Powell’s UN Fiasco: Fresh and Festering

By Ray McGovern

Yesterday was a difficult day for Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. It was hard to celebrate the fifth anniversary of our first corporate memorandum, a same-day critique of Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2002 UN address, when we could not escape the reality that this speech greased the skids for death and destruction in Iraq and brought unprecedented shame on our country. We found no solace in the realization that those who saw our analysis should have seen disaster coming.

A handful of former CIA intelligence officers joined me in forming the VIPS movement in Jan. 2002, after we concluded that our profession had been corrupted to “justify” what was, pure and simple, a war of aggression. Little did we know at the time that a month later Colin Powell, with then-CIA Director George Tenet plumped down conspicuously behind him, would provide the world with a textbook example of careerism and cowardice in cooking intelligence to the recipe of his master.

Powell’s Prior Practice

It was hardly Powell’s first display of such behavior.

Those able to look past the medals and ribbons have been able to trace a pattern of malleability back to Powell’s early days as a young Army officer in Vietnam, and then in the 1980s as an Iran-Contra accomplice together with his boss Casper Weinberger, then secretary of defense. Weinberger was indicted for perjury but escaped trial when pardoned by George H. W. Bush on Christmas Eve 1992. [See Chapter 8 of Robert Parry’s new book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, for more on Powell’s proclivity to pander.]

A year before his UN speech Powell winked at the introduction of torture into the Army’s repertoire, rather than confront President George W. Bush personally on the pressure that Vice President Dick Cheney was exerting to conjure up legal wiggle-room for torture. Instead, Powell merely asked State Department lawyers to engage White House lawyers Alberto Gonzales and Cheney-favorite David Addington, in what Powell knew would be—absent his personal involvement— a quixotic effort.

Powell’s lawyers put in writing his concern that making an end-run around the Geneva protections for prisoners of war “could undermine U.S. military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat, and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries.” Well, he got that right.

But when Gonzales and Addington simply declared parts of Geneva “quaint” and “obsolete,” Powell caved, acquiescing in the corruption of the Army to which he owed so much. We know the next chapters of that story—Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Powell’s instincts were right, but he lacked the strength of his convictions. It turns out that this key instance of abject obeisance—important as it was in its own right—was just practice for the super bowl at the UN.

VIPS’ Maiden Effort

When those of us in our fledgling VIPS movement learned that Powell would address the UN on Feb. 5, 2003, we decided to do a same-day analytic assessment—the kind we used to do when someone like Khrushchev, or Gorbachev, or Gromyko, or Mao Tse-dung, or Castro gave a major address. We were well accustomed to the imperative to beat the media with our commentary. Coordinating our Powell draft via email, at 5:15 p.m. we issued VIPS’ first Memorandum for the President: “Subject: Today’s Speech by Secretary Powell at the UN.”

Our understanding at that time was far from perfect. It was not yet completely clear to us, for example, that Saddam Hussein had for the most part been abiding by, rather than flouting, UN resolutions. We stressed, though, that the key question was whether any of this justified war:

“This is the question the world is asking. Secretary Powell’s presentation does not come close to answering it.”

We warned the president of the “politicization of intelligence” and the deep analytical flaws that inevitably follow, for example:

“Intelligence community analysts are finding it hard to make themselves heard above the drumbeat for war…”

“Your Pentagon advisers draw a connection between war with Iraq and terrorism, but for the wrong reasons. The connection takes on much more reality in a post-US invasion scenario. (bold in original) Indeed, it is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future. Far from eliminating the threat it would enhance it exponentially.”

Dissociating VIPS from Powell’s bravado claim that the evidence he presented was “irrefutable,” we noted that no one has a corner on the truth and ended our memo for President Bush with this observation:

“…after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond violations of Resolution 1441, and beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”

Senator Clinton Knew

Five years later, we take no pleasure at having been right; we take considerable pain at having been ignored. The impending debacle was a no-brainer, and serious specialists like former UN inspector Scott Ritter, to his credit, were shouting it from the rooftops.

What follows is more than a mere footnote. It is not widely known that our Feb. 5, 2003 memorandum analyzing Powell’s speech was shared with the junior senator from New York. Thus, she still had plenty of time to raise her voice before the Bush administration launched the fateful attack on Iraq on March 19.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. A former Army officer and veteran of 27 years in the analytic ranks of CIA, he is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. VIPS’ issuances are listed below; complete texts of all 16 can be found at afterdowningstreet.org/vips.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Issuances

1 Memorandum for the President, February 5, 2003

 “Secretary Powell’s Presentation to the UN Today”

2 Memorandum for Confused Americans, March 12, 2003

 “Cooking Intelligence for War”

3 Memorandum for the President, March 18, 2003

 “Forgery, Hyperbole, Half-Truth: A Problem”

4 Memorandum, March 26, 2003

 “Arafat Interviewed by the Christisons on Current Impasse”

5 Memorandum, April 24, 2003

 “The Stakes in the Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction”

6 Memorandum for the President, May 1, 2003

 “Intelligence Fiasco”

7 Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, May 19, 2003

 “On UN Inspectors and Weapons of Mass Destruction”

8 Memorandum for the President, July 14, 2003

 “Intelligence Unglued”

9 Memorandum for Colleagues in Intelligence, August 22, 2003

  “Now It’s Your Turn”

10 Memorandum for Colleagues in Intelligence, October 13, 2003

 “One Person Can Make a Difference”

11 Memorandum for the President, January 13, 2004

 “Your State-of-the-Union Address”

12 Memorandum for the President, August 24, 2005

 “Recommendation: Try A Circle of ‘Wise Women’”

13 Memorandum for Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader

 “Denouement on Iraq: First Stop the Bleeding, March 14, 2007

14 Memorandum, March 29, 2007

 “Brinkmanship Unwise in Uncharted Waters”

15 Memorandum, June 17, 2007

 “Countering Terrorism—How Not to Do It”

16 Memorandum, July 27, 2007

 “Dangers of a Cornered George Bush”

——————————————————

An earlier version of this article appeared yesterday at Consortiumnews.com.

My hair stood on end when I heard Clay Johnson’s name. Here’s what I wrote about Johnson in April 2005:
 

Buried deep in the reams of the new budget is a “sunset” provision that will permit a small commission — it will be a commission comprised of lobbyists and corporate executives — to kill the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, even the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The arch-assassin is Bush’s longtime friend Clay Johnson, “the most influential member of Bush’s inner circle whom you’ve never heard of,” and the Director of the obscure Office of Management and Budget.

[...]

Clay Johnson is an old hand at seizing power from bureaucratic government entities:

When Bush was elected governor of Texas in 1994, he put the buddy he calls “Big Man” — Johnson is six feet four — in charge of all state appointments. Johnson, a former executive at Neiman Marcus and Frito-Lay, refers to Americans as “customers” and is partial to Chamber of Commerce bromides such as “We’re in the results business.”

He is also partial to giving corporate lobbyists a direct role in gutting regulatory protections.

One of his first acts in Texas was to remove all three members of the state environmental-protection commission and replace them with a former Monsanto executive, an official with the Texas Beef Council and a lawyer for the oil industry.

Overnight, a commission widely respected for its impartiality became a “revolving door between the industry lobby and government,” says Jim Marston, the senior attorney in Texas for the nonprofit organization Environmental Defense.

[NOTE: The photo and pullquote are from the PBS Frontline profile of Clay Johnson.]

Great. Imagine Clay Johnson in charge of the responsibilities of the Dept. of Homeland Security:

Emergency preparedness and response (for both terrorism and natural disasters), including volunteer medical, police, Emergency Management and fire personnel;

Domestic intelligence activities, largely today within the FBI;

Critical infrastructure protection;

Border security, including both land and maritime borders;

Transportation security, including aviation and maritime transportation;
Biodefense;

Detection of nuclear and radiological materials;

Research on next-generation security technologies.

Imagine the audacity of it: “One of his first acts in Texas was to remove all three members of the state environmental-protection commission and replace them with a former Monsanto executive, an official with the Texas Beef Council and a lawyer for the oil industry.”

And he’d be in charge of FEMA? Might as well name a hurricane to head FEMA.

(If I have more time, I’ll search more for the specific things that Clay Johnson’s under-rated (in terms of its power) OMB has done to undermine the federal agencies under the umbrella of Homeland Security. Or if you do, please go for it. A great site to start is OMBWatch.org, an unsung but vital watch group.)

EARLIER: From MSNBC’s First Read:

A group of House Democrats will introduce a resolution calling on the Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) will sponsor the measure. It will be dropped in
the hopper tomorrow. It’s too early to say whether it will actually get anywhere. Here’s the text of resolution…

RESOLUTION
Directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether
Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, should be
impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
1 Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary shall
2 investigate fully whether sufficient grounds exist for the
3 House of Representatives to impeach Alberto R. Gonzales,
4 Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes
5 and misdemeanors.

Of note: Rep. Inslee represents parts of Seattle and Bainbridge Island and is widely considered a moderate Democrat. Rep. Inslee, who is heading Hillary Clinton’s campaign in Washington state, is a longtime friend of Joe Wilson. The two men studied international affairs at the University of Washington, I believe. Rep. Inslee held the forum in 2003 at which Joe Wilson memorably expressed his wish that Karl Rove be “frogmarched” from the White House in handcuffs.

More legislation:

FAMILY LEAVE FOR FAMILIES OF AMERICA’S WOUNDED WARRIORS

Hillary joins Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and other senators today to introduce legislation to extend the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for up to six months for spouses and parents of soldiers who have been injured in combat.

The Clinton-Mikulski bill addresses a key recommendation of the Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors.

“The families of our servicemen and women face extraordinary demands as they struggle to care for loved ones injured in service to our nation. It is clear that they are not receiving the support they need and this is a step we can make immediately that will make a real difference.” Hillary said.

This bill continues Hillary’s support for family leave over the years, ensuring that families can take time to care for their loved ones without fear of losing their jobs. The Clinton-Mikulski bill was endorsed by the National Partnership for Women & Families, the organization that drafted and led the fight to pass the Family & Medical Leave Act.

For full details of this important legislation, click here.

“It is in justice that the ordering of society is centered,” wrote Aristotle. If so, Alberto Gonzales is a f–king anarchist.

“I believe that justice is instinct and innate; the moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as the threat of feeling, seeing and hearing,” wrote Thomas Jefferson. If so, Alberto Gonzales is blind, deaf, dumb, and unfeeling to a sociopathic extreme.

It’s not often that the cerebral reporter Josh Marshall writes such a frothy, angry headline: “Gonzales to Schumer: Blow Me.” Marshall continues: “It’s a genuinely sad day when you have the chief law enforcement officer of country remaining in office after he’s been publicly and repeatedly shown to be a liar. … [Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy] suggested committee staff will review the Attorney General’s testimony to see if his deceptions merit charges of perjury being brought against him.”

 
Marshall, at his blog Talking Points Memo, writes, “We’ve got a slew of video clips of key exchanges in today’s coverage at Muckraker. But this one stands out for me, even though in some ways it’s not the most egregious case.”

In this exchange Sen. Schumer (D) asks Gonzales who sent him and Andy Card to John Ashcroft’s bedside. And Gonzales just refuses to answer. He keeps repeating that they went “on behalf” of the president. But he won’t say if the president sent them. He just won’t answer.

Schumer notes the key point: Gonzales isn’t even asserting any kind of privilege. He doesn’t say he can’t remember. He just won’t answer.

Marshall concludes, “[I]t’s simply not permitted to refuse to answer a question. It is quite literally contempt of Congress.”

The Bush administration clearly has contempt for Congress, for its rivaling branches of government, and for judicial “order.” As for a “moral sense”? Please. So whence cometh this contempt? Cheney’s cabal have surely been the masterminds, but the writings of John Yoo, former White House and DoJ attorney and now a professor at UC Berkeley, have abetted the rise of an unbalanced, imperial presidency.

Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional law and civil rights attorney as well as blogger, says Yoo is “not only the most authoritarian but also the most partisan and intellectually dishonest lawyer in the country.”

Partisan and intellectually dishonest:

Yoo is not only willing — but intensely eager — to defend literally anything George W. Bush does or would want to do, including — literally — torturing people and crushing the testicles of children if the Leader decreed that doing so was necessary to fight Terrorists. Yoo, of course, is a principal author of most of the radical executive power theories which have eroded our constitutional framework over the last six years.

In defending the President, Yoo’s Op-Ed yesterday touts the grave importance of Executive Privilege and makes all the claims one would expect. He stresses the “president’s right to keep internal executive discussions confidential”; proclaims that “without secrecy, the government can’t function”; compares Bush’s assertions to George Washington’s; and concludes that by asserting Executive Privilege (nowhere mentioned in the Constitution), Bush “has the Constitution on his side.”

But this isn’t the first Op-Ed Yoo has written on the topic of Executive Privilege for the Wall St. Journal. Back in 1998, when Bill Clinton was asserting the same privilege to resist Congressional demands that his closest aides testify about the President’s deliberations in responding to the various Lewinsky investigations, Yoo became one of the leading spokespeople denouncing the assertion of this privilege.

On March 2, 1998, Yoo wrote an Op-Ed (sub. req’d) for the WSJ Editorial Page (which back then also opposed the privilege only now to depict it as the anchor of a Free Government). In denouncing Clinton’s executive privilege assertions, Yoo began his op-ed this way:

James Madison wrote that a “popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both.”

That is the same Yoo who, under the Bush presidency, has become a virtually absolute defender of presidential secrecy. Yoo continued:

Reports that President Clinton may invoke executive privilege to block the investigation into the Monica Lewinsky affair have elements of both. . . .

Partisan and intellectually dishonest: That’s the fitting description of Yoo and of Alberto Gonzales. It’s fun to rant that “Alberto Gonzales is blind, deaf, dumb, and unfeeling to a sociopathic extreme.” But “partisan and intellectually dishonest” is the most on-target description.

Dana Milbank writes for today’s Washington Post:

After four hours of questioning Attorney General Alberto Gonzales yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee didn’t even require a vote to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Congress is in contempt of Gonzales.

Consider some of the invective directed at the attorney general as he sat hunched and grim at the witness table:

“The department is dysfunctional. . . . Every week a new issue arises. . . . That is just decimating, Mr. Attorney General. . . . The list goes on and on. . . . Is your department functioning? . . . What credibility is left for you? . . . Do you expect us to believe that? . . . Your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable.”

And that was just from the top Republican on the committee, Arlen Specter (Pa.). Democrats had to scramble to keep up with the ranking member’s contempt. … [Milbank then quotes Democratic committee members' remarks.]

:::::::::::::

Of note: The equally “partisan, intellectually dishonest” Faux News yesterday reported that Sen. Specter is a Democrat, along with other falsehoods:

Angle’s report on Gonzales hearing falsely identified Specter as a Democrat

On the July 24 edition of Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume, on-screen text identified Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) as a Democrat during a report from chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ July 24 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The text appeared during footage of Specter telling Gonzales that the committee would be reviewing his testimony about a May 10, 2004, confrontation over the Bush administration’s warrantless domestic wiretapping program to “see if your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable.” Angle introduced the footage of Specter as an example of “other[]” senators who “urged the attorney general to correct his testimony, vaguely warning of legal action.” At no time during Angle’s report did anyone say that Specter was, in fact, a Republican.

Host Brit Hume, in his preview of Angle’s report on the hearing, said that Gonzales “end[ed] up being called untrustworthy and a liar by Senate Democrats.” Angle’s report mentioned only one other senator by name, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), as criticizing Gonzales. Rockefeller was identified as “the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence committee” in 2004. …

As well as being “partisan, intellectually dishonest,” I gather Faux News’s reporters are also back-in-time travelers to the good ol’ days of a Republican majority.

:::::::::::

Today’s Progress Report has a great backgrounder on the issues surrounding Gonzales’s testimony yesterday.

SPECTER THREATENS MORE ACTION: In June, a majority of the Senate expressed its desire to see the body take a no-confidence vote on Gonzales. The Washington Post writes, “At what point does someone lose so much credibility that he should no longer serve in public office?” Specter yesterday appeared to raise the possibility of bringing perjury charges against Gonzales, arguing, “Your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable.” Time reports, “Specter wryly noted to reporters during a break that there is a jail in the Capitol complex.” Specter also “raised the stakes for Gonzales and the administration yesterday by suggesting that a special prosecutor may be needed” if Gonzales and the White House continue to thwart congressional oversight.