You may remember that former CIA analyst Ray McGovern was roughhoused out of a hall in Washington last week after he turned his back on the speaker, Secy of State Hillary Clinton. Why did he do it? McGovern has a very strong piece about the administration's war policy at antiwar.com. The piece makes Obama out to be weak and "jittery" and in over his head, and Clinton out to be commanding. Too commanding-- and in the "Likud lobby"'s pocket. (By the way, the ADL is now saying that McGovern is anti-Semitic, presumably for this sort of analysis.)
I have two excerpts below, the first is about Hillary's willful decision to support the Iraq war, and Israeli intransigence. The second is about the role of the Israel lobby in pushing that war. Note that McGovern is now more than embracing the Walt & Mearsheimer thesis. When will Chris Matthews, who wants to know why we got into this disaster, have the former CIA analyst on? Excerpt 1:
In the summer of 2002, as the Senate was preparing to conduct hearings about alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq and the possibility of war, former Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq and U.S. Marine Major, Scott Ritter, came down to Washington from his home in upstate New York to share his first-hand knowledge with as many senators as possible.
To those that let him in the door, he showed that the "intelligence" adduced to support U.S. claims that Iraq still had WMD was fatally flawed. This was the same "intelligence" that Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller later branded "unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent."
Sen. Hillary Clinton would not let Ritter in her door. Despite his unique insights as a U.N. inspector and his status as a constituent, Sen. Clinton gave him the royal run-around. Her message was clear: "Don’t bother me with the facts." She had already made up her mind....
Sen. Clinton reportedly was not among the handful of legislators who took the trouble to read the National Intelligence Estimate on WMD in Iraq that was issued on Oct. 1, 2002, just ten days before the she voted to authorize war.
In short, she chose not to perform the due diligence required prior to making a decision having life-or-death consequences for thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. She knew whom she needed to cater to, and what she felt she had to do.
But, bright as she is, Hillary Clinton is prone to willful mistakes — political, as well as strategic. In dissing those of us who were trying to warn her that an attack on Iraq would have catastrophic consequences, she simply willed us to be wrong. Clearly, her calculation was that she had to appear super-strong on defense in order to win the Democratic nomination and then the presidency in 2008.
Just as clearly, courting Israel and the Likud Lobby was also important to her political ambitions....Secretary Clinton is almost as assiduous as Netanyahu in never missing a chance to paint the Iranians in the darkest colors – even if that ends up painting the entire region into a more dangerous corner....
Clinton also rejected the Goldstone Report’s criticism of Israel’s bloody attack on Gaza in 2008-09; she waffled on Israel’s fatal commando raid on a Turkish relief flotilla on its way to Gaza in 2010; and she rallied to the defense of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak this month when Israeli leaders raised alarms about what kind of regime might follow him.
Just last week, Clinton oversaw the casting of the U.S. veto to kill a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Israel to stop colonizing territories it occupied in 1967. That vote was 14 to 1, marking the first such veto by the Obama administration. Netanyahu was quick to state that he "deeply appreciated" the U.S. stance.
And this is about the Israel lobby and the Iraq war:
[Former Bush Administration foreign-policy adviser Philip] Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002, the "unstated threat" from Iraq was the "threat against Israel." He added, "The American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."
But it wasn’t as though leading Israelis were disguising their hopes or an attack on Iraq. The current Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu published a pre-invasion piece titled "The case for Toppling Saddam" in the Wall Street Journal, in which he wrote:
"Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do … I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime."
The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, "the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq." And, as a retired Israeli general later put it, "Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional [WMD] capabilities." In the United States, neoconservatives also pushed for war thinking that taking out Saddam Hussein would make Israel more secure.
Those Israeli leaders and their neocon allies got their wish on March 19, 2003, with the U.S.-U.K. invasion.
Of course, pressure from Israel and its Lobby was not the only factor behind the invasion of Iraq — think also oil, military bases, various political ambitions, revenge, etc. — but the Israeli factor was a central one.
“When will Chris Matthews, who wants to know why we got into this disaster, have the former CIA analyst on?”
I have been asking Chris Matthews this question for years. He is spinning now that he was anti invasion in 2002. As I keep repeating I watched his show every night in the run up to the invasion. While he did stick his neck out much further than most of the talking heads (and granted you did not have to go far since the majority of them were part of the WMD group think team) by challenging David “axis of evil” Frum and Bill “bloody” Kristol when they were on his program.
Chris Matthews did not have former CIA analsyt Ray McGovern, Bill and Kathleen Christison, former IAEA weapons inspector Scott Ritter on his program. These folks as well as others were doing their very best to get national attention on their questions about the validity of the intelligence and knowledgeable inside perspectives. Chris Matthews did not have these people on his program and still has not done so.
He may have had Seymour Hersh on before the invasion…not sure. Seymour also wrote several articles before the invasion questioning the validity of the intelligence.
How is it that a soccer mom at the time living in southeastern Ohio could hear those experts questioning the intelligence based on solid experience and knowledge and Chris Matthews etc did not have these folks on his program.
Total bullshit when any of these talking heads say “if only we would have known then what we know now” Total horseshit.
>> Total bullshit when any of these talking heads say “if only we would have known then what we know now” Total horseshit.
Yup. And yet a lot of these war-hungry, fear-mongering failed prognosticators have no issues about hopping onto the next bandwagon and doing it all over again.
I thought Jason Vest at the Nation was doing some of the best writing and reporting on the group of warmongers who were cherry picking, creating and dessiminating the false intelligence . You can read through his amazingly informative articles at the Nation.
He was one of the first to alert the public. As well as Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern.
Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski’s “Pentagon Papers” is also a worthwhile read. As well as all of Bill and Kathleen Christison’s articles at Counterpunch. And is always the case every article Seymour Hersh writes
The Men From JINSA and CSP
Jason Vest
Some women in leadership positions tend to be more commanding than most men. Among other factors, one such factor is the false notion that there is a need to overcompensate for the traditionally-lower status of women in society. Thus, a woman who breaks the so-called glass ceiling and reaches a leadership position will seek to appear more manly than the average man in a similar position. Margaret Thatcher was such a leader. At times, she seemed dictatorial. In comparison, John Major was rather apathetic, if not passive, at times.
Thus, a woman who breaks the so-called glass ceiling and reaches a leadership position will seek to appear more manly than the average man in a similar position.
perhaps. frankly i’m not sure they are seeking to appear more manly. some women are just naturally more manly than the average guy and they don’t try to cover it up. i think that’s the case w/hilary.
annie,
I didn’t mean “manly” in the literal sense. I was referring to the misconception that society expects men in leadership positions to be tough, decisive and commanding. Thus, women in similar positions think they have to prove they have the testicular fortitude to make the same decisions as men.
Livni
thanks avi, i think i knew what you meant and i agree there are probably numerous instances women in similar positions think they have to prove they have the testicular fortitude to make the same decisions as men.. i am merely asserting some (in fact many) women naturally have the’ testicular ‘ (as you call it) fortitude to make the same decisions as men, iow they do not have to pretend or prove they are ‘tough, decisive and commanding’, they just are.. in fact they have to prove they also possess ‘womanly features’. i recall a time during the primaries when accusations were made hillary wasn’t ‘womanly’ or ‘emotional’ enough( or something). the next day she had a press conference where she shed some tears. to me that was her performance proving she was ‘sensitive’.
just a thought. many woman have equal fortitude as men. on occasion it occurs to me i am one of them. there’s a lot of pressure on women in society to show or flaunt ‘womanly’ characteristics and hide the ‘tough, decisive and commanding’ part of there nature or display it in a covert way that doesn’t intimidate people.
people who seek power, men or women, are often just endowed with aggressive attributes. they both strut them. but when women do it they are often perceived as being’ like men’ or proving they can be ‘like men’. whereas when a man does the same thing (macho speeches proving his cajones , proving ‘they have the testicular fortitude’ ) we don’t say they are doing it to prove they can “make the same decisions as men.”
all leaders seek to portray they have the ‘tough, decisive and commanding’ attributes”.
annie,
I agree.
Still, from my experience, women in positions of power seem to have a desire to overcompensate so as to appear — that’s the keyword here, “appear” — to be tougher than men.
How about this analogy? Some celebrities have that swagger, you know, that I’m cool, I’m hip and it’s in my blood type of swagger. It comes to them naturally.
Then there are new comers to the business who think they need to be like the rest to blend in, to become part of the group, so they adopt certain mannerisms that don’t necessarily fit them. Their behavior looks forced, unnatural and somewhat contrived.
That’s what I meant to get at in my earlier post.
ok. i see your point. perhaps my opinion is colored by the fact my perception is that often men in positions of power have a desire to overcompensate so as to appear “tough, decisive and commanding” when often times they just are not convincingly so.
That’s an important point.
By the way, oftentimes — since I’m obviously not a woman — I try to draw parallels between ethnic minorities and gender minorities in an effort to further analyze or explain certain phenomenon.
Women remain a minority in corporate America. Let’s face it, despite being as capable as men, discrimination against women is still an issue. For example, for every dollar that a man earns in corporate America, a woman earns only 75 cents.
So, as long as that inequality (gender, ethnic, racial, age) exists there will always be psychological implications.
For example, if an African American student were to attend a school in which 99.99% of the student body was Caucasian, there is a high probability that student would feel under a lot of pressure, as though he/she represents the African American community as a whole.
At the same time, in an effort to appear non-racist, that 99.99% majority could compensate for its racism by complementing that African American student for his good grammar or his eloquence. Ironically, such behavior reveals the majority group to be racist. After all, why shouldn’t an African American student speak with eloquence, unless one holds onto the stereotypical view that Blacks are illiterate?
Then there are misconceptions in society that certain traits or behaviors are indicative of an inferiority complex. In that case, an African American teenager could be bullied by his fellow cohorts if he were to speak clearly and properly. He could very well be accused of Trying to sound white.
It’s these social constructs that I think many end up internalizing, and misinterpreting.
I know this sounds nutty, but when Hilary, as First Lady, was betrayed and humiliated by Bill Clinton, in the most public way, and did nothing, I knew she was hopeless, and would be a toady all her life. She has lived up to my every expectation.
i didn’t see it that way and i seriously doubt she ‘did nothing’. i bet he heard hell from her. i think she made a calculated decision to divorce herself from from the option of creating a spectacle of her marital situation that might torpedo her political future. why flame an already burning fire. had she left him and filed for divorce her status as a candidate might have been severely damaged. i think it was a calculated decision and frankly was amazed at her steel composure. i would never have been able to pull that off.
Scott ritter held a press conference in Tokyo the day after Colin Powell’s speech to the UN debunking line by line every item in Powell’s presentation. Ritter had been delivering this speech for several years after the war had begun. If you’ve heard it, there will be no doubt in your mind that the WMD allegations were a flimsy pretext and nothing more.
Ritter’s presentation really puts the lie to all those claims that the intelligence agencies got it wrong. When I see Rumsfeld on TV or hear him on the radio plugging his memoirs I keep wishing the host would allow someone as informed and knowledgable as Ritter to challenge Rumsfeld on all his lies.
Jon Stewart, Andrea Mitchell, all of the folks who have interviewed Rumsfeld have let him walk. Let him sell his book.
Scott Ritter has written that both Clintons were well aware there were no WMD’s in Iraq. Ritter was in Iraq during most of the Clinton administration. Hillary Clinton should have followed Dick Durbin’s lead.
–Ritter’s presentation really puts the lie to all those claims that the intelligence agencies got it wrong.–
for sure. the intel guys didn’t get it wrong. they kept getting orders to change their assessments to produce something that the VP and SoD cabal could wave around and scream about.
According to McGovern, he’s been called anti-Semitic before.
‘ “Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation,” McGovern said. “The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic.” ‘
link to washingtonpost.com
Which just goes to show, be careful about abusing that term lest you weaken it and provide cover to people who really are anti-Semites, or end up running interference for war mongers who are intent on making Muslims the new target of the day.
(Hint, hint.)
Hint hint—
something on which we agree.
No, no Chaos, you mean people who really are anti-Jewish or Jewishphobes. (Anti-Semitic is out as it is not a true expression, but a 19th century misnomer adopted for political false-speak. )
Call a spade a spade.
>> According to McGovern, he’s been called anti-Semitic before.
So has Carlos Estevez…I mean, Charlie Sheen.
Damn, I hope I don’t end up accused of anti-Hispanicism! Is there something I can Remember! to make amends?
Of course he’s anti-semitic. Everyone is.
RE: “former CIA analyst Ray McGovern was roughhoused out of a hall in Washington last week” – Weiss
AUDIO: Two Important Protests: Wisconsin Fights Radical Right Governor, Ray McGovern Objects to Clinton’s Foreign Policy ~ by Peter B. Collins on 02/22/11
PBC podcast 223 [01:02:42m] – Citizens taking action: Robert Kraig reports from Madison on Day 8 of the struggle with new GOP governor; ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern gives a detailed account of being roughed up and arrested for protesting Secretary Clinton’s speech extolling freedom of dissent. Kraig is Executive Director of Citizen Action Wisconsin…
…At about 17 minutes in, Ray McGovern joins us to talk about his protest of Secretary of State Clinton’s speech at George Washington University on February 15–a speech about the importance of free expression and dissent. McGovern is remarkably good-humored about his rough treatment, and has serious criticisms of Clinton’s hawkish policies regarding Afghanistan, the use of unmanned drones, her hard line against Iran, and other key issues.
LINK – link to peterbcollins.com
Ray McGovern was a regular guest on Charlie Warren’s show on WMAL radio in D.C. in the leadup to the Iraq war. (I think Warren also used to have Scott Ritter on.) In June 2003, Charlie Warren, who had been on WMAL for 15 years, and who had done things like help to break the D.C. Snipers case, got the boot from WMAL.
During the runup to the 2008 election, Ha’aretz ran a series of panels to determine which candidates were “good for the Jews,” which primarily translated into willingness to bomb Iran. Hillary was always up near the top of the rankings. The panelists were perfectly aware that she had already sold out, and her soul was safely in the possession of Haim Saban.
How anyone could still be surprised by this fact is the question.
Ray McGovern, you rock!
“I was against being for Hillary Clinton before I was for being against her.” ~ LT
I just listened to the McGovern interview on KGO. Wow! It started out on Egypt but ended up being all about Israel/Palestine. McGovern condemned Israeli/US policy. He hit the Lobby and the media pretty hard. It felt very taboo and I highly recommend it. Below is the URL for the program. The commercials are like 5 minutes long but it’s easy to skip right over them.
Feb. 11, 7 pm
link to kgoam810.com
Thanks for the link, chris. Wow indeed. Sure got a lot of attention from listeners/callers, too. The ADL’ statement is a misrepresentation of the phone-in reactions but there were outright Nakba deniers and Zionists calling in and slamming McGovern for spreading ‘lies’. The radio host pointing out the hazards of McGovern bringing up and zeroing in on the “I-word”. Jeopardy! Just crazy.