{"id":925,"date":"2007-02-13T07:48:49","date_gmt":"2007-02-13T12:48:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2007\/02\/13\/the-talking-point\/"},"modified":"2007-02-13T09:58:12","modified_gmt":"2007-02-13T14:58:12","slug":"the-talking-point","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2007\/02\/13\/the-talking-point\/","title":{"rendered":"the talking point<\/i>…"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
Senator Ahab<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\n

In a reasonable world, Douglas Feith would have received an apology late last week from Senator Carl Levin. But the obsessive Democrat won’t let go of his story that the Bush Administration "politicized" pre-war Iraq intelligence no matter how many times the facts disprove it. Senator Ahab is now going even further and suggesting behavior standards that would make the U.S. intelligence bureaucracy less accountable to elected officials; this could get Americans killed.<\/p>\n

The familiar accusation against Mr. Feith is that the former Undersecretary of Defense was responsible for all the government’s intelligence failures on Iraq because his office had the temerity to review and critique intelligence on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. His alleged pressure to find a strong link is said to have so influenced apparently weak-kneed CIA analysts that they made a false case for war. Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller went so far as to accuse Mr. Feith of "running a private intelligence failure [sic], which is not lawful."<\/p>\n

This preposterous narrative has already been debunked many times — notably in a bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee itself. That 2004 report found that not only had CIA analysts not been pressured to change their views but that Mr. Feith’s review had sometimes "actually improved the Central Intelligence Agency’s products." A year later the Robb-Silberman commission also found no evidence that prewar intelligence had been politicized. And last week the Defense Department’s Inspector General delivered to Congress a report that likewise exonerates Mr. Feith of doing anything unlawful and acknowledges that his actions were authorized by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense.<\/p>\n

But instead of moving on to more important things, Mr. Levin is still chasing his great white whale. He’s grabbed on to an odd bit of editorializing by the Inspector General that Mr. Feith "was inappropriately performing Intelligence Activities . . . that should be performed by the Intelligence Community."<\/div>\n
…<\/div>\n
Messrs. Levin and Rockefeller may enjoy scoring partisan points. But their nasty obsession with Mr. Feith will have the effect of endorsing more group-think as the last, best word in intelligence — and will lead to more Iraqs and more 9\/11s.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I feel almost ashamed of posting this opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal, so I will begin by disavowing it up front. I’m posting it because I believe that the only way to combat Talking Points is to name them early [see okay, not completely let go…<\/strong><\/a>]. This one is so outrageous that it’s a bit of a challenge.<\/p>\n

The Talking Point<\/strong><\/p>\n

The C.I.A. is autonomous. It needs oversight by elected officials – accountability. <\/strong>For these people to make an argument for oversight and accountability is beyond remarkable. They’ve destroyed oversight and accounbtability as a matter of policy in every facet of government. It’s what they do. Beyond that, the C.I.A. gathers information, facts. Facts aren’t something one argues with, negotiates. They are what they are. The C.I.A. is autonomous for several reasons – secrecy being one big one. But another reason is to keep politics out of their assessments. To keep fact gatherers from being pressured. The very word, intelligence, means unbiased factual assessments. If anything, the Douglas Feith experiment is a fine argument for why the C.I.A. is autonomous and independent. But beyond that, they are making this complaint because the C.I.A. didn’t agree with them. The C.I.A. didn’t think that the Middle Eastern States were behind Terrorism. They thought it was coming from rogue organizations [like Al Qaeda]. They found no evidence of a meaningful relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Feith and the Administration wanted to attack Iraq. I don’t know if they really thought there was a connection, or if the were looking for a way to imply a connection so they could invade Iraq, something they definitely wanted to do. The C.I.A. was in their way. And, by the way, Douglas Feith was hardly an elected official!<\/p>\n

