
Firedoglake is pleased and honored to welcome Andrew Cockburn, acclaimed writer and lecturer on defense and national affairs, to discuss his new book, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall and Catastrophic Legacy. Andrew is the co-author, with brother Patrick Cockburn, of Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein and the co-author with wife Leslie Cockburn of One Point Safe and Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship.
On Friday I previewed the first half of Rumsfeld, which Cockburn begins on the morning of 9/11. That was when Rumsfeld made himself a hero by pushing gurneys with injured Pentagon employees, while forgetting he was in the chain of command and out of touch while this country was under attack and Dick Cheney, who wasn't in the chain of command, was ordering the Air Force to shoot passenger planes out of the sky.
But to get to that moment, Cockburn circles back to Rumsfeld's early political career as an undistinguished Congressman, and then Director of Nixon's Office of Economic Opportunity. During a brief stint in Europe as a NATO official, we learn how Rumsfeld cleverly set himself up for Nixon's eventual resignation, which allowed Rumsfeld to become President Ford's WH Chief of Staff, followed by his first tour as Secretary of Defense under Ford. In addition, we read fascinating details of how Rumsfeld conspired to convince Gerald Ford to dump Nelson Rockefeller, hoping that Ford would pick Rumsfeld as his VP running mate in 1976. In the process he marginalized and alienated his rival for the spot, George H. W. Bush, earning an enemy for life from the father and his allies, but unfortunately, not the son.
When Carter became President in 1976, Rumsfeld became CEO of the pharmaceutical company, G.D. Searle. In a chilling chapter, Cockburn traces how the new CEO used his Washington connections to help secure FDA approval of aspartame (aka, NutraSweet and Equal), an artificial sweetner that early tests linked to brain tumors. It made Rumsfeld a rich man.
Through Cockburn's discerning eye, we see an ambitious, arrogant, and essentially unprincipled man who believed he should be President and who used every position he had to undermine and manipulate the men around him who stood in his way. In telling this story, Cockburn reveals the myth of Rumsfeld's managerial competence, the carefully packaged image (via Karen Hughes) that he was an effective CEO and administrator, when in fact the man rarely accomplished what he claimed, never followed up on his own recommendations — the infamous "snowflake" memos became a Pentagon joke — but spent countless hours immersed in the details of matters well beyond his expertise — like how to provide logistics for the Army (his plan left the medics out of the invasion plans), not to mention how to torture people. His vision of "transformation" of the armed services, driven by Star Wars fantasies of a computerized system in which men could conduct and win wars from their laptops in the Pentagon turned out to be little more than a cover for the huge expansion in more traditional military spending for complex systems unlikely ever to work as advertised — a still hidden financial/budget legacy we will face for decades.
Cockburn devotes the second half of his story to Rumsfeld's disastrous reign as Defense Secretary for Bush 43 and his role in the Afghan and Iraq wars. Here we see the ambitious Rumsfeld setting up his empire to become, next to Cheney and Bush, the most powerful man on the planet. By intimidating the Pentagon's generals, he controlled the world's most powerful armed forces and by far the largest discretionary portion of the federal budget, though he essentially gave up on trying to trim it. And as both Colin Powell and Condi Rice would learn, Rumsfeld had a veto on US foreign policy, which he used to squash State Department efforts at diplomacy and accommodation.
As Cockburn documents, the debacle of Iraq is as much Rumsfeld's debacle as anyone's. It is hard even to summarize the magnitude of this catastrophe, but I appreciate the fact that Cockburn is unflinching as he documents Rumsfeld's personal role in the major crimes: the effort using Feith and others to bypass the intelligence services in order to mislead the country about WMD and the reasons for invading Iraq; the gross incompetence in planning and implementing the invasion and occupation, particularly relating to the number of troops that would be needed and what to expect once you've toppled a regime; and Rumsfeld's (and Wolfowitz') personal responsibility in setting up the environment and rules for torture, which were applied first to Afghani and presumed al Qaeda prisoners and then to Iraqis. Although Cockburn does not use the terms, he is clearly describing war crimes and leaves no doubt about who was responsible.
There is a particularly disturbing section on torture, and what happened to PUCs — "persons under confinement" — in the environment fostered by Rumsfeld's obsession with extracting information. As retold by a sergeant from the 82nd Airborne, guard duty with the prisoners became a highly sought after assignment, because it allowed the guards to brutalize the PUCs:
People would just volunteer just to get their frustrations out. We had guys from all over the base just come to guard PUCs so they could fuck them up.
It seems Rumsfeld (as well as Wolfowitz and others) took a personal interest in how well the tactics he had authorized were working to extract information from the Afghani and Iraqi prisoners. And he was not happy:
Scathingly, he compared the quality of the Iraqi information with the excellent intelligence that was now, in his view, being extracted from prisoners being held at Guantanamo, or "Gitmo," as the military termed it, under the able supervision of prison commander Major General Geoffrey Miller. Rumsfeld concluded his diatribe with a forthright instruction to Cambone that Miller be ordered immediately to the Abu Ghraib prison and "Gitmoize it." Cambone, in turn, dispatched the deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence, Lieutenant General William Boykin, a fervent Christian fundamentalist given to deriding the Muslims' Allah as "an idol," to Cuba to brief Miller on his mission.
There is so much more in Rumsfeld; we follow the man through his repeated denials, the "revolt of the generals," and his eventual loss of favor and forced resignation. Cockburn has covered it all in a very readable, disturbing, and carefully researched book that I highly recommend. We are fortunate to have Andrew Cockburn here to answer our questions and discuss his book. Please welcome Andrew to Firedoglake and Book Salon.
And as usual during Book Salon, please keep all comments and questions on topic; if you wish to comment on other topics, you can use the prior thread.
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Bradley Graham, By His Own Rules: The Ambitions, Successes and Ultimate Failures of Donald Rumsfeld
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Dr. Steven Miles, Oath Betrayed: America’s Torture Doctors
- Rumsfeld Blames General Counsel Jim Haynes for Torture Policy
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Jurgen Todenhofer, Why Do You Kill?: The Untold Story of the Iraqi Resistance
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Adam Gopnik – Angels and Ages: A Short Book About Darwin, Lincoln, and Modern Life





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

welcome to FDL Andrew!
WOWWWWWWWWW – its meeeeeeeee lol- slowly recovering from a state of shock!!
Welcome Andrew, it’s really wonderful that you can be here.
As always to commenters, please stay on topic for book salon. If you want to talk OT, please do it on the previous thread.
Here’s to the Cockburn family’s enormous contribution to investigative writing! Welcome, sir.
ok – better now – welcome to the lake mr cockburn
Welcome to Book Salon, everyone. We’re pleased to have the author, Andrew Cockburn with us.
As always, please stay on topic for this thread. You can use the prior thread for comments on other topics. Thanks.
Welcome Mr. Cockburn.
Your book describes Donald Rumsfeld as motivated by power and control–and does a great job of detailing how that became manifest.
However, I had a much harder time trying to figure out what he believes in. Is there any core belief, or does he jsut view everything a a means to the end of his self-agrandisement?
Welcome Andrew.
Did Dick Cheney seize 9/11 as an opportunity to gain more power in the executive, or was he already defacto running things out of his own shop pre 9/11 vis a vis foreign policy?
That is just so disburbing. The fish does stink from the head.
for me, Rumsfeld personifies the banality of evil. he would’ve fit in well during the Third Reich.
Happy to be here.
WRT sections on torture, I could not discern what Rumsfeld hoped to accomplish. Unspoken, I suppose, was that he wanted actionable intelligence. But as you wrote it, it seemed he was just a sadist voyeur.
So Andrew Cockburn thinks that there was
“excellent intelligence that was now, in his view, being extracted from prisoners being held at Guantanamo.”
On what basis does he make this judgement. Torture does NOT produce “excellent intelligence.” That is a well-known fact. People will say anything to get the torture to stop. I don’t recall our having captured Bin Laden, so I question this assertion.
I haven’t seen nor read your book yet, so I hope this isn’t an unnecessary question – have you been able to interview Bjorn Edlund or any other ABB people who could shed further light on Rumsfeld’s involvement of the sale of nuclear technology to North Korea?
eCAHNomics @ 7
I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what, if anything , Rumsfeld believes in. The answer seems to be: very little, apart from an overriding desire to dominate each and every human encounter. Otherwise it has been hard to detect any thread of principle.
mr. cockburn,
am i wrong in assuming there is zero chance rumsfeld or any other member of this administration faces a war-crime trial in the hague or elsewhere?
Sarik @ 13
The quote is about what Rumsfeld reportedly believed, not what Andrew believes.
Rumsfeld yet..but Why not focus on Wolfowitz?
In Ron Suskinds book “The Price of Loyalty” former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neil shares that it was Wolfowitz and Cheney who were so focused on invading Iraq in the very first cabinet meetings.
Wolfowitz walked out the Bush administrations back door directly into directing the World Bank.
i’m curious – with his background in pharmaceuticals – did these “PUC’s provide guinea pigs for nefarious drug trials? an amoral person such as he seems to be wouldn’t have any qualms doing those things in my mind
Jane Hamsher @ 9
True, but the point I was also making is that the militar command were deely culpable also. Swannack, the commander of the 82nd in the early occupation period, later denounced Rumsfeld for his role in bringing about Abu Ghraib, yet Swannack himself had presided over the “PUC tent” outrage at the 82nd’s Camp Mercury outside Fallujah.
Thanks for participating, Mr. Cockburn.
Do you know what Rumsfeld has been up to since leaving his post? I haven’t seen anything in the press. And, if you’d care to, could you give us a your thoughts on whether he may be back on the national scene again some day?
Thanks,
Peter
further – shouldn’t he be liable to stand trial as a war criminal?
One of the biggest arguments against the triangulators who say “let’s just all forget about the past and move forward together” is that those like Cheney and Rumsfeld who did not get put down in their first incarnation just return to haunt us again, only in more powerful forms. I would hate to think that this could happen again in the name of (*cough*) “bipartisanship.”
sorry did not know there was a discussion going on. I apologize
Andrew Cockburn @ 20
No I get it, and it does argue against the “few bad apples” theory so popular in wingnuttia.
kathleen @ 18
Actually, I do spent a lot of time talking about Wolfowitz, both in terms of his relaionship with Rumsfeld and his own contribution to the horrors. It struck me that Wolfowitz has in fact gotten off awfuly lightly in some other books on this topic, notably Woodward’s State of Denial. Rumsfeld treated Wolfowitz with a certain amoount of contempt, an yet Wolfowtiz, thanks to his connections with Cheney and, crucially, Richard Perle, was able to go around Rumsfeld at various times.
Do you believe Rumsfeld is likely to make a reappeaance in politics? I notice US politics seems to have a very short memory.
Is anyone trying to spin the notion that he was an able servant undone by court intrigue? (The kind of line that would presage his rehabilitation.)
Andrew — you descibe one of Rumsfeld’s methods of maintaining power as forcing others, even Wolfowitz, to get information through him, and making himself the sole conduit for information about his meetings with Bush. At the same time, Cheney was very private about his own meetings with Bush. I’m wondering how it all held together — or was that just an illusion? Did you find another channel between Cheney and Rumsfeld that allowed them to maintain/share control?
Mr. Cockburn, am a long time fan of your family’s work. My question is this:
How the *uck has this Rumsfeld guy, and all his cronies from the good ol’ days, managed to convince so many people he (they) know what they are doing? They were wrong about the Soviet Union but we didn’t know until they were gone; wrong about PNAC being the wave of the future; just plain WRONG.
ARe we stupid? Are they hypnotists? What is your educated guess?
Oh, don’t get me wrong. DR is as guilty of what’s happening in Iraq as anyone, and should be held responsible. I’m just wondering if he is likely to be up to more mischief in the future. (Of course, if we hear about him being on trial for war crimes, I’d be the last to complain :-) ).
Mr. Cockburn can you talk about the problem of the “revolving door” from defense companies to administration officials. The door that Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others keep revolving through.
Peter Kleban @ 21
Most secretaries of defense when they leave office borrow a couple of DoD staffers to sort throught their papers for a couple of weeks. Rumsfeld has had seven full time Pentagon staffers working away on his papers, possibly in preparation for the book that will show what a visionary he was.
mr. cockburn,
do you have a sense of what pentagon officials at the time of rumsfeld’s departure thought of him? was it understood how royally he had personally screwed things up? or did staffers at the pentagon think, somehow, that his resignation was just a chip played by bush after the november election results?
do you know the laws on how/if rumsfeld could be tried for any of the crimes he has committed, from lying to human rights crimes; it is unfortunate that being an evil sob is not a crime in itself but there you have it
i will buy this book … the excerpts are outstanding; thnx for your work
“The quote is about what Rumsfeld reportedly believed, not what Andrew believes.”
oops. never mind.
Thank you for writing this book, Andrew. I look forward to reading it.
We read that Rumsfeld still has an office and staff in the Pentagon. Do you know what it is he is doing now?
in meetings – other than cheney who else would be in the room with rummy?
Another fundamental that disturbs me about Rumsfeld and many others in this administration is the profound anti-intellectualism. I can even understand, though certainly don’t condone, fabricating the case for war. It’s been done before & it’ll be done again. But what I don’t understand, and this goes right down thru the military ranks, is that once you launch on a course of action as earth-changing as war, why is no attempt made to do it well? Too much interference from on high, where no one cared? What about Rumsfeld’s Big Mistake paranoia? Did he think he was immune himself? One chilling anecdote was your having the only book describing the Brits’ 1920s adventures. How could they not have studied up in advance & made sure that wouldn’t happen again?
Mr. Cockburn…After Rumsfeld left he criticized the Bush administration a bit. He shut up rather quickly after that.
What is your take on his willingness to criticize the administration after he was booted?
Scarecrow @ 28
As you say, Rumsfeld guarded his exclusive role in conveying information to the President very carefully. I also mention that Rumsfeld would get Bush to alter a decision publicly (ie in a meeting with many staffers.) Thinking about it, he would only have done that I think if he had already discussed it with Cheney. They must have talked privately all te time. Plus of course they are weekend neigbors on the Maryland Eastern Shore.
dmg @ 33
There was a palpable sense of relief in the Pentagon when he finally left. I was astonished when I started work on the book at the degree of animosity directed at him from all levels,
Jane Hamsher @ 23
Frankly, that concerns me as well. So much of the boldness exhibited by these flagrant uber-scofflaws stems from the apparent subjective belief that they will not be punished severely (if at all), and that they will be able to spin some vindication for their transgressions at a later date utilizing a compliant media and useful fools in the opposite camp.
I found it interesting that the Pentagon set up these regular secret briefings for the retired generals who became the “military experts” for the cable news and network news programs. They got invited as long as they didn’t criticize the policies too severely.
Andrew — do you see this all breaking down, or is this control still in place?
andrew cockburn @ 32
My army major efriend, who served as a Rumsfeld gofer for awhile, assures me that Rumsfeld will NEVER write a book. Myself, I will wait and see. He has much too much ego to leave the record stand as it is, methinks.
i_love_ny @
34
The excerpts are outstanding, Scarecrow did a superb job both on today’s post and on Friday’s.
Hi and thank you,
My understanding is that Rumsfeld is still skulking around the white in some official capacity. Is that true?
Welcome, Andrew. Did you talk to Joe Margulies of Rasul v. Bush? I just read his Guantanamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power because I knew him in Texas defending a woman I had befriended on death row. Gonzales was the one who briefed Bush on her clemency application. She was executed Feb. 24, 2000.
no one seems to be accountable for anything once they’ve left bushco as yet – now that dems have power maybe someone will be taken to the woodshed……
Thank you for joinging us today. I haven’t read your book yet but I have a question. Any clues about what happened to the missing trillions from the pentagon?
juslin @ 37
Meetings with Bush? Rumsfeld would meet absolutely alone with Bush on a weekly basis. With Cheney? I’m not sure. Probably no one. You have to remember that for these people, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, most of the staff were regarded on the same level as domestic help. Rumsfeld had no compunction at calling up the White House Chief of Staff, Card, and hectoring him in the most abusive terms.
Mr Cockburn,
I have been reading the Cockburn brothers for long enough to not want to remember how long it has been, and I am very much looking forward to reading this book.
You mentioned earlier that you could not figure out what Rumsfeld believes (other than $$ & power, or perhaps just $$ as a means to power). In your research on Rumsfeld, did you come across any association between his thinking and that of Leo Strauss, the intellectual god-father of so many of Washington’s neo-cons? I ask because the cynicism you describe seems quite Straussian.
Andrew–
What accounts for the press fawning all over the guy? After all, virtually anyone with a computer could have reviewed his record as Sec. of Defense in the `70s (and his “Team B” BS), and should have known that his corporate past was plenty shady.
Also, did you happen to find out any more detail on his forays with Cheney on their lost weekends together on “secret government” drills in the `80s?
darkblack @ 43
This bi-partisan “Let’s come together and move forward” theme song drives me crazy. Americans want to witness ACCOUNTABILITY for the Intelligence Snowjob. Then we can move forward and not until then.
What will be the long term effect of Rumsfeld’s transformation on the US military? What is likely to be the legacy of his policy and is there any sign that Gates is reversing any of it?
Andrew Cockburn @
32
Um, isn’t that illegal? To use Gov’t resources for personal business?
Great review Scarecrow.
Mr. Cockburn the book sounds facinating. Count me in as an eager customer. I’ll be at Borders when they open tomorrow.
Thanks for making your way through all of that filth and muck for us.
Lee Brimmicombe-Wood @ 55
It came out recently that Gates had argued in favor of closing Guantanamo (didn’t win that one, unfortunately).
Peter
To expand on what Mommybrain asked @ 29:
One of the things we talk about here with great frequency is the failure of the press over the last 5 years. I live in the Washington DC area, so I see lots of photos/articles of all of the Evil Ones mingling with the press at various events.
Any thoughts on how the press can do this [turn a complete blind eye to what Rummy et al. are/have been doing]? Are they just unaware? Are they overcome by a desire to be with the “In Crowd”? Do Rummy and/or the others have some magic spell they cast?
And, I guess most importantly, how do we break it (aside from getting everyone to read your book)?
montag @ 53
There’s a fascinating description of those drills and Rummy’s role — and I hope Andrew will mention what happened in the “war games.”
montag @ 52
His sucess with the press was in part due to intimidation. For example, I have been told recently that Army Times, which published a very strong editorial denouncing him last October, was going to do the same thing in the fall of 2003, but were contacted by his office and asked if they really wanted to lose all DoD and defense contractior advertising for the forseeable future. Added to this was the very crafty strategy forged by Victoria Clarke in the Office of Public Affairs in co-opting the press via embedding and other initiatives.
Andrew Cockburn @ 61
Yes, and intimidation is very useful. Makes censorship unnecessary.
Peter
Thank you for appearing. 2 questions:
1. Were you able to find the link from Arthur Hayes to his next job destination after leaving FDA, and then follow-up on said company?
2. You mention that Rummy “back-stabbed” Bush Sr., thus earning him an enemy for life. Why then, did Bush Jr. make Rummy SecDef? (my impression has been that all of junior’s cabinet posts were “pre-selected/authorized” by Daddy Bush and his cronies). Thanks.
Ghostman
Lee Brimmicombe-Wood @ 54
Well of course there was no transformation, at least not in any positive sense. His major legacy, apart of course from the wreckage inflicted on the army and marines thanks to Iraq, has been to let the budget spiral completely out of control, so that a a time when the Social Security and Medicare bills come due in a big way, we will find ourselves committed to footing the bill for defense obligation — ie weapons programs — that are militarily irrelevant and years late in entering service.
But how about the “Mainstream” press? Threats to them too?
Could you expand on the Cheney Rumsfeld relationship if possible. I understand they both came up through the ranks of Congress together and both work for various administration in Senior positions together. So they had some longstanding relationship. As it appears both men are cut from the same set of cloth in their desire for pure power and as you said in describing Rumsfeld a desire to, ” dominate each and every human encounter”. How did the two men get along with their huge egos competing with each other, Or was it just more of a mutual admiration society for the two of them and they just respected each other enough to do their own thing??? Do you know what if any role Cheney had in Rummy’s departure…as in prolonging his tenure?
Woodhall Hollow @ 51
Rummy is very much a neocon, here is the letter to Clinton in 1998 with his sig, and other Straussians Letter to Clinton from PNAC
Peter Kleban @ 61
Yeah, but the flattery from the press, in Rumsfeld’s case, was obsequious. Just recalling here the “rock star” and “sexy” appellations. Intimidation can subdue an unruly press, but the ass-kissing was extraordinary at times. That has baffled me. (Of course, the same was done for Bush, until he, too, started to look like the turd in the punchbowl he always was.)
Ghostman @ 62
Hayes went to a consultancy with Burson Marsteller, coincidentall or not, G.D. Searle’s PR firm. The second question is the big one. I think Bush SR thought he had control over his son’s personnel choices early on in the transition. Junior’s choice of Rumsfled must have come as a rude awakening.
Long before the Walter Reed Hospital scandal broke it was reported that Rumsfeld’s wife was taken there and/or told about the terrible conditions in the hospital that our returning millitary were subject to. I assume she reported this to her husband. Rumsfeld apparently did nothing in response to his wife’s admonishments. Do you know anything further about that?
Andrew Cockburn @
60
Tori Clark and Mary Matalin once walked into the regular bar of someone I know. Afterwards they all felt like they needed to perform an exorcism.
sofistic @ 67
Woodhall Hollow @ 51
I got the impression from the book that Rumsfeld USED the neocons, not that he was one.
gaspard @
69
I know the woman who brought her was uninvited from further visits.
eCAHNomics @ 72
HA! That would be a strategy right out of the
neo-conStrauss handbook.What are the chances of Rummy ever getting his just deserts? Everyone wonders about convictions in international court for war crimes. Is that going to happen? Any other way this guy can be held accountable for what he’s done? Or is it inevitable that he’ll keep his freedom, wealth, and a certain amount of power?
This is out of the blue (and I haven’t seen Cockburn’s book), but is there any evidence that Rumsfeld has been regularly medicated with amphetamines or some other upper. His unnatural cheerfulness and cockiness in a situation when a bit of gravity would be more justified makes me suspect that. Amphetamines produce blind spots which make deeply flawed ideas seem absolutely brilliant.
I thought this about Caspar Weinberger too. They both have that steely-eyed look.
Welcome, Mr. Cockburn. It’s an honor to have you here.
One argument I get with some regularity with friends of mine is that Rumsfeld is largely indistinguishable from Robert McNamara in terms of morality and competence. I maintain in response that McNamara was precisely who Rumsfeld imagined himself to be: the CEO with a mind for details who understood every facet of the war happening under his watch. McNamara’s problem was that he never appreciated the political reality on the ground in Vietnam until it was much too late. (IMO.)
As a sort of cautionary tale for future generations, can you comment on this? Is there anything about Rumsfeld’s biography that should raise red flags should future Rumsfelds be nominated for Defense Secretary in the future? And is he, in your opinion, distinguishable from McNamara?
Did you come to any conclusions about who was most responsible for manipulating Bush – Rumsfield or Cheney? Was there a competition between Rumsfield and Cheney or did they tag team?
sofistic @ 66
I think Rumsfeld’s relationship with the neocons was always one of convenience, not that he didn’t have deep respect for his old partner in intrigue Richard Perle. Otherwise he saw them as potent allies in his endless quest for power. It’s ironic that they have now turned on him and are blaming him for the disasters they helped foment. I don’t think he ever brooded much on Strauss. He’s not an intellectual, whatever he would want us to believe.
rummy bragged at pressers that the adults are in charge and we all see how THAT turned out – such smug bastards this crowd is…….
What an awesome discussion. Thanks so much Andrew for all your work and research on this, and for joining us today.
Andrew, How many problems do you believe the revolving door causes in undermining “true” U.S. National security?
The sale and contracts that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and others have been involved in seems to be a real problem.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/10/rumsfeld-abb/
So here’s another abiding question that I’ve asked whenever the opportunity seems ripe, but no one has ever answered. What’s so Shock ‘n Awe about Shock ‘n Awe? It took about as much time for Hitler to conquer Poland. Then, a few months later, he conquered France in about the same amount of time, a country that had ground Germany to a standstill in WWI. And then Germany ruled all it conquered territories without insurgencies of any magnitude. So what’s so vaunted about the U.S. military?
montag @ 68
What makes intimidation possible? Off the top of my head:
!. $$ (e.g. loss of ad revenues)
2. Fear of loss of prestige
3. Waving the flag after 9/11
Re the flattery, don’t forget the “blackbird” effect–the press tends to act like that–they all alight on the same phone line together and stay there awhile. Then, one flies off, then another, and pretty soon they are all sitting somewhere else. Call it the inertia of opinion–I think that’s a big effect in the US press.
Peter
“Last October, Joyce Rumsfeld, the wife of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, was taken to Walter Reed by a friend concerned about outpatient treatment. She attended a weekly meeting, called Girls Time Out, at which wives, girlfriends and mothers of soldiers exchange stories and offer support.”According to three people who attended the gathering, Rumsfeld listened quietly. Some of the women did not know who she was. At the end of the meeting, Rumsfeld asked one of the staff members whether she thought that the soldiers her husband was meeting on his visits had been handpicked to paint a rosy picture of their time there. The answer was yes.”
When Walter Reed officials found out that Rumsfeld had visited, they told the friend who brought her — a woman who had volunteered there many times — that she was no longer welcome on the grounds.
Reed
eCAHNomics @ 82
Shock and awe was a strategy by the planners, the military just carried it out.
chris @ 75
Good comment. They are indeed very alike. I guess in comparing the two, McNamara does emerge as the more serious of the two. He did at least really try to reform the Pentagon, as opposed to Rumsfeld’s theatrics, and made some attempt to rein in the nuclear madness of SAC. I am told that in his last months in office Rumsfeld was haunted by the thought that he would be forever classed with McNamara as another failure who lost a war. How do we avoid such types? Hard to say, short of a revolution, but we shou,d at least beware cocky CEO types.
really? The Warsaw Ghetto uprising, the French Underground.
Andrew Cockburn @ 64
Will be reading your book Andrew.
In the “Price of Loyalty” O”neil let’s us know that he and Greenspan had plans for the surplus left over after the Clinton and 41’s administrations. They wanted to roll over the surplus that was not going to be fed to the Bush administrations tax cut sharks to the upcoming shortfalls in social security and medicare.
The Bush administration sure took care of that surplus!
Andrew,
Perhaps you missed my question early on – have you made headway in your book on how deeply Rumsfeld might have been involved in the 2000 sale by ABB of reactor technology to the North Koreans while Rummy was on their board?
thank you raven @83. I cannot imagine the horror of being married to a man like Rumsfeld. Joyce…what happened?
Andrew Cockburn @ 87
If that’s your criterion, then all is lost. I was a Wall St. economist for 30 years, and I never saw a cocky CEO type who couldn’t pull the wool over everyone’s eyes.
A story in today’s LA Times describes how the detainee camps in Iraq have become breeding grounds and recruitment centers for the insurgency. A lot has been made of how Rumsfeld didn’t care for postwar planning and reacted slowly when things started to go sour ( “Stuff happens” ). Do you know whether the current system of handling detainees was something that is per the Pentagon’s manual, or did it oringinate with Rumsfeld and the people around him?
kathleen @ 82
That’s an important question. Andrew mentions several conflicts for rummy and friends; and Perle turned down a government job just so he could keep his lucrative private positions, while becoming an extremely influential member of the advisory board for the Pentagon. A cake and eat it too position.
His last six months or so in the public eye, Rumsfeld sounded increasingly disorganized in his speaking–he made less and less sense. Is/was the man completely bonkers?
methinks i’ll have to get this book ASAP as the dialogue here is riveting – the excerpts provided make me want to hurry and read the full account ;o}….
raven @ 84
Wellm Shock and Awe was a catchy slogan dreamed up by a think tank defense intellectual. It had its roots in the blitzkrieg approach developed by the Germans at the end of world war 1 and successfully implemented by them in their early campaigns of WW2. I recommend the d-n-i website for further discussion of this sort of stuff. Of course Rumsfeld understood nothing of it.
Andrew Cockburn @ 96
Neither did “Bombs Away LeMay”!
Hearth Moon @ 93
One of the Combatant Commanders, who spoke with Rumsfeld almost on a daily basis, told friends that in the last months he had the sense that Rumsfeld would sometimes forget who he was talking to, or about what, for a few seconds and then refocus and carry on.
gaspard @ 90
You might asl Lynn Cheney except she is probably worse than Darth.
eCAHNomics @ 92
That’s too negative, methinks! Lots of people saw through Iraq from the start. But those who were in a position to stop it were either intimidated or too cautious.
Peter
Andrew Cockburn @ 85
That was Bush’s entire administration’s PR selling point in the 2000 election. Cheney, Rummy, Bush himself (although his record in that regard was highly suspect). O’Neill, Card, Jack Snow after O’Neill, etc. And the press played that up. I’m surprised they didn’t bring in Chainsaw Al Dunlap. :)
Mr. Cockburn, I am wondering how someone so vacuous as you suggest could possibly get so far in government. What drove him other than raw ambition? How does his mind work?
Hearth Moon @ 95
Second that. On p. 210 when Rumsfeld is being quizzed on the invasion & couldn’t remember when it started, I wrote in the margin: OMG, he’s senile. Then I started thinking of his speech patterns are so strange. And then there’s the earlier question about whether he’s on speed. What is his mental malfunction? Can you put your finger on it?
juslin @
95
Tip of the iceberg; it’s a great read.
Andrew Cockburn @ 20
Thanks for pointing that out, Andrew.
I still am amazed that the Dim Son would fall under the spell of Poppy Bush’s worst rival. Or did he hook up with Rummy as a means of pissing off the old man — being that Bush is still the eternal teenager?
Ed*ard Teller @ 90
I asked a similar question.
Ed*ard Teller @ 88
My understanding is that he carried out his usual business role, which was to lobby for ABB on the sale in Washington
it’ll probably come out later that rummy has the beginnings of alzheimers syndrome … mark my words
Also looking forward to reading your book. The relationship between Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein goes back a long way. Rumsfeld seemed intent on a speedy death for him, and so many crimes he was charged with were never tried. Is it correct to assume what Saddam could reveal about Rumsfeld could have brought him down?
eCAHNomics @ 102
Well, he is 74 years old now. Early onset of senile dementia shouldn’t be ruled out.
Is Rummy the one to change the Geneva conventions definition of “prisoner of war” to “enemy combatant”?
juslin @ 109
OK, we’ll all do our best to remember :-) !
Peter
Stuff happens eh Rummy. The US death toll in Iraq is exploding with over 5 dead a day this month–that’s 35 in 8 days.
Afghanistan is heading in a similar track with 7 NATO troops killed today.
This the result of the strategy of the “best Sec. Def. the nation ever had” according to Shotgun Dick.
Vietnam chic in war strategy is the new black.
-GSD
must leave salon for a few – back after i feed grands hope dialogue will still be ongoing…..
Andrew Cockburn @ 50
And yet these clowns are such kiss up/kick down authoritarians that they took the abuse and will maintain the omerta unto death.
Mr. Cockburn,
Thanks for chatting here. Do you have any idea if Rumsfeld was ever made aware of the Stanford Prison Experiment, in which student “guards” rapidly became abusive to the student “prisoners?”
gaspard @ 108
Well, I’m sure Rumsfeld was keen that Saddam should not be around to bring up embarrassing menories of their former friendship. On the other hand, don’t forget that the trial was totally controlled by the occupation authority, so even if Saddam had tried to broadcast some embarrassing fact, they would have shut him up quickly enough
Dover Bitch @ 115
I’m sure he was sorry to have missed it.
I just don’t understand how the folks inside, who could see what poor decisions he was making,kept quiet all this time.
These are people who care deeply about the military and yet they let him ruin it
Mr. Cockburn,
Re the questions on how to avoid future Rumsfelds (and MacNamaras, I quite agree on their similarities)–there is a sense in the US that criticism is unfair; most people can’t seem to separate criticizing the policy from criticizing the person. Britain, I think, is quite different in that respect. Any ideas of how to improve that over here?
Peter
ruffian @ 118
Important point. Just ONE senior officer resigned – Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, of the marines. For what it’s worth, three Foreign Service officers quit on prinsiple.
It’s an honor Mr. Cockburn. What did the Chiefs of Staff think of Rumsfeld? Was there no honor at the top levels of the military?
Andrew Cockburn @ 118
Quote of the day.
Andrew — re the story of the fixed war games and the scenarios in which Rummy played President — what do you think Rumsfeld took away from those exercises?
Peter Kleban @ 120
True, there is excessive respect for authority here — it’s why I think the correct historical analogy for Washington DC is Versailles. The British are rougher on their politicians. On the other hand they have had Blair since 1997! Hardly an advertisement for their system.
One more question, and I hate to ask this, (shudder).. but do you think that Rumsfeld still has direct input into White House policies, military or otherwise?
Andrew Cockburn @ 123
Back to my sample of one–army major. He tells me that military under control of civilians is very much ingrained. So they see no alternative to doing what they’re directed.
In defense of the generals who didn’t retire/resign, think about the personal consequences to them of bucking such a poerful SecDef, and to what end? Remember the revolt of the generals–maybe 8 in 2 weeks. What was Rumsfeld’s dismissive remark? Something like he can find 10 times that number who don’t criticize him.
Andrew, looking forward to reading the book. Skimming through the comments I haven’t seen Kissinger’s name pop up. Did he in your research on Rumsfield? Dr. K. supposedly had signficant influence with Chaney. Even though these people came from Nixon, they seem to have a lot in common with Johnson when his power got the better of him.
Andrew Cockburn @ 122
gaspard @ 126
Bush & Co. must be terrified of being detected getting input from Rumsfeld, so any cosultation would be very discreet. On the other hand, he and Cheney are next door neighbors
Andrew Cockburn @ 127
Right on! With W as Dim Son King. Of course (yes, I know, lesser of two evils) Blair seems much preferable to W. If 15 American sailors had been captured by the Iranians we’d be bombing them right now.
Peter
I would still like to see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the warmongers dropped down in the middle of Baghdad butt ass naked and see if they can survive.
Hello Andrew, I just ordered your book. I’m gonna go broke buying all these books (also ordered marcy’s book).
Thank you for your expose of what a charlatan and a fraud Rheumy was.
I sure hope many of them get to have an inmate’s uniform during their golden years.
You mention Clinton a handful of times. Was he too compliant to rightwing in foreign affairs? Is there something he should have done differently? Perhaps veto the Iraqi Liberation Act?
Also you mention something about military disarray under Clinton. Why was that? Bad SecDef?
eCAHNomics @ 127
It’s worth remembering that while they loathed and despised Rumsfeld for humiliating them on a personal basis, as well as leading them into a disastrous war, the military didn’t do too badly out of Rumsfeld in lots of ways. He gave them al the money they wanted: he left all their weapons prograns alone (Crusader was an exception that proved the rule — they got a costlier program in compensation) and he didn’t actually fire anyone
Did Rumsfeld have any particular pet technology projects at the Pentagon? Was there any particular procurement boondoggle that got more attention or emphasis than any other?
Andrew Cockburn @
86
It is simply incredible to me, not just how much destruction people like Rumsfeld can unleash on the world, but how much their reflection on all that carnage centers on themselves and how they might be perceived. It’s pathological.
re #135- yes it is worth remembering~thanks.
There were a bunch of Qs earlier about possibility of Rumsfeld being held criminally liable. I didn’t see an answer, but forgive me if I missed it.
eCAHNomics @ 133
Clinton was far too compliant to the right on Iraq policy. His endorsement of sanctions, his signature to the Liberation Act, his steady bombing, really laid the groundwork for the Bush policy that followed. I don’t think he cared much about Iraq, he just wanted to take the politiocal line of least resistance.
eCAHNomics @ 138
Well a US judge just threw out the attempt of the ACLU and some former detainees to to bring him to court on torture. Our last, best hope is the German courts, where the Center for Constititional Rights and others have asked to have him indicted under the German law of universal jurisdiction — sort of what the Spaniards did with Pinochet. Hard to see what will happen there, but I don’t think Rumsfeld will be visiting Germany anytime soon.
Andrew Cockburn @ 127
Another thought on this (which gives away my age, unfortunately): I remember I. F. Stone’s (his Weekly was a well-known left-wing newsletter a day or so ago) comment on writing about the government. One should have as a working hypothesis that they are lying.
Peter
John Nichols book on Cheney [Dick: The Man Who Is President] describes some of the same personal chacteristics and power centric ambitions. What a perfect storm for all of them – and to have found Bush, the man with the name, the PR skills, the executioner, animal torturer, and weakling to front for them. Whew. Could it happen again? What’s to prevent it? Do we need to wash it all in a public civics lesson so everyone, including historian textbook writers, can agree that our democracy was challenged?
Andrew Cockburn @ 140
this lines up with what Scott Ritter has to report about the Clinton administration.
kathleen @ 144
i remember attending an environmental fundraiser that included lieberman in late 2002, at which he was asked about the authorization vote, and he said as much — i.e., that the government under bush was merely extending what was already stated u.s. policy per iraq per the iraq liberation resolution. (of course he was all for it.)
they had laid the groundwork for this invasion years ahead of time.
Just got here. I saw scarecrow mentioned transformation. That was an underreported disaster. Rumsfeld used the quadrennial review to justify why he wasn’t paying attention to Iraq at the time of the “You go to war with the army you have” remark.
Where is the old reprobate anyway? And what is he up to?
I’d like to revisit the Afghan invasion. The story I had heard is that Rummy was furious that the CIA had pretty much run the operation and determined that would never happen again. (Amazing that there was no on-the-self plan.) Your version is sonewhat different. Can you expand a little?
dmg @ 145
check that, it was september 2002, before the authorization vote was taken.
Mr. Cockburn, from a European perspective you deserve much respect for writing this book. I can imagine many more fun (satisfying) things to do than research Rumsfeld.
I remember being stunned at the defense conference (NATO?) just before shock and awe, when German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer pointed at Rumsfeld, with the TV camera over his left shoulder showing Rumsfeld’s reaction. He said (in english), “In a democracy you have to make your case, and you haven’t made your case.”
We saw how far that forthrightness carried us. I wish this book a wide audience.
Andrew Cockburn @ 142
What about a more general wars crimes prosecution, on International Criminal Court (forget the actual name). I guess U.S. wouldn’t extradite him for any such proceedings, but would’t it prohibit his travel to all of EU, not just Germany?
Thank you, Mr. Cockburn, for being here and giving us so much to think about.
Andrew Cockburn @ 140
Do you think Clinton could or should have forseen where his compliance might lead, (given the PNAC sword-waving), or is this more of “who could have known what these crazies might do” situation?
I ask not because I think Clinton needs to be criticized more, but in case his example could provide any lessons for future Democratic (or merely non-imperial) presidents.
Mr. Cockburn,
I look forward to reading your book. Is there anything in it about Rumsfeld’s role in the DOD with regards to the collection of data on U.S. citizens, peace groups, etc…?
eCAHNomics @ 146
Well, it’s true that Rumsfeld resented the CIA role in Afghanistan, and consequently determined to crush the agency like a bug so far as any leadership role in covert ops were concerned. But, more importantly, Rumsfeld concluded that the combo of special forces with precision bombing had been the key to victory, from which he drew some wholly inappropriate lessons for the future. In fact however the key factor in the (temporary) suppression of the Taliban regime was the role of the Pakistanis in telling the Taliban to lie low for a while, which they duly did. Of course, rather different orders seem to be coming across the border from Pakistan nowadays.
eCAHNomics @ 149
True, I should have urged him to avoid all of Europe, not just Germany.
Speaking of Pakistan: Did/does Rumsfeld play any particular role in the strange relationship between Musharref, the Pakistani (Taliban sponsoring) Intelligence forces and the US? Or is that more Cheney’s province?
Andrew Cockburn @ 154
Do you agree with what Rory Stewart said about the Taliban the other day? His point was that they are so repressive that most Afghans don’t want them, so the US should try a more nuanced approach, i.e. using mainly military action against them is much too heavy-handed.
Peter
caia @ 151
this is important. clinton did what he did on many fronts just to take away the attack points by the right — welfare “reform” in advance of the 96 elections anybody?
but it didn’t satisfy them. they pursued him like the baying curs they are anyway.
and in rolling over for them on issues he didn’t apparently care about, he unwittingly enabled htem.
the lesson: you have to slam down each and every authoritarian gambit, because they will NOT stop coming. they will never stop. and if you fail to slam them early, they gain more traction and are harder to derail every subsequent wave.
Here’s what them damn ingrate liberatees are saying about our Great Leader’s War For Permanant Mesopotamian Occupation:
*”The corroded and corrupt state of Saddam was replaced by the corroded, inefficient, incompetent and corrupt state of the new order,” Ali A. Allawi concludes in “The Occupation of
Iraq,” newly published by Yale University Press.
*On U.S. reconstruction failures — in electricity, health care and other areas documented by Washington’s own auditors — Allawi writes that the Americans’ “insipid retelling of `success’ stories” merely hid “the huge black hole that lay underneath.”
Tarnished Emerald City.
-GSD
eCAHNomics @ 148
A very good account of how Bush and Rumsfeld snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan is Sean Naylor’s Not a Good Day to Die.
Rummie simultaneously starved the troops of resources and micromanaged fom afar.
Andrew,
Is there anything that Rumsfeld did correctly? He seems like an anti-success Jonah.
-GSD
GSD @ 157
Ali Allawi is a wise man.
Andrew Cockburn @ 154
Yes, that part about the role of ISI, and then up to Mussaraf, was fascinating, and I hadn’t heard a peep of that anywhere else. SOP for insurgenies–fade away when attacked. Whodathunk it?
So how deeply involved is ISI in renewed Taliban activity. One of my favorite amatuer military analysts* is just plain racist about how brutal the Pastuns are. Is there something more sophisticated going on?
*Ward Nerd on exile.ru. Check it out. He’s an irreverent genius. Site seems to be down right now, though. Perhaps Putin killed it.
eCAHNomics @ 161
Check back to a piece by Carlotta Gall, page one lead, in the New York Times a few months ago where she reported from Quetta on how ISI were jailing former Taliban who refused to go back to Afghanistan to fight. ISI broke into her hotel room, beat her up, and stole he notebooks. Astonishingly, no one seems to have followed up this story.
I used to read through some of the transcripts for Rumsfeld’s press conferences. They were often quite contentious and full of loony Rumfeldian statements, but when a Martha Raddatz or Jim Miklaszewski reported on the Pentagon it was almost always whatever pap Rumsfeld was passing out. What was the media’s role in propping up Rumsfeld?
mr. cockburn,
you mentioned the relief pentagon staffers felt upon rumsfeld’s departure.
given the contempt in which he and apparently appartchiks like doug feith were held, is it your feeling that some of that deference to civilian control the military is supposedly ingrained with has dangerously eroded?
AC @ 164
I certainly missed that. Will look it up.
Hugh @ 163
Vital, but remember that the Pentagon reporters were all terrified of the swift and merciless punishment that would follow if they took a critical line. They would be denied interviews, access, briefings, visits to troops, and all the other instruments of control deployed to keep beat reporters in line.
dmg @ 164
It’s a multilayered relationship. Basically, the military will bend the knee to civilian control — as long as the money keeps flowing.
And then too I would be interested in any comments on Generals Richard Myers and Peter Pace. Myers always seemed like a sockpuppet to me. Pace too although he would occasionally correct Rumsfeld (as with the obligation to report abuse of prisoners), he essentially backed the policies no matter how bad.
So one of the roles the lefty blogs have played of late is to keep stories going until MSM is forced to pick them up. This site is famous for its role in collecting information & analyzing it in the Valerie Plame case. talkingpointsmemo is doing same with USAtty purge.
Q is whether there’s any possibility of doing something similar in the military area? My guess is that the information is too specialized and secret so that blogs really couldn’t let in much sunshine. What do you think?
Andrew Cockburn @ 168
ah.
“that’s a nice arm’s-length relationship between your democracy and military takeover. be a pity if anything were to happen to it.”
Hugh @ 168
Pace is a craftier politician than Meyers ever was. That being said, I doubt Rumsfeld was ever too disappointed in his selection of these two gentlemen. He got what he wanted.
Andrew Cockburn @ 173
That seemed pretty obvious all along.
eCAHNomics @ 169
Absoltely the blogs can play a hugely important role. There is so much information out there. For example, the military family websites were broadcasting the shocking mistreatment veterans long before Walter Reed hit the headlines. The info is by no means too specialised. That;s what they want you to think.
Would you care to say a word about sources? Seidman seems to have been quite a gossip and Wilkerson hasn’t been shy in public. Was it difficult to get unnamed sources to talk? They probably wanted to but feared for their jobs?
Professor Walter F. Murphy is the latest to run afoul of Mr. Bush’s Terrorist Wish List. He was temporarily denied a boarding pass when he attempted to fly to Newark to deliver a paper at Princeton, where is an emeritus professor of Constitutional law and politics. He is also a retired Marine Colonel, who was decorated for his service in the Korean War.
The money quote is that a courteous American Airlines agent asked him if he’d been in a protest march. He said that frequently leads to being put on the denied boarding list. Prof. Murphy said no, but he had given a speech that criticized Mr. Bush (despite his being conservative on many fronts, including being an opponent of Roe v. Wade). The AA agent said, yup, professor, that’ll do it.
First Amendment, anyone? Read the full story:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/
eCAHNomics @ 173
It was hard, but got easier as Rumsfeld’s power waned last year. People were so frightened of him.
there is a saying, in iraq:
“a wet man is not
frightened of the rain. . .”
it conveys the sense that
many iraqis are accustomed
to numerous hardships — in-
cluding those occasioned by
imposed, outside rulers — going
back well-beyond the beginning
of the twentieth century. . .
what is your take on rumsfeld’s
view of the 1914 to 1920 british
rule of iraq — did rumsfeld study
it at all? — if so, do you think he
learned anything from it?
[i think you may be able to guess what i
think, from the way i framed the question. . .]
Like his colleagues, Rumsfeld learned nothing from history and forgot everything.
Mr Cockburn -
I had the dishonor to meet Cheney in ‘76 at Rock Springs. He was Ford’s COS & I believe had Rummy in his Very well protected group including energy & BLM folks.
The links to crime and power are very long. Perhaps you care to comment on the thoroughly compromised nature of Justice, Government, and a
loss of respect among most Americans, for all things political. For example, when RICO statutes cannot repair wholesale criminality, is forceful overthrow of these crooks warranted? Or should we wait for the 835 detention centers here in America to begin filling?
Andrew Cockburn @ 179
ding! exactly!
Thank you very much, Mr. Cockburn. I got more than my fair share today! Enjoyed your book and this discussion, though I wish it would never have been necessary.
Thank you Mr. Cockburn! This has been a wonderful salon.
I always sort of wondered how Pace managed to stay out of the reduce now (Abizaid and Casey) vs. the escalation now (Petraeus) controversy. Odierno could do it because he would just be following his boss’s (Petraeus) orders, but Pace was the boss of the boss. Somehow no one seems to have questioned him that I know of on the change.
R. Kincaid said,
Want to provide a link to documentation of those centers?
mrobinsong @ 181
You’re welcome. Goodbye all.
Andrew
Thanks, Andrew, for taking so many questions and for the great book. It was an honor having you here today. Best wishes on the next project.
Thank you, Mr. Cockburn -
for your discussion here, your work at Counterpunch, and your years of reporting and analysis.
Robert Fisk has singled you out as one of the few US/British reporters doing honest work in Iraq.
High praise – and richly deserved.
Thanks for visiting us today.
Thank you!
kirk murphy @ 186
Umm, not to belittle Andrew Cockburn, but wasn’t Fisk referring to his brother, Patrick? (Who, btw, also writes for the Independent.)
I am always amazed and dismayed by people, such as Rumsfeld, and this entire administration for that matter, who can deny reality in the face of overwhelming evidence. This is a crusade mentality, it seems, in which good and bad, and right and wrong, are defined by what is inside or outside one’s ideology, and not by any messy reality.
Is neocon ideology close to the main Rumsfeld driving force, do you think, or is his primary motivation something simpler and crasser, such as political power and money?
montag -
oh, dear.
How abysmally ignorant of me -
genuine thanks for your accurate correction.
And to Mr. Andrew Cockburn -
apologies for my error.
earlofhuntingdon @ 176
Jeebus.
Early on in the administration- President Clusterfuck asked us to judge him not by the quality of his own background- but by the quality of the people he “choose”- never mind that Cheney chose most of em.
So who we got?
Cheney himself- perhaps the most hated veep in history- made Quayle look good.
Condo-leasa- monument to indifference and he oil industry
Rummy- failure
Colon- who had ta be fired cause he wouldn’t swallow the last gulp of Kool Aid
Gonzalez- who has become a criminal through indifferenece- neglect-incompetence- and loyalty to the failure of a man who selected him…
Nice job George.
Now we are to be treated to the ugly last years in which the loose thread that’s been holding this poorly knitted sweater together pulls out and the whole thing falls apart before our eyes. It’s ugly.
I wish we had a 24 hour media outlet that would return to the Clinton years and play back all the blather from the republic party about “rule of law.” How in the hell these criminal bastards managed to take this country so far down is beyond comprehension.
It will likely be many years before anyone will dare to tell the REAL story of this pile of shit administration and the fact that the man in the OVAL OFFICE didn’t ever even fuckin show up!
My puppy has more brains than yer ex boss Rummy.
This is off topic, but just ran across this from Brent Budowsky, via BuzzFlash.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/689
One of the Democratic Party’s leading pollsters, consultants and strategists is quoted in the Washington Post as advising Democrats to avoid taking a strong stand against the troop surge and escalation of the war in Iraq.
Ms. Celinda Lake is quoted as follows: “people are not looking to their individual members of Congress to solve the Iraq war.” And: advising Democrats to focus on domestic issues rather than opposing the escalating war, Ms. Lake is quoted saying this is “the perfect juxtaposition.”
Celinda Lake is the president of Lake Partners and is”
“one of the Democratic Party’s leading political strategists, serving as tactician and senior advisor to the national party committees, dozens of Democratic incumbents and challengers at all levels of the electoral process.”
Celinda Lake is an idiot.
IMHO
got back in time to say goodbye to mr cockburn – and thank you for this enlightening salon… book is on order – thanks scadecrow and FDL for this!
RWCole,
Don’t forget Irve “The Novelist” Libby, “Baning” Bernie Kerik, the mysteriously missing Porter Goss, Lurita “Howya” Durn, Chief J. Stephen Griles, Casino Jack Abramoff, Dirty David Safavian, Claude ‘Sticky Fingers’ Allen and the rest of the gang that couldn’t shoot strait but sure knew how to rape, pillage and plunder pretty well.
-GSD
ruffian @ 199
A concern Poll?
Eureka Springs @ 202
Hmmm, almost 70% of the country is against the war.
ruffian @ 200
Yep. But, she may be contagious…
http://blog.washingtonpost.com…..id=topnews
How can it not be obvious this is not what polls are saying?
edit: OTOH this may be ’spin’ framing, saying things that they aren’t REALLY saying, so that they can be caught having to redefend the stand. Or something…
Jane @23 sez:
I couldn’t agree more. Kagro X has been making this exact argument in multiple instantiations over the past couple of years. “Bi-partisanship,” i.e., ignoring the necessity of impeachment, is a foolish mistake in this game of Constitutional hardball:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/7/192112/0900
I meant “Banging” Bernie Kerik.
-GSD
and so celinda lake sets the stage for another dem loss – we VOTED for a change in direction – WTF is her problem??!!! damn!!
GSD @ 206
The sequel’s coming out soon:
Bunging Bernie Kerik.
she must be a DLC bigwig…
juslin @ 209
Sort of. She’s chair of the editorial board of the DLC’s magazine, The New Democrat.
read ‘em and peep:
http://www.lakesnellperry.com/who/bios/lake.htm
That’s who’s speaking for us on the MSM….
Lakes polling question:
“Should your congressperson overrule the miltiary leadership in Iraq even if it means the US suffers a humiliating loss in Iraq and Al Qaeda forces flock in droves to America and inflict more humiliating losses and kill tens of thousands Americans by chopping their heads off?”
Yes or No?
-GSD
montag @ 210
Sort of like being the navigator of the Sea Diamond.
Eureka Springs @
185
Want to provide a link to documentation of those centers?
Hi Eureka,
Kincaid is right, I don’t know how many there are but there are detention centers
Can you say “Halliburton“?
Letter from Congressman Bill Hefner of North Carolina providing confirmation of the existence of the camps
GSD @ 212
You can’t be serious, GSD. If no, good chainyank. If yes, linky pls, and whoever would write such a push-poll should be ignored for the rest of their professional polling career. They might get a job flipping burgers but that should be the limit… no offense to burger-flippers.
Hi john in sacramento, Thanks, I found the number 835 rather interesting as well as specific. Always on the lookout for new info on this topic.
New thread with Scarecrow upstairs.
Also, she’s in w/Madame Speaker, helped Tester over Burns, McNerny v. Pombo…
and maybe Christy knows more:
Hi pups -
The private Blackwater army really scares me.
…as does the network of domestic detention centers.
Earlier today someone on the Lake mentioned Gov. Terminator wants California to contract with Pisswater mercenaties.
Does anyone have further info?
[The Terminator’s mercenary army would be quite the media hook….and a great target in the CA legislature]
SOS,
Yes, chain-pulling.
-GSD
Andrew Cockburn @
186
Thanks so much for being here today, Andrew. We really apreciate the time and care you took to answer so many questions. Many thanks.
what the hell IS america turning into?? detention camps – holding pens – WTF?!!!!!!! – when will this madness end and its been brought about by the corruptors running this goddamn regime in america.
Tnx GSD :)
Many thanks not only to Andrew Cockburn, but to FDL for this outstanding discussion.
Before I run upstairs to play catch up, I want to give montag (53) the link to what is still a good read (The Atlantic, March 2004) on the Rumsfeld/Cheney wargames.
The Armageddon Plan
One more thing. If you didn’t see this movie when it was in the theatres, you might want to rent it. Excellent documentary on Robert McNamara.
The Fog of War
SeamusD @
198
Who is she married to?
SeamusD @ 198
(((((Hillary))))))
Great: our answer (and a better one) to the Kagan brothers and wife Kimberly.