Category Archives: Iraq War

Stupid Intelligence

Posted on by

Murray Waas writes in the National Journal about all the prewar Iraq intelligence that Congress never saw.

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter. …

…One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime.

This information was in the PDB, President’s Daily Brief, of September 21, 2001. The White House will not release the PDBs to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has requested them repeatedly. Waas continues,

Much of the contents of the September 21 PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda’s contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq’s support for international terrorism. …

… The conclusions drawn in the lengthier CIA assessment-which has also been denied to the committee-were strikingly similar to those provided to President Bush in the September 21 PDB, according to records and sources. In the four years since Bush received the briefing, according to highly placed government officials, little evidence has come to light to contradict the CIA’s original conclusion that no collaborative relationship existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

But, of course, that intelligence somehow got shoved under the rug.

But a comparison of public statements by the president, the vice president, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld show that in the days just before a congressional vote authorizing war, they professed to have been given information from U.S. intelligence assessments showing evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.

The “intelligence” about an Iraq-al Qaeda link did not come from the CIA, but from “a covert intelligence unit set up shortly after the September 11 attacks by then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith.”

Feith was a protégé of, and intensely loyal to, Cheney, Rumsfeld, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, and Cheney’s then-chief of staff and national security adviser, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby. The secretive unit was set up because Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Libby did not believe the CIA would be able to get to the bottom of the matter of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties. The four men shared a long-standing distrust of the CIA from their earlier positions in government, and felt that the agency had failed massively by not predicting the September 11 attacks.

Feith, also known as “the dumbest [expletive] guy on the face of the earth,” fed Rumsfeld and the White House tales that the CIA and other intel agencies had discarded, such as the “Atta in Prague” story. The Pentagon unit was considered a virtual alternative to the CIA in spite of the fact that most of Feith’s team had no formal training or experience in intelligence analyses.

Waas’s story shows Dick the Dick believing Feith’s version of reality over the CIA’s time and time again. It’s hard to tell if the alleged president, George W. Bush, was taking much interest in how intelligence was being analyzed.

“Staying the Course”

Posted on by

Juan Cole writes about the national reconciliation conference in Cairo and the Iraqi agreement for withdrawal:

Al-Hayat gives the orginal Arabic wording of some articles of the agreement. One provision says, “We demand the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with a timetable, and the establishment of a national and immediate program for rebuilding the armed forces through drills, preparation and being armed, on a sound basis that will allow it to guard Iraq’s borders and to get control of the security situation . . .”

Sources at the conference told al-Hayat that they envisaged the withdrawal of foreign military forces from the cities within 6 months (i.e. mid-May?). They said that the withdrawal would be completed over a period of two years (i.e. November 2007). This timetable, al-Hayat says, appears actually to have been put forward by the Americans themselves. If that is true, we finally know exactly what George W. Bush means by “staying the course.” It is a course that takes us to withdrawal.

The Shiite United Iraqi Alliance list had originally called for an American troop withdrawal as part of its party platform, but that plank was opposed by Ibrahim Jaafari, and was dropped even before the January 30 elections, presumably because of American pressure.

Oh, what a difference a year makes. I’ll bet this very minute they are brainstorming in the White House over how to frame withdrawal so that it doesn’t sound like withdrawal. As soon as they’ve got that figured out, the Bushies will announce “withdrawal,” although they’ll call it something else. And I’m betting the announcement will come early next year, or even at the end of this year; between Christmas and New Year’s might be just the time. Nobody’s paying attention then.

One more time: If the Dems don’t show some leadership and get out in front with a withdrawal plan now, the Republicans will outmaneuver them again.

Over at BOP News, Stirling Newberry points to another sign that talk of withdrawal will soon become fact.

