Pages

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Doug Feith’s Arabic problem

A post on Think Progress this morning made me realize once again that the Bushies are actually doing a good job at playing dumb. They are not actually dumb. I thought they were because they "couldn't find" enough qualified Arab speakers to help with the occupation in Iraq or with intelligence gathering. But the truth is, they don't want qualified Arab speakers because then too many people would get what the Neocons are perpetrating over there, and that would be much too dangerous. The less everyone knows, and the fewer Arab-lovers there are, the better.

Here's the post:

Doug Feith’s Arabic problem.

At a recent forum, career U.S. intelligence officer Patrick Lang recounted a job interview he had with neocon war architect Douglas Feith. Lang, who had previously run the Pentagon’s world-wide spying operations, “was put forward as somebody who would be good at running the Pentagon’s office of special operations and low-intensity warfare, i.e., counterinsurgency.” So he was interviewed by Feith:

“He was sitting there munching a sandwich while he was talking to me,” Lang recalled, “which I thought was remarkable in itself, but he also had these briefing papers — they always had briefing papers, you know — about me.

“He’s looking at this stuff, and he says, ‘I’ve heard of you. I heard of you.’

“He says, ‘Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?’

“And I said, ‘Yeah, that’s really true.’

“That’s too bad,” Feith said.

The audience howled.

“That was the end of the interview,” Lang said. “I’m not quite sure what he meant, but you can work it out.”

Feith, of course, like the administration’s other Israel-connected hawks, didn’t want “Arabists” like Lang muddying the road to Baghdad, from where — according to the Bush administration theory — overthrowing Saddam Hussein would ignite mass demands for Western-style, pro-U.S. democracies across the entire Middle East.

0 comments: