It’s almost always a joy listening to Gingrich when he’s on a tear. And he’s almost always on a tear of some sort. I caught up with Newt as he wandered around New Hampshire last week, which is what people who think they’re running for President do. Please, God, no, you say. Not that angry guy again. “He’s probably carrying too much baggage to be President,” said Peter Bergin, a Republican state representative from Amherst, N.H. “But he sure is a terrific idea man. He needs to be part of the debate.”
Absolutely. We might even create a new federal position to accommodate him, sort of like party ideologist in the old Soviet Union, except that the U.S. job would be the opposite of what it was in the U.S.S.R. Instead of imposing orthodoxy, the party idea-ologist—ideology is so un-American—would propose unorthodoxy. Gingrich was certainly wild with ideas last week, flicking them off at warp speed, like a dog shaking himself clean after romping through a pond.
William Kristol? Byron York? Kate O’Beirne? Hindquarters?
Here’s a clue: His initials are JK and he’s the liberal columnist for TIME magazine.
John at Crooks and Liars caught Joe Klein in a perfect example of shallow, knee jerk, beltway conventional wisdom that has made him the object of ridicule among everybody who observes the punditocrisy.
He goes on about how the young people of Iran love us, blah, blah, blah, but then makes an emphatic point that we must not take nuclear weapons “off the table.” Apparently he doesn’t understand the difference between nuclear weapons being “on the table” in the event of an attack and nuclear weapons being “on the table” as part of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptively attacking anyone who looks at us sideways.
Pre-emptive nuclear war has never been on the table. We don’t want it on the table. It’s, as Stephanopolous exclaimed, “insane.” (The look on Klein’s face when Steph did that was priceless. It was obvious that he thought he was saying something that everybody but the fever swamps believes is the sober centrist position.)
Klein sounds like he’s repeating snippets of cocktail conversation he heard over the decades and just plugs in the one that sounds like it will make him appear to be the most serious. It’s ridiculous that he’s invited on all these shows when it’s clear that he is not following the current debate.
I find it simply mind-boggling that after the unbelievable intelligence manipulation and incompetence that led us into the Iraq anyone in this country is willing to trust George W. Bush to launch another “pre-emptive” war. What exactly would he have to do to make the beltway courtiers question his good intentions? Get a blow job?
This is the big day in the Christendom. In fact, I’ve always thought it was a bit strange that Christmas gets so much attention when Easter is the really big Kahuna. (Far be it for me to suspect cynical capitalistic motives, but …)
Anyway, as readers of this blog know, I’m not religious. But I like the holidays I grew up with. And although I don’t go to church on Easter anymore, (and despite my dark speculating below) I always think of it as the beginning of the season of rebirth, new life, spring and all that jazz. When the day is a brilliantly sunny 65 degree confection (with the cat lazily eyeing hummingbirds in the garden even) it’s just inhuman not to feel gladness even if you are not a believer in the big Kahuna.
So, in that spirit, I offer you Matisse’s “The Dance” which I believe was painted in homage to Stravinsky’s “The Rite of Spring,” a madly pagan ballet, but one that I think the human spirit of all creeds can appreciate.
Following up on my post from Friday highlighting Colonel Sam Gardiner’s statement on CNN that the US already has troops in iran, I see (via robelicit at kos) that Dennis Kucinich has sent a letter to the president asking if such reports are true. He says:
Dear President Bush:
Recently, it has been reported that U.S. troops are conducting military operations in Iran. If true, it appears that you have already made the decision to commit U.S. military forces to a unilateral conflict with Iran, even before direct or indirect negotiations with the government of Iran had been attempted, without UN support and without authorization from the U.S. Congress.
Last Thursday, Raw Story had some interesting nuggets about the pentagon using MEK (an official terrorist group) to do dirty work in Iran:
One former counterintelligence official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information, describes the Pentagon as pushing MEK shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The drive to use the insurgent group was said to have been advanced by the Pentagon under the influence of the Vice President’s office and opposed by the State Department, National Security Council and then-National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice.
[…]
“We disarmed [the MEK] of major weapons but not small arms. [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was pushing to use them as a military special ops team, but policy infighting between their camp and Condi, but she was able to fight them off for a while,” said the intelligence official. According to still another intelligence source, the policy infighting ended last year when Donald Rumsfeld, under pressure from Vice President Cheney, came up with a plan to “convert” the MEK by having them simply quit their organization.
