Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 7, 2007
Cheney’s New Consigliere

Condi Rice has hired a new counselor. The announcement was made on a Friday afternoon, the time that guarantees the least media resonance. As usual this tactic was successful and hardly any of the major news outlets did some analysis of this move.

To understand this move and why it may not be Rice’s man at all, a short look at recent foreign policy events is needed.

On February 8 Abu Abbas and Hamas announced an internal peace deal under the tutelage of Saudi King Abdullah. Cheney and his henchmen were pissed:  How the Saudis stole a march on the US

 

The positive response to "the Mecca declaration" was nearly unanimous among international diplomats, excepting those from the US and Israel. Even Quartet members seemed relieved, announcing that they viewed the Palestinian accord in a "positive but cautious manner".


Elliott Abrams was enraged and more surprised by King Abdullah’s initiative than any other US official.

Abrams is essentially the Israeli ambassador to the Vice President’s office. He was working on starting a civil war within the Palestinian people.

He blamed Rice for this happening:

Privately, he remained convinced that Rice’s opening with Abu Mazen to restart the peace process had undermined his own program of support for Fatah radicals.

The next big foreign policy issue was a deal with North Korea. Here Rice circumvented Cheney and his gang: Rice is said to have speeded North Korea deal

After a meeting in Berlin in mid-January with her top negotiator on North Korea, Christopher R. Hill, who had just held lengthy sessions with his North Korean counterparts, Rice called back to Washington to describe the outlines of the deal to Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and then to President George W. Bush.

But to some, it seemed the usual procedures were cut short — vetting the details through an interagency process that ordinarily would have brought in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, the Defense Department and aides at the White House and other agencies who had previously objected to rewarding North Korea before it gives up its weapons.

This did blow off the lid for Abrams:

Abrams fired off dozens of e-mails to government officials questioning the decision.

Questioning the President’s decision, which was leaked to the Washington Post, is not what anybody inside is allowed to do.

In the wake of his public tantrum, NSC director Stephen Hadley upbraided Abrams in a meeting in Hadley’s office, telling him that he was not the secretary of state.

Now Cheney had a problem. With his front man burned and Rice out of control he had to arrange for new influence on foreign policy.

This is the context which explains how one of the most ideological neocons, Eliot A Cohen, suddenly landed at Foggy Bottom.

In a move that has surprised many foreign-policy analysts, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has appointed a prominent neo-conservative hawk and leading champion of the Iraq war to the post of State Department counselor.

Cohen is the replacement for "realist" Philip Zelikow who left late last year.

Some moderates spin this as a move by Rice against Cheney:

"Condi may feel she needs to have a neo-con right next to her to protect her flanks," said Chris Nelson, editor of the widely read Washington insider newsletter The Nelson Report. "And if she’s really planning to put her foot down on the Israelis, which [Washington] will have to do if it wants to get a real process with the Palestinians under way as part of a bigger regional deal with the Saudis and Iranians, then a guy like Cohen up there on the [State Department’s] seventh floor who is in on it and can claim influence on the outcome can help."

The move came out of the blue, and though it was presented as Rice’s choice, the preceding events lead me to a different opinion. Glenn Greenwald also has his doubts:

The Cohen appointment is clearly another instance where neoconservatives place a watchdog in potential trouble spots in the government to ensure that diplomats do not stray by trying to facilitate rapproachments between the U.S. and the countries on the neoconservative War hit list.

We do not yet know how Cheney has arranged this, but I doubt that Rice did this voluntarily. The restart of the peace process with Abbas — that and the North Korean deal would most probably not have happened had Cohen been in the position he now occupies.

Cheney used one of his weekly private dinners to suggest Cohen to Bush who already liked him and Bush then suggested it to Rice. Obedient, she did what her ‘husband’ asked for.

Cohen, who was the first to declare World War IV after 9/11 and immediately promoted regime change in Iraq and Iran, will hardly sit back and protect Rice from other neocon attacks. He will try to stop any progress or rapprochement in Palestine. He will also stop any real negotiations with Iran and may even reverse the North Korea deal. He will want to make active policy and certainly not in the way Rice’s old counselor and she herself would prefer.

Rice now has a new consigliere but not one who will answer her orders. From now on it is again all Cheney and neocon imperial foreign policy.

Bush is now away on a longer trip in South America. Cheney has some room and time for the next steps in his program and now there will certainly be no more resistance from Rice’s side when he comes up with some surprises.

Comments

Any news on Billmon?

Posted by: mattes | Mar 7 2007 23:15 utc | 1

This reminded me of a post by Steve Clemons from the New America Foundation. The relevant bit is here:

Late last week, Secretary of State Rice shocked many by appointing a leading neoconservative intellectual, Eliot A. Cohen, as her Counselor. Cohen was a leading proponent of the Iraq War — and has only recently begun to critique — along with other leading neocons like Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, and David Frum — the Bush administration’s effort as one that has not gone as expected.
This article, “The Talented Mr. Cohen,” published by Ximena Ortiz at National Interest Online captures well the often-contradictory positions and statements Cohen has made on the Iraq war.
As reported in this piece by Jim Lobe, I believe that Cohen’s appointment is in part an effort to get someone past the Cheney foreign policy wing. Rice does not like to do direct battle with the Vice President and views personnel appointments as a way to inoculate herself and her efforts against sabotage from the Cheney team.
In other words, Cohen has joined Condi’s team both to create back-channel communications with Cheney’s spear-carriers but also to protect Condi from all-out assault from the Vice President.
When I queried another top-tier political and intellectual personality who works closely with Eliot Cohen, the response I received was that he was surprised Cohen would want the job at this point in the life-span of the Bush administration.
This person also stated that Cohen would probably take over much of the “democratization” and “how to do nation building” portfolios that Krasner was working on as Director of Policy Planning. According to this source, Eliot Cohen has been working on the subject of how to get democratization — the nuts and bolts of the process — right.
The net effect for Condi’s game plan though is that Cohen protecting her rear flank from Cheney’s assaults is probably more important than any thing new he might achieve in another risky R&D effort on nation-building.
On one other front, I have confirmed that Eliot Cohen will resign his position as an Executive Committee member of the journal, The American Interest.

I don’t see how he’d be put there to protect her rear flank. Putting him there to keep an eye on things, or better yet stir things up, seems much more plausible to me.

Posted by: FuzzFinger | Mar 7 2007 23:32 utc | 2

Unless it is part of a deal Cheney has made before he resigns. Wheels within wheels, man.

Posted by: biklett | Mar 8 2007 0:02 utc | 3

b
i’ve said before that you have been right all along – with the possibility of an attack on iran
& all the dancing of this or that vassal in washington just proves it, undelines it & makes clear the psychopathology of this criminal administration
the resemble nothing so much as that fool john gotti & his family t(hat turned the mafia into a more common melodrama of murder
in terms of the panorama of the culture of gangster you would be hard put to find anyone dumber than john gotti nor anyone as empty
this criminal administration mirrors that
they are criminally stupid, they are stupid criminally & they are stupid criminals – where we watch their vulgar acts of lying, of thievery & of murder right before our eyes
it is naked for all to see
& only the stupidest of american citizens could believe otherwise, it is hardly partisan anymore – everything this criminal administration touches it turns into shit, shit that is stepped on & brought in everywhere – where it stinks to high heaven – where they will not go
& the smell of this shit is everywhere from washington to warsaw, from peking to paris from jakarta to johanessburg
& we know the smell of this shit will last for a long, long, long time
this criminal administration has not only opened the gates of hell b ut it has shat on the earth
on all of us

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 8 2007 0:23 utc | 4

henchman, by the way b – is an appropriate term
i am reminded often these days of bertolt brecht’s ‘the irresistable rise of arturo ui’

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 8 2007 1:04 utc | 5

Thank you Bernhard.

Posted by: beq | Mar 8 2007 1:15 utc | 6

b,
Your English syntax and grammar may not always be perfect but your communication of important issues is superb.
And what do you get out of it other than perhaps the heartfelt knowledge of a job important and well done?
Thank You,
Juannie

Posted by: Juannie | Mar 8 2007 1:44 utc | 7

Rice, like Powell before her, doesn’t have to go along with this stuff. She’s as responsible as the anyone else for the war crime wave emanating from Washington.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Mar 8 2007 2:32 utc | 8

b- Helpful to hear how you and others analyze this appointment. Noting, of course, that famous Friday timing, I’ve been struggling to make sense of the Cohen appointment, too.
It has become a habit to check Saturday, Sunday, and Monday morning for any Friday announcements and actions. That is always what they are trying to hide in plain sight.

Posted by: small coke | Mar 8 2007 2:40 utc | 9

Montana Resolution for impeaching Bush/Cheney in 2007 (now at the MT Legislature developing support). (PDF)
Makes me proud…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 8 2007 11:22 utc | 10

Uncle (#10)-How many more of these do we need to get this thing rolling? I want to see them scrambling onto a helicoptor for Paraguay from the WH roof.

Posted by: beq | Mar 8 2007 12:14 utc | 11

B, thanx for another interesting post.
Eliot and Dick are both signatories of the PNAC Statement of Principles, leaving me in no doubt on which side Cohen is standing. Might as well have been Cheney himself taking on Rice’s counselor role.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Mar 8 2007 13:19 utc | 12

So the suggestion is that Rice will ward off the wolves by placing a wolf among the sheep?
I doubt this was Rice’s doing. The one thing she seems to have some skill at is bureaucratic infighting, and no good infighter would want Cheney’s man in her loop. Her problem is that Cheney is a Hall of Fame infighter. I suspect this was one Rice fought and lost, and that Cheney planted his agent, in a dominance display, to prevent the need for future post hoc corrections.
This is off-topic but I also just have to vent my utter digust at the reaction to the Libby verdict. It took no time to turn into a game of pin-the-pardon-on-the-neocon, with Libby being painted as some kind of sympathetic figure. The rationale seems to be: his boss told him to lie to cover his ass, and his boss is not being prosecuted, so nobody should be punished. Scooter was loyal! So much for all that bullshit about being a nation of laws. The issue ought to be whether a special prosecutor needs to be appointed to examine whether the obstruction of justice included a conspiracy with the vice-president, as it so nose-on-your-face-obviously did. I mean, can you imagine Scooter scratching his bum without Cheney’s OK? Bush may be immune while in office; Cheney is not.
As pessimistic as I was about where this country is headed, this has been a real through-the-looking-glass experience. We seem to be living out daily Chalmers Johnson’s warnings that we are surrendering the vestiges of the Republic. How long do we have to wait until the Fox News chyron reads “Cheney Dissolves Congress: Who Cares?”

Posted by: YouFascinateMe | Mar 8 2007 14:59 utc | 13

what you fascinate me just said.

Posted by: conchita | Mar 8 2007 15:52 utc | 14

Murray Waas points out that lawless leaders have learned from Watergate, and this one is being played out from the Iran-Contra playbook. Let “friends” create an enormous defense fund – not illegal. Protect lesser players with lawyers, who clam up, since, in the long term, their jeopardy is minimal. Drag out the legal process as long as possible. Then pardon anyone convicted at the end of the prez term.
In other words, despite Fitzgerald’s skill making the justice system work just well enough to expose most of the C/B retaliation operation, without a media that will shine a light, without a strong opposition in Congress to follow-up (as in Watergate), Libby has protected everyone else, and will probably never do any jail time.
After reading all the lawyerly analysis at FDL during the trial, it seems that this particular case was, in itself, a tricky one to try successfully. And trying the actual outing of Plame, which could implicate more players, would be even more problematic, due to all the issues of classification and national security. Defense could just stonewall on many details and testimony needed for prosecution with “national security” claims.
Seems like Fitzgerald chose the case that was doable and winnable, and then used it to expose as much as possible about the inner workings. There should be other branches of government and the press to take his work and run with it. The fact that they seem to be MIA, is a sign of the very frail condition of our democracy and justice system.

