< July 2007 | Main | September 2007 >

August 31, 2007

Outed, Craig To Oust Himself?

A breathless producer from a cable network called me this morning: "We're hearing rumblings that Larry Craig is going to resign today." She wanted to know if I'd be available for punditing, should that come to pass.

Should he resign? Probably. He broke the law, but then he was only charged with a misdemeanor. As noted below, what I find intriguing is that GOPers immediately jumped on Craig--calling for either an investigation or a resignation--and they did no such thing for Senator David Vitter, who made repeated phone calls to the escort service run by the DC Madam. Since Vitter refused to say what those calls led to, an inquiry was warranted in that case--perhaps more so than in the Craig case, in which a police report pretty clearly lays out what happened. So is there a double standard: an attempt at gay stall sex, bad; using call girls, not so bad? There may be another factor. Should Craig resign, the Republican governor of Idaho would surely appoint a Republican to replace him. Should Vitter resign, a Democrat might be his successor. Politics when it comes to issues of morality and crime? I know, you're shocked.

I'm out and about today. No more postings. Enjoy the holiday weekend, these last few days of summer and these last few days before Fred Thompson is officially a candidate. And if you haven't yet, please see the report below on the secret US embassy report on corruption within the Iraqi government.

UPDATE: AP is reporting Craig will resign on Saturday.

Posted by David Corn at 12:00 PM

August 30, 2007

Secret U.S. Embassy Report: Corruption is "the Norm" Within Iraqi Government

From my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com....

As Congress prepares to receive reports on Iraq from General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and readies for a debate on George W. Bush's latest funding request of $50 billion for the Iraq war, the performance of the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has become a central and contentious issue. But according to the working draft of a secret document prepared by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, the Maliki government has failed in one significant area: corruption. Maliki's government is "not capable of even rudimentary enforcement of anticorruption laws," the report says, and, perhaps worse, the report notes that Maliki's office has impeded investigations of fraud and crime within the government.

The draft--over 70 pages long--was obtained by The Nation, and it reviews the work (or attempted work) of the Commission on Public Integrity (CPI), an independent Iraqi institution, and other anticorruption agencies within the Iraqi government. Labeled "SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED/Not for distribution to personnel outside of the US Embassy in Baghdad," the study details a situation in which there is little, if any, prosecution of government theft and sleaze. Moreover, it concludes that corruption is "the norm in many ministries."

The report depicts the Iraqi government as riddled with corruption and criminals-and beyond the reach of anticorruption investigators. It also maintains that the extensive corruption within the Iraqi government has strategic consequences by decreasing public support for the U.S.-backed government and by providing a source of funding for Iraqi insurgents and militias.

The report, which was drafted by a team of U.S. embassy officials, surveys the various Iraqi ministries. "The Ministry of Interior is seen by Iraqis as untouchable by the anticorruption enforcement infrastructure of Iraq," it says. "Corruption investigations in Ministry of Defense are judged to be ineffectual." The study reports that the Ministry of Trade is "widely recognized as a troubled ministry" and that of 196 corruption complaints involving this ministry merely eight have made it to court, with only one person convicted.

The Ministry of Health, according to the report, "is a sore point; corruption is actually affecting its ability to deliver services and threatens the support of the government." Investigations involving the Ministry of Oil have been manipulated, the study says, and the "CPI and the [Inspector General of the ministry] are completely ill-equipped to handle oil theft cases." There is no accurate accounting of oil production and transportation within the ministry, the report explains, because organized crime groups are stealing oil "for the benefit of militias/insurgents, corrupt public officials and foreign buyers."

The list goes on: "Anticorruption cases concerning the Ministry of Education have been particularly ineffective....[T]he Ministry of Water Resources...is effectively out of the anticorruption fight with little to no apparent effort in trying to combat fraud....[T]he Ministry of Labor & Social Affairs is hostile to the prosecution of corruption cases. Militia support from [Shia leader Moqtada al-Sadr] has effectively made corruption in the Ministry of Transportation wholesale according to investigators and immune from prosecution." Several ministries, according to the study, are "so controlled by criminal gangs or militias" that it is impossible for corruption investigators "to operate within [them] absent a tactical [security] force protecting the investigator."

The Ministry of the Interior, which has been a stronghold of Shia militias, stands out in the report. The study's authors say that "groups within MOI function similarly to a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) in the classic sense. MOI is a 'legal enterprise'' which has been co-opted by organized criminals who act through the 'legal enterprise' to commit crimes such as kidnapping, extortion, bribery, etc." This is like saying the mob is running the police department. The report notes, "currently 426 investigations are hung up awaiting responses for documents belonging to MOI which routinely are ignored." It cites an episode during which a CPI officer discovered two eyewitnesses to the October 2006 murder of Amer al-Hashima, the brother of the vice president, but the CPI investigator would not identify the eyewitnesses to the Minister of the Interior out of fear he and they would be assassinated. (It seemed that the killers were linked to the Interior Ministry.) The report adds, "CPI investigators assigned to MOI investigations have unanimously expressed their fear of being assassinated should they aggressively pursue their duties at MOI. Thus when the head of MOI intelligence recently personally visited the Commissioner of CPI...to end investigations of [an] MOI contract, there was a clear sense of concern within the agency."

Over at the Defense Ministry, the report notes, there has been a "shocking lack of concern" about the apparent theft of $850 million from the Iraqi military's procurement budget. "In some cases," the report says, "American advisors working for US [Department of Defense] have interceded to remove [Iraqi] suspects from investigations or custody." Of 455 corruption investigations at the Defense Ministry, only 15 have reached the trial stage. A mere four investigators are assigned to investigating corruption in the department. And at the Ministry of Trade, ""criminal gangs" divide the spoils, with one handling grain theft, another stealing transportation assets.

Part of the problem, according to the report, is Maliki's office: "The Prime Minister's Office has demonstrated an open hostility" to independent corruption investigations. His government has withheld resources from the CPI, the report says, and "there have been a number of identified cases where government and political pressure has been applied to change the outcome of investigations and prosecutions in favor of members of the Shia Alliance"-which includes Maliki's Dawa party.

The report's authors note that the man Maliki appointed as his anticorruption adviser--Adel Muhsien Abdulla al-Quza'alee--has said that independent agencies, like the CPI, should be under the control of Maliki. According to the report, "Adel has in the presence of American advisors pressed the Commissioner of CPI to withdraw cases referred to court." These cases involved defendants who were members of the Shia Alliance. (Adel has also, according to the report, "steadfastly refused to submit his financial disclosure form.") And Maliki's office, the report says, has tried to "force out the entire leadership of CPI to replace them with political appointees"--which would be tantamount to a death sentence for the CPI officials. They now live in the Green Zone. Were they to lose their CPI jobs, they would have to move out of the protected zone and would be at the mercy of the insurgents, militias, and crime gangs "who are [the] subjects of their investigations."

Maliki has also protected corrupt officials by reinstating a law that prevents the prosecution of a government official without the permission of the minister of the relevant agency. According to a memo drafted in March by the U.S. embassy's anticorruption working group-a memo first disclosed by The Washington Post--between September 2006 and February 2007, ministers used this law to block the prosecutions of 48 corruption cases involving a total of $35 million. Many other cases at this time were in the process of being stalled in the same manner. The stonewalled probes included one case in which Oil Ministry employees rigged bids for $2.5 million in equipment and another in which ministry personnel stole 33 trucks of petroleum.

And in another memo obtained by The Nation--marked "Secret and Confidential"-Maliki's office earlier this year ordered the Commission on Public Integrity not to forward any case to the courts involving the president of Iraq, the prime minister of Iraq, or any current or past ministers without first obtaining Maliki's consent. According to the U.S. embassy report on the anticorruption efforts, the government's hostility to the CPI has gone so far that for a time the CPI link on the official Iraqi government web site directed visitors to a pornographic site.

In assessing the Commission on Public Integrity, the embassy report notes that the CPI lacks sufficient staff and funding to be effective. The watchdog outfit has only 120 investigators to cover 34 ministries and agencies. And these investigators, the report notes, "are closer to clerks processing paperwork rather than investigators solving crimes." The CPI, according to the report, "is currently more of a passive rather than a true investigatory agency. Though legally empowered to conduct investigations, the combined security situation and the violent character of the criminal elements within the ministries make investigation of corruption too hazardous."

CPI staffers have been "accosted by armed gangs within ministry headquarters and denied access to officials and records." They and their families are routinely threatened. Some sleep in their office in the Green Zone. In December 2006, a sniper positioned on top of an Iraqi government building in the Green Zone fired three shots at CPI headquarters. Twelve CPI personnel have been murdered in the line of duty. The CPI, according to the report, "has resorted to arming people hired for janitorial and maintenance duty."

Radhi al-Radhi, a former judge who was tortured and imprisoned during Saddam Hussein's regime and who heads the CPI, has been forced to live in a safe house with one of his chief investigators, according to an associate of Radhi who asked not to be identified. Radhi has worked with Stuart Bowen Jr., the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, who investigates fraud and waste involving U.S. officials and contractors. His targets have included former Defense Minister Hazem Shalaan and former Electricity Minister Aiham Alsammarae. And Radhi himself has become a target of accusations. A year ago, Maliki's office sent a letter to Radhi suggesting that the CPI could not account for hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses and that Radhi might be corrupt. But, according to the US embassy report, a subsequent audit of the CPI was "glowing." In July, the Iraqi parliament considered a motion of no confidence in Radhi--a move widely interpreted as retaliation for his pursuit of corrupt officials. But the legislators put off a vote on the resolution. In late August, Radhi came to the United States. He is considering remaining here, according to an associate.

Corruption, the report says, is "one of the major hurdles the Iraqi government must overcome if it is to survive as a stable and independent entity." Without a vigorous anticorruption effort, the report's authors assert, the current Iraqi government "is likely to loose [sic] the support of its people." And, they write, continuing corruption "will likely fund the violent groups that our troops are likely to face." Yet, according to the report, the U.S. embassy is providing "uncertain" resources for anticorruption programs. "It's a farce," says a U.S. embassy employee. "There is a budget of zero [within the embassy] to fight corruption. No one ever asked for this report to be written. And it was shit-canned. Who the hell would want to release it? It should infuriate the families of the soldiers and those who are fighting in Iraq supposedly to give Maliki's government a chance."

Beating back corruption is not one of the 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for Iraq and the Maliki government. But this hard-hitting report--you can practically see the authors pulling out their hair--makes a powerful though implicit case that it ought to be. The study is a damning indictment: widespread corruption within the Iraqi government undermines and discredits the U.S. mission in Iraq. And the Bush administration is doing little to stop it.

Posted by David Corn at 03:26 PM

$50 Billion for What?

Would you pump $50 billion into an enterprise that is only meeting three of its 18 performance goals?

That's the question facing Congress, which will soon receive from George W. Bush a request for $50 billion in extra funding for the Iraq war. And this request comes just as the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan, investigative arm of Congress, is releasing a report concluding that the Iraq government has failed to meet 15 of the 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks on military and political fronts.

The GAO--no surprise here--reached a far more pessimistic finding than an earlier White House assessment that found the Iraqi government to be scoring well on most of the benchmarks. Which report is to be believed? To ask the question is to answer it. Also, the draft GAO report not-too-subtly accuses the White House--again, no surprise--of rigging its report, noting it "would be more useful" if the administration produces future assessments backed up with "data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies." The GAO assessment, unlike the White House report, points out that Bush's so-called "surge" has not led to a decrease in the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians and that while the "surge" has been ongoing "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved." The White House report claimed the Iraqi military is now able to provide trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support military operations in Baghdad. The GAO says it cannot.

So Congress faces the dilemma of whether to pour money into an endeavor that is showing not much progress and whether to hand that $50 billion to a management team (Bush and Co.) that is not able to assess and report accurately (or perhaps honestly) the situation it faces.

Republicans are chortling these days that the $50 billion will be a breeze, especially when a few voices (including a handful of Democrats) are claiming the "surge" might be producing some positive results. But the GAO report ought to strengthen the spine of the Democratic leaders of Congress and help them shape the debate.

Meanwhile, Republicans should be careful what they wish for. General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are expected to report to Congress soon that progress is under way in Iraq. The GAO report, of course, undermines their position. But if congressional Republicans tie themselves to the Petraeus and Crocker good-news reports and continue to stick unquestioningly with Bush on the war, they will be placing themselves in a precarious political position should the GAO be closer to the mark.

Congressional Republicans--who nowadays appear to come from the party of call-girls and stall-sex--do not have much time before next year's elections to distance themselves from Bush's war. And if there is not significant progress in Iraq, voters could once again seek retribution from the party that backs the war. Each cycle of debate in Washington in which the Republicans do not separate themselves from Bush places them closer to a possible Judgment Day. Breaking with the president on the war next spring could be too late for many GOPers. By standing with Bush this time around--and choosing the White House's happy-face evaluation over the GAO's somber assessment--the Republicans are possibly digging a deeper hole for themselves. By buying Bush's view, they could win the current battle, but lose the war.

Posted by David Corn at 11:28 AM

August 29, 2007

Investigate Larry Craig? Don't Bother

Question: what does it take to get Republicans in Washington to investigate alleged wrongdoing?

Answer: a public bathroom, lewd behavior, and a police report.

From today's Washington Post:

Senate Republican leaders called for an ethics investigation of Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) yesterday as he dug in for a legal and political fight to save his congressional career after acknowledging that he had pleaded guilty to disorderly-conduct charges stemming from an incident with an undercover police officer in an airport men's room.

Craig denied doing anything wrong and said he had "overreacted" in pleading guilty after his June 11 arrest at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. He said that he is "not gay" and vowed to continue to serve in the Senate.

But there really is not much to investigate. The police report says what it says: Craig was trying to find a partner for sex in a men's bathroom at the Minneapolis airport. And Craig conceded the facts when he pleaded guilty. Now he claims he's innocent. Who believes that? The GOP doesn't need an inquiry to cut through Craig's nonsensical spin.

From the Post:

"This is a serious matter. Due to the reported and disputed circumstances, and the legal resolution of this serious case, we will recommend that Senator Craig's incident be reported to the Senate Ethics Committee for its review. In the meantime, leadership is examining other aspects of the case to determine if additional action is required," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Minority Whip Trent Lott (Miss.) and three other elected leaders said.

Actually, it's not that serious a matter. But it's too bad these GOP leaders were not as assiduous when the subject was WMDs in Iraq, Enron, the missing billions of dollars in Iraq reconstruction money, or global warming.

Which reminds me: why did these Republican leaders not call for an investigation of Republican Senator David Vitter, who also may have violated the law by using the escort service of the DC Madam? Unlike the Case of the Supposedly Non-Gay Senator Caught in the Gay Sex Sting, the Vitter episode raised questions that are still unresolved. Vitter acknowledged calling the escort service, but he has declined to say anything else. So what use did he make of the escorts? Did he break the law in doing so? Vitter refuses to address such queries.

