When is intelligence analysis not intelligence analysis? Why, when it’s against the law.
Spencer Ackerman explains.
Update: We’ll have running updates on this over at TPMmuckraker.
House Dem leaders maintaining unity on planned anti-escalation resolution.
At The Blotter, TPM alum Justin Rood reports that though the GOP’s congressional majority may be gone, their scandals have a lot of life left in them — Reps. Lewis, Miller, Calvert, Cunningham, et al. Plenty of fun to go.
More absolutely dismal coverage of Pelosi plane story.
Update: Another bad one, courtesy of Howard Kurtz.
Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said she doesn’t remember hearing about a diplomatic overture from the Iranians in 2003 — despite the fact that the proposal circulated among the highest levels of the government.
Well, here’s a refresher, the actual fax circulated at the time that detailed the terms of the deal.
New MoveOn.org ad slams GOP Senators for stalling escalation debate:
“They’re willing to send tens of thousands more troops to face danger in Iraq, but they don’t have the courage to face a vote.”
Video here.
On offense …
Meanwhile, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said on Thursday that he’s planning hearings this spring on executive and congressional travel on military aircraft.
Murtha said he’s requested from the Defense Department records on travel and logistics from the past two years. He asked the Defense Department to hand those over within a month.
From WaPo, the back channel fight over the warpath to Iran begins …
Last week, the CIA sent an urgent report to President Bush’s National Security Council: Iranian authorities had arrested two al-Qaeda operatives traveling through Iran on their way from Pakistan to Iraq. The suspects were caught along a well-worn, if little-noticed, route for militants determined to fight U.S. troops on Iraqi soil, according to a senior intelligence official.
The arrests were presented to Bush’s senior policy advisers as evidence that Iran appears committed to stopping al-Qaeda foot traffic across its borders, the intelligence official said. That assessment comes at a time when the Bush administration, in an effort to push for further U.N. sanctions on the Islamic republic, is preparing to publicly accuse Tehran of cooperating with and harboring al-Qaeda suspects.
The strategy has sparked a growing debate within the administration and the intelligence community, according to U.S. intelligence and government officials. One faction is pressing for more economic embargoes against Iran, including asset freezes and travel bans for the country’s top leaders. But several senior intelligence and counterterrorism officials worry that a public push regarding the al-Qaeda suspects held in Iran could jeopardize U.S. intelligence-gathering and prompt the Iranians to free some of the most wanted individuals.
From The Guardian today:
US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.
The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.
So there you have it. No real surprise. Just about anyone paying any attention understands that’s where things stand: Gun loaded. Safety lock still on. In the hands of an Administration with an itchy trigger finger.
A few days ago, I linked to a James Fallows’ column in which he suggested that Congress take steps now to head off an Iran misadventure. Several readers emailed wondering whether Congress has the power to preempt the President from taking military action.
As it turns out, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held hearings recently on this issue. In a column of his own, John Dean summarizes the bipartisan consensus that emerged from witnesses who testified at that hearing:
What is especially significant, in my eyes, is that the conclusion that Congress does indeed have power to significantly restrict the Administration in its plans for war, transcends politics: Even experts who have worked for Republican administrations have come to this conclusion.
. . .
[T]here is no real question as to whether Congress could legally stop Bush and Cheney from going to war in Iran without coming to Congress to fully explain what they are doing and why. Congress has that power; the only question is whether it will dare to use it.
For those interested in the finer legal points, Dean provides links to the witnesses’ written testimony.
You can come up with a laundry list of reasons why attacking Iran would be a disaster, and you can come up with a decent list of reasons why the Administration is presently constrained by circumstances from doing so (not enough troops and hardware, for example). But you’d be hard-pressed to come up with any good reasons for why this Administration would be constrained by either circumstances or potentially disastrous outcomes. Besides, do these clowns still deserve the benefit of the doubt?