![]() |
Men
Intoxicated with Power and Courtiers Who Serve Them January
14, 2006 Individually, the new "dots" supplied
by revelations about the Iraq war in James Risen's State of War: The
Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration are not very
surprising. Collectively, though, they provide valuable insight into
the peculiar way in which President George W. Bush and British Prime
Minister Tony Blair prepared to launch an unprovoked war - shades of
Germany and Quisling Austria two generations ago. Needed:
power-intoxicated leaders, court functionaries to serve them, and
obedient military leaders able to subordinate conscience to career
requirements.
Risen's book
throws new light on just how Bush and Blair led their countries into
war. It is a case study of the pitfalls in marginalizing foreign policy
bureaucracies in favor of sycophants one level down. That part of his
book is as revealing as Risen's now-famous disclosures of illegal
eavesdropping on Americans by the National Security Agency (NSA).
Cumulatively, the "dots" furnished by Risen illuminate US-UK plotting
and planning in 2002 - a year that will live in infamy.
Tête-à-Tête with Tenet Risen fills in
gaps regarding the urgent visit to Washington by the British
intelligence chief, Richard Dearlove, and the meeting he had with Tenet
on July 20, 2002. We already knew from the famous "Downing Street
Minutes" published by London's Sunday Times on May 1, 2005 - official
minutes taken at a July 23, 2002, meeting of Blair's top advisers -
that Dearlove brought back word from Washington that Bush had decided
to remove Saddam Hussein by force, and that the war would be
"justified" by cooking up intelligence regarding weapons of mass
destruction and warning that Iraq might give them to terrorists like
the ones responsible for 9/11. While Tenet's name sat atop the list of
usual suspects, we did not know for sure that it was he who provided
this reassurance to the British, until one of Risen's CIA sources, who
took part in the discussions with Dearlove, filled in that particular
gap. Risen's
revelations add weight to the "Downing Street Minutes." These remain a
pearl of great price, since they provide the smoking gun - documentary
evidence that President George W. Bush, with Blair's acquiescence, had
decided by mid-2002 to effect "regime change" by force on false
pretenses. The minutes of the July 23 meeting leave no doubt that the
president had decided to attack Iraq, even while saying in public that
war would come only as a "last resort." Dearlove is quoted
as saying that Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action
"justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy [emphasis
added]." But I have often wondered, why did Dearlove begin that
sentence with the conjunction "But?" Pregnant
Conjunctions Reference to the
"conjunction" of terrorism and WMD is transparent. By the time the
Downing Street minutes hit the front page of the Sunday Times, it had
long since been clear that, for whatever reason, Blair had bought into
Bush's plan to invade Iraq; that the plan included conjuring up the
specter of a "mushroom cloud" to deceive Congress and Parliament into
approving war; and that this would be achieved by pretending that Iraq
had weapons of mass destruction and might give them to terrorists. That
"conjunction" is clear. But what about the
"But?" The answer to that becomes clearer elsewhere in the minutes,
which quote Foreign Secretary Jack Straw daring to warn that the case
was "thin." According to the minutes, Straw said that: Marginalization of
the Bureaucracy Risen's
revelations in State of War throw further light on the marginalization
of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his US colleague, then-Secretary of
State Colin Powell - and the institutions they headed - in the months
leading up to the attack on Iraq. That they both had serious doubts
about the justification for - indeed, the sanity of - launching war was
clear even then to close observers. Powell's
misgivings became still more obvious in a book by BBC broadcaster James
Naughtie published a year and a half ago. Naughtie quoted Powell
describing the neo-conservatives in control of policy toward Iraq as
"f___ing crazies." (At a reporter's suggestion that Powell use this
sobriquet as a title for his memoirs, the then-secretary of state
laughed uncontrollably.) "Crazies" (with or
without the preceding adjective) is an epithet in use for over 20 years
to refer to Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and other ideologues of the
extreme right, at a time when they were deliberately restricted to
mid-level positions in the Reagan and Bush administrations so they
could not cause major trouble. The words escaped Powell's mouth during
a telephone conversation with his counterpart Jack Straw during the
run-up to the war, according to Naughtie. Who Else Heard
Powell's Colorful Language? Powell's ideologue
colleagues, of course, were only too well aware that the disdain was
mutual - and they could not have been unaware of the moniker "crazies."
Now that we know the extent of NSA's warrantless monitoring of US
citizens, however, it seems altogether likely that conversations
between Powell and Straw were among those intercepted - apparently
unbeknownst to Powell, who insists he was told nothing of the widened
tasks assigned to NSA by the president. And small wonder
that Powell's contract was not renewed. Risen to the
Occasion Risen's book
throws intriguing light on the intrigue. We know from other leaked
British official documents that Jack Straw was something of a thorn in
the side of Blair's more war-prone advisers, and was regarded as a
general nuisance for raising picayune matters like whether the war
might violate international law. Here is an excerpt from a memo he
wrote to Blair on March 25, 2002, before Blair visited Bush at Crawford
and came home committed to support war: Straw and Powell
just would not "get with the program." Small wonder that Blair and Bush
decided to circumvent their chief foreign policy advisers and resort to
more unquestioning loyalists like their intelligence chiefs. Risen makes very
clear is that Blair felt an urgent need for some kind of high-level,
independent confirmation of what he was hearing on the telephone
directly from Bush, and that both Straw and Powell were seen as flies
in the ointment. CIA director Tenet, on the other hand, was very close
to and loyal to the president. Better still, he enjoyed daily access to
the president, had a perfect record for telling him what he wanted to
hear, and knew the president's mind on Iraq. And the latter is what
Blair wanted to know. That explains
Blair's urgent insistence that Dearlove sound out Tenet, in order to
increase Blair's comfort level before he let himself get even more
deeply involved in the Iraq adventure. And the garrulous Greek from
Queens did not disappoint. From the minutes
recording Dearlove's July 23, 2002, report to Blair and his top twelve
advisers, as well as from Risen's additional revelations, it is clear
that "slam-dunk" Tenet gave the needed reassurances to Dearlove, with
whom he spoke one-on-one for an hour and a half on July 20, 2002. The
message was this: Blair need not worry. Nor need he pay any heed to
naysayers or foot draggers like Straw and Powell. President Bush had
decided for war, and the intelligence would be "fixed" to support that
policy.
|