Rick's Claim in "Fiasco" that Richard "the peacenick" Armitage was an Early War Hawk
I have maintained that Richard Armitage’s release of the name of Valerie Plame was not incidental and that he wasn’t the peacenik that he was portrayed as being in the recent revelations of his position after his name appeared in relation to the Plame affair earlier this fall when in the Corn and Isikoff authored book, Hubris (2006). However up until now I had nothing concrete to base that hunch on other than Armitage’s history during the Reagan administration’s war in Nicaragua. Now I have some evidence for my position from Thomas Rick’s new book, Fiasco
This is basically an interesting naming of "hawk" names from Thomas E. Rick’s 2006 book, Fiasco. In this book, Rick’s makes the rather original argument that Bush was sort of backed into the war with Iraq as a result of Cheney’s highly jingoistic speech of August 26, 2002 given at the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars at the Opreyland Hotel in Nashville. This was the first speech to lay out what would ultimately become the main selling points used to generate support for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam. In this speech Cheney flatly called for war and noted that the "Iraqi regime" had been "enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents" and were pursuing a nuclear program which would give Saddam "nuclear weapons fairly soon" (49). This is part of Rick’s larger argument that it was Wolfowitz who was the man most directly responsible for the focus on and war with Iraq. And that his main opposition in this early period in the administration was Marine Corp General Anthony Zinni. This opposition he attributes to a strong belief by each man in their own position. Ricks quotes retired Col. Gary Anderson who said, "Neither one is in any way disingenuous." By which he means honestly supporting a position that has been honestly arrived at through life experience and knowledge. That doesn’t mean one of the two men is not wrong or wrong headed in their beliefs, only that their beliefs are the reason for their position and that they believe fervently in the rightness of their position. Wolfowitz’s position and set of beliefs is attributed to the death of many members of his family in the Holocaust, while Zinni’s experience is based on his experiences in the war in Vietnam where he was severly wounded.
The pertinent paragraph:
"The effect of this NIE [the original National Intelligence Estimate prepared for Congress on the Iraq threat level] can’t be underestimated said one general who talked frequently to Rumsfeld during this time. During the summer of 2002, he said, both Bush and Rumsfeld had been on the fence. "Cheney, Wolfowitz and Armitage were the hawks," he remembered. Each argued that "we had to get rid of this guy, that time isn’t on our side, and that there will be no better time to get rid of him." On the other side of the argument were Colin Powell and some lesser figures in the administration. They "thought it was time to leverage the international community, especially since we’d scared the hell out of everybody." (52)
I don’t yet know how I feel about Rick’s his book or his argument yet, but I am glad to see that at least one other person who was much closer than I to this situation, relates that Armitage was an early Hawk in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
I have maintained that Richard Armitage’s release of the name of Valerie Plame was not incidental and that he wasn’t the peacenik that he was portrayed as being in the recent revelations of his position after his name appeared in relation to the Plame affair earlier this fall when in the Corn and Isikoff authored book, Hubris (2006). However up until now I had nothing concrete to base that hunch on other than Armitage’s history during the Reagan administration’s war in Nicaragua. Now I have some evidence for my position from Thomas Rick’s new book, Fiasco
This is basically an interesting naming of "hawk" names from Thomas E. Rick’s 2006 book, Fiasco. In this book, Rick’s makes the rather original argument that Bush was sort of backed into the war with Iraq as a result of Cheney’s highly jingoistic speech of August 26, 2002 given at the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars at the Opreyland Hotel in Nashville. This was the first speech to lay out what would ultimately become the main selling points used to generate support for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam. In this speech Cheney flatly called for war and noted that the "Iraqi regime" had been "enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents" and were pursuing a nuclear program which would give Saddam "nuclear weapons fairly soon" (49). This is part of Rick’s larger argument that it was Wolfowitz who was the man most directly responsible for the focus on and war with Iraq. And that his main opposition in this early period in the administration was Marine Corp General Anthony Zinni. This opposition he attributes to a strong belief by each man in their own position. Ricks quotes retired Col. Gary Anderson who said, "Neither one is in any way disingenuous." By which he means honestly supporting a position that has been honestly arrived at through life experience and knowledge. That doesn’t mean one of the two men is not wrong or wrong headed in their beliefs, only that their beliefs are the reason for their position and that they believe fervently in the rightness of their position. Wolfowitz’s position and set of beliefs is attributed to the death of many members of his family in the Holocaust, while Zinni’s experience is based on his experiences in the war in Vietnam where he was severly wounded.
The pertinent paragraph:
"The effect of this NIE [the original National Intelligence Estimate prepared for Congress on the Iraq threat level] can’t be underestimated said one general who talked frequently to Rumsfeld during this time. During the summer of 2002, he said, both Bush and Rumsfeld had been on the fence. "Cheney, Wolfowitz and Armitage were the hawks," he remembered. Each argued that "we had to get rid of this guy, that time isn’t on our side, and that there will be no better time to get rid of him." On the other side of the argument were Colin Powell and some lesser figures in the administration. They "thought it was time to leverage the international community, especially since we’d scared the hell out of everybody." (52)
I don’t yet know how I feel about Rick’s his book or his argument yet, but I am glad to see that at least one other person who was much closer than I to this situation, relates that Armitage was an early Hawk in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
Last edited: