When you see the wing-nut-o-sphere demonstrating that code-red level of hysteria which is theirs alone, you can be sure that they're are feeling very, very threatened.
In the last twenty-four hours that hysteria has been directed against the Washington Post, for the way in which it reported on the Pentagon's Inspector General's review of Douglas Feith's O.S.P. in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. The Post did not do a great job, and has issued a correction accordingly. But still, biased bloggers like Michelle Malkin keep the alert on high - even going so far as to speculate on the size of the correction in the next print edition. It's all part of their standard operating procedure - the louder the tantrum against the press, the more they want to obscure the truth.
The fact is that the Inspector General's report found that:
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community to senior decision makers. While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that intelligence assessments were intelligence products and did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community. This condition occurred because of the expanded role and mission of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from policy formation to alternative intelligence analysis and dissemination. As a result, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy did not provide "the most accurate analysis of intelligence" to senior decision makers. (Please note that the link above is not to a newspaper, but to the Defense Department.)
Some bloggers from the right are also claiming that the Inspector General is a democrat, without offering any evidence, as well as saying that "inappropriate" behavior is not a problem, after all it was authorized. True it probably was authorized - by Wolfowitz. Using a more damning phrase than "inappropriate" would almost necessarily lead to charges of treason - and what career Pentagon officer wants to get involved in that?
Let's quickly review who Douglas Feith is:
- Worked for Prime Minister of a foreign government (Israel), defining the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as an imperative for that government's self interest. (Paper entitled "A Clean Break
- Assisted in preparing policy paper in the U.S. arguing for the overthrow of Iraq's government.
- Active Member of Zionist Organization of America, co-founder of "One Jerusalem" organization.
- As head of O.S.P in Pentagon he handpicked and hired a staffer, Larry Franklin, who was found guilty and sent to jail for leaking classified information to AIPAC, Israel's Washington based lobby.
- As head of the O.S.P. he "excluded many top Mideast experts from the State Department from playing a role in the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq."
- As head of the O.S.P. he briefed superiors on "Iraq and al-Qaida: Making the Case", not 'Iraq and al-Qaida: What we Know',' not 'Iraq and al-Qaida: the Truth" He stovepiped unbalanced, biased "intelligence" to the highest level that he could. (Wolfowitz congratulated Feith and called the briefing "excellent.")
- As head of O.S.P. he developed intelligence which asserted that Iraq possessed massive amounts of W.M.D. Facts later proved him wrong.
- His development of intelligence was determined by the I.G. to be "inappropriate", both the 9/11 Commission and President Bush have found it to be wrong.
I could go on with many more bullets, but the undeniable fact is that Feith was an essential cog in the machine that created inaccurate intelligence that led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis.
So why does the Right jump to his defense and get so hysterical when he is mildly criticized, as in the I.G.'s report? In fact, why aren't they after his hide?
P.S. If anyone doubts that AIPAC is an enormously powerful lobby, please name a country other than Israel which could have had people working in our government on its behalf without questions about divided loyalties being raised. ( and the brouhaha-ha happened to occur and reach reporters on a Friday afternoon).
h/t memeorandum
Comments