RETREAT, BUT KEEP THE SOUVENIRS

Thanks to Blog Left, a sweeping overview of the record of torture and murder in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere (there are no other words to use) - and why the evidence of responsibility all points upward

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/2004_05_01_archive.php#108592497909375480
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/2004/05/onward-with-investigation-of-abu.php

More: a major two-parter in NYRB

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17150
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17190

The New York Times: still letting us down

http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.com/2004/05/on-ny-times-web-page-douglas-jehl-and.html
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7789

Harsh criticism from NYT's own Daniel Okrent (at length)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/weekinreview/30bott.html?hp
The results of The Times's own examination appeared in last Wednesday's paper, and can be found online at nytimes.com/critique..... I think they got it right. Mostly. (I do question the placement: as one reader asked, "Will your column this Sunday address why the NYT buried its editors' note - full of apologies for burying stories on A10 - on A10?")

Some of The Times's coverage in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq was credulous; much of it was inappropriately italicized by lavish front-page display and heavy-breathing headlines; and several fine articles by David Johnston, James Risen and others that provided perspective or challenged information in the faulty stories were played as quietly as a lullaby. Especially notable among these was Risen's "C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports," which was completed several days before the invasion and unaccountably held for a week. It didn't appear until three days after the war's start, and even then was interred on Page B10.

The Times's flawed journalism continued in the weeks after the war began, when writers might have broken free from the cloaked government sources who had insinuated themselves and their agendas into the prewar coverage.......

The apparent flimsiness of "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert," by Judith Miller (April 21, 2003), was no less noticeable than its prominent front-page display; the ensuing sequence of articles on the same subject, when Miller was embedded with a military unit searching for W.M.D., constituted an ongoing minuet of startling assertion followed by understated contradiction. But pinning this on Miller alone is both inaccurate and unfair: in one story on May 4, editors placed the headline "U.S. Experts Find Radioactive Material in Iraq" over a Miller piece even though she wrote, right at the top, that the discovery was very unlikely to be related to weaponry.

The failure was not individual, but institutional.

When I say the editors got it "mostly" right in their note this week, the qualifier arises from their inadequate explanation of the journalistic imperatives and practices that led The Times down this unfortunate path. There were several.

THE HUNGER FOR SCOOPS Even in the quietest of times, newspaper people live to be first. When a story as momentous as this one comes into view, when caution and doubt could not be more necessary, they can instead be drowned in a flood of adrenalin.......War requires an extra standard of care, not a lesser one. But in The Times's W.M.D. coverage, readers encountered some rather breathless stories built on unsubstantiated "revelations" that, in many instances, were the anonymity-cloaked assertions of people with vested interests. Times reporters broke many stories before and after the war - but when the stories themselves later broke apart, in many instances Times readers never found out. Some remain scoops to this day. This is not a compliment.

FRONT-PAGE SYNDROME There are few things more maligned in newsroom culture than the "on the one hand, on the other hand" story, with its exquisitely delicate (and often soporific) balancing. There are few things more greedily desired than a byline on Page 1. You can "write it onto 1," as the newsroom maxim has it, by imbuing your story with the sound of trumpets. Whispering is for wimps, and shouting is for the tabloids, but a terrifying assertion that may be the tactical disinformation of a self-interested source does the trick......"Intelligence Break Led U.S. to Tie Envoy Killing to Iraq Qaeda Cell," by Patrick E. Tyler (Feb. 6, 2003) all but declared a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein - a link still to be conclusively established, more than 15 months later. Other stories pushed Pentagon assertions so aggressively you could almost sense epaulets sprouting on the shoulders of editors.

HIT-AND-RUN JOURNALISM The more surprising the story, the more often it must be revisited. If a defector like Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri is hailed by intelligence officials for providing "some of the most valuable information" about chemical and biological laboratories in Iraq ( "Defectors Bolster U.S. Case Against Iraq, Officials Say," by Judith Miller, Jan. 24, 2003), unfolding events should have compelled the paper to re-examine those assertions, and hold the officials publicly responsible if they did not pan out......

CODDLING SOURCES There is nothing more toxic to responsible journalism than an anonymous source. There is often nothing more necessary, too; crucial stories might never see print if a name had to be attached to every piece of information. But a newspaper has an obligation to convince readers why it believes the sources it does not identify are telling the truth. That automatic editor defense, "We're not confirming what he says, we're just reporting it," may apply to the statements of people speaking on the record. For anonymous sources, it's worse than no defense. It's a license granted to liars.......The contract between a reporter and an unnamed source - the offer of information in return for anonymity - is properly a binding one. But I believe that a source who turns out to have lied has breached that contract, and can fairly be exposed. The victims of the lie are the paper's readers, and the contract with them supersedes all others.........

END-RUN EDITING Howell Raines, who was executive editor of the paper at the time, denies that The Times's standard procedures were cast aside in the weeks before and after the war began. (Raines's statement on the subject, made to The Los Angeles Times, may be read at poynter.org/forum/?id=misc#raines.)......But my own reporting (I have spoken to nearly two dozen current and former Times staff members whose work touched on W.M.D. coverage) has convinced me that a dysfunctional system enabled some reporters operating out of Washington and Baghdad to work outside the lines of customary bureau management.......In some instances, reporters who raised substantive questions about certain stories were not heeded. .

[Not enough: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2004_05_23_digbysblog_archive.html#108588679930113668]

On Bush's "evolving" war rationale

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_30.php#003016
The most salient point to emerge from the president's recent speech on Iraq was the new rationale he put forward for continuing to support him and his policies: effective management of his own failures.....Originally, the case for war was built on claims about the Iraqi regime's possession of weapons of mass destruction and its support for terrorist groups like al qaida. To a lesser degree, but with increasing force as these other rationales faded way, the case was made on the basis of democratizing and liberalizing Iraq.

As that prospect too has become increasingly distant and improbable, President Bush has taken a fundamentally different tack. His emphasis now is seldom on what good might come of his Iraq policy but rather the dire consequences of its unmitigated 'failure' or its premature abandonment.......In other words, the president now argues that he is best equipped to guard the country from the full brunt of the consequences of his own misguided actions, managerial incompetence and dishonesty.....[W]hat we see now isn't the president's policy. It's the president's triage -- his team's ad hoc reaction to the collapse of his policy, the rapid, near-total, but still incomplete and uncoordinated abandonment of his policy.

The president's actions, if not his words, concede that Iraq has become the geopolitical equivalent of a botched surgery -- botched through some mix of the misdiagnosis of the original malady and the incompetence of the surgeon. Achieving the original goal of the surgery is now close to an afterthought. The effort is confined to closing up as quickly as possible and preventing the patient from dying on the table. And now the 'doctor', pressed for time and desperate for insight, stands over the patient with a scalpel in one hand and the other hurriedly leafing through a first year anatomy text book.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,644107,00.html
The President has a far more difficult problem, and quite the opposite of Kerry's. He got us into this mess. He has continually explained the war in platitudes. His imprecise idealism is not only inappropriate now, but has become downright annoying. His five-point plan is built on the quicksand of Ambassador L. Paul Bremer's failed seven-point plan - and it bears little resemblance to the emerging realities on the ground. The truth is, we are in full-scale retreat, both politically and militarily. Bush believes that Iraq is the front line in the war on terrorism, but his Administration just declared a truce with the men he thinks of as terrorists and is now turning security over to local militias......The President pretends that none of this is happening. Most Americans sense the President is just pretending, and they are impatiently waiting for someone to say something real.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-deals30may30,1,4924695.story?coll=la-home-headlines
As they struggled to hold together a fragile cease-fire agreement amid sporadic fighting Saturday, American officials were - once again - preparing to carry out a peace deal that calls for significant concessions to an adversary they once vowed to crush.... "I too am bothered by talking so loudly and backing off," said retired Maj. Gen. William Nash, a military analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. "But the first rule of getting yourself out of a hole is to stop digging."

Brahimi, soon to be known as "Mr. Potted Plant"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/31/international/middleeast/31IRAQ.html?hp
When Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy, arrived earlier this month, he declared that he would crisscross Iraq to give the people a new government, one that he suggested would be more independent of America's heavy-handed ways.......With his slate of appointees expected to be announced in the next day or two, the appointments leaked so far suggest that what Mr. Brahimi ultimately accomplishes may turn out to be less a revolution than a rearrangement, less a new cast of characters than a reworked version of the same old faces.....The reason, Iraqis are beginning to say, has been the unexpected assertiveness of American officials and their allies on the Iraqi Governing Council, coupled with Mr. Brahimi's surprising passivity, after he was expected to have a free hand.......The danger, some of these Iraqis say, is that the new government could end up looking too much like the old one, an American-appointed council that never gained the acceptance of the people........"If the purpose of the process is to please the Governing Council and the political players, this will be a short-lived moment, and it will fall apart," said Leith Kuba, an Iraqi leader based in Washington. "The Iraqis will not take it."

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3151-2004May30.html

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/30/iraq_leadership/index_np.html
A dispute Sunday between Iraq's Governing Council and U.S. occupation authorities over the selection of a new Iraqi president threatened to delay the appointment of a new government to take power June 30, Iraqi officials said.....A council member, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the U.S. governor of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, and U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi were exerting "massive pressure" to choose former Foreign Minister Adnan Pachachi, who supports keeping foreign troops in Iraq until the security situation stabilizes.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#108597404111665933
The Council opposes the naming of Adnan Pachachi as transitional president, because he is perceived as too complaisant toward the US. It wants Shaikh Ghazi al-Yawer of the Sunni Shammar tribe........Al-Yawer is known to be nationalistic, and was especially vocal about the siege of Fallujah.

Blackwill, a name we haven't heard too much about

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/31/international/middleeast/31IRAQ.html?hp
"The Americans are trying to impose these decisions on us, and we are trying to reject them," said Mahmood Othman, a council member who has been critical of both Mr. Bremer and Mr. Brahimi. "And they talk about sovereignty.".......One person conversant with the negotiations said Mr. Brahimi was presented with "a fait accompli" after President Bush's envoy to Iraq, Robert D. Blackwill, "railroaded" the Governing Council into coalescing around [Allawi].

Bush campaign strategy: "unprecedented negativity" (when you're down, try to pull the other guy down even lower)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html
The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading......Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising......Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry.

Cheney and Halliburton: is this scandal finally ready to break open?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040607-644111,00.html
Vice President Dick Cheney was a guest on NBC's Meet the Press last September when host Tim Russert brought up Halliburton. Citing the company's role in rebuilding Iraq as well as Cheney's prior service as Halliburton's CEO, Russert asked, "Were you involved in any way in the awarding of those contracts?" Cheney's reply: "Of course not, Tim ... And as Vice President, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government."....... But TIME has obtained an internal Pentagon e-mail sent by an Army Corps of Engineers official - whose name was blacked out by the Pentagonﾑthat raises questions about Cheney's arm's-length policy toward his old employer. Dated March 5, 2003, the e-mail says "action" on a multibillion-dollar Halliburton contract was "coordinated" with Cheney's office. The e-mail says Douglas Feith, a high-ranking Pentagon hawk, got the "authority to execute RIO," or Restore Iraqi Oil, from his boss, who is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. RIO is one of several large contracts the U.S. awarded to Halliburton last year...... The e-mail says Feith approved arrangements for the contract "contingent on informing WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." Three days later, the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton the contract, without seeking other bids......Cheney spokesman Kevin Kellems says the Vice President "has played no role whatsoever in government-contract decisions involving Halliburton" since 2000. A Pentagon spokesman says the e-mail means merely that "in anticipation of controversy over the award of a sole-source contract to Halliburton, we wanted to give the Vice President's staff a heads-up."

NCLB: Test only for reading and math, and that's all that teachers teach (duh!)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3179-2004May30.html

Bonus item: Bush keeps Saddam's gun as a trophy! (this joke writes itself)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040607-644112,00.html
"He really liked showing it off," says a recent visitor to the White House who has seen the gun. "He was really proud of it."
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 1:08 AM

 
DISARRAY

Allawi choice: Spend weeks endorsing the "Brahimi process" until it appears it may be going against you, then throw it all over in an instant by helping the IGC pick one of its own.

But try to make it SOUND like everyone's still on the same page: this is just plain funny

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040528-7.html
Q Is it your understanding that Iyad Allawi is the Prime Minister-designate of Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, Steve, I think you all are seeing that the process for naming the interim Iraqi government and having them in place so that we can transfer sovereignty by June 30th is moving forward. We are seeing important progress made, but I want to be respectful of that process and let Mr. Brahimi make those announcements when he is ready to do so......I think we have all seen the news reports on Mr. Allawi, and he is certainly a fine and capable leader who appears to have broad support among the Iraqi people. But I want to be respectful of that process, and we'll wait until we hear more from Mr. Brahimi.

Q Scott, an administration official said just a few minutes ago that Brahimi and the United Nations isn't making the pick of Allawi, or whoever is going to be prime minister, president or whatever, that the choice is endorsed by the Governing Council, and that the Coalition Provisional Authority is the sovereign authority involved, but actually the question of who picks him is a legal issue. So if the U.N. is just recommending, the Governing Council is endorsing and the CPA is a sovereign authority involved, who's actually choosing these people?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Mr. Brahimi is the one who is working to put in place the people who will serve on the Iraqi interim government.........

Q But if this administration official says that Brahimi actually doesn't make the pick, he just recommends, the Governing Council endorses, but it's a legal issue, I'm just trying to find out who eventually says, "Yes, these are the people"?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, the process that was put in place -- let me help you understand the process. Mr. Brahimi has been consulting widely with a number of Iraqis and receiving recommendations. He has been consulting with the CPA, as well. So he is the one who has been leading this process, he is the one who his overseeing this effort, and he is the one who will be naming these people..........

Q Scott, this doesn't seem to have been done on Mr. Brahimi's time frame. This seems to have been done by the Iraqi Governing Council and Ambassador Bremer, who came out and said, we endorse Mr. Allawi. This --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think someone put some words in Mr. Bremer's mouth, or Ambassador Bremer's mouth. I don't know that he actually has said anything on this in the time frame or at this time........

Q So this is not being foisted on Mr. Brahimi? Because that is the way it looks in one respect, that Ambassador Bremer goes to a meeting with the Governing Council, he says whatever he says, the Governing Council comes out and says "it's a done deal," Mr. Allawi is going to be the next prime minister.

MR. McCLELLAN: I would look at it as that this process is moving forward and the Iraqis are stepping forward and looking to their future. And they are working with Mr. Brahimi to help put in place the individuals who will serve on this interim government.........

Q What role did the President have in names that may have been floated up by Mr. Brahimi, by the Governing Council, by the coalition? What role did the President have?

MR. McCLELLAN: The Iraqis are the ones who have had the lead role in this, consulting with Mr. Brahimi. Mr. Brahimi is overseeing this effort.........

Q Scott, this morning you were saying that he was just one of many names and that he was -- there was just one of many groups who were putting him forward, the Iraqi Governing Council. It sounds like you've changed, you're not as dismissive of it right now.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, what I am saying is that I'm going to let Mr. Brahimi be the one to make the announcement.

Q But he's no longer just one of many people, I take it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are a number of people that have been recommended to Mr. Brahimi that could be involved in the Iraqi interim government.....

Q But we were talking about Allawi as one of -- this morning, as a candidate for prime minister. And that's when you were saying he's just one of many people --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's right. And this process has been moving forward.......

Just how involved was the US in the selection?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64453-2004May28.html
A senior administration official in Baghdad said that L. Paul Bremer, the civilian U.S. administrator, and Robert D. Blackwill, the U.S. presidential envoy to Iraq, knew about the impending selection on Thursday. But officials in Baghdad feared a leak and told few officials in Washington. Some members of President Bush's war cabinet knew where the process was heading but were surprised by the timing of the council's decision.....The administration's statements were reserved because the United States did not want to appear to be driving the process, officials said, especially because of the country's past ties with Allawi.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd?pid=1713
There could be no better introduction to the premiership of Iyad Allawi than the confusion and intrigue surrounding its announcement. Early yesterday, the Governing Council declared it was unanimously backing Allawi, one of its own, for the post of interim Iraqi prime minister. Not that the Council is charged with that decision; that brief lies with U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, who hadn't yet announced any replacement for Hussain Shahristani, a Brahimi-favored candidate whom Shia Council members rejected. According to The Washington Post, right after the Council resolved to back Allawi, L. Paul Bremer burst in the room to offer U.S. support. The missing piece was the United Nations, which was completely outmaneuvered by the U.S.-Governing Council announcement. Fred Eckhard, a spokesman for Kofi Annan, acknowledged that Allawi was "high on [Brahimi's] list," but indicated that Brahimi was not happy with the push to install him. While Eckhard told reporters that Brahimi "respects" the Council's choice, he pointedly added that "respect" was a "carefully chosen word."

Who is Iyad Allawi?

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001328.html
A summary of the news reports....including this (notice the way he is described in the Arab press)

http://jobs.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=a9c8ef8fa5a90b9c13f58a840f933f39
U.S. Iraq Appointee a Fraud and a Danger

http://www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd?pid=1713
With Allawi at the helm, the U.S.'s calculation that a new Iraqi government won't ask coalition soldiers to leave the country just got a lot more solid. Allawi has gotten where he is by making himself useful to his foreign patrons.......It seems likely that Allawi's pliability would be a decisive factor in the U.S. decision to support him for prime minister.......It might also be a reason why the other Governing Council members did as well. According to The New York Times, the two largest Shia parties, SCIRI and Da'wa, ended up backing Allawi after they failed to come to terms on a jointly acceptable candidate from inside their own ranks. Said one senior Da'wa leader about the choice of Allawi, "There is no real justice in this. We will support it and wait for the elections. But this decision was made without looking at the polls or at public opinion."......(Clearly no one told that to Scott McClellan , who declared that Allawi "appears to have broad support among the Iraqi people.") Any interim prime minister would surely face the accusation of being an occupation stooge. With Allawi, the charge is likely to have serious currency........CBS News cited an Iraqi analyst describing Allawi's bent for "military politics." He's not exactly known for his commitment to democracy. His cousin Ali is defense minister. Governing Council member Mahmoud Othman explained that Allawi's nomination "has a great deal to do with security." It may be that the U.S. has decided to bet on a compliant strongman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/politics/29ASSE.html?hp
After turning to the United Nations to shore up its failing effort to fashion a new government in Baghdad, the United States ended up Friday with a choice for prime minister certain to be seen more as an American candidate than one of the United Nations or the Iraqis themselves.

Looks like they can't agree on a selection for President either!
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/international/middleeast/30HAND.html

Abu Ghraib: the basic pattern is becoming clear. Gen Miller was told from Washington to export Geneva Convention-free interrogation methods and personnel from Guantanamo to Iraq. Over the resistance of Gen Karpinski and others there, part of the prison was basically turned over to military intelligence personnel and private contractors. These methods had already been criticized by the Red Cross, but in the hands of less experienced recruits, all hell broke loose. Now Miller has been sent to Iraq to fix the situation he helped create.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/international/middleeast/29ABUS.html
Interrogation experts from the American detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, were sent to Iraq last fall and played a major role in training American military intelligence teams at Abu Ghraib prison there, senior military officials said Friday.......The teams from Guantánamo Bay, which had operated there under directives allowing broad latitude in questioning "enemy combatants," played a central role at Abu Ghraib through December, the officials said, a time when the worst abuses of prisoners were taking place. Prisoners captured in Iraq, unlike those sent from Afghanistan to Guantánamo, were to be protected by the Geneva Conventions.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_intelligence_abuse
Several U.S. guards allege they witnessed military intelligence operatives encouraging the abuse of Iraqi prison inmates at four prisons other than Abu Ghraib, investigative documents show.

Chalabi watch: this is getting fun

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/politics/29CHAL.html?ex=1401163200&en=802a34c4893fd54f&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
Influential outside advisers to the Bush administration who support the Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi are pressing the White House to stop what one has called a "smear campaign" against Mr. Chalabi, whose Baghdad home and offices were ransacked last week in an American-supported raid......Last Saturday, several of these Chalabi supporters said, a small delegation of them marched into the West Wing office of Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to complain about the administration's abrupt change of heart about Mr. Chalabi and to register their concerns about the course of the war in Iraq. The group included Richard N. Perle, the former chairman of a Pentagon advisory group, and R. James Woolsey, director of central intelligence under President Bill Clinton.......Members of the group, who had requested the meeting, told Ms. Rice that they were incensed at what they view as the vilification of Mr. Chalabi, a favorite of conservatives who is now central to an F.B.I. investigation into who in the American government might have given him highly classified information that he is suspected of turning over to Iran......The session with Ms. Rice was one sign of the turmoil that Mr. Chalabi's travails have produced within an influential corner of Washington, where Mr. Chalabi is still seen as a potential leader of Iraq....."There is a smear campaign under way, and it is being perpetrated by the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. and a gaggle of former intelligence officers who have succeeded in planting these stories, which are accepted with hardly any scrutiny," Mr. Perle, a leading conservative, said in an interview........Mr. Perle, referring to both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, said the campaign against Mr. Chalabi was "an outrageous abuse of power" by United States government officials in Washington and Baghdad........."I'm talking about Jerry Bremer, for one," Mr. Perle said, referring to L. Paul Bremer III, the top American administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in charge of the occupation of Iraq. "I don't know who gave these orders, but there is no question that the C.P.A. was involved."

Does Chalabi have a future? An excellent little bio from the New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040607fa_fact1

An administration in disarray

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/weekinreview/30sang.html?
Senior officials keep missing opportunities to keep their signals straight, prompting cases of vicious backbiting that one senior member of Mr. Bush's national security staff said with disgust the other day "make us sound like Democrats.''.......Reporters who spent the first two-thirds of Mr. Bush's term looking for any crack between the tight-lipped members of the administration suddenly feel as if they have stepped into an amusement park, with different hawkers openly selling disparate policies, explanations and critiques.......And as a few candid members of the administration are starting to admit, it is beginning to take a toll......

Still blaming Clinton (and Gore) for all that has gone wrong with 9-11, Al Qaeda, Iraq, etc. Hey guys, it's YOUR THING now

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004/05/amnesia_29.html
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2004_05_23_digbysblog_archive.html#108580120851824600

I guess they just don't LIKE each other, huh?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/29/162231/064
It was on CNN. Bush 41, 43, and Clinton were talking at the end of the ceremony. Clinton wagged his finger in Bush 43's face. Dunno what they were talking about but it seemed at least superficially cordial. Then Poppy suddenly shoved Clinton in the chest with both hands, enough to throw Clinton off balance. I don't know why, but it was completely inappropriate and almost seemed to me like 41 was trying to prove his manhood or something. I'm not even sure what happened after that, the camera quickly went somewhere else.

More on the failures of Judith Miller and the NY Times

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1227334,00.html
If spies wanted a trophy to show what happens when their craft is perfectly executed, it would be a story written by Judith Miller on the front page of the New York Times on a Sunday morning in September 2002. She wrote that an intercepted shipment of aluminum tubes, to be used for centrifuges, was evidence that Saddam was building a uranium gas separator to develop nuclear material.......The story had an enormous impact, one amplified when national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state Colin Powell and vice-president Dick Cheney all did appearances on the Sunday-morning talk shows, citing the first-rate journalism of the liberal NYT. No single story did more to advance the neoconservative cause.......But Miller's story was wrong. The aluminum tubes were covered with an anodised coating, which rendered them useless for a centrifuge, according to a number of scientists who spoke publicly after Miller's story......."The White House had a perfect deal with Miller," he said. "Chalabi is providing the Bush people with the information they need to support their political objectives, and he is supplying the same material to Judy Miller. Chalabi tips her on something and then she goes to the White House, which has already heard the same thing from Chalabi, and she gets it corroborated. She also got the Pentagon to confirm things for her, which made sense, since they were working so closely with Chalabi. Too bad Judy didn't spend a little more time talking to those of us who had information that contradicted almost everything Chalabi said.".......Another Miller story - Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said To Assert - was based on a source Miller never met or even interviewed. She watched a man in a baseball cap from a distance, who pointed at the desert floor, and used that as a basis for filing a piece that confirmed the US had discovered "precursors to weapons of mass destruction," Miller explained to me months later. "I know who he is," she insisted. "There's no way I would have gone forward with such a story without knowing who my source was. Maybe it turns out that he was lying or ill-informed." Yes, Ms Miller, that is how it turned out.......If Miller's boss had done some reporting of his own, he might have discovered evidence of Miller's political predisposition. The Middle East Forum, an organisation that openly advocated that the US overthrow Saddam, listed Miller as an expert speaker on its website and held a launch party for her book. She was represented by Benador Associates, a speakers' bureau that specialises in conservative thinkers with Middle East expertise.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/recall/cl-et-rutten29may29,1,7944003.column
Meanwhile, next week's edition of New York magazine will contain a critical profile of Miller, while a piece on Chalabi in the New Yorker - according to sources there - will touch on the Iraqi's relationship with the Times, which at one point employed his daughter. Meanwhile, the forthcoming issue of the New York Review of Books will contain another appraisal of the Times' coverage by Michael Massing, former executive editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, who has been the most formidable of the Times' critics in this affair. In fact, the paper's note singled him out by name.......Viewed in this context, the Times' explanation looks like a leaky lifeboat launched in the teeth of a gathering storm......In an interview this week, Massing said it is hard to know exactly what role the New York Times' misleading reports on Hussein's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction may have had on public opinion leading up to the war..........But, in this instance, the New York Times became the president's handmaiden. But not only did they fail to weigh the credibility of what they were reporting, but they amplified the administration's position. They became cheerleaders and helped the administration......."If you look at Judy Miller's pieces," Massing added, "she was actually promoting the defectors and claiming that the administration was not paying enough attention to the value of their information, thereby putting pressure on the administration. If the Times had been as skeptical as it should have been, we would have had a fuller and more vigorous debate."

Predictable development: as the press finally, FINALLY starts to show some independence and skepticism toward Bush Co. claims, pressure from the Right accuses them of subversion

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=83795
Take a look at the morning paper nowadays and it's clear that America has a lot of enemies. Two or three different brands of insurgency are operating in Iraq. North Korea has nuclear weapons and Pakistan is selling them. Our former best friend in Baghdad turns out to be an American spy. Al Qaeda, of course, is still out there. All this notwithstanding, some commentators on the right seem to have decided that the real enemies aren't the ones they read about it the papers, but the people who write them.........The argument here - that everything is fine except the media coverage - is absurd on its face. The reporters in question are, unlike their pundit-detractors, on the ground in Iraq witnessing the situation for themselves. It is undeniable, moreover, that a growing chorus of former war supporters - liberals and conservatives alike - people like George Will, Tucker Carlson, Thomas Friedman, Fareed Zakaria, and Bill Kristol have grown increasingly dubious that the president's policies will bring us to success. Is this band of ex-hawks really trying to bring America down, or are they sincerely worried that the president is the one bringing us low? The doubters, moreover, are hardly to be found in the press alone. Three of the past four top generals in the U.S. Central Command have denounced the president's handling of the situation and the fourth is on the board of a company that depends on good will from the Pentagon to stay in business. These general are not die-hard liberals, or surly reporters, they're men who've spent years commanding all U.S. military forces in the region......Nevertheless, the political purpose of the theory isn't hard to grasp. The groundwork is being laid for a new version of the "stab in the back" myth that helped destroy Weimar Germany. No matter how far south things go in Iraq, the blame will be laid not at the feet of the president who initiated and conducted the war, but rather on those who had the temerity to note that it wasn't working. Rather than the critics having been proven right, or so the story goes, the critics are to blame for the failure of the very policy they were criticizing. It's an ugly tactic, and as you go down the journalistic food chain, it grows uglier still......

Bonus item: Interesting resource - ABC does a nightly comparison of the major network news shows

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/EveningNewscasts.html

- posted by Nick Burbules @ 3:05 AM

 
HIJACKING THE PROCESS

Having lost Shahristani, I guess the U.S. wasn't taking any more chances on Brahimi's selection for Iraqi PM, so they (apparently) broke the agreement with the UN to install their own guy after all

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/28/iraq.main/index.html
The Iraqi Governing Council has tapped one of its members to be prime minister in the interim government.......A senior Bush administration official in Baghdad confirms Allawi will be the interim prime minister of Iraq......"It is a historic moment," said this official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "This has been a process of full-blown democratic politics."

[Pause for sarcastic laughter]

The announcement appeared to take the United Nations...... by surprise. The U.N. had sent envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to help put together an interim government before the handoff date. "It's not how we expected it to happen, no, but the Iraqis seem to agree on this candidate, and if they do, Mr. Brahimi is ready to work with this candidate," said Fred Eckhard, spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.......U.S. civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer had been at the meeting where Allawi was designated.

[And poor Colin Powell, once again shut out of the game plan]

Earlier Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said the United States had no position on any candidate and was awaiting word from Brahimi.... "I'm pleased that Mr. Allawi has that kind of support, but we are working with Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi, the secretary-general's representative," Powell said...

"Full-blown democratic politics"?

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/28/allawi/
"It is a done deal," Hameed al-Kafaei, the spokesman for the Governing Council, said. Allawi "is a prime minister-designate."

And who is Allawi? Read this

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=526008
The choice of Iyad Allawi, closely linked to the CIA and formerly to MI6, as the Prime Minister of Iraq from 30 June will make it difficult for the US and Britain to persuade the rest of the world that he is capable of leading an independent government.... He is the person through whom the controversial claim was channelled that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction could be operational in 45 minutes...Dr Allawi was head of the security committee of the Iraqi Governing Council and was opposed to the dissolution of the army by Paul Bremer, the US viceroy in Iraq. He stepped down in protest as head of the committee during the US assault on Fallujah. But his reputation among Iraqis for working first with Saddam's intelligence agents and then with MI6 and the CIA may make it impossible for them to accept him as leader of an independent Iraq.
[More: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_05_23_atrios_archive.html#108578446636490505]

Sequential analyses from Josh Marshall, showing how this bizarre story evolved

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_23.php#003009
This late article from Reuters says that the IGC has spoken, and that the US and Brahimi have endorsed the choice...MSNBC runs an AP story which says that the US is not endorsing the choice, while a spokesman for Brahimi says he "welcomes and respects the choice of Mr. Allawi" but would not say that he endorses it.....The Washington Post , in a story posted about 90 minutes ago, said that Bremer and Brahimi were there during the vote and congratulated Allawi. But in most respects the Post follows the MSNBC/AP line......A spokesman for the IGC said Brahimi and the US were on board. Brahimi seems to deny that. And a UN spokesman in New York said he couldn't confirm whether or not Brahimi had endorsed Allawi. In other words, he didn't seem to know quite what had happened.....Needless to say, with such conflicting accounts, it is hard to say quite what transpired. But the contradictory accounts suggest confusion and uncertainty among the key players over just what happened and precisely how to respond.....In other words, they were caught off-guard by an IGC coup de main , a sort of media-political putsch on the part of the IGC. With the US-Brahimi process stumbling over the UN representative's inability to find candidates acceptable to all parties, the IGC jumps into the breach, pushing one of their number, hoping to make that nomination stick, knowing that the Brahimi-US plan seems to be foundering and that time is running out.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_23.php#003010
The story changes. An updated article from the Post says that: "Officials of the United States, the United Nations and the Iraqi Governing Council appear to have settled on Ayad Allawi, a leader of one of the major Iraqi exile organizations, as Iraq's interim prime minister.".... The key line comes four grafs in: "The vote followed a private endorsement of Allawi by Lakhdar Brahimi ... according to a U.N. official who requested anonymity because no formal announcement has been made yet."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_23.php#003011
This still seems strange.....As the Allawi story has progressed over the course of the afternoon, it now seems clear not only that Brahimi and the US approve the choice but that Brahimi may have dictated the choice to the IGC......Here is the key graf in a new article out in the Times ... The decision to name Dr. Allawi was made by Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy, and the governing council was then summoned to be informed of the choice. The council more or less showed its approval, some officials said, with one member saying the decision was unanimous. But other people said a vote did not really take place, because the decision had already been made.....Now, here's what strikes me as odd about this......First, Brahimi had made clear he didn't want a 'politician' for the slot and that he wanted to sideline people from the IGC....But there's something else that seems still stranger. One thing that is almost universally acknowledged is that the IGC is unpopular. It's seen as a proxy for the Americans and in that sense a tool of the occupation. Indeed, that seemed to be at the forefront of Brahimi's thinking......If that's so, why would he introduce his pick for Prime Minister, not by announcing it himself, but by having it rubber-stamped (as the Times suggests) by the IGC, and then letting the news dribble out that he -- i.e., Brahimi -- was behind the decision?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_23.php#003012
Still more confusion over Allawi.....The latest from Reuters appears to directly contradict the report from the New York Times ... The United Nations, called in by Washington to help shape the new interim government, was caught off guard when the Governing Council announced Allawi had been chosen, but said it respected the decision.....An official in President Bush's administration said: "We thought (Allawi) would be an excellent prime minister. ... I think that this is going to work." .....So this was foisted on Brahimi, though he seems to have consented to it..... So whose idea was this? Where did the push come from? And who are the sources for the multiple conflicting stories?

Either way, Brahimi totally dissed

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=1&u=/washpost/20040529/ts_washpost/a62691_2004may28
There were differing accounts of how Allawi came to be selected by the council and subsequently endorsed by Bremer and Brahimi. The senior administration official said Allawi was recommended by Brahimi after the U.N. envoy conducted numerous meetings with Iraqi political, tribal and religious leaders......But a U.N. official familiar with the process said Allawi was not Brahimi's top choice. Instead, Allawi lobbied other council members to support his candidacy over the past few weeks

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/politics/29ASSE.html
The man chosen to be prime minister, Iyad Alawi, is the secretary general of the Iraqi National Accord, an exile group that has received funds from the Central Intelligence Agency. His ties with the C.I.A., and his closeness to the United States could become an issue in a country where public opinion has grown almost universally hostile to the Americans.......The announcement of Dr. Alawi's selection appeared to surprise several at the United Nations......"When we first heard the news today, we thought that the Iraqi Governing Council had hijacked the process," said a senior United Nations official, referring to the American-picked body that voted to recommend Dr. Alawi earlier on Friday.....Statements from the United Nations seemingly confirmed the idea that Mr. Brahimi was merely bowing to the wishes of the others....."Mr. Brahimi respects the decision and says he can work with this person," Fred Eckhard, the spokesman for Secretary General Kofi Annan, said in response to a barrage of skeptical questioning. Asked what Mr. Annan's view was, Mr. Eckhard said: "The secretary general respects the decision, as I said Mr. Brahimi does. `Respect' is a very carefully chosen word.".....Some time later, perhaps because of the skepticism that comment engendered, a less circumspect statement was issued in the name of Ahmad Fawzi, Mr. Brahimi's press spokesman, saying: "Let there be no misunderstanding. Mr. Brahimi is perfectly comfortable with how the process is proceeding thus far." ....In a telephone interview from Baghdad, Mr. Brahimi refused to discuss the selection of Dr. Alawi. "I don't want to go back saying who is good and who is bad," he said. ......But in a hint that the selection process had not gone exactly as planned, Mr. Brahimi added, "You know, sometimes people think I am a free agent out here, that I have a free hand to do whatever I want." He noted that he had been asked to take on the job in a letter to Mr. Annan from the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and the Iraqi Governing Council.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Politics.html
Governing Council member Raja Habib al-Khuzaai told Associated Press Television News that the decision to select Allawi occurred at a special meeting which began at 3 p.m. Friday. Twenty of the council's 22 members were present or represented at the session; all voted for Allawi...........The U.S. governor of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, was invited to join the session at 4 p.m., and Brahimi was invited an hour later -- ostensibly to discuss other issues. Each was informed of the council decision when he arrived, al-Khuzaai said.

[So, this version indicates that Bremer and the US were also presented with a fait accompli by the IGC - but I'm not buying it. Why was Bremer brought in an hour before Brahimi?]

Hijacking the process (part 2). Trying to keep the lies straight on the latest terror alert

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-uswarn283821917may28,0,6420375.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines
The Homeland Security Department was surprised by the announcement Wednesday by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller that a terrorist attack was increasingly likely in the coming months, officials said.......The department, created a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, is charged with issuing terrorism warnings to the public, and tension arose when Ashcroft and Mueller effectively took over that role at a news conference Wednesday when they said al-Qaida is preparing an attack inside the United States......Officials said the Homeland Security Department knew in advance about the news conference but expected it to focus on seven suspects with ties to al-Qaida who were wanted for arrest or questioning. Department officials were caught off guard when Ashcroft went further and warned that al-Qaida "is ready to attack the United States.".......The news conference, which excluded Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, raised concerns in Washington that his department was not coordinating the domestic fight against terrorism, which was confusing the message for the public and for local authorities......Earlier on Wednesday, Ridge spoke on morning television shows and appeared to downplay the threat that Ashcroft would later trumpet, officials said. He told ABC's "Good Morning America" that the threats are "not the most disturbing that I have personally seen during the past couple of years."...... Lawmakers who oversee the Homeland Security Department said the events Wednesday appeared to undermine the effort to unify the federal government's response to terrorism threats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61742-2004May27.html
Some allies of the Department of Homeland Security within the Bush administration and members of Congress criticized Attorney General John D. Ashcroft yesterday for issuing terrorist threat warnings at a news conference on Wednesday, contending he failed to coordinate the information with the White House and with Homeland Security, which has the job of releasing threat warnings.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5087301/
In warning Americans to brace for a possible attack, Ashcroft cited what he called "credible intelligence from multiple sources" .....But terrorism experts tell NBC News there's no evidence a credible al-Qaida spokesman ever said that, and the claims actually were made by a largely discredited group, Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, known for putting propaganda on the Internet....."This particular group is not really taken seriously by Western intelligence," said terrorism expert M.J. Gohel of the Asia-Pacific Foundation, an international policy assessment group. "It does not appear to have any real field operational capability. But it is certainly part of the global jihad movement - part of its propaganda wing, if you like. It likes to weave a web of lies; it likes to put out disinformation....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/28/terror.threat.sync/index.html
After two days of conflicting assessments and mixed signals on the urgency of the terrorist threat within the United States, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge late Friday issued a joint statement citing "credible intelligence" of a threat to the nation.......The move appears designed to show unity in the Bush administration's efforts to protect the home front.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64374-2004May28.html?nav=rss_nation
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Attorney General John D. Ashcroft issued a joint statement late yesterday indicating that they have settled their tiff......

Abu Ghraib's incompetent chain of "command"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1226638,00.html
Some of the details in his dossier read dismayingly like a chapter from Catch-22, Joseph Heller's second world war black comedy about the lunatics and shysters who held men's lives in their hands at a fictional military base.

Chalabi revisionism continues apace

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_23.php#003007
There are a handful of articles out yesterday or today in which various partisans of Ahmed Chalabi claim that top level government officials say that the spying charges against Ahmed Chalabi are not to be taken seriously --- they're merely the product of bureaucratic infighting within the US government, payback from his enemies at State and CIA...... I have sources too. And I hear quite the opposite. From what I'm told, what really cooked Chalabi's goose was that the evidence against him was sufficiently damning that his one-time advocates and protectors inside the government -- folks very high up the ladder -- simply washed their hands of him, wouldn't try to defend him.

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/000748.html
The key divide between current and former Chalabi supporters I'm told remains between those who've seen what Chalabi is alleged to have done, and those who haven't

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/000750.html
Just got a very interesting unsolicited call from an occasional contact who knows some of these players pretty well. Someone one would more than expect to be extremely friendly to their positions as well. And he told me that.....The charges against Chalabi passing highly sensitive US intelligence to Iranian intelligence are true.

Missed the Gore speech? Here are some key video clips (it will do your heart good)
http://www.moveonpac.org/gore/

But not everyone agrees: Boston Herald's....uh....intemperate response
http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=29658
How dare Al Gore disgrace this nation
He never mentioned Nicholas Berg. Or Daniel Pearl. Or a single person killed in the World Trade Center. Nor did former Vice President Al Gore talk of any soldier by name who has given his life in Iraq . And he has the audacity to condemn the Bush administration for having ``twisted values?'' .......Gore spent the bulk of a speech before the liberal group MoveOn.org Wednesday bemoaning Abu Ghraib and denouncing President Bush's departure from the ``long successful strategy of containment.'' ......ﾊHow dare he. How dare a former vice president of the United States go beyond disagreeing with the current president's policies - a right of anyone in this free country - and denounce Bush as ``incompetent.'' .......ﾊIt is Gore who has brought dishonor to his party and to his party's nominee. The real disgrace is that this repugnant human being once held the second highest office in this great land.
[Electablog.com says this could be "the worst article ever written"]

Weekend potpourri

How Bush policies have helped Al Qaeda recruitment
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0528/dailyUpdate.html

Bush keeps using "official" travel for campaign purposes (yes, it is illegal)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=3&u=/latimests/20040528/ts_latimes/bushmeshesofficialpoliticalstopstocutcampaigncosts

Jeb Bush makes Florida vote fraud even easier
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/jim_defede/8769635.htm?ERIGHTS=-3063344576221360554miami::buzzflash@buzzflash.com&KRD_RM=9ppqvrppryypttwttwtppppppp%7Cmark%7CN

Tom DeLay: Even worse than you imagine
http://www.democraticaction.org/fights/DeLay+Ethics.htm

Paul Krugman on press's larger failures in its coverage of Bush and his policies

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/opinion/28KRUG.html?hp
People who get their news by skimming the front page, or by watching TV, must be feeling confused by the sudden change in Mr. Bush's character. For more than two years after 9/11, he was a straight shooter, all moral clarity and righteousness...... But now those people hear about a president who won't tell a straight story about why he took us to war in Iraq or how that war is going, who can't admit to and learn from mistakes, and who won't hold himself or anyone else accountable. What happened?.....The answer, of course, is that the straight shooter never existed. He was a fictitious character that the press, for various reasons, presented as reality.........The truth is that the character flaws that currently have even conservative pundits fuming have been visible all along.......

Which leads us to: CNN's outrage

I don't use this space to solicit political action, but in case you missed this CNN report, all the blogs are calling for reaction. (I heard the piece here in Belgium on CNN Int'l, and could hardly believe my ears.) Details from Atrios:

http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/2004_05_23_atrios_archive.html#108574754987336801

[Kelli] ARENA: Neither John Kerry nor the president has said troops pulled out of Iraq any time soon. But there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House.

BEN VENZKE, INTELCENTER: Al Qaeda feels that Bush is, even despite casualties, right or wrong for staying there is going to stay much longer than possibly what they might hope a Democratic administration would.

There you go. We're fighting al Qaeda in Iraq and they think John Kerry is a wimp.

Atlanta:
404-827-1500

Washington:
202-898-7900

You can communicate your thoughts to Ms. Arena personally at: kelli.arena@turner.com

You can now send your emails to Eason Jordan at Eason.Jordan@turner.com. He's CNN's chief news executive.

[More of the original transcript from Kevin Drum: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/004024.php]
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 2:33 AM

 
TWO YEARS TOO LATE

It's all well and good for the NY Times to admit its collective responsibility for lousy Iraq reporting that helped lay a public case for the legitimacy of the war. But the simple fact is that nearly every key story was authored or co-authored by one individual:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/27/times/index.html
When the full history of the Iraq war is written, one of its most scandalous chapters will be about how American journalists, in particular those at the New York Times, so easily allowed themselves to be manipulated by both dubious sources and untrustworthy White House officials into running stories that misled the nation about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2087735/
No reporter was more go-go on the prospect of finding caches of unconventional weapons in Iraq than New York Times correspondent Judith Miller, who published numerous stories during the 18 months leading up to the war that supported allegations that Saddam Hussein was illegally developing, building, and storing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Miller's stories relied in great part on the testimony of Iraqi defectors, some of whom were provided to her by Iraqi National Congress leader Amad Chalabi and government officials such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who believed their claims.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08182003.html
Lay all Judith Miller's New York Times stories end to end, from late 2001 to June 2003 and you get a desolate picture of a reporter with an agenda, both manipulating and being manipulated by US government officials, Iraqi exiles and defectors, an entire Noah's Ark of scam-artists.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/25/233452/476
The editors, Judith Miller, and every other journalist who helped enable the administration's lies have blood on their hands.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16922
Now They Tell Us ....In recent months, US news organizations have rushed to expose the Bush administration's pre-war failings on Iraq.....Watching and reading all this, one is tempted to ask, where were you all before the war? Why didn't we learn more about these deceptions and concealments in the months when the administration was pressing its case for regime change-when, in short, it might have made a difference?

[Our friend and colleague Megan Boler has submitted a scathing Letter to the Editor for the Times, saying basically, "your apologies now are worthless - the damage has been done." Right on, Megan!]

Quote of the day

http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200422#345
It can't be easy to be Judith Miller right now. She's been widely lambasted as the worst offender of a press corps that obviously failed to do its job at the time when the country was heading to war, and thus when it was needed most..... So it shouldn't be surprising that she's getting a little testy. In today's Salon.com, James Moore gets our quote of the day from Miller: "You know what," she offered angrily. "I was proved fucking right. That's what happened. People who disagreed with me were saying, 'There she goes again.' But I was proved fucking right." ....Of course, she was proved wrong. But she might want to consider not doing any more interviews

Public support for war crumbling

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61585-2004May27.html?nav=rss_nation
From this edge of the western plains to California's palm-lined drives to New York's urban canyons, Americans say they are worried and angry about the U.S. role in Iraq, with their anxiety matching that of the earliest days of the war when the success of the push to Baghdad was far from secure....Nearly daily attacks on U.S. troops and continuing revelations about abuse of Iraqi prisoners have combined to stir the unrest, leading many to doubt whether the outcome will match the Bush administration's stated goals for going to war.

GOP members starting to doubt war plans too

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003067
What could sink his chances for good, though, is the possibility that congressional Republicans might openly sever their ties with the administration.......This hasn't happened. Yet.....But it doesn't look far off. A number of moderate Republican senators -- and I'm not just thinking of everybody's favorite McMaverick -- are inching closer to full-on condemnation of the president and his advisors

The gradual emergence of sensible bipartisanship, despite Bush Co. efforts to polarize every issue ("you're either with us or against us")

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4595.shtml

Iraq transition revision #947: Why won't they just do what we tell them!?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3748435.stm
A top nuclear scientist once tipped to become prime minister in the new Iraqi cabinet has said that he will not take the job, or any other government post.....Hussein Shahristani, 62, a Shia Muslim jailed under Saddam Hussein, had been seen as an ideal head of government.....But Mr Shahristani said he would rather "serve his country in other ways".....Senior US officials were quoted on Wednesday as saying Mr Shahristani was the leading candidate.
[Which apparently killed his chances: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=525308]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001939953_prison27.html
President Bush's offer to demolish Abu Ghraib prison - made in a speech Monday night - found little support among Iraqis, with the head of the Governing Council yesterday calling the idea "a waste of resources."

The Fallujah Model, now being applied in Najaf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59486-2004May27.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/004019.php
http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_27_bestof.html#108569914375117812

Paul Bremer's CPA, "temporary authority," apparently thought it was legitimate enough to CHANGE THE NAME OF THE COUNTRY

http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#108516744452771420
With little fanfare, the name of Iraq seems to have been changed.....The country's official name in 1920 was the "State of Iraq." Following the overthrow of the monarchy in 1958, the name was changed to the "Republic of Iraq".....At some point last year, the older name--the "State of Iraq"--was restored. I do not know precisely who did this and why, but it seems to have been done by the CPA some time last year.....Since the current Iraqi political order could hardly be described as a republic, there is some honesty in the new title. But it seems odd that an interim administration would feel comfortable changing the name of the country.

Bush Co. rethinking the whole "bringing democracy to the Middle East" idea

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-05-26-mideast-goals_x.htm
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/004018.php

Misreading "The Arab Mind" (a.k.a., where those neat interrogation methods found their roots)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2101328/fr/rss/
In the White House discussions of the subject, the academic said, two themes emerged: "one, that Arabs only understand force and, two, that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation." And, he explained, "the bible of the neocons on Arab behavior" was a book with what Hersh described as a "25-page chapter on Arabs and sex, depicting sex as a taboo vested with shame and repression": Raphael Patai's The Arab Mind.

Amnesty International: ouch!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58767-2004May26.html?nav=rss_nation
The Bush administration has "openly eroded human rights" to win the war on terrorism and sparked a backlash that has made the world more dangerous, Amnesty International charged yesterday....."As a strategy, the war on terror is bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle," Amnesty's secretary general, Irene Khan, asserted in releasing the human rights group's annual report. She condemned militants unequivocally but said governments are "losing their moral compass......."Sacrificing human rights in the name of security at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, and using preemptive military force where and when it chooses have neither increased security nor ensured liberty," Kahn said of the United States.

"With Trembling Fingers": double ouch! (a must-read)
http://indyweek.com/durham/current/news.html
The irreducible truth is that the invasion of Iraq was the worst blunder, the most staggering miscarriage of judgment, the most fateful, egregious, deceitful abuse of power in the history of American foreign policy. If you don't believe it yet, just keep watching.

Prison abuses: another independent commission on the way?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58765-2004May26.html?nav=rss_nation

The Chalabi hot potato: as the FBI investigation starts, everyone wants plausible deniability

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003069
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/000733.html
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/May/05272004/commenta/170037.asp
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/27/113437/843
At a well-appointed conservative think tank in downtown Washington and across the Potomac River at the Pentagon, FBI agents have begun paying quiet calls on prominent neoconservatives, who are being interviewed in an investigation of potential espionage, according to intelligence sources. Who gave Ahmed Chalabi classified information about the plans of the U.S. government and military?
[More: http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/05/27/chalabi/]

Back home, more Bush Co. double-talk on their plans for massive domestic budget cuts (I'd like to see them run on THIS agenda)
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003070

Bonus item: Rush's distorted sense of humor

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052604/content/stop_the_tape_2.guest.html
RUSH: Just sitting here minding my own business. I'm not bothering anybody. Just doing my job here on the EIB Network, and the vice president, ex-vice president, of the Democratic Party, has demanded today that George W. Bush condemn and denounce me......Before we play the Gore bite, you've got to hear the audio track to the latest MoveOn.org ad, which puts an Abu Ghraib hood over the Statute of Liberty.....[The ad says]..... "They said we went to Iraq to bring American values -- democracy, liberty. But something has gone terribly wrong.......Now it's been reported that (Secretary of Defense) Donald Rumsfeld initiated the plan that encouraged the physical coercion and sexual humiliation of prisoners." [Rush laughing]......

Here's the excerpt from the Gore speech...... "This president episodically poses as a uniter and healer. If he really has any desire to play that role, then I call upon him to condemn Rush Limbaugh, perhaps his strongest political supporter, who said publicly that the torture...was 'a brilliant maneuver' and that the photos were 'good old American pornography,' and that the actions portrayed were simply those of people 'having a good time' and 'needing to blow off steam.'"...... RUSH: I guess those naked pyramids are just not in the national interest to Al Gore. (Laughing and laughing.) ........

For example, the Geneva Conventions. I don't know how many of you know this, the Geneva Conventions do not protect terrorists ......What really troubles me about these photos, above and beyond what's in them, is how they're being used to undermine our war effort.....

http://mediamatters.org/
Media Matters for America Asks Secretary Rumsfeld to Remove Limbaugh's Radio Show from Taxpayer-Funded American Forces Radio....
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 3:26 AM

 
BITS OF TRUTH

"Full sovereignty"....."with limits" What a farce

(LA Times) http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-usiraq26may26,1,2948328.story?coll=la-home-headlines
French President Jacques Chirac told Bush in a telephone conversation that France wanted any new U.N. Security Council resolution to spell out clearly that the Iraqis would have a say over U.S.-led military operations....The dispute over how much authority the new Iraqi government would wield came at a crucial diplomatic and political moment for the White House.

(WSJ) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/26/115437/072
As Washington prepares to hand over power, U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer and other officials are quietly building institutions that will give the U.S. powerful levers for influencing nearly every important decision the interim government will make.

If a tree falls in the forest....Bush's speech didn't say anything new, but that's okay - no one was watching anyway

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/05/26/ratings_flop/

Hey, it's no surprise when Al Gore lays into Bush's war policies

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040526/dcw056_1.html
[GOP's very lame attack on Gore in response: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004/05/amnesia.html]

But you know something has shifted when TOM CLANCY goes after him

http://www.azcentral.com/ent/arts/articles/0525clancy.html
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003068

Even Richard Perle has his doubts (now)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1085523609417&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

Here's how out-of-control prison camps were - US soldier beaten, suffers brain damage

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/national/26GITM.html
http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=1891343&nav=EQlpNN9R

Feith's fingerprints

(1) On approving Abu Ghraib abuses?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_23.php#003003

(2) On Chalabi leaks?
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/pentagon_spies.php

Attacks on Chalabi, neo-con supporters called a CIA plot

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/16/Politics/Walkers.Worldwashingtons.Civil.War-683221.shtml

Department of DUH

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/politics/27terror.html
But some intelligence officials, terrorism experts - and to some extent even Mr. Ashcroft's own F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III - offered a more tempered assessment, saying, "For the next few weeks we have reason to believe there is a heightened threat to the U.S. interests around the world.'' And some opponents of President Bush , including police and firefighter union leaders aligned with Senator John Kerry, the expected Democratic presidential candidate, said the timing of the announcement appeared intended in part to distract attention from Mr. Bush's sagging poll numbers and problems in Iraq...... The administration did not raise the terrorist threat advisory from its current level of elevated, or yellow, and the White House said Mr. Bush would not alter his schedule because of security concerns......"There's no real new intelligence, and a lot of this has been out there already," said one administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "There really is no significant change that would require us to change the alert level of the country."

And this cheery bit of news from Ashcroft: Al Qaeda EXPANDING its recruitment. Now people all around the world want to attack America!

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004/05/terrorists-not-just-brown-and-swarthy.html

Al Qaeda 18,000

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/25/terror/main619467.shtml

(And, Ashcroft hints darkly, they all want Kerry to win)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2101319/fr/rss/

Prescription drug costs rising

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/004010.php

[Let's review the logic of this. Oil costs skyrocket, and Bush claims this is because Congress refused to pass his oil-company giveaway -- oops, his Energy Bill. But Congress DOES pass his Medicare plan, and drug prices skyrocket anyway. Uhhh....who does he blame for that?]

Potential bombshell (sorry for the metaphor): faster Bush response could have prevented one of the 9-11 plane attacks

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004/05/pet-goat.html

Bush's delay: when first told of attacks, his response?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
Bush picked up the book and began to read with the children. In unison, the children read out loud, "The - Pet - Goat. A - girl - got - a - pet - goat. But - the - goat - did - some - things - that - made - the - girl's - dad - mad." Bush mostly listened, but occasionally asked the children a few questions to encourage them. At one point he said, "Really good readers, whew!"

9-11 commission will look into this

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=10&u=/ap/20040526/ap_on_re_us/sept_11_commission

Who approved the bin Laden family charter flight post 9-11? A (partial) answer

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/004012.php

Bush campaign ads: nothing but lies (well, what else do they have, after all?)

http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200422#339

Yet a bit of truth glimmers through: Bush plans major domestic cuts if re-elected

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58762-2004May26.html
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 1:23 AM

 
LESS THAN FULL SOVEREIGNTY

Bush's speech: the reviews are in

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/05/25/bush.iraq.reax/index.html
"damage control"

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/05/25/bushs_reality_gap/
"reality gap"

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpirq253818041may25,0,7376782.story?coll=ny-editorials-headlines
"more of the same"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53141-2004May24.html
Bush did not provide the midcourse correction that even some Republicans had called for in the face of increasingly macabre violence in recent weeks -- from the assassination of the president of Iraq's Governing Council and controversy over dozens killed by U.S. warplanes at a purported wedding party to the grisly beheading of an American civilian.....Nor did Bush try to answer some of the looming questions that have triggered growing skepticism and anxiety at home and abroad about the final U.S. costs, the final length of stay for U.S. troops, or what the terms will be for a final U.S. exit from Iraq. After promising "concrete steps," the White House basically repackaged stalled U.S. policy as a five-step plan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25TUE1.html?hp
We cannot live without a serious plan for doing more than just getting through the June 30 transition and then muddling along until the November elections in the United States. Mr. Bush has yet to come up with a realistic way to internationalize the military operation and to get Iraq's political groups beyond their current game of jockeying for power and into a real process of drafting a workable constitution..... The draft of the United Nations resolution that circulated yesterday was disappointingly sketchy on these points. It contains the phrases of international support - like references to a "multinational" military force - without committing the Security Council to do anything in particular. The draft endorses a continued American-led military presence in Iraq for at least a year beyond June 30, but it does not ensure expanded international participation.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/24/asb.00.html
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: Yes and I think if -- I remember Bill Russell when he was a basketball analyst with a particularly pithy piece of analysis. When things go bad they go bad....... Just imagine the White House. They're getting ready for this major offensive. What happens? Last week the president goes up to Capitol Hill to rally the Republicans. All the press reports are he disappointed them. He didn't even answer questions........ Last night several million Americans turned on "60 Minutes." What did they see? The former Marine Corps Commandant Anthony Zinni saying the whole idea was misconceived. The execution was screwed up and Rumsfeld and all of his civilians were guilty of dereliction of duty and should resign...... Even the setting, Aaron, the Army War College turns out to be the place that in January published a scathing review of the war on terror and the war in Iraq by a former Senate staffer under their aegis, the Army War College........... You know there is this notion that political spin doctors and pollsters and media experts and the Carl Roves of this world can somehow create magic....... I think in this particular story war and peace you can't do it. What the president says, even with the bully pulpit, is way, way less important than what we're going to be seeing and, if over the next few months what the president tells us is going to happen, happens, that's when you're going to see a turnaround in public opinion.....I don't think speeches no matter how well crafted can change how people perceive a story like this. Maybe it can change their minds about taxes or the environment or some domestic debate. On life and death and war and peace I'm really skeptical

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/25/bush_reacts/
A range of other reactions, pro and con, including this one:
"George W. Bush began and ended his speech with a brazen lie"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/004000.php
The LA Times headline for their main coverage pretty much tells the non-story: "Bush Offers Plan to End Chaos in Iraq".... A more accurate headline, I think, would be "Bush Expresses Sincere Wish for Chaos in Iraq to End," since his "plan" appears to be no such thing.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2101011/
Bush can't learn from the past

http://slate.msn.com/id/2101216/fr/rss/
What Bush Should Have Said

(Bush's makeup was a big hit, though)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/196783p-169959c.html

"Full sovereignty"? Don't hold your breath

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003055
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/004000.php
The "news" in his speech, if I can be allowed to abuse the English language a bit, is that Bush reiterated what Colin Powell and several others have already said: after June 30, the Iraqis will have "full sovereignty." This is obviously nonsense since we intend to keep 150,000 troops on their soil and maintain full control of the Iraqi security forces as well.

U.S vs Britain: not exactly eye-to-eye

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=587672004
THE FIRST cracks in Britain's coalition with the United States over the occupation of Iraq were exposed last night by a leaked government memo which revealed deep misgivings about America's "heavy-handed" tactics in the war-torn country.....The damning document....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53880-2004May25.html
A day after the United States and Britain proposed a new U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq, the touchy question of the relationship between foreign troops and a new nominally sovereign Iraqi government today drew differing responses from Washington and London and expressions of concern from other allied capitals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/international/europe/25CND-BLAI.html
Prime Minister Tony Blair said today that the handover of sovereignty in Iraq on June 30 would give Iraqi leaders veto authority over controversial American military operations, like those aimed at subduing insurgents in Falluja, Karbala and Baghdad....... But later in the day, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell appeared to contradict Mr. Blair's statement by saying American forces that remain in Iraq after the planned transfer of sovereignty will ``do what is necessary to protect themselves'' even if Iraqi authorities object.....The seemingly conflicting interpretations of the relationship between the planned Iraqi interim government and the United States military added to the uncertainty surrounding the impending transfer of sovereignty.

[The headline Bush never wants to see: "US Troops Under Iraqi Control"]

And how long will the troops be there?

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/006642.html
Although Powell earlier said that the U.S. military will leave Iraq upon request of the interim government, his assurance was promptly contradicted by Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, who told Congress that only an elected government could kick the U.S. military out of the country.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/05/25/uk.iraq.blair/index.html
Earlier, Iraq's defense minister told a news conference in London that a multinational force may be kept in Iraq for months rather than years.

What will happen after the transition? When you can't control events, accept them and declare victory

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/international/middleeast/25MILI.html
With only weeks to go until an Iraqi government takes over, American officials have failed to disarm the tens of thousands of fighters in private militias deployed almost exclusively along ethnic and religious lines.....In the 15 months since the fall of Saddam Hussein, American officials have declared repeatedly that they would disband the private militias, recognizing that their narrow, sectarian interests could threaten a unified and democratic Iraqi state....But with the sharp deterioration of the security situation in recent months, American officials appear to have resigned themselves to working with militias in Falluja, Baghdad and elsewhere even as American soldiers die fighting them in street battles in Karbala and Najaf.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040526/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_islamic_fallujah
With U.S. Marines gone and central government authority virtually nonexistent, Fallujah resembles an Islamic mini-state - anyone caught selling alcohol is flogged and paraded in the city. Men are encouraged to grow beards and barbers are warned against giving "Western" hair cuts.......The departure of the Marines under an agreement that ended the three-week siege last month has enabled hard-line Islamic leaders to assert their power in this once-restive city 30 miles west of Baghdad.

Iran's efforts to control events in Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52200-2004May24?language=printer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224075,00.html

Meanwhile, the Kurds get screwed (again)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101207/fr/rss/

More on Abu Ghraib

Gen. Sanchez: Pushed out or "normal rotation"?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52980-2004May24.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/politics/25SANC.html

But......
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-sanchez25may25,1,3137958.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Defense Department officials.....insisted that it was unrelated to his job performance during an occupation that has faced an Iraqi insurgency and the growing scandal over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. guards at Abu Ghraib prison......"Anybody trying to draw a line between the natural progression of looking for somebody to rotate into that position to the alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib would be just wrong. There's absolutely no connection whatever.".... However, when the plan for reorganizing the command structure in Iraq was initially reported in January, Abizaid told defense reporters that Sanchez would stay on....

Is sacrificing Sanchez going to quell the scandal? I don't think so

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55703-2004May25.html
A U.S. Army general dispatched by senior Pentagon officials to bolster the collection of intelligence from prisoners in Iraq last fall inspired and promoted the use of guard dogs there to frighten the Iraqis

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/politics/25ABUS.html
"ghost detainees"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/politics/26ABUS.html
An Army summary of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known....

Other absurdities:

Fox News doesn't want to be called "conservative"
http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200422#334

Bush Co. now denying any special relationship with Chalabi
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003060
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/000716.html

Republicans trying to get into the 527 game (unsuccessfully)
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/05/25/republicans_create_527_groups.html
"Republicans who once vigorously opposed the fundraising and spending activities of mostly liberal groups who have been working to defeat President Bush are developing ambitious plans to raise unregulated 'soft money' before the November election."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/004004.php
Charles Kuffner reports that Republicans are having trouble setting up their own 527 groups to compete with the Democrats

Could the commingling of lobbyists and policymakers get any more incestuous?
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003049
For years, Norquist and DeLay have worked to purge the nation's corporate lobby shops of Democrats, and companies that fill GOP campaign coffers with money are rewarded with access to lawmakers. Enemies don't get their calls returned, and without access, they lose clients. Access is coordinated by the White House, often through the office of another powerful Texan, political strategist Karl Rove.
More: http://www.davidsirota.com/2004/05/industry-lobbyists-now-oversee-their.html

Bush re-elect committee says they're not worried about a Libertarian challenge
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/05/25/bushs_third_party_threat.html
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_05_21.shtml#1085433164
A senior adviser to the campaign, who did not want his name used so he could speak more frankly, said there was no concern in the campaign...... "None, none," the adviser emphasized. "[Mr. Bush is] as strong as Ronald Reagan was in 1984."

Polls dropping? Ramp up the terror alert!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55705-2004May25.html?nav=rss_nation
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/25/terror.threat/index.html
Although there is no specific target, time or date for the possible attack, the information is the culmination of intelligence that has been known and gathered over time.......

Unitarianism again a religion in Texas
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/003534.html#003534
This story from Saturday shows the strength and breadth of the condemnation that Strayhorn brought on herself for her initial idiocy....."She's either abysmally ignorant of the law or a religious bigot," said Robert London, spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Washington, D.C. "She's acting like a grand inquisitor in deciding what should be a religion."

Barn door, horse gone department

Rehnquist orders review of SC ethics AFTER Scalia un-recuses himself so he can help make key Cheney decision
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/25/ethics/

NY Times criticizes its own credulous Iraq coverage
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?8dpc

Bonus item:
9-11 panel picks a publisher for report (looks like they aren't going to let Bush Co. sit on it until after the election)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/politics/25panel.html
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 2:09 AM

 
THE DOG DIDN'T BARK

The only thing important about Bush's speech last night is what didn't happen, what wasn't said, etc.

Networks didn't cover it
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/speech.tv.ap/index.html

"Stay the course" -- and work out details later (typical)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/albright/index.html

Can't pronounce "Abu Ghraib"
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/05/24/abu_ghraib/

The draft UN resolution: leaves the tough questions for future negotiations
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/24/resolution/

More gobbledygook on the meaning of "total sovereignty"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/24/international/middleeast/24CND-BUSH.html
Some critics are doubtful that the Iraqis will inherit full sovereignty. "There is no such thing as `sovereignty lite,' " Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said in a statement today. "Being sovereign is like being pregnant: you either are or you aren't. If the new Iraqi government doesn't have ultimate authority and responsibility for the security of the Iraqi people, then it is not truly sovereign."

http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_25_bestof.html#108545801220149525
Does "full sovereignty" mean the new Iraqi government will have the authority to cancel contracts with American firms like Halliburton and re-negotiate more favorable contracts with, say, French or Russian or Iranian companies?.... Does "full sovereignty" mean that American troops can launch offensive actions against Iraqi citizens without the approval of the new government?

Does Bush even believe his own words?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53329-2004May24.html
Old Blue Tie was back, but not exactly in top form......It is doubtful Bush changed millions of minds with last night's speech, which was delivered in the extremely friendly surroundings of the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., but without much energy or urgency. Bush didn't look terribly convinced by his own argument that the situation in Iraq is improving, nor did he appear all that thrilled by his five-point plan to bring about "Iraqi freedom" in the future...... "We're makin' progress," Bush said in his colloquial way. ".... Last night's speech was clear enough but also dry and dispirited.......Besides, it's the folks at home who matter, the audience Bush really needs to impress. It's unlikely he did that last night. In addition to a generally lackluster delivery, Bush stumbled over the crucial name Abu Ghraib, the now infamous prison.....The speech was so bland that even the usual suspects had a hard time working up much indignation or exaltation over it.

And thanks for the "reassurance"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52711-2004May24.html
Bush Seeks to Reassure Nation on Iraq
Bush's address, while using many of the same arguments he has employed previously, represented a subtle shift in the way he discusses the U.S. tribulations in Iraq. He gave a more frank acknowledgment of the troubles facing U.S. forces, warning that "there are difficult days ahead, and the way forward may sometimes appear chaotic.".....Bush did not shy away from discussing setbacks, mentioning the insurgency in Fallujah, Karbala and Najaf, and the grisly killings of American civilians and a leader of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi authority. He gave more credit to the insurgents, previously dismissed as "few" in number, calling them "sophisticated" and noting that Hussein loyalists had reorganized and rearmed within the civilian population.......Bush also acknowledged that he has had to revise plans for troop reductions. He said the 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, more than the 115,000 the administration had forecast needing, would remain "as long as necessary."


Independent assessments of the state of things in Iraq (bad!)

Zinni:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/05/24/zinni/
"In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption. False rationales as a justification; a flawed strategy; lack of planning; the unnecessary alienation of our allies; the underestimation of the task; the unnecessary distraction from real threats; and the unbearable strain dumped on our overstretched military, all of these caused me to speak out. I did it before the war as a caution, and as an attempt to voice concern over situations I knew would be dangers, where the outcomes would likely mean real harm to our nation's interests. I was called a traitor and turncoat by Pentagon officials."
More: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040425/news_mz1e25zinni.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50730-2004May23.html?nav=rss_nation

Our Top Ten Mistakes in Iraq
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003995.php

http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#108460014259530839
America's Incompetent Colonialism: The Failures of the US Administration of Iraq


Take this quiz: What is the most embarrassing thing about the Chalabi affair?

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2004/05/chalabi_quiz.php
1. That we've been paying Chalabi to tell us lies.
2. That Chalabi duped us by spreading the same false intelligence he was peddling to us to foreign intelligence agencies , whose reports when appeared as "confirmation" of his original fabrications.
3. That the original source of the fabrications may turn out to have been the Iranian intelligence service, using Chalabi to induce the U.S. to invade Iraq.
4. That, in return for the disinformation the Iranians were feeding us through him, Chalabi was passing genuine American secrets to Iranian intelligence.
5. That no one in Washington seems to have been authorized to give Chalabi or his crew that sensitive information, raising the specter of possible Espionage Act prosecutions.
6. That halabi managed to get himself seated right behind the First Lady for the State of the Union in January.
7. That a number of prominent American neocons have decided to support Chalabi against their own government, using in some cases strikingly anti-American language.
8. That the raid enraged Chalabi against the United States without reducing his ability to damage us.
9. That, after U.S. and CPA officials attributed the raid on Chalabi's house and party headquarters to Iraqis, the Iraqi Interim Governing Council denounced it.
10. That, despite the presence of 100 U.S. soldiers at the raid, the Secretary of Defense denied any advance knowledge of it.


Rumsfeld's all-too-typical response to Abu Ghraib abuses: ban the cameras!

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/05/24/rumsfeld_phones/

Oops! May be a hoax
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2004/05/did_rumsfeld_ban_picture_phones_in_iraqi_prisons.php


Sanchez OUT - I guess they can move fast when they want to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52980-2004May24.html?nav=rss_nation
Sanchez has been besieged lately by questions about his oversight of detainee operations in Iraq, especially his role in the scandal over the abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/politics/25SANC.html

Bonus item: 41% (and dropping)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/opinion/polls/main619122.shtml
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 12:58 AM

 
A FINE MESS

Chalabi: How we got into this mess

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5040831/
Americans may be beginning to wonder: is anyone in charge over there? For an administration that prides itself on clarity of leadership, the Bushies seem to be lost in the Mesopotamian sandstorm. Everyone and no one was responsible for the prisoner-abuse scandal; the deadline for turning over the country to a new government is five weeks away, and the outcome is highly uncertain. Chalabi, who was supposed to be Our Man in Baghdad, is now whipping up anti-American sentiment. It wasn't long ago that Chalabi was touted as a great democrat, a friend of Israel, an Arab who "thought like us." He was going to help Americans reshape the troubled Middle East in our own image. But just as Chalabi once seemed to personify the utopian dreams of the true believers-remember those bouquets that would greet the troops?-his fall from grace suggests a more depressing turn in the Iraq reality show.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1101040531-641077,00.html
Administration neoconservatives who once blessed Chalabi as Iraq's President-in-waiting but have watched their influence wane as Iraq has descended into chaos fell over themselves last week trying to cut loose their former friend. One of Chalabi's Pentagon boosters, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, insisted to Time that "there's all this stuff about his advising us on policy and his being highly influential, and it is wildly overstated. The stuff that's been reported about us being very close is just wrong." A top Administration source says Vice President Dick Cheney, who lobbied to continue to give financial assistance to the i.n.c. in the run-up to the U.S. invasion, saw Chalabi as merely "one of many" exiles who could aid the U.S. in Iraq.

A nice chronology

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003991.php
Bottom line: practically every group that has ever worked with Chalabi has eventually felt betrayed by him. This includes, at a minimum: (1) the Jordanian government, (2) the CIA, (3) the State Department, (4) Paul Bremer and the CPA, (5) the United Nations, (6) the NSC, and (7) the DIA. Oh - and quite possibly, (8) George W. Bush
[More from CAP: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=81292]

The Big Question: Who leaked to Chalabi?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/24/politics/24CHAL.html
Federal investigators now suspect that Mr. Chalabi funneled a wide array of Pentagon and C.I.A. secrets to Iran - much more material than they believe he might have obtained through his political contacts with Americans, they said. "This was not the kind of stuff that he would have gotten by accident," one official said......Intelligence officials have said the investigation centers on a handful of officials in Washington and Iraq who dealt regularly with Mr. Chalabi, and an even smaller number who also had access to the compromised information. Most of them are at the Pentagon, which was Mr. Chalabi's main point of contact with the Bush administration.

How the Chalabi dispute is the latest battleground in the unending WH turf war

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/23/wirq223.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/05/23/ixnewstop.html
From the State Department in Foggy Bottom, to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, lengthy briefings are being granted. Rivals, particularly if they work at the Pentagon, are being ruthlessly disparaged.....A sense of schadenfreude is palpable.

Where the Plame and Chalabi stories may intersect: where the forged Niger/uranium document came from (can you guess)?

http://econ4dean.typepad.com/lerxst/2004/05/was_iran_behind.html

And even more evidence that Iran duped Bush Co. into attacking Iraq for them

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003988.php
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-chalabi23may23,1,6498654.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Chalabi/Tenet: Who will come out in top? (Don't assume the answer)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/23/iraq.chalabi/index.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040531-641078,00.html

Bush's solution for Iraq? Let's reshape the expectations

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-iraqassess23may23,1,3465741.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Officials said there was no immediate sign that Bush was planning to announce any major new initiatives or shifts in policy in Monday's speech. The main theme, one aide said, will be a familiar one: "Stay the course.".....A major aim, the aide added, is to help set "rational expectations for what we'll see over the next weeks and months in Iraq." The White House wants to avoid a politically damaging letdown if the transfer of sovereignty does not visibly improve the military situation....Senior officials have long warned that the June 30 milestone could produce an upsurge in violence.

More on Bush's solution for Iraq: Rewriting the script

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47244-2004May22?language=printer
The original script included parts for American soldiers and diplomats, Iraqis, Arabs and Europeans, but many declined to play along or refused to perform as directed. No matter -- the authors promised to "stay the course." A quick look back at the list of promises made and then abandoned demonstrates how little the play now conforms to the original scenario. And by the way, just what is that "course" we are staying on?

Abu Ghraib: sick

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-prison23may23,1,3865832.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Womack said they would not have known that licking the bottom of a shoe - which some prisoners were allegedly ordered to do - is seen as a particularly offensive act....."Only the intelligence officers who study the psyche of the prisoners know that there are certain poses and ways to stage them," Womack said. "They know what type of humiliation will be the most effective. The MPs would have had no way to understand the significance of that. It's a cultural thing."

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/006590.html#006590
He said that he asked Graner, a Pennsylvania prison guard in civilian life, about the photographs. Graner replied: "The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.' "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46658-2004May21.html
"I was laughing at some of the stuff that they had them do," Sivits told investigators.

Bush Co. refuses to reveal the interrogation rules

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48571-2004May22?language=printer
THE BUSH administration is doing its best to keep secret the policies it has developed for handling foreign prisoners and to stifle congressional examination of the issue. Rules for the interrogation of detainees used to be published in widely available Army manuals. But the Bush administration has classified the procedures it has approved for the Guantanamo Bay prison, Afghanistan and Iraq -- even though it claims that all are in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. It has been slow to release the procedures even to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is leading the way in investigating the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Pentagon still has not met the committee's request for the legal memos that supposedly justify such techniques as hooding, putting prisoners in stress positions, sleep and dietary deprivation and intimidation by dogs.

The T Word

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/magazine/23PRISONS.html
Susan Sontag on the pictures
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/opinion/23HOCH.html
Adam Hochschild on the words

If Bush is re-elected: changes to the team (interesting how Bush describes this as if it is his call, when some have already announced they're leaving and other clearly will HAVE to leave because of scandals)

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040531/whispers/31whisplead_2.htm
To kick-start a second term, he may replace up to two thirds of his cabinet and top political appointees. "Oh yeah, there'll be a big housecleaning," says an aide. It could start right after Election Day, when appointees would have to tender resignations.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-23-bush-advisers_x.htm

No joke: Texas decides that Unitarianism isn't a religion (a.k.a., when state bureaucrats play theologians)

http://garala.typepad.com/garalog/2004/05/this_is_where_i.html

Bonus item: joke of the day

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/23/1182/83641
How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to replace a lightbulb?

The Answer is SEVEN:

1. one to deny that a lightbulb needs to be replaced

2. one to attack and question the patriotism of anyone who has questions about the lightbulb,

3. one to blame the previous administration for the need of a new lightbulb,

4. one to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of lightbulbs,

5. one to get together with Vice President Cheney and figure out how to pay Halliburton Industries one million dollars for a lightbulb,

6. one to arrange a photo-op session showing Bush changing the lightbulb while dressed in a flight suit and wrapped in an American flag,

7. and finally one to explain to Bush the difference between screwing a lightbulb and screwing the country.
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 1:17 AM

 
THE UNREALITY MACHINE

Liar, liar, liar!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/29/bush.911.commission/
[April 29] President Bush said Thursday he "answered every question" posed to him by the 9/11 commission

http://www.thehill.com/news/051804/binladen.aspx
The Bush administration has refused to answer repeated requests from the Sept. 11 commission about who authorized flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of 2001.......Former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), vice chairman of the independent, bipartisan commission, disclosed the administration’s refusal to answer questions on the sensitive subject.....If Bush or members of his inner circle are shown to have approved the flight of the prominent Saudi Arabian citizens, it could be damaging to Bush, who has staked his re-election campaign....Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said she asked Hamilton and Lehman if they were able to find out who in the administration authorized the Saudi Arabian flights. “Who did this? Why would the Saudis want to get out of the country? They said [those questions have] been part of their inquiry and they haven’t received satisfactory answers yet and they were pushing,” Boxer said.....Another Democrat in the meeting who confirmed Boxer’s account reported that Hamilton said, “We don’t know who authorized it. We’ve asked that question 50 times.”.......Boxer said she obtained a commitment from Hamilton that the commission will state in its final report if the White House refused to answer questions about who authorized the Saudi flights......

Abu Ghraib abuses WERE known about by higher ups

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48229-2004May22.html?nav=rss_nation
A military lawyer for a soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib abuse case stated that a captain at the prison said the highest-ranking U.S. military officer in Iraq was present during some "interrogations and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse," according to a recording of a military hearing obtained by The Washington Post.....The lawyer, Capt. Robert Shuck, said he was told that Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez and other senior military officers were aware of what was taking place on Tier 1A of Abu Ghraib.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/international/middleeast/23IRAQ.html?hp
Presented last fall with a detailed catalog of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, the American military responded on Dec. 24 with a confidential letter to a Red Cross official asserting that many Iraqi prisoners were not entitled to the full protections of the Geneva Conventions.......The letter, drafted by military lawyers and signed by Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, emphasized the "military necessity" of isolating some inmates at the prison for interrogation because of their "significant intelligence value," and said prisoners held as security risks could legally be treated differently from prisoners of war or ordinary criminals..... But the military insisted that there were "clear procedures governing interrogation to ensure approaches do not amount to inhumane treatment."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48722-2004May22.html?nav=rss_nation
The military police on guard duty that night were going to get to the bottom of things, she said. And they had instructions from military intelligence: "MI had told us to 'rough them up' to get answers," she said......And so they did, England said....Someone from military intelligence, whom she did not name, was "present all during this incident," she said...."I did not drag or pull on the leash," she said. "I simply stood with the strap in my hand."

The fundamental incoherence of our position on the Geneva Conventions

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5032094/site/newsweek/
In a crucial memo written four months after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, Justice Department lawyers advised that President George W. Bush and the U.S. military did not have to comply with any international laws in the handling of detainees in the war on terrorism. It was that conclusion, say some critics, that laid the groundwork for aggressive interrogation techniques that led to the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. ......But the Jan. 9, 2002 memo, written by Justice lawyers John Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty, went far beyond that conclusion, explicitly arguing that no international laws—including the normally observed laws of war—applied to the United States at all because they did not have any status under federal law........“As a result, any customary international law of armed conflict in no way binds, as a legal matter, the President or the U.S. Armed Forces concerning the detention or trial of members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban,” according to a copy of the memo obtained by NEWSWEEK.......At the same time, and even more striking, according to critics, the memo explicitly proposed a de facto double standard in the war on terror in which the United States would hold others accountable for international laws it said it was not itself obligated to follow.........After concluding that the laws of war did not apply to the conduct of the U.S. military, the memo argued that President Bush could still put Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters on trial as war criminals for violating those same laws. While acknowledging that this may seem “at first glance, counter-intuitive,” the memo states this is a product of the president’s constitutional authority “to prosecute the war effectively.”

Meanwhile, operations continue in the Bush Unreality Machine

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48487-2004May22.html?nav=rss_nation
President Bush will launch an ambitious campaign tomorrow night to shift attention from recent setbacks that have eroded domestic and international support for U.S. policy in Iraq, particularly the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the escalating violence, and focus instead on the future of post-occupation Iraq.....The president will open a tightly orchestrated public relations effort in a speech at the Army War College outlining U.S. plans for the critical five weeks before the transfer of political power June 30. The White House then intends to circulate this week a draft U.N. resolution on post-occupation Iraq, wrap up negotiations with Iraqis on an interim government and begin shoring up the coalition to ensure that other foreign forces also stay after June 30, U.S. officials said....."There's a sense that this week is our chance to create some movement in a different direction. We'll start talking about the future, not the past...

[Have you noticed how often they like to use this phrase? I think it means "ignore our failures and misdeeds, and listen to our promises and predictions instead." Then, when those promises and predictions turn out to have been illusory, THEY become part of the past too, so we can ignore them also. Clever strategy!]

Sen. Richard Lugar offers a contrasting assessment

http://fletcher.tufts.edu/news/2004/05/lugar.shtml
In response to September 11, 2001, the United States has created a new Department of Homeland Security......But taking military action against terrorists and their supporters and improving homeland defense are not the same as executing a global strategy designed to overcome terrorism....The war on terrorism will not be won through attrition - particularly since military action will often breed more terrorists and more resentment of the United States.....Unless the United States commits itself to a sustained program of repairing and building alliances, expanding trade, pursuing resolutions to regional conflicts, supporting democracy and development worldwide, and controlling weapons of mass destruction, we are likely to experience acts of catastrophic terrorism that would undermine our economy, damage our society, and kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.....The United States, as a nation, simply has not made this commitment.

More developments on the Chalabi front

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8727082.htm
The investigation is likely to be extremely sensitive because Chalabi's most ardent supporters have included not only top civilians in the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, but also officials in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney and members of the Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon advisory group......"The bottom line here is that much of the information the administration had about Iraq may have come from an Iranian agent," said the intelligence official. "If that's true, this is a huge scandal."

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/21412.htm
Jordan's King Abdullah fueled the U.S. move against Iraqi leader Ahmed Chalabi by providing bombshell intelligence that his group was spying for Iran, The Post has learned..... An explosive dossier that the Jordanian monarch recently brought with him to White House sessions with President Bush detailed Mafia-style extortion rackets and secret information on U.S. military operations being passed to Iran, diplomats said.....That new information led to the Bush administration's decision to stop its $340,000-a-month payments to Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress and back an aggressive Iraqi criminal probe into his activities.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-uschal0522,0,4141685.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines
Chalabi's endeavors to find a constituency after decades outside Iraq were dealt another blow when a senior Iraqi official alleged Saturday that the Shiite politician's security chief, Araz Habib, was wanted by Iraqi and coalition authorities for alleged links to Iran's intelligence service......Habib, a Shiite Kurd, was being sought under an arrest warrant because "he has relations with the Iranian government" and "works for the Iranian intelligence," the official said on condition of anonymity.

Analysis:
http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.html#003404
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003985.php
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002992
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002993

More Unreality: Who will be blamed for Chalabi?

http://stirling-newberry.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/23/11110/8627
The recent raid and statements from the DIA indicate that Chalabi is about to be "Clintonized", that is, his failures and spying will be blamed on Clinton. Note the construction "for years" in reference to his passing information to the government of Iran.

Here's some of what you need to know...

The INC had been held at a distance under the Clinton Administration......It was with the Bush tenure that the INC hit high gear. In April of 2001 - note that this is after Clinton has left the White House - the INC opens an office in Tehran, and begins pursuing closer links.......CIA regarded the INC with contempt - and stated that they had no intelligence assets of any worth. Instead, it was Perle and Wolfowitz at DoD, backed by SecDef Rumsfeld who took the information and trained the "Free Iraqi Force" under Chalabi's command. Chalabi and his supporters continued to put forward the view - which was absurd on its face - that a revolt in Iraq would spread, and that there would be an easy "liberation". ...The INC was created by order of Bush Sr., and while Rendon is a Democratic leaning businessman, he was not chosen by Clinton. Clinton continued the policy, but, like Waco, he did not plan the details. In 1996, or perhaps 1997 at the latest, Clinton's CIA stopped funding Chalabi and the INC. This was largely because of the failure of an INC plot against Saddam in 1995, and the low quality of their information.

Department of Yikes!

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/international/asia/23NUKE.html
International inspectors have discovered evidence that North Korea secretly provided Libya with nearly two tons of uranium in early 2001, which if confirmed would be the first known case in which the North Korean government has sold a key ingredient for manufacturing atomic weapons to another country, according to American officials and European diplomats familiar with the intelligence......At a moment when the Bush administration is focused on Iraq, the fresh intelligence on North Korea poses another challenge to the United States......The classified evidence — many details of which are still sketchy — has touched off a race among the world's intelligence services to explore whether North Korea has made similar clandestine sales to other nations or perhaps even to terror groups seeking atomic weapons.

Plame investigation moving forward (come on, please, put the final nail in the coffin)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/22/journalists.subpoena/index.html
Former federal prosecutors told CNN that investigators are required to exhaust other possible leads before resorting to questioning journalists, so that issuing subpoenas is a signal that the investigation is in its final stages.

Another of my obsessions: Require paper trail for electronic voting!

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/politics/campaign/23vote.html
But in the last year election analysts have documented so many malfunctions, including the disappearance of names from the ballot, and computer experts have shown that the machines are so vulnerable to hackers, that critics have organized to counter the rush toward touch screens with a move to require paper trails.

Bonus item: Bush mugs for the camera before announcing war against Iraq

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/21/142417/023
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 2:44 AM

 
THE GATHERING STORM.....

The latest updates on Mr. Chalabi....

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002981
Department of unintended Chalabi ironies. From President Bush's commencement speech at LSU: "On the job, and elsewhere in life, choose your friends carefully. The company you keep has a way of rubbing off on you. And that can be a good thing or a bad thing."

http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_21_bestof.html#108514456994186729
How we got started up with this guy (it began under Clinton)

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
The Letter; look at the signatures....a short list of Bush's foreign policy team

http://www.counterpunch.org/chalabi05202004.html
His long-standing Iranian connections

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/20/iraq/main618637.shtml
On Friday, Stahl reported that senior intelligence officials stress the information Ahmad Chalibi is alleged to have passed on to Iran is of such a seriously sensitive nature, the result of full disclosure could be highly damaging to U.S. security. The information involves secrets that were held by only a handful of very senior U.S. officials, says Stahl..... Meanwhile, Stahl reports that "grave concerns" about the true nature of Chalabi's relationship with Iran started after the U.S. obtained "undeniable intelligence" that Chalabi met with a senior Iranian intelligence, a "nefarious figure from the dark side of the regime - an individual with a direct hand in covert operations directed against the United States."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002984
Here are some questions you might want to ask.

Where did he get the intelligence to leak? Who gave Chalabi the leaked classified information?
Was it lawful to provide Chalabi with classified USG military information that included such things as where our troops were and what they were doing?
Who is under investigation as a result of the intercepts of the Iranians discussing the intelligence provided by Chalabi? Who are the investigators? Has this been referred to the Department of Justice?
Did his provision of that information to Iran result in the death of US soldiers in Shi'ia areas?
Are the intel leaks the reason for the raids of Chalabi's home?
Are the intel leaks the reason they cut off his income?
Why did the USG say that Chalabi was not a "target" of the raids on his home? (It's possible other members of his family are the ones who are being used directly to provide the intel to Iran.)

Who?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/000684.html
Chalabi's Iran ties are looking like a bigger and bigger deal. And more specifically, who from the US provided Chalabi with such highly classified information that was passed to Tehran , over two years..... FBI agents were reportedly involved in Thursday's raid -- why? Because of a high level FBI-led counterintelligence investigation into who passed the classified info to Chalabi. The stakes are high for people here who may be the target of that investigation.

Did I tell you, or what?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uschal0522,0,340595.story?coll=ny-top-span-headlines
The Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that a U.S.-funded arm of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress has been used for years by Iranian intelligence to pass disinformation to the United States and to collect highly sensitive American secrets, according to intelligence sources...... "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the United States through Chalabi by furnishing through his Information Collection Program information to provoke the United States into getting rid of Saddam Hussein," said an intelligence source Friday ........The Information Collection Program also "kept the Iranians informed about what we were doing" by passing classified U.S. documents and other sensitive information, he said. The program has received millions of dollars from the U.S. government over several years......An administration official confirmed that "highly classified information had been provided [to the Iranians] through that channel." ....Patrick Lang, former director of the intelligence agency's Middle East branch, said he had been told by colleagues in the intelligence community that Chalabi's U.S.-funded program to provide information about weapons of mass destruction and insurgents was effectively an Iranian intelligence operation. "They [the Iranians] knew exactly what we were up to," he said.... He described it as "one of the most sophisticated and successful intelligence operations in history."...."I'm a spook. I appreciate good work. This was good work," he said.

The war within the Bush WH

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002989
It's not that the claims are false. In fact, I quite suspect the opposite. But what we're seeing here is less the result of new revelations than the outward signs of deep tectonic shifts within the US government -- the discrediting of some factions and agencies, the attempts of others to reposition themselves in a moment of acute crisis and get ahead of the storm, and the freeing up of others to assert themselves for the first time in years.......But the struggles that are giving rise to all these leaks and tergiversations of the state are the real story -- one that it is difficult to see directly, but possible to glimpse in what we can infer from its effects and repercussions.

Amazingly, Chalabi still has his neo-con defenders:

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003043

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/000684.html
"It is far from obvious how we advance American interests by acting against someone who shares our values and is highly effective," Mr. Perle said in an interview. "

http://www.nationalreview.com/rubin/rubin200405210849.asp
Simultaneously, the inside-the-beltway rumor mongering made clear both the irrational contempt and ignorance that many professional pundits feel for any proponent of Arab democracy. Those academics, pundits, and commentators who have never met Chalabi reserve for him the greatest vitriol.....The allegations against Chalabi grow more bizarre........The raid on Chalabi's house, personally approved by CPA administrator L. Paul Bremer, encapsulates what has gone wrong with the American administration in Iraq.

And why Chalabi's ability to cause us BIG trouble in Iraq doesn't end with this, but is only beginning

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/05/21/MNG5F6PP2T1.DTL
Chalabi's days in power may not be over. During the past year, he has amassed a large web of influence and control that stretches from the oil industry to the banking system to the purges of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.....Analysts say that unless the Bush administration moves to dismantle his empire, Chalabi will continue controlling much of Iraq's politics from behind the scenes, and he could seriously disrupt American plans for turning over nominal sovereignty to a new Iraqi government on June 30 [More: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_chalabi_plot.php]

[Oh, man, has Bush Co. screwed this up badly!]

Meanwhile, Mr. Know-Nothing's attempt to reassure his GOP troops isn't wearing all that well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing/
Here is a summary of what today's news stories say did not happen during President Bush's hastily-arranged visit with Republicans on Capitol Hill yesterday:

* He didn't provide any new details about the June 30 transition of sovereignty in Iraq.

* He didn't persuade a handful of balking Senate Republicans to go along with his tax plans.

* He didn't dissuade House Republicans from approving provisions in the defense bill he has threatened to veto.

* He didn't talk about embattled Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld or Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi.

* He didn't comment on the prison-abuse scandal.

* He didn't come up with a new speech.

* He didn't take any questions.

* He didn't say anything new.

Oh, and of course:

* He didn't meet with Democrats at all.

and

* He didn't talk to reporters.

Elisabeth Bumiller and Carl Hulse write in the New York Times: "After the session, Republicans generally praised Mr. Bush for making the effort to come to Capitol Hill, and for paying attention to them.....Edmund L. Andrews writes for the New York Times that Bush's "high-profile plea" for approval of the federal budget didn't persuade "a handful of centrist Republicans to abandon their insistence that any new tax cuts be paid for with either spending cuts or tax increases."........So, in a "major setback" for the White House, Senate Republican leaders were forced to postpone the vote, rather than lose it. .......John Roberts of CBS News reports: "Privately . . . some lawmakers described the meeting as 'little more than a cheerleading session,' 'the usual trite phrases,' and saying 'the president wasn't very effective.' "........Kathy Kiely writes in USA Today: "Lawmakers who expected a give-and-take with the commander in chief were disappointed, however. Microphones were set up in the room, and they were told to line up if they had questions. But Bush left without taking any."..........Julie Hirschfeld Davis writes in the Baltimore Sun: "Some Republicans say they are fearful not only that Bush's stock is falling, but also that their party's ideas are getting lost in a tangle of administration setbacks."......David Gregory of NBC reports: "Privately, nervous Republicans have been complaining directly to the White House. Last Thursday, House Speaker Hastert brought along ten fellow members to see the president and Vice President Cheney, who later described the meeting as a 'venting session.' "

Abu Ghraib (and elsewhere): what more can be said?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/22/politics/22ABUS.html
The use of dogs to intimidate prisoners during interrogation at Abu Ghraib in Iraq was approved by military intelligence officers at the prison, and was one of several aggressive tactics they adopted even without approval from senior military commanders, according to interviews gathered by Army investigators......Intelligence officers also demanded strict limits on Red Cross access to prisoners as early as last October, delaying for a day what the military had previously described as an unannounced visit to the cellblock where the worst abuses occurred, according to a document from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46523-2004May21.html
Prisoners posed in three of the most infamous photographs of abuse to come out of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were not being softened up for interrogation by intelligence officers but instead were being punished for criminal acts or the amusement of their jailers

http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/guantanamo21.html
WASHINGTON-- The Pentagon has revealed that in the first year of interrogations at the U.S.-run Guantanamo Bay prison for suspected terrorists, senior military lawyers in Washington raised objections to the use of techniques that were harsher than permitted under standard military doctrine....... As their protests "became more apparent" in late 2002, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ended the use of such tactics....The lawyer, who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity because details are classified secret, said Rumsfeld in April 2003 approved new guidelines which won the military lawyers' blessing........Those guidelines are different-- allowing harsher methods-- than the approaches used in Iraq because all prisoners in Iraq are deemed by the Bush administration to be covered by prisoner protections of the Geneva Conventions, whereas those at Guantanamo Bay are not, the lawyer said.

A series of Justice Department memorandums written in late 2001 and the first few months of 2002 were crucial in building a legal framework for United States officials to avoid complying with international laws and treaties on handling prisoners, lawyers and former officials say.

More on Feith: just plain funny....

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May2004/Lobe0520.htm
Although it will take weeks, if not months, to sort out precisely who was responsible for what increasingly appears to have been the systemic abuse by U.S. soldiers of Iraqi detainees, it should be no surprise if Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith is found to have played an important role.......Feith, who, according to Bob Woodward's new book, Plan of Attack, was described by the military commander who led last year's invasion, Gen. Tommie Franks, as ''the f---ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth," has been at the center of virtually everything else that has gone wrong in Iraq, so there is no reason to think he was very far from this one.

More sick humor: Halliburton in trouble AGAIN

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/21/165041/132

But seriously, folks: military assessments of the state of things in Iraq (BAD!)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/21/politics/21MEMO.html
Clark:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html
Zinni:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002983
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003978.php
Three of the past four CENTCOM commanders, the guys who probably understand the military requirements of a war in the Middle East better than any other humans on the planet, think the people who planned this war are completely incompetent.

Bush policies creating a Shiite International (VERY depressing analysis)

http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#108520626801897306

Finally, just to show that I am not yet COMPLETELY obsessed by the multiple disasters in Iraq, a few tasty items for the dessert course:

"The Conservative Case for Voting Democratic"
http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_20_bestof.html#108503620696860839

When polls go tautological
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003041

Dershowitz gets medieval on Scalia
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_05_16_atrios_archive.html#108499211462046242
He's an interesting guy. His father was a teacher at Brooklyn College when I was there. His father was a proud member of the American-Italian fascist party and got his doctorate at Casa Italiano at Columbia at a time when in order to get your doctorate you had to swear an oath to Mussolini. So he comes from an interesting background and he went to a kind of military school in New York which was a place where many children of fascists were educated. Therefore to call him a conservative - he's never expressed any conservative principles - he's a statist. He's a man who is well in the tradition of Franco and Mussolini. Not Hitler. He's not an anti-Semite - there's no bigotry or racism in him at all. But he is somebody who has these views which would have been very comfortable in fascist Italy or fascist Spain.

- posted by Nick Burbules @ 2:28 AM

 
FINISHED

Two further developments. They signal, I think, the end of some people's careers and the almost certain defeat of George Bush in the fall. I can hardly believe them, on top of everything else.

BIF: soon to become a household word. I mentioned the existence of this facility a few days ago - now we know what has been going on there

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5024068/
U.S. military and intelligence officials familiar with the situation tell NBC News the Army's elite Delta Force is now the subject of a Pentagon inspector general investigation into abuse against detainees.....The target is a top-secret site near Baghdad's airport. The battlefield interrogation facility known as the "BIF" is pictured in satellite photos.....According to two top U.S. government sources, it is the scene of the most egregious violations of the Geneva Conventions in all of Iraq's prisons. A place where the normal rules of interrogation don't apply, Delta Force's BIF only holds Iraqi insurgents and suspected terrorists - but not the most wanted among Saddam's lieutenants pictured on the deck of cards.....Delta Force soldiers routinely drug prisoners, hold a prisoner under water until he thinks he's drowning, or smother them almost to suffocation.....In Washington Thursday evening, a senior Pentagon official denied allegations of prisoner abuse at Battlefield Interrogation Facilities operated by Delta Force in Iraq. And he said the tactics described in this report are not used in those facilities.....All of those practices would be violations of the Geneva Conventions......But as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has made clear, the Geneva Conventions do apply in Iraq......So, does Rumfeld know about the BIF and what goes on there?......Several top U.S. military and intelligence sources say yes, and that he, through other top Pentagon officials, directed the U.S. head of intelligence in Iraq, Gen. Barbara Fast, and others to bring some of the methods used at the BIF to prisons like Abu Ghraib, in hopes of getting better intelligence from Iraqi detainees.....The Pentagon's top spokesman in Iraq says the military will not comment on the BIF or what goes on there. He was unwilling to even confirm or deny its existence.

Chalabi was spying for Iran!

Earlier I just had this from one indirect source. The story is now coming from Fox News, CBS News and the Wall Street Journal

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120535,00.html
CIA sources told Fox News there are reports that the INC passed information to Iran, but as far as what type of information, the sources said that isn't known for sure.....Defense officials also told Fox News there was speculation that INC members allegedly shared information with Iran and misused funds and property belonging to the Iraqi Governing Council.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100924/fr/rss/ (WSJ)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/20/iraq/main618637.shtml
The evidence shows that Chalabi - who was once seen as the man likely to lead Iraq by White House and Pentagon officials - personally gave Iranian intelligence officers information so sensitive that if revealed it could, quote, "get Americans killed." The evidence is said to be "rock solid." .....Sources have told Stahl a high-level investigation is under way into who in the U.S. government gave Chalabi such sensitive information in the first place......In addition, sources told Stahl that one of Chalabi's closest confidantes - a senior member of his organization, the Iraqi national congress - is believed to have been recruited by Iran's intelligence agency, the Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS) - and is on their payroll.


[Now, here is what I can't figure out, assuming that this is at all true. I see why leaking this information about Chalabi is meant to finish him politically in Iraq (maybe it was leaked by the same person who leaked the Plame information). But doesn't it KILL the Bush administration? He is from top to bottom a creation of their efforts, they GAVE him Saddam's intelligence files, and goodness knows what else they fed him and INC in addition to millions and millions of dollars. That he turned around and betrayed them shows, at the very least, horrible judgment in whom they put their faith into.

Then there is the broader scenario. When did he start working for Iran - only after he became disaffected, or from the very start? Did Iran, via Chalabi's bogus intelligence, use the U.S. to do what it couldn't do itself: eliminate Saddam and set the conditions for an eventual Islamic state in Iraq? Think about it!

The parallels with Iran/Contra are too stunning to believe (Chalabi=Ghorbanifar, etc.). The presence of Elliot Abrams and others at the heart of both scandals couldn't have been plotted by a spy novelist. I can't wait for someone's defense when asked why the hell they gave Chalabi U.S. intelligence: "I thought it was a neat idea." (http://www.quoteworld.org/author.php?thetext=Oliver+L.+North)]

- posted by Nick Burbules @ 8:27 AM

 
WHO'S SCREWING WHOM?

Chalabi. If there ever was a story that crystallized all the willful self-deception and ignorance of the Bush approach to Iraq, it is this. To review the bidding:

Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their team tags Chalabi from the start as their go-to guy. He feeds them a load of misinformation to persuade them to invade Iraq, encouraging them about how easy it will be. Everyone warns them that Chalabi is a liar and a crook, but they push on anyway. Practically the day after the main war ended, they fly him in with his coterie to establish his bona fides as the Prime Minister-to-be, and then everything goes badly from there. They dump tens of millions of dollars into his lap. But as the CPA keeps screwing up, Chalabi starts to doubt whether hitching his star to US sponsorship is such a good idea, and starts expressing more and more independent views. Suddenly the US announces that it is shocked, SHOCKED, to discover that he is a liar and a crook. Let's take it from there:

The news:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/20/chalabi_raid/
"I am America's best friend in Iraq," Chalabi told a news conference. "If the (coalition) finds it necessary to direct an armed attack against my home, you can see the state of relations between the (coalition) and the Iraqi people.".....U.S. officials declined to comment on the raid. Privately, however, American authorities have said Chalabi is interfering with a U.S. investigation into allegations that Saddam Hussein's regime skimmed billions of dollars in oil revenues during the U.N.-run oil-for-food program.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/20/chalabi.raid/
Chalabi said the raid on his compound Thursday was engineered by Baathists who control the Iraqi police and who are now protected by the Coalition Provisional Authority.....Chalabi, who was previously a close adviser to the Pentagon, said the CPA is dissatisfied with his demands for Iraq's provisional government to be given full control of the Iraqi Army after the June 30 handover and for control of the investigation of fraud in the U.N. oil-for-food program....."When America treats its friends this way, then they are in big trouble," Chalabi said....He called Thursday's raid "the penultimate act of failure of the CPA in Iraq."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/21/politics/21EXIL.html
Now he says that with the liberation of Iraq, the United States should get out of the way. "My message is let my people go, let my people be free," he said, clearly angry that his bedroom had been invaded and that his computers and papers had been confiscated. "We are grateful to President Bush for liberating Iraq, but it is time for the Iraqi people to run their affairs."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/international/middleeast/20CND-CHAL.html?hp
"Bremer," said one Chalabi aide, "has lost his mind."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002977
From March 2000 to September 2003, the State Department doled out some $33 million to Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003037
Congratulations to The New York Times's Dexter Filkins and Kirk Semple for inching away from "he said, she said" journalism. Reporting on the Chalabi raid, they quote Dan Senior and then assess the accuracy of his claims:
"It was an Iraqi-led investigation, it was an Iraqi-led raid, it was the result of Iraqi arrest warrants," Dan Senor, the chief spokesman for L. Paul Bremer III, the top American administrator in Iraq, said.....Mr. Senor asserted that Mr. Bremer "did not know the operation was occurring today" and was notified only after it had been completed..... Still, with Iraq under the command of American civilian and military authorities in the absence of an Iraqi government, it seemed unlikely that the Iraqi police would have mounted such an operation against Mr. Chalabi, a member of the interim Iraqi Governing Council and until recently a favored ally of the Bush administration, without the knowledge, consent and a significant level of participation by American officials.

More on Chalabi's dubious history....

http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/000304.html
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002978

Bush Co. mum


http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9621665%255E1702,00.html
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today he was unaware of the Iraqi police and US military raid on the home of Ahmed Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council and former Pentagon ally who severed his ties with the occupying coalition.....Asked about the raid after a Senate Armed Forces committee meeting, Rumsfeld said: "I certainly was not aware that there was going to be a raid on a home if, in fact, there was."

[No, I don't believe him either.]

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003029
This puts the administration in a pretty awkward position. There are plenty of perfectly good reasons to dump Chalabi from his privileged position, namely his long history of providing terrible information to the American government in an effort to manipulate the USA into putting him in charge of Iraq. But this is hardly something Bush is in a position to admit......So now we have Chalabi posing as the defender of Iraqi sovereignty and national dignity, while Bremer plays the colonialist....but the only way to rebut the charge is to come clean about Chalabi's sorry record from day one. Is that something the administration can do without seriously damaging its domestic political position? I have serious doubts. Would the administration put its domestic political position over the success of its foreign policy? I think there's no doubt that they would.

Damage control (uh...too late guys)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002979
"The vast majority of reports of his proximity to and influence on administration policy have been greatly exaggerated," said a senior administration official involved in Iraq policy who knows Chalabi.

The analysis: don't assume that Chalabi comes out of this weakened

http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#108506871201039809
Rumors are swirling in Baghdad that Chalabi had been taking a percentage of some contracts or that he had been trying to transfer government assets to the Iraqi National Congress before the transfer of sovereignty on June 30. There are also rumors that his militia, which Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had flown into Iraq last year on a Pentagon aircraft, has engaged in coercive or extortionate activities. The problem is that these sorts of rumors have been swirling in Baghdad for many months. So why did the US move now?....Chalabi is charging that the crackdown on him is an attempt by the United Nations to squelch investigations into the bribes Saddam had paid UN officials under the oil for food program, and on which Chalabi had information. The Pentagon had quite outrageously turned over to the Iraqi National Congress the intelligence files of the old Saddam government, which Chalabi has threatened to use to blackmail officials of neighboring governments. Chalabi's charge is implausible and he is just trying to waft some smoke into the public's eyes.....Lakhdar Brahimi, the special UN envoy, had made it clear over a month ago that he would not appoint Chalabi to the caretaker government. In response, Chalabi has become increasingly critical of the US.....Assuming that he manages to stay out of jail, Chalabi will run for political office in January, 2005, and will probably represent himself as an anti-Occupation Iraqi nationalist. You know, the wily old chameleon could still come out ahead.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7769
It appears the Americans are going after a variety of paperwork. He has an enormous amount of documents in his possession, which the Americans allowed and encouraged him to have for several reasons..... First and foremost, the Americans simply don't have the means to review the documentation in Arabic themselves. It's simply beyond our capacity......Also, the Americans were enormously slow to secure sites after the fall of Baghdad, and their overall ignorance of what was in them led them to hand that stuff off to Chalabi. ...The INC has an enormous amount of files from the Mukhabarat building. It was flooded after the fall of Baghdad and virtually became a lake. There was a lot of material, thousands and thousands of pages. I saw some of it stacked up to dry at INC headquarters when I was there...... The Pentagon has been a waning and declining force in the Coalition Provisional Authority [CPA] for months. So State and the CIA have what I would describe as an irrational, supercharged hatred of Ahmed Chalabi. It's there for a long variety of reasons. Primarily, foremost because both institutions, with some notable exceptions, did not want to go to war in Iraq, and they blame Chalabi for us going to war, and hate his guts.....It is not at all surprising that bureaucratically, we are seeing a change as State and CIA become the dominant bureaucratic forces inside the Green Zone.

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001311.html
Who will the neo-neos go with -- Bush or Chalabi? My money is on Chalabi.......UPDATE: Just got one of Laurie Mylroie's mass e-mails. She condemns "today's outrageous, and totally uncalled for, raid on Ahmed Chalabi's compound" and asks, "Just what is the U.S. doing in Iraq?"....Yeah, she's stickin' with Chalabi.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/20/162749/300
If it were not for all awfulness in the news coming out of Iraq, it would be almost impossible to suppress some glee at the fork-tongued Ahmed Chalabi's current predicament. With a host of enemies in his homeland, and Bush allegedly telling King Abdullah he could "piss" on him, Chalabi now has to contend with armed searches of his house in the dead of the night.....As a result of the raid, Chalabi says he has cut off relations with the U.S.-guided Coalition Provisional Aurhority. "I am America's best friend in Iraq;" Chalabi said, and "if the CPA finds it necessary to direct an armed attack against my home, you can see the state of relations between the CPA and the Iraqi people."

http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#108508667877916370
An informed Iraqi Shiite writes: Chalabi is setting himself up to be Martin Luther King to Muqtada's Malcolm X. I predict he will head to Najaf soon to mediate.

And then there are the through-the-looking-glass interpretations of all this


http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000848.php
Having thought about this some more, I'm not sure that all is as it appears to be. The Pentagon needs someone they can trust to run the "New Iraq". They need a puppet. But they know that a puppet won't last a week in the presidency, they know that a puppet would lack the people's mandate to govern. They know that a puppet would never thrive or survive as a leader of the "New Iraq". Or at least someone perceived as a puppet..... So why not take someone trusted - Ahmed Chalabi, for instance - and make it look like he's fallen out of favor?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002971
I've had a slew of readers writing in and asking -- or insisting -- that the raid on the Baghdad home of Ahmed Chalabi and INC headquarters was, if not staged, then conducted with the intent of boosting Chalabi's popularity by appearing to place him at odds with the American occupiers. (The idea, you might say, would be to Sadr-ize him.) Indeed, one of those notes came from someone who I'd describe as loosely affiliated with the United States military establishment and quite knowledgable about Iraq and the Middle East at large....But I'm very skeptical of this interpretation.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003032
Bob Dreyfuss thinks (citing Michael Rubin who's moved from the CPA to AEI and has lately been criticizing his former masters) the Chalabi raid is part of a Pentagon plot to restore the INC's credibility by letting him pose as a patriotic opponent of American occupation. I'm not buying it.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/20/chalabi/index.html
Why did the Bush administration turn against its former favorite Iraqi? Almost certainly because it realized that Chalabi, maddened by the realization that he was being excluded from the post-June 30 hand-over arrangements, was putting together a sectarian Shiite faction to destabilize and destroy the new Iraqi government. "This all started since [U.N. envoy Lakhdar] Brahimi announced that Chalabi would be kept out of the new arrangement," says an Iraqi political observer who is not only long familiar with Chalabi himself but also in close touch with key actors, including U.S. officials at the CPA and Iraqi politicians....."Ahmed is gathering groups to bring this new government down even before July 1. He is in a very destructive phase, mobilizing forces to make sure the U.N. initiative -- due to be announced in 10 days -- fails." Chalabi has reportedly been inflaming his recruits with reports that veteran Algerian diplomat Brahimi is part of a Sunni conspiracy bent on undermining the rights of Iraqi Shiites to hold power in Iraq...."His dream has always been to be a sectarian Shia leader," says the Iraqi political observer of his old friend Chalabi. "He knows that, sooner or later, Muqtada al-Sadr is going to be killed, [and] that will leave tens, hundreds, of thousands of his followers adrift, looking for a new leader. If Ahmed plays the role of victim after [today's raid], he can take on that role."

http://www.electablog.com/2004/05/spy-who-duped-me.html
Fox News (yes that Fox News) is reporting that Ahmed Chalabi may have been a spy for Iran. This would be one of the biggest political dupes in history. It would have to be the end of the Bush tenure.....Amazing what you can get away with when you tell someone what they want to hear.

[Of course, consider the source. But if Chalabi is an agent for Iran, and Bush Co. gave him the keys to the kingdom, $30 million, and all of Saddam's intelligence files, they are without a doubt finished.]

More analysis:

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2004/05/the_chalabi_raid.php
http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_20_bestof.html#108505886594944077
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003969.php
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/05/20/chalabi/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2100851/fr/rss/

In Abu Ghraib - as ugly as you think it is, it just gets worse

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&e=5&u=/chitribts/giboymistreatedtogetdadtotalk
A military intelligence analyst who recently completed duty at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq said Wednesday that the 16-year-old son of a detainee there was abused by U.S. soldiers to break his father's resistance to interrogators.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43783-2004May20.html
Previously secret sworn statements by detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq describe in raw detail abuse that goes well beyond what has been made public, adding allegations of prisoners being ridden like animals, sexually fondled by female soldiers and forced to retrieve their food from toilets..... Hilas also said he witnessed an Army translator having sex with a boy at the prison. He said the boy was between 15 and 18 years old. Someone hung sheets to block the view, but Hilas said he heard the boy's screams and climbed a door to get a better look. Hilas said he watched the assault and told investigators that it was documented by a female soldier taking pictures.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43785-2004May20.html
The video begins with three soldiers huddled around a naked detainee, his thin frame backed against a wall. With a snap of his wrist, one of the soldiers slaps the man across his left cheek so hard that the prisoner's knees buckle. Another detainee, handcuffed and on his back, is dragged across the prison floor......The grainy video stops. But there is more......The new pictures and videos go beyond the photos previously released to the public in several ways, amplifying the overt violence against detainees and displaying a variety of abusive techniques previously unseen. They show a group of apparently cavalier soldiers assaulting prisoners, forcing detainees to masturbate, and standing over a naked prisoner while holding a shotgun......

Where the hell DID those interrogation rules come from?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100842/fr/rss/
The papers would have been better off leading with something only a Post editorial and a piece inside the LAT hit on: In congressional testimony yesterday, top military officials acknowledged there were interrogation rules for Iraq that were MIA . As the Army's top legal officer in Iraq told the Senate committee, "We, as a task force, did not have" an interrogation policy. As the Wall Street Journal mentions in passing, the top commander in Iraq, Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, said he didn't see the list of harsh interrogation techniques that the Pentagon released last week and said Sanchez had approved.

And today this....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43708-2004May20.html?nav=rss_nation
Shortly before the physical abuses of Iraqis were photographed in Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad last year, the top U.S. military official in Iraq signed a classified memorandum explicitly calling for interrogators to assume control over the "lighting, heating . . . food, clothing, and shelter" of those being questioned there......The Oct. 12, 2003, memorandum signed by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez called for intelligence officials at the prison to work more closely with the military police guarding the detainees to "manipulate an internee's emotions and weaknesses."......This memo and the deliberations that preceded it were completely shrouded from public view at the time, but now lie at the heart of the scandal that erupted last month over the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Under congressional prodding, the administration has provided a fuller chronology of the events leading up to its approval......Congressional critics have alleged that language in the memo helped set the stage for the abuses and were part of a Washington-inspired effort to squeeze more information from Iraqis

Looking into the abyss...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1220792,00.html
"I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss," General Joseph Hoar, a former commander in chief of US central command, told the Senate foreign relations committee....The apocalyptic language is becoming increasingly common here among normally moderate and cautious politicians and observers.....Larry Diamond, an analyst at the conservative Hoover Institution, said: "I think it's clear that the United States now faces a perilous situation in Iraq....."We have failed to come anywhere near meeting the post-war expectations of Iraqis for security and post-war reconstruction...."There is only one word for a situation in which you cannot win and you cannot withdraw - quagmire."

Back Home: GOP meltdown

Hunter attacks Warner over holding Abu Ghraib hearings
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37782-2004May18.html

Hastert attacks McCain
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/19/mccain.hastert/index.html
The exchange started when a reporter asked: "Can I combine a two issues, Iraq and taxes? I heard a speech from John McCain the other day..."

Hastert: "Who?"

Reporter: "John McCain."

Hastert: "Where's he from?"

Reporter: "He's a Republican from Arizona."

Hastert: "A Republican?"

Amid nervous laughter, the reporter continued with his question: "Anyway, his observation was never before when we've been at war have we been worrying about cutting taxes and his question was, 'Where's the sacrifice?' "

Hastert: "If you want to see the sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda. There's the sacrifice in this country. We're trying to make sure they have the ability to fight this war, that they have the wherewithal to be able to do it. And, at the same time, we have to react to keep this country strong."

Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda National Naval Medical Center are two military hospitals in the Washington area.

McCain, a prisoner of war during Vietnam, later released a written statement, taking issue with the spending habits of Republican lawmakers.

"The Speaker is correct in that nothing we are called upon to do comes close to matching the heroism of our troops," McCain said.

"All we are called upon to do is not spend our nation into bankruptcy while our soldiers risk their lives. I fondly remember a time when real Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility. Apparently those days are long gone for some in our party."

Former Yale cheerleader tries to buck up flagging GOP spirit

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/politics/campaign/20CND-BUSH.html
President Bush made a rare pilgrimage to Capitol Hill today to massage anxious, fractious Republicans worried about the White House course in Iraq, infighting over next year's federal budget and their prospects for re-election in November...... In a 45-minute pep rally in a basement conference room under the West Front of the Capitol, Mr. Bush told more than 200 House and Senate Republicans that the United States was firmly committed to transferring power to the Iraqis on June 30 ....Mr. Bush took no questions from the lawmakers, and left without speaking to reporters roped off in a corner of the Capitol's basement.

I'm sure this cheered them up...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42263-2004May20.html
"This has been a rough couple of months for the president, particularly on the issues of Iraq, and I think he was here to remind folks that we do have a policy and this policy is going to be tough," said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. "Things, as I think he commented, are very likely to get worse before they get better.".....Several GOP lawmakers who attended the meeting said Bush told his audience to brace for more violence after June 30 and he predicted insurgents would try to disrupt subsequent elections.

Looks like W doesn't manage his campaign budget any more frugally than he manages the national one - he's raised over $200 billion, but he's already spent more than half of it!

http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/000373.html
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/20/bush_spend/index_np.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/21/03843/6894

Wow. Pelosi comes out firing - amazingly tough language

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/20/MNGK36OR7L1.DTL
"Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader,'' Pelosi said. "He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.''.......Pelosi portrayed the president as dangerously in over his head and stubbornly unwilling to consider information that clashes with his own preconceptions......"He has on his shoulders the deaths of many more troops, because he would not heed the advice of his own State Department of what to expect after May 1 when he ... declared that major combat is over,'' Pelosi charged. "The shallowness that he has brought to the office has not changed since he got there.''

Rumsfeld just too busy to be troubled with abuse investigations

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37782-2004May18.html
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has testified before the Senate and House and privately briefed House members yesterday afternoon, was reported by senators who met with him yesterday to be frustrated by the demands that dealing with the scandal has placed on his time.... "He said that essentially all of his time is being taken up in addressing the need to produce testimony and witnesses," said John Cornyn (Tex.), one of about a dozen Republican senators who conferred with Rumsfeld over breakfast at the Pentagon. "He was expressing some frustration at the all-consuming nature of this process. It was clear this was exasperating him."

More on Rumsfeld's doubts about the merits of democracy (a GREAT article)

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/20/secrets/index_np.html
Rumsfeld and his minions are treating Congress as if it's on a need-to-know basis about Iraq -- from the number of private contractors there to how taxpayers' money is being spent to our military strategy.....The two companies -- CACI and Titan -- implicated so far in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal are notably missing from a list submitted earlier this month to Congress by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of private security companies operating in Iraq.

Feith-based policy: a guy you haven't heard nearly enough about

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100899/fr/rss/
Of all the revelations that have surfaced about the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse scandal so far, the least surprising is that Douglas Feith may be partly responsible. Not a single Iraq war screw-up has gone by without someone tagging Feith-who, as the Defense Department's undersecretary for policy, is the Pentagon's No. 3 civilian, after Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz-as the guy to blame. Feith, who ranks with Wolfowitz in purity of neoconservative fervor, has turned out to be Michael Dukakis in reverse: ideology without competence.... They said he had a dismissive, if not derisive, attitude toward the Geneva Conventions," Scott Horton, a lawyer who was approached by six outraged JAG officers last year, told the Chicago Tribune . "One of them said he calls it 'law in the service of terror.' "

And speaking of faith-based policy
http://www.unknownnews.net/apocalypsenow.html

A terrible idea that just won't go away

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/20/132920/258
Do you remember Total Information Awareness (later remarketed as Terrorist Information Awareness and always referred to as TIA)? This was a proposed database that would coordinate info on every American from a host of disparate databases.....Congress rightly rejected that system, but it's come back as a state-level program heavily funded by Messrs Ashcroft and Ridge. Now it's called MATRIX ... the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange.

GAO rules Bush ads illegal - Bush Co. response, "so what?"

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gao20may20,1,5037373.story
According to the GAO, that law requires agencies that violate it to report their actions to the president and Congress. But Bill Pierce, spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, indicated that although top department officials were still reading the 16-page decision, it was unlikely the administration would comply...."GAO opinions are not binding on the executive branch," he said. "This is the opinion of the GAO. We disagree with that opinion."

Bonus item: Fox News viewership dropping

http://www.meandted.com/bits.htm

Cheney does his part to help them
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53974-2004Apr29.html
"I end up spending a lot of time watching Fox News, because they're more accurate in my experience, in those events that I'm personally involved in, than many of the other outlets."

[Of course, the guy who thinks Fox News is the "most accurate" also thinks Donald Rumsfeld is a better Sect'y of Defense than George Marshall was.]
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 4:17 AM

 
FAILURE!

At this stage it's important to keep in mind that for all the abuses of Rumsfeld, etc., the greatest failure is by Mr. Know-Nothing, the man who turned them loose without supervision and consistently refused to ask what the hell was going on. (The one who is running for re-election.)

Bush's "leadership style" critiqued (by the WSJ!)

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/05/19/bushs_leadership_style_questioned.html
President Bush "has prided himself on a decisive management style, but the unfolding Iraqi prisoner-abuse scandal has raised questions about whether he relies too much on like-minded advisers, too readily equates dissent with disloyalty, and is too averse to admitting mistakes," the Wall Street Journal reports...."There is little debate at cabinet meetings or other private councils, which mainly serve as forums that let Mr. Bush restate his goals and hear each official's report, according to past participants. Leaks and public disagreements aren't tolerated. His circle of advisers is small, and he isn't a 'walk around' manager who tries to canvass opinions from a variety of officials."

And by Andrew Sullivan, once-fervent Bush supporter

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_05_16_dish_archive.html#108493347067013384
BUSH'S FAILURE: And the answer cannot be the president's crude and simple rhetorical tropes. What Bush doesn't seem to understand is that in any war, people need to be reminded constantly of what is going on, what is at stake, what our immediate, medium-term and ultimate objectives are. The president has said nothing cogent about Karbala; nothing apposite about al Sadr; nothing specific about what our strategy is in Falluja. Events transpire and are interpreted by critics and the anti-war media and by everyone on the planet but the president. All the president says is a broad and crude reiteration of valid but superfluous boilerplate. This is not war-leadership; it's the abdication of war-leadership. We are at a critical juncture. With some perspective, we have achieved much in Iraq, with relatively low casualties. But it will all go to hell if we lose our nerve now. It's long past time that people can be asked simply to trust the president. After the WMD intelligence debacle and the Abu Ghraib disgrace, he has run out of that capital. He has to tell us how we will win, what we are doing, how it all holds together, why the infrastructure repair is still in disarray, and how a political solution is possible. I'm not sure any more that this president has the skills or competence to pull it off. But I am sure that he has very little time to persuade us he can.


What, me worry? Worry!

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~11676~2157003,00.html
Brutal interrogation techniques by U.S. military personnel are being investigated in connection with the deaths of at least five Iraqi prisoners in war-zone detention camps, Pentagon documents obtained by The Denver Post show.....The deaths include the killing in November of a high-level Iraqi general who was shoved into a sleeping bag and suffocated, according to the Pentagon report. The documents contradict an earlier Defense Department statement that said the general died "of natural causes" during an interrogation. Pentagon officials declined to comment on the new disclosure.....Another Iraqi military officer, records show, was asphyxiated after being gagged, his hands tied to the top of his cell door. Another detainee died "while undergoing stress technique interrogation," involving smothering and "chest compressions," according to the documents..... Details of the death investigations, involving at least four different detention facilities including the Abu Ghraib prison, provide the clearest view yet into war-zone interrogation rooms....."Torture is the only thing you can call this," said a Pentagon source with knowledge of internal investigations into prisoner abuses. "There is a lot about our country's interrogation techniques that is very troubling. These are violations of military law.".....Internal records obtained by The Post point to wider problems beyond the Abu Ghraib prison and demonstrate that some coercive tactics used at Abu Ghraib have shown up in interrogations elsewhere in the war effort.

[What, isn't suffocation a "natural cause"?]

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/19/cia/index_np.html
The Justice Department is considering whether to file criminal charges against CIA personnel accused of involvement in three detainee deathss....


"A few individuals who got out of hand": The cover-up continues

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-prison19may19,1,6028530.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Three key witnesses, including a senior officer in charge of interrogations, refused to testify during a secret hearing against an alleged ringleader of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves.....That all of the prospective witnesses called up by prosecutors invoked the military equivalent of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination indicates that key players in the abuse scandal may be closing ranks to save themselves and one another.


Iraqi "despair"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37692-2004May18?language=printer
"If something is not done about this security situation, there will be no transfer of power," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of the council.

Response? Bush cutting back standards of security stability to facilitate handover of power anyway

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003959.php
Some military officers are also concerned that Washington is now cutting back on its original goal of eliminating major flash points in Iraq before June 30. They say the United States has basically retreated in Fallujah, handing over control of the Sunni city to a former Iraqi general who is now commanding some of the very insurgents U.S. forces were fighting -- again, in the name of expediency......"What we're trying to do is extricate ourselves from Fallujah," said a senior U.S. official familiar with U.S. strategy who would speak only on the condition of anonymity. "There's overwhelming pressure with the Coalition Provisional Authority and the White House to deliver a successful Iraq transition, and Iraq is proving uncooperative."

Sure, other things equal, Bush would like to win the war, but his every action for the past year has shown that he's not willing to risk reelection to do it. He got talked into the neocon dreamland in which Iraq would be a quick and easy war, and now he just wants a face-saving - and job saving - way of getting out..... Aside from lots of pretty speeches, I can't think of a single action he's taken in the past 12 months that indicates any real seriousness about winning in Iraq. Anybody out there care to suggest anything?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002969
But just step back and look at how crazy this is: we've run Iraq for more than a year, spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the whole effort, lost many of our own sons and daughters as well as many Iraqis. And here you have what is arguably the big issue : who you hand the place off to and how you hand it off to them. And it's left to the last minute, with the powers that be having to ditch almost everything that has come up until this point and start from scratch.....The market in examples for how badly the Bush team has bungled this situation is admittedly glutted. But even if they're now going for a dime a dozen this is really one to marvel at.


Calling up the reserves - another fiasco in the making
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003021
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003963.php


The reason for failure in Iraq? It's the liberals' fault (no I'm not kidding!)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002969
"So let's be clear what's going on here. As we speak, 138,000 Americans are serving under dangerous conditions in Iraq. And our forces in Karbala are fighting against the goons and thugs of Muqtada al-Sadr with some success. They're risking their lives for freedom and honor and duty and love of country......And conventional liberal opinion wants them to lose......Conventional liberal opinion believes that the Abu Ghraib photos are the true meaning of the war, and that Nick Berg is just another victim of callous U.S. policy..... Conventional liberal opinion is actively seeking the humiliation and defeat of the United States in Iraq."

Let's be a little more clear about what's going on here. Having led the country perilously close to humiliation and defeat, the architects of the war want to shift the blame for what's happened to their opponents who either said the whole thing was a mistake in the first place or criticized the incompetence of its execution as it unfolded. They take the blame, the moral accountability, by 'wishing' for a bad result. That at least is Podhoretz's reasoning.....If ever there was an example of moral up-is-downism, this is it. And claiming that their political opponents -- liberal, in Podhoretz's usage here, is just a catch-all -- want defeat and humiliation for their country is certainly the most gutterish sort of slander there is.

Getting ugly: more veiled attacks on free dissent from the Right
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003022


Gee, don't you want to be part of my Dream Team any more?

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/05/19/rice_tells_friends_shes_leaving_at_year_end.html
"President Bush's plan to make national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice the first female African-American Secretary of State is dead," the Washingtonian reports....."A former Stanford provost, Rice has been telling pals that she's returning to California even if Bush is reelected."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16856-2003Aug3?language=printer
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, have signaled to the White House that they intend to step down even if President Bush is reelected


Tear down Abu Ghraib? Nah, let's just RENAME it (you won't believe this)
http://www.local6.com/news/3317600/detail.html


The generals testify

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003965.php
Let me get this straight: Sanchez says he didn't even learn about the existence of the Red Cross report until January. But his lawyers had already drafted and completed a "light-hearted" response by December 24...... In other words, this wasn't just a matter of Sanchez getting behind in his mail. Rather, it was deliberate policy to ignore those annoying Red Cross reports and fob them off on the legal staff for their amusement....."This system is broken," said Sanchez's boss. That's one way of putting it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/international/middleeast/19CND-ABUS.html
General Sanchez denied that an order he issued Nov. 19, giving effective control over Abu Ghraib to the commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, had been intended to help intelligence officers apply greater pressure to detainees before interrogation. It was meant, he said, purely to improve the defenses of the prison, following deadly mortar attacks in September.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/international/middleeast/20ABUS.html
General Abizaid acknowledged that "systemic problems" at Abu Ghraib contributed to the prisoner abuse there, and he and General Sanchez accepted responsibility for numerous breakdowns in standards and procedures......"It's clear that there were some breakdowns in procedures, in access, in standards of interrogation, and confusion between the roles of what the military intelligence people were doing versus the military police," General Abizaid said. "There was also, clearly, criminal misconduct that took place."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39141-2004May19.html?nav=rss_nation
"We should not kid ourselves about the violent times ahead," Abizaid told the committee. He said U.S. forces face "a patient and despicable enemy" in Iraq that will cost the United States "more blood and more treasure." And he cautioned that the worst violence may come between the time the U.S. occupation authority hands over political power to Iraqis on June 30 and the first national elections, which are scheduled for early next year.


Mr. "Hands-On" letting the Congress spend nonexistent revenues like drunken sailors
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/19/budget/index_np.html
House GOP pushing $2.4 trillion budget


Those faux-news report Medicare videos WERE illegal! Who approved them?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/politics/20medicare.html
The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Wednesday that the Bush administration had violated federal law by producing and disseminating television news segments that portray the new Medicare law as a boon to the elderly..... The agency said the videos were a form of "covert propaganda" because the government was not identified as the source of the materials


Polls, polls, polls - lots of news, and all of it bad for Bush
http://gadflyer.com/pollminer/index.php?PollMinerID=7


Bonus item: Goofy Rumsfeld quotes
http://www.suntimes.co.za/2004/05/16/insight/in14
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 2:19 AM

 
PAYBACK TIME

Story of the day: I guess when you treat people with arrogance and disdain it really does catch up with you

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040518-064124-9605r
Efforts at the top level of the Bush administration and the civilian echelon of the Department of Defense to contain the Iraq prison torture scandal and limit the blame to a handful of enlisted soldiers and immediate senior officers have already failed: The scandal continues to metastasize by the day.....Even worse for Rumsfeld and his coterie of neo-conservative true believers who have run the Pentagon for the past 3 1/2 years, three major institutions in the Washington power structure have decided that after almost a full presidential term of being treated with contempt and abuse by them, it's payback time....Those three institutions are: The United States Army, the Central Intelligence Agency and the old, relatively moderate but highly experienced Republican leadership in the United States Senate.


Abu Ghraib (and elsewhere): Of course they knew something bad was going on, and acted like it

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000866.html
WSJ.com - Officials in Iraq Knew Last Fall Of Prison Abuse: Senior U.S. military officials in Iraq, including two advisers to the top commander there, reviewed a strongly worded Red Cross report detailing the abuse of prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison last November -- but the Army did not launch an investigation into the abuses until two months later....The late November events show that top military commanders were alerted to the abuses by the Red Cross earlier than they so far have publicly acknowledged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/politics/19ABUS.html
Army officials in Iraq responded late last year to a Red Cross report of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison by trying to curtail the international agency's spot inspections of the prison, a senior Army officer who served in Iraq said Tuesday.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/abu_ghraib_cover_up_040518-1.html
Dozens of soldiers - other than the seven military police reservists who have been charged - were involved in the abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, and there is an effort under way in the Army to hide it

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-abuse18may18,1,4789041.story?coll=la-home-headlines
As much of the world focuses on Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, dozens of detainees and their families, along with scathing reports from international human rights groups, describe mistreatment at detention centers under U.S. control from Basra and Umm al Qasr in the south to Tikrit and Mosul in northern Iraq.....Even as the White House continues to argue that photographed abuse at Abu Ghraib was an isolated case, interviews with detainees and human rights reports demonstrate that abuse in various forms was systemwide.

More: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/05/18/apples/


And they know what's in store for them

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/18/chain/index_np.html
Last week, as the Bush administration struggled to contain the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal, Peter Feaver, a Duke University professor and former National Security Council staff member, suggested a worst-case scenario for the White House: If "a senior civilian, or maybe even [Secretary of Defense] Rumsfeld, [had] signed a memo that indicated, yes, sexual humiliation for prisoners is OK."..... Now Seymour Hersh has summoned that worst-case scenario to life.....

http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_18_bestof.html#108485619461098099
War crimes were committed at high levels. Heads will roll. As with Viet Nam, our government will stonewall its way to the bitter end. The end will be bitter. Shrub's legacy is fixed in history

WAR CRIMES?! That's a little bit excessive, isn't it?....uh, maybe not (this is a stunner)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734
The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.......The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes-and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves- is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention....In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes-defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future.....One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention protections is that it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," Gonzales wrote.

More: http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2004_05_16_isthatlegal_archive.html#108488868916004182


Who goes?

Feith?
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7760
There was a time when Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith seemed to run a secret foreign policy from his office on the fourth floor of the Pentagon......But now Feith's job security is far from certain

Wolfowitz?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/18/iraq.wolfowitz.ap/index.html
If Democrats are dissatisfied with Rumsfeld, that doesn't compare to the disdain some feel for Wolfowitz, who is seen as the intellectual architect of the Iraq war.....Some of their anger spilled out at last week's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Rumsfeld?
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001302.html
For George W. Bush, it would be bizarre if the most loyal and gifted member of his cabinet were to be the instrument of his defeat in November 2004. Recent developments on the Iraq front of the war on terror make such thoughts about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld harder and harder to put aside.

Oh, hell, just fire them all

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002965
Right out of the gate, multiple officials at the White House and the Pentagon pretty clearly lied about their own roles in putting in place the policies that led directly to what was taking place in those photos and went along with trying to pin the whole thing on these half dozen jokers whose pictures we've now seen again and again.......The whole progression of the story has an odd doubled-up quality. On the one hand we have repeated claims from top officials insisting that the abuses were the isolated work of a few miscreants. Then, simultaneously, we have numerous stories showing specific policy decisions (often confirmed on the record by slightly lower-level officials) which sanctioned pretty close to all the stuff we're seeing in those photos, even if not quite practiced with the same relish and glee.....At a minimum, that sounds like giving benzine, some cordite, a gallon of gas, firecrackers, and a hundred rolls of toilet paper to some teenagers, telling them to see if they could put it all together to have some fun in the neighborhood on Friday night and then leaving them to their own devices..... And, remember, that's the generous interpretation.


Is this man insane?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405170006

KRISTOL: We've got to win this war. And it is insane for this country to be obsessing … about a small prisoner abuse scandal.

WILLIAMS: A small prisoner abuse scandal?

KRISTOL: Absolutely.

[crosstalk]

KRISTOL: ... and the president should make this point. The president will win the debate, will win the debate [sic] if the Democrats and the liberal media want to obsess about seven guys from Cumberland … humiliation of Iraqi prisoners.

A revealing analysis: Bush Co. hoping that after the June 30 "transfer" everything will get better
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20040518/pl_nm/campaign_bush_dc


Here's why they're wrong

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/18/115834/708
We're in good shape if the Bush election effort pins their hopes on June 30. We still don't know to whom we're going to "hand over power". And this "handoff" will be largely symbolic, with US combat forces continuing their efforts to supress a growing and spreading insurgency.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=2&u=/nm/20040518/wl_nm/iraq_dc
Iraqi leaders and some of the United States' closest allies in the occupation demanded on Tuesday that Washington relinquish more powers than it intended to the Iraqi government due to regain sovereignty next month.
More: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=3&u=/nm/20040519/wl_nm/iraq_dc


Cutting loose Chalabi (figuring out what everyone else knew years ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/politics/18CHAL.html
Mr. Chalabi, a longtime exile leader and now a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, played a crucial role in persuading the administration that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power. But he has since become a lightning rod for critics of the Bush administration, who say the United States relied on him too heavily for prewar intelligence that has since proved faulty.

But the real reason I suspect they're cutting him loose is...
In recent months, Mr. Chalabi, once viewed as a potential leader of postwar Iraq, has been at odds with the Bush administration on a series of policy questions. He has criticized Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations official who is organizing an Iraqi government to take control of the country on July 1 and whose efforts have been embraced by the White House. He has also been at the center of a battle between the Governing Council and American occupation authorities over who should investigate corruption allegations in the United Nations oil-for-food program for Iraq.


Summing up: an impending disaster
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37745-2004May18.html
The Bush administration is struggling to counter growing sentiment -- among U.S. lawmakers, Iraqis and even some of its own officials -- that the occupation of Iraq is verging on failure........


Calling up inactive reservists won't go over very well, either (and could they really STILL be contemplating a draft?)

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003014
A friend of mine who is currently an inactive Army reservist forwarded me some memos he received regarding future mobilizations -- memos that indicate that we are not far from some kind of conscription in the next few years. According to my friend, recruiters are telling inactive reservists that they're going to be called up one way or another eventually, so they might as well sign up now and get into non-Iraq-deploying units while they still can. There's also a "warning order" -- i.e., a heads-up -- from the Army's personnel command that talks about the involuntary transfer of inactive reservists to the active reserves, and thus into units that are on deck for the next few Iraq rotations.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/18/132213/067
If what Nick writes is true, the military is digging through its last reserves before a draft is necessary. And calling up people from the inactive reserves won't be met quietly. These are people that volunteered their time and service to their nation, who have moved on to build their lives. There's no doubt that Bush would hold off on any concrete orders to call up the inactive reserves until after November. But the fact that the military is reading the groundwork, if it receives a wide airing, could present yet another obstacle to his reelection chances...... This is a war that Rumsfeld insisted could be won by 100,000 troops. Now we are scraping the bottom of our active reserves and starting to eye the inactive reserves with hungry eyes.

More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003952.php
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004/05/irr.html
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/006555.html


Ahhh, Enron: back in the news
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=1&u=/latimests/enrontapeshintchiefsknewaboutpowerploys
Enron Corp. employees spoke of "stealing" up to $2 million a day from California during the 2000-01 energy crisis and suggested that their market-gaming ploys would be presented to top management, possibly including Jeffrey K. Skilling and Kenneth L. Lay, according to documents released Monday....The evidence of apparent scheming - in one recorded conversation, traders brag about taking money from "Grandma Millie" in California - is in a filing by a utility in Snohomish County, Wash. The municipal power unit north of Seattle wants refunds for alleged overcharges made by Enron during the electricity market meltdown...... The utility obtained transcripts of routinely recorded trader discussions from the Justice Department, which seized them in its Enron investigation......While it has long been established that Enron engaged in market-gaming tactics - two top traders have pleaded guilty to fraud-related charges for manipulating California's energy market and a third awaits trial - the 450 pages of recorded conversations provide another vivid look into the organization's exploitive subculture.


When you think you might lose, better squeeze in all the judicial appointments you can in the time remaining
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4105088,00.html
Democrats had halted all judicial nominees until they received a promise from Bush that he wouldn't use his recess appointment power.....``Mr. Card committed that there would be no further circuit and district judicial recess appointments during the remaining of the president's term,'' Frist said.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-Judges.html


What nerve...unbelievable
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/politics/campaign/19GRAN.html
Like many of its predecessors, the Bush White House has used the machinery of government to promote the re-election of the president by awarding federal grants to strategically important states. But in a twist this election season, many administration officials are taking credit for spreading largess through programs that President Bush tried to eliminate or to cut sharply.


Well, at least they still have the evangelicals....don't they?
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0420/perlstein.php
Not for our eyes were the notes that showed White House staffers taking two-hour meetings with Christian fundamentalists, where they passed off bogus social science on gay marriage as if it were holy writ and issued fiery warnings that "the Presidents [sic] Administration and current Government is engaged in cultural, economical, and social struggle on every level"........Most of all, apparently, we're not supposed to know the National Security Council's top Middle East aide consults with apocalyptic Christians eager to ensure American policy on Israel conforms with their sectarian doomsday scenarios.....But now we know....."Everything that you're discussing is information you're not supposed to have," barked Pentecostal minister Robert G. Upton when asked about the off-the-record briefing his delegation received on March 25. Details of that meeting appear in a confidential memo signed by Upton and obtained by the Voice .

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/05/18/evangelicals/
Losing the evangelicals?


Bonus item: Oh, come on Jonathan, tell us what you REALLY think

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004/05/clowns.html

[Jonathan Alter, Newsweek] The level of incompetence here is so staggering here, and yet there's this gap between how astonishingly incompetent...and we can go over particulars in the last year if you want to... how astonishingly incompetent they've been and the perception is still of them as solid citizens.....The only way you can sort of start to let the public know is to say no. They don't know what they're doing. They're clowns......I was among those people who was deceived. When I was told by administration officials that they were working on a nuclear weapons program - Paul Wolfowitz told that to me directly. It did cause me some alarm and cause me some sense that it was not worth the risk to not take Saddam out.

Comment: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003955.php
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 1:44 AM

 
DRIP, DRIP, DRIP.....

Now a third DoD attempt to respond to the accusations in Hersh's article (conveniently not mentioning that the key points have already been corroborated by two other reports: WP and Newsweek). The increasingly intemperate tone tells you how scared they are.

And why aren't these denials working? BECAUSE NO ONE BELIEVES THEM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/17/iraq.abuse.main/index.html
"This is the most hysterical piece of journalist malpractice I have ever observed," said Rumsfeld spokesman Lawrence DiRita...... DiRita called Hersh "one of history's great conspiracy theorists."

["This is the most hysterical piece of press flackery I have ever observed," says Nicholas Burbules]


p.s. DiRita's earlier denial - more rewriting of history (don't these guys know the Internet is archived?)
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002961
So I went back and read it again. And when I did I realized that the statement had changed..... Yet, it's not listed as a new statement. It still carries the same May 15th, 2004 date, implying that the current version of the statement at the DOD website is the one that ran originally.....


Well, we can hope....

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100683/fr/rss/
The White House is about to get hit by the biggest tsunami since the Iran-Contra affair, maybe since Watergate. President George W. Bush is trapped inside the compound, immobilized by his own stay-the-course campaign strategy. Can he escape the massive tidal waves? Maybe. But at this point, it's not clear how....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=3&u=/latimests/20040517/ts_latimes/senatorstopressscandal
As the White House struggles to get beyond the prisoner abuse scandal, it faces an unsettling fact: The Senate Armed Services Committee - controlled by Republicans - plans to keep the issue alive for weeks to come.......That promises more headaches for the White House.....


One key issue: the Gonzalez report rationalizing the selective application of the Geneva Conventions (from CAP)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/17/183737/431

GONZALES SAYS ADMINISTRATION IS A 'STRONG SUPPORTER OF GENEVA CONVENTIONS: "At the same time, President Bush recognized that our nation will continue to be a strong supporter of the Geneva treaties. The president also reaffirmed our policy in the United States armed forces to treat Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Guantánamo Bay humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in keeping with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention."
- Alberto Gonzales, 5/15/04 (NYT Op-Ed)

VERSUS

GONZALES SAYS GENEVA RESTRICTIONS ARE OBSOLETE: "The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians...In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."
- Alberto Gonzales, 1/25/02 (Memorandum to the President, as reported in Newsweek 5/16/04)

Analysis:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003944.php
Gonzales' reasoning is appealing but misguided, I think. After all, every generation believes at one time or another that the enemies they face are so savage, so fundamentally different from any that have come before that old rules of conduct no longer apply. Every generation also turns out to be wrong. The reality is that the Taliban is not more dangerous than the Cold War Soviets, who in turn were not more dangerous than the Nazis. If we were willing to treat prisoners decently in those conflicts, why not now?.... The ability to "quickly obtain information" from captured prisoners has been a critical part of every war, but we nonetheless agreed half a century ago to place this under strict limits. This was not because we felt the wars of that era were unimportant, or because we deluded ourselves into believing that our enemies would always follow suit, but because we wanted to set a standard of simple human decency for ourselves and others.


So, now we know why earlier reports of abuse weren't taken more seriously by the White House - THEY WERE TO BE FULLY EXPECTED
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/17/prisoner.abuse.ap/index.html


Starting to move up the chain of command at Abu Ghraib: now it gets interesting....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/international/middleeast/18ABUS.html
The American officer who was in charge of interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison has told a senior Army investigator that intelligence officers sometimes instructed the military police to force Iraqi detainees to strip naked and to shackle them before questioning them. But he said those measures were not imposed "unless there is some good reason.".... The officer, Col. Thomas M. Pappas, commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, also told the investigator, Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, that his unit had "no formal system in place" to monitor instructions they had given to military guards, who worked closely with interrogators to prepare detainees for interviews. Colonel Pappas said he "should have asked more questions, admittedly" about abuses committed or encouraged by his subordinates.


Fascinating, frightening reports from the ground in Iraq

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002962
The Iraqi people, even my 150 staff think the Americans are essentially not welcome anymore. They fear for their security but would rather go through a cataclysm with a new Iraqi police and army as their security force, rather than be occupied by the Americans. Then they could work through the system and know that their security was in their hands ... Trust me I am training 40 Iraqi bodyguards and the demand is getting serious. Listen Josh, EVERYONE outside of the Green Zone, Iraqis Westerners and Americans alike refer to the CPA and the US Army as "The AMERICANS" as if they were a third-party nation......No one sees them as part of the solution anymore but as a foreign entity that does as it likes and pisses everybody off in the process. The thinking in the usually suspicious Iraqi mind is that this is still being staged to seize control of their oil... Well that's been done but now they think the domestic troubles like the bad electricity (3 hours on, three hours off) the major Dysentery outbreak in the tap water this week (all of us have been ill due to our cooks washing with tap water) and the inability to drive down the street without having a Hummvee point rifles at you (or worse yet explode next to you) is punishment or, more accurately, incompetence........ About the Army - Man, it hurts my heart to write this about an institution I dearly love but this army is completely dysfunctional, angry and is near losing its honor. We are back to the Army of 1968. I knew we were finished when I had a soldier point his Squad Automatic Weapons at me and my bodyguard detail for driving down the street when he decided he would cross the street in the middle of rush hour traffic ... He made it clear to any and all that he was preparing to shoot drivers who did not stop for his jaunt........

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5000505/
"We could not imagine the deterioration leading to such a point. It's getting worse day after day, and no one has been able to put an end to it. Who is going to protect the next government, no matter what kind it is?" said Abdul Jalil Mohsen, a former Iraqi general and member of the Iraqi National Accord, a prominent party represented on the U.S.-appointed Governing Council..... Hostile bands operate freely in cities that straddle the main routes in and out of Baghdad. Foreigners who travel Iraqi roads run the risk of being kidnapped, and reconstruction projects in many parts of the country have come to a standstill.


Bush's $25 billion request for additional Iraq funding (how to ruin - sorry, run - a government?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/opinion/18KRUG.html?hp
But the tone of the cover letter Mr. Bush sent with last week's budget request can best be described as contemptuous: it's up to Congress to "ensure that our men and women in uniform continue to have the resources they need when they need them." This from an administration that, by rejecting warnings from military professionals, ensured that our men and women in uniform didn't have remotely enough resources to do the job.....The budget request itself was almost a caricature of the administration's "just trust us" approach to governing.....It ran to less than a page, with no supporting information. Of the $25 billion, $5 billion is purely a slush fund, to be used at the secretary of defense's discretion. The rest is allocated to specific branches of the military, but with the proviso that the administration can reallocate the money at will as long as it notifies the appropriate committees.


How we lost Fallujah (quit and declare victory - a model for Iraq generally?)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-fallouja17may17,1,3927856.story?coll=la-home-headlines
But behind the scenes, a back-channel communication between guerrilla envoys and the Marines was showing promise. It appears that several insurgent commanders - former generals in Saddam Hussein's regime who had joined the armed resistance - had made an overture through third parties in the days before the battle.....Three days after that April 26 firefight, the remarkable deal was cut: The Marine leadership made a pact with the ex-generals. The Marines pulled out, violence ceased, further carnage was averted, and both sides declared victory.....Top officials at the Pentagon and in Baghdad were stunned. Most appeared caught off-guard by the deal, and were denying any withdrawal was taking place even as Marines were moving out and dismantling roadblocks and checkpoints.....Today, Fallouja is for all intents and purposes a rebel town, complete with banners proclaiming a great victory and insurgents integrated into the new Fallouja Brigade - the protective force set up with U.S. assistance to keep the peace.


Just plain creepy:

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003007
According to Salon's Sidney Blumenthal , senior members of the officer corps have been re-reading this fascinating 1992 essay from Parameters, the journal of the Army War College. Written by an officer named Charles Dunlap (at the time he was a colonel; now he's a general), the essay, titled "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012," is quite a trip. Extrapolating out from then-current trends -- among them the growing ideological homogenization and intellectual and geographic isolation of the armed forces, politicians' eagerness to involve the armed forces in all manner of non-military tasks, and citizens' loss of faith in the ability of the government to solve problems -- the piece sketches out a future in which the head of the armed forces takes control of the United States, with little resistance......
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/1992/dunlap.htm


And on the economic front: big trouble ahead? (WSJ)

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000858.html
With his poll numbers plummeting, President Bush could use a little help from his friends -- and two friends in particular: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan. The White House has been counting on the two Bush buddies to keep interest rates and gasoline prices low for the election. Mr. Greenspan was expected to show gratitude for being reappointed to a fifth term; Prince Bandar was supposed to follow through on promises he made at the outset of the Iraq war..... Now, neither seems likely to deliver.


"An Interesting Day" - a minute by minute account of what GWB did (and didn't) do on the day of 9-11
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html


Speaking of which, Michael Moore's new movie, "Fahrenheit 9-11" - should hit theaters this summer (two early reviews)
http://www.salon.com/ent/wire/2004/05/17/moore/index_np.html
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003009


On the other hand, Bush Co. has its own summer scenario...

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040524/whispers/24whisplead.htm
White House officials say they've got a "working premise" about terrorism and the presidential election: It's going to happen. "We assume," says a top administration official, "an attack will happen leading up to the election." And, he added, "it will happen here." There are two worst-case scenarios, the official says. The first posits an attack on Washington, possibly the Capitol, which was believed to be the target of the 9/11 jet that crashed in Pennsylvania. Theory 2: smaller but more frequent attacks in Washington and other major cities leading up to the election. To prepare, the administration has been holding secret antiterrorism drills to make sure top officials know what to do. "There was a sense," says one official involved in the drills, "of mass confusion on 9/11. Now we have a sense of order." Unclear is the political impact, though most Bushies think the nation would rally around the president. "I can tell you one thing," adds the official sternly, "we won't be like Spain," which tossed its government days after the Madrid train bombings.


Bonus item: streamed video of the Russert interview fiasco (kind of funny, really)
mms://winod45nj.audiovideoweb.com/avwebnjwin9536/gadflyer/meet.wmv
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 1:39 AM

 
BYE-BYE!

If Rumsfeld survives this, I will be flabbergasted - but even canning him won't save Bush, who apparently also approved the "special access program"....

Yesterday, The Sy Hersh article and a corroborating WP article. Today, a major piece from Newsweek saying basically the same thing:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/
Some of the images from Abu Ghraib, like those of naked prisoners terrified by attack dogs or humiliated before grinning female guards, actually portray "stress and duress" techniques officially approved at the highest levels of the government for use against terrorist suspects. It is unlikely that President George W. Bush or senior officials ever knew of these specific techniques, and late last -week Defense spokesman Larry DiRita said that "no responsible official of the Department of Defense approved any program that could conceivably have been intended to result in such abuses." But a NEWSWEEK investigation shows that, as a means of pre-empting a repeat of 9/11, Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods. It was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of war. In doing so, they overrode the objections of Secretary of State Colin Powell and America's top military lawyers-and they left underlings to sweat the details of what actually happened to prisoners in these lawless places. While no one deliberately authorized outright torture, these techniques entailed a systematic softening up of prisoners through isolation, privations, insults, threats and humiliation-methods that the Red Cross concluded were "tantamount to torture.".... The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive, policy of interrogation in a covert war-designed mainly for use by a handful of CIA professionals-evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war. Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay, seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva Conventions.

[Much, much more... another must-read]

The Defense Dept, smelling disaster, comes back VERY HARD. Their second denial in two days

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31805-2004May16.html?nav=rss_nation
In a statement released yesterday, Pentagon officials harshly criticized the [Hersh] report, calling it "outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture." The Pentagon would not, however, say flatly whether or not the program exists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28302-2004May14.html
[From the Defense Dept] Nevertheless, The Post's continued editorializing on narrow definitions of international laws and whether our soldiers understand them puts The Post in the same company as those involved in this despicable behavior in terms of apparent disregard for basic human dignity.

Did he just say what I thought he said?
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004/05/stunning.html


Okay, summing up. Three versions (New Yorker, WP, Newsweek) independently confirming a secret operation to extend the Geneva-free techniques from Gitmo to Iraq, with predictable results. Comparing the details:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003930.php


And those "private contractors"? Now we see why they were given so much control over interrogations
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1084659009373&call_pageid=968332188854&col=Columnist1045522952929
Unlike the seven reservist guards facing criminal trials and military intelligence officers under investigation, interrogator Steven Stefanowicz and translator John Israel face no accountability, let alone punishment. Being civilians, they are not subject to military law nor to the Geneva Convention.


More! 100 "high value" Iraqi prisoners held under secret conditions separate from the others
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/international/middleeast/17ABUS.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1084767506-6fbcmbGvE9uNuLvDpTWutA
About 100 high-ranking Iraqi prisoners held for months at a time in spartan conditions on the outskirts of Baghdad International Airport are being detained under a special chain of command, under conditions not subject to approval by the top American commander in Iraq, according to military officials.


And now this: videotapes of beatings at Guantanamo too!?
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/2004_05_01_archive.php#108468396500181745
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/torture_/2004/05/videotapes_please_not_videotapes.php


Was Congress kept informed about this new "secret program"? Apparently not - and they won't LIKE that - more hearings to come
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/16/international/middleeast/16CND-POLI.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=
Leading lawmakers from both parties vowed today to pursue the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal as high as it goes, even as controversy erupted over accusations that top Pentagon officials approved tougher interrogation tactics for Iraq in an urgent effort to gain intelligence to stop surging violence last summer.

And more hearings still....
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/006529.html


Priceless: Bush Co. "handler" pulls the plug on Powell interview (wow!)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003933.php
Russert : Finally, Mr. Secretary, in February of 2003, you placed your enormous personal credibility before the United Nations and laid out a case against Saddam Hussein citing...

Emily : You're off.

Powell : I am not off.

Emily : No. They can't use it. They're editing it. They (unintelligible).

Powell : He's still asking me questions.

Emily : He was not...

Powell : Tim, I'm sorry, I lost you.

Russert : I'm right here, Mr. Secretary. I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that.

Powell : We've really scre...

Russert : I think that was one of your staff, Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate.

Powell : Emily, get out of the way.

And who is this nincompoop (Emily Miller)?
http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/column.php?id=304
That's how I felt watching Majority Whip Tom DeLay suddenly morph into a champion of protest marches and civil disobedience. "This was not a threatening band of armed thugs," said DeLay spokesperson Emily Miller, referring to the raucous demonstrators who stormed the Miami-Dade elections department. "They were idealistic, enthusiastic, young Republicans who felt they were being shut out.".... Well, not exactly. Turns out a good portion of those idealists were Republican Party operatives -- including DeLay staffer Thomas Pyle, and Elizabeth Ross, an aide to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott -- many of whom had been flown in by the Bush campaign.

Powell: how much longer can he put up with this humiliation?
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/2004_05_01_archive.php#108463880129349039


Bush Co. hyper-machismo resuscitates the gender gap
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4980895/

Response: "W Stands for Women"
http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2618


Bush fundraising - the only thing they still do well
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29142-2004May15.html
"This is the most impressive, organized, focused and disciplined fundraising operation I have ever been involved in," declared Dirk Van Dongen, president of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, who has been raising money for GOP candidates since 1980. "They have done just about everything right."

Part two of the WP series
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31714-2004May16.html
Fred Meyer, the former chairman of the Texas Republican Party who in 1998 helped set up the Pioneers for then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, said there is a good reason money will always flow to political campaigns. "There are too many things that are important to too many people," Meyer said. "The existence of businesses and billions of dollars are affected."


Bonus item: Threats to academic freedom in the corporatized university
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18996-2004May11?language=printer
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 12:52 AM

 
THE TIPPING POINT

Bush in free fall: 42% approval, and dropping (two separate polls)
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aKqkVXdaSwDI&refer=top_world_news
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=akPZyCW9MTGw&refer=uk


Perhaps the most important article I've posted here yet: Sy Hersh blows the lid off SAP, the "special access program" that led to Abu Ghraib

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact
The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror......the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A. ......One Pentagon official who was deeply involved in the program was Stephen Cambone, who was named Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in March, 2003.........He shared Rumsfeld’s disdain for the analysis and assessments proffered by the C.I.A., viewing them as too cautious, and chafed, as did Rumsfeld, at the C.I.A.’s inability, before the Iraq war, to state conclusively that Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction. Cambone’s military assistant, Army Lieutenant General William G. (Jerry) Boykin, was also controversial. Last fall, he generated unwanted headlines after it was reported that, in a speech at an Oregon church, he equated the Muslim world with Satan.......

[remember him? "my God is bigger than yours"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm]

Inside the Pentagon, there was a growing realization that the war was going badly.....The solution, endorsed by Rumsfeld and carried out by Stephen Cambone, was to get tough with those Iraqis in the Army prison system who were suspected of being insurgents. A key player was Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the detention and interrogation center at Guantánamo, who had been summoned to Baghdad in late August to review prison interrogation procedures. The internal Army report on the abuse charges, written by Major General Antonio Taguba in February, revealed that Miller urged that the commanders in Baghdad change policy and place military intelligence in charge of the prison. The report quoted Miller as recommending that “detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation.”..... Miller’s concept, as it emerged in recent Senate hearings, was to “Gitmoize” the prison system in Iraq—to make it more focussed on interrogation. He also briefed military commanders in Iraq on the interrogation methods used in Cuba—methods that could, with special approval, include sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in “stress positions” for agonizing lengths of time. (The Bush Administration had unilaterally declared Al Qaeda and other captured members of international terrorist networks to be illegal combatants, and not eligible for the protection of the Geneva Conventions.)..... Rumsfeld and Cambone went a step further, however: they expanded the scope of the sap , bringing its unconventional methods to Abu Ghraib. The commandos were to operate in Iraq as they had in Afghanistan......

“They weren’t getting anything substantive from the detainees in Iraq,” the former intelligence official told me. “No names. Nothing that they could hang their hat on. Cambone says, I’ve got to crack this thing and I’m tired of working through the normal chain of command. I’ve got this apparatus set up—the black special-access program—and I’m going in hot. So he pulls the switch, and the electricity begins flowing last summer. And it’s working. We’re getting a picture of the insurgency in Iraq and the intelligence is flowing into the white world. We’re getting good stuff. But we’ve got more targets”—prisoners in Iraqi jails—“than people who can handle them.”...... Cambone then made another crucial decision, the former intelligence official told me: not only would he bring the sap ’s rules into the prisons; he would bring some of the Army military-intelligence officers working inside the Iraqi prisons under the sap ’s auspices. “So here are fundamentally good soldiers—military-intelligence guys—being told that no rules apply,” the former official, who has extensive knowledge of the special-access programs, added. “And, as far as they’re concerned, this is a covert operation, and it’s to be kept within Defense Department channels.”.......By fall, according to the former intelligence official, the senior leadership of the C.I.A. had had enough. “They said, ‘No way. We signed up for the core program in Afghanistan—pre-approved for operations against high-value terrorist targets—and now you want to use it for cabdrivers, brothers-in-law, and people pulled off the streets’”—the sort of prisoners who populate the Iraqi jails. “The C.I.A.’s legal people objected,” and the agency ended its sap involvement in Abu Ghraib, the former official said.

The C.I.A.’s complaints were echoed throughout the intelligence community. There was fear that the situation at Abu Ghraib would lead to the exposure of the secret sap , and thereby bring an end to what had been, before Iraq, a valuable cover operation. “This was stupidity,” a government consultant told me. “You’re taking a program that was operating in the chaos of Afghanistan against Al Qaeda, a stateless terror group, and bringing it into a structured, traditional war zone. ....“This shit has been brewing for months,” the Pentagon consultant who has dealt with sap s told me. “You don’t keep prisoners naked in their cell and then let them get bitten by dogs. This is sick.” The consultant explained that he and his colleagues, all of whom had served for years on active duty in the military, had been appalled by the misuse of Army guard dogs inside Abu Ghraib. “We don’t raise kids to do things like that. When you go after Mullah Omar, that’s one thing. But when you give the authority to kids who don’t know the rules, that’s another.”.......

A devastating analysis by Phil Carter

http://philcarter.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_philcarter_archive.html#108467028824724542
If this is all true , then the responsibility for Abu Ghraib belongs to the Secretary of Defense and his top assistants who directed and controlled this problem. Just as we would hold field commanders vicariously liable for their subordinates' criminal actions under the "command responsibility" doctrine, so too should hold the SecDef accountable if it turns out that he did direct these things to be done. Indeed, we send a very dangerous message by not holding these top officials accountable in the same way that these junior soldiers are by a court martial this week. That message is: senior leaders are not responsible for their actions, and soldiers will hang for the actions of their superiors. Suffice to say, that message does not support a good command climate for America's military.

The Defense Dept "responds" to Hersh

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20040515-0793.html
Assertions apparently being made in the latest New Yorker article on Abu Ghraib and the abuse of Iraqi detainees are outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture.... To correct one of the many errors in fact, Undersecretary Cambone has no responsibility, nor has he had any responsibility in the past, for detainee or interrogation programs in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else in the world.

THAT IS A LIE - another must-read article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29988-2004May15.html?nav=rss_nation
Although no direct links have been found between the documented abuses and orders from Washington, Pentagon officials who spoke on the condition that they not be named say that the hunt for data on these two topics was coordinated during this period by Undersecretary of Defense Stephen Cambone, the top U.S. military intelligence official and long one of the closest aides to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.

How JAG's got shut out of the process

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/JAG_detainees_040515-1.html
Lawyers from the military's Judge Advocate General's Corps, or JAG, had been urging Pentagon officials to ensure protection for prisoners for two years before the abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison came to light, current and former JAG officers told ABCNEWS.....But, the JAG lawyers say, political appointees at the Pentagon ignored their warnings, setting the stage for the Abu Ghraib abuses, Specifically, JAG officers say they have been marginalized by Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, and William Haynes II, the Pentagon's general counsel, whom President Bush has nominated for a judgeship on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

More on Haynes - a peach of a guy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30214-2004May15.html?nav=rss_nation
During a February 2003 meeting, William J. Haynes II, the Pentagon's general counsel, scolded the human rights officials, saying the United States does not torture and accusing the groups of cheapening the notion of torture, recalled Holly J. Burkhalter, U.S. policy director of Physicians for Human Rights.

More on Boykin - the Bush Manicheans (pt 1)

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5109973
A Senate hearing into the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was told on Tuesday that Lt. Gen. William Boykin, an evangelical Christian under review for saying his God was superior to that of the Muslims, briefed a top Pentagon civilian official last summer on recommendations on ways military interrogators could gain more intelligence from Iraqi prisoners.

More on Feith - the Bush Manicheans (pt 2)

http://www.commondreams.org/views01//0807-02.htm
On the political front, Mr. Feith sees the world in ideological dualistic terms - the forces of absolute good confronting the forces of absolute evil. He is especially adept at fitting the Middle East into this paradigm.... A prolific writer, Mr. Feith has left a long paper trail of vehemently anti-Arab tracts and diatribes....

Still trying to back-fill a Saddam-terrorist link - hey George, give it up

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040514/pl_nm/campaign_bush_dc
President Bushon Friday blamed al Qaeda supporter Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for beheading American Nicholas Berg and cited him as an example of Saddam Hussein's "terrorist ties" before the U.S.-led war in Iraq....

Lying to the American people and the media, well that's one thing. But lying to courts gets you in trouble

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28117-2004May14.html?nav=rss_nation
A federal appeals court ordered Justice Department lawyers yesterday to explain at a closed hearing why they provided "arguably inconsistent" information about the interrogation of al Qaeda detainees.....

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#003002
Given that, I think it now fair to inquire--and I hope a relevant congressional committee will do so--whether the Solicitor General's office knew, or could have known through the exercise of ordinary diligence, that our executive was using techniques of "mild torture" in interrogating prisoners of war and enemy combatants. Did Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement make a knowingly or recklessly false assertion to the United States Supreme Court in order to bolster the government's legal position?

Iraq policy now reduced to this: making it up as we go

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-iraqassess15may15,1,363674.story?coll=la-home-headlines
In real time, though, a different principle increasingly guides the U.S. mission: Go with what works.....The Bush administration has junked one plan after another since last fall as it has groped its way, by trial and error, to a new order in Iraq.

More harsh criticism from the "left-wing media" (Business Week and USA Today founder Al Neuharth)

http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_15_bestof.html#108465267878773654
America's effort in Iraq is verging on failure. The horrible images of torture from the Abu Ghraib prison are undermining the legitimacy of the ocupation not only inside Iraq, but in the U.S. as well. President George W. Bush's Wilsonian dream of establishing democracy in Iraq--and the Middle East--is giving way to dark despair in Washington and a rising chorus of demands to get out as quickly as possible......Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is associated with such a series of bad management mistakes in Iraq that had he done anything similar as chief executive of a corporation, his board would have fired him."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/neuharth/2004-05-13-neuharth_x.htm
Should cowboy Bush ride into the sunset?.... As a former combat infantryman in World War II, I've always believed we must fully support our troops. Reluctantly, I now believe the best way to support troops in Iraq is to bring them home, starting with the "hand-over" on June 30.... Only a carefully planned withdrawal can clean up the biggest military mess miscreated in the Oval Office and miscarried by the Pentagon in my 80-year lifetime.

The incoherence of Bush's education policy - summed up in a sentence

http://dailymail.com/news/News/2004051424/?pt=0
"It's not the federal government's responsibility to fund schools," Bush said. "It's the state and local levels' responsibility....... But Brenda Brum, a librarian at Parkersburg South and a former delegate, said Bush's comments fly in the face of the reality teachers, students and parents face every day trying to meet new federal mandates....."He doesn't think the federal government is responsible for funding local schools," Brum said. "My question then is why are they setting all the rules?"

Plame update (finally?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28138-2004May14.html?nav=rss_nation
The request to interview reporters may suggest the probe is winding up, because Justice Department guidelines require that prosecutors exhaust all other avenues before taking the step of calling reporters before a grand jury. If that is the case, as some attorneys for witnesses believe, it is not clear whether Fitzgerald is moving toward seeking indictments in the case or whether he is preparing to complete it without bringing criminal charges.

Bonus item: The how-to's of negative campaigning (a great article)

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/06/green.htm
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 1:40 AM

 
TWISTS AND TURNS

With this administration, you can't even listen to their public explanations to figure out what their intentions are: by floating both X and not-X, they keep their options open. (Or maybe they just don't know what they're doing!)


Will we pull out of Iraq if the transitional government asks (yes or no)?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003920.php
On Wednesday I mentioned that the UK foreign secretary had told a talk show host that if the Iraqis wanted us to leave after June 30, then we'd leave. I was....surprised....Then, on Thursday, a State Department lackey said that was our policy too. However he was contradicted shortly afterward by Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, the policy and plans director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff......On Friday, Paul Bremer contradicted Sharp's contradiction: we'll leave if the Iraqis ask us to, he said. Finally, later on Friday, Colin Powell, echoed by the foreign ministers of Britain, Italy and Japan, confirmed that this was everyone's policy: the Iraqis are in charge after June 30. If they want us to leave, we'll leave.....Like me, Spencer Ackerman wonders what the hell is going on here: "The real question here is if Powell's trial balloon--or Bremer's--comes with Bush's approval......"
http://www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd?pid=1663
http://www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd?pid=1662.

http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_14_bestof.html#108456912646570585
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Bush administration (or, at least) Karl Rove now does have a plan for Iraq....That plan is to disengage from combat operations against the insurgents, hunker down, and play hide-the-Americans--at least until after the election and more likely forever--the famous cut and run strategy . Less shooting means the number of American military deaths declines sharply, the Serbian war criminals, ex-South African death squad members and crazy ex-Green Berets who make up the 10,000-15,000 mercenary army that is our biggest "coalition partner" manage to get themselves killed in a non-telegenic fashion, the fake June 30 handover to the Iraqis looks semi-convincing.......In the short term, we fulfil our secret deal with Sistani to take out al-Sadr and his band of religious wackos, and that particular shooting spree is over. Suddenly, it's July or early August and things in Iraq are looking brighter--bright enough that the first week of October Lord Rummy announces that he plans to bring 50,000 troops home by Christmas. This move is a direct result of our success in bringing democracy and stability to Iraq and is, in no way, to be thought of as a cynical manuever designed to re-elect Shrub.


Was there official support for the "new" interrogation techniques Miller and Sanchez were encouraging (and were they consistent with the Geneva Conventions or not)?

http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=519911.html
A top U.S. general acknowledged Thursday during a long and often angry Senate hearing that interrogation techniques used by American guards in an Iraq prison violated the Geneva conventions and that he did not know who had approved them.....The remark by General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared to place him in direct contradiction of a comment a day earlier by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has insisted that approved procedures called for humane treatment under recognized international standards......Pace fell into something of a trap laid by a Democratic senator, Jack Reed of Rhode Island. Reed, a tough-speaking West Point graduate who served in the 82nd Airborne, asked Pace what he would think if he saw a video of a U.S. marine in enemy custody, bound, naked and forced into a painful position with a hood over his head. Would it violate the Geneva standards?....''I would describe it as a violation, sir,'' Pace replied.

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=1656
Mr. Reed then cited a list of interrogation techniques approved for use in Iraq last October by the top commander there, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez of the Army. Some techniques required General Sanchez's approval, including sensory deprivation, solitary confinement beyond 30 days and "stress positions" like prolonged periods of standing or crouching....."As I read General Sanchez's guidance, precisely that behavior could have been employed in Iraq," Mr. Reed said.....Military officials said later that General Sanchez had never been asked to approve such treatment and that Mr. Reed's example would not have been approved......General Pace and Mr. Wolfowitz acknowledged that neither of them had seen the list of approved techniques, "Interrogation Rules of Engagement," until just before the hearing on Thursday morning and that they did not know whether senior military officials had reviewed them. Senate Democrats said the title was not a good one because "rules of engagement," in military language, govern the use of force......The most heated exchanges were between Mr. Reed and Mr. Wolfowitz. "What I've heard from you is dissembling and avoidance of answers, lack of knowledge," Mr. Reed said......"I'm not dissembling, Senator Reed," Mr. Wolfowitz responded. "I have the same reaction as General Pace. What you described to me sounds to me like a violation of the Geneva Convention. It's the first time I've heard that it was in General Sanchez's direction." "I would suggest, Mr. Secretary, that you're not doing your job, then," Mr. Reed said......"Mr. Secretary, do you think crouching naked for 45 minutes is humane?" Mr. Reed said......"Not naked, absolutely not."......"Sensory deprivation, which would be a bag over your head for 72 hours. Do you think that's humane?" ....."Let me come back to what you said, the work of this government--"......"No, no. Answer the question, Mr. Secretary. Is that humane?" "I don't know whether it means a bag over your head for 72 hours, senator."......"Mr. Secretary, you're dissembling, nonresponsive. Anybody would say putting a bag over someone's head for 72 hours, which is--"......"I believe it's not humane."

Just in case you'd like to see what these "Interrogation Rules of Engagement" were

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/006510.html#006510

Nothing wrong with these interrogation rules - but they're being pulled

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/15/politics/15MILI.html?hp
The commander, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, will still consider requests to hold prisoners in isolation for more than 30 days, according to a senior Central Command official who briefed reporters on Friday. The general has approved 25 such requests since October, the official said. But the official said that General Sanchez would deny requests to use other harsh methods......"Simply, we will not even entertain a request, so don't even send it up for a review," the Central Command official said....... the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, acknowledged that it was "likely that the heightened scrutiny of the last couple weeks" had prompted General Sanchez to revise the interrogation rules. He said Mr. Rumsfeld did not order General Sanchez to change the policy. .

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=1&u=/washpost/20040515/ts_washpost/a27894_2004may14
At a Pentagon briefing, the officials repeated arguments that such intensified interrogation measures were entirely consistent with the Geneva Conventions requiring humane treatment of detainees.


Transition report: do we really want an independent Iraq or not?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-newgovern13may13,1,6238928.story
The U.N. envoy, with the support of the top U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer III, had recently agreed on naming a "faceless" government composed of officials who would pledge not to run in the January 2005 election. But that plan ran into a wall of opposition from various Iraqi leaders, especially from members of the U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council.....Both Brahimi and Bremer had hoped to appoint a caretaker government with more credibility than the Governing Council. Few council members command more than 30% support in polls, and many are widely despised......But the U.S. lacked the leverage to push Iraqi leaders to go along with Brahimi's proposal - thanks in part to mounting criticism from the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal......"America has lost so much influence they may have to concede the composition of the government to the Iraqi Governing Council and allow it to make major decisions,".......According to U.S. and Iraqi officials, the government that will take charge June 30 will largely be political figures......."Political personalities are not excluded," from participation in the interim government, said a senior official in the U.S.-led coalition, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Some will be chosen because they are honest and national figures and some because they are connected to political movements.".....Officials also said the government would be announced in two weeks. It will be made up of a president with two deputies and a prime minister who would oversee a Cabinet of 26 ministers. Brahimi and U.S. officials are reviewing short lists of candidates for the positions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/15/opinion/15SAT1.html?hp
Members of the discredited, American-appointed Iraqi Governing Council are maneuvering to ensure a share of power for themselves after the council is dissolved next month. This is a terrible idea, linking the new interim government to the occupation regime and prejudicing future elections by giving council members an unfair inside track. Yet the administration seems to be wavering, reluctant to upset the transition timetable by antagonizing any of its few remaining Iraqi allies.


Did you read the Tom Friedman editorial yesterday? This is exactly what he was referring to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/politics/campaign/14fallout.html
As President Bush was traveling through the Midwest on his exuberant bus tour last week, his campaign aides still sounded confident that the revelations of how Iraqi prisoners were abused would do far more harm to the United States' image abroad than to the president's standing at home.
[And this is good news?]


Could this be true?

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/terrorism_and_its_control_/2004/05/why_did_bush_spare_zarqawi.php
[From Fred Kaplan] Apparently, Bush had three opportunities, long before the war, to destroy a terrorist camp in northern Iraq run by Abu Musab Zarqawi, the al-Qaida associate who recently cut off the head of Nicholas Berg. But the White House decided not to carry out the attack because, as the [NBC News] story puts it: "the administration feared [that] destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

More from Kaplan:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100549/fr/rss/
Two news stories that have since come to my attention-one that appeared on the same day, the other more than two months ago-suggest not merely that Bush is guilty of "failing to recognize failure" (as my headline put it) but that he is directly culpable for the sins in question.....


Another stunner: was Nic Berg held by US, prevented from leaving Iraq?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/14/iraq.berg/index.html


The banality of evil

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-prison14may14,1,3734760.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Abu Ghraib Guard Paints Harrowing Portrait of Abuse
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/national/14SIVI.html?pagewanted=1
Accused Soldier Paints Scene of Eager Mayhem at Iraqi Prison


And BTW, what were the terms of Sivits' plea bargain?

http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200420#306


Another rough editorial on Rumsfeld (from Ralph Smith, retired officer)

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20841.htm
Should Rumsfeld resign over the prisoner abuse by rogue MPs? No. He should resign for the good of our military and our country. Those twisted photos are only one symptom of how badly the Rumsfeld era has derailed our military.....Rumsfeld has maintained a positive image with much of America because he controls information fanatically and tolerates no deviation from the party line. Differing opinions are punished in today's Pentagon - and every field general who has spoken plainly of the deficiencies of either the non-plan for the occupation of Iraq, the lack of sufficient troops (in Iraq or overall) or any aspect of Rumsfeld's "transformation" plan has seen his career ended....... It isn't treason to tell the truth in wartime. But it verges on treason to lie. And Rumsfeld lies.


The problem with photo oops (I mean, photo ops)

http://www.tnr.com/blog/campaignjournal?pid=1657
From today's gaggle with Scott McLellan aboard Air Force One:
Q About a year ago, April 24th, last year, the President went to Canton, Ohio. He went to the Timken Company. I don't know if you remember the trip, I wasn't on it. He went to a bearings factory, part of the Timken Company, touted his economic plans and talked about jobs and growth. Timken announced today that they're shutting down that plant that the President visited a year ago. I just wonder if that's ironic, that the President touted his economic strategy, doesn't appear to be working?

A revealing diagram of Bush's approval numbers: the long-term trends

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003922.php


Kate O'Beirne, who really is a shameless hack, backs Rush all the way

http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/kob200405140841.asp
Rush's angry, frustrated critics discount how hard it is to make an outrageous charge against him stick. But, we listeners have spent years with him, we know him, and trust him. Rush is one of those rare acquaintances who can be defended against an assault challenging his character without ever knowing the "facts." We trust his good judgment, his unerring decency......

"Unerring decency" Hmmmm...you mean like this?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405140001
We've got the Iraqi prison photos and -- by the way, have you seen the -- all these Senators.......One group of Senators, "Eh, it's just more of the same." Another group of Senators, "I can't even describe how bad it is. I don't want anybody to see them. These are just out of this world. They are intolerable. I can't believe what I saw. I couldn't believe what I was looking at." Then the other Senators, "Ah, it's more of the same."..... Senator Kennedy, ladies and gentlemen, said that he didn't need to look at any of these other pictures. He can just have Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi act them out for him. I'm making that up. It's a joke".......The images left a searing impression on the Senators and House members. Some described images of Iraqi women exposing their breasts......I guess that's -- you're not supposed to do that outside the Kennedy compound. "


Bonus item: scandal update

If there weren't a dozen other fiascoes in play, this would be front page news: Riggs Bank fined for laundering Saudi "charity" money that may have gone to 9-11 plotters (and GW's uncle is a bank official there)!

http://www.davidsirota.com/2004/05/bushs-uncle-is-executive-at-bank-fined.html
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:35 AM

 
A LIGHTER TOUCH

Even in the midst of torture, despicable lies, and gruesome beheadings, there are moments of humor - albeit of a rueful, headshaking sort......A tasty potpourri.


Bush inadvertently mumbles out the truth

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5137238
"Like you, I have been disgraced about what I've seen on TV that took place in prison," Bush told a packed gymnasium at Parkersburg South High School.....


Bush doesn't read newspapers (he claims), but....

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_09.php#002957
"I get the newspapers - the New York Times, The Washington Times, The Washington Post and USA Today - those are the four papers delivered," he said. "I can scan a front page, and if there is a particular story of interest, I'll skim it." .....The president prides himself on his ability to detect bias in ostensibly objective news stories....."My antennae are finely attuned," he said. "I can figure out what so-called 'news' pieces are going to be full of opinion, as opposed to news. So I'm keenly aware of what's in the papers, kind of the issue du jour. But I'm also aware of the facts."...."Since I'm the first one to see him in the morning, I usually give him a quick overview and get a little reaction from him," Mr. Card explained. "Frequently, I find that his reaction kind of reflects [first lady] Laura Bush's take." .....Indeed, the president often cites articles that Mrs. Bush flags for greater scrutiny, even when he has not personally slogged through those stories. Mrs. Bush routinely delves more deeply into the news pages than her husband, who prefers other sections....."He does not dwell on the newspaper, but he reads the sports page every day," Mr. Card said with a chuckle.....Mr. Bush thinks that immersing himself in voluminous, mostly liberal-leaning news coverage might cloud his thinking and even hinder his efforts to remain an optimistic leader .


Iraq policy crumbling? Time for a photo op!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=3&u=/nm/20040513/wl_nm/iraq_dc


New web site, from David Brock ("Blinded by the Right") and others - this is the "liberal" site Rush was referring to, which so unfairly is attacking him FOR WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID (and continues to say, by the way)

http://mediamatters.org/

And they have a new ad:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405130001

Rush's latest defense - must be heard to be believed!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405120001
Skull and Bones comment -- "was actually relating to the media"
LIMBAUGH: [A]nd I -- I'll tell you why I used Skull and Bones. You know, I was tweaking them, because Bush is Skull and Bones, and it's Yale, and they think Bush didn't qualify to get into Yale. That Bush is a phony-baloney and they hate -- normally they hate Skull and Bones.......And so I thought I was actually relating to the media by calling this a Skull -- I thought I was helping them criticize Bush. Yeah, this is the kind of stuff Bush did in college instead of learning stuff......But no, they missed that totally.  I really was trying to relate to them. I was trying to give them a line that I thought they would appreciate the nuance of.  But no, they've totally missed it......So no, I've been amazed that they missed the Skull and Bones re - I couldn't -- I didn't even say college initiation, a caller said that. I said Skull and Bones.  I said it specifically for a reason, because I was trying to help them take another route to Bush.  They've missed it, and they're coming back at me with it. Idiots.

[Uh-huh. Rushie, take my advice, just stop talking about it. You only make it worse.]


Lynndie England, already famous, is about to become even better known...

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/20802.htm


Hilarious story: WSJ writer trashes 9-11 wives in an internal email, then inadvertently sends it TO ONE OF THEM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/192925p-166699c.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=110004950



GOP, after trying desperately to get the FEC to ban 527's (and failing), now decides they aren't such a bad idea after all...everything you ever wanted to know about 527's 501's, and more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/politics/campaign/13WIRE-FEC.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1084507431-t2vbJhFJZX3LAsiKOkNk8A
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/13/13114/1942
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#002994
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/05/13/shadow_campaigns_may_pick_up_steam.html



The absurd lies of this administration on war costs. Let's review: (1) The war will be self-funding through oil revenues - well, maybe a billion or two (2) Oops! Off by a few decimal points, give us $87 billion (3) Oops! Not enough, give us another $20 billion for 2004 (4) Leave costs out of the FY 2005 budget entirely to avoid making the deficit look even worse (5) Then ask for $25 billion (6) Now admit that eventually you will be asking for $50 billion AND MORE....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/iraq.spending.ap/index.html
http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/000316.html

[ps. It ain't working]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/politics/14MILI.html
enate Democrats and Republicans attacked Bush administration officials on Thursday for submitting a vaguely worded request to add $25 billion to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan beginning on Oct. 1....The new money would be added to the more than $400 billion already sought for military uses worldwide in fiscal 2005. Lawmakers complained that the new request lacked specific details and sought to circumvent the Senate's oversight role.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1803&e=2&u=/washpost/20040514/pl_washpost/a24139_2004may13
If the new request is granted, Congress will have approved nearly $100 billion to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Almost all of that has been provided outside the annual Pentagon budget, through emergency appropriations that set up special accounts from which the military could draw money without seeking congressional approval.


"Like the drummers from Spinal Tap": the short, sad careers of Bush anti-terrorism experts

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003908.php
http://www.tnr.com/blog/campaignjournal


Is the media starting to learn how to call Bush Co. lies, lies?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_09.php#002956


Open war on the right: Weekly Standard uses anti-Semitic card against the State Dept for criticisms of Defense Dept neo-cons

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#002983


The remarkable range of things right-wing apologists have used to explain why Abu Ghraib happened (women, gays, secular humanism...)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100437/fr/rss/


Pentagon gives private defense contractor A PURPLE HEART

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22547-2004May12.html


Mainstream, "serious" commentary shifts decidedly against the war: latest defection, Tom Friedman, with a vengeance

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/opinion/13FRIE.html
I thought the administration would have to do the right things in Iraq - from prewar planning and putting in enough troops to dismissing the secretary of defense for incompetence - because surely this was the most important thing for the president and the country. But I was wrong. There is something even more important to the Bush crowd than getting Iraq right, and that's getting re-elected and staying loyal to the conservative base to do so. It has always been more important for the Bush folks to defeat liberals at home than Baathists abroad. That's why they spent more time studying U.S. polls than Iraqi history. That is why, I'll bet, Karl Rove has had more sway over this war than Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Bill Burns. Mr. Burns knew only what would play in the Middle East. Mr. Rove knew what would play in the Middle West......I admit, I'm a little slow. Because I tried to think about something as deadly serious as Iraq, and the post- 9/11 world, in a nonpartisan fashion - as Joe Biden, John McCain and Dick Lugar did - I assumed the Bush officials were doing the same. I was wrong. They were always so slow to change course because confronting their mistakes didn't just involve confronting reality, but their own politics......

Comment
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003905.php


The support of other pro-war newspapers and commentators also continues to collapse...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23235-2004May13.html
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#002988
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/politics/13ABUS.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3707499.stm


Brahimi

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100461/fr/rss/
The United Nations envoy to Iraq has already performed one very important service for President Bush: He's allowed the president to adopt a position of Roveian resoluteness on the subject of the June 30 deadline for the sovereignty transfer. "Brahimi" has become the president's clear, consistent answer to all June 30-related questions. Who's going to run Iraq on July 1? Ask Brahimi. What's going to happen? Ask Brahimi. Do we have any clue how this is going to play out? Ask Brahimi! No one ever accused this president of being unable to delegate.....A full year after "mission accomplished," Brahimi is the third Mr. Fix-It the United States has put its faith in.....There isn't much time for Brahimi. Like the Coalition Provisional Authority, Brahimi is scheduled to vanish from Iraq on June 30. Those close to him say it's because he's tired, that he has promised his family a much-needed vacation. That's surely the case. But it's also true that Brahimi knows a lost cause when he sees one.


What "sovereignty" might mean....

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003912.php


In other news...

More on Bush Co. lies to the Supreme Court
http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2004_05_09_isthatlegal_archive.html#108445474417232258

More on Bush Co. regulatory shenanigans (this time NIH)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22425-2004May12.html

Bush Co. leaning on Greenspan NOT to raise interest rates?
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000824.html

NRA leaning on Bush over assault weapons ban, may withhold endorsement?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/14/02051/7441

Bush on education
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1803&e=3&u=/washpost/20040514/pl_washpost/a23580_2004may13
In his customary manner, Bush linked education to the economy. "See, if you can't read, these jobs of the 21st century are going to go begging," he said.
[Fill in punchline here...]

Bush's re-election in serious trouble
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25367-2004May13.html
Six months before the November election, President Bush has slipped into a politically fragile position that has put his reelection at risk, with the public clearly disaffected by his handling of the two biggest issues facing the country: Iraq and the economy.


Bonus item: from a blog maintained by an Iraqi dentist

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2004_05_01_healingiraq_archive.html#108375239722231738
Now, regarding the disgusting images from Abu Ghraib that the whole world had witnessed in the last few days. They didn't come as a surprise at all, we have been hearing stories about the abuse of prisoners for a long time from released detainees and from humanitarian organisations. It doesn't shock me at all that some American soldiers are so sick and devoid from any humanity. You need to have a cousin pushed off from a dam by some in order to learn that. What surprises me though are people saying "Saddam did worse", or the soldiers responsible claiming they were 'never taught anything about running a prison', and 'No one gave us a copy of the Geneva conventions'. We have a saying for that over here, "An excuse uglier than the guilt".
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 5:35 AM

 
THE WHEELS ARE COMING OFF

As I said the other day, it isn't just that Abu Ghraib is such a travesty, but that it seems to be crystalizing in peoples' minds all the features of this administration that have made its Iraq policy such a failure: the internal war between Powell and Rumsfeld, the obsession with secrecy, the lies, the arrogance, the contempt for internationalism. And now this.....

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.powell12may12,0,2804533.story?coll=bal-news-nation
WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that he and other top officials kept President Bush "fully informed ... in general terms" about complaints made by the Red Cross and others over ill-treatment of detainees in U.S. custody...... Powell's statement suggests Bush may have known earlier than the White House has acknowledged about complaints raised by the International Committee of the Red Cross and human rights groups regarding abuse of detainees in Iraq.

Comment
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_09.php#002952
Not only does that contradict what the White House and the president have said. It contradicts the testimony of one of Don Rumsfeld's principal deputies from only yesterday......When asked by Sen. John Warner whether the ICRC's concerns had made their way to the Secretary's level, Stephen Cambone replied : "No, sir, they did not. Those reports -- those working papers, again, as far as I understand it, were delivered at the command level. They are designed -- the process is designed so that the ICRC can engage with the local commanders and make those kinds of improvements that are necessary in a more collaborative environment than in an adversarial one.".....I've been hearing for days that the State Department at the highest levels (i.e., not a few lefty FSOs in the bureaucracy, but authorized at the highest levels) has been leaking like crazy against the civilian leadership of the Pentagon on this story......And here we have it right out in the open. Powell isn't exactly saying the White House or the president is lying. What he's doing might fairly be described as walking up to the black board, writing out "2+2=" and then letting us draw our own conclusions......And at a certain point -- though you'd imagine we'd already reached that point -- having the Secretary of State openly contradicting the Secretary of Defense and the president on a matter of such grave concern to the country is a situation that simply cannot last.


Blurring Iraq/terror links post 9-11 helped create the context for abuse

http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0405/12/a04-150811.htm
"The tone that was set, all the way to the top, and the climate in which these soldiers operated was an invitation to this kind of abuse," Goering said. "Governments have the obligation to take appropriate steps to protect their citizens, but they have to take these in a manner consistent with respect for fundamental human rights."......The Army's own investigative report, by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, suggested that interrogation techniques used against suspected terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay were applied inappropriately in Iraq.

http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_12_bestof.html#108438533336839103
From page 24 of Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies. This exchange reportedly took place on the evening of September 11, 2001, just after Bush's address to the nation stating that "[w]e will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." Here, Clarke quotes Bush directly, at a meeting of his National Security staff:
When, later in the discussion, Secretary Rumsfeld noted that international law allowed the use of force only to prevent future attacks and not for retribution, Bush nearly bit his head off. "No," the President yelled in the narrow conference room, "I don't care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/politics/13MILL.html
General Miller's recommendations prompted a shift in the interrogation and detention procedures [at Abu Ghraib]. Military intelligence officers were given greater authority in the prison, and military police guards were asked to help gather information about the detainees....Whether those changes contributed to the abuse of prisoners that grew horrifically more serious last fall is now at the center of the widening prison scandal......General Miller's recommendations were based in large part on his command of the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where he won praise from the Pentagon for improving the flow of intelligence from terrorist suspects......In Iraq, General Miller's team gave officers at the prisons copies of the procedures that had been developed at Guantánamo to interrogate and punish the prisoners,

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/politics/13DETA.html?ei=5062&en=f4df7ec51a3252e0&ex=1085025600&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=
The Central Intelligence Agency has used coercive interrogation methods against a select group of high-level leaders and operatives of Al Qaeda that have produced growing concerns inside the agency about abuses, according to current and former counterterrorism officials.......These techniques were authorized by a set of secret rules for the interrogation of high-level Qaeda prisoners, none known to be housed in Iraq, that were endorsed by the Justice Department and the C.I.A. The rules were among the first adopted by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 attacks for handling detainees and may have helped establish a new understanding throughout the government that officials would have greater freedom to deal harshly with detainees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22408-2004May12.html?nav=rss_nation
U.S. soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners has undercut the Bush administration's legal rationale for key components of its anti-terrorism policies, with some officials privately worrying that the scandal may hurt the administration's chances of winning three test cases before the Supreme Court.....At the court, the administration has maintained that military and intelligence officials engaged in the fight against terrorism should generally not be accountable to the judiciary for their conduct of military operations in wartime.


Big news: UN, NATO, just about ready to drop Iraq back into our laps

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1214642,00.html
Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN special representative, was sent to Iraq to ease the passage to democracy much against his will. With his arm twisted by Kofi Annan and George Bush, he reluctantly agreed but warned of the risk of ensnaring the UN in this ill-fated US/UK adventure.......Brahimi warned that the US would never hand over enough power to make a truly independent UN intervention possible. He was right. Now, according to Tony Blair's close advisers, he is about to walk away from Iraq, leaving Britain and America alone to stew after June 30.....Brahimi is struggling with Paul Bremer, the US governing power, over what sovereignty is to be handed over in June......Bremer is resisting Brahimi's attempts to disband all members of the present discredited governing council, dominated by the likes of Ahmed Chalabi, who have been running the country on networks of patronage and nepotism. Now only real power will convince Iraqis they are no longer occupied, but Bremer is denying the interim government the right to make new laws. It is unclear how much of the oil money the new government will control.....The interim government will not even control its own armed forces, let alone US/UK armies.....The mood is changing. Seasoned experts returning from Iraq say the US/UK forces are causing more insecurity than they suppress......Those close to Blair say Brahimi will strongly advise Annan to have nothing to do with any transfer of responsibility to the UN, after his experiences in Iraq. So there will be a feeble UN resolution accepting but not approving the political process.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=3&u=/nm/20040512/wl_nm/iraq_nato_dc
U.S. hopes that NATO would agree at its Istanbul summit next month to take a greater role in stabilizing Iraq have evaporated, diplomats and analysts say.....Worsening violence in occupied Iraq, the prisoner abuse scandal, dismay at U.S. Middle East policy, Spain's decision to withdraw its forces and military "overstretch" in Afghanistan have combined to make any prospect of the 26-nation alliance taking on greater responsibility remote.

Losing support among Iraqis too

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2004/05/losing_hearts_and_minds.php
Four out of five Iraqis report holding a negative view of the U.S. occupation authority and of coalition forces, according to a new poll conducted for the occupation authority..... In the poll, 80 percent of the Iraqis questioned reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq...... Although comparative numbers from previous polls are not available, "generally speaking, the trend is downward," said Donald Hamilton, a senior counselor to civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer. The occupation authority has been commissioning such surveys in Iraq since late last year, he said. This one was taken in Baghdad and several other Iraqi cities in late March and early April, shortly before the surge in anti-coalition violence and a few weeks before the detainee-abuse scandal became a major issue for the U.S. authorities in Iraq.
And that was back in March and early April, before Fallujah, the confrontation with Moqtada al-Sadr, and the Abu Ghraib revelations.


Rumsfeld: we might fail
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/006475.html

Rumsfeld: still considering resignation
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/politics/13RUMS.html


And paying for the war?

http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/000330.html
Why don't we just abolish the Congress altogether?
WASHINGTON - President Bush formally asked Congress Wednesday for $25 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan early next year, requesting almost unfettered latitude in deciding how the money would be spent .... According to the request, the $25 billion would be placed in a fund Bush would control. He could decide how the money would be spent, as long as he informed Congress that his request was "an emergency and essential to support activities and agencies in Iraq or Afghanistan."


Iraq, Afghanistan in a shambles. So what do we do? Start a new front against Syria

http://www.tompaine.com/blog.cfm?startRow=1&blogrow=1#blog10328


Elsewhere, the record of Bush success moves forward....

On the economy
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/12/trade_deficit/index_np.html
The trade deficit swelled to an all-time high of $46 billion in March

http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_12_bestof.html#108438762888174530
The mother of all debts... the US trade deficit has surged to an historic high and analysts are concerned that the Washington won't be able to attract the $1.5 billion/day to pay the vig on the current account deficit.

http://www.davidsirota.com/2004/05/mitch-daniels-most-fiscally.html
Mitch Daniels as Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget [now running for Governor of Indiana], personally oversaw the worst budget deterioration in American history.


On education
UN-believable! Still trumpeting (phony) Texas results from when he was Governor as evidence of NCLB success!
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=181


Result? Bush poll numbers continue to plummet

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/05/12/another_poll_shows_bush_in_free_fall.html
President Bush's approval rating "has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, 44 percent, in the latest CBS News poll , reflecting the weight of instability in Iraq on public opinion, despite signs of improvement in the economy......."American's opinion of Mr. Bush's handling of the economy is also at an all-time low, 34 percent, while 60 percent disapprove, also a high of the Bush presidency....."Just as startling, the poll finds that for the first time a clear majority of Americans disapprove of Mr. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq....."The highest figure ever recorded, 64 percent, say the result of the war in Iraq has not been worth the cost in lives or money."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/05/12/bush_approval_plummets.html
"Public satisfaction with national conditions has fallen to 33%, its lowest level in eight years, in the wake of revelations of prisoner abuse committed by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq," a new poll from the Pew Center for the People and the Press shows.....President Bush's overall job approval rating also has dropped into negative territory: 44% approve of his job performance, while 48% disapprove.


And, finally, this absolute gem:

http://www.thehill.com/news/051304/hastert.aspx
Republicans on the Hill are so frustrated with the White House that when Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) criticized the administration at a House GOP meeting last week, the caucus burst into applause.........The meeting was only the latest sign in an accumulating body of evidence that lawmakers are unhappy with the way the administration treats them......A rank-and-file lawmaker said: "Hastert was frustrated and disappointed that he had not been dealt with openly and fairly and given accurate information. He was not so much speaking to the conference as he was speaking for the conference."........The catalog of GOP complaints against the executive branch is long........
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 5:39 AM

 
CONTRASTS IN CHARACTER

Inhofe vs McCain

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_09.php#002949
Sen. Inhofe on Abu Ghraib : "I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment ... These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations. If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals.".....According to CNN, McCain walked out during Inhofe's statement.
More cathartic commentary on Inhof
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_09.php#002950
I don't think I can remember a more shameful spectacle in the United States Congress, in my living memory.....

http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_12_bestof.html#108435053538025400
After reading his depraved rantings from the Abu Ghraib hearings yesterday, this is a letter I just submitted at Sen. Inhofe's website :
You, sir, absolutely disgust me. Your comments during the testimony of Gen. Taguba yesterday prove, without a doubt, that you are utterly unworthy of the high office you hold. What twisted perversion of America did you grow up in?....Although I am obviously not one of your constituents (thank God), I will do everything in my power to see that you never hold any public office again -- including dogcatcher, because even a dog deserves better treatment than the torture and abuse you seem to think the Iraqi captives deserve (the vast majority of whom, by the way, were rounded up by MISTAKE).....I find it hard to believe that a man who espouses the moral code of NAZI GERMANY represents the State of Oklahoma in the Senate. Have you no conscience? Have you no moral compass? Have you, sir, at long last, no sense of decency?


Taguba vs Cambone

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/politics/12ABUS.html
The officer, Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that it had been against the Army's doctrine for another Army general to recommend last summer that military guards "set the conditions" to help Army intelligence officers extract information from prisoners. He also said an order last November from the top American officer in Iraq effectively put the prison guards under the command of the intelligence unit there.......But the civilian official, Stephen A. Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence, contradicted the general. He said that the military police and the military intelligence unit at the prison needed to work closely to gain as much intelligence as possible from Iraqi prisoners to prevent attacks against American soldiers.

Analysis: http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_11_bestof.html#108433381796938520

[Predictably, Taguba is now being trashed by right-wing zealots: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/11/102202.shtml]

Cambone's deceptions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19207-2004May11.html
THE BUSH administration still seeks to mislead Congress and the public about the policies that contributed to the criminal abuse of prisoners in Iraq. Yesterday's smoke screen was provided by Stephen A. Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence. Mr. Cambone assured the Senate Armed Services Committee that the administration's policy had always been to strictly observe the Geneva Conventions in Iraq; that all procedures for interrogations in Iraq were sanctioned under the conventions; and that the abuses of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison were consequently the isolated acts of individuals. These assertions are contradicted by International Red Cross and Army investigators, by U.S. generals overseeing the prisoners, and by Mr. Cambone himself........


Cole vs Bush
http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#108426100254586428

More:

Higher-ups: what they (didn't want to) know and when they (didn't want to) know it
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/printedition/bal-te.pentagon06may06,0,5351320.story?coll=bal-pe-asection

Here it comes: Karpinski isn't going down without taking someone else with her....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19081-2004May11.html?nav=rss_nation
The U.S. general who was in charge of running prisons in Iraq told Army investigators earlier this year that she had resisted decisions by superior officers to hand over control of the prisons to military intelligence officials and to authorize the use of lethal force as a first step in keeping order -- command decisions that have come in for heavy criticism in the Iraq prison abuse scandal....... Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski, head of the 800th Military Police Brigade, spoke of her resistance to the decisions in a detailed account of her tenure furnished to Army investigators. It places two of the highest-ranking Army officers now in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, at the heart of decision-making on both matters.

Josh Marshall and David Corn pretty much say it all

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_09.php#002947
Over recent days we've gotten accustomed, I think, to an escalating rate of shame and outrage each day. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10361
But the incompetents of the Bush administration are guilty of more than arrogance and hubris. Let's run through a partial list of screw-ups


Newspapers: fair and balanced

http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200420#289
The Appleton, Wisconsin Post-Crescent recently sent out a remarkable plea to its readers: send us more pro-Bush letters: "We've been getting more letters critical of President Bush than those that support him," the paper wrote. "We're not sure why, nor do we want to guess. But in today's increasingly polarized political environment, we would prefer our offering to put forward a better sense of balance.".......While the Post-Crescent may be just one relatively small paper, it wouldn't be surprising if there are plenty of others that are offering up letters pages that don't perfectly reflect the balance of letters they actually receive. During the run-up to the Iraq war, an intern at the Columbia Journalism Review called up the Nashville Tennessean and asked how many of their letters to the editor opposed the war. He was told that while 70% of the letters voiced opposition, the paper was printing as many pro-war letters as it could to provide "balance" and avoid charges of liberal bias.

A truly dumb argument for why the Abu Ghraib photos SHOULDN'T have been published
http://slate.msn.com/id/2100374/fr/rss/

Is Rumsfeld the greatest Sect'y of Defense ever? (Well, gee, golly, I don't think so. Cast your vote here)
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/fc/form.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=69373


Bonus item: Rush Limbaugh, a truly warm and inspiring human being

May 10: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051004/content/truth_detector.guest.html

I don't think the whole country is wringing its hands, and I don't think the whole country is in convulsions over this........All this is, is the latest weapon they can use politically to harm Bush and which is why they're trying to harm me....

[Yep, that's what it's all about, Rush]

The fact that this is, you know, upsetting stuff and that I have said that.... is all left out of the criticism......I was the outrage of the week for Mark Shields for this Skull and Bones comment, and Bill Moyers talked about it.......There were editorials in Pascagoula, Mississippi, talking about what a rotten SOB I am for the Skull and Bones comment or the college fraternity prank comment.......But why do this? I'm sitting there, like I said, I'm just a kid from Missouri that wanted to be on the radio. And now all of a sudden I have to be discredited......

[Poor guy - a prince, a real prince of a fellow, isn't he?]

The fact that I have to be brought up, condemned and discredited is all the evidence anybody should need this is political; because I don't have the power to do anything. I'm not the Joint Chiefs, I'm not in the military chain, I can't make mostly, I can't effect policy, I can't implement policy, none of that, I've never met anybody in the Joint Chiefs, ever. I don't know Colin Powell, I don't know Rumsfeld, never met him, talked to him on the phone one time. And yet they lump me in with all this, and I'll tell you why.......Why do you think.....that they are continually focusing on me in this? .........Why did they discredit me and why do they keep quoting me and why do they keep quoting this one little comment about -- and, by the way, my comment about the Skull and Bones Society and this fraternity was when we just had those two pictures.

[Ever seen "The Caine Mutiny"? Can you visualize Rush rolling those little metal balls in his hand?]

What I'm saying is what Bush really believes and can't say himself.  What I'm saying is what conservative Republicans really think, that Bush really doesn't think that is a bad -- that his wife doesn't really think it's a bad deal; that this is just a bunch of people making a mountain out of a molehill and that they are using me to say what Bush can't say so I have to be discredited because that's a way of discrediting what Bush really wants to say but can't say. That's what it is, and make no mistake about it.

COMMERCIAL BREAK

Look, folks, let's just cut to the chase here, okay? I've been trying to very slowly and gently maneuver all of you into now. Here's cut-to-the-chase time. We all know what goes on in war. We all know that what's in these pictures we've seen -- and we haven't seen pictures of death -- even this latest picture of the dog and the nude Iraqi, have you seen that one? A couple of Americans are holding it looks like a German shepherd, some kind of vicious big dog, dogs are barking, bow-wow (barking sounds), the Iraqi prisoner is cowering there in fear, he's all nude, and the picture captions "dogs attack Iraqi". No, the dog isn't attacking anybody, the dog is on a leash. The dog is scaring an Iraqi prisoner. (Gasping.) No! We're scaring them, too. Is that allowed in the Geneva Convention? We're scaring them with dogs? Yes, my friends, we are. The dog didn't attack anybody, dog's not the attacking anybody, dog is on a leash, both of them are. I've seen the picture.

[Uh, Rush, you do read the newspapers don't you?
"In another, taken a few minutes later, the Iraqi is lying on the ground, writhing in pain, with a soldier sitting on top of him, knee pressed to his back. Blood is streaming from the inmate's leg. Another photograph is a closeup of the naked prisoner, from his waist to his ankles, lying on the floor. On his right thigh is what appears to be a bite or a deep scratch. There is another, larger wound on his left leg, covered in blood."]

So what? It's war!  We all know what goes on in war......How many of you went out to social occasions over the weekend, and this subject, this story came up? And how many of you wanted to really say, "I don't see the big deal here. This is war. These are people that tried to kill Americans."

[Keep reading your newspapers, Rush: 70-90% of those in prison were there "by mistake": http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-redcross11may11,1,3173652.story?coll=la-headlines-world]

But you didn't say it or some variation of that because you were afraid that you were the bunch of people would start yelling at you for being insensitive or coarse or crude or whatever. So you said what you thought you had to say in order to get along during the controversial situation that this conversation came up wherever you were. How many of you did that? Admit it to yourself. You don't have to raise your hands out there. We're not counting hands here. I want you to think about it. Because the fact of the matter is that's what I think most people are doing.  This is where my optimism and faith in people of this country remains steadfast. I don't think most people are that outraged by it.

[Wow. There it is. His source of "optimism and faith" is that people AREN'T bothered by these photos. And he's surprised that he's being attacked?]

And the next day.....

May 11: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051104/content/truth_detector.guest.html

I'm Honored By Effort to Discredit Me
"Aren't you upset? You don't even sound upset that the media is trying to discredit you," and I'm not. But I think it's because I understand it. I've been through 16 years. This is just par for the course..........Now, let's look at this prison business. When the first two or three pictures came out -- you know which ones they are. The pyramid picture, which is what looks like a Skull and Bones initiation, the pyramid, the guys in the hoods and we got the female prison guard with a cigarette dangling from the mouth, and we had the guy in all black, hooded and so forth, wires attached to various, uhhh , extremities, and there was one other picture, and I said, "Well, what's the big deal here? This just looks like an average Skull and Bones initiation.".......That quote made the first day the pictures were published is all that I am quoted as saying. Maybe one other little quote, I forget what it is,

[I'll remind you:
"This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?"]

........but in this instance not one journalist, and that's what they are, not one journalist has picked up the phone or sent me an e-mail and said, "What do you mean by this? You really think this?" Not one journalist has dared ask me......Not one person -- not one! No conservative journalist has, either. If there are conservatives upset with me, I want to -- no one has gotten hold of me.........That one comment seems to serve the purpose of those who have an agenda -- and there's this new website that the libs have set up out there, and one of the things they have is a couple guys that transcribe this program, and they select certain outtakes or excerpts, and they put them on the website, and it's become a clearinghouse for lib propaganda......So the lib media goes there, sees what's there, then repackages it as "news," and never once have I been asked for, uhhh, detail, context, explanation. No one has asked me anything about it. They just (clap) because they don't want to know any more than that, because that quote is just fine for their agenda-driven purposes. Now, I know this, so why get upset about it? If I may be really honest -- and, of course, I'm always striving to do that and to share with you my feelings -- I have to tell you, folks, and this is the third time I will have said it in this context and say it again, because it's the best way I know to put this in context. Here I am. Who am I? I am a radio talk show host. I am a kid from Missouri who wanted to be on the radio, now -- that's all I've ever wanted to do. I've wanted to be the best at what I am and the best at what I do, true -- but on the radio......Now all of a sudden I have to be discredited in order for the left to win. I have to be discredited for their agenda to gain primacy in this whole story, and so that Skull and Bones quote is everywhere, and it's being asked of everybody: "Do you condemn Limbaugh?" Not one of the people who has been asked to condemn me has bothered to get hold of me. Even somebody who may be upset with me, "What the hell you doing to us? Why are you saying...?" Nobody has even asked me that........So am I upset about it? No, folks. To tell you the truth, I'm honored. If you want to know the truth, I'm not upset about this at all. I am honored. I'm just a kid from Missouri who wanted to be on the radio and all of a sudden what I say has to be discredited, taken out of context...... This is just another sign of effectiveness to me. If they can take one or two sentences of all that I've said and try to discredit an entire movement or -- Whatever you want to call it -- ideology, I'm proud to be the target. Because I know who I am and I know what I believe, and I know what I've said, and for every newspaper or TV show that spends time quoting this little thing I said.......The media didn't make me; the media can't destroy me. Media didn't make me who I am.....So if the media didn't make me, if they're not responsible for building me, they can't tear me down. They can try, and I don't know that that's what they're doing, but nevertheless, don't sweat it. I just felt compelled to answer this because it must have been over the last three or four days a whole bunch of e-mails from people who think I ought to be angry about it, want me to fight back and this sort of thing, and I've also learned over the years that fighting back is not the right way to handle this. Just keep doing what you're doing. Just be who you are. Let that be the fight. If you start responding to these people that's all you're going to end up doing, which is why I was reluctant to even do this. I wanted to do it one more time, get it out of the way get it on the record and let's just see how much of this , this total explanation, including the context of the Skull and Bones comment. Let's see how much of this ever shows up in any of these places which have used that quote as a means to be critical, disparaging, discrediting, whatever.

[Nope, not upset at all!]
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 5:43 AM

 
A POLITICAL SEA CHANGE

Every Administration has a core vulnerability in public credibility and acceptance. For Bush Co. it's Dubya's "don't bother me with details" management style, and his and his cronies' arrogance and unwillingness to admit mistakes. Once again, their hubris is being brought low by their own actions...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_09.php#002945
As I think is already becoming clear, the responsibility for all of this goes right to the very top -- to the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Vice President and many others. The point isn't that the president ordered or knew specifically that soldiers in Iraq were setting attack dogs on to naked prisoners or all the other outrages we're about to hear of. But going back almost three years these men made very conscious and specific decisions to disregard or opt out of the various international conventions, rules and traditions governing the treatment of prisoners of war and enemy combatants that are intended to prevent such things from happening......It may be true that in this one MP Unit things got particularly out of hand. But even the instructions from above they and other unit appear to have been getting from superiors were quite bad enough........In the case of the president, it's hard to know what to think. As Jake Weisberg explains here , the president of the United States is just so cocksure, incurious and lazy that I think it's half possible he's never gotten past the gleaming phrases his advisors have given him to make sense of what's happening on his watch. Nor, I think, can we discount the possibility that the president's advisors and the president himself knew enough of what was probably happening -- how their orders were being executed in practice -- not to want to know the details.


Must-reads

Army Times (ARMY TIMES!): "A failure of leadership at the highest levels"
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2903288.php
Around the halls of the Pentagon, a term of caustic derision has emerged for the enlisted soldiers at the heart of the furor over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal: the six morons who lost the war.......But the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons
.
[the news here: not the term "morons," but that people in the Pentagon are now talking about LOSING THE WAR]


Elsewhere, two new words start appearing: "failure" and "withdrawal"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11263-2004May8.html
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000506429
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/10/withdrawal/index_np.html
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7594


The Washington Post series (pts 2 & 3)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13065-2004May9.html
As Insurgency Grew, So Did Prison Abuse
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15981-2004May10.html
Secret World of U.S. Interrogation

And even more....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15492-2004May10.html
Problems in the U.S.-run detention system in Iraq extended beyond physical mistreatment in prison cellblocks, involving thousands of arrests without evidence of wrongdoing and abuse of suspects starting from the moment of detention, according to former prisoners, Iraqi lawyers, human rights advocates and the International Committee for the Red Cross....U.S.-led forces routinely rounded up Iraqis and then denied or restricted their rights under the Geneva Conventions during months of confinement, including rights to legal representation and family visits, the sources said.


The ICRC Report
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-10-redcross_x.htm
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=507890§ion=news
http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_10_bestof.html#108419474606206026
Full text available here:
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/torture_/2004/05/the_icrc_report.php


Bush, Rumsfeld, clinging to each other: and you can see why

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20040510/pl_nm/iraq_abuse_rumsfeld_dc
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_09.php#002945

The complex Bush/Rumsfeld relationship
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/politics/10LETT.html

Who's in charge?
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2004/05/whos_in_charge_.html


The copious evidence of higher-up involvement in Abu Ghraib

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#002964
Just about everyone on the right seems to be sticking to the storyline that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were just the work of a small handful of out-of-control soldiers. It's a comforting story, but it's just not true
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2004/05/they_opened_the.html


Bush Co. lied to the Supreme Court about prisoner treatment

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/10/113239/665
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7016-2004May6?language=printer


Even Bush supporters start backing off on this one

George Will
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16108-2004May10.html
Are the nation's efforts in the deepening global war -- the world is more menacing than it was a year ago -- helped or hindered by Rumsfeld's continuation as the appointed American most conspicuously identified with the conduct of the war? This is not a simple call. But being experienced, he will know how to make the call. Being honorable, he will so do.

Andrew Sullivan
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_05_09_dish_archive.html#108415840160364769
The one anti-war argument that, in retrospect, I did not take seriously enough was a simple one. It was that this war was noble and defensible but that this administration was simply too incompetent and arrogant to carry it out effectively. I dismissed this as facile Bush-bashing at the time. I was wrong. I sensed the hubris of this administration after the fall of Baghdad, but I didn't sense how they would grotesquely under-man the post-war occupation, bungle the maintenance of security, short-change an absolutely vital mission, dismiss constructive criticism, ignore even their allies (like the Brits), and fail to shift swiftly enough when events span out of control. This was never going to be an easy venture; and we shouldn't expect perfection. There were bound to be revolts and terrorist infractions. The job is immense; and many of us have rallied to the administration's defense in difficult times, aware of the immense difficulties involved. But to have allowed the situation to slide into where we now are, to have a military so poorly managed and under-staffed that what we have seen out of Abu Ghraib was either the result of a) chaos, b) policy or c) some awful combination of the two, is inexcusable. It is a betrayal of all those soldiers who have done amazing work, who are genuine heroes, of all those Iraqis who have risked their lives for our and their future, of ordinary Americans who trusted their president and defense secretary to get this right. To have humiliated the United States by presenting false and misleading intelligence and then to have allowed something like Abu Ghraib to happen - after a year of other, compounded errors - is unforgivable. By refusing to hold anyone accountable, the president has also shown he is not really in control. We are at war; and our war leaders have given the enemy their biggest propaganda coup imaginable, while refusing to acknowledge their own palpable errors and misjudgments. They have, alas, scant credibility left and must be called to account. Shock has now led - and should lead - to anger. And those of us who support the war should, in many ways, be angrier than those who opposed it.

John McCain (who knows something about imprisonment and torture)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/politics/10MCCA.html?ex=1399521600&en=6d09fdcbfb6063ab&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
Asked if Mr. Bush had been correct, the day before, in apologizing for the abuse, Mr. McCain said the apology was late. When should it have come? "Before yesterday. The moment it broke."....."I have seen a lot of people die," Mr. McCain said. "I've seen a lot of terrible things in my life. But to see it done by Americans to human beings is what's so appalling. It's so outrageous, I can't describe it."

A growing unease among conservatives (those who will admit it)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1803&e=1&u=/washpost/20040510/pl_washpost/a13027_2004may9
Conservatives Restive About Bush Policies

And more:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_05_07.shtml#1084205145
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7602
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003883.php


In case you were wondering

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2004/05/07/abuse_gender/index_np.html
How could women do that?


Do we really want to build democracy in Iraq?

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#002961
One big obstacle to implementing this plan is the mindset of the Bush White House. Administration officials would have to accept a reality they never quite acknowledged before the war: that a democratic and truly sovereign Iraq may do things the United States doesn't like.
http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_10_bestof.html#108422808409162889


And here's a name we haven't been hearing recently: where's Condi?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_05_09_atrios_archive.html#108411589966898547
First posted 10/6/2003 10:02 PM
Rice will manage Iraq's 'new phase'
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON - President Bush is giving his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, the authority to manage postwar Iraq and the rebuilding of Afghanistan.....

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7597
Condi's problems didn't start with the 9-11 commission. She's been screwing things up from the start.


Campaign fallout:

Bush's numbers hit new low
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/05/10/presidents_rating_hits_new_low.html
Just 46% of Americans now approve of Bush's job performance

Zogby: election is in Kerry's hands right now
http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/000317.html

Kerry's Seven Commandments (c/o George Stephanopoulos)
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/05/10/signs_for_kerrys_war_room.html



Bush Co. wants us all to be working at Walmart

http://gadflyer.com/articles/index.php?ArticleID=101


Bonus item: on "moral clarity and character"

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/apmethods/apstory?urlfeed=D82EGUVO1.xml
President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, counseled graduates of the Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University on Saturday to ignore the cynics and judge leaders by their character........America, he said, needs people who have "the moral clarity and courage to do what's right, regardless of consequence, fashion or fad."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_09.php#002942
[Tucker] Carlson reports asking Bush whether he met with any persons who came to Texas to protest the execution of the murderer Karla Faye Tucker. Bush said no, adding: "I watched (Larry King's) interview with (Tucker), though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' " Carlson asked, "What was her answer?" and writes: " 'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.' ".......Hughes, who says Bush's decision not to commute Tucker's sentence was "very difficult and very emotional," says Carlson's report is "a total misread" of Bush. Carlson, who describes Bush as "smirking," says: "I took it down as he said it."

- posted by Nick Burbules @ 5:47 AM

 
YOU BROKE IT, YOU OWN IT

A great one-liner about the failed Iraq policy

http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#108408048136029137
NATO to Bush: You Broke it, You Own it
Paul Richter of the LA Times reports that NATO has had second thoughts about coming in to play a role in Iraq this summer. The ongoing insurgency, the overwhelming unpopularity of the American war in Iraq with the European public, and (probably) the breaking prison torture scandal, have all convinced NATO leaders to wait until after the November elections in the US before making a determination about their possible role in Iraq.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-troops9may09,1,5346761.story?coll=la-home-headlines

More on the story of growing opposition internationally to the Bush war policy

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003876.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/international/europe/09euro.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/weekinreview/09roge.html

Another marvelous, though horrifying, one-liner

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2004/05/abu_ghraib_in_a_nutshell.php
They opened the door to a little bit of torture, and a whole lot of torture walked through......

More on the slippery slope of torture

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/torture_/2004/05/steve_teles_spells_out_the_lesson_of_abu_ghraib.php
We choose to foreswear torture in cases where it might be justified in order to control it in the much larger number of cases in which it is not. Once this norm gets loosened, the temptation to use it in order to facilitate intelligence-gathering becomes very strong. And once it becomes used regularly for this purpose, it becomes very easy to start using it for purely sadistic reasons--the torturers start realizing that they enjoy it...... If the pictures from the prison suggest anything, it's that the Americans soldiers seemed to be enjoying themselves.


Must-reads of the day (1): New disclosures and photos, via Sy Hersh

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact2
The Pentagon official told me that many senior generals believe that, along with the civilians in Rumsfeld's office, General Sanchez and General John Abizaid, who is in charge of the Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, had done their best to keep the issue quiet in the first months of the year........Secrecy and wishful thinking, the Pentagon official said, are defining characteristics of Rumsfeld's Pentagon, and shaped its response to the reports from Abu Ghraib. "They always want to delay the release of bad news -- in the hope that something good will break," he said.

Must-reads of the day (2): Fareed Zakaria goes thermonuclear

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4933882/
The basic attitude taken by Rumsfeld, Cheney and their top aides has been "We're at war; all these niceties will have to wait." As a result, we have waged pre-emptive war unilaterally, spurned international cooperation, rejected United Nations participation, humiliated allies, discounted the need for local support in Iraq and incurred massive costs in blood and treasure. If the world is not to be trusted in these dangerous times, key agencies of the American government, like the State Department, are to be trusted even less. Congress is barely informed, even on issues on which its "advise and consent" are constitutionally mandated.......Leave process aside: the results are plain. On almost every issue involving postwar Iraq -- troop strength, international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali Sistani --Washington's assumptions and policies have been wrong. By now most have been reversed, often too late to have much effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the much broader effect of turning the United States into an international outlaw in the eyes of much of the world.......Whether he wins or loses in November, George W. Bush's legacy is now clear: the creation of a poisonous atmosphere of anti-Americanism around the globe. I'm sure he takes full responsibility.


Abu Ghraib: Not an accident or an aberration, but a direct response to policies from the top

http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_09_bestof.html#108411465464175022
April 2003 - The Defense Department approves interrogation techniques for use at the Guantanamo Bay prison that permit making detainees disrobe entirely for questioning, reversing normal sleep patterns and exposing prisoners to heat, cold and "sensory assault," including loud music and bright lights. Policy approved at highest levels........August 2003 - Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, former head of the Guantanomo Bay concentration camp and now the man responsible for fixing things in Iraq, conducts an inquiry on interrogation and detention procedures in Iraq with the goal of producing more intelligence. He recommends that "that the guard force be actively engaged in setting the conditions for successful exploitation of the internees."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.guard09may09,0,2180279.story?coll=bal-home-headlines
The two military intelligence soldiers, assigned interrogation duties at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, were young, relatively new to the Army and had only one day of training on how to pry information from high-value prisoners.......But almost immediately on their arrival in Iraq, say the two members of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, they recognized that what was happening around them was wrong, morally and legally.......They said in interviews Friday and yesterday that the abuses were not caused by a handful of rogue soldiers poorly supervised and lacking morals but resulted from failures that went beyond the low-ranking military police charged with abuse.

Coming up? Even more pain for Bush Co. (hey, I'm enjoying this)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20040509/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_bleak_week
More Bad News May Be on the Way for Bush

Six months from the November elections, Iraq weighs heavily on the president.......April was the deadliest month yet for American soldiers in Iraq and May is off to a bloody start......On the diplomatic front, the administration does not know who will take power in Iraq from the United States in a June 30 handover......Costs are soaring. The administration has sent Congress an unexpected $25 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan.....Day after day, the extraordinary apologies from the president and his top deputies dominated the news.....Pollsters and presidential experts are scratching their heads over how the prisoner scandal will affect Bush's re-election hopes....."There's such a big question mark there, it's unlike anything we've seen before," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center...."The public is very critical of (Bush's) management of Iraq. They don't think he has a clear plan for bringing it to a successful conclusion, but a thin majority of the public has been hanging in with that it was the right decision to go to war," Kohut said. "This could be the event which makes people say 'Oh, we did make a mistake.'"....Political scientist James Thurber of American University likened the Iraq images to the infamous Vietnam pictures of a naked young girl fleeing a napalm attack and a Viet Cong prisoner being executed on a Saigon street.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4934734/
In Recent Months, Some Senior Members of Congress Given Highly Classified Briefings Indicating U.S. Interrogators Not Necessarily 'Going to Stick With The Geneva Convention'

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040517/wmemo.html
A senior Administration official said the relationship between the White House and the Pentagon was "in flames." The President, says a Bush adviser, "is legitimately pissed." ......What happened to the dream team? For more than a year, the all-stars in the Bush war council and their staffs have been engaged in nearly open warfare over Iraq and its aftermath, but officials have always maintained that the occasional hard words and bruises were the natural by-products of serious debate fostered by a CEO President who savors a contest of ideas so he can choose the best. That story line is becoming harder to maintain, and last week seemed to mark the moment when everyone stopped feigning propriety.......Top Bush officials griped about what one called Rumsfeld's "destructive arrogance." Says the adviser: "You have no idea what it's like to deal with the United States of Rumsfeld." Colin Powell's closest aides, like chief of staff Larry Wilkerson, were quoted in GQ magazine, saying that Powell was weary of fighting ideological "utopians" in the Administration and being forced to do "damage control" and "apologizing around the world."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4934736/
Even many stalwart Republicans are appalled by what's happened -- and what may yet come out......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13028-2004May9.html?nav=rss_nation
Chuck Hagel, a former Army sergeant and Purple Heart recipient in Vietnam, said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that "it's still in question whether . . . Rumsfeld and, quite frankly, [Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman] General [Richard B.] Myers can command the respect and the trust and the confidence of the military," because of the continuing prison abuse revelations.....Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) made clear that officials face additional grilling.

Two former JAG's (now Republicans in Congress) speak out

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/9/125039/9330
Lindsey Graham is a conservative Republican, and he can be as partisan as any of them. As a manager of the House's prosecution of Bill Clinton, Graham was one of Clinton's most vigorous opponents......Graham is also a former Judge Advocate General in the Air Force Reserves, and he has both defended and prosecuted soldiers.......This morning on Meet the Press, Lindsey Graham came across as seething mad at the abuses in Abu Gharib and elsewhere. He made it clear that he would not be satisfied with the prosecutions of just a handful of privates and sergeants; he clearly appeared to believe that the interrogation methods used in Iraq, and probably elsewhere, had been ordered from somewhere higher up the chain of command......But most of all, Graham appeared to be struggling to hold in his anger over Dick Cheney's statement that people "ought to get off [Rumsfeld's] case and let him do his job."....... Lindsey Graham is a conservative Republican, but he's shown a predilection for doing his own thinking, regardless what his party leadership wants. He's worth keeping an eye on as this scandal widens.

[Addendum]
Representative Stephen Buyer -- a Republican from the midwestern state of Indiana and a lieutenant-colonel in the army reserve -- told CNN that as a result there was "a complete breakdown in the chain of command" at the Abu Ghraib prison, where US troops are accused of having abused Iraqi prisoners.......Buyer had served as a senior judge advocate in prisoner of war camps during the 1991 Gulf War.......Had he been sent to Iraq, Buyer said, "I assure you I would have had judge advocates (military lawyers) at these camps. I know how important that is. The JAG (judge advocate general) officers are the conscience of the law."


Well, at least they're learning from their mistakes, right? Wrong!

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,634638,00.html
An email to Pentagon staff marked "URGENT IT (Information Technology) BULLETIN: Taguba Report" orders employees not to read or download the Taguba report......It also orders them not to discuss the matter with friends or family members. The emailed memo was leaked to TIME by a senior U.S. civilian official in Baghdad, who did not hide his disdain for the "factotums" in the Pentagon. "I do wonder how incredibly stupid some people in the Pentagon are," he emailed TIME. "Not only are they drawing everyone's attention to the report - and where it can be seen - but attempting to muzzle people never works."


New photos to be released (be careful, Congress - it's a trap!)
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/09/abuse_photos/index_np.html
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/006424.html#006424


On regulatory fronts....

FCC: the pliant media
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/business/media/10FCC.html

SEC: still shilling for corporate relief from regulation
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/006423.html#006423

(repeat appearance)
FDA: ignores advice, blocks "morning after pill"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9684-2004May7.html


Bonus item: Oh brother....not THIS nonsense again

Bush and Kerry - no big difference
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11158-2004May8.html
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 5:50 AM

 
THIS AIN'T GOING AWAY

More on Abu Ghraib.....

Reactions to Rumsfeld testimony

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/08/opinion/08SAT1.html
The hearings also gave Americans a chilling new reminder of the mess the Bush administration, particularly Mr. Rumsfeld, has made of the Iraq occupation. With their perfect sense of certainty that they were right and everyone else wrong, Mr. Rumsfeld and his colleagues never planned adequately for the occupation. They were unprepared to handle the 43,000-plus Iraqi prisoners they ultimately took or the armed insurgents they faced - even though disorder and resistance were widely predicted.....Although the Army's own report said the guards had been told by intelligence officers and their consultants to "soften up" prisoners for interrogation by depriving them of sleep and subjecting them to pain and humiliation, Mr. Rumsfeld said he "cannot conceive" that they thought their actions were condoned or encouraged. When he insisted that the normal rules for handling prisoners were in effect, several senators reminded him that he had said in January 2002 that suspected terrorists were not covered by the Geneva Convention......Mr. Rumsfeld told the senators that his remarks about ignoring the international rules on the treatment of prisoners applied only to people captured in Afghanistan, not Iraq. That was a fine distinction some of the minimally prepared guards at Abu Ghraib may not have grasped, particularly since they were never instructed on the rules of the Geneva Convention. Like most Americans, however, they had heard their commander in chief paint the war in Iraq as an antiterrorism campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9688-2004May7.html
Mr. Rumsfeld's testimony yesterday offered no support for such basic change. He repeatedly defended the procedures created two years ago to extract intelligence from prisoners even though these have led to documented abuses in several overseas prison facilities. At one point he suggested that he was not aware of the decision that laid the foundation for the Abu Ghraib crimes -- a determination that military prison guards should "set the conditions" for intelligence interrogations, in violation of Army regulations -- even though that policy was developed by a major general and previously implemented at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan. Mr. Rumsfeld dodged questions about whether guards had been told by intelligence officers and civilian contractors how to treat prisoners, even though an official investigation has already determined that that is what occurred......Mr. Rumsfeld claimed that guards at Abu Ghraib had been instructed to follow the Geneva Conventions, but the investigation by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba has documented that no such instructions were given.


Can Rumsfeld survive? The whispering campaign begins
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/08/politics/08ASSE.html


Must-read: earlier Bush comments on "war crimes" - meant more than he intended

http://www.xoverboard.com/blogarchive/week_2004_05_02.html#000653
(a sample)
I expect them to be treated, the POWs, I expect to be treated humanely, just like we're treating the prisoners that we have captured humanely. If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals.


What happened at Abu Ghraib: A major Washington Post three-part series

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11413-2004May8.html?nav=rss_nation


Republican Congressman: Defense Dept prevented me from visiting Abu Ghraib

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/08/iraq.abuse.main/index.html
http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1847508&nav=0Ra7MurM
"It highlights a complete failure of the chain of command within the 800th MP brigade for abuses like this to occur," said Rep. Buyer (R-Fourth District)......."The military intelligence companies have an intelligence gathering responsibility and when they turn to the MP's they wanted them to prepare, soften up these prisoners for interrogation. The methods they used are depraved.......Buyer said he was surprised to learn that lawyers were not present at the joint interrogation facility.......their role is to make sure the rules are followed....."I was at the joint interrogation facility. I conducted interrogations myself on war crimes and when the lawyer is present everybody has to abide by the rules........some JAG officers should have been there on the ground," said Buyer.

[So: why weren't they?]

An Iraqi prison diary
http://billmon.org/archives/001442.html
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_atrios_archive.html#108402373691635221


The New Guy in Charge (oh, NOW I am reassured)
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/006415.html


What "taking responsibility" means to these people:

http://bottleofblog.typepad.com/bottleofblog/2004/05/republicans_red.html
That's terrific! Finally, a Republican actually taking responsibility for something on his watch. Well, what does that entail? How does someone take responsibility for such a total disaster which has blackened the name of the United States before the world for probably the rest of our lives? Firing? Resignation? .......for Republicans, who insisted that nothing short of forcible removal from office would suffice to restore the honor and dignity of the White House after something as mindblowingly shocking and depraved as a fifty year old man having an affair with a younger woman--which, as we all know, has never happened in Washington, D.C. ever before Clinton--for these same Republicans believe that merely saying "I take responsibility" is more than enough to atone for having soldiers and intelligence officials under your watch torture prisoners to death.....If there are no consequences, what exactly does taking responsibility mean? .....Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, resigned after 18 Americans were killed in Somalia while conducting a mission that George H.W. Bush had conceived. It's truly amazing what Republicans consider "taking responsibility" when it comes to themselves.

Rove on moral clarity

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/apmethods/apstory?urlfeed=D82EGUVO1.xml
President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, counseled graduates of the Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University on Saturday to ignore the cynics and judge leaders by their character........America, he said, needs people who have "the moral clarity and courage to do what's right, regardless of consequence, fashion or fad."

And this (sometimes people inadvertently reveal SO MUCH about themselves)

"As long as I can remember, I've always loved politics," Rove said. "At the age of 9 I put a Nixon bumper sticker on the wire basket in the front of my bicycle. Unfortunately the little Catholic girl down the street was a couple years and about 20 pounds on me. She was for Kennedy........"When she saw me on my bike with my bumper sticker for Nixon, she put me on the ground, flattened me out and gave me a bloody nose," he said......."Despite that beating I never lost interest in politics."


The Best....?

http://www.electablog.com/2004/05/best-of-show.html
President Bush regularly informs campaign crowds that Dick Cheney is the best vice president the nation has ever had......From Cheney (through a spokesperson): "Don Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defense the United States has ever had"

And the Brightest?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100064/
The question I am most frequently asked about Bushisms is, "Do you really think the president of the United States is dumb?" The short answer is.......


How Abu Ghraib affects the fall election (think about it)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_atrios_archive.html#108401998888290103
Whether Republicans like it or not, if George Bush is elected in the fall, the entire world will view the election as American approval of the torture and sexual humiliation of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison. It might not be fair, it might not be reasonable, but it is nevertheless reality. Apologies, prosecutions, firings and courts martial will not be enough to expunge the stain this scandal has placed on the honor of the United States. The pictures are simply too graphic. The abuses are simply too horrible. If George Bush is elected President, the entire world will view the election, at a minimum, as tacit approval of these events......... This election is now much larger than the office. The United State's place in the family of nations is now on the ballot. This election will determine whether the United States will ever again have any standing or moral authority in the rest of the world. The United States cannot simultaneously stand against depraved sexual torture and the wanton abuse of human rights, while electing the commander in chief upon whose watch these events occurred. The seven hundred thousand or so viewers of Fox News may be able to rationalize such cognitive dissonance; the six billion people who make up the remainder of the world will not.


Beyond Abu Ghraib: a growing disaster in Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11227-2004May8.html?nav=rss_nation
Deep divisions are emerging at the top of the U.S. military over the course of the occupation of Iraq, with some senior officers beginning to say that the United States faces the prospect of casualties for years without achieving its goal of establishing a free and democratic Iraq........Their major worry is that the United States is prevailing militarily but failing to win the support of the Iraqi people. That view is far from universal, but it is spreading, and being voiced publicly for the first time.


What a surprise (part one): US still trying to control the shape of post-transition "autonomy"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/international/middleeast/09DIPL.html

What a surprise (part two): Bush FDA policy blocks "morning after pill" despite internal and external recommendations

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9684-2004May7.html


Bonus items: More on Bush family/Bin Laden family ties

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmoney.htm
http://www.thedubyareport.com/family.html

- posted by Nick Burbules @ 5:54 AM

 
A RUMMY DEAL

Back from a mostly Internet-free hiatus: and what do I find?

Abu Ghraib: Will go down with My Lai, Andersonville, etc. as one of the most shameful events in US military history

How did it happen?

1. Rationalizing the selective application of Geneva Convention protections.
2. Refusing to acknowledge real troop needs, hence relying on increased use of private, unaccountable contractors, including putting them effectively in charge of interrogations.
3. Increasing use of reservists and undertrained part-timers, including reassignments outside of areas of training and expertise.
4. Breaking down the barriers between MP functions (supposedly guaranteeing safe and secure internment conditions) and interrogation functions ("softening them up").
5. A fundamental racism and attitude of moral superiority toward Muslims.

(All of which, of course, can be directly traced to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld statements and policies).


http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_08_bestof.html#108398959149321148
If there is anything positive that can come out of the Iraqi prisoner abuse debacle, it may be that it forces us, finally, to have a long overdue national debate about whether the Bush administration's choice of blunt force as the primary instrument for fighting the "war on terror" is appropriate or even the most effective way to combat the threat of amorphous, stateless enemies like al Qaeda that operate in the shadows, often with the complicity of countries that are nominally our allies, such as Pakistan and Saudia Arabia.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1211374,00.html
Many of the prisoners abused at the Abu Ghraib prison were innocent Iraqis picked up at random by US troops, and incarcerated by under-qualified intelligence officers, a former US interrogator from the notorious jail told the Guardian.....Torin Nelson, who served as a military intelligence officer at Guantánamo Bay before moving to Abu Ghraib as a private contractor last year, blamed the abuses on a failure of command in US military intelligence and an over-reliance on private firms. He alleged that those companies were so anxious to meet the demand for their services that they sent "cooks and truck drivers" to work as interrogators.

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2004/05/things_i_didnt_know_about_abu_ghraib_until_today.php
Things I didn't know about Abu Ghraib until today.....

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_02.php#002937
"The experts also point out that the man who directed the reopening of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last year and trained the guards there resigned under pressure as director of the Utah Department of Corrections in 1997 after an inmate died while shackled to a restraining chair for 16 hours. The inmate, who suffered from schizophrenia, was kept naked the whole time. The Utah official, Lane McCotter, later became an executive of a private prison company, one of whose jails was under investigation by the Justice Department when he was sent to Iraq as part of a team of prison officials, judges, prosecutors and police chiefs picked by Attorney General John Ashcroft to rebuild the country's criminal justice system."
More: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/006407.html

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000794.html
Words Fail....


The key dispute: punishing "those directly responsible" or those who knew, condoned, or should have known...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/07/iraq.abuse.karpinski.ap/index.html
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was suspended pending an investigation into the abuse, said in Friday's Star-Ledger that she has been unfairly blamed by the Army's investigation........"I was sick to my stomach when I saw pictures of what those soldiers were doing in that prison," Karpinski said. "But I was also sick when I first saw that report. I thought: Why are they doing this to me?"

http://bestoftheblogs.com/2004_05_07_bestof.html#108397579505087687
Rumsfeld, Myers, Karpinski, et al., are all trying to spin this story as the isolated, unauthorized acts of a few sick individuals. However, it's pretty clear that, as one early example, the FBI and (other) Justice officials were just itching to use torture on captives since shortly after 9-11 -- whether here in this country, or abroad. And their " Amen corner " of wingnut pundits were backing them up all the way.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_atrios_archive.html#108396206983715749
How did the "permissive environment" that encouraged rampant criminality and cruelty arise at Abu Ghraib? According to the JAG senior officers who spoke with Horton, Pentagon civilian officials removed safeguards that were designed to prevent such abuses. At a detention facility like Abu Ghraib, those safeguards would include the routine observation of interrogations from behind a two-way mirror by a JAG officer, who would be empowered to stop any misconduct.....The JAG officers told Horton that those protective policies were discontinued in Iraq and Afghanistan. They said that interrogations were routinely conducted without JAG oversight -- and, worse, that private contractors were being allowed unprecedented participation in the interrogation process.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9130-2004May7.html?nav=rss_nation
Spec. Sabrina D. Harman, a military police officer who has been charged with abusing detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, said she was assigned to break down prisoners for interrogation....."They would bring in one to several prisoners at a time already hooded and cuffed," Harman said by e-mail this week from Baghdad. "The job of the MP was to keep them awake, make it hell so they would talk.".....Harman, a 26-year-old Army reservist from Alexandria, said members of her military police unit took direction from Army military intelligence officers, from CIA operatives and from civilian contractors who conducted interrogations.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003869.php
The most remarkable part of Brooks' performance, though, was his insistence that this was all the work of a few rogue privates and corporals - or maybe just a bit higher. But that's it. Nothing systemic..... Shields swatted this delusion away with the contempt it deserved, noting that the stuff we saw in the pictures was obviously carefully designed to inflict the greatest possible humiliation on the prisoners. It wasn't the kind of thing a bunch of noncoms dreamed up on their own, it was part of a carefully designed effort to soften up the prisoners and get information from them. The plan was put together by Army officers and intelligence officials and was pretty clearly encouraged and condoned by their superiors.....How high does it go? And how explicit was the policy? I don't know, but based on what we've seen so far I'd guess (a) pretty high and (b) pretty explicit. The only question is whether the investigation itself will go that high, or content itself with a few low ranking scapegoats.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0505/p01s01-usmi.html
"Psychological testing shows there are certain kinds of people, given a chance where they have total control over someone, will abuse them in some way," says Hulnick. "It's also clear that this stuff was very sophomoric and done probably to humiliate the people over whom the guards had control because they were the enemy, the bad guys, the 'rag heads.' "......Other military intelligence experts express doubt that such humiliation could have been ordered in an effort to gain information, arguing that most interrogators know it is counterproductive. "Was MI [military intelligence] making the reservists do this? I don't think so. I think we've got six rotten soldiers," says Zhi Hamby, director of administration for the National Military Intelligence Association, a nonprofit group in Gaithersburg, Md.

And this....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1212197,00.html
The sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison was not an invention of maverick guards, but part of a system of ill-treatment and degradation used by special forces soldiers that is now being disseminated among ordinary troops and contractors who do not know what they are doing......The techniques devised in the system, called R2I - resistance to interrogation - match the crude exploitation and abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad.


A failure to come clean: even after the hearings, we're still asking "What did Bush and Rummy know and when did they know it? -- and if they DIDN'T know, why not?"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003863.php
Apparently everyone's been trying to warn Bush and Rumsfeld about possible abuse of prisoners in Iraq for months now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6990-2004May6.html
If Rumsfeld really thinks "the system worked" and if Myers really just sat by as the chain of command operated in its desultory way, neither is suited to lead the brave people defending our country........But dumping Rumsfeld and Myers is not enough. Ultimately the buck stops with President Bush. No, I don't think for an instant that Bush knew anything about this. That's the problem.


The Taguba Report: complete text

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

The Red Cross report: will we ever see it?
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/07/red_cross_abuse/index_np.html

Rumsfeld's Senate testimony: the transcript
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8575-2004May7?language=printer


The photos:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_atrios_archive.html#108396441630653568
An alert reader points out that if you listen to the hearings starting at 4:43 today (Tivo magic), when Gene Taylor is asking about Rummy and the photos, you can clearly hear Rumsfeld's legal counsel (or someone next to him?) say "He thinks you saw the photographs. " I'm pretty sure the next sentence is "Don't tell him you saw them," though that's less clear coming out of my TV anyway.

From Rumsfeld's testimony:

The photographic depictions of the U.S. military personnel that the public has seen have offended and outraged everyone in the Department of Defense. If you could have seen the anguished expressions on the faces of those in our department upon seeing those photos, you would know how we feel today. 

[But from the rest of the testimony, it's less clear whether the "anguish" was over what the photos depicted -- since these abuses were described in detail already in the Taguba report -- than in the fact that they had been made public.]

From Gen Myers' testimony:

When I spoke to Dan Rather, with whom I already had a professional association, concerning the "60 Minutes" story, I did so after talking to General Abizaid.......Since the story of the photographs was already public, I felt we were on good ground on asking him to hold off airing the actual photos. As we are now seeing, the photos are having a very real, very emotional worldwide impact.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/
Rumsfeld warned the committee that the worst was yet to come. He said he had looked at the full array of unedited photographs of the situation at Abu Ghraib for the first time Thursday night and found them "hard to believe."....."There are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he said. "... It's going to get a good deal more terrible, I'm afraid.".....Rumsfeld did not describe the photos, but U.S. military officials told NBC News that the unreleased images showed U.S. soldiers severely beating an Iraqi prisoner nearly to death, having sex with a female Iraqi female prisoner and "acting inappropriately with a dead body." The officials said there was also a videotape, apparently shot by U.S. personnel, showing Iraqi guards raping young boys.

[So, here's one question no one asked: what, if anything, are Rumsfeld and Myers doing now to prevent further photos and videos from being released?]


And from the right-wing apologists.....

O'Beirne (it's all because of liberal Democrats)
http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/kob200405070831.asp

Chavez (it's all because of women in the military)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/lc20040505.shtml

Decter (it's all because "war is hell")
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-decter7may07,1,3478374.story?coll=la-news-comment

And best of all, Rush:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405050003
CALLER: It was like a college fraternity prank that stacked up naked men --

LIMBAUGH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405070002
All right, so we're at war with these people. And they're in a prison where they're being softened up for interrogation. And we hear that the most humiliating thing you can do is make one Arab male disrobe in front of another. Sounds to me like it's pretty thoughtful. Sounds to me in the context of war this is pretty good intimidation -- and especially if you put a woman in front of them and then spread those pictures around the Arab world. And we're sitting here, "Oh my God, they're gonna hate us! Oh no! What are they gonna think of us?" I think maybe the other perspective needs to be at least considered. Maybe they're gonna think we are serious. Maybe they're gonna think we mean it this time. Maybe they're gonna think we're not gonna kowtow to them. Maybe the people who ordered this are pretty smart. Maybe the people who executed this pulled off a brilliant maneuver. Nobody got hurt. Nobody got physically injured. But boy there was a lot of humiliation of people who are trying to kill us -- in ways they hold dear. Sounds pretty effective to me if you look at us in the right context.



Other Iraq-related stories

Undermining Brahimi
http://www.tompaine.com/blog.cfm?startRow=1&blogrow=1#blog10313

The new $25 billion funding extension - even Powell didn't know about it!
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_02.php#002925


Bonus item: the Medicare lies (remember this story? How are we supposed to keep all these scandals straight?)
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/05/index.html#002933
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 5:57 AM