Talk:Elliott Abrams: Difference between revisions

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

So my changes are, covering up >> downplayed. Personally, I don't see how Abrams covered anything up. To cover something up, you'd need irrefutable proof that it happened, and then hide that proof from the press. I think, while there may have been some coverup allegations, what HRW and the like were accusing him of was downplaying the atrocities. Then I just gave the specifics on which groups the U.S. opposed -- don't see much wrong there.

Then I removed the "fabulous achievement" quote and replaced it with "strong support." The intent of the quote is to say "wow, what a moron, he's calling the Reagan policy a fabulous achievement when a battalion just massacred 900 people." But this ignores that the administration was frustrated with the incapability of the civilian government to control the military -- this is why we threw our support to Duarte in 1984, rather than caudillo death squad extraordinaire D'Aubuisson.

Then "knew about El Mozote and human rights abuses all along." All I'm asking for here is a good source that proves such an assertion. J. Parker Stone 22:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source on his membership in a socialist organization? Bruxism 01:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple pages that state and document the fact: [1] [2] -David Schaich 02:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS AN INTERNAL CONTRADICTION IN THE INFORMATION PRESENTED:

The intro says: "pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress."

THe Body say: In order to avoid a trial and a possible jail term, he pleaded guilty to two lesser offenses, both felonies, of withholding information from Congress

Not a trival difference. I'm pretty sure they were felonies. Anyone know a source to confirm that?

Today I added the following fully sourced sections:

- According to various sources, Abrams has been working systematically to undermine any prospect for serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. ....

and

- Since at least January 2006, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah groups in order to overthrow the democratically-elected Hamas government in the Palestinian territories. ...

Each of these was fully supported by Asia Times articles, to which I provided a cite and a link. They were completely deleted however on the ground that these are not top notch sources. The Asia Times is a major source of news and qualifies as RS under WP rules. Please explain why I should not restore.--NYCJosh 20:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have received no satisfactory response for the reason for their deletion, I am prepared to restore these two contributions. The sources describe that EA is THE key figure in the US gov't orchestrating the support for the assault on Hamas and the scuttling of the Syrian track. --NYCJosh 22:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire section has neutrality issues, but I took out the weasel phrasing and made it clear where the criticism came from. MoodyGroove 00:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

When you say that Abrams "publicly advocated" a coup, what do you mean by "publicly"? If your source is the Perry/Crooke article, I'm not sure that this phrase can be justified. The article says Abrams brought up the suggestion of a coup in a meeting "in his office" with Palestinian business people. I have no sense that this was a public meeting or that members of the press (or, indeed, Perry or Crooke) were present. Also, the article suggests that Abrams later retracted his suggestion as something he had said "in a moment of frustration". If he were truly advocating a coup publicly, one would expect to be able to find some reference to it in a press release or public communication, and not just from an unnamed source first published on a web forum.PeasantScribbler 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rose, David (2008-04). "The Gaza Bombshell". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2009-01-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) -- Jeandré, 2009-01-25t11:13z

I've read Undue Process, and I know the section being referenced. It reads: "It had all been arranged with great secrecy through the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Brunei. I had traveled to London, using my own passport, and registered at the Hilton in my own name. I had called the Sultan's suite at the Dorchester and asked for the aide I was supposed to meet with, using a code name we had agreed upon so he would know who was calling, but the British--whom he assumed were monitoring his phones--would not. ..." p. 89. I think it's pretty clear that Abrams used the code name at the behest of the Bruneians because of their own domestic political concerns--they wanted to keep the donation secret more than the Americans did. (After all, the modifications Congress had made to the Boland Amendment the previous December allowed Abrams to funnel donations from foreign countries to the Contras--he didn't have to keep it secret because it was illegal or unsupported by Congress, it wasn't.) However, I think describing the use of a code name as "standard procedure" is a bit misleading. Abrams didn't really have a "standard procedure" because this was the one and only time he (or anyone in the State department) asked a foreign government for aid. I think we should substitute "at the request of the Bruneians" or "for security purposes" for "as a standard procedure".PeasantScribbler 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some consideration, I think that the whole question is only marginally relevant. I edited the section to say that the meeting was secret, which is true enough. The discussion of the Boland Amendment in the section should make it clear that 'secret' doesn't mean 'illegal'.PeasantScribbler 17:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is Carter's view of Abrams relevant to this article? If we give a quote by such a controversial figure, there needs to be a mention of some views on Carter. Overall, Carter's personal opinion has no place here. The role of Wikipedia is not to describe one thing from 100 points of view, but lay out facts. Lizrael (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the opening paragraph: "Although Abrams is considered a leading neoconservative,[1][2] his appointment by Bush was controversial due to his conviction in 1991". Is the fact that Abrams is a neoconservative makes his nomination less controversial? This just doesn't make sense. Lizrael (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previously the modifying phrase was as follows: "Considered a leading neoconservative, Abrams' appointment ... ". This was ungrammatical because the phrase should modify Abrams, not his appointment. Also, at the time, I thought that the intention of the modifier was to smear the term neoconservative with criminality. Probably the modifier could be dropped without controversy. Still, it might be important information that major news media wrote features about him highlighting his leading role in neoconservatism.PeasantScribbler (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The label of a neoconservative seems fine to me, but we should separate the fact that the appointment by President Bush was controversial from the fact that Abrams is often labeled as a neoconservative. I'll edit the first section, and you tell me what you think of the result. Lizrael (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's fine now.PeasantScribbler (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deleting the entire Panama subsection. It has been unreferenced for a long time. Furthermore, it doesn't make much sense. Abrams concurring with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would not make a policy official. Bureaucrats have some policy-making power (including the power to make "unofficial" policy), but they don't have the power to make policy official--that's what the politicians do. If anyone was making the policy official, it was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.PeasantScribbler (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are major problems with the article. It is clearly meant to denigrate Abrams based on reports from sources that are known to have a political agenda like The Nation or wild allegation without substantiated proof (like the Observer report). Abrams is consistently described as a warmonger who doesn't care about human rights violations. The whole article doesn't rely on information from people who worked alongside Abrams (like Secretary Shultz's account of the Reagan presidency, Ronald Reagan's diaries, etc.) or authors who interviewed him (like the book On The Brink by Jay Winik), or on academic articles on the subject (for example, James Scott, "Interbranch Rivalry and the Reagan Doctrine in Nicaragua", Political Science Quarterly 112 (2): 237-260, 1997 and Daniel Drezner, "Ideas, Bureaucratic Politics and the Crafting of Foreign Policy", American Journal for Political Science 44 (4):733-749, 2000). Except for one quote from The Nation, the article doesn't include views espoused by Abrams in articles authored by him, statements before congress, books he wrote and interviews he gave. The result of this lack of serious research is an article of wild allegations, and rebuttals. Very few facts are established. Therefore, I have placed the disputed neutrality warning on the article. Please don't remove it until you've discussed it here or fixed the problems. Lizrael (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]