An article out from the Associated Press says that the half-dozen soldiers facing courts-martial for torturing prisoners in Iraq "did not receive in-depth training on the Geneva Conventions." That was the message from an Army spokeswoman in Iraq and it's apparently echoed by at least one of the accused's lawyer.
A question: Can this possibly matter? Perhaps as a fine point of law this would be relevant in court-martial proceeding. And the tolerance or intolerance of these soldiers' commanding officers for this behavior is relevant. But surely no formal training in the Geneva Convention guidelines should be needed to warn people off these sorts of outrages.
I'm not inclined to believe that these sorts of things are widespread. Put tens of thousands of young men and women in a hostile situation, give them near absolute control over people they learn to both fear and hate in equal measure, and awful things are bound to happen.
But looking at even the facts now on the table this doesn't sound like something entirely isolated. Nor does it seem like these folks felt they had a lot to fear from oversight from superiors. The fact that the Brits are now being accused of something similar points me further toward such suspicion.
Whatever the truth, these revelations deal the US a staggering blow to its credibity or, really, its authority. There are so many folks in the region inclined to believe the worst about our actions and intentions. And this challenges the assumptions of those inclined to believe the best.
--Josh Marshall
No doubt you've heard of the still-emerging scandal over the UN oil-for-food program for Iraq. The fact that the program was a hotbed of corruption is not news. What has only emerged quite recently is that the Iraqi regime was apparently using contracts from the program as bribes and pay-offs to various western politicians, journalists and other dignitaries.
You may not have heard a sidenote to this scandal -- the question of who will be in charge of the investigation and who controls the key documentary evidence upon which the investigation will be based.
We'll be following up on this in some detail over the next few days. And Shaun Waterman of UPI has a piece out today which is a good place to start to get a handle on what's going on in this case. The crux of the matter, however, is whether the investigation will be conducted through some transparent process or whether it will be conducted by a team under the control of ... well, can you guess? Ahmed Chalabi.
--Josh Marshall
The authors of The New York Times article on Joe Wilson's new book note that he points a finger of blame at I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff.
The article then says: "But Mr. Wilson offers no firm evidence to support his assertion, and the White House has denied it." And then later: "The White House has denied that Mr. Libby, Mr. Abrams or Mr. Rove were involved in the disclosure."
With respect, that's not true.
It may seem that I'm being hyper-specific. But the White House has gone to great lengths not to deny that these men were involved in disclosing Plame's identity. In fact, they've refused to do so. Rather, they've clung to hyper-technical claims that none of the three were involved in the "leaking of classified information" in the hope that journalists will read this as a blanket denial, which is it not.
The 'classified information' dodge allows them to avoid the actual question and hang their hat on technical interpretations about what was a leak and what was classified when.
Given how aggressively the press 'parsed' the former administration's word, this is quite sloppy.
--Josh Marshall
Perhaps it is a sign of the more general <$NoAd$>desperation. But watch how the president now routinely accuses critics of his Iraq policy of being racists.
This is from a brief press availability the president gave this morning with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin ...
There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can self-govern.
There is so much that is wrong-headed and dishonorable in this repeated invocation -- an implicit, churlish claim that the only reason to oppose him is racism -- that it is hard to know where to start.
This constant refrain does suggest a certain hyper-awareness and focus on skin color and perhaps limpieza de sangre. And what's the deal with 'our' skin color being white? I'm white. The president is white. But 'our' skin color is not white.
Perhaps the principal problem here is the president's belief that saying he's for 'democracy' makes it so, that making the claim places him on the moral high ground even if he has no idea how to accomplish it, has already largely bungled the process, and has already lost the trust of those whose democratic aspirations he claims to defend and champion.
--Josh Marshall
Sue Schmidt has the article today in the Post covering the release of <$NoAd$>Joe Wilson's new book. The article is about as exculpatory of the administration as it could possibly be -- rather like if she were the defense attorney trying to order the evidence on the administration's behalf. She goes as far as she is able to actually revive the uranium claim.
Read the piece through to get a full sense of what I mean. But take for example her description of one key element of the Wilson story ...
Sahhaf's role casts more light on an aspect of Wilson's report to the CIA that was publicly disclosed last summer. On the heels of Wilson's public criticism that intelligence was exaggerated and his statement that his trip to Niger had turned up no uranium sales to Iraq, agency Director George J. Tenet took the blame for allowing President Bush to make assertions about the Iraqi quest for nuclear material in his 2003 State of the Union address. Tenet said the intelligence had been too "fragmentary" to merit inclusion in the speech.
Here Schmidt essentially buys into to the cover that no one who has looked into this story at all takes seriously -- namely, George Tenet's taking the fall for his agency's allowing itself to be bullied by the White House into letting this bogus story into the president's State of the Union address.
Now, I'm not in a position to get deeply into this question because I've been reporting on just these issues for several months. But from what's already been quite well reported in Schmidt's own paper, we know that Tenet's fault in this case was finally giving in to pressure from two top officials at the NSC who insisted repeatedly -- with regards to more than one speech -- that these bogus claims be placed in the president's speech.
--Josh Marshall
An apology from the president? Or perhaps a distancing?<$NoAd$>
We all know how John Ashcroft declassified a memo that he used to try to embarrass Commissioner Jamie Gorelick during his testimony before the 9/11 Commission a while back.
Since then he's had the Justice Department declassify thirty or so more documents to embarrass Gorelick, which he's had posted on the Justice Department website as "supplementary material".
Then today after the president completed his testimony, there was this exchange with Scott McClellan ...
QUESTION: Some Republicans on Capitol Hill believe that the work of the 9/11 commission won't be complete until and unless Jamie Gorelick testifies before the commission on her role in building the wall between intelligence and law enforcement. Is that an opinion shared by the White House?MCCLELLAN: Look, the president, I think even at the beginning of the meeting, he made some brief remarks. He didn't have a prepared opening statement or anything like that, but certainly made some opening remarks at the beginning.
And essentially I think he thanked them for the work that they're doing, talked about how he appreciated what they were doing, and that their work is very important to what we are doing to protect the American people.
And I think that the president looks at this and doesn't believe that there ought to be finger-pointing. We ought to all be working together, to learn the lessons of September 11th and make sure that we are doing everything that we can to protect the homeland and win the war on terrorism. That's the way he looks at it.
QUESTION: The Justice Department keeps releasing documents, they released another -- they declassified 30 pages yesterday, that reinforced the idea that...
MCCLELLAN: I think the president...
QUESTION: ... Commissioner Gorelick has more than she could...
(CROSSTALK)
MCCLELLAN: No, I understand. That's what the Justice Department did; we were not involved in it. I think the president was disappointed about that.
QUESTION: The president was disappointed in the Justice Department releasing those documents?
MCCLELLAN: Putting that on their Web site, yes.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Why?(CROSSTALK)
MCCLELLAN: He actually expressed that to the commission as well.
QUESTION: But did he talk to...
QUESTION: How about to Ashcroft?
QUESTION: Yes, to General Ashcroft?
MCCLELLAN: I think it's been communicated to the Justice Department.
QUESTION: So why was he disappointed...MCCLELLAN: Well, like I said, it's what I said at the beginning. The president does not believe we ought to be pointing fingers during this time period. We ought to be working together to help the commission complete its work. This is very important work that they are doing that will help us in our efforts to carry out the president's most solemn responsibility, which is to protect the American people.
...
[later in the briefing]
...
QUESTION: What you said about the Justice Department and the president's displeasure is pretty remarkable. Can you tell us, who conveyed his displeasure to the Justice Department and how? And has the president or anyone at the White House, Judge Gonzales, asked for any kind of accountability on how the Justice Department would have released these documents...
MCCLELLAN: I don't think so on that, but it's been communicated, I believe, at the staff level.
QUESTION: Judge Gonzales or...
MCCLELLAN: It's been communicated at the staff level. I think I'll leave it at that.
QUESTION: Was anyone at the White House aware of those documents or involved in their release at all?
MCCLELLAN: I'm sorry? No, we weren't involved in that decision.
(CROSSTALK)
MCCLELLAN: Well, actually, I addressed that earlier, I think twice.
QUESTION: Are you upset over the fact that the Justice Department did this without coordinating with the White House?
MCCLELLAN: I think he's disappointed that it was, that that information was placed on their Web site like that.
QUESTION: You mean without clearing it with the White House first? Is that part of it?
MCCLELLAN: I don't know if I -- I think I'm looking more at what happened and what was put up on the Web site. I don't know about what you're asking. QUESTION: What's the concern? I mean, obviously the president had a concern if he mentioned it to the commission. What is the concern?
MCCLELLAN: I'm sorry? What is the concern? Like I said, he very much appreciates the work that the 9/11 commission is doing. He appreciates the work that all the members on the commission are doing. Their work is very important. He believes that we should all be working together to help the commission complete its work and not pointing fingers at one another.
I think I'll just leave it where I did.
I certainly don't take this necessarily at face value. But, certainly, something happened here.
--Josh Marshall
From a late report in the Associated Press: "U.S. Marines announced Thursday an agreement to end a bloody, nearly monthlong siege of Fallujah, saying American forces will pull back and allow an all-Iraqi force commanded by one of Saddam Hussein's generals to take over security ... The agreement, reached late Wednesday night, was negotiated between U.S. forces and Fallujah representatives, including four Iraqi generals. The deal provides for a new force, known as the Fallujah Protective Army, to enter the city Friday and provide security. It will consist of up to 1,100 Iraqi soldiers led by a former general from Saddam's military, Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne said."
--Josh Marshall
Champing at the bit ...<$NoAd$>
SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Okay, the President had his usual briefings this morning. And the meeting with the 9/11 Commission started right on time, at 9:30 a.m. this morning. And they are continuing to meet right now. QUESTION: Who is in the meeting, for your side? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Hang on. I'll come to questions. I'll go through my routine here. Other than that, all I have is that I'm briefing at 1:15 p.m. and State Department is briefing at 12:30 p.m. That's all I've got. Now, go ahead. QUESTION: So who is in the meeting, from your side? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Well, I'll go over everybody that's in there. You have all 10 commission members, you have one member of the commission staff present. Then you have the President and Vice President; Judge Gonzales is there, and two staff members from the Counsel's Office are there as well. QUESTION: Who are the staff members? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into the names of the staff that's present. QUESTION: Why? QUESTION: Why? QUESTION: Why? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Just, Judge Gonzales. They're lawyers on the White House Counsel staff. I know you all want to call them and talk to them afterwards, but I'll just say, two members of the White House Counsel staff. QUESTION: No, that's not why, we just want their names. QUESTION: For God's sake, this is a matter of historical record. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: It's a private meeting, Helen. QUESTION: It's not a private meeting, it's a public meeting. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I just told you who is present. QUESTION: It's doing the nation's business. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: These are two members of the Counsel's Office that have been working closely with the September 11th Commission. QUESTION: Why the secrecy? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I don't look at it that way. QUESTION: But we do. QUESTION: It is a good question. It is an historic moment. This is -- in a public event. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I'll talk back with these individuals and see if -- but -- QUESTION: Just for the record, really, just for the record. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I'll talk back with these individuals, but I'm not in the habit of just going and naming every staff members that attend all these meetings. QUESTION: But this isn't just another meeting. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I understand. QUESTION: You're the spokesman for this White House, and you should give us the basics. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I'll check with those individuals, but I'm not going to get into naming staff members without their -- QUESTION: Why did the White House feel there was a need for three staff members -- SCOTT MCCLELLAN: -- without talking to them about it. QUESTION: -- versus one for the commission of 10 members? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Well, you have 10 commission members there, too. So you have a lot of members of the commission. These are two staff members that have been very involved in working on these efforts. QUESTION: What is their purpose, Scott? Are they there to record what takes place? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: No. QUESTION: Are they there to advise the President -- SCOTT MCCLELLAN: No, I'm sure they'll be taking notes. QUESTION: -- or Judge Gonzales -- SCOTT MCCLELLAN: No. QUESTION: What is the purpose? What is their purpose? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Because they're two members of the Counsel's Office that have been very involved in working on these issues with the September 11th Commission. And they'll be there taking notes, just like a member of the commission staff will be there taking notes. QUESTION: So they're actually there more to record what happens. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Well, take notes, yes. QUESTION: Are there two note takers? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Yes, I expect both of them will be taking notes. I expect members of the commission will be writing information down, as well. QUESTION: You said there was one note taker. Is there an official note taker or are these both -- SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I said there would be at least one member yesterday, and then yesterday afternoon when I was updated, I said that there would be two members of the Counsel's Office present. QUESTION: Who are they? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Helen, I'll check with them. And I don't want to go and just name them without talking to them first. QUESTION: Where are they all sitting? Is the President at his desk? Where is the Vice President? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: The President and Vice President are sitting in the chairs in front of the fireplace. And the commission members are sitting on the couches and in chairs in the Oval Office. QUESTION: Who got the couches? How did they decide who got the couches? What, did they run in, and -- (laughter.) QUESTION: Why in the Oval Office? Why not in a place where all of them could sit at a table? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Well, the President has lots of meetings in the Oval Office. He meets with world leaders there on a regular basis -- QUESTION: There's 10 members of the commission. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: -- and this is a similar setup. Well, it's like yesterday, when we met with -- when the President met with Prime Minister Persson of Sweden. You have several members of the staff -- of each other's staff in there. You have the ambassadors and you have other members of staff in there. And they all sit around on the couches and chairs. That's where we sit when those meetings take place. It's a similar setup to that. QUESTION: Scott, are we going to hear from the President today? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Look, if there's any change in the schedule, I'll keep you posted. QUESTION: So does that mean maybe? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: No, I'm not ruling anything in or out at this point, but we'll keep you posted, obviously, on the meeting. QUESTION: What does that mean? What are your plans to read this out in some way, or give us your take on what happened? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: One, don't expect a readout on the discussion. I think I've kind of indicated that over the last few days. This is a private meeting. But let's let the meeting take place, and then we'll go from there. QUESTION: But we could hear from the President. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I'm not ruling anything in or out, David. We'll keep you posted. QUESTION: Scott, what was the preparation prior to this? How many times did the President and Vice President together meet with the White House Counsel? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I provided a general description of what he did to prepare for this. And I talked about how over the last couple of days he continued to visit with members of -- the President continued to visit with members of the White House staff -- specifically Condi Rice and Andy Card and Judge Gonzales, and that he looked over materials and documents that were provided to him by the Counsel's Office. QUESTION: But specifically, what did he and Judge Gonzales talk about, because if he's just taking notes today, he already knows what the President apparently is going to say. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Well, one, April, keep in mind that a lot of this occurred two-and-a-half and three years ago. And the President wanted to refresh his memory and look over documents from that time period to make sure he can provide the commission as complete account of events as possible. I mean, this is a good opportunity for the President to sit down with members of the commission and talk with them about the seriousness with which we took the threat from al Qaeda, the steps we were taking to confront it and how we have been responding to the attacks of September 11th. The President believes their work is very important, and it is very important to helping us win the war on terrorism. He's pleased to sit down with the commission and answer their questions so that they can provide the American people with as thorough and comprehensive a report as possible. And that's what's going on right now. QUESTION: Scott, a follow-up to that real quick. I know it's been a couple of years, but it was such a poignant time for this administration. What does he really need to be refreshed on? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: April, this is two-and-a-half years ago. Of course he wanted to look back at the documents to make sure that he's providing the commission as complete an account as possible about the events prior to September 11th, the events on September 11th. And I think that that's -- that anyone would want to do that prior to sitting down and visiting with the commission. QUESTION: But in news interviews, he was able to go off and just rattle off the events. But what specifically -- SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Well, I'm sure that -- well, I'm sure, April, that they have some specific questions going back to that time period, and we're talking about two-and-a-half, three years ago. QUESTION: Scott, will the White House release a photo of this session this morning? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I don't -- I don't anticipate that. QUESTION: Why not? And also, did the President say anything before he -- before he went into -- SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Yes, the meeting is going on right now, Terry, so I don't -- QUESTION: Did he say anything to you or anybody else before he went in about how he felt -- SCOTT MCCLELLAN: No -- QUESTION: -- or what he was feeling? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: No, he was looking forward to it. Like I said, he's pleased to sit down with the commission. I talked to him this morning, and he -- the way I would describe it, he believes their work is very important to helping us win the war on terrorism, that the President's most solemn responsibility is to protect the American people. And that's the way in which he looks at this, that he wants to do what he can to help the commission piece together all the information they've been provided access to so that they can complete their work in a timely manner. He wants to -- he looks forward to seeing their report and he looks forward to seeing their recommendations and seeing if there are additional steps that we can take beyond what we are already doing to win the war on terrorism. QUESTION: Did he and the Vice President open with statements? Did they plan to open with statements? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: It's going on right now, Wendell. That wasn't the plan. That wasn't the plan. QUESTION: It was not the plan for them to open with statements for the committee? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: No. QUESTION: Scott, what time is the next event on the President's schedule today? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: He's got some events scheduled this afternoon, some meetings that he has, I know. He meets regularly with members of his Cabinet department. I think Secretary Ridge is coming this afternoon, two something, 2:30 p.m., something like that. And he's got some other staff meetings and personnel meetings, things like that. QUESTION: Will the President be able to explain why the bin Laden family was flown out of the country right after the event? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I think that that matter has already been discussed and addressed previously, Helen. QUESTION: And also why the FAA didn't go up? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Helen, I don't know what questions the commission is going to be asking. The President looks forward to answering their questions.
More soon ...
--Josh Marshall
It's amazing what counts as a 'conspiracy theory' these days.
Last week, in my column in The Hill, I described how the war crimes tribunal in Iraq is being run by Ahmed Chalabi's nephew, Salem. And at the same time Salem is in the Iraqi contracts business with, Marc Zell, the former law partner of Doug Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, whose office has oversight over doling out Iraqi reconstruction contracts.
(This article on the tribunal by Robert Collier in the San Francisco Chronicle, which I hadn't seen when I wrote the original column, is quite good.)
This week, in a letter to the editor, David Epstein, a former member of the law firm Feith & Zell (the firm in which Doug Feith and Marc Zell were the two named partners), writes in and says the following ...
“I danced with a man who danced with a girl who danced with the Prince of Wales.” This line from a 1920s song came to mind after reading Josh Marshall’s April 23 attack on Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith (“Dictatorship ended, cronyism is doing nicely”).The “conspiracy theory” is that Ahmed Chalabi is on the Iraqi Governing Council, his nephew Salem returned to Baghdad and he is seeking to do business in the reconstruction of Iraq. The article reports that Salem Chalabi is doing business with Mark Zell, who was once in the law firm of “Feith and Zell PC” and who uses the Internet name of “fandz.com.”
So there is the dance.
In fact, Feith withdrew from the practice of law when he went to the Pentagon in the summer of 2001. Upon his withdrawal, his name was dropped from the firm name.
The remaining attorneys disbanded at the end of 2001, going in a number of different professional directions. How do I know? I was a member of the firm for 10 years.
So Mr. Zell kept the Internet name. Few people outside the law firm probably knew that this jumble of letters, “fandz.com,” ever had an association with Doug Feith. It is not a brand name. It is not “Coca-Cola.” Moreover, the issue is not what either Messrs. Chalabi or Zell are doing or what Internet name Mr. Zell uses. The suggested challenge is to the conduct of Doug Feith. The article does not offer a scintilla of evidence about any improper conduct by him.
I don't know what all this razmataz is about <$Ad$>the URL of the website. It strikes me as a diversion from the point.
But what's the 'conspiracy theory' here exactly?
More and more, it seems, in neoconservative circles in Washington, a 'conspiracy theory' is an assertion or argument one simply doesn't like. The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is added on to the response as a sort of literary slur.
So let me try this one again: the nephew of America's one-time favorite to run post-war Iraq probably shouldn't be the one who runs the war crimes tribunal that sits in judgment over Saddam. If he does, he probably shouldn't also be in the reconstruction contracts business with the ex-law and business partner partner of the top Pentagon appointee whose office a) drew up most of the policies for the occupation and b) has oversight over doling out the contracts.
I understand that well-meaning people are sometimes importuned to write such letters on behalf of those who aren't in a position to respond themselves. But how is that a 'conspiracy theory' exactly. It seems more like pointing out the obvious.
--Josh Marshall
NBC has a new story out this evening which reports that members of the Iraqi National Congress in Iraq are currently being investigated by the Iraqi police for abduction, robbery, "stealing 11 Iraqi government vehicles" and "assaulting police by firing on them during a search".
These stories have been around for some time (in addition to accusations of car-jacking), though I think this is the first time I've seen them reported -- at least in a mainstream publication.
One more detail I hadn't heard thus far is that, according to NBC, an arrest warrant has been issued for the INC's chief of intelligence. My question is why there's no American arrest warrant for the INC's chief of intelligence.
But I guess that's another story.
We'll have more on Chalabi tomorrow and his ongoing tussle with the King Abdullah of Jordan, including some interesting stuff on wire intercepts.
--Josh Marshall
I must confess to being slightly baffled by James Risen's piece in Wednesday's Times on Doug Feith's Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group, the shop which had Michael Maloof and David Wurmser trying to find ties between terrorist groups across sectarian lines as well as ties between al Qaida and states like Iraq.
Elements of this story have been reported previously, particularly by the Washington Bureau of Knight-Ridder.
But what the Times presents is almost entirely the group's apologia for their own work. One can write a story from various perspectives of course. But from the vantage point of April 2004, the take Risen takes leaves the story a tad incomplete. It's rather like writing a narrative about interagency battles in 2002 in which those claiming the most maximal views about Iraqi WMD are valiantly fighting the forces of bureaucratic fuddy-duddyism to bring the truth to light.
An interesting story, no doubt -- but rather incomplete without some discussion of the fact that the fuddy-duddies turned out to be right.
The article's only clear statement on the underlying facts of the matter is this paragraph ...
The C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies found little evidence to support the Pentagon's view of an increasingly unified terrorist threat or links between Mr. Hussein and Mr. bin Laden, and still largely dismiss those ideas. Foreign Islamic fighters have sought haven in Iraq since the American-led invasion and some Sunnis and Shiites have banded together against the occupiers, but the agencies say that is the result of anger and chaotic conditions, not proof of prewar alliances.
That's quite an agnostic view. Risen seems even to imply that the influx of foreign fighters into Iraq since the war somehow validates the group's pre-war arguments about ties between the secular Iraqi government and al Qaida.
On the other hand, there's choice passages like this ...
"I think the people working on the Persian Gulf at the C.I.A. are pathetic," Mr. Perle said in an interview. "They have just made too many mistakes. They have a record over 30 years of being wrong." He added that the agency "became wedded to a theory," that did not leave room for the possibility that Iraq was working with Al Qaeda, and that "they went to battle stations every time someone pointed to contrary evidence."
So all's not lost.
--Josh Marshall
More in a bit on James Risen's piece in Wednesday paper about the Maloof/Wurmser shop under Doug Feith at OSD. But first, before you do anything else, look at this graphic that accompanies the article.
First, look at the graphic. Later we'll ponder why Feith, et al. still have jobs.
--Josh Marshall
There was an interesting note a few days ago on Ruy Teixeira's blog, commenting on the recent Ipsos-AP poll. I'd heard there was something like this in the poll. But reading Ruy's post jogged my memory ...
