Wilkerson is an asshole who hasn't smelled a soldier or Marine lately. His perspective is that of RAMF...... a pure liberal - lefist nothing.

I'd like to agree with you that Wilkerson deserves an award, and I'm glad he's calling for transparency -- maybe this will be helpful in the future. But, like so many others, I can't stop wondering why Wilkerson waited until now to come out with this. We had an election last November, and the guy who's reponsible for all the bad things outlined in Wilkerson's speech remains in office. If powerful people with (guilty) consciences aren't willing to speak up when it counts, they've failed us all.

I logged on to post a link to Edward Alden's article in the Finaancial Times, but then saw Steve has it up.

This is interesting to see the process in how New America Foundation sponsors speakers and then the word gets out. This gives me optimism for media and the country--that some really smart people are taking the time to listen to those with experience and insight into governance.

Mike's response, I assume, is knee-jerk partisanship. I don't think he listened to the talk at all. Larry Wilkerson is not a liberal--if his is, then so were Eisenhower and Bush41. But perhaps that's how far right our country has moved(see From Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy By Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson--reviewed by Eric Alterman today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9728784/#051020 )

"Mike's response, I assume, is knee-jerk partisanship."

Either that or parody: I mean, c'mon, misspelling REMF and leftist in the same sentence?

Just a heads' up - the New America Foundation, and Wilkerson, are now in Limbaugh's gunsights.
He spent an hour today tarring Wilkerson as a disgruntled State Department employee who is seething mad that Bush is "cleaning up" the State Department. Limbaugh quoted Wilkerson's testimony on John Bolton as proof that Wilkerson is a "flaming Lib".

The NAF was introduced as a "pack of Liberals," a "huge LIBERAL thinktank with a few token Conservatives as 'associate fellows'", put together with funding from "Liberal bankers".

Limbaugh is carrying Cheney's water on this, and the fact that their chief attack dog is so focussed on Wilkerson and the NAF means that Wilkerson's speech is really terrifying them. Since Wilkerson is identified as the guy "who says what Colin Powell thinks, but is too diplomatic to say," it must mean that Powell has definitely switched teams.

BTW, it's 2 pm, and Limbaugh is still going on about Wilkerson, the "State Department HACK who went out and made a speech to a bunch of LIBS - WHO do these people think they ARE?"

You might want to find somebody who's willing to pay for the podcast of the show. That way, you will know exactly what the plan of attack against you is.

Louise >"...Limbaugh...WHO do these people think they ARE?..."

Note to Rush,

we are "We, the people..." &, dude, ya better get used to it

"There are three kinds of men:
1. The ones that learn by reading.
2. The few who learn by observation.
3. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves." - Will Rogers

BTW, "Mike's" post above is almost a word-for-word quote of some of Limbaugh's diatribe, which began to air about 1 PM EDT today.
Think for yourself much, Mike?

How about more of a qualifier:

Conscience FOR a Conservative

Hmmm..Steve's remarks about Armitage and Powll and their need to show "public loyalty and obeisance to the Commander in Chief" makes me wonder if he remembers the name Bill Clinton.

I actually heard Wilkerson's talk mentioned on DC all news radio station today. They've been awfully mum about the Bush administration's messes, so the speech must've made some kind of waves.

It's nice to see that some associated with this administration are saying what we've known for quite some time.

Mike, your post is idiotic at best. I think though that you are representative of your class.

Applause for Lawrence Wilkerson!

Applause for Steven Clemons!

I just have to say that people are saying that Steve Clemons is the Barbara Walters of foreign policy.

He got Brent Scowcroft to talk at just the right time. He got Lawrence Wilkerson to talk at just the right time. He knew that the Bolton battle would be big and helped stop his Senate confirmation.

Clemons is the tipping point guy.

Hooyah!

Really damned impressive scoop.

From your Fans

The saying "you can judge a man by his enemies as well as by his friends" speaks well for Wilkerson, if Limbaugh is all in a fuss over him.

In the list of publications you mentioned was it an oversight that The New York Times is not among them?

Last time I looked I didn't see (easily) any mention of the Wilkerson speech on the Time web site.

Steve,

You may want to ask Col. Wilkerson about Emily Miller's role at State. Who was she really working for?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/20/121123/53

I don't think that Bush himself has altered the NSC that much. His model isn't anything worse than what Clinton of his father did. Really the council still follows the basic model that was set out in the 1987 Tower Commission.

But as I pointed out a few days earlier, its Cheney who has really tested the boundaries of the 1947 Nationa Security act by creating his own NSC staff. This was never intended by any body, and I think it has no oversight at all.

Two really good books that came out recently that I thought gave interesting perspectives on the operation of the US government.

The first is Dale Herspering's "The pentagon and the presidency" Herspering's examination of Civil Military relations since WW2 not the most thourough going over, and my copy seems to have been a bad edit because the footnotes were off, but the first chapter which sets out a new theory of Civil military relations is worth the price. I found him a bit to the right, and he comes down extremely harshly on Clinton Presidency for its relationship with the military, but its a very good book nonetheless.

The second book is David Rothkopf's "Running the World." I found it a bit biased to the left, but very good nonetheless. He had an article a few months ago in Foreign policy which focused mainly on the bush admin. He too argued that its not Bush but cheney that has abused the system.

First, dear Mike, who made his so eloquent point about the colonel having lost touch with the boots on the ground, I can assure you that you are most mistaken. I am a veteran myself and continue to have fairly good sources and those sources tell me that members of the active military are in constant contact with him on a daily basis. Additionally, he has a reputation for always "looking after the troops" even when it means sacrificing his personal welfare - which on a small scale I think he is doing once again, now.

Now, to the others - mostly Wilkerson critics - who have so aptly noted that his protest has come somewhat late, I would - and I am a conservative Republican so don't pass out when I regrettably but openly agree with you - agree. To the best of my memory, Wilkerson began - at least on the record -denouncing the Administration about fourteen months ago. There was the GQ article, the Vanity Fair article, the Bolton "abysmal ambassador stuff" , and, now, the "cabal". That being said, soldiers and innocent Iraqis began dying long before that.

On the other hand, however, in my naive attempt to want to find some other more positive reason for the colonel's somewhat tardy decision to go public, allow me to offer another reason. The rumors are that Wilkerson threatened to resign several times both before the infamous Feb. 5th speech and after but was ultimately persuaded each time to stay for the "good of the country" and especially "for the good of the troops".

Since, on record, it appears that Wilkerson feared the Cheney-Rumsfeld "cabal"'s influence on the President's decisons from the very start, for the Wilkerson/Powell critics out there, let's just say that he, and even Powell for that matter, did resign the night before Powell was supposed to have given that infamous speech. What do you think would have happened? Where would we likely be, now? A better place? Remember, at the time of the speech, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney were viewed as Hawks but their resumes were not as tarnished as they are today. There was no Abu Graib, no certain insurgency, no GITMO scandal. I am certain that POTUS would simply have placed another one of his cronies at State and without anyone to check the Pentagon or continuously oversee little rats like Bolton, we would be involved in more than Iraq and Afghanistan. We would be deploying troops in Syria, Iran, and possibly even in North Korea. So let's just assume that Wilkerson did decide to resign once, as described in one of the articles, he learned of the VP's attempt to stuff the speech with items that had never been vetted. Would his resignation have mattered? Would the Hill have suddenly stood up and taken on the powers that be? I think not.

Do you think if Powell had resigned, we would not have gone to war? If you think we wouldn't, then you are most naive. A majority of the American public had been swayed already and there was no one on the Hill who would have had the b-lls, at the time, to have taken Bush on.

On the other hand, at least if Wilkerson...and Armitage...and Powell...and Zaq Oda....and Paul Kelly -all former "boots on the ground" - would have stayed than they, at least,would have some ability to steer the "train" - although potentially headed for disaster- a little away from direct center impact. At least, from the inside, Wilkerson could support Powell in his attempts to get the President to take his advice rather than Rumsfeld's and, at least, there would be someone who could learn of the truth who would maybe tell the American public later.

Since all of you are excellent at Monday morning quarterbacking and relish critiquing a man, I would simply ask that you think about what I have offered as well numerous other possibilities that exist before you pidgeon hole him or you allow your ideological leanings no matter what they are to force you to place him in one category or another before you have learned all of the facts.

Lastly, dear Mike, since you are so concerned about the "boots on the ground", allow me to give you an example of the point I am trying to make. Look at General Shinseki. He testified that we were not sending enough troops to Iraq and that the Iraqis would not be waiting to place flowers in our soldier's barrels upon their arrival as Wolfowitz so stupidly had stated. (And, oh, was Shinseki right.) Upon learning that Rumsfeld and POTUS had no use for the truth, Shinseki didn't even have the opportunity or luxury to resign before Rumsfeld basically fired him instead. Now, look at how much the Army suffered because he left and because his views of dissent were not heeded. Perhaps, at least if he had been allowed to stay, he would have been able to continue his fight to look out for the troops and with allies such as Powell over at State, they would have been able to gain some ground.

The truth is, whether you love or hate Powell, whether you admire or despise Bush, whether you think Wilkerson is a patriot or a coward, without Powell to have combated Rumsfeld, without Armitage and Wilkerson, to have combated other civilian hawks at the Pentagon, without Powell's insight regarding Abu Graib and his unwillingness to condone it, where would we be, now? I would argue that although we find ourselves in a terrible place as we speak, where we would find ourselves without Powell, Armitage, and Wilkerson having been at the State Department to offer their own type of rudimentary system of "checks and balances" to Rummie, we would be in a quagmire that is unimaginably worse, and our troops, although overwhelmingly overloaded today, even with their infinite desire to succeed, would be finished before they even had a chance to fail and our country would be irrevocably damaged.

But, then, Mike who am I? Just a former soldier

There is no excuse for Powell. He was very willing to undercut President Clinton when it suited his purposes. He was probably the only person in the country who could have stopped this war if he had wanted to. Bush and Cheney needed his cover. History will show that Powell sold out his former Army troops and his nation.

sapere aude - thank you. I would love to see more people read your comments since I don't know how many go to Steve's comments.

I ask you to go to TPMCafe. Compliments of Josh Marshall the site gives "average" readers the chance to post commentaries. Sign up as a member and post these ideas on the Foreign Affairs Table.
I would be glad to do what I can because what you say deserves as large an audience as possible.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/

CtGlav,
Thank you for your comments and suggestion - I will consider doing as you've suggested.

Steve,
As an American citizen, I am very uplifted that we are finally getting some Washington "insiders" to stand up and take issue with the running of the country by Bush and company. Is there a way to contact Larry Wilkerson to congratulate him on standing up and speaking out against such atrocities? There is so much evidence out there, that I'm amazed it hasn't been combined and comprehended by a critical mass yet to oust these people from out government. Shocking how American's can be so asleep.

Thanks for posting transcripts.