#5 DeBunkers At Last Part 1

The Washington Note Archives

First Wilkerson, now Scowcroft. Who's next?

Okay, so I quote from the Rude Pundit again. (The naughty bits have been snipped!)

"The Republican, as he looks over this morning's news, wonders what it would be like to break ranks, to name evil where he sees it. To say, as other conservatives have, that this administration has failed, that it is a shit-encrusted assault on the very foundations of the things the Republican loves about America, about politics, about governing. The Republican knows that it would only take one - that once he turns, others will join him, like a branch that pushes through a logjam. And he could save his party from this amateur, this manchild, this pretender, this Bush. He could lead the way, showing that the Republicans put the good of the nation above loyalty to criminals. God, what a magnificent thing that would be: the hearings, the resignations, the housecleaning that would elevate discourse and set the country at least back on the proper path."

As Nelson writes, we could be witnessing the implosion of this Bush administration. My personal joy at seeing this corrupt and incompetent band of criminals (possibly, hopefully) face justice is tempered by the notion that we could be entering a very dark and dangerous period for our country. (I know, I know, many would argue we entered this period in November 2000.)

How will we emerge from the violence, bloodshed, death, and destruction occurring around us? Wars, economic collapse, social injustice, unemployment, inflation, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and, oh yeah, terrorism are perpetual threats. We need serious people for the serious work that lies ahead. A power vacuum in the Oval Office does not bode well for the weeks, months, and years ahead.

But the first step is to clean house. It's finally happening.

=========== ////////////////////////////////

Many did speek out a long time ago.

TomDispatch's has a list of 42 "beleaguered administrators, managers, and career civil servants who quit their posts in protest or were defamed, threatened, fired, forced out, demoted, or driven to retire by Bush administration strong-arming."

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=28817
==========
I understand the frustration of those of you who wished they had come out before the election. But what we're seeing here is what Edward R Murrow said when going after McCarthy - "Remember, when you shot for a king, don't miss". Bush still had his grand shield around him during the election. It's why people like Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill had no effect on the bad guys. I suspect that these folks were biding their time until something cracked and gave them a clear shot. Iraq going south, Katrina, Miers are the bad trifecta. Whether Bush dodges this one is still up in the air. It will be interesting if there are more than these 2 involved. This feels like a well-orchestrated game. I'll bet there are more in place to come out at the right time.
Posted by: Jerry at October 21, 2005 06:44 PM

I hope this does not alienate him excessively from the administration, because he is the sort of grownup the Republicans might like to have back in government after Bush collapses.
Posted by: bob h at October 21, 2005 07:12 PM

Bob H,

I was thinking the same thing. Scowcroft and Bush Sr. are probably too old for any sort of direct role in the administration once the likely departure of a large chunk of the current crew takes place, but I hope there will be a role for them as elder statesmen giving wise counsel.

Like it or not, it still seems likely that George W. Bush will serve out the rest of his term, and hopefully a chastened President will call on some of the Republicans who "got it right" on Iraq. ("Mr. Haass, sorry to interrupt, it's the White House on Line One.)
Posted by: Greg Priddy at October 21, 2005 07:31 PM
=================
i don't know , but these two could be quite correct:
It seems to me that although Wilkerson was not among them, before the 2004 election, there was an unprecedented number of Republican former generals, diplomats, etc. who announced that they were against Bush. Some of them did it on their own, like Scowcroft and Dwight D. Eisenhauer's son, while others made their announcement as a group. All of them did so as though they thought it was a dire emergency.
Posted by: Tracy at October 21, 2005 07:41 PM

Let's go back to those glorious days of yesteryear when Karl Rove had ultimate power to smite all who dared speak ill of him, or his trusted ward, George W. Bush. Ask John McCain or Max Cleland, or even John Kerry, legitimate war heroes all, how it feels to have the full fury of a Rove smear campaign bear down on you like a category 5 hurricane.

Fear is a powerful motivating, or limiting, factor. Fear of public ridicule, fear of a destroyed career, fear of personal humiliation will silence even the most principled by man or woman.

Timing, as they say, is everything. Now there is a special prosecutor making life miserable for Rove. If Wilkerson or Scowcroft had spoken out a year ago, would it have made a difference. Who knows? I would submit it's making a difference now. And NOW is what counts...who wants to go back to those glorious days of yesteryear anyhow?
===============
I appreciate everyone's more measured approach to welcoming prominent Republicans to the side of sanity.

If I expressed myself in a more 'sensational' manner than most, it is because i have had family members at physical risk for the duration of the entire Bush debacle, including one who lost his life.

Forgive me for raging against those in high places who have, in the course of their games of power, have caused me and my innocent family untold and almost unimaginable grief.

-Phredd
Posted by: Phredd at October 21, 2005 08:28 PM
------------------------------------------







////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
yes: --as if -- they might have a heart, a conscience, after-ALL...
I've wondered for some time what GHWB really thinks of his son's performance, and I haven't been able to imagine that it has made him proud.

Although I'm sure he's been too afraid of Barb to say anything.

But it's got to hurt someone who really did see himself as a statesman, who was very knowledgeable and deeply involved in foreign affairs, and who was especially concerned about US NOCs not being outed, seeing his drunken son fuck it all up and not give a shit. Not to mention fucking up the whole succession plan of Jebby. In history, the name "Bush" will evoke W, and will have a worse connotation than Nixon.
Posted by: Ducktape at October 21, 2005 04:58 PM
==================


hey;
I'm with John B.

Question:

How come all these folks didn't speak up before?
================

I hope this ends up being like the Dreyfuss affair. Perhaps the neocon perps will have overstepped their madate to such a degree that they are discredited for generations. Since when does being a Republican mean championing the US as world cop? We can't AFFORD it.
Posted by: robert at October 21, 2005 06:24 PM




I mean... do they have to have a 18-wheel anti-Bush bandwagon in full motion before they dare step up and speak the truth?

If that's the case, those of us who have been spitting flames about Bush's Iraq mess for years... deserve presidential medals of freedom.

The funny thing about American democracy, is that it avows the individual, but gives all its power to cabals.

Cabals of pundits.
Cabals of lobbyists.
Cabals of bloggers.
Cabals of coporate executives.
Cabals of etc.

The individual's voice of protest doesn't count for fuck.

Thus, we are all supposed to get excited when some political celebrity turns on Bush?

Give me a break America....
Posted by: koreyel at October 21, 2005 05:20 PM
==============
delayed conscieousness, har3:
What really bothers me is that it seems --say it with me--it only counts if you're republican.

When non-republicans talked about the Downing Street Memo, the MSM just yawned. When Rep. Conyers has hearings, they are ignored in the press.

Instead of going and finding all of us who were against the war in the beginning, the Washington insiders instead look to those republicans who are finally speaking out. And face it, they're saying now what John Kerry and most all the democratic candidates were saying in the campaign, and only when it's a republican saying it, does it mean something.

Alternative, wiser voices are out there. If only they were news.
Posted by: Vaughan at October 21, 2005 05:53 PM
============
WHAT, A SENSIBLE AMERICAN? And how did he get LEFT BEHIND!?

Phredd -- your point makes no sense. Do you admire Daniel Ellsberg? Many on the left do. And yet he waited quite a while before copying the Pentagon papers. I wish Colin Powell had done something earlier -- but he didn't. That's life. The thing is that to end the damage this administration has done -- we need to bring over to the side of sane foreign policy some of the best practitioners who were part of the Bush machine.

I think you are being knee-jerk and somewhat sensational in your critique. Thanks for posting -- but wanted to make very clear how strongly I disagree with you and others.

I am grateful for any and all who come out and tell us how this nightmare happened -- and who will help us zero in on what caused this so as to generate the public will not to have it happen again with Iran or the next crisis.

best,

Steve Clemons
Posted by: Steve Clemons at October 21, 2005 06:23 PM
===========

steve, sorry for such a long-winded post, but I am compelled to respond.

Damn, I've never witnessed so many posts that appear to be written by well-educated people who can't or simply choose not to "get it" where Wilkerson is concerned.

As I've mentioned in recent posts, I don't know the man intimately, but I know plenty of men and women who do and based on their assessments, those out there who have called him a coward should be ashamed. Of course, I support your right to make your claims - I served in the Army to protect that right - I simply don't respect your "knee-jerked attempt" - to steal a phrase that has been repetitively used here today- to convict the man before you even know the facts.

A coward? Well, let's see. He came from a rich family and, as a result of being a National Merit Scholar and being accepted into a prestigious university, he did not have to face the Vietnam draft. However, although socring top grades, he quit school during his junior year to enlist in the Army. He did so not because he found the merits of the Vietnam War to be many but because he grew weary of listening to professors and fellow classmates -most of whom were from affluent white families - mocking those who served while thousands of others from poorer families had no other options but to serve and many a time die.

Wilkerson served over 14 months in Vietnam, was wounded, and witnessed numerous deaths. I am told this experience had a profound experience on him.

Rather than quitting the military and seeking personal fortune, he chose to stay in the military after the Vietnam War, and why? I am told because he found the military an honorable way to serve his country. Additionally, I am told he found the military a career that offered every American -regardless of their race or sex - a fairer shot than the civilian sector did and that he liked that part of it.

Now, based on what I know about him and my own personal opinions, I'd like to throw out a scenario,and, then, I'd ask you to step outside either your right-leaning or left-leaning mind and, in an imaginary political vacuum, assess it's plausibility. Then, and only then, would I ask you to reconsider your claims that Wilkerson is of all things a coward.

Now, the scenario...Powell asks Wilkerson to join him at the State Department. Having worked for him at the Pentagon and in the private sector before, he readily agrees. He first works in Policy and Planning for Richard Haas and, then, is promoted to work for Powell as his Chief of Staff.

The Iraq issue arises and Wilkerson is faced with being appointed as the head of the task force that will put together the infamous Feb. 5th speech. (All of this information is documented in various articles to include the GQ and Vanity Fair articles. For the record, Wilkerson began going public over a year ago.)

Wilkerson quickly learns that Cheney is trying to pad the speech but Powell and Wilkerson refuse to let him get his way.

(For the record, the rumor is that Wilkerson threatened to resign, as many of you say he should have, prior to giving the speech and after, but each time he was persuaded to stay not for his benefit or for the benefit of the President but for the benefit of the country and especially for the benefit of the troops.)

As each next debacle occurred to include GITMO, Abu Graib, the continued loss of American and allied personnel as well as the continued loss of many, many innocent Iraqis, Wilkerson grew more and more upset. However, rather than giving into his own personal desire to jump ship so that he could protect his own credibility and, as well his own soul, he agreed to stay so that he might be able to have some positive affect if any on the ultimate outcome. At least, he would be able to maintain a running diary of everything that happened so that if necessary, the public could get the true facts.

The only problem was that as the "Rumsfeld Cheney Cabal" continued to win argument after argument and it appeared that Powell was losing Bush's ear - as if he ever truly had it -the chances of Wilkerson and even of Powell for that matter, having any positive effect on the outcome became next to nil. Resigning in January, he gave the General a little time to consider going public first. Certain that Powell's word would carry far more with the public than his own mere word, he chose to wait. Unfortunately, however, the words did not come and so he was ultimately faced with going public himself with his continued accusations.

The truth is many of you may not like the timing of Wilkerson's decision to go public but I argue that had he come out earlier it would have served no one but his own self-interests and there would be no one as there is at present to tell of the horrible things he witnessed.

I am told that he hears on a daily basis from "boots on the ground" how things are going in Iraq. I am told on a daily basis he deals with a horrible sense of guilt for having had anything to do with the Feb. 5th speech. And I am told that every American soldier's death not to mention allied soldier's and innocent Iraqi's haunts him as do the deaths of the comrades he lost in the jungles of Vietnam.

Wilkerson could have saved himself on February 4th. He could have quit and rid himself ofany association with Rummie, Bush, and Cheney, but because of his overwhelming concern for his country, the men and women serving in uniform, and for his boss, he chose to stay, therebye risking everything. Now, after going public, he has lost much. He has lost many of his fellow Republican friends. He has lost the approval of a man whom he worked for and lauded for over sixteen years. He has incurred the hatred of those who despise him as those of you who do who've labelled him a coward, and, he has now risked the ire of a very powerful and mob-like "cabal" who is certainly planning a very severe response. And for what? His country.

Coward? I think not.
Posted by: sapere_aude at October 21, 2005 08:50 PM

============= oops// above insight was supp-posed to be near top ////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
oops, somebody here is angry, almost like cowtowne:

Pardon me if I'm a bit sceptical of the new-found affection for the word cabal. IIRC it was Richard Clarke's book that showed, verbatim, Bush's pushing a subordinate to find something, anything, that would link Hussein to 9-11. There was no cabal. There was the Boy Bush in all his vicious, coldblooded beauty.

This nonsense about a cabal is a rescue attempt by daddy and his pals who know in their guts that Fitzgerald is going to rip the final figleaf off this administration. The spin that the Boy Bush was misguided and badly served by cabal would be admirable if it weren't 4 years and 26,000 dead bodies (http://www.iraqbodycount.net) too late. In my more cynical moments, I can picture Colin Powell being installed as one of the post-indictment "saviors".

Excuse me while I spit.
Posted by: vachon at October 21, 2005 09:10 PM
======

ush is not blameless. He is the president. Ultimately, he is responsible for the decisions of his administration. However, Bush always finds ways to bail himself out of trouble. If he has to use Cheney and Rummy as scapegoats, he will. This has been done before. Reagan was guilty as sin in the Iran-Contra scandal. However, the GOP managed to scapegoat a bunch of other people to save Reagan. Once Reagan no longer needed saving, GHWBush pardoned the Iran-Contra scapegoats.

Wilkerson and Powell with Military backgrounds are both livid over the prisoner abuse. Yet another shoe will drop when the whole truth is written about Abu Graib. The General, Karpinski, who was cashiered for Abu Graib, is also speaking out.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082405Z.shtml
Posted by: bakho at October 21, 2005 09:29 PM
==========