It is well known that MEK was given a strange dispensation, with some very odd ducks offering public support, one of whom was, of all people, that radical wierdo Tom Tancredo:
Washington, DC, May. 31, 2005 (UPI) — U.S. lawmakers and former military officers are backing Mujahedin-e Khalq, an Iranian opposition group, despite its inclusion on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations and its role in the killing and wounding of U.S. military personnel and civilians in the 1970s.
Supporters acknowledge the status of the group, once funded by deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, as well as its role in the killings of U.S. military personnel and civilians in the 1970s in Iran when it was allied with Ayatollah Khomeini, but say the MEK has shed its past activities and is a potential ally against the theocratic regime in Iran.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, responded in a written statement saying he supports the MEK because it is an “asset to U.S. intelligence” and “the most reliable source of information for the region.”
In recent years the MEK’s political branch, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, has provided information about Iran’s nuclear facilities, which the Bush administration contends are being used to secretly make nuclear weapons.
Tancredo’s press secretary, Carlos Espinosa, said it is not “too unusual” for members of Congress to support a group listed as a foreign terrorist organization, citing Sen. Ted Kennedy’s support for the Irish Republican Army as an example.
“Are these guys saints? No.” Espinosa said. But, “if there’s a problem, it’s that the MEK is on the list.”
Read the whole article for the rundown on MEK if you are unfamiliar with them. I remember seeing Rep. Ileana Ross-Lehtinen making a public statement in favor of the group a year or so ago and wondered what in the hell was up with that.
So, what does it all mean? I don’t really know, of course. But, as I wrote earlier, I am intrigued by Sy Hersh’s article from last year, that the pentagon has created a new, clandestine service that has no obligation to report to the congress as the CIA does:
George W. Bush’s reelection was not his only victory last fall. The President and his national security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism during his second term. The C.I.A. will continue to be downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as “facilitators” of policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. This process is well under way.
[…]
Rumsfeld will become even more important during the second term. In interviews with past and present intelligence and military officials, I was told that the agenda had been determined before the Presidential election, and much of it would be Rumsfeld’s responsibility. The war on terrorism would be expanded, and effectively placed under the Pentagon’s control. The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.
[…]
The President’s decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the books free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A. Under current law, all C.I.A. covert activities overseas must be authorized by a Presidential finding and reported to the Senate and House intelligence committees. (The laws were enacted after a series of scandals in the nineteen seventies involving C.I.A. domestic spying and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders.) “The Pentagon doesn’t feel obligated to report any of this to Congress,” the former high-level intelligence official said. “They don’t even call it ‘covert ops’ it’s too close to the C.I.A. phrase. In their view, it’s ‘black reconnaissance.’ They’re not even going to tell the cincs” the regional American military commanders-in-chief. (The Defense Department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on this story.)
In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran.
The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.
Today, Richard Clark and Steven Simon, former national security staffers say this:
So how would bombing Iran serve American interests? In over a decade of looking at the question, no one has ever been able to provide a persuasive answer. The president assures us he will seek a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis. And there is a role for threats of force to back up diplomacy and help concentrate the minds of our allies. But the current level of activity in the Pentagon suggests more than just standard contingency planning or tactical saber-rattling.
All of this may be some sort of advanced kabuki sabre rattling, of course. But Hersh’s scenario from early 2005 sounds entirely plausible to me. I suspect that these actions have been ongoing since Bush was reelected. Remember his constant refrain about “using his political capital?” His reelection seemed to infuse him with even more grandiosity than he showed before. For instance, his first order of domestic business wasn’t to disband the department of education, a longtime conservative goal. He set out to destroy social security — long known to be the third rail of politics. He thought he was destined (by God?) to fundamentally change the nation and the world. His arrogance knew no bounds.
Within that framework, it is entirely believable to me that he could have ordered regime change in Iran more than a year ago. And it is almost certain that he could have authorized a new clandestine service in the DOD that is unanswerable to congress. The administration’s understanding of presidential power during “wartime” allows him to do anything he deems necessary to “protect” the country.
Again, this is tinfoil hat stuff, connecting some very vague dots. A few years ago I would have dismissed it as conspiracy mongering of the worst kind and consigned myself to spend a month digging through illuminati web-sites to cure me of the disease.
