Top White House anti-terror boss resigns
Does the war against Iraq complement the war against terrorism, or is it a separate and competing effort, draining resources from Homeland Security? It depends on who you talk to, I suppose, but this argument is one that seems to be active within the US government.
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The top National Security Council official in the war on terror resigned this week for what a NSC spokesman said were personal reasons, but intelligence sources say the move reflects concern that the looming war with Iraq is hurting the fight against terrorism.
Rand Beers would not comment for this article, but he and several sources close to him are emphatic that the resignation was not a protest against an invasion of Iraq. But the same sources, and other current and former intelligence officials, described a broad consensus in the anti-terrorism and intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq would divert critical resources from the war on terror.
Beers has served as the NSC's senior director for counter-terrorism only since August. The White House said Wednesday that he officially remains on the job and has yet to set a departure date.
"Hardly a surprise," said one former intelligence official. "We have sacrificed a war on terror for a war with Iraq. I don't blame Randy at all. This just reflects the widespread thought that the war on terror is being set aside for the war with Iraq at the expense of our military and intel resources and the relationships with our allies."
A Senate Intelligence Committee staffer familiar with the resignation agreed that it was not a protest against the war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein but confirmed that frustration is widespread in the anti-terror establishment and played a part in Beers' decision....
The source said that the concern by the administration about low morale in the intelligence community led national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to ask Beers twice during an exit interview whether the resignation was a protest against the war with Iraq. The source said that although Beers insisted it was not, the tone of the interview concerned Rice enough that she felt she had to ask the question twice.
"This is a very intriguing decision (by Beers)," said author and intelligence expert James Bamford. "There is a predominant belief in the intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq will cause more terrorism than it will prevent. There is also a tremendous amount of embarrassment by intelligence professionals that there have been so many lies out of the administration -- by the president, (Vice President Dick) Cheney and (Secretary of State Colin) Powell -- over Iraq."
Bamford cited a recent address by President Bush that cited documents, which allegedly proved Iraq was continuing to pursue a nuclear program, that were later shown to be forgeries.
"It is absurd that the president of the United States mentioned in a speech before the world information from phony documents and no one got fired," Bamford said. "That alone has offended intelligence professionals throughout the services."
I suppose only time will tell whether there are enough resources to adequately provide for both wars. Whether the resignation of one mid-level bureaucrat will make a difference at the end of the day is doubtful, but it does demonstrate that the US government is hardly speaking with one voice.
As for the allegations of phony documents, I would not put it past the Shrub Administration to fudge the facts to get the result they've wanted all along. They stole an election (not to beat a dead horse or anything...), so to expect honest and ethical behavior would seem to be an invitation to disappointment.
Will George and Dick's Excellent Adventure prove to be useful in the war against terror, or merely a useful distraction to divert attention from the lack of verifiable progress in the effort to protect the Fatherland...er, I mean the Homeland? Stay tuned....
