Saturday, September 30, 2006

 

NYT: Book Says Bush Ignored Urgent Warning on Iraq

Book Says Bush Ignored Urgent Warning on Iraq

Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times

President Bush at Camp David in June during a teleconference on Iraq with Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Donald H. Rumsfeld.


Published: September 29, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — The White House ignored an urgent warning in September 2003 from a top Iraq adviser who said that thousands of additional American troops were desperately needed to quell the insurgency there, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter and author. The book describes a White House riven by dysfunction and division over the war.

The warning is described in “State of Denial,” scheduled for publication on Monday by Simon & Schuster. The book says President Bush’s top advisers were often at odds among themselves, and sometimes were barely on speaking terms, but shared a tendency to dismiss as too pessimistic assessments from American commanders and others about the situation in Iraq.

As late as November 2003, Mr. Bush is quoted as saying of the situation in Iraq: “I don’t want anyone in the cabinet to say it is an insurgency. I don’t think we are there yet.”

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is described as disengaged from the nuts-and-bolts of occupying and reconstructing Iraq — a task that was initially supposed to be under the direction of the Pentagon — and so hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, that President Bush had to tell him to return her phone calls. The American commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, is reported to have told visitors to his headquarters in Qatar in the fall of 2005 that “Rumsfeld doesn’t have any credibility anymore” to make a public case for the American strategy for victory in Iraq.

The book, bought by a reporter for The New York Times at retail price in advance of its official release, is the third that Mr. Woodward has written chronicling the inner debates in the White House after the Sept. 11 attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the subsequent decision to invade Iraq. Like Mr. Woodward’s previous works, the book includes lengthy verbatim quotations from conversations and describes what senior officials are thinking at various times, without identifying the sources for the information.

Mr. Woodward writes that his book is based on “interviews with President Bush’s national security team, their deputies, and other senior and key players in the administration responsible for the military, the diplomacy, and the intelligence on Iraq.” Some of those interviewed, including Mr. Rumsfeld, are identified by name, but neither Mr. Bush nor Vice President Dick Cheney agreed to be interviewed, the book says.

Robert D. Blackwill, then the top Iraq adviser on the National Security Council, is said to have issued his warning about the need for more troops in a lengthy memorandum sent to Ms. Rice. The book says Mr. Blackwill’s memorandum concluded that more ground troops, perhaps as many as 40,000, were desperately needed.

It says that Mr. Blackwill and L. Paul Bremer III, then the top American official in Iraq, later briefed Ms. Rice and Stephen J. Hadley, her deputy, about the pressing need for more troops during a secure teleconference from Iraq. It says the White House did nothing in response.

The book describes a deep fissure between Colin L. Powell, Mr. Bush’s first secretary of state, and Mr. Rumsfeld: When Mr. Powell was eased out after the 2004 elections, he told Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, that “if I go, Don should go,” referring to Mr. Rumsfeld.

Mr. Card then made a concerted effort to oust Mr. Rumsfeld at the end of 2005, according to the book, but was overruled by President Bush, who feared that it would disrupt the coming Iraqi elections and operations at the Pentagon.

Vice President Cheney is described as a man so determined to find proof that his claim about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was accurate that, in the summer of 2003, his aides were calling the chief weapons inspector, David Kay, with specific satellite coordinates as the sites of possible caches. None resulted in any finds.

Two members of Mr. Bush’s inner circle, Mr. Powell and the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, are described as ambivalent about the decision to invade Iraq. When Mr. Powell assented, reluctantly, in January 2003, Mr. Bush told him in an Oval Office meeting that it was “time to put your war uniform on,” a reference to his many years in the Army.

Mr. Tenet, the man who once told Mr. Bush that it was a “slam-dunk” that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq, apparently did not share his qualms about invading Iraq directly with Mr. Bush, according to Mr. Woodward’s account.

Mr. Woodward’s first two books about the Bush administration, “Bush at War” and “Plan of Attack,” portrayed a president firmly in command and a loyal, well-run team responding to a surprise attack and the retaliation that followed. As its title indicates, “State of Denial” follows a very different storyline, of an administration that seemed to have only a foggy notion that early military success in Iraq had given way to resentment of the occupiers.

The 537-page book describes tensions among senior officials from the very beginning of the administration. Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Mr. Rumsfeld questioned the electronic signals from terrorism suspects that the National Security Agency had been intercepting, wondering whether they might be part of an elaborate deception plan by Al Qaeda.

On July 10, 2001, the book says, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice at the White House to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence the agency was collecting about an impending attack. But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously.

In the weeks before the Iraq war began, President Bush’s parents did not share his confidence that the invasion of Iraq was the right step, the book recounts. Mr. Woodward writes about a private exchange in January 2003 between Mr. Bush’s mother, Barbara Bush, the former first lady, and David L. Boren, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a Bush family friend.

The book says Mrs. Bush asked Mr. Boren whether it was right to be worried about a possible invasion of Iraq, and then to have confided that the president’s father, former President George H. W. Bush, “is certainly worried and is losing sleep over it; he’s up at night worried.”

