Former Aide Takes Aim at War on Terror

[Malachi151]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62941-2003Jun15.html?nav=hptop_tb

"Beers's resignation surprised Washington, but what he did next was even more astounding. Eight weeks after leaving the Bush White House, he volunteered as national security adviser for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), a Democratic candidate for president, in a campaign to oust his former boss. All of which points to a question: What does this intelligence insider know?"

"The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure," said Beers, who until now has remained largely silent about leaving his National Security Council job as special assistant to the president for combating terrorism."

[Tony]

If what this guy says is true (which I think it is), he should continue to speak-out and inform the country. Not because he wants to "oust his former boss", but because the country needs security.

[RichardR]

Part of that stemmed from his frustration with the culture of the White House. He was loath to discuss it. His wife, Bonnie, a school administrator, was not: "It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view. It's very scary. There's kind of a ghost agenda."Scary that that doesn't surprise me.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by RichardR
Scary that that doesn't surprise me.

It would suprise me since Bob Woodward's book paints a different view. Woodward isn't exactly a shill.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tony
If what this guy says is true (which I think it is), he should continue to speak-out and inform the country. Not because he wants to "oust his former boss", but because the country needs security.
He doesn't "want" to oust his boss. That was the reporter's statement.
He wants true security, and this is the only way he feels we'll get it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by subgenius


He wants true security, and this is the only way he feels we'll get it.

Dont you also want true security?


I think we'll get it if he continues to speak out.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


It would suprise me since Bob Woodward's book paints a different view. Woodward isn't exactly a shill.
How would Woodward know more than this guy? Why would it be a surprise that an insider specialist would have a different take? Why is it a surprise that there may be different opinions at all?

[Checkmite]

I am fascinated by this latest bit of intrigue. I will watch the development of these issues closely.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tony


Dont you also want true security?



Yes, was there some question about that?

[Tony]

Originally posted by subgenius


Yes, was there some question about that?


I was just courious.