First, consider the question of whether the Iraq war was a mistake. You know when more people than not starting thinking a war was a mistake (remember Vietnam!), the incumbent administration is in real trouble. And Ipsos now has the first example of this. They asked the question: "All in all, thinking about how things have gone in Iraq since the United States went to war there in March 2003, do you think the Bush administration made the right decision in going to war in Iraq or made a mistake in going to war in Iraq?" The response: 49 percent mistake/48 percent right decision. When Ipsos asked the same question four months ago, however, they got a lopsidedly positive reply: 67 percent right decision/29 percent mistake. Quite a change.Note that this question specifically mentions "the Bush administration"; they also asked the same question with "United States" substituted for Bush administration. That question returns a more positive reply: 57 percent right decision/40 percent mistake. Interesting how the specific mention of the Bush administration apparently moves people toward the "mistake" judgement.
Ruy goes on to note that, at least from this poll, growing numbers of Americans think a) the war was a mistake and b) that it will lead to more <$Ad$>terrorism rather than less.
I've been giving this matter a lot of thought recently. And if John Kerry is going to win this election, he will have to make it, in large measure, an election about accountability.
The president seldom any more makes a positive argument for how things have been handled up till this point. He doesn't admit mistakes, certainly. But what he does and doesn't say is telling.
Most of the president's speeches amount to a) My heart was in the right place and, b) The past isn't what's important. Where we go from here is what's important.
(Look at his ads and you'll see he's making little attempt to make a positive case for himself.)
His partisans chime in with something similar, quickly dismissing any discussion of what's happened up until this point -- all the many mistakes made over expert advice counseling against -- and arguing, militantly, that all the matters now is who has a better plan on where to go from here, etc.
This is certainly true, to an extent. But there's that double matter of accountability. Accountability first, just as a matter of principle. But at some point you have to ask whether the crew that has gotten so much wrong -- making almost every mistake makable in Iraq -- is really the team to get things back on track, to walk the situation back from the precipice. As in so much else in life, we predict the future based on past performance. And if you look at what's happened over the last eighteen months, I think that's a very hard argument for the administration to confront.
Some are now arguing that to point these things out is to engage in a sort of grand Monday morning quarterbacking, judging everything with the benefit of hindsight, the hollow prize reserved for those who don't get 'in the arena' and all that.
That doesn't add up by a longshot. This isn't some replay of the 'Best and the Brightest', a case where the most experienced minds and the best ideas took us off in some foolish direction. These goofs weren't just predictable but quite clearly, widely and volubly predicted (the Wolfowitz-Shinseki set-to was repeated endlessly across the board). What happened was the folks with their hands on the levers thought they knew better; only they were wrong.
Making that argument requires some rhetorical dexterity. And the opposition -- i.e., Kerry -- does have to show that they, or rather he, could do better. But given what we've seen, that really should not be that hard.
--Josh Marshall
Perhaps someone can help me with this.
Based on this article which ran today in Salon and emails I've exchanged today with veterans who are familiar with what these records should look like, apparently President Bush didn't release his complete military service records even though the White House repeatedly said he did.
What gives?
I fear this is becoming another example of my press colleagues' deep-seated corruption.
--Josh Marshall
I've never quite understood all the arcana of the Bush Air National Guard story, so I never know quite what to make of new reports. But there's an article out in Salon on Tuesday which makes a pretty straightforward case that the 'complete' service record the White House released last February, actually wasn't complete at all.
Here are the key grafs ...
The president and his staff are doing a very good job of convincing the public he has released all of his National Guard records and that they prove he was responsible during his time in Alabama and Texas. But the critical documents have still not been seen. The mandatory written report about Bush's grounding is mysteriously not in the released file, nor is any other disciplinary evidence. A document showing a "roll-up," or the accumulation of his total retirement points, is also absent, and so are his actual pay stubs. If the president truly wanted to end the conjecture about his time in the Guard, he would allow an examination of his pay stubs and any IRS W-2 forms from his Guard years. These can be pieced together to determine when he was paid and whether he earned enough to have met his sworn obligations....
Unlike lawyers, journalists pay little attention to concepts like chain of custody for evidence. In the case of the president's Guard records, whoever possessed them and had the motive and opportunity to clean them up is a critical question. When Bush left the Guard about a half year early to attend Harvard Business School, his hard-copy record was retained in a military personnel records jacket at the Austin offices of the Texas Guard. Eventually, those documents were committed to microfiche. A copy of the microfiche was then sent to the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver and the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis. Those records are considered private, and they cannot be released to anyone without the signature of the serviceman or woman. The White House has never indicated that Bush has signed the authorization form. And this is what prompts unending suspicion.
The documents given to Washington reporters were printed from one of those two microfiches. According to two separate sources within the Guard who saw the printout and spoke with me, the microfiche was shipped to the office of Maj. Gen. Danny James, commander of the Air National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Va. James' staff printed out all of the documents on the film and then, according to those same sources, James vetted the material. Subsequent to being scrutinized by James (who commanded the Texas Guard and was promoted to Washington by Bush,) the records were then sent to the White House for further scrutiny prior to release to the news media.
This is a considerably different process from what was practiced by Sen. John McCain during the 2000 presidential campaign ... McCain signed a release form, and his entire record, a stack of papers more than a foot tall, was made available to reporters without being vetted by the campaign.
Needless to say, the aforementioned <$Ad$>James is the same James who is accused of assisting in scrubbing the paper copies of the president's record back in 1997 -- a charge that is of course roundly denied, but which is also discussed at some length in the Salon piece.
Now, as I say, I just don't know the details of all this well enough any more to make a judgment about these various claims and accusations.
But why exactly can't the president just release his records the way McCain did?
And, is that story about James getting a chance to go over these files true? If it is, I'd say some scribblers in town got suckered.
Big time, as the vice president would say.
--Josh Marshall
So what to make of this new Iraqi flag that the IGC apparently sprung on the country today -- to near universal disapproval?
The big complaint on the streets of Baghdad seems to be that a) it looks too much like the flag of Israel --- you can see the old and new Iraqi flags along with the Israeli flag down on the right hand side of this article in the Post --- and b) that the words "Allahu akbar" were removed.
Frankly, looking at the thing (and, again, you can see it here) I have to wonder whether the biggest problem isn't that it's just one of the lamer flags I've ever seen. But, I suppose, let's stick to substance.
If there weren't so much blood and history and human tragedy on the line with all this, the stuff these characters come up with would almost be funny. I mean, what were they thinking? Truth be told, it does look like the Israeli flag. I don't think there's any getting around that, especially when viewed in context.
In an ideal world, of course, maybe that wouldn't be a problem. But people's difficulty getting it through their heads that we don't live in an ideal world has already gotten us into a fair amount of trouble in the country. True, they didn't replace "Allahu akbar" with the 'Sh'ma'. So I guess we can be grateful for small favors. But we're not exactly dealing with a receptive audience here, now are we?
In any case, back to the flags ...
If you look at the flags of the various Arabic-speaking countries (scroll down on this page to see), they're strikingly uniform. Most have some mix of green, red and black. Some lack one of more of those three colors. But overall they're quite uniform.
I think there are only two members of the Arab League whose flags have any blue -- Djibouti and Somalia. And Somalia isn't even an Arabic-speaking country, at least not primarily.
In any case, judged against the flags of pretty much all the other Arab states, this one sticks out like a sore thumb -- or mabye a pale blue thumb, but same difference.
The Associated Press gets it pretty much right when it says, "The new design not only abandons the symbols of Saddam's regime. It also avoids the colors used in other Arab flags: green and black for Islam and red for Arab nationalism."
But, really, why would worry about that, since Islam and nationalism don't seem to have very big audiences over there anyway?
--Josh Marshall
An outside investigation into the Senate memo-snooping case? The DOJ has asked David Kelley, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, to investigate what happened with those Democratic staff memos pilfered by GOP Senate staffers.
--Josh Marshall
Dick Cheney goes to Westminster College, the site of Winston <$NoAd$>Churchill's 'iron curtain' speech, and embarrasses himself by sandbagging the University President who accepted Cheney's request to speak at the college.
Here's the first graf of an email President Fletcher M. Lamkin sent to faculty, students and staff this afternoon ...
I would like to thank each and every one of you who were so courteous and respectful to Mr. Cheney during his visit and speech. Frankly, I must admit that I was surprised and disappointed that Mr. Cheney chose to step off the high ground and resort to Kerry-bashing for a large portion of his speech. The content and tone of his speech was not provided to us prior to the event -- we had only been told the speech would be about foreign policy, including issues in Iraq. Nevertheless, I was extremely proud of the students, staff, and faculty who represented the College so well during the organization of the visit and during the speech itself -- inside and outside of the gym.
More background in this AP article.
And to think he had to leave Washington to find an institution whose leadership had the temerity to say they didn't like being used.
--Josh Marshall
ABC News is currently running a web headline which reads: "Medal Dispute, EXCLUSIVE: Did Kerry lie about Vietnam War medals?"
Here's a question. Can someone tell me the last time ABC used the "L" word about President Bush? Or is it always 'exaggeration' when it's President Bush?
And yes, I noticed Chris Vlasto's name too.
Late Update: As of 2:54 PM, the headline now reads: "Medal Dispute, EXCLUSIVE: Why did Kerry change story about Vietnam medals?
That, and why did ABC change its headline?
--Josh Marshall
Would you like to read on-location TPM coverage <$NoAd$>from the Democratic and Republican conventions?
Well, here's your chance.
TPM's readership is more than twice the size it was last October when we last did this. So newer readers won't remember. But we first did this last October 26th when we put out a call for reader contributions to fund a reporting trip to New Hampshire. The funding part of the experiment was overwhelmingly successful and ... well, you have to be the judge, but I thought the reporting part of it went well too.
(You can see most of the results from the TPM archives of the third and fourth weeks of January.)
In any case, the pitch this time is really pretty much the same as last time. So let me quote from that post from October 26th ...
The normal way to do this would be for me to go to one of the publications I write for, get them to pick up the tab (hotel room, transportation, etc.), and write it up for them.But that would mean saving most of the reporting for some magazine or website or newspaper and not doing much or any of it for TPM. And, frankly, I think blog coverage is much better suited to covering something like the New Hampshire primary than magazines or newspapers. Because it’s really about moment-to-moment reports, running commentary, and a lot of other stuff that doesn’t easily fit into the rubrics of conventional journalism. Besides, you want to know what’s happening while it’s happening, not in a lazy summing-up a week after the votes have been counted ... I want to dedicate this trip entirely to blog coverage so I want to fund it with reader support, reader subscriptions. That’ll be part of the experiment too --- whether this kind of independent journalism can come up with the resources to fund high-quality on-the-ground play-by-play reporting.
‘Subscription’ in this case doesn’t mean anything exclusive. TPM will be freely available to anyone and everyone who wants to read it, whether they’ve contributed or not, just like always. (And of course many readers have already generously contributed to the general upkeep of the site.) Here I’m using the term in a somewhat old-fashioned sense to refer to putting some money up, not for the general support of the site, but to fund a specific project you’re going to make use of or benefit from.
Now, conventions aren't like primaries. We know who's going to be nominated, more or less precisely what time in the evening, on what day, and so forth. But the party conventions are also the only time in four years and certainly the only time during the campaigns when, if not the whole party, then at least most party professionals and activists, get together in one place. So it's a unique opportunity to get a read on where people are at, how enthused they are, how confident or demoralized, scattered or focused they are just before the race moves into the home stretch.
So there it is. The Democratic National Convention in Boston on July 26th - 29th and the Republican National Convention in New York on August 30th - September 2nd. Travel, basic expenses, accommodations, perhaps a bodyguard for the Republican convention. You get the idea.
We'll be following up with more details. But if you'd like to contribute and make this possible, you can click here to make a contribution through paypal.
Come on board. I think it’ll be exciting. More details to come soon …
--Josh Marshall
Yesterday the president's longtime handler and current campaign advisor Karen Hughes was on CNN attacking John Kerry's military service record and subsequent work as a Vietnam war protester.
But before getting lost in the details of Hughes' attacks, let's draw back and see the big picture -- something the press would do well to consider and try.
What's the signature pattern of the president's life?
When he faces a challenge or a tough scrape, he lets his family and friends bail him out, do his fighting for him. You see it again and again through failed businesses, legal scrapes, the whole matter of ducking service in Vietnam and then getting help cleaning up subsequent unfortunateness while he was serving in the Texas Air National Guard.
It's even come up again and again on the campaign trail. George W. Bush has faced three opponents (McCain, Gore and Kerry) since he came onto the national political stage -- each served in Vietnam, though each under very different circumstances. He's had his lieutenants attack the service of each one.
So here we have the same pattern again -- no different. The president wants to challenge John Kerry's military service. So he gets Karen to do it for him. You can get tripped in the chutzpah of this because this not only throws light on an earlier period when the president couldn't fight his own fights, it repeats the pattern.
But here's some free advice for Kerry.
Don't get mixed up on the details. Take this directly to the president. Tell him to turn over a new leaf in life and stop being a coward. If the president wants to attack or question your war record or what you did after the war, tell him to do it himself. No special deals, no hidden help from family retainers, no hiding behind Karen Hughes. Tell him, for once, to fight his own fights.
--Josh Marshall
Just a brief follow-up on this secret trip to Swansea, Wales, which Jim Woolsey made on behalf of the US government, with a government jet and FBI personnel in tow, to verify Laurie Mylroie's theory that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behind the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.
Another article out in Newsweek says Richard Clarke tried to tell this story in Against All Enemies but White House lawyers excised his recounting because it included 'classified information', that inviolate shroud of state that can only be pierced when some political opponent needs to be smeared (i.e., Clinton, Plame, Wilson, Clarke, Gorelick, et al.)
Now, I thought I remembered the Inspector Woolsey escapade coming up in Clarke's book. So I went back to the source. And sure enough, there it is. Right there on page 95. But a quick perusal reveals what happened. The discussion is not in Clarke's words but rather in an at-length quote from an article by that unique and irreplaceable chronicler of neocon folly, Jason Vest.
So presumably, Al Gonzales's censors said no-can-do. And to this Clarke replied, "Fine, I'll just grab this graf out of Jason Vest's article in the Village Voice. And that's already public. So what's the problem?"
Considering that this whole enterprise was an elaborate joke, a fact of which only the instigators were unaware, it's difficult to see what about this really needs to be kept secret -- unless, of course, you're considering the damage to national prestige caused by revealing the fact that high-level US government officials could have involved themselves in such an amateurish stunt.
Though there may be elements of this we don't know about, the most probable reason this get nixed is that it would be embarrassing for the administration.
Now, one other point.
There's been a lot of attention and hand-wringing over the last few days over the release of a new poll which claims that a majority of Americans -- not an overwhelming majority but solid ones -- believe that Iraq was either behind the 9/11 attacks or provided ''substantial support'' to al Qaida and either had WMD at the outset of the war or had major on-going weapons programs.
And to this people say, well, what is it with people? How can so many people not have heard the reports of David Kay and all the rest?
But consider this. And let's consider this a thought experiment, probing the limits of passive presidential deception.
Let's say that 55% of Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction on the eve of the war and that they were providing material support to al Qaida. Let's not question why they believe it. Let's just put it out there.
Now, what would happen if in some major forum -- a press conference or a major speech -- the president were to go before the public and say: "Before the invasion, we believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We made the best guess based on the intelligence we had. But, now, having looked at all the evidence, it's clear we were wrong. He didn't have them."
Clearly, here we're setting aside questions of bad-faith and willful deception. But let's give him the best foot to put forward.
A week after that speech, or that comment in a press conference, how much do you think those numbers (55%) would change? I suspect they'd change quite a bit.
And what that tells me is that, to a great degree, the portion of the public that is is misinformed on this issue is misinformed because the president continues to deceive them, even if in a passive manner.
And why does he do so? Because it is in his political interest that they remain deceived.
Late Update: Juan Cole also has some very perceptive comments on this poll: "Why would so many Americans cling to patently false beliefs? One can only speculate of course. But I would suggest that the two-party system in the US has produced a two-party epistemology."
--Josh Marshall
There is an excellent article just out in The New York Review of Books by Peter W. Galbraith called 'How to Get Out of Iraq'. Given the highly polarized state of the debate about what we should do in Iraq, that title may give the impression that this is a 'turn tail' and run sort of prescription. But that's not at all what the piece is about.
Because of his background researching Saddam's atrocities and his diplomatic work in the Balkans in the 1990s, Galbraith brings to this issue a unique credibility and authority. And there is much in the piece to bruise the comfortable assumptions of proponents and opponents of the war.
Above all this is an informed and honest portrayal of what's happening in Iraq; and it is not quite bleak, but pretty close. In his prescription, Galbraith is looking, as Fareed Zakaria was in his own way a couple weeks ago, for a political solution, or perhaps better to say, a political equilibrium in the country that will allow the US military to draw back from a costly, enervating and ultimately self-destructive Gazafication of the parts of Iraq it continues to occupy.
Galbraith proposes what amounts to a de facto partition of the country -- something on the model of the old Yugoslavia, with three highly autonomous republics within a loose national government charged with handling diplomacy, monetary policy and certain aspects of national defense. I don't think I'm willing to go that far yet. But it's a proposal which is, I guess, worth considering. And the article is well worth your attention.
--Josh Marshall
I had missed this recent article by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball in Newsweek on yet more of the ridiculous efforts Paul Wolfowitz and others in the administration have gone to to find that Holy Grail of the neocon knighthood, the fabled Iraq-al Qaida link.
Some of the antics from the Round Table at 17th & M are more comic than truly troubling, and ones we've heard of before -- like the secret mission they sent Jim Woolsey on to Swansea, Wales to verify Laurie Mylroie's endlessly discredited theory that Saddam was behind the first attack on World Trade Center in 1993.
There's no need to get too bogged down in the details. But Mylroie's theory rests in part on a claim of faked identities that makes Ramzi Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the attack, into an Iraqi agent. I knew about Woolsey's trip. I didn't know, or perhaps had just forgotten, that his efforts apparently conclusively debunked Mylroie's theory.
One more thought on Mylroie et al. One point that is seldom noted, or too quietly if at all, is that while the neocons and their press defenders endlessly charge their critics with peddling 'conspiracy theories' about them, they themselves hold tenaciously to a series of crackpot theories that make the more wild-eyed interpretations of the Kennedy assassination sound cautious, judicious and restrained by comparison.
In any case, what's new in the Newsweek article is that sending Woolsey on this little spy mission to Wales wasn't the only gambit they tried. And the other was far more serious. Wolfowitz apparently repeatedly pushed to have Yousef retroactively declared an 'enemy combatant' in the war on terror so that he could be taken out of the custody of the federal prison system, placed into military custody and presumably sweated or have his fingernails peeled back until he copped to all Mylroie's ridiculousness.
It takes a moment to unravel the tangle of bad values, bad instincts and poor judgment here. But let's give it a crack.
First there's this matter of the rule of law.
One of the challenges of really believing in the rule of law is that really sticking to it very frequently means going by the book and following proper procedures even in the case of thoroughly bad actors. Certainly, Yousef is close to as bad as they come. So there's some awkwardness perhaps in pointing out that though the guy has been sentenced to solitary confinement for the rest of his life, you can't just pull him out of our criminal justice system and upend five hundred years of legal precedent on a whim.
And this matter of a whim is an important point.
I remember back just after 9/11 going through some thought experiments in my head over these questions -- and living in Washington just after 9/11 and during the anthrax scare, these thought experiments took on a palpable urgency. In any case, the question was, what if we had someone in custody who we knew had knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack? How far would we go to make him talk?
As the saying goes, the constitution is not a suicide pact. Certainly, in extremis, there must be things we would do in such circumstances, that would never be allowable under normal conditions. I'm not saying what those things would be. And the question itself is one I find troubling. But the sort of terrorist threat we face is one that transcends normal criminal law enforcement.
In any case, think of the difference between that and going back and pulling a federal criminal inmate out of the criminal justice system to make him admit that Saddam was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. To my mind, all the difference in the world.
And here you have the kernel of the problem with these folks: the combustible mix of poor judgment, a rich ideological fantasy life and pervasive disrespect for the rule of a law. It's a very dangerous combination.
--Josh Marshall
There's an article by Ryan Lizza in the current New Republic that I strongly recommend you read. The upshot of the piece is that there's some wisdom -- and certainly a strategy behind John Kerry's relative absence from the airwaves over the last six to eight weeks.
The conventional rule of campaigning is that you don't let your opponent define you before you get a chance to define yourself.
Yet, as Ryan describes it, the Kerry plan is to do something very near the opposite. The plan is to take these punches from the Bush campaign and let Bush burn through a lot of his money. Hopefully, in the view of the Kerry campaign, Kerry comes through that without having suffered too much damage. Then Kerry fights back with hard-hitting ads through the late spring and summer with Bush having squandered his huge money advantage.
Now, what to make of this?
This is one of those strategies that is improbably brilliant unless it turns out to be completely stupid. And the difficulty, as with so many high stakes decisions in life, is that it's hard to know in advance which it will be.
There is, however, as Ryan points out, at least some reason to think the Kerry campaign may be on to something. If I recall correctly, the Bush campaign spent something on the order of $50 million in March alone -- most of it on ads -- and certainly tens of millions more through April. So Bush has burned through a ton of money while Kerry has been raising it at a blinding clip. Ryan notes the following ...
On March 1, Kerry had $2.4 million in the bank and Bush had $110 million. By the end of April, a rough educated guess, based on how both candidates are raising and spending money, would put Kerry's cash on hand at about $60 million and Bush's at about $75 million.
Now, there's been a lot of attention to Bush's bounce in the polls. But even so Republican-friendly a poll as the Fox News poll, which is the most recent national poll out, has Bush 43%, Kerry 42%. That's within the margin of error; and by most calculations an incumbent who barely pulls more than 40% is in serious trouble.
So there's certainly a way of looking at what's happened over the last month or so and say that Bush has essentially squandered his entire financial advantage over Kerry. And the race is still neck and neck.
Famous last words? Could be.
I don't put any of this forward to endorse this strategy or criticize it. I'm uncertain. It just seems to me that it is at least arguable that Kerry's getting bruised a bit was a price worth paying to even the campaign funds playing field. Again, at least arguable.
One other point.
I've watched presidential campaigns with some degree or another of attention back to 1980. But the 2000 election was the first I observed with any sort of inside access. Looking back on that race -- and I say this as a real admirer of Gore -- the problem was not the strategy so much as the multiplicity and mutability of strategies the Gore campaign had. Indeed, the real problem, one might say, was the campaign's susceptibility to mau-mauing and aggressively proffered free-advice from pundits and other Democrats.
Putting that more simply, the Gore campaign listened too closely to its critics and paid a price for it.
The Kerry campaign doesn't seem to have that problem. And my gut tells me that's a good thing.
Of course, if the strategy is bad, commitment to it simply ensures a bad result. And that, I suppose, would make Kerry rather like Bush, who intends to continue demonstrating leadership by adhering to an already demonstrably failed strategy until he runs the whole nation right off the cliff.
Steady leadership, as the president's campaign posters say, in times of change.
--Josh Marshall
