Sen. Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said his vote against the ban doesn’t mean he favors torture. He rejected Durbin’s comments as ”not really relevant to what we are trying to do to detain and interrogate the worst of the worst so that we can save American lives.”
Roberts said that success with detention and interrogation depends on the detainee’s fear of the unknown. He suggested that passing a law and putting U.S. policies into a manual would tell detainees too much about what to expect.
”As long as you’re following the Constitution and there’s no torture and no inhumane treatment, I see nothing wrong with saying here is the worst of the worst. We know they have specific information to save American lives in terrorist attacks around the world. That’s what we’re talking about,” Roberts said.
People like Pat Roberts make that fatuous argument all the time. They always say we only capture the “worst of the worst” whom soldiers and CIA agents KNOW beforehand have information that they stubbornly refuse to share (unless we make him sit on an exhaust pipe causing softball size blisters on their backside.) We don’t need to apply any rules or laws because they deserve whatever they get. Of course, we don’t torture and wouldn’t dream of it and we always follow the constitution. But when we do it’s only because they are the worst of the worst.
Once again I’m drawn to ponder why we have all this pesky due process here at home if it is possible to know before hand that someone is undoubtedly guilty so whatever punishment they are premptively given is only what they deserve. In the US, we have cops and prosecutors who investigate in scrupulous detail before somebody is tried. We go through a whole lot of gyrations weighing the evidence and making arguments according to laws that have been made to ensure we come as close an approximation of the truth as we can find. We do this because it turns out that sometimes all those cops and prosecutors make mistakes or are corrupt or are anxious to catch a fearsome killer so they get the wrong man.
It’s quite cumbersome, but civilization determined some time ago that not only are torture and cruel and unusual punishment wrong — and it has been millenia since anyone has argued that condoning the torture, punishment or imprisonment of an innocent man is anything but immoral. Yet, that is essentially what this argument does. It must condone the imprisonment and torture of innocent people. It is impossible that we are always capturing only the worst of the worst. In fact, we know that we aren’t. Unless Senator Roberts is even dumber than he sounds, he has decided that torturing the occasional innocent person is just collateral damage.
The military code of justice, the Geneva conventions and the army code of conduct have all been designed to keep some sort of due process alive even in wartime so that we don’t descend into depravity and chaos. They are designed to keep us moored to the idea of justice and morality in the midst of violence. It makes it possible for us to explain what we are doing — to ourselves and others.
I recall during the great Clinton panty raid, the constant refrain about “what will we tell the children?” Everyone was concerned about the moral health of the next generation. How in the hell are people explaining to their children why we need a system of justice when we don’t need it to figure out who is “the worst of the worst.” How do you explain that torture is wrong except when it isn’t?
Still, I think it’s important to remember that we are pursuing phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation for purely political purposes. We will get nothing substantive out of it as long as Senator Pat Roberts is the Chairman.
In Phase I you can see that whoever actually wrote the thing for the Republicans is quite skilled with language (perhaps they hired the romance novelist who penned the Starr report). In this case, it wasn’t bodice ripping sexual adventure, it was a masterful work of subliminal innuendo. The Democrats were either too lazy or too weak to fight this word for the word they way they should have done. Without the underlying information on which the conclusions were based, there is no way to understand what the hell really went on.
This is from the main body of the report, not the separate Hatch, Bond, Roberts addendum hatchet job:
( )Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife “offered up his name” and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, “my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD’s idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador’s wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him “there’s this crazy report” on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.
This sounds innocuous. However, when you read the report carefully you realize the only time that any person is directly quoted it’s done to create a certain impression. In that paragraph we see that Wilson “offered up” her husband to investigate a “crazy report.” This shows that she has an agenda. Here’s another example:
An INR analyst’s notes indicate that the meeting was “apparently convened by [the former ambassador’s] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.” The former ambassador’s wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.
Notice they don’t quote Valerie Wilson there, only the INR analyst. They do not reveal what she said about the “idea to dispatch him” in this passage, but leave it hanging there, unrefuted. There is plenty of information in the report itself and elsewhere from which to support a different view of events, but the report is subtly slanted throughout to give the impression that Plame sent her husband to Niger to knock down a claim that didn’t fit with her pre-conceived beliefs. (Of course, even if that were true, she would have been right. The Iraq Survey Group report put that one to bed.)
It happens throughout the otherwise rather dry, difficult report. By using selective quotes to promote a certain point of view while dissents are buried in expository language, they cleverly give weight to their conclusions while pretending to be even-handed. We can expect more of this for Phase II. (I have little faith that Jay Rockefeller can deal with this any more effectively now than he did before.)
Pat Roberts is the worst possible choice to be the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He is a partisan first and last. His predecessor, Richard Shelby of Alabama was no moderate (and he has his own problems with disseminating classified information) but he operated independently of the White House and took his job seriously. In combination with Bob Graham on the Democratic side, they were able to maintain at least some bi-partisan integrity. There is no integrity on the Republican side of the Intelligence Committee at present.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t press for the second phase of the investigation and more. We are about to go into an election year in which it may be possible to take control of the congress if we play our cards right. A huge part of that is laying this cover-up at the feet of these congressional enablers as much as the White House. They have been covering for the Dick Cheney show for years now and it’s time for the public to hold them responsible.
Here’s an early example of Roberts doing a bang up job of congressional oversight, from March of 2003:
Sarah Ross, a spokeswoman for Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts, said the committee will look into the forgery, but Roberts believes it is inappropriate for the FBI to investigate at this point.
The documents indicated that Iraq tried to by uranium from Niger, the West African nation that is the third-largest producer of mined uranium, Niger’s largest export. The documents had been provided to U.S. officials by a third country, which has not been identified.
A U.S. government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said it was unclear who first created the documents. The official said American suspicions remain about an Iraq-Niger uranium connection because of other, still-credible evidence that the official refused to specify.
In December, the State Department used the information to support its case that Iraq was lying about its weapons programs. But on March 7, Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents were forgeries.
Rockefeller said U.S. worries about Iraqi nuclear weapons were not based primarily on the documents, but “there is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq.”
Then in November of 2003, look how they handled reports that the Democrats wanted to investigate how the White House used the intelligence. Frist had one of his patented hissy fits:
Angry about a leaked Democratic memo, the Republican leadership of the Senate yesterday took the unusual step of canceling all business of the committee investigating prewar intelligence on Iraq.
Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) called on the author of the memo — which laid out a possible Democratic strategy to extend the investigation to include the White House and executive branch — to “identify himself or herself . . . disavow this partisan attack in its entirety” and deliver “a personal apology” to Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence.
Only if those steps are taken, Frist said, “will it be possible for the committee to resume its work in an effective and bipartisan manner — a manner deserving of the confidence of other members of the Senate and the executive branch.”
Roberts followed Frist on the floor and said that unless the Democratic members “properly” address the issue, “I am afraid that it will be impossible to return to ‘business as usual’ in the committee.”
A committee meeting scheduled for yesterday was canceled, and none has been scheduled for next week, according to a senior committee staff member.
I would suggest that we use their own language against them instead of against ourselves, for once. Who are the real spineless politicians in Washington, after all? Is it the opposition Democrats who flailed unsuccessfully at a president who says that he’d prefer to be a dictator? Or are the GOP Senators and Congressmen who have spent the last five years as servile yes men and women to every single insane thing the president asked of them the real wimps in all this?
They have covered and excused and enabled and supported President Bush and Vice President Cheney no matter what cockamamie acheme they came up with at the expense of their duty as an equal branch of government. What kind of mealy-mouthed little bed-wetters are these Republicans who stood by while this president took this country down the path to perdition.
George W. Bush would be nothing today if it weren’t for the unified unquestioning support of the GOP congress of the United States. We need to make sure that he’s hung like a dead soaring eagle around the necks of every single Republican running for office next year. It isn’t just Codpiece and his mad dog Cheney. It’s the legislative branch who checked their consciences and their responsibilities at the doors to become brown-nosing sycophants for the most incompetent, radical, corrupt administration in history. It’s their Party and they can cry if they want to —- but it won’t do any good.
Are there any Republican political types who aren’t crooks? Any? I think that may be there are one or two, there have to be, but I honestly can’t think of any.
It turns out that Kenneth Tomlinson, the ousted head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is being investigated for “misuse of federal money and the use of phantom or unqualified employees.”
People involved in the inquiry said that investigators had already interviewed a significant number of officials at the agency and that, if the accusations were substantiated, they could involve criminal violations.
Last July, the inspector general at the State Department opened an inquiry into Mr. Tomlinson’s work at the board of governors after Representative Howard L. Berman, Democrat of California, and Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, forwarded accusations of misuse of money.
The lawmakers requested the inquiry after Mr. Berman received complaints about Mr. Tomlinson from at least one employee at the board, officials said. People involved in the inquiry said it involved accusations that Mr. Tomlinson was spending federal money for personal purposes, using board money for corporation activities, using board employees to do corporation work and hiring ghost employees or improperly qualified employees.
Through an aide at the broadcasting board, Mr. Tomlinson declined to comment Friday about the State Department inquiry.
And guess who’s one of Ken’s good friends?
In recent weeks, State Department investigators have seized records and e-mail from the Broadcasting Board of Governors, officials said. They have shared some material with the inspector general at the corporation, including e-mail traffic between Mr. Tomlinson and White House officials including Karl Rove, a senior adviser to President Bush and a close friend of Mr. Tomlinson.
Mr. Rove and Mr. Tomlinson became friends in the 1990’s when they served on the Board for International Broadcasting, the predecessor agency to the board of governors. Mr. Rove played an important role in Mr. Tomlinson’s appointment as chairman of the broadcasting board.
The content of the e-mail between the two officials has not been made public but could become available when the corporation’s inspector general sends his report to members of Congress this month.
The turning of public broadcasting into a cog in the GOP noise machine was undoubtedly part of Rove’s master plan. One of the beautiful things about controlling the government was the availability of taxpayer money to pay for partisan propaganda. Why bleed your friends when you can bleed the saps who are paying the bills? I’m sure Rupert Murdoch and Dick Scaife would be very grateful if they didn’t have to underwrite the entire thing. Why, if they played thier cards right, in a decade or two, the private sector could be completely out of the propaganda business.
Update: Never Mind. Bush has solved the problem. He’s a leader cuz he knows how ta lead. Back to codpiece worship for everyone:
President Bush has ordered White House staff to attend mandatory briefings beginning next week on ethical behavior and the handling of classified material after the indictment last week of a senior administration official in the CIA leak probe.
The mandatory ethics primer is the first step Bush plans to take in coming weeks in response to the CIA leak probe that led to the indictment of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, and which still threatens Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff.
[…]
A senior aide said Bush decided to mandate the ethics course during private meetings last weekend with Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and counsel Harriet Miers. Miers’s office will conduct the ethics briefings.
Is it mandatory for Rove and Cheney, do you suppose? It seems kind of pointless otherwise.
The Stranger is reporting more voter manipulation by Republicans in Seattle, trying to suppress the vote, as usual:
Steven Lacey is a regular voter whose plan for Election Day next Tuesday was to walk a few blocks from his Belltown apartment building and cast his vote, as usual, at his local precinct. At least, that was his plan until he received a letter last night informing him that his right to vote had been challenged by a woman from the east side named Lori D. Sotelo.
The letter reported that Sotelo had declared to King County election officials, “under penalty of perjury,” that Lacey’s voter registration was not valid because he couldn’t possibly be living at the address he was claiming. “Which is insane,” Lacey said. The 35-year-old insurance company account manager lives at the Watermark, a 60-unit downtown apartment building built in 1908. However, Sotelo appeared to believe the Watermark was a storage unit, a P.O. box, or some other location that Lacey could not legally be using as an address of record.
Furious, Lacey did a quick web search and realized that Sotelo was a leader in the King County Republican Party. He couldn’t understand how she came to think he was illegally registered, since the Watermark, Lacey said, “couldn’t more clearly be a physical residence.” He left Sotelo a phone message telling her as much, but he never heard back.
Then he asked around, and found that many people in his building had received the same letter, informing them that their votes would not be counted until they proved, at a hearing or through a signed affidavit, that they were legally registered.
“A lot of the people that live in the building are over 50 and have voted in dozens of elections and are incredibly pissed,” he said. “Everybody’s pretty pissed.”
It turns out that Lacey and his neighbors were just a few among at least 140 King County voters who were wrongly challenged by Sotelo, who chairs the King County Republican Party’s “Voter Registration Integrity Project.” Sotelo could not be reached for comment on Friday morning, when The Stranger first reported the mistakes on our blog, but Chris Vance, chairman of the state Republican Party later confirmed for The Stranger that a serious mistake had been made.
“We are withdrawing those challenges today and apologizing to those folks,” he said. He added that it is “just coincidence” that a significant number of the wrongly challenged voters live in a strongly Democratic neighborhood.
Citing a new list of more than 37,000 questionable addresses, the state Republican Party demanded Saturday that Milwaukee city officials require identification from all of those voters Tuesday.
If the city doesn’t, the party says it is prepared to have volunteers challenge each individual – including thousands who might be missing an apartment number on their registration – at the polls.
The move, which dramatically escalates the party’s claims of bad addresses and potential fraud, was condemned by Democrats as a last-minute effort to suppress turnout in the city by creating long delays at the polls.
City officials, who already were trying to establish safeguards in response to the party’s claim of 5,619 bad addresses, were surprised by the 37,180 number, nearly seven times larger.
“It’s not a leap at all to say the potential for voter fraud is high in the city, and the integrity of the entire election, frankly, is at stake,” said Rick Graber, state GOP chairman. “The city’s records are in horrible shape.”
Any inaccurate address, he said, is an opening for someone to cast a fraudulent vote. However, many of the new addresses now cited might be eligible voters who have voted for years without problems.
City Attorney Grant Langley labeled the GOP request “outrageous.”
“We have already uncovered hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of addresses on their (original list) that do exist,” said Langley, who holds a non-partisan office. “Why should I take their word for the fact this new list is good? I’m out of the politics on this, but this is purely political.”
They cheat on an institutional level. Operatives are taught to do it when they are just political pups:
The Committee is the place where Republican strategists learn their craft and acquire their knack for making their Democratic opponents look like disorganized children. Many of the biggest-brand Republican operatives–from Karl Rove and Lee Atwater, to Charlie Black and Roger Stone, to Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed, and Grover Norquist–got their starts this way. Walking through the halls of the convention, it is easy to see the genesis of tactics deployed in the Florida recount and by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Republicans learn how to fight hard against Democrats by practicing on one another first. “There are no rules in a knife fight,” Norquist instructed the young conventioneers in a speech. And, while Norquist described a knife fight, the Gourley-Davidson rumble transpired around.
[…]
In 1973, Rove was the Establishment candidate, and Atwater, the original Sun Tsu-quoting College Republican, was his prime campaign operative. They spent the spring of 1973 crisscrossing the country in a Ford Pinto, lining up the support of state chairs–basically the right-wing version of Thelma and Louise. But, in point of fact, Rove was hardly the right-winger in the race. His two opponents, Terry Dolan and Robert Edgeworth, were. And, when Dolan threw his support to Edgeworth, Rove had no other alternative. He had to cheat.
When the College Republicans gathered for their convention at the Lake of the Ozarks resort in Missouri, Rove and Atwater relentlessly challenged the legitimacy of Edgeworth’s delegates, even if the evidence did not justify their attacks.
Republican party operatives are trained to cheat. They first cheat each other in the minors and then they take their skills to the show. This is a cog of the GOP machine that needs to be exposed and dealt with.
Prepare yourself to defend every Democratic win, because they are going to go batshit crazy if they start to lose and you will see an “electoral reform” movement like we could only dream of. It will be based upon spurious claims of massive, national voter fraud.
This article doesn’t state specifically when it took place, so it’s hard to know if it’s referring to the meeting I found so puzzling, but according to a Rove associate, Fitzgerald at some point met with James Sharp, Bush lawyer, about whether or not Rove misrepresented his role in the leak case to the president. That’s a bit more believable than Fitzgerald making a personal pilgrimage to Sharp’s office to get word to the president that Rove is out of danger, as Michael Isikoff would have had us believe.
“Lawyers in the case” also said that Fitzgerald has narrowed his focus as to whether Rove lied about his conversation with Matthew Cooper.
And:
Mr. Fitzgerald no longer seems to be actively examining some of the more incendiary questions involving Mr. Rove.
They “seem” to have come to this conclusion based upon the fact that Rove and Cooper’s lawyers are talking and nobody else is. In other words, they don’t really know shit. It may be that he’s only considering the Cooper e-mail lie or it may be that he’s trying to nail down the Cooper e-mail lie as part of something else that he is no longer actively investigating — because he already has the goods.
You can’t tell what is going to happen based upon what he has been investigating this last week. Luskin’s bombshell, exculpatory, pause-giving evidence notwithstanding, we are still in the dark about “Official A’s” real exposure in all this.
I’m in “I’ll believe it when I see it” mode. Nobody knows nothin’.
If it comes to pass that Karl Rove is indicted, or even if he loses his security clearance (which he damned well should) I would hope that someone in Washington has the guts to smash this fellatory daydream in Mark Helperin’s face and twist it like a grapefruit until he screams for mercy. I’m not sure if “The Note” think this is funny or if they seriously believe that Karl Rove was just an innocent bystander in the Plame outing, but either way their little fantasy is ludicrous.
Pretending that they are writing in the future on a day when Rove comes to the podium and finally speaks, they write Rove’s speech for him:
“I have a statement to make before taking your questions.”
“Now that the special counsel has informed me that I will not be charged in his investigation, I thought I should come to this podium and tell you the straight Texas truth about my role in this case.”
“In short, my counsel advises me that there is no controlling legal authority that says that any of my activities violated any law.”
“Just kidding. Lighten up, Plante.”
“When news reports began regarding allegations that Valerie Wilson’s name was improperly released to the media, I was asked by several colleagues here at the White House if I had played a role in illegally releasing the name of Mrs. Wilson. I said at the time that I had not. That was my best recollection at the time I was asked.”
“Subsequently, three things occurred. One, the special counsel’s investigation began, and both he and the President — as well as the White House counsel — asked those of us working in the government not to speak publicly about the case in any way.”
“Two, my colleague and friend Scott McClellan on several occasions repeated what I had in good faith told him — that I had not played any part in breaking the law and disclosing her name. As a result, he mislead you more often than my lawyer, Luskin, which is really something when you think about it.”
“Third, after an e-mail was belatedly discovered through the normal search process at the White House, my recollection was refreshed and I recalled that I did have one brief conversation with one reporter in which I mentioned Mrs. Wilson’s role in her husband’s trip to Niger.”
“Because of the first development — the absolute barrier to speaking about the case — I was unable to deal in a timely manner with the second two developments in a public way. This had the unfortunate effect of bringing into question the credibility of the White House and my own public credibility. For that, I am sorry.”
There was, of course, no absolute barrier about talking about the case. Indeed, his lawyer discussed it constantly both on backround and in the open. This is nonsense.
Furthermore, Karl Rove has a photographic memory. He did not forget speaking to Cooper and he did not forget speaking to Libby about Novak writing a story about “Wilson’s wife.” Sure, Karl could say this, but nobody would believe it except his little cheerleading squad at The Note. The partisan shills might dutifully repeat it, but they wouldn’t believe it either. This is because it’s completely unbelievable.
Karl has cultivated quite a mystique over the years. He is considered by one and all, on both the right and the left, to be a Machiavellian genius, or as ex-Democrat and media maven Mark McKinnon, his most devoted sycophant, puts it, “a chess master who always sees 12 steps ahead.” He worked very hard to create that image and playing the dizzy blond won’t work now.
Why, everyone knows that Bush’s Brain’s tactical brilliance is legendary. It’s obvious that Boy Genius’s political skills are unparalleled. He has been lauded for his special brand of slash and burn politics since his earliest days, doing dirty tricks in the college Republicans. He doesn’t play hardball politics, he plays beanball politics. He cannot play innocent. Ever.
In this case, regardless of any illegality, his tactics were no different than usual — low, partisan and ruthlessly over the top. Here is what he reportedly said to the grand jury:
President Bush’s chief political adviser, Karl Rove, told the FBI in an interview last October that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists, according to a government official and an attorney familiar with the ongoing special counsel’s investigation of the matter.
But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak’s column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
Rove and other White House officials described to the FBI what sources characterized as an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife to the press, utilizing proxies such as conservative interest groups and the Republican National Committee to achieve those ends, and distributing talking points to allies of the administration on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Rove is said to have named at least six other administration officials who were involved in the effort to discredit Wilson.
This is what the man does and it’s how he got his creature George W. Bush in the white house. From whisper campaigns about Ann Richards being a lesbian to siccing the FBI on Jim Hightower, he honed his skills as an assassin for more than 20 years in Texas. He’s proud of it.
Prosecutors investigating whether White House officials illegally leaked the identity of Wilson’s wife, a CIA officer who had worked undercover, have been told that Bush’s top political strategist, Karl Rove, and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, were especially intent on undercutting Wilson’s credibility, according to a person familiar with the inquiry.
While lower-level White House staff members typically handle most contacts with the media, Rove and Libby began personally communicating with reporters about Wilson, prosecutors were told.
A source directly familiar with information provided to prosecutors said Rove’s interest was so strong that it prompted questions in the White House. When asked at one point why he was pursuing the diplomat so aggressively, Rove responded: “He’s a Democrat.”
Karl Rove was in the middle of a ruthless, partisan campaign to “discredit” Joe Wilson with leaks. He, as “Official A,” went to Libby and told him that Robert Novak was going to write a column “about Wilson’s wife.” He told Chris Matthews that Wilson’s wife was “fair game.”
Yet The Note wants us to actually swallow this utter bullshit that the brilliant, masterful, political genius Karl Rove “forgot” his conversation with Matt Cooper in which he spilled the beans about Wilson’s wife. In a court of law, perhaps Pat Fitzgerald would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rove lied about that. In the court of public opinion, it is as ridiculous as the idea that OJ didn’t do it.
Perhaps Karl can spend the rest of his tenure in the White House looking for the real leakers.
You may recall Colonel Laurence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Colin Powell who recently caused a…hullabaloo when he shocked, shocked everyone with his report of the existence of a cabal that has hijacked foreign policy under Bush. Well, Colonel Wilkerson now tell us the orders to torture prisoners came from the highest levels of government, specifically Cheney’s office.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad the good Colonel’s been able to put two and two together, but among others, investigative journalist Mark Danner’s been saying much the same thing all along, long before Bush’s ratings tanked (to still dismayingly high levels). Danner’s reporting on the torture scandal has been detailed, meticulous, superb, accurate, and ignored.
By the way, does Danner appear regularly on major network TV news or panels? Any rumors he might replace David Brooks at the Times, who has been screwing up royally (unless Brooks’s purpose has been to increase Friedman’s relative stature at the Times as a prose stylist and deep thinker)?
Tomlinson resigns from the CPB board. Remember? He’s the guy who hired someone to watch Bill Moyers and report on all the heinous liberalism going on. Among those dastardly, “anti-administration” liberals were Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), and ex-congressman Bob Barr (R-Hypocrite). Unfortunately, Tomlinson remains head of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. So it’s too early to breathe a sigh of relief, but it is a step in the right… excuse me, proper direction.
Interestingly, in the midst of all of the attention to the CPB’s fight against liberal bias, the agency quietly announced a round of grantees for its “America at a Crossroads” project (6/27/05). Among the projects receiving CPB support are The Case for War, a film about neoconservative Richard Perle made by Perle’s longtime friend Brian Lapping; The Sound of the Guns, a film about former CIA director William Colby made by Colby’s son; Soldiers of the Future, which “will tell the story of Donald Rumsfeld’s recent efforts to transform America’s military”; Warriors, in which American Enterprise editor Karl Zinsmeister argues that the U.S. military “attracts a cross-section of citizens motivated by idealism and patriotism”; and Studying Hatred, a film by David Horowitz co-author Peter Collier.
And in Spring, 2006, be sure to watch the much anticipated documentary, “Big ‘Behind’: A Profile of Tim LaHaye.”
All this nonsense about Clinton and other Democrats saying the same thing as Bush, so Bush couldn’t have been lying is driving me nuts. It’s bad enough that they trot this out as an excuse for their own fuck-up, but when they conveniently forget that they were against the action Clinton took at the time to meet the threat (because it interefered with their blow-job trial) it’s infuriating.
Armey said in a statement. “After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons.”
I won’t say it.
Here’s the real problem. Clinton said the usual boilerplate about Saddam being a dangerous guy and how he wanted to get weapons of mass destruction and how we had to be credible with our threats of force to keep him in line. And when Saddam stepped way out of line in 1998 he ordered the massive bombing operation that got all the Republicans’ panties in a twist because it happened at the time of the all important fellatio impeachment.
On the night he ordered the bombing, here is how Clinton explained American policy:
…we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Clinton said that American policy was that if Saddam took certain threatening actions, we would use force.
Bush and Cheney said that Saddam might take threatening actions, so they had to invade.
That’s quite a different threat assessment. Clinton never suggested an invasion and occupation to deal with Saddam, his policy was to contain him with threats and judicious use of force when he provoked us. And apparently it worked. There were, after all, no weapons of mass destruction and he had perpetrated none of the other actions that would have led to a need for further use of force as of 2002.
General Zinni ran Operation Desert Fox and believed that it had crippled Saddam’s weapons capabilities. Inspectors, of course, could have verified that fact and Saddam allowed them back into the country in 2002 under the “threat of force.”
Even I wondered for a bit if Bush might actually be bluffing about invasion in the beginning, because 9/11 gave us some momentum to saber rattle to get inspectors back in. I suspect that some of the Senators who voted for the Iraq resolution held out some hope that this was what Bush had in mind — it had, after all, been Bush I and Clinton’s policy and it had kept Saddam contained and toothless for a decade. After about five mionutes of pondering the question I realized that Bush was deadly serious and there wsn’t a chance in hell that he could have the necessary finesse to pull something like that off. He wasn’t, after all, “into nuance.”
There was a lot of bellicose talk for years about Saddam because a public show of serious intent was part of the containment strategy. But until Commander Codpiece came along and empowered his neocon cabal of Iraq nuts, nobody was suggesting that the US military invade and occupy the country. Indeed, nobody thought it would be necessary in order to keep Saddam in check.
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:
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 thast 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. What a cock-up.
Foreign Policy Magazine And A Little From Foreign Affairs, For Extra Measure.
I’ve been subscribing to Foreign Policy for a few years now, but ever since they gave Newt Gingrich several pages to propose an American Ministry of Propaganda, I haven’t had much desire to do much more than glance at it. The current issue is different. It’s terrific, doing precisely what I hoped the zine would do. Not that I agree with everything, far from it, but it stirs the pot and gets some lesser-known stories out in provocative ways.
Take, for instance, this good news story about Iraq. Or so it seems at first. Commander James Gavrilis captured/liberated/whatever Ar Rutbah less than a month after the official start of the war. Spending around $3000 and relying on what sounds like a reality-based perspective on the situation, he managed to get the town back on its feet:
My initial approach to governing was very authoritative; it eliminated anarchy and allowed Iraqis to debate the details of democracy rather than survival. What the Iraqis needed was an interim authority to get them back on their feet. While the interim mayor and I provided this stability, the city council’s role was to oversee the mayor and to provide input, not necessarily to make policy. The laws and values of their society and culture were just fine. All we needed to do was enforce them. The city council was an important body for dialogue, debate, and legitimacy. But by initially limiting its decision-making power, we made sure the council couldn’t paralyze our progress.
Representatives in the city council included teachers and doctors, lawyers and merchants. At one town-hall meeting, a few of these professionals asked me about elections. They said the tribal sheiks and imams did not represent their interests, and they wanted to have a say in their government. I explained that they couldn’t vote right away because we had no election monitors or ballot boxes. Still, they insisted. Two rudimentary elections were held in the grand mosque to reconfirm the interim mayor—and Americans were not involved in either vote.
As an alternative to Saddam’s regime, the particular form of democracy was not as important as the concept of a polity that provided for the individual. That was really what Iraqis missed under Saddam. Good governance had to precede the form or type of democracy. Because we were effective in providing services, were responsive to individual concerns, and improved their lives, the Iraqis gravitated toward us and the changes we introduced. However, we didn’t have to change much. Ar Rutbah already had a secular structure that worked. We just put good people in office and changed the character of governance, not the entire infrastructure.
[snip]
One day, a few tribal sheiks came to complain of looting at night in some parts of the city. So, knowing that some of the sheiks were behind some of the looting, I established a neighborhood watch. I put them in charge and had their men act as the watchmen. And the sheiks were held accountable if the looting continued. I also had a team patrol those areas at night at random. The stealing ended abruptly.
[Snip]
n the end, I spent only about $3,000. This sum included the salaries of the police, the mayor, the army colonel, and a few soldiers and public officials. We paid for the crane and the flatbed trailers to move the generators to the city for electricity, and for fuel to run the generators. And we picked up the tab for other necessities, such as painting, tea, and copies of the renunciation form. But the change did not depend on the influx of funds; the Iraqis did a lot themselves. The real progress was the efficient and decent government and the environment we established. Without a lot of money to invest, we made assessments and established priorities, and talked with the Iraqis, exchanging ideas and visions of the future.
We intended to work ourselves out of our jobs, and when conditions were right we took steps back.
A very moving, hopeful story, and I’m not being anything other than sincere in saying so. But there’s just one teensy little problem with making this a textbook case example of why Iraq should have been invaded, which becomes obvious as the article winds down.
You see, unfortunately, Commander Gavrilis and his band of brothers were there for all of two weeks, and then they left. And then:
Although the Iraqis continued the work we started, the follow-up coalition forces did not. The distance between the locals and the troops widened. The Iraqis were eventually exposed and vulnerable to regime loyalists’ retribution and intimidation by foreign fighters. The local Iraqi security forces never developed to the point where they were stronger than the gangs of insurgents; they were never brought into a larger political or security framework of an Iraqi government so that they could be part of a collective security system. Left alone, the Iraqis simply couldn’t hold off the foreign fighters who passed through the city, using Ar Rutbah as a way station en route to Baghdad and Ramadi.
Now, you might think at first that this helps the argument of the liberal hawks, that Bush/Iraq could have worked had the occupation simply been more competent. Actually it doesn’t. Here’s part of the reason why.
