A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics


Centerfield is the blog of the Centrist Coalition.

We're open to new contributors. If you would like to blog with us, email
cf at centristcoalition dot com

Get all the new posts from a wide variety of centrist blogs with a single click of the Centrist Blogosphere

Google Centrist News

Get a balanced diet of liberal, and conservative blogs at the
Centerfield Blog Aggregator

Links

Independent Nation

Center Links:

<< ? The VCWC # >>

Radical Middle

Resources:

 

October 29, 2003

Where is the Middle?

We've been discussing the war in Iraq at some length here today.

I think it boils down to this. The left and right essentially own this debate now.

The nine Democratic presidential candidates are caught up in an anti-war and conflict-minimizing rhetoric. It's very clear the activists in the party feel that way, so everyone feels pressured to combine angry anti-war rhetoric with various views of how we can minimize our contribution either in manpower or money.

We centrists just don't have a big presence among Democratic primary voters.

Meanwhile, on the right, it's pretty close to "the president is good and right about everything". The right side of the blogosphere is dominated with that theme, minus some sane folks like Drezner and Tacitus.

Where is the middle?

The middle, to me, is a recognition that we are strongly committed to Iraq, that we have to succeed for reasons of our own well-being (winning the war on terror), as well as meeting our obligations as an occupying power.

The middle isn't shy about sending men and money. And, more importantly, discussing strategy alternatives. The middle is represented in those informed policy debates we see on the PBS News Hour, or, in abbreviated forms, on other news networks.

The middle shows up when experts discuss options, not when partisans debate "the two sides" of this issue.

We talk about things like training more Iraqi police, or, as Col. Patrick Lang suggested the other night, bringing back a couple of carefully screened divisions of the Iraqi army. How about deploying more intelligence resources to help us focus in on the Iraqi resistance? Take half the guys who are currently looking for WMD in Iraq and put them on the trail of Baathists and suicide bombers.

None of these "ideas" or "options" make their way onto the stage at the Democratic debates. Nor do they squeeze in, somehow, among those who spend most of their time passionately defending the president.

Notice that we don't have a candidate in 2004 who represents these options -- strong and serious commitment to Iraq, combined with a broad and realistic assessment of our options there.

Any such candidate, if he exists, is not getting the support of the party faithful, and will therefore not win his party's nomination.

So, yes, the left and right own this debate. Anger on one side, and loyalty on the other, are the dominating factors.

Posted by William Swann at October 29, 2003 03:47 PM
Comments

As centrists, we're less inclined to spin, because we have trouble deciding on the direction of the rotation. We can try to get beyond the "Bush lied, People died" sloganeering without endorsing the president's policies.

I'm still trying to figure out what happened with the WMD's. I was perusing the Norwegian blogger Bjorn Staerk and he cited this Seymour Hersch essay called The Stovepipe

It's a must read. Hersh in controversial, but seems to have sources inside the CIA who are leaking to him, trying to cast the blame for the intelligence failure on the Administration. Specifically, he says the Administration bypassed the CIA analysts and had demanded to see the raw data, much of which was misleading, as experienced analysts would know. For instance,


A few months after George Bush took office, Greg Thielmann, an expert on disarmament with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, or INR, was assigned to be the daily intelligence liaison to John Bolton, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control, who is a prominent conservative. Thielmann understood that his posting had been mandated by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who thought that every important State Department bureau should be assigned a daily intelligence officer. “Bolton was the guy with whom I had to do business,” Thielmann said. “We were going to provide him with all the information he was entitled to see. That’s what being a professional intelligence officer is all about.”


But, Thielmann told me, “Bolton seemed to be troubled because INR was not telling him what he wanted to hear.” Thielmann soon found himself shut out of Bolton’s early-morning staff meetings. “I was intercepted at the door of his office and told, ‘The Under-Secretary doesn’t need you to attend this meeting anymore.’” When Thielmann protested that he was there to provide intelligence input, the aide said, “The Under-Secretary wants to keep this in the family.”


Eventually, Thielmann said, Bolton demanded that he and his staff have direct electronic access to sensitive intelligence, such as foreign-agent reports and electronic intercepts. In previous Administrations, such data had been made available to under-secretaries only after it was analyzed, usually in the specially secured offices of INR. The whole point of the intelligence system in place, according to Thielmann, was “to prevent raw intelligence from getting to people who would be misled.” Bolton, however, wanted his aides to receive and assign intelligence analyses and assessments using the raw data. In essence, the under-secretary would be running his own intelligence operation, without any guidance or support. “He surrounded himself with a hand-chosen group of loyalists, and found a way to get C.I.A. information directly,” Thielmann said.


In a subsequent interview, Bolton acknowledged that he had changed the procedures for handling intelligence, in an effort to extend the scope of the classified materials available to his office. “I found that there was lots of stuff that I wasn’t getting and that the INR analysts weren’t including,” he told me. “I didn’t want it filtered. I wanted to see everything—to be fully informed. If that puts someone’s nose out of joint, sorry about that.”

Posted by: rickheller at October 29, 2003 05:23 PM
(Comments on this entry may be closed after 7 days to prevent spam)




Do you choose the politicians, or do they choose you? Find out how to put the people back in charge.

Archives


Recent Entries

March 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  


Powered by
Movable Type 2.661