Thursday, June 24, 2004
CNN.com - CIA official blasts White House in anonymous book
But that's precisely what has happened.
The book is titled "Imperial Hubris." The author is a veteran of the CIA for more than two decades, and is identified only as "Anonymous."
Sources say he ran the hunt for Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 1999.
Among his charges:
-- That Saddam Hussein posed no immediate threat to the United States.
-- That the war in Iraq undermined the overall war against terror and actually played into bin Laden's hands.
-- That the United States is now losing that war on terror.
"Anonymous" also predicts that al Qaeda will attack the continental United States and that it will be even more damaging than the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.
He says the biggest mistake made after 9/11 was that top intelligence community leaders were not fired.
Sen. Bill Nelson, who serves on the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, says he agrees with the author's assessment:
"As we try to prepare ourselves in this new era of terrorism, we have to just assume that we're going to have an attack. And the only way that we prevent it is to have accurate and timely intelligence."
What is there about a book like this that bothers me? Certainly we can imagine that the author wants only the best, and is heart-felt in their concern for the direction of the country, but is selling a book really the best way to influence intelligence policy? Aren't there channels for that? Does every official who loses a bureaucratic battle now become a book author? This one doesn't even have the guts to resign first. The only real purpose a book like this can serve is to influence one side of the domestic political scene, not to mention giving inside information to the enemy. And does it make anyone comfortable that an active CIA officer should be doing either of those things, anonymously, no less?
The answer is no.
Mr. Anonymous, come join us in the DPS (Dreaded Private Sector), then write your book.
Update: Apparently, I'm a little late to the party on this (no surprise). There's a lot more to this story, and it's a lot more interesting than the little CNN blurb - which makes the book sound like no more than yet another anti-Bush screed - lets on. No surprise there, either.