Posted by: small coke | Mar 8 2007 16:29 utc | 15

small coke
I agree with you except what seems to be the suggestion that Fitz has done all he needs to do.
Tricky or not, the evidence leads directly to Cheney. I admire Fitz’s skills and discretion in getting this far. I could understand getting this conviction first as a predicate for taking it to the next level. In fact, that would be the wisest course.
I have never been satisfied that Fitz enjoyed complete autonomy, which makes his successful prosecution notable. I never thought Rove would be indicted, and so I was not suprised when Fitz pulled up short on Rove, even after so many grand jury appearances that perjury was almost certainly involved. The recent hearings re: US Attorneys give some idea of the shenanigans that go on in Bush’s DOJ. Now Fitz seems to be pulling up short again and I disagree with that strongly. In his defense, he may have no choice. But if he drops the trail I think he needs to explain it. This is not a normal prosecution.
As for the disclosure of Plame’s identity, my hunch, and it is just that, is that Fitz was told that Bush/Cheney selectively declassified it, so that there was no disclosure of “classified” information, and that Fitz has not had the need to divulge that fact so far. I may be wrong of course, but it is already in the open that this was done with the NIE. True, Waas reported in 2006 that “Bush also said during his interview with prosecutors that he had never directed anyone to disclose the identity of then-covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, Wilson’s wife.” But that does not answer the more limited question of whether Bush made a secret “declassification” of Plame’s identity at some point. I think this reasonably could explain a cautious prosecutor not seeking an indictment on the disclosure, but if this is so then Fitz needs to say it. If Bush enabled burning Plame I think there is strong case to be made that using the presidential power in this way is a violation of the oath of office to uphold the laws. Clearly, the normal declassification procedures were not followed, thereby recklessly endangering the public welfare. It would be a political crime for which the recourse is impeachment. The choice to proceed with impeachment is not Fitz’s, and it is unlikely to occur, but if he has information of Bush’s involvement Fitz owes it us to be forthcoming now about that too.
Starr gave a bad name to special prosecutor reports. With all apologies to Billmon, I think this situation calls for something more from Fitz than “That’s All Folks.”

Posted by: YouFascinateMe | Mar 8 2007 18:25 utc | 16

You can’t make the “poor little scooter” argument without inferring the “big dick” argument. But, they will try. Never being one to fall into the trap of questioning the adult authority mandate “juvenile nickname” was innocent of any crime perpetuated by “neglegant adult”. Like a little boy taking pride in having fullfilled a fathers directive without question, we find ourselves smacking that bright-eyed little scooter smile right off that — Norman Rockwell –collective american smile. And my god, how can we allow the intrusted virtues of obedience and loyality to be tainted and made sordid by a blinded and activitist judicial? One that is hellbent on washing from america all that is good and special, and honorable and praisworthy, and as sacred as the bond of father and son. For the sake of the country and the children everywhere.
Free scooter now!

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 8 2007 19:10 utc | 17

This seems the most likely explanation, from small coke:

After reading all the lawyerly analysis at FDL during the trial, it seems that this particular case was, in itself, a tricky one to try successfully. And trying the actual outing of Plame, which could implicate more players, would be even more problematic, due to all the issues of classification and national security. Defense could just stonewall on many details and testimony needed for prosecution with “national security” claims.
Seems like Fitzgerald chose the case that was doable and winnable, and then used it to expose as much as possible about the inner workings. There should be other branches of government and the press to take his work and run with it. The fact that they seem to be MIA, is a sign of the very frail condition of our democracy and justice system.

Fitzgerald is no dummy, and I think he knew full well the can of worms he could open by trying to prosecute anyone under the IIPA statute or the Espionage Act. Maybe he felt like he didn’t have enough dirt on anyone to secure a conviction. If there’s one thing we know about this guy, it’s that he never brings anyone to trial that he can’t nail to the courthouse floor. So I’m left wondering, did he have the evidence, or did he think it wasn’t worth his while? The “greymail” and “on the grounds of national security” challenges would be extremely high in bringing the big cheese(s) into full legal view.
I figured we’d never find out, but it turns out that devil Waxman has secured Plame’s testimony, and has requested Fitzgerald’s before his Reform committee. Give ’em hell Henry…

Posted by: FuzzFinger | Mar 9 2007 1:34 utc | 18

thank you waxman. that didn’t take long. i was hoping they were just waiting for the trial to wrap up. let the fun begin.

Posted by: annie | Mar 9 2007 2:24 utc | 19

Small talk…
Hoagland at the Washington Post ponders the question of ‘What Has Happened to Dick Cheney?’, and comes tantalizingly close to the answer (viz. “Why should anyone care what has happened to a man whose job description is limited to breaking tie votes and waiting for his boss to die?”)… but this is no ordinary supervillian we’re discussing here.

Reports of a new defeat lie ahead for the hard line on Iran and Syria that is associated with Cheney’s office if this week’s meeting of ambassadors in Baghdad produces progress on Iraqi stability. Diplomats tell me that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has persuaded Turkey to host a ministerial conference next month that will include Iraq’s neighbors, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and the Group of Eight nations, and that she will attend.
Rice is credited by administration sources with having told Bush in January that he should devote his final two years in office to seeking diplomatic agreements with North Korea and Iran and an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. That account emphasizes that Rice is not simply outflanking Cheney in intermittent internal policy battles but has won full agreement and support from the president on the strategic goals and methods she and her diplomats are pursuing.

Obviously, Cohen is more Cheney’s man than anyone else’s… but why he should be watchdogging Rice is not clear. It’s possible that Cheney might be joining Donnie Rumsfeld in the bleachers before long, though… in which case, he would want to get “his men” entrenched now. Hoagland concludes with:

However beleaguered, Cheney will not resign over the president’s refusal to take his advice. The only force that could drive him to that dramatic step would be that unshakable sense of loyalty to Bush, who desperately now needs a vice president in stable physical, emotional and political health. That is the equation you want to be watching.

I know the idea of Cheney resigning seems a bit too good to be true, and we also know that someone as self-interested, monomaniacal and downright friggin’ evil as Cheney would never step down to save someone else’s (“Le Vice-Etat C’est Moi, Goddammit!”) final two years, but there could well be method behind this mounting madness.
Who would replace Cheney as VP…? Well, obviously, the next Republican nominee for POTUS would love to be given that incombent’s advantage. And wouldn’t that save that particular politician *cough*McCain*cough* a boatload of time and money to occupy that seat…? And wouldn’t Cheney want his ducks in a row vis-a-vis any office which might threaten his future machinations *cough*SecretaryofState*cough*…?
Turns out this Cheneyco duck might not be as lame as we all thought it was… which would mean Cohen’s appointment would not be as puzzling as it appears at first blush. Cynical? Unlikely? Remember that we are talking about a guy who waited nearly thirty gorram years since the Ford administration to neuter his loathed FOIA. This guy plays the long game.

Posted by: Monolycus | Mar 9 2007 14:43 utc | 20

anna m @17 You can’t make the “poor little scooter” argument without inferring the “big dick” argument.
Didn’t you love Wells (libby’s atty) introducing the Libby as “fall guy” meme in his opening argument? That was, practically, like opening with an admission of guilt at the beginning; as in, they all did it. People don’t need a fall guy, if they have not transgressed.

Posted by: small coke | Mar 9 2007 16:30 utc | 21

I don’t doubt that Libby was the fall guy, but he wasn’t sat up for it. As best I can tell, he took the role voluntarily; otherwise, he could have cut a deal with Fitzgerald and turned state’s evidence. In that case, the whole “pity poor Scooter” is perverse. We should feel sorry for him for volunteering to take the hit for someone else? Save me from this shit.

Posted by: bcgister | Mar 10 2007 17:50 utc | 22