All Douglas Feith did was press the C.I.A, to find a strong link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. He did it to keep them on their toes. Can’t they take a little criticism?<\/strong> This is a ludicrous claim. He set up his own intelligence bureau that sifted intelligence for anything that might be used to imply such a connection. He presented it as a slide show to Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz [neither elected]. Then he then presented it to the C.I.A. and left out the slide that "criticized" the C.I.A. Finally, he presented it to Stephen Hadley and Scooter Libby without mentioning that the Intelligence Agencies did not agree with it. Finally, he wrote a memo detailing his evidence to Senators Carl Levin ["Senator Ahab"] and Jay Rockefeller, which he then personally<\/u> "leaked" to The Weekly Standard<\/strong><\/a>. He never presented his information for "oversight," he presented it as "fact." It wasn’t. It wasn’t to criticize the C.I.A., he left out the C.I.A. criticism when he presented it to them. It wasn’t pressure on the C.I.A. It was an alternative to the C.I.A. He didn’t even tell Hadley and Libby that the Intelligence Community didn’t agree with his "findings." If it wasn’t "intelligence," why did he leak it as intelligence in an article entitled Case Closed<\/strong><\/a>? But the biggest lie of all<\/u> is in this sentence, "His alleged pressure to find a strong link is said to have so influenced apparently weak-kneed CIA analysts that they made a false case for war<\/em>." That is a remarkable<\/u> accusation – "alleged pressure<\/em>," "strong link<\/em>," "weak-kneed<\/em>," "false case for war<\/em>." Feith is disavowing responsibility for what he and the Administration did altogether and blaming the C.I.A. None of what he says has enough truth in it to even bother to argue against. In my world, this is called "blaming the victim."<\/p>\n

Feith has been cleared repeatedly by government commissions.<\/strong> Senator Levin is a nut case out for revenge like Melville’s Captain Ahab in Moby Dick<\/u>. <\/strong>The government commission tasked to study the Administration’s part in the prewar Intelligence failure has never produced a report – Phase II. It has been blocked by Senator Pat Roberts. He’s been "too busy." Even the Department of Defense’s internal investigation, a stalling tactic, said that what Feith did was horrid, but declined to hold him accountable. It’s like appointing the Grand Dragon of the KKK to investigate racial crime. And the "Senator Ahab" metaphor doesn’t describe Carl Levin – Ken Starr maybe, but not Carl Levin. "Senator Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward" would be a better choice [in their youth!]. He’s after the truth and he’s going to find it.<\/p>\n

It wasn’t intelligence, it was just criticism. Douglas Feith was bravely calling the C.I.A. to task. <\/strong>If it wasn’t intelligence, why did the Administration use it in every speech? Why do they still connect the Iraq War with 911 daily? Why does Vice President Cheney harp on the Atta\/Iraq meeting in Prague at any opportunity? Why did they out a C.I.A. Agent to discredit C.I.A. investigation of their absurd claims? et cetera, et cetera. And if Douglas Feith is so brave, why did he and his handler, Paul Wolfowitz, jump ship as soon as possible? Bravery? I call bullshit<\/em>!<\/p>\n

Talking Points<\/strong><\/p>\n

My point isn’t, however, about this particular Talking Point<\/strong>. It’s about Talking Points<\/strong> in general. Douglas Feith was on our television sets hautily making this absurd argument almost as the IG Report was being presented. Walter Pincus got some things wrong in his article, and the Pentagon was immediately calling him to task – resulting in a retraction. But who told us about the Pentagon intervening? Douglas Feith. He hasn’t worked there for years. How did he know what the Pentagon was doing? Feith’s Talking Points<\/strong> were well rehearsed as he argued with Wolf Blitzer. Now we see them almost verbatim in The Wall Street Journal<\/strong> and The Weekly Standard<\/strong>. It’s clearly a scripted, coordinated campaign to spin Douglas Feith’s crimes into something that sounds like courageous government service under attack by Liberal lunatics. <\/p>\n

What connects Douglas Feith<\/strong>, private citizen, the Pentagon<\/strong>, The Wall Street Journal<\/strong>, and The Weekly Standard<\/strong>? Whatever the connection, it’s the thing that, here-to-fore, has made Talking Points<\/strong> work. Kudus to Senators Carl Levin and Jay Rockefeller for persisting in their investigation. I hope they can not only expose Feith, but also expose the Talking Point Network<\/strong> and how it is coordinated.<\/p>\n

Where’s Feith’s crime? Everywhere! His presentations were lies. He leaked false Top Secret memos [ask Karen Kwiatkowski]. He was involved in the deceit used to start a war. He may have been involved in [probably was involved in] espionage on several fronts [Italy and<\/u> Israel]. He’s the Donald Segretti of the Bush Administration [or should I say, one of many]… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Senator Ahab In a reasonable world, Douglas Feith would have received an apology late last week from Senator Carl Levin. But the obsessive Democrat won’t let go of his story that the Bush Administration "politicized" pre-war Iraq intelligence no matter how many times the facts disprove it. Senator Ahab is now going even further and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-925","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/925","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=925"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/925\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=925"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=925"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=925"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}