Brookings Loses Bid on Orszag But Takes Kagan from Carnegie

-

kagan_robert.jpgYesterday, when I was at this meeting with Special Representative to Muslim Communities Farah Pandith and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Cheryl Benton, Benton asked me off camera if I followed the LeBron James stuff. I sheepishly had to say that I had thought LeBron James was a soccer player – and when I learned later that he was a baseball, oops, basketball player — I felt even dumber than I should have on the subject.
While I don’t know squat about sports — I do watch the think tank all stars pretty closely.
For instance, Peter Orszag will not be going back to his home institution of Brookings after his role as OMB Director and is instead headed to the Council on Foreign Relations.
But Brookings is getting another prize.
Word has just reached us that Robert Kagan, currently Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is moving his franchise over to Brookings.
While Brookings President Strobe Talbott can staff himself on Russia, China and India — three big stakes foreign policy challenges — it seems that much of the foreign policy team — particularly in Brookings Foreign Policy Chief Martin Indyk, Saban Center Director Ken Pollack and now Robert Kagan — is hardening its capacity on the Israel/Iran front.
Kagan — next to Francis Fukuyama, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, and David Frum — is one of the top tier serious intellectuals among neoconservatives, though it’s clear that Frum and Fukuyama have distanced themselves from the broader movement to establish their own reformist franchises.
Kagan’s move is important for Brookings as the institution has been working hard to get Haim Saban to give another large infusion of resources to his namesake unit, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, at Brookings. Securing Kagan is one way that Brookings may have sweetened the pot for Saban who is according to one Brookings source “painfully flamboyant” about using his money to try and influence the DC establishment through think tanks and other vehicles to secure Israel-first, Israel-defending policies out of Washington.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

49 comments on “Brookings Loses Bid on Orszag But Takes Kagan from Carnegie

  1. Sand says:

    David, er thanks.

    Reply

  2. David says:

    Thank you, Sand. As a native Floridian of 68 years, sand is special to me, and your posts are as well.

    Reply

  3. Sand says:

    New Jersey Jewish News: Iran expert: Diplomacy without the scare tactics [June ’09]
    http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/060409/njIranExpert.html
    MEIR JAVEDANFAR… Raised in Iran during the revolutionary period, Javedanfar and his family left for England, where he obtained advanced degrees in international relations. He later made aliya and founded the Israel-based think tank and consulting firm MEEPAS.
    He is the coauthor of The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran

    Reply

  4. Sand says:

    A ‘Rawstory’ ‘exclusive’ on our ISRAEL-FIRSTER Rep. Jerry Nadler:
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    –Top **ANTI-WAR DEMOCRAT**: Afghanistan war could

    Reply

  5. DCPundit says:

    Congrats Steve on moving beyond the headline scoop and actually giving us an understanding of what this means.
    Brookings is a formidable institution, but it reflects the rightward shift of US politics, of what you reported at the Aspen Festival, and of foreign policy in general.
    You are doing an admirable job trying to add balance and hold off the neoconservative stomp, but it must be a lot of pressure on you.
    Robert Kagan, if he’s smart, should send you a thank you note for this piece.

    Reply

  6. susan says:

    “… and concoct some sort of deviant sexual behaviour to accuse you of.”
    Now that might be kinda fun!
    Concoct away!

    Reply

  7. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Or worse, Nadine will crawl in and bury you in bullshit.

    Reply

  8. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Touche, Susan.
    And poor Wiggie can’t even get back at you by insinuating the size of your penis, ’cause to the best of our knowledge, you ain’t got one.
    Oh well, perhaps her compatriot Marcus can chime in with some good old TWN semitic debate tactics, and concoct some sort of deviant sexual behaviour to accuse you of.

    Reply

  9. Sand says:

    Yeah — I was going to ask for a ‘Compare and Contrast’ from Wigwag — but I guess that request is redundant now.

    Reply

  10. Don Bacon says:

    Talk about overkill.

    Reply

  11. susan says:

    WigWag: Let’s let Saban and Soros, in their own words, tell us what they use their money and power to influence:
    Here’s Saban:

    Reply

  12. Sand says:

    Although I don’t know if Rattner is still giving $$$ to the ‘New America Foundation’ — as I think he’s in a spot of bother at the moment.
    –SEC Is Said to Seek to Bar Wall St. Financier
    Wednesday, 2 Jun 2010
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/37467464/SEC_Is_Said_to_Seek_to_Bar_Wall_St_Financier

    Reply

  13. Sand says:

    Your point Wigwag? Because you also have STEVE RATTNER who as well as being in the same Israel camp as Haim Saban has also “…been one of the most important donors to the New America Foundation…”?
    http://www.newamerica.net/about/funding
    –Hillary Bundlers to Pelosi: Back Off
    http://www.observer.com/2008/hillary-bundlers-pelosi-back
    “…The fund-raisers note, IN A PASSIVELY MENACING WAY, that they are

    Reply

  14. Don Bacon says:

    Why was it good, or even relevant?

    Reply

  15. larry birnbaum says:

    WigWag, that was a good catch.

    Reply

  16. WigWag says:

    As long as we’re on the subject, Steve decided to comment on Haim Saban’s painful flamboyance about “using his money to try and influence the DC establishment through think tanks and other vehicles…”
    Maybe Steve would like to tell us whether he thinks George Soros is “painfully flamboyant.” Soros hasn’t exactly been a shrinking violet when it comes to using his money and fame to try and influence the D.C. establishment. Of course Soros’ “Open Society Institute” has been one of the most important donors to the New America Foundation.
    So Steve, why don’t you tell us what exactly it is about Saban’s style that is more objectionable than the style of his fellow billionaire, George Soros?

    Reply

  17. WigWag says:

    The Brookings Institution and the New America Foundation actually have some things in common. For example, Liaquat Ahamed serves on the Board of Trustees of both think tanks and Bernie Schwartz (formerly of Loral Space Sciences) donated $ 1 million to both organizations. Other funders that they have in common include: Microsoft, the Smith Richardson Foundation, Walmart, McKinsey & Company, and Citigroup.
    Brookings has never been as progressive as some people give it credit for; over the years a major supporter has been the reactionary John M. Olin Foundation and its staff has never been particularly far to the left. Unless I’m mistaken, Richard Haass ran the foreign policy shop at Brookings before Martin Indyk did.
    Nevertheless, Brookings is the “think tank” of the Democratic Party; its relationship to the Democrats is what the American Enterprise Institute or the Heritage Foundation is to the Republicans.
    Kagan’s appointment may or may not inspire Haim Saban to make another gift but this is clearly a precursor to an increasingly hawkish foreign policy on the part of the Democrats. With neoconservative thinkers assuming an increasingly important role at Brookings and with the “fellow travelers” who surround them, the foreign policy advice that Democrats rely on will be becoming increasingly hawkish. Diane Feinstein and her multi-millionaire husband, Richard Blum, are also very large Brookings donors and of course she’s the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
    With Kagan at Brookings, Eliot Abrams at CFR and Paul Wolfowitz at the American Enterprise Institute, Irving Kristol, must be looking down with a big grin on his face.

    Reply

  18. Sand says:

    DB: I understand what you’re saying.
    I guess I’m just hoping that a little sanity can break through. We only have one planet.

    Reply

  19. Don Bacon says:

    Sand: how did these neocons get so much power
    The neocons aren’t much different from neolibs. Whatever one calls them, they serve an essential roll in the overall scheme by providing a doctrinal basis for American political/military imperialism, complete with the impressive imprimatur of academia.
    Recently, as illustrated above, they have been encouraged to go beyond the background and step out into the limelight where, by writing articles and publishing papers, they actually help in the marketing of the desired political/military maneuvers that the generals have proposed, while sidelining critics who don’t have access to the big players and therefore can’t be believed.
    There are other players, too, including the bought-and-paid-for congress-critters who brag about the military dollars they bring in to their districts, the beltway bandits of retired congressmen and generals who lobby them and profit big time from their former relationships, the corporations who rake in large profits, and the civilian Americans who live and work in the communities and plants sustained by the military largess and vote for the continuation of the corrupt system.

    Reply

  20. Sand says:

    Hmmm… a question for those who are ‘think-tank’ experts — so what’s the significance, influence, even connection between say the ‘Brookings Institute’ and the ‘Center for a New American Security’?
    Noting many members of the CNAS actually turned up in Obama’s administration? How many from the Brookings Institute?
    — Obama Dips Into Think Tank for Talent
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122688537606232319.html
    h/t Justin Raimondo
    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/05/12/the-new-neocons/

    Reply

  21. Sand says:

    Wow… when does the madness end — how did these neocons get so much power.
    –Scott Horton Interviews Jeff Huber
    Scott Horton, July 10, 2010
    Jeff Huber, Antiwar.com regular and author of Bathtub Admirals, discusses the diminishing likelihood of war with Iran or success in Afghanistan, the crazy Kagan-O

    Reply

  22. susan says:

    Don writes: So we see how the generals use the think tanks to push their war agendas…
    I think the generals’ uses are not limited to pushing non winnable wars. Call me cynical (and I am), but each time I see Admiral Thad Allen, U.S. Coast Guard, National Incident Commander on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on my tv “reporting” on the BP oil disaster, I look at him and think, “Who’s your daddy?”
    If his “reports” could be corroborated by independent sources, I would feel that I was getting accurate information.
    As it is, I believe virtually nothing that he says.

    Reply

  23. Colin Laney says:

    . . .”painfully flamboyant” about using his money to try and influence the DC establishment through think tanks and other vehicles to secure Israel-first, Israel-defending policies out of Washington.
    And the phrase dual loyalty is an anti-semitic slur that must nevr be repeated because . . .

    Reply

  24. Don Bacon says:

    Susan mentioned above in passing that the Kagans hung around with General Jack Keane.
    Keane sits on the board of directors of MetLife, General Dynamics and AlliedBarton. John M. Keane, age 66, is the co-founder and Senior Managing Director of Keane Advisors, LLC, a private equity investment and consulting firm, President of GSI, LLC, an independent consulting firm, Senior Advisor to Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts and Co., a private equity firm specializing in management buyouts, and an Advisor to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of URS Corporation, a global engineering design firm.
    URS Corporation — that rings a bell. (San Francisco, August 11, 2008) — URS Corporation (NYSE: URS) today announced that the Company is one of eleven firms that has been selected for an award of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract by the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Contract Field Team (CFT) program to provide depot and organizational level inspection, maintenance, modification and repair at operational government locations worldwide. The firms would manage a scope of work with a maximum value of approximately $10.2 billion over seven years. Ten . billion . dollars.
    General Keane served in the U.S. Army for 37 years. He was Vice Chief of Staff and Chief Operating Officer of the Army from 1999 until his retirement in October 2003. He is a Director of General Dynamics Corporation, the fifth largest defense contractor in the world, with $30b annually in DOD business. He also is a military contributor and analyst with ABC News and is a member of the United States Department of Defense Policy Board.
    Keane is a close friend and mentor to Gen. Petraeus, and was a member of “Team Kagan” in preparing the intellectual ground work that led to the “surge” in Iraq. Keane is a board member of Kim Kagan’s Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a “non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organisation [that] advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education.”
    In early May, General David Petraeus, now Commander in Afghansistan, was awarded the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI’s) Irving Kristol Award, which is given to individuals who have “made exceptional intellectual or practical contributions to improved government policy, social welfare or political understanding”.
    During his acceptance speech, titled “The Surge of Ideas”, Petraeus lauded a number of neo-conservative scholars associated with AEI, in particular “Team Kagan”, for their work in preparing the intellectual groundwork that led to the troop “surge” in Iraq.
    Three months earlier, in January, Petraeus offered a very similar speech about the “surge of ideas” during a talk organized by Kim Kagan’s Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a “non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization [that] advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis and innovative education.”
    Michael Flynn, in atimes: Petraeus knew that the [George W] Bush administration’s credibility was low, that it was going to have trouble selling the surge,” said Finel in an interview, so he hand-picked a number of civilians who he knew were behind this policy and helped turn them into media “experts”. This effort sidelined critics of the surge, says Finel, who were viewed as “outsiders, people without access, and thus not to be believed”.
    “Just as importantly, say writers like Foreign Policy’s Laura Rozen, the successful effort to promote the Iraq surge appears to have had an impact on Petraeus, who realized the persuasive power of getting “influence makers” to present situations on the ground “from the command’s perspective”.”///
    ***
    So we see how the generals use the think tanks to push their war agendas and people like General Keane transition between both worlds (military and think-tank) and make a bundle off the profits of the ensuing wars.
    Their PTSD rate is quite low, I imagine.

    Reply

  25. Sand says:

    Terry McAuliffe was a Saban/corporate/zionist carpetbagger just like Clinton was in NY. McAuliffe was likely to win — my eye.
    The real progressive in the race didn’t have a chance because the party machine had the knives out before the race even started. The party is run/controlled by moderate ‘republicans’ which is why we in the ‘Democratic Party’ keep losing.
    The Democratic Party’s values and platform are being destroyed ~ candidate by candidate ~ Our choice (chosen by the party): turns out to be the lesser of two evils. A DINO that lies through his/her teeth to get in, and once in turns on those values/platforms/planks in a second. The Democratic Party doesn’t even try to fight for little people anymore — the messaging and marketing of the so-called neo-Democratic Party is now in the hands of people like Mark Penn — and when those traditional values try to rise from the ashes the so called power brokers in the party gleefully stamp them out.
    –DSCC: Unions, Netroots are

    Reply

  26. susan says:

    Sean Paul Kelly at the Agonist writes:
    (http://agonist.org)
    If you aren’t reading Mondoweiss you are doing yourself a disservice. It is probably the single best anti-dote to the MSM’s pro-Israeli propaganda out there. http://mondoweiss.net
    At Mondoweiss, Phillip Weiss writes:
    “…please watch the video of a Palestinian woman who lives in central Hebron and whose door has been welded shut by rightwing Zionists with the support of the Israeli gov’t. It is shocking to watch her hunkering down ladders to leave her house, it is happening right here and now without a peep from the U.S. gov’t, and yes she reminds me of my grandmother, or images of Jews in central Europe.”

    Reply

  27. larry birnbaum says:

    “During the Virginia Governors race the guy put gobs of his own money into Clinton’s man: Terry MCAuliffe.”
    This is supposed to be evidence of Saban’s perfidy? Supporting a moderate Democrat who was a supporter and key political ally of the Clintons’? (And someone who, by the way, actually stood a chance of winning the Virginia Governor’s race, as opposed to the hapless “progressive” who was made mincemeat of by the radical religious conservative who now governs the state, and whose name I’ve already forgotten.)

    Reply

  28. Sand says:

    via Susan’s post — yeah it’s worrying that the neo-con’s plan hasn’t died and is still very much out there. Now being pushed by our own so called “liberal internationalists.” Maybe it was the economy that sidelined the timetable — but it seems they are back on track now. Note, Dennis Ross signed two PNAC open letters.
    “…”General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the United States could face another “decade or so” of persistent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan…”
    Blast from the past — From Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now [March 02, 2007]:
    http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_weighs_presidential_bid
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    GEN. WESLEY CLARK: http://Www.stopiranwar.com.
    AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq

    Reply

  29. susan says:

    The Kagan family are a collective piece of work. Despite all their academic and intellectual ‘fruit salad,’ has there ever been a family so myopically wrongheaded about contemporary history and foreign affairs?
    I’m not sure how seriously the neocons are taken these days within the decision-making structure, however, their propaganda structure continues to prop them up to the public as experts, despite a horrific track record–with disastrous results for the US as a whole.
    To paraphrase the right-wing snuff queen, ‘How’s that ‘Project For A New American Century’ thingie workin’ out for ya?’
    Here is a first-person reportage referencing the Kagans and the neocon think tank apparatus:
    by Adam L. Silverman
    June 2010
    “When I was deployed in Iraq the Kagans and General Keane came through a part of our OE for a quick tour. It was a comparatively stable and secure area. I found out about it a couple of days after the event when reading the battalion commander’s weekly summary. This coincided with the WSJ op-ed that the three authored about how Iraq was well on its way to becoming a peaceful, successful democracy and how the Surge was working and showing real benefits all because of what they had observed at their visit. I forwarded the op-ed to the battalion commander and his XO, who were both amused to see what their guests had written. Certainly their portion of the OE was largely stable, but to use it as an indicator for all of Iraq was a bit much. The XO then asked me what I knew of the Kagans. So I informed him that Dr. Mr. Kagan is the AEI Freedom scholar and their expert on Iraq and Iraq, though by training he’s a historian, specializing, if I recall correctly the Soviet Union, Russia, and the Cold War (I’ve seen reporting indicating that these were the subjects that he taught on at West Point, as well as the history of military art). I explained that Dr. Mrs Kagan runs the Institute for the Study of War, which is a neo-Conservative oriented organization that promotes the use of the military to solve any and all of America’s problems. I also informed him that while I was completing my pre-deployment training I found the Operation Iraqi Freedom 2008 Order of Battle into and out of Iraq posted on the Institute’s website, which was an operational security breach. It had been posted by an intern who was identified as an ROTC cadet. I turned this into the security officer we dealt with, but don’t know if anything came of it.
    Similarly I caught the Long War Journal, which appears to be tied to Frank Gaffney and Cliff May’s Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, and a similar outfit to the Institute for the Study of War, also posting classified information. About 1/2 way through my tour in Iraq I was looking for something using an open source search on the unclassified side. One of the links that came up was to a Long War Journal piece that had a jpeg image of a strip map of Baghdad, which I recognized. I recognized it because I had seen it a couple of weeks before while catching up on the intelligence summaries – it was a hand drawn map, made by an intel source, of anti-Iraqi forces infil and exfil routes for Baghdad! And off again I went to the security officer – this time my BCT’s, who took it so seriously he got mad at me for forwarding him the link to the article from my unclassified email, because the article was on the unclassified side!
    Unfortunately, and ultimately, I don’t think any of this made any difference. None of these folks seem to have been stopped from having access or getting war zone junkets or cheerleading. Its all well and good to have real forums and discussions that deal with these topics, like the one we participated in at NYU last year and that happen here all the time. Its quite another thing to do one sided presentations that are basically marketing and sales.
    The real question I have for those who were very supportive of the surge like efforts in Afghanistan, but have begun to argue that they won’t work for a variety of reasons and who advised on those decision making processes, is: when you all were on the advisory committee helping GEN McChrystal develop his courses of actions and ways ahead did you tell him this or are you now preparing the ground to throw him under the bus to protect your own reputations and your brand(s) such as COIN, irregular warfare, etc? I have no problem with outside experts being consulted, either formally or informally (full disclosure: I’ve done some informal/unpaid advising for some folks in both Iraq and Afghanistan as follow ups to work I did for them when I was working with HTS), but the person providing the advise and expertise has special responsibility to tell those consulting him what they need to know; not what they want to know or what they want to hear. The unfortunate reality is that many of these experts and consultants seem to tell those they’re interacting with what they want to hear in order to preserve future access, which is, of course, the profitable way of doing things.”
    Finally, General Michael Flynn writes, “In recent years there has been a tendency for like-minded think tanks and military officers to jointly pursue policy objectives, sometimes in direct conflict with the stated preferences of the president and his advisers. According to some observers, this trend raises questions about the appropriate role of both military officers, who are part of a chain of command, and think tanks, which present themselves as “non-partisan” appraisers of public policy.”
    In a excellent two part article, Flynn elaborates on this subject:
    http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51859
    http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51877

    Reply

  30. Don Bacon says:

    Brookings’ Michael O

    Reply

  31. JohnH says:

    Why not out source US strategic thinking?
    Seems to have happened already. Many of the Neocon men are notorious for the ambiguity of their loyalty to the US. The intransigent, “war is the answer” mindset seems to have been lifted directly out of Israel.

