The unforgiving minute: In fairness to Mr. Williams

While he did tell what Huckleberry Finn called "a stretcher" regarding his time in Iraq in 2003, Brian Williams was a piker compared to the top eight members of the Bush Administration during the same time.

One wonders if any of them -- Dubya, Cheney, Condi, Rummy, or the rest -- considered taking themselves off the air for a few days.

One doubts it. One doubts it very seriously.

Williams only egged on, and surfed on, their crimes. He's a sad case -- albeit a sad case with magnificent hair -- but he's not the one who belongs in a cell in The Hague.

A quantum of umbrage: Mistakes

This has got to be the lamest excuse for telling a self-aggrandizing lie that I've ever heard.

NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams admitted Wednesday he was not aboard a helicopter hit and forced down by RPG fire during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a false claim that has been repeated by the network for years.

Williams repeated the claim Friday during NBC’s coverage of a public tribute at a New York Rangers hockey game for a retired soldier that had provided ground security for the grounded helicopters, a game to which Williams accompanied him. In an interview with Stars and Stripes, he said he had misremembered the events and was sorry.

The admission came after crew members on the 159th Aviation Regiment’s Chinook that was hit by two rockets and small arms fire told Stars and Stripes that the NBC anchor was nowhere near that aircraft or two other Chinooks flying in the formation that took fire. Williams arrived in the area about an hour later on another helicopter after the other three had made an emergency landing, the crew members said.

“I would not have chosen to make this mistake,” Williams said. “I don’t know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.”

He calls his choice a mere "mistake"? A mistake in which he "conflated" two aircraft - the one he wasn't on (that got shot down) and the one he was on (that didn't)? That's quite a slip-up, there, Sparky.

On the other hand, Williams can at least claim that his wasn't the worst, most shameful, indeed most despicable lie about Iraq told to the American public in 2003 by a famous person who left it out there and never paid a price for doing so. So there's that.

Robert McNamara: "An American tragedy, our tragedy."

In one of the very first posts on p3, I compared former Defense Secretary McNamara to the title character in Graham Green's urtext of Vietnam fiction The Quiet American, whom the narrator described as "a leper without a bell."

McNamara, perhaps because his sense of American rightness remained tone-deaf to the end, died over Independence Day weekend.

But, as Will Bunch observes:

The life of Robert McNamara was a personal tragedy, but it was also an American tragedy, our tragedy -- because even after McNamara spelled out everything that went so horribly wrong in Vietnam, he lived long enough to see a new generation of the self-appointed "best and brightest" in Washington pay absolutely no mind to the lessons of our recent past.

In Iraq, as in Vietnam, our policy-makers knew nothing or cared little about the long history and convoluted ethnic and religious politics of Mesopotamia's Fertile Crescent. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, there was no plan for the proper military follow-up to a period of "shock and awe" bombing. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, we totally misjudged the "nationalism" of the people who lived there and how they would react to a long American occupation. And perhaps most importantly, In Iraq, as in Vietnam, there was no real "public debate" as we marched headlong and foolishly into the 2003 -- with way too many "unexamined assumptions," "unasked questions," and "readily dismissed alternatives."

I didn't have much sympathy for McNamara's suffering; I grew up at the wrong time for that. But, as Bunch suggests, perhaps it was his penance to live so long, so aware of the consequences of the evil he'd helped set in motion even if he remained unable to grasp the fundamental cause of his error.

If that's the way it works, I suppose we have no choice but to wish a long, healthy, and lucid life to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, George W. Bush, et al.

But I'm not that optimistic.

Gentlemen, Madam Secretary: Your suite in The Hague is waiting

Gleaned from among the 100,000 pages of Bush administration documents pried loose by the ACLU's Accountability for Torture project FOIA lawsuit:

On January 25, 2002, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales advised George W. Bush in a memo to deny al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners protections under the Geneva Conventions because doing so would "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act" and "provide a solid defense to any future prosecution."

Two weeks later, Bush signed an action memorandum dated February 7, 2002, addressed to Vice President Dick Cheney, which denied baseline protections to al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners under the Third Geneva Convention. That memo, according to a recently released bipartisan report issued by the Senate Armed Services Committee, opened the door to "considering aggressive techniques," which were then developed with the complicity of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and other senior Bush officials.

Reading: "God kinda goes, No, I really don’t think so."

Reading Vanity Fair's oral history of the Bush White House is a necessary act of political masochism, in a "those who don't are doomed to repeat it" way.

The experience feels like having stitches removed by pulling them knot-side through, and it's curiously silent on the outing of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame as political payback in 2003, but otherwise it's compelling. Once you start reading, you won't be able to stop until you reach the end.

You'll be relieved that in 20 days Bush and his cronies will finally be out of the White House; and you'll be angered all over again at the damage to our nation already done and the damage yet to show itself--and the fact that they'll emerge largely beyond the reach of the law for their long list of offenses.

"Farewell to All That: An Oral History of the Bush White House" is going on the Readings list in the sidebar.

Corrections

(Updated: dead video link fixed.)

Stock analysts call it a "correction" when a stock or an index dips significantly after a prolonged, generally upward trend.

In December 2006, five weeks after widespread Republican losses in the 2006 general election and his own firing, Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense, had his own sense of what a "correction" would be:

RUMSFELD: That's what I was just going to say. This President's pretty much a victim of success. We haven't had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack.

(It's good to be reminded what a maimed soul Rumsfeld was, isn't it?)

Yes, Mr. Secretary, that's the problem with terrorists: You can't always count on them to attack us when it's politically useful for the Republican Party.

Fortunately, the Bush administration had the next best thing: The Homeland Security Advisory System, better known as the color-coded threat-level indicator. Let's review how that's worked out:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If your browser won't display the embedded version, click here.

I offer another example of a "correction:"

As Americans became increasingly and rightly cynical about the "threat-level-orange" tactics between 2003 and mid-2006, it has become less useful to the Bush administration as a distraction from revelations of its own mistakes, deceptions, and incompetence, or from events which display the increasing support of Americans for Democratic candidates and policies. The result has been a "correction" in the Bush admnistration's reliance on conveniently-timed threat warnings, following a generally-upward trend for four years.

In fact, the last time Homeland Security announced that the threat level was being raised to "High" (Orange) or "Severe" (Red) was August 10-14, 2006, in the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections.

We can't account for this by saying that our continuing military presence in Iraq has curbed terrorism, since the opposite appears to be true: The failed state of Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorism.

And we can't say that the Bush administration has abandoned the tactic of trumped-up fear of terrorism to protect itself politically, since Bush, Cheney, and their various enablers continue to publicly link Saddam to al Qaeda, speculate about which Democratic candidate bin Laden prefers, and so on.

And I suppose some brave soul might even advance the case that, following electoral defeat after defeat and saddled with the strongest disapproval by the American people in memory, the Bush administration has finally learned its lesson and realized that it's morally wrong, that it's not worth winning if the only way you can do it is to corrupt the very form of government you claim to be defending--if that brave soul wanted to be laughed out of the room.

No, I think we have to conclude that the Bush administration has discontinued its attempts at fear-by-threat-level for the same reason--the only reason--it ever abandons such disreputable tactics: It no longer works.

Think of it as a correction.


[Want to share/recommend this post to others? Click the Digg button below.]

Harmonic neo-convergence

Here's an interesting coincidence:

Bush administration neverwozzers Donald Rumsfeld and Don Wolfowitz were among the letter-writers on behalf of leniency for Scooter Libby, sentenced today to 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine for one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury to the grand jury and one count of lying to the FBI.

Rumsfeld's and Wolfowitz's names also appear on the original neocon manifesto, the "Statement of Principles" of the Project for a New American Century, whose tenth anniversary passed like a thief in the night last weekend.

Also signatories to the PNAC manifesto were such neocon luminaries (most of whom left their posts under a cloud of one kind or another) as John Bolton, Richard Perle, James Woolsley, Douglas Feith--and, of course, Libby himself, as well as the man he's risking prison to protect, Dick Cheney.

Rummy's out: Is anyone surprised?

From CNN, although the news is everywhere by now:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld stepped down Wednesday, one day after congressional elections in which opposition to the war in Iraq contributed to heavy Republican Party losses.

President George W. Bush said he would nominate Robert Gates, a former CIA director, to replace Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.

Asked whether his announcement signaled a new direction in the war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, Bush said, "Well, there's certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon." […]

Bush lavished praise on Rumsfeld, who has spent six stormy years at the Pentagon. He disclosed he met with Gates last Sunday, two days before elections in which Democrats took control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate.

Keith Olbermann handled the introductions this evening: "Secretary Rumsfeld--wheels of the bus. Wheels of the bus--Secretary Rumsfeld."

