General Petraeus and the Neo-Con connection

This is like something from one of us crazy conspiracy theorists.

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.

From Chris Matthews at MSNBC:

Fred and Kimberly Kagan are hawks. They share the ideology of those who backed the Iraq War. Why are they on the inside of an administration elected based on its opposition to the Iraq war?

I am one of those who believed from square one that the war in Iraq was an ideological war pushed from the outset by those who wanted us to overthrow the Iraq government and install ourselves in Baghdad. They got their way under a less-than-informed President, George W. Bush. Now we discover that a pair of them, the Kagans, have been right there in the room with the head of the Afghan mission, advising him every step of the way.

Why? Why did General Petraeus assume the right to allow people who represent the very opposite of President Obama’s philosophy to advise him? What agenda was his seeking here? What was he buying into? Was he buying into the hawkish agenda of those who advocated war on Iraq in the first place? If so, why was he working for President Obama who stood out there against that war?

I have to think that Petraeus either doesn’t understand politics and ideology or he shapes his ideology, or accepts the ideology of those who have stood against Obama from the beginning. This is really strange, really strange and someone in the administration better start paying attention to who is getting into the tent and who they are indeed working for.

Kimberly and Frederick Kagan are very interesting people indeed, close to the American Enterprise Institute and similar neo-con hit-squads. As Matthews asks, why were they "advising" Petraeus?

The Washington Post has the whole timeline of neo-con infiltration of the Obama administration:

Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, a husband-and-wife team of hawkish military analysts, put their jobs at influential Washington think tanks on hold for almost a year to work for Gen. David H. Petraeus when he was the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Provided desks, e-mail accounts and top-level security clearances in Kabul, they pored through classified intelligence reports, participated in senior-level strategy sessions and probed the assessments of field officers in order to advise Petraeus about how to fight the war differently.

Their compensation from the U.S. government for their efforts, which often involved 18-hour workdays, seven days a week and dangerous battlefield visits?

Zero dollars.

Although Fred Kagan said he and his wife wanted no pay in part to remain “completely independent,” the extraordinary arrangement raises new questions about the access and influence Petraeus accorded to civilian friends while he was running the Afghan war.

Petraeus allowed his biographer-turned-paramour, Paula Broadwell, to read sensitive documents and accompany him on trips. But the entree granted the Kagans, whose think-tank work has been embraced by Republican politicians, went even further. The four-star general made the Kagans de facto senior advisers, a status that afforded them numerous private meetings in his office, priority travel across the war zone and the ability to read highly secretive transcripts of intercepted Taliban communications, according to current and former senior U.S. military and civilian officials who served in the headquarters at the time.

The Kagans used those privileges to advocate substantive changes in the U.S. war plan, including a harder-edged approach than some U.S. officers advocated in combating the Haqqani network, a Taliban faction in eastern Afghanistan, the officials said.

The pro-bono relationship, which is now being scrutinized by military lawyers, yielded valuable benefits for the general and the couple. The Kagans’ proximity to Petraeus, the country’s most-famous living general, provided an incentive for defense contractors to contribute to Kim Kagan’s think tank. For Petraeus, embracing two respected national security analysts in GOP circles helped to shore up support for the war among Republican leaders on Capitol Hill.

Fred Kagan, speaking in an interview with his wife, acknowledged the arrangement was “strange and uncomfortable” at times. “We were going around speaking our minds, trying to force people to think about things in different ways and not being accountable to the heads” of various departments in the headquarters, he said.

The extent of the couple’s involvement in Petraeus’s headquarters was not known to senior White House and Pentagon officials involved in war policy, two of those officials said. More than a dozen senior military officers and civilian officials were interviewed for this article; most spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters.

Petraeus, through a former aide, declined to comment for this article.

As war-zone volunteers, the Kagans were not bound by stringent rules that apply to military personnel and private contractors. They could raise concerns directly with Petraeus, instead of going through subordinate officers, and were free to speak their minds without repercussion.

Some military officers and civilian U.S. government employees in Kabul praised the couple’s contributions — one general noted that “they did the work of 20 intelligence analysts.” Others expressed deep unease about their activities in the headquarters, particularly because of their affiliations and advocacy in Washington.

Fred Kagan, who works at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, was one of the intellectual architects of President George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq and has sided with the Republican Party on many national security issues. Kim Kagan runs the Institute for the Study of War, which favors an aggressive U.S. foreign policy. The Kagans supported President Obama’s decision to order a surge in Afghanistan, but they later broke with the White House on the subject of troop reductions. Both argue against any significant drawdown in forces there next year.

Petraeus’s successor, Gen. John R. Allen, allowed the Kagans to stay at the headquarters for his first few months on the job last year and permitted them to return for two additional short visits. After the couple’s most recent trip in September, they provided a briefing on the war and other foreign policy matters to the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

The Kagans said they continued to receive salaries from their think tanks while in Afghanistan. Kim Kagan’s institute is funded in part by large defense contractors. During Petraeus’s tenure in Kabul, she sent out a letter soliciting contributions so the organization could continue its military work, according to two people who saw the letter.

On Aug. 8, 2011, a month after he relinquished command in Afghanistan to take over at the CIA, Petraeus spoke at the institute’s first “President’s Circle” dinner, where he accepted an award from Kim Kagan. To join the President’s Circle, individuals must contribute at least $10,000 a year. The private event, held at the Newseum in Washington, also drew executives from defense contractors who fund the institute.

“What the Kagans do is they grade my work on a daily basis,” Petraeus said, prompting chortles from the audience. “There’s some suspicion that there’s a hand up my back, and it makes my lips talk, and it’s operated by one of the Doctors Kagan.”

Now, why would we think that?

What an interesting turn of phrase.

Hopefully, we will be getting more on this... in the meantime, read the entire investigative piece by the Washington Post, which is stellar.

Michelle Obama attacked by ex-Vicodin addict!

Left: John and Cindy McCain.


If you are following the foofaraw over Michelle Obama's harmless remarks, you'll notice that it's mostly a bunch of (surprise!) privileged white guys doing the finger-pointing. USA TODAY reports:

Michelle Obama is getting some attention across the spectrum today for a remark she made yesterday at a rally in Milwaukee. "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change," she said.

As pointed out numerous times, she said "really" proud, not that she wasn't AT ALL proud or that she disliked or was dissatisfied with her country.

The Boston Globe's Political Intelligence blog, headlined their post Pride in the name of Self-love (excuse me? When did she say she loved herself, in that quote?) with Sasha Issenberg commenting:

So what did Michelle Obama think of the United States before her husband decided he wanted to run the place?

Couldn't be any worse than what a lot of us have been thinking for decades. And at Slate (which is supposedly liberal, but I keep waiting for evidence) Mickey Kaus titled his post Is that an S-Chip on Your Shoulder or Are You Just Glad to See Me?:

If Michelle Obama's default position is set to "Aggrieved," it also suggests something personal, no? Maybe, like many strong wives, she wonders why her husband is the one on the top of the family ticket--which might also explain her strange occasional habit of belittling him in public ("snore-y and stinky" ). Beats me. For whatever reason, she sure seems to have a non-trivial chip on her shoulder and it's not a winning quality.

Chip on her shoulder? (BUZZER SOUNDS!!)

Someone hasn't read Nezua's definition of Wite-Magik Attaks, particularly in this case, The Drowning Maestro:

A Wite-Magik Attak that pretends to be utterly concerned with the brown person's tone. It matters not that the brown person might be speaking passionately of hurts they have suffered their entire life, hurts they suffer as they speak, starving children, raped women or murdered millions. The person hurling the Wite-Magik Attak fixates upon the TONE of the complaint or insight. Because what really bothers them is that a brown person has the nerve to speak with such self-confidence and passion. This, in fact, scares them. If it weren't such a demeaning move when you have something you feel is important to say, this Attak would be downright comical. Just picture a conductor waving his wand as he plummets to the bottom of a darkening sea.

• ARROGANT mexican
• SHRILL woman
• UPPITY negro
• WRONG SIDE OF THE BED
• CRYBABY
• CONFRONTATIONAL
• CHIP ON YOUR SHOULDER
• LEADING FROM YOUR CHIN
• MEAN

NOTE: This Attak often comes with a carrot. In other words, what is really desired is for the brown person to admit the desired hierarchy, to get "back in place." To achieve this, the power-holding person will often criticize the tone of the desired subjugate while making it clear that a withheld reward might come their way if they submit to the invisible pecking order being violated.

• "We'd admit about your point if you presented it nicer."
• "I have this work I was going to throw your way, is there a problem?"
• "People would listen to your complaint if you weren't so loud."
• "If you want people to care about this, you should learn to be smoother."

Yup, I'd say Mickey Kaus' comment certainly qualifies.

