Getting Feith: Emily Litella, ace reporter for the WaPo, says “never mind”
Last night I was in the middle of preparing a piece about the Washington Post article that described the Pentagon’s sharp criticism of Douglas Feith for giving too much credence to some faulty prewar intelligence reports of a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Rearching the post was interesting, as research often is. It lead me to read quite a bit of background about Feith and his detractors, including this New Yorker piece by Jeffrey Goldberg, written in May of 2005, which contained the following interesting passage:
[Feith’s] detractors see him as an ideologue who manipulated intelligence to bring about the invasion of Iraq. His main nemesis on Capitol Hill, Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who serves on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told me that Feith deceived not only the White House but Congress as well.
Remember, this was written nearly two years ago. Carl Levin has apparently been Feith’s Inspector Javert for quite some time. The current WaPo story featured Carl Levin in his new role as Armed Services Committee Chairman, finally able to stick it to Feith via this Pentagon report.
I discovered many other choice tidbits along the way: a much-reported (originally by Bob Woodward in Plan of Attack) quote from Tommy Franks that Feith was the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth.
But then, in his own autobiography, Franks had written that he was only quoting others, and that what he actually had said was: Word is going around that Feith is the fucking stupidest…”
The whole tale was replete with that sort of thing. But one fact became crystal clear: Feith had annoyed people–angered them, even–with a personal style described as arrogant. That made him the fall guy for everyone, since there were plenty of mistakes and errors to go around–as there are in any war and occupation, especially one of this complexity. Those in Pentagon, State, the CIA, and the Department of Defense could say, who, me? No, not me; him! And Feith seems to be the favorite “him” to blame.
Perhaps where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Perhaps Feith really is–if not the fucking stupidest man on the face of the earth (remember, I’m just quoting here)–then perhaps the fucking stupidest man in the Pentagon, State, the Department of Defense, and the CIA.
Somehow, though, I doubt it. I bet there’s at least a couple who are stupider (ah, yes, and maybe women, too).
Feith doesn’t sound especially stupid to me in the New Yorker article–but then again, I haven’t ever worked for him. He’s quoted there as saying that, prior to the invasion, his group drew up all sorts of dire contingency plans for postwar Iraq, but that the military didn’t listen. For example, he warned them to prepare for serious looting in the aftermath, although his warnings were apparently disregarded by Franks.
Feith also proposed–well, let’s hear the stupidest man on earth tell it himself:
…a plan to train five thousand Iraqi exiles to accompany American troops in the invasion. Feith and Perle, who supported the idea, claimed that centcom subverted the plan. “Central Command saw the training of Iraqis as a pain in the ass,” Perle said… Feith did not argue that a force of Iraqi exiles would be a panacea, but he said that they could have aided in translating, in guiding, and in vetting local officials.
Well, although I agree it’s no panacea, I’ve heard stupider thoughts, I must say.
While I was mulling over all this furious buckpassing, I came across another error. This one had nothing to do with Iraq, however. It had to do with the story itself. The Washington Post had printed a correction, and it’s a whopper. It turns out that the Pentagon report in question had contained very few of the reported quotes about Feith, and none of the most serious ones.
In a correction almost as long and involved as the original article (okay, that’s hyperbole; but it’s plenty long and plenty involved) the Post said that the most critical quotes attributed to the Pentagon report had actually been issued by none other than Feith’s old nemesis himself: Carl Levin.
It’s a little unclear how reporters Walter Pincus and R. Jeffrey Smith could have gotten the story so very wrong. Did Levin make the incorrect attibution himself? Or did they rush to print without exercising due diligence, or even minimal diligence? Or all of the above? How could they have mistaken Levin’s report for the Pentagon’s? After all, this is the Washington Post, not a blog; I bet they don’t work in their pajamas. But this error makes it seem as though they were writing in their sleep.
I’ll resist any “stupidest man on the face of the earth” jokes. But I won’t resist an Emily Litella reference: “never mind” seems to be the name of the game.
And I wonder how many who read the original story will ever hear of the correction?
The original WaPo story went around the world. Will they contact all the media that used their story and ask them to retract and to excuse their incompetence? Hardly, the world is left with more food for their belief that Bush lied and manipulated evidence. The MSM have hurt our country badly.
On Franks’ actual statement, here’s the exact quote, transcribed directly from p. 362 in my copy of American Soldier:
“Okay,” I said, standing in the front of the room. “Here’s the deal, guys. I know OSD–Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith–are demanding a lot. But they are not the enemy. Don’t start thinking good guys–bad guys. We’re all on the same side.”
They could see I was serious.
“I’ll worry about OSD, all of them–including Doug Feith, who’s getting a reputation around here as the dumbest f*****g guy on the planet,” I continued. “Your job is to make me feel warm and fuzzy. Look, we’re all professionals. Let’s earn our pay.”
Franks’ opinion of Feith was precisely the opposite of what Woodward portrayed. Throughout his book he portrays Feith as highly intelligent and fiercely patriotic, but impractical and intellectually arrogant – the same way he portrayed officials in the Clinton Administration (p. 545):
“I have not agreed with every decision made over the past three years–as I did not agree with many made before that. I found fault with Don Rumsfeld’s centralized management style, and with Doug Feith’s impracticality. I chafed at the intellectual arrogance of some in this Administration–as I had chafed at the same Phenomenon in the Clinton Administration.”
Like many others on the right, you focus on the WaPo’s error, rather than on what the Inspector General in fact said.
In effect, he said that Feith inappropriately briefed higher-ups as if he was presenting an intelligence report, when what he was presenting was not balanced according to typical used standards.
Why suggest that Levin is an Inspector Javert, before you examine who Feith is.
As I wrote today on my blog – I don’t get why you guys are jumping to the defense of a guy who, innocently or not, got so many of the facts wrong that led us into this disastrous war.
Damage done. Case closed.
Gee, I thought Pearl Harbor was a disaster, WTC and The Pentagon and flt.93 were disasters, the Battle of the Bulge was a disaster. “Iraq” is a disaster? What part of we’re winning don’t you understand?
bbustard, the Liberal Creed: “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”.
What part of winning do I not understand? Perhaps you should ask President Bush to explain what he meant when he said December 19 that “We’re not winning, we’re not losing.”
What part of winning do I not understand? Perhaps you should ask President Bush to explain what he meant when he said December 19 that “We’re not winning, we’re not losing.”
bbbustard:
What part of “stalemate” don’t you understand?
Every chess player knows precisely the meaning of the Bush remark: it’s called The Middle Game.
Let’s just say I heard the “we’re not losing” part, which gives me hope that we can still win. You heard the “we’re not winning” part, and fell into despair.
If you want to call it a stalemate, so be it – but I wonder why we quibble about whether it’s disastrous, a victory, or a stalemate? The fact remains that a career Pentagon official,Thomas Gimble,was asked to write a report by Senators Roberts and Levin, and he had a lot of problems with the way Mr Feith did his job. Gimble was appointed by Donald Rumsfeld.
Richard Clark was appointed by Reagan. What’s your point?
Lee – thanks for your response. If you can’t figure out my point, I think that we’re wasting out time.
Good-bye
And I wonder how many who read the original story will ever hear of the correction?
No you don’t! Fewer!
One of the interesting things about today’s follow-up story in the Post is that while there’s a graf rather understatedly referring to mistakes in the first story, there’s no online link to the correction–at least not at the moment. Yes, it’s appended to the original story online, but that’s the basic minimum decent requirement. Anyone coming back later on to the current file will have no idea how massive the original mistakes were.
bbbustard, thank YOU for failing to indoctrinate me. See ya ’round.
//Let’s just say I heard the “we’re not losing” part, which gives me hope that we can still win. You heard the “we’re not winning” part, and fell into despair.
Lee | 02.10.07 – 6:55 pm |//
I have a small quibble with your statement. bbbustard didn’t “fall into despair,” he rejoiced at the thought of losing this war. You see, the lefties, like that joker, Levin, the MSM, et al, are doing everything they can to ensure defeat simply because it will discredit Bush and the Republican Party, and allow them to gain full control of the government after the next election and to hell with any other consequences. They don’t care that such a defeat will be disastrous for the country they live in. ‘Way back when it was possible to accurately describe such people they would have been regarded as “traitors.” Since I am old I don’t give a damn, and I call what they are doing treason, and generations yet to come, in this country and others, will pay the price for their treachery.
Yeah, close the borders? You must be racist. The Patriot Act is taking away MY rights. They’re “wiretapping” US because they want to shut down free speech! Of course, when the next terror attack happens, they’ll scream “Bush didn’t do everything he could to protect us!”.
Here is the last part of the WaPo’s correction to that article:
The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith’s office: Levin’s report refers to an “alternative intelligence assessment process” developed in that office, while the inspector general’s report states that the office “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.” The inspector general’s report further states that Feith’s briefing to the White House in 2002 “undercuts the Intelligence Community” and “did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence.”
I don’t think they got the story “so wrong.”
“Word is going around that Feith is the fucking stupidest guy on earth…”
Everyone who is supporting this guy brings up this line. Then they go on to say that he is probably not the stupidest guy on earth, and the people who called him the stupidest guy on earth got it wrong. And if they got that point wrong about Feith… then all the other accusation about Feith must be wrong. Therefore, Feith is innocent… and didn’t do anything wrong… or he didn’t do anything illegal… got it.
Let’s go through that again.
The problem with “the consensus of the Intelligence Committee” is that in 1998 the “consensus” was that Saddam had wmd’s. The “consensus” in 2002 was that Saddam had wmd’s. Bush even quoted the “consensus” in 2003 SOTU address( The UN concluded, the IAEA concluded, etc.) So, when the “consensus” says “we were right, it’s that nasty Feith that “dismissed” what we were saying”, I have to wonder who’s zooming who. But, apparently Joel just sucks it up like a Hoover deluxe.
So Feith contradicted the intelligence community, did he? Why, how dare he contradict agencies that have been WRONG on most of the major issues.
Agencies that have people at the top with personal political agendas inimical to the Bush administration.
Agencies chock full of entrenched bureaucrats seeking only to justify past errors in judgement from the beginning of the Cold War up to today.
Agencies that have been consistently wrong in the past with assessments of WMD capability, from the Soviets in the fifties to every country that currently possesses WMD.
Agencies that are laughably unable to detect spies in their midst.
Agencies that cannot place operatives among terrorist groups, although ordinary Americans can JOIN them and become working terrorists seemingly without much effort.
Boy, what a bad guy that Feith is, huh.
Besides, just because Dan Rather used forged documents, doesn’t mean Col. Killian “couldn’t” have thought those things about Bush. Right, Michael Edwards?
It’s interesting that anyone would see neo’s post as “defending” Feith. She certainly questions some of the criticism, but defense? Hardly.
What is crystal clear is that major reporters at major news outlets are even worse at their jobs than many at the CIA. The entire first paragraph of the story, and thus the premise, is completely false. This should be seen as a humiliating blow to the Post, and were I the Owner, some heads would roll for this kind of screw-up.
What we’re seeing in the comments here is classic ‘but there’s some truth in there, so it’s all basically true’, ‘truthiness’ argument.
Think anyone in the MSM will ask Levin about this story, and how he was able to feed it to the Post so easily?
Fascinating conclusion. Feith is “the fall guy” because of his arrogance and “style.” Lots of mistakes in wars of occupation…plenty of blame to go around…WaPo gets a few words out of order. Wake up and smell the concrete! He’s a neocon liar! He cooked the books, the Downing Street Memo was spot on. They cooked the intel to fit a plan they had already decided upon. The WMD, the Saddam/al Qaeda connection, all of it. Utter bullshit. does anything penetrate your Kool-Aid addled brain? Pathetic…
This is my first and last time reading this blog. I’m not surprised in the least that the author, neo-neocon, is a therapist. She’s got some serious issues if she thinks the WaPo retraction actually makes a difference in the heinous actions of the OSP.
good gawd! you neocons are incorrigible. we get it. your messiah Bush and his disciples are right about virtually everything, they never ever lie, distort or misrepresent the truth….Iraq is an enormous success, global warming is a myth and evolution is merely a theory.
“Bush and his disciples are right about virtually everything, they never ever lie, distort or misrepresent the truth….Iraq is an enormous success, global warming is a myth and evolution is merely a theory.”
You’re starting to catch on. 😉
Errors are not lies. Iraq by historical standards isn’t as bad as radicals make it out to be– it will take us longer than initially surmised, but self-centered liberals are all about ME ME ME NOW NOW NOW and actually have orgasms about the Big Bully Great Satan surrendering to their noble savage, the Muslim Fundamentalist. (American liberals only support opposing religious extremism and supporting secular government when it is a tool to increase their OWN power.) Global warming is not an article of faith, and should be open to criticism, like any theory, including evolution by natural selection, which should not be a piece of religious dogma.
Liberals advocate diversity of all behavior, from crime to terrorism, but they loathe to have diversity of thought, and they absolutely want to destroy the diversity of the marketplace, which is the most genuine form of diversity we have. Better to have only one Secular Progressive like Saddam Hussein, who expresses the Will of The People, decide what’s best for everyone.
What’s delightful about the comments from Mickey, Jeffrey, bubba and the like is how perfectly they illustrate the thesis that modern day left-liberalism is a threatened belief system. The original post, after all, merely concerned already admitted errors in an MSM outlet about one administration official — significant, and illustrative too in a minor way, but not exactly historic. So here’s bubbas take-away impression:
good gawd! you neocons are incorrigible. we get it. your messiah Bush and his disciples are right about virtually everything, they never ever lie, distort or misrepresent the truth….Iraq is an enormous success, global warming is a myth and evolution is merely a theory.
Bit of a leap, right? In fact, maybe more of a pop, as in a bubble burst. And what’s popped his, and others’, bubbles is the simple pointing out of errors in what has long since become, for such as them, an article of feith — sorry, faith. Question any one article, and their whole fragile, rickety edifice threatens to topple in upon them.
All The News That Fits Our Agenda
How can it be? I’ve just leafed through the Sunday New York Times, Feb 11, 2007, and there’s not one mention of Douglas Feith to be found. Hmm. One article on Scooter Libby, but they focused on Libby’s lawyer Theodore V. Wells, describing what a great guy he is… I’m sure their right. The NYTimes also gave Wells some pointers on how he should advance his case against Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Wow!
Just like the NYTimes to turn the other way when there’s a big story that doesn’t fit their agenda. I guess the thinking is… if there’s nothing nice to say about a subject we care about, why say anything at all.
Joel:
My sorta liberal wife said – reading today’s NYTimes – while I look the Net: “One thing about the NYT, you’re never surprised by a deviation from their editorial line…especially on the editorial page.”
Hate to admit it, but she’s sorta right. We can play a game: given the subject only, make up the headline, lede, and story.
Works more often than not…
bbbustard proclaimeth:
Perhaps you should ask President Bush to explain what he meant when he said December 19 that “We’re not winning, we’re not losing.”
Perhaps you’d like to link to an article giving exactly what the President said that day?
An original transcript, please. ThinkProgress isn’t very trustworthy and groups like that keep popping up on the searches I’m making.
Ah, I found an audio excerpt at the Washington Post site. No transcript, alas.
…and I was right. He was quoting something General Pace said, then said “There have been some very positive developments.” Then expanded upon that and what he thinks needs to be done.
Oh, here’s the link:
Interview.
Obviously, the MSM thinks people are too stupid to go to the original sources. Just snip the words a bit for the headline, and hope people draw the “correct” conclusion. Judging from bbbustard here, they’re right, though I think some of the people who opposed him might want to hunt down the original sources or demand such from people like him. Chances are, he’s using selective quoting… or blindly parroting such.
The bbbustard’s are simply parroting the unchallenged lies and invective they see in the MSM and posted on the anti-war blogs, much of it is hysterical in every sense of the word. Although easily refuted in debate the sad truth is that even much factually weak propaganda ultimately becomes accepted as fact by the public. After all, they DO have the eager assistance of the MSM. The “Bush Lied” has always been refutable – to no avail as far as halting its widespread dissemination.
What I find strange is their demonization of Cheney. They have a fixation with Cheney that rivals BDS. I can see why they hate, say, Rove, a fellow they consider inferior that has bested them at every turn, but the VP is about as ominous, to any RATIONAL person, as a Walmart greeter.
grackle, I especially loved the spin that Cheney’s accidental shooting was actually a “message” being sent to “Scooter” Libby to keep his mouth shut.
grackle, I especially loved the notion that Cheney accidentially shooting his friend was really a message to “Scooter” Libby to keep his mouth shut.
Whoops, thought the first post didn’t post.
Yup. Carl Levin really is the stupidest bastard around.
Dick Cheney reminds me of
http://www.websophist.com/Teeth_IsItSafe_MarathonMan.jpg
…that perfectly nice dentist in Marathon Man.
I’m just quoting here
Quotes liberate the soul, Neo ; )
Perhaps you wondered as I did Neo in 2003, why they weren’t bringing in iraqis from the US to help them with the invasion. There were no use of local troops, or indigenous forces, as we saw in Afghanistan. And yet you must have seen on reports or read about how the Iraqi expatriates in America were throwing parties and parades. Surely they would be supportive of government efforts in Iraq if used.
If we knew this was the case, then why did the military and the President say NO? There surely wasn’t a TIME Factor after all. Ostensibly going to the UN was to delay things and get time. Time to deploy. There seems to be a lot of things that go on behind closed doors, Neo, that it would be good for the American public to know about it. However, this might shed some light on things that the Left and the media may not wish, so they actively try to misdirect our attention with made up stuff. Great magician’s trick as they say.
Good Ole Charlie (SE Penna) | Homepage | 02.10.07 – 6:45 pm |
I think chess is beyond them.
Ostensibly going to the UN was to delay things and get time.
Time? Thirteen years of time? The US wanted to “delay things” for THIRTEEN years? It takes THIRTEEN years for the US to “get time” to depose Saddam? Saddam played the UN for fools for THIRTEEN years but the US needed all that time to prepare for the toppling of Saddam? The commentor apparently thinks the US needed thirteen years in order to prepare for the toppling of Saddam. Wow. Ignorance on display.
Wow, somuch actually cracked a good one. “Is it safe?”
I’m refering to 2002-3. Bush’s strategy, on a retro analysis basis, was not like his Afghanistan strategy. Afghanistan was give ultimatum, wait a few days, then attack with few and fast troops. Iraq was an Army job that focused on heavy and prolonged mobilization. So the political strategy was geared more for delaying things, like with Turkey.
Bush obviously thought he needed more time, and that Saddam needed more time for “inspections”. Or have you forgotten. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that what Bush thought was a good idea is the same as what I thinks is a good idea, or even what was the best for the US.
You need to look up what ostensibly means, grackle.
The commentor apparently thinks the US needed thirteen years in order to prepare for the toppling of Saddam.
I don’t think that the US needed thirteen years. I’m thinking that the US ended up using 13 years. I can’t change that and neither can you, regardless of what you think.
If you want it from the horses mouth, nice interview with Feith:
here
thank you very nice articles.