top White House counterterrorism adviser quits post

[Zebo]

Link

"The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure,"

 

[sMiLeYz]

Been posted already... but the man is absolutely right.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

How dare he say something against the Bush administration.

He is obviously a nutjob.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Link

"The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure,"

Way old news - REPOST

So, essentially, this guy is completely agreeing with everything the Bush Administration is doing, but disagrees only with the extent to which the Bush Administration is doing it.

- More money and authority for Homeland Security

- Greater military intervention and presence in Afghanistan

- More money and capabilities for intelligence gathering both at home and abroad

- Greater efficiency by the The Immigration and Naturalization Service

- More action on cybersecurity and immigration management

- Didn't oppose Iraq, thought more countries should have been involved

What exactly is Beers "complaint" with the Bush Administration? Oh, nevermind, I get it:

"...he tears up when he watches "The West Wing."

Although Beers has worked in three Republican administrations, he is a registered Democrat...."

I guess having to serve a fourth Republican administration was just too much for the life-long registered Democrat.

 

[Zebo]

I think he made it clear why hes quiting. Symbolism over substance. "But domestically, the antiterrorism effort is one of talk, not action" and He thinks the war in Afghanistan was a job begun, then abandoned. Rather than destroying al Qaeda terrorists, the fighting only dispersed them. The flow of aid has been slow and the U.S. military presence is too small, he said. "Terrorists move around the country with ease. We don't even know what's going on. Osama bin Laden could be almost anywhere in Afghanistan,"

If you think it's for partisan reasons or a disgruntled employee fine. However I tend to believe those who don't have a job/income to loose anymore by blowing the whisle.

 

[Moonbeam]

tcsenter can read the guy's mind. It's impossible to compete with him in this area. Birds whisper in his ear.

 

[Michael]

I guess that's a little different than you, Moonbeam. You pick up signals from the mothership - at least as my poor skills have been able to determine.

Michael

 

[tcsenter]

If you think it's for partisan reasons or a disgruntled employee fine. However I tend to believe those who don't have a job/income to loose anymore by blowing the whisle.

Hey I'm not only willing to let you believe Beers, I do so enthusiastically.

This guy is essentially stating on several points that the Bush Administration hasn't gone far enough in all the ways Bush haters have said he's went too far.

This is not the kind of 'criticism' of the Bush Administration I think you want to throw your support behind. But hey, suit yourself....

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

If you think it's for partisan reasons or a disgruntled employee fine. However I tend to believe those who don't have a job/income to loose anymore by blowing the whisle.

Hey I'm not only willing to let you believe Beers, I do so enthusiastically.

This guy is essentially stating on several points that the Bush Administration hasn't gone far enough in all the ways Bush haters have said he's went too far.

This is not the kind of 'criticism' of the Bush Administration I think you want to throw your support behind. But hey, suit yourself....

Wait just a friggen minute there tcsenter; the guy, he's either a democrat or he isn't. What is it. He's either attacking Bush from the left or the right. You want it both ways.

 

[tcsenter]

Wait just a friggen minute there tcsenter; the guy, he's either a democrat or he isn't. What is it. He's either attacking Bush from the left or the right. You want it both ways.

Hey, take it up with Beers, not me. That's what the guy is saying for the most part, based on his comments, Bush isn't going far enough in many of the ways his critics think he's gone too far. Some of this is not expressed literally, but by logical consequence of what he advocates.

In order to accomplish what he suggests we should have accomplished in Afghanistan, it would have required twice as many ground troops as we used and he admits our military presence in Afghanistan wasn't nearly large enough.

He hasn't much to say about Iraq except to say that if we were going to do it, we should have had more support.

What else could he possibly mean by 'better immigration management' than more registering and fingerprinting and tracking of immigrants? The almost unanimous consensus on the INS is that agency has been a complete mess for decades and has been far too cavalier in its policies for far too long. Beers couldn't possibly be saying the INS needs to lose track of where even more immigrants are or what they're up to.

"As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done."

This clearly implies doing more, not doing different.

"Much of what he knows is classified and cannot be discussed. Nevertheless, Beers will say that the administration is "underestimating the enemy."

Underestimating the enemy carries a pretty clear connotation. Beers is implying we should have more concern and our response should be commensurate with that greater concern, the threat is greater than the Bush administration's response.

"The Homeland Security Department is underfunded."

What an interesting point for Bush critics to rally behind considering most have been lamenting the big bad onerous scope and authority of the Homeland Security Department.