Sam Rosenfeld and Matthew Yglesias hit one out of the park. Just read it all. It looks like finally Matt’s begun to get it. Whew! I dunno what prompted this. Perhaps Sam and Matt simply faced reality. Perhaps they sensed a genuine worry that the compelling arguments from longtime war opponents might lead to a sea change in power centers amongst liberals, affecting their career prospects if they didn’t openly acknowledge that some of our most important objections were correct. Perhaps both. Whatever. They have done good. But if they want to write for the New Republic anytime soon, they may not be getting their phone calls returned right away…
My only serious bone to pick, which is fairly minor given the extent of the insight and about face exhibited, is that Sam and Matt still privilege, albeit critically, an Isolationist/Realist dichotomy. This was never a good way to frame foreign policy debates, and is not terribly relevant anymore. We need better, more “realistic” – in the sense of closer to how the world works – models and as far as I can tell, no good alternatives are around. (I’ll take a pass on Walter Mead’s Jacksonians, Jeffersonians, et al. As Schlesinger once got Mead to admit, according to Walter’s definition Jackson himself wasn’t a Jacksonian.)
Finally, finally Yglesias is beginning to get it. They even addressed the cynical careerism in the liberal hawks’ position (although bizarrely, they appear to find little wrong with that; their writing is quite unclear on this). I’ve been saying most of this stuff for three years now and I was truly beginning to despair, not that I personally wasn’t getting anywhere: political punditry and analysis is not my career and I don’t care to make it one. I’ve just wanted to see some sanity in the present discourse where there has been very, very little. So in all seriousness, I’m very glad – relieved– something somewhere has finally started to permit some smart folks, whose grasp on consensual reality seemed quite fragile for a while, to start the long road back to clear-eyed sanity.
As we saw in the marketing of the “new product” – the Bush/Iraq war – success (whatever that meant) rested on the assumption that nearly all steps of the most optimistic scenario would unfold as predicted. Those of us who snorted and said, “that’s impossible!” were accused of not realizing that nothing is certain in foreign affairs.
Likewise, those of us who marvel at the wonders of science and read about the extraordinary discoveries and mind-stretching new theories of the last few years with a sense of genuine awe are accused of being close-minded and incurious if we strenuously object to cynical efforts to pollute the teaching of science with blatantly obvious lies.
Now, sooner or later, the national embarassment known as “the controversy [sic] over ‘intelligent design’ ” will hit the Supreme Court because whichever side loses has promised they will appeal the Dover trial decision. All I can say is this. If the Supreme Court chooses to side with the “intelligent design” crowd, America will deserve all that is coming its way. And it won’t be purty. Genuinely new levels of sheer idiocy are being achieved by proponents of “id.” Read this and weep, dear friends:
A leading architect of the intelligent-design movement defended his ideas in a federal courtroom on Tuesday and acknowledged that under his definition of a scientific theory, astrology would fit as neatly as intelligent design.
[snip]
The cross-examination of Professor Behe on Tuesday made it clear that intelligent-design proponents do not necessarily share the same definition of their own theory. Eric Rothschild, a lawyer representing the parents suing the school board, projected an excerpt from the “Pandas” textbook that said:
“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc.”
In that definition, Mr. Rothschild asked, couldn’t the words “intelligent design” be replaced by “creationism” and still make sense? Professor Behe responded that that excerpt from the textbook was “somewhat problematic,” and that it was not consistent with his definition of intelligent design.
Mr. Rothschild asked Professor Behe why then he had not objected to the passage since he was among the scientists who was listed as a reviewer of the book. Professor Behe said that although he had reviewed the textbook, he had reviewed only the section he himself had written, on blood clotting. Pressed further, he agreed that it was “not typical” for critical reviewers of scientific textbooks to review their own work.
[snip]
Listening from the front row of the courtroom, a school board members said he found Professor Behe’s testimony reaffirming. “Doesn’t it sound like he knows what he’s talking about?” said the Rev. Ed Rowand, a board member and church pastor.
“Doesn’t it sound like he knows what he’s talking about?”
Well, who knows, right? I mean, like, let’s not limit ourselves. Anything’s possible! After all, Doesn’t it sound like he knows what he’s talking about? And y’never can tell, there’s a genuine possibility it could be true.
In 1990, he told writer Ann Grimes, “I was the enforcer when I thought things were going wrong. I had the ability to go and lay down some behavioral modification.”
[…]
As one might expect, much of Bush’s work for his father’s presidential campaigns was done behind the scenes. Yet it’s clear he was steeped in political minutiae and imposed few limits on what he was willing to do to get the job done.In 1986, veteran reporter Al Hunt predicted that Jack Kemp would receive the 1988 Republican presidential nomination instead of George H.W. Bush. When George W. saw Hunt dining with his wife and 4-year-old son at a Mexican restaurant in Dallas, he went up to their table and said, “You fucking son of bitch. I won’t forget what you said and you’re going to pay a fucking price for it.” Bush didn’t apologize until 13 years later, when the incident resurfaced in the context of his own presidential campaign.
[…]
After his father was elected president in 1988, Bush was placed in charge of a group called the Silent Committee (aka the “scrub group”), which was made up of “about fifteen blood-oath Bushies,” according to the Texas Monthly. The purpose of the group was “to ‘scrub’ potential appointees for their loyalty and past service to Bush.” The Washington Post noted at the time that George W. had a “somewhat more developed sense of political loyalty than even his father.”
Although Bush left Washington after the campaign concluded, his role as loyalty enforcer remained largely unchanged. In November 1991, for example, then White House chief of staff John Sununu told a reporter the president had “ad-libbed” an ill-advised line during a speech about credit card interest rates. The younger Bush was infuriated that Sununu didn’t defend his father. George W. told another White House staffer, “We have a saying in our family: If a grenade is rolling by the Man, you dive on it first. The guy violated the cardinal rule.”
George W. was dispatched to Washington to deal with the Sununu situation. He met with Sununu and told him he should resign. On Dec. 3, 1991, Sununu — also facing criticism for his misuse of government vehicles — stepped down. Asked about the confrontation, George W. would only say, “The conversations between me and Mr. Sununu are going to be private. I talked to him, and then he and Dad reached an agreement.”
Bush and Rove come from the same school of thuggish politics. Bush not only has no problem with such behavior, he endorses and expects it. The only thing that matters is results. In that respect Rove (and Cheney) failed him.
“I have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers,” he said. “You tell me: How many sources have you had that’s leaked information that you’ve exposed or had been exposed? Probably none. I mean, this town is a town full of people who like to leak information.”
He has a history of strong-arming the press:
In 1987, the George H.W. Bush campaign gave unusually close access to Newsweek reporter Margaret Warner. That resulted in a cover story titled “Fighting the Wimp Factor,” in which Warner discussed “the potentially crippling handicap” that the senior Bush wasn’t tough enough for the job. George W. was incensed. He called the magazine and “told reporters that his father’s campaign would no longer talk to Newsweek.” According to White House reporter Thomas DeFrank, George W. told him that Newsweek was “out of business.” In his anger, however, Bush “went somewhat beyond the authorized message.” The following day, a Bush campaign spokesman announced, “We’re not cutting them [Newsweek] or anybody else off from their efforts to cover the campaign.” George W., apparently, has never gotten over the incident. In his memoir, “A Charge to Keep,” published more than a decade later, he wrote, “My blood pressure still goes up when I remember the cover.”
By the way, Thomas DeFrank is the same journalist who reported today that Bush knew about the leak two years ago and was only pissed that Karl got caught. Seems he’s been following this aspect of Bush’s character for quite some time. And it appears that there are some people who are beginning to recognise that they needn’t throw themselves on the grenade when the president is a 38% lame duck and sinking fast. The question is, who?
Update: Tangential question — the president and veep didn’t testify under oath. But my understanding is that it is a crime to lie to a justice department official regardless a la Martha Stewart. Bush and Cheney might not be subject to perjury charges, but it seems they could be charged with “making false statements to the government.” Here’s what Fitzgerald’s mentor James Comey said about this with respect to Martha Stewart:
“This case is about lying” — to investigators and to investors. “Lying” is a harsh word….But “perjury” is a much harsher word, meaning “lying under oath.” Martha Stewart has not been accused of perjury.
Normally, I would be outraged at the thought that someone not under oath could be indicted for lying. I thought Martha’s case was a total sham because the underlying crime was insignificant and commonplace. I’m not big on “send a message” prosecutions. But I’m willing to make exceptions when it comes to a group of criminal thugs who are bamboozling the press and stealing elections to gain power so they can start wars for no reason and bankrupt the country. I just don’t know what else can stop these people.
Clarification: I do not believe the president could be indicted. Impeachment is the only option for a sitting president and that ain’t gonna happen. He could, however, be named as an unindicted co-conspirator as Nixon was, for lying to the prosecutors under the Martha Stewart statute.
UpdateII: Josh Marshall has much more on Thomas DeFrank’s relationship with the Bushes. He’s definitely well-connected. Who on the inside is talking?
Puttering around I came upon this paper (pdf) that Judy Miller delivered to the Aspen Institute’s 2003 symposium called “In Search Of An American Grand Strategy For The Middle East” just days before she accidentally met up with Rootin-Tootin’ Scooter in Jackson Hole. It’s not particularly revealing — not even one mention of the roots or the turning. It’s only notable for its almost embarrassing incoherence, in which she tries to strike a neutral analytical pose but can’t seem to help slipping in her belief that those darned weapons just must have existed! Even as she pretends to be skeptical of the Bush Doctrine she says that our mission in Iraq has been successful because we’ve managed to scare the Mid East and Europe into doing our bidding.(The Tom Friedman “Our Guy’s Crazier Than Your Guy” theory.)
Despite the superficially balanced tone, she gives her little neocon self away in numerous small ways. For instance:
Absent profound reform, the nation’s six intelligence agencies, as currently structured and staffed, are unlikely to be able to detect such sophisticated, deeply hidden WMD programs. Given its record on the former Soviet Union, India, Pakistan, and Iraq, relying mainly on the CIA for good WMD intelligence seems ill-advised.
No matter how wrong the CIA eve was, they were never as wrong as Judy’s neocon pals who are now operating faith-based intelligence agencies under hacks and war criminals. But that’s another story.
One thing is clear, though. Relying on Judy for good journalism is definitely ill-advised:
The military should also continue the policy of embedding journalists with weapons hunting units and urge international organizations to do the same. For the U.S., the presence of journalists would help avoid charges of having planted incriminating evidence against a proliferator. It would also help keep such units and international agencies honest. Yes, the embedding experiment was problematic in many ways, but it was important in building Administration credibility and public support for such capabilities.
Clearly it’s journalists’ jobs to build Adminstration credibility and public support, so this is obviously a good idea. And lord knows that Judy has fulfilled her duty on that count. But Judy Miller seems to have some sort of conginitive dysfuntion about her own reporting. When Judy was embedded, “keeping the unit honest” was hardly her highest priority:
In “Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert” (Page One, April 21) Miller disclosed that she agreed to 1) embargo her story for three days; 2) permit military officials to review her story prior to publication; 3) not name the found chemicals; and 4) to refrain from identifying or interviewing the Iraqi scientist who led Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha to sites where he maintained Iraqis had buried chemical precursors to banned chemical weapons. Although Miller didn’t talk to the scientist, the military allowed her to view him from afar. She writes, “Clad in nondescript clothes and a baseball cap, he pointed to several spots in the sand where he said chemical precursors and other weapons material were buried.”
According to MET Alpha, the scientist also said Iraq had sent unconventional weapons technology to Syria, had cooperated with al-Qaida, had recently focused its WMD efforts on research and development, and had destroyed WMD equipment just days before the U.S. invasion.
The next day on the NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, Miller described the unnamed Iraqi scientist as not just the “smoking gun” in the WMD investigation, but the “silver bullet … who really worked on the programs, who knows them firsthand, and who has led MET Team Alpha people to some pretty startling conclusions. …”
But Miller’s silver bullet tarnished overnight. The next day in the Times, she reported the military’s new “paradigm shift” from finding WMD to locating the people behind them. Then Miller abandoned the remarkable findings of her April 21 scoop. The silver bulleted “Iraqi scientist” and his “precursor chemicals” vanished from her reporting after her April 23 dispatch. (She reprised some of his allegations and described how he made contact with American forces.) By May 7 she was writing about MET Alpha’s search not for WMD but for an ancient copy of the Talmud! The Washington Post’s Barton Gellman reported May 11 that the leaders of the 75th Exploitation Task Force, of which MET Alpha is a part, had found nothing and were leaving Iraq. At a May 13 Pentagon press briefing, 101st Airborne Division commander Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus downgraded to “theory” status the allegations the Iraqi scientist allegedly made to MET Alpha about destroyed WMD.
Judith Miller’s writing and thinking is illogical and internally inconsistent. Her testimony before the GJ was too. (As a reader pointed out to me, why did she agree to refer to Libby as a “Hill Staffer” if she wasn’t writing a story?) She has almost no self-awareness.
How on earth does someone this vapid become an “expert” on national security issues for the New York Times?
Update: Christorpher Dickey writes a very illuminating analysis of Judy’s writing and the state of modern journalism, here:
Judith Miller takes good notes, but she doesn’t always know where they come from. That was one of the first lessons I learned about her when we were both based in Cairo 20 years ago, she for The New York Times and I for The Washington Post.
[…]
For some reason none of us had a tape recorder, so on the flight back to Casablanca we compared our notes from the one interview we’d had with a Moroccan general a few hours before. We wanted to be sure the phrases we’d scribbled down were accurate. But there was a problem. Judy had many more quotes in her notebook than I and another reporter had in ours. And Judy’s were much better. Then I realized why. I’d done a lot more homework on that particular story than she did, and I was asking much more detailed questions. She’d written them down, and now she thought they came from the general, but many of the quotes actually were from … me.
[…]
Judy’s great talent as a reporter is in gaining access. Full stop. She doesn’t always know what she has when she’s got it, and she isn’t always good at analyzing what she’s heard when she hears it. Indeed, that may be one reason so many very high level sources—kings, princes, dictators, presidents, politicians—have enjoyed confiding, through her, so many supposed scoops and secrets published in The New York Times.
All those who fret about the damage done to journalism and freedom of the press done by Fitzgrald’s investigation ought to ask themselves whether that ship didn’t sail some time ago. And they should ask how much Judy’s kind of reporting has contributed to it:
The righteous response is that such stories should not be made public until we can report them from the bottom up, not just the top down. That’s what Craig Pyes believes, and one of many reasons he wrote a scathing memo to the Times editors back in 2000, when he was forced to team up with Judy on a reporting project about Al Qaeda that eventually won a Pulitzer. “I’m not willing to work further on this project with Judy Miller,” he wrote in the memo, which recently leaked to The Washington Post. “I do not trust her work, her judgment, or her conduct. She is an advocate, and her actions threaten the integrity of the enterprise, and of everyone who works with her … She has turned in a draft of a story of a collective enterprise that is little more than dictation from government sources over several days, filled with unproven assertions and factual inaccuracies.” Worse still, she had “tried to stampede it into the paper.”
Apropros of my earlier post about how the right and left view the CIA, I see (via Jeanne D’Arc) that the Senate is going to water down the anti-torture legislation to exempt the CIA.
It’s increasingly clear that the strategy of McCain’s opponents — the Vice President and his congressional supporters — will be to amend the McCain Amendment in the Conference Committee so as to exempt the CIA from the prohibition on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees. The Senate delegation to the Conference Committee presumably will include three of the nine Republicans who voted against the McCain Amendment — Ted Stevens, Thad Cochran and Kit Bond. A recent Congressional Quarterly article, reprinted here, reports Stevens — who would “lead the Senate’s conferees” — as saying that “he can support McCain’s language if it’s augmented with guidance that enables certain classified interrogations to proceed under different terms.” “‘I’m talking about people who aren’t in uniform, may or may not be citizens of the United States, but are working for us in very difficult circumstances,’ Stevens said. ‘And sometimes interrogation and intimidation is part of the system.'”
What this barely veiled statement means is that Senator Stevens will support inclusion of the McCain Amendment in the final bill only once it has been “augmented” to exempt the CIA from the prohibition on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. (Stevens’s reference to persons who “may not be citizens of the United States, but are working for us” suggests that he also intends to include a carve-out for foreign nationals acting as agents of the CIA, such as the team of the CIA-sponsored Iraqi paramilitary squads code-named Scorpions.) If Stevens (read: Cheney) is successful in this endeavor, and if the Congress enacts the Amendment as so limited, it will be a major step backwards from where the law currently stands. This can’t be overemphasized: If Stevens is successful at adding his seemingly innocuous “augment[ation],” it would make the law worse than it currently is.
This is Cheney’s baby all the way. Does anyone harbor even the tiniest doubt that Cheney would put out a political hit on a CIA operative to punish her husband? He’s a thug through and through.
Atrios reports that the rumor that there are rumors that Cheney might resign are true. Got that?
Well let’s just say Cheney does resign (be still my beating heart!). Who do you think Bush would choose to replace him?
Now unfortunately, the link Atrios chose mentions my first choice, Condoleeza Rice. So for those of us who say Condi as the new Veep, I don’t want you to be left out of all the fun and games. Here’s a question for youse (as we used to say back in Jersey):
If Condi becomes the Veep, how many hours/weeks/months/hours will it take for Bush to resign, Condi to become president, and all the Democratic hopes for a weak opponent in 2008 to be dashed?
Those who guess right will get Tristero Horn t-shirts emailed to them, once I make them up. I’m outta her for the night.
I’m sorry to bring up a subject that makes some of the most trenchant and intelligent commentators around here groan, but I do think there is an important issue at stake. I’ve expanded and clarified my own thought as well, so while we await the Plame verdicts, if any (I’m reverse jinxing here!), please once again, lend an eyeball or two.
Matt, Tristero here. Thank you for addressing this issue again. Unfortunately, you really seem to miss the point of those who are criticizing you, like myself. Please hear me out:
The mistake you made, along with all the liberal hawks, was that by accepting [pro war Iraqi refugee] Makiya’s odds [of 5%] as more or less reasonable, you rhetorically opened a door to discussion. It was permitting that door to open that was the error.
From the point of view of a speech to the troops, 5% looks immoral. From the point of view of a country traumatized by 911, the Bush administration calculated that 5% might very well be a risk well worth taking, if it could prevent more attacks. Having accepted the proposition that there was a small but real chance of success, all those American myths about risk taking and doing good kick in, which made Bush/Iraq an easier sell than it should have been.
But the truth is that Makiya was a hopeless optimist. The goals of Bush/Iraq were impossible to achieve. Only in an abstruse, technically mathematical sense was there a probability of success. Why was Bush/Iraq utterly impossible?
Because nothing is certain. Again, please hear me out:
The success of Bush/Iraq depended, with absolute certainty, that just about everything the neocons predicted would, in fact actually, happen. An unbiased study of the full range of opinions and research on foreign affairs -one not skewed to the right and the far right, one not skewed towards naive optimism – would make it abundantly clear that at best, less than 1/3 of the neocons’ predictions about the course of the war could ever possibly come true. That fact, based on a genuine understanding of uncertainty,exponentially increased the odds that the alternative scenario, an unmitigated disaster, would occur.
The actual odds of success were closer to .00000000000000005% than 5%. That was patently obvious to anyone who was doing research that wasn’t biased.
But part of the marketing of the “new product” was to turn the notion of doubt on its head. We, who knew how utterly beyond reason a successful outcome was – because we understood the full extent of the sheer improbability of Perle/Wolfowitz’s scenarios, which depended on a near-absolute certain unfolding of events – were accused of not taking into account how uncertain things are in the real world!
Bush/Iraq should never have been taken seriously, anymore than Curtis Lemay’s suggestion to use nuclear bombs in Vietnam or during the Missile Crisis should have been taken seriously. The problem was that not only did Bush take Wolfowitz seriously. So did the media and the liberal hawks. Had they been laughed off the stage – as those opposed to the gutting of Social Security have laughed Bush off the stage – the chances of a Bush/Iraq war would have fallen close to zero.
But the idea was taken seriously by people far more influential than you. And that gave them the opening to make their fallacious case. What disturbs me is that you don’t seem to recognize what the mistake was:
Not all arguments are worth the status of intellectual consideration. Bush/Iraq was one of them, even though a former John Hopkins professor like Wolfowitz and the president of the United States thought otherwise.
Bush/Iraq was no more realistic than the arguments for a UFO behind the Hale/Bopp comet and it should have been treated accordingly. Again, not recognizing that immediately was your mistake and that is what you need to come to grips with. Not the morality of the war, but the extent to which you and so many of your colleagues were bamboozled and provided Bush with an opening to tap into American mythologies.
You Always Know What America Stands For When Bush Is President.
