« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
AEI's Gerecht: Cheney Doesn't Tell Me What to Write
Last week, Barnett Rubin of New York University sparked a controversy by accusing hardliners in Dick Cheney's office of giving right-leaning think tanks in Washington "instructions" to start a drumbeat for war with Iran. Among the think-tankers Rubin called out was Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and Iran specialist, who wrote in this week's Newsweek that diplomacy with Iran and other "moderate tactics" are doomed to failure. I asked Gerecht for a response to Rubin's allegations, and he e-mails:
I like Rubin, but I have no idea of what he's talking about. (And I see that George Packer at The New Yorker seems to be similarly "informed" and similarly convinced of his sanity.) Newsweek contacted me. Fareed Zakaria was on vacation/book leave. They wanted to know whether I wanted to write about Iran. I said sure. Actually, I almost said "no" since I was in the midst of an international move and had no time. FYI: I don't know of a single instance of the VP's
office trying to encourage commentary from AEI staff. Not once. I suspect the VP's office knows that such forays would be highly unwise. The idea is offensive, and I think they know that, and would likely lead to considerable unpleasantness.Imagine if Barack Obama won the presidency and his VP, Joe Biden, called you and George
Packer and suggested that you two write for them since all concerned were more or less on the same page. Even if you were in total agreement with Mr. Biden and wanted to advance "the cause," I suspect you would find such a suggestion presumptuous, to say the least. And on a side note, I wouldn't be so sure that the VP and his principals want to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. I've known a few folks from that office over the years, and I wouldn't say that confidently. The press commentary pitting the "wise" and "professional" State Department against the "reckless" and "bellicose" VP office is, to put it politely, hyperventilated. One of the good things that might come from a Democratic victory in 2008 is that center-left/left-wing journalists, i.e., the vast majority of journalists, might actually know somebody well enough in the government to make this conspiratorial reflex less acute.
Meanwhile, in a blog post yesterday, Rubin took on Gerecht's argument, and in one respect, he agrees: negotiations are likely to fail -- provided that the Iranians believe the U.S.'s true objective is to topple the regime. He also blames U.S. hardliners for creating the conditions leading to the rise of Iranian hardline president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad:
In part thanks to them, we are now dealing not with the Iranian Gorbachev, but with the Iranian Putin, who is rather worse than the original. Nonetheless, the Iranian power structure still includes people with a range of views, from conservative realist to reformist, with whom it is possible to engage, if an agenda of regime change did not sabotage any efforts on their part. I meet with such people regularly. Certainly the Iranian democratic opposition has made clear its opposition to forcible regime change.
Comments (31)
TomH wrote on September 6, 2007 9:52 AM:I'm alarmed to find such a famously deranged right-winger so persuasive. Yes, it's probably true that the VP can't really send down marching orders to the "troops" in the think tanks. Kudoes to Spackerman for thinking to pose the question.
Yet again and again we see wingnut commentators swinging into high gear on an issue, well in advance of MSM attention, as perfectly choreographed as Rockettes. Carrier pigeons? Dead drops? A mind control device sitting in Matt Drudge's garage?
Perhaps a reporter (hint hint) can interview some defectors and crack the code.
JEP wrote on September 6, 2007 9:59 AM:"FYI: I don't know of a single instance of the VP's office trying to encourage commentary from AEI staff. Not once. I suspect the VP's office knows that such forays would be highly unwise. The idea is offensive, and I think they know that, and would likely lead to considerable unpleasantness."
Keyword? "I"
Plausible deniability is the logical conclusion, and this writer clearly stayed within the boundaries he was noted for. But that doesn't change the fact that someone in an administrative position made the very deliberate choice to pick a known war-enabler to fill in, rather than a more moderate writer.
So while the writer can claim journalistic integrity, the editors can still be faulted for their selection of a stand-in.
Surely they knew by tapping Gerecht to fill in for Zakaria, they would get the very results they expected.
JEP wrote on September 6, 2007 10:01 AM:"Carrier pigeons? Dead drops? A mind control device sitting in Matt Drudge's garage?"
I would guess it is an email circle, with no chinks in its neocon armor that might leak...
JEP wrote on September 6, 2007 10:05 AM:"Surely they knew by tapping Gerecht to fill in for Zakaria, they would get the very results they expected."
My point is, Cheney doesn't HAVE to tell them what to write, they just adjust the journalist, and they get the same results without actually "writing" anything.
anonymous wrote on September 6, 2007 10:07 AM:"I suspect the VP's office knows that such forays would be highly unwise. The idea is offensive, and I think they know that, and would likely lead to considerable unpleasantness."
Yep, that's always stopped Cheney and the neocons dead in their tracks before, that an idea is offensive, unwise, and would likely lead to considerable unpleasantness.
Gee, you'd think we weren't already in the midst of an offensive and unwise war, promoted through dishonest and underhanded means by Cheney et al., that has led to considerable "unpleasantness."
I can't quite figure out whether Gerecht is just stupid or a brazen liar who thinks we are stupid.
Jane wrote on September 6, 2007 10:18 AM:The fact that the idea was offensive, dishonest and underhanded never stopped this administration from paying reporter/shills. Why should we think that offended AEI would deter them now?
Gerecht is so trusting of Cheney that he probably bought the original line about WMDs and trusts their subsequent explanation of how they went wrong.
Instead of just saying well nobody contacted me how about a little journalism. Gerecht is in a good position to check it out.
Bourgeois Liberal wrote on September 6, 2007 10:21 AM:Like as if Gerecht is going to come right out and say, "Sure, we get phone calls from Cheney's office all the time telling us which pro-war campaign to start next".
The point is that when you have Pavlovian enablers such as those at AEI on your side, you don't have to pick up the phone.
Larry Geater wrote on September 6, 2007 10:24 AM:I can't quite figure out whether Gerecht is just stupid or a brazen liar who thinks we are stupid.
Both
Bugboy wrote on September 6, 2007 10:43 AM:I shudder to even think about what administrative mouthpiece Reuel Marc Gerecht would say "considerable unpleasantness" would consist of, if he was asked.
Glenn wrote on September 6, 2007 10:47 AM:I love the logic of Gerecht's response that, since it would be improper ("offensive" even) for the VP's office to direct AEI to whip up some supportive propaganda, it necessarily follows that the VP's office didn't do it.
No, that would be wrong, that's for sure.
Dee Illuminati wrote on September 6, 2007 10:49 AM:John Yoo (architect of US torture policy),
Paul Wolfowitz (architect of Iraq Invasion),
Michael Rubin (Staff assistant, Iran and Iraq, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2002-2004),
Richard Perle(Member, Defense Policy Board, Department of Defense, 1987-2004; Chairman, 2001-2003),
David Frum (axis of evil and the Russian Two fronts good theory and three fronts better of history will exonerte us~),
Lynne V. Cheney (VP historian and 'historical revisionist fact-checker' LOL ),
John R. Bolton (Similar to Perle his politics are known!)
I guess I wouldn't need to connect the dots, establish a communication pattern, or make any unsubstantiated claim of a connection to the VP's office and members of AEI.
As some have insinuated and claimed, that now Gerecht is 'carrying the bucket' for the VP's office?
I think that the VP could have easily have enlisted any of the 'credible' individuals I listed above from scholars roster at aei
http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter.all/scholar_byname.asp
Mr. Gerecht, unless the rules have changed: "tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are."
Sincerely,
Dee Illuminati
tbhull wrote on September 6, 2007 10:55 AM:Correct. The AEI tells Cheney what to say and what policy to pursue.
Tom Anderson wrote on September 6, 2007 11:04 AM:When did Reuel Marc Gerecht become an expert on Iran? Wasn't he a so called expert of Iraq as well? What did his training at the CIA achieve? He was wrong on almost everything on Iraq and he is most likely wrong on everything to do with Iran.
Remember, this buffoon was an original signatory to PNAC and is in the VP's pocket, no matter how much he protests. Me thinks the lady protests too much.
Personally, i would not even urinate on him if i saw him on fire.
tekel wrote on September 6, 2007 11:20 AM:I'd smear feces on him if I saw him on fire. And if I saw him smeared with feces and covered in urine, I'd set him on fire.
oldtree wrote on September 6, 2007 11:20 AM:Do cretins understand how their explanation of denial becomes an obvious admission?
bp wrote on September 6, 2007 11:22 AM:this twit doesn't seem to understand that he confirmed he is told what to write. is everyone in government so used to lying that they no longer feel comfortable with reality?
I am afraid I still remain sceptical of Mr gerecht's so-called expertise. Being in the CIA does not necessarily give one credibility. I have read Mr G on Iran and find it tendentious and pretty much tilted against Iran. The Iranians have done much to aggravate us and vice versa. I wonder, hypothetically speaking, how we would feel if Iran invaded Mexico and then accused the US of supporting the insurgents fighting Iran's rule.
I don't think the Iranians have done much to help themselves but remember they have faced US sanctions for years. they could not buy US made planes or spare parts, they have funds frozen. They did what a proud nation does: fought back by becoming a regional thorn against our interests. Surprisingly they were helpful during the first phase of the war when we were engaged in Afghanistant. That appears to have been forgotten.
We have this capacity for overlooking our friends'transgressions. They too arm insurgents in Iraq. But now they have become our insurgents. (the people whose citizens made up the bulk of the 9/11 hijackers). The land of the Pyramids helpfully torture people for us , etc etc. I see very little difference between them and Iran except that our friends are Sunnis and Iran is predominantly Shia.
As for Iran's policy against Israel: that ought to be source for international attention.
Mary wrote on September 6, 2007 11:26 AM:Who draws the cartoons for AEI now that Zinsmeister has moved on to White House staff?
regular lurker wrote on September 6, 2007 11:34 AM:Friendly reminder: Condoleezza Rice was an "expert" but couldn't even get the name of Russia correct. Stop giving these people credit where none is due.
Just because AEI labels someone like Reuel Marc Gerecht or any of the other bone headed "scholars" parading themselves out there as "experts" doesn't mean they deserve print space in a paper.
Militarily engaging Iran is a folly created out of the deranged and deluded minds of arrogant and ignorant people who think they're important. Stop making them important.
Stop thinking of them as experts.
They're not experts. They're lobbyists.
Anonymous wrote on September 6, 2007 11:41 AM:"One of the good things that might come from a Democratic victory in 2008 is that center-left/left-wing journalists, i.e., the vast majority of journalists, might actually know somebody well enough in the government to make this conspiratorial reflex less acute." Apparently he knows as little of his own country as he knows about Iran: "center-left/left-wing journalists, i.e., the vast majority of journalists", what a putz. But then, reality does have a left wing slant, like Colbert says.
Todd in the OC wrote on September 6, 2007 11:57 AM:(sigh)...an statement by a neocon is like listening to the radio with the sound off. What's the point?
The institution is given to the "noble lie." That's their whole raison detre at this point, and until they get the neocon influence out of their institution, they can be relied upon to say the most pro-war crap they can muster. Even if it means shading it with enough doubt to get the gullible going along.
Their credibility is looooong gone. Why does this guy have a column? Why does anyone give Kristol a mic anymore?
moondancer wrote on September 6, 2007 12:06 PM:Good post regular lurker. I've always thought of these so called think tanks as glorified agencies for talking heads. No scholars, just pitchmen.
trank wrote on September 6, 2007 12:09 PM:the first quote above has a broken line structure suggesting it was emailed back and forth in different formats. maybe he had to send it off and get it edited before he sent it in.
Dave wrote on September 6, 2007 12:25 PM:Comparing Obama's speculative pick with Dick Cheney, is clearly not a fair analogy at all, how much more apples to oranges does it get? Telling me what an honest person would do certainly doesn't convince me that Cheney wouldn't either.
Dan D wrote on September 6, 2007 12:27 PM:So newsweek just happens to contact him if he's interested in writing about Iran this week?
See, Rubin is not claiming each neo-con gets instructions directly from the VP in some grand meeting of the order of water buffalos. The RWNM is much more subtle than that. There's a lot of implied queues and rumours and indirect messaging.
Perhaps the message from Cheney is more like "The VP is very serious about Iran this week" and the AEI types all know what that means, while maintaining deniability that they were "told" to write about Iran.
Raven Vieux-Jeanton wrote on September 6, 2007 12:36 PM:Actually, he doesn't say Cheney didn't tell him what to write.
He says the VP didn't.
Sharpshooter himself doesn't have to give the marching orders at AEI.
That's what Lynn's there for, after all...
gonzone wrote on September 6, 2007 1:07 PM:"center-left/left-wing journalists, i.e., the vast majority of journalists"
Here he had me giving him the benefit of the doubt until I read that piece of garbage.
apropos code word : PLEASE
A wrote on September 6, 2007 1:38 PM:Gerecht: "FYI: I don't know of a single instance of the VP's office trying to encourage commentary from AEI staff."
Yea, let's not forget: they (VP's Office) didn't tell Bob Novak to write about Valery Plame & Ambassador Wilson either, or did they?
spike wrote on September 6, 2007 1:58 PM:(I know, Bob Novak doesn't work for AEI, so Gerecht may be right. Right.)
It's probably true that Gerecht did not get orders on what to write. The point is that he would not have his job if he didn't already know what to write.
jak1 wrote on September 6, 2007 6:07 PM:>>And on a side note, I wouldn't be so sure that the VP and his principals want to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. I've known a few folks from that office over the years, and I wouldn't say that confidently.<<
Is he saying that he wouldn't say that with the confidence that that is really what they want to do?
Or is he saying that he wouldn't say that as their confident, saying what they want him to say for them confidently.
After all he is talking about the Veeps 'principles', not his underlings.
paul wrote on September 7, 2007 10:21 AM:Of course the VP's office doesn't have to encourage commentary from the AEI staff. Same way that Lockheed Martin doesn't have to encourage its PR department to issue press releases. They're part of the same organization, with common goals and a common knowledge base.
This is like a denial that a quarterback has encouraged a wide receiver to catch the ball.
useful idiot wrote on September 8, 2007 3:56 PM:oldtree, you so right. Gerecht's response was such an energetically crafted denial. That every action has an equal an opposite reaction doesn't apply just to physics.
They must give classes at the AEI on 'art' of denial. In fact, the methodology of denial has been elevated to a science.
Perhaps, most laughable is the line 'I said sure. Actually, I almost said "no" since I was in the midst of an international move and had no time.' Wait a second, 'Sure' I will do it, seems a bit incongruous with 'I have no time.' Implied result: 'Ah, shucks, what the heck ... I'll write something for you.'
With the Obama analogy Gerecht creates the a bit of 'straw man', or, perhaps, more of a smoke screen in which he turns the argument around on the questioner and uses the rebuttal to politely say 'phuck off'.