Mel Goodman Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy Tuesday, July 22, 2003; 10:00 a.m. ET
Was the President misinformed by the intelligence community? Who is telling the truth? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Mel Goodman, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and former CIA analyst, was online Tuesday, July 22 at 10 a.m. ET to discuss the controversy surrounding the intelligence community and the Bush administration's reports on Iraq before the war. The transcript follows. Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mel Goodman: Good morning. This country is currently undergoing the greatest intelligence scandal in history. Not the first but the worst. Americans died in Vietnam because of the misuse of intelligence. President Reagan's administration was compromised by Iran-contra. The Soviet Union vanished without strategic warning from the CIA. But the role of the White House and the CIA in taking this country to war has demonstrated a systemic crisis that must be addressed. It appears that every administration official, including President Bush and CIA Director has played a role in this tragedy that finds the United States losing lives and treasure in Iraq and confronting a serious national security situation that will have a terrible impact on our lives for the next several years. I hope that I can answer your questions on these serious issues.
________________________________________________
Houston, Tex.: How does this question over intelligence affect the administration's case against North Korea? Are there parties that are going to point to Iraq and perhaps say that they don't beleive North Korea is doing what we say it is?
washingtonpost.com: Proposals To N. Korea Weighed (Post, July 22)
Mel Goodman: There is a different relationship between Iraq and North Korea in my estimation. Of course, the credibility of the United States is at risk. It lied about Iraq and so we must make sure that it is not lying about North Korea. But in taking on an unnecessary war with Iraq, the United States has ignored a far more serious problem in North Korea, where diplomacy may very well have the answers to the key questions. But this is an administration that doesn't practice--perhaps doesn't know how to practice--diplomacy.
________________________________________________
Alexandria, Va.: Antiwar activists claim that Saddam did not pose "an imminent threat" to the USA.
What does "imminent" mean? If we had waited until Saddam was an imminent threat would it have been too late?
Mel Goodman: Imminent means immediate. Iraq was not imminent, not immediate, not a clear and present danger. We certainly had the superiority in power and politics to give the Iraqi situation more time, just as the UN and the international inspectors requested. And just as the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld requested after we invaded Iraq and found no WMD.
________________________________________________
Piscataway, NJ: In your opinion is Saddam Hussein in Iraq or in a foreign country? If he is in a foreign country which one?
Mel Goodman: I am assuming that Saddam Hussein is in Iraq, but let's face it we really don't know the answer to that one.
________________________________________________
Pennsylvania:
1.Why did Bush use the "Niger uranium" statement in his speech when he knew that Tenant had it removed from the Oct. 2002 speech?
2. Why did Bush give so many different reasons for the "Niger" comment?
3.Why did Bush keep using the "al tubes" and the Al Qaeda threat?
4. Why did Bush intentionally keep intelligence from the UN and try and block everything they tried to do?
5.Where are the "WMD" and the reason we had to go to war because of an immediate attack on the U.S.?
6 Why doesn't Bush provide all notes, conversations and communication on his speeches to prove he wasn't lying to the American people?
Mel Goodman: The answer to all your questions is quite simple. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld wanted WAR with Iraq and, as Paul Wolfowitz said in a Vanity Fair interview, WMD was the one issue that seemed to unite the policymakers on going to war and to wave in front of the American people to get support for the war. There has never been a greater act of political cynicism in American history than the way our policymakers behaved on this issue.
________________________________________________
Piscataway, NJ: Is this going to hurt President Bush's chances on re-election?
Mel Goodman: Of course! Once credibility is compromised or, as in the case, lost, it is not regained very easily or at all. And if Bush cannot be believed on issues of war and peace, then why should we believe his estimates on the deficits (more slight of hand, by the way) or any other domestic or foreign issue.
________________________________________________
Boston, Mass.: Mr. Goodman,
From what I am seeing, the intelligence that the president used was very inconclusive. When launching a pre-emptive war, doesn't the evidence have to 100% conclusive to take that action?
Mel Goodman: The danger of preemptive war is that it must totally rely on very good intelligence. Of course, our intelligence capabilities have eroded over the past 20 years and the era of Bill Casey and Bob Gates. And even in the best of circumstances, one rarely has the kind of intelligence to justify preemptive war. We didn't have it in the case of Iraq and, as a result, the Bush administration exaggerated what we had and CIA director Tenet helped in the process of falsifying the evidence.
