×
Folks are talking about this outstanding Vanity Fair article on torture by David Rose. Spencer highlights this quote:
“We were done a tremendous disservice by the administration,” one official says. “We had no background in this; it’s not something we do. They stuck us with a totally unwelcome job and left us hanging out to dry. I’m worried that the next administration is going to prosecute the guys who got involved, and there won’t be any presidential pardons at the end of it. It would be O.K. if it were John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales. But it won’t be. It’ll be some poor G.S.-13 [bureaucrat] who was just trying to do his job.”That doesn't quite make sense to me. I guess I'm wondering just how "totally unwelcome" the job was; the CIA was willing enough to please its masters on the WMD question, and I'd be surprised to find that at least a few within the Agency weren't happy to dispel the neocon mythmaking about the CIA by engaging in the harshest methods possible. The neoconservatives had been bitterly and vociferously complaining about the weak-kneed CIA since the 1970s. Given the opportunity to dispel this idea by conducting the War on Terror in the most vigorous manner available, I suspect that some embraced the harsh methods, while others stood by and watched. The result in an organization that is so compromised by torture and poor analysis that it's difficult to find anyone suitable for a leadership role.
Indeed, there's a certain irony to the story; the CIA has permanently wounded itself in an effort to win the approval of people who hate the CIA.
--Robert Farley