    Reply

  32. The Pessimist says:

    Why not contract out its war/think-tank nexus?
    I would offer that it is due to an inherent mindset of the present American neo-con crowd that the ideas that originate in their think-tanks are flawless in development and presentation and only fail in application because of the incompetence of the operatives. Intellectuals reside in a place where errors are never publically acknowledged. The true test of an intellectual

    Reply

  33. Don Bacon says:

    The USA contracts out many of its important functions — war training & support, intelligence, prisons, etc. — why not its thinking, also?
    Do other countries have this war/think-tank nexus? To ask the question is to answer it.
    Perhaps it would be better if we didn’t know squat about think tanks and followed sports, thus giving attention to more honest people.

    Reply

  34. David says:

    Naomi Klein is a one-person think tank of the first order.
    Regarding “enemies of the United States who must be convinced that they will lose,” they have a dogged tendency not to (cf. Viet Nam, which has proved a decent member of the world community since successfully driving the occupiers – first the French and then the Americans – out). At least the US, via the efforts of Kerry and McCain, had the good sense to establish normal relations with the country we had previously wrought havoc and inflicted serious ecodestruction on. Americans would not be so forgiving as the Viet Namese are.

    Reply

  35. larry birnbaum says:

    The Conspiracy grows to monstrous proportions. Et tu, Brookings?
    But you know your audience.

    Reply

  36. samuelburke says:

    GROUP THINK.

    Reply

  37. Don Bacon says:

    “General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the United States could face another “decade or so” of persistent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    March 8, 2005:
    In a rare appearance in Washington, General Casey offered an optimistic but cautious assessment of the situation in Iraq, where he commands more than 140 thousand U.S. and coalition troops. “We’re actually a little further along than I thought we would be at this point.”
    The general said the Iraqi insurgency is still capable of launching devastating attacks, but he says it is weaker than it was a few months ago thanks to continuing offensive operations by his troops and the new Iraqi army and police.
    “In general terms, they are falling off and not effective. We took a look at the election attacks, because we said, ‘the elections ought to tell us something about the strength of the enemy.’ Well, we saw about 300 attacks (and) maybe 70-percent of those were ineffective.”
    June 27, 2005:
    WASHINGTON – The momentum in Iraq has swung toward democracy and against terror, the top American commander in Iraq said today.
    The insurgents are “not nearly as capable” as they want people to think, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the commander of Multinational Force Iraq, said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” program today. In fact, he said, insurgents represent “one tenth of one percent of the Iraqi population.”
    September 30, 2005:
    During his congressional testimony, Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that troop reductions were necessary to “take away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency, that of the coalition forces as an occupying force.” A smaller U.S. presence could alleviate some of the anger feeding the insurgency, Casey suggested.

    Reply

  38. sanitychecker says:

    Good job Brookings! Well on its way to claiming the highest density of psychopaths per square foot.
    No wonder it’s called the Brookings Institution.

    Reply

  39. JohnH says:

    Who are you kidding? Elliott Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz, serious intellectuals?
    Con-men posing as intellectuals is more like it. The term neocon men describes them perfectly.

    Reply

  40. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Phil Weiss was on Antiwar Radio talking about Max Boot/Petraeus scheming….”
    When the Los Angeles Times dumped Robert Scheer, and took in the drooling jackass Max Boot, they lost my subscription and any claim they might have had on credibility or a lack of bias.