To date, Vitter's say-no-more approach appears to be working. He's still a U.S. senator (even if he's the butt of jokes). And the political pressure on him to come clean or to resign has eased. He must be saying to himself these days, "Thank God for Larry Craig."

Vitter once argued that Bill Clinton ought to be impeached because he had engaged in immoral acts. Vitter has not held himself to the same standard and, for the moment, he has escaped retribution. But he's the sex-scandal-tainted Republican senator worthy of an investigation. As for Craig, the record--that is, the police report he acknowledged as accurate--speaks for itself.

Posted by David Corn at 01:14 PM

August 28, 2007

A Keeper

A headline for the ages:

Senator arrested in toilet say he's not gay

Film at 11:00?

Posted by David Corn at 10:09 PM

Poor Kids: This is America

Here's the reax of Robert Greenstein, the executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, to the new Census Bureau data on poverty and income levels:

The new Census figures are disappointing for the fifth year of an economic recovery -- showing a significant decline in poverty for people over 65 but no significant decline in poverty for children or adults aged 18 to 64, and only a modest improvement in median income. In 2006, the poverty rate remained higher, and median income for non-elderly households remained $1,300 lower, than in 2001, when the last recession hit bottom. It is virtually unprecedented for poverty to be higher and the income of working-age households lower in the fifth year of a recovery than in the last year of the previous recession.

The new figures are the latest evidence that the economic growth of the past few years has been very uneven, with the gains concentrated among the highest-income Americans. Too many low- and middle-income families are not sharing in the gains. These figures are inconsistent with claims that the policies of recent years have produced an outstanding economic track record.

The new stats show that the number of uninsured Americans went up by 2.2 million, and this figures includes 600,000 children. Moreover, 36.5 million Americans were poor in 2006, according to the Census Bureau info--a level statistically no different from 2005. The poverty rate for children (17.4 percent) was higher than that of adults (10.8 percent). This is America.

Posted by David Corn at 06:19 PM

A Nice, Cozy Place in Baghdad/The Next A.G.: Waiting for Chertoff?

Sometimes I like it whenever other journalists beat me to the punch. I was considering putting together a list of all the supposed "turning points" in the Iraq War that, of course, turned out not to be points of turning. But, it turns out, Foreign Policy, a feisty magazine that's not just for wonks, has already done so. Here's how FP starts its web-exclusive piece:

As the Bush administration readies a "pivotal" progress report on Iraq, it's worth asking if this time will be any different than the past. We've seen countless politicians and pundits on both sides herald the arrival of a "turning point" in Iraq, only to watch the war roll on. Herewith, a quick rundown of the "turning points" that turned out to be anything but.

Read the full list here.

The current issue of Foreign Policy has a sharp article by Jane Loeffler, a historian of embassies, on the new U.S. embassy in Iraq. The subscription-only piece begins:

A citadel is rising on the banks of the Tigris. There, on the river's western side, the United States is building the world's largest embassy. The land beneath it was once a riverside park. What sits atop today is a massive, fortified compound. Encircled by blast walls and cut off from the rest of Baghdad, it stands out like the crusader castles that once dotted the landscape of the Middle East. Its size and scope bring into question whether it is even correct to call this facility an "embassy." Why is the United States building something so large, so expensive, and so disconnected from the realities of Iraq? In a country shattered by war, what is the meaning of this place?

For security reasons, many details about the embassy's design and construction must remain classified. But the broad outline of its layout says a lot about one of America's most important architectural projects. Located in Baghdad's 4-square-mile Green Zone, the embassy will occupy 104 acres. It will be six times larger than the U.N. complex in New York and more than 10 times the size of the new U.S. Embassy being built in Beijing, which at 10 acres is America's second-largest mission. The Baghdad compound will be entirely self-sufficient, with no need to rely on the Iraqis for services of any kind. The embassy has its own electricity plant, fresh water and sewage treatment facilities, storage warehouses, and maintenance shops. The embassy is composed of more than 20 buildings, including six apartment complexes with 619 one-bedroom units. Two office blocks will accommodate about 1,000 employees.

Loeffler notes, "The United States has designed an embassy that conveys no confidence in Iraqis and little hope for their future," With this embassy, she points out, there will be no need for the Americans to interact with Iraqis for anything. And she argues, "Diplomacy is not the sort of work that can be done by remote control. It takes direct contact to build goodwill for the United States and promote democratic values."

So as another "turning point" is reached in Iraq, the Bush administration is to open on September 1 one helluva symbol. But if this turning point isn't the one that does the trick, at least Americans official in Baghdad will live and work in comfort and security as they plan the next one.

THE NEXT A.G. The leading speculation continues to center on Michael Chertoff, the head of the Homeland Security Department. Though Chertoff is no Bush crony or Cheney-bot, the confirmation hearings sure could be explosive. Democrats could pound him for his miserable performance during Hurricane Katrina--a performance which should disqualify him for any promotion. And there's more: the Department of Homeland Security is widely regarded as an agency plagued with ineptitude and institutional corruption. Put that on the agenda, too.

Posted by David Corn at 11:17 AM

August 27, 2007

Gonzales Gone

I wish I had a stopwatch handy to clock CNN today. If the story about NFL superstar/dogfighting fan Michael Vick's guilty plea has not drawn more time than Alberto Gonzales' resignation, it's a darn close second....I've not heard much in the way of insightful commentary about who the heck Bush is going to nominate to replace his longtime legal lieutenant (who years ago helped keep news of Bush's DWI suppressed). People I know at the Justice Department have been saying for months that the agency cannot attract lawyers to fill all the recent vacancies at the top. So who's going to want to take the A.G. slot? (Hey, what's Rick Santorum doing these days?)

Bush's choice is clear. He can go with a crony (if any are left) or a Cheney-bot, though doing so will trigger a major clash in the Senate (unless Bush tries to pull a sneaky recess appointment). Or he can find a graybeard that establishment Washington will drool over. ("Jack Danforth! What a superb move.") The downside of the non-crony option: having someone who cares more about the law than the Bush administration in charge of the Justice Department. Who knows what sort of trouble that could cause? There may be a move in-between these two option: Senator Orrin Hatch. Though a conservative Republican, he's not exactly a crony. And he's no above-it-all mainstreamer, but he's popular enough within Washington. Most important, he can be confirmed. In fact, Bush's best bet would be a current or past senator. Few would be turned down. (Even John Ashcroft got seven Democratic votes.) But does Hatch want the post? This is no slam-dunk. Cleaning up--or covering up--Gonzales' mess could get in the way of a down-the-road Supreme Court nomination for him.

Here's my "Capital Games" column from www.thenation.com on the Gonzales retreat:

GONZALES: NOT A MAN OF HIS WORD?

Is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who today announced his resignation, a man of his word? Consider his comments of recent months.

March 13, 2007:

I've overcome a lot of obstacles in my life to become attorney general. I am here not because I give up. I am here because I've learned from my mistakes, because I accept responsibility, and because I am committed to doing my job. And that is what I intend to do here on behalf of the American people.

March 14, 2007:

I work for the American people and I serve at the pleasure of the president of the United States. That's a
decision for the president to make [whether I remain attorney general]. Obviously I am focused on looking to see what happened here in this particular case with respect to these U.S. attorneys and making sure that it doesn't happen again, making sure that Congress understands what happened....But I'm also focused on the other issues that the American people care about, like child predators and gangs and drug dealers, things of that nature. So I've got a lot of responsibilities as attorney general, and I'm focused on those responsibilities.

March 22, 2007:

I'm not going to resign. I'm going to stay focused on protecting our kids. There's a lot of work that needs to be done around the country. The department is responsible for protecting our kids, for making our neighborhoods safe, for protecting our country against attacks of terrorism, to going after gangs, going after drug dealers. I'm staying focused on that.

April 19, 2007:

I believe I can continue to be effective as the attorney general of the United States.

April 21, 2007:

[I will remain attorney general] as long as I can continue to serve effectively....There are a series of priorities, a series of objectives, that I want to see accomplished, and we are working as hard as we can to achieve those objectives.

June 1, 2007:

I know that I only have 18 months left in my term as attorney general, and that really does not feel like a lot of time to accomplish all of the goals that are important to me. So often Washington seems to run at a marathon pace, but I intend to spend the next year and a half in a sprint to the finish line.

June 11, 2007:

I'm focused on protecting our kids....I am focused on the next 18 months. I don't expect the department to crawl or walk slowly toward the finish line.

July 24, 2007:

From my perspective, there are two options available in light of these allegations [regarding the firings of the U.S. attorneys]. I could walk away or I could devote my time, effort and energy to fix the problems. Since I have never been one to quit, I decided that the best course of action was to remain here and fix the problems. That is exactly what I am doing.

While fending off attacks, Gonzales declared (1) he was not a quitter; (2) it was up to George W. Bush whether he stayed on as A.G. or left; and (3) he was committed to working hard as attorney general to protect the American people, particularly safeguarding the nation's children from Internet predators.

Well, he is quitting. And in a brief public statement today--no questions, please!--Bush said he was "reluctantly" accepting Gonzales' resignation, suggesting that Gonzales had decided to skedaddle on his own. Though Gonzales in a brief statement gave no reason for his resignation--as if one was needed--Bush explained his consigliere's departure by saying "his good name was dragged through the mud for political reason." Bush did not explain what partisan motives have spurred Republican Senators Tom Coburn, John Sununu, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Jeff Sessions, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Gordon Smith, George Voinovich, Charles Grassley, Lamar Alexander, Arlen Specter, and Lindsey Graham to question Gonzales' credibility and performance, with several of them calling for his resignation. And, finally, what about the children Gonzales was so committed to protecting? Sadly, they will have to get on without him.

With research assistance from Matthew Blake.

BACK TO THE FUTURE. Talk about someone who must not have a lot to do these days. See this press release from the McCain campaign:

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today announced that the Honorable Robert Mosbacher will join Senator McCain's team and serve as a general chairman.

As general chairman, Mosbacher will be closely involved in the daily workings of the campaign, and assist with fundraising, strategy, and message development.

Previously nominated Secreatry of Commerce in 1988 by former President George H.W. Bush, he was confirmed 100-0 by the United States Senate. While Secretary of Comerce, he was point man for NAFTA and later was awarded the Aztec Eagle Award, the equivalent of the Medal of Freedom, by former president of Mexico Ernesto Zedillo.

Mosbacher also served as general chairman of the Republican National Committee and created the Team 100 program. Additonally, he served as finance chairman for former President Gerald Ford and Executive committee member for President Ronald Reagan.

Posted by David Corn at 01:57 PM

August 23, 2007

Would You Give Your Life for Maliki?

A few days ago, Wayne White, a former State Department intelligence analyst on Iraq, wrote a piece about Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that noted:

One major question is why Maliki was named prime minister in the first place. Early last year, Washington pushed hard for Maliki to replace the disappointing Ibrahim al-Jafaari. Yet, Maliki hails from the same Da'wa Party origins, as does Jafaari. He was not the chosen candidate among the majority of Iraqi Shi'a powerbrokers.

To become prime minister, Maliki had to draw heavily on the support of none other than firebrand anti-US Shi'a cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. And there have been numerous indications since then that Maliki's government has close ties to and employs members and affiliates of various Shi'a militias, with their deep-seated anti-Sunni Arab agenda. His trips to Iran also suggest that he is closer to Tehran than the US would like -- something that carries negative connotations not only relating to his dealings with Washington, but in the eyes of many Iraqis as well.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Maliki's behavior of late is his criticism of US military cooperation with Sunni Arab insurgents against al-Qa'ida in Iraq in al-Anbar, Salahedin and Diyala governates, as well as some neighborhoods in Baghdad. In some instances, Iraqi security forces supposedly answering to Maliki have actively tried to disrupt this valuable work. His opposition threatens to get in the way of what appears to be developing into the one potential US success story in Iraq at this time.

It's important to recall that George W. Bush's strategy is to boost the U.S. military presence in Iraq in order to create political space for Maliki. That is, American GIs are dying to give Maliki a chance. But given White's not-very-radical description of Maliki, one has to wonder: does Maliki deserve to be supported by American blood and treasure?

White goes on to note:

Despite all these negatives [about Maliki], the most significant question now is whether any prime minister of Iraq can deliver on critical issues such as unity, security and public services at this juncture.

White seems to doubt that it's possible, Maliki or no Maliki. And White adds,

In Maliki's case, however, the situation might be darker still. Given his association with a militant Shi'a party and his seeming lack of a consistent sense of urgency regarding US priorities, it could very well be that he is not interested in progress toward goals set by Washington. His current efforts to pull things together appear only transitory at best.

This is why, in part, the recent political debate in the United States over Iraq has focused on Maliki. More than four years after the invasion of Iraq, what are U.S. troops fighting for? The answer: for the government led by Maliki. But if U.S. soldiers are making the ultimate sacrifice for a fellow who does not share US priorities, their deaths may be in vain. So Maliki is indeed a critical issue--because Bush has made it so.

Posted by David Corn at 10:25 AM

August 22, 2007

Still On the Road

For the rest of the week. Postings will suffer. Next week, school's back in session.

Posted by David Corn at 05:55 PM

August 20, 2007

As the Dutch Do

A few days ago, The New York Times had a front-page story that began:

Six inches.

After two years and more than a billion dollars spent by the Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild New Orleans's hurricane protection system, that is how much the water level is likely to be reduced if a big 1-in-100 flood hits Leah Pratcher's Gentilly neighborhood.

Looking over the maps that showed other possible water levels around the city, Ms. Pratcher grew increasingly furious. Her house got four feet of water after Hurricane Katrina, and still stands to get almost as much from a 1-in-100 flood.

By comparison, the wealthier neighborhood to the west, Lakeview, had its flooding risk reduced by nearly five and a half feet....

New Orleans was swamped by Hurricane Katrina; now it is awash in data, studied obsessively in homes all over town. And the simple message conveyed by that data is that while parts of the city are substantially safer, others have changed little. New Orleans remains a very risky place to live.

The entire flood system still provides much less protection than New Orleans needs, and the pre-Katrina patchwork of levees, floodwalls and gates that a Corps of Engineers investigation called "a system in name only" is still just that....

"We have spent a lot of money and gotten some very good patches, but we're putting them on this decayed old quilt," said Robert G. Bea, a professor of engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, who is an author of an independent report on the levee failures. "We're still with this damned patchwork quilt."

As a result, the city still lacks a system that can stand up to that 1-in-100 storm, let alone one like Hurricane Katrina, which the corps calls a 1-in-396 storm. The work that could build the more robust system--originally estimated at $7 billion, and now at least twice that--will not be completed until 2011 at the earliest, and experts agree that even that level of protection will be less than the city needs.

I've been driving about Holland this past week, and if you go anywhere near its border with the ocean, you cannot escape an obvious conclusion: the Dutch are damn serious about flood control, and the United States (in the case of New Orleans) is not. Remember the photos of the dikes that failed in New Orleans. That handiwork of the Army Corps of Engineers looked like a mess of a plywood and rusty steel plates stitched together by amateurs: not very effective and certainly not very aesthetic.

In the Netherlands, here's what flood protection looks like:

It's a substantial sea wall that is 15 to 20 feet high that runs for scores of miles--and it's easy on the eyes. No doubt, this costs much money, and the Dutch dikes have had some problems (and they're probably not strong or tall enough to deal with rising sea levels caused by global warming). But most of Holland has an interest in keeping dry and in preparing for a 1-in-1000 flood. So it's worth it.

Sheep and rainbows are extra.

Posted by David Corn at 05:24 PM

On the Autobahn

The Russians have renewed routine flights of nuclear bombers; the new surveillance law passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress apparently gives the Bush administration more snooping powers than was intended; and I still don't fully understand the whole sub-prime mess (or scandal). But on Monday, I'll be cruising on a German highway to look at public art in the land of beer. Look for postings at a later time.

Posted by David Corn at 12:00 PM

August 17, 2007

Gone

Enough about Karl Rove, I'm off to an island in the North Sea today.

Posted by David Corn at 04:01 AM

August 16, 2007

Rove's Exit Delusion

Is it possible that the most consequential American political strategist and presidential adviser of this century (so far) is delusional? Per ThinkProgress:

In his interview with Rush Limbaugh this afternoon, Karl Rove claimed that the people criticizing Bush are "sort of elite, effete snobs who can't hold a candle to this guy. What they don't like about him is that he is common sense, that he is Middle America."...Rove argued Bush is far more intelligent than people give him credit for, and is "one of the best-read people I've ever met" whose "passion is history."

Could it be that Bush critics are annoyed that Bush invaded Iraq and began an elective war without adequately planning for what would come next? Or that his detractors are peeved by Bush's mismanagement of the Hurricane Katrina disaster? Or that they are slightly irritated by his inaction on global warming (which sets him apart from all other Western leaders)? This ain't no culture war. Not anymore. After six and a half years in office, it's all about performance and policy. And on both counts Rove and his president have lost the public. Do two-thirds to three-quarters of Americans disapprove of Bush because they are elitists who hate pork rinds?

Rove's explanation of Bush's opposition is a transparent and pathetic act of self-justification--and a refusal to accept responsibility for the profound errors of the administration he helped to create. BTW, did Bush read any T.E. Lawrence before invading Iraq?

Meanwhile, read what my pal Carl Cannon of the National Journal has to say about Rove's exit. He explains why "Rove's brilliance as a campaign operative did not translate to policy successes," and he notes that "Rove's partisanship was a costly indulgence even when both chambers of Congress were controlled by Republicans." His piece is available here.

Posted by David Corn at 04:41 PM

August 15, 2007

Of Rove, Hillary and God/How Dems Enable Gonzales

I've been on the road the past day and not paying much attention to post-Rove Washington. Is the air a little cleaner? Is there less humidity?

His departure was well-timed with the cover of the current Economist, which asks, Is America turning left? The answer: yes, in some ways that are, for the Economist editors, a wee bit worrisome (though those editors do make sure to note they are no fans of a Republican Party held hostage to social conservatives). But the lead editorial has a wonderful line. The article notes that even if the U.S. is moving leftward on social issues (like health care) and trade matters, it still is far to the right of European nations run by conservatives, such as France and Germany. To reinforce this point, the edit notes that Hillary Clinton "mentions God more often than the average European bishop." Well put.

By the way, that The Economist could even ask this question shows how far short Rove fell of his goal to engineer a strategic and permanent realignment in American politics. The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray--especially when they (the men, that is) start stupid wars.

GIVING HIM THE ROPE. My assistant Matthew Blake, who remains in Washington, reports:

Members of Congress say they want Attorney General Alberto Gonzales out, with even Republicans calling him "not credible." But the heated rhetoric contradicts the extraordinary power that Congress has handed Gonzales.

The Los Angeles Times reported on Tuesday that Gonzales is "putting the final touches" on implementing a "little-noticed provision in last year's reauthorization of the Patriot Act" that allows the attorney general's office to "fast-track" death penalty cases.

What speeding up executions has to do with protecting the United States from terrorists was never covered in the debate over the law's reauthorization, but the Times explains that last year's Patriot Act: Part II permits Gonzales to overrule a federal judge's evaluation on whether a defendant in a death penalty case was fairly represented. Once the attorney general decides the defendant had adequate counsel he can reduce the amount of time a death row inmate has to file a federal appeal from a year to six months.

The provision will quicken executions but provides no standards for evaluating whether a defendant had been adequately defended. Instead Gonzales will have the discretion to determine that. (When Gonzales was Bush's top legal adviser in Texas, he and Bush did little, if anything, to ensure death row inmates had received adequate counsel.)

It was another "little-noticed provision" in the second Patriot Act that allowed Gonzales to fire U.S. attorney Bud Cummins and replace him with Tim Griffin (a Rove crony) without Griffin having to be confirmed by the Senate.

When the second Patriot Act was before a GOP-controlled Congress, most Senate Democrats went along, and the bill passed in the Senate by a 95-4 vote. And last week, the Democratic-controlled Congress decided it trusted the attorney general to approve wiretapping conversations without federal court oversight.

Over the past year, Democrats in Congress have presented a more-than-convincing case that Gonzales has abused his power as attorney general. But many Democrats in the House and Senate have been his enabler.

Warning: blogging will be intermittent this week and next.

Posted by David Corn at 04:10 PM

August 14, 2007

On the Road

I'm traveling. Check back soon.

Posted by David Corn at 10:56 AM

August 13, 2007

Give This Brain a Rest

In all the immediate punditry about Karl Rove's sudden resignation from the White House, I've heard commentators speculate over whether Rove will soon be advising one of the GOP's 2008 presidential contenders. This prospect seems absurd. George W. Bush is in the low to mid 20s in the polls. The next Republican presidential nominee will probably have a serious dilemma: how to distance himself from Bush. Sure, Rove still plays well with Republican primary voters. But when it's general election time, will the GOP candidate--whomever it is--want to be closely associated with the man known as "Bush's Brain"? As of now, Rove is more liability than asset. This is one brain a Republican contender can do without.

SMALL CHANGE. I just noticed that after Mitt Romney won the not-so-important Republican straw poll in Ames, Iowa, this past weekend, he said, "Today, the people of this great state sent a message to America, and that is that change begins in Iowa."

A question for the former Massachusetts governor: what "change" are you talking about? We've had a Republican president for two terms, and he has gotten the country stuck in an unpopular war in Iraq. You are a Republican and you support the war, so what "change" do you represent?

Posted by David Corn at 03:40 PM

Karl Rove Should Stay

From my "Captial Games" column at www.thenation.com....

The White House confirmed on Monday morning that George W. Bush's master strategist will be leaving Bush's side at the end of August. "I just think it's time," Rove told The Wall Street Journal's Paul Gigot. His reason for bailing on Bush: "There's always something that can keep you here, as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family." At a White House ceremony, Bush issued a brief farewell to Rove, saying little about the man who made Bush president and whom Bush reportedly nicknamed "Turd Blossom" (for Rove's ability to grow flowers in dung). Rove, visibly holding back tears, praised Bush for his "integrity, character and decency." He vowed to be a "fierce and committed advocate [for Bush] on the outside." Neither said anything explicitly about the Iraq war.

Certainly, a White House aide who has engaged in the sort of political and policy chicanery that Rove has perpetuated ought to lose the right to collect a paycheck from U.S. taxpayers. Take your pick: the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. attorney scandal, the Valerie Plame leak, inaction on global warming, injecting politics into federal agencies to a new degree, suppressing government science, the stem cell veto, tax cuts for the wealthy, politicizing the war on terror. But leaving is too good for Rove. He was Bush's partner in the Iraq war, yet he (like other Bush aides, including, most recently, Dan Bartlett) are abandoning ship before the fight is done. Rove has argued that the Iraq war is essential for the survival of the United States (that is, for all of our families). So how can he walk away with the war not won?

In June 2006, Rove gave a speech to New Hampshire Republicans and blasted Democrats for advocating "cutting and running" in Iraq. He said of the Democrats, "They may be with you for the first shots. But they're not going...to be with you for the tough battles." But isn't Rove now doing the same on a personal scale? He is departing the White House when the going in Iraq is as tough as it ever was.

In an earlier 2006 speech, Rove exclaimed, "America is at war....To retreat before victory has been won would be a reckless act." He was, of course, talking about a military retreat. But look at it this way: Rove helped Bush start a war, and now hundreds of thousands of American GIs (and millions of Iraqi civilians) have no choice but to live with the consequences of that decision. Why should Rove--and not they--be allowed to say, Sorry, now I have to bug out to spend more time with my family? How nice for the Roves that he can walk away from the war.

When Bush campaigned for president in 2000, he and Rove dubbed their campaign plane Accountability One. The point: we're the responsible ones. But a fundamental principle of accountability is that you clean up the messes you create. Rove is not doing that. He will cash in. Maybe with speeches. Perhaps with a book or some private sector spot. Instead, he ought to volunteer for service with one of the few functioning provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq. Or perhaps he could conduct seminars on basic electoral skills for tribal leaders in southeastern Afghanistan. (Lesson No. 2: How To Demonize Your Enemy.) If overseas travel would place too much of a burden on his family, he could help clean up a neighborhood in New Orleans.

In The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote of Tom and Daisy, "They were careless people...they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back to their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made." Rove is certainly more careful than Fitzgerald's characters--careful when it comes to politics and doing whatever is necessary to win. But with Bush, he recklessly steered this country into a debacle in Iraq that has caused the death of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and that has ruined the United States' reputation abroad. Bush, Rove, Dick Cheney and the rest did so with little understanding and with insufficient planning, and they sold the war to the public with bad information and blatant misrepresentations. (Rove was part of the White House Iraq Group that devised the prewar messaging.) Rove deserves not reward but punishment. A fitting sentence would be for Rove to stay to the bitter end so he can sweep up the turds he is now leaving behind.

Posted by David Corn at 12:03 PM

August 10, 2007

Fortunate Son...and Daughters/Bush and Tillman/Thompson's Disorder

During a press conference on Thursday, George W. Bush said,

The first question one has to ask on Iraq is, is it worth it? I could not send a mother's child into combat if I did not believe it was necessary for our short-term and long-term security to succeed in Iraq.

This was part of his response to the last question of the session. So there was no chance for a reporter to ask a follow-up. But what would be the natural next question? Mr. President, given that you believe the Iraq war must be prosecuted in order to protect the United States, have you asked your own daughters to join the armed services in order to fight in Iraq? That would be a tough but fair query. If he's sending other children into battle, why not his own? But would a White House reporter put such a pointed question to Bush? Given that the war will not be over anytime in the near future, the chance to pose this question to Bush will come again.

WHERE'S THE ANGER? Also from Bush's press conference:

Q: Mr. President, you speak often about taking care of the troops and honoring their sacrifice. But the family of Corporal Pat Tillman believes there was a cover up regarding his death, and some say perhaps he was even murdered, instead of just friendly fire. At a hearing last week on Capitol Hill your former Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, other officials used some version of "I don't recall" 82 times. When it was his term to step up, Pat Tillman gave up a lucrative NFL career, served his country and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Now you have a chance to pledge to the family that your government, your administration will finally get to the bottom of it. Can you make that pledge to the family today, that you'll finally, after seven investigations, find out what really happened?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I can understand why Pat Tillman's family, you know, has got significant emotions, because a man they loved and respected was killed while he was serving his country. I always admired the fact that a person who was relatively comfortable in life would be willing to take off one uniform and put on another to defend America. And the best way to honor that commitment of his is to find out the truth. And I'm confident the Defense Department wants to find out the truth, too, and we'll lay it out for the Tillman family to know.

Can you think of a reason why Bush didn't say something like, This has been a terrible episode, it makes me mad, I can understand why the Tillman family is damn frustrated, and I pledge this to them: we will get a complete accounting, we will cut through the previous investigations and make sure the full truth comes out--you have my word and I will make sure that happens immediately, enough is enough? Instead, Bush served up boilerplate rhetoric that conveyed detachment. And he had nothing to say about the Pentagon's shocking inability to provide a full accounting of Tillman's death. Does he know something about the case he's not sharing?

LAW & DISORDER? He may play a kickass prosecutor on television, but former Senator Fred Thompson is proving to be no Superman when it comes to mounting a political campaign. During his short unofficial candidacy, he's gone through more campaign managers than Rudy Giuliani has gone through wives. From AP:

In July, Thompson sidelined his campaign-manager-in-waiting, Tom Collamore, and watched a few other aides follow him out the door amid consternation inside the operation about the active role of Thompson's wife, Jeri.

At the time, aides said former senator and energy secretary Spencer Abraham and a Florida GOP strategist, Randy Enwright, would take over the unofficial campaign. But that turned out to be a temporary solution as the Thompsons sought a replacement for Collamore, who still is advising Thompson.

When Thompson announced that Abraham was going to be his helmsman, I wondered, Spencer Abraham? He's hardly known as a political powerhouse. After all, he lost his bid for reelection as a Michigan senator. But it turned out that Thompson was only kidding about Abraham, and on Thursday he declared that his newest campaign manager would be Bill Lacy, who managed Thompson's successful, come-from-behind 1994 senatorial bid. But here's the good news for anyone not rooting for Thompson: Lacy went on to be Senator Bob Dole's chief political strategist and served in that position during Dole's awful presidential bid in 1996. After Dole lost the New Hampshire and Delaware primaries that year, Lacy had to resign. That is, Dole went on to win the GOP nomination without Lacy at his side.

But Lacy shouldn't worry about being embarrassed in a similar manner this time. The odds are that by the time the actual voting starts Lacy will have joined the long list of Thompson's ex-campaign managers.

Posted by David Corn at 08:22 AM

August 09, 2007

Volvo Drivers for Obama

I'm on vacation this week, but I never stop working for you. As I travel back and forth across the wilds of Cape Cod--searching for the perfect clam chowder--I am conducting a highly unscientific survey. I seek out the back of every moving vehicle, searching for signs of political preference--that is, bumperstickers.

Bumperstickers are a good indicator of what a pollster might call intensity of affinity. For most people, you gotta like someone a lot to deface your car or truck with an adhesive product that is nearly impossible to remove. Think of a bumpersticker as a tattoo. (I've never applied either one to me or my ride.) And here in the Land of Michael Dukakis (and the Land of Mitt Romney), I've noticed a distinct trend: there are plenty of Obama bumperstickers and none for Hillary Clinton. (I've spotted one or two for John Edwards.)

Cape Cod is, of course, a liberal stronghold. And thanks to pollsters we know that well-to-do, highly educated Democrats--who are well represented in this slice of the Bay State--fancy Obama more than Clinton. He has the Volvo vote. But not one bumpersticker for HRC? Clearly, Provincetown, Truro and Wellfleet are Obama country. This is hardly bellwether territory--though New Hampshire is only a few hours' drive away. And there is this to keep in mind: though pollsters do try to measure intensity of support for a candidate, what matters in the end is votes, not feelings. Hillary Clinton's campaign surely knows that. Now it's back to the beach, where I'll be checking out the surf...and the parking lot.

If you spot any interesting electoral indicators in your part of the country, email me at cornblog@hotmail.com.

Posted by David Corn at 09:41 AM

August 08, 2007

CQ and DC

CQ (a.k.a. Congressional Quarterly) put out the below press release yesterday:

Veteran Political Editor and Author to Contribute Regular Blog to CQ's New Web Site

WASHINGTON, Aug. 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Congressional Quarterly Inc., the nation's premier provider of news, analysis and information on Congress, politics and public policy, today announced it has signed a deal with veteran political editor and writer David Corn to contribute a regular blog to CQ's expanded free-content Web site, which will launch this fall. Corn's blog will be one of several that express a variety of viewpoints and will play an integral role in CQ's broader effort to reach beyond the Beltway.

David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation, the oldest political weekly in America, a Fox News Channel contributor and a best-selling author. He writes on a host of subjects, including politics, the White House, Congress, and the national security establishment. He has broken stories on George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Colin Powell, Rush Limbaugh, Enron, the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA leak case, the Pentagon, and other Washington players and institutions. He currently
writes a Web column for The Nation called "Capital Games;" has a blog at http://www.davidcorn.com, which is part of the Pajamas Media network; and also has blogged for HuffingtonPost.com and the "Comment Is Free" site of The Guardian.

David Corn brings to American political discourse a liberal sensibility marked by fresh insight and powerful argumentation," said Robert W. Merry, CQ's president and editor-in-chief. "His outlook will be mixed on our site with other bloggers representing other political perspectives, but nobody projects David's particular point of view more brilliantly than he does himself. His talents will strengthen our expanded free-content site, and I couldn't be more pleased to have him on the CQ
team."

Corn joins Bruce Drake and Peggy Girshman, NPR veterans who will lead the development of CQ's free-content site....

"I am honored to become part of CQ, a Washington journalism tradition long known for excellence, as it expands its Internet presence," said Corn. "I hope my blog--with its reporting and commentary--will help the new site as it heads toward becoming one of the top sites for political news and analysis. These are exciting and turbulent days for the media, with old and new media looking to harness changes in our information culture. I look forward to moving ahead with CQ and its expanded public Web site."

Longtime readers will recall that when this blog became affiliated with PajamasMedia.com, some commentators--most notably James Wolcott of Vanity Fair--blasted me for daring to associate with an endeavor founded by mostly right-of-center bloggers. (Wolcott even compared PJMers to Dr. Josef Mengele.) Well, it turned out that the PajamasMedia.com site--which features several liberals--has done little to harm the civilized world. And I say farewell to Pajamas--as an affiliated blogger--with nothing but best wishes for the PJMers. (I'm still doing a webcast for the site with conservative writer Richard Miniter.) Moreover, I am pleased that CQ wanted this blog to be part of its soon-to-expand site, which will offer plenty of up-to-minute and substantial coverage of politics and policy.

This site will probably soon go through a redesign as part of this CQ affiliation. Perhaps the comments section will be revived. (In the meantime, send comments to cornblog@hotmail.com.) But the blog's essence will remain the same: postings on the war, the presidential race, the assorted White House follies, the misdeeds (and occasional accomplishments) of Washington, and whatever strikes my fancy. I thank all my readers for their past support and hope they and others will join CQand me as we proceed.

Posted by David Corn at 12:05 PM

August 07, 2007

Dissecting the Surge

Is George W. Bush's so-called surge in Iraq succeeding? War-backers claim it is. At least militarily, for, after all, they cannot say with a straight face that any political progress has been made in Iraq. But for the other side--that is, for the case that the surge is a flop--see Patrick Cockburn's report in The Independent. He knows the Arab world far better than any of the neocon armchair warrior/columnists. Here's a small slice of the article:

The surge has changed very little in Baghdad. It was always a collection of tactics rather than a strategy. All the main players--Sunni insurgents, Shia militiamen, Iraqi government, Kurds, Iran and Syria--are still in game.

One real benchmark of progress--or lack of it--is the number of Iraqis who have fled for their lives. This figure is still going up. Over one million Iraqis have become Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) since the Samarra bombing, according to the Red Crescent. A further 2.2 million people have fled the country. This exodus is bigger than anything ever seen in the Middle East, exceeding in size even the flight or expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948. A true sign of progress in Iraq will be when the number of refugees, inside and outside the country, starts to go down.

Read the rest here.

Posted by David Corn at 11:26 PM

August 06, 2007

Giuliani Family Values

What if Chelsea Clinton was backing Fred Thompson for president? Well, check out whom Rudy Giuliani's daughter favors in the 2008 race: Barack Obama. My question: has there ever been an instance when a major presidential contender was opposed by a child? Surely, there were some deep tensions in Ronald Reagan family. (Yes, family values at work.) But I don't recall Patti Davis or Ron Reagan Jr. endorsing Jimmy Carter in 1980 or Walter Mondale in 1984. Now if family dysfunction was a disqualification for president, the field would always be rather thin. But what does it mean that two of the people who know Giuliani the best--his son and daughter--are not aboard his presidential express? (Earlier this year, his son said he would not be campaigning for the old man.) What a good query for social conservatives and any debate moderator.

And imagine if the Giuliani kids were to explain their opposition to their father's presidential bid. How would Giuliani's campaign spinners spin that? Claim that he spoiled them? The Giuliani soap opera (and I haven't even mentioned his past and present wives) has the potential to eclipse the Clinton soap opera. That would be some accomplishment.

Posted by David Corn at 03:37 PM

On Vacation

Like the Iraqi parliament, I'm not working this week--though I'm not taking off the entire month (as are the Iraqi legislators). Postings will be intermittent this week.

Posted by David Corn at 10:28 AM

August 03, 2007

In Rehearsal

No postings today. But a reminder: I will be doing my annual gig at the Payomet Performing Arts Center in Truro, Massachusetts (that's Cape Cod) on Sunday night. The appearance is titled "A Night of Outrage, Gossip and Insight From D.C." As I wrote earlier, each year it's different but something of a cross between a seminar, standup, and performance art. I'll admit there's more "outrage" than "gossip"--and "insight" is for the audience to judge. Of course, I take questions and--unlike Alberto Gonzales--actually answer them. If you're nearby, come by. Click here for more info.

Posted by David Corn at 08:20 AM

August 02, 2007

An Obama Doctrine?

Senator Barack Obama--on the heels of his tussle with Hillary Clinton over foreign policy matters--delivered his most extensive speech on coping with terrorism. You can read it here. It's long and a shrewd attempt at blending get-toughism with let's-talk multilateralism. Below are a few interesting excerpts with commentary:

After 9/11, our calling was to write a new chapter in the American story. To devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad. We were ready. Americans were united. Friends around the world stood shoulder to shoulder with us. We had the might and moral-suasion that was the legacy of generations of Americans. The tide of history seemed poised to turn, once again, toward hope. But then everything changed.

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.

Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century's stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11....

This is the standard Democratic critique of George W. Bush's foreign policy misadventures, and it's certainly well founded. But this is nothing that John Kerry did not say in 2004.

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan....

Again, more from Kerry's playbook.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will....

Now, this is new. Obama is threatening U.S. military attacks within Pakistan. This is the get-tough aspect I referenced above. He may be right. But Pakistan is a dilemma for the United States. In Pakistan, Washington supports a strongman who took power in a coup that overthrew a civilian and democratically elected government, and it depends upon Musharraf for many counterterrorism operations. Should the U.S. lean on him, his government could be toppled by a military coup more amenable than he is to Islamic fundamentalism. Meanwhile, the democracy movement in Pakistan has increased its strength lately. So ought the United States push in that direction? Pakistan ain't easy. (Ditto for Saudi Arabia.) A U.S. military attack there might take out real evildoers. It could also backfire.

To succeed, we must improve our civilian capacity. The finest military in the world is adapting to the challenges of the 21st century. But it cannot counter insurgent and terrorist threats without civilian counterparts who can carry out economic and political reconstruction missions – sometimes in dangerous places. As President, I will strengthen these civilian capacities, recruiting our best and brightest to take on this challenge. I will increase both the numbers and capabilities of our diplomats, development experts, and other civilians who can work alongside our military. We can't just say there is no military solution to these problems. We need to integrate all aspects of American might.

Elsewhere in the speech, Obama calls for improving U.S. intelligence capabilities. All of this is much more easier said than done. Can a president snap his (or her) fingers and produce a corps of diplomats and government experts who speak obscure languages and understand distant cultures? Of course not. Six years after 9/11, the U.S. government still wants for Arabic speakers. Obama's intentions are solid, and this goal is noble. It entails a tremendous amount of hard work.

One component of this integrated approach will be new Mobile Development Teams that bring together personnel from the State Department, the Pentagon, and USAID. These teams will work with civil society and local governments to make an immediate impact in peoples’ lives, and to turn the tide against extremism. Where people are most vulnerable, where the light of hope has grown dark, and where we are in a position to make a real difference in advancing security and opportunity – that is where these teams will go.....

A Peace Corps with guns? I'm being facetious. This is a grand aim. But, as mentioned above, creating such a force--one that can be effective and function in isolated areas of the globe--is a bigger dream than landing a man on the moon. Obama is outdoing JFK.

It's time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action. It's time to turn the page on Washington's conventional wisdom that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that Presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear.

President Kennedy said it best: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." Only by knowing your adversary can you defeat them or drive wedges between them. As President, I will work with our friend and allies, but I won't outsource our diplomacy in Tehran to the Europeans, or our diplomacy in Pyongyang to the Chinese. I will do the careful preparation needed, and let these countries know where America stands. They will no longer have the excuse of American intransigence. They will have our terms: no support for terror and no nuclear weapons.

In other words: I'm not backing off my reply at that debate--not one inch. Obama vowed at the last Democratic face-off to meet with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela without considering any preconditions. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards quickly jumped on him for that. Now he's trying to turn what was portrayed as a gaffe into an asset. Maybe it will work. But my hunch is that when American voters think of "Washington's conventional wisdom," they're not saying to themselves, "Gee, it's that damn Washington groupthink that prevents the president from meeting with Kim Jong Il." Putting that aside, Obama does run into a pothole here. He justifiably slams the Bush administration's "intransigence." But in the next sentence, he presents a black-and-white ultimatum to Iran and others: you can have no nuclear weapons. To some, that will come across as intransigence, even if appropriate intransigence. In dealing with Iran, there is a bottom line: what if Tehran really, really wants nuclear weapons? What would Obama do then? This is a problem for all the Ds and Rs who are not willing to start another war.

A little more than a year after that bright September day [9/11], I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq. I worried about a "U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we "Finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda."

The political winds were blowing in a different direction. The President was determined to go to war. There was just one obstacle: the U.S. Congress. Nine days after I spoke, that obstacle was removed. Congress rubber-stamped the rush to war, giving the President the broad and open-ended authority he uses to this day. With that vote, Congress became co-author of a catastrophic war. And we went off to fight on the wrong battlefield, with no appreciation of how many enemies we would create, and no plan for how to get out. Because of a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, we are now less safe than we were before 9/11.

Senator Obama, a question: was Hillary Clinton part of that rubber-stamping process? Is she partly to blame for the United States now being less safe than before 9/11? Obama is certainly right to note that he got the war right. He deserves much credit for this. But how far will that get him in the Democratic contest? The Democrats in 2004 had a choice between a candidate who had opposed the war (Howard Dean) and one who had voted to authorize it (Kerry), and they opted for the latter. Four years later, will Democratic voters assign more importance to the question of who was right in 2002?

Hillary Clinton has been rather wily on this front--slowly tacking to a position where she is now as against the war as Obama and Edwards (who also voted to authorize the war). Will harking back five years do much for Obama? Probably not. But if he wants to give it a shot, he'll have to be more explicit: She helped get us into this mess; I tried to keep us out. But if he's playing for the veep position, he cannot strike her too hard. And he is also boxed in by his politics-of-hope rhetoric that seeks to position him above the usual blast-your-opponent campaigning. Slamming Clinton on the war--though he has her on points--will not be easy.

Overall, Obama's speech was a good and clear articulation of a progressive and Democratic alternative to Bushian foreign policy. It does not create much space between him and either Clinton or Edwards. But it shows he can pull together a national security team that can devise as good a campaign policy as anyone else in the race. That's not bad for someone who wants to be president.

Posted by David Corn at 07:54 AM

August 01, 2007

Cheney's Summer Break/On Stage...Me

He's kidding, right? In an interview with CNN's Larry King on Tuesday night, Dick Cheney found the good news in the Iraqi parliament's decision to take a summer break for the entire month of August, while American GIs continue fighting and dying. The vice president said:

It's better than taking two months off, which was their original plan.

And Cheney took credit for this positive development:

I made it clear, for example, when I was there in May that we didn't appreciate the notion that they were going to take a big part of the summer off and they did cut that in half.

What clout. Now if he could only apply it in such a way as to encourage the Iraqi legislators to pass some of the laws that might help with national reconciliation. After all, what Cheney did not mention is that most of these measures have not even reached the parliament because they are still being fought over by the various political parties. The bottom line: there are precious few signs of political progress in Iraq, and the Iraqi lawmakers do not seem to be moving with any alacrity.

But no big deal, Cheney said. He noted that the U.S. Congress adjourns for the month of August: "I don't think we can say that they (Iraqi lawmakers) shouldn't go home at all." Then how about this deal? If the Iraqi political leaders can take the summer off, U.S. soldiers should be allowed to go home for August. If it's too hot in Baghdad to pass legislation, perhaps it's too hot to kill--or be killed.

CORN: THE STAGE VERSION. For anyone who is fortunate enough to be on or near Cape Cod this weekend, here's news-you-can-use: I will be doing my annual gig at the Payomet Performing Arts Center in Truro on Sunday night. The show/performance/lecture is titled "A Night of Outrage, Gossip and Insight From D.C." Each year it's different, but something of a cross between a seminar, standup, and performance art. I'll admit there's more "outrage" than "gossip"--and "insight" is for the audience to judge. Of course, I take questions and--unlike Alberto Gonzales--actually answer them. If you're nearby, come by. Click here for more info.

Posted by David Corn at 07:39 AM