Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Interesting WH skullduggery at TalkingPointsMemo re: Garner revelations.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 02:58 PM
Original message
Interesting WH skullduggery at TalkingPointsMemo re: Garner revelations.
Last March, shortly after Warrick joined Garner's team, Don Rumsfeld met with Jay Garner in the Secretary’s office. During the meeting Rumsfeld walked over to his desk and asked Garner if he had someone on his team named Warrick. Garner said he did. Rumsfeld told him he had to go. Garner told Rumsfeld that he needed Warrick on his team. But Rumsfeld told him the answer was no --- end of story.

Garner then gave Warrick the word, but assured him that he’d be able to get him back on the team later.

In a subsequent meeting Garner told Rumsfeld that he needed Warrick back on his team. It was at this point that Rumsfeld made clear to Garner that the decision came from above and that there was nothing he, Rumsfeld, could do about it. Warrick had to go.
-- Josh Marshall

Talking Points Memo


The guy, Warrick, is State Dept, and author of the Future of Iraq Project, which some say predicted what has happened, to some degree. Maybe not the Pentagon Papers exactly, but it works the same way.


Also some interesting stuff there about CPA and IGC seeking help from (close my eyes) IRAN! :silly:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Catfish Donating Member (533 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. Also interesting in that piece is that
it seems that the Office of the Vice-President was really calling the shots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-03 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Right.
With this bunch, referring to "the White House" really means referring to the White House/Executive Office Building/Bunker complex.

(The WHEOBB complex. Ah, the tangled . . . )

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kick to the BFEE's pants.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC