Black Box Recorder

Daily Torygraph gets a bloody nose

British MP George Galloway has won his libel suit against the Daily Torygraph. He received L150,000 in damages relating to the paper's publication of documents which "showed" that he was involved in corruption in the oil-for-food program in Iraq.

The Daily Torygraph has said this case is important for the press in the UK and Europe. This is certainly true, but not in the way the paper intended it. The problem is that the Torygraph editors, when considering items for publication, don't really give a shit whether something is true or not:

"It has never been the Daily Telegraph's case to suggest that the allegations contained in these documents are true. These documents were published by us because their contents raised very important questions at a crucial stage in the war against Iraq," [Executive editor Neil Darbyshire said].

...

...if these documents are genuine - and this was not contested in the court case - there remain serious questions which should form part of the parliamentary commissioner's inquiry," said Darbyshire. (emphasis added, to demonstrate Darbyshire's carefree attitude towards genuineness and facts)

So: it is perfectly acceptable, from the Torygraph's viewpoint, to publish unsubstantiated and unvetted items, from dubious sources, as long as it helps raise "very important questions" at "crucial stages" in society.

By this logic, the Torygraph should have no problem publishing a document indicating that Tony Blair is a terrorist sympathizer who has struck a secret deal with Al Qaeda to increase obesity in Britain and thus make British soldiers too fat to fight and run and shoot guns. Because, hey, terrorism and obesity are "very important questions" in Britain at the moment, and newspapers have no responsibility to "the truth" - just fostering public debate by any means necessary.

I will note that the charges raised by the Torygraph were not addressed in the trial. But before anyone takes it upon themselves to vindicate the paper, we should recall that forged documents relating to Galloway have already surfaced and been repudiated. The point is that the Torygraph didn't know the facts of the matter - and didn't really care.

The Stasi's 'romeo" project

This is an interesting read: an article about the Stasi's "romeo" espionage program.

Republicans change their own rules to protect DeLay

Calvinball anyone?

Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) exhorted his party colleagues to change the rule, which House Republicans adopted in the early 1990s to set an example of high ethical standards.

"This is a way to repeal a bad rule we adopted 12 years ago," King said after the voice vote.

I guess this change has its ultimate roots in 9/11 which, as we know, "changed everything".

Israeli soldiers kill 3 Egyptian policemen

An Israeli tank in the occupied Gaza Strip fired across the border into Egypt, killing 3 Egyptian policemen.

Israel's mouthpieces immediately rushed to express their sorrow over this "accident'. But I will take any bet for $100 or less from anyone that no Israeli soldier will ever face any substantive punishment for this incident. After all, if an Israeli officer can get away scott-free after murdering a Palestinian girl and then mutilating her corpse, then the killings of these full-grown Arab men will hardly register at all.

All bets are off if the guilty Israeli soldiers turn out to be bedouin Arabs.

Major Operations Ended, Again

Looks like someone in the new Iraqi puppet government is dancing on strings provided by the Bush administration:

"It is with all pleasure that I announce to you that operation New Dawn has been concluded," the minister of state for national security, Qasim Dawood, said at a news conference in Baghdad, as Marine artillery and aerial gunships continued to pummel Fallujah 35 miles to the west.

"Major operations have been brought to a conclusion."

Where have we heard that before?

...my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

The whole invasion of Fallujah and what's going on in Mosul, etc., presumably being "minor".

I have an odd feeling that Dawoud's happy little statement will be even less prescient than Bush's.

Posted by Manumission @ 03:19 | |

Arafat dead

Yasser Arafat has died. He was 75.

You can read eulogies and condemnations elsewhere; I'm not going to write either. I offer only a few words that might help put what other people will be saying (good, bad, and preposterous) into perspective.

I do not think that Arafat was the great leader the Palestinians needed and still need; he could not get rid of the Israeli occupation and prevent the ghettoization the Palestinians now face; and he was a crook. Still, the amount of condemnation and hatred that have been heaped upon the man long ago went beyond all bounds of rationality and reality. Satan himself would have a difficult time earning the reputation Arafat had. People who did not hesitate to condemn Arafat and point their finger at him as the model "terrorist" would have better spent their time doing the same to Ariel Sharon, a person whose direct involvement in war crimes and mass murder are a clear part of the historical (as opposed to mythical) record and require none of the speculation, innuendo, and often complete fabrication that surrounded Arafat's personal history.

I do not know how the future will remember Arafat. However, two things seems clear. In the short term, Arafat's death will expose the scenario that postulated him as the devil preventing peace in the Middle East as the specious bullshit that it is. Second, and much longer term, history will vindicate his refusal to accept Barak's "generous offer" of a bantustan Palestine at the Camp David meetings. Just as Israeli historians can now admit that the state of Israel practiced deliberate ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians in 1948, we will see yet another admission - this time concerning the "generous offer" myth - when it is safe for Israel to do so.

F-16 strafes NJ elementary school

Preparing for Iraq, I suppose.

Totally Fucked Up, Part II

The NY Times reports that 380 tons of high explosives have gone missing in Iraq:

The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

As always, we get a big dose of incompetence thrown into the mix:

The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed. American officials have never publicly announced the disappearance, but beginning last week they answered questions about it posed by The New York Times and the CBS News program "60 Minutes."

Even though the IAEA specifically warned about this particular cache:

The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country.

Incredible. Long-time readers of the blog may remember this entry, which cited a WaPo article about looting of "nuclear sites" in Iraq immediately after the invasion in 2003. From the earlier article:

Seven nuclear facilities in Iraq have been damaged or effectively destroyed by the looting that began in the first days of April, when U.S. ground forces thrust into Baghdad, according to U.S. investigators and others with detailed knowledge of their work.

The article goes on to list 5 of the 7 facilities, then notes:

The identities of two other sites, also said to have been looted, could not be learned.

I wonder if Al Qaqaa was one of those 2 unnamed sites.

We have major incompetence here, and it is at many levels. It appears that some mid-high level US commanders need to be relieved of their posts, because not safeguarding weapons depots is simply incomprehensible. At the administrative level, one has to wonder why a) no one "knows" anything in the administration, and b) why incompetent field commanders are allowed to remain in their positions.

The war in Iraq is not only endangering the lives of Iraqis and US soldiers, but people outside of Iraq as well. The invasion was bad enough in and of itself, but such incompetence is guaranteed to expand the war beyond Iraq's borders.

"We create our own reality"

Suskind in the NYT on how the Bush administration views reality:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

My guess is that this "senior adviser" is Perle. It sounds like the kind of self-congratulatory, arrogant bullshit he would say. It could also be Bolton. But, really, almost any prick from the Bush administration could have been responsible for this kind of statement.

A lot of social scientists these days have kind of left Marx's idea of "false consciousness" behind and adopted theories like the "rational actor" model to explain decision-making behavior. I suppose they don't want to seem condescending when it comes to explaining the often large role that ignorance plays in day-to-day decision-making processes.

Not me, though. Ignorance is out there plenty, and not all of it can be said to be unintentional. And people who don't like the supposed "condescension" of leftists, but then turn around and accept this kind of anti-fact, anti-historical and pro-raw power view of how the world works - and provide themselves and their children to be the donkeys dying and carrying out the work of these grand "history's actors" - show that there is something to this idea after all.

Insane Blogger vs. Israeli Government Spokesperson: Who Analyzes Faster?

Dov Weisglass, on the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, in early October 2004:

A senior aide to the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, said in an interview published Wednesday that Sharon's plan to withdraw troops and Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip had "frozen" the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and guaranteed that Israel would never have to remove 80 percent of its settlers from the occupied West Bank, with the "blessing" of the U.S. government.

The aide, Dov Weisglass -- until recently Sharon's chief of staff, his personal attorney and still one of his closest advisers -- said the primary goals of the proposal to withdraw the 8,100 Jewish settlers from Gaza were to strengthen Israel's hold on its more numerous settlements in the West Bank and to freeze the political process as a way to indefinitely block the creation of a Palestinian state.

Know-nothing blogger, early February 2004, reconstructing a dialogue between Bush and NYT buffoon Thomas Friedman:

We both know that Sharon is the same old Sharon - he plans on keeping the West Bank permanently under Israeli control, and this new Gaza stunt, even if he actually goes through with it, is simply a tactical move to further tighten the grip on the real prize.

I'm sure the anti-fact, deniers-of-history, what-they-said-is-not-what-they-said Israeli apologists are all over Weisglass's statements by now. Well, they can go fuck themselves. And while they're at it, they can come to our site to see how Israeli mouthpieces are going to be rationalizing their ghettoizing, ethnic-cleansing policies before they "misspeak" and actually say something that approaches reality. They might learn something.

Ritter on the Duelfer Report

Scott Ritter, forgotten expert on Iraqi "WMD", considers the Duelfer report:

One of the tragic ironies of the decision to invade Iraq is that the Iraqi WMD declaration required by security council resolution 1441, submitted by Iraq in December 2002, and summarily rejected by Bush and Blair as repackaged falsehoods, now stands as the most accurate compilation of data yet assembled regarding Iraq's WMD programmes (more so than even Duelfer's ISG report, which contains much unsubstantiated speculation). Saddam Hussein has yet to be contradicted on a single point of substantive fact.

Is there anyone else who thinks it's kind of... what's the word? sad? unbelievable? really fucked up? that a dictator like Saddam is more truthful than the leadership of the US and UK? How about the fact that a group of people who think that Stalin was a pretty neat guy - i.e., ANSWER - had to be relied on to provide any actual opposition to the war?

So-called liberals are up in arms trying to get their guy Kerry in the White House and Bush out, with good reason. Yet we do not see anywhere near this level of energy directed towards changing the system that allowed someone like Bush to become president and his little coterie of yes-men/opportunists/weaklings/neo-imperialists to assume power. We do not see very many liberal calls to change the system to strengthen what, in the final analysis, are very weak checks on executive power. The assumption seems to be that getting Bush out is enough. But what happens if Kerry is defeated, in this election or 4 years from now? What is to stop another Bush from coming along?

In many ways, the anti-Bush rhetoric and strategy is misplaced. It's misguided. The dude is a moron, yes, and he's bad for many reasons. But he's only the messenger. Bush is only the messenger of bigger problems affecting American society that go beyond him and this election.

Anyway, read the article. There's more.

Polish DM: Polish soldiers out of Iraq by 2005

Hahaha... less than a week after Bushy-boy was crowing during the debate about how Polish troops in Iraq were proof of the "grand coalition" he had built, the Polish defense minister has said that all of his country's soldiers will be removed from Iraq by the end of 2005.

Let's see if Bush turns his indignation from Kerry to Szmajdzinski for daring to suggest that this "coalition" is a load of bollocks.

On a related note, something else to watch for: Australia's opposition has pledged to remove its country's soldiers from Iraq if it wins next week's elections.

More than half of dead in Samarra women, children: hospital

From the WaPo:

Of the 70 dead brought to Samarra General Hospital since fighting erupted, 23 were children and 18 were women, said hospital official Abdul-Nasser Hamed Yassin, the Associated Press reported. Some residents left Samarra Sunday by floating down the Tigris River, waving white flags from boats, Reuters said.

So 41 of the 70 dead bodies at the hospital were of women and children. Yet the reporter had no problem beginning his lead paragraph in this way:

As U.S. and Iraqi troops patrolled the battered streets of Samarra, the central Iraqi city reclaimed from insurgents in two days of lopsided battle...

Assuming that we accept both of these statements are being factually correct, we can only draw the conclusion that Samarra had been held by a guerilla coalition of women and children, which could only be dislodged by a combined force of 5,000 US soldiers and Iraqi "National Guardsmen".

Of course, if we decide to maintain some kind of grip on reality, we'll probably decide that this isn't the case and that the actual guerrillas in the city - as opposed to the non-combatant kind - did what guerrillas do during a frontal assault and simply stood aside.

But this article does show the dilemma for people like Karl Vick, intrepid WaPo reporter: he is holed up at his little hotel-bunker in Baghdad, as indicated by the dateline, and is relying on AP, Reuters, and Al Arabiya to "report" the news; he hears about terrible things the US is doing in other parts of the country and he wants to report them; but he's scared - scared of getting kidnapped and having his head chopped off and scared of leading with reports that contradict the official version that a combined US-Iraqi force "reclaimed" the town of Samarra.

Unfortunately, I expect more of the same kind of reporting, where bombardment of civilian areas and killings of non-combatants are simply and unquestioningly subsumed within the struggle to "reclaim" Iraqi cities and towns.

Pope beatifies Karl I, Austrian kaiser and user of poison gas

So the pope has now beatified Karl I, the last kaiser of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Speaking of this saintly guy, the pope said he hoped that the emperor would "serve as an example, especially for those with political responsibilities in Europe today."

Wonder which leader he has in mind to follow these examples of Karl's behavior:

... critics claim that Karl I was an alcoholic adulterer who advocated the use of poison gas in the First World War.
...
Others accuse him of causing dozens of deaths in street fights during two attempts to regain power by force after the abolition of the monarchy.

What would Jesus do, indeed. But it gets better:

But the Vatican insists that he performed a miracle - the requirement for beatification. In 1960 a Polish nun based in Brazil was cured of severe leg sores and varicose veins after praying to him.

No wonder the BBC canceled that show with the pope - self-parody like this is hard to beat.

WSJ reporter: Iraq a "disaster"

Here's something interesting: what a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, one of the biggest ra-ra cheerleaders of the war of Bush aggression, says in a forum where she won't upset the breakfasts of the paper's well-heeled readership.

(Link via antiwar.com)

House passes "anti-piracy" measure

Christ... don't lawmakers have anything better to do? The House has passed a bill that would make it a federal felony to videotape movies in theaters and punish offenders with up to 6 years in prison.

By way of comparison, let's look at the sentence scumbag Wall Street trader Frank Quattrone got for obstructing federal probes into irregular procedures relating to IPOs: 18 months. Quattrone may have illegally made millions of dollars - but he's not nearly as much of a threat as some guy with a videocamera. And what the hell ever happened to Kenny-boy Lay?

This is law and order punishment running amok. It has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with screwing over poorer people when they hurt the interests of the rich.

On illegal, private, and hidden prisons

British hostage Kenneth Bigley, appealing for help from a cage in a hidden prison:



Notice anything familiar about the cage and the outfit?


The picture to the left, for those who don't know, is from America's own illegal private prison at Guantanamo, Cuba. Some news accounts of the newest videotaped appeal from Bigley have timidly pointed out the similarity of his orange suit to the outfits given to inmates at Guantanamo. Naturally, though, they fail to draw any kind of bigger picture, preferring instead to present it as some kind of odd coincidence in a world where nothing fits together.

It seems like this is a clear statement on the part of the militants holding Bigley. If the US can operate private prisons, locking away people in cages for months and years at a time and arbitrarily deciding whether they live or die, unrestrained by any and all laws, including ones that it helped make, then they can too.

There's a reason why people do not take the US's supposed morality seriously, why they do not have the fanatic belief in America's goodness that many Americans do. While the US condemns the kind of prisons that people like the militants run, it turns a deaf ear to people who complain about the US's own hidden, private prisons. While the Bush administration continues to talk about Iraqi democracy, freedom and "progress" (also a favorite slogan of the old Soviet rulers), Iraqis wondering what this freedom will look like need only look over to Palestine, where the US's good buddy Israel runs amok in a refugee camp for people whom it previously ethnically cleansed. Hell, they don't even need to look that far: just to Sadr City in Baghdad, where the US is launching airstrikes against "positively identified" militant locations (which would be... what? Restaurants? Cafes? Maybe a big building with a big flag that says "militant hideout"?), killing and injuring women and children.

Yes, the Bigley video was an intentional statement on the actions and behavior of the US: we learned it from you. But, not having the feel-good appeal of "progress" and "bustle" (do pro-war apologists still use that term?), I'm not sure so many people will make the effort to expend the mental energy required to ponder it.

Italian hostages reported killed - the ineffectiveness of the occupation demonstrated, again

According to an unverified report, Iraqi guerillas have killed two Italian aid workers who were taken hostage on 7 September. Meanwhile, the dire position of a British hostage, seized last week with two Americans who have since had their heads cut off, was driven home by the fact that he has been reduced to begging Tony Blair for his life.

The increasingly frequent kidnappings should raise real questions for people who still believe that the US's occupation is going well and everything is ok and peace and democracy are just around the corner. These Italian aid workers, if they are not already dead, have been sitting in some makeshift underground dungeon for over 2 weeks. Where are the commando raids? Where are the attempts to free them? Where is even the most rudimentary security to prevent these hostages from being taken in broad daylight?

An even better question is this: where is the intelligence from the Iraqi side that would make the commando raids possible? Here's the answer: it doesn't exist. The guerillas are getting increasingly better intelligence on US forces and their Iraqi collaborators, but the reverse isn't true. In fact, US intelligence is getting worse, if we are to judge by the increase in American casualties and the kidnappings. A kidnapping in a city of millions like Baghdad doesn't just happen with no one knowing anything about it. The fact that not a single witness will pick up the phone (if it even works) and leave an anonymous tip that will let the SAS boys swoop in and rescue the hostages should provide a real alarm bell for people who think that the occupation has a future and that ordinary Iraqis like it.

The US and the UK like to pretend that they take the high ground and don't negotiate with "terrorists". This is bullshit, of course, as the US's experience in Lebanon during the civil war and with the MEK during the invasion have shown us, but it does convey the point to Americans and Britons that if you're caught up in the mess your governments have made of things, they won't help you. And in this case, they can't either.

Leaked documents: Blair was warned of Iraq chaos

New leaked documents show that Tony Blair was warned a year before the War of Bush Aggression that a post-war Iraq risked new military dictatorships and that British soldiers would be trapped in Iraq for a long time, according to the Observer.

Even his own foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, concluded in a private note that President Bush had no answer to the big questions about the invasion - including 'what happens on the morning after?'

As always, though, Blair had a "plan":

"The idea that we did not have a plan for afterwards is simply not correct," he said. "We did and we have unfolded that plan, but there are people in Iraq who were determined to stop us."

We see that Blair did have a "plan" for the post-war Iraq, and that this "plan" has, in fact, been implemented, but also that, unfortunately, this "plan" did not take into account the idea that "people" might have objected to it and worked to stop it.

I like making these kinds of "plans", too: my "plan" for the next year, for example, is that Ed McMahon delivers that $10 million to my house, I win the presidency of the United States through an incredible write-in campaign, also organized by "people", and little elves appear to dance delightfully around and take care of my every desire.

Tony, if you need another strategic planner, I'm ready.

Winning hearts and minds, Part 34: The "no electricity, water, or sewage" approach

So the Bush administration has decided to divert a few billion dollars of money that was supposed to be spent on rebuilding Iraq's water, sewage, and electricity networks into more of these terrific "security" programs. The reason? It's not safe enough - due to attacks and other "unforseen issues" - to invest in humanitarian projects:

"Fewer people will get potable water. Fewer people will get the electricity they need in their homes or their businesses," [Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's foreign operations subcommittee] said. "But that's just a recognition of the reality that unless you have the security you need, you can't have reconstruction."

Interesting. But I wonder why Kolbe and his masters in the White House seem to think that oil-sector improvements are somehow exempt from this "reality":

The State Department hopes to shift $1.8 billion to security and law enforcement, $450 million to Iraqi oil production, $380 million to economic reforms, agriculture and private sector development, $286 million to short-term job creation projects, $180 million to prepare for elections scheduled for January, and $360 million toward forgiving long-standing Iraqi debt to the United States. Even with the shift, Grossman said "substantial money" would remain for improving water and electricity services.

Sure, oil refining and transport installations have been one of the main targets of guerillas - but we needn't let such facts trouble us. I was also puzzled as to why it should cost $360 million to forgive Iraqi debt, but I decided not to be puzzled, in addition to not being troubled. Bush's economic team seems to have a certain talent with figures, as we see each time the new unemployment figures come out.

This is how it begins

This article is pure racism, plain and simple. Truly astonishing. This is a perfect illustration of how racism works and how it invokes and perpetuates itself through a circular logic that turns misunderstandings into fact. Reading it gave me the chills. Scouting jetliners for new attacks - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - July 22, 2004

Kimmitt the clog

The sooner we get every person in this country understanding their responsibility to provide us intelligence on those people in their neighborhoods who they believe to be participating in these attacks,'' the sooner they will stop, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Friday. ''We need to get that intelligence from them so we can pre-empt these attacks before they happen.

This man is running a 40-watt bulb, if that. What he is too daft to understand is that the Iraqis know damn well that the US wants them to turn in the insurgents. Its not a language barrier thing. The US military has tried to help Iraqis understand their "duty" to inform. Well, those efforts didn't really work, so then the US came up with some different ideas and REALLY tried helping the Iraqis understand their "duty" to inform. The fact that Iraqis still aren't providing this intelligence indicates one thing very clearly: they SUPPORT the attacks.

Also interesting to note, what great things the Americans had in mind for the little snitchy snitch who gave up Saddam's kids. So, even if Iraqis were inclined to rat out the insurgents, they know that a kid who rats on another kid is a dead kid. And so is his brother.

Blog one year old; and comments on ongoing news

Well, the blog is one year and some odd days old now. Readership is probably at an all-time low - but what the hell? As the New York Times and Fox have shown us, any group of assholes can draw a large readership.

Regular readers will notice that posting has been light. My apologies. Scholastic considerations intruded on my ability to manage my media empire (i.e., the blog). Sadly, though, I will not be able to resume posting with any great frequency, as I am off to observe events first-hand in the Middle East this summer. I wouldn't hold my breath for Mano Negra and Lugal to step up and dominate discussion, even though theyy are fine fellows.

But as a parting gift to all of you, my loyal readers and friends, I will provide some comments on news that has been making news recently.

American torture at Abu Ghraib: We have Americans - real red-blooded, god-fearing Americans, not "fake" commie-pinko Americans - torturing Iraqis - real Iraqis, the very same ones the Americans supposedly came to liberate (after the Americans discovered there were no WMD to disarm them of) - in the infamous prison of Abu Ghraib.

I'm sorry, but for all of the people who are acting shocked that this has happened, what did you expect when the Americans took over Abu Ghraib in the first place? This was the scene of Saddam's worst crimes (including some, like the plastic-shredder death machine, which never happened). You don't open a model humanitarian correctional facility at the site of a fucking torture center.

The way that the media is dodging the issue and referring to this torture as "abuse" is simply sickening. In this respect, Newsweek leads the parade of American journalistic cowards. Even more disgusting are the people acting like this torture is somehow not connected with "Americanism" at all. In this respect, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) certainly leads what is a very strong pack of moral dimwits.

"I don't know how the hell these people got into our army," said Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., after viewing what he called a fraction of the images.

I wonder if Sen. Nighthorse Campbell remembers anything at all from history - his history. Americans may have killed off millions of Native Americans and then herded the survivors into little ghettos, but Campbell acts as if this torture is utterly incomprehensible.

If anyone is "puzzled" by how this could happen in our fine army, I recommend that you take a trip down to your video store and rent almost any action film produced over the last 30 years. Then you might get an idea of what could incite fine, upstanding American men and women to turn into cretinous barbarians upon coming into contact with Arabs.

Finally, let me point out that what "our boys" are doing to Iraqi prisoners (i.e., torturing them) are the same kind of things that our good buddies in the Israeli army and security services do to Palestinian prisoners. Why are some congressional representatives "outraged" when Americans torture Iraqis, but not outraged enough to do the least thing in the world when our bestest friends, the Israelis, do similar or worse things to Palestinians?

Bush imposes sanctions on Syria: Man, this is really stupid:

In a statement Mr Bush said Syria's actions "constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States".

Ok - a country with a per capita income of about $1,000 per year is an "unusual and extraordinary" threat to the US economy?

Who would believe such garbage? Oh, wait - Bush is speaking to Americans. They'll probably believe it. Parents, be sure to check under your childrens' beds tonight - there might be a Syrian wrecker of the American economy lying under there.

I wonder how many Americans, and especially Bush supporters, will recall the fact that Syrian soldiers were fighting alongside American soldiers in the 1991 Gulf War? That the Syrian were happily providing intelligence on extremist groups after 9/11, as well as torturing suspects for the US, until the Americans decided to get fully into the torturing business themselves? That Israel maintained a military presence in Lebanon for over 2 decades, but Congress, for some curious reason, never got around to drafting a "Lebanese sovereignty act" during that period? Not many.

Palestine/Israel: The "purity of arms" of Israel's army continues to amaze: over 28 living Palestinians killed over the last 4 days as the Israeli army looks for the bodies of 5 dead Israelis. Any more purer, and the army would have to change its name to the Snowy White Happy Feel-Good Purity Team.

Ordinary Israelis will no doubt be sleeping more "securely" tonight - 100 more Palestinian homes have been demolished.

I remain unsure as to which term better describes the Palestinian reality in Gaza and the West Bank - "biggest ghetto in history" or "biggest prison in history". However, the scale and unprecedented nature of Israel's project for the Palestinians will most likely require some kind of amalgamation of the two concepts.

I'm out of here. Until later.

Better off dead?

So, that is the question being asked by doctors attending to the high rates of wounded soldiers. We brought this up back in September.

"We're saving more people than should be saved, probably," Lt. Col. Robert Carroll said. "We're saving severely injured people. Legs. Eyes. Part of the brain."

It's not clear if these doctors thinking it would be better for the soldiers if they died, or for the Army.

Either way keeping the casualty count (deaths) down is important enough to the people running this war (think how hard they want to avoid the comparison to vietnam). Like the overall war, its a story of mortgaging the future for a failed policy. Think of what casualties like these cost the taxpayers! I mean, Im all for saving lives, but most people really don't understand how bad things are because of the accounting standards.

Anyway, right now it looks like the US is invading all these cities. The main point though, strategically, is that Americans are finding they have less and less mobility in Iraq. Whenever they try to move, they get popped. They are being held outside certain cities (they wanted to leave anyway, but now leaving means losing key transport routes and creating safe bases for insurgents). This is extraordinarily significant militarily. [Also, ironically, mobility is what Rumsfelds "new" military transformation was supposed to be all about, so these resistance successes hurt the US all the more].

The US is losing this one militarily, and the saddest thing is that Kerry, who is going to win the election hands down, isn't positioning himself to get out. Even Nixon positioned himself to get out of Vietnam, and it took years... Perhaps it was foolish to take comfort in the fact that the media was beginning to report actual news from Iraq. The power elites are so spineless, ineffective, and soft that they cannot be relied on to do anything, even when inaction counters their own interests.

Hagel: Military draft will be "fairer"

Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel (not to be confused with German Philosopher Georg Hegel) wants a draft to supply cannon fodder "citizen soldiers" to help occupy Iraq. Hagel's motivating concern? It's not that there are too few soldiers right now for the job; no, it's that a draft will be more socially just:

"There's not an American... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.

"If that's the case, why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."

The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of mililitary service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata.

"Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class," he observed.

When it comes to taxation for things like universal health care or infrastructure improvement, people like Hagel would never suggest that "all of our citizens" - like the wealthy - should suck it up and "bear some responsibility" and "pay some price". But when it comes to supplying people to stand in the way of a bullet - a situation Hagel likes to term "understand[ing] the intensity and depth of challenges we face" - then we see a concern for spreading the burden and social responsibility.

If you believe that proponents of a draft are motivated by a concern for social justice, then you'll believe anything - things like, oh, I don't know, Third World countries have balsa-wood drones capable of flying thousands of miles across entire oceans and spraying pesticides on New York City. And the Easter Bunny.

Israeli army kills 7 Palestinians

The Israeli army has killed 7 Palestinians in Gaza, including a 13-year-old.

You know, when you kill 200 people in a day, that's a massacre*. When you stretch it over a few days or weeks, though, that's a period of "relative calm". I suppose this is the difference between "terrorism" and "purity of arms".

(* The term "massacre" does not apply to any event involving the deaths of large numbers of Palestinians.)

Why Bush Can't Remember Any Mistakes Since 9-11

So some of the wags in Blogistan and elsewhere are commenting on the fact that our president, George W. Bush, can't remember any mistakes he's made since the September 11 attacks.

It's not so surprising. As we learned from details coming out of the abortive "road map" phase of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Bush thinks that Jesus talks directly to him:

Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them".

We may perform a fundamentalist Protestant analysis of the situation regarding Bush, speaking gods, and making mistakes as follows:

1) God/Jesus/Jeebus speaks directly to Bush and tells him what to do;
2) God/Jesus/Jeebus is always right, never lies, and always gives perfect geo-political advice;
3) Bush follows this direct and secret advice, which only he can hear, unwaveringly;
4) Therefore, Bush can never be wrong or make mistakes.

Thus, the reason why Bush can't remember any mistakes is because, in his mind, he hasn't made any.

Praise our supply-side, civilizing lord.

Brooks on NewsHour

Did anyone else catch David Brooks' performance on the PBS NewsHour? A classic of unintentional comedy - the guy couldn't put together more than 3 words on the situation in Iraq without sputtering about the "brownshirts" and "Nazis" currently running around in Iraq. The best part, though, was when Brooks suggested that Sadr was looking to lead a "beer-hall putsch" against the "established Shia leadership".

A Shia religious leader storming out of an Iraq "beer hall" and heading groups of "brownshirts" to depose the Weimar established Shia leadership? I think Brooks forgot the part where Napoleon rides up on his horse at the head of Garibaldi's Thousands and tries to conquer Fallujah and put down this rebellion, but is defeated by a bunch of Texans under the leadership of George Washington at a place called the Alamo.

