Tommy Franks Was Right
Douglas Feith, the former number three man at Rummy's Department of Defense and co-author of the debacle in Iraq, proved Tommy Franks right. General Franks described Feith to author Bob Woodward as:
"the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth."
Yes. Amen!! Feith displayed his utter cluelessness today during his appearance on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and cemented his status as the King of Stupidity. Feith continued to insist that Saddam was in league with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Here's a portion of the transcript of the interview:
FEITH: On the al Qaeda connection, George Tenet on October 7, 2002, wrote an unclassified letter to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee laying out the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
BLITZER: So you believe there was a connection going in to the war?
FEITH: I believed George Tenet.
BLITZER: But now you know that was false?
FEITH: No, it wasn't -- I've never heard that that was false. That's what the...
BLITZER: To this day you believe Saddam was working with al Qaeda?
FEITH: I believe -- I believe that what George Tenet published in October of 2002 was the best information on the subject, and as far as I know, that is largely -- I mean, there may be -- there may be -- look, I've not been in the government for the last year and a half. There may be some more intelligence on that subject.
I'm telling you from the time George Tenet published his findings on the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship, which is that they had a relationship for 10 years and they talked about various things, bomb- making and safe haven and other issues, that -- that that was the U.S.government's best understanding of the subject. I never criticized that in public or in private.
"May be some more intelligence"? You betcha there is Dougie.
How about the Phase II report from the Senate Intelligence Committee (still under Republican leadership at that time)? The Senate Committee reported that on the issue of Al Qaeda and Iraq, the intelligence community--CIA and DIA in particular--had it right, even before the war. When the report came out I posted this summary at NoQuarter:
1. Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Aq'ida to provide material or operational support.
2. Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa'ida and saddam Hussein's regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments. Postwar findings have identified two occasions, not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative.
3. . . .Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provded two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000. . . .No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war.
4. Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq.
5. . . . .Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.
6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Ira, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.
7. Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa'ida strike. . .
8. No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Now, unless you are what Tommy Franks considers to be "a stupd fucker", this is all pretty straightforward. Unfortunately, this is not just about words.
I tried to warn folks about Feith and the OSP back in June of 2003. I was interviewed on National Public Radio and provided these quotes to journalist Neil Mackay:
The OSP was set up by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to gather intelligence which would prove the case for war. In a staggering attack on the OSP, former CIA officer Larry Johnson told the Sunday Herald the OSP was 'dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace', adding that it 'lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam'.
He added: 'It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated.' Johnson said that to describe Saddam as an 'imminent threat' to the West was 'laughable and idiotic'. He said many CIA officers were in 'great distress' over the way intelligence had been treated. 'We've entered the world of George Orwell,' Johnson added. 'I'm disgusted. The truth has to be told. We can't allow our leaders to use bogus information to justify war.'
But Feith was a symptom of a much deeper sickness. Feith did not do it alone. George Bush, emboldened by the hack work of Feith and his minions, went to Cincinnati, Ohio in March 2002 and used his best fearmongering to persuade Americans that Saddam was in league with the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11. Bush said:
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger.
And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace. We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy—the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.
And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
And who can forget delusional Dick Cheney? When he wasn't busy sending Scooter Libby on errands to trash Joe Wilson and out covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, he insisted repeatedly that Saddam and Bin Laden were doing everything together but have sex. Just two short years ago Cheney was beating this drum:
Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible." "There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report." "It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials." "The press, with all due respect, (is) often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework."
By now I guess we should be accustomed to the ability of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Feith to deny the obvious and to try to recreate the past. But as Stephanie Miller says (one of my favorite talk radio personalities) someone ought to tell these guys about video cameras and tape recorders. You see, we don't have to take their word for something. We can go back and listen. We can read. And we better learn--these are really stupid fuckers and they are dangerous. Why an inept clown like Douglas Feith is allowed to hold faculty position at the University of Georgetown makes one wonder if the Jesuits have been infected by mass hysteria. Feith is a stain on that institution and we only need take account of the blood of more than 3000 American soldiers to begin to gauge the monstrosity of Feith's stupidity.














It seems to me it would be more productive to ask how it could be the case that someone like Feith, a rather unimportant fellow, could, if he did, influence the decision to go to war in Iraq.
Personalizing ("Enquiring Minds Want to Know") what are really organizational failures is hardly ever helpful. And quoting the second stupidest man on the face of the earth (remember Tora Bora?) doesn't add much to the conversation.
February 10, 2007 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
FEITH: We did not find WMD stockpiles. We found WMD programs. And the Duelfer report as I'm sure you know, was very clear on what we found in the WMD area, although we did not find the stock piles. We found that he (Saddam) had the facilities, he had the personnel, the intention. So there was a WMD threat but it wasn't the way the CIA described it.
They found 'programs' like old audio cassettes you dig out of your closet, they were over and finished by the early 90's, remnants of history.
Feith is a guy without a conscience. But then this is true for the whole upper echelon of the Bush administration. The question is how stupid, self absorbed, ignorant or careless could American voters be to put this bunch in power.
All the families, American, Iraqi and others, who lost loved ones in this bloodbath should know, this guy thinks it was justified because of intentions Feith believes were in Saddam's mind....
February 10, 2007 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read this about Feith:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1146
February 10, 2007 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I keep going back in my mind to the first few times I heard GWBush speak, when he was first annointed as the Republican candidate for president. I just laughed. The guy was an obvious clueless clown, with no more qualifications to be president than I had. No one could listen to him for more than 5 minutes without dismissing him as a nincompoop.
But, he proved to be less of a nincompoop than the average American voter. And that average American voter required more than 5 years to learn what I learned in 5 minutes. We screwed ourselves.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 10, 2007 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone know whether there exists a point-by-point (or similarly substantive) rebuttal to the claims made in Feith's 16-page October 27, 2003 memo addressed to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller re: Iraq-al Qaeda "collaboration?"
February 10, 2007 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Feith did what Cheney wanted him to do.
Tom
February 10, 2007 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, but it might be better to say the "under secretary of defense for policy" did what Cheney wanted him to do?
And to ask why such a position even exists.
February 10, 2007 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is called the September 2006 Senate Intelligence Committee report referenced in my piece. But of course (Sue) since you are part of the Feith "unreality" based community, logic, reason, and facts are just ignored until you find some red herring to mentally masturbate with.
February 10, 2007 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remember the Iran-Contra scandal, and discussing it in a graduate business school classroom, with a bunch of fairly bright people.
I made the point, then, that, at its heart, ignoring the Constitutional issues, Iran-Contra involved a scheme, which was, basically, and fundamentally, stupid. S-T-U-P-I-D-!
Iran-Contra was a scheme in which the U.S. was paying ransoms to groups, sponsored by Iran, which were perfectly free to go on kidnapping people, as they needed additional ransoms. And, of course, that is what they did do. The ransom was in the form of weapons we sold to Iran at inflated prices. Whatever good will might have been gained from the willingness to trade with Iran was, of course, lost by overcharging them. The profits from overcharging the Iranians were, of course, used to finance the corrupt and cruel Contras, in prosecuting a civil war.
No part of this policy made the slightest bit of sense. Paying ransoms in the form of arms sales to an enemy was the most obvious feature of stupidity.
Basically, this same stupid gang is back in the Bush Administration, and they are still stupid, just on a far larger scale.
Their stupidity takes the twin forms, now as then, of a self-destructive and futile foreign policy for the U.S., and a contempt for the Constitution of the United States.
It is because I remember Iran-Contra and see the continuation of personnel and characteristic stupidity and contempt for the rule of law that I hesitate to dismiss Feith as a bit player.
February 10, 2007 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, Johnson, you jump to conclusions.
My interest in the Feith matter (he's already been cleared of wrong doing) is to determine whether Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wrongly authorized (illegally used government funds) to set Feith up in a propaganda shop. (Feith is small beer; we should be going after Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz)
I am looking for clear evidence that Feith and Luti's "intelligence assessments" were knowingly false rather than simply the result of their biases -- something all analysts suffer from and honest ones admit to.
My problem with the SSIC report is that it's a little weak, a little conclusory, for my purposes.
Do you know of anyone doing a direct rebuttal of Feith's claims of October 27, 2003?
February 10, 2007 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
The only weakness is your mind and your ability to reason. The conclusions in the 2006 SSCI report, bipartisan conclusions I might add, were very clear and succicnt. Only someone with a reading disorder or an advance case of autism would have difficulty recognizing that the Senate Intelligence Committee very clearly noted that the claim of a prior, close relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda was a sham.
February 10, 2007 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the report -- at least as far as I can determine -- does not direct its attention to Feith's memo which was very detailed and thus, subject to contradiction in precise (that is, legally sufficient) rather than general terms.
For anyone interested in my view of Bush and Cheney's fraudulent marketing of the war to the American people (if anyone is), it's here.
February 10, 2007 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, Ellen, you two obviously have other issues that keep both of you talking past each other. Larry, Ellen is out for the blood of the Bush administration as much as you are; she's approaching it from a different angle. You want information that would preveal in the court of public opinion; Ellen wants evidence that would stand up in a criminal court case.
You both want the same thing. Let's save the venom for Bush/Cheney and their minions (cue the Evil Empire theme from "The Empire Strikes Back").
February 10, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I saw in the CNN interview, Feith was trying to lay the ultimate responsibility at Tenet's feet. Whenever he was asked what he personally believed in and had faith in, he kept saying, "George Tenet".
My favorite part, though, was when he criticized the CIA and their analysis by claiming they had information that contradicted their overall assessment that there was no Saddam Hussein/Al Qaeda link. He essentially argued that the element of doubt that the CIA chose to marginalize in their assessment was grounds enough to suspect a link even if the Intel community didn't, but that the CIA had such information means that the fault ultimately lies with the CIA.
What a jackass.
February 10, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure Sen. Rockefeller would agree that Feith has been cleared of wrongdoing.
Tom
February 10, 2007 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect that the disclosures that have been pried out into the light of day via the Scooter Libby trial may have the effect of turning public opinion more firmly against Cheney than it already is, perhaps to the point that one of two things -- or both -- might happen.
He is now clearly being shown, even to the most willfully ignorant, to be a dark and malevolent force, usurping legitmate democratic processeses as thoroughly as any despot of the 20th Century. I believe -- or maybe just fervently hope -- that he may be so discredited by the end of the trial that he will be forced to resign (unless he can get us to attack Iran first, that is). At that point, as with Agnew in the past, Bush will be forced to name a replacement that will be acceptable to the country and to the more moderate elements (those that are left) in the GOP. Then it'll be time to consider further legal action against the entire cabal that'll be out of office by then. And impeachement of Bush.
February 10, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree that it is interesting that a person of Feith's caliber was able to manipulate and had so much influence. Unfortunately, too often loyalty and ideology trump competence. One would expect, from the greatest nation in the world, a degree of intelligence and commitment to the country.
This President has never believed, nor acted, as The President of the United States. Instead, he has always been the leader of the Republican party.
These people, Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Cohen and all the other fellow travelers at AEI and PNAC have intentionally mislead, lied to and manipulated this country into a war!
I know that I have been waiting almost 4 years for evidence to start coming out... documentation... undeniable.
As an avid fan of history, I know that, piece by piece the truth will come out... it will be documented, footnoted and referenced to source material by those "intellectual elites" that the right wing loves to sneer at.
They will go down in history as the architects of a war that destroyed everything that this nation has stood for. Ludlum or Foresyth could not have written more villainous characters!
February 10, 2007 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, thank you for your efforts in exposing Feith's part in all this. The thing that most bothered me about the Blitzer interview was that even though Blitzer did ask some good questions, the interview provided Feith with yet another opportunity to parade the same mis-information, this time directly before the public. If I recall correctly, the Feith quote that Bronto references above came as the very last part of the interview, where it would be likely to have the most impact upon those who still haven't realized that his claims have been completely discredited. I'm not certain Blitzer did the reality-based community any favors with this interview.
Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery
February 10, 2007 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry
Your consistently misguided, and ugly, attacks on Ellen offer us a clue as to why stupid fucking idiots like Feith could so easily twist CIA intelligence into any shape pretzel that the mission of the day required. You, Larry, were, and still are, part of the problem that was so easily exploited. If that is how you conducted yourself at the CIA, no wonder we are in the mell of a hess that we're in today.
You think it is somehow valuable to quote a stupid fucking idiot like Tommy Franks claiming that Feith is even more stupid than himself. Ellen thinks a point-by-point refutation of Feith's stupidity would be more valuable. And you attack like a petty bureaucrat who's been asked for the "ledger". Disgusting.
February 10, 2007 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're another member of the fact challenged? Read the post. It is specific and it is detailed. In fact, the Senate Intel Committee provides a more detailed account of every angle of the deception Feith and his ilk succeeded in scamming many in the American public. That's why there is a link in my piece. That means someone with a genuine interest in the issue can read for themselves.
You're a typical troll. You join with Feith blaming the CIA for telling the truth--i.e. that there was no symbiotic or operational ties between Osama and Saddam--and you spew the nonsense that they were the problem. The only problem they created is that they should have punched Feith, Cheney, and Bush in the nose for lying to the American people about what the intel acutally said.
Instead, the CIA was too pliant and too accomodating of these bullies. The record now is clear. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, and Feith, just to name a few, lied repeatedly and flagrantly about the threat posed by Iraq and Saddam.
February 10, 2007 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, I will not rest until the people on that list are standing in the morning sun before a brick wall wearing blindfolds and smoking their last cigarette. And quite honestly, I don't give a damn if that firing squad is assembled in a courtyard or out behind some barn.
That's correct. Even though Murder&Torture Inc knew they were being bullied, they could smell the blood sweat of terror that they've become addicted to in torture cells on every continent but this one over 50 years. AH! Renditions! How sweet! Of course they kept their mouths shut, the sport was about to begin.
If your definition of a troll is someone who thinks you are a windbag most of the time, then so be it.
February 10, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not forget another one of Rummy's ideologues, Steve Cambone who was Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and undoubtedly also helped cook the intelligence books on Iraq. According to reports, Cambone was an abrasive personality like Rumsfeld who more than alienated the military brass.
"According to The Washington Post, an Army general joked to a Hill staffer that 'if he had one round left in his revolver, he would take out Steve Cambone.'" That "joke" doesn't sound too far from the truth.
Feith apparently is only "term faculty" at Georgetown teaching a class "BUSH ADM/WAR ON TERRORISM" this Spring. Perhaps a student in that class would share some of Feith's "insightful" lectures with us.
February 10, 2007 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice timing Mr. Johnson:
And the rampant intelligence failures will continue to linger, under the guise of honorary Professorships, carrying Policy Tank credentials. Oftentimes Intelligence Failures succeed in their own reelections. Why haven't the chairs of the congressional intelligence committees been taken to task for their own intelligence failures causing them to be blind to the bad data being generated in the government agencies they were tasked with overseeing? Porter Goss, former chair of the House Intelligence committee, as part the Bush strategy to wage war upon the Peter Principle, was promoted past his level of failure into being head of the CIA.
Sen. Roberts (R-Kansas) was also derelict in performing his duty as chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. At the same time, he showed that his true loyalties weren't primarily for the United States, but instead for the GOP. Back in July, 2004, Roberts along with promising to thoroughly investigate how the Administration used pre Iraq war intelligence, mentioned Feith as a potential witness:
Roberts had no problem shifting blame to the CIA, when it was often their more realistic analysis that had been overridden by the cabal of hand-picked analysts at the Pentagon, headed by Douglas Feith.
Porter Goss did no such thing, and instead engaged in politicised purging of Kerry supporters in the CIA after the '04 election, even the ones who are not Democrats, and would not have voted for Kerry, had there been a reasonable GOP alternative.
Many Republicans supported the Goss' purge, stating that the CIA loyalties should be first with the president, and in lock step with him. This is completely wrong. America is supposed to be a government by the people; the CIA's loyalties rightfully should be the Country. The purges were nothing more than more petty vengefulness from the Bush Admin, forcing the ouster of CIA officials who had the temerity to speak out against this miserable failure of a president, whose implemented policies have been "works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation".
Punishing dissenters within the CIA will not lead to better intelligence, just better ass kissers. Senator Durbin (D-Illinois) seems to be the only member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee willing to reach for honest analysis of a primary source of intelligence failure:
February 11, 2007 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink