Aye, There's The Snub: Zinni Says Obama Administration Shafted Him
I think this blog post from Politico's Ben Smith is worth a read.
Caveats, up front:
- Yes, I understand that this piece is from the Politico - the same site that, inexplicably, had Dick Cheney's tinfoil-hat interview up as its main story all day today.
- The post deals with an article from the Washington Times, also not exactly a bastion of liberal thought.
That said, I think Smith is credible. I corresponded with him many times during the primary and general Presidential elections, and found him to be pretty quick on the uptake. Also, he had a number of good scoops to his credit (indicating good sources), as well as decent analysis. Moreover, the WT reporter cites numerous direct quotes from the story's main figure, which makes me think the story itself is legit.
So....for those who don't go read the post, here's shorter Smith:
- Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni (who I always thought Obama really wanted for SECDEF, but isn't eligible until 2010) was offered the position of US Ambassador to Iraq two weeks before Christopher Hill was named to the post.
- Zinni says National Security Advisor James Jones talked with him about the job before the election and offered him the job after the inauguration. Zinni accepted, and started moving to get his personal affairs in order.
President ObamaVice President Biden even called to congratulate him on the job. - Then, he got called to a meeting at State with top brass, including Secretary Clinton. They discussed the top priorities of the job, and Zinni left with the understanding he'd be getting a phone call within a day to finalize the ambassadorship and get moving to Iraq.
- After several days of no communication from State, Zinni finally called Jones, who "fessed up" and said they'd chosen Hill. Had Zinni not called, he'd have read about the selection in the next morning's Washington Post.
The reason I find this story troubling, if true, is that it's showing a pattern in the Obama Administration of how some loyal allies are treated. Zinni was one of the people who helped him overcome that ridiculous "Commander-in-Chief test" phase of the campaign. Moreover, this guy is a former Marine Corps Commandant, and a valuable resource in military and foreign affairs. This is not someone you disrespect.
If Zinni corroborates the story on the record, the major services will certainly pick it up, and Obama may go into his weekend with some additional uncomfortable questions to answer - and none of them will have to do with a stimulus package that he needs to sell the country on getting through Congress.
UPDATE: Laura Rozen's original story at ForeignPolicy.com is here. It was picked up by Barbara Slavin at the Washington Times, and by Toby Harnden at the Guardian.
Also, the blog has been edited to include clarification on who called Zinni. Apparently, it was Joe Biden who called him, not Barack Obama. I can't imagine Biden making that call without having heard from Obama first, but that possibility is now open.
Boyd, I am frankly lost on this story, having trouble concentrating.
There are so many big jobs yet to be filled by the New Administration. Are you saying that this reflects some Clinton forces taking down Obama backers?
I cannot get a handle on this. And does this bode badly for our getting troops out of Iraq?
February 4, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I'm saying here, DD, is that I don't understand why Zinni would've been treated this way. There's just no reason for it. It creates many more headaches than it solves.
In the grand scheme of things, it's not that big a deal - except that it has all the personal elements (big names, conspiracy theories, potential drama) that "news" organizations love to sink their teeth into and run with for days. And we simply don't have time for it.
Republicans will do what they can to slow Obama down. Self-inflicted wounds like this one are just STUPID. And it needs to stop - NOW.
As for getting troops out, I don't think Hill will hamper that, really.
But Zinni thought he had the job - and, if Zinni's quotes are true, so did everyone in the Administration...until something happened. The question is, what?
February 4, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something about this doesn't pass the smell test. (And I agree about Smith being generally credible.) Obama called to congratulate him and then he was hung out to dry? Don't buy it. People have their inherent procedures and Obama's, his campaign's, and his administration's has been consistent. And I don't know much about Jones but that account -- especially laughing when he told Zinni the job went elswhere -- doesn't sound like any of the many things I've ever heard about him.
Something's fishy here.
February 4, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd have the same issue that you do with this....except that the quotes are from Zinni himself. That raises a big fat red flag. This guy was up there with Tony McPeak as far as being a big military backer of Obama's. My hunch is that he wouldn't have spoken up about this unless he really felt wronged.
Also, seashell has flagged an update to this story that utterly confuses me. Hill's appointment was announced 2/3. Why in the world would the White House now say they have "...made no announcement about who will be the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq"???
February 5, 2009 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Zinni says National Security Advisor James Jones talked with him about the job before the election and offered him the job after the election."
What election? James Jones was Obama's NSA back then?? No way.
"President Obama even called to congratulate him on the job."
Not a couple of weeks after the election, Obama was not Pres. until less than a couple of weeks ago.
February 5, 2009 4:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I only respond to you here to clear up some misconceptions.
(1) Obviously, Obama had certain people in mind for certain Administration jobs way before November 4. So, the way I read that is that Jones spoke with Zinni about maybe being in the administration prior to the election. That's hardly unusual.
(2) Hill's appointment was formally announced February 3.
Let's see....January 20 was the inauguration...so, January 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, February 1, 2, 3. Hmmm....looks like 14 days (or TWO WEEKS) after the inauguration was when Hill got the job.
So, unless you think Jones called Zinni before, say, 12:30pm ET January 20, I'd say "after the inauguration" is accurate.
February 5, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then correct your copy. Your copy, as quoted by me, says "election" where it probably should say "inauguration".
I see you've made at least one other change to your blog. If Biden called to congratulate him on becoming a candidate, that's quite different from Obama congratulating him on being selected as the nominee... esp. if it was not an official call.
I do think it sounds like a snub for them to be so positive about him (according to him anyway!) and then leave him hanging (according to him), apparently avoiding him (according to him). His version of the final convo with Jones sounds odd. We don't know what might have come up during that week, maybe some negative vetting or unexpected problems. My guess: Iraq didn't want him.
I think the "Update" at FP is old. A good report dates quotes clearly when/if timing counts.
But hey, your blog made Google News, in the first page!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/obama-backs-out-iraq-appointment/
claims an exclusive on this story, but FP is getting cited otherwise.
February 5, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you seek would properly be called a "clarification", not a "correction". Since the news on Hill broke 2/3, the original statement of Zinni being headed for the job two weeks prior is accurate, assuming Zinni's account is not in dispute. Stating that Zinni was offered the job after the election is accurate, but not specific. For the sake of permanently killing this objection, though, the change has been made.
Also, since the White House has not denied anything Zinni said, I tend to believe the general even more. (The only factual error in the original report appears to be citing Obama as having called Zinni, but Zinni himself corrected that, per Rozen.)
No sale on pawning this off on Biden. I am a staunch Obama supporter, but I do not believe Biden makes that call if Obama hadn't at least indicated approval for Zinni. Jones and Clinton wouldn't have been involved either.
The White House statement about not having made a decision smells to high heaven. Why didn't they dispute Glenn Kessler's WaPo story on this two days ago, or at least say it was inaccurate in their response to the Zinni story?
February 5, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Jones had called me before the inauguration" - Smith quoting Rozen on Zinni
"Zinni says National Security Advisor James Jones talked with him about the job before the election" - Your blog.
If you have information that Jones spoke with Zinni about this before Nov 4, feel free to share it with us. Otherwise a correction is in order since you purport to be summarizing Smith. It wasn't meant to be a big deal when I first mentioned it...
February 5, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Laura Rozen, another usually top trustworthy source has essentially confirmed this story with a few more details and an update that just adds to the confusion.
This is the update in full:
Zinni has long been a hero of mine for his outspokenness on the idiocy of invading Iraq and then later on the idiots who were mishandling the war.
What is going on in the State Dept? And why? Zinni knows more about Iraq than the entire Bush administration ever knew about the country they invaded.
Great catch on this, Boyd.
February 5, 2009 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the update. Rozen was the original reporter on the WT story. I'm going to update the blog to put her name in it.
February 5, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the WP online, in one of those online Q and A sessions Anne Kornblut was asked about this and said, "I believe this story was reported by our colleagues at Foreign Policy magazine, and we should be able to provide a link to Al Kamen's column today, for anyone unfamiliar with the story. I'm not qualified to say whether he would have been better in the job -- or how far out of the norm his treatment was, though I suspect pretty far -- but let's get a link up and everyone can read."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/02/04/DI2009020402939.html
As of 3:00 pm ET, there is no mention in Kamen's column.
I'd suggest a little time before anyone believes any version of this. Have no idea *what* happened but this doesn't hang together. Someone is going to be Ambassador to Iraq without ever having spoken to the President? No one in the group of Jones, Clinton and Biden has the courtesy, not to mention good, common sense to make sure someone isn't 'stiffed' in this fashion? In an administration where Chief Justice Roberts gets a formal apology for a most unremarkable comment about his slip-up? Where people were actually dropped (S. Power, etc.) but not in a way that they resented or felt like complaining to the press about. Does - not - compute.
And then there is that really odd first sentence in the original story: When Zinni talked to the W. Times "he did NOT say that one of the outrages of the experience was that his friend of 30 years ...." Well, if Zinni didn't say it, then who did??? And why is he talking about this to the Washington Times and not the President himself?
And yes, I do think this is important. People's procedures tell you more about them than their words do or even the 'substantive' aspect of their actions. And Obama (and his campaign and into his administration) has had a unique and consistent procedure in dealing with these things that this flies in the face of that procedure - big time. Not saying it didn't happen but I'll bet anything it didn't happen the way the story sounds right now.
February 5, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that no one knows how this will all look in the morning. And I see your point, which is why I put some qualifiers in the original post.
Having said that, however, what concerns me - yet again - are three things.
First, NO ONE from 1600 has denied anything Zinni is reported to have said. Not in print, not online, not to a reporter. That alone gives me the strong impression that he got it right.
Second, Laura Rozen is not to be confused with an AP hack. She's generally on target when she puts a story out there, and Zinni apparently spoke with her directly.
Third, the WH today claimed that there was no ambassador picked yet. What, then, of Glenn Kessler's story in the WaPo two days ago? Was Kessler lying? Is he just completely off base? And, if he is, where's the demand for retraction?
This whole thing just stinks. And every instinct I have tells me someone, somewhere, screwed up big. We may never know all the details, but something's not right.
February 5, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops -- I'm sounding like Palin!!!
>>"a unique and consistent procedure in dealing with these things that this flies in the face of that procedure - big time" Delete "that procedure"
February 5, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
*wink*
Also.
February 5, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, Boyd and, bottom line, I agree -- someone goofed up big time that this even hit the newspapers. Obviously, somewhere, a mistake was made.
1) Not at all surprised that the WH hasn't denied what Zinni said. Unlike (apparently) Zinni, I suspect they would simply take their time and checking to find out what DID happen before making any public statement .... especially a statement that says Tony Zinni is a liar. That's how things should be done and would be very consistent with Obama's procedures (which consistently irritate us because he doesn't respond as quickly as we would like).
2) I have to believe that both Laura Rozen and the original WT reporter are reporting what they were told by Zinni (BIG time lawsuit if they made it up or mischaracterized) -- and they should report it because the fact that he said it is certainly news.
BUT that just proves that he said those words to them -- not that they happened or that his interpretation of what happened was accurate. Just hypothetically --- someone very high level could have been assigned to explain the situation to Zinni with all the pomp and ceremony you could wish for but fallen off a cliff and be wandering around with amnesia! In other words, Zinni could be telling the literal truth but the reality be different than the picture those words present. (Tho that wouldn't explain Jones' 'laughing' comments when they finally spoke.)
3) Glenn Kessler's story in WaPo was a "leak". His words - Hill "will be nominated as ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said." We very accustomed to every leak from Obama headquarters being accurate, but perhaps this one wasn't ... and in any event, Hill hasn't in fact been named. So that gives the administration a very good, accurate "buy time" thing to say the day this story breaks.
Definitely agree that something isn't right and (arrrgg!!!!) that we may never know. (I can't stand not knowing!) But one thing it's safe to say: Zinni probably isn't in line for the ambassadorship, or anything else big, now. I don't think a willingness to air dirty laundry to the Washington Times -- whether or not it's actually dirty -- is a very helpful trait for jobs in the field of diplomacy.
If there was a slip-up I don't think I'd want to be the one who made it .... this, I gather, is precisely the kind of "drama" for which our Pres. has little or no tolerance.
February 5, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's some more speculation about this mess from the Weekly Standard:
"I just had a conversation with one Republican who speculated that Richard Holbrooke may have been at the center of the current mess over who will serve as U.S. ambassador in Iraq. According to the scenario he laid out, despite Jones having offered the job to Zinni -- an offer from one retired four-star to another -- and Clinton having confirmed the offer, Holbrooke interceded on behalf of his protege, Chris Hill, urging Clinton to reserve the Iraq post for someone who had spent a career in the foreign service.
Having the offer revoked was a major slap in the face to Zinni, who, according to this source, had already begun the process of removing himself from at least one of the corporate boards he sits on. Holbrooke's involvement would also indicate that the decision to ditch Zinni did not come from the White House, that Obama was not undercutting Hillary, but rather the other way around. So now Chris Hill, as a reward for his years spent appeasing the North Koreans, will get the chance to work that same magic on the Iranians.
If this scenario is correct, the real question is where is Obama on all this? Did he really allow his underlings to overrule Jones and appoint Hill? Does Obama even care who ends up at this post, or is his time consumed in dealing with the economy and the parade of tax cheats he's nominated for high office?"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/02/some_speculation_on_zinni.asp
I want to note that when it comes to politically sensitive appointments that relate to US FP in the ME, it's of intense interest and manuevering that started in earnest during the primary. I also follow AIPAC spy guy Steve Rosen's blog, Obama Mideast Monitor, for the reason that whomever he and his friends favor signals that the status quo will prevail.
Political affiliation is not relevent when it comes to ME policy.
Rosen is high on Dennis Ross and Obama's long-time ME advisor Daniel Shapiro and down on Dan Kurtzer. Anyone, including Zinni, who has suspect views on the region is considered anathema to those who are heavily invested in maintaining the balance of power in the ME. So far, shoring up the status quo is prevailing.
Here's a snapshot of Steve Rosen's blog that's appropo:
"Dennis Ross' role
I am puzzled like everyone else, by the absence of any kind of public statement about Dennis Ross' role at the State Department. I am told by two sources with direct knowledge that he is an in-house, close strategic adviser to the Secretary on Iranian and regional affairs, and is one of the significant players in the new State Department.
By Steve Rosen | Thu, 5 Feb 2009 at 9:49 AM | Permalink
Dan Kurtzer back at Princeton
Former Ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer, a major Obama backer and key surrogate on the campaign, is, last I heard, back at Princeton and telling friends he has no idea what, if anything, he'll be doing in the administration.
By Steve Rosen | Thu, 5 Feb 2009 at 9:14 AM | Permalink"
http://www.meforum.org/blog/obama-mideast-monitor/
So far, there is little to encourage those who want to see a change to the direction of our FP in the ME. Pretty words are meaningless if the games remain the same.
February 5, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
More (and I think reasonable) comment on puzzle re: Dennis Ross here:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Whats_up_with_Ross.html#comments
February 5, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Announcing Dennis Ross as envoy doesn't automatically translate to having to answer detailed policy questions. Hillary has stuck to boilerplate language that is essentially the same old thing re the I/P situation. Even Mitchell has been sticking to generalities.
Both Steven Rosen's sources and Ben Smith's source are essentially saying the same thing, that Ross is embeded within the DoS.
Rosen, as this arena of who gets important positions within any given administration, was and still is, a top priority for him would be more likely to be more plugged in than Ben Smith.
If Steve Rosen is puzzled by the delay regarding Ross, it bears taking note. He knows how these things work.
Here's yet another possible roadblock:
"Iranian observers expressed skepticism that the Obama's overtures toward diplomacy would mark a significant turning point in Washington's Iran policy, the Christian Science Monitor reported.
"These are not positive signs, they are posturing; they are speaking about tactics, not a change of strategy," says Seyed Mohammad Marandi, a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen who leads North American studies at the University of Tehran. Tehran is "willing to give Obama a chance. (But) the first move in the eyes of Iranians is not talks but a change of substance, to change the demonization," he said.
Iranian officials have balked at Obama's selections for key administration posts, including Clinton, who last year said the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran if launched a nuclear strike on Israel. The administration retained Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey, the official who led Bush administration efforts to clamp down on Iranian entities assisting the country's nuclear program.
The probable selection of former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross for a key Iran policy position was the most controversial selection, the Monitor reported. U.S. diplomats said the administration had settled on Ross for the post although he has been criticized for his ties to Israeli interests and for advocating tough positions on Iran.
"There is no doubt [the Iranians] are all going to look at Ross as an Israeli proxy," one Western diplomat said."
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090205_6757.php
February 6, 2009 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you -- very interesting. All these names (and their positions and slants) are new to me but looks like I'm going to need to learn, so I appreciate the primer. --------- I'm concluding, however, that whatever is going on with Ross, there is a *reason* for delay, it's not the same sort of insulting bungle or blunder that (maybe) occurred with Zinni. Don't know where that puts the situation, if there is one, with Kurtzer, but just based on the one comment that, too, doesn't sound like a Zinni sort of bungle. (It sounds more like someone who wanted/expected a role and is miffed they didn't get one, or at least haven't so far.)
What I'm interested in is whether the Obama administration is, to speak bluntly, treating people like dirt and so far there are two interviews with Zinni to suggest that they do or did in one instance. And I know it's not the end of the world, but it was Bush's procedures - how he dealt with small, specific, concrete things like this (e.g., a reporter's question) - that first tipped me off to what a train wreck he was going to be. And, boy, was he! The procedure here -- either stiffing someone shamefully or (so far) being silent/not caring if it happened accidentally -- rings alarm bells with me and I'd like to know if that is what actually happened. There's no reason I know to doubt Tony Zinni .... except that what he's saying just doesn't *fit.*
During the campaign, "NAFA-gate" was like this. No reason to believe Canadian TV wasn't accurately reporting things, but when you actually dug down and got the facts (which I did because I was trying to figure out how strongly I wanted to support this guy Obama), it made sense and wasn't nearly so awful.
So even if CW has taken over and 90% of the people in the country either don't care or readily believe Zinni was treated in a very shabby way, I'm not prepared to accept that without some more facts. If Ross and Kurtzer had been treated in similar fashion, those facts would be very relevant, but those situations don't, to my mind, have the same contours. So .. it's back to a typically credible person, Zinni, telling a rather incredible story, based on Obama's way of typical way of handling similar situations. I just hope more hard information becomes available.
Thanks, guys -- haven't gotten the information I wanted but wound up learning a lot that's equally important!
February 6, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
There have been earlier accounts of people in the FP advisory campaign roles being treated shabbily post election. Zinni and Kurtzer are the most high profile names to come up but, there IS a pattern. How much it has to do with the Obama transition team and/or those who were the campaign staff is hard to discern.
Dennis Ross is a whole 'nother thing as his background and reputation as "Israel's Lawyer" are a liability or a big advantage depending on one's POV on the ME and Iran. I consider him a Lobby mole. During the primary, there was fierce attention focused on Obama's ME FP advisors and Ross consistantly denied that he was in any way an "official" Obama advisor. (Hillary's list was never considered a problem and she was the favorite candidate of Israelis,including MCain) Once it became obvious that Obama would prevail, Ross was miraculously transported to a bigger role; he accompanied Obama on his trip to Israel.
Laura Rozen has an udate on the Zinni story although there's so much BS being thrown around that it's hard to get any clarification on the picture. I've linked to Rozen's post and the commentary as she provides a further glimpse into the very problematic communications MO of the Obama team. (One of the commenters brings up Zinni's declaration that the war on Iraq was in Israel's interest and that is more than enough to disqualify him in the eyes of some powerful players)
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/05/zinni_appointment_screwup_what_went_wrong
February 6, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink