< August 2007 | Main | October 2007 >

September 28, 2007

Blackwater vs the Iraqi Government: Which Side Are You On?

Blackwater versus the government of Prime Minister of Nouri al-Maliki. Who to root for? The controversial private contractor or the corrupt administration? I don't want to be too glib about a serious matter. But this is a face-off with no clear good guy. Blackwater--accused of using excessive violence--is run by Erik Prince, who has been an important supporter of Christian fundamentalist outfits (such as the Family Research Counsel and James Dobson's Focus on the Family) and who has generously donated to Republican causes. The Maliki government is riddled with corruption--especially the interior ministry, a stronghold of Shia militias and the department in direct conflict with Blackwater. As regular readers of this blog know, a secret draft report prepared by the U.S. embassy describes the interior ministry as a criminal enterprise, and the Jones Commission recently IDed this ministry as essentially corrupt beyond remedy.

Prince rarely talks to the media, but a source who has recently talked with him tells me that Prince is using the corruption issue to defend Blackwater. As has been much reported, Blackwater has been operating in Iraq without a license. Most private military contractors (PMCs) do obtain licenses to work within in Iraq. But who awards such licenses? The interior ministry--and it charges the PMCs tens of thousands of dollars for the licenses, which have to be periodically renewed (that is, bought again). Prince is claiming that Blackwater did not want to make payments to a ministry controlled by criminal thugs, including possible anti-American insurgents. He told my source that he didn't want any Blackwater funds to end up in the hands of people shooting at Blackwater employees (and other Americans).

Prince may well have a point. (I'd be happy to talk to him about it.) It would be absurd for his company to make payments that end up financing militias that target his employees and Iraqi and American officials. But if this is indeed the ground reality, it shows that the bigger picture in Iraq is absurd. How can the U.S. government--with or without PMCs--accomplish the mission in Iraq if the government there is in the hands of militias and corrupt thugs? If Blackwater sees the Iraqi government (at least a significant portion of it) as the enemy, what's that tell us?

Meanwhile, Al-Ahram, an Egyptian publication reports:

Four cholera cases have been reported in Baghdad this week, amid fears of an epidemic. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), 1,500 cholera cases have been discovered in the country since 20 August. Polluted water supplies and poor sewage facilities are blamed for the spread of the disease. Iraq has no health minister, its last minister having fled to the US in June after being accused of involvement in sectarian violence.

No health minister? Maybe filling that post ought to be a benchmark.

Posted by David Corn at 10:57 AM

September 27, 2007

A Not-So-Hot Night for Obama

The good news for Barack Obama: MSNBC is the lowest rated of the three cable news networks. Obama delivered a lackluster performance at the Democratic debate aired by MSNBC on Wednesday night. His answers too often were listless and formulaic. He made few connections between his noble rhetoric and real-world matters. He did nothing to distinguish himself as the anti-Hillary. John Edwards, on the other hand, was fiery and forceful. He came across as sure-footed and knowledgeable. And Hillary Clinton plowed ahead, demonstrating her confidence and her command of facts and policies. Obama's people say he had a cold and was feeling poorly. I believe them, for it showed. It really showed.

One debate does not a campaign make, of course. But Obama at some point is going to have to make a clear and compelling case that he is better than she is. He did not do so this round.

Posted by David Corn at 12:28 AM

September 26, 2007

Iraq Corruption Eruption Update

Representative Henry Waxman's House committee on government oversight and reform has announced that its hearing on corruption within the Iraqi government (see the item below) has been postponed from September 27 until October 4. It has obviously been delayed due to the tussle with the State Department.

Posted by David Corn at 02:10 PM

State Dept. Says Corruption in Iraq is Classified

Here's the latest on Representative Henry Waxman's battle with the State Department regarding tomorrow's hearing with former Judge Radhi on corruption in Iraq, from my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com....

Corruption in the Iraqi government--it's classified information. So says the State Department.

In preparation for a September 27 hearing on corruption within the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Representative Henry Waxman, who chairs the House government oversight and reform committee, sent a request--and then a subpoeana--to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for documents and witnesses. He wanted the State Department to turn over various documents, including a copy of a secret report prepared by the Baghdad embassy that details rampant corruption within the Iraqi government. He also demanded that the State Department make available to his investigators three officials in the department's Office of Accountability and Transparency who have worked on the issue of Iraqi corruption.

The State Department refused to turn over the documents and said no to the interview requests. Then it slightly changed its tune. Joel Starr, the deputy assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, notified Waxman that his committee could interview the State Department officials, but anything they had to say about corruption within the Iraqi government would be classified--meaning Waxman could not disclose that information to the public.

How can information about criminal waste and fraud in another government be considered a state secret in the United States?

On September 25, an irritated Waxman fired off a letter to Rice, detailing his exchange with her department:

The State Department is taking the position that investigators for the Committee may speak with these individuals, but the investigators may not ask them questions that could embarrass the Maliki government unless the Committee agrees to refrain from any public discussion of their answers. State Department officials explained that any information about corruption within the Maliki government must be treated as classified because public discussions could undermine U.S. relations with the Maliki government.

This absurd position was confirmed in an e-mail sent to Committee staff....In the e-mail, the State Department provided a description of the "redlines" that its employees may not cross in unclassified interviews scheduled....According to the State Department, the following information is now classified:

Broad statements/assessments which judge or characterize the quality of Iraqi governance or the ability/determination of the Iraqi government to deal with corruption, including allegations that investigations were thwarted/stifled for political reasons;

Statements/allegations concerning actions by specific individuals, such as the Prime Minister or other GOI [Government of Iraq] officials, or regarding investigations of such officials.

The scope of this prohibition is breathtaking. On its face, it means that unless the Committee agrees to keep the information secret from the public, the Committee cannot obtain information from officials in the Office of Accountability and Transparency, about whether there is corruption within the Iraqi ministries, how extensive the corruption is, or whether the corruption is funding the insurgency and undermining public confidence in the Iraqi government. The Committee also cannot obtain information about whether Mr. Maliki himself has been involved in corruption or has intervened to block corruption investigations of Iraqi officials close to Mr. Maliki.

There is already plenty of information on the public record about corruption within the Maliki government. I first disclosed that secret embassy report in this column. And former Iraqi Judge Radhi al-Radhi, whom Maliki forced out as chief of Iraq's lead anticorruption agency, has said in an exclusive interview with me that Maliki thwarted many of his anticorruption investigations and that the Maliki administration is so rife with corruption it ought to be scrapped. Radhi also pointed out that corruption within the Iraqi government has produced funding for insurgents.

The State Department--which has abandoned Radhi, whom it once supported--is trying to prevent Radhi's charges from receiving wider notice. It obviously does not want its own records and officials to be used publicly to confirm his claims. (Radhi will be a featured witness at the Waxman committee's hearing.)

In his letter to Rice, Waxman complained that when his staff conducted a phone interview with Vincent Foulk, one of the Office of Accountability and Transparency officials, Foulk was not permitted by other State Department officials on the call to say whether there is extensive corruption in Iraq, whether Maliki and other Iraqi ministers have blocked corruption probes, and what impact corruption within the Iraqi government is having on U.S. efforts. Foulk told Waxman's staff that he had never heard of such restrictions before.

During this interview, Waxman's staffers read Foulk a statement Rice had made in October 2006 praising Maliki for taking action against corruption. Foulk was asked if he agreed with Rice's remarks. Foulk replied he could not answer the question because his opinion is classified information. In his letter to Rice, Waxman griped, "Your position seems to be that positive information about the Maliki government may be disseminated publicly, but any criticism of the government must be treated as a national security secret...If there is widespread corruption within the Maliki government, this is information that both Congress and the public are entitled to know."

The Bush administration apparently believes otherwise. It's holding on to documents; the State Department retroactively classified the embassy report on corruption. It has essentially imposed a gag order on State Department officials knowledgeable about corruption in Iraq. In doing so, it has stretched--and possibly abused--its power to classify information. Why go to such lengths? Because George W. Bush's Iraq policy--at least for the moment--depends on the Maliki government. But if that government is thoroughly corrupt and dysfunctional, Bush's policy doesn't make sense. And that's the real secret the Bush administration wants to keep.

Posted by David Corn at 12:06 PM

September 25, 2007

Waxman Hits Rice with Subpoenas on Corruption in Iraq

As I reported a few days ago, Representative Henry Waxman, the chairman of House government oversight and reform committee, on September 19 asked the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to turn over to him a copy of the secret draft report detailing rampant corruption in the Iraqi government produced by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and other documents on corruption in the Maliki government and to produce three State Department officials who have worked on corruption issues in Iraq for interviews with committee investigators.

Rice did not do so. In response, Waxman has issued subpoenas to the State Department for the records and the witnesses.

Meanwhile, Waxman's committee is proceeding with a hearing on Iraqi corruption--scheduled for this Thursday--that will feature former Judge Radhi al-Radhi, whom Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forced out as head of the Commission on Public Iraqi, an independent agency that is supposed to investigate corruption within the Iraqi government. In an interview with me three weeks ago, Radhi said that the Maliki government is so riddled with corruption and so dominated by criminal gangs it ought to be abolished. If he says the same when testifying, it will be a blow to the administration, which still fully backs Maliki. No doubt, such testimony will cause some lawmakers to pose the question: why send U.S. soldiers to their death to create a "breathing space" for a government that is corrupt to the core and not able to function?

Posted by David Corn at 12:59 PM

White Men Can't Jump

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, whose at the front of the back-of-the-pack cluster of GOP presidential contenders, has declared today "Vertical Day." What does that mean. I'll let him explain:

Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I meet folks with a real thirst for a healthy discussion of the issues. Ultimately, people don't care about whether an issue comes from the left or the right, what they want hear about is an idea that lifts America up and makes us better. It's what I call Vertical Politics.

Vertical Day is our way of sharing with voters our ideas, our hopes for America and the challenges facing us. We will answer some of your questions, hear from some of our friends, promote my positions on the issues through video and personal blogs of mine and try some fun things online.

Promote his positions? Sounds like everyday is "Vertical Day" in Hucakbeeland.

Posted by David Corn at 12:08 PM

Ahmadinejad a Winner?

All politics is local. That motto--now a cliche--has long been attributed to Tip O'Neill, the onetime Democratic House Speaker. But that rule rules far beyond Tip's world of rough-and-ready Irish-American politics. Look at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian president took a few lumps today when he showed up to speak at Columbia University. Lee Bollinger, the school's president, began the event by slamming him on the obvious fronts: the denial of political freedom in Iran, Ahmadinejad's support of Holocaust denialism, his refusal to recognize Israel, Iran's support of groups that engage in terrorism, Iran's nuclear program, and Iran's involvement in Iraq. It's not often you see a college professor call a leader of a state an "uneducated" thug to his face.

During his presentation and the Q&A, Ahmadinejad didn't directly address most of the assault. He said what was expected: Iran does no wrong and wants peace with the United States. He also said that homosexuality does not exist in Iran, and he noted that Iran and the United States share something in common: capital punishment. He came across as crafty and self-justifying--the way most rulers of repressive regimes are. He got much of the Columbia audience on his side when he began his remarks by chastising Bollinger for displaying bad manners. In Iran, he noted, we would not invite someone to speak and then be so rude to him before he said anything. (But he did lose the crowd with his comments on homosexuality.)

Afterward, a bunch of journalists I know tried to determine if Ahmadinejad's performance would help or hurt neocons who'd like to see the Bush administration sock it to him before Bush leaves office. I'm not sure Ahmadinejad's visit will change that equation much one way or the other. But my hunch--as an unlicensed political handicapper--is that the appearance will help Ahmadinejad back home. His government is not popular these days. Petrol prices are high. The economy of Iran is lousy--and that's particularly bad news for a nation where something like 70 percent of the population is under the age of 30. How do you say "restive" in Persian?

Though Americans might have a hard time comprehending this, there is still national pride in Iran. Which is why many Iranians apparently support the country's nuclear program. So I'm betting that by coming to America and standing up to (and holding his own with) the people who once overthrew the government of Iran (and then supported the brutal Shah for decades), Ahmadinejad will score points on the home front. Think of Rudy Giuliani bashing MoveOn; it's good for the base. And when things get tough, you really need your base. So his visit to Columbia might have been driven by his domestic political needs.

To tease this out further, if Ahmadinejad does garner a boost in Iran from his day in the big city, will that help him and fellow hard-liners in Tehran? I don't know. But it's worth pondering.

Ahmadinejad certainly lost the debate at Columbia on points. But that wasn't the issue for him. CNN's Bill Schneider used to do a feature called the "political play of the week." If he had to hand out such an award this Friday, I know who ought to receive it.

Posted by David Corn at 12:05 AM

September 24, 2007

Is Thompson Chicken?

A press release from Fred Thompson's campaign:

Fred Thompson will be interviewed on Bill Bennett's radio show, Morning in America
WHEN: 7:30 am EST, Monday, September 24, 2007. Check your local listings.

This reminds me. Has Thompson done a single real media interview since dipping his folksy toe into presidential waters? I believe the answer is no. He's been on Fox with just Hannity (no Colmes for "balance"). But Meet the Press? A Google search shows he was on Tim Russert's show on March 2, 2003, debating actor Mike Farrell on the Iraq war to come. In May of 2005, he graced the show to discuss nuclear terrorism. In July of that year, he appeared on MTP advocating the nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice of the Supreme Court. But so far he's not been on MTP to face any hardball questions. What is he waiting for?

GIVE THAT MAN A CROSSBOW. A press release from the John Edwards campaign:

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – In honor of National Hunting and Fishing Day, Senator John Edwards today released the following statement:
 
"Today, Elizabeth and I join with many Americans in recognizing National Hunting and Fishing Day and the time-honored traditions and sporting values that this day highlights.

"We proudly support the great contributions that outdoor men and women have made and continue to make in conservation efforts and the incredible economic benefits generated all across America by their passion.

"Above all, we honor the fact that today these core values and contributions are passed from fathers and mothers to their children and continue to provide a source of fellowship for families and friends everywhere."

Do you think that John Edwards annually celebrates National Hunting and Fishing Day at his house? ("This venison sure tastes good!") Just goes to show that when you run for president, you feel compelled to say a lot of things you wouldn't otherwise be saying. It's odd, though; I did not receive press releases hailing National Hunting and Fishing Day from the campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Christopher Dodd, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel. Guess they were too busy shooting deer or hooking bass.

SIDE TRIP?While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in the United States, perhaps he can hit the U.S. National Archives. Today the Presidential Recordings Program at the University of Virginia's Miller Center is publishing a collection of transcripts of President Richard Nixon's secret tape recordings that cover Nixon's conspiracy theories about Jews, intellectuals and the Ivy League.

Posted by David Corn at 11:00 AM

September 21, 2007

Real Casual Friday

The running-dog capitalist ownership of this site (me) has given the day off to the entire exploited workforce (me). Unless, of course, something happens.

Posted by David Corn at 11:27 AM

September 20, 2007

Space Is Our Place?

I have nothing against retire General Wesley Clark. He's been critical of the so-called surge in Iraq, and it's no surprise he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president a few days ago. But I was taken aback when I heard him on the NPR's Diane Rehm Show yesterday. Let's roll the tape:

Rehm: General Clark, you wrote in a recent Washington Post editorial that the next war is always looming, explain what you mean?

Clark: I think when you're in the military there's an obligation to not only remember the past but to also think about the future. So as we think about the future in the U.S. Arm Forces we're looking at, of course, the lessons learned in Iraq, ground troops, and we're looking the possible requirements to go against Iran -- air and navel power. And we're looking at the need to protect our domination of space.

Rehm: Space?

Clark: Space, the ultimate high ground. It belongs to us.

Belongs to us? I know Clark was talking militarily-speaking. But such talk can come across as damn arrogant. Space: the property of the United States. It's that sort of rhetoric that peeves people in other nations, and right now we can use all the friends we can get.

Posted by David Corn at 01:25 PM

Judge Radhi In the Cold

The latest on Judge Radhi, from my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com....

Three days ago, I called the State Department with a question: what is the Bush administration doing to help Radhi al-Radhi? The answer appears to be this: nothing.

I was referring to the former Iraqi judge who until recently was head of the Commission on Public Integrity, the independent government agency tasked with investigating corruption within the Iraqi government. As I've previously reported, earlier this month Radhi was forced out of his job by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, while Radhi and several of his investigators were attending a training session in Washington sponsored by the U.S. government. A draft of a secret U.S. embassy report--which was first revealed in this column--depicts Radhi as a diligent and serious (though hobbled) pursuer of the rampant corruption infesting the Maliki government. (You can read the full draft report--which concludes that corruption is the "norm" throughout most Iraqi ministries--here.)

Radhi was apparently tossed out of his job because he pushed too hard on corruption within the Maliki administration. He was replaced with a Maliki ally who last month was arrested on corruption charges. Moreover, the Iraqi government cut off Radhi's funding while he was in the United States--except for a small pension of several hundred dollars a month. (As a former government official who held a minister's rank, Radhi says he is due ten times as much in retirement pay.) Given that Radhi has accused past and present government officials of corruption and has recently said that the Maliki administration is so rotten it ought to be abolished, it would be unwise for him to return to Iraq, where his family remains. "I consider him Iraq's version of Eliot Ness," says Chris King, an American who was a senior adviser to Radhi in Iraq. "Time and time again, he put himself and his family at risk to prosecute corruption and promote the rule of law in a nonsectarian, non-ethnic, non-tribal and nonpolitical manner."

Now Radhi has essentially been stranded in the United States. Last week, the 62-year-old former jurist, who was imprisoned and tortured during Saddam Hussein's regime, had to leave the Alexandria, Virginia, hotel where he was staying because he could not pay the bill.

Up until Maliki and his allies removed Radhi, State Department advisers were working with Radhi and his anticorruption commission. It was the U.S. government that brought him and his investigators to Washington for training sessions conducted by the Justice Department and the Defense Department. But now the State Department, according to Radhi associates and U.S. government officials, is not aiding the former judge. "No U.S. government agency has provided him any help to date," says a Radhi associate. On Monday morning, I asked Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokesperson, if this is true. She promised a quick answer. No reply came quickly. When I called again, she told me she had to check with Bureau of Near East Affairs and the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. On Wednesday afternoon, Thompson called with an official response:

State Department officials have met with Judge Radhi and are aware of his situation. As a standard practice, we do not comment on private conversations.

But according to Radhi associates, State Department officials met with him about two weeks ago, and Radhi has not heard anything from the department since then. "Judge Radhi is in immigration limbo," says Christopher Nugent, a lawyer who is working pro bono with Radhi. "He is a man without a state, contemplating his options."

It's no surprise the State Department has displayed little interest in assisting Radhi. For the Bush administration, Radhi is an inconvenient Iraqi. And he is speaking out while in the United States. Radhi is scheduled to testify about corruption in the Iraqi government next week before the House oversight and government reform committee chaired by Representative Henry Waxman. (On Tuesday, Waxman released a letter noting that according to seven current and former officials, State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard has repeatedly interfered with investigations to protect the White House and State Department from political embarrassment.)

When Radhi appears before Waxman's committee, his testimony can be expected to shoot a hole in the Bush administration's rationale for its military action in Iraq. George W. Bush has said the point of the so-called surge is to create "breathing space" in which Maliki's government can achieve national reconciliation and provide basic services to the people of Iraq. Yet Radhi says the Maliki government is so sleaze-ridden and so dominated by criminals that it cannot achieve anything. This raises an obvious question: is the current Iraqi government worth dying and killing for?

During their recent appearances on Capitol Hill, General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker did not address the issue of corruption within the Maliki government. The pair discussed the Maliki administration in hopeful and positive terms. Crocker saluted Maliki's "patriotism." But Radhi's damning conclusions about the Maliki administration challenge Bush's strategy, which is predicated on the notion that the Maliki administration, given a chance, can take meaningful steps to bring peace and security to Iraq.

The Bush White House is apparently not eager to see Radhi testify that the Maliki government is a criminally-run cesspool of fraud and waste. That may explain why the State Department has abandoned Radhi. The State Department also has no plans, according to a spokesperson for the U.S. embassy in Iraq, to release the draft report detailing corruption in the Iraqi government. In fact, according to Waxman, the State Department may try to classify that report retroactively. The copy of the draft I obtained was marked "SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED."

The State Department also has withheld this secret U.S. embassy document from Congress. On September 10, Waxman sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rive requesting copies of "all reports prepared by the Office of Accountability and Transparency [within the State Department], whether classified or unclassified, relating to the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity." This request covered the secret U.S. embassy report on Iraqi corruption, for this report was drafted by officials of the Office of Accountability and Transparency [OAT]. The State Department refused to turn over to Waxman any OAT records, but it allowed staffmembers of Waxman's committee to inspect documents at the State Department. After that review, Waxman reiterated his demand that copies be given to the committee. (The 82-page draft report, though, was posted on the Internet this week.)

Waxman's committee also requested interviews with three Office of Accountability and Transparency officials who worked on Iraqi corruption matters. One, James Mattil, showed up for an interview. The State Department refused to make the other two officials--Vincent Foulk and Christopher Griffith--available to the committee.

Yesterday, Waxman sent another letter to Rice demanding that the OAT documents be handed over today and that Foulk, Griffith, and James Santelle, the rule of law coordinator at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, appear for interviews with the committee. Waxman noted he was prepared to subpoena the State Department if the documents and witnesses were not produced.

Keep Radhi isolated, cover up the draft report and other documents on corruption, sit on witnesses--the State Department is doing what it can to prevent the issue of corruption from undermining the White House's current rationale for the war. Radhi, who would like to return to his job pursuing fraud and waste in Iraq (but who knows that's not likely to happen), says he has no political agenda. He merely wants the truth about the Iraqi government to be known. "His only commitment," says an associate, "is to the rule of law and transparency." But Radhi's truth is trouble for the Bush administration. As he has gone from U.S.-supported investigator to an in-the-cold whistleblower, it looks as if the Bush administration has decided that regarding Radhi the mission is a simple one: cut and run.

Posted by David Corn at 12:47 PM

September 19, 2007

Radhi Delayed

A few days ago, I reported that former Iraqi Judge Radhi al-Radhi was scheduled to testify tomorrow before the House government oversight committee chaired by Representative Henry Waxman. The hearing has been postponed--perhaps only until next week.

If Radhi, who was forced out of the post of chief anticorruption investigator for the Iraqi government, does appear on Capitol Hill, he can be expected to repeat the stunning indictment of the Maliki government that he recently shared with me. This would cause problems for the Bush administration, for Radhi maintains the Maliki government is so corrupt it can not function and ought to be abolished. In other words, the Maliki government cannot take advantage of the "breathing space" Bush is trying to create with his so-called surge. More as this develops....

By the way, a full copy of the secret U.S. embassy draft report detailing widespread corruption in the Maliki government--a document I first disclosed--has been posted on-line. It is available here. Read for yourself how corruption is the "norm" throughout much of the government that the Bush administration backs.

Posted by David Corn at 01:09 PM

Blacks and Latinos Need Not Invite

Looks as if the Republican Party really cares about reaching out to black and Latino voters. From the front-page of today's Washington Post:

Debate No-Shows Worry GOP Leaders
Candidates Are Urged to Attend Forums Sponsored by Minorities

Key Republican leaders are encouraging the party's presidential candidates to rethink their decision to skip presidential debates focusing on issues important to minorities, fearing a backlash that could further erode the party's standing with black and Latino voters.

The leading contenders for the Republican nomination have indicated they will not attend the "All American Presidential Forum" organized by black talk show host Tavis Smiley, scheduled for Sept. 27 at Morgan State University in Baltimore and airing on PBS. Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) all cited scheduling conflicts in forgoing the debate. The top Democratic contenders attended a similar event in June at Howard University.

"We sound like we don't want immigration; we sound like we don't want black people to vote for us," said former congressman Jack Kemp (N.Y.), who was the GOP vice presidential nominee in 1996. "What are we going to do -- meet in a country club in the suburbs one day? If we're going to be competitive with people of color, we've got to ask them for their vote."

Making matters worse, some Republicans believe, is that the decision to bypass the Morgan State forum comes after all top GOP candidates save McCain declined invitations this month to a debate on Univision, the most-watched Hispanic television network in the United States. The event was eventually postponed.

And....

Senators Block D.C. Vote Bill, Delivering Possibly Fatal Blow

Republican lawmakers yesterday blocked the Senate from taking up the D.C. vote bill, a potentially fatal setback for the District's most promising effort in years to get a full member of Congress.

The vote was on a motion to simply consider the bill. Fifty-seven senators voted in favor, three short of the 60 needed to proceed. Without enough support to vault the Senate's procedural hurdles, the bill is expected to stall this year and possibly next year.

So the GOP message to minorities appears to be: we're not showing up at your events and we don't give a damn about your issues. (Don't forget how most Republican candidates and lawmakers responded to the immigration bill).

If memory serves, not too long ago a Spanish-speaking Republican governor talking compassion made some inroads--albeit slight--into the Latino and black vote. And that guy even ended up winning (so to speak) the presidency by a few hundred votes. Nowadays, no leading GOPer (Jack Kemp no longer counts) seems to give a damn about the party's relationship to these voting blocs. The Republican Senate leadership killed a bill that would give Washington, DC, a voting representative in the House (and add a representative to the Utah delegation for political balance). And the GOP presidential wannabes do not have the guts to appear for debates before black and Latino audiences. It's back to the future--and good news for Democrats looking for winning Florida and Ohio in 2008.

Posted by David Corn at 10:07 AM

September 18, 2007

Living with Iran and Its Nukes?

Can you imagine any of the leading presidential contenders--Democratic or Republican--saying this? From AP:

Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.

John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

Lawmakers and presidential candidates routinely declare that living with a "nuclear Iran" is not acceptable. Well, if you say that and mean it, then you are committing yourself to military action if persuasion and sanctions fail. Certainly, if a major presidential candidate were to take a position similar to Abizaid's, he or she would be mercilessly blasted for weakness and accused of lily-livered appeasement.

By the way, Abizaid is not the only military expert to take this realistic view of Iran. Retired Lt. General William Odom, who ran the National Security Agency for President Ronald Reagan, has expressed similar sentiments. (See here.) Yet such voices are rarely--if ever--heard in the political debate concerning Iran. After all, who has the guts to acknowledge that the world might indeed have to figure out how to handle a nuclear Iran? It does take more courage to say that than to rattle the saber.

Posted by David Corn at 12:11 PM

September 17, 2007

A Whoops for Richardson

I was at an SEIU conference today, mainly to see how the leading Democratic candidates--Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards--would do in front of the influential union group. All were scheduled to speak to the unionists. Obama gave a rousing address that brought audience members to their feet many times. It was one of the best stump performances of his I've seen. Then came New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. He, too, was warmly welcomed and offered up many serious policy proposals in trying to convince the crowd that he ought to be regarded as a major player. As I listened, I wondered why he has not been taken more seriously as a candidate--a smart, accomplished governor of Latino heritage. Then I found out.

At the end of his speech--after noting all the ways he would defend the Constitution and redress global warming--he waved farewell to the crowd and shouted, "Thank you, AFSCME!"

AFSCME? Wrong union, governor. He left and the audience repeatedly shouted, "S-E-I-U!" A polite reminder.

Posted by David Corn at 03:43 PM

Petraeus's Chart Undermines War Effort

Citing General David Petraeus, George W. Bush, in his so-called "way forward in Iraq" speech, declared on Thursday night,

The Iraqi army is becoming more capable.

For days, I've been carrying around with me page 13 of the 14-page slideshow Petraeus showed during his multiple appearances on Capitol Hill. (That's how nerdy I am!) And to anyone unfortunate to get stuck in an elevator with me, I've flashed this chart to show that according to Petraeus' own numbers, there has been no progress in the past year in fielding Iraqi security forces that can function on their own. Yes, I said no progress.

The chart--titled "Iraqi Security Forces Capabilities"--divides Iraqi troops into four groups: units that are fully independent (Level I); that can stage operations with support of U.S. forces (Level II); that can fight side by side with U.S. forces (Level III); that are still forming (Level IV). If you look at September 2006, you will see that there were 11,000 Level I troops and 86,000 Level II troops. Fast forward to September 2007, and the numbers are, Level I, 12,000 and Level II, 84,000. That's a slight drop in capabilities, if you combine Levels I and II.

So how can Bush--or anyone else--say that Iraqi troops are becoming more capable? For all the money and effort spent during the last year--when the Bush administration was claiming that the training of Iraqi troops was a top priority (remember, they stand up, we leave?)--there's been little, if any, return on the investment. By the way, the chart includes the national police--a force so rife with corruption and sectarianism that the Jones Commission recently recommended it be disbanded. Petraeus's chart is further evidence that the administration gameplan isn't working.

CAN'T ASK THESE 20-SOMETHINGS.Political posturing--it's inescapable, particularly during a presidential election. And Fred Thompson engaged in an especially odious instance of this last week. Attempting to feed the dogs of war--days after Petraeus appeared on Capitol Hill--Thompson issued a statement backing the war and blasting Democrats. In it, he said,

Every day, our troops in Iraq demonstrate a heroic resolve to win. I wish Democrats in Washington would dedicate as much time and energy to winning as they do on how to surrender the fight. The average 20 year-old serving in Iraq apparently knows more about national security than many of the 20 year-political veterans serving in Congress.

This is a cheap shot. I commend to the lawmaker-turned-actor the August 19 New York Times op-ed written by seven active-duty GIs in Iraq that noted,

To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched.

The article, as I pointed out in a posting a few days ago, argued for withdrawal and described the war as the "pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends." Last week two of the authors were killed in Iraq: Sgt. Omar Mora and Sgt. Yance Gray. Thompson should know that both men were in their 20s.

Posted by David Corn at 11:29 AM

September 14, 2007

Radhi To Testify

Former Iraqi Judge Radhi al-Radhi, recently forced out as the top anticorruption official of Iraq, is scheduled to testify next Thursday before the House government oversight and reform committee chaired by Representative Henry Waxman. Radhi can be expected to repeat what he told me in an exclusive interview: that the Iraqi government of Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki is so riddled with corruption that it cannot function and ought to be abolished.

His appearance on Capitol Hill--quite a juxtaposition to the visit of General David Petraeus--could be quite a blow for the White House, given that George W. Bush has argued that the U.S. is fighting in Iraq to create a "breathing space" in which the Maliki government can achieve national reconciliation and provide security and services to the Iraqi people. Yet if the government is, as Radhi says, corrupt to the core, this strategy might be unworkable.

So it's no surprise that the State Department has not done much to help Radhi, who has been essentially stranded in the United States. He was forcibly retired while in Washington for a training session. And now that he has so maligned the Maliki government, he would be in danger were he to return to Baghdad.

I'll have more on this soon.

WORDS OF ADVICE. If you're in Washington, DC this weekend, you ought to check out an art project at the Kennedy Center being mounted by Jenny Holzer, one of the most prominent American artists. Here's how The Washington Post describes it

Holzer will use high-powered projectors to cast text from the River Terrace of the Kennedy Center across the Potomac River and onto the island. Quotations from the two memorials' namesakes -- Presidents John F. Kennedy and Theodore Roosevelt -- will scroll like movie credits from 7 to midnight each night through Sunday. The best viewing spot will be the terrace itself, which will be open to the public.

Holzer has compiled an hour's worth of quotes, which will run on a loop. Her design calls for the words to start on the river and then rise to the trees on the island. The white text will be so huge that only one line will fit on the trees at a time.

The project, called for FOR THE CAPITOL, has been organized by Street Scenes DC: Projects for Washington, an independent outfit that organizes temporary public art works. The quotes Holzer has selected are particularly relevant these days. Here's a sample:

"We cannot, as a free nation, compete with our adversaries in tactics of terror, assassination, false promises, counterfeit mobs and crises." -- John F. Kennedy

"To waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed." -- Theodore Roosevelt

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."-- Roosevelt

Get it? Kinda subversive, isn't it? For more information and to see other quotes Holzer is casting across the Potomac, click here. Oh, by the way, Street Scenes is co-curated by Welmoed Laanstra, who happens to be my wife.

Posted by David Corn at 11:42 AM

The Iraq War: A Matter of Character?

Good evening. In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people. We are now at such a moment.

That's how George Bush began his "Way Forward in Iraq" speech on Thursday night. It sure takes chutzpah for him to make the war a question of character. After all, this is a guy who did not review the full intelligence before launching the invasion, who hyped the WMD threat, who cut off the inspections process when it was working, and who did not plan adequately for what would happen after he sent 150,000 troops into a foreign country--and who for years afterward claimed progress when clearly there was none. But now character is the issue.

He next said,

In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If Iraq's young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.

Can the commander in chief cite by name the enemy we're fighting in Iraq? The al Qaeda chapter there is not the real problem, as U.S. military officials have said. In his address, Bush refused to acknowledge that the United States is caught in what is fundamentally an ethno-sectarian conflict, as even General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker acknowledged. He once again is depicting the issue as us-versus-the-terriorists. That comic-book description is wearing thin. And, no surprise, he also did not acknowledge the profound problems with the Iraqi government. (See my recent postings on the rampant corruption within the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.)

Bush then said that Petraeus and Crocker have

concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working. The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress.

I suppose Bush missed that recent ABC/BBC/NHK poll that found that 61 percent of Iraqis said that security in Iraq is worse than it was six months ago. Those Iraqis must be spending too much time reading and watching the defeatist liberal media.

The rest of the speech was predictable, as Bush hailed great progress in Iraq and urged Americans to tough it out. He echoed Petraeus' "vision for a reduced American presence" in Iraq. But as has been widely noted this "reduced" presence would bring U.S. troop levels to what they were this past January, and this will not happen until next summer (if it happens at all). That's like going back to a six-pack a day after really bingeing for a year and a half.

Bush noted that the U.S. military engagement with Iraq will extend "beyond my presidency." And he called on Petraeus and Crocker to report back in March. In other words, six more months. In fact, that seems to Bush's overarching strategic plan: keep it going for another six months, and then another, and then....At least, until he's gone. Next, someone else will be responsible for making the hard choices, as Bush leaves behind the mess. Talk about character.

Posted by David Corn at 12:07 AM

September 13, 2007

A Sad Ending in Iraq

This is very sad:

Two of Seven Soldiers Who Wrote 'NYT' Op-Ed Die in Iraq.

My old friend Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher writes:

The Op-Ed by seven active duty U.S. soldiers in Iraq questioning the war drew international attention just three weeks ago. Now two of the seven are dead.

Sgt. Omar Mora and Sgt. Yance T. Gray died Monday in a vehicle accident in western Baghdad, two of seven U.S. troops killed in the incident which was reported just as Gen. David Petraeus was about to report to Congress on progress in the "surge." The names have just been released.

Gen. Petraeus was questioned about the message of the op-ed in testimony before a Senate committee yesterday.

Their August 19 New York Times article began:

Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day.

The piece ended:

Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are--an army of occupation--and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

The piece can be read now as an all-too poignant rejoinder to the stay-the-course presentation Petraeus made thrice on Capitol Hill this week. It's quite tragic that two of its authors are no longer alive and can no longer make their case that Americans are dying and killing for "absurd ends."

Posted by David Corn at 10:14 AM

September 12, 2007

Newt To Run in '08? Oh, Happy Days

From today's Washington Times comes this report:

Newt Gingrich is moving closer to a presidential nomination bid in a severely divided Republican Party.

"I will decide based on whether I have about $30 million in committed campaign contributions and whether I think it is possible to run a campaign based on ideas rather than 30-second sound bites," the former House speaker told The Washington Times yesterday.

Democrats ought to have a one-word response to this news: Puh-lease! For them, it would be happy days for Gingrich to have to explain his personal foibles: leaving sick wives, engaging in an extramarital affair during the Clinton impeachment. What a candidate for the supposed party of family values.

The article also goes on to say,

Mr. Gingrich has proposed an informal committee of congressional lawmakers from both parties "to meet every two weeks with the next president" that would foster far less partisanship.

That's funny, coming from a fellow who used to routinely advise his fellow Republicans to call Democrats "traitors," "sick," "bizarre," and betrayers. Name-calling partisanship was essential to Gingrich's rise to power in the 1990s. Perhaps he's mellowed with age. Does he renounce the Newt of the 90s?

Regarding his possible presidential bid, The Washington Times reports,

Mr. Gingrich figures he would need at least $30 million to conduct competitive television-ad campaigns in the first five primary and caucus states--Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and perhaps Florida or Michigan.

This is the give-away that Gingrich is just yanking the chain of the Moonie newspaper. A candidate cannot collect $30 million in commitments, as Gingrich suggested he might do. The most an individual can give to a presidential contender for a primary election is $2300. That means Gingrich will have to collect promises from 13,000 folks (assuming they max out) in order to know he can bank the $30 million he assumes he needs.

Collecting such promises is probably about as tough as collecting the actual money. And if he hasn't started banking all these IOUs (or I-will-gives) already, there's no way he can do so in time to make a timely entry.

He's blowing smoke. He just wants the attention. But if it will make a difference, I promise to give him fifty bucks if he enters the race. I'd be delighted to see him discuss the "sick," "shallow," "selfish," "permissive" acts of "hypocrisy" from his past.

Posted by David Corn at 12:29 PM

September 11, 2007

Petraeus: "I Don't Know" If Iraq War Makes U.S. Safer

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

Did General David Petraeus today suggest that the war in Iraq may not make the United States safer?

During his second day of appearances on Capitol Hill, Petraeus this afternoon appeared before the Senate armed services committee. Fortified with charts and graphs, he presented the same we're-on-the-right-course pitch he delivered to the House armed services and foreign affairs committees (on Monday) and to the Senate foreign relations committee (this morning). During the Q&A round at the armed services committee, Senator John Warner, the Virginia Republican who used to chair the committee and who has called for beginning a disengagement in Iraq, took a few sharp (albeit respectful) jabs at Petraeus, noting that one intelligence report after another has said that political reconciliation in Iraq could be a bridge too far. He then asked Petraeus a pointed question: "Do you feel that [Iraq war] is "making America safer"?

Petraeus paused before responding. He then said: "I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."

That was, of course, a non-answer. And Warner wasn't going to let the general dodge the bullet. He repeated the question: "Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?"

Petraeus replied, "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind."

Don't know? Is it possible that the war is not making the United States safer? Petraeus went on to note that he has "taken into account" the war's impact on the U.S. military and that it's his job to recommend to the president the best course for reaching "the objectives of the policy" in Iraq. Yet he did not say that the Iraq war is essential to the national security of the United States. Warner did not press the general any further on this point. The senator's time was up.

That was quite a statement from the fellow who is supposed to save Bush's war. He advocates pursuing Bush's course of action in Iraq but he cannot attest that this effort is crucial for America's safety. Is that being a good soldier?

Posted by David Corn at 04:44 PM

Petraeus, Round 2

On Monday, General David Petraeus presented his long-awaited, eagerly-anticipated, much-ballyhooed progress report to Congress during a hearing conducted by the House armed services committee and the foreign affairs committees. Given the buildup, the hearing was mostly a dud. Petraeus was hardly a galvanizing force, no Douglas MacArthur, and the Democrats, while expressing skepticism about his we're-on-the-right-course pitch, didn't land too many blows. (ADD declared: I could only bring myself to watch about four hours of the hearing.) The event showed the limitations of congressional hearing. Each legislator had but five minutes to question Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Cocker. Considering the genetic predisposition of elected officials to bloviate, five minutes is not enough time for most of them to clear their throats, let alone craft a significant line of inquiry. On Tuesday, Petraeus faces senators. Though they also can run on a bit (paging Senator Biden), perhaps the Senate Dems will be able to put forward a more focused grilling of the man who in 2004 was claiming "tangible progress" in Iraq.

Here are some points raised during Petraeus and Crocker's first appearance that provide fodder for Democrats in the Senate.

* Why did neither of them in their prepared statements explicitly say that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is up to the task in Iraq? Crocker merely saluted Maliki's "patriotism." A lot is riding on Maliki, and as I've noted in past days, he presides over a government riddled with corruption. The senators should ask Petraeus and Crocker if Maliki's administration is too crooked or inept to do what must be done.

* In his opening statement, Petraeus said, "The fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources." Wait a moment. How does this jibe with what the commander in chief has been saying? In an August 22 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, George W. Bush provided this explanation of the Iraq war:

If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the] United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America.

Fight the bastards there so we don't have to fight them in Cincinnati. But Petraeus is saying that the major issue in Iraq is not us-versus-the-terrorists but Iraqi-factions-versus-Iraqi factions. In his opening remarks, he only briefly discussed al Qaeda in Iraq, noting it is now "off balance." But Petraeus was confirming what many critics of the war have said: the lead mission is not rounding up anti-American terrorists but intervening in a sectarian conflict. A senator ought to ask Petraeus if he believes his main mission is to beat 'em there so they leave us alone here.

* In talking up the Iraqi security forces, Petraeus said, "Currently, there are 445,000 individuals on the payrolls of Iraq's Interior and Defense Ministries. Based on recent decisions by Prime Minister Maliki, the number of Iraq's security forces will grow further by the end of this year, possibly by as much as 40,000." Petraeus failed to mention that the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq--headed by retired General James Jones--recently reported that the Ministry of Interior is "dysfunctional and sectarian...rife with political and sectarian intrigues and is struggling to be even partially effective as a government institution." The commission noted that "sectarianism and corruption are pervasive in the MOI and cripple the ministry's ability to accomplish its mission to provide internal security for Iraqi citizens."

If that's the case, how can Petraeus in good conscious cite the number of MOI security forces as a positive factor? Maybe it would be best if this corrupt ministry had fewer troops.

* Petraeus did mention that he could foresee some troop withdrawals at the end of the year. He said that by next summer, U.S. troop levels could be back to pre-surge levels. But that prompts an obvious question. If the so-called surge takes 18 months to create a situation in which the U.S. troops presence falls to what it was at the start of the surge, is that real success?

Petraeus has a tough task: to sell a war his boss has bungled from the start (and from even before that). Democrats need not be put off by all the medals on his chest. This war is still Bush's endeavor. He's the guy who has to answer for it--and to explain it.

Posted by David Corn at 12:36 AM

September 10, 2007

Can Any "Surge" Help a Corrupt Government/Rehabbing Condi Rice--or Her Image

Reporters always kvetch about their scoops that do not receive sufficient attention. Well, I feel like griping today. The piece I posted last week about former Judge Radhi al-Radhi, the forced-out anticorruption chief in Iraq who told me that the government of Nouri al-Maliki is so corrupt it ought to be abolished, did not get the pop I had imagined it would. As the world was waiting for General David Petraeus to report to Congress, wasn't it highly relevant that Radhi was saying that Iraqi government is utterly hapless, riddled with corruption, and little more than a collection of pocket-lining thugs? After all, the point of the so-called surge is to provide the Iraqi government breathing space so it can engage in national reconciliation and self-improvement. But if the Maliki government is not much more than a cesspool of sleaze, that overall strategy doesn't look too hot. As Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker appear before multiple congressional committees this week, I hope some lawmakers ask them to respond to Radhi's pronouncements. The question is rather important: what can the U.S. government and military can do, if the Iraqi government is too corrupt to govern? If the answer is not obvious to you, look up "Diem and Vietnam" at Wikipedia. It's deja vu all over again.

REHABBING RICE. My old college pal, Glenn Kessler, now an accomplished reporter for The Washington Post has just published a book on Condoleezza Rice called The Confidante: Condoleezza Rice and the Creation of the Bush Legacy. The book has garnered positive reviews. In it, one of Rice's friends sums her up this way: "Condi is the least reflective person I know." No wonder she has gotten along so well with George W. Bush. How unfortunate for the nation that at this point in time its national security is within the hands of people who cannot think deeply about the critical actions they take. Kessler also notes that Rice "believes that the mistakes the Bush administration has made will be forgotten as long as the big picture -- such as transforming the Middle East -- is viewed as acceptable by historians.'' Talk about self-delusion.

The book is replete with fly-on-the-wall scenes that show how Washington operates. Here's one example. The setup: it's early 2005, and Rice has only recently become Secretary of State. Her image is severely tarnished by the Iraq war and the WMD fiasco. Still, there's a lot of buzz about her--including talk (fair or not) about her choice of footwear. A photo of her wearing long, black leather boots has created a stir (at least among people who care about such things). And her handlers are doing all they can to bolster (that is, rehab) her image. Kessler picks up the story:

The boots photograph appeared in the press on February 25; Rice had only arrived at the State Department on January 27. The transformation was nearly complete, but [image maker and senior advisor Jim] Wilkinson had one more trick up his sleeve.

On March 11, Rice sat down for an interview with the editorial board of The Washington Times. Wilkinson slipped a note to the editorial page editor, Tony Blankley, whom he had known for years, when they both worked on Capitol Hill for the Republican House leadership. The note suggested the Times ask her if she would consider running for president. It was an audacious proposal. She had only been on the job a month. But such speculation helped bolster the idea that Rice was a strong leader.

As it happened, then White House reporter Bill Sammon was already prepared to ask what he called the "fun political stuff." Rice exclaimed "jeez" before she gave a classic non-answer.

"I never wanted to run for anything. I don't think I even ran for class anything when I was in school," Rice said. "However, I have enormous respect for people who do run for office. It's really hard for me to imagine myself in that role."

Her remarks generated banner headlines and immediate speculation about a "Condi versus Hillary" race in 2008.

Wilkinson could rest easy: A star was born.

So a Rice image-maker gets a conservative newspaper to ask a question that he knows will lead to hype helpful for his boss. Such is how bigtime spinners orchestrate news in Washington.

BOBBY AND J. EDGAR AND ME I reviewed Burton Hersh's new book on RFK and J. Edgar Hoover--Bobby and J. Edgar: The Historic Face-Off Between the Kennedys and J. Edgar Hoover that Transformed America--for the latest issue of The New York Times Book Review and gave the book a thumb's down. It was sloppily researched and written, and Hersh failed to escape the gravitational pull of unproven conspiracy theories involving RFK, JFK, Marilyn Monroe, the Mafia and more. You can read the full review here.

Posted by David Corn at 11:16 AM

September 07, 2007

In Exclusive Interview, Top Iraqi Graft-Buster Tells Me Maliki Government Is So Corrupt It Should Be Scraped

I was going to do a late review of some of the dumb things said at the Republican presidential debate on Wednesday evening, but I've been distracted by the scoop below--which was first posted in my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com. Please forgive me. (If you've read this story already, please scroll down to other recent postings.) Also please check out the latest edition of "PinkerCorn" (as its devotees are calling it) on Bloggingheads.tv and the most recent "Corn & Miniter Show" at PajamasMedia.com.

With Congress and the White House engaging in yet another round of debate on the Iraq war, a former Iraqi judge who was--and who still may be--the chief anticorruption officer of the Iraqi government has a tough message for anyone concerned about Iraq: the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is so riddled with corruption it ought to be totally scrapped. Radhi al-Radhi, who since 2004 has headed the Commission on Public Integrity (CPI), an independent Iraqi institution that tries to investigate and prosecute corrupt Iraqi officials, offers this damning indictment of the Iraqi government at a time when Maliki and his allies are mounting a fierce attack against him and attempting to replace Radhi with a Maliki loyalist who himself has been arrested on corruption charges.

Last week I posted an article disclosing that a team of officials at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad had drafted a secret report detailing rampant corruption and criminality throughout the Iraqi government. The embassy report notes that corruption is "the norm in many ministries" and that Maliki has consistently blocked the work of Radhi and the Commission on Public Integrity. Four days later, Maliki held a press conference in Baghdad and fiercely denounced Radhi. He accused Radhi of corruption--without offering any specifics. Maliki announced that Radhi would be prosecuted and that the Parliament was about to forcibly retire him. The prime minister also claimed that the CPI chief had fled the country. Three days after that, the Iraqi government named Moussa Faraj to replace Radhi.

While all this was happening, Radhi, who is depicted in the secret embassy report as a diligent and brave investigator, was in the United States, not fleeing but leading a delegation of CPI investigators attending a training session in Washington. I spoke with him yesterday about his own predicament and that of his nation. He laughs off Maliki's charges as a bogus and transparent attempt to end investigations probing Maliki's political allies, and he is quite blunt in his assessment of the Maliki government.

Radhi, a secular Shia, is a compact, 62-year-old man with a salt-and-pepper mustache and receding gray hair. It's easy to see the dent on his head where he was smashed by a rifle butt one of the two times he was imprisoned during the Saddam Hussein years. He rolls up a sleeve to show a long deep scar that he says he received during torture sessions and notes that his back is covered with similar marks.

The first point he wants to make--and he does so emphatically--is that he did not slip out of Iraq to escape prosecution, as Maliki has implied. Radhi explains that he came to the United States with ten CPI investigators who are being taught how to use a lie detector. (I've confirmed that such training is under way.) He takes out his passport. It contains an Iraqi stamp indicating he legally departed the country on August 22. "Maliki is making up stories to blame me for stuff," Radhi remarks. The prime minister's press conference, Radhi says, was a stunt designed to pressure Radhi not to return to Iraq: "They want to get rid of me because I have lots of important files that could be used to indict his ministers."

Radhi confirms that the secret embassy report's description of widespread corruption within the Maliki government is accurate: "This is what's going on. The government has failed in doing its job." He estimates that the various ministries, hampered by fraud and waste, are only meeting between 2 and 5 percent of their obligations. He says that $7 billion has been pocketed or wasted at the Ministry of Defense, that the same has happened to $4 billion at the Ministry of Electricity. "At other ministries," he adds, "it's half a billion dollars here, a quarter of a billion dollars there. You can imagine the whole number. It works like the Mafia."

Radhi's problem, he maintains, is that he wants to do something about all this--and that means trouble for the Shia-dominated government led by Maliki. "When I prosecuted Sunni ministers, they clapped for me," he remarks. "When I prosecuted Kurdish ministers, they clapped for me. But when I went after Shia ministers, they came after me and said I'm the corrupted one."

Maliki's campaign against Radhi is nothing new. Last year, Maliki sent Radhi a letter essentially accusing him of not accounting for hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by the Commission on Public Integrity. According to the secret embassy report, an initial audit of the CPI uncovered management problems (not criminal conduct) and a subsequent audit was "glowing."

Sabah al-Saidi, a Shia leader who heads the Parliament's anticorruption committee and who has joined Maliki in the latest campaign against Radhi, has also been trying for a year to undermine the CPI by charging Radhi with graft. Radhi maintains that he earned Saidi's wrath because the CPI was investigating oil smuggling in Basra and its investigators believed this criminal activity was linked to Saidi's Fadillah party. Radhi's CPI pursued about 90 cases involving oil smuggling and corruption in Basra, and these cases were blocked from reaching court. The secret embassy report corroborates this point, noting that investigating corruption in Basra has been nearly impossible. The report describes an occasion when Radhi asked Maliki to support probes in Basra targeting the Fadillah party and Shia militias and Maliki "just went quiet." (According to a Radhi associate who asked not to be identified, oil smugglers in Basra routinely pay militias to safeguard oil pipelines and some of this protection money ends up with anti-American insurgents.)

Radhi says he has never had a case that directly involved Maliki. But he maintains that he has initiated several investigations of officials close to Maliki--including a minister of oil and a Maliki relative who used to head the Ministry of Transportation--and Maliki's office and other ministries shut down these cases, citing a law known as Article 136B. This provision in Iraq's criminal code--a provision that Maliki revived-- allows the prime minister or a minister to order a court to end a prosecution.

And earlier this year, Radhi notes, Maliki's office issued a secret order that forced the criminal courts to close all ongoing cases against past and present ministers and deputy ministers. (I have a copy of that memo.) About three dozen investigations were shuttered. With another secret memo, Radhi says, Maliki's office ended the prosecution of a key Maliki adviser on oil policy. And as we talk, Radhi pulls out yet one more secret memo, dated June 18, 2007, in which the prime minister instructed Radhi to dismiss one of the CPI's best investigators. Radhi refused. A month later, Maliki's office sent Radhi another memo reiterating this order. "I kept him," Radhi says.

Radhi notes that last year he had a "big case" involving one of Maliki's top national security aides. The official was given a large amount of money to fund a weapons buyback program in Sadr City, a Baghdad neighborhood controlled by the militia of Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. According to Radhi, the Maliki aide was suspected of having pocketed some of the money to buy a building for himself in London and of having passed weapons he had collected to militias. "When we looked into this," Radhi recalls, "the prime minister's office closed the case--using Rule 136. We had evidence in this case. And that's when they started to attack us."

Of Maliki, Radhi says, "he's not corrupt, but the group around him--all of them are corrupt. And he has to support them, because he's of their party."

Corruption within the Iraqi government, Radhi says, "is increasing day by day." The government's budget for 2007 (including funds left over from 2006) is $71 billion, he remarks, yet "you see no reconstruction, and we still don't have oil or electricity and no security from the Ministry of Defense or the Ministry of the Interior, and they're each spending billions of dollars." Five million Iraqis have left the country, he says, yet the Ministry of Trade is still spending the same amount of funds for ration cards--apparently for people who no longer live in Iraq: "Where is the money going? No one knows." The Ministry of Health, he complains, has imported billions of dollars in medicine and medical equipment, "but we don't see medicine and equipment in hospitals. It's going to political parties or militias."

Radhi still considers himself chief of the Commission on Public Integrity. His forcible retirement, he says, is illegal--and so is the appointment of his successor. (In a letter sent to Maliki two days ago, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the Sunni speaker of the Parliament, declared Radhi's removal "illegal and unconstitutional.") Regardless of the legality of Radhi's ouster, Moussa Faraj, who has been named Radhi's replacement, is an odd pick for the job. He was once a deputy at the CPI--having been installed at the commission by the ruling Shia Alliance Party. According to the secret U.S. embassy report on corruption, Faraj regularly prosecuted and delayed cases on "sectarian bases." Worse, the report notes that Faraj, a political ally of Sabah al-Saidi (the Parliament leader who has assailed Radhi), once "allowed a Shia Alliance member [charged in a multi-million-dollar corruption case] to escape custody." And after Faraj was dismissed from the CPI, the report says, he stole "literally a car load of case files." An arrest warrant was issued for him.

Several weeks ago, according to Radhi and his investigators, Faraj was arrested, placed in prison, and subsequently released on bail. "How can he be in jail and then be head of the integrity commission?" Radhi asks. Putting the CPI in Faraj's hands, Radhi says, will allow Maliki's office and Saidi to control its actions and prevent the commission from conducting investigations that inconvenience them and their political confederates. It will mean, he claims, the end of any meaningful anticorruption effort in Iraq.

Radhi says he hopes to return to Iraq and the CPI: "I want to go back and work because Iraq needs and deserves a clean government. You cannot rebuild Iraq without fighting corruption. We cannot stop the insurgency without blocking its source of funding, and corruption produces funds for the insurgents." But he has no clear strategy for undoing his forcible removal or for countering Maliki's moves against him. Radhi concedes he does not have a lot of options: "I don't have a political party or a gang supporting me."

This summer, there were two rocket attacks on his home. And the Iraqi government has informed him that his retirement benefits (80 percent of his salary) will be based on the pay of low-level government functionary (about $700 a month) not the income of a government minister (about $8000 a month), even though the CPI chief is considered the equivalent of a minister. For the time being, he may be stranded in the United States. And it's unclear how much the U.S. government will help him, if at all.

"The people now running Iraq are corrupted themselves," Radhi says. "The only solution left is a new government, with a secular government of technocrats, not a religious government politicized by certain groups. Iraqi society is a civil society. The people deserve a civil government." He hopes the Bush administration will pressure the Maliki government to follow the law "so no new dictatorship will be born." But is it realistic to expect any of this? A wholesale change in the Iraqi government? The Bush administration leaning on Maliki and forcing an end to systemic corruption? After all, the secret corruption report--which the Bush administration has not yet acknowledged--notes that the U.S. embassy in Baghdad has done little to bolster anticorruption programs and that Defense Department officials have blocked investigations of certain Iraqi officials. "I know it's difficult," Radhi says with a deep and sad sigh. "I'm not a political guy."

Posted by David Corn at 12:39 PM

September 06, 2007

Fred Thompson: Global Warming Denier/HBO's New Doc on War Vets

Fred Thompson wants to be taken seriously. After all, the onetime Republican senator from Tennessee has finally declared he's a candidate for president. After appearing--and announcing--on Jay Leno's Tonight Show, Thompson posted a video on his campaign website saying he's running because this country faces "very serious challenges" and "grave issues affecting the safety and security of the American people." On his list is radical Islamic terrorism, health care (he's for a "market-driven" overhaul of the system), and Social Security (though he's short on details on this front; see item below). There's nothing on his to-do list about the environment or global warming. Why? It seems that Thompson may be a global warming denier.

In a commentary he wrote in March for his ABC radio show, Thompson made fun of people concerned about global warming. Look, he quipped, Mars is warming; it must be because of all those "alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle." As for the scientific consensus that the Earth is warming because of human activity, Thompson remarked with scorn-ridden sarcasm, "Ask Galileo." Meaning that the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding global warming (it's real, human-induced and poses a significant threat) is meaningless--at least for him. Though even George W. Bush accepts the current consensus on global warming (endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences and the World Meteorological Organization), Thompson considers it bunk and nothing but a set-up for a punchline

When it comes to engaging conventional national security challenges, Thompson talks tough. When it comes to global warming, he's all jokes. Maybe he should be a regular on the Jay Leno show.

LIKE REAGAN...BUT IN A BAD WAY? A Bloomberg story on Fred Thompson today begins:

Fred Thompson says a top challenge for the next president is fixing Social Security. Asked how his ideas for overhauling the system differ from those of George W. Bush, the actor and former Tennessee senator says: "I don't even remember the details of his plan."

Republican Thompson, 65, who styles himself as the heir to Ronald Reagan-style conservatism, entered the race today after six months of flirting with a run. With the earliest-ever primary campaign already in full swing, he doesn't have much time to convince voters that he is focused and prepared.

So Social Security is one of his top priorities, but Thompson cannot say how his approach would differ from the last major attempt at changing the system--because he cannot remember the specifics of the Bush plan (which were well detailed in news stories and White House hand-outs). That does sound like Reagan. Maybe next Thompson will confuse his film parts with real life. ("Last time I was president....")

FULL CREDIT. On Wednesday night, I attended a premiere of a new HBO documentary called Alive Day Memories: Home from Iraq, a poignant, harrowing and straightforward account of Iraq war vets coping with serious injuries sustained in battle. In the film, James Gandolfini (aka Tony Soprano) interviews ten soldiers and Marines--most are amputees--about their experiences and injuries. Their tales are moving--and a reminder of the full and never-ending cost of the war. At one point in the movie, which takes no explicit view on the war, former Marine Corporal Michael Jernigan, who lost both eyes and his frontal cranium due to an explosion, says, "You really glorify war....You get there and you realize this is not glory. It's not normal to sit there and kill somebody....It takes a huge toll on you."

In the audience for this screening was Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy secretary of defense. Before the film was shown--and after the invited audience supped on delicious Middle Eastern food--Richard Plepler, the co-president of HBO, introduced the producers and makers of the film. The crowd applauded each. I then had a brief fantasy in which Plepler said, "And finally, HBO thanks Paul Wolfowitz for making this film possible." No such words, of course, were spoken. The film premieres on HBO this Sunday. (Connection declared: I am a consultant to HBO on another Iraq-related project.)

Posted by David Corn at 12:34 PM

September 05, 2007

Light Reading

Talk about a windfall. From a press release sent out today by the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental outfit:

Washington D.C., September 5, 2007 - The National Security Archive today sued the White House seeking the recovery and preservation of more than 5 million White House e-mail messages that were apparently deleted from White House computers between March 2003 and October 2005.

The lawsuit filed this morning in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia names as defendants the Executive Office of the President and its components that are subject to the Federal Records Act, including the White House Office of Administration (OA), and the National Archives and Records Administration (which is responsible for long-term preservation of federal and presidential records), under the records laws and the Administrative Procedure Act.

White House officials ranging from spokesperson Dana Perino to counsel Keith Roberts have acknowledged in press and Congressional briefings that e-mail is missing from the White House archive, and that the EOP in 2002 abandoned the electronic records management system put in place by the Clinton White House. Whistleblowers cited in conjunction with a Freedom of Information lawsuit brought by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) have alleged that more than 5 million e-mail messages are missing from the White House servers.

"The Bush White House broke the law and erased our history by deleting those e--ail messages," said National Security Archive director Tom Blanton. "The period of the missing email starts with the invasion of Iraq and runs through the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."

How convenient. The complaint and related documents are posted at www.nsarchive.org.

IMPEACH SPECTER? Will conservatives call for the head of Senator Arlen Specter. This moderate GOPer has encouraged GOP Senator Larry Craig, who was arrested in Minneapolis airport bathroom for lewd conduct, to fight the charge (though he did plead guilty) and to remain in the Senate. Most Republicans are not too happy with the news Craig may renege on his resignation announcement. They want Craig out of the Senate and out of the picture damn soon--well before next year's elections. Look for some to blame Specter as Craig's enabler.

Posted by David Corn at 05:29 PM

Read All About It....

NEWSFLASH!

Headline from today's Washington Post:

Study Finds Rock Stars Die Earlier Than Ordinary Citizens

Headline on a press release put out today by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

U.S. Democracy Promotion Efforts Damaged Under Bush Administration

Posted by David Corn at 01:38 PM

Fred Thompson: Reagan or Not

Fred Thompson = Ronald Reagan? That's the political equation some of Thompson's backers are promoting, as the actor and former Tennessee senator prepares for his official entry (scheduled for tomorrow) into the race for the Republican presidential nomination. But in order to be the new Reagan will Thompson have to overact? Besides the fact that both men combined politics with acting, this characterization is a stretch. Reagan was what's known as a "movement conservative." He identified with the conservative movement, he became a leader of that movement, he championed its many causes. Sure, he did not always live the family values preached by the movement (he divorced, enacted an abortion law as California governor, ran a highly dysfunctional family). But no president of the 20th century was so closely connected to an ideological movement and its adherents as Reagan.

That cannot be said for Thompson. As a senator, he had a conservative voting record, but he was never seen as a leader of the right. In fact, he pissed off conservatives with several moves. In 1994, for instance, his campaign said he was essentially in favor of abortion rights.

Thompson may be able to act the conservative leader these days, but some of the movement's top activists remember well what they consider his betrayals. For them, Thompson is no Reagan. A few weeks ago, Richard Viguerie, who has spent decades building the conservative movement (and making much money in the process), detailed the right-wing case against Thompson on a conservative website. The headline on the piece was unambiguous: "Conservatives, Beware of Fred Thompson." Here are some excerpts:

The frustration of conservatives is understandable. Faced with the prospects of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney as the next Republican presidential candidate, many are pinning their hopes on former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee. Could this actor-politician be the new Ronald Reagan?

Mainstream media types assure us that he is. His record suggests otherwise.

This is the second time conservatives have pinned their hopes on Thompson. When he was first elected in the Republican sweep of 1994, he was seen then as the "new Reagan"--a charismatic movie star turned politician...

He turned out to be a shooting star--a dazzling flash in the sky, soon gone, not there dependably....Especially to conservatives who have taken the time to examine his record.

Rumors circulated that Thompson was lazy, uninterested in the daily grind that comes with being a Senator....More important were Thompson's failures of will and his lack of leadership on any legislation that would promote the conservative cause. Instead what little leadership we got from Thompson advanced the liberal Establishment agenda.

Failure of will: Charged with investigating the Clinton White House's Asia fundraising scandal ("Asiagate"), Thompson managed to draw a tiny blood sample from Bill Clinton but little more. If he's that ineffectual against an easy target like Bill Clinton at the height of his parade of scandals, why should we expect Thompson to be any more effective against, say, the other partner in the Clintons' 20-year plan to rule the nation?

On the wrong side of the fence: The McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, championed by Fred Thompson, is the only important piece of legislation where he played a major role. And that is not an accomplishment to be proud of as a conservative....

Never mind that it was patently unconstitutional, as the courts are starting to declare. McCain-Feingold was also, from the beginning, a sham and a lie.

Its stated purpose--its claim to being a "reform"—was that it would take big money out of politics. Well, you can see how successful it's been! The big corporate and union lobbies are more powerful than ever, and bored billionaires with nothing else to do are eyeing the Senate and the White House as the next trophies on their mantelpieces.

No, the real purpose of "reform" legislation like McCain-Feingold is to serve as incumbent-protection laws. Establishment politicians aren't threatened by the K Street lobbyists: they feed off them. They are threatened by grassroots organizations that keep an eye on how they vote and pass that information on to their members.

From the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club, from Right to Left, these groups call incumbents on the carpet. So the incumbents pass laws to restrict the activities of these groups....The real purpose of McCain-Feingold-type laws is to silence your voice in the campaign process, by placing a gag on the organizations that represent you and your views. Such measures are the gravest threat to your free speech that exist today.

And who was the only other Republican Senator to join John McCain in pushing hard for this assault on your First Amendment free speech rights? Fred Thompson....

The Goldwater Test: Senator Barry Goldwater became the first political spokesman for the conservative movement because, out of all the Republican politicians who claimed to be conservative in the 1950s, he and he alone was willing to confront the sitting Big Government Republican in the White House....And what has been Fred Thompson's response these past seven years as the GOP massively expanded the federal government? If he's said anything to warn us about the direction of the Republican Party, he's said it so quietly that nobody--not just us, nobody--has noticed. And by his silence he has become complicit.

Thompson's conservative leadership score on the Goldwater Test: F.

The Reagan Test: Throughout the 1960s and 70s Ronald Reagan walked with conservatives. He was at our conservative functions, and not just at the head table--he mingled with us, listened to our concerns, and made it clear where he stood. Also, our conservative friends were all around him as he governed in California and then ran for President--people like Dick Allen, Ed Meese, Lyn Nofziger, Marty Anderson, Paul Laxalt, Judge Bill Clark…and the list goes on.

Where are the long-time conservative activists today around Fred Thompson? Not campaign consultants who sell themselves to the highest bidder at campaign auctions. No, dedicated and recognized conservative thinkers and activists who will work only for truly conservative politicians.

Go ahead, try and name one. And if conservatives were not part of his inner circle before he started running for the presidency, we cannot expect him to have conservatives in his inner circle if he gets elected. And in politics, personnel is policy.

Thompson's conservative leadership score on the Reagan Test: F....

I have examined Fred Thompson's eight-year record as a Senator in detail, utilizing the vote ratings of the American Conservative Union (ACU) at www.acuratings.org. He emerges not as an out-and-out liberal, but not as a principled conservative either.

Fred Thompson's record may appear to be "conservative" but only by comparison with Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, and a Less-of-a-Big Government Republican is still a Big Government Republican. And given his lack of conservative leadership as a Senator, it would be a grave mistake to expect conservative leadership from him as President.

Viguerie goes on in making the case that Thompson is no Reagan. These days, the conservative movement is more divided than it used to be--thanks, in part, to George W. Bush's war in Iraq (which some conservatives have opposed) and Bush's spending on pet projects. And Viguerie--who is not supporting any candidate yet--does not have the juice he used to possess. Still, might Thompson's candidacy lead to a catfight on the right?

Thompson is certainly conservative enough for many conservatives--especially the neocons, who relish his embrace of the Iraq war and his support for Scooter Libby. (See my piece on Thompson the Neocon.) Will he be able to pull off a Reagan revival as rightwingers like Viguerie cry foul? If he can, that will help him in the Republican primaries. But after that, will general-election voters want an outright conservative advocate as president following eight years of Bush's conservatism?

Thompson's position on the Iraq war could be more important than his resemblance--real or not--to Ronald Reagan. Perhaps he can play the part, but that won't guarantee box office success.

Posted by David Corn at 10:10 AM

September 04, 2007

No War on Corruption

I received many responses to my article (posted below) on the secret Baghdad embassy report detailing rampant corruption within the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki. One veteran Middle East analyst for the U.S. government (no longer in public service) huffed, Corruption in the Middle East--big deal. A former high-ranking State Department official wondered if the leak was part of a Dick Cheney campaign to blame the Iraqis, as a prelude to withdrawing troops. (It was not.) Wayne White, a former Iraq analyst at the State Department's intelligence office, sent the following note:

This is an extremely important story. Rampant corruption at all levels of governance is yet another reason why most Iraqis have little reason to feel a sense of loyalty toward it--especially Iraq's Sunni Arabs, who, with little access to government positions or contracts since 2003, have had little access to this sort of loot.

In any situation in which so much money is available (and vulnerable)--relating both to U.S. assistance and oil-generated revenues--there will be large numbers of people helping themselves liberally. And as long as an extremely low level of enforcement exists, a sort of damaging and progressive group psychology gets set in motion: why should I refrain from this when I can see Ahmad & Jamil getting away with stealing so much money? My family needs money, too.

Another psychological factor might relate to the iffy nature of the entire situation in Iraq. In other words, there have been situations in the past during which government officials with the ability to steal feared that their tenure might not be as long as they would like, and they resorted to unusually high levels of theft in order to get what they could while they could. Even if it turns out later that they were wrong about the tenuousness of their tenure, the habit has become established and the corruption tends to continue at high rates without the sense of urgency.

Finally, for those who have gained positions of power that were previously denied them (such as Iraqi Shi'a, for example), there is a sort of self-justifying revenge syndrome, for lack of a better description: I have every right to take as much as I want because I was entitled to far more during the many years when I was downtrodden.

I expect no miracles on the enforcement front with respect to this mess for many of the same reasons dogging other aspects of Iraqi governance, so this will remain a significant drag on government revenue as well as the translation of such revenue into results on the ground.

If the Maliki government is a cesspool of corruption, as the U.S. embassy report indicates, and little is being done about this, as the report also indicates, it seems the Bush administration will have a hard time turning anything around. Why should U.S. soldiers die (and kill) to help a government ripping off the Iraqis? Sure, one can come up with various "strategic" reasons. (We can't let Iran take full control of Iraq, etc.) But the ground truth is that Americans are dying in part to help a government of crooks and schemers. Given the difficult circumstances of Iraq, it's tough to see how the United States can succeed in Iraq when the government it supports is rotten.

A CRASH, A FLIGHT DELAY, IT'S ALL THE SAME. I've never heard of Eric Kleiman, the director of product marketing for Continental Airlines. And I don't follow the aviation industry too closely. But I'd be willing to bet that Kleiman is one of the worst flacks in the business. Over the weekend, The New York Times ran a front-page story noting that parents are peeved that because airlines are showing PG and R films with graphic violence on flights young kids can be confronted by such scenes as Anthony Hopkins shooting his wife in the face (from Fracture). This is a legitimate concern. You can keep headsets from children, but you can't force them not to look at screens hanging from the top of the airplane. And blindfolds don't work too well.

Kleiman pooh-poohed: "Parents have to be responsible for the actions of their kids--whether they shouldn't look at the screen or look away." That's only true to a point, because on some flights (as I noted above) the screens hang right in front of children. Then Kleiman went on to say: "People love Pepsi, and we don't serve that, so there you go, we just ruined their flight. That's an accurate analogy." Not serving a passenger's preferred cola is the same as showing bloody gun violence to six-year-olds? That's asinine. The man is an embarrassment for all the spinners out there in Corporate America. He deserves to be tossed--with no parachute.

Posted by David Corn at 11:07 AM