Wilkerson interview where he outs Cheney and Rumsfeld as idiots.

[Agent_Foxtrot]

@Maureen

Can’t he be all three?

Jim. You’re a bright guy. Seriously. Do not give the trained monkey the excuse of being “just a puppet.” He deserves to take responsibility for his actions. He had a choice in whether or not to run this country into the ground. He had a choice in whether or not to send young people to die to line his buddies’ pockets. He had a choice in whether to take the goodwill we once held around the world and grind it to nothing. If nothing else, he is guilty of the sin of apathy and the sin of treating other people like things. Let him hang.

I think this was the best account of Mr. Bush I’ve ever read. Bless you, Maureen.

Adam

[Voyager]

@John Mace

I guess my point is that if you are resigning in protest, you don’t just wait until the term lapses. This is **war **we’re talking about, not just some minor policy issue like whether the tax rate should be 28% or 30%. If either Powell or Wilkerson thought the war was wrong, they should’ve walked out the door the day Bush began the invasion, if not earlier.

I agree with you, but perhaps they felt that if they left there would be no one at a top level saying anything rational to Bush. There were plenty of reports at the time about how State got frozen out of the decision making. Didn’t the Saudi ambassador hear about the decision to go to war before Powell?

Resigning wouldn’t have done it - resigning and blowing the whistle would have, but I guess they were being good Republicans.

Anyhow the point isn’t how moral Wilkerson is, but whether he is accuately protraying what went on. I, for one, am eagerly awaiting my next New Yorker.

[rjung]

@Zoe

On Hardball tonight, Pulitizer Prize winner Seymore Hersh (I’m uncertain of the spelling) said that Cheney and Rove keep Bush in a sort of religious Utopian gray area (not the exact wording) regarding the war and feed him whatever information that want him to have. The implication is that Bush truly believes in what he is doing and believes more than ever that democracy can be established by force in Iraq. Hersh has written more about it in the current edition of The New Yorker.

Link here. Definitely worth a read.

[What_Exit]

@rjung

Link here. Definitely worth a read.

I hope the troops can start pulling out soon.
I am also afraid Iraq might collapse into another fundamentalist Islamic state.

Jim

[Weirddave]

@rjung

Link here. Definitely worth a read.

Thanks for the link rjung, over all, an encouraging read.

[John_Mace]

@Voyager

Anyhow the point isn’t how moral Wilkerson is, but whether he is accuately protraying what went on. I, for one, am eagerly awaiting my next New Yorker.

Yes, that is true. I didn’t find his thesis all that compelling. It’s not a “cabal” when it’s the President, the VP, the NSA, the SecDef etc running things. He was pissed because “the beaurocracy” (his terminology) was not fully in the loop.

@elucidator

I've been closely following Mr. Hersh for a long time. His reporting on the Bushivik march to war has been harrowing to read, and thus far has proved spot on in every major respect. If only half what he says is true, its a terrible indictment. As it happens, I thinks its almost all true.

Except for his prediction that we’d be bombing Iran by summer of '05. Sure, he didn’t come out and say 100% that he knew it would happen, but that’s how these things always are. You make a pretty strong assertion, and claim prescience when you’re right. When you’re wrong, you just say something like, Well I didn’t say it was definitely going to happen.

“The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess,” Hersh said. “I think they really think there’s a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites.”

He added, “The guys on the inside really want to do this.”

Hersh identified those inside people as the “neoconservative” civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith – “the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq.”

And he said the preparation goes beyond contingency planning and includes detailed plans for air attacks:

“The next step is Iran. It’s definitely there. They’re definitely planning … But they need the intelligence first.”

[Mapache]

Except for his prediction that we’d be bombing Iran by summer of '05.

???
I just read the link three times, carefully. What he said was: “I think they really think there’s a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer,** to get the intelligence on the sites.”**
Where do you find any such prediction in your link?

[Marley23]

@John Mace

I don’t see any evidence that Powell tried to change policy. He went in front of the freakin’ UN to try to convince them to suppor the war, for God’s sake.

My understanding was that it was Powell’s idea to go to the UN in the first place in the name of diplomacy. But that’s more “turd-polishing” that “policy-changing.” I agree with you that Powell ought to be embarrassed for going along with this.

[What_Exit]

@Marley23

My understanding was that it was Powell’s idea to go to the UN in the first place in the name of diplomacy. But that’s more “turd-polishing” that “policy-changing.” I agree with you that Powell ought to be embarrassed for going along with this.

I think he is. I can’t cite it, but in the few interviews I have seen since he stepped down, he does seem **embarrassed for going along ** with it.

Jim

[Marley23]

@jrfranchi

I think he is. I can’t cite it, but in the few interviews I have seen since he stepped down, he does seem **embarrassed for going along ** with it.

He is (he called it a “blot” on his record and the most embarrassing moment of his career, painful to him, etc.), and that’s the point. What do you expect, that I’ll give him a medal and a pat on the back for being embarrassed now? Anybody with any dignity or shame would be embarrassed for doing what he did.
But I wasn’t saying “I’ll be satisfied with him if he’s embarrassed.” I said “he ought to be embarrassed.” I mean that he deserves it. I think he’s generally a good guy, but he went along with this stupidity, and that’s nobody’s fault but his. Not only did he not do enough to stand up for himself, he actively helped them and lent them legitimacy, since he was the most moderate and the most internationally respected member of the administration. He knew there were problems with their case and decided to play along anyway.

[jjimm]

In case anyone’s missed it, the BBC did a fascinating interview with Wilkerson the other day, in which this was a fairly shocking answer:

[BBC] If what you say is correct, in your view, is Dick Cheney then guilty of a war crime?

[Wilkerson] Well, that’s an interesting question - it was certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror and I would suspect that it is - for whatever it’s worth - an international crime as well.

[Sevastopol]

@Marley23

He is (he called it a “blot” on his record and the most embarrassing moment of his career, painful to him, etc.), and that’s the point. What do you expect, that I’ll give him a medal and a pat on the back for being embarrassed now? Anybody with any dignity or shame would be embarrassed for doing what he did.
But I wasn’t saying “I’ll be satisfied with him if he’s embarrassed.” I said “he ought to be embarrassed.” I mean that he deserves it. I think he’s generally a good guy, but he went along with this stupidity, and that’s nobody’s fault but his. Not only did he not do enough to stand up for himself, he actively helped them and lent them legitimacy, since he was the most moderate and the most internationally respected member of the administration. He knew there were problems with their case and decided to play along anyway.

It is a good insight into what ‘honor’ means in the context of service in the US military.

[What_Exit]

@jjimm

In case anyone’s missed it, the BBC did a fascinating interview with Wilkerson the other day, in which this was a fairly shocking answer:

Yes but because he wasn’t vocal back in 2003, apparently anything he says now is invalid. :dubious:
Sorry if I am ignorant enough to forgive Powell and his staff. I really think it is time to put Cheney under investigation. You know, one of those investigations they put Clinton under.

Jim

[Merijeek]

@Sevastopol

It is a good insight into what ‘honor’ means in the context of service in the US military.

Powell had a choice between honor and duty. His training seems to have never shown him that there can be a definite conflict between the two.

He chose duty.

If nothing else, I guess that chocie means he get to avoid being smeared by the right-wing smear machine.

-Joe

[John_Mace]

@Mapache

???
I just read the link three times, carefully. What he said was: “I think they really think there’s a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer,** to get the intelligence on the sites.”**
Where do you find any such prediction in your link?

“The next step is Iran. It’s definitely there.”

The claim was made earlier that he had some almost faultless insight into what the administration was doing. He made a big to-do about attacks on Iraq earlier this year. I haven’t seen any attacks.

[John_Mace]

@John Mace

He made a big to-do about attacks on Iraq earlier this year.

IRAN, not Iraq. Irannnnnnn.

[World_Eater]

@John Mace

IRAN, not Iraq. Irannnnnnn.

Don’t forget, Iraq is going worse then they thought. Give them some time.

[Merijeek]

@John Mace

“The next step is Iran. It’s definitely there.”

The claim was made earlier that he had some almost faultless insight into what the administration was doing. He made a big to-do about attacks on Iraq earlier this year. I haven’t seen any attacks.

You have a cite?

Seymour talks about getting intelligence operations going to find sites in Iran. Where’s he say that American smart bombs will be hitting Iran by 12/31/05?

Then again, to anyone but the True Believers this could be evidence that their war is abigger string of fuckups than previously believed…

-Joe

[John_Mace]

@Merijeek

You have a cite?

That was a direct quote from the cite I gave earlier, and was part of the quote in my earlier post.

Seymour talks about getting intelligence operations going to find sites in Iran. Where’s he say that American smart bombs will be hitting Iran by 12/31/05?

Then again, to anyone but the True Believers this could be evidence that their war is abigger string of fuckups than previously believed…

-Joe

Look, if the US had dropped bombs on some select sites in Iran last summer, that statement would’ve been touted as if Hersch were some sort of ominscient prophet. I’m simply pointing out that he doesn’t have his finger on the pulse of things as much as people might make him out to. I’m not trying to discredit him, just add some persepective.

[mack]

It was Scott Ritter that made the “bombing in June” prediction, not Hersch.

Hersch’s article was more about how the Pentagon was seeking to avoid congressional oversight in addition to the attack planning and intelligence gathering in Iran.