User loginLive Discussions
Google search Most popular threads
Weekly Archives
Blog linksALLABOUTGEORGE.com |
Maye is innocent Tip jarFor entertainment onlyThe Public LibraryReality checksNews sourcesLink CollectionsDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Who's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 4 guests online.
Online users
...Syndicate |
duh librul mejah
Secret Iraq Meeting Included Journalists It was the kind of shadowy, secret Washington meeting that Bob Woodward is fond of describing in detail. In his new book, “State of Denial,” he writes that on Nov. 29, 2001, a dozen policy makers, Middle East experts and members of influential policy research organizations gathered in Virginia at the request of Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense. Their objective was to produce a report for President Bush and his cabinet outlining a strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11. What was more unusual, Mr. Woodward reveals, was the presence of journalists at the meeting. Fareed Zakaria, the editor of Newsweek International and a Newsweek columnist, and Robert D. Kaplan, now a national correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, attended the meeting and, according to Mr. Kaplan, signed confidentiality agreements not to discuss what happened. While members of policy research groups often dispense advice to administration officials, journalists do not typically attend secret meetings or help compile government reports. Indeed, many Washington journalists complain that the current administration keeps them at an unhealthy distance. Mr. Zakaria takes issue with Mr. Woodward’s account, saying that while he attended the meeting for several hours, he does not recall being told that a report would be produced. “I thought it was a brainstorming session,” he said. “I was never told that there was going to be a document summarizing our views and I have never seen such a document.” (Mr. Woodward wrote that the report, which supported the invasion of Iraq, caused Mr. Bush to focus on the “malignancy” of the Middle East situation.) Mr. Kaplan said much of the meeting was spent drafting and reworking the document, which in the end carried the names of all 12 participants and was “a forceful summary of some of the best pro-war arguments at the time.” Could any of the participants have been unaware there was a document in the making? “No, that’s not possible,” he said. ...because the journalists
...because the journalists who attended the meeting were all in favor of the war and they are still in favor of the war despite their protestations to the contrary.
reply
LOL. secret meetings between the press and government to lay out a "united front" on a war...where does Woodward come up with this stuff?
Folks who are in general agreement about how the world runs or how it should run or be run don't have any need to conspire about much of anything. The journalists who were invited to the meeting were invited because they were and are in general agreement about geopolitical issues with the folks who invited them to the meeting and, more importantly, with the folks who pay their salaries or they would not have been elevated to the positions they hold.
That's right. Zakaria said he didn't know they were creating a document, not that he wasn't there helping out.
Zakaria's declaration that he attended the meeting but didn't know that a document was being produced is typical of the sort of double-speak that Orwell wrote about. The point is that Zakaria was in attendance and assisted in the development of 'talking points" and other intellectual rationales that would be offered in defense of the American War in Iraq. It hardly matters whether Zakaria knew or did not know that a report based on the topics and issues discussed at this meeting would be drafted. If I was a gangster and attended a sit-down where folks talked about killing "Bob" it doesn't matter whether I knew "Bob" would be shot in front of his family or not. I cannot do here - is make jokes about stuff like this. I don't doubt this take by Woodward. Why y'all wanna du me like that?? In fact, I don't think it's as novel an approach as the author suggests. The United States government has waged war in so many instances that we cannot recount the instances here...and has universally enjoyed the support of the "free press" at the initial stages of these "conflicts"...Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Somalia, etc. And, if they decided to go to Iran - they'd have universal support - and if they decided to go to Cuba - they'd have that support - and you pick the country. In many respects, the "journalists" don't need to be invited to the meeting because their future positions are past positions and are entirely predictable. I don't know how relevant this is...but, a colleague was sharing with me her feeling that Kim Jong Il's attitude is likely a mere willingness to thumb his nose at the US because he wants to express his disdain for the West. Aside from the fact that this is a profoundly childish interpretation of international politics - it flies in the face of those other heads of state who had no other agenda than thumbing their nose at America - and because of this, they each constituted a non-negotiable threat to the safety of dumb white chicks walking the streets of Dubuque. This list of incendiary DTK's (Dudes to Kill - or at least displace) included Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Maommar Khadafi, Mohammed Farah Aidid, Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro and others. Mandela and the ANC used to be on this list because they refused to renounce their right to violence. Venezuelan president Chavez is on this list. Iran's president is on this list. Diplomacy is not really an option. Bush says he remains committed to diplomacy in North Korea, but the terms of all discussions have been established in a manner that would curry support for parking the Sixth Fleet just outside of Kim's window. Folks like Jan Smuts never get on this list. Folks like Hitler only get on this list after pushing the envelope a bit too far...but, we know how far you have to go to get on this list if you're European. Given zenpundit's exhaustive references to stay-at-home armies in Europe after WWII, not much has risen above a murmur beyond the IRA. Love your point about killing Bob. That's always been my point about Kennedy and Lumumba.
Sooner or later everyone takes me to task about this. Side effect of making no assumptions, which attitude I was compelled to assume by circumstance. Post new comment |
|
This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye
|
||
