 |
||||
|
|
< June 2006 | Main | August 2006 > July 31, 2006Corn Does SummerstockIf any of you happen to be near Cape Cod this week, I will be speaking/performing at the Payomet Theater on the evening of Wednesday, August 2. The event is billed "An Evening of Political Insight, Gossip and Outrage, Volume II," and it will combine satire, humor, analysis, self-righteous indignation, and bombast. I'll let the reviewers describe it in further detail. But as regular readers know, I've taken a stab at stand-up during the past few years, and last summer when asked to participate in a spoken word series at the Payomet Theater in Truro (a town situated between Wellfleet and Provincetown), I let portions of that stand-up routine bleed into my usual lecture on the Current Political Situation. For some odd reason, I was invited back this summer. If you need more information, go to the home page of the Payomet Performing Arts Center. Posted by David Corn at 08:20 PM The Neverending Saga of Phase III posted the below at my ""Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com.... Why is it taking the Senate intelligence committee forty times longer to examine how the Bush administration used--or misused--the prewar intelligence on Iraq and WMDs than it took for the United States military to topple Saddam Hussein? American troops reached Baghdad in three weeks (there were a few complications after that). But the intelligence committee, led by Republican Senator Pat Roberts, has dilly-dallied for two-and-a-half years when it has come to reviewing how George W. Bush and his top aides represented--or misrepresented--the WMD intelligence as they led (or misled) the nation to war. Last fall, the Senate Democrats shut down the Senate for a few hours to protest the committee's lack of progress in producing the so-called Phase II report that was supposed to focus on this matter. Roberts and the Republicans promised to conclude the inquiry soon. Yet another nine months have gone by, and as The Washington Post reported on Sunday, the committee is still not yet done. The Post noted: The Republican-led committee, which agreed in February 2004 to write the report, has yet to complete its work. Just two of five planned sections of the committee's findings are fully drafted and ready to be voted on by members, according to Democratic and Republican staffers. Committee sources involved with the report, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said they are working hard to complete it. But disputing Roberts, they said they had started almost from scratch in November after Democrats staged their protest. And those two sections do not focus on the central subject--the administration's use of the prewar intelligence. One examines the intelligence agencies' prewar WMD estimates with what was found on the ground in Iraq. The other looks at what information provided by Iraqi exiles made it into official intelligence estimates. (It does not explore the influence of Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress on Bush administration officials before the invasion.) I take the committee's lackadaisical approach to this issue personally, for Roberts once directly promised me that the Phase II would be a priority. This is what happened. On July 9, 2004, Roberts and his committee released a 500-plus page report on how the intelligence community screwed up the prewar intelligence. But the committee's report (over the objection of its Democratic members) ignored the touchy matter of whether Bush officials had mischaracterized the intelligence to win support for the invasion of Iraq. Not surprisingly, the committee, under Roberts direction, was avoiding this subject as the 2004 election neared. At the press conference Roberts held to mark the release of the committee's report on the WMD intelligence, I asked him about this missing part of the inquiry. Here's the exchange: QUESTION: Given the 800 American GIs who have lost their lives so far, thousands have had serious injuries, lost limbs, all on the basis of false [WMD] claims...[and that] American taxpayers have had to kick in almost $200 billion, doesn't the American public and the relatives of people who lost their lives have a right to know before the next election whether this administration handled intelligence matters adequately and made statements that were justified -- before the election, not after the election? ROBERTS: This is in phase two of our efforts. We simply couldn't get that done with the work product that we put out....It is one of my top priorities....Now, we have 20 legislative days. We want to have hearings from wise men and women in regards to the [intelligence] reform effort, and we will proceed with staff on phase two of the report. It involves probably three things -- or at least three. One is the prewar intelligence on Iraq, which is what you're talking about. Secondly is the situation with the assistant secretary of defense, Douglas Feith, and his activity in regards to material that he provided with a so-called intelligence planning cell to the Department of Defense and to the CIA. And then the left one -- what is the last one? What's the third one? Help me with it....Well, that's prewar intelligence on Iraq. There is a third one, and I don't know why I can't come up with it right now. But, anyway, it is a priority. And, hey, I have told [Senator] Jay [Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee], I have told everybody on the other side of the aisle, everybody on our side of the aisle, 'We'll proceed with phase two. It is a priority.' I made my commitment, and it will be done. So Roberts looked straight at me and said that the Phase II report was a "priority" for him and that he had made a commitment to complete this mission. Yet he has not made good on that commitment. It causes me to wonder if he misled me--that is, if he falsely declared he was committed to such a review only to kick the can down the road past the 2004 election. Now, according to the Post, he's trying to do the same with the 2006 elections. The paper noted: The section most Democrats have sought, however, is not yet in draft form and might not emerge until after the November election, staffers said. That section will examine the administration's deliberations over prewar intelligence and whether its public presentation of the threat reflected the evidence senior officials reviewed in private. Were Roberts truly committed to this task, it would have been done before the 2004 election. One committee staffer once told me this sort of review could be finished within months. Yet Roberts has been playing games--and he has got away with it. The Phase II controversy boils up (into public view) every six months or so and then fades. And only once has the Democrats succeeded in embarrassing Roberts for doing nothing. So he keeps kicking that can--rather than looking inside it. It's a funny way to treat a "priority." Posted by David Corn at 02:55 PM July 28, 2006Post Among YourselvesI'll be vacationing--and finishing a book (more on that soon)--the next two weeks. That means I will be blogging only intermittently. In the meantime, let me ask the regular commenters (and anyone else) to pick up the slack--not by ranting and raving but by posting links to articles and websites that may be of interest to other visitors. Please feel free to chat about the events (or nonevents) of the day, but also try to spread information that others might not be aware of. Let's try to have a high level of discourse and information-sharing. Posted by David Corn at 11:29 PM July 27, 2006Lebanese Blood and Israeli TearsToday's lead story in The New York Times contains a moving quote from Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora: "Is the value of human life less in Lebanon than that of citizens elsewhere? Are we children of a lesser god? Is an Israeli teardrop worth more than a drop of Lebanese blood?" He knows the answer to that; it's yes. With Condi Rice diminishing the value of a temporary cease-fire--which would save the lives of some Lebanese civilians--Washington is clearly saying that there is no value in protecting these civilians killed in Israel's attacks on Hezbollah. Let's be honest here. If you believe Israel is justified in its current military campaign against Hezbollah, you have to acknowledge that it's okay for Israel to inflict collateral damage (that is, kill civilians). And that means--if we are indeed being honest--that you are willing to say that the lives of those Lebanese civilians are not worth all that much. I doubt the prime minister can sway the supporters of Israel and its current military actions with his angst-ridden words. (And, in a perfect world, he would blast Hezbollah for targeting civilians as well.) But Washington ought to at least not insult him with hypocrisy: claiming regard for human life and doing nothing to stop (even temporarily) the killing of his citizens. Posted by David Corn at 08:21 PM Wouldn't It Be Nice?I received the below press release from the Democratic Policy Committee, which is a group of Democratic senators who hold unofficial hearings on Capitol Hill and occasionally put out reports. The group has mounted hearings on the Bush administration's use--or misuse of--prewar intelligence, the CIA/Plame leak, contracting in Iraq, and other hard-edged matters. That is, the DPC has been doing what the Republican-controlled Senate committees should have been doing--but haven't. Can you imagine if real-life Senate committees actually spent time digging into such controversial issues--actually, you can't, not while the GOPers are running the show. (WASHINGTON, D.C.) --- The U.S. Senate Democratic Policy Committee (DPC) will conduct an oversight hearing this Friday, July 28, to examine how cronyism and mismanagement plagued a $243 million contract to rebuild 150 Iraqi health care facilities and contributed to Iraq's ongoing health care crisis. The hearing will be held at 11:00 AM, in Room 192 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building."What we're hearing about the reconstruction of Iraq's health care system is a microcosm of everything that’s wrong with the Administration's approach to rebuilding Iraq," said Senator Byron Dorgan, Chairman of the DPC. "We have a massive waste of money, fueled by the all-too-familiar combination of cronyism and mismanagement, compounded by a lack of oversight by those who have a responsibility to keep an eye on things." The hearing will be the ninth oversight hearing on Iraq reconstruction contracting conducted by the DPC, which has moved to fill the congressional oversight void left by the majority-controlled standing committees. Dorgan says Iraq reconstruction contracting has produced "the greatest amount of waste, fraud and abuse in America's history." Posted by David Corn at 09:45 AM July 26, 2006Why is the U.S. in Iraq?I just posted this in my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com.... The sectarian violence that's taking place in the Baghdad area...is probably the gravest threat to stability that there is in the country right now. It is a new challenge. This isn't about insurgency, this isn't about terror, this is about sectarian violence. And it's a new challenge for the government. And they recognize that. The greatest threat Iraq's people face is terror; terror inflicted by extremists. Why is the United States in Iraq? That is question that is increasingly difficult for the White House to answer coherently--and honestly. This past week, George W. Bush, appearing at a press conference with Maliki, noted that the horrific and intensifying violence in Iraq of recent weeks is "terrible" and that more US troops will be deployed to Baghdad. But who--and what--is the enemy? And what can US troops do about disorder and violence there? Sectarian violence, according to Abizaid and Hadley, is now the main problem in Iraq (which was predicted by some experts before the invasion). Maliki, for obvious reasons, does not concede that. He wants US troops to remain in Iraq. Consequently, when he spoke to the US Congress on July 27, he depicted the fight in Iraq as a struggle pitting lovers of democracy (his government and the United States) against "terrorists" connected to those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. ("I will not allow Iraq to become a launch pad for al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations," he declared, in a line rather reminiscent of the previous work of White House speechwriters.) In a fact sheet, the White House noted that when Maliki met with Bush, the Iraqi leader "made clear that he does not want American troops to leave his country until his government can protect the Iraqi people." Mission creep is under way. The cause--despite Maliki's Bush-like rhetoric--is no longer combating jihadists (which replaced weapons of mass destruction as the reason for the war). It's making Iraq safe from Iraqi religious extremists. Maliki's government cannot protect Iraqis from their own neighbors, so he is looking to Bush to be his nation's cop-on-the-beat. But can the US military be an effective police force in a society increasingly plagued by sectarian violence that has little, if anything, to do with the fight against al Qaeda and Islamic jihadism? Maliki's own government is even part of the problem. Death squads connected to the Shiite-controlled Interior Ministry have been lead players in the current killing spree. If Maliki cannot control these elements, how can the US military? (In his speech to the US Congress, Maliki didn't address the knotty matter of the government-linked death squads. He briefly referred to "armed militias" but claimed that the rule of law and human rights are "flourishing" in Iraq.) Sunni leaders--who once called for US forces to quit Iraq right away--now fear the ascendancy of Shiite killing squads so much that they have quieted their demands for a US withdrawal, fearing such a move would leave the Shiite militias even more unfettered. But should the United States remain in Iraq in response to such concerns? If so, US troops would be risking and sacrificing their lives to assist a government that is tied to death squads in order to prevent (Sunni) opponents of the leading (Shiite) bloc of that government from being killed by (Shiite) supporters of that leading bloc. Yes, politics in the Middle East have always been notoriously complicated and Byzantine. How many books--or intelligence reports--has Bush read about the intricacies of Arabic culture, history and politics? Bush, all too obviously, has no good ideas how to navigate these shoals--which may not be navigable. After saying that more troops would be deployed to Baghdad, Bush was asked by an Iraqi reporter what could be done to improve the security situation in Baghdad. "There needs to be more forces inside Baghdad who are willing to hold people to account," he replied. "In other words if you find somebody who's kidnapping and murdering, the murderer ought to be held to account. And it ought to be clear in society that that kind of behavior is not tolerated....We ought to be saying that, if you murder, you're responsible for your actions. And I think the Iraqi people appreciate that type of attitude." In other words, just say no to killing. That's not much of a plan. And there's not much of a role for US troops in such a plan. Bush has led the United States into a rough thicket in Iraq. It has taken him months--perhaps years--to acknowledge the troubles there. And his inadequate description--it's "terrible"--is far more upbeat than the depictions shared by reporters and others who have come back from Iraq in recent weeks bearing depressing and ugly tales of a society falling apart. Iraq is a mess. Bush bears much of the responsibility for that. He invaded the country supposedly to defend the United States from a threat that didn't exist. He did not ensure that there were proper plans for the post-invasion challenges. He did nothing as his national security aides bungled one key strategic post-invasion decision after another. Now he has to contend with a violent sectarian conflict that his elective war unleashed. He has, to a limited degree, acknowledged the problem. He hasn't yet admitted there may be little he can do about it. Posted by David Corn at 03:19 PM July 25, 2006Not Screaming MurderDue to the aforementioned computer mess and other matters, I missed the news yesterday that Tony Snow said that George W. Bush does not consider embryonic stem cell research murder and that he (Snow) had been wrong to say last week that Bush did. Well, that's good to know. Now researchers engaged in privately-funded stem cell reserach don't have to worry that Bush will send in the feds to arrest them for homicide--or blastocide. But here's my question: does Bush pay attention to what his press secretary says? Snow made that stark comment a week ago, on July 18, and it received a fair bit of press coverage. Yet Bush didn't immediately call Snow into the Oval Office and tell him that he had rather dramatically mischaracterized his position on a major hot-button issue. Bush and his top aides let the remark stand for days, as Bush vetoed the stem cell research bill and spoke against it at a carefully choreographed White House event (at which Bush was surrounded by kids who had been "adopted" from frozen embryos). Bush has famously said that he does not bother with the newspapers. But did no one else in his inner circle--Laura?--not pick up on Snow's well-reported comment? It seems to me that a statement like that would be a mistake a president (and his aides) would want to correct damn quick. Yet almost a full week went by before Snow said he had misrepresented Bush's position. Does one need a suspicious mind to wonder if political calculations were involved? In any event, this episode prompts another question: if Bush doesn't care that much about what his press secretary says, why should anyone else? Posted by David Corn at 11:48 PM Still No Word....The sick computer will be diagnosed tomorrow. And other matters have intervened. Hang tight. I know I am doing so. Be back soon. Posted by David Corn at 07:57 PM July 24, 2006Send Data...or MoneyMajor computer crash today. So it's radio-silence time. Send data...or cash for a new laptop. Be back soon. Posted by David Corn at 09:01 PM July 21, 2006Pro-Life? Not When It Comes to Bombing LebanonNow we know where Bush stands on the dignity of human life. He cares more about frozen embryos than he does about Lebanese civilians. He has steadfastly refused to join the call from Kofi Annan and European allies for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Bush has decided that he should do nothing to stop the Israeli offensive, hoping that the Israelis will finally take care of Hezbollah. But this policy comes with a cost--which is paid by the Lebanese civilians who are being killed, injured and displaced. But Bush--like the Israelis--is saying, that's a cost worth the benefit. And it's easy for them to say this because they're not bearing the sacrifice. But if Bush believes--as he said in vetoing the stem cells bill--that every life is precious and valuable, how can he treat the lives of the Lebanese civilians as barter material in a great-game strategy? (By the way, Hezbollah's rockets attack, which target Israeli civilians, are also immoral actions.) Explaining the president's decision not to urge a halt in the violence, White House communications director Dan Bartlett said, "The president believes that unless you address the root causes of the violence that has afflicted the Middle East, you cannot forge a lasting peace. He mourns the loss of every life. Yet out of this tragic development, he believes a moment of clarity has arrived." Yes, this is a moment of clarity. The president will veto a law to protect frozen blastocysts stored in fertility clinic freezers--to preserve the sacredness of life. He won't do anything to stop missiles raining down on men, women and children caught in a war zone. In other words, he's pro-life--except when he's not. Posted by David Corn at 10:14 AM July 20, 2006What a PotLet's stir the pot. That, in essence, was the neocon-influenced policy of the Bush administration regarding the Middle East. Well, the pot stirreth over. Iraq is a land of chaos and killing, and the Middle East is closer to regional war. Where is that pro-Western, pro-Israel government in Baghdad that Ahmad Chalabi was supposed to create? That plan didn't quite make it. (Chalabi gathered less than 1 percent of the vote in the last election.) These days, the Shiite-dominated, Iran-friendly Iraqi government--supported and protected by the United States with American lives and dollars--expresses support for Hezbollah. Wasn't it one prewar beef against Saddam Hussein that he supported anti-Israel terrorists? It's getting harder by the day to argue that the invasion of Iraq (whether justified or not) has been good for the Middle East. Sectarian violence is claiming thousands of civilian lives a month in Iraq. The sectarian attacks are simply horrific--and worsening. Iran has increased its influence in the region. The United States now has diminished sway (and is doing nothing, it seems, to achieve a ceasefire in Lebanon and Israel). The central flash point of the Middle East has erupted into a war. The revived democracy in Lebanon is being blasted away. And with the United States stuck in Iraq, for the foreseeable future, Bush and his key aides avoid any real discussion of the deteriorating situation there. Today's Washington Post has a front-page piece noting that even--even--a few Republicans are beginning to murmur that the war in Iraq is a mess. Representative Gil Gutknecht. a Minnesota GOPer, recently returned from Baghdad and said what others who have been there recently have told me: conditions are far worse "than we'd been led to believe." And he's now calling for immediate withdrawals of troops. Will Karl Rove and leading GOPers accuse him of being a spineless and defeatist cut-and-runner, as they have with Representative Jack Murtha, Senator John Kerry, and other Democrats who have counseled disengagement? You can only ignore reality for so long--though Bush and his aides have done a pretty good job pushing the limit. And they're lucky: the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah (and Hamas) is distracting attention from the daily tragedies and dilemmas of Iraq. But some Republicans are worried. (The Post cites a few others.) They might be nervous due to the coming congressional elections. But perhaps they are also troubled by what is happening--and not happening--in Iraq and cannot go along with Rove's political strategy: embrace the war and attack the critics as gutless cowards. They can see the pot is boiling over--and no one in charge (in Washington or Baghdad) knows how to turn off the stove. Posted by David Corn at 02:45 PM July 19, 2006Rice's Cop-outI finally got to today's papers and saw a remark that Condi Rice made yesterday. Explaining, as The Washington Post put it, that the situation in the Middle East is not yet ripe for US diplomatic intervention, the secretary of state said, "We have to make certain that anything that we do is going to be of lasting value." Huh? If the United States could broker a halt in the violence--even if temporary--that would save lives both in Lebanon and Israel. Some folks--especially those whose lives might be saved--would consider such a development to be of value. Is it really her position that unless she can solve the entire Middle East problem there is no point in intervening? Talk about leadership. Posted by David Corn at 04:28 PM Yeah, There Are Dead Lebanese and Israelies, But What About Those Trapped Yanks?!!...Neocons See Chance To Make Another MessAmericans trapped in Lebanon! (And Canadians and Europeans, too.) Is it my imagination, or is the media, in their coverage of the Middle East crisis, devoting more attention to Americans trying to flee Lebanon than to Lebanese being killed by Israeli attacks--or the smaller number of Israelis being killed by the Hezbollah rockets? It's a pity (and a story) when anyone is caught in a war zone, but the dead in Lebanon and Israel are reported as statistics. Twenty-three Lebanese killed; six Israelis killed, etc. Yet the narrative in the news is about Americans attempting to escape Beirut. I know that news outfits crave drama and plot-lines--especially when the story stars Americans. But being dead is dramatic, too. There are several tragedies going on at once in this crisis. One concerns the lack of American leadership. It's sad to say but true that the current crisis afforded Washington an opportunity--thanks to Hezbollah's miscalculation. When Hezbollah decided to exploit the medium-sized crisis (triggered by Hamas' capture of an Israeli solider) by seizing two Israeli soldiers, it angered the leaders of other Arab nations, most notably Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, who denounced Hezbollah's "adventurism." This was a historic first--a prominent split in the Arab world on Hezbollah. Had Bush's foreign policy not been bogged down (and delegitimized) by the White House's own adventurism in the Middle East, Bush might have been in a position to seize the moment for a round of effective diplomacy aimed at isolating Hezbollah and reducing its influence. But the world--especially the Arab world--does not look to Washington for leadership on such matters. And Bush has done little to engage fully in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has thus developed no good will (or capital) to use at this point. Moreover, who's running the show on the Middle East in his administration? There's no high-profile envoy. Condi Rice, an expert on a country that no longer exists (East Germany), is busy with other matters. Is it Elliott Abrams, the neocon of Iran-contra fame who works on the NSC staff, calling the shots? Dick Cheney and the hawks in his office? All these guys did such a great job in Iraq. The European allies and Arab nations must be quite eager to follow them now. Today's Washington Post has a piece reporting that many conservatives--mainly neocons--are bitterly disappointed with Bush for his recent foreign policy moves--especially concerning Iran and North Korea. They see him as an accommodationist who has fallen in love with multilateralism and--yikes!--diplomacy. In other words, he's no longer kicking enough ass for them. They are--as George Will has noted--nearly delusional these days. Isn't one mess in the Middle East enough for them? Answer: no. A recent UN report shows that 6000 civilians have been killed in Iraq in the past two months. That's 100 a day. Yet I have not heard any of the prominent prewar supporters of the invasion utter words suggesting they feel bad because tens of thousands of Iraqis have been slaughtered in the post-invasion chaos. There is so much bloodletting in Iraq now that it is certainly an arguable proposition that for many (if not most) Iraqis life under Saddam Hussein was better than life after Bush's invasion. But this has not given the neocons much pause; they are ready to move on to the next china shop. After all, they don't have to live in any of these places. And none of their children or relatives have to do the dying--or the killing. CELL PHONY: This is how my latest "Loyal Opposition" column at www.TomPaine.com begins: My fellow Americans, I am shocked that scientists in this country are killing young children in order to extract organ parts for medical research. I reaffirm my previous position: I am against this. And as your president I am willing to take swift action regarding this violation of decency and morality. Using the power I have, I have implemented a ban on all federal funding for any research using organs obtained in this manner from this day on. George W. Bush would look pretty foolish giving such a speech. But this is not so far from his position on embryonic stem cells research. On Tuesday, the Senate, with a 63-37 vote, approved a measure overturning the severe limitations Bush imposed five summers ago on federal funding for this research. The legislation had already been passed by the House, and Bush had promised to veto it. Explaining Bush's position shortly before the Senate vote, White House press secretary Tony Snow said, "The simple answer is he thinks murder is wrong." To read the rest, click here. Posted by David Corn at 11:48 AM July 18, 2006Jim Baker's Cop-outJames Baker III is the politically-wired lawyer who gave us the current president. He was a former secretary of state (under George Herbert Walker Bush) and a former White House chief of staff (under Ronald Reagan), and has been a high-flying corporate lawyer in recent years. During the Florida fiasco of 2000, he oversaw George W. Bush's campaign to win the disputed recount-that-wasn't. Less than two years later he was warning his charge not to be too hasty in Iraq. In an August 2002, op-ed, Baker suggested that pushing "intrusive inspections" on Iraq was a better alternative than rushing to war. But he noted that should war come that there would be a need for "sufficient ground troops" to occupy the county, that the war could not be waged "on the cheap," and that winning the peace could be costly--"Politically, economically and in terms of casualties." He added that Bush would have bring together "an international coalition" and that if Bush didn't do Iraq "the right way," the United States would pay a high cost and the war on terrorism would suffer. Now it's clear that Bush didn't follow Baker's counsel. So how does Baker confront the harsh reality that the guy he made president screwed up bigtime? Well, he doesn't--not in his forthcoming book, Work Hard, Study...and Keep Out of Politics!. (I've received an advance copy.) In the few pages that Baker devotes to the current Iraq war, he acknowledges that things have gone amiss. "Unfortunately," he writes, "the formulation and implementation of policy in the lead-up to, and aftermath of, the war were negatively affected by substantial and continuing turf battles between the State Department and the CIA on one side, and the Defense Department and the vice president's office, on the other." He also notes that "the Defense Department made a number of costly mistakes, including disbanding the Iraqi army, outlawing the Baath Party, failing to secure the weapons depots, and perhaps never committing enough troops to successfully pacify the country." What's missing in this picture of blame? Let's see. He mentions the CIA, State, the veep's office, and, most of all, the Pentagon. But I have the feeling he left someone out. Oh yeah! The son of his best friend. In Baker's short telling, the man in charge apparently had nothing to do with the botched job in Iraq. Baker writes, "One thing is for sure: the difficulty of winning the peace was severely underestimated." That's a deft use of the passive voice, for he neglects to say who did all that underestimating. Certainly, Donald Rumsfeld doesn't deserve high fives for his job performance, but according to both the Constitution and common sense, the buck doesn't stop with the Secretary of Defense. If Baker is truly this critical of the war's management, he should lodge his complaints at 1600 Pennsylvania. And when he considers how the United States came to be stuck in a mess in Iraq, he can also look in the mirror. Posted by David Corn at 07:46 PM July 17, 2006Will Plame vs. Cheney, Libby & Rove Unearth New InfoI posted the below in my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com.... Several years ago, I was talking to a Democratic senator on the intelligence committee about the CIA leak case. I asked if Democrats had any intention of pushing for a congressional investigation of the administration leak that appeared in Robert Novak's column and that outed Valerie Wilson as a CIA operative. The senator noted that a special counsel (Patrick Fitzgerald) was already on the case. That's true, I said, adding that it was not Fitzgerald's job to tell the public about his findings. His task was to investigate (secretly) a crime and then mount a prosecution if he could. Any information he would unearth would only become public were he to mention it in an indictment or a subsequent prosecution. He would not be issuing any report. And at the end of Fitzgerald's inquiry, I said to the senator, there might no prosecution (or merely a limited prosecution) and that the public might not learn all there was to know about the case. So, I asked this legislator, if Democrats cared about the leak, shouldn't they push for a non-criminal investigation? The senator replied in an exasperated manner: "You want us to investigate everything?" Well, why not? But it was clear he wasn't interested in a congressional probe of the CIA leak case. Nor were many other Capitol Hill Democrats. Many were satisfied by the Fitzgerald appointment. But after investigating the case for over two years, Fitzgerald, has only indicted one Bush official, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and that was not for the leak but for lying to the FBI and Fitzgerald's grand jury. (Libby disclosed Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA to New York Times reporter Judy Miller and confirmed it for Time correspondent Matt Cooper.) In the course of the indictment and pretrial process, Fitzgerald has made some critical information available--such as the fact that it was Cheney who first told Libby that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA's Counterproliferation Division, a unit in the agency's clandestine operations directorate. But Fitzgerald has not--and cannot under Justice Department guidelines--share all that he knows about the leak with the public. Thus, much of the story remains untold. And George W. Bush and his White House still refuse to answer any questions about the leak case, continuing a stonewalling strategy that has served them well. Enter a new lawsuit. On Friday, Valerie and Joseph Wilson filed a lawsuit against Cheney, Libby and Karl Rove. (Prior to the Novak column, Rove leaked information about Wilson's classified employment to Time correspondent Matt Cooper; he also confirmed this information for Novak. Fitzgerald, though, was not able to bring a criminal case against him.) In the suit, the Wilsons accuse the three Bush officials--and unnamed coconspirators--of having violated their various rights, such as Valerie Wilson's privacy rights and Joe Wilson's right to express his opinions, which he did in a New York Times op-ed piece that criticized the Bush administration's Iraq policy. That article led White House officials to assail him. The lawsuit is based on the Bivens case, in which a man named Webster Bivens was arrested in 1965 by agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He later sued, complaining that the agents had searched his home and arrested him without a warrant and that he had suffered humiliation and mental suffering as a result. He argued that he could directly sue the narcs to remedy an unconstitutional invasion of his privacy rights. The Justice Department, representing the six unnamed narcotics agents, argued that Bivens had no right to bring a federal claim and could only initiate a tort action in a state court. A federal district court and then a federal appeals court tossed out his suit. But in 1971, the Supreme Court reversed those decisions. Writing for the majority, Justice William Brennan declared this sort of lawsuit was needed to check a federal official who was "unconstitutionally exercising his authority." I'm no lawyer--though I occasionally play one on television--and cannot comment on whether Rove secretly sharing classified information with Cooper (or Libby doing the same with Miller) is the legal (and constitutional) equivalent of narcs busting into someone's home, throwing him into manacles in front of his wife and children, threatening to arrest the entire family, and searching the entire apartment, all without a warrant. And if Joe or Valerie Wilson had asked my advice, I might have suggested that they skip the suit, so Valerie Wilson can focus on writing her I-was-a-suburban-mom-spy memoirs--which is sure to land her on Oprah's couch, the bestsellers list, and (probably) a movie screen. (Angelina Jolie playing a real-life Mrs. Smith?) But if the Wilsons can get their lawsuit to the discovery stage--and that might be a big if--they will be able to take depositions and demand documents from their targets and others. (Will they go after journalists?) Such action could yield information beyond what Fitzgerald has disclosed to the public. A private lawsuit is often an imperfect device to dig out the full story of any controversy. But this one is a reminder that the public has not yet received a full and official accounting of the leak case. Posted by David Corn at 04:08 PM July 14, 2006The Wilsons Talk (a Little) about Their Suit; A SmartCard for Marines in Iraq?I'm running about. Just saw the Joseph and Valerie Wilson press conference regarding the lawsuit they are filing today against Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and a host of John Does. It was a short session. Each Wilson made a brief statement and then took no questions. Christopher Wolf, their attorney, refrained from answering the most interesting questions, especially this one: can the suit overcome the obstacles that often prevent citizens from suing government officials? Wolf noted that his legal strategy will be revealed in cour filings--not at press conferences. He said that after today the Wilsons and he will not discuss the lawsuit in public and will do all their talking in the courtroom. Now I have to dash off, but here's an intriguing--if not disturbing--item from my friends at Secrecy News: A NEW IRAQ CULTURE SMART CARD "Don't use your left hand for contact with others," advises the US Marine Corps in a new edition of the Iraq Culture Smart Card which is distributed to military personnel in Iraq. "It is considered unclean." It seems late in the day for such niceties. Amid the daily brutality of the Iraq war, there is probably little to be gained by courtesy or to be lost by mere rudeness. But the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity evidently thinks otherwise. The MCIA has produced an updated Iraq Culture Smart Card, which features rudimentary information on Iraqi customs, religion and language. A copy was obtained by Secrecy News and is available here (in a very large 22 MB PDF file): http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usmc/iraqsmart-0506.pdf I agree. This is way too late. It seems as if these days, Marines in Iraq need an Iraq Civil War Smart Card with plenty of tips of how to tell one sectarian militia from another. Posted by David Corn at 11:25 AM July 13, 2006War in the Middle East; Know-Nothingism in the StudioLots of news. The Middle East is in flames, with Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah moving toward a regional war. There's tough talk from John Bolton on North Korea (but what's he going to do about it). And Bush is warning Iran--again (but what's he going to do about it). Meanwhile, Iraq slips into deeper chaos by the day--and it's barely front-page news. Where are the defeatists when you need them? That is, where are the leaders (Democrats, I'm talking about you) willing to say that Iraq is a fiasco? There are few on either side of the aisle (except for Jack Murtha, the stalwart progressive House Democrats, and one or two Republicans) willing to face the ugly reality. Hey, it's great that Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid is bashing GOPers for planning to adjourn Congress in September so members can get an even earlier start than usual on campaigning. But that's not nearly as pressing a matter as the mess in Iraq. Remember when he neocons were saying that the invasion of Iraq would be good for Israel and the region? That hasn't quite worked out. And it's certainly possible that the invasion of Iraq has exacerbated problems in the Middle East. Certainly, it has made it harder for Bush to pressure Iran or Syria (which is necessary in order to pressure Hezbollah and Hamas), for if Bush leans too heavily on Iran or Syria they can make things even worse in Iraq. So Bush has tied his own hands and has hampered Washington's ability to be a broker in the region. And at a cost of half a trillion dollars. Anyway, I was asked to go on Fox News this morning. And do I get to participate in a lofty debate over these world-changing matters? No. I end up being barked at by a know-nothing who claims there's no such thing as global warming. I kid you not. The other guess was conservative radio host Joe Pagliarulo, who goes by the name Joe Pags. We were asked to discuss Reid's charge that GOP leaders are neglecting important issues so lawmakers can hit the campaign trail. Right away, Pags starts bellowing that Reid is a partisan hack who's upset because the Republicans are going to win the congresssional elections in November. Talk about needless polarization. I asked why he wasn't concerned that Republican congressional leaders are proposing a pay raise for themselves but want to work less. As for skedaddling early, I noted, this would only ensure that the do-nothing Congress will do nothing about the minimum wage, health care or global warming (though, in general, I'm in favor of this particular Congress doing nothing). This face-off seemed so retro. I didn't know there really were people out there who still believed that global warming is a complete myth. But apparently there are--and apparently they are allowed on television. I wonder: if he were to proclaim that the Earth was flat or that pigs can talk, would media outlets let him on? Perhaps. If it makes a good show. But I do wish we could have stuck to the issues and had a reality-based conversation. I suppose, though, this was a fair and balanced debate: between someone who cares about facts and someone who doesn't. Posted by David Corn at 04:46 PM July 12, 2006Novak Speaks--FinallyFrom my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com.... Robert Novak finally speaks--in a way. In a column published in newspapers today, the conservative columnist finally discloses that he cooperated with the investigation of the CIA leak. Novak, of course, outed Valerie Wilson (aka Valerie Plame) as a CIA officer in a July 14, 2003 column on her husband's now-infamous CIA-assigned trip to Niger. In disclosing Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA--which was classified information--Novak cited two senior administration sources. After I read the original Novak column, I wondered if these leaks meant that Bush administration officials had violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and wrote the first article that suggested the leaks might be evidence of a White House crime. (That article was posted on The Nation's website two days after the Novak column appeared.) Novak's latest column answers only a few of the lingering questions. It has long been obvious that he cooperated with special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald--otherwise, he would have been subpoenaed by Fitzgerald, as had Judy Miller, Matt Cooper, Tim Russert and Washington Post reporters. The only question was the manner of Novak's cooperation. In public, he had proclaimed he would not give up his source. So what did he disclose to the investigators? It turns out that when FBI agents on October 7, 2003, first called on Novak, they already knew who his sources were. They did not need Novak to ID the senior administration officials. And Novak cooperated to an extent. As he writes, "I did disclose how Valerie Wilson's role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to disclose my sources." Three months later, he was questioned by Fitzgerald at his lawyer's office. Fitzgerald arrived wielding waivers signed by Novak's two sources. Most journalists did not accept such waivers--which were blanket statements signed by Bush administration officials under the threat of dismissal. Novak, too, did not believe these waivers, as he writes, relieved him of his "journalistic responsibility to protect a source." But since Fitzgerald already knew the identity of his sources (how Fitzgerald knew this Novak does not say), Novak discussed them by name--and avoided being subpoenaed and threatened with jail. He later testified about his sources before the grand jury. Other reporters later took less accommodating stances. Even after Time magazine turned over emails indicating that Karl Rove had leaked information about Valerie Wilson to correspondent Matt Cooper, Cooper refused to cooperate with Fitzgerald. He only did so after his lawyer had extracted a personal waiver from Rove. Judy Miller went to jail rather than reveal that Scooter Libby had been a source, though Fitzgerald clearly knew Libby had spoken to her. Novak took a different approach--which kept him out of jail and allowed him to duck a confrontation with Fitzgerald. He did not ask his sources for personal waivers. He confirmed for the prosecutor--even if begrudgingly--who his sources were without obtaining their permission to do so. The leak case raised plenty of questions about reporter-source confidentiality and what journalists should do to protect sources--and how laws and ethics affect such decisions. Purists argued that reporters should never cooperate and not recognize either blanket or personal waivers. Others--such as reporters who faced jail sentences--advocated a sliding standard of sorts: they would go to prison to defend a confidentiality agreement with a source but would accept a personal waiver to avoid such trouble or to get out of jail. Novak found an even murkier middle ground: he would talk about a source whom the prosecutor had identified without first consenting with that source. As a journalist who would not fancy doing hard time to protect an administration official, I am reluctant to judge another journalist's decision on such a matter. But, clearly, Novak's actions are not likely to win him many First Amendment awards. Novak's new column also offers further proof that Karl Rove leaked classified information. This is no news flash. The Libby indictment pointed the finger at Rove. Rove's own lawyer has confirmed that his client confirmed the Valerie Wilson leak for Novak. And in the summer of 2005, Newsweek disclosed a Matt Cooper email that detailed how Rove had told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. (There is no question that Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA was classified. Fitzgerald stated so at a press conference last October.) Still, despite all this evidence, the Bush White House has not honored the vow made early on in the leak investigation: anyone involved in the leak would be dismissed. Rove still is gainfully employed as George W. Bush's top strategist at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. There are no signs that he has even been disciplined or denied access to classified information. During the investigation, the president refused to say anything publicly about Rove and the probe. And after the investigation, the president has refused to say anything publicly about Rove's participation in the leak. Novak's column is an explanation of how the columnist wiggled out of a legal jam. More important, it is a reminder of how the stonewall strategy mounted by the White House and Rove succeeded. Posted by David Corn at 01:30 PM July 11, 2006Nothing To See, Move AlongCrashing on footnotes today, debate among yourselves. I'll be back. Posted by David Corn at 06:44 PM July 10, 2006CIA vs Congress vs White House: Who To Root For?From my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com.... It's hard to know who to root for in the continuing scuffles between the Republican Congress, the White House and the CIA over the intelligence agency. The latest round--actually, it's a postdated tussle--was triggered by a May 18, 2006 letter that Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, sent to George W. Bush raising protests on three fronts: recent appointments at the CIA, the new Director of National Intelligence office, and the White House's failure to brief Congress about certain covert programs, which Hoekstra didn't name in his letter. (The letter was first disclosed by The New York Times on July 9.) It was easy for some to see Hoekstra as a heroic reformer challenging secret government. Truthdig.org named Hoekstra the "Truthdigger of the Week." But the spy wars of Washington are not linear affairs and the battle lines murky. Is the CIA a rotting institution that failed prior to 9/11 and then provided Bush flawed intelligence to justify an invasion of Iraq? Or is it a bastion of risk-averse conventionalists who have undermined Bush's ambitious, forward-looking national security agenda (which includes the Iraq war)? The CIA has been getting it from the left and the right in recent years. And it's unclear whether the top tier of the agency ought to be backed or booted. When Porter Goss, a Republican who preceded Hoekstra as chairman of the House intelligence committee, was CIA director, he placed his political aides in charge of the agency, and the career officers rebelled. Several of the most experienced CIA veterans--including Stephen Kappes, the director of operations, resigned rather than deal with the Goss crew. The CIA people viewed the Goss gang as hacks motivated by political concerns; Goss and his allies saw the CIA career leadership as bureaucrats resistant to change. (Goss resigned as CIA chief in May; he was replaced by General Michael Hayden, who, as the National Security Agency chief, was a longtime intelligence professional.) Enter Hoekstra and his letter. What received the most attention was his charge that his committee had not been briefed about "some alleged Intelligence Community activities." He added, "If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the Administration, a violation of law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the Members o this committee." Hoekstra did not say what secrets the White House had been keeping from him. Open-government fans cheered Hoekstra's pointed reminder to Bush: the law says you cannot run covert programs on your own without telling Congress. And on Fox News Sunday, the day his letter was disclosed, Hoekstra said his letter had done the trick and that subsequently he was briefed about this intelligence activity--which he still would not identify. (Hoekstra is not much of a maverick; he has not rushed to hold public hearings on such matters as the controversial and arguably illegal NSA domestic wiretapping program.) Another point Hoekstra made in his letter was important. He expressed his concern that the new DNI office has become a "large, bureaucratic, and hierarchical structure." If there was a need for a DNI--which supposedly is supposed to coordinate the various intelligence agencies of the US government, including the CIA--there was no reason to create another intelligence bureaucracy. The intelligence community would benefit more from streamlining than from an expanding management. So score Hoekstra another point here. But the first topic Hoekstra raised in his letter shows he can be loopy. Hoekstra voiced his displeasure over the selection of Hayden, an Air Force general, to be the CIA director, noting that he wanted a civilian to head a civilian agency. But what really ticked him off was the selection of Kappes to be the new number-two at the agency. Bringing back Kappes, Hoekstra wrote, would lead to "political problems" at the agency. What did Hoekstra mean by this? He explained: "I have been long concerned that a strong and well-positioned group within the Agency intentionally undermined the Administration and its policies. This argument is supported by the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame events, as well as by the string of unauthorized disclosures from an organization that prides itself with being able to keep secrets." Kappes, he added, is part of this group. Hoekstra didn't spell it out in his note. But what he was saying was that he believed a CIA cabal has tried to undercut Bush regarding the war in Iraq--that CIA officials opposed to the war plotted against the president and sought to undercut his case for war by leaking stories indicating that the intelligence cited by Bush and his aides on Iraq's WMDs and purported connections to al Qaeda was not that strong. (Joe Wilson's trip to Niger and subsequent op-ed piece declaring there had been nothing to the charge Iraq was seeking uranium there, the rightwing theory goes, was part of a deliberate CIA conspiracy against the White House.) Hoekstra also is probably thinking of the leaks about CIA secret prisons and the agency's clandestine renditions of detainees to nations where abusive interrogation occurs. So Hoekstra appears to be of the belief that the problem was not that Bush used flawed WMD intelligence to take the nation to war but that CIA leakers disclosed the flaws of the intelligence. This is a tad alarming, for every post-invasion review of the intelligence--including one conducted by Hoekstra's own committee--found that the intelligence community was dead wrong on WMDs. A Senate intelligence committee review also concluded the CIA had been right to conclude there was no strong evidence that al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were in cahoots. Hoekstra should realize that the important issue is not the leaks (which were true) but the misuse of the intelligence. But Hoekstra still believes in Iraq's WMDs. Last month, he joined with Republican Senator Rick Santorum to hype a 2003 Defense Department report that noted that about 500 weapons containing degrade mustard gas or sarin nerve agent had been found in Iraq. These weapons, though, were manufactured before the first Gulf War and were not evidence that Saddam Hussen had maintained a WMD program in the years before the invasion. A senior Pentagon official, quoted by Fox News, said that these weapons were not useable. "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," he said, noting the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war." Yet Hoekstra and Santorum made it seem this discovery was significant. Hoekstra promised further investigation. "We are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war," he said. Let's recap: Hoekstra was mad at Bush for keeping him out of the loop, and he warned the president about expanding the bloated intelligence capability. But he thinks the CIA is laced with politically-minded plotters who hold unfounded beliefs (such as there were no operational links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden) and who are working to thwart the national security policies of the nation. In Washington's version of Spy Verus Spy, it can be difficult to know which--if any--side to cheer. Posted by David Corn at 03:48 PM July 07, 2006Cheap Donuts and a Mess of a JobGeorge Bush went to a Dunkin' Donuts on Wednesday. No, this wasn't a Bill Clinton moment. The president was making a political point-about immigration. The two Iranian Americans who own this donut shop in Alexandria, Virginia, apparently cannot find the workers they need to keep churning out those circular sugar bombs. So, Bush said, Congress has to pass legislation that will allow illegal immigrants to become legal guest-workers. Congress does need to deal with immigration. But there might be another solution to the Dunkin' Donuts problem--raising the minimum wage. If work at fast-food shops paid more, there would be more fast-food workers. Isn't that how the market works? Bush's plan, though, is based on exploiting the low wages of Mexico. That is, let's bring in more low-wage workers who don't expect to make a living wage here and whom we don't have to treat as citizens. Use them and send them back. We get the donuts. They get the hole. Now, it's not actually a hole. It's a better deal than they can get in Mexico--which is why they come here. So the long-term solution to the immigration mess is to close the wage gap between the United States and Mexico. And I don't mean bringing down wages in the United States. Yet the apparent election in Mexico of Felipe Calderon, a booster of NAFTA, is not likely to lead to policies in Mexico that produce higher wages. As long as Mexico has low wages, Americans will have to fend off waves of Mexicans trying to cross the border--but at least that keeps the price of donuts down. Here Are the Keys to the Car I Drove off the Road. Hillary Clinton, John McCain--be careful what you wish for. There was an interesting quote in yesterday's Washington Post from Richard Haass, who once was a senior official in Bush's State Department and who now heads the Council on Foreign Relations. He told the paper, "I am hard-pressed to think of any other moment in modern ties where there have been so many challenges facing his country simultaneously. The danger is that Mr. Bush will have over a White House to a successor that will face a far messier world, with far fewer resources left to cope with it." In CFR-speak, that's a damning indictment. A big part of that messier world, of course is Iraq and Afghanistan--and Bush bears responsibility for each of those messes. He may not be able to do much about missiles over North Korea, Iranian defiance regarding its nuclear program, mayhem in Somalia, the increasing tensions between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the electoral logjam in Mexico--though his policies on most of these fronts have not improved matters. Yet he has botched the two big projects he took on--Iraq and Afghanistan. And, as Haass noted, he has squandered resources--particularly with his war in Iraq, which has claimed hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars, thousands of lives (Americans and Iraqis) and the global goodwill toward the United States that existed after 9/11. (On top of that, Bush has run up the national debt in a manner that would make a drunken sailor blush.) So his successor--be he or she D or R--will confront problems exacerbated by Bush and will find it harder to marshal the resources needed to deal with these challenges. And this scenario doesn't even cover global warming. It makes you wonder why anyone would even want the job after Bush is done with it. Posted by David Corn at 11:41 AM July 06, 2006On the Road....Today. So make up your own posts. Posted by David Corn at 08:35 PM July 05, 2006Is the Times Really Anti-Bush?My latest "Loyal Opposition" column in www.tompaine.com. Please remember to visit that site..... The Timid Times When I looked at the picture of a wounded boy in Baghdad on Page 4 of last Sunday's New York Times, I thought of the recent barrage of criticism directed at the paper by conservatives enraged by its June 23 story disclosing a covert U.S. program to track suspected terrorists through an international clearinghouse for financial transactions. What's the connection? Read on. Some of the paper's detractors have claimed--or rather shouted--that the Times is against winning the conflict against Islamic jihadists and purposefully seeks to undermine the Bush administration's efforts to defeat terrorists and safeguard the homeland. Rightwing radio host Glenn Beck claimed the Times was "fighting for the same thing that al-Qaida wants." Ann Coulter declared, "The safest place for Osama bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan or Pakistan; it's in The New York Times building" (which she once quipped she would like to see blown up). Rush Limbaugh proclaimed the Times was "trying to help the jihadists." Newt Gingrich said of the paper, "They hate George W. Bush so much that they would be prepared to cripple America in order to go after the president." Such over-the-top rhetoric is hardly a surprise in this partisan era, especially when the right is saddled with an unpopular president and desperately needs to change the subject from George W. Bush's war in Iraq. Without sitting in Bill Keller's chair—or that of the editors of The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, or The Washington Post which all published stories on this anti-terrorist banking program--I can easily acknowledge that the decision to publish this piece appears to have been a close call and that there might have been a legitimate reason to hold back in this case. But the right wingers are willfully misguided in viewing Keller's decision as part of a plot to undercut Bush. If that was the goal of the Times' schemers, there would be a lot more the paper could do. Lets start with that black-and-white photograph of the Iraqi boy. It was gruesome. He was lying in a hospital bed, badly wounded from a suicide bombing. His arms, hands and head were bandaged. It looked as if he had burns and scars over much of his body. The Times and other papers occasionally publish graphic photos of wounded and dead Iraqis, but not enough to represent accurately and fully the daily tragedies occurring in Iraq. Keller'd paper and the others could be publishing many more such photographs, including shots that are even more visceral. The worst horrors of the war in Iraq are not routinely depicted visually in the Times. Everyday there are bodies—often headless bodies bearing signs of torture and mutilation. The paper generally does not put photographs of such atrocities in front of its readers. But imagine if it did, with regularly placed detailed photos of civilian casualties in Iraq on the front page. White House officials and others, no doubt, would complain about the demoralizing impact on U.S. public opinion regarding the war in Iraq. The paper would only be sharing harsh realities with its readers. But the anti-Times gang would consider such photojournalism treasonous. It's a wonder then, the paper hasn't done so. Maybe because Times is a family paper, its editors feel it cannot go too far when it comes to gore-ridden photos. But what if everyday it had a box on the front page listing all the attacks and bombing within Iraq the previous day? Reuters keeps (and posts) such a list. Anyone who read this sort of roster on a daily basis would have a tough time accepting Bush and Dick Cheney's never-ending claims that progress is being made. Or what if the Times--as it did with the victims of 9/11--printed profiles of every U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, placing one a day on the front page? Such a reminder of the cost being paid might well undermine the war effort by causing more people to question the value of this military venture. Or what if the newspaper ran a daily account of how much the war is costing, not in blood, but in taxes? (Representative Jack Murtha, the Democrat hawk who turned against the war, recently put the tab at $450 billion and noted this was $445 billion more than the cost of the first Gulf War.) There's plenty more the paper can do to discredit Bush. It often treads lightly when the president or the vice president says something untrue. Two weeks ago, Dick Cheney claimed in an interview that there were 250,000 Iraqi soldiers "now in uniform, equipped, trained, in the fight." That was a whopper. In February, the Pentagon noted that the number of Iraqi battalions ready to fight on their own was zero. (The Defense Department then stopped releasing figures on the battle readiness of Iraqi security forces). After Cheney made those remarks about the Iraqi military, did the Times rush out a front-page article reporting that the vice president was misleading the public about the centerpiece of the administration's Iraq policy? No. Keller missed another chance to deal a blow to the administration's war on terrorism. And let's look at the Times' past actions. Yes, it did publish an article revealing that the National Security Agency, as directed by Bush, was intercepting phone calls of Americans to overseas destinations without obtaining warrants--if those Americans were suspected of being terrorists or were talking to people suspected of being terrorists. But the paper sat on the piece for about a year. Had the Times run the story when it had first learned of this arguably illegal wiretapping program, it would have appeared before the 2004 presidential election. The ensuing hullabaloo could have influenced the election results. Yet the diabolical Times did not seize this opportunity to weaken the commander in chief at a crucial moment. What were they thinking? There is also the matter of the Times' coverage of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to consider. How does that fit into the conservative theory that the Times is a hotbed of anti-Bushites? In the year and a half prior to the invasion of Iraq, the paper consistently published stories that hyped the WMD threat. Its reporters—Judith Miller and others—churned out breathless exposes based on administration leaks and handouts from Iraqi exile groups angling to start a war. Though the paper's editorial page was a loud voice against the invasion of Iraq, its front-page often carried stories--which all turned out to be wrong--that created a favorable context for Bush's march to war. Is it the critics' position that the Times helped grease the path to war in Iraq but has plotted to emasculate the war against bin Laden? Perhaps it is too much to expect logic or consistency from the Times-bashers. They are looking for a target. And there are not many flag-burners running around these days. The Times has hardly declared war on this administration. Only someone who didn't read the newspapers could believe it has. Posted by David Corn at 12:35 PM July 04, 2006The 4thNo post today. Go wave the flag--or burn it, while you still can. As for me, I'd rather be burning burgers on the grill. Posted by David Corn at 09:12 AM July 03, 2006Why Hillary Ought To Be Watching JoeFrom my ""Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com.... Here's something that Hillary Clinton should care about: Senator Joe Lieberman today announced that if he is defeated in the August 8 Democratic Party primary he will run as an independent to seek his Senate seat. Why should HRC care? Lieberman is being challenged in Connecticut by Ned Lamont, an antiwar multimillionaire Democrat whose campaign is based almost entirely on his complaint that Lieberman has been a cheerleader for George W. Bush's war in Iraq. While Lieberman is ahead in the polls, Lamont has narrowed the gap to the point that it is conceivable that Lamont could topple the incumbent. But, as Lieberman said on Monday, that will not keep him out of the race, for he will start to collect the 7500 signatures he needs to run as an independent. Lieberman had to make that decision now; the filing deadline for independent candidates is the day after the Democratic primary. Lieberman could not wait to see what happened in the primary before preparing to run as an independent. Is this a sign that Lieberman fears he will lose? Maybe not. But is a sign that Lieberman is not willing to risk losing. And he will have to bear a political cost for crafting this two-track strategy. Lieberman's announcement will probably not help him among Democratic primary voters. He is essentially saying that if the party choses someone else to be its senatorial nominee, he will work to defeat that candidate. That's not showing much party loyalty--and it's possible some Democrats in the Nutmeg State will take exception to his threat. But back to Hillary. This primary race is--or should be--important to her and other Democrats because it shows how the war can split the party. And that could become the dominant theme of the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination. If the war in Iraq remains a mess a year-and-a-half from now, the Democratic presidential primary will be all about what to do in Iraq. Many Democratic primary voters will be looking for an antiwar, pro-withdrawal candidate (Senator Russ Feingold?) and reluctant to vote for any candidate who has supported the war and stood by it (as has Hillary Clinton). Clinton will certainly have the deepest pockets of any of the candidates--and money usually beats all else (though that didn't work for Howard Dean in 2004). But if Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of the war (as far as most Democratic primary voters are concerned), the race will be a bitter and divisive one. Clinton has not cozied up to Bush the way Lieberman has on the war. She has tried to have it both ways by criticizing the execution of the war but not the mission. Such nuance--or hedging--may get her through the nomination process. But, then again, it might not--if there are enough Democrats PO'ed about the war and her support for it. So the junior senator from New York will be paying close attention to what happens next door in Connecticut. The outcome of this contest may be as important for the future of the Democratic Party as any race in November. Posted by David Corn at 02:52 PM |
|
|
"HUBRIS is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." --Tom Brokaw |
