[thunderous_funker]

On my way to work this morning I caught an interview on Democracy Now! with Robert Dreyfuss and retired Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski about the Office of Special Plans--the intelligence group formed after 9/11 that provided much of the "evidence" against Iraq.

Dreyfuss has long been harping on this issue of how intelligence was either manipulated or completely invented to support the a priori policy of assuming military control of Iraq.

I found Kwiatkowski's information to be particularly interesting and especailly damning.

A must listen for anyone serious about how this "faith-based" intelligence operation actually functions.

[thunderous_funker]

The interview with Kwiatkowski begins at the 13 minute mark on realplayer if you want to hear it.

Her story is very very alarming as in Intelligence insider who literally watched people with an agenda manipulate and fabricate "intelligence" to support the a priori policy.

She says she had never even heard the term "neocon" before she watched this drama unfold before her.

[Nonsuch]

I've just been reading an account of a neocon conference on Salon, which quotes Richard Perle dismissing critics of the administration's Iraq policy as "ideologues investing their hopes not in the real world but in a fantasy world." Ah, the irony ...

[vmpaul]

Obviously, they missed the REAL problem with the Bush Administration. According to NYT Op-Ed columnist David Brooks, Bush is too honest. It's not the LIES but the the overwhelming forthrightness that has been the problem. The world can't handle it.

I would expect this from some ad-hock political Web site but from the NYTimes? Before this, I actually thought this guy had some proper perspective from the right worth listening to. I've read him before and seen him on PBS's The NewsHour. I've never seen a more narrow and shallow analysis of a situation before.

A Fetish of Candor
By DAVID BROOKS
New York Times
Published: December 13, 2003

I think we are all disgusted by the way George W. Bush's administration has allowed honesty and candor to seep into the genteel world of international affairs.

Until the Bush team came to power, foreign relations were conducted with a certain gentlemanly decorum. The first Bush administration urged regime change in Iraq, without sullying itself with the Iraqi peasants actually trying to do it. The Clinton administration pretended to fight terrorism without committing the sin of unilateralism by trying very hard.

The United Nations passed resolution after resolution condemning the government of Iraq, without committing the faux pas of actually enforcing them. The leaders of France and Germany announced their abhorrence of Saddam's regime, and expressed this abhorrence by doing as much business with Saddam as possible.

Then came George W. Bush, the cowboy out of the West, and all good manners were discarded. The first sign of trouble came when the Bush administration declared its opposition to the Kyoto treaty. Up until that time, all decent governments had remained platonically in love with the treaty. They praised it, but gave no thought to actually enacting it.

Bush said he would scuttle it and did.

Then Bush scandalized the world by announcing his desire to enforce the U.N.'s resolutions on Iraq. And he gave a speech announcing his doctrine of pre-emptive war. Instead of merely taking out Saddam while pretending to abide by the inherited rules of conduct, he actually announced what he was going to do before doing it. This was honesty taken to a reckless extreme.

Now his administration has taken to honesty like a drunken sailor. It has made a fetish of candor and forthrightness. Things are wildly out of control.

The U.S. administration is confronted with three nations that have stabbed it in the back with alacrity. The German leader vowed not to run a re-election campaign based on anti-Americanism, then turned around and did just that. The French government has done all it could to ensure that the U.S. effort to transform Iraq would fail. Russia was also willing to let the Iraqis rot in their slave state.

The U.S. now has roughly $18 billion to spend on the effort to rebuild Iraq, and it must figure out whether to allow companies from these countries to profit from the effort.

The wise course is obvious. You loudly announce that all is forgiven, that, of course, the companies from the wayward nations will be allowed to bid for contracts. And then behind the scenes you stiff them cold.

This policy is hypocritical, so it is probably the right policy to enact. It acknowledges that the United States has important business to do with powers like Germany, Russia and France, and cannot afford continued bad relations. It acknowledges that good-hearted people in the United States and abroad do not want to see the U.S. acting like a bully. But it recognizes that people who undermine U.S. policy must pay a price.

But the Bush administration, drunk on truth serum, has done the exact opposite. It has declared in public that countries that did not help overthrow Saddam do not get to benefit from the aftermath. But then in private White House officials seem to be offering every assurance to the offended nations. Moreover the U.S. is still allowing the offending nations to bid on the subcontracts, where there is much money to be made.

This is a policy based on candor, and therefore it is a mess.

If the U.S. is going to right its foreign policy, it is going to have to rein in President Bush's tendency to be straightforward. It is going to have to acknowledge that honesty is a good thing when it comes to international affairs — in theory.

The administration's fundamental problem is that it is not very good at dealing with people it can't stand. The men and women in this White House are exceptionally forthright. When they come across someone they regard as insufferable, their instinct is to be blunt. They seek to be honest rather than insincere, to not sugar things up but to let these people know how they really feel.

Sometimes you've got to be slippery to accomplish real good. The Bush administration is thus facing an insincerity crisis. It has become addicted to candor and forthrightness. It needs an immediate back-stabbing infusion.

Perhaps Al Gore could be brought in to offer advice.

I'm glad he straightened us out on that.

Sorry, didn't mean to derail your thread topic t_f. It seemed like a great juxtaposition to your link.

[thunderous_funker]

More inside information from Kwiatkowski hosted at The American Conservative.

I found more articles from her here.

Tales of a conservative military intelligence analyst who wakes up to the neocon ideological infiltration. Damn, this is interesting and alarming stuff.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
More inside information from Kwiatkowski hosted at The American Conservative.

I found more articles from her here.

Tales of a conservative military intelligence analyst who wakes up to the neocon ideological infiltration. Damn, this is interesting and alarming stuff.

I've been trying to tell folks this stuff for some time now.
This IS alarming stuff, and has been. And people say I'm a nut for saying there is a neocon agenda. obviously, there is.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I've been trying to tell folks this stuff for some time now.
This IS alarming stuff, and has been. And people say I'm a nut for saying there is a neocon agenda. obviously, there is.

Well, it appears that many conservatives, even Republicans, aren't blind to it any more.

That is heartening.

[chris v]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The American Conservative.

A front for Buchanan, who is well-known to be at odds with the Bush admin. due to his isolationist ideas, and the drubbing he took during the last election. He, alas, also has a strange idea about conservatism, but it's good to see Bush undergoing some scrutiny from the right as well as the left.

CV

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by chris v:
A front for Buchanan, who is well-known to be at odds with the Bush admin. due to his isolationist ideas, and the drubbing he took during the last election. He, alas, also has a strange idea about conservatism, but it's good to see Bush undergoing some scrutiny from the right as well as the left.

CV

I'm certainly no Buchananite, but I find it very interesting that they fear neoconservativism perhaps even more than I do. Not only that, but they recognzie the insidious tyranny at the foundations of its ideas as much or even perhaps more than than Greens and Liberals.

From their website's "About us:"

We will question the benefits and point to the pitfalls of the global free trade economy; we will free the immigration debate from the prison to which it has been consigned. And we will discuss, frequently, America’s role in the world, turning a critical eye on those who want to cast aside every relevant American foreign policy tradition—from Robert Taft-style isolationism to prudent Dwight Eisenhower-style internationalism, in favor of go it alone militarism, where America threatens and bombs one nation after another, while the world looks on in increasing horror.

We believe conservatism to be the most natural political tendency, rooted in man’s taste for the familiar, for family, for faith in God. We believe that true conservatism has a predisposition for the institutions and mores that exist. So much of what passes for contemporary conservatism is wedded to a kind of radicalism—fantasies of global hegemony, the hubristic notion of America as a universal nation for all the world’s peoples, a hyperglobal economy. In combination with an increasingly unveiled contempt for America’s long-standing allies, this is more a recipe for disaster.

Against it, we take our stand.

[zigzag]

Actually, there have been a number of ex-intelligence people complaining about the manipulation of intelligence over the past year, at least some of whom are conservative Republicans. I just can't recall their names off-hand.

Political reality dictates that it will only matter if the Iraq mission fails. If it succeeds, or is perceived as successful, all the fudging will become a footnote.

[itai195]

'American foreign policy traditions.' Huh? Free trade is essentially the closest thing America has to a foreign policy tradition, and the first thing they say is that they'll question its benefits. I love these Buchanan people

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by itai195:
'American foreign policy traditions.' Huh? Free trade is essentially the closest thing America has to a foreign policy tradition, and the first thing they say is that they'll question its benefits. I love these Buchanan people

I think many conservatives have vocally opposed Free Trade from the beginning. Hell, they were protesting NAFTA with the Greens while mainstream Democrats were swallowing it whole.

[itai195]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think many conservatives have vocally opposed Free Trade from the beginning. Hell, they were protesting NAFTA with the Greens while mainstream Democrats were swallowing it whole.

I've always seen the whole 'free trade' movement as just an evolution of the 'open door' concept for the post-imperialism era, but I'm not an economist and I don't pretend to understand all its implications so I admit I could be wrong about drawing that parallel. I just think it's a little hypocritical to say one wishes to uphold traditional American foreign policy and yet undermine the only consistent aspect of American foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine. They even invoke 'Taft style isolationism,' which must be a joke and is also hypocritical given that Taft believed free trade and open markets form the bonds that unite nations. He even attacked Nicaragua for reasons that sound familiar:

In the case of Taft’s Dollar Diplomacy, intervention could be justified for political and economic stability to avoid negative effects on the interdependent economy. In Costa Rica and Honduras the United Fruit Company had a tight grip on just about every sector of the economy. But Nicaraguan dictator Zelaya demanded the United States' attention. He continuously attacked the neighboring countries Honduras and Costa Rica and was thinking of granting a European power the right to build a canal through his country. The United States were clearly challenged. In 1909 the Marine corps was dispatched to support a Nicaraguan revolutionary movement.