________________________________________________
Miami, Fla.: I think that the Bush addministrtion took the intel that fit their policy, and got rid of the rest. I beleive that alot of people share this veiw. What do you say?
Mel Goodman: I agree with you on the tailoring of intelligence, but I'm not sure what the American public believes at this point. I've done more than a dozen radio talk shows in the past several days and I can tell you that there is serious questioning going on in the country that the news media have not explored as yet. The public was ahead of the press in opposing the Vietnam war, and it may be ahead of the media once again in raising questions about the misuse of intelligence and the Iraqi war.
________________________________________________
Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C.: Do you think this is an issue that will fade away or do you think that this scandal will grow ever bigger and continue to make front page news?
Mel Goodman: The scandal will grow because of the disarray in Iraq that will lead to more deaths and the British situation that finds Tony Blair's situation under attack. The British situation has a spillover effect, and American deaths will cause the congress to finally pay attention to the arrogance of power that we are witnessing.
________________________________________________
New York:
It's well documented now that the Bush administration was eager to go to Iraq. So it 's seems we are more in front of a case of intelligence "massage" than lack of reliable informations.
Does the CIA has the power to fight back and put an end to this issue?
Don't you think the removal of Tenet to cover the white house will undermine the moral and the credibility of the agency?
Mel Goodman: The credibility and morality of the CIA has been under attack since Iran-contra, the failure regarding the Soviet Union, Aldrich Ames, and the era of Casey and Gates. Tenet should have resigned after 9/11 which was an explosive intelligence failure. The CIA will not establish itself until it regains its moral compass. The key to that is fair and balanced and objective intelligence just as Harry Truman wanted in creating the CIA in 1947.
________________________________________________
Potomac, Md.: Obviously Bush and his cronies wanted war. My question is WHY did they want war? Aren't wars expensive? If Bush was making all this WMD stuff up, how was he going to keep the war justified after the fact? He hasn't planted any evidence yet has he? I'm just not sure I understand why they were so pressed to invade Iraq. Your thoughts?
Mel Goodman: We went to war for reasons of pride, honor, and politics. Cheney wanted to avenge the 1991 situation, which left Saddam Hussein in power. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wanted to brandish American dominance, which is the key to the doctrinal changes that the Bush administration has made in the past two years. Bush has ideological and religious convictions about the direction of politics and statecraft in the Middle East and has sided with Jerusalem against Babylon. And his handlers, Rove and others, believe that the conditions of permanent war will assure his reelection in 2004.
________________________________________________
Laurel, Md.: OK, assume Bush did lie and that the real reason to invade Iraq was to show the world's rogue states that we have the will and ability to invade them. Hussein had no allies, so what's the downside, as long as we succeed.
Is "credibility" going to hurt Bush in the next election as much as "showing the world who's still the boss after 9/11" is going to help?
washingtonpost.com: Bush Warns Syria, Iran on Terrorism (Post, July 22)
Mel Goodman: Saddam Hussein was perfectly contained by US and British power before the war as well as an international coaltion that was working. The war has only worsened the American national security situation. Iraq is now a safe haven for terrorists, which it wasn't before the war....and half of America's combat brigades are tied down in Iraq...and will continue to be tied down for the next several years. Plus the opportunity cost involved in diverting the war on terrorism and ignoring more serious problems in Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan.
________________________________________________
Olney, Md: If there were no WMD to be found, why did Saddam oust inspectors and play hardball with the U.N.?
Mel Goodman: Saddam didn't "oust" the inspectors....the inspectors left and he refused to let them return....and he restricted them because they had become infiltrated by the CIA in the mid-90s and the US was becoming increasingly aware of the fact that SH was losing his WMD capability. He played games with the US and the UN because he believed that the perception of his WMD was his only deterrent against the US.
________________________________________________
Laurel, Md.:
Is it conceivable that WMDs have been found, but for a very, very good national security reason, it has not been publicized?
Mel Goodman: No chance whatsoever. This administration is desperate to brandish Iraqi WMD. In fact, the US holds two key officials who have some of the answers, former foreign minister Tariq Azziz and chief scientist Amir Saadi. The fact that we know nothing about their views suggests that the administration is getting the answers it wants and needs on WMD. Another ugly picture that gets too little attention.
________________________________________________
Clarksburg, Md.: Why would Bush & Co. resort to cherry picking it's intelligence, when it could blow up in their face...as it seems to have done. 6 days after 9/11, Bush gave a speech where he stated that we would go after "Terrorists, and the states that support them". This, in and of itself, is a good enough reason to topple Saddam. Perhaps he wasn't a direct threat to the US, but certainly he posed an indirect threat. And he was financing the suicide bombers who wreak devastation on the Israelis. If our security is dependent upon peace in the Middle East, and there is a wealth of animosity towards the US because of it's support of Israel, isn't removing a main obstacle to peace in the Middle East directly in our interests?
This whole affair reminds me of math problems in elementary school when you had to show your work. Seems to me Bush & Co. got the answer correct, they just used the wrong math. (Of course, leading the country to war based upon misinformation, deceit and public relations ploys, to me, is an impeachable offense. I fear we've become a nation of lemmings who don't want to know what we don't want to know. Willful ignorance, as it were.)
Mel Goodman: As you say, we may be dealing with impeachable offenses here. Certainly we are dealing with the arrogance of power with a handful of individuals arrogating to themselves the decisions involving war and peace. They wanted to make their case in the worst way....and darned if they didn't.
________________________________________________
Silver Spring, Md.: In today's Post, Richard Cohen suggests that Bush is simply a "useful idiot"-- that he believed what he was told-- as opposed to a leader who knowingly lied to the American public to pursue his own agenda.
What is your opinion on this distinction?
washingtonpost.com: Bush the Believer (July 22)
Mel Goodman: Richard Cohen is an example of a "useful idiot." Cohen and others forget that they were part of the media brigade that the administration coopted to make the case for war. Cohen and McGrory and other so-called independent thinkers bought the Bush line in full. It was Cohen who believed what he was told. Bush had a reason to go to war, although the reasons had nothing to do with his public statements.
________________________________________________
Arlington, Va.:
Mr. Goodman,
Do you think it's true that Saddam may in fact be more powerful and dangerous now than he was beofre the war? That if he did have stockpiles of WMD, he is now free to sell them to the highest bidder - any one of the groups out to destroy America?
Has this war made us safer?
Mel Goodman: Saddam Hussein has had virtually no power since 1991 in any meaningful way (making the war totally unnecessary) and has no power now (none whatsoever). There probably are no stockpiles of WMD and, if there were, he is in no position to be a sales representative for anthrax, etc. But the war hasn't made us safer in any way. We are more vulnerable to terrorism, have weakened our military capabilities, have squandered lives and treasure, and have antagonized the entire international community.
________________________________________________
Falls Church, Va.: Mr. Goodman, the DCI as you know does not really coordinate or control the community, with the Sec. of Def. controlling most of the budget, etc.
Calls for structural reform of the community have been made for over a decade, most recently by Brent Scowcroft and his PFIAB report. What are your views of this and the demonstrated fractured and bureacractically driven agendas within the community -- now composed of 13 to 14 separate entities without coordination?
Mel Goodman: I agree with you regarding the DCI and the Scowcroft recommendations. There are two key problems that must be addressed. The Pentagon has never had this kind of power before in the history of the United States; Rumsfeld is in fact the director of central intelligence if there is any one director. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has become moribund under the successive leadership of Shelby, Graham, and now Roberts and is in no positon to conduct oversight and reform. We must return to the reforms of Harry Truman and develop a truly central and independent intelligence community and remove the community from the control of Rumsfeld and the Pentagon.
________________________________________________
Potomac, Md.: If we do get credible intelligence saying North Korea is an "imminent" threat, are our forces stretched too thin to do anything about it? Have we lost too much credibility to persuade the international community to do anything about it?
Mel Goodman: The key problem regarding North Korea is Pyongyang's ability to create havoc in the South, particularly Seoul. Our loss of credibility is a problem, but the key problem is the control of the neoconservatives in the administration who refuse to consider diplomatic solutions and refuse to negotiate directly with North Korea. There is no doubt in my mind that North Korea is desperately, if awkwardly, groping for a diplomatic solution, but the Bush troglodytes like the idea of American military power and American dominance as the key ingredients of a solutions. Again, they are putting the United States increasingly at risk. See my forthcoming book "Bush League Diplomacy: Putting the Nation at Risk," which will be published by Prometheus in the spring.
________________________________________________
Piscataway, NJ: How do people in the CIA view this scandal? Are there any internal struggles within the CIA?
Mel Goodman: CIA personnel are totally demoralized about this scandal because they have been let down by their leadership, particularly DCI Tenet, and unfairly attacked by Rumsfeld and Cheney.
________________________________________________
Washington, D.C.: Thanks for coming back - I love your talks.
How much does the apparent suicide of British scientist David Kelly compromise further the intelligence community? It seems to me that at the very least it will throw new force against Tony Blair, and the Bush Regime to prompt greater investigation.
Mel Goodman: The Kelly suicide is a terrible tragedy. It will increase pressure on the Blair government, which will in turn have a spillover effect on the US. Blair's problems will become Bush's problems because they are both guilty of misusing intelligence and misleading their constituencies. Also the greater resolve of the British press will stiffen the backbone of American media.
________________________________________________
New York, N.Y.: Given the debate over the "freshness" of some of the intelligence that was used to make the decision to go to war in Iraq, Condi Rice was quoted in a recent article as saying that when it came making the decision, one had to look at the body of evidence against Iraq (going back to evidence gathered since 1991, rather than the fact that our most recent evidence was as dated as 1998, when the weapons inpectors last found semblance of WMD).
If this is an argument that administration seriously thinks they can lean on, then what is the excuse for having had such poor human intel to this point? They've had the last 12 years to assimilate and infiltrate operatives into a culture and governmental system so different from ours in order to be successful at a time like now, when they could have been telling us "forget it, there's nothing here" instead of allowing the administration to lead us into war...
Mel Goodman: Condi Rice is in way over her head on these serious issues. The fact is that her deputy Stephen Hadley was told about the fabricated intelligence in October, but she claims that she only learned recently. I think that she is lying, but if she is telling the truth, then why hasn't she fired Hadley for not protecting her and her boss, the president. It all smells.
________________________________________________
Fort Worth, Tex.: I don't follow you in your response from above when you say "The fact that we know nothing about their views suggests that the administration is getting the answers it wants and needs on WMD." I would think that the reason we are not hearing any of their views is because the admin is NOT getting the answers it wants - where the WMD are. Thanks.
Mel Goodman: Sorry for the confusion, but I don't know what your predicate is.
________________________________________________
Burke, Va.: I've been wondering if a secret object of this war is to use Iraq as a giant "aircraft carrier", a la England in WW2 to use it as a staging area in attacks against terrorists. This thought got a bit stronger when the announcement was made about pulling the troops out of Saudiland. Or am I granting the Bushies too much forethought, intelligence, and capability for long range planning?
Mel Goodman: You are certainly giving the Bush administration far too much credit for strategic planning. This was a geopolitical roll of the dice, the most dangerous roll in US history, and an administration working by the seat of its pants. We have carriers and it was Rumsfeld himself who seemed to understand that the US will no longer be able to rely on large-scale US bases anywhere, let alone the Middle East.
________________________________________________
New York, N.Y.: An AP item today reads:
"Finding the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that President Bush cited as his main justification for going to war is now a secondary issue, says Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz."
Do you think that they actually believe that by repeating this often enough the issue will go away?
Mel Goodman: I believe that we are hearing from Alice in Through the Looking Glass....."The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things. The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master...that's all."
________________________________________________
Austin, Tex.: 1. What should the US do now in Iraq? I opposed the war, but now I don't think we have any business packing up a going home. As the signs in antique stores say, you break it, you bought it....
2. What about North Korea? I hate to be alarmist, but are we going to have another world war on our hands a year or two from now?
Mel Goodman: North Korea is the easier problem to resolve. Pyongyang wants a non-aggression pact, diplomatic relations, and aid. For that, we need a freeze on their nuclear program and some assurances that it will not be reconstituted. Very doable in my estimation but the troglodytes in Bush's administration (which includes no expertise on Korea, I believe) wants confrontation. Iraq is trickier because of our huge presence, but we need to internationalize the situation and return to the UN for help (which we should have done from the beginning). We need Iraqis in charge of Iraq and an international peace force in charge of Iraqi national security. And we need Americans out of Iraq, where they are nothing more than targets.
________________________________________________
Washington, D.C.: Can you comment on the British scientist who recently committed suicide. Is there a link here? What does the fallout from this look like?
Mel Goodman: The suicide of Kelly will put greater pressure on the Blair government, which will in turn put greater pressure on the Bush government. There is no link but journalists should try to find out how the US and the UK coordinated their intelligence distortions to go to war....and Blair should be forced to reveal his so-called sources to show that Iraq was reconstituting his nuclear capability. I doubt if he has any, but Bush should try to determine what he has.
________________________________________________
Herndon, Va.: What is the significance of the creation of the Office of Special Plans?
Sounds creepy to me.
Mel Goodman: Very dangerous precedent. It allows the secretary of defense to create his own intelligence data and intelligence analysis and then pass the product to the White House for use on the Hill and with the American people. It needs to be investigated to see the role it played in the disinformation campaign...and it needs to be abolished.
________________________________________________
Olney, Md.: It seems you are damning by ommission the Secretary of State. As CJCS during Iraq l, Secretary Powell was instrumental in its outcome. As Secretary, his office should have been informed that INR was taking a footnote to a critical NIE discussion. Since it will ultimately fall to the Department of State to clean up whatever is left, should he not play a more forceful role? Is State represented in the Jerry Bremer operation? Do you really mean where the US acts militarily, terrorists later flourish?
Mel Goodman: Bremer is run by the Defense Department and not the State Department, which is symbolic of the overall American national security problem. Also SecState Powell has not stood up to defend his department or his role as secretary, not that I ever expected him to. The serious secstates in history (Acheson, Shultz, and Kissinger) would not have tolerated this arrogance of power by Rumsfeld and would have forced changes. This must be corrected because of American national security policy is at risk, particularly arms control and disarmament, the Middle East, the European alliance system, etc. etc.
________________________________________________
Washington, D.C.:
A somewhat different angle:
Saddam Hussein was not going to last forever. After Saddam, a fundamentalist Islamic regime would take power, possible allied with terrorists, or the country would fall into anarchy and civil war. The "clear and present danger" for the U.S. would then be obvious. The Bush administration went to war in Iraq to project American influence in the Middle East and introduce a stabilizing and moderating influence. So far, it appears to be working. Your take?
Mel Goodman: If you think that it is working then you must be smoking something that CVS doesn't carry in my neighborhood. This policy has failure written all over it.
________________________________________________
Parkville, Md.: I've got to say, one of the most distasteful aspects of this whole affair, to my mind, is how, in an effort to have the "buck stop" anywhere but with George W. Bush, top administration officials were essentialy blaming Tony Blair for the famous "sixteen words" that made their way into the State of the Union Speech. What Bush said was "technically correct" we were being told by Condoleeza Rice and others, since he was merely reporting British intelligence findings. So even after Blair risked his political neck for Bush, and may well have ended his political career because of it, this Administration doesn't have the comon decency to look elsewhere when assigning blame for the president's State of the Union address. If I were Blair I'd be fuming, and I'm amazed that he's not (at least publicly).
Mel Goodman: I totally agree with the lack of leadership and responsibility in the Oval Office. But you are letting Blair off too easily....he played with intelligence regarding the 45 minute capability of Saddam Hussein and the reconstitution of nuclear weapons programs. And in my 24 years at the CIA, where I worked closely with the British Joint Intelligence Committee, no British official ever said to me that he had sensitive intelligence that could not be shared. Too coy to be believed. If it's that sensitive it is not discussed.
________________________________________________
Fort Worth, TX: Laurel, Md. wrote: Is it conceivable that WMDs have been found, but for a very, very good national security reason, it has not been publicized?
You respnded: No chance whatsoever. This administration is desperate to brandish Iraqi WMD. In fact, the US holds two key officials who have some of the answers, former foreign minister Tariq Azziz and chief scientist Amir Saadi. The fact that we know nothing about their views suggests that the administration is getting the answers it wants and needs on WMD. Another ugly picture that gets too little attention.
It seems that the reason we have not heard Azziz's and Saadi's views is that the administration is NOT getting the answers it needs and wants, specifically where the WMD are.
Sorry for the long post and thanks for the chat.
Mel Goodman: Again, if Saadi and Azziz could corroborate the Bush administration, then they would be at the National Press Club for a nice deli lunch this afternoon and you would be watching it on CBS news tonite.
________________________________________________
Bethesda, Md.: Right now the media is pressing hard on the Niger contentions. A common rebutal is that was only one plank of the platform. However, the intel supporting an Iraq connection to al Qeada and the aluminum tubes statements are also weak. Why does the press seem to be mostly ignoring these issues?
Mel Goodman: The Niger story is a red herring because the hoax was so bad that not even an ordinary Italian magazine would run the story a year ago. The bigger story is the total intelligence picture, the CIA exaggeration of the data, and the White House's complete distortion of the picture. I find that the media can be somewhat indolent in digging for new material and do much better when stories are brought to them. The media need to be more aggressive.
________________________________________________
Gullsgate Minn:
Mel Goodman: I can think of 16 words I would like to say to Bush and his colleagues; but they would not pass code.
What 16 words would express your summing-up of the on-going deceptions perpetrated on this nation and the world by this administration?
And in extended but not secondary consideration, wherever the very invisible man Cheney is sipping his morning 'reconstituted citric program, it is to be remembered that whereas his juice glass may always be half-full for himself and the likes of Halliburton etc.-- for this nation the glass is half empty and soon hitting bottom if there isn't a turn around?
One could also say, one word not 16 words keep coming up more frequently lately--the word 'impeach'. Would this solve or complicate the situation considering the complexity of power and power brokers that would still be in control within this administration?
Mel Goodman: Sixteen words: This is the most profound intelligence scandal in the history of our republic. I am appalled.
________________________________________________
Arlington, Va.: What I'd like to know is what information you have that isn't what everyone else sees on the news or reads in the paper. Based on everything I've heard and seen, it's still up in the air whose fault it is. You're just railing against the president like a thousand other partially informed loudmouths.
Mel Goodman: You can have the Ari Fleisher award who said earlier this month: "I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have WMD to tell the world where they are." Congratulations to Arlington.
________________________________________________
Arlington, Va.: Greetings,
I find your analysis comforting. However, just yesterday the Post had a former military man saying the exact opposite-- that the war was justified and an overwhelming success. I believe Bush (our most politicized president to date) effectively manipulated a public too numbed by 9/11 to raise a hand in defiance.
You seem to imply that the public is "ahead of the press" on critical debate, just like Vietnam-- can you elaborate on this?
washingtonpost.com: Outlook Transcript: Former Army officer and author Ralph Peters (washingtonpost.com, July 21)
Mel Goodman: I have spoken throughout the country over the past year, and done a great deal of talk radio and I'm convinced that the American people are questioning the reasons for going to Iraq, are skeptical of the information that they are getting, and are resentful of the swagger of the president. The landing on the carrier in May may not seem important to Washington, but it raised questions in middle America about the modesty and humility of the president.
________________________________________________
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Have you intel types started working out the numbers on the current Gulf War? In all the coverage of the War & Peace in Iraq, I've not seen any of the benchmarks debated during the Vietnam War. Here are some missing in action examples in Iraq.
What is the Robert McNamara line? That is the number of U.S. troops beyond which the contribution from the host government dwindles as the U.S. presence is reinforced. What is the George Ball line? That's the number of U.S. casualties beyond which even the most hardened warhawk concedes that peace negotiation and withdrawal is the order of the day. What is the Clark Clifford line? That's the amount of U.S. expenditures in theatre beyond which noticeable hardship in domestic spending becomes untenable. Finally what's the Q number? That's the number of days of occupation beyond which QUAGMIRE becomes the hated word du jour.
Do you or your colleagues know these numbers? Does anyone in the White House?
Thanks much. Signed.. Vietnam-Era Draftee.
Mel Goodman: You have made such an excellent point and have raised so many key questions for all of us that I will use your statement to sign-off. There is no George Ball in this administration...no Clark Clifford...nor even a Robert McNamara who misused intelligence and then recognized some of the errors of his ways (but not all). Remember this is a carefully selected group of people who have been calling neoconservatives who have dominated the oped pages, the debate, and the policy with the media and the congress being very slow to respond. Thank you for your observations and I want to thank all of you for your comments and questions. I hope to join you soon. Mel Goodman in Bethesda, MD.
________________________________________________
washingtonpost.com: That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.
Stay Tuned to Live Online:
• Noon History Detectives:
Professors Wesley Cowan and Tukufu Zuberi
• Noon Q&A with Bob Levey:
Guest Author Diane Ravitch
• Noon What's Cooking:
Kim O'Donnel
• Noon Funny? You Should Ask:
Gene Weingarten
• Noon Strength and Fitness:
Weightlifter Marty Gallagher
• 1 p.m. Lean Plate Club: Sally Squires
• 2
p.m. College Costs:Financial Planner Timothy Hayes
• 3:30
p.m. Design Trends: Curator and Author Susan Yelavich
Full
Week's Schedule
Keep up with the best Live Online has to offer and special breaking news discussions. Sign up for the Live Online e-mail newsletter.
________________________________________________
Automatically Update Page
| Get New Responses | Submit Question
 |