Sharon, whatever one may thing of his ideology, is an excellent strategist and tactician. He never lets anything get in the way of geographic, or chronological, realities. His breaking off to form the “Responsibility” Party is an attempt to destroy the socialist Labor, but also because he understands that America’s time in Iraq is running out. …

… With US involvement in Iraq, the resources have flowed to striking at the US directly. …

… Sharon has been pragmatic, the day that the US occupation of Iraq ends, all of those roadside bombs will be destined for Israel, and the apparatus based in Iraq will spill out over the roads, and reach into the heart of his state. He must have a final solution, and a palestinian buffer state. And his time to make that deal is dwindling. His own Likud Party was the major obstacle, his hope is to be able to form a minority government, and go to Likud for economic policy, and to Labor for foreign policy – balancing both against the other to prevent a no confidence vote.

So let us face reality, Bush is going to withdraw from Iraq – Sharon knows it – Bush’s problem is how to blame it, and therefore run the “stabbed in the back” play, on the Democrats.

If Dems don’t act now, that’s exactly what will happen.

The means for Dems to seize the issue and claim it as their own is right in front of them. Be sure to read “What Murtha Meant” by Fred Kaplain at Slate. Murtha’s plan is actually not a withdrawal, as is usually described.

True, his final line reads, “It is time to bring them home,” but his plan suggests he wants to bring, at most, only some of them home. The others are to be “redeployed” in the quick-reaction forces hovering just offshore.

Host Tim Russert never asked—nor did Murtha explain—what these forces will be doing offshore, or under what circumstances they might re-enter the conflict. But we can fill in the blanks by looking at a study, published last month by the Center for American Progress, titled Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against Violent Extremists, written by Lawrence Korb (an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration) and Brian Katulis.

Korb and Katulis begin with the same premises that Murtha does: that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is inflaming the insurgency, uniting nationalists with Islamo-fundamentalists, and bolstering America’s terrorist enemies worldwide; that the Iraqi government is using U.S. troops as a crutch; that maintaining 140,000 troops for another year will destroy the U.S. Army; and that, therefore, on several grounds, it is best for all that we get out.

They call for a phased, two-year plan, drawing the troops down to 80,000 by the end of next year and dispensing with most of the rest by the end of 2007. However, they don’t call for a total withdrawal. By their plan, all 46,000 members of the Guard and Reserve will go home next year, but most of the active-duty soldiers and Marines will be “redeployed” to Kuwait or Afghanistan. Even after that, many American troops will remain to train, advise, help secure the borders, and provide logistical and air support to the Iraqi regime.

Murtha seems to have at least partly based his plan on the Korb and Katulis study, and partly on discussions with former and current Army brass.

In other words, we’ve got a plan that offers to both remove U.S. troops as an occupation force without abandoning the region to terrorists. Dems could use this plan to push for an honorable withdrawal and still be tough on terrorism.

Instead, so far we’ve got Hillary Clinton’s non-position.

Dems? … Dems? … Hello? …

Leading From Behind

Posted on by

Sen. Hillary Clinton finally addressed John Murtha’s Iraq redeployment proposal yesterday. Boldly, the Senator declared she was opposed to withdrawal but also opposed to remaining. Further, she is opposed to making any firm decisions for the time being.

The Associated Press reports,

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that an immediate U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq would be “a big mistake.”

While professing “the greatest respect” for Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., the ex-Marine who has called for a pullout, the New York Democrat said, “I think that would cause more problems for us in America.”

On the other hand, she said, the administration’s pledge to stay in Iraq “until the job is done” amounts to giving the Iraqis “an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves.”

The right approach, Clinton suggested, would be for the United States to await Iraq’s Dec. 15 elections for a clue about how soon the Iraqis can take over.

I wonder if she employs people to come up with positionless positions that don’t say shit but don’t scare away the swing voters, or if it just comes naturally.

Update update: See Avedon, “And the Truth Will Set You Free.”

If Democrats would spend more time reading The Left Coaster and Political Animal and less time listening to the tediously bland fraidy-cats they use as political consultants, they would know more, have plenty of verbal karate at their fingertips, and be prepared for all the lies that come out of the RNC. …

…We’ve been offering Democrats, for free, better advice than they’ve been paying for over the last several years, and their response has been to let the GOP convince them that anyone who disagrees with rabid right-wing talking points is some kind of loony. They can dismiss us as mere bloggers even while the Republicans make terrific use of their own “mere” bloggers. They use their resources while convincing Democrats to shun their own. And Democrats fall for it.

