I watched just enough of the Lieberman-Lamont debate and Davis’ CSPAN appearance to pick up on the Lieberman campaign’s new theme that you just can’t rely on Lamont because he’s all over the place on a withdrawal plan for Iraq.
I don’t know whether that’s an accurate criticism of Lamont (I suspect it’s not), but it doesn’t strike me as a winning formula for Lieberman: you can’t trust this guy to fix the problem I created.
If you need help getting your car out of a ditch, would you turn to the guy who just drove it in there or to the stranger who stops to help?
Update: Score one for TPM Reader AS: “That might sound logical, but that strategy worked for Bush in his reelection!”
Critically important reporting in this morningâs LA Times on what amounts to a complete collapse of U.S. efforts to establish an Iraqi civil police authority:
Brutality and corruption are rampant in Iraq’s police force, with abuses including the rape of female prisoners, the release of terrorism suspects in exchange for bribes, assassinations of police officers and participation in insurgent bombings, according to confidential Iraqi government documents detailing more than 400 police corruption investigations.
Some have argued, persuasively, that any effort to create a professional and effective Iraqi police force was doomed from the earliest days of the occupation when the Pentagon failed to put enough boots on the ground, especially police and civil affairs units, to secure the peace.
Not only did the insurgency step into that power vacuum but a fearful population, including, undoubtedly, members of the police forces themselves, also turned instinctively to their religious and tribal associations for protection. That doomed the chances of establishing an impartial civil authority:
A recent assessment by State Department police training contractors underscores the investigative documents, concluding that strong paramilitary and insurgent influences within the force and endemic corruption have undermined public confidence in the government.
. . .
Police officers’ loyalties seem a major problem, with dozens of accounts of insurgent infiltration and terrorist acts committed by ministry officials.
In general, this isnât new news, although some of the particulars are. What the piece reinforces is that any U.S. withdrawal plan that is predicated on Iraqis assuming responsibility for policing is not a plan at all but an open-ended commitment.
At best such a commitment would last years. But realistically Iâm not sure there is any historical precedent for an occupying power being able to salvage a situation that is as far gone as the security situation in Iraq is.
Lacking the integrity to acknowledge a disastrous outcome and the courage to change course, the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense have made the decision to punt the problem they created to the next administration.
I hear the Dems have brought out heavy-hitter Lanny Davis this morning on CSPAN to lay some wood on Ned Lamont. Word is he played the anti-Semitic card. Anyone see it? Have a transcript? Let me know.
What else don’t we know about?
In a sharply worded letter to President Bush in May, an important Congressional ally charged that the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters.
The letter from Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not specify the intelligence activities that he believed had been hidden from Congress.
But Mr. Hoekstra, who was briefed on and supported the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department’s tracking of international banking transactions, clearly was referring to programs that have not been publicly revealed.
The emphasis is mine. Question: does Hoekstra really want to oversee what the Administration is doing or is he distancing himself from the nastiness that will eventually come out?
How many rounds will John McCain and Grover Norquist go before one scores a knockout?
“The idea that our friend John McCain yelling at me would hurt me misses McCain’s position” among conservatives, Norquist said. “John McCain thinks he can’t be president if I’m standing here saying he’s got a problem with taxes.”
Mark Salter, McCain’s longtime aide, replied: “Obviously, Grover is not well. It would be cruel of us to respond in kind.”
The Washington Post has a roundup of Norquist’s Abramoff problem.
You could devote an entire blog to Katherine Harris (someone already has) so we try to ration the Katherine Harris posts. But each day brings a new Harris temptation and, as much as you try to stay off the sauce, sometimes you fall off the wagon.
The latest installment in the soap opera that is the Harris campaign finds Harris, burned by her connection to defense contractor MZM, trying to shift the focus by claiming that her opponent, Sen. Bill Nelson, accepted illegal campaign contributions several years ago.
The problem is Harris’ former campaign manager was named as a co-conspirator in that case. Oops.
The Orlando Sentinel‘s Jim Stratton has the details.
The Secret Service has been less than forthcoming about Abramoff’s White House contacts, despite a lawsuit seeking to enforce FOIA.
The first batch of records released showed just two Abramoff visits. The latest batch identifies six other times when Abramoff was scheduled to be at the White House.
Jack, we hardly knew ya.
Speaking of the Geneva Conventions, the Red Cross has consistently held to its position that it should have access to those captured by the United States and held at undisclosed locations around the world.
In light of the Hamdan decision, has the Red Cross again approached U.S. officials about gaining such access? What has been the U.S. response? I haven’t seen any reporting on this issue. If any TPM readers have, send me the link and I’ll post a follow up.
Style note to editors/producers:
The Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision declared them to be prisoners of war, entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, until such time as a properly constituted tribunal concludes otherwise. The thrust of the Court’s decision was that the military commissions set up by the Administration did not include the basic procedural safeguards necessary to qualify as a properly constituted tribunal.
As a matter of law now, the United States is holding prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay. That’s a fact, which is obscured when journalists continue to use language first put forth by the Administration specifically to avoid the strictures of the Geneva Conventions.
Update: Nothing like giving style instructions, and being incorrect. A number of readers have correctly pointed out that the Supreme Court in Hamdan did not reach the issue of whether Hamdan was a prisoner of war. So I overstated the case when I wrote that the Supreme Court had declared his POW status. Rather, the District Court had made that determination, and the judgment of the District Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court, but on different grounds. It simply did not decide the POW issue one way or the other. I think it’s fair to say that the District Court’s opinion that Hamdan is a prisoner of war remains good law, but that decision does not have the imprimatur of the Supreme Court, as my post stated. My apologies for the error and thanks to the readers who caught it.