NationStates Jolt Archive

This article was emailed to me by a friend earlier today, and I thought I'd be remiss if I didn't make a point of sharing it with you here on NS. This is taken from the website for the Financial Times (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/afdb7b0c-40f3-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html)

I'll reproduce the article here, just in case the link doesn't work (everything online seems buggy these days, so...)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Cheney cabal hijacked US foreign policy’
By Edward Alden in Washington
Published: October 20 2005 00:00 | Last updated: October 20 2005 00:19

Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government's foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies that had left the US weaker and more isolated in the world, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed on Wednesday.

In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: “What I saw 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.

“Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences.”

Mr Wilkerson said such secret decision-making was responsible for mistakes such as the long refusal to engage with North Korea or to back European efforts on Iran.

It also resulted in bitter battles in the administration among those excluded from the decisions.

“If you're not prepared to stop the feuding elements in the bureaucracy as they carry out your decisions, you are courting disaster. And I would say that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran.”

The comments, made at the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, were the harshest attack on the administration by a former senior official since criticisms by Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism czar, and Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary, early last year.

Mr Wilkerson said his decision to go public had led to a personal falling out with Mr Powell, whom he served for 16 years at the Pentagon and the State Department.

“He's not happy with my speaking out because, and I admire this in him, he is the world's most loyal soldier."

Among his other charges:

■ The detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was “a concrete example” of the decision-making problem, with the president and other top officials in effect giving the green light to soldiers to abuse detainees. “You don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned it.”

■ Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and now secretary of state, was “part of the problem”. Instead of ensuring that Mr Bush received the best possible advice, “she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president”.

■ The military, particularly the army and marine corps, is overstretched and demoralised. Officers, Mr Wilkerson claimed, “start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam. . . and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel”.

Mr Wilkerson said former president George H.W. Bush “one of the finest presidents we have ever had” understood how to make foreign policy work. In contrast, he said, his son was “not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either”.

“There's a vast difference between the way George H.W. Bush dealt with major challenges, some of the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th century, and effected positive results in my view, and the way we conduct diplomacy today.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was also a link (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c925a686-40f4-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html) provided to a transcript of Col. Wilkerson's remarks to the Washington-based think-tank, the 'New America Foundation'.

The transcript is rather long, however, so I'll choose simply to leave the link for your perusal (unless, of course, the link doesn't work, in which case I'll reproduce the text portion in a little bit - okay?)

Anyway, I think it's important for people everywhere to demand a far greater degree of transparency from their elected officials, and thank goodness there are those who would blow whistles on those who would forego transparency in order to hatch schemes that are at odds with the public trust. Good on you, Col. Wilkerson. If your nation's leaders had the courage you've demonstrated, there'd no doubt be far less friction and polarization within the United States today, and without as well.

My question for you all: Does this in any way change your perspectives on good governance vs. the Bush Administration?

It looks like those links work after all.

Happy reading!

I happen to know quite a few officers and enlisted soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan - and none of them are unhappy in the manner described by the Colonel.

Washington, D.C., and the atmosphere therein, is as far from the men on the front as Mars.

Although recruiting of new soldiers is failing to meet the goals, re-enlistment rates are at an all time high.

If active duty soldiers were voting with their feet, no one would be re-enlisting.

I was concerned at hearing more of the Rice/Bush dynamic - unhealthy at best, IMO. Perhaps, SA, the military people in your circle are not demoralised or dissatisfied because they ideologically identify with this rigid and obfuscatory approach to governance - I'm not ready or willing to assume that those men & women of your acquaintance who are currently in military service are necessarily representative of the broadest swath of all personnel concerned.

I was concerned at hearing more of the Rice/Bush dynamic - unhealthy at best, IMO. Perhaps, SA, the military people in your circle are not demoralised or dissatisfied because they ideologically identify with this rigid and obfuscatory approach to governance - I'm not ready or willing to assume that those men & women of your acquaintance who are currently in military service are necessarily representative of the broadest swath of all personnel concerned.

No, just combat troops. Not support troops. Not troops in the Green Zone. And certainly no ranking Pentagon paper-shufflers.

The Rice/Bush dynamic is unknown - if she's just kissing his ass, that's bad, yes. But is that all there is to it? Or is she gently steering a moron, as many here have put it?

I think that the truth is that Rove was effectively President, and anyone who got in his way - White House Staff, Cabinet members, or members of the Senate or House - were smoked meat.

Now that Rove is in trouble, the complaints come out of the woodwork and the Republicans feel free to revolt against Bush (i.e., Miers).

It's not that conservatism, or traditional Republican ideas have lost - it's that neocon ideas pushed by Rove are lost.

Robert Bork put it best this morning - is Bush really a Republican?

Traditionally, a Democratic President does deficit spending.
Traditionally, a Democratic President gets the US into a war.
Traditionally, a Democratic President adds prescription drug coverage to Medicare.
Traditionally, a Democratic President wants immigration amnesty

In the same sense that Michael Moore labeled Bill Clinton the Greatest Republican President since Ronald Reagan, I label George Bush the Greatest Democratic President since Jimmy Carter.

This is old news. The 'cabal' pre-dates the Bush presidency, in the form of the Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/), better known as PNAC. About 15 men control and direct the foreign policy of the United States, and none of them are named "George Bush".

The article cited also incorrectly grants the brains of the organization to Rummy. The actual architect was Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Secretary of Defense, now head of the World Bank. The other third of the brain trust is Cheney's right hand man, VP Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Make no mistake - with the exception of Cheney, most of the true power-players are behind-the-scenes kinda guys, in positions of true power, but without the baggage of public awareness of their roles.

If you want to see their philosophy, read this Statement of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm). The short version reads, "To make America great, we must stomp everyone else into the dust beneath our feet. It's the American Way!"

PNAC is the power behind the throne that people used to accuse Cheney of controlling. Yes, he's a player, but he's not the only one. Bush is an easily manipulated puppet to their plans, even with brother Jeb holding a place on the PNAC board to get it inside the family.

These folks are coming up on their second decade of controlling the direction of American foreign policy. If you don't know what they stand for and who/what they control, you're wearing blinders.

This is old news. The 'cabal' pre-dates the Bush presidency, in the form of the Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/), better known as PNAC. About 15 men control and direct the foreign policy of the United States, and none of them are named "George Bush".

The article cited also incorrectly grants the brains of the organization to Rummy. The actual architect was Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Secretary of Defense, now head of the World Bank. The other third of the brain trust is Cheney's right hand man, VP Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Make no mistake - with the exception of Cheney, most of the true power-players are behind-the-scenes kinda guys, in positions of true power, but without the baggage of public awareness of their roles.

If you want to see their philosophy, read this Statement of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm). The short version reads, "To make America great, we must stomp everyone else into the dust beneath our feet. It's the American Way!"

PNAC is the power behind the throne that people used to accuse Cheney of controlling. Yes, he's a player, but he's not the only one. Bush is an easily manipulated puppet to their plans, even with brother Jeb holding a place on the PNAC board to get it inside the family.

These folks are coming up on their second decade of controlling the direction of American foreign policy. If you don't know what they stand for and who/what they control, you're wearing blinders.


Rather like Reagan wasn't really the architect or implementor of anything he's given credit for. It was all done behind the scenes.

Et maintenant, mesdames et monsieurs - voyez-vous -

J'appuie sur le bouton de "bumpage" comme ça, et puis -

*BUMP*

Voilá! Un bel 'bump'!

Et maintenant, mesdames et monsieurs - voyez-vous -

J'appuie sur le bouton de "bumpage" comme ça, et puis -

*BUMP*

Voilá! Un bel 'bump'!

Pourquoi un "bump"?

'Cause I thought maybe I'd get more than you, Fris and I to make comment. Evidently it ain't-a happenin', though.

'Cause I thought maybe I'd get more than you, Fris and I to make comment. Evidently it ain't-a happenin', though.

Well, if it's any consolation to you, I thought that Reagan was a figurehead, and that his staff were actually in charge. It worked well, by and large.

I think that they tried to do the same thing with Bush. Nice, folksy down-home man (not some effete metrosexual who likes to putter around in his sailboat).

I'm not even sure that Kerry was his own man - I was convinced that he was Ted Kennedy's puppet.

Maybe that's the future of the American Presidency. It takes so much to get the position, that the actual person is a puppet of the mechanism that get them elected.

This article was emailed to me by a friend earlier today, and I thought I'd be remiss if I didn't make a point of sharing it with you here on NS. This is taken from the website for the Financial Times (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/afdb7b0c-40f3-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html)

I'll reproduce the article here, just in case the link doesn't work (everything online seems buggy these days, so...)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Cheney cabal hijacked US foreign policy’
By Edward Alden in Washington
Published: October 20 2005 00:00 | Last updated: October 20 2005 00:19

Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government's foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies that had left the US weaker and more isolated in the world, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed on Wednesday.

In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: “What I saw 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.

“Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences.”

Mr Wilkerson said such secret decision-making was responsible for mistakes such as the long refusal to engage with North Korea or to back European efforts on Iran.

It also resulted in bitter battles in the administration among those excluded from the decisions.

“If you're not prepared to stop the feuding elements in the bureaucracy as they carry out your decisions, you are courting disaster. And I would say that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran.”

The comments, made at the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, were the harshest attack on the administration by a former senior official since criticisms by Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism czar, and Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary, early last year.

Mr Wilkerson said his decision to go public had led to a personal falling out with Mr Powell, whom he served for 16 years at the Pentagon and the State Department.

“He's not happy with my speaking out because, and I admire this in him, he is the world's most loyal soldier."

Among his other charges:

■ The detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was “a concrete example” of the decision-making problem, with the president and other top officials in effect giving the green light to soldiers to abuse detainees. “You don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned it.”

■ Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and now secretary of state, was “part of the problem”. Instead of ensuring that Mr Bush received the best possible advice, “she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president”.

■ The military, particularly the army and marine corps, is overstretched and demoralised. Officers, Mr Wilkerson claimed, “start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam. . . and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel”.

Mr Wilkerson said former president George H.W. Bush “one of the finest presidents we have ever had” understood how to make foreign policy work. In contrast, he said, his son was “not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either”.

“There's a vast difference between the way George H.W. Bush dealt with major challenges, some of the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th century, and effected positive results in my view, and the way we conduct diplomacy today.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was also a link (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c925a686-40f4-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html) provided to a transcript of Col. Wilkerson's remarks to the Washington-based think-tank, the 'New America Foundation'.

The transcript is rather long, however, so I'll choose simply to leave the link for your perusal (unless, of course, the link doesn't work, in which case I'll reproduce the text portion in a little bit - okay?)

Anyway, I think it's important for people everywhere to demand a far greater degree of transparency from their elected officials, and thank goodness there are those who would blow whistles on those who would forego transparency in order to hatch schemes that are at odds with the public trust. Good on you, Col. Wilkerson. If your nation's leaders had the courage you've demonstrated, there'd no doubt be far less friction and polarization within the United States today, and without as well.

My question for you all: Does this in any way change your perspectives on good governance vs. the Bush Administration?

Sorry but I know too many people involved in Iraq , who do not share the Colonels opinion to accept what he says as anything else but a bitter whine .
I think if they really did vote with their feet it would be to put one in is ass .
And as events have proven the results of policy in both North Korea and Iran have been encouraging .

Sorry but I know too many people involved in Iraq , who do not share the Colonels opinion to accept what he says as anything else but a bitter whine .
I think if they really did vote with their feet it would be to put one in is ass .
And as events have proven the results of policy in both North Korea and Iran have been encouraging .
And I'll re-iterate what I said to SA: Perhaps, B&G, the military people in your circle are not demoralised or dissatisfied because they ideologically identify with this rigid and obfuscatory approach to governance - I'm not ready or willing to assume that those men & women of your acquaintance who are currently in military service are necessarily representative of the broadest swath of all personnel concerned.

After all, it doesn't follow that either you or SA are familiar with the majority of personnel serving. That those in your individual circle are of a single mind is also not entirely likely, though for the purposes of this forum we'll have to accept your individual 'say-so's as being reasonably factual.

However your associates feel, it doesn't alter the fact that US foreign policy has been subverted by those with agendae not in accordance with a spirit of transparent leadership and open, honest governance.

I base my opinion on the fact that I am plugged into the military by way of family and friends and have been all my life . If there was even a small minority of officers or enlisted men who had organised or had even formed a small group to protest foriegn policy I would be aware of it . The Colonel is full of shit period . He claims officers are leaving the army in protest...thats an outright falsehood ..unless he counts a few individuals as a MAJORITY or a trend . The vast majority are re-enlisting and are glad to be doing the job they have . And YES thats the vast majority they are voting by re-enlisting .
At any rate someone explain to me how the President can "hijack " foreign policy from himself . He was elected and so he gets to form the US foriegn policy ..period . The friggin beuracrats can go suck an egg , they didnt get elected . :rolleyes:

I base my opinion on the fact that I am plugged into the military by way of family and friends and have been all my life.That still in no way emplaces you so as to know the opinions of a majority of those serving.

At any rate someone explain to me how the President can "hijack " foreign policy from himself . He was elected and so he gets to form the US foriegn policy ..period . The friggin beuracrats can go suck an egg , they didnt get elected . :rolleyes:
I think that's rather the point. Bush's people are the ones calling the shots. Unelected officials hijacked policy, Bush didn't somehow hijack it from himself. Re-read the articles if you need it underscored.

I think that's rather the point. Bush's people are the ones calling the shots. Unelected officials hijacked policy, Bush didn't somehow hijack it from himself. Re-read the articles if you need it underscored.

I read a transcript of the " talk " he gave . He claims the BUSH administration has hijacked foreign policy ..if they do report to Bush how can they be hijacking anything ? Bush is ultimately responsible for his policy , Wilsons complaint is they are convincing the Beuracrats and are implementing it without them or despite of them , hence the so called secret policy crap .
If it was a secret from the president it would matter ...but Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government's foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies this ?? And this ; made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.
...well its tough titty they didnt know things were getting done , maybe they should have paid attention in class . Who is this secret bureaucracy and who voted for them ? Why must they be told policy decisions , except to IMPLEMENT them ?

Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret What consequences ? The talks are going well on both counts, the only thing that didnt happen is that the policy was different than what this idiot would have liked . It was also handled in a way ...without these bureaucrap nitwits , whomever they me be ..At any rate this guys batting a thousand..hope he got paid in advance for his talk .

Let's not forget Richard Perle while we're having this discussion, if we're talking about unelected officials controlling foreign policy.

Robert Bork put it best this morning - is Bush really a Republican?
That's a very stupid thing to say. "Republican" and "Democrat" are nothing more than party labels. If you want to say "conservative" and "liberal" just say it.

That's a very stupid thing to say. "Republican" and "Democrat" are nothing more than party labels. If you want to say "conservative" and "liberal" just say it.

Fine - is Bush really a conservative? Not a traditional one, no. Not by a long shot.

Fine - is Bush really a conservative? Not a traditional one, no. Not by a long shot.
I completely agree with you--Bush is not a traditional conservative. He is, however, the poster boy for the modern conservative movement. whether you like it or not. And if you read David Brooks in today's NY TImes (sorry, no link thanks to Times Select), you'd see him call Bush the savior of the modern conservative movement. I almost spat my coffee across the room this morning when I read that.

I completely agree with you--Bush is not a traditional conservative. He is, however, the poster boy for the modern conservative movement. whether you like it or not. And if you read David Brooks in today's NY TImes (sorry, no link thanks to Times Select), you'd see him call Bush the savior of the modern conservative movement. I almost spat my coffee across the room this morning when I read that.

I tend to think of Newt Gingrich's ideas as "traditional conservative". You know, the ones that Clinton embraced wholeheartedly, like "ending welfare as we know it".

I tend to think of Newt Gingrich's ideas as "traditional conservative". You know, the ones that Clinton embraced wholeheartedly, like "ending welfare as we know it".
I go back a bit farther--people like Brent Scowcroft, Poppy Bush, John Danforth, etc. Modern representatives would be people like Olympia Snowe and Chris Shays--fiscally responsible and socially libertarian.

This would make sense. Powell was a member of the more or less "old guard" of Clinton, and when the time came to flex their political muscle, the Cheney/Rumsfeld backers needed to take over and sideline the people that were interfering with their own plans. And they succeeded, given the sheer power that rests in these two positions (not to mention the vice president always acts with tacit approval from the president).

I go back a bit farther--people like Brent Scowcroft, Poppy Bush, John Danforth, etc. Modern representatives would be people like Olympia Snowe and Chris Shays--fiscally responsible and socially libertarian.

On the subject of libertarian, I haven't been able to figure out why both parties can't be consistent about leaving us our liberties.

Republicans say "No abortion - your body is not your own" and "Every law abiding person can buy a gun".

Democrats say, "You have the right to an abortion" and "Mr. And Mrs. America, turn in your guns."

Both wage war on drugs.

On the subject of libertarian, I haven't been able to figure out why both parties can't be consistent about leaving us our liberties.

Republicans say "No abortion - your body is not your own" and "Every law abiding person can buy a gun".

Democrats say, "You have the right to an abortion" and "Mr. And Mrs. America, turn in your guns."

Both wage war on drugs.
You know, there's a misconception you state here and I want to correct it--I don't know if you're doing it deliberately, or just repeating talking points, but it doesn't matter.

Democrats are not, as a party, anti-gun. Many Democrats are very pro-gun rights, especially those in the south and western states. Gun control Democrats are generally from urban areas, primarily because they have the constituencies who have to deal the most with gun crime, but to say Democrats are as a whole anti-gun is crap.

Republicans say "No abortion - your body is not your own" and "Every law abiding person can buy a gun".

Democrats say, "You have the right to an abortion" and "Mr. And Mrs. America, turn in your guns."

Both wage war on drugs.I do so hate wars on nouns.

All three bones of contention will still no doubt be alive and kicking - along with some mutant variation on creationism - well after every person currently posting on NS has gone to their grave. I wonder whether anything else will be accomplished in that time remaining to us all.

I go back a bit farther--people like Brent Scowcroft, Poppy Bush, John Danforth, etc. Modern representatives would be people like Olympia Snowe and Chris Shays--fiscally responsible and socially libertarian.

Olympia Snowe is hardly fiscally responsible. And she's a slattern.

Olympia Snowe is hardly fiscally responsible. And she's a slattern.
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Roll your eyes all you want. The thing is, you have no idea who or what olympia snowe is. All you know is that she is a rep. senator from Maine, and you have made a whole bunch of assumptions based on that.

In fact, she has a terrible record and postions on fiscal responsiblity. Also, having actually been in Greenville Maine when she was campaiging a few years ago, I can assure you, she is indeed filthy.

Roll your eyes all you want. The thing is, you have no idea who or what olympia snowe is. All you know is that she is a rep. senator from Maine, and you have made a whole bunch of assumptions based on that.

In fact, she has a terrible record and postions on fiscal responsiblity. Also, having actually been in Greenville Maine when she was campaiging a few years ago, I can assure you, she is indeed filthy.
So prove it--don't just make charges and expect me to do anything other than roll my eyes.