As it happens, a few days earlier, I had read this remarkably bad article about Vietnam by Melvin Laird in Foreign Affairs about his tenure as Secretary of Defense during Nixon. Short version: “Don’t blame me for Vietnam. The guys before me got us into that mess, I did a great job, but I didn’t have time to finish, and the guys who came after me totally fucked it up.”
Now, there are major differences between Vietnam and Iraq, to be sure. Among them is that Commander Gavrilis seems like an intelligent, down to earth man, justly proud of his competence in a difficult situation while Secretary Laird reminds us what an arrogant, mistaken, paranoid son of a bitch he was thirty plus years ago. But the trajectory of failure is the same and, I’m afraid, entirely predictable. Let’s, for argument’s sake, take both men at their word, that they did a good job (a stretch with Laird, but bear with me). The problem is that no matter how good a job they could do, inevitably someone would replace them who wouldn’t do as good a good job, who didn’t care as much, who wasn’t as informed, who didn’t have the same combination of street instincts, commonsense, and decency that led to a temporary positive outcome. The main point is this: As Commander Gavrilis himself notes, any positive development was temporary and highly contingent. Because so little can be depended upon in such a volatile, and little understood, situation – be it Vietnam or a town in occupied Iraq – reversals due to incompetence and unexpected problems are all but certain. And let’s not forget that incompetence during occupation was only one of many areas that had to go well in Iraq. There was national and international law and opinion, the economy, the insurgency, and the prospect that major US armed forces could be required elsewhere. Many of these did go well (despite Bolton’s efforts to create total havoc, US forces didn’t have to relocate to Korea, thank God) but Iraq still failed. The problem was that nearly all contingencies had to go well, and unless you’re Bill Bennett on a roll, that’s impossible.
In any event, it surely would have taken more good luck than even Andrew Lloyd Webber possesses to have pulled off Ar Rutbah for another two weeks. Amd to imagine that democracy could actually take root then and flourish 2 1/2 years later is a pie in the sky fantasy. Not even Commander Gavrlis could have kept the situation moving forward that long. Not after Abu Ghraib, for instance.
As with Vietnam, (which despite Laird’s assertions did not in any way benefit from his clear-eyed genius as Defense Secretary, simply because there was no benefit to be had except to morticians and artificial limb manufacturers), Iraq could not work out. Incompetence, or insurgency, coalition atrocities, or sheer ignorance, or a combination of all four, was inevitable, and predictable.
And finally, I say with genuine sorrow: Commander Gavrilis’ efforts, no matter how admirable, were, in any significant sense, predictably doomed never to last long enough to make much difference in avoiding the tragic reality of Iraq’s people today.
Now, there are several other articles in Foreign Policy well worth reading that are equally interesting and subtle. For example, here’s a profile of Zarqawi. What makes this article important is not only that we learn who Zarqawi is, but his significance. He is no rare anomaly, like the fabulously wealthy and fanatical bin Laden. Zarqawi is just a halfway smart lowlife thug, warped by 7 years of imprisonment with torture, transformed into a committed jihadist, originally only a reluctant an ally of al Qaeda, and finally, as a result of the American invasion/occupation, advanced to the position of “emir” for al Qaeda in Iraq. Now, guess what? As Peter Bergen and Alec Reynolds make clear in a brilliant article in the same issue of Foreign Affairs where the odious Laird held forth, there are likely to many, many more Zarqawis in Iraq’s, and America’s, future. And that, too, was predictable, and predicted.
Another article from Foreign Policy, seemingly just an innocuous roundup and overview of scholars is equally subtle and chilling. Take a look at this chart of the leading lights in foreign policy studies. As the article notes, “nearly all are white men older than 50.” I’ll add to that that there is not a single native Arab speaker on that list and at least two of the so-called wise men in foreign policy -Huntington and Fukuyama – hold what can only be described, in the kindest terms, mostly worthless opinions. Women may join the list soon, the article notes. That’s all to the good, but the level of sheer mediocrity of the “scholars” on this list is astonishing, and is not likely to change much if one or two of the worst names are replaced by capable women.
When asked what region was most strategically important to the United States today, a resounding 58 percent answered the Middle East and North Africa. Yet, only 7 percent of U.S. international relations scholars specialize in the region. This gap may explain why the American intelligence community is still advertising for Arabic speakers.
Well, yes, it just might explain it. That, and the fact that openly gay specialists in Arabic aren’t welcome, too.