Torture is Not Only Immoral, It Doesn't Work

Some bloggers from the other end of the spectrum have some common sense. Tom Maguire at JustOneMinute offers some outstanding links from last June. From the NY Times:

• the experts think that the threat of physical coercion is a useful interrogation tactic but they offer few examples of torture itself providing actionable inteligence.


• The US is new to this, and not very good:



Israeli security specialists are amazed by the multiplicity of commands engaged in the American interrogation scramble, by the short tours of duty and high turnover of interrogators, by the reliance on interpreters and outsourcing to contractors and foreign governments. ''Unprofessional'' is the mildest word they use.

Now I'm pretty sure Israelis are known to torture during interrogations. This would suggest Israelis did not serve as the model in use at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the secret CIA prisons.
THE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH

Michael Ignatieff writes in the New Republic:

Thinking that torture will help us in a war against terror also falsifies what our problem is. We think that our problem is information, and so we need torture to get the truth. In reality, before September 11 there was plenty of information in the possession of the American authorities (noise, but no signal). No, our problem is not a problem of knowledge. It is a problem of belief. It is not what terrorists know that makes them dangerous; it is what they believe. And beliefs cannot be changed by physical duress. Indeed, they may be reinforced. Those who survive torture become living monuments to the brutality that has been inflicted upon them. If they die under torture, they become martyrs to their cause.


Any counter-terror campaign is a battle to persuade as well as to dissuade. Terrorists do need to know that what they believe about us is false. They believe that we are weak and will not fight; and so we should prove them wrong. They believe that we are hypocrites; and so they need to know that we actually believe in the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. They need to know all this if we are to win. Winning is about not losing our nerve, about not losing control in the face of provocation. The military logic of terror is to provoke us into reciprocal atrocity that will lose us the war for legitimacy and the war for opinion.

This has always been a war for the hearts and minds of the Muslim people. A world wide Jihad can't survive long without worldwide support. We have created a new generation of highly competent terrorists who will travel the world looking for targets after the Iraqi war. From looking at the polls from the Muslim world, it appears they'll have more support than Al Qaeda had by far.
Why is this a no brainer for most people I know, yet such a reach for those at the far end of the political spectrum. All you have to do is read the news daily to get a little paranoid. All political bloggers are at risk for that malady. Is it that those on the far fringes are convinced the only way to communicate is from a position of strength using overwhelming force. While I happen to agree with the Powell Doctrine for military war, I would agree with the following quote about the public diplomacy in war time. Unfortunately, the Bush Adminstration had a "better" idea. Pere Djerejian, the Director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, yesterday wrote a guest post at his son's blog THE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH.

One of the most important challenges that the United States and international community face is the struggle for ideas within the Islamic world between the forces of moderation and extremism, particularly Islamic Radical Jihadism. While our foreign policy is the major instrument to address this challenge, public diplomacy plays a very important role in this struggle for ideas. However, the United States today lacks the capabilities in public diplomacy to meet the national security threat emanating from political instability, economic deprivation, and extremism, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. Public diplomacy is defined as the promotion of the national interest by listening, understanding, and then informing, engaging, and influencing people around the world.

Chalabi Bringing Tidings from Iran?

AP

The United States and Europe are ready to compromise with Iran over its nuclear program and have tentatively approved a plan that would allow it to make the precursor of enriched uranium, senior officials said Thursday. The officials said the plan would allow Iran to convert raw uranium into the gas that is spun by centrifuges into enriched uranium. But the actual enrichment would take place in Russia, the officials told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to reveal the strategy.

I have to wonder if the timing of this announcement is a coincidence. Yesterday Chalabi, the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, former Iranian spy, met with Condi Rice.

WHY IS FRANCE BURNING?

DIRELAND

As someone who lived in France for nearly a decade, and who has visited those suburban ghettos, where the violence started, on reporting trips any number of times, French_riots I have not been surprised by this tsunami of inchoate youth rebellion that is engulfing France. It is the result of thirty years of government neglect: of the failure of the French political classes -- of both right and left -- to make any serious effort to integrate its Muslim and black populations into the larger French economy and culture; and of the deep-seated, searing, soul-destroying racism that the unemployed and profoundly alienated young of the ghettos face every day of their lives, both from the police, and when trying to find a job or decent housing.

Ireland gives a comprehensive history of immigration in France and asserts that the rioters are French in nationality, largely 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants from Northern Africa. Since there were born in France, they are French citizens.

Hope For Phase II Investigation of Pre-War Intelligence?

Reid's bold move that shutdown the Senate to get the stalled investigation of pre-war intelligence going again has taken a new spin. Trent Lott poo poo'd Frist's call for an investigation of the leak about secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe by suggesting the leak was probably a Republican Senator. He seems to be positioning himself to grab at at least some of his lost power in Senate leadership by helping to organize the Republican moderates.
Emptywheel at The Next Hurrah thinks there is a chance of some limited good coming from the Phase II Senate Intelligence Committee hearings. And the main , er, protagonist is Trent Lott?

It turns out Lott is probably the most critical vote on what Dana Milbank has termed the "Sissy Six," the group of three Republican and three Democratic senators planning out Phase II of the investigation into pre-war intelligence on Iraq.


The six are (from the good guys) Carl Levin, DiFi, and Rockefeller, and (from the bad guys) Roberts, Bond, and Lott. Levin and DiFi will definitely represent our side well and Rockefeller, in spite of his occasionally wishy-washiness, will presumably follow Levin's lead (even though Rockefeller is the ranking member on the committee). Roberts and Bond were two of the three Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee (with Orrin Hatch) who proved most willing to spin the first phase of the investigation Cheney's Bush's way; Roberts, Bond, and Hatch were the ones to sign the hatchet job conclusion on Wilson. Which leaves Lott as the one person who might be able to break a stalemate among the six.


[...]Now I don't really hold out hope that Lott will break from his party here for ideological reasons. Phase II has nothing to do with torture and a full revelation of the politicization of intelligence would do terrible things for the Republican party.


But this is just the kind of opportunity to create an independent Republican faction that Lott has reveled in of late (even going back as far as the nuclear compromise, which Lott tried unsuccessfully to broker). If Lott can find a way to use Phase II to strike at those he's been fighting against (Rove, Frist, the Bush Administration) without revealing the full details of the Administration's lies, he just might do so.


Otherwise, we might have to shut down the Senate again.

One can only hope the moderate Republicans could rally around Lott and McCain for a run on 2008. The infighting from the American Taliban might just keep the Republican Party off balence.

Bush Coming Apart At the Seams?

One has to wonder what has been happening at the White House lately. Performance has been waning since Bush's popularity has waned. A New York Times editorial is outright insulting of his performance in his visit to Latin America.

After President Bush's disastrous visit to Latin America, it's unnerving to realize that his presidency still has more than three years to run. An administration with no agenda and no competence would be hard enough to live with on the domestic front. But the rest of the world simply can't afford an American government this bad for that long.


In Argentina, Mr. Bush, who prides himself on his ability to relate to world leaders face to face, could barely summon the energy to chat with the 33 other leaders there, almost all of whom would be considered friendly to the United States under normal circumstances. He and his delegation failed to get even a minimally face-saving outcome at the collapsed trade talks and allowed a loudmouthed opportunist like the president of Venezuela to steal the show.

The brains of his Presidency has been under fire by the Libby indictment. King of Zembla observes that Cheney is now on a shorter leash:

Multiple sources close to Bush told the Daily News that while the vice president remains his boss' valued political partner and counselor, his clout has lessened - primarily as a result of issues arising from the Iraq war."The relationship is not what it was," a presidential counselor said. "There has been some distance for some time" . . . .


[...]"The vice president's office will never be quite as independent from the White House as it has been," said a key Bush associate. "That will end. "Cheney never operated without a degree of [presidential] license, but there are people around who cannot believe some of the advice [Bush] has been given."

But most disturbing is reports from leaks within the White House, like these from Capitol Hill Blue.

An uncivil war rages inside the walls of the West Wing of the White House, a bitter, acrimonious war driven by a failed agenda, destroyed credibility, dwindling public support and a President who lapses into Alzheimer-like periods of incoherent babbling. On one side are the dwindling numbers of die-hard loyalists to President George W. Bush, those who support his actions and decisions without question and remain committed to both Bush and scandal-scarred political advisor Karl Rove. On the other side are the increasing numbers of those who say Rove must go and who worry about the President's declining mental state and his ability to restore credibility with Congress, our foreign allies and the American people.


The war erupted into full-blown shout fests at Camp David this past weekend where decorum broke down in staff meetings and longtime aides threatened to quit unless Rove goes. Insiders say Chief of Staff Andrew Card now leads the anti-Rove legions and has told Bush that he wants out of the high-pressure job. White House staff members say the White House is “like a wartime bunker” where shell-shocked aides hide from those who disagree with their actions and office pools speculate on how long certain senior aides will last. Bush, whose obscenity-laced temper tantrums increase with each new setback and scandal, abruptly ended one Camp David meeting by telling everyone in the room to “go fuck yourselves” before he stalked out of the room. Senior aides describe Bush as increasingly “edgy” or “nervous” or “unfocused.” They say the President goes from apparent coherent thought one moment to aimless rambles about political enemies and those who are “out to get me.


[...]Bush’s mental state is a hot topic on Internet blogs and has increased since this web site disclosed last year that the White House physician had placed the President on anti-depressant medication – a story the administration never denied. Others, including prominent psychiatrists like Dr. Justin Frank of George Washington University, wonder if Bush, an admitted heavy drinker who claims he quit without any professional help, is hitting the bottle again.


[...]“The President has lost his focus, his ability to govern and the trust of the American people,” says one longtime GOP operative. “Those are things that are difficult to recapture when you’re on top of your game and this President has taken one too many blows to the head.”

This nation can't afford three years of a dysfunctional President. Cheney's popularity is even worse. Next in line Hassert is alleged to have take bribes from Armenians. Rice seems to be the only one left with her head about her and any level of competence.

Looking for the High Road on a Muddy Slope

washingtonpost.com

"If accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences, and will imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) wrote in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Looking embarassed by the indictment of Libby, GOP leaders try to deflect attention from the obvious violation of American values saying the people had no right to know. It would seem to me the voters have already sent them a message across the country yesterday. But the GOP isn't listening. They're too busy scrambling to find the high road on a muddy slope.

Chalabi, the Iranian Spy: The New Star of Iraqi Government?

Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi has been up and coming in Iraq and making global splashes. Since the Iraqi invasion, Chalabi was pardoned by Jordan's King Abdullah II after being "indicted in Jordan in 1992 for embezzling over $200 million from his Petra Bank in the 1980s in that country. Later, Chalabi was investigated by the US military for allegedly passing sensitive information from the US to Iran." Clearly, Chalabi was an Iranian spy who had managed to imbed himself in the Neocon's effort to invade Iraq.

Tomorrow Chalabi is meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and then with Treasury Secretary John W. Snow in coming days. Ahmed Chalabi met with senior Iranian leaders on Saturday after which in commenting to reporters, he appeared to distance himself from their Islamist government. In a later quote from an Iranian leader, we see that this was just subterfuge. Meanwhile Laura Rozen at War and Piece: speculates that Chalabi might be "a useful back channel" diplomatic conduit to Iran at a time when Iran is calling for a renewal of nuclear proliferation talks with the EU. The Next Hurrah has it that Condi and Hadley are talking "about Chalabi as a 'plausible' candidate for prime minister."

In the last few hours, Chalabi has made several other headlines in countries bordering Iraq. Monday, he told Iranian media that the MEK, Saddam's Iranian insurgency effort, and darling of the Neocons efforts to destabilize Iran, and technically still on the US list of terrorist organizations, should be expelled from his country. He stated that their protection by the US military was under "murky circumstances." Chalabi told Turkish reporters, in open gesture of support for Turkey's fight against Kurdish PKK, "that Iraqi constitution should guarantee that Iraq shouldn't be a transit point or base for those wishing to destabilize neighbors." This statement was made as Chalabi ended his three-day visit to Tehran and announced that Iran had agreed to consider his proposal for a multi-lateral inquiry -- with British, Iranian, and Iraqi representatives -- into the recent controversy in Basra.

Meanwhile Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat Jay Rockefeller proposed to examine how information provided by Iraqi defectors and exiles, including Ahmed Chalabi, were incorporated into intelligence analyses that led to the Iraqi War. House Republicans, not to out done by their foes in the Senate, invited Chalabi to meet with the House Judiciary Committee "to discuss his role in manipulating the intelligence that led to war with Iraq."

Is this all a political effort of those with interests in Iraq to settle on a favored candidate for Prime Minister for the December 15th Iraqi elections? Perhaps so. But I believe one thing, Chalabi is loyal only to himself. He is not to be trusted.

Emptywheel at The Next Hurrah speculates about what Condi may be up to:

This was a war we thought we were fighting against Saddam (or rather, against a fairly weak enemy we could beat easily--it barely mattered that it was Saddam except insofar as we could invent a reason to go get him). But our primary opponent is not Saddam at this point, it's Iran. (There's a fair amount of evidence to suggest Iran knew it was a war against Iran from the start.)


And while discussions of getting out now or later ARE really important to discussions of civil war in Iraq, what they prevent us from discussing is whether continuing to wage a war we've barely started against Iran is worth it ... and whether we can win it. One of the main reasons we've let things go from bad to worse in Iraq is because the most logical way to bring about stability--vest power in the Shiites--basically means ceding to Iran, or at least vastly increased Shiite influence in the ME. But both primary solutions being discussed--staying with status quo, or leaving gradually--still seem to leave the Shiites in control, and Iran in a significantly strengthened position. That is, neither of the solutions get us what we (BushCo) want--a weaker Iran.


In other words, the problem with all discussions about whether we remain in or pull out of Iraq is that they leave the most important issue unresolved: what are we going to do about consolidated Iranian power in the Middle East? Pulling out and staying both leave Iran much stronger than it was before we started this adventure. And much as the Bush Administration may want to go to war to reverse that condition militarily, only complete idiots believe they could achieve their objectives ... and certainly not without dragging in many more countries and creating all kinds of lethal havoc.


Condi appears to be the person pushing for peaceful solutions to what is deemed to be a Syria problem. Perhaps her belief that Chalabi would make a "plausible and acceptable" prime minister is more of the same, an attempt to stave off Cheney's and Rummy's bellicose tendencies while still placing some check on Iranian power. But to believe it would work, you'd have to believe that a prime minister Chalabi could maintain more independence from Tehran than Jaafari has. You'd have to believe Chalabi's previous willingness to spy for Iran is all in the past, like a long forgotten football career. Me, I don't believe that.


In fact, this, like all of Chalabi's crappy pre-war intelligence, is a case where we know the Bush Administration's hopes to be misguided. Because Iran's leaders are pretty clear, Chalabi would have no more independence than Jaafari. From the NYT:

Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran's national security council and one of the senior officials who met with Mr. Chalabi, said Iranian leaders held him in high regard. "He is a very wise man and a very useful person for the future of Iraq," Mr. Larijani said.


For their part, Iranian leaders said that they were indeed a primary force in internal Iraqi politics, and that would continue to be.


Last January, after the Shiite coalition's selection of Ibrahim al-Jafaari as its choice to be prime minister, rumors swirled about Baghdad that the Iranians had intervened strongly on his behalf. At the time, Mr. Chalabi was one of a number of Iraqi leaders being considered for the top job.


Asked about this, Mr. Larijani said that the Iranians had indeed intervened strongly with Iraq's Shiite leaders, but that they had not sided with a particular candidate. "We helped them to come to a unity among themselves," he said.


"America should consider this power as legitimate," Mr. Larijani said of his country's role in Iraqi affairs. "They should not fight it."

Larijani (notably, the person issuing calls for renewed talks on Iran's nuclear program) as much as admits Iran chose who would be prime minister last time, and they intend to do so again. They were a primary force in Iraqi politics and they intend to continue to be.


Are you still comfortable that prime minister Chalabi would be any better than Jaafari, Condi? It may not matter. Because not only does Iran intend to continue acting as power broker in Iraqi politics, they're moving forward on plans to bind the infrastructure of Iran and Iraq more closely. From the Beeb:

During their talks, President Ahmadinejad also told Mr Chalabi that Iran was willing to offer its experience and expertise to rebuild Iraq. He called for the acceleration of work on setting up an oil pipeline between Iran's city of Abadan and the Iraqi city of Basra.

The US-led reconstruction has failed miserably (in part because of Chalabi's own corruption of the process). But lucky for the Iraqis, there is another country willing to take on the project, willing to step into the vacuum the US has left with its failed attempt to rule Iraq as a colony.


In their unwillingness to face the "catastrophic success" of their Iraq policies, Bush administration officials may be latching onto a Chalabi administration as a way to cut their losses, foster a more moderate Iran, and establish security in Iran. Once again, they're unwilling to see the obvious signs that an alliance with Chalabi won't help them accomplish their goals.

While I don't agree with Emptywheel that the Bush Administration simply "let" the conditions in Iraq deteriorate into an Iranian victory, he identifies the chronic pattern within the Bush Administration. It's wide open to influence by foreign agents (such as Israeli, Iraqi, and Iranian), and tends to follow the course it wants very badly to believe is true. Chalabi must be a very slick player. He may well be one of the men made by the Iraqi war. And we see again, more plainly than before, Iran promoted and won the Iraqi war.

IRS Cracking Down On Politically Active Churches?

Interesting questions posed by Seeing the Forest citing an LA Times article. But he may be asserting an opinion prematurely.
IRS Cracking Down On War Opponents

The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.


. . . In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991's Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said that "good people of profound faith" could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.


But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster."


[. . .] "We are so careful at our church never to endorse a candidate," Bacon said in a later interview. "One of the strongest sermons I've ever given was against President Clinton's fraying of the social safety net."

How many "conservative" churches that DO tell parishioners how to vote have received similar letters? Has the Heritage Foundation, also a "501c3" charity, received a similar letter? Jerry Falwell? James Dobson? Of course not.

I'm not sure I'd jump to that conclusion yet. I have to wonder if the IRS wasn't indeed looking into similar letters of inquiry going to the above mentioned agencies. The IRS is well known for its excessive albeit even handed enforcement. I think I'll reserve judgment until the facts come out.

French Riots Reminiscent of 1968 Race Riots in US

Riots have spread and worsened across France. Rightwing extremists in this country have characterized this tragedy unfolding as the "French Intifada" led by what the blog chicagoboyz.net calls "the very large, unassimilated, unemployed and unemployable, welfare-supported Muslim minority."
This is a dangerous and prejudiced point of view that plays into the hands of bin Ladin by helping to create the conditions for the violent backlash and systematic repression of an entire minority in France and elsewhere in Europe and the United States. The resulting anger, isolation and disenfranchisement of Muslims living in the west, will create a recruiting ground from Jihadis in our midst.
As we see below, it also gives the false impression of these riots are an organized religionly driven insurrection that must be suppressed. While it may well be true that there are Jihadis trying to exploit the situation by inciting more violence, it worsens the situation by calling all participants Jihadi. As soon as our perceptions cross over to a religious war, we face the real risk of pogroms and ethnic cleansing. That could create the real prospect of a religious war.
New York Times

Young people in the poor neighborhoods incubating the violence have consistently complained that police harassment is mainly to blame. "If you're treated like a dog, you react like a dog," said Mr. Diallo of Clichy-sous-Bois, whose parents came to France from Mali decades ago.


The youths have singled out the French interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, complaining about his zero-tolerance anticrime drive and dismissive talk. (He famously called troublemakers in the poor neighborhoods dregs, using a French slur that offended many people.)
But Mr. Sarkozy has not wavered, and after suffering initial isolation within the government, with at least one minister openly criticizing him, the government has closed ranks around him. Mr. Chirac, who is under political and popular pressure to stop the violence, said Sunday that those responsible would face arrest and trial, echoing earlier vows by Mr. Sarkozy. More than 500 people have been arrested, some as young as 13.


The government response is as much a test between Mr. Sarkozy and Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, both of whom want to succeed Mr. Chirac as president, as it is a test between the government and disaffected youths.


Mr. Villepin, a former foreign minister, has focused on a more diplomatic approach, consulting widely with community leaders and young second-generation immigrants to come up with a promised "action plan" that he said would address frustrations in the underprivileged neighborhoods. He has released no details of the plan.

White Phosphorus and MK 77 Used in Fallujah?

Thanks to The Cat's Blog for the link. According to RAI NEWS 24, the US has used white phosphorus and a napalm like substance called MK 77 in the razing of Fallujah Click here to see the video. Assuming the video is authentically from Fallujah, the evidence is compelling.
While these weapons are not banned by any treaties, they are technically chemical weapons. Use of incendiary bombs against civilian populations was banned in the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The US has not signed this agreement. The problem is that everyone alive in Fallujah when the battle started were assumed to be an enemy combatant. It is clear from the video that has leaked out of Fallujah during the battle that many civilians were present. Since we have seen many of the combatants from Fallujah moved to Baghdad, Ramadi and Mosul, one wonders who was left in Fallujah besides civilians who decided to protect there homes.

So Where Is The Money Trickling Down?

Los Angeles Times

Top executives from five major U.S. oil companies will attend a hearing next week on soaring profits, the Senate Energy Committee said Friday. Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Lee Raymond will be among those addressing a joint hearing Wednesday before the Senate Energy and Commerce panels. Irving, Texas-based Exxon, the biggest U.S. oil company, last week posted a $9.9-billion third-quarter profit, an increase of 75% from a year earlier, on the strength of high crude oil prices. Its quarterly revenue, $100.7 billion, was a record for any company. No. 2 Chevron Corp. will be represented by Chief Executive David O'Reilly. The San Ramon, Calif.-based company last week posted $3.6 billion in third-quarter net income. Also testifying will be CEO James Mulva of ConocoPhillips, CEO Ross Pillari of BP America Inc. and Shell Oil Co. President John Hofmeister, the Energy Committee said.


Republicans in Congress are worried that high gasoline and winter heating costs at a time of soaring industry profits could hurt their chances in next year's midterm elections. Crude oil and heating oil prices are high, "and at the same time we're seeing these record profits going into their coffers," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said Friday. "Those executives will have that opportunity to explain, and we will get to the bottom of it." The chairman of the Federal Trade Commission and attorneys general from Arizona, New Jersey and South Carolina will testify about potential profiteering.

I'm sure the oil companies were more than willing to allow the Republican Senate to exchange political cover. The oil companies will present their data saying it's all perfectly legal, the Repubs will say to their constituency that they did their jobs, and maybe the voters will be too dumb to figure it all out.

Torture Used to Get Bogus Intelligence for Iraqi War

It seems there was another source of bogus intelligence before the Iraqi war besides the Iraqi defector, 'Curveball'. Worse yet, it would appear that this Al Qaeda captive was one of the first to undergo torture by the CIA under authority of the President. It appears he was the source of bogus information that Sadaam had trained Al Qaeda operatives. Apparently, either, under torture, the Al Qaeda operative gave the interagators what they wanted to hear or Al Qaeda wanted the US to invade Iraq and provided Bush with a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda that was readily accepted as further justification of the invasion of Iraq, despite it's obvious counter-intuitive nature. None-the-less, the Administration either assumed the information was accurate or decided to use it anyway because it fit into their world view. Saddam was evil, connected to world terror, and needed to be taken out. I'm sure any doubts were apparent to key players. I'd prefer to believe that not all Administration officials were as naive as Wolfowitz and took the cynical pragmatic view that true or not, the information would politically justify the invasion of Iraq. Bush played right into bin Ladin's hands.
New York Times

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, “was intentionally misleading the debriefers’’ in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda’s work with illicit weapons.


[...The] report [was] by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which supplies intelligence to military commanders and national security policy makers. As an official intelligence report, labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, the document would have circulated widely within the government, and it would have been available to the C.I.A., the White House, the Pentagon and other agencies. It remains unclear whether the D.I.A. document was provided to the Senate panel. In outlining reasons for its skepticism, the D.I.A. report noted that Mr. Libi’s claims lacked specific details about the Iraqis involved, the illicit weapons used and the location where the training was to have taken place. “It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers,’’ the February 2002 report said. “Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.’’


Mr. Powell relied heavily on accounts provided by Mr. Libi for his speech to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, saying that he was tracing “the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda.’’ At the time of Mr. Powell’s speech, an unclassified statement by the C.I.A. described the reporting, now known to have been from Mr. Libi, as “credible.’’ But Mr. Levin said he had learned that a classified C.I.A. assessment at the time stated “the source was not in a position to know if any training had taken place.’’ In an interview on Friday, Mr. Levin also called attention to a portion of the D.I.A. report that expressed skepticism about the idea of close collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, an idea that was never substantiated by American intelligence but was a pillar of the administration’s prewar claims. “Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements,’’ the D.I.A. report said in one of two declassified paragraphs. “Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.’’ MORE

After reviewing the NY Times article, Emptywheel at The Next Hurrah makes some strong speculative assertion. His logic is unassailable.

• The intelligence from Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was almost certainly gotten using torture.
  


• The Administration should have known of DIA's doubts but still prominently used al-Libi's intelligence as proof of an Al Qaeda-Iraq relationship.
  


• The DIA may have withheld the document detailing DIA's doubts about al-Libi from the relevant oversight committees.
  

And Emptywheel turns out to be right. Atrios at Eschaton found this article from Newsweek.
MSNBC.com

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was America's first big trophy in the war on terror: a senior Qaeda operative captured amid the fighting in Afghanistan. What is less known is that al-Libi, who ran Qaeda training camps, quickly became the subject of a bitter feud between the FBI and the CIA over how to interrogate terror suspects. At the time of al-Libi's capture on Nov. 11, 2001, the questioning of detainees was still the FBI's province.


For years the bureau's "bin Laden team" had sought to win suspects over with a carrots-and-no-sticks approach: favors in exchange for cooperation. One terrorist, in return for talking, even wangled a heart transplant for his child. With al-Libi, too, the initial approach was to read him his rights like any arrestee, one former member of the FBI team told NEWSWEEK. "He was basically cooperating with us."


But this was post-9/11; President Bush had declared war on Al Qaeda, and in a series of covert directives, he had authorized the CIA to set up secret interrogation facilities and to use new, harsher methods. The CIA, says the FBI source, was "fighting with us tooth and nail." The handling of al-Libi touched off a long-running battle over interrogation tactics inside the administration. It is a struggle that continued right up until the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in April—and it extended into the White House, with Condoleezza Rice's National Security Council pitted against lawyers for the White House counsel and the vice president. Indeed, one reason the prison abuse scandal won't go away—two months after gruesome photos were published worldwide—is that a long paper trail of memos and directives from inside the administration has emerged, often leaked by those who disagreed with rougher means of questioning.


[...]Al-Libi's capture, some sources say, was an early turning point in the government's internal debates over interrogation methods. FBI officials brought their plea to retain control over al-Libi's interrogation up to FBI Director Robert Mueller. The CIA station chief in Afghanistan, meanwhile, appealed to the agency's hawkish counterterrorism chief, Cofer Black. He in turn called CIA Director George Tenet, who went to the White House. Al-Libi was handed over to the CIA. "They duct-taped his mouth, cinched him up and sent him to Cairo" for more-fearsome Egyptian interrogations, says the ex-FBI official. "At the airport the CIA case officer goes up to him and says, 'You're going to Cairo, you know. Before you get there I'm going to find your mother and I'm going to f--- her.' So we lost that fight." (A CIA official said he had no comment.) MORE

Al-Libi was one of the first Al Qaeda operative to be "rendered" to a country that uses torture. Later he was moved to Gitmo where he presumably still resides. The Neo-cons throttle hold on intelligence no doubt ensured doubts about Iraqi ties with Al Qaeda went no further than the inner circle at the Office of Special Plans and the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal. It's pretty sad where we have to decide with the Administration was simply stupidly naive or defrauding the American people. I take the latter view.

Wilkerson: The Gift That Keeps Giving

Like the proverbial thorn in the side, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former State Department Chief of Staff, has made headlines with public comments that have highlighted the dysfunction within the Bush Administration, particularly from Cheney's office. "Media attention to him has, as Steve Clemons notes,"

...continued to help keep the White House off balance and unable to distract the nation from the subject of the Libby indictments, the hyping of Iraq WMD intelligence, and prisoner detention abuse. This morning on National Public Radio, Lawrence Wilkerson made the statement that Vice President Cheney is the individual most responsible for the pervasive and disturbing prisoner abuse scandal.

Wilkerson made splash with statements about the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal that hijacked foreign policy and prevented exposure of their controversial views to the State Department and others who might have convinced the President that their might be a different view. Wilkerson's boss, Colin Powell was set up to sell the invasion of Iraq to the UN with information that was known to be false. Powell blamed the false information not on his friend CIA Director Tenet, but on lower level CIA personnel. The infamous source code named 'Curveball', was the source of information, an Iraq defector who had never been debriefed by he CIA had "been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator."


The 'Curveball' debacle reveals either incompetence or subterfuge in the top two people of the CIA, Tenet and McLaughlin, his Director of Operations. Both have more recently denied any knowledge of information that 'Curveball' might not be a good resource.

A week before Christmas 2002, McLaughlin's executive assistant held two meetings to discuss Curveball. One of Pavitt's aides told the group about Drumheller's meeting, and expressed other doubts. She also "made clear" that Pavitt's division "did not believe that Curveball's information should be relied upon." The Curveball expert from WINPAC angrily argued back and apparently prevailed, the commission found. An official summary of the meeting later "played down" any doubts and said Curveball had been judged credible "after an exhaustive review."


Several weeks later, Drumheller discovered that his warning had been ignored when his executive officer brought him an advance copy of Powell's Feb. 5, 2003, speech to the U.N. Drumheller said he then arranged a meeting in McLaughlin's office and described what the German operative had told him over lunch several months earlier. After listening for 10 minutes, Drumheller said, McLaughlin responded by saying, "Oh my! I hope that's not true." McLaughlin, who retired in January after 32 years at the CIA, said he did not recall the meeting and denied that Drumheller told him Curveball might be a fabricator. "I have absolutely no recall of such a discussion. None," McLaughlin said in a statement Friday. "Such a meeting does not appear on my calendar, nor was this view transmitted to me in writing." He said he was "at a loss" to explain the conflicting accounts.


But another red flag appeared. On Jan. 27, 2003, the CIA's Berlin station warned in a message to headquarters that Curveball's information "cannot be verified." Drumheller, meanwhile, said he never heard from McLaughlin or anyone else to confirm that Curveball's material had been deleted from Powell's speech. So when Tenet called him at home on another matter the night before Powell was to speak in New York, Drumheller said he raised the Curveball case. "I gave him the phone number for the guy he wanted," Drumheller recalled. "Then it struck me, 'I better say something.' I said, 'You know, boss, there's problems with that case.' He says, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm exhausted. Don't worry about it.' " In a seven-page statement, Tenet sharply challenged much of that account.

When Bush became President, thanks to Rumsfeld and Cheney, he brought into his administration a group of ideologues, some of whom should by all rights register as being an agent of a foreign power, Israel. After 9-11, this small group of "neo-conservatives" made major changes in traditional American foreign and security policy essentially by replacing key positions in DoD, the Pentagon, and the CIA with people who supported their goals. The Bush Doctrine became a reality.  The very means used to change the political landscape in America's foreign policy instruments created a filter on intelligence that limited fast tracked information that furthered the cause and often screened out that which contradicted it. Lieutenant Karen Kwiatkowski, a career officer at the Pentagon now retired, describes how the process worked.

Salon.com

In the spring of 2002, I was a cynical but willing staff officer, almost two years into my three-year tour at the office of the secretary of defense, undersecretary for policy, sub-Saharan Africa. In April, a call for volunteers went out for the Near East South Asia directorate (NESA). None materialized. By May, the call transmogrified into a posthaste demand for any staff officer, and I was "volunteered" to enter what would be a well-appointed den of iniquity. The education I would receive there was like an M. Night Shyamalan movie -- intense, fascinating and frightening.


While the people were very much alive, I saw a dead philosophy -- Cold War anti-communism and neo-imperialism -- walking the corridors of the Pentagon. It wore the clothing of counterterrorism and spoke the language of a holy war between good and evil. The evil was recognized by the leadership to be resident mainly in the Middle East and articulated by Islamic clerics and radicals.


But there were other enemies within, anyone who dared voice any skepticism about their grand plans, including Secretary of State Colin Powell and Gen. Anthony Zinni. From May 2002 until February 2003, I observed firsthand the formation of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and watched the latter stages of the neo-conservative capture of the policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. This seizure of the reins of U.S. Middle East policy was directly visible to many of us working in the Near East South Asia policy office, and yet there seemed to be little any of us could do about it. I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies. I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within Office of Special Plans usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president.

So when the Administration turns out it's spokespersons for Sunday mornings TV talk show blitz, look for the latest Republican talking points designed to deflect attention away from the facts of a conspiracy to defraud the American people.

What are the R[epublican] talking points?


1. Clinton threatened Saddam and thought there were WMD - blame Bill.

2. Kerry, HRC and other Dems made supportive noises - blame them.

3. Butler, SSCI and all the other political reports cleared the US and made it a matter of bad intellegence - blame the CIA.

4. Dana Priest used the word 'covert' in her article - blame the media.

5. Thinking Bush lied is Oliver Stone territory - blame you.

The pattern continues - it's always everyone else's fault. It's never the President's. But R's and their apologists don't seem to get it, even though the American public (alas, a year too late) does – the buck stops at Bush's desk whether he blows smoke or not. And when he denies his own responsibility (as he has his entire adult life from TANG to DC), the public figures he's just a failure as a leader. Period. And no Bush apologist is going to change their minds....

Cheney is Vulnerable to an Espionage Charge

It would appear the electorate is catching on to Bush's shenanegans. His popularity has dropped to the record low of 39%. Fifty eight percent question his integrity.
I've been hoping all along that Fitzgerald has a big fish in mind with his indictment of Libby. Some think it's Rove. It seems likely this is another line of the investigation. But I think the biggest fish Fitz is casting for is Cheney. John Dean, former Whitehouse Counsel thinks so too. Thanks to Simbaud for the tip.
FindLaw's Writ

The Libby indictment asserts that "[o]n or about June 12, 2003 Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA." In short, Cheney provided the classified information to Libby - who then told the press. Anyone who works in national security matters knows that the Counterproliferation Division is part of the Directorate of Operations -- the covert side of the CIA, where most everything and everyone are classified.


According to Fitzgerald, Libby admits he learned the information from Cheney at the time specified in the indictment. But, according to Fitzgerald, Libby also maintained - in speaking to both FBI agents and the grand jury - that Cheney's disclosure played no role whatsoever in Libby's disclosure to the media. Or as Fitzgerald noted at his press conference, Libby said, "he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he had forgotten it, and that when he learned the information from [the reporter] Mr. [Tim] Russert during this phone call he learned it as if it were new."


So, in Fitzgerald's words, Libby's story was that when Libby "passed the information on to reporters Cooper and Miller late in the week, he passed it on thinking it was just information he received from reporters; that he told reporters that, in fact, he didn't even know if it were true. He was just passing gossip from one reporter to another at the long end of a chain of phone calls."


This story is, of course, a lie, but it was a clever one on Libby's part. It protects Cheney because it suggests that Cheney's disclosure to Libby was causally separate from Libby's later, potentially Espionage-Act-violating disclosure to the press. Thus, it also denies any possible conspiracy between Cheney and Libby. And it protects Libby himself - by suggesting that since he believed he was getting information from reporters, not indirectly from the CIA, he may not have had have the state of mind necessary to violate the Espionage Act.


Thus, from the outset of the investigation, Libby has been Dick Cheney's firewall. And it appears that Fitzgerald is actively trying to penetrate that firewall. It has been reported that Libby's attorney tried to work out a plea deal. But Fitzgerald insisted on jail time, so Libby refused to make a deal. It appears that only Libby, in addition to Cheney, knows what Cheney knew, and when he knew, and why he knew, and what he did with his knowledge.


Fitzgerald has clearly thrown a stacked indictment at Libby, laying it on him as heavy as the law and propriety permits. He has taken one continuous false statement, out of several hours of interrogation, and made it into a five-count indictment. It appears he is trying to flip Libby - that is, to get him to testify against Cheney -- and not without good reason. Cheney is the big fish in this case.


Will Libby flip? Unlikely. Neither Cheney nor Libby (I believe) will be so foolish as to crack a deal. And Libby probably (and no doubt correctly) assumes that Cheney - a former boss with whom he has a close relationship -- will (at the right time and place) help Libby out, either with a pardon or financially, if necessary. Libby's goal, meanwhile, will be to stall going to trial as long as possible, so as not to hurt Republicans' showing in the 2006 elections. So if Libby can take the heat for a time, he and his former boss (and friend) may get through this. But should Republicans lose control of the Senate (where they are blocking all oversight of this administration), I predict Cheney will resign "for health reasons."

It seems to me that Fitz is trolling for big fish with henchmen. He's publically indicated Rove isn't off the hook. It seems possible to me that he wonders if he might catch a bigger fish in the President's office too, like Dubya himself? Who else would Rove been working with, taking orders from in the Whitehouse?

Applying the Lessons of History to Iraq

Scooter Libby pled not guilty today. It seems hard to believe he would do that, but in this age of O. J. Simpson, a high paid attorney can get you off no matter what evidence there is. Juan Cole at Informed Comment says that it seems apparent Libby wasn't primarily concerned about protecting his old boss, he could have pleaded guilty. He correctly points out that a trial might incriminate Cheney or his aide John Hannah or even Karl Rove. "My own interpretation is that it is now every man for himself. That is not good news for Bush."

But as Emptywheel points out at
The Next Hurrah, Libby and hired Ted Wells and "Bush family consigliere James Baker's colleague, William Jeffress to manage his defense." I seriously doubt Baker's partner would sign on as Libby's attorney unless it was at the request or at least with the permission of Bush himself. Loyalty runs
deep in the Bush family.

This Administration has gone far out of it's way to
defraud the American people into the Iraq war. Where were the lessons of history?

Traditionally, broad principles of foreign policy varies little from one administration to another, even when the transition crosses party lines. After 9/11, Bush, with the encouragement of the Neocons, threw out the book, creating what as come to be known as the
Bush Doctrine . Based on the assumption that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strength beyond challenge", the Bush Administration decided it "would take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower", including but not limited to, preemptive wars against potential aggressors, even if done so unilaterally, without United Nations
sanction, without the support or participation of NATO or other allies. While projecting US military and economic interests, they would actively promoting democracy and freedom in all regions of the world. As we can see by recent events, this was hardly a policy only of altruism. It was also political cover for the most aggressive foreign policy ever pursued by a 20th Century President of the United States. Bush, deftly dodged all criticism by declaring at West Point, "America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves -- safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life." The new
policy was fully delineated in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States issued on September 17, 2002.

Several former government officials have come out against all or part of the Bush Doctrine. Most recently, Bush Sr's Secretary of Defense Brent
Scowcroft spoke out against the Neocon naïveté, particularly Paul Wolfowitz idealistic and unrealistic view that Democracy can be exported. Now Nixon's Secretary of Defense, Melvin R. Laird applies the principles he learned from the Vietnam era. Like Scowcroft, Laird pulls no punches.

Foreign Affairs - Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam

For me, the alleged prison scandals reported to have occurred in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay have been a disturbing reminder of the mistreatment of our own POWs by North Vietnam. The conditions in our current prison camps are nowhere near as horrific as they were at the "Hanoi Hilton," but that is no reason to pat ourselves on the back. The minute we begin to deport prisoners to other nations where they can legally be tortured, when we hold people without charges or trial, when we move prisoners around to avoid the prying inspections of the Red Cross, when prisoners die inexplicably on our watch, we are on a slippery slope toward the inhumanity that we deplore.

[...]
As the secretary of defense who ended the draft in 1972, I see no need to return to conscription, even now that the prospect of combat has somewhat dampened the enthusiasm for military service. As long as service people -- current and future -- know where their president is leading them, the enlistments will follow.

[...]
But one lesson learned from Vietnam that is not widely recognized is that fear of casualties is not the prime motivator of the American people during a war. American soldiers will step up to the plate, and the American public will tolerate loss of life, if the conflict has worthy, achievable goals that are clearly espoused by the administration and if their leadership deals honestly with them.

[...]
Reserve and National Guard units are understaffed and have been abused by deployments that have taken individuals out of their units to serve as de facto army regulars, many in specialties for which they have not been trained, a practice that eats at the morale of reservists. Nearly 80 percent of the airlift capacity for this war and about 48 percent of the troops have come from Reserve and National Guard units. The high percentages are due, in part, to the specialized missions of those troops: transporting cargo, policing, rebuilding infrastructure, translating, conducting government affairs -- in short, the stuff of building a new nation. We have realized too late that our regular army forces have not been as well trained as they should have been for the new reality of an urban insurgent enemy. Nor was the military hierarchy paying serious attention to the hints that their mission in the twenty-first century would be nation building.

[...]
Secretary Rumsfeld is trying to reshape the army to be more mobile with fewer soldiers, in "units of action" built on the Special Forces model. But he is not being honest with himself or with Congress and the American people about how much money will be needed to make the transformation. Those specialized units will be more suited for urban guerrilla warfare, but light and lean is not the only way to maintain our military. Although guerrilla warfare looks like the wave of the future, we still face the specter of conventional divisional and corps warfare against other enemies. Both capabilities are expensive, but the downward trend of defense budgets does not recognize that. Except for bumps up in the Ronald Reagan years and during the Gulf War, the defense budget has been on a downward slide when viewed in constant dollars. We are coasting on the investments in research, development, and equipment made during earlier years.

[...]
Our pattern of fighting our battles alone or with a marginal "coalition of the willing" contributes to the downward spiral in resources and money. Ironically, Nixon had the answer back in 1969. At the heart of the Nixon Doctrine, announced that first year of his presidency, was the belief that the United States could not go it alone. As he said in his foreign policy report to Congress on February 18, 1970, the United States will participate in the defense and development of allies and friends, but "America cannot -- and will not -- conceive all the plans, design all the programs, execute all the decisions and undertake all the defense of the free nations of the world. We will help where it makes a real difference and is considered in our interest".


Three decades later, we have fallen into a pattern of neglecting our treaty alliances, such as NATO, and endangering the aid we can give our allies by throwing our resources into fights that our allies refuse to join. Vietnam was just such a fight, and Iraq is, too. If our treaty alliances were adequately tended to and shored up -- and here I include the UN -- we would not have so much trouble persuading others to join us when our cause is just.
MORE

Digby at Hullabaloo analyzes the Democrat's failures after 9/11. He also correctly points out that in hindsight, Clinton already took care of Sadaam's arsenal that remained after the first Gulf war.

A lot of Democrats (including both Clintons) made a political gamble that after 9/11 they had to support the invasion because if it was successful they would have been tagged as soft. They were fighting the last war, Gulf War I, in which many Democrats looked foolish for having objected to such a painless, inexpensive, glorious victory. I'm afraid that many of the Democratic leadership bet on the wrong horse ---- again. It is, sadly, a testament to how badly they deal with foreign policy that they got it wrong both times.


A lot of us out here in Real Murika didn't because we weren't playing politics --- just assessing the situation and deciding whether it made sense.


Still, it was undoubtedly difficult. 9/11 had cast a spell on our country, abetted by a media that turned the "war on terror" into an epic pageant of national pride and patriotism to such an extent that to question, much less oppose, was an act of political courage. There are very few politicans of either party with much of that: Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Chafee (R-RI),
Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA),
Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).


Those were the Senators who voted against the resolution. How good, smart and prescient they appear today. The ones who didn't showed lousy instincts. When the president is an idiot, it should be easy to conclude that he is not going to make good decisions about the need for war --- or anything else. Millions of us knew the constant blathering about Bush's great "leadership" after 9/11 was hype. They should have too.


But still, even the most craven Democratic opportunist cannot be held responsible for the administration's repeated assertion's that Saddam was a "grave and gathering danger" or that the Bush Doctrine was dutifully printed out from the PNAC web-site and distributed after 9/11 without any serious consideration of its ramifications. Bush was pushing a line that had many people wondering if he didn't know something that the rest of us didn't. It was incomprehensible to a lot of Americans that an American president would be so reckless as to launch a war on unverified information.


There was no good reason to stage an invasion based upon the threat
assessment we had. 9/11 actually made that proposition more dangerous and short sighted than it would have been before. They knew this, which is why they hyped the threat with visions of mushroom clouds and nefarious drone planes disguised a crop dusters. They knew that if we relied solely upon the threat assessment that the Clinton administration relied upon, the country would not back their war. So they lied. The true irony is that it now appears that Clinton managed to accomplish what Bush said needed to be done, with a heavy bombing campaign during his own impeachment. (Talk about multi-tasking.)
Bush came along and spent billions of dollars, stretched our military beyond its capabilities, destroyed our international credibility and got tens of thousands killed to accomplish something that had already been done in 1998.

The fact is, after the end of Persian Gulf War in 1991, Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, already got it right with what has been called the Powell Doctrine. Powell was persuaded to expand its original concept to fit the realities of Gulf War II by strong arm tactics of Cheney and Rumsfeld. He is, more than anything, a good soldier. His commander in Chief demanded he support the Bush Doctrine. If Powell had been allowed to act as Secretary of State rather than be pre-empted by the cabal around Cheney, perhaps we would have avoided this war.

...the Doctrine expresses that military action should
be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.

Powell also was opposed to unilateral action and openly attempted to build an alliance against Iraq with marginal results. I'd bet he's never been much of a supporter of the Bush Doctrine. More likely, he supported the Nixon Doctrine.

Has Frist Lost Control?

Could it be true? Has the power shifted in Congress to the center? Jay Rockefeller one of the minority Democrats on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (SSCI) has been sitting on another scandal. Republicans on the SSCI have stalled the investigation of the misuse of intelligence to justify the Iraqi invasion. Yesterday was the day to do something. What took so long? Laura Rosen of War and Piece has the story.
American Prospect Online

Through all the delays, Rockefeller hasn’t exactly been Mr. Aggressive in pushing Roberts to abide by his promise for swift action. There are several reasons why. The most obvious is simple math: The Republicans have more votes on the committee than the Democrats. “In fairness, if you follow the committee rules and procedures, which [Rockefeller] is trying to do, he has been slam-dunked by the Republicans,” one source says. “And they have the votes.”


A second problem for Rockefeller: An internal staff memo urging him to call for an independent investigation of the administration’s use of Iraq intelligence was leaked to FOX News’ Sean Hannity in November 2003. The resulting mini-furor that erupted in the right-wing media has contributed to Rockefeller’s reluctance to act.


But the main reason he has been inhibited is that previous public comments he made apparently caused the Pentagon to abruptly stop cooperating with the investigation. At the July 2004 press conference occasioned by the release of the Phase I report, Rockefeller asserted that certain activities of members of the office of then–Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, including a secret Rome meeting with the Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar, might have been “unlawful.” At that point, Feith’s office simply stopped cooperating with the investigation, and Roberts hasn’t compelled Feith or his staff to comply. “[The Defense Department] got very skittish about volunteering as they had been up to that point,” an SSCI staffer told the Prospect. “They got all lawyered up. Roberts’ position, and [the Defense Department’s], has been either ‘show us what you’re talking about’ or ‘withdraw the statement and we’ll continue our cooperation with you.’ Rockefeller wouldn’t do either.”


But committee staff sources say that before the cooperation ceased, the committee had received from Feith’s office internal memos suggesting that the office may indeed have been conducting unlawful activities. In particular, Democratic staffers are interested in a secret December 2001 meeting of two Feith deputies, Larry Franklin and Harold Rhode, with Ghorbanifar in Rome. The meeting also included members of a foreign intelligence service (Italy’s SISMI). The catch is that it wasn’t reported in advance to the intelligence committee or the CIA, in possible violation of Section 502 of the National Security Act, which says that anyone conducting intelligence activities must inform the committee and the agency.


Among the documents in the committee’s possession, the Prospect has learned, is a cable the CIA station chief in Rome sent to Langley expressing concern that members of Feith’s office were involved in an unauthorized covert action. The committee also has Franklin’s Rome report, which, according to sources, revealed that the meeting included the discussion of possibilities for engaging a network of Ghorbanifar associates to pursue action against Tehran. (Franklin pled guilty in October to charges stemming from a separate FBI investigation. Feith left the Pentagon for the private sector over the summer.)


“[Rockefeller] made an offhand comment at a press conference, which was totally accurate,” a source close to the investigation told the Prospect. “Some of these guys may have crossed the lines into illegalities. Can you imagine if during Iran-Contra the executive branch had said, ‘We’re not going to provide you any more information because one of your members suggested that one of our members may have acted illegally’? In those days, neither Republicans nor Democrats would have stood for that for one minute.”


But that was then. Today, committee Republicans view their mission as being not oversight but cover-up. Indeed, one source told the Prospect that Roberts has worked closely behind the scenes with Vice President Dick Cheney’s office in crafting the language defining and limiting the investigation’s terms -- even though the committee is supposed to be investigating and providing oversight of the administration’s use of Iraq intelligence. Yet the committee’s leading Democrat, Rockefeller, hobbled by criticism from within the committee -- and according to one account, “a wimp … not confident of his own judgments” -- has felt constrained from pushing the majority more aggressively to comply with its promise. MORE

The political consequences of Harry Reid's move yesterday is not crystal clear. However, some pundits seem to have a persuasive argument that Frist no longer has a strangle hold on the Senate.
TPMCafe

Bill Frist's ability to run the institution now lies completely in ruins. This has implications for the politics of Plamegate and Iraq, of course, but it will affect other questions as well.


One of them is the Nuclear Option. The conventional wisdom seems to be that if Democrats try to filibuster Alito, the Republicans in the "Gang of 14" will consider the deal broken and vote for the Nuclear Option. Some of them may. But to pull off the Nuclear Option banning filibusters on judicial nominations will still require an extraordinary exercise of leadership and party discipline to force Senators to do something many of them don't want to do. Frist couldn't quite pull it off five months ago, he sure can't do it now. There are plenty of Republicans who weren't part of the Gang of 14 but who did not want to have to vote for the Nuclear Option back in May and were very glad to see it go away. (Specter and Ted Stevens come to mind.) They definitely don't want to now, and Frist no longer has any leverage to make them do it. And some others might wonder why they would want to end filibusters 13 months before they risk losing control of the institution.

Jay Rockefeller sets the record straight on the work to be done in the SSCI.
SENATOR ROCKEFELLER

STATEMENT ON THE CLOSED SESSION OF THE SENATE TO DISCUSS MATTERS RELATED TO THE MISUSE OF INTELLIGENCE


“At its core, this is about accountability -- Congressional accountability and White House accountability.


“Congress has a fundamental, constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight – that’s what checks and balances are all about – and we have utterly failed.


“My colleagues and I have tried for two years to do our oversight work, and for two years we have been undermined, avoided, put off, and vilified by the other side. Any line of questioning that has brought us too close to the White House has been thwarted.


“At some point the majority needs to understand that we are willing to bring the Senate to a halt until they will join us in conducting the kind of investigation this situation demands.


“The American people still want to know – now more than ever – why the United States went to war, whether they were misled, and whether our intelligence was misused.


“Whether these actions amount to crimes is not the litmus test for congressional oversight. Mr. Fitzgerald is investigating possible criminal activity by senior White House officials, and we won’t and shouldn’t get in the way of his work.


“But the American people deserve to know not just whether this Administration committed crimes, but whether this Administration told the truth – the full truth, the straight story.


“And if they didn’t – if they misled about the war and if they misused intelligence, then the American people need to know that the Congress will do everything in its power the make sure that it never happens again.”

Dems Roll Out the Big Guns!

Looks like the Dems have been plotting and planning and waiting in the weeds for an opportunity like this. A post on Seeing the Forest had this letter. Of all the mailing lists I'm on, how did I miss this one??

Dear Fellow Democrat,


Late [yesterday] afternoon my friend Senator Harry Reid forced the Senate into an extraordinary closed session to discuss the manipulation of intelligence on Iraq and subsequent cover-up that led to the indictments last week.


It was the first indictment of a sitting White House official in well over a hundred years. Why? It's not because other administrations haven't gotten into trouble -- they have. The difference is that most administrations have a Congress willing to live up to its Constitutional responsibility. But this Republican-led Congress has blocked an investigation for over a year.


Today Harry Reid said that enough is enough -- and from here on Democrats should use every tool at our disposal to demand answers and accountability.


Do you agree? If you do, you can send a message that you're with Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats who are tired of business as usual. Make a special donation and send a note of thanks to Harry Reid asking him to keep up the fight:


http://www.democrats.org/fightback


It's important that Democratic lawmakers know where you stand, but they can't do the job on their own.


Harry Reid is ready to lead a Senate that will hold this administration accountable for its corruption, incompetence and ideology-driven agenda. And on a Tuesday twelve months from now America can elect a new Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate that will investigate the White House cover-up.


But are you ready to lead? If we're really going to build the Democratic Party in every state, every county, and every precinct, it's up to you to take responsibility for getting you and your neighbors organized.


On November 15th, Democrats across the country will gather for national Organizing Kickoff meetings. If you agree to host one in your neighborhood, you'll be able to download all the materials you need to run a successful meeting to jump start Democratic organizing in your community. I'll also be joining all of the meetings -- over 400 have been scheduled so far -- for a nationwide conference call.


For the next twelve months Harry Reid will be taking the lead on the Senate floor -- and for the next twelve months you need to take the lead in your community. Sign up to host a meeting on November 15th that will kick off twelve months of unprecedented, intense organizing in all 50 states:


http://www.democrats.org/events/create


Whether it's the string of arrests and indictments of corrupt Republican leaders or their pandering to extremist ideologues, America cannot afford to be in this situation. We need fundamental change in Washington to hold this administration accountable and begin doing the work to solve real problems.


It's our responsibility to create that change by electing Democrats. If we're going to do that, we can't afford to wait around until a few months before the election. We have spent the last several months investing staff, dollars and volunteer hours in an effort to build a permanent party infrastructure in all 50-states -- but starting on November 15th it will be up to you to plug in and get organized.


Enough is enough and we're ready to lead.


Thank you.


Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

It's about time!

McCain in 2008

A tip from Shakespeare's Sister, McCain is planning to run for President in 2008.
While he has to be one of the most honorable Republicans in the Senate, he's still a Republican. And they are, er, be holding, ahem, to each other.

Isn't a criminal government urgent enough?

washingtonpost.com

While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.


But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system. Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.


Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

It appears that the CIA has been running a Gulag of the very nastiest kind, where they operate above the law. We have a President who commit fraud to get into this war, the torture Vice President who has been operating outside the law for 5 years, and a Republican Congress who will not hold them accountable for impeachable offences.
And the Republicans say that shutting down the Senate was inappropriate, a secret session should be saved for urgent situations. Isn't a criminal government urgent enough?

Cheney Promotes Corrupt Cronies

Cheney thumbs his nose at the country and promotes two cronies who have been deep in the mud of Plamegate, the fraudulent justification of the Iraq War, and the legal arguments to justify torture.
Informed Comment

Addington is the author of legal memos justifying torture of prisoners held by the US abroad, in direct contradiction of US treaty obligations under international law. I guess Cheney thinks the authors of the US constitution were appalled by cruel and unusual punishment only if American authorities committed it in North America. In reference to Addington, the Washington Post published an editorial recently calling Cheney the Vice President of torture. Hannah was a point man in spreading the disinformation produced by Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction.

Meanwhile, finally, the Democrats found some courage to lead.
The Next Hurrah"

....it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues.


Let’s take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq.


The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq.


There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam’s alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts.


The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam’s nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq “has reconstituted its nuclear weapons.” Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons.


Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities were false.


The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, “We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization.”


The Administration’s assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government’s top experts did not agree with these claims.


What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration’s manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.


Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration.


Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why.


There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course. MORE

For those who are wondering about those whose careers have been ended by the Bush Administration, read this.