« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Feith: Can't You Take A Little Criticism?
As the day goes on, Douglas Feith's defense gets stranger and stranger. First, according to Eric Edelman, Feith's office was merely engaged in innocuous policy work, not (as the Pentagon IG concluded) "inappropriate" intelligence work.
Now, Feith, appearing on NPR's "Day To Day" show, is saying that, in fact, what the Office of Special Plans did was no more than offer "criticism" of the intelligence community:
CHADWICK: Former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, thank you for agreeing to come back on Day to Day. And what would be your response to Senator Levin?
DOUGLAS FEITH: Well, what he’s saying is wrong and unsupported. The criticism that is being directed now at my former office is because my office was trying to prevent an intelligence failure. We had people in the Pentagon who thought that the CIA’s speculative assessments were not of top quality; they were not raising all the questions they should raise and considering all the information they should consider. And our people criticized the CIA. And they did not present an alternative intelligence analysis; they presented a criticism. And now, the inspector general is saying that criticizing the CIA was an intelligence activity that policy people should not have engaged in.CHADWICK: That’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying you briefed the president and the vice president, and you said that there was conclusive evidence that there was a meeting between the 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraq spy in Prague. That was doubtful then; it’s pretty much discredited now.
FEITH: No, that’s absolutely not true. I mean, what you’re saying – there are about a dozen factual errors in your question there. It’s just not true. First of all, I didn’t brief them. I mean, that’s part of it. But there were some people from my office and people from elsewhere in the Pentagon who were challenging the CIA’s assessment of the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. And they were raising questions and they were not putting out their own conclusions and analysis. They were challenging the approach that the CIA took because they believed that the CIA had a theory that ideological opponents like secular Ba’athists in the Iraqi government and religious extremists in al Qaeda could not cooperate for strategic purposes. And the critics in the Pentagon of the CIA said that the CIA was filtering its own intelligence and ignoring its own intelligence that was inconsistent with the CIA’s theory.
Now, remember, this isn't merely a word game that Feith's playing -- it has real legal ramifications.
But call this argumentation by stamping one's feet. First, no less an ideological ally of Feith's than the Weekly Standard straightforwardly wrote in 2003, "...make no mistake--contrary to what Defense now says--these are conclusions and this is analysis." Second, on page 311 of the Senate intelligence committee's 2004 report, there's this passage:
Though the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy stated during his July 2003 testimony to the Committee, "I asked a team to study the policy implications of relationships among terrorist groups and their sources of support," the team members interviewed by Committee staff each noted that at some point, and often predominantly, their work involved intelligence analysis. In several interviews, OUSDP staffers indicated that they reviewed both raw and finished intelligence and did undertake their own intelligence analysis after looking at (intelligence community) products and discovering that what they needed had not been produced by the (intelligence community). [my emphasis]
Maybe if Feith stamps his feet a little bit louder, his revision of history will carry the day.
Comments (48)
Supdog wrote on February 9, 2007 5:28 PM:"...Feith, appearing on NPR's "Day To Day" show, is saying that, in fact, what the Office of Special Plans did was no more than offer "criticism" of the intelligence community..."
Sure, if by "criticism" (and "analysis") one means "ignoring the CIA data in its entirety and instead cherry-picking those rare data points that support Cheney's desire to invade Iraq, and then, using that, arrive at unsubstantiated and insupportable conclusions that are magically in line with the thesis behind PNAC's letter sent to then-President Clinton in 1997."
Semantics can be fun!
wisedup wrote on February 9, 2007 6:04 PM:Feith's university classes will now become extremely popular -- as popular as those cute penguin parades, what is that pengin thinking about?
mbbsdphil wrote on February 9, 2007 6:22 PM:David Brooks is aghast that this four or five year old story is "still news". It is "news" today because it deals with why we went to war, arguably on false pretenses. Mr. Feith's role, and the senior political leadership that created, supported and cleared the way for it, was critical to establishing that pretense.
POed Lib wrote on February 9, 2007 6:30 PM:Tommy Franks was right. Dougie is "the stupidest fucking moron in the universe."
The entire administration is voting for Dougie's victory in the Stupid Derby. Because, if it ain't him, it's one of the rest of the morons in this Administration of Morons.
MT wrote on February 9, 2007 6:36 PM:He also looked and sounded nervous and crazy on CNN a little while ago. His hands were clenched into fists through the whole thing. I'm no body language expert but I'm guessing that does not suggest that he is comfortable with the line of questioning.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 9, 2007 8:04 PM:I can't shake the mental picture of sweater snagged on a nail unraveling into a pile of yarn.
Dan wrote on February 9, 2007 8:55 PM:Keeping the Feith...
He still cannot admit that his assume-first-analyse-later(-if-ever) approach was inferior to that of the CIA.
The worst part is that he seems to think his "office of special plans" had any kind of legitimacy beyond Cheney's desire to cook up propaganda to support deposing Saddam.
The Oracle wrote on February 9, 2007 9:10 PM:Is that "office of special plans"...
or "office of fecal plans"?
Because it's obvious that Feith has shit for brains.
Along with Bremer, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, neo-cons etal..
Shit for brains. All of them. Peeeeee U.
crazyvietnamvet wrote on February 9, 2007 10:04 PM:These dumb mother fuckers from the president on down must think we are stupid, or what...?? I say hang them all in front of the Washington monument. I volunteer to put the noose around Chaney.
Michael Jones wrote on February 9, 2007 11:08 PM:Hey, good news! Patrick Fitzgerald should be free pretty soon!
JJ wrote on February 9, 2007 11:29 PM:From the Guardian, July 17, 2003:
****According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency.
The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.
The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war.
....
The president's most trusted adviser, Mr Cheney, was at the shadow network's sharp end. He made several trips to the CIA in Langley, Virginia, to demand a more "forward-leaning" interpretation of the threat posed by Saddam. When he was not there to make his influence felt, his chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was. Such hands-on involvement in the processing of intelligence data was unprecedented for a vice-president in recent times, and it put pressure on CIA officials to come up with the appropriate results.
....
The OSP had access to a huge amount of raw intelligence. It came in part from "report officers" in the CIA's directorate of operations whose job is to sift through reports from agents around the world, filtering out the unsubstantiated and the incredible. Under pressure from the hawks such as Mr Cheney and Mr Gingrich, those officers became reluctant to discard anything, no matter how far-fetched. The OSP also sucked in countless tips from the Iraqi National Congress and other opposition groups, which were viewed with far more scepticism by the CIA and the state department.
....
the OSP's activities were a com plete mystery to the DIA and the Pentagon.
"The iceberg analogy is a good one," said a senior officer who left the Pentagon during the planning of the Iraq war. "No one from the military staff heard, saw or discussed anything with them."
....
The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.
"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.
....
The Israeli influence was revealed most clearly by a story floated by unnamed senior US officials in the American press, suggesting the reason that no banned weapons had been found in Iraq was that they had been smuggled into Syria. Intelligence sources say that the story came from the office of the Israeli prime minister.
The OSP absorbed this heady brew of raw intelligence, rumour and plain disinformation and made it a "product", a prodigious stream of reports with a guaranteed readership in the White House. The primary customers were Mr Cheney, Mr Libby and their closest ideological ally on the national security council, Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice's deputy.
In turn, they leaked some of the claims to the press, and used others as a stick with which to beat the CIA and the state department analysts, demanding they investigate the OSP leads.****
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
JJ wrote on February 9, 2007 11:34 PM:They leaked some of the claims to the press, and used others as a stick with which to beat the CIA and the state department analysts, demanding they investigate the OSP leads.
I bet this last part explains the Plame scandal. Cheney was trying to smack down what he saw as an effort by CIA to blow the lid off of Cheney's whole propaganda/"intelligence" operation...
UYT wrote on February 10, 2007 3:37 AM:After Saddam's execution GW was quoted as saying "That sure looked like a revenge killing..." Or something along those lines.
Judith wrote on February 10, 2007 7:37 AM:This is what It is. Do we really need to argue the obvious? All the world's a stage for the Bushitonians.
Will you people pick a position and stick with it. All your commissions came to the conclusion that cia, nsa, etc., were useless. Their info was wrong, our going to war was wrong, they (cia, etc)lied them into war and on and on. Now, the intel agencies are the greatest and feith is the one that lied the little dears into war. Stick with a position and stop looking like a bunch of weasels looking for someone else to take the fall for their actions....hate to say it but....BE A MAN. (At least a man like they used to make them back in the good old days).
taters wrote on February 10, 2007 9:31 AM:Great piece Spencer.
I'm posting Col. Pat Lang's "Drinking the Kool Aid" for those that haven't read it. I understand Feith has a faculty position at Georgetown now where students can be exposed to a treacherous SOB like him.
Pat Lang's "Drinking the Kool Aid" from 2004
http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0406_lang.asp
And Larry Johnson hasa terrific piece up at No Quarter called Tommy Franks Was Right..
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/tommy_franks_wa.html
klyde wrote on February 10, 2007 1:16 PM:So Georgetown still has this guy on it's faculty?
FloridaDemocrat wrote on February 10, 2007 3:37 PM:The reason Feith is so uptight is that he has just figured out that he is all alone swinging in the breeze for this mess. I'm sure he turned to the Cheney people for help and they looked at him and said, "Do we know you?"
Shocked wrote on February 10, 2007 8:27 PM:Feith just realized he isn't smart enough to play with the big boys but he is dumb enough to swing for them.
Douglas J Feith
Title
Dist Practitioner in National Security Policy
Phone
Shocked wrote on February 10, 2007 8:28 PM:202-687-7846
Email
djf35@georgetown.edu
The amazing thing is his title at Georgetown... "Distinguished Practitioner in National Security Policy" Distinguished practitioner indeed...
wisedup wrote on February 11, 2007 5:25 AM:I would respectfully request that the Distinguished Practictioner immediately submit the "questions" that OSP raised.
barrelhse wrote on February 11, 2007 10:48 AM:Of course he made no claims, he merely was raising questions -- ok, so let's have 'em, would love to see 'em. Us poor proles have been screwed royally -- lost our kids, lost our national guard, lost our cash, lost our govt, lost the international respect that our fathers died to get. At very least we're entitled to these very precious questions. Screaming "do you smell smoke?" in a crowded theater is still a felony ---I hope.
A clear example of those liberal college professors attempting to brainwash our youth.
Philip Wright wrote on February 11, 2007 10:50 AM:Actually, this speaks volumes about Georgetown's willingness to abandon educators in favor of celebrity. Perhaps Feith also was honored with the Benedict Arnold Chair and the annual Ponzi Award of Merit (small honorarium, incl. stamps).
I wonder if the students at Georgetown have the balls to stop enrolling in his (boring looking, anyway) class.
Well,
When you smell blood, that's the time to feed. Dougie may be smart enough to know when to be nervous. I hope that the Dem's doing the investigating here are doing more than just shining the light. I hope there is a process involved and that that process includes squeezing people like Feith to see what pops out of their orifices.
It would be unfortunate if Feith were made to take the fall for the Iraqi mess, but when the calls come from Europe for war crimes charges it may serve some purpose to work at giving them access to Feith. That is assuming that Dem's are fully in control by then. Hopefully this would send a clear message that one should have some integrity in their work product. Especially when the stakes are so high.
In thinking about this, the real issue with Feith and their cabal is that they may be more interested in the security of Israel than in the security of this country. Maybe there's some available screws to turn in that area that could encourage some singing by these treasonous bastards.
Jack wrote on February 11, 2007 10:56 AM:Neocon chickenhawk academics who've never spent a day in uniform have no business being an Undersecretary of Defense in the first place. Just like a failed businessman from Texas and his contractor crony have no business being in the White House. This country made the wrong decision at the polls not once, but twice, and now we're paying for it. Hopefully next time the American people won't be taken in by fearmonger political hacks only wanting to line the pockets of their big business pals at the expense of America lives and dollars.
Lugo wrote on February 11, 2007 12:57 PM:"Neocon chickenhawk academics who've never spent a day in uniform have no business being an Undersecretary of Defense in the first place."
Yeah, well, there is that little thing called Title X, Section 134, which states that "Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed as Under Secretary within 10 years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force."
So it is pretty clear that the law intends CIVILIANS (what you call "chickenhawks") to hold this post.
grandpa john wrote on February 11, 2007 2:52 PM:A person who is retired from the military is a civilian
JD21 wrote on February 11, 2007 3:01 PM:The Bush and the Republicans are firing good prosecutors and replacing them with cronies. They are avoiding the normal appointment process under a loophole they snuck into the "Patriot" Act. The Federal Prosecutor who was investigating the Cunningham web of corruption is fired. Investigation over.
This stuff makes my blood boil. And it's far from an isolated incident by Republicans. Whatever happened to that damn contract with America they promised us?!
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/02/09/united_states_attorneys/index.html
Lugo wrote on February 11, 2007 3:39 PM:Grandpa, the language clearly indicates they do not want someone connected to the military for this position.
Say, when did Walter Slocombe retire from the military? Oh wait, he was never in the military. Yet for some reason we didn't hear screams of CHICKENHAWK when he was USD(P).
Jack wrote on February 11, 2007 8:11 PM:Feith was born in 1953 and could have easily joined the active duty military and fought in Vietnam. Why didn't he? Why didn't Cheney? Bush? Rove? Rumsfeld? Wolfowitz? Why didn't anyone in a senior position in the Bush Administration? The truth of the matter is that they were not willing to put their own lives on the line when their country called. That didn't stop them from falsifying a pretext for war and lying to the American people. It didn't stop them from sending other peoples children off to further destabilize the middle east at the expense of over 3000 US lives and over $500 billion in US tax dollars. That didn't stop them from getting thousands of people killed or from creating a power vacuum in Iraq that were predicted 10 years ago by Norman Schwarzkopf and Robert Gates on 60 Minutes. Had these neocons actually served in Vietnam, then maybe they wouldn't have sent American headlong into a second war much like Vietnam.
America would have been far better off had these draft dodging neocons stuck to swindling oil investors or overcharging the parents of wealthy college kids. Over 3000 Americans dead and they've accomplished nothing but give Al Qaida and Iran a new base of operations.
If you take offense to my comment, then I suggest that you go volunteer for a job in Iraq somewhere outside the green zone and help Bush and the other chickenhawks stay the course while expending the lives of people far braver than they ever were.
Publican wrote on February 11, 2007 11:35 PM:Why isn't he behind bars? Have the Germans indicted him yet?
Ducharme wrote on February 12, 2007 12:37 PM:It's DOUBLEDOWN BLACKJACK time!
The Iraq War Intelligence Disaster is like the Global Warming Gambit. You see, the more they are proved wrong, the more they HAVE TO assert they are correct. The worse Iraq gets, the more Feith HAS TO assert that he was not just blameless, but FULLY CORRECT in order to "win." Otherwise, he looks like a monstrous failure with each passing day.
Therefore, expect more statements that up is the new down. They are backed into a corner and have no other choice.
JF wrote on February 12, 2007 5:02 PM:Holy shit, how can you be talking about this inconsequential stuff when ANNA NICOLE SMITH JUST DIED? Do I even need to mention that NANCY PELOSI WANTS TO FLY BACK TO HER DISTRICT?
I mean, seriously! Get your priorities straight!
Eddie wrote on February 12, 2007 6:39 PM:I'm sorry but every time I look at a photo of Dougie Feith, I want to just yell "There's Waldo!"
Lugo wrote on February 12, 2007 8:59 PM:"Feith was born in 1953 and could have easily joined the active duty military and fought in Vietnam. Why didn't he?"
Uh, because by the time he was 18, it was 1971 and the war was basically over?
Are you really this dumb, or have you never heard of a thing called "civilian control of the military"?
David Conrad wrote on February 12, 2007 11:56 PM:"[T]his isn't merely a word game that Feith's playing -- it has real legal ramifications."
Indeed. High crimes AND misdemeanors.
pjk wrote on February 13, 2007 2:57 AM:Lugo- can you tell me how many US troops died or were maimed between 1971 and 1975 in VietNam?
I know it was basically over, and it was Mission Accomplished and all that.
I'm not going to ask about your relative level of intelligence, but have you ever heard of having to register for the Draft? Because that sure as FUCK wasn't "basically over" in 1971.
Agjobs wrote on February 13, 2007 9:47 AM:Lugo, I was born in 1953 and I had to put off college for a year to see what my "Lottery" number would be. My Dad a WW II vet and I talked about it and I decided I would go if drafted. He was against the war. So no the war was not over and many guys from my lottery year (they drafted upto number 150 out of 365, I was 248) went there and did not come back. So yes Feith was eligble to go and could have volunteered. Bad enough that Feith rewrites history but we don't need people to do the same in order to defend him.
The other interesting thing about Feith's interview is that he is claiming that the CIA was cherry picking to support their own agenda. This administration always accuses their detractors of their own crimes. This is just another case in point.
fwiffo wrote on February 13, 2007 10:42 AM:Is it just me, or does Doug Feith look exactly like a clone of Steve Forbes?
artur@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 4:58 AM:Generic Cialis. Buy Generic Cialis
artur@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 4:58 AM:Generic Cialis. Buy Generic Cialis
catarina@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 7:19 PM:hello
larra@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 7:47 AM:hello
Jonglly wrote on May 17, 2007 5:00 AM:Before buying generic viagra read this.
Martell wrote on September 23, 2007 12:10 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Work from home, earn decent income and forget about your money worries forever. The Canadian marketer tells you how to build your online empire on a tight budget.
Gehl wrote on September 30, 2007 1:32 AM:What is email marketing? The effective method of getting new leads for your business.
Jack wrote on October 10, 2007 1:14 PM:How do you think about passing a drug test. Is it easy or not?
madrus mpeg cum animl wrote on October 10, 2007 4:38 PM:Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.
sesso polacche wrote on October 15, 2007 9:47 PM:Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.
sexi vip wrote on October 16, 2007 9:22 AM:Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.