Colin Powells chief of staff tells about cabal

[edward]

It appears that as many of us have been saying all along, the Bush administration has been dominated by a small group of businessmen.

October 20, 2005

WASHINGTON -- U.S. foreign policy is being made in secret by a small "cabal" of powerful people like Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a former top Bush administration official charged yesterday.

Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired U.S. Army colonel who was chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell until they left office in January, unleashed possibly the broadest attack on the Bush administration from one of its own since former Counter Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke last year.

http://www.newsday.com/news/printed...20,0,6203089.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print

He also denounced the abuse of detainees and said Powell was particularly upset by it. ''Ten years from now, when we have the whole story, we are going to be ashamed,'' he said. ''This is not us. This is not the way we do business. I don’t think in our history we’ve ever had a presidential involvement, a secretarial involvement, a vice-presidential involvement, an attorney-general’s involvement in telling our troops essentially, Carte blanche is the way you should feel. You should not have any qualms because this is a different kind of conflict.''

''You don’t have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you’ve condoned it,'' he said adding that ''it will take years to reverse the situation'' within the military. He said it was a ''concrete example'' of the result of the way the cabal worked

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1020-01.htm

 

[GENIERE]

Yeah - I always read my "news" on a daily basis reather than a week or two later.

 

[Pengwuino]

U.S. foreign policy is being made in secret by a small "cabal" of powerful people like Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,

Sounds like news to me.

 

[Skyhunter]

Sounds like news to me.

I think he is referring to the age of the article. This is a week old.

[edit] SOS2008 already posted it in the "World can't wait for 2008 thread. [/edit]

 

[Pengwuino]

I'm not referring to the age

 

[pattylou]

I think he is referring to the age of the article. This is a week old.
[edit] SOS2008 already posted it in the "World can't wait for 2008 thread. [/edit]

Someone else posted it too. (Edit: Astronuc, on the "Rice refuses..." thread.)

I saw the segment tonight (it was being re-aired on some channel) - Wilkerson wasn't looking too good. Kinda made me take the thing with a grain of salt.

 

[Skyhunter]

Someone else posted it too. (Edit: Astronuc, on the "Rice refuses..." thread.)
I saw the segment tonight (it was being re-aired on some channel) - Wilkerson wasn't looking too good. Kinda made me take the thing with a grain of salt.

It is consistent with other moderates who left or were forced out. Brent Scowcroft has expressed similar sentiments

As for looking poorly, if you speak out against the "cabal", they attack you.

Remember Paul O'Neil?

They charged him with leaking classified information. (Isn't that rich.)

Here is a link to an op-ed by Juan Cole you might find interesting.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/10/28/vice_president/index.html

(You will need to watch an ad if not a premium member.)

 

[SOS2008]

Someone else posted it too. (Edit: Astronuc, on the "Rice refuses..." thread.)
I saw the segment tonight (it was being re-aired on some channel) - Wilkerson wasn't looking too good. Kinda made me take the thing with a grain of salt.

I agree that originally reading it was more impressive than listening to him live--he's not a professional speaker--a more polished delivery would make it seem more credible. But hey, he's a military man, isn't he?

 

[pattylou]

I agree that originally reading it was more impressive than listening to him live--he's not a professional speaker--a more polished delivery would make it seem more credible. But hey, he's a military man, isn't he?

Well I'm not throwing it out by any stretch. I just would have been more compelled by his claims if he seemed to be authoritative instead of distracted and pissed off.

Things are going down the drains so quickly, that if there is legitimate truth to the cabal thing, I think there must be people really looking into it.

 

[russ_watters]

It appears that as many of us have been saying all along, the Bush administration has been dominated by a small group of businessmen.

"Businessmen"? Where does it say anything about businessmen in that article? All I see is this:

U.S. foreign policy is being made in secret by a small "cabal" of powerful people like Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a former top Bush administration official charged yesterday.

So, in other words, Bush's foreign policy is shaped by himself and a small, tight-knit group of advisors. This "cabal" is usually called by it's official name: the cabinet. So how is that out of the ordinary? How is that news?

I'm having deja-vu, here. I seem to remember a week or two ago, the media reporting something that was normal, but used negative-toned words to describe it, causing an uproar about nothing. Can't quite seem to remember what that issue was, though...

 

[Gokul43201]

Russ, we forgive you your memory lapses !

The original article : http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...0,7455395.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Some excerpts :

But it's absolutely true. I believe that the decisions of this cabal were sometimes made with the full and witting support of the president and sometimes with something less. More often than not, then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice was simply steamrolled by this cabal.
...
The administration's performance during its first four years would have been even worse without Powell's damage control. At least once a week, it seemed, Powell trooped over to the Oval Office and cleaned all the dog poop off the carpet. He held a youthful, inexperienced president's hand. He told him everything would be all right because he, the secretary of State, would fix it. And he did — everything from a serious crisis with China when a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft was struck by a Chinese F-8 fighter jet in April 2001, to the secretary's constant reassurances to European leaders following the bitter breach in relations over the Iraq war. It wasn't enough, of course, but it helped.

Today, we have a president whose approval rating is 38% and a vice president who speaks only to Rush Limbaugh and assembled military forces. We have a secretary of Defense presiding over the death-by-a-thousand-cuts of our overstretched armed forces (no surprise to ignored dissenters such as former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki or former Army Secretary Thomas White).

 

[edward]

"Businessmen"? Where does it say anything about businessmen in that article? All I see is this:

As usual you see what you want to see. Cheney and Rumfeld weren't exactly preschool teachers in their private lives now were they?

So, in other words, Bush's foreign policy is shaped by himself and a small, tight-knit group of advisors. This "cabal" is usually called by it's official name: the cabinet. So how is that out of the ordinary? How is that news?

It is news because this is the first time a former member of the inner circle has spoken out. It is also news because when the speech was originaly given by Wilkerson it received little notice from the press, so little that it was on the news again last night just befor I posted it. The word "Cabal" was used by Wilkerson. You can call a cabal whatever you want.

It is also news because the transcipt of the speech reveals that Bush had little to do with policy making.

When they needed somthing approved by the president, one of them went into Bush's office and came back out with it.

I'm having deja-vu, here. I seem to remember a week or two ago, the media reporting something that was normal, but used negative-toned words to describe it, causing an uproar about nothing. Can't quite seem to remember what that issue was, though...

Perhaps what you heard had something to do with Scooter Libbey.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4979822

 

[russ_watters]

As usual you see what you want to see. Cheney and Rumfeld weren't exactly preschool teachers in their private lives now were they?

What does that have to do with anything? We already knew that they used to be businessmen. So I ask again: why is this news?

It is news because this is the first time a former member of the inner circle has spoken out.

That, I'll buy - so why didn't you mention that? It seemed the point of your OP was that Bush's foreign policy is dominated by business interests, and the article didn't mention that at all.

The word "Cabal" was used by Wilkerson. You can call a cabal whatever you want.

Yes, I know. My point was, calling it "cabal" is just a way to make it sound sinister - to make his gripe seem more serious. It doesn't actually mean anything.

edit: Here, at least, the word is applicable. In the last thread, the words caused the event to morph into something that didn't actually happen. The reporters used the Michael Moore approach: suggest something, but don't actually state it explicitly, allowing the True Believers to turn the suggestion into a "fact".

 

[Skyhunter]

The reporters used the Michael Moore approach: suggest something, but don't actually state it explicitly, allowing the True Believers to turn the suggestion into a "fact".

You give Mr. Moore to much credit. I would hardly say that Michael Moore is the originator of innuendo and insinuation.

 

[The Smoking Man]

You give Mr. Moore to much credit. I would hardly say that Michael Moore is the originator of innuendo and insinuation.

O -Kaaaaay.

How about McCarthy then.

Torquemada?

Oscar wilde?

Shakespeare?

Euripidese?

Voltaire?

The list is endless.

 

[edward]

What does that have to do with anything? We already knew that they used to be businessmen. So I ask again: why is this news.

I see nowhere it my OP that I teferred to anything as being "news."
You are taking one word, which was my own, and dwelling entirely upon it, then twisting it as if it had some relevance to the topic. Which is actually pretty typical come to think of it.
Whether something was news or not is totally irrelevant as to its truth.

When the former chief of staff of the Republican Secretary of State makes a comment of this nature he must have a logical reason. Perhaps it is revenge, but then something questionable must have happened to bring it to fruitition or there would be no reason for Republican Wikerson to say anything. Let's not be coy we all know what happened involving Colin Powell's betrayal by the inner circle.
Since I have seen no denial of Wilkersons statements, although perhaps there have been and I have missed them, I tend to take them seriously. Make of it what you will.

The White House cabal
By Lawrence B. Wilkerson, LAWRENCE B. WILKERSON served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell from 2002 to 2005.
IN PRESIDENT BUSH'S first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security — including vital decisions about postwar Iraq — were made by a secretive, little-known cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...0,7455395.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

 

[Smurf]

You give Mr. Moore to much credit. I would hardly say that Michael Moore is the originator of innuendo and insinuation.

Don't be naive Skyhunter. Michael Moore isn't a person. It's a terminological function used to to represent anything that you don't agree with in a negative tone because you can't think of anything intelligent to say.

 

[SOS2008]

If one reads the entire speech, the first half is how he was fishing and received a call on his cell phone. How he took that call, and decided it was time for people to stand up and speak out. It is a little long, but if folks are to participate in this thread, it seems fair enough to expect them to read all of it.

 

[BobG]

Whether something was news or not is totally irrelevant as to its truth.
When the former chief of staff of the Republican Secretary of State makes a comment of this nature he must have a logical reason. Perhaps it is revenge, but then something questionable must have happened to bring it to fruitition or there would be no reason for Republican Wikerson to say anything. Let's not be coy we all know what happened involving Colin Powell's betrayal by the inner circle.

In this instance, the title "retired US Army Colonel" is more significant than the title "Republican". The fact that Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield felt they had a better idea of what an invasion of Iraq would entail than military leaders has irked quite a few high ranking military (Shinsecki and Thomas, Barry McCaffery, etc).

The discarding of military advice is one reason Iraq is such a mess. Of course, if you compared the number of military required to invade and occupy a foreign country to the number of military left after reaping the peace dividend, the answer to invading Iraq would have been "no" instead of "yes" - an unacceptable answer compared to "You go to war with the army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

 

[edward]

In this instance, the title "retired US Army Colonel" is more significant than the title "Republican".

No Bob Wikerson was Colin Powells chief of staff and he is a "republican "

Wilkersons ire was more about the lies and totally misleading doctored evedence pertaining to WMD in Iraq. In particular his anger was centered on the discrediting of Colin Powell.



If anyone had seen Dead Wrong they would understand.

Wilkerson is one of several insiders interviewed for the CNN Presents documentary "Dead Wrong -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown." The program pieced together the events leading up to the mistaken WMD intelligence that was presented to the public. A presidential commission that investigated the pre-war WMD intelligence found much of it to be "dead wrong."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/intel.report/