Brooks is what happens when third-rate books fall into the hands of fourth-rate minds.

Marines choke on Falluja

Watch as the marines adopt the terminology of the vietnam war (and its success). At first, they seemed to be really intent on getting this one right (meaning there were careers -- and egos -- tied up in the success or failure of the strategy being shifted to west of Baghdad), but it also seemed certain that it would gonna cost the Marines in terms of casualties if they wanted to put "boots on the ground" and develop ties with locals. They started out strong, but then it wasnt long before the shit hit the fan:

"Conway: Over an 11-day period, we had three of our convoys hit and one serious incident happen in the same general vicinity east and northeast of Fallujah. ... We said enough of that. We're going to control that stretch of bad road. ... We went in to occupy that stretch of ground where we have been having trouble, and they attacked us. We started taking fire from some of the buildings adjacent to that roadway. So we had to clear a row of buildings on the northeast side of Fallujah so we could stop receiving fire. That we killed a number of Iraqis, there is no doubt, but we certainly can't allow Iraqis to think they can control a section of vital roadway like that and ambush our convoys at their discretion."

Hmm. And this interview took place one day before the security contractors were hit on what we have to assume was that same stretch of road. If news reports are any indication, you have to wonder how the Marines can pacify Falluja when they still cant get inside without shooting their way in.

So you have to wonder where the Marines' plans are now. They may have gone up in smoke, especially with the recent blockade of Falluja... which is more like the tactics lessons they are getting from Israeli on occupation. Meanwhile, to ease the political pressure, the marines have stopped reporting any details of casualties, just as the casualty rate is going way up in Falluja.

Say what?

"One of the trademarks of this war against terror has been the underestimation by the terrorists of our ability to seek them out and destroy them,'' Representative Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, told reporters today in Washington after an intelligence briefing by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, according to a transcript"

Damn straight. And the reason these terrorists haven't been sought out and killed by now, it being more than a year since the war started? Because we need them around to remind us that we are succeeding!

Stryke one

Iraq, as a weapons testing laboratory? Maybe the wheeled vehicle craze isn't such a good idea after all. I think that it is an interesting insertion point for the stryker. Note that this model has an ugly looking improvised protective screen around it - that was designed to further protect it from RPGs after people realized the stock model wasnt going to do the job. It still doesnt do the trick - this stryker was hit with one RPG. The attack occured in or around Mosul, no word on casualties as of yet. The choice of Iraq as the testbed for these vehicles will be a real trial by fire, but that fits in with the Iraq as a testing laboratory idea, doesn't it?

Of course, I also should point out that we told you so. Anyway, its not that we have any particular foresight on these military matters, we just apply basic intelligence. And the real failing of the US current military minds is not these little strategic gaffes that we point out, it is not that the US needs a lighter faster force or a tougher, more armored force, its not a question of strykers vs. bradleys, or this vehicle or weapons system vs that other one. The US fails on a much larger scale, in the belief that the military can carry out a task that no military has EVER been able to successfullly complete -- pacification. All this focus on "urban warfare" is a joke, and its not something the military can do, it serves only as a poor euphemism for military occupation and failure.

Polish rationale for the Iraq war

Then: BBC NEWS | Europe | Poland seeks Iraqi oil stake: "Polish Foreign Minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said his country had never disguised the fact that it sought direct access to the oilfields" ... and Now: BBC NEWS | Europe | Poland was 'misled' over Iraq WMD.

This is what sour grapes sound like. Perhaps, for some reason, Poland isn't getting its cut?

Friedman and the case of the vanishing American intelligence

Can someone please convince the management of the New York Times to fire Thomas Friedman? Friedman has had some really stupid columns over the years, but this one has to rank right up there near the top, perhaps just one step behind his "France-is-the-enemy-of-the-US" crapfest a while back.

Can we please drop the "appeasement" bullshit act? We're not in the 1930s and the "terrorists" aren't coming from Nazi Germany. Pulling a few Churchill quotes out of your ass doesn't make you look intelligent - it makes you look like a jackass for having such a silly view of history.

No one in Spain wanted their soldiers to go and fight in Iraq in the first place and no one ever got around to liking it. So-called lovers of democracy should, in fact, be applauding the Socialist party's victory in Spain: Spanish voters got rid of an autocrat who ignored overwhelming and strong popular opinion against this war and whose party still has not a few Franco-era fascists. This is a victory for democracy.

But when people like Friedman have a point to make, what use is something like history - either a few months ago or a few decades?

Dirty tricks

Hahaha... Steve Bell on Bush and gay marriage.

No posting for a while

There'll be no posting here for a while, I'm sorry to say, in addition to the no class that you always find here. Other duties require my attention for the moment.

In the meantime, read this article on the breakup of the former Yugoslavia and the role of outside forces in the matter and meditate on any applicable lessons for the current Iraq.

Friedman, it's your move

MEMO TO: Thomas Friedman
FROM: President Bush

Dear Tom:

As you know, I don't read the papers all that much. Hell, I never bother with what I call "the filter" - especially your paper, the New York Times. It's just too liberal for me, always going into "gutter politics" and practicing "revisionist history". But your recent column, "Arabs, It's Your Move", the one where you do your old little shtick and pretend to be me writing a letter to someone, came to my attention. Condi showed it to me. Loved it. I know that there are some people who think that it's old and tired and just not funny or witty and that the Times should get rid of it along with the person who serves it up every once in a while when he can't think of anything else to write - but not me. I just wanted to send you this letter to let you know I'd seen it and remark on a few points.

I thought you did an excellent job obscuring Sharon's underlying goal in his decision to not support Mahmoud Abbas. You made it seem as if he was just being a bad politician, or mean-spirited, when we both know good and well that Sharon didn't do anything to help Abbas because he simply refuses to do anything in support of any Palestinian - except maybe support their expulsion out of Palestine. It was clear to me, and I trust to you too, that Sharon actually wanted to undermine Abbas as quickly as possible, so as to have Arafat as the only Palestinian leader there which, of course, gave him an excuse to keep refusing to negotiate, to keep taking land, and to keep building settlements. The way that you then shifted the blame away from Sharon and onto Arafat for "destroying" Abbas was well done. We both know that Sharon is the same old Sharon - he plans on keeping the West Bank permanently under Israeli control, and this new Gaza stunt, even if he actually goes through with it, is simply a tactical move to further tighten the grip on the real prize.

I loved the way handled the failure of the Arab League peace proposal of 2002, Tom. I was wondering how you would treat this delicate topic, which I knew you couldn't ignore, because you were the person who broke the story. But then you made it seem as if it wasn't a real offer after all, that because the "Arab leaders" didn't present it "directly" to the Israeli prime minister or, I don't know, crawl to Tel Aviv on all fours and tearfully beg Sharon to accept it, it was their fault it failed. You didn't have to talk at all about how Sharon refused to seize this historic opportunity to end the "Arab-Israeli conflict" and, really, used the plan as toilet paper, not to mention the vicious campaign against it in the US by many of Israel's friends.

Your plan to have the "Arab leaders" invite me and Sharon to the upcoming Arab summit, so that they can present the plan again, so that Sharon can ignore it again, so that we can go through this process again and again in the future, instead of doing the logical thing and demanding that Sharon do something for once - you ever read Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man", Tom? I'm sure you have - it's a classic and you're a brainy, literary kind of guy, even if you do have a problem sometimes keeping all of those metaphors straight. Well, your idea reminded me of the part where the "invisible man" finally finds out what those sealed letters he's been giving to his contacts in New York actually say. Do you remember what those letters said, Tom? "Keep that n----- boy running". I do think this is a good idea, Tom. We will keep those "boys", especially Arafat, running and running and running, and when they're not running, we'll get them dancing.

And the way you ended your column by calling the leaders of the Arab states "boys", that was wonderful - you really have been reading Ellison, haven't you? I'm going to have to try that the next time I talk to King Abdullah or Mubarak, or when that Chalabi fella comes in to the White House, asking for more help in Iraq. How's this: "Boy, you said we'd be welcomed with flowers and rose water, and now you want how many more billions of dollars?" Did that sound okay?

Anyway, Tom, I'd love to chat some more, but I have business to attend to. This whole AWOL thing, business contracts to sort out in Iraq, all of these commissions to deal with, 9-11, Plame, Iraq WMD - and you know how cranky I can get if I'm not in bed by 10. The trials of leadership. It's like driving a car. You start out, and you don't know where you're going, or exactly what's going on, and it gets to a point where you just have to say, "goddamn this steering wheel", and then you rip it off the column and you throw it out of the window, while you're still driving. And then, somehow, you get to where you're going, unless you don't. I believe you wrote a column on this once, which I also really liked.

Bush on post-war security

We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos, or settle scores, or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq.

- George W. Bush, speech before the AEI, 26 February 2003

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power....

- George W. Bush, speech in Cincinnati, 7 October 2002

The present day, outside of Bush's own little world

Truck bombing kills 50: In one of the deadliest attacks in Iraq in recent months, a giant truck bomb exploded outside an Iraqi police station in a heavily Shi'ite city south of Baghdad, killing about 50 people and wounding another 75, just one day after US officials warned of a possible increase in sectarian violence.
...

Mixed in the grief and fury of Iskandariyah's residents were angry accusations against US forces, who many claimed were behind the blast. Several residents insisted the bombing had been a coalition attack against innocent Iraqis. Residents converged on the rubble within hours, after rumors whipped through the town claiming that the attack had come from an American rocket. The crowd chanted: "No, no to America! The police are traitors!"

Car bomb kills 47 in Baghdad: A suicide car bomb exploded at an Iraqi army recruitment center in Baghdad on Wednesday, killing 47 people and taking the 24-hour death toll in attacks against Iraqis working with the U.S. occupation up to 100.

Myers "optimistic" after bombings

...Air Force General Richard Myers, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he was optimistic about security despite the attack.

"We continue to be optimistic about the situation on the ground in Iraq," Myers said, adding there had been "a lot of success" in bringing stability and security to Iraq ahead of the June 30 target date for handing power to an Iraqi government.

Rumsfeld: Hey, humans are humans... it happens everywhere

"It's impossible to defend in every location against every conceivable kind of attack at every time of the day or night," Defense Secretary Ronald Rumsfeld told reporters in Washington after Tuesday's blast.
...

"In every... major city on the face of the earth, homicides occur every week. Hundreds occur every year in every city.

"Now, why if we have all those policemen, why if we have everyone against homicides, do they still occur? The answer is because human beings are human beings."

No word on whether Rumsfeld engaged in his increasingly characteristic insane/senile act of karate-chopping the air with his hands and shouting at the top of his voice with veins bulging out everywhere.

But who in their right mind could say any of this? Really - is there anyone who still takes these people seriously?

The Bush dynasty: an Ibn Khaldoun view

Author Kevin Phillips on the Bush family dynasty:

... an unusual and unflattering portrait of a great family (great in power, not morality) that has built a base over the course of the twentieth century in the back corridors of the new military-industrial complex and in close association with the growing intelligence and national security establishments.
...

The advent of a Machiavelli-inclined dynasty in what may be a Machiavellian Moment for the American Republic is not a happy coincidence.... National governance has, at least temporarily, moved away from the proven tradition of a leader chosen democratically, by a majority or plurality of the electorate, to the succession of a dynastic heir whose unfortunate inheritance is privileged, covert, and globally embroiling.

Ibn Khaldoun, early critical historian and sociologist, writing on the nature and evolution of dynasties in 1377*:

When the natural tendencies of royal authority to claim all glory for itself and acquire luxury and tranquility have been firmly established, the dynasty approaches senility.

... royal authority by its very nature requires luxury. People get accustomed to a great number of things. Their expenses are higher than their allowances and their income is not sufficient to pay for their expenditure. Those who are poor perish. Spendthrifts squander their income on luxuries. This (condition) becomes aggravated in the later generations. Eventually, all their income cannot pay for the luxuries and other things they have become used to. They grow needy. When their rulers urge them to defray the costs of raids and wars, they cannot get around it. Therefore, (the rulers) impose penalties on the (people) and deprive many of them of their property, either by appropriating it for themselves or by handing it over to their own children and supporters in the dynasty. In that way, they make the people too weak to keep their own affairs going, and their weakness then recoils upon the ruler and weakens him.

Dynasties have a natural life span like individuals.

... [the members of the first generation] (are used to) sharing their glory (with each other); they are brave and rapacious. Therefore, the strength of the group feeling [`asabiyah] continues to be preserved among them. They are sharp and greatly feared. ..

Under the influence of royal authority and a life of ease, the second generation changes from... privation to luxury and plenty... But many of the old virtues remain in them, because they had direct personal contact with the first generation and its conditions, and had observed with their own eyes its prowess and striving for glory...

The third generation, then, has (completely) forgotten the period of... toughness, as if it had never existed. They have lost (the taste for) the sweetness of fame and for group feeling, because they are dominated by force. Luxury reaches its peak among them, because they are so much given to a life of prosperity and ease. They become dependant on the dynasty and are like women and children who need to be defended... With their emblems, apparel, horseback-riding, and (fighting) skill, they deceive people and give them the wrong impression.. The ruler, then, has need of other, brave people to support him. He takes many clients and followers. They help the dynasty to some degree, until God permits it to be destroyed, and it goes with everything it stands for.

As one can see here, we have there three generations. In the course of these three generations, the dynasty grows senile and is worn out. Therefore, it is in the fourth generation that (ancestral) prestige is destroyed. ...

The stages of dynasties...

... the fifth stage is one of waste and squandering... Also, he [the ruler] acquires bad, low-class followers to whom he entrusts the most important matters (of state), which they are not qualified to handle by themselves, not knowing which of them they should tackle and which they should leave alone. The ruler seeks to destroy the great clients of his people and followers of his predecessors. Thus they come to hate him and conspire to refuse support to him. He loses a number of soldiers by spending their allowances on his pleasures (instead of paying them) and by refusing them access to his person and not supervising them (properly). Thus, he ruins the foundations his ancestors had laid and tears down what they had built up. In this stage, the dynasty is seized by senility and the chronic disease from which it can hardly ever rid itself, for which it can find no cure, and, eventually, it is destroyed.

Seclusion of, and control over, the ruler (by others) may occur in dynasties.

When royal authority is firmly established in one particular family... and when that family claims all royal authority for itself.. and when the children of that family succeed to royal authority in turn, by appointment, then it often happens that their wazirs [ministers or advisors] and entourage gain power over the throne. This occurs most often when a little child or weak member of the family is appointed successor by his father or made ruler by his creatures and servants. It becomes clear that he is unable to fulfil the functions of ruler. Therefore, they are fulfilled by his guardian, one of his father's wazirs, someone from his entourage, one of his clients... [This person] keeps the child away from his people.. He causes him to forget to look at government affairs... He accustoms the (child ruler) to believe that the ruler's share in royal authority consists merely in sitting on the throne, shaking hands, being addressed as Sire, and sitting with the women in the seclusion of the harem. ...

