The President and Gen. David Petraeus exchanged betting metaphors in planning the Surge, according to Woodward’s new book to be published next week.
In January 2007, when Bush told the new Iraq commander that the Surge was an attempt to “double down,” Petraeus replied, “Mr. President, this is not double down. This is all in.”
Five years and thousands of American lives after the invasion, a disconnected Commander-in-Chief was still being briefed with figures of speech that recall Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn warning, “You break it, you own it.”
In a preview of “The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008,” the Washington Post describes “an administration riven by dissension, either unwilling or slow to confront the deterioration of its strategy in Iraq…
“Publicly, Bush maintained that U.S. forces were ‘winning’; privately, he came to believe that the military’s long-term strategy of training Iraq security forces and handing over responsibility to the new Iraqi government was failing.”
Before the 2006 elections, according to Woodward, Bush asked for a review of the war “under the radar screen” after Condoleezza Rice challenged the wisdom of sending additional troops to Iraq. “You’re not getting a clear picture of what’s going on,” she reportedly told Bush, claiming that Don Rumsfeld was giving him “a fable, a story…that skirted the real problems.”
As Democrats put Obama/Clinton issues behind them, the Republican identity crisis comes front and center in John McCain’s imminentdecision about a running mate.
Aside from Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who may actually turn out to be the choice, the longish short list is all over the identity-politics lot:
Mitt Romney, a super-rich Mormon the candidate clearly despises and holder of the Olympic record for flip-flopping on social issues;
Joe Lieberman, a McCain personal favorite, with the slight handicap of having run for VP as a Democrat, to say nothing of being a pro-choice Orthodox Jew, the prospect of whose presence on the ticket unsettles even the strong stomach of Karl Rove;
Tom Ridge, a pro-choice former governor with an undistinguished record as the first Homeland Security head, whose current work is sitting on the boards of Home Depot and Hershey;
Two business executives (Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina) with no political experience whatsoever but whose gender might appeal to die-hard Hillary Clinton dissidents;
And even Colin Powell, who would bring racial balance and a respected military career but whose most recent public service involved helping George W. Bush lie us into Iraq and is a septuagenarian only a few months younger than McCain.
After Bush-Cheney, it’s understandably complicated to figure out what enlightened Republicanism should involve this year, a problem with which McCain himself apparently wrestled after being sandbagged by Rove in 2000 when he considered switching parties himself.
If some voters have a problem wrapping their minds around the idea of Obama in the Oval Office, they may be equally bewitched, bothered and bewildered by whoever McCain chooses to be an elderly heartbeat away.
Despite at times being disappointed that our nation isn’t living up to its promise, most Americans - left, right and center - regard this country as the greatest in the world. But how often do we hear such sentiments from the foreign press, let alone the Middle East or even Israel?
“Many believe that today, as a new global system forms, China, Brazil, India, Russia and China have an undeniable role to play. … The tremendous economic growth of these powers does come along with political influence. … But can we expect these countries to exercise the role that the United States plays at the global level, or in clearer words: Do these countries possess the audacity to forcefully intrude on international affairs, like the United States does?”
“America’s great generosity and sacrifice, both in money and in lives, is well-known. No nation in history has offered its sons to death and drained its coffers for the sake of others the way the United States of America has. ‘Courageous intrusion’ requires a spirit that stands apart from industrial growth or agricultural development. Today’s newly-industrial states don’t presently have this spirit, nor will they have it in the future. Because such a spirit requires so much money and so many souls that if any of these nations had such courage, its coffers would quickly be emptied and its economy would collapse, never to rise again.”
August 13th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Will former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorse Democratic presumptive nominee Senator Barack Obama? Yes…wait…he might not. Will Powell go to the Democratic convention to endorse Obama? Yes…wait…he might not.
Once again Colin Powell, the charismatic military former military commander with the great bio, is in the spotlight and continuing his role as one of the most respected and also discounted political rock stars in the nation. Republicans love him when he is toeing the party line. Democrats love him when he seems to be bucking the party and administration line. Republicans discount his importance when he doesn’t hold the party line. Democrats say he was a lousy Secretary of State when he isn’t breaking with the party line.
Today, political pundits and reporters were having a field day after Weekly Standard bigwig Bill Kristol suggested that Powell would not only endorse Obama but go to the Demmie convention to do it to boot.
Kristol is a contributor at Fox News and he told this network:”“He may well give a speech at the Democratic convention explaining his endorsement of Obama.” Kristol said his tip came from inside sources:
“This is not an absolute done deal, but these people are very confident that Powell will endorse Obama,” Kristol said, adding that he thinks Powell, a Republican, still has “a high respect” for John McCain, Obama’s Republican rival.
Powell immediately denied the report to Fox and later told ABC News that he has no plans to go to the convention. And he had icy comments in particular for Bill Kristol — who sometimes is to solid political reporting what Fox News contributor Dick Morris is to accurate political crystal ball gazing:
“I do not have time to waste on Bill Kristol’s musings,” Powell told ABC News. “I am not going to the convention. I have made this clear.”
He ended the conversation before he could get the big follow-up question — on whether he’ll endorse Obama.
He also emailed the Washington Post:
“I am not attending either political convention,” Powell wrote in an e-mail. “As I have said for some time, I know both candidates and I am studying their positions and statements. I have not decided who I will vote for.”
Meanwhile, Powell’s spokesman stressed that Powell won’t be going to either convention — but left the door for an endorsement (of someone) open.
And Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Huffington Post that he “expects” Gen. Colin Powell to endorse Obama.
There are some people in this world who think President Bush has been a great president - even in France. One such person is French historian Alexandre Adler - also known as France’s foremost neocon. In this article, Adler makes a very convincing case for President Bush’s legacy and his ‘unparalleled service to Europe.’
“At a time when “Obamania” is in full swing, why not say all the good things we can about George W. Bush, if not about the eight years he spent battling terrorism? Indeed, a certain amount of false evidence has been laid at the doorstep of the current U.S. president. … The first such item is in the process of crumbling before our eyes: not only was the destruction of the Baathist regime in Iraq not a failure for the United States, but it’s now turning into a genuine success. First of all, because indeed, Saddam Hussein did a good job organizing what was left of Iraq’s state apparatus into an unwavering support system for terrorist operations that America found intolerable. Then, because the current transformation of Iraq has had a considerable medium-term impact: Iraqis have voted freely three times since 2003, although to be sure, these free elections are not yet entirely pluralist. Nevertheless, they have played a role in helping assess the actual size of the three major communities in the country [Sunni, Shiite and Kurd] and have also allowed the real political majority to emerge in Iraq [Shiites rather than Sunnis].”
“We now see that by maintaining strong growth, and even at this moment, by keeping America from entering a recession that the bursting of the subprime bubble clearly provoked, George Bush, helped mightily by [FED Chairman] Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson, his remarkable treasury secretary, has done unparalleled service to the whole of Europe.
Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, the already-mentioned Hank Paulson, and General Petraeus in Baghdad, as well as Zalmay Khalilzad, ambassador and a veritable patron of Afghanistan, will in time come to be seen as true statesmen whose achievements are simply impressive.”
Adler also looks at the situation in the wider Middle East, Latin America, China and North Korea - and although significant blunders are mentioned, he gives President Bush high marks.
“There is something hypocritical in the ‘Obamania’ that is sweeping France: Obama, Black, young and un-cunning, is the archetype of that which the French political class invariably fails to produce. This is typical for France, where one likes to extol the merits of recipes from abroad without doing anything to concoct them ‘at home.’
So how poorly represented is France’s minority population?
“How to explain that a ‘phenomena’ like Obama still hasn’t occurred in our country? It’s been 160 years since France definitely abolished slavery, and yet one must note that the effective integration of “minorities” in the economic and political sphere is infinitesimal. In the National Assembly, the large majority of Black members represent the overseas territories. Out of the 577 elected MPs, there is just a single exception: George Pau-Langevin [She is the MP for 21st district of Paris].”
As revolutionary as the change that a President Barack Obama would bring, Thomas Klau of Germany’s Financial Times Deutschland thinks that his wife Michelle as first lady would herald an even greater revolution - but not the type that involves a Kalashnikov slung over her shoulder.
Klau writes that throughout American history, “As in a monarchy, the wife of America’s head of state is indisputably and for all, the First Lady of Society. Her tastes, her choice of curtains, or the style of her clothing are all legitimate topics of reporting for the nation’s most prestigious newspapers.”
“All of this reflects what an enormous breakthrough that the entry into the White House of Michelle Obama, wife of Democratic candidate Barack Obama, would be. In some respects, she would represent an even greater revolution than the parallel entry into office of her husband. … One suspects that she won’t be one to forget that the celebrity and success of rare social achievers like TV genius Oprah Winfrey, Secretary of State Rice and her predecessor in office Colin Powell - conceal, more than reveal, the reality that a majority of Black Americans experience - and the history that they have inherited.”
“For a considerable portion of the White majority, when Michelle Obama declared several months ago that for the first time she was proud of her country, it was an offence against the first commandment of unconditional American patriotism. … But the Black minority knows what Michelle Obama meant. Blacks are embittered and scoff at conservatives - a mortal sin against the second commandment of unconditional American patriotism. From a European point of view, this apparent bitterness seems like a much clearer perception of the realities in the country.”
Editor’s Note: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has been complimentary of Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama — and speculation is increasing since it now turns out they met two weeks ago. So when, if at all, will there be an endorsement? Examiner.com political columnist Tony Campbell is on the trail and has some reporting tidbits — and advice to pundits and voters:
The Application to become Commander-in-Chief: Obama and Powell
by Tony Campbell
It was reported that Senator Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Colin Powell met in Powell’s Alexandria Office back on June 18th. The fact that they met didn’t surprise me, what did surprise me was that it took three weeks to make the meeting public, and that the meeting occurred only a week or so after Obama secured the position of presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.
In April, I had a conversation with a Powell insider who told me that “the Secretary really likes Obama a lot.” When I asked my friend if Powell would endorse Obama, the response I received was “not anytime soon…Powell is being Powell.”
I have had the pleasure of being around Secretary Powell several times since 1996 when I was involved with his book tour and almost hatched presidential bid. Colin Powell knows that everyone is watching what he does concerning his political relationship with Barack Obama. It is still widely accepted that if he had chosen to run for the Presidency he may have beaten Bill Clinton in 1996. Powell’s endorsement would eliminate most fears of the defense and/or foreign policy establishment that Obama does not have the gravitas to be an effective Commander-in-Chief.
My suggestion to all of the political writers and tea leaf readers: Don’t expect an endorsement from Powell anytime soon. Colin Powell is using his considerable intellect and talents to size up the man who wants to become the 44th President of the United States. We should take a cue from him…and if possible take a peak at his notes.
Republican presumptive Presidential nominee Sen. John McCain is worried about Republican “Obamacons” who could openly or all-but-openly support rival Democratic Senator Barack Obama come November, columnist Robert Novak writes.
What’s a Republican with a reputation for being independent who wants to distance himself just enough from the Bush administration so he doesn’t lose his party base to do?
Novak writes:
What is an “Obamacon?” The phrase surfaced in January to describe British conservatives entranced by Barack Obama. On March 13 the American Spectator broadened the term to cover all “conservative supporters” of the Democratic presidential candidate. Their ranks, though growing, feature few famous people. But looming on the horizon are two big potential Obamacons: Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel.
Neither Powell, first-term secretary of state for George W. Bush, nor Hagel, retiring after two terms as a U.S. senator from Nebraska, has endorsed Obama. Hagel probably never will. Powell probably will enter Obama’s camp at a time of his own choosing. The best bet is that neither of the two, both of whom supported President Bush in 2000 and 2004, will back John McCain in 2008.
Powell, Hagel and lesser-known Obamacons harbor no animosity toward McCain. Nor do they show much affection for the rigidly liberal Obama. The Obamacon syndrome is based on hostility to Bush and his administration and on revulsion over today’s Republican Party. The danger for McCain is that desire for a therapeutic electoral bloodbath could get out of control.
This is what I have called for months now the Big Broom. There are many voters who may agree with McCain on some key issues and not be totally-comfortable with Obama. But come November — as they try to get a loan from a bank to fill up their cars with $8/gallon gas and find out they can’t get a loan since credit is tight and their home equity has evaporated — many of these voters may wish to take a Big Broom and totally sweep out the crew that has administered the financial mess.
At a time when consumer confidence is setting record lows, it could truly be “it’s the economy, stupid” and not the war and not offshore drilling and most assuredly not whether Karl Rove (who has apparently now emerged as America’s populist) thinks Obama looks like an arrogant country club member smoking a cigarette with a beautiful woman on his arm.
In the Republican Party, Big Broom politics would entail Republicans not voting or defecting to Obama so that the day after the election, as their party regroups after the defeat, Bushies are politely but assertively shown the door out of the room of party power — and new blood would take over in the wake of the therapeutic electoral bloodbath.
Scott McClellan joins a long list of disillusioned Bush administration top officials, senior advisers, and confidants that have decided to tell it all, to “come clean.”
Of course, there will be a torrent of Bush White House, and Bush sympathizers’, attacks on McClellan’s character and credibility–as have been in the past on those who have dared to tell the truth.
They will attack him for saying in his book what most Americans already knew: that his boss misled our nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq; that the decision to invade Iraq was a “serious strategic blunder” ; that top White House officials deceived him and the American people about the administration’s involvement in the leaking of the identity of C.I.A operative, Valerie Plame; etc., etc. But most of all they will attack him for saying that the Bush White House consciously made “a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed.”
Of course, there will be many who will applaud McClellan for finally admitting to his complicity in one of the biggest failures of government truth, leadership and competence our country has ever experienced. They will use the adage “better late than never.”
And, of course, Scott McClellan will go on to make millions from his confessions and from his newly acquired fame–or infamy.
But I, for one, will not join the chorus of applause. I, for one, will not use the maxim better late than never. Because there is no “better late than never” when it comes to the damage done to our nation’s reputation, to our freedoms, and–most importantly–when it comes to the over 4,000 fallen American heroes in Iraq. Scott McClellan, along with Messrs. Powell, Tenet, and so many others had their chance, and blew it.
When and if Barack Obama takes the oath of office as President of the United States, who most will he owe that high privilege to?
According to Alexandre Adler, one of France’s leading historians, journalists - and according to many - a neocon, that person would be George W. Bush. Read the rest of this entry »
April 10th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell had some words of praise today for Democratic Senator Barack Obama on ABC. Via USA Today’s blog:
“I’m looking at all three candidates,” former secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican, said during a pre-recorded interview with Diane Sawyer for today’s Good Morning America. “I know them all very, very well. I consider myself a friend of each and every one of them. And I have not decided who I will vote for yet.” Powell said some of the things said over the years by Rev. Jeremiah Wright are “deplorable,” and he praised the way Barack Obama has handled the controversy over the senator’s former pastor. “I think that Sen. Obama handled the issue well,” Powell said. “He didn’t look the other way. He didn’t wait for the, for the, you know, for the storm to go over. He went on television, and I thought, gave a very, very thoughtful, direct speech. And he didn’t abandon the minister who brought him closer to his faith.”
He doesn’t sound on the same wavelength as Rush, Sean or many conservatives. And if Obama is the nominee and (as expected) the GOP uses the Wright issue, could this be the year when Powell formally breaks with the GOP political establishment?
April 10th, 2008 By MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
See, it’s not all about John Yoo. The U.S. didn’t just start torturing its detainees because a government lawyer said it was okay, or because some executive-branch extremist like David Addington determined that anything and everything was permissible in a time of war, or because some dim-witted troops at Abu Ghraib just didn’t know any better. At some point, early on, a decision to allow torture, to enable it, must have been made — and it must have been made at the highest levels of government. To put it another way, the decision to turn America into a nation that tortures must have been made at the top. The so-called “principals” must have signed off on it and Bush himself must have signed off on it.
And, it seems, they did just that. Here’s ABC News:
In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.
The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of “combined” interrogation techniques — using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time — on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.
*****
The advisers were members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.
At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.
That’s right — not underlings like Yoo, not lawyers and academics, not bureaucrats and soldiers, but the very top officials in the U.S. government: Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet, and Ashcroft. They signed off on it. They were the enablers of torture. They were the ones who turned America into a nation that tortures.
And they must be held accountable.
(Reality check: They won’t be. First, there’s the national security barrier — the details won’t get out. Second, Congress isn’t about to do anything — consider the do-nothingness of the post-2006 Democratic Congress. Third, while a Justice Department staffed with Obama or Clinton appointees could launch an aggressive investigation, it is unlikely that such a seemingly partisan political investigation, however legitimate in reality, would get very far.)
February 11th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has hinted the GOP may not get his vote in the 2008 Presidential election in remarks that contained some thinly-disguised barbs aimed at President George Bush:
Former US secretary of state Colin Powell said Sunday he was weighing his options in the 2008 White House race, hinting he may cross party lines and vote against the Republican nominee.
“I will vote for the candidate I think can do the best job in America. Whether that candidate is a Republican or Democrat or an independent,” Powell told CNN’s “Late Edition.”
“Frankly, we lost a lot in recent years,” Powell added in a swipe at the administration of President George W. Bush, under whom he served as secretary of state from 2001 to 2005.
And his comments contained what some will see as even more suggestions that he is not pleased with the tenor of American foreign policy under the second George Bush:
Powell, a top general and former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said he would vote for the candidate with a vision “that starts to restore confidence in America. That starts to restore favorable ratings to America.”
“I am going to be looking for the candidate that seems to me to be leading a party that is fully in sync with the candidate and a party that will also reflect America’s goodness and America’s vision.”
At the same time, he had some nice things to say about Democratic Senator Barack Obama, but made it clear (a) he doesn’t agree with Obama on everything and (b) he’s not ready to endorse anyone (yet):
He also praised Democratic hopeful Barack Obama, who is also an African-American, and locked in a battle for the White House nomination with Hillary Clinton.
“I think he’s been an exciting person on the political stage. He has energized a lot of people in America. He has energized a lot of people around the world,” Powell told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
“And so I think he is worth listening to and seeing what he stands for.”
But Powell added he did not share all Obama’s views, nor did he completely share the views of the other candidates.
“I think every American has an obligation right now at this moment in our history to look at all the candidates and to make a judgment not simply on the basis of ideology or simply on the basis of political affiliation but on the basis of who is the best person for all of America and which party and what does that party look like?” Powell added.
Powell is the great might-have-been of American politics.
He had been a rising star in the administration of the first President George Bush, and his philosophy fit in well with that administration. Several members of the first Bush administration have expressed unhappiness with the policies of the present Bush administration, but Powell was always the good political soldier as well as the good soldier.
He had been talked about for years as a possible Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate, but his political stock fell when he defended the war in Iraq. Ironically, by all accounts Powell was marginalized and even somewhat humiliated within the present Bush administration as he fought a losing battle that pitted him against the then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, two of the administrations most pro-active hawks.
CNN showed an interview with former Gen. Colin Powell last night in which the former secretary of state played his cards close to his chest when Wolf Blitzer asked him who he’d be supporting for president.
But based on his comments about the need for a presidential candidate who could repair America’s standing in the world, Powell at times seemed to be indicating a strong inclination towards Sen. Barack Obama.
And he also appeared to send a signal to Republicans that he wouldn’t look kindly on the party if Sen. John McCain became the nominee and many conservatives decided not to rally behind the senator from Arizona.
Why does all this matter?
To a lot of people, Powell is indicative of the independent-thinking Republican who could be a moderate or conservative but is not a lockstep supporter no matter what of the current Republican faction that now controls the Republican party and the White House. Despite a reputation diminished by his (losing) White House battles and argument that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the United Nations, he remains a highly appealing and credible figure to independent voters who have also shown an affinity for McCain, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and others who don’t quite fit into the “sports team” partisan mode.
If he makes it known during the campaign that he’s going to vote for a Democrat, it could be something factored in by independent voters — voters who are increasingly necessary in winning elections.
Should either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton secure the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, each would face an important challenge in the selection of a vice presidential running mate. The stakes would be high in either scenario.
Clinton would need to make a choice that gains something like positive acclimation from the 45 to 48% of the electorate who say they will not vote for her under any circumstances. A few percentage points-worth of voters from this category might be all Clinton needs to score a razor-thin victory in a general election.
The operative word for Clinton in selecting a running mate would be imagination. She may have to think outside the box, choosing a vice presidential candidate that will run against the widespread picture of her as cunning and savage. At the same time, Clinton, who has worked hard during her brief tenure in the United States Senate to develop a relationship with the military, will have to choose someone with strong national security credentials. After all, this is the First Lady who, according to many reports, treated military people with contempt when her husband first became president.
An obvious choice for Clinton would be retired General Wesley Clark, who has been campaigning hard for her. But the fact that Clark has been a Clinton partisan this election year may be a strike against him. He’s too obvious a choice, one that would seem like a payoff.
The problem, of course, is that, rightly or wrongly, few Democrats have the national security cache that Clinton may need in a running mate. Hence, imagination will be important. Clinton may have to reach beyond the Democratic Party, as 2004 nominee John Kerry attempted to do when he asked Republican John McCain to be his running mate. McCain will be unavailable to Clinton in 2008, as he’s likely to hold either the number 1 or 2 place on the Republican ticket. Expect Clinton then, to press Colin Powell to come out of retirement to be her vice presidential candidate.
The attraction of Powell for Clinton is obvious. Given her recent gaffe over Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and race, she will likely want a high profile African-American on her ticket. From a Democratic perspective, at least within the counsels of the White House, Powell was “right” on the war in Iraq, even though the former secretary of State argued forcefully in favor of war at the United Nations. His military credentials are unimpeachable: service in Vietnam, national security adviser to the President, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who oversaw victory in Iraq in 1991, and author of the Powell Doctrine.
But Powell might also be attracted to being on a Democratic ticket. He has always adhered to a few political positions outside of the mainstream of conservative Republican orthodoxy–he favors affirmative action in hiring and he can’t really be described as “pro-life,” for example. In addition, service as vice president, helping with the gradual withdrawal of US forces from Iraq under a Democratic president may, in some sense, feel like vindication to Powell.
Of course, age may work against Powell. He turns 71 in April. But that makes him roughly the same age as John McCain and after all, seventy is the new forty, something for which this 54-year old is exceedingly grateful. In the end, however, I don’t think that Powell would accept a place on the Democratic ticket, which will present Clinton with huge problems should she be the nominee for president.
I’ll deal with the importance of Barack Obama’s running mate deliberations in a later post.
I fully expect Obama to be the Democratic nominee. So, in a way, that post will deal with a far more critical topic.
Does the most recent U.S. intelligence report on Iran’s nuclear program demonstrate once again the politicization of American espionage? According to this op-ed article from Le Figaro by the director and research director of the French Research Center on Intelligence, ‘The new NIE is a fake. Iran continues to pursue its nuclear weapons program, but the Americans have decided to backtrack to save face. Confronted with catastrophic consequences for the balance of power in the Middle East, Washington abandoned the military option. This [NIE] is deliberate American disinformation.’
By Éric Denécé and Alain Rodier, director and research director, respectively, of the Research Center on intelligence Matters (a Paris-based research institute).
Translated By James Jacobson
December 20, 2007
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)
On December 3, the Directorate of National Intelligence (DNI), a body attached to the White House that centralizes information provided by all American intelligence agencies, issued a report (a National Intelligence Estimate or NIE ) which guessed that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in the autumn of 2003. This document, drafted in mid-2007, says that for the immediate future, Iran in not a nuclear threat, and that the Iranian regime is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than the U.S. had thought back in 2005. But the report stressed that Teheran continues to enrich uranium for civilian purposes, and it estimates that if the Iranian military effort were launched again, the country could produce nuclear warheads between 2010 and 2015.
This is a radical about-face. Released in 2005, the previous NIE on the Iranian nuclear program emphasized Teheran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons. It was on the basis of this report that President Bush called for more sanctions and was contemplating the use of force against Teheran.
The NIE is a summary of what the various U.S. intelligence agencies forecast on topics of major interest. It is drafted at the request of the political authorities or members of Congress and is not the result of a jointly-executed analysis. The report is prepared by DNI analysts. The text is then circulated to the agencies concerned to collect their input. This is a process that necessarily takes several months. Sometimes the services that supply intelligence on the subject don’t even recognize their contributions to the final report.
The intelligence at the heart of this NIE comes mainly from intercepted telephone conversations between Iranian military officials, in which they complain about the decision to halt weapons development. These wiretappings were allegedly collected by the Government Communications Headquarters , the British eavesdropping service.
In the world of intelligence, it is customary to attribute to the interception services, information obtained from human sources that one wants to protect. Along these lines, it is legitimate for one to consider the case of Ali Reza Asghari, the Revolutionary Guard general who defected at the beginning of the year .
SEVERAL ASSUMPTIONS CAN BE FORMULATED
It is important to treat the content of this report with great caution. Indeed since the end of 2002, the politicization of American intelligence, which has been under constant pressure from the authorities, has prompted the presentation of the facts based on points of view that favor the political objectives of the White House or the Pentagon. A few examples: the creation of the Office of Special Plans in order to justify the war in Iraq; the masquerade February 2003 session at the United Nations, where despite the presence of director George Tenet beside Colin Powell, members of the CIA were shocked by the assertions of the Secretary of State WATCH ; the revelation of the real position [outing] of CIA officer Valérie Plame in order to undermine her husband, a diplomat whose report pointed out that Iraq didn’t acquire uranium from Nigeria, and so on. Examples of the manipulation of the facts by American authorities are legion. As a result, several assumptions can be made about the effect sought by releasing this latest NIE.
In the sad-but-probably-true department comes a Politicostory about how GQ killed a piece about in-fighting in Hillary’s campaign for cover-story access to the former President.
One of the strengths of magazines is, unlike daily hard-news media, freedom of choice about what to cover and when. But along with that comes more dependence on sources for interviews in depth and cover sittings, among other needs.
When I retired two decades ago, the subjects of pieces and their publicity people, especially in show business, were getting very aggressive in bargaining for conditions that journalists should not accept. But in those days, when a major magazine cover story meant more than it does now, it was easier to resist.
But before bloggers and other finger pointers get too huffy about “selling out,†they should check the other side of the ledger. In the past year, GQ interviews have given us, among other news, Chuck Hagel’s unvarnished account of how the Bush Administration ramrodded the 2002 resolution to invade Iraq and the closest to a mea culpa from Colin Powell that we are likely to get.
In the lack-of-virtue-is-its-own-reward department, the Clinton campaign will probably sustain as much damage from the news of its arm-twisting as it might have from the story that never ran. Moreover, the juicy bits will leak out one way or another.
After a long disappearing act, the Secretary of State has surfaced, sort of, with a New York Times interview so guarded that her own words appear only toward the end of a long piece with everybody else’s judgments about her tenure with the Bush Administration.
Most are harsh. Former colleagues and students at Stanford University are protesting her planned return to the faculty after serving “an administration that has trashed the basic values of academia: reason, science, expertise, and honesty.â€
Colin Powell’s former Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, no rose himself in the Valerie Plame outing, complains about Rice’s performance as National Security Adviser, saying he felt like he was getting on a “gerbil wheel†every morning “and nothing would be resolved, and we’d get off at night, and the next morning we would get back on and do it all over again.â€
Rice’s response is a shrug that “if that’s the assessment, you know, I’ll accept people’s assessment,†pointing out it is “a very difficult job because everything is by remote control. You do not own any of the assets.â€
Introspection does not come easily to Condoleezza Rice. The interview reports her “falling back on her usual talking points, except this time, those talking points were interspersed with grumbling that she was being asked for personal reflection, something she does not like to do.â€
Two books about Rice, almost certain to be critical, are coming out soon and she, of course, will be writing her own memoirs, but readers should not expect much in the way of personal revelation. At one point, she complained to the Times interviewer, “Now you’ve got me trying to psycho-analyze myself.â€
No problem. There are plenty of others around who are eager to do that.
NOTE: The Moderate Voice runs Guest Voice posts from time to time by readers who don’t have their own websites, or people who have websites but would like to post something for TMV’s diverse and thoughtful readership. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Moderate Voice or its writers. NOTE: Broken link has been FIXED on this post.
Today’s Guest Voice post is by Hunter Hatfield, currently a doctoral student in linguistics and cognitive science at the University of Hawaii with a previous M.A. in philosophy. In between these academic jaunts he spent a decade in the computer industry. He publishes the thoughtful weblog Goat Skin Pants.
The Powell Doctrine and Social Programs
By Hunter Hatfield
Hi, TMV readers. Any feedback on this post is most welcome. It’s why I’m writing it. Here you go:
Are social programs the liberal version of Vietnam, and possibly Iraq, in which the desire for limited warfare is sabotaging the outcome?
In other words, have the Great Society programs of the Johnson era or the New Deal gotten to a point where 1) there aren’t really any clear goals to achieve, but instead we just muddle along with no ability to “win”; 2) we see that poverty is just as bad (if this is true) as when we started, but we think we have to “stay the course” until someone comes up with something better? After all, the argument may go, we are doing some good. 3) We have thousands of social workers and government employees doing everything they can to help people in these programs, just like American soldiers were/are doing everything they could to help Vietnamese and Iraqis, but the system they are operating in is simply dysfunctional?
There are surely problems with such an analysis.
One problem is the idea that you might win over Homelessness or Hunger or Poverty. Such a goal is designed for failure, but, while failing to achieve World Peace, we often do feed actual hungry people and help the unemployed get jobs, and isn’t that far more important than conquering an abstraction?
But let’s say there is a kernel of truth to my analogy as well. If so, then perhaps they both have similar solutions. What was supposed to be the policy solution to prevent quagmires like Vietnam from happening again? The Powell Doctrine - Use overwhelming force; only go in when you have exact ideas on how to get out.
In short, decide exactly what you want to do and then throw everything and the kitchen sink at it. This doctrine seems to have worked decently well militarily until Iraq, at which point we ignored the idea in large part.
My question is: do we need to be applying the Powell Doctrine to social programs? Instead of choosing between small bits here and there, which we then apply across the U.S., choose some specific problem and then do everything you possibly can to fix it. Of course, as said, you can’t fix Poverty. But the Powell doctrine isn’t supposed to end all war either. It is, however, supposed to keep you out of ill-defined never-ending war.
So for a social program, you can’t cure poverty. But maybe you can choose one broken neighborhood and attack its problems like no one has ever seen. Take East St. Louis or the 9th Ward or “across the tracks” and go after it. Beautify the neighborhood, give tax breaks to small business, have Head Start programs in every neighborhood, find mental health treatment for the homeless who need it, triple the community policing, get drug treatment in there, engage every church and civic organization you can to participate in creating the solutions, build schools throughout the district, issue tough requirements on parents and teachers, and right on down the list.
Of course, you cannot do this in every single place at once. We’d all go bankrupt. But if you can truly “fix” a neighborhood in 5-10 years, based on some defined, community-supported goal before you started, then you can move to the next place. When East St. Louis supports itself, you don’t have to spend the money there anymore. Ironically, one drawback to such a solution is that people might start moving to that location to take advantage of the new schools and the tax breaks on business. But if people are now moving to the place most people were afraid to go before, then it seems you have succeeded. Time to find the next problem.
When Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Congress before the invasion in 2003 that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to pacify Iraq, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz ridiculed him.
To justify the war, the Administration pushed Gen. Colin Powell, by then Secretary of State, into a UN presentation from which he tried, not altogether successfully, to remove Scooter Libby’s “garbage†supplied by Ahmad Chalabi.
Cheney didn’t even try to hide the fact that he and Bush were using Powell’s credibility to sell the war. Poking him in the chest, the Vice President told Powell, “You’ve got high poll ratings, you can afford to lose a few points.̶
