Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Lawrence Wilkerson
Posted by: Jon Henke on Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Democrats and Iraq war critics are touting a recent speech by former Powell Aide Lawrence Wilkerson, in which he claims there "was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made". He expands on that with a column in the LA Times...
In President Bush's first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security — including vital decisions about postwar Iraq — were made by a secretive, little-known cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Why it's shocking that Senior administration officials (rather than bureaucrats) were making administration policy, I don't know. The perpetual turf war between the State and Defense Departments is a function of the very structure of government. That said, there's a great deal of merit to his criticism.

However, since our friends on the other side of the aisle have decided that Lawrence Wilkerson merits a great deal of credibility, let's review some other things he said...


There was domestic and international unanimity on the WMD question...
I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. I don’t know – and people say, well, INR dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios. Carl Ford and I talked; Tom Finger and I talked, who is now John Negroponte’s deputy, and that was the way INR felt. And, frankly, I wasn’t all that convinced by the evidence I’d seen that he had a nuclear program other than the software. That is to say there are some discs or there were some scientists and so forth but he hadn’t reconstituted it. [Saddam] was going to wait until the international tension was off of him, until the sanctions were down, and then he was going to go back – certainly go back to all of his programs. I mean, I was convinced of that.
Saddam was actively feigning WMD programs...
But I saw satellite evidence, and I’ve looked at satellite pictures for much of my career. I saw information that would lead me to believe that Saddam Hussein, at least on occasion, was spoofing us, was giving us disinformation. When you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical weapons ASP – Ammunition Supply Point – with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the U.N. inspectors wheeling in in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP and everything is changed, everything is clean. None of those signs are there anymore.

Well, Saddam Hussein really cared about deterring the Persians – the Iranians – and his own people. He didn’t give a hang about us except on occasion. And so he had to convince those audiences that he still was a powerful man. So who better to do that through than the INC, Ahmad Chalabi and his boys, and by spoofing our eyes in the sky and our little HUMINT, and the Brits and the French and the Germans, too.
Domestic analysis of WMDs...
The consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming. I can still hear George Tenet telling me, and telling my boss in the bowels of the CIA, that the information we were delivering – which we had called considerably – we had called it very much – we had thrown whole reams of paper out that the White House had created. But George was convinced, John McLaughlin was convinced that what we were presented was accurate. And contrary to what you were hearing in the papers and other places, one of the best relationships we had in fighting terrorists and in intelligence in general was with guess who? The French. In fact, it was probably the best. And they were right there with us.
The Aluminum tubes? Blame the French...
In fact, I’ll just cite one more thing. The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by god, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments? We were wrong. We were wrong.
The "Cabal" were not Neocons...
I don’t think Dick Cheney is driven by ideology. I don’t think Donald Rumsfeld is. If you mean by ideology a certain nationalism or a certain realism or whatever, perhaps, but not by what we associated with neoconservatism.
On Iraq today...
I’m guardedly optimistic about what’s happening there now. I think we may have reached the point, as I said earlier, where we’ve exhausted all the possibilities and we’re actually listening to the Iraqis, we actually are in the ministries that we need to be in, listening to who is in charge of those ministries, and we’re doing the kinds of things that are necessary to be done to leave at least something that’s very different and not inimical to our interests in Baghdad, in Iraq in general, as we do leave – leave over the next five to eight years. Now, that’s a fairly long timeframe. And I admire the president...for sticking to that sort of a timeframe and that sort of an attitude about the whole Iraq problem.
Iraq is not Vietnam...
There are a number of reasons why I believe that this is strategic in a sense that Vietnam was not. Vietnam was a misinterpretation, in my view, of a Cold War side battle that really wasn’t a Cold War side battle except in a superficial aspect. It really was a civil war. And the French misinterpreted, because of their colonial remnants, and we misinterpreted it because of our fixation on the Cold War, although I have some very provocative opinions about what we could have done in Vietnam if we’d stuck it out too. Nonetheless, Vietnam was not something that when we left, however with honor or without, we were going to have to revisit 10 years later because it was so strategic. I think Iraq is.
Lawrence Wilkerson made a great many other points, as well. Some unsuprising (insufficient pre-war planning); some a bit suprising (changing course in Iraq? Wilkerson argues we've made changes too fast). His point about the centralization of communication and power is worth serious consideration, but it's not a problem that politicians of either party have ever been keen on solving at any level of government.

Ultimately, minority Parties are always a little bit libertarian, if only to restrict the power of the majority party; majority Parties are always anti-libertarian, if only because, hey cool, power!
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Jon: Where’d you get those excerpts from? They contain some thoughtful analysis and I’d like to follow up a bit.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
The link is in the post. That particular transcript is at the Washington Note, but it’s available elsewhere. Search google news and you’ll find some.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
In President Bush’s first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security - including vital decisions about postwar Iraq - were made by a secretive, little-known cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Given the incredible bullshit we’ve had to endure from CIA and State playing games, it’s no real shock, is it?

It’s getting to the point that incoming Presidents have to fire absolutely everyone in these 2 depts. the day they take office. And believe me, for the job they’ve been doing it’s not like we’d miss them
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Wow! The shocking, little-known cabal of the Vice President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense. Be still my beating heart!
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
I second what Shark says. The infrastructure in State and particularly CIA were insanely inept throughout the cold war and riddled with soviet spies. The diplomats seem to never remember that they are working in the interests of the USA. They often become spokesmen for the nations they are supposed to be studying.
 
Written By: Kyle N
URL: http://
They often become spokesmen for the nations they are supposed to be studying.
Sounds like a variation on "Stockholm Syndrome". Perhaps we should christen it "Foggy Bottom Syndrome".
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
They often become spokesmen for the nations they are supposed to be studying.
I heard an anecdote about George Schultz during his tenure as Secretary of State. Schultz would talk with a staff member and finish his talk by hauling out a globe and asking, "Now, show me your country." The staffers would routinely point to whatever nation they were assigned to. Schultz would then say, "No. YOUR country is here," pointing to the US.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
Shocker!! Secretary of Defense makes decisions on National Security issues! Film at 11!!!!
 
Written By: Ron C.
URL: http://
Steverino,

Reagan used to do that for ambassadors by pushing the American flag on his desk at them.
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
To quote you, Jon, "since our friends on the other side of the aisle ..."

I see you have given up any pretense of objectivity.
 
Written By: cindy
URL: http://
I see you have given up any pretense of objectivity.
Politically speaking, I’m on the "Right", and I’m a supporter of the Iraq war. The people citing Wilkerson were on the Left and anti-war.

I’m objective, not partisan. They are two different things.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Nice post. Thanks.
 
Written By: Karl Maher
URL: http://karlmaher.blogspot.com
The CIA did not predict the Indian nuclear bomb. They missed it. So they don’t always error on the side of caution. What if they cleared Iraq in 2001 as most likely "clean", but they actually did have WMD’s? Shudder.

In analyzing risk, you MUST consider the potential consequences. Like in poker, you might stay in with a mediocre hand if the bet is small and the pot is large, this is the reverse for WMD’s. The small chance that Saddam has them and would transfer them to al Qaeda for a spectactular 9/11 type attack must be weighed against the cost of such an attack.

and of course he would go right back to his programs once he was cleared. Not to mention, if he was whacked or died, there might have been a civil war much more bloody than we are seeing now, and likely not to result in some democratic state.

This is not some simple decision the anti-war crowd makes it out to be.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/15/cia/

Correction: should be nuclear bomb test.]

Check out the ’blast from the past’ link including comments from Sen. Kerry, Tenet, etc. They even were going to ’put more focus’ on Pakistan...LOL.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Jon,

I think your link to WN’s transcript of Wilkerson’s speech is not exact, perhaps this is why your first commenter was a bit puzzled. I was at first, too.

The full transcript is here.
 
Written By: Franco Aleman
URL: http://barcepundit-english@blogspot.com
sorry, made I mistake with my URL in the signature. Corrected.
 
Written By: Franco Aleman
URL: http://barcepundit-english@blogspot.com
oops. I corrected it but for some reason it still published the bad one.

Let me try again, and sorry for the multiple comments.

Just in case it fails again it’s: http://barcepundit-english.blogspot.com
 
Written By: Franco Aleman
URL: http://barcepundit-english@blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider