RSSUsing PayPal
Larry Wilkerson Erases Any Doubts About Cheney-Rumsfeld Cabal in Tomorrow Morning's Los Angeles Times
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Tuesday, Oct 25 2005, 12:02AM
CLOSE 
SOCIAL WEBSITES
http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://twn.riverlab.com/archives/2005/10/larry_wilkerson/&title=Larry Wilkerson Erases Any Doubts About Cheney-Rumsfeld Cabal in Tomorrow Morning's Los Angeles Times&topic=political_opinion" target="_blank">Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Facebook
Newsvine
Stumble UponEMAIL THIS ARTICLE
I have just been tipped off that the Los Angeles Times plans to run a rip-the-veneer-off the White House cabal op-ed by Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former State Department Chief of Staff, in the morning.
I have read it...It's 998 words of honest patriotism that Americans need to hear -- and 998 tons of dynamite on the Executive Office of the President.
Here is a short teaser, but you must read the entire article in the Los Angeles Times that I will link as soon as it us up:
But many of the most crucial decisions from 2001 to 2005 were not made within the NSC process.Scholars and knowledgeable critics of America's decision-making process may rightly say, so what? Haven't all of our presidents in the last half century failed to conform to the statutory process at one time or another? Isn't it the President's prerogative to make decisions with whomever he pleases? Moreover, can he not ignore whomever he pleases? Why should we care that President Bush gave over much of the critical decision-making to his vice president and his secretary of defense?
Both as a former academic and as a person who has been in the ring with the bull, I believe there are two reasons we should care. First, such departures from the statutory process have in the past led us into a host of disasters, including the last years of the Vietnam War, the Iran-Contra scandal, and now the ruinous foreign policy of George W. Bush.
That's not even the best part, or even the second best part.
I'll post more on this important article in the morning.
And catch the post below. Dick Cheney was Libby's source. Do you remember Bush demanding that his staff tell him who did it?
President Bush and Cheney have deceived the American public about Valerie Plame Wilson and her covert role on behalf of the national security interests of this nation -- and they did this during a time of war. Their words.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - Libby's Source Was Vice President Richard Cheney -- Not Journalists» Next Article - Lawrence Wilkerson Blasts "The White House Cabal" in Los Angeles Times
Well, someone should ask Bush II if he did know and if he did not know , why the F* not?
I have a feeling that the WH already decided they will hunker down and wait for the storm to pass by then pardon everyone, bring in a new crew and declare it is a new day.
I agree. When did the president find out and when did he intend to tell us. He was never bound by any "ongoing investigation" to refrain from asking his staff independently or taking action once he found out.
They say these stupid words over and over and eventually people believe it.
Every time they duck a question with something like "ongoing investigation" the media should say "evaded answering our questions" as opposed to quoting them.
dack,
better late than never... and he can help provide respectibility to fitzgerald's charges (if any). i'm just a little worried that bush isn't being held responsible and my tinfoil had says that the focus on cheney helps deflect attention from rove and the president.
i've been trying to read between the lines for too long now. if this helps push us towards a more open and honest government.... i can overlook my other concerns.
Fitzmas won't eclipse what Wilkerson has said today. And people thought that Brent Scowcroft's remarks were startling....
My favorite lines: "At least once a week, it seemed, Powell trooped over to the Oval Office and cleaned all the dog poop off the carpet. He held a youthful, inexperienced president's hand. He told him everything would be all right because he, the secretary of State, would fix it."
"...including the last years of the Vietnam War."
Wilkerson is a horse's ass.
The early years of the Vitnam War are no problem for him. The early years of the Vietnam war, under 'liberal' leadership didn't lead to 'disaster' in Wilkerson's mind.
He's just a grotesque apologist for war. He seems quite troubled that W's war will give war a bad name.
Jimi, he never said the early years were no problem for him. But the later years, the Nixon years -- well, that's after everyone knew it was pointless but they still kept the killing going. During the Johnson phase you know at least some of the dimbulbs believed there *was* a light at the end of the tunnel.
Due respect, but I disagree.
The Pentagon Papers show that going back into the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, the war planners were well aware that any political solution acceptable to a majority of Vitnamese was going to lead to 'Communist victory' -- they knew there was no light ahead.
Without letting Nixon (and the hideous Kissenger) of the hook, it's more than clear that Johnson and Kennedy were both quite adept at telling lies to the public to continue their war.
Kennedy also had the benefit of the fact that there was no real opposition to the war during his tenure -- He could bomb Vietnam and hardly an American would raise their voice to complain, making the lies and subverion that would be perfected in future administrations less necessary for the attacks' prosecution...
yeah, jimi, the "light" at the end of the tunnel was an oncoming train/
Oh come on now....the uno numbero is the President and obviously this one and many others 'to be' are incompetent but that uno numero is the "chief".. said and done and are ultimately responsible. That 'one' just has to be in charge and held accountable! Although that doesn't excuse those involved in 'WHIG' or 'NAP'
They will all say 'what me? it was 'him'/her' or them'.
How to fix all this...I am exasperated and do not know but this could be a good start.
To be fair, Wilkerson's point was quite narrow -- the departure from the decision-making process prescribed by the National Security Act. Frankly, I don't give a dog's poop whether Wilkerson does or does not have a problem with the way Johnson or Kennedy conducted their wars. Wilkerson is nuking a sitting president, veep and secdef.
Reader Comments (12) - post a comment