Predictably, conservatives at National Review, as well as Pat Buchanan at MSNBC last evening, ripped Michelle a new one. Nepotism-beneficiary John Podhoretz* dutifully and obediently lines up and mindlessly parrots the neocon views he learned from daddy and mummy, writing in daddy's periodical COMMENTARY:

[The] pseudo-messianic nature of the Obama candidacy is very much a part of the way the Obamas themselves are feeling about it these days.

And how does asswipe Podhoretz know how they are feeling???? (Or is it just that neocons know EVERYTHING???)

The most celebrated response, of course, came not from a finger-pointing white man, but from the ex-Vicodin addict wife of the probable Republican nominee for president, Cindy McCain, who made news trashing Michelle by stating she is proud of her country.



Apparently, not back in the early 90s, when she was stealing drugs from her "relief" organization (yes, we all need relief sometimes, don't we Cindy?) the American Voluntary Medical Team. You call that PRIDE, girlfriend? I call it GETTING HIGH. Did she stop to wonder what the pain-ridden folks in deprived countries might think about the fact that drugs originally intended for THEM were instead filched by a rich Senator's wife? That is hardly an American-pride moment, ma'am.

As the Arizona Republic reported, during McCain's previous presidential run:

Cindy blamed two back surgeries and the Keating Five scandal - a blend of physical and emotional pain - for hooking her on drugs.

Things started to unravel when a Drug Enforcement Administration audit found irregularities in the charity's records, prompting an investigation, Cindy told the reporters.

In 1992, as the Keating affair surfaced again during McCain's run for a second Senate term, Cindy's parents confronted her about her drug use.

What had been clear to Cindy's parents was lost on McCain, who said he had not noticed his wife's addiction.

Was she proud of her country, while all of this was going on? Did she even know what country she was IN?

Before anyone says I am "mean" for picking on Cindy, rest assured, I know from drug addiction, and that's exactly why I write this. Cindy, sit down and shut the fuck up. Barack Obama is too nice to say anything about your thieving addict ways, but Michele just might. People in glass houses... etc etc etc.

Then again, if the women go at it, it might be fun. Is that why the media is harping on this stuff? The guys want the girls to fight? Figures.

*HUMOROUS ASIDE: The late paleoconservative writer Samuel Francis referred to William Kristol and John Podhoretz as "the neocons' unemployable offspring"--which I thought was funny, as well as accurate. Do these fortunate sons have minds of their own, or only spout what their All-Powerful Daddies tell them to? In any event, it's usually best to ignore them, except when you MUST mention their constant yammering, as in a story like this.

----------------
Listening to: Jimi Hendrix Experience - Third Stone from the Sun
via FoxyTunes

Lies, Inc.

Left: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, photo from PBS.


From Sue at Head On Radio:

Lottirj sent along this link to a 9 page GQ article featuring Colin Powell. I’m not going to give any of it away here. Just go here and read it all for yourself. I honestly think Powell is the key to impeachment. The one thing he constantly denies though is that the pre-war intell was all lies. He admits to it being wrong, but not fabricated. Maybe he should see the fact cooking and cherry picking evidence we’ve all seen.

This is an incredible document. Read it and weep.

For example, Powell is asked: Are you sorry you didn’t question things more forcefully?

At the time, when I felt the president might not have focused on all the potential consequences, I said I needed to see him. I went to the White House and had a private session with him. I told him that we could knock over Saddam’s regime but he needed to understand what we would be faced with once we had done that. It was my “When you break it, you own it” speech. I said that this invasion would tie up the better part of 40 percent of our army for an indefinite period of time. It will be hugely expensive. You will be dealing with this for a long time to come. I said, “Take it to the U.N. See if we can get something from the U.N. that might allow us to avoid this war.” He said, “Let’s share this with the others.” And a few days later, we had a discussion with everyone, some by videoconference. They eventually agreed that we should take it to the U.N., some more willingly than others. Dick [Cheney] didn’t think it would work, and Don [Rumsfeld] I was not sure about, because you couldn’t always tell his opinion. Had I done my duty? I think so.

Do you feel responsible for giving the U.N. flawed intelligence?

I didn’t know it was flawed. Everybody was using it. The CIA was saying the same thing for two years. I gave perhaps the most accurate presentation of the intelligence as we knew it—without any of the “Mushroom clouds are going to show up tomorrow morning” and all the rest of that stuff. But the fact of the matter is that a good part of it was wrong, and I am sorry that it was wrong.

Read the whole mealy-mouthed interview at GQ.