Sometimes it pays to turn to the classics because, like they say, there isn't really anything new under the sun. Almost like Ibn Khladoun was looking 627 years into the future when he wrote that.

But let's apply some of this theory on dynasties to the real world. Let's see how the would-be dynasts of the fourth generation of the Bush family dynasty are doing:

Marvin Bush

Neil Bush

George W. Bush

Pretty senile, in my opinion. I'd say that about does it for the Bush family dynasty.

(Annotation may or may not come later; *Passages taken from The Muqaddimah, translated by Franz Rosenthal)

"Polemic in Spain over the Iraq war"

Spanish PM Jose Maria Aznar has reportedly decided to break ranks with his fellow "coalition" war officers, Bush and Blair, and not hold an inquiry into the embarrassing lack of WMD in Iraq.

The following is a partial translation (of the most incriminating parts, naturally) of a report in the Neue Zuercher Zeitung (Zurich, Switzerland) over the controversy in Spain concerning the Iraq WMD fiasco.

"In Spain, the polemic over the Iraq war has become inflamed anew in the middle of the election fight. The opposition and the media accuse the government of disregarding the analyses of its own secret services and of obstructing an investigation commission.

"The unsuccessful search for WMD in Iraq is now also plaguing again the Spanish government chief Aznar, the third member of the alliance with President Bush and PM Blair which sounded the bell for the Iraq war at the Azores summit in March of last year. While Bush and Blair have come under suspicion of having manipulated the information of their secret services, Aznar sees himself exposed to the accusation of not having taken seriously his own secret service, the Centro Nacional de Inteligencia (CNI).

"The CNI had questioned the American information several times, in particular also that from Secretary of State Powell in February 2003, which Aznar had borrowed practically word-for-word. In its reports, it had two important reservations against repeated statements of its own government. It disputed the alleged ties between the regime of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and it declared that the American information could not dispel doubts about the existence of WMD in Iraq. On this point, the CNI referred, among other things, to its own findings in Iraq.

"In his farewell address as government leader before the American Congress last Wednesday, Aznar stressed warningly that a debate over the problem of WMD would be a 'great irresponsibility'. That sounded almost like a criticism of the fact that the American and British heads of government had found themselves compelled to allow investigation commissions into just this question...".

So Aznar, like Blair, was at least sent warnings by his own intelligence service (which reportedly based its estimates partially on its own findings) that public government statements on Iraq's alleged WMD did not match up with the known data. And, again like Blair, Aznar for some reason simply ignored these warnings, including doubts by Spanish intelligence over the very existence of Iraq's supposed WMD.

Another blow against the "no one knew better/everyone was wrong" argument. Sorry, but ignorance of the fact that there were quite a few people and groups raising serious doubts about the Bush-Blair-Aznar line doesn't justify saying "we were all wrong".

"In the absence of adequate intelligence we allowed political mendacity to fill a vacuum"

Yesterday's news today, just in case you missed it: various reports on issues relating to pre-war US-UK intelligence on Iraq's frightful WMD cache.

Scott Ritter counters the "everyone was wrong on Iraq's WMD" line.

The Independent looks at what Blair knew and when he knew it:

How has Tony Blair got himself into a position where 54 per cent of those sampled in a poll in yesterday's Independent believe he is a liar? The answer is that after 11 September 2001 he put his fate in the hands of an administration in Washington which was determined to go to war in Iraq and which now seems heedless of the collateral damage to him as it distances itself from many of its past assertions.
...

Each side steered clear of certain allegations made by its partner, however. After one mention by Mr Bush on the day the British dossier was published, the Americans never picked up on the notorious 45-minute claim. Britain, meanwhile, was silent on attempts in the US to link Saddam Hussein with al-Qa'ida, though that did not prevent vaguer warnings about the danger of Iraqi WMD falling into the hands of terrorists.

Robert David Steele, a former CIA operative, said: "Yes, I think there was an intelligence failure, but I don't think there can be an intelligence failure without a preceding policy failure. In the absence of adequate intelligence we allowed political mendacity to fill a vacuum."

The Iraqi exile who passed along the "45-minute" claim couldn't verify it at first hand:

The Iraqi exile who passed on the controversial "45-minute" claim about Iraqi chemical and biological weapons to British intelligence has insisted he did so in good faith, but had no means of checking it himself, The Independent on Sunday has learnt.
...

The difficulty with the material was that although the intermediary had a long track record of reliability with MI6, he was not in Iraq, and was passing on information from a previously unknown officer in the military who, he believed, was in a position to know what he was talking about.

We find out more about the source:

The "reliable source" who provided MI6 with the information that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes was an Iraqi exile who had left the country several years previously, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. That fact alone should have prevented the intelligence being used in the Government's September 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
...

The Iraqi exile was in Iraq during the first Gulf War in 1991, but later fled, possibly to Scandinavia.

A British intelligence agency sent Blair memos on three separate occasions warning him about certain WMD claims:

Tony Blair was sent three intelligence reports in the six months during the run up to the Iraq war, including one that warned him that information on whether Saddam Hussein still held any chemical or biological weapons was "inconsistent" and "sparse".

The revelation adds to the mystery of how the Prime Minister could tell Parliament last week that, when war began, he still believed that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction capable of being deployed in just 45 minutes.

The UK is reported to have helped the US spy on fellow UN Security Council members before the aborted vote on military action against Iraq:

Britain helped America to conduct a secret and potentially illegal spying operation at the United Nations in the run-up to the Iraq war, The Observer can reveal.

The operation, which targeted at least one permanent member of the UN Security Council, was almost certainly in breach of the Vienna conventions on diplomatic relations, which strictly outlaw espionage at the UN missions in New York.

Translators and analysts at the Government's top-secret surveillance centre GCHQ were ordered to co-operate with an American espionage 'surge' on Security Council delegations after a request from the US National Security Agency at the end of January 2003. This was designed to help smooth the way for a second UN resolution authorising war in Iraq.

Ends justifying means... and so forth.

On Bush's Iraq WMD commission and the need for eternal damnation

There are times when I wish that I believed in god and the afterlife. Not, like many people, for the chance of spending eternity in heaven or paradise or whatever else you want to call it. No, I would much rather have the comfort of knowing that there was a big, giant lake of fire and horned gentlemen with big pitchforks waiting for people like George W. Bush, president of the United States.

Sure, other figures in history, dictators and mass murderers, might deserve an eternal brimstone bath more than Bush does. But if hell did exist, it would certainly be a big-tent kind of organization. The architectonics of eternity ensure there would be more than enough space; thus, we need not limit consideration of would-be damned to the worst of the worst. Dante was not without reason when he invented a multi-level hell that also had enough space for liars, equivocators, frauds and scoundrels in general.

Which brings us back to Bush. Why do I wish to see Bush swimming around in a flaming cesspool for about the next billion years?

There are many reasons, but let us look at the most recent one for now: the new Bush commission set up to look into the egregious US failure to accurately estimate Iraq's WMD. As I previously guessed, this new panel can rightly be described as a real "sin of commission". If there were a god, looking down from on high on the affairs of humanity, he/she would surely be crying right now over the fact that one of his/her children could go so astray.

What are the faults of the commission (set up by this executive order) that should earn Bush a place among the flames after god stops crying and becomes vengeful?

- Membership: Largely a travesty. This is what happens when you let people who should be the focus of investigations set them up. The commission is led by extreme rightist judge Laurence Silberman, who played a role in overturning Oliver North's conviction, and former Virginia senator and governor Chuck Robb, who is apparently tight with the Bush family.

Commission member John McCain (R-Arizona) has a reputation for honesty and "plain dealing" - and, indeed, he has already dealt a hand that plainly doesn't include Bush at all (from the Globe article):

McCain has reached a conclusion on one point some Democrats might question. "The president of the United States, I believe, did not manipulate any kind of information for political gain or otherwise," the senator said.

Three other panel members - former Carter and Clinton counsel Lloyd Cutler, Yale President Richard Levin, and Judge Patricia Wald - look to be more neutral. They, however, apparently have no experience with intelligence issues.

The one member of the panel with unquestionable intelligence experience is Adm. William Studeman. Some details of his record, though, make one wonder:

A 78-page briefing document recently obtained by the media titled "Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism" and produced by a 10-member panel of military experts [only AFIO member Admiral William O. Studeman, former DIRNSA, former Deputy DCI and former Acting DCI was identified as a member] under the auspices of the Defense Science Board advocates a greatly expanded and more assertive role for covert military actions, intelligence collection and operations to "stimulate reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction. In discussing the report, not yet forwarded to the President, the DSB chairman, William Schneider, Jr., rejected concerns that the proposal would usurp CIA's covert operations role, erode congressional oversight, or change long-standing policies such as prohibition of assassinations. Expansion of existing covert units and the addition of new covert units in all of the Services as well as the new expenditure of billions of dollars was called for. The panel recommended a number of new or morphed organizations in the design to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, psychological warfare, intelligence, cover and deception.

- Remit: Here is where we really start getting into the problems. The commission's mandate is simultaneously too wide and not wide enough.

Mandate too wide: In addition to Iraq, the commission is also charged with looking at WMD issues relating to Libya and Afghanistan. Neither of these tasks make any sense unless, as the NYT argued, the point is to "deflect attention until after the election". Since UN inspectors are currently at work in Libya, and since the country has signaled a desire to eliminate whatever WMD stocks it has and come in from the cold, and especially since the US did not wage a war against Libya on grounds that have turned out to be false, there is no need for a presidential panel to examine the issue at present. Other channels (internal CIA and Congressional intelligence commottee reviews) should suffice at this point. As for Afghanistan, I am not aware of any serious reports that suggested that the Taliban had any kind of actual WMD, plans, or even "WMD-related program activities".

Mandate too narrow: This is the main problem with the commission's set-up: it will not be doing anything that actually relates to how intelligence was used. According to the terms of the executive order (condensed for readability),

The Commission is established for the purpose of advising the President .. The Commission shall assess whether the Intelligence Community is .. [able].. to identify and warn in a timely manner of.. Weapons of Mass Destruction.. In doing so, the Commission shall examine the capabilities and challenges of the Intelligence Community to collect, process, analyze, produce, and disseminate information concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of such foreign powers relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction..
..


With respect to that portion of its examination.. that relates to Iraq, the Commission shall specifically examine the Intelligence Community's intelligence prior to the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom and compare it with the findings of the Iraq Survey Group and other relevant agencies or organizations concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of Iraq relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction.. (emphasis added)

To sum up, the main tasks of the panel are to:

a) advise the president on defending the US;
b) assess the capabilities of the "intelligence community" (see below) with regards to foreign WMD;
c) compare US intelligence before the war with what the US has found out since it invaded.

A relevant question may be asked: what exactly is the point of having a presidential commission with this mandate? Sorry, but we already know that what Kay found does not match up with pre-war CIA or other intelligence estimates. There is little value in such an exercise of "we said x, we found y", which will not answer the important questions (among many others) of "how was intelligence received employed?" and "on what exact basis did the president take the United States to war?".

Now we come to the question of what the term "intelligence community" refers to. Josh Marshall speculates the executive order's brief effectively excludes scrutiny of the "Office of Special Plans", the Rumsfeld-Feith-Luti operation in the Pentagon.

On the face of it, this would seem to be incorrect. According to 50 USC 401a(4), the term "intelligence community" refers, in addition to the CIA, office of the DCI, the DIA, the NSA and other regular organizations, to "other offices within the Department of Defense for the collection of specialized national intelligence through reconnaissance programs". The OSP is certainly an office that is within the DoD and that was involved with the collection of "specialized national intelligence" (of a sort, at any rate).

However, as we have repeatedly seen, there is usually a very big gap between what should be the case and what is the case with the Bush administration. Whether or not the OSP and its "intelligence" output are investigated will come down to how the OSP is defined: does it even legally exist or, if so, could it be described as an office "for the collection of specialized national intelligence through reconnaisance programs"?

We get what could be a likely defense to shield the OSP from too much attention from this Forward article:

A senior Pentagon official told the Forward that the office is "a pure policy-planning shop" and was not engaged in reviewing ? much less distorting ? intelligence.
..

"The Office of Special Plans is a pure policy planning shop and it is not dealing with intelligence," the official told the Forward, stressing that the office was not pushing a hard line on Iran, nor was it conducting any covert operations.

Thus, if any curious members of the commission get to sniffing around the OSP and Dougie Feith, the OSP may be defined as a "policy planning", and not a "specialized national intelligence", office. This, of course, would eliminate scrutiny of perhaps the main source of "intelligence" that formed the Bush administration's case for war (and, incidentally, would also prevent potentially embarrassing details of the parallel operation in Ariel Sharon's office from coming to light).

- Powers of the Commission: Josh Marshall also points out that whether or not the documents requested by the commission are "relevant" may be decided by the heads of the various executive government agencies. In any event, it does seem to be the case that the commission will have no subpoena power - i.e., a means of effectively determining for itself what is "relevant" or not:

Sec. 7. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch, and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is that this provision shuts the door to the procedural benefit of subpoena power.

Based on these observations, I see real difficulties for the members of the panel who may be more independent in their appraisal of the data, Cutler, Wald and Levin. There may be such difficulties that a resignation down the line for one or both of these commission members is possible. In any event, it is difficult to expect any kind of real investigation or answers from this commission.

In the meantime, I will be hoping that there is a least a little puddle of hell somewhere for "the setters-up of false commissions".

Australian inspector told soldiers no regional threat from WMD

Interesting:

Australian troops fighting in Iraq were told in an official briefing days before entering the country that Saddam Hussein did not have the capability to launch weapons of mass destruction against its neighbours.

Roger Hill, Australia's most experienced weapons inspector, yesterday told The Age that Iraq had possessed the remnants of weapons of mass destruction but its ability to use them on the battlefield was "almost zero".

"There is no question Iraq possessed materials, documents and possibly products," Mr Hill said. "But it did not have the ability to conduct attacks on its near or regional neighbours," he said. "I told our troops that. I also told people in the other coalition forces. But I was a lone voice."
...

Asked if the Australian Government was aware at the time of his assessment of Iraq's capabilities, Mr Hill said: "If they had asked me, I would have told them."

Mr Hill, who is widely acknowledged as Australia's top expert on Saddam's weapons programs, said that during the eight years he spent travelling to Iraq as a senior UN weapons inspector he was asked only once to brief officials in Canberra about the threat posed by Saddam.

They didn't know... and they didn't want to know.

Maybe that's one reason why intelligence screwed things up: they spent more time listening to Iraqi fraudsters than their own experts.

(Link via Hesiod)