The book describes an exchange in early 2003 between Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the retired officer Mr. Bush appointed to administer postwar Iraq, and President Bush and others in the White House situation room. It describes senior war planners as having been thoroughly uninterested in the details of the postwar mission.

After General Garner finished his PowerPoint presentation — which included his plan to use up to 300,000 troops of the Iraqi Army to help secure postwar Iraq, the book says — there were no questions from anyone in the situation room, and the president gave him a rousing sendoff.

But it was General Garner who was soon removed, in favor of Mr. Bremer, whose actions in dismantling the Iraqi army and removing Baathists from office were eventually disparaged within the government.

The book suggests that senior intelligence officials were caught off guard in the opening days of the war when Iraqi civilian fighters engaged in suicide attacks against armored American forces, the first hint of the deadly insurgent attacks to come.

In a meeting with Mr. Tenet of the Central Intelligence Agency, several Pentagon officials talked about the attacks, the book says. It says that Mr. Tenet acknowledged that he did not know what to make of them.

Mr. Rumsfeld reached into political matters at the periphery of his responsibilities, according to the book. At one point, Mr. Bush traveled to Ohio, where the Abrams battle tank was manufactured. Mr. Rumsfeld phoned Mr. Card to complain that Mr. Bush should not have made the visit because Mr. Rumsfeld thought the heavy tank was incompatible with his vision of a light and fast military of the future. Mr. Woodward wrote that Mr. Card believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was “out of control.”

The fruitless search for unconventional weapons caused tension between Vice President Cheney’s office, the C.I.A. and officials in Iraq. Mr. Woodward wrote that Mr. Kay, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq, e-mailed top C.I.A. officials directly in the summer of 2003 with his most important early findings.

At one point, when Mr. Kay warned that it was possible the Iraqis might have had the capability to make such weapons but did not actually produce them, waiting instead until they were needed, the book says he was told by John McLaughlin, the C.I.A.’s deputy director: “Don’t tell anyone this. This could be upsetting. Be very careful. We can’t let this out until we’re sure.”

Mr. Cheney was involved in the details of the hunt for illicit weapons, the book says. One night, Mr. Woodward wrote, Mr. Kay was awakened at 3 a.m. by an aide who told him Mr. Cheney’s office was on the phone. It says Mr. Kay was told that Mr. Cheney wanted to make sure he had read a highly classified communications intercept picked up from Syria indicating a possible location for chemical weapons.

Mr. Woodward and a colleague, Carl Bernstein, led The Post’s reporting during Watergate, and Mr. Woodward has since written a string of best sellers about Washington. More recently, the identity of Mr. Woodward’s Watergate source known as Deep Throat was disclosed as having been W. Mark Felt, a senior F.B.I. official.

In late 2005, Mr. Woodward was subpoenaed by the special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case. He also apologized to The Post’s executive editor for concealing for more than two years that he had been drawn into the scandal.

Mark Mazzetti and David Johnston contributed reporting from Washington, and Julie Bosman from New York.




Friday, September 29, 2006

 

LA Times: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-iraqpol26sep26,1,617751.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied

Three retired soldiers slam Rumsfeld's policies at a Democratic hearing in which the party tries to take the offensive on the war in Iraq.
By Noam N. Levey
Times Staff Writer

September 26, 2006

WASHINGTON — Adding to criticism of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq, a retired senior general who commanded an infantry division in the conflict said Monday that requests by commanders for more soldiers were repeatedly turned down.

"Many of us routinely asked for more troops," retired Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste said, contradicting statements by President Bush and his senior aides that the administration had given the military all the resources it had asked for.

"There simply aren't enough troops there to accomplish the task," said Batiste, who has previously called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign. "It's a shell game we're playing in Iraq, and we've been doing it since day one. And we're still doing it today."

The general's remarks, echoed by two other retired soldiers Monday, came at a special hearing called by Democratic senators in what they said was a new initiative to increase oversight of the war effort.

Senior Republican lawmakers dismissed the hearing as a stunt orchestrated with November elections in mind.

A Pentagon spokesman declined to address Batiste's comments directly, instead pointing to past public statements by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that Rumsfeld had regularly consulted the senior military leadership on troop levels.

In April, when retired generals including Batiste called for Rumsfeld to resign, Pace said: "We had then [in Iraq invasion planning] and have now every opportunity to speak our minds, and if we do not, shame on us, because the opportunity is there."

Batiste's comments added fuel to questions about how the administration pursued its goals in Iraq and about the war's consequences.

Several newspapers, including The Times, reported Sunday that the nation's intelligence agencies had concluded that the Iraq war intensified the threat of global terrorism.

Administration officials responded that the articles on the war assessment contained in the classified National Intelligence Estimate did not represent the full report.

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow continued to discount the news reports. "One thing that the reports do not say is that war in Iraq has made terrorism worse," Snow said.

The senior Republican and Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee called Monday for the document to be declassified, a request the administration is resisting.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement that the disclosure of the assessment and the testimony at Democrats' hearing dealt "a fatal blow to any claim that staying the current course is an acceptable strategy for success in Iraq."

Batiste, in his testimony, renewed his April call for Rumsfeld to resign. Joining him were retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton and retired Marine Col. Thomas X. Hammes.

All three of them Iraq veterans, they lambasted what they called the Defense secretary's reluctance to commit more troops and other resources to the war.

"The whole thing is absolutely disingenuous," Batiste said of the administration's position that the number of soldiers deployed was sufficient to secure Iraq. "We started with a strategy and a plan that was under-resourced in soldiers and Marines and airmen and sailors by a factor of three."

A career Army officer — and military aide to then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq war — Batiste commanded the 1st Infantry Division from 2002 until his retirement in 2005. Batiste commanded about 22,000 soldiers sent to north-central Iraq from February 2004 to February 2005.

Eaton, who oversaw efforts to train and equip Iraqi security forces in 2003 and 2004, also said he was not given enough U.S. troops to do the job.

About 145,000 American troops are serving in Iraq.

In the run-up to the March 2003 invasion, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki drew harsh criticism from administration officials for predicting that "hundreds of thousands" of U.S. troops might be needed to keep the peace in a postwar Iraq.

Batiste and Eaton said Monday that a lack of troops was helping fuel the anti-U.S. insurgency. And Batiste went a step further, suggesting that insufficient troop levels contributed to the abuse of Iraqis by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison and other detention facilities.

As the violence in Iraq has continued, the administration has faced increasing criticism that it went to war with an inadequate force and failed to anticipate the problems of rebuilding.

The Pentagon has steadfastly defended its war planning and deployments.

Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of all U.S. troops in the Middle East, has argued that higher troop levels would be counterproductive because they would anger local communities and undercut Iraqi forces' incentive for taking over security responsibilities.

For Democrats — often divided over the war and on the defensive because of White House and Republican congressional leaders' charges that the Democrats want to "cut and run" — Monday's hearing was an attempt to take the offensive.

"I hope this here will be a wake-up call to our Republican colleagues in the House and Senate to start having hearings, to start doing their congressional responsibility," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Still, the party faces a challenge in formulating an alternative approach.

Responding to questions by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Batiste, Eaton and Hammes strongly warned against an early withdrawal of American forces from Iraq — a position that several leading Democrats in Congress have advocated.

Clinton has not supported early withdrawal but has said that the American troop commitment should not be open-ended.

*


noam.levey@latimes.com


Times staff writer Peter Spiegel contributed to this report.



Thursday, September 28, 2006

 

WP: Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show


   
Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show
Leaders' Views Out of Step With Public

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A22

BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country.

The stark assessments, among the most negative attitudes toward U.S.-led forces since they invaded Iraq in 2003, contrast sharply with views expressed by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Last week at the United Nations, President Jalal Talabani said coalition troops should remain in the country until Iraqi security forces are "capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security."

"Only then will it be possible to talk about a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq," he said.

Recent polls show many Iraqis in nearly every part of the country disagree.

"Majorities in all regions except Kurdish areas state that the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) should withdraw immediately, adding that the MNF-I's departure would make them feel safer and decrease violence," concludes the 20-page State Department report, titled "Iraq Civil War Fears Remain High in Sunni and Mixed Areas." The report was based on 1,870 face-to-face interviews conducted from late June to early July.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes poll, which was conducted over the first three days of September for WorldPublicOpinion.org, found that support among Sunni Muslims for a withdrawal of all U.S.-led forces within six months dropped to 57 percent in September from 83 percent in January.

"There is a kind of softening of Sunni attitudes toward the U.S.," said Steven Kull, director of PIPA and editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org. "But you can't go so far as to say the majority of Sunnis don't want the U.S. out. They do. They're just not quite in the same hurry as they were before."

The PIPA poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percent, was carried out by Iraqis in all 18 provinces who conducted interviews with more than 1,000 randomly selected Iraqis in their homes.

Using complex sampling methods based on data from Iraq's Planning Ministry, the pollsters selected streets on which to conduct interviews. They then contacted every third house on the left side of the road. When they selected a home, the interviewers then collected the names and birth dates of everyone who lived there and polled the person with the most recent birthday.

Matthew Warshaw, a senior research manager at D3 Systems, which helped conduct the poll, said he didn't think Iraqis were any less likely to share their true opinions with pollsters than Americans. "It's a concern you run up against in Iowa or in Iraq," he said. "But for the most part we're asking questions that people want to give answers to. People want to have their voice heard."

The greatest risk, he said, was the safety of the interviewers. Two pollsters for another Iraqi firm were recently killed because of their work.

The State Department report did not give a detailed methodology for its poll, which it said was carried out by an unnamed Iraqi polling firm. Lou Fintor, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said he could not comment on the public opinion surveys.

The director of another Iraqi polling firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared being killed, said public opinion surveys he conducted last month showed that 80 percent of Iraqis who were questioned favