"It blows the roof off of the White House."

Yes, but apart from your faithful readers will anyone else notice....or actually care?

wow...! first rate... i just watched it all and, at a couple points, particularly when he was talking about prisoner abuse, i found myself tearing up... thanks... i will blog the link immediately...

p.s. here's the link to my post...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2005/10/former-state-dept-chief-of-staff.html

I've watched half--paused for a break before the questions. This is fascinating, and I love his emphasis on transparency.

Got me to thinking--just imagine if, at least some of the time, the west wing was on a cable broadcast--W-Span, like C-Span only executive.

Imagine the accountability.

Back for the rest...

vaughan >"...just imagine if, at least some of the time, the west wing was on a cable broadcast--W-Span, like C-Span only executive.

Imagine the accountability..."

"We, the people..." deserve nothing but the best & ARE the major stakeholders so "We, the people..." should just "make it so"

"Let everyone sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

steve,
the ft already has the transcript...
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c925a686-40f4-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html

The FT transcript isn't complete and it's missing a lot, but I still got chills. Can't wait for the final product.

I've watched it all. Thoughts:

* Just how tall IS Steve Clemons, anyway? Or is Larry Wilkerson just short?

* I was (and I imagine the audience too) eating up the inside critiques of Cheney, Rumsfeld (the "cabal"), Rice, Bolton, and of course, Bush 43.

* Wilkerson hasn't convinced me about his Iraq position--that we have to stay there or go back and fight for the entire Mid-East. Does anyone else think his big-picture academic position is tinged in a "benevolent imperialist" world-view?

* Love his discussion of SUVs and oil consumption in the frame of national security.

* His thoughts on getting bureaucratic and democratic stakeholders at the table to buy in on decisions seems so basic and important--this really shouldn't be news, but it seems to be in today's politics. If only it were easy to do. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

* "Gracelessness"--A state embodied in John Bolton. Graceland was built in Memphis, Gracelessland could be built in Crawford.

* It's hard not to respect someone like him, who speaks up so strongly against the Bush administration's handling of the prisoner abuse issue.

Definitely an interesting listen. I did find the discussion of the aluminum tubes and the other satellite imagery to be either pretty self serving or kind of an indictment of the usefulness of such intelligence in the absence of other real intelligence. (Almost like requiring probable cause for a warrant. One needs probably cause intelligence to put the pictures in any useful context). ALso it sounded as if Saddam had figured out out to play the "eye in the sky" like a fiddle, but moving trucks around and showing the folks what they expected to see. (This never quite made a whole lot of sense, unless he was ultimately double crossed).

The other interesting blurb was how the French in particular were really on board with the whole chemical and or bio warfare threats.

And Of and of course how history will judge GHWB a great foreign policy president.

Steve Clemons is VERY tall.

Striking and very refreshing to FINALLY hear such from someone that was involved

Like a couple of others above I`m a little skeptical of a few points that sound self serving but I must congratulate him on standing up in public and commenting on "the cabal"

Should be on EVERY broadcast outlet

"Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." - Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.

The FT of London is on the story. They have posted a transcript.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/afdb7b0c-40f3-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html

No one ever mentions that having nuclear weapons is only useful to a country as a deterent if the world knows you have them. That should have clued everybody in Iraq's case ...

but great video - I am half way thru ...

I liked when he said the French are really our bestest buddies, and that if the government doesn't get it's act together major violent upheaval could occur, as in Revolution, hopefully French style, of course.

Aux armes citoyens,
Formez vos bataillons
Marchons, marchons
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons

Hey WOOLSEY WATCH- he'll be at NYU today at 4PM.

http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/800

I heard Wilkerson mentioned on local news radio in DC today. It was basically a one-liner, saying that yesterday, in a speech at the New America Foundation, Wilkerson accused Cheney and Rumsfeld of being a cabal that is undermining U.S. foreign policy.

It's not much, but it's a start.

Its in today's Washington Post. Page A4
And (subscription req)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902246.html

Steve, thank you for helping to get Wilkerson's story on the record. I'd add one more practical point about the need for transparent leadership: If people don't understand, deeply, why we're doing something, why it's the right thing to do, they won't be able to work together properly to make it happen. They'll each be concentrating on their individual piece of the elephant, and their actions won't be coordinated effectively. Which is what we see all over the government right now, especially in Iraq.

And, of course, in a democratic system this is even more critical. This administration bullied and lied to get us into Iraq. Even if you thought the war was a good idea, without a genuine consensus that it's the right thing to do, there's no genuine will to keep going if things get tough.

Which is where we find ourselves now. And that't pretty much the worst possible outcome by anyone's standard.

To bad Mr. Wilkerson can't say the American people were deceived into a unnecessary, illegal, and immoral war. He took pains to say that they thought very sincerely that Saddam had WMD. He didn't address the "imminency" of the threat very well, nor did he mention intelligence being fixed around policy; that war was not the "last resort" but the first; that the administration at least greatly exaggerated the mis-perceived threat to put fear into the People. Mr. Wilkerson instead tells us that after 9/11 the administration lost its head, was spooked, thought irrationally, and was duped by Saddam who was insisting he didn't have WMD but nobody believed him, or Ritter, or Blix, or El Barredai. He wants to gloss over how the Nation was hustled into War. I suspect he and everyone involved draw the line in revealing the inner workings of how the con took place. No insider will spill the beans on the madness of the War or Bust juggernaut within the administration. Cronies could be put away for life for that and traitor be their name.

"Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason?For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

It hasn't been prospering; wagons have been circled; next? - every man for himself, night of long knives? Is there enough loyalty?

"We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Otherwise, I salute Mr. Wilkerson for coming forth at least part of the way to the truth; the hardest truths are yet to out although many know and suspicions mount in the minds of others. The question must eventually be fully answered: Were the American People deceived into war by their government, and if not, why does it seem so; or how should the blatant hustle be characterized if not by "deception?"

A speech that bears multiple hearings. Great work. Also, in a small thing that matters to some of us, thank you very much for encoding this in Quicktime as well as the other formats. Much appreciated.

I consider Col. Wilkerson to be a true patriot and honorable soldier. Thank God for people in the military especially who have the courage to speak out. Part of Col. Wilkerson's speech was on http://www.AfterDowningStreet.org/ This site has good information and action items to get our country back from the criminals.

http://www.AfterDowningStreet.org/
Had to post part of the interview, it is so good to hear the truth,however horrible from public officials. Then we can begin to strategize how to stop this madness.

Cheney 'cabal' hijacked US foreign policy
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2005-10-20 07:39. Media
Financial Times
By Edward Alden in Washington
Published: October 20 2005 00:00 | Last updated: October 20 2005 00:19

Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government's foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies that had left the US weaker and more isolated in the world, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed on Wednesday.

In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: “What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.

» add new comment | read more
~Read George Packer’s book The Assassin’s [inaudible] if you haven’t already. George Packer, a New Yorker, reporter for The New Yorker, has got it right. I just finished it and I usually put marginalia in a book but, let me tell you, I had to get extra pages to write on.

And I wish, I wish I had been able to help George Packer write that book. In some places I could have given him a hell of a lot more specifics than he’s got. But if you want to read how the Cheney Rumsfeld cabal flummoxed the process, read that book. And, of course, there are other names in there, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas [inaudible], whom most of you probably know Tommy Frank said was stupidest blankety blank man in the world. He was. Let me testify to that. He was. Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man.

And yet, and yet, after the Secretary of State agrees to a $400 billion department, rather than a $30 billion department, having control, at least in the immediate post-war period in Iraq, this man is put in charge. Not only is he put in charge, he is given carte blanche to tell the State Department to go screw themselves in a closet somewhere. That’s not making excuses for the State Department.

That’s telling you how decisions were made and telling you how things got accomplished. Read George’s book. In so many ways I wanted to believe for 4 years that what I was seeing, as an academic, what I was seeing was an extremely weak national security [inaudible]. And an extremely powerful Vice President and an extremely powerful in the issues that impacted him, Secretary of Defense, remember a Vice President who’s been Secretary of Defense, too, and obviously has an inclination that way and also has known the Secretary of Defense for a long time, and also is a member of what Dwight Eisenhower wanted that God bless Eisenhower in 1961 in his farewell address the military industrial complex and don’t you think they aren’t the [inaudible] today in a concentration of power that is just unparalleled. It all happened because of the end of the Cold War.

[inaudible] tell you how many contractors who did billion dollars or so business with the Defense Department that we have in 1988 and how many do we have now. And they’re always working together. If one of them is the lead on the satellite program, I hope there’s some Lockheed and Grumman and others here today [inaudible] if one of them’s a lead on satellites, the others are subs. And they’ve learned their lesson there in every state.

They’ve got every Congressman, every Senator, they got it covered. Now, it’s not to say that they aren’t smart businessmen. They are, and women. They are. But it’s something we should be looking at, something we should be looking at. So you’ve got this collegiality there between the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President. And then you’ve got a President who is not versed in international relations. And not too much interested in them either.

And so it’s not too difficult to make decisions in this, what I call Oval Office cabal, and decisions often that are the opposite of what you thought were made in the formal process. Now, let’s get back to Dr. [inaudible]. For so long I said, yeah, Rich, you’re right. Rich being Under Secretary of State Richard [inaudible]. It is a dysfunctional process. And to myself I said, okay, put on your academic hat. Who’s causing this? Well, the national security advisor. Even if the framers didn’t envision that position, even if it’s not subject to confirmation by the Senate, the national security advisor should be doing a better job. Now, I’ve come to a different conclusion.”

Col. Wilkerson also gave an apparent throwaway comment paraphrased as

"policy discussions on taking over mid-east oil fields and placing them under UN management"

in reference to the high level of importance of oil supply to the GW Bush administration.

This is explosive stuff and sheds light on:

- Cheney's still classified energy security meeting

- this administration's perception of global oil supply (peak oil)

- motivation for invading Iraq and future plans for other mid east countries

As far as I am aware, this is the first administration insider, as much as a member of Powell's staff could be considered an insider, making overt reference to the significance and concerns of global oil supply to this adminstration.

Thank you, Mr. Clemmons, for organizing the speech by Mr. Wilkerson. As a graduate student of International Relations writing his thesis on the impact of neoconservatives on current US foreign policy, I found his description of events not only refreshingly candid but also spot on. He confirmed the work of authors such as Michael Lind, James Mann, Gary Dorrien, and Halper & Clarke and alluded to my own research reagrading the role of the corporate institutions on foreign policy. I hope Wilkerson does not pay too high a price for his candor and repels the attacks surely to come from the conservative political pundits who love to deflect honest criticism with cynical conjecture. Thanks again.

Thanks to Mr. Wilkerson for having a whistleblower's backbone, although I do wish he had discovered it sooner. But then nothing is perfect, is it....

For further corroboration, I can highly recommend John Dean's book, "WORSE THAN WATERGATE, The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush"