Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

GOP Patsies

“When Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio) went on an inspection trip to several Persian Gulf countries in the summer of 2002, he was dazzled by the state-of-the-art command centers, airstrips and other facilities being built there for the U.S. military.”

“But he was also troubled. Some of what he saw or learned from military briefers had not been approved by the House Appropriations Committee panel on military construction, which he then chaired. ‘I knew I didn’t have that kind of money,’ he quipped recently.”

“Hobson’s inquiries ultimately led to a modest tightening of controls over the Pentagon’s ability to move money between military accounts without prior approval from Congress. But the episode has sparked concerns on the part of some lawmakers that the Bush administration largely bypassed Congress as it expanded installations in the Persian Gulf region before the war with Iraq.”

“President Bush has acknowledged that months before Congress voted an Iraq war resolution in October 2002, he approved about 30 projects in Kuwait that helped set the stage for war, with ‘no real knowledge or involvement’ of Congress, according to Plan of Attack, a new book by Bob Woodward, an assistant managing editor at The Washington Post.”

This is the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors, kids. I know there are no blowjobs involved and I know that Hitlery had nothing to do with it, but this is the real deal. When a president spends money explicitly authorized by the congress for something else on a war that the congress and the people of the US have yet to even debate much less authorize, it’s a violation of the constitution. When the money is spent on no-bid contracts between the US government and the president’s political contributors in secret, it is a crime.

I wonder if the Republicans in congress are ever going to get sick of being Bush’s bitches?

Because We’re So Good, Part XXIV

Last week I mentioned the insane James Inhofe’s drooling rant on the Chris Matthews show. Today, he showed the whole world that the President of the United States is not the only powerful American politician who has a brain the size of a walnut:

Sen. Inhofe (R-OK): First of all, I regret I wasn’t here on Friday. I was unable to be here. But maybe it’s better that I wasn’t because as I watch this outrage that everyone seems to have about the treatment of these prisoners I have to say and I’m probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment.

The idea that these prisoners, they’re not there for traffic violations. If they’re in cell block 1A or 1B, these prisoners, they’re murderers, they’re terrorists, they’re insurgents, and many of them probably have American blood probably on their hands and here we’re so concerned about the treatment of those individuals.

John McCain walked out of the room when Inhofe put on his little show. According to CNN, asked if he agreed with Inhofe’s statement McCain said “No way.”

FoxNews however is celebrating Inhofe’s statement of “outrage at the outrage.” The “journalist” Asman, is now screaming at Laurence Korb telling him that his own son guarded “very bad people” who were trying to kill Americans.

Keep it up boys. I don’t think it’s likely that more than 40% of Americans — tops — are sadistic scumbags like the very religious Inhofe and the fair and balanced Asman. And even a large number of them don’t like to think of themselves that way.

Over on CNN, Blitzer just announced that Inhofe will be his guest today. He’s a new GOP Super Star. Gosh, except for the whole fomenting of rage against Americans all around the planet and making the prospect of Americans being taken captive an invitation to torture thing, I’d say it was a good day.

On the other hand, I’m not looking forward to spending the rest of my life and watching every other American spend the rest of his or her life paying the price for Mr Inhofe’s macho posturing. He has the right to free speech, for sure. But, maybe John McCain should give him a little taste of what it’s like to be a “guilty” POW.

Quote via Kicking Ass

I’m Melllllting….

If it is possible for Fred Barnes to be a bigger whore, I don’t know know how.

On the “Roundtable” today he actually attempted to pass off the argument that we shouldn’t be showing these pictures because it violates the Geneva Convention to show pictures of POWs. And further it is wrong to embarrass these prisoners by putting their pictures on the front page of the NY Times.

I’m not kidding.

Perhaps we should agree to only show the pictures of tortured Iraqis who have hoods on their heads or are dead. That would solve the problems.

Now, I’m listening to Jonah Goldberg say that the media is overreacting and besides they’ve never shown a partial birth abortion live on television so why are they showing this stuff?

I’m not kidding.

Maybe if they keep throwing ridiculous rationalizations for their Dear Leader’s utterly bankrupt Iraq adventure at the wall, there’s a possibility that the splatter will start to look like a reasonable excuse. Kind of like that Idaho potato that everybody said looked like the Virgin Mary.

Contracting Viruses

I’ve been waiting for someone to report this. (I had an inkling, but it’s bigger than I thought.) The private contractor-GOP gravy train (Salon)

Blackwater, the firm that guards Coalition Provisional Authority chief Paul Bremer, and whose men were killed at Fallujah, has hired the well-connected Alexander Strategy Group to guide it through the current publicity storm and help influence Congress on whatever rules are generated to govern private militias in war zones, according to the Hill newspaper.

Alexander may turn out to be a clever choice: Ed Buckham, former chief of staff to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, is Alexander’s chairman. Tony Rudy, another former top DeLay operative, and Karl Gallant, who once ran DeLay’s leadership PAC, are also onboard.

Blackwater also works other angles. One of the firm’s founders is Michigan native Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL. His father, Edgar Prince, helped religious right leader Gary Bauer found the Family Research Council in 1988. Erik Prince’s sister, Betsy DeVos, is the chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party. But Blackwater is a relative newcomer to the Washington influence game, especially compared with CACI and Titan, which have been trailblazers.

DeVos, by the way, is Amway — and one of the wierdest people on the planet.

This Prince/Bauer/DeVos angle nicely represents the GOP axis of evil. Defense contractors, religious zealots and big wierd money.

Simply The Best

It’s hard to believe, but Julia doesn’t agree with Junior and Big Time that Rummy is the bestest darned SecDef the country has ever had:

See, I would have probably gone with George Marshall, who was – when he wasn’t busy planning the Meuse-Argonne offensive which caused Germany to give up in World War One, becoming a Brigadier General, being named the Army Chief of Staff and serving in that capacity for the duration of World War Two (he was credited by Winston Churchill with planning the Allied victory) and serving as Secretary of State and subsequently the president of the International Red Cross – the architect of the Marshall Plan, which is considered by many (clearly delusional) people to be the single US initiative most responsible for keeping Europe out of the hands of the Russians after World War Two and preventing the mistakes that were made after World War One from being repeated and possibly setting off World War Three. “

But, did Campbell Brown call him a Rock Star? Did Midge Dector write a gushy semi-erotic paeon to his manliness? Was he hot, hot, hot?

I didn’t think so.

Hoping For Armageddon

Ok. I think it may be time to start thinking outside the box. This can’t be just incompetence. Nobody could be this stupid, not even Crusader Codpiece. There must be some underlying reason why they are compelled to do the absolute wrong thing every single time.

Today’s little tribute to Rumsfeld was completely inexplicable by ordinary standards. It’s bad enough that Bush refused to fire the asshole. But, to go out and make a point of saying that the country “owes him a debt of gratitude” is the equivalent of pouring boric acid into an open wound.

Is Cheney reading the Left Behind series aloud at cabinet meetings or something?

Arab commentators reacted with shock and disbelief on Monday over President Bush’s robust backing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld against calls for his resignation.

Critics had called for him to quit after the furor over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners but analysts, editors and ordinary Arabs were united in their condemnation of Bush who said the United States owed Rumsfeld a “debt of gratitude.”

“After the torture and vile acts by the American army, President Bush goes out and congratulates Rumsfeld. It’s just incredible. I am in total shock,” said Omar Belhouchet, editor of the influential Algerian national daily El Watan.

“Bush’s praise for Rumsfeld will discredit the United States…and further damage its reputation, which is already at a historic low in the Arab world,” he added.

[…]

“After Mr. Bush’s decision to keep Rumsfeld, all their apologies seem like lip service,” Dubai-based political analyst Jawad al-Anani told Reuters. “Mr. Rumsfeld would have certainly lost his job if the prisoners were American.”

“The United States is spending so much money by setting up Alhurra television and Radio Sawa to improve its image in the Arab world…How can it reconcile that with keeping a man who has insulted every Arab through the abuses of Iraqi prisoners,” added Anani, a former Jordanian foreign minister.

University of Algiers professor Mahmoud Belhimeur agreed.

“I cannot believe the United States reacts the way an authoritarian regimes would. Bush should have done the honorable thing and fired Rumsfeld,” he said.

[…]

A Saudi businessman, who asked not to be named, said keeping Rumsfeld would be seen as Washington’s quiet approval of the abuse.

“This just confirms that what is happening in Iraq in general, and especially what is happening in Abu Ghraib is sanctioned by the American administration and that is a hell of a position to be in.

“I see no advantage in keeping Rumsfeld. Bush should be building bridges with the outside world.”

Little Birdies

Howard Kurtz, helpfully giving the wing-nuts a little bucking up during these dark days of dog and reality bites, says that the Democrats are panicking about John Kerrys’ campaign. It’s not surprising since Democrats in general seem to have a penchant for jumping the gun this year. Jayzuz. Haven’t we been down this road already?

To all those nervous nellies, I just have four little words: Shut The Fuck Up.

Intellectual Tough Guy

Before it disappears into the ether, I’d like to point out that Wesley Clark’s appearance on Meat The Press yesterday should put to rest any lingering questions about his political loyalties.

Not only was his analysis right on point, as usual, but he was very tough, saying that it would be patriotic for Rumsfeld to resign and that we should unload (war criminal Ambassador) Negroponte, something that I haven’t heard anyone but Harkin even remotely address. He said in no uncertain terms that the responsibility for this debacle goes all the way to the Oval Office.

You can tell he was effective by the blustering he elicited from that mannequin in a suit they call a Senator, John Warner.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I’m very encouraged that the Congress is taking a very strong look at this. I think there are systemic failures here. But I think it does come, as Senator Levin says, from a broader perception, an announcement within the administration, really, that international law is not that important. It’s legalisms. What counts is American force.

And, you know, those Geneva Conventions were put in place to protect Americans. They were put in place to protect our men and women in case they be taken. And the people who were detained in Iraq, the prisoners there, the detainees, they were all covered under the Geneva Convention–they should have been.

And so there’s more than a systemic failure. There’s a failure of leadership that goes right to the top. This is a presidential leadership problem. He is the commander in chief. He announces it virtually every day on the campaign trail and he, himself, must take responsibility for this because it reflects his command influence.

SEN. WARNER: Tim, could I just interrupt? We’ve got to be cautious because I’m convinced that the Department of Defense is doing everything they can to get the facts out in the public. I was assured yesterday that all the new photos are being reviewed by the lawyers and so forth and will be forthcoming to the Congress…[blah, blah, blah]

[…]

MR. RUSSERT: Secretary Rumsfeld has written throughout his career “Rumsfeld’s Rules” and this is one of them: “Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the President and do wonders for your performance.”

General Clark, do you think Secretary Rumsfeld should resign?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I think there’s really two issues on this. One is his effectiveness and he said he would resign if he felt he couldn’t be effective. But I think it’s really a question of the credibility of the U.S. mission and how the United States is perceived in the world. I don’t think his effectiveness has been compromised. I think he can still give orders; I think people will still take them. There’s no issue with that. The real question is: “How is the United States perceived and how seriously are we perceived to be taking this issue?”

I think it would be very patriotic if Secretary Rumsfeld resigned. But I do think that the issue goes beyond the secretary of defense. I don’t think we should indict the men and women in the armed forces. I think 99.9 percent of them are doing a great job over there and I hope the American people will support them. I certainly do. But I do think that when something like this happens that the prima facia notion of this is this goes right to the top. What did the president know? What was the atmosphere that the president created? How hard was he pushing?

We know there was a lot of pressure to get intelligence information from these interrogations. And the Pentagon was the action agency on this working with the Central Intelligence Agency in crafting the rules. But the atmosphere in which the Geneva Conventions were more or less set to one side, apparently, would have come from the top.

[…]

MR. RUSSERT: Let me just turn to the real issue here and that is who is responsible, who’s being blamed, who’s being court-martialed

GEN. CLARK: Well, there is a systemic problem here, and we do need to get to the bottom of it. We do need intelligence information. Our soldiers have to maintain standards of conduct. And General Taguba’s report, I think, got to many of the key issues that are involved; more needs to be done.

But beyond the specific issue that’s here involved and who was responsible and how do we prevent this in the future is the larger issue of the success or failure of the mission in Iraq. And that’s what this prisoner abuse calls into question.

We know there was no linkage between Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11. We know now there was no imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction, the last claim of the administration is to do good in Iraq by providing democracy, an opportunity for democracy and higher standards. And here we are with this compromising the higher standards that we believe in. So it’s a very, very significant issue as we try to win the hearts and the minds of the people in Iraq and promote our views of the right way to govern around the world.

[…]

MR. RUSSERT: … Murtha…expressed serious doubts that those remedies are even faint possibilities, given current military deployments, a lack of support from NATO allies and widespread outrage over the mistreatment of Iraqis prisoners of war.”

“Coming from a senior appropriator with close ties to the Pentagon, Murtha’s bleak analysis led many colleagues to surmise that he believes a democratic Iraqi is a lost cause.”

General Clark, do you share that pessimism?

GEN. CLARK: I think there’s a greater than 50/50 chance, let’s say a 2:1 chance, of a catastrophic early end to this mission.

MR. RUSSERT: What does that mean?

GEN. CLARK: That means the Iraqi people will simply say, “We want the Americans out of here.” You’ll see a large outpouring of public animosity in Baghdad and elsewhere, a million Iraqis demonstrating in the streets of Baghdad against us. And, Tim, we’re only going to be there and be effective if the majority of the Iraqi people want us there. That’s what this mission’s success hinges on.

All of the issues, international involvement, more troops and all that–all of it is measured by: Do the Iraqi people believe that we’re actually helping and contributing to their betterment or are we causing problems?

And the Iraqi people are, step by step, turning against this mission. What we need to do right now is a major change in policy. We need to unload John Negroponte after the 30th of June. He cannot run that country as the American ambassador.

We’ve got to have an international assistance organization like we did in the Balkans, where other nations can participate, and the Iraqis will understand that it’s the world trying to help them; it’s not America telling them what to do.

Update: For anyone who’s interested in going deeper into Wes Clark’s ideas about how to fix this cock-up in Iraq, read “Broken Engagement” in the May issue of The Washington Monthly.

Seeds Of The Insurgency

Baghdad’s art scene show US abuse :

The alabaster sculpture of a crouching naked man, with his hands tied and his head covered by a hood is on display at a Baghdad gallery.

It bears a striking resemblance to some of the shocking photographs that emerged last week of Iraqi prisoners abused by their American guards at the Abu Ghraib prison.

The 38cm sculpture with the words “We are living American democracy” inscribed on its base was fashioned two months ago.

‘We knew what went on at Abu Ghraib,’ the artist Abdul-Kareem Khalil said on Saturday. “The pictures did not surprise me.”

Bleeding Money

The invasion of Iraq is not only the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory, it is also the most expensive strategic blunder in modern times.

With troop commitments growing, the cost of the war in Iraq could top $150 billion through the next fiscal year — as much as three times what the White House had originally estimated. And, according to congressional researchers and outside budget experts, the war and continuing occupation could total $300 billion over the next decade, making this one of the costliest military campaigns in modern times.

As a measure of the Bush administration’s priorities in the war on terrorism, it has spent about $3 in Iraq for every $1 committed to homeland security, experts say.

That divide may be growing.

The Pentagon says its monthly costs for Operation Iraqi Freedom shot up from $2.7 billion in November to nearly $7 billion in January, the last month for which ithas provided figures. Since then, the number of troops has jumped by 20,000 to 135,000, and the bloody insurgency has grown.

Defense officials initially said the troop increases were temporary, but last week they changed course and said they planned to maintain the higher levels through 2005, along with increased numbers of tanks and other heavy military equipment. The tempo of military operations has increased sharply in response to a wave of lethal attacks, suggesting the costs still may be climbing.

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have started to express deep concern over the costs and the way in which the Bush administration is choosing to cover them.

They contend that the White House has been relying on budgeting stratagems to conceal the overall expense, at least until after the election in November. And lawmakers worry that Congress is going to be forced to do something the White House has said until now was not necessary: Chop away at other government programs to cover the costs of an occupation that has no end in sight.

“DOD (Department of Defense) is being more than customarily opaque with us, ” Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in an interview. “We’re trying to pool our efforts and share information and piece something together, which is the only way to figure out what it is really going to cost us. But this is basic information. This is not unorthodox to get these numbers. It’s not asking for somebody to rework the whole books. I think they are embarrassed by the level of the costs.”

By contrast, Operation Desert Storm, begun in 1991 after Saddam Hussein’s armies invaded Kuwait, cost about $84 billion, adjusted for inflation, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. But because the United States was part of a broad coalition of wealthy countries, including Britain, France, Germany, Japan and Saudi Arabia, about 90 percent of those costs were paid for by America’s allies.

But you know, Junior, in his ongoing quest to prove to his father that he is a man, decided that it was a good idea to tell the rest of the world to go fuck itself and pay for the entire mistake ourselves. Besides, Chalabi and Wolfowitz promised that the war would pay for itself and that made so much sense.

Via catch.com