round up 16 Senators to switch their votes? Why don't you round up 16 elves, fairies and sane Mike Gravel supporters while you're at it?


Sen. Obama's answer to the Iraq question, in other words, is sheer nonsense. Then again, so was Gov. Richardson's, Sen. Dodd's and just about everyone else's on the Democratic platform--with the glaring exception of Dennis Kucinich (D--His Mom's Basement).


While it is impossible for Senate Democrats to hypnotize President Bush and force him to sign their doomed legislation, it is completely possible for them to vote to end all funding for the war. Sure, the president will veto that, too, but he can't force them to pass a bill with war funds in it. They can win this fight through attrition. If, that is, they have the guts to fight.


They don't. Instead, they blather on about magic signatures, invisible votes and Democratic strategies for winning the war on terror. All things that don't exist.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

My Take On Sheryl's "One Square, One Squat" System

by Michael Graham April 26, 2007 @ 11:00
From today's Boston Herald.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Everything I Need To Know About The Bush Presidency...

by Michael Graham April 26, 2007 @ 09:26
I rarely quote David Broder, the icon of "Beltway High School Student Government" establishment journalism, but a single sentence captured what I believe is the fundamental truth about the Bush presidency:

"President Bush's highly developed tolerance for egregious incompetence in his administration may have met its supreme test in Attorney General Gonzales..."

Broder's column is actually about how dumb Harry Reid is (Broder's right about that, too), but I think it's fair to say that, whatever happens between now and 2009, the story of the Bushies has been written: Incompetent.

Just as Clinton was defined long before his presidency ended by his sleaze and laughable rejection of the obvious truth, Bush has forever earned the reputation as a leader who never met an incompetent he couldn't like.

I don't think this is the same thing as being stupid. Stupid is doing dumb things. Bush's ideas, including regime change in Iraq, are all reasonable (it's possible for an action to be reasonable and wrong at the same time). What's been lousy is the execution.

Here's the Bush management style:

A--"Hey, I've got an idea! Let's buy an ad on the Super Bowl. It's going to cost a ton of dough and risk our ability to make a profit for an entire year, but if it's a great ad, it could revolutionize our business and make us money for a long time."

B--Hire a buddy from college to produce the ad. He comes in way over budget and the ad bombs.

C--Deny the ad sucked, give your buddy a promotion and blame business reporters for the lousy reviews.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Plastic Bags? No! Body Bags? No Biggie.

by Michael Graham April 26, 2007 @ 07:33

Boston city councilor and notorious Nanny-State kook Rob Consalvo is at it again. He wants to criminalize plastic shopping bags in Beantown. He got the idea from San Francisco--'nuff said--and (surprise!) he's already got nine votes on the 12-member city council for the ban.

This has to come as a great relief to Consalvo's constituents in Mattapan. When your community's nickname is "Murder-pan," the number one issue on your mind has to be plastic shopping bags.

Consalvo says the bags are a blight. They're annoying. They litter the sidewalks of Mattapan, obscuring the view of the chalk drawings and blood stains. Something must be done! And, with a 9-vote majority, probably will be.

Meanwhile, State Sen. Brian Joyce is trying to get rid of the plastic bags statewide. His plan is to charge shoppers up to 15 cents per bag if they choose plastic over paper. Doesn't this insensitive earth-hater know that paper bags come from TREES! Why, every paper bag I choose is equal to at least a dozen "one-square" visits to the potty by Sheryl Crow.

Save Shery's Potty! Choose Plastic!

UPDATE: For other examples of Consalvo's kookery, look
here, here, and here.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

If You Call Me "Violent" Again, I'll Kill You, Part XVI

by Michael Graham April 25, 2007 @ 14:41

The Reuters caption under each of these photos?

"Palestinians attend a demonstration against violence in Gaza April 23, 2007. "

(hat tip: Opinionjournal.com)

Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

"The War Is Lost! We're Doomed! Run Away!"

by Michael Graham April 25, 2007 @ 09:24
But enough from Sen. Harry Reid. "Fightin' Harry Reid," the W. T. Sherman of the US Senate, has already announced that he knows more about what's going on in Iraq than Gen. Petraeus does.

So let's do what Harry Reid won't, and get listen to/learn from
some actual reporting:

"Last week, Connecticut Republican congressman Christopher Shays briefed his Republican colleagues on the progress he observed in Iraq earlier this month. No member of Congress has visited Iraq more often than Shays, and since he’s an outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s war strategies, members of Congress were attentive as he gave his impressions from his 16th trip. For the first time in over a year, Shays saw promising signs, and he is anxious to confirm them when he returns to Iraq next month. He is encouraged by the improved security in Baghdad, the cooperation of Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province, and the dramatically improved oil production in the north."

What? A member of Congress reporting "progress?" Yeah, but what else would you expect from a right-winger like Chris Shays, representing the rednecks of red-state Connecticut. There aren't any impartial observers who haven't given up, are there?

Uh, well actually...

Clinton pal and frequent Bush critic Gen. Barry McCaffrey wrote a scathing review of screwups in Iraq,
but concluded: "We can still achieve out objective of a stable Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, not producing weapons of mass destruction and fully committed to a law-based government."

British military historian Sir Max Hastings, a big-time critic of the war, says that losing in Iraq would be a disaster for both the Iraqis and the West, and that Gen. Petraeus--despite ignoring the military advice of Harry "Rambo" Reid--is winning "real if partial victories."

What does this prove? Only that rational, reasonable people believe the war is still winnable. It can also still be lost, too. Given the stakes of this war for the entire world, why wouldn't this inspire to fight smarter and harder for a much-needed victory, instead of embracing the option of defeat?

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

You're Fat? You're Fired!

by Michael Graham April 25, 2007 @ 09:05
And why not? Since I'm already free to discriminate against employees who smoke--forcing them to quit, firing them for smoking, making them pay more for health insurance premiums--why can't I do the same to people who choose to eat too much?

This study makes it clear that hiring overweight people is a fiscal loser for business owners. What's the difference between nicotine addicts and those hooked on Nutty Buddies?

It's against the law to "discriminate" against overweight people. In other words, I can fire a smoker who does a good job, but if I refuse to hire Hillary Hippo to work as a receptionist at my health club, I can (and will be) sued--even though she is going to cost me more money and take more days off?

Ain't that America...

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Ham Sandwich...Or HATE CRIME?!

by Michael Graham April 25, 2007 @ 08:43
That's the question they're asking today in Lewiston, ME, after a middle school kid threw a bag with a slice of ham in it on a lunchroom table where some Muslim kids were sitting.

One student has been suspended for, er, "assault with a pork product," maybe? Anyway, one kid is suspended and "more disciplinary action could follow [the] possible hate crime."

Hate? Maybe. CRIME? No way.

What's the crime? Was anyone in any danger of any harm whatsoever from the ham in question? Now, if it were tainted ham or poisoned ham, or the life-threatening ham salad my culinary-impaired sister made for us one Easter--then you'd have a crime scene.

This was one kid or group of kids teasing another. It happens. It's called "middle school."

So if the ham-slamming 12-year-old broke some rule, fine. Detention, suspension, whatever. But does everyone involved after overreact?

Apparently, yes. "Incidents like this...are often said as a joke," says Stephen Wessler of the Center fro Prevention of Have Violence. "I know that conduct is never static. More degrading acts will follow, until at some point we'll end up having violence."

First it's the ham steak, then it's...THE AK-47!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!

Apparently everyone in this Maine middle school is a moron. But, unlike the bonehead bureaucrats, the kids have the excuse of being 12-year-olds.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Powered by BlogEngine.NET 1.4.5.0

© 2008 Greater Media Boston

Michael Graham

Natural Truth of the Day

“We are going to cheerfully provide that loyal opposition  -- Rep. Mike Pence, R-IN 

Poll of the Day