After what we have seen, however, I don’t think it’s far-fetched at all:
The administration has asserted a theory of unlimited executive power in wartime.
The secretary of defense is committed to creating and using a new and “modern” fighting force using all kinds of unconventional and untried means.
The president believes he was chosen by God to be his vehicle for spreadin’ freedom.
The power behind the throne is a devious, powermad greedhead who believes that military dominance is the only way America can stay on top.
They all have a history of lying about their plans for war and believed that their reelection was a mandate to continue on the same path.
Here was Bush in his first press conference after winning the election:
And after hundreds of speeches and three debates and interviews and the whole process, where you keep basically saying the same thing over and over again, that when you win, there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view, and that’s what I intend to tell the Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as the President, now let’s work to — and the people made it clear what they wanted, now let’s work together.
And it’s one of the wonderful — it’s like earning capital. You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That’s what happened in the — after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I’ve earned capital in this election — and I’m going to spend it for what I told the people I’d spend it on, which is — you’ve heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.
The most polarizing president in US history, who assumed office through one vote on the Supreme court the first time and won the second time because of a dubious swing of about 70,000 votes in Ohio says it’s his style to spend the political capital he “earned” when “the people” endorsed all his views.
That’s the kind of guy who thinks he can start secret wars to transform the middle east through sheer force. A megalomaniac child in the hands of manipulative men.
Recently, the NY Times Book Review’s been bending over backwards to find good things to say about “intelligent design” creationism, and assigning an intellectual lightweight to misread and review Daniel Dennett. Here’s their latest attempt to solidify their reputation for blithering stupidity bordering on functional illiteracy. It’s Pamela Paul’s review of a collection of essays by Caitlin Flanagan on housewifery et, al (accompanied by a scrumptious picture of a 50’s American housewife holding a freshly-baked cake. )
Flanagan is one of them anti-feminist types, apparently. And the reviewer wants us to know that she, too, has contempt for all those foolish feminist excesses. Unfortunately, well… in the spirit of the 50’s, let’s make it a quiz, boys and girls!
Can YOU spot the fundamental error of logic in the reviewer’s – and Flanagan’s – reasoning in the excerpt below?
As it stands, sensitivities are so attuned to the slightest insult of any one of women’s myriad work-life choices that Flanagan’s simplest observations — for example, when a woman works something is lost — are taken as an indictment of working women. Yet any working mother can see the truth in such a statement: time spent working = less time with children = something lost. What’s appalling is that pointing this out raises such ire.
Sigh. I suppose it is too much to ask an editor to catch something like this. But really, there are people who can give Flanagan a fair review who are smart enough to avoid perpetuating her sloppy thinking. And yes, it’s true that, considering the United States has a rogue executive branch that is in the early stages of what very well may escalate into nuclear war – and very few in the msm are willing to say it out loud – this is thoroughly trivial.
But this failure to understand basic logic in an influential literary publication points, and starkly, to a public intellectual culture that is profoundly empty of serious thought and discussion. A public culture in which serious thought and discussion really has to fight to get heard through muddle-headed thinking like Paul’s and Flanagan’s (Not their subject, duh. Their reasoning about the subject. Duh.). No wonder no one’s discussing the imminence of a possible nuclear attack on Iran in the msm. They don’t have the tools to comprehend it.
ANSWER: I found the “work vs baby-rearing” construction a classic false dichotomy, especially as framed here by Flanagan and Paul. The way they put it, *any* time away from baby could be construed as a loss – talking on the phone, eating lunch, going to the bathroom – all of these are losses to the mother/baby relationship; work is simply more loss. This strikes me as ipso facto a ludicrously crude position, and indefensible. Is part-time work less loss but still unacceptable? How about an hour a day? The false dichotomy becomes even more apparent if one considers mothers beyond Flanagan’s and Paul’s personal cohort of white, middle-to-upper-middle-class women. Which is not to say that there is even much truth to such a dichotomy within their own cohort.
This leads us to the question, “Why construct such a dichotomy in the first place?” And there are very few answers that don’t revolve around making women feel guilty for abandoning their children for the hedonistic pleasure of being underpaid in the workforce. Thus, the structure of this false dichotomy is, by its very nature, sexist and oppressive.
I hasten to add that I don’t know much feminist theory – since I agree with feminism, I would prefer to spend my time trying to understand things I have trouble agreeing with, or can never agree with – and so have no idea if any feminist has actually made this argument. It simply seems like common-sense to me.
Some commentators noticed that Paul makes a telling unconscious error, conflating “mothers” with “women.” Indeed, that is the hidden assumption that lies behind the urge to advance this kind of false dichotomy.
Please note: I am not saying there are not very legitimate issues surrounding the issues of child-rearing and employment outside the house for mothers (and to a lesser extent, fathers). Of course there are, and they need to be discussed openly and with good faith all around. What I’m saying is that by framing these issues as a simplistic false dichotomy, Flanagan and Paul are indulging, whether they are aware of it or not, in a very nasty kind of guilt-tripping. It is not appalling to object to this worthless style of argumentation. Rather, it is moral as it is the first step towards finding a legitimate discourse that does not take as a given that women should feel guilty about the choices they make.
What I want to know is this: Can Bill Clinton prove he wasn’t in Dallas on November 22, 1963?
Think I’m kidding? If it’s evil, Clinton had a hand in it. Think about it. There was Clinton’s drug smuggling which led to Noelle Bush’s drug addiction. And Clinton cavorting with two disciples of Sappho at a dinner party caused poor Mary Cheney to think that maybe it’s ok to love someone who, chances are, will never adopt her dad’s hairstyle. Not to mention that Clinton’s gory familiar invented the internet, that swamp of filth. (And if you don’t think the internet is perverted, just ask Jeff Goldstein or any other upstanding Republican whose done the research into how appalling it is. They’ll send you a long list of sites they’ve compiled where men and dogs…shocking stuff.) And when Clinton admitted receiving fellatio from Monica Lewinsky, he sent a strong signal that it was ok for America to engage in a literal epidemic of oral sex, dooming thousands of hapless spermatoza to a horrible death, eaten away by stomach acids or left to wither and dry into an icky stain on a blue dress. Those are your children, America!
And now, this. Unforgivable. Iran today is all Clinton’s fault.
See what I mean? Suddenly, Clinton’s presence in Dallas ’63 doesn’t seem so far-fetched, now does it? And I’ll bet if we could examine all the records from Bay of Pigs, we’d learn that Slick Willie called up his pal Castro – ‘course they were buddies, still are, remember that Elian kid he made go back to Cuba? – and gave him all the details.
Pity poor George W. Bush. Six years after Clinton and he’s still wasting time cleaning up Bill’s mess. And people think BUSH makes mistakes? How could he? I’m serious, man. Bush doesn’t have time to make his own mistakes, what with trying to correct all of Clinton’s!
And so the most promising opportunities for a rational settlement have all passed us by. Instead of a moderate reform president and a group of nervous ayatollahs anxious to cut a deal, America now has Ahmadinejad – and the dawn of what could conceivably become an explicitly fascist regime in Iran, or at least a very close substitute for one.
The good news, such as it is, is that Ahmadinejad’s end-times ideology doesn’t seem to include any grand territorial ambitions: no “Greater Iran” (Iran is already a greater Iran), no lebensraum in the east. We also have time – time to see how things shake out, to see if the ayatollahs can hamstring their troublesome protege, to see if the democracy movement can make a political comeback. Time for Ahmadinejad to lose some of his popular shine as Iran’s internal problems worsen. Time for our own hardline warmongers to be booted out of power.
But unfortunately, our divinely ordained president may not be prepared to wait (and the last sentence of the preceding paragraph appears to be one of the reasons.) Which means at this point we probably should be worrying less about what happened in Munich in 1938, and more about what happened there in 1972, when the German police moved in and tried to disarm the terrorists.
Multiply that carnage by a thousand, or a million, and you’ve got more than a political slogan; you’ve got a war.
McJoan at Kos has posted an action item that’s worth checking out and taking a litle time to participate. It’s about how to counter these bullshit lying radio ads that the RNC has cooked up to blame the Democrats for the GOP’s attempt to turn undocumented workers into felons.
As I wrote yesterday, this is starting to gel as CW among the gasbags and the kewl kidz. I just heard William Schneider saying it as if it’s a fact. That’s not the most important thing, however. The most important thing is that the latino community not be misled. This requires a push back. The Republicans made their racist beds with Tom Tancredo and they have to wake up each morning to his creepy face across the pillow. He’s their problem, not ours.
Colonel Sam Gardiner is the retired colonel who taught at the National War College, the Air War College and the Naval Warfare College and who found more than 50 instances of demonstrably false stories planted in the press in the run up to the war, back in 2003. He was just on CNN:
CLANCY: Well, Colonel Gardiner, from what you’re saying, it would seem like military men, then, might be cautioning, don’t go ahead with this. But what are the signs that are out there right now? Is there any evidence of any movement in that direction?
GARDINER: Sure. Actually, Jim, I would say — and this may shock some — I think the decision has been made and military operations are under way.
CLANCY: Why?
GARDINER: And let me say this — I’m saying this carefully. First of all, Sy Hersh said in that article which was…
CLANCY: Yes, but that’s one unnamed source.
GARDINER: Let me check that. Not unnamed source as not being valid.
The way “The New Yorker” does it, if somebody tells Sy Hersh something, somebody else in the magazine calls them and says, “Did you tell Sy Hersh that?” That’s one point.
The secretary[sic] point is, the Iranians have been saying American military troops are in there, have been saying it for almost a year. I was in Berlin two weeks ago, sat next to the ambassador, the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA. And I said, “Hey, I hear you’re accusing Americans of being in there operating with some of the units that have shot up revolution guard units.”
He said, quite frankly, “Yes, we know they are. We’ve captured some of the units, and they’ve confessed to working with the Americans.”
The evidence is mounting that that decision has already been made, and I don’t know that the other part of that has been completed, that there has been any congressional approval to do this.
My view of the plan is, there is this period in which some kinds of ground troops will operate inside Iran, and then what we’re talking about is the second part, which is this air strike.
CLANCY: All right. You lay this whole scenario, but there are still a lot of caution flags that one would see out here.
GARDINER: Sure. True.
CLANCY: If they do decide on a military option…
GARDINER: Right?
CLANCY: … what’s the realistic chance of success? What’s your — your prognosis for that kind of reaction here?
GARDINER: Yes. Let me give you two answers to that. First of all, the chance of getting the facilities and setting back the program, I think the chances go from maybe two years to actually accelerating the program. You know, we could cause them to redouble their efforts. That’s on one side.
The other side is this sort of horizontal escalation by the Iranians.
My assessment is — and it’s because of regime problems at home — that if we strike, they’re likely to want to blame Israel. Now that’s — because that sells well at home.
Blaming Israel means that there’s a chance that we could see Hezbollah, Hamas targeting Israel. We could very easily see this thing escalate into a broader Middle East war, particularly when you add Muslim rage.
You know, if you take the cartoon problem and multiply it times a hundred — you know, the Danish cartoons, you could see how we could end up very quickly with a very serious problem in the Middle East.
CLANCY: Former U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner. Not a very rosy outlook here. A man who thinks the decision may have already been made.
Thank you for being with us.
GARDINER: Certainly.
My tin foil hat is beeping and honking like crazy right now. These generals coming forward is huge.
I really think it’s possible that Bush and Rummy have already got a secret war going on, one that has not been revealed to congress in any form. It’s designed that way. Bush is not going to fire Rummy — he can’t. He’s already committed himself to this thing. This could be the ultimate action of the unitary executive.
It’s obvious to me that this call for Rumsfeld’s resignation by six generals is about stopping this operation in Iran first and foremost. It is not a coincidence that the first salvo came from Sy Hersh last Sunday.
The question I had to ask myself was whether it was really about the nuclear thing or something more that had the military up in arms. In reading back over Hersh’s articles of the last year or so, it became quite clear to me that this has something to do with the fact that Bush instituted the plan to invade Iran more than a year ago when he believed he had been crowned Emperor in the 2004 elections — and that the plan has gone forward without any consideration of changing circumstances on the ground in Iraq. Furthermore, the plan itself comes from the same comic book from which Rummy and Newtie cooked up their RMA fantasy about invading Iraq with only 30,000 troops, a cell phone and a toothpick.
And the beauty of it is, the clandestine operation on which it depends has been folded into the Pentagon and has no congressional oversight.
George W. Bush’s reelection was not his only victory last fall. The President and his national security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism during his second term. The C.I.A. will continue to be downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as “facilitators” of policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. This process is well under way.
Despite the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the Bush Administration has not reconsidered its basic long range policy goal in the Middle East: the establishment of democracy throughout the region. Bush’s reelection is regarded within the Administration as evidence of America’s support for his decision to go to war. It has reaffirmed the position of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon’s civilian leadership who advocated the invasion, including Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-secretary for Policy. According to a former high level intelligence official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election and told them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not accept their message. Rumsfeld added that America was committed to staying in Iraq and that there would be no second guessing.
“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah – we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”
Bush and Cheney may have set the policy, but it is Rumsfeld who has directed its implementation and has absorbed much of the public criticism when things went wrong whether it was prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib or lack of sufficient armor plating for G.I.s’ vehicles in Iraq. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have called for Rumsfeld’s dismissal, and he is not widely admired inside the military. Nonetheless, his reappointment as Defense Secretary was never in doubt.
Rumsfeld will become even more important during the second term. In interviews with past and present intelligence and military officials, I was told that the agenda had been determined before the Presidential election, and much of it would be Rumsfeld’s responsibility. The war on terrorism would be expanded, and effectively placed under the Pentagon’s control. The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.
The President’s decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the books free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A. Under current law, all C.I.A. covert activities overseas must be authorized by a Presidential finding and reported to the Senate and House intelligence committees. (The laws were enacted after a series of scandals in the nineteen seventies involving C.I.A. domestic spying and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders.) “The Pentagon doesn’t feel obligated to report any of this to Congress,” the former high-level intelligence official said. “They don’t even call it ‘covert ops’ it’s too close to the C.I.A. phrase. In their view, it’s ‘black reconnaissance.’ They’re not even going to tell the cincs” the regional American military commanders-in-chief. (The Defense Department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on this story.)
In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. “Everyone is saying, ‘You can’t be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,’ ” the former intelligence official told me. “But they say, ‘We’ve got some lessons learned not militarily, but how we did it politically. We’re not going to rely on agency pissants.’ No loose ends, and that’s why the C.I.A. is out of there.”
Bush just issued a statement of support for Rumsfeld. He is stubborn and refuses to change course, as we know. But if what Hersh reported back in 2005 is correct, Rumsfeld owns him. Back in the heady days of his 2% landslide, Bush authorized a covert war with Iran, with no congressional oversight and without even the cooperation of the CINQ’s. This makes Iran-Contra look like the Canuck letter.
These retired generals are speaking for a military establishment that has been used like monopoly money by Rummy his fellow magical thinkers (like his “advisor” Newt Gingrich) who have spent the last five years attempting to destroy the military with their useless, incompetent war planning and their surreal Toffler-esque vision of a military that doesn’t require an actual army.
I realize that the armed forces always resist change. But I think it’s fair to assume, considering the Iraq cock-up, that Rummy doesn’t know what in the hell he’s doing. The military is finally saying “enough.” We are witnessing a coup by media.
The congress has completely abdicated its oversight responsibility, the media is shallow and incompetent, our allies are considered irrelevant, the UN is being run by a nutcase even more far-out that Rummy and the wishes of the people are, as usual, not considered. It looks like the only institution in America that can bring us back from the brink of a tragic, tragic mistake is the military itself.
If these guys can’t get through, and it doesn’t appear that they will, then it’s time for some of these active duty officers to resign in protest. It would take a lot of guts, but that’s their business, right?
In an article about the possible revolt of the officer corps, Fred Kaplan writes this in Slate:
MacArthur’s legacy in particular has kept even the boldest generals deeply reluctant to criticize civilian leaders over the decades. Rumsfeld’s arrogance, his “casualness and swagger” as Gen. Newbold put it—which have caused so many strategic blunders, so much death and disaster—have started to tip some officers over the edge. They may prove a good influence in the short run. But if Rumsfeld resists their encroachments and fights back, the whole hierarchy of command could implode as officers feel compelled not merely to stay silent but to choose one side or the other. And if the rebel officers win, they might find they like the taste of bureaucratic victory—and feel less constrained to renew the internecine combat when other, less momentous disputes arise in the future.
Both paths are cluttered with drear and danger. Does President Bush know this is going on? If he does, he would do the nation—and the Constitution—a big favor if he launched a different sort of pre-emptive attack and got rid of Rumsfeld now.
The problem may be that Bush can’t replace the person who is running his secret war.
Oh, and get ready for the swiftboating. I can hear them revving their engines already. .