Iraqis Unite!

Posted on by

There’s hope for a united Iraq after all. Hassan Fattah writes in Tuesday’s New York Times:

For the first time, Iraq’s political factions on Monday collectively called for a timetable for withdrawal of foreign forces, in a moment of consensus that comes as the Bush administration battles pressure at home to commit itself to a pullout schedule.

The announcement, made at the conclusion of a reconciliation conference here backed by the Arab League, was a public reaching out by Shiites, who now dominate Iraq’s government, to Sunni Arabs on the eve of parliamentary elections that have been put on shaky ground by weeks of sectarian violence.

About 100 Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders, many of whom will run in the election on Dec. 15, signed a closing memorandum on Monday that “demands a withdrawal of foreign troops on a specified timetable, dependent on an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces,” the statement said.

I guess they really can work together and agree on something.

The television pundits still talk about staying in Iraq another two or three years, but I think we’ll be out in a matter of months (see “Speaking With One Voice,” below). The only question is, will it be an orderly and honorable withdrawal or something more ignominious? The Bushies and their rightie supporters will be the last people on the planet to realize that a withdrawal will happen, but once they catch on they’ll find some way to argue that withdrawal was the plan all along.

Earth to Tweety: Ya Think?

Posted on by

Get this:

Four years after 9/11 and the “crazy zeitgeist” that permeated the United States, most Americans have still not learned to know their enemies instead of just hating them, U.S. political journalist Chris Matthews says.

In a speech to political science students at the University of Toronto yesterday, the host of the CNBC current affairs show Hardball had plenty of harsh words for U.S. President George W. Bush, as well as the political climate that has characterized his country for the past few years.

“The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn’t a robust discussion of what we were doing,” Matthews said.

As I remember, the period between 9/11 and Iraq marked the time I swore off watching Hardball because of the crap Tweety was presenting in lieu of a robust discussion.

Speaking With One Voice

Posted on by

I just got a call from someone representing The Friends of John Kerry. The FoJK are pushing a petition to bring 20,000 troops home from Iraq by Christmas. I declined to sign the petition, even though of course I want troops home by Christmas. I told the Friend that I want the Dems to stop competing with each other and get together behind a single, basic plan. They don’t have to agree on the fine details, but with the Bush Administration and the Republican Party in dissaray, it’s time for the Dems to speak with one voice.

Jeffrey Laurenti writes for The Century Foundation:

The near hysterical reaction of the Bush administration to Representative John Murtha’s call for a swift American pullout from Iraq, lumping the hawkish Pennsylvania Democrat with “Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party,” underscores the war planners’ acute awareness that Murtha has breached a crucial dike. They must brace themselves for a storm surge of opposition to their Iraq project in coming months that could leave them politically stranded.

Murtha’s move renders obsolete the cautious half-steps that centrist Democrats have advanced to differentiate themselves from Bush on Iraq, but which the administration has consistently been able to co-opt. The standing ovation that Murtha’s House colleagues gave him in the closed-door Democratic caucus suggests the depth of their disenchantment, though most are not themselves ready yet to embrace his proposal publicly. But by early next year total “redeployment” (the Reagan euphemism for withdrawal) by the end of 2006 will almost surely emerge as the liberal alternative to the conservatives’ war.

I think the Dems need to claim collective ownership of a serious withdrawal plan ASAP. By this I mean a general working plan, whether John Murtha’s “beyond the horizon” redeployment or something else, upon which more specific nuts-and-bolts withdrawal procedures can be built. Such a plan should be a well-publicized feature of Brand Democrat going into 2006. And Democrats need to claim ownership of this plan now, before Republicans beat them to it.

Bush has a history of turning on a dime and assimilating former opposing positions as his own. For example, he fought the creation of the Department of Homeland Security tooth and nail, until one day in (I think ) June 2002 he declared he was for it. From that moment forward he spoke of it as if it had been his policy all along. And by adding a “poison pill” anti-Union provision, he took the issue away from the Democrats, who were for the DHS all those months that Bush was against it. As Molly Ivins wrote in April 2004,

There are always moments of cognitive dissonance in listening to President Bush, when you realize that what he is saying simply does not accord with any known version of reality. By way of good news, he proudly bragged that “we” created the Department of Homeland Security — that would be the department whose creation he opposed all those months. Also, he is looking forward to the report of the 9-11 Commission — that would be the same commission he so vigorously opposed for all those months. …

… One trouble with Bush’s “stay the course” rhetoric — he never changes his mind, he never backs down, what a macho guy he is, etc. — is that he does change his mind, often, (why do you think Condi Rice testified?), but you can’t tell if he realizes it.

Some time soon — maybe after the December elections — Bush could announce that the “mission” is sufficiently accomplished to begin withdrawal from Iraq. And then Karl Rove and the noise machine will turn the centrist Democrats’ “cautious half-steps” into talking points arguing the Dems are against withdrawal. That sounds may farfetched, I know, but I think it is entirely in line with Bush’s past behavior.

Whether Bush likes it or not, whether he realizes it now or not, U.S. troops cannot stay in Iraq in perpetuity. One way or another we’re going to leave before Bush’s second term has expired.

Paul Krugman writes in today’s New York Times,

The fact is that we’re not going to stay in Iraq until we achieve victory, whatever that means in this context. At most, we’ll stay until the American military can take no more.

Mr. Bush never asked the nation for the sacrifices – higher taxes, a bigger military and, possibly, a revived draft – that might have made a long-term commitment to Iraq possible. Instead, the war has been fought on borrowed money and borrowed time. And time is running out. With some military units on their third tour of duty in Iraq, the superb volunteer army that Mr. Bush inherited is in increasing danger of facing a collapse in quality and morale similar to the collapse of the officer corps in the early 1970’s.

So the question isn’t whether things will be ugly after American forces leave Iraq. They probably will. The question, instead, is whether it makes sense to keep the war going for another year or two, which is all the time we realistically have.

The Democrats’ window of opportunity is open now. I don’t know how long it will stay open. It’s time for them to get their act together and speak with one voice.

What’s Up With This?

Posted on by

CNN reports that today Dick Cheney praised Congressman John Murtha and called him a patriot.

Vice President Dick Cheney continued the Bush administration’s efforts Monday to pull back on attacks against a decorated war veteran who called for the near-term withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq….

… He used the top of his speech — televised live by CNN and other news networks — to praise U.S. Rep. John Murtha, “my friend and former colleague.” The 17-term Pennsylvania Democrat made news last week when he called for U.S. forces to leave Iraq over a six-month period.

“I disagree with Jack and believe his proposal would not serve the best interest of this nation. But he’s a good man, a Marine, a patriot, and he’s taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion,” Cheney said.

President Bush similarly praised Murtha on Sunday while on his trip to Asia. …

… Bush’s and Cheney’s comments were a far cry from initial comments by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who last week accused Murtha of “endorsing the policies of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.”

What do you want to bet the Bushies saw some poll numbers showing that Murtha is more popular than they are?

Murtha-Schmidt Smackdown

Posted on by

In this corner, Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania — Steven Thomma of Knight Ridder reports that many of Murtha’s constituents support his Iraq withdrawal proposal.

… mostly people in Murtha’s blue-collar, coal-and-steel country district in west Pennsylvania signaled weariness for the war. They endorse the man who has represented them since he became the first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress in 1974.

The support suggested that attacks on Murtha in Washington as a coward will gain no traction in his district. …

…”I agree with him wholeheartedly,” said Robert Bender, a World War II veteran and retired steel worker who serves as the adjutant of American Legion Post 294. “We shouldn’t have been involved in the first place. Now that they have a Constitution, we should get out.”

The blue-collar Democrats who live and work in the small towns of Murtha’s district are culturally conservative. Like him, they’re pro-gun and pro-life. And like him, they’re proudly patriotic.

Except for a few Pittsburgh Steelers posters, the Legion Hall’s dark-paneled walls are a billboard of support for the U.S. military. “Operation Desert Storm, U.S. military at its finest,” says one poster. “9-11-01. We will never forget,” says another.

“It’s a conservative area. But we don’t support this particular war,” said Bender. “Most of the people around here are in accord with him on this,” he added.

In the other corner, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt of Ohio — Jason DeParle writes in the New York Times that Mrs. Schmidt’s constituents are not surprised.

…when Representative Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Republican, created a furor on her 75th day in Congress by lobbing the word “coward” toward a Democratic war hero, those who know her best were anything but surprised.

Just this week, a profile in The Hill newspaper, which covers Congress, labeled her “gloriously uncensored.” Back home in her suburban Cincinnati district, the Whistleblower, an online newsletter that tracks local politics, rushed out a special I-told-you-so issue calling the speech “vintage Jean Schmidt.”

“We have said innumerable times that she would go to Washington and open her mouth and create an embarrassment,” said Jim Schifrin, the newsletter’s publisher. “She will say things that turn people off like nothing you’ve ever seen.”

I made an attempt to find The Whistleblower , but the only link that looked promising wasn’t working. If anyone can provide a link, I’d appreciate it.

Mrs. Schmidt’s Republican colleagues made excuses for her shameless weasel insult of Congressman Murtha:

Several Republicans who were on the House floor said afterward that Ms. Schmidt did not appear to know she was referring to a much-decorated veteran.

“The poor lady didn’t know Jack Murtha was a Marine – she really just ran into a hornet’s nest,” said Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia.

Representative David Dreier of California said, “Very clearly, she did not know that Jack Murtha was a Marine.”

Sure she didn’t. Clearly, she intended to insult some generic Marine, not Murtha specifically.

So what does Mean Jean say for herself?

Ms. Schmidt could not be reached for comment on Saturday, with voice mailboxes full at all three of her offices. Her campaign manager did not return a phone call.

Well, OK. But it’s likely her supporters still support her.

The 100-proof speech on the House floor may shore up Ms. Schmidt’s standing inside her party’s right flank.

“I was listening to talk radio today, and people were calling in and praising her,” said Chris Finney, a Cincinnati Republican allied with Ms. Schmidt’s local rivals. “They like that jingoistic thinking.”

But Thomma of Knight Ridder says Murtha’s constituents see things differently.

Her words didn’t sit well in the Legion bar.

“We’re proud of him. We don’t like it when people attack him,” said Barry Sirko of Johnstown, sipping a beer after his shift washing buses.

“We’ve lost more than 2000 troops so far. Murtha thinks the Iraqis should be fighting on their own. Murtha’s right. It’s gone on and on and on. They’re all nuts over there and we should get out.”

Asked whether Murtha was surrendering to terrorists, several patrons jumped in at once to say that the Iraq war was a distraction from the hunt for Osama bin Laden, which they considered more important.

“We were supposed to be hunting terrorists. We dropped that to get into this war,” said Bender.

“They should have kept going after bin Laden. What the heck are we doing in Iraq?” said Ray Telgarsky, a retired autoworker from Johnstown.

Even if they disagree, many of Murtha’s constituents still like and respect him. They know his record in the Marines – Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry. And they know his clout in Congress has helped them weather the lost jobs in the mines and steel mills. Among the bounty he’s brought home: the National Drug Intelligence Center and plants or offices set up by defense contractors including Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, Kuchera Defense Systems and Concurrent Technologies Corp.

At Murtha’s district office, calls, e-mails and faxes ran about 2-1 in support, though aides didn’t know how many came from within the district. An unscientific poll taken by a local television station found about the same.

I lived in the Ohio Second District for five years. It was a while back, but from what I’ve read it’s still a mix of small towns, farms, and upscale Cincinnati suburbs. I’m betting those Clermont County Country Clubbers wouldn’t last long in the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, American Legion bar.

See also–Howard Fineman on Murtha and the Bush “war room”

Rumsfeld Didn’t Advocate Invasion

Posted on by

Rummy just told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that he didn’t advocate the invasion of Iraq. However, he agreed with it. Now he’s denying torture; “anything that was done that was not humane has been prosecuted.” He says the President “from the outset” required humane treatment. He’s tap dancing around Bush’s threatened veto of the McCain Amendment.

I can’t stand it.