One of Ronald Reagan's great undoings as President was the fact that a gang of neocons managed to penetrate his Administration at the second and third tiers, particularly at the Defense and State Departments, and as "consultants" to the National Security Council. End result: Iran-Contra and other debacles that left a black scar on the Reagan legacy. Although an independent prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, was appointed to fully investigate the illegal arming of the Nicaraguan Contras and the covert shipping of ballistic missiles to Iran, some via Israel, few of the culprits were actually indicted and fewer were convicted.
The reason for dredging up this bit of ancient history is the fact that one of the nastiest of the Iran-Contra criminals, Elliot Abrams, is under consideration for the powerful post of Deputy Secretary of State, according to a January 25, 2017 Washington Post column by Josh Rogin. I do not use the word "criminal" rhetorically. Abrams was one of the few Iran-Contra players to be convicted, albeit of a misdemeanor crime of misleading Congress. He actually lied to Congress, which was a felony, but he struck a plea agreement with Special Prosecutor Walsh and got the reduced penalty in return for a promise to cooperate. That October 1991 deal had been preceded in July 1991 by a similar plea deal by Alan Fiers, the CIA officer who was also a key player in the illegal arming of the Nicaraguan Contras. Abrams headed the Restricted Interagency Group, which coordinated the secret war in Central America between the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon. Other members of the RIG were Lt. Col. Oliver North and Fiers.
Abrams is neocon aristocracy. Before he joined the Reagan Administration, he worked for Senators Henry Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. His father-in-law was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine and a co-founder of the American neo-conservative movement along with Irving Kristol.
Although his misdemeanor convictions deprived Abrams of a post in the George H.W. Bush Administration, he was a co-founder of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which produced the neocon blueprint for the George W. Bush Administration's endless regime change wars. He was appointed by Bush 43 to a top post at the National Security Council, where he was in the middle of the promotion of the disastrous Iraq invasion of March 2003.
Any appointment of Abrams to a top post in the Trump Administration, especially a post as powerful as Deputy Secretary of State, who effectively runs the day to day affairs of the U.S. diplomatic corps, would be a disaster. An even larger disaster, to be avoided, would be the flood of neocon ideologues into key State Department posts if Abrams were to get the job. Open the door a crack and the stink bugs swarm in. They never travel alone.
No doubt, Bibi Netanyahu, who is preparing his first visit to Washington since the Trump inauguration, is crossing his fingers, and perhaps even praying that Abrams gets the job.
Harper
I continue to be amazed how the neocons and the R2Pers manage to get themselves into top positions in our national security apparatus in both Republican and Democratic party administrations. They sure have the connections and the DC game down pat.
Posted by: Jack | 04 February 2017 at 03:32 PM
One of PNAC's founders was Robert Kagan, Vicky Nuland's husband.
If these guys are in, it will be a case of plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Posted by: Prem | 04 February 2017 at 03:35 PM
> the covert shipping of ballistic missiles to Iran, some via Israel
Point of detail, but the missiles involved were TOWs, heavy antitank weapons, not ballistic missiles in any commonly used sense of the term.
There's an interesting TOP SECRET PLEASE DESTROY AFTER READING document having to do with that episode at
http://www.thereaganfiles.com/operation-recovery-timeline.pdf
Posted by: Allen Thomson | 04 February 2017 at 03:48 PM
How dare you challenge anything the president does? Are you trying to start a civil war?
Posted by: raven | 04 February 2017 at 04:10 PM
raven
That is just a stupid, childish thing to say. Opposing policy or appointments is not the same as seeking to depose a legitimately elected president through the use of street theater and propaganda. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 04 February 2017 at 04:18 PM
Harper -- I had no idea that Abrams was in the mix. He is indeed a criminal and would be a disaster in this or any other position. I can't even imagine how much power he would have vis a vis Tillerson.
Posted by: Laura | 04 February 2017 at 04:59 PM
Adjust you're snarkometer.
Posted by: raven | 04 February 2017 at 05:05 PM
raven
If you want to comment here. you should know that I do not welcome unsolicited advice. "Snark?" can't you do better than that? I am willing to tolerate you here but only if you follow my rules. No personal attacks, no unnecessary vulgarity, I have decided to withdraw the word "stupid" with regard to a previous comment by you. it was a personal attack. Its your choice. Follow my rules or be banned again for the kind of vile things you wrote to me during the electoral campaign. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 04 February 2017 at 05:15 PM
Laura
AIPAC/Israel seeks to plant someone senior in each department of government. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 04 February 2017 at 05:17 PM
I've been biting my tongue, Colonel.
Posted by: ex-PFC Chuck | 04 February 2017 at 05:18 PM
14 Hawk SAM's and over 200 Hawk spare parts,
Over 2500 TOW's.
Posted by: Brunswick | 04 February 2017 at 05:23 PM
I had a feeling at the time of the Maidan coup that this was something that Obama and Kerry did not want. Of course they are responsible and must have given some kind of approval but it is doubtful that they were aware of the consequences such as civil war, major confrontation with Russia and conversion of Ukraine into a failed state. Nuland and Pyatt no doubt knew what they were doing but thought they could create such a crisis that Obama would be forced to send in the US military.
In any case, let us just hope that Trump realizes just how toxic those neocons can be.
Posted by: ToivoS | 04 February 2017 at 05:40 PM
Several years ago I read (I forget where, maybe an interview with Larry Wilkerson?) that Bush the Elder knew he had to keep Neocons in the government to keep part of the donor class happy. To that end he gave them a room and some money and let them "do their thing" so they felt they had influence but couldn't adversely effect policy making. Given that the current administration doesn't seem to be particularly interested in "traditional" diplomacy, could this be a similar move?
Posted by: jayinbmore | 04 February 2017 at 06:29 PM
I am appalled at Trump's first two weeks regarding China and especially Iran. Okay, I get that there is a place for posturing but picking a fight over Iran's lawful missile testing and characterizing the Houthi missile attack on a Saudi warship as an attempted attack by Iran on a U.S. ship twilight zone material.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-trump-administrations-lies-about-iran/
I knew that Trump surrounded himself with Iranophobes but the thing I did not factor in was that the U.S. MSM would act as an echo chamber. Wow, we finally found someone the MSM hates more than Trump, I didn't think it was possible.
The stuff pouring out of Neocons on TV and its immediate acceptance by the MSM reminds me exactly of the pre-Iraq war run up. I don't like it one bit.
On the Tucker Carlson show, some Congressman called Iran's missile test them developing ICBM's and the normally skeptical Carlson didn't challenge that assertion. Iran's missile isn't anything close to an ICBM. It is a medium range missile. Unlike the North Koreans, Iran has not extended the range of their ballistic missiles at all. They are improving the accuracy and trying to decrease the fueling time.
There is no skepticism in the MSM. You can make any claim about Iran and it will be accepted. This is very fertile territory for Neocons.
Posted by: Chris Chuba | 04 February 2017 at 07:52 PM
A quote from Elliot Abrams:
"In Syria today we see an Iranian expeditionary force, bolstered by an estimated 2,000 troops from Iran’s ally Hezbollah and armed by Russia, seeking to crush a popular rebellion. Syria is 75 percent Sunni, so the Alawite Assad regime and its Shia supporters in Tehran and Lebanon will never win the support of the Syrian people to rule that country. The only hope for Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad is to kill enough rebel fighters and civilians to end the uprising. At this point they have killed an estimated 100,000 people and done immeasurable damage to Syria’s economy and infrastructure—and they will keep on killing and destroying."
July, 2013, his testimony at the House Armed Services Committee. He goes on:
"But worse yet for us would be our defeat by Iran—and that is exactly how it would be seen. On one side, Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia support Assad; on the other, the United States, EU, and our Sunni Arab friends from the Gulf support the rebels. Does it matter who wins? Yes—because around the world but especially in the Middle East allies and enemies will judge the power, influence, and willpower of the United States and our friends by the outcome of this conflict."
Its impossible to come up with a worse advisor or more under handed operator for the Sate Department. He is not loyal to the US, he is only loyal to Israel, and his intentions are war with Iran, the overthrow of Assad, the defeat of Hezbollah, and the carving up of Iraq.
He is, and has been, one of the most effective voices for the provisioning and military support of those who, on this website, are known as the unicorns - sometimes mislabeled the moderate rebels; but more honestly seen as the funnel of money and arms to head choppers and liver eaters. He is a supporter of Islamic terrorism, because he believes it suits Israeli interests to do so.
However, Abrams has been a proven supporter of terrorism in Latin America. I strongly recommend listening to Nairn here: https://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/8/18_ex_military_guatemalan_leaders_arrested
And if you are interested in how and why the US
Posted by: Castellio | 04 February 2017 at 08:13 PM
And should one be interested in Abrams support of terrorism against Palestinians, see here:
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/representing-palestinians-settlements/
Posted by: Castellio | 04 February 2017 at 08:17 PM
Laura,
He would grab as much power as he could. On the other hand, Tillerson has overseen enough multiple layers of offices to know something about how office warfare is waged. And if he has people reading these threads, they may well warn him ( if he doesn't already know), what a festering pollution point-source Abrams would be.
There may well be problems in Outer Mongolia which would require Abrams's
ongoing personal attention.
Posted by: different clue | 04 February 2017 at 08:39 PM
Nothing wrong with the Col's "snarkometer". he knows that opposing policy is different from attempting to "depose a legitimately elected president through the use of street theater and propaganda" which is what your ilk resort to.
Posted by: LG | 04 February 2017 at 09:00 PM
I wouldn't trust anything that Josh Rogin says. He has been consistently anti-Trump. I doubt he would be allowed anywhere near "transition sources".
Posted by: LG | 04 February 2017 at 09:06 PM
How can all these neocons coordinate and organize without the NSA/DHS catching them at it?
Its not as if they attended the same schools and the Old Testament provides no explicit instructions on what do with Assad. So the question is, if NSA/DHS is observing the command flow why aren't they stopping it or exposing it? This is far beyond releasing DNC emails this involves states declaring war, now most likely on Iran. It seems that for the neocons America is merely a tool and nothing they pledged allegiance to.
Posted by: wisedupearly | 04 February 2017 at 09:18 PM
A personal attack on who? There is nothing on that post that identifies that you wrote it. You have plenty of other folks writing things and you generally put PL at the end of yours. I've never attacked you and you know it.
Posted by: raven | 04 February 2017 at 09:40 PM
When I saw that Elliott Abrams was floated as a possible deputy secretary of state, I could not believe it, except that perhaps it was the usual attempt to promote someone for a position by or through the media. He is a loathsome individual, who likes to try to act tough while hiding behind the skirts of a government office or in a structured proceeding. He was pardoned by president Bush sr.
However, the good news is that the deputy secretary of state has to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate after being appointed by the president. Title 22, U.S. Code, section 2651 creates the State Department, and 2651a speaks to its organization--
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2651
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2651a
22 U.S.C. 2651a(a)(2): "The Secretary, the Deputy Secretary of State, and the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."
It would be a great disappointment if Rex Tillerson would even consider Abrams for the job, based on Tillerson's reputation. A number of years ago I found a court opinion about the proceeding to revoke Abrams' law license after his Iran-Contra plea in the criminal case. But today, like recent days, has been occupied such that little time for research and this activity has been available.
The Iran-Contra report (Volume 1) of special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, and the summary of prosecutions, are here--
https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/
https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/summpros.htm
Posted by: robt willmann | 04 February 2017 at 11:09 PM
raven
you don't understand. You are not allowed to attack ANYONE here. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 05 February 2017 at 12:09 AM
In theory NSA is supposed to intercept foreign transmissions. Neocons are a uniquely local phenomenon.
Posted by: jayinbmore | 05 February 2017 at 12:17 AM
Is it OK to attempt influence the public perception of elected gov officials via theatrical expression?
Posted by: ked | 05 February 2017 at 12:19 AM