Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

Archive for the ‘Doug Feith’ Category

The F***ing Stupidest Liar on the Face of the Earth

Posted by MEC on April 6, 2007

That would be former Under Secretary of Defense Doug Feith.

Newly released documents confirm that a Pentagon unit knowingly cooked up intelligence claiming a direct link between Iraq and al-Qaeda in order to win support for a preemptive strike against the country.

A report prepared by the Defense Department’s Inspector General for Carl Levin, the Democratic Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, explicitly shows how former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith used his defense department position to cook intelligence claiming a connection between the terrorist organization and Saddam Hussein’s regime.


Documents released in conjunction with the inspector general’s findings include a July 25, 2002 memorandum and briefing from Feith’s Office of Special Plans titled “Iraq and al-Qaida: Making the Case” that claimed a “mature, symbiotic relationship [between Iraq and al-Qaida]” existed.

But according to the IG’s declassified report, “a Senior Intelligence Analyst working in the Joint Intelligence Task Force-Combating Terrorism (JITF-CT) countered point-by-point, each instance of an alleged tie between Iraq and al-Qaida …”

It shouldn’t surprise anybody who’s been paying attention that Feith isn’t merely a liar, he’s a law-breaking liar.

In a statement released in February, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Intelligence, said, “the Senate intelligence committee was never informed of these activities. Whether these actions were authorized or not, it appears that they were not in compliance with the law.”

Posted in anti-truth, Doug Feith, Iraq war, liars | 2 Comments »

Cranberg Speaks. You Listen.

Posted by Phoenix Woman on February 10, 2007

I first heard about Gilbert Cranberg during the height of “CoupGate” — aka the GOP/Media Complex’s insane get-Clinton orgy which lasted the better part of the 1990s and which the GOP/Media Complex still clings to like a scag addict clings to his needle.  His “Getting It Wrong on Whitewater” is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand just how badly — and how willfully — America’s corporate press got it wrong.  Anyone who wonders why I keep referring to Upton Sinclair’s most famous utterance need only study the writings of Cranberg, Conason and Lyons on Whitewater to understand.  That is, so long as they’re not paid not to understand. 

 This piece, on the shameful performance of the US media with regard to Iraq, reminds me that I need to put Nieman Watchdog in my blogroll.  A key excerpt: 

The fundamental question: Why did the press as a whole fail to question sufficiently the administration’s case for war?


More specifically:


Q. Why did the Knight Ridder Washington Bureau’s “against-the grain reporting” during the build-up to war receive such “disappointing play,” in the words of its former bureau chief?


Q. Why did the press generally fail to pay more attention to the bureau’s ground-breaking coverage?


Q. Why, on the eve of war, did the Washington Post’s executive editor reject a story by Walter Pincus, its experienced and knowledgeable national security reporter, that questioned administration claims of hidden Iraqi weapons and why, when the editor reconsidered, the story ran  on Page 17?


Q. Why did the Post, to the “dismay” of the paper’s ombudsman, bury in the back pages or miss stories that challenged the administration’s version of events? Or, as Pincus complained, why did Post editors go “through a whole phase in which they didn’t put things on the front page that would make a difference” while, from August 2002 to the start of the war in March 2003, did the Post, according to its press critic, Howard Kurtz, publish “more than 140 front-page stories that focused heavily on administration rhetoric against Iraq”?


Q. Why did Michael Massing’s critique of Iraq-war coverage, in the New York Review of Books, conclude that “The Post was not alone. The nearer the war drew, and the more determined the administration seemed to wage it, the less editors were willing to ask tough questions. The occasional critical stories that did appear were…tucked well out of sight.”


Q. Why did the New York Times and others parrot administration claims about Iraq’s acquisition of aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons when independent experts were readily available to debunk the claims?


Q. Why did the Times’s Thomas E. Friedman and other foreign affairs specialists, who should have known better, join the “let’s-go-to-war” chorus?


Q. Why was a report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace accusing the administration of misusing intelligence by misrepresenting and distorting it given two paragraphs in the Times and 700 words in the Post (but deep inside), with neither story citing the report’s reference to distorted and misrepresented intelligence?


Q. Why did Colin Powell’s pivotal presentation to the United Nations receive immediate and overwhelming press approval despite its evident weaknesses and even fabrications?


Q. Why did the British press, unlike its American counterpart, critically dissect the speech and regard it with scorn?


Q. Why did the Associated Press wait six months, when the body count began to rise, to distribute a major piece by AP’s Charles Hanley challenging Powell’s evidence and why did Hanley say how frustrating it had been until then to break through the self-censorship imposed by his editors on negative news about Iraq?

Why, indeed.

Cranberg suggests convening a group of social scientists to study what went wrong.  I suggest that one need merely contrast how the press actively fought against what they called Clinton’s “wag the dog” military interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo with the pathetic lapdog eagerness which they signed onto Bush’s far bigger (and far less justified) full-scale war, invasion, and occupation of Iraq.   Then one needs to examine the big tax and regulatory breaks given to media corporations over the past few decades by the GOP, beginning with the abolishing of the Fairness Doctrine by Ronald Reagan in 1987.

Which again, brings me back to Upton Sinclair

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it!

Posted in beat the press, BushCo malfeasance, distractions, Doug Feith, GOP bullying, GOP/Media Complex, Iraq war, madness of King George, mediawhores, Upton Sinclair | Comments Off on Cranberg Speaks. You Listen.

Oh, Here’s a Surprise

Posted by MEC on February 9, 2007

From The Guardian:
Pentagon report to condemn ‘inappropriate’ Iraq intelligence

The Pentagon’s inspector general was expected to criticise Douglas Feith, the third most senior official in the US defence department from July 2001 to August 2005, for “inappropriate”, but not illegal, intelligence activities.


Mr Feith, who resigned in 2005, was a major cheerleader for invading Iraq, to the irritation of some of the Pentagon’s generals. General Tommy Franks, the military commander of the 2003 war in Iraq, once referred to Mr Feith as “the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth”.

Leaked excerpts from a summary of the report said Mr Feith’s office drew on “both reliable and unreliable” intelligence reports in 2002 to produce a link between al-Qaida and Iraq “that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [intelligence community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the administration”.

The Pentagon inspector general stated that the office of special plans produced intelligence assessments “inconsistent” with, and far more conclusive than the US intelligence consensus.

Shorter version: “The facts were fixed around the policy”.

Posted in anti-truth, Doug Feith, government malfeasance, Iraq war, Pentagon | 2 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: