[lbo-talk] Josh Marshall theory on NYT Iraq Backchannel story

Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
Thu Nov 6 07:34:54 PST 2003


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_11_02.html#002171

November 05, 2003 -- 09:27 PM EDT

You've likely already seen or will soon see the story running in

several major news outlets this evening about apparent last minute

overtures that Iraq made to the US, looking for a deal just before the

outbreak of the war.

The story centers on an apparent back channel (or attempted back

channel) using a Lebanese-American businessman who had a relationship

with an analyst in Doug Feith's shop at the Pentagon, Michael Maloof.

(Richard Perle was part of the potential back channel too.)

In aftermath of 9/11, Maloof and David Wurmser were each part of a

two-man team tasked by the Pentagon with finding links between Shi'a

and Sunni extremist groups as well as between Islamist terrorists and

secular Arab regimes. They reported finding lots of evidence. But the

folks at the CIA never bought it.

Down deep in the New York Times article, there's this line contained

in a parantheses: "In May, Mr. Maloof, who has lost his security

clearances, was placed on paid administrative leave by the Pentagon."

There's your ripple.

And that's where I think you'll find a lot of the backstory for why

we're hearing now about this business with the last-minute overture.

To start getting a feel for that backstory, see this piece from Knight

Ridder's Warren Strobel from August 1st ("U.S. revokes security

clearance for Pentagon employee.")

This issue of security clearances and the revocation of security

clearances and investigations in the depths of the bureaucracy is an

important story of which we're only getting the vaguest hints.

Late Update: Let me be a bit more clear about what I'm getting at

here.

Let's say I'm a career defense bureaucrat struggling to get my

security clearances restored because it's very hard for me to be a

defense bureaucrat without them. And let's say one of the reasons I

can't get them restored is because of some unauthorized contacts I had

with a Lebanese-American businessman under investigation for running

guns to Liberia [i.e., Imad Hage, the main and almost sole source for

the NYT story]. And let's further add to the mix that my whole mess

with the security clearances is part of a larger struggle between

different factions in the national intelligence bureaucracy. Oh, and

one last thing: let's say I'm a protégé of Richard Perle.

Okay.

Now, if I'm on the line for these unauthorized contacts with the

gun-running businessman, wouldn't it be a lot harder to punish me for

it if it looked like that contact almost allowed me to secure a deal

that would have averted the need for war?

And if that's the case, wouldn't it be cool if my buddies and mentors

went to the press with the story of how I almost saved the day?

(And as long as we're on the subject, look at all the contradictions

between the Times' piece and Strobel's piece.)

-- Josh Marshall



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list