Those 7200 Virginia votes separating Webb and Allen will determine whether the Democrats have the Senate as well, meaning that those votes determine the kind of questioning that Gates will get at his confirmation hearings. (Note: Olbermann just reported that NBC has joined the AP in declaring the race for Webb. There's a week's worth of blogging to be done just on the benefits to the republic of replacing Arlen Specter as chair of the Senate Judiciary committee.)

Bush the Decider, of course, will go to his grave insisting that there is no connection between the unpopularity of the Iraq war, the evident failure of Rumsfeld's approach to war-planning and war-making, and the electoral ass-kicking Rove's Machine received yesterday. It's that he happened--just by chance--to choose today of all days to hand Rummy his walking papers. As Mike Allen of Time Magazine reported tonight on Olbermann, the GOP campaigns across the country are fuming that Bush waited until this morning to throw Rummy to the wolves--many are convinced that, had Bush accepted the inevitable and let Rummy go a week ago, it might have saved several GOP congressional seats.

Meanwhile, for those who like their schadenfreude applied with a fire hose, p3 presents these excerpts from Rumsfeld's Rules as a tribute to the man:

• Learn to say “I don't know.” If used when appropriate, it will be often.


• If you foul up, tell the president and correct it fast. Delay only compounds mistakes.


• In our system leadership is by consent, not command. To lead, a president must persuade. Personal contacts and experiences help shape his thinking. They can be critical to his persuasiveness and thus to his leadership.


• Be precise. A lack of precision is dangerous when the margin of error is small.


• Preserve the president's options. He may need them.


• It is easier to get into something than to get out of it.


• Don't divide the world into "them" and "us." Avoid infatuation with or resentment of the press, the Congress, rivals, or opponents. Accept them as facts. They have their jobs and you have yours.


• Being vice president is difficult. Don't make it tougher.


• Don't automatically obey presidential directives if you disagree or if you suspect he hasn't considered key aspects of the issue.


• The price of being close to the president is delivering bad news. You fail him if you don't tell him the truth. Others won't do it.


• You and the White House staff must be and be seen to be above suspicion. Set the right example.


• Don't think of yourself as indispensable or infallible. As Charles de Gaulle said, the cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men.


• Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the president and do wonders for your performance.


• Your performance depends on your people. Select the best, train them, and back them. When errors occur, give sharper guidance. If errors persist or if the fit feels wrong, help them move on. The country cannot afford amateur hour in the White House.


• You will launch many projects but have time to finish only a few. So think, plan, develop, launch and tap good people to be responsible. Give them authority and hold them accountable. Trying to do too much yourself creates a bottleneck.


• Think ahead. Don't let day-to-day operations drive out planning.


• Plan backward as well as forward. Set objectives and trace back to see how to achieve them. You may find that no path can get you there. Plan forward to see where your steps will take you, which may not be clear or intuitive.


• A president needs multiple sources of information. Avoid excessively restricting the flow of paper, people, or ideas to the president, though you must watch his time. If you overcontrol, it will be your “regulator” that controls, not his. Only by opening the spigot fairly wide, risking that some of his time may be wasted, can his "regulator" take control.


• See that the president, the cabinet and the staff are informed. If cut out of the information flow, their decisions may be poor, not made, or not confidently or persuasively implemented.


• Don't allow people to be excluded from a meeting or denied an opportunity to express their views because their views differ from the president's views, the views of person who calls the meeting, or your views. The staff system must have integrity and discipline.


• When the president is faced with a decision, be sure he has the recommendations of all appropriate people, or that he realizes he does not have their views and is willing to accept the consequence. They will be out of sync, unhappy and less effective if they feel they are or are seen as having been "cut out."


• If a prospective presidential approach can't be explained clearly enough to be understood well, it probably hasn't been thought through well enough. If not well understood by the American people, it probably won't "sail" anyway. Send it back for further thought.


• Many people around the president have sizeable egos before entering government, some with good reason. Their new positions will do little to moderate their egos.


• The secretary of defense is not a super general or admiral. His task is to exercise civilian control over the department for the commander in chief and the country.


• Normal management techniques may not work in the department. When pushing responsibility downward, be sure not to contribute to a weakening of the cohesion of the services; what cohesion exists has been painfully achieved over the decades.


• Establish good relations between the departments of Defense and State, the National Security Council, CIA and the Office of Management and Budget.

I suppose we could say "Rummy, we hardly knew ye"--except we did, and that's why we soured on you so long ago. If you'd have actually believed--or "remembered," for the sympathetically inclined--even half of those pearls of wisdom, your key would probably still fit your office door next month.