Imagine the Quaker
an erstwhile mirror site for weblog on newquaker.com
archives | newquaker.comFriday, August 13, 2004
Ouch! Moore attacks with the past. Do you ever have one of those memories of something you've done and deeply regret—and suddenly it jumps back in your head and it hurts? I imagine this is what Porter Goss (R-FL) is experiencing.
We already know that Michael Moore likes to use the ambush interview in his films, so I guess it shouldn't surprise us to see him using "ambush memories" in attacking President Bush's choice to head the CIA. But these particular memories really have to hurt. Moore interviewed Congressman Goss on March 3rd for the film Fahrenheit 911. The interview never made it to the film, but in it Goss says some ridiculous things:REP. GOSS: It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late 50's to approximately the early 70's. And it's true I was a case officer, clandestine services office and yes I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, "Dad you got to get better on your computer." Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have.
So is this modesty or honesty? Bush says that Goss is the "right man" for the top job at the CIA.[1] Who's in charge here? Why should we still have to ask these questions? A video clip of the interview and transcript excerpt are available on Moore's website.
Porter Goss was an officer in army intelligence and the CIA and currently chairs the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, created during the 95th Congress (Carter administration) "to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence and intelligence-related activities and programs of the United States Government and to submit to the House appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the House concerning such intelligence and intelligence-related activities and programs."[2] My representative, Sherwood Boehlert, has been asked to head the committee, at least temporarily, while Goss goes through the confirmation process—what he'll be able to remember about it.[3]1. BBC News, August 10, 2004.
2. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
3. USA Today, August 11, 2004.
posted by Merle Harton, Jr. 11:50 AM
Sunday, August 08, 2004
Success by death. During the Vietnam conflict, the US Military Advisory Command measured the progress of the war by the number of enemies killed, wounded, or captured during an operation. This was known as a body count. The body count is not officially being used to measure progress in the so-called "war on terrorism," but it is being used to measure progress in establishing coalition-enforced peace in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which the Bush administration continues to link to the "war on terror."
On Friday, the US Marines reported that they had killed 300 fighters in fighting near the mausoleums and small caves of Iraq's ancient Shi'ite cemetery in Najaf. "The number of enemy casualties is 300 KIA (killed in action)," said Lieutenant Colonel Gary Johnston, operations officer for the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit. "The Marines are here and I think you know how they operate. If you kill a marine, the Marines are going to fight back." Two Marines were killed and 12 were wounded in the fight.[1]
Whenever Washington speaks in the abstract about success in the war on terror/-ism, it tacitly appeals to some standard of measurement for achieving that success. One might otherwise point to some scale of less-than (<) or greater-than (>) in speaking about acts of terror or acts of terrorism, but by focusing instead on the absence of fighters via death, wounding, or capture, we see that the measure is nothing other than the body count. While the President points to several other success variables—pursuing terrorists throughout the world, tracking and stopping terrorists using tools provided by the new Homeland Security department, the Patriot Act, a transformed FBI, and a new Terrorist Threat Integration Center[2]—so long as there is unrest in Afghanistan and Iraq and the two countries remain linked to the war on terror/-ism, the body count will forever be a siren luring our government and media centers to victory by simple enumeration. How is this different, really, than merely asking, "Is it safe?" That was the cryptic question Nazi dentist Sir Laurence Olivier asked Dustin Hoffman in the 1976 thriller Marathon Man—as he drilled Hoffman's teeth right to the nerves.[3]1. Reuters, August 6, 2004.
2. President's Radio Address, August 7, 2004.
3. I'm not even going to comment on the bitter irony of this, especially in view of the recent 9/11 Commission's warning that "we are not safe," Condoleeza Rice's declaration that "we’re not yet safe," and Bush's remark yesterday that "We're still not safe." See Reuters AlertNet, August 7, 2004; FOX News, August 3, 2004.
posted by Merle Harton, Jr. 1:25 AM
© Merle Harton, Jr. All rights reserved. Biblical references are NIV® unless otherwise noted.