Richard Clarke:
Imagine if, in advance of Hurricane Katrina, thousands of trucks had been waiting with water and ice and medicine and other supplies. Imagine if 4,000 National Guardsmen and an equal number of emergency aid workers from around the country had been moved into place, and five million meals had been ready to serve. Imagine if scores of mobile satellite-communications stations had been prepared to move in instantly, ensuring that rescuers could talk to one another. Imagine if all this had been managed by a federal-and-state task force that not only directed the government response but also helped coordinate the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and other outside groups.
Actually, this requires no imagination: it is exactly what the Bush administration did a year ago when Florida braced for Hurricane Frances. Of course the circumstances then were very special: it was two months before the presidential election, and Florida’s twenty-seven electoral votes were hanging in the balance. It is hardly surprising that Washington ensured the success of “the largest response to a natural disaster we’ve ever had in this country.” The president himself passed out water bottles to Floridians driven from their homes.
From The Atlantic, but you’ll have to be either a subscriber or buy the issue to read the whole thing. Trust me, it’s worth it.
Two more US soldiers killed in Iraq, this time near Rutba, a town I guarantee you neither soldier nor their families ever heard of before they arrived in Baghdad.
For all I know, Rutba’s a beautiful spot, a land of milk and honey. But it sounds like an awful place for a poor American kid to fight and die in pursuit of a misrepresented, misbegotten illusion.
With the Washington Post reporting that Fitzgerald’s investigation is focusing on Dick Cheney’s long running feud with the CIA, I thought I would reprise this post of mine from a few months back:
I’ve been thinking a lot about how the Plame affair has brought up an interesting political contradiction: the right is now openly contemptuous of the CIA while the left is a vocal supporter. I think it’s probably a good idea to clarify that bit so we don’t get confused. The fact is that both sides have always been simultaneously vocal supporters and openly contemptuous of the CIA, but for entirely different reasons.
I usually don’t speak for “the left” but for the purpose of this discussion I will use my views as a proxy for the lefty argument. I’m not generally a big fan of secretive government departments with no accountability. I always worry that they are up to things not sanctioned by the people and it has often turned out that they are. I have long been skeptical of the CIA because of the CIA’s history of bad acts around the world that were not sanctioned or even known by more than a few people and were often, in hindsight, wrong — like rendition, for instance. I don’t believe that we should have a secret foreign policy operation that doesn’t answer to the people. They tend to do bad shit that leaves the people holding the bag.
But I didn’t just fall out of the back of Arnold’s hummer, so I understand that a nation needs intelligence to protect itself and understand the world. I also understand that the way we obtain that information must be kept secret in order to protect the lives of those who are involved in getting it. I have never objected to the idea that we have spies around the world gathering information about what our enemies are up to. I also think that intelligence should, as much as possible, be objective and apolitical. Otherwise, we cannot accurately assess real threats. If the CIA (and the other intelligence agencies) only make objective analyses, the buck will stop at the president, where it always properly should.
Therefore, I see this Plame affair — and the larger matter of the pre-war WMD threat assessment — as a matter of compromised intelligence and an extension of the 30 year war the right has waged against what it thinks is the CIA’s tepid threat analysis. Never mind that the right’s hysterical analyses have always turned out to have been completely wrong.
But then accuracy was never the point because the right takes the opposite approach to the CIA’s proper role. They have always been entirely in favor of the CIA working on behalf of any president who wanted to topple a left wing dictator or stage a coup without congressional knowledge. This is, in their view, the proper role of the CIA — to covertly advance foreign policy on behalf of an executive (of whom they approve) and basically do illegal and immoral dirty work. But they have never valued the intelligence and analysis the CIA produced since it often challenged their preconcieved beliefs and as a result didn’t validate their knee jerk impulse to invade, bomb, obliterate, topple somebody for reasons of ideology or geopolitical power. The CIA’s intelligence often backed up the success of the containment policy that kept us from a major bloody hot war with the commies — and for that they will never be trusted.(See Team B, and the Committee on the Present Danger parts I and II.)
Therefore, the right sees the Plame affair as another example of an inappropriately “independent” CIA refusing to accede to its boss’s wishes. They believe that the CIA exists to provide the president with the documentation he needs to advance his foreign policy goals — and if that includes lying to precipitate a war he feels is needed, then their job is to acquiesce. When you cut away the verbiage, what the right really believes is that the US is justified in invading and occupying any country it likes — it’s just some sissified, cowardly rule ‘o law that prevents us from doing it. The CIA’s job is to smooth the way for the president to do what he wants by keeping the citizen rubes and the allies in line with phony proof that we are following international and domestic laws. (This would be the Straussian method of governance — too bad the wise ones who are running the world while keeping the rest of us entertained with religion and bread and circuses are so fucking lame.)
Back in the day, they used to just admit that they were engaging in Realpolitik, and as disgusting as that is, at least it was more honest than the current crop of neocons who insist that they are righteous and good by advancing democracy and vanquishing evil using undemocratic, illegal means. It makes me miss Kissinger. At least he didn’t sing kumbaya while he was fucking over the wogs.
I have no idea where people who don’t pay much attention to the political scene would come down on this. It may be that they think the government should have a branch that does illegal dirty work. But I suspect they would also think that the president should not be allowed to run a secret foreign policy or stage wars for inscrutable reasons. Indeed, I think most people would find it repugnant if they knew that there are people in government who think the president of the United States has a right to lie to them in order to commit their blood and treasure to a cause or plan that has nothing to do with the one that is stated.
Of course, that’s exactly what happened with Iraq. The right’s greatest challenge now is to get the public to believe that they were lied to for their own good.
This idea that it was a blood feud between the neocons and the CIA ha been out there from the beginning. And it lent credence to the charge that Plame’s status was leaked on purpose. It makes perfect sense that Fitz would follow that trail.
…from the Soviet threat to China to rogue states to Iraq, the neocons and hardliners were wrong each and every time. And they weren’t just wrong on some details, they massively, abundently wrong about everything. Korb discusses one particular fact in his piece that I think illuminates their rather insane view about terrorism:
In 1981, after the publication of Clare Sterling’s book, “The Terror Network,” which argued that global terrorists were actually pawns of the Soviets, leading hard-liners asked the CIA to look into the relationship between Soviets and terrorist organizations. The agency concluded that although there was evidence that the Soviets had assisted groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization with weapons and training, there was no evidence that the Soviets encouraged or approved these groups’ terrorist acts. However, hard-liners like Secretary of State Alexander Haig, CIA Chief William Casey and Policy Planning Director Wolfowitz rejected the draft as a naive, exculpatory brief and had the draft retooled to assert that the Soviets were heavily involved in supporting “revolutionary violence worldwide.”
Since they never adjust to changing circumstances or admit any new evidence that doesn’t fit their preconcieved notions, this was still the framework they were working from when bin Laden came on the scene. It’s why the neocon nutcase Laurie Mylroie was able to convince people in the highest reaches of the Republican intelligensia that Saddam had something to do with bin Laden, even though there was never a scintilla of evidence to back it up. They simply could not,and cannot to this day, come to grips with the fact that their view of how terrorism works — through “rogue states” and totalitarian sponsorship — is simply wrong.
When Clare Sterling’s book came out CIA director William Casey was said to have told his people, “read Claire Sterling’s book and forget this mush. I paid $13.95 for this and it told me more than you bastards who I pay $50,000 a year.” Wolfowitz and Feith are said to have told their staff in the Pentagon to read Laurie Mylroie’s book about Saddam and al Qaeda. Richard Clarke, in “Against All Enemies” quotes Wolfowitz as saying: “You give Bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don’t exist.”
This, then, is simply how they think. It’s as Rob Cordry says, “the facts are biased.” (That’s the state of mind that led neocon Judith Miller to make her bizarre incomprehensible comment “I was proved fucking right!”) They truly believe that even though they have been completely wrong about everything for the past thirty years that it just can’t be so.
And no matter what, in their minds the the CIA is always trying to screw them.
So the political environment in which Valerie Plame was outed was virtually hallucinogenic. There may have really been some part of certain members of the Bush administration’s dysfunctional lizard brains that really thought in July of 2003 that the CIA had been trying to set them up and used Joe Wilson to do it.
But it’s not July of 2003 now, is it? It’s two years later and we know for a fact that the analysts, including Wilson, who said the Niger deal was bullshit were right and we know that the analysts who doubted the evidence about Saddam’s WMD were right too.
Not that this will stop the Team B neocons from insisting that “they were proved fucking right.” They really are delusional and they always have been.
This blood feud between the Team B neocons and the CIA has been getting this country into trouble for 30 years, culminating in the epic strategic blunder of Iraq. It’s time it is stopped.