Top White House anti-terror boss resigns By P. Mitchell Prothero From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk Published 3/19/2003 5:37 PM WASHINGTON, March 19 (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. "Randy said that he was 'just tired' and did not have an interest in adding the stress that would come with a war with Iraq," the source said. 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." But some involved in the fight on terror said that it was dangerous to look too far into one resignation -- particularly from an official who has not blamed the war on Iraq. "I found his resignation shocking," said one official closely involved in the domestic fight on terror. "And it might reflect a certain frustration over the allocation of resources. But I'm not positive that there's a consensus (among intelligence services) that deposing Saddam's regime is a bad idea for fighting terror. I think that there are serious concerns about resources and alienating allies, but some of us see an upside." But others point out that the CIA warned Congress last year that an invasion might lead to a rise in terrorism. This, they say, is evidence there's more than just ambivalence about the war among the spy community. "If it was your job to prevent terror attacks, would you be happy about an action that many see as unnecessary, that is almost guaranteed to cause more terror in the short-term?" said one official. "I know I'm not (happy)." Beers joined the NSC in August after heading the State Department's International Narcotics and Law Enforcement branch, where he ran the Plan Colombia program to fight narco-traffickers in that country. Beers served both Bush administrations as well as serving in similar capacities with both the Clinton and Reagan administrations.
Meanwhile the largest offensive against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in nearly a year was carried out last night.
Meanwhile the largest offensive against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in nearly a year was carried out last night. If it's true that <I>intelligence</I> resources are being diverted, that won't be felt until the coming weeks and months...
The lies are being told by the people in the know!!! The War with Iraq IS the War on Terror. I read it here, so it must be true!!!
If only the head of our Anti-Terrorist organization had his finger on the pulse of the anti-terrorist activity that MM has, he clearly would have seen the light and never resigned, right? I assume that your statement was made to somehow undermine the significance of yet another top official in relevent fields objecting to the current administration's handling of activities in thoise fields, but I'm not sure how...
I'm so happy we have people that have even more combat intelligence than the CIA and the United States Military <I>here on this very BBS</I> who can provide their valuable advice! What a ridiculous display of arrogance your quote is, Major. For you to think that you know how to best deploy our military resources better than the men and women of our armed forces is pure lunacy. I support our armed forces and their decision makers.
where in the world did i say that, macbeth? thanks for speaking for me, though. i have an important meeting at 2 today...think you can be here to let me know what i should say?
i get the very distinct impression through your posts you truly believe you're smarter than everyone you disagree with. truly academic, macbeth.
Invariably. I ask an honest question, and preface it with the pre-emptive ( it's in the air) discalimer that this is about the spirirt of automatic support of decisions of military/political leaders, not whether or not we are Nazis...T_J...what is your stance on the standard defense issued by the accused at Nuremberg? Seriously...
I'm so happy we have people that have even more combat intelligence than the CIA and the United States Military here on this very BBS who can provide their valuable advice! What a ridiculous display of arrogance your quote is, Major. For you to think that you know how to best deploy our military resources better than the men and women of our armed forces is pure lunacy. Ummm, do you even read? Let's see: <B>if</B> intelligence WILL be moved during the war to support the Iraqi efforts, what makes sense to you: (1) Our intelligence on Al Queda will be affected last week (2) Our intelligence on Al Queda will be affected AFTER its moved? This is common sense. I support our armed forces and their decision makers. 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. It appears that one of the decision makers just resigned because he felt that the war on terror was being shortchanged. Do you support him?
It appears that one of the decision makers just resigned because he felt that the war on terror was being shortchanged. Do you support him? If he resigned, he's no longer a decision maker...Just a thought.
Ok...allow me to go back. The discussion is about the White House's top anti-terrorist expert resigning because of the current admin8istration's handling of that very issue...and you point out that meanwhile we are, in your opinion, engaging in the largest attack on El Qaeda in a while...I interpreted that to mean that either you thought that the top official didn't have the information you had, and was therefore wrong in his reasoning, or that you were somehow discrediting him in your opinion in another way... You responded by telling me to draw my own conclusions as you were sure that that was what I would do anyways... I thought that that was somehow a criticism of my proclivity to draw my own conclusions...If I was wrong, I apologize, but I follow up by asking what was your point then? You have to that not agreeing with the administration pro se has been, shall we say, linked to being either un-Patriotic or French in here on more than a few occasions... You responded to my un-patriotic comment by incredulity re: my inference, and sarcasm re: inviting me to your next meeting to think for you... I responded to your sarcasm with sarcasm ie. the French angle... You concluded that I am intellectually arrogant. I ask, from what? My sarcasm?...from which I can assume that you were being genuine in inviting me to your important meeting at 2 to think for you? Please relieve me of my misconceptions... Last point, genuine question: In your mind, does the term 'academic' automatically carry a negatice connotation?
Very sneaky, MacBeth. Try to protect yourself from a "cultural elite" label by mistyping "negative." I like it, but it's too late for you, buddy! Into the arena with you! MacBeth versus Daschle in hippie gladiator weed-wacker death match round #1!
Is it just me, or do Trade_Jorge's post always come off like election attack ads? And lately, every one contains a variation of this phrase at the end: Why don't you just put it in your sig, save yourself the trouble of typing it out? Actually, I could help you out even more and give you template that you can just fill out every time you feel like posting. "Your complete ignorance of insert topic here only proves what a insert derogatory term for liberals here you are. When will you realize how awesome I am and how stupid you are? Maybe if you'd remove your head or foot from your ass or mouth, and paid attention to our lord and savior, insert current Republican President here, you wouldn't sound like a feel free to disparage wussy liberal from here until the cows come home. Sign off with a phrase from the list below Class Dismissed I support Bush and our troops and I'll accuse you of not doing the same because it's easier than having a civil debate. I command respect. . .here where no one can know the real me. Because I said so. Marry me Anne Coulter.