    Reply

  41. James Morris says:

    Here is the original post by Phil Weiss about the Petraeus/Max Boot scheming:
    Petraeus emails show general scheming with journalist to get out pro-Israel storyline (see the comments section at the bottom of the following URL as well):
    http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/petraeus-fed-his-pro-israel-bona-fides-to-a-neocon-writer-including-pathetic-recitation-of-meeting-wiesel.html

    Reply

  42. James Morris says:

    Petraeus is a neocon favorite with the likes of Kagan (and Russian born Max Boot as evidenced by the following that has appeared widely on the Web this past week but has received no coverage in the US mainstream media):
    Phil Weiss was on Antiwar Radio talking about Max Boot/Petraeus scheming:
    http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/07/10/philip-weiss-8/

    Reply

  43. Don Williams says:

    1) Did Marty Indyk and Kenneth Pollack ever find those nukes of Saddam Hussein’s? The families of 4500+ dead American soldiers would like to know.
    See http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2002/1219iraq_indyk.aspx
    and also Kenneth Pollack’s arguments for Saddam’s nukes in his 2002 book “The Threatening Storm”.

    Reply

  44. susan says:

    Yes, it is only a matter of years… or maybe centuries, but we WILL convince those enemies that they are going to lose. We are the
    US friggin’ A; don’t they realize that?
    “General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the United States could face another “decade or so” of persistent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    In two months, the U.S. will have been at war in Afghanistan for nine years.
    The four-star general said the U.S. military moved beyond conventional warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan “long ago” and that the focus is now on the people. Casey highlighted job, education and economic growth as essential to success in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    When asked if enemies of the U.S. have to be a part of the reconciliation process for it to be considered a success, Casey said that is a “matter of debate,” but that enemies have to be convinced they will lose.
    The general’s comments were made at a session moderated by the New York Times’ David Sanger at the Aspen Institute’s Ideas Festival. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was in the audience and his wife Meryl Chertoff, the Institute’s Co-Director of Justice and Society Programs, introduced Casey.”
    Robert and his fellow neocons must be damaging their fat hands with all those high fives!

    Reply

  45. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Amazing. These pieces of shit are lauded like this?
    What a resume this monster has. Membership in the PNAC, the FPI, and a list of cohorts that would make a great cast of characters in a movie about the march to nuclear holocaust and global eradication of Muslims.
    When one observes the celebration that accompanies the rise to power and prestige these fuckin’ abominations achieve, one cannot help but ponder how we have managed to stray so far from sanity. We are a nation and a people run amok, with not a shred of the Founding Father’s dreams and designs surviving our fall.

    Reply

  46. susan says:

    Steve wrote this in 2005:
    Institutional Suicide at Brookings: Carlos Pasqual Selected by Strobe Talbott to Succeed Jim
    Steinberg as Brookings Foreign Policy Czar
    “…For various reasons, Brookings was missing in action during the build up to the Iraq War in 2002 and early 2003, and Brookings being AWOL contributed, in my view, to the pathetic, inchoate response by Democrats to Bush’s foreign policy vision…
    Strobe Talbott should have selected Ivo Daalder in my view because he’s the foreign policy guy with vision, publications, and a tenacity to be the kind of warrior our current foreign policy debates need. I don’t agree with Daalder on everything — but do in a significant number of areas.
    But my objection is not based on whether I agree with Daalder or not, it’s based on my view that Talbott has selected a candidate who will keep Brookings AWOL — rather than get it deeply enmeshed in the foreign policy scramble that is going on…”
    Here’s more on now Ambassador to Mexico Pascual:
    In a fascinating report for The Nation magazine, titled

    Reply

  47. Lu Lewis says:

    Kagan will feel right at home. Saban is as guilty as those ten Russian spies for serving as agents of a foreign government. But nobody seems to mind, especially the FBI.

    Reply

  48. Lu Lewis says:

    Why won’t’ anybody in FP circles discuss Israeli or Chinese spies in America? Especially, Israeli spies at State Dept and Pentagon? Are they afraid of Israeli lobby’s reach and influence?

    Reply

  49. Len Franklin says:

    Robert Kagan? The prize you refer to is really a booby prize. He should be laughed at, with his naive views on the plausible outcomes of the exercise of US military power in the 21st century. Iraq war, anyone?
    Instead, he gets praised by blogs like this and is feted on the DC dinner party circuit. I really don’t know how or why you would describe this as anything other than as a mysteriously dumb move for Brookings – they are now becoming more intellectually irrelevant than ever. Well, at least this post didn’t talk about what a wonderful guy he is.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *