Skip to comments.Networks Jump on "Anonymous" Book Author's Critique of Iraq War(demoted CIA officer's new book)
Posted on 06/24/2004 10:31:29 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
An "anonymous" CIA officer who was demoted from the position of leading the tracking of Osama bin Laden, lashed out in a new book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terrorism, at both the administrations of Presidents Clinton and Bush. But in jumping on the book's criticism of going to war in Iraq, the networks on Wednesday night concentrated their stories on his attacks on the policies pursued by President Bush. Only NBC's Andrea Mitchell gave a sentence to his criticism of how the Clinton administration didn't take seriously the hunt for Osama bin Laden and only CNN's David Ensor, in outlining what U.S. policies the author says bother bin Laden, such as demanding low oil prices, noted that he suggested something which is an anathema to liberals: Drilling in ANWR.
Mitchell opened her story, as taken down by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth: "For three years, he led the CIA's war against Osama bin Laden."
Author, in black in front of yellow curtains: "I genuinely think that we have underestimated the scope of the enemy."
Mitchell: "A key secret witness to the 9/11 Commission, this active 22-year CIA veteran says the CIA is losing the war on terror in part because of the war in Iraq, what he calls a dream come true for bin Laden."
Author: "Bin Laden, I think, and al-Qaeda, and other of America's enemies in the Islamic world certainly saw the invasion of Iraq as a, if you would, a Christmas gift they always wanted and never expected to get."
Mitchell: "After hearing his secret testimony, the 9/11 Commission said his early warnings about bin Laden, beginning in January of 1996, were not taken seriously."
CNN's NewsNight. Aaron Brown opened his newscast: "A short page tonight for the program is very full. Our lead tonight deals in a fundamental way with the nature of terrorism itself and the conflicting views on why it exists. The President says often that the enemy here hates us because we love freedom and, while that is simple and easy to understand, we suspect even he knows it is far more complicated than that. There are reasons they hate us, and hate us they do, and it is almost certainly true we have spent too little time trying to understand that.
"Our lead tonight deals with that fundamental question and it is also where we begin the whip. The whip begins with a CIA officer, a book, and theories about what the country has done wrong in the days since 9/11, David Ensor working on that, so David start us with a headline."
Ensor summarized: "Aaron, the book is written by Mr. Anonymous. He won't give his name and the interview today with us was in silhouette but he says that the West, that the United States is losing the war on terrorism. He says it's underestimated Osama bin Laden and he says that the reason this war is going on is not because they hate us for our freedom, as you mentioned, but because they hate our policies."
Setting up the subsequent story, Brown announced: "We begin with the premise that nearly everything done by two Presidents in the name of fighting Islamic terrorism has been wrong, more so since 9/11, especially so with Iraq. Coming from the radical fringe, the message might be simpler to dismiss but that's not where it comes from. It is the central theme of a book written by a top professional within the CIA, cleared by his bosses and soon appearing in stores, which is raising eyebrows and hackles, not to mention some very chilling possibilities."
Ensor explained: "In the book, Anonymous says President Bush and the west have seriously underestimated Osama bin Laden and al- Qaeda."
Author, in silhouette: "I think there's a certain amount of what can guys with turbans squatting in the desert do to the United States of America? I think we have just grossly underestimated this threat and I think there's no more, there's no more, there's no more perfect validation of that contention than the fact that we went to war in Iraq."
Ensor: "Anonymous writes he is certain that al Qaeda will attack the Continental United States again, that its next strike will be more damaging than that of 11 September 2001 and could include the use of weapons of mass destruction."
Author: "This war could continue far into my children's lifetime."
Ensor: "It was the CIA which insisted on his appearing only in silhouette, officials saying they don't want anyone to think he speaks for the agency. Ironically, the anonymity frees him to be more blunt. He blames intelligence Director George Tenet and other members of the Bush national security team for not giving President Bush a clear view of al Qaeda."
Author: "He is being ill served by his briefers, his senior bureaucrats."
Ensor: "Anonymous says President Bush is flat wrong when he says the terrorists hate us for our love of freedom."
Author: "Bin Laden hates us for what we do in terms of our foreign policy."
Ensor, with list on screen: "He points to the six policies bin Laden has listed as anti-Muslim, U.S. troops on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. support for corrupt tyrannical Muslim governments, U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. support for suppression of Muslim minorities by Russia, China and India, American pressure on Arab oil producers to keep oil prices artificially low, and U.S. support for Israel, right or wrong."
Author: "Our support for Israel is one of them. If we decide to keep a current level of support that's fine. That's a democratic decision but you pay a price for that. If you continue to want cheap oil, you pay a price for that also."
Ensor: "Why should anyone listen to a man in silhouette? Terrorist expert Peter Bergen knows him well."
Peter Bergen: "He's regarded as one of the foremost authorities on bin Laden, al Qaeda, either within the government or outside it, so his views carry some weight."
Ensor: "Other CIA officials describe Anonymous as quote, 'kind of an angry fellow' and they say that he's been shunted off into meaningless work at the agency. They suggest he's angry and clearly he is, angry he says because the government is not doing, in his view, the right things to protect this country -- Aaron."
Brown asked: "And the right things to protect this country would be, in his view?"
Ensor answered: "To look at those six policies that were listed a moment ago and change some of them, to change our embrace of Israel, to change our embrace of Saudi Arabia, to become more energy independent, to do a lot more drilling in Alaska and to take a whole series of measures that face up to the fact the country can't afford to be dependent on Middle Eastern oil -- Aaron."
Brown: "Doesn't he, David, doesn't he also argue that if we're going to wage war, we have to be a lot more aggressive in the kind of war we wage?"
Ensor: "Yes. He advocates killing quite a few people. He says if this is going to be all out war and, if we're going to decide we're going to have these policies that are so unpopular with the Muslim world, the only way is to try to win that war and that may mean a lot of casualties on the other side and we've got to be a lot less squeamish about that in his view -- Aaron."
(Excerpt) Read more at mrccyberalert.c.topica.com ...
How long has he been writing this book?(seems they are written overnight!)
With so many political opinionated books recently written, it would have been lost in the "pile"..perhaps the cloak and dagger concept in the sale of the book gives it a better hyped-commercialism effect.
I agree with this assessment. Then again, if we eliminate the 6, what we have is: 1) Israel abandoned by their only real ally 2) Saudi Arabia becoming a Islamicist state 3) Iraq becoming a Islamicist state 4) Afganistan returning to a Islamicist state 5) Civil war in Russia (if it isn't already there) 6) The fall, one by one, of each of the other non-Islamisists governments in Arabia to the Islamisists I also agree with his conclusion that if we really want to win this war a LOT of people will have to die in the Middle East.
We saved Muslim in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait. Did our approval rating ever go up? Did we get a thank you card from Bin Laden? NOPE!!
You could take the ultimate step to appease these evil bastards and just kill all the Jews. That is what they really want and that is what nobody will actually come out and say. Referring to our 'foreign policy' is just another way of saying that we should back away and let the terrorists kill all the Jews.
And even if we did that, do you honestly think that the terrorists would decide to love us? Would Islamo-fascists decide that we were finally okay to live with?
There are some seriously delusional people out there who are thinking about today and tomorrow only. This is a long term game and nothing we do today is going to show up in the asset column for quite a while. You just need to understand that as you plan your actions and try to keep the idiots in check at home while you do it. There is always somebody who thinks that there is a quicker, easier way to do this and none of those people ever had to be in charge of the whole show at any point in their lives. Its easy to criticize but hard to lead. And I don't see much leadership coming from these critics.
Don't know what that reason is, but they wouldn't just let him spew his opinions on everything without thinking it through.
"Anonymous writes he is certain that al Qaeda will attack the Continental United States again, that its next strike will be more damaging than that of 11 September 2001 and could include the use of weapons of mass destruction."
But, but, but ... there ARE no WMD. That was all a lie to get us sheep into a war we don't understand or comprehend. Iraq had none, Syria has none, Iran is just trying to generate cheap energy ...
Once again the liberal circle of logic catches it's own tail...
It could have something to do with the culture (I HATE that word) of both the CIA, State, and the Pentagon. The "head" may serve at the will of the President but the rest is simply an organism intended on keeping itself alive.
This is nothing more than another Bush pile-on to try to discredit and do damage to Bush.
H E L L O .. IT'S NOT WORKING!
A rule of thumb is this .. if the person will not go on the record by putting their name on their book .. the book doesn't have any credibility .. period!
"the reason that muslims hate us"
There actually is a reason .. but it goes back 4000 years. It goes back to the story of Abraham and Sarah. Abraham had a son, Ismael, born to Sarah's handmaid. Abraham had another son, Isaac, born to Abraham's wife, Sarah. According to Jewish law, only Isaac was recognized as the "legal" heir.
Ismael hated Isaac. The hatred escalated until Sarah had Abraham but Ismael and his mother out of the camp. So .. we have 2 women who in effect kept Ismael from getting his inheritance .. Ismael's mother (because she never fought for a position within the family), and Sarah, because she had him put out of the camp. My personal opinion: this is the root cause of why muslim men treat their women the way they do.
The hatred Ismael (Arab) has for Isaac (Israel) is alive and well today. Militant Islam is just a vehicle by which the Ismael's of today enslave their people.
Where does the USA fit in .. we support Israel .. so we are the enemy too (besides the fact that we're Christians).
This whole hate thing against the USA is really nothing more than a land dispute between half-brothers which started 4000 years ago. GOD promised Abraham all the land from the Egyptian river (Nile) to the Euphrates (Iraq). If you check your map, you will find that area is where all the ARABs have congregated .. why ..?? Because they all still believe that Israel is illegally possessing THEIR land (which Ismael was supposed to inherit from Abraham - his father).
Right On, me brother - and I love your tagline.
I would contend that he makes this statement on the basis of unabashed self-importance so that if and when it does happen, he can be one of the Dick-Clark I-told-you-so's.
Man, the bookstores won't have any new titles after November will they?
I think you're being a bit naive here. This isn't a pamphlet being circulated for free. It's a commercial endeavor, and the author will be paid for his product. Now, I know the CIA has its failings, but it wouldn't be too difficult for them to find out who he is if they didn't know already.
The "anonymous" nom de plume was probably required by the Agency so that no extrapolations could be made from his actual name. Once identified publicly, the author's identity would present a series of dots that other intelligence agencies could connect.
But I suppose you could be right, that he did not receive approval. If that's the case, we probably won't hear from him for very long.