Obama on the War

Barack Obama gave a major speech on the war today, and it was, as usual, a good one. One point I'd like to highlight:

The attacks of September 11 brought this new reality into a terrible and ominous focus. On that bright and beautiful day, the world of peace and prosperity that was the legacy of our Cold War victory seemed to suddenly vanish under rubble, and twisted steel, and clouds of smoke.

But the depth of this tragedy also drew out the decency and determination of our nation. At blood banks and vigils; in schools and in the United States Congress, Americans were united - more united, even, than we were at the dawn of the Cold War. The world, too, was united against the perpetrators of this evil act, as old allies, new friends, and even long-time adversaries stood by our side. It was time - once again - for America's might and moral suasion to be harnessed; it was time to once again shape a new security strategy for an ever-changing world.

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.

We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.

We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.

We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.

We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.

We could have secured our homeland--investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.

We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.

We could have done that.

Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats - all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

I've been saying for the last nearly seven years that George Bush not only took the September 11th attacks and ran with them as a political tool (as well as to enable the unitary executive theory that has caused us, and the world, so much trouble), but he missed out on a truly historic and golden opportunity to drastically reshape the world (um, I mean, like, in a good way) in the wake of the attacks and the world's outpouring of support.

Watch Obama spell it out here:

Competing Economic Headlines

Two Reuters pieces which hit the wire simultaneously:

Retail sales rise much more than expected

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Total sales at U.S. retailers rose a full percentage point in May as many consumers had more spending cash in their wallets from government rebate checks, a report on Thursday showed.

Good, right? Consumers are out there, doing their duty, spending their birthday money from Uncle George.

And then the other one....

Jobless claims rise more than expected

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless benefits rose more than expected last week while those remaining on benefit rolls hit a four-year high, the government said on Thursday.

Ouch.

So good and bad, right? Balances out. Wrong.

The stimulus checks were a one time event, with no long term impact. Well, aside from pushing our already out of control deficit further toward the cliff's edge:

A flood of economic aid payments pushed the federal budget deficit to $165.9 billion, the highest imbalance ever for May.

The Treasury Department reported Wednesday that the May deficit was more than double what it was in May 2007. Some $48 billion in payments went out as part of the $168 billion economic relief effort to revive the economy and keep the country from a deep recession.

For the first eight months of the budget year, the deficit totaled $319.4 billion. That is slightly below the record for this period, $346 billion, set in the 2004 budget year.

The Bush administration estimated in February that the deficit for this year would be $410 billion. That would be just under the all-time high of $413 billion in 2004. But many private economists believe this year's deficit will top it, reflecting the economic aid program but also weaker government receipts.

Through the first eight months of this budget year, which began on Oct. 1, receipts have totaled $1.67 trillion, a small 0.3 percent increase from the same period a year ago ...

Outlays, however, are up a sizable 9.7 percent to $1.99 trillion, reflecting the stimulus payments and also the ongoing costs of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The "economic stimulus plan" will produce but a momentary upward tick in retail sales, one that will dissipate when the money's gone and people continue to struggle under rising food, energy and other costs. On the other hand, the jobless claims, and the real world impact they have on the economy and American families will stretch far beyond this week's competing reports. And unemployment is increasingly becoming a long term affair for out of work Americans. From the same Reuters report:

The number of people remaining on the benefits rolls after drawing an initial week of aid rose 58,000 to a greater-than-expected 3.139 million, a four-year high, in the week ended May 31, the most recent week for which data is available.

It was the seventh straight week claims were above 3 million, evidence that unemployed workers are having a hard time finding a job.

So, while we can expect the talking heads on the business channels to spend a news cycle talking about the effectiveness of the stimulus plan, and how it lends credence to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's pipe dream wishful thinking not-so-silent-prayer projection regarding the economic outlook, to quote PE, Don't Believe the Hype.

As I've been wont to say so often these last six months, we haven't even really begun to see the impact of the financial mess, brought on by business Über Alles policies and a blind eye to such dirty words as oversight, regulation, and good sense. It's going to get a lot worse before it starts to get better.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but them's the facts, ma'am.

For good insight into the day-to-day realities of our economic situation, y'all should check out Calculated Risk. And add it to your feed reader/blogroll. They stay on top of it.

That Wasted Old AA Wisdom

I don't know why I'd imagine he'd understand that the very definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and again and expect different results. Especially when the last time he went this route the consequences were disastrous on so many fronts. As does this new old mistake. But, then again, if that were the case, he wouldn't be our boy:

The accelerating war here and the critical need for troops vastly complicate the crumbling security picture across the region - from Afghanistan, where the United States chose to strike back after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, to Iraq, where American troops have been unable in almost four years of fighting to establish basic security and quell a bloody sectarian war.

As a last-ditch effort, President Bush is expected to announce this week the dispatch of thousands of additional troops to Iraq as a stopgap measure, an order that Pentagon officials say would strain the Army and Marine Corps as they struggle to man both wars.

Already, a U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq.

According to Army Brig. Gen. Anthony J. Tata and other senior U.S. commanders here, that will happen just as the Taliban is expected to unleash a major campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar. The official said the Taliban intend to seize Kandahar, Afghanistan's second-largest city and the place where the group was organized in the 1990s.

"We anticipate significant events there next spring," said Tata.

The Voices

When I'd heard sometime in the last couple of days that, according Palestinian officials interviewed in a  BBC television documentary, George Bush had claimed he'd been instructed by God to invade Iraq, it had a distinct ring of familiarity to it. I know that story, I said; why, I'd even written about it, mentioned it somewhere....but, as it was old news to me, I didn't think to comment on the matter.

Until I saw this on the BBC site:

The White House has dismissed as "absurd" allegations made in a BBC TV series that President Bush claimed God told him to invade Iraq.

"He's never made such comments," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

The comments were attributed to Mr Bush by the Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath in the upcoming TV series Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs. [...]"President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.

"'And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who attended the meeting in June 2003 too, also appears on the documentary series to recount how Mr Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."

Not that I'd doubt McClellan's truthfulness or anything, but it seemed to me, if memory served (which is always a crapshoot), that Shaath was merely corroborating what Abbas himself had said initially. So, I tracked down my own reference to it in a column I'd written for the Clarion-Ledger back in April of 2004:

Most troubling to this writer, however, is his extra-extra-Biblical pronouncements, weaving a Biblical, and at times Apocalyptic language into the majority of his speeches and scheduled remarks, whether below the radar or on open display. He often speaks of America, and by extension himself, in messianic terms. In a conversation with former Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas, Bush claimed God instructed him to strike Saddam. He spoke of a Crusade to defeat the Evildoers. He has cast the fight against terrorism as a battle of Good versus Evil and nothing less. He, of course, leads the forces of Good. On September 14, 2001, he said "our responsibility before history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." Rid the world of evil?

But working backwards, I verified my own source of the information as an article in the Israeli daily Haaretz from nearly a year before that, June of 2003, in the days following the Aqaba summit. Snatched from the memory hole....

And the information that time was coming directly from Palestinian PM Abbas:

Abbas said that at Aqaba, Bush promised to speak with Sharon about the siege on Arafat. He said nobody can speak to or pressure Sharon except the Americans.

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

Just for clarity's sake, might I suggest some enterprising reporter ask PM Abbas to comment on the matter?

The Czar Czar

Secret Unit Expands Rumsfeld's Domain:

"The previously undisclosed organization, called the Strategic Support Branch, arose from Rumsfeld's written order to end his 'near total dependence on CIA' for what is known as human intelligence. Designed to operate without detection and under the defense secretary's direct control, the Strategic Support Branch deploys small teams of case officers, linguists, interrogators and technical specialists alongside newly empowered special operations forces.

Military and civilian participants said in interviews that the new unit has been operating in secret for two years -- in Iraq (news - web sites), Afghanistan (news - web sites) and other places they declined to name. According to an early planning memorandum to Rumsfeld from Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the focus of the intelligence initiative is on 'emerging target countries such as Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia, Philippines and Georgia.' Myers and his staff declined to be interviewed."

Iran's Stance, cont.

For what appears to be the first time, Iran is threatening offensive actions against US forces in Iraq. From the AP report:

In an interview with pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera, (Iranian Defense Minister) Ali Shamkhani was asked how Iran would respond if America were to attack its nuclear facilities.

"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," he said. "There are differences of opinion among military commanders (in Iran). Some commanders believe preventive operations is not a model created by Americans ... or is not limited to Americans. Any nation, if it feels threatened, can resort to that."

And from the AFP, more detail of his words:

"Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly,

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq (news - web sites)," said Shamkhani. ...

"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation without an American green light. You cannot separate the two."

"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

Developing, obviously.

Ramifications

The Guardian is reporting that Iraqi Shia leaders in the south are advocating a breakaway movement from the "interim" government.

As the health ministry said that at least 172 Iraqis had died and more than 600 had been injured since Wednesday in fighting across southern Iraq, at least two prominent Shia figures called for the separation of some southern governorates from Baghdad.

Basra's deputy governor, Salam Uda al-Maliki, said he backed a breakaway as the interim government was "responsible for the Najaf clashes."

In Nassiriya, meanwhile, Aws al-Khafaji, the representative of Moqtada al-Sadr, echoed the call. "We have had enough of Baghdad's brutality," he said. "The authorities in Nassiriya will no longer cooperate with Baghdad." He said it was a response to "the crimes committed against Iraqis by an illegal and unelected government, and occupation forces."

I'm not sure how to reconcile al-Khafaji's statement with the Western media reports of a new truce being negotiated, but I do believe that should the call grow louder, the violence spread wider, and the demonstrations grow larger, the Balkanization of Iraq is a very real possibility, with at least the Shia south following in the steps of Iran, circa 1978-1979.

There's a piece in today's Christian Science Monitor that does a good job of laying out the stakes here. While media attention is focused on Najaf, awaiting the promised unleashing of Hell by American forces, the problem is much, much wider. Like Karzai in Afghanistan, Allawi may have US-enabled control over Baghdad and Baath Party buildings and offices, but he has no grip on the country and is seen widely as wholly and totally illegitimate and under American control.

What's at stake is not just the control of Najaf, but perhaps Iraq's territorial integrity. Key territories in Iraq are controlled by armed groups opposed to central government control from Baghdad. Kurdish militias in the north are vying for control of the crucial oil field town of Kirkuk; Sunni insurgents, many of them loyal to Saddam Hussein, control much of the center and the Northwest, including the transit link to Jordan.

Though there's great anticipation all around of the "final assault" on Najaf, even if al Sadr's house, the Imam Ali mosque, even if the entire town is laid to waste by the Marines, it will do little to stem the tide of resistance to American occupation, as well as any American installed government. And Sadr's movement, though branded ad infinitum that of a "Radical Shiite Cleric," is gaining in popular support. Including that of the Iraqi police forces, as the CSM article describes:

As fighting in Najaf seemed to approach a climax, there were other battles raging across the southern portions of Iraq as well, claiming 165 lives over 24 hours. In the southern city of Kut Wednesday, wire services reported that Iraqi and coalition forces battled militants loyal to Sadr who attacked police stations, the city hall, and Iraqi National Guard barracks. In what was the fiercest battle there in months, 72 people were reported killed and more than 100 wounded. Many, if not most, of these casualties are civilians, something that could turn sentiment against the Iraqi government and its US backers.

On Tuesday, the deputy governors of Basra, Dhiqar, and Maysun announced their intention to secede from Iraqi central government control, mimicking similar autonomy arrangements enjoyed by Kurdish militias, and the Sunni triangle insurgents in the cities of Fallujah, Ramadi, and Samarra....

...Meanwhile in the crucial oil-port city of Basra, where 90 percent of the country's oil flows out to global markets, Sadr's Mahdi Army controls the center of the city. They took the city after British troops stopped patrolling and retreated into their bases following heavy fighting on Tuesday. The fighting left one British soldier dead and many injured. Since then the Mahdi Army have taken over the streets. The Iraqi police still there are working hand-in-hand with the rebels.

Thursday, outside the Mahdi Army's main political office in the center of Basra, groups of bearded militiamen casually wandered the streets carrying machine guns and RPGs while in the building's forecourt two policemen sat calmly smoking atop a police car.

Inside the Mahdi Army's main political office, Sadr's leading commander in the south, Sheikh Saad al-Basri, reveled in the success of a public demonstration in support of Sadr Thursday morning, which drew thousands into Basra's streets.

"We made this demonstration to show that we are not only interested in fighting but that we would prefer to settle our differences peacefully," says Mr. Basri, who is now in de facto control of Iraq's second largest city.

Allawi's government will never have legitimacy among the rank and file Iraqi populace, and in fact the only hope he has of retaining control of the country at all is thorugh his promised "iron fist." Allawi's Iron Fist is, of course, limited solely to the US military. While the military might of the world's only remaining superpower is fierce and awesome indeed, it does not endear Allawi to the Iraqi people in the least, as the CSM article points out as well, citing Tarak Barkawi from Cambridge University:

While some experts say that religious passions will be inflamed if Sadr is killed and if the shrine comes under military attack, others say that the larger problem is that Allawi has inherited a government whose major decisions continue to be made by US military commanders, and without sufficient resources to extend its own authority, legitimacy, and control.

"Since the end of the occupation, US forces have in significant measure withdrawn to barracks and reduced their tempo of operations," says Tarak Barkawi, a strategic expert at the Center for International Studies at the University of Cambridge.

"This is good in the sense of reducing their highly unpopular visibility; it is bad in that the lid is off of the insurgents or local militias, and poorly prepared Iraqi forces are left holding the ring. When they can't do so, they must call on US forces, producing further casualties and further unpopularity. This strikes me as a downward spiral."

Clarke Stays on Point

Richard Clarke has an OpEd in the NY Times, detailing his educated opinion of the 9/11 commission's report and the suggestions for improvement contained within. The man knows his stuff and has a holistic understanding that seems to be beyond the grasp of Bush, his cohorts, handlers, and minions. Clarke also understands that the nation's response to the commission's findings must go far beyond simple bureaucratic efficiencies; to succeed our response must be more than simply procedural and personnel enhancements.

Even more important than any bureaucratic suggestions is the report's cogent discussion of who the enemy is and what strategies we need in the fight. The commission properly identified the threat not as terrorism (which is a tactic, not an enemy), but as Islamic jihadism, which must be defeated in a battle of ideas as well as in armed conflict.

We need to expose the Islamic world to values that are more attractive than those of the jihadists. This means aiding economic development and political openness in Muslim countries, and efforts to stabilize places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Restarting the Israel-Palestinian peace process is also vital.

Also, we can't do this alone. In addition to "hearts and minds" television and radio programming by the American government, we would be greatly helped by a pan-Islamic council of respected spiritual and secular leaders to coordinate (without United States involvement) the Islamic world's own ideological effort against the new Al Qaeda.

Unfortunately, because of America's low standing in the Islamic world, we are now at a great disadvantage in the battle of ideas. This is primarily because of the unnecessary and counterproductive invasion of Iraq. In pulling its bipartisan punches, the commission failed to admit the obvious: we are less capable of defeating the jihadists because of the Iraq war.

Unanimity has its value, but so do debate and dissent in a democracy facing a crisis. To fully realize the potential of the commission's report, we must see it not as the end of the discussion but as a partial blueprint for victory. The jihadist enemy has learned how to spread hate and how to kill - and it is still doing both very effectively three years after 9/11.

Feith?

From Reuter's comes this bit. The Pentagon is "overhauling" its prisoner policy. What does that mean, exactly? Let's see:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered the creation of an office to oversee military detainee operations, the Pentagon said. Rumsfeld also required that reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross on U.S. military prisoner operations go directly to Pentagon leaders rather than staying with commanders in the field, the Pentagon said.

The moves follow revelations of abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib jail near Baghdad, investigations into deaths of prisoners held by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan and questions over the treatment of prisoners at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The new Office of Detainee Affairs, whose leader has not been named, will come under the control of the Pentagon's third-ranking civilian official, Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy.

Okay. Aside from ensuring that no pesky leaks will come from future ICRC reports on prisoner abuse at the hands of American soldiers (those will henceforth be delivered directly into the hands of "Pentagon leaders" now), what strikes me is under whose control this new Office of Detainees will fall.

Surely, in the wake of the ever widening abuse scandal, it will be someone who can be expected to stand up and put a stop to such abhorrent tactics committed in the name of "Freedom" and "Democracy." Surely.

Who was it then? Someone named Feith, was it? I'm sorry, did you mean Douglas Feith? Surely not this Douglas Jay Feith?

In the early 1980s, Feith was a young lawyer in the Reagan administration who gained fame in conservative national security circles for arguing against ratification of a proposed amendment to the Geneva Conventions that would treat members of national liberation movements, irregulars who wore no uniforms and sometimes used terrorist tactics, as prisoners of war.

Feith said that this policy would endanger civilians by removing the incentive for fighters to obey traditional laws of war: staying in the open so the opposing party will not target noncombatants. It would also grant terrorist groups the same status as armies, something Feith, a harsh critic of the Palestine Liberation Organization, rejected. Two decades later, he returned to the Pentagon in the second Bush administration as its leading defense policy thinker.

Shortly after the Al Qaeda attacks, the Bush administration made a crucial decision exactly in line with Feith's doctrine: An Al Qaeda or Taliban fighter who was captured would be called an "enemy combatant" and would not enjoy POW protections.

The one and only Douglas Feith?

Feith's office was in charge of Iraq's military prisons, but that's not the only reason his name keeps turning up in newspaper reports about the scandal. It was Feith who devised the legal solution for getting around the Geneva Conventions' prohibition on physically or psychologically coercing prisoners of war into talking. As a Pentagon official in the 1980s, Feith had laid out the argument that terrorists didn't deserve protection under the Geneva Conventions. Once the war on terrorism started, all he had to do was implement it. And even more damning than his legal rule-making is Feith's reported reaction to complaints by military Judge Advocate General lawyers about the new, looser interrogation rules. "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.'

Oh. I see. I suppose this goes hand in hand with sending Negroponte in as ambassador, eh?

And just for the record, the DoD's official press release on the new Office of Detainee Affairs makes absolutely no mention of Mr. Feith, or his illustrious background.

Repetition Does Not Truth Make

Eight times. Eight times in one speech, George Bush yesterday claimed "the American people are safer" because of his wars and rumours of war. Juan Cole picks his claims apart, one by one, showing the truth behind this particular curtain. Bush has made an already dangerous world even more so, and has placed Americans everywhere, at home and abroad, in the greatest danger yet. From Dr. Cole:

So, no, Americans are not safer, Mr. Bush. They face the threat of substantial narco-terrorism from Afghanistan. Iraq is a security nightmare that could well blow back on the American homeland. Pakistan remains a military dictatorship with a host of militant jihadi movements that had been fomented by the hardline Pakistani military intelligence. Saudi Arabia is witnessing increased al-Qaeda activity and attacks on Westerners. And the Israeli-Palestine dispute is being left to fester and poison the world.

These are not achievements to be proud of. This is a string of disasters. We are not safer. We face incredible danger because of the way the Bush administration has grossly mishandled the Middle East.

What he said.

Pathological

Simply pathological.

June 17, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Thursday disputed the Sept. 11 commission's finding that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida terrorist network responsible for the attacks.

"There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida," Bush insisted following a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House.

"This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida," he said.

"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida in the Sudan."

The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday that no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein — a central justification the Bush administration had for toppling the former Iraqi regime. Bush also argued that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which have not been found, and that he ruled his country by with an iron fist and tortured political opponents.

Although bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said. "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

A Nation of Tin Foil Hats

I suppose that's what we've become.That must be it. We've all gone mad and are buying into the whining of a few Bush-haters. How else could you explain this official, masthead editorial from the New York Times?

Seriously, though. This is big. unfortunately, it's still not very vindicating. Even given the fact that this of indictment has risen from the mouths of individuals, on to the blogs and into the commentary and reportage of some independent journalists, to more and more nationally visible OpEd pages, and finally into official, newspaper sanctioned editorials.

What took so long? How is it that the free press in America had so shirked its mandate to dutifully and honestly serve and inform the public? Indeed, a paper such as the Times, whose front page and selected reporters are complicit in bringing this nation to war, is just now starting to see what they have wrought (though I don't for a minute think that they'll ever fess up to playing as large a role as they have).

At least they're speaking up. From the editorial pages, anyway. Now, if they could just get their "objective" "news" divisions up off their knees, offer a bath cloth, and tell them to get back to work, then we'd be in business. Anyway, here's a taste of the editorial itself:

On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.

The staff report issued by the 9/11 panel says that Sudan's government, which sheltered Osama bin Laden in the early 1990's, tried to hook him up with Mr. Hussein, but that nothing came of it.

This is not just a matter of the president's diminishing credibility, although that's disturbing enough. The war on terror has actually suffered as the conflict in Iraq has diverted military and intelligence resources from places like Afghanistan, where there could really be Qaeda forces, including Mr. bin Laden.

Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.

Slam Debunk

From the AP dispatch on the staff report delivered at today's 9/11 commission hearings in Washington:

Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was ``no credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.

In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were ``apparently quite good.'' Terrorists-to-be were encouraged to ``think creatively about ways to commit mass murder,'' it added.

Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.

While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a ``collaborative relationship.''

The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.

On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator ``had long established ties with al-Qaida.''

Oh My God

From the AP, horror in Ramadi. This is still developing, but if true....

U.S. Reportedly Kills 40 Iraqis at Party

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. helicopter fired on a wedding party early Wednesday in western Iraq, killing more than 40 people, Iraqi officials said. The U.S. military said it could not confirm the report and was investigating.

Lt. Col Ziyad al-Jbouri, deputy police chief of the city of Ramadi, said between 42 and 45 people died in the attack, which took place about 2:45 a.m. in a remote desert area near the border with Syria and Jordan. He said those killed included 15 children and 10 women.

Dr. Salah al-Ani, who works at a hospital in Ramadi, put the death toll at 45.

Associated Press Television News obtained videotape showing a truck containing bodies of those allegedly killed.

About a dozen bodies, one without a head, could be clearly seen. but it appeared that bodies were piled on top of each other and a clear count was not possible.

It is common practice in Arab culture (and many other cultures as well) to fire off guns in the air during celebrations. It should be common knowledge, as well, to any foreign soldier who finds him or herself on stationed on Arab soil. In fact, the account of this tragedy at the wedding shows that there were rifles fired into the air, US troops came by to investigate and left, seemingly satisfied that nothing untoward was going on. Then the helicopters came.

In case you're feeling deja vu, it's understandable. From July of 2002:

A US airstrike that killed dozens of guests at a wedding party in Afghanistan in July was justified, a US military investigation has concluded. Its report says people at the party in central Afghanistan's Uruzgan province who fired at US aircraft were to blame, not the American pilots who returned the fire........The Afghan Government says 48 civilians - mostly women and children - were killed and 117 injured by the US AC-130 aircraft during the incident, which severely strained relations between Washington and Kabul.......The Afghan officials and survivors of the incident say the only gunfire from the area came from the guests who fired their rifles in celebration.

Maybe There's Room at Abu Ghraib

High crimes and misdemeanors. War crimes. From Newsweek. Would someone, for God's sake, please give this man some oral loving so we can get down to serious impeachment hearings?

Could Bush administration officials be prosecuted for 'war crimes' as a result of new measures used in the war on terror? The White House's top lawyer thought so.

May 17 - 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. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined."

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.

The Least We Can Do

Seriously. It ain't nothing but a thing.....the children of Afghanistan need pens.

Go now, see Atrios. He has details.

The Wrong Morons

From the Army Times, an editorial. The print version doesn't seem to be hitting the street until this coming Monday, the 17th, but it's online now. So, you and I can read it, but if what's been said about KB&R cutting all "nonessential" internet access for soldiers in Iraq is accurate, the folks on the ground in Iraq cannot. Whether this is by chance or design I cannot say, but, them's the facts, ma'am.

Editorial: A failure of leadership at the highest levels

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.

Indeed, the damage done to the U.S. military and the nation as a whole by the horrifying photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at the notorious prison is incalculable.

But the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons.

There is no excuse for the behavior displayed by soldiers in the now-infamous pictures and an even more damning report by Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. Every soldier involved should be ashamed.

But while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges, it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian leadership.

The entire affair is a failure of leadership from start to finish. From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and isolated. The message to the troops: Anything goes.

In addition to the scores of prisoners who were humiliated and demeaned, at least 14 have died in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has ruled at least two of those homicides. This is not the way a free people keeps its captives or wins the hearts and minds of a suspicious world.

How tragically ironic that the American military, which was welcomed to Baghdad by the euphoric Iraqi people a year ago as a liberating force that ended 30 years of tyranny, would today stand guilty of dehumanizing torture in the same Abu Ghraib prison used by Saddam Hussein’s henchmen.

One can only wonder why the prison wasn’t razed in the wake of the invasion as a symbolic stake through the heart of the Baathist regime.

Army commanders in Iraq bear responsibility for running a prison where there was no legal adviser to the commander, and no ultimate responsibility taken for the care and treatment of the prisoners.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also shares in the shame. Myers asked “60 Minutes II” to hold off reporting news of the scandal because it could put U.S. troops at risk. But when the report was aired, a week later, Myers still hadn’t read Taguba’s report, which had been completed in March. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also failed to read the report until after the scandal broke in the media.

By then, of course, it was too late.

Myers, Rumsfeld and their staffs failed to recognize the impact the scandal would have not only in the United States, but around the world.

If their staffs failed to alert Myers and Rumsfeld, shame on them. But shame, too, on the chairman and secretary, who failed to inform even President Bush.

He was left to learn of the explosive scandal from media reports instead of from his own military leaders.

On the battlefield, Myers’ and Rumsfeld’s errors would be called a lack of situational awareness — a failure that amounts to professional negligence.

To date, the Army has moved to court-martial the six soldiers suspected of abusing Iraqi detainees and has reprimanded six others.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who commanded the MP brigade that ran Abu Ghraib, has received a letter of admonishment and also faces possible disciplinary action.

That’s good, but not good enough.

This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential — even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.

— Military Times editorial, May 17 issue

Now, when taken with this piece by Thomas Ricks from Sunday's WaPo, and we have the beginnings of yet another Bush-powered breakdown, this one within the military. If this was not America, signs and portents would be pointing to an imminent coup:

Dissension Grows In Senior Ranks On War Strategy

U.S. May Be Winning Battles in Iraq But Losing the War, Some Officers Say

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.

...

Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, who spent much of the year in western Iraq, said he believes that at the tactical level at which fighting occurs, the U.S. military is still winning. But when asked whether he believes the United States is losing, he said, "I think strategically, we are."

Army Col. Paul Hughes, who last year was the first director of strategic planning for the U.S. occupation authority in Baghdad, said he agrees with that view and noted that a pattern of winning battles while losing a war characterized the U.S. failure in Vietnam. "Unless we ensure that we have coherency in our policy, we will lose strategically," he said in an interview Friday.

"I lost my brother in Vietnam," added Hughes, a veteran Army strategist who is involved in formulating Iraq policy. "I promised myself, when I came on active duty, that I would do everything in my power to prevent that [sort of strategic loss] from happening again. Here I am, 30 years later, thinking we will win every fight and lose the war, because we don't understand the war we're in."

...

Some officers say the place to begin restructuring U.S. policy is by ousting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, whom they see as responsible for a series of strategic and tactical blunders over the past year. Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is building within the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him.

A senior general at the Pentagon said he believes the United States is already on the road to defeat. "It is doubtful we can go on much longer like this," he said. "The American people may not stand for it -- and they should not."

Asked who was to blame, this general pointed directly at Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. "I do not believe we had a clearly defined war strategy, end state and exit strategy before we commenced our invasion," he said. "Had someone like Colin Powell been the chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], he would not have agreed to send troops without a clear exit strategy. The current OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] refused to listen or adhere to military advice."

There's more, but you get the picture. While anger seethes within the Army, though, the Bush team is falling all over themselves trying to prop up Rumsfeld and crown him with laurel leaves. Fools. Josh Marshall made some very insightful comparisons between the Bush administration and junkies who can't accept they've already hit bottom, and so keep on dancing as fast as they can....from someone with deep firsthand knowledge of junkies and their rationalizations, I have to say it's a very apt analogy.

And an editorial note: I'll be spending some ugly time this morning with the February report on Iraqi prisoner abuse from the International Committee of the Red Cross, and aim to do some writing on the matter. Stay tuned.

Sleight of Hand

While everyone is (understandably) up in arms over the Saudi royals playing the game of American politics, using their control over oil prices to dictate hopeful electoral outcomes, there is a much bigger and (again) impeachable offense here, and one that cannot be brushed aside as easily. We now know from Woodward's book that Gen. Tommy Franks was given a blank check with which to begin setting the stage for the Iraq war the president said he wasn't planning for. Of course, this was before the serious misinformation push began, before the spectre of mushroom clouds were pushed on the public by the administration, and therefore appropriating open-ended support for an Iraq-directed military build-up would have been a hard nut to get congress to swallow. Soution: act as though Bush's wistful longing for the ease of a Bush dictatorship was not (another) mis-statement by the president, but an executive order.

From CBS:

Woodward reports that just five days after Sept. 11, President Bush indicated to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that while he had to do Afghanistan first, he was also determined to do something about Saddam Hussein.

”There's some pressure to go after Saddam Hussein. Don Rumsfeld has said, ‘This is an opportunity to take out Saddam Hussein, perhaps. We should consider it.’ And the president says to Condi Rice meeting head to head, ‘We won't do Iraq now.’ But it is a question we're gonna have to return to,’” says Woodward.

“And there's this low boil on Iraq until the day before Thanksgiving, Nov. 21, 2001. This is 72 days after 9/11. This is part of this secret history. President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically, and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, ‘What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.’"

Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam - and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

”Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the preparations in Kuwait, specifically to make war possible,” says Woodward.

“Gets to a point where in July, the end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it. But Congress doesn't know and it is done. They get the money from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghan War, which Congress has approved. …Some people are gonna look at a document called the Constitution which says that no money will be drawn from the Treasury unless appropriated by Congress. Congress was totally in the dark on this."

How much will it take?

Must-calls and Memes

More from last night's "media availability" by the president:

Q. Mr. President, Why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 commission? And Mr. President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30?

A. We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over. And secondly, because the the 9/11 commission wants to ask us questions. That's why we're meeting, and I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.

Q. Mr. President, I was asking why you're appearing together rather than separately, which was their request.

A. Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them.

Let's see. Hold on for a minute. Oh — I've got some must calls, I'm sorry.

Q. You have been accused of letting the 9/11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism? And secondly, in the wake of these two conflicts, what is the appropriate threat level to justify action in, perhaps, other situations going forward?

A. Yeah. I guess there have been some that said, well, we should have taken pre-emptive action in Afghanistan, and then turned around and said we shouldn't have taken pre-emptive action in Iraq. And my answer to that question is that — again, I repeat what I said earlier — prior to 9/11, the country really wasn't on a war footing. And the, frankly, mood of the world would have been astounded had the United States acted unilaterally in trying to deal with Al Qaeda in that part of the world. It would have been awfully hard to do, as well, by the way. We would have had — we hadn't got our relationship right with Pakistan yet. The caucus area would have been very difficult from which to base. It just seemed an impractical strategy at the time. And frankly, I didn't contemplate it. I did contemplate a larger strategy as to how to deal with Al Qaeda. We — you know, we were shooting cruise missiles and with little effect. And I said, if we're going to go after Al Qaeda, let's have a comprehensive strategy as to how to deal with it, with that entity.

Now, today it's been widely discussed that this second questioner was Washington Times/FOX "reporter" Bill Sammon. Later on that evening on CNN's Larry King Live, Mitch McConnell chimed in:

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), KY, MAJORITY WHIP: Well, I think he laid out a good case, Larry, for doing what we've done since 9/11, which is to try to drain the swamp. I mean the president is being criticized by some for not acting soon enough prior to 9/11 and then for acting too soon in Iraq.

You see what's going on here, don't you? As always, the GOP and their reps in congress and the media (Sean Hannity was on the Today Show this morning with more of the same) will pepper the airwaves with this meme; that we had to go in to Iraq, when and how we did and not a moment later, because we waited too long to go in to Afghanistan to take out the Taliban and al Qaeda. The same technique sees many mentions (almost verbatim) of how the 9/11 commission is already showing it's partisan stripes, and therefore whatever the report, it will be tainted. Truth never enters into the equation for this team. So, anyway, we will see this meme pop up again and again in the days to follow. It must; the talking points memo was distributed to everyone, including Sammon and McConnell, Hannity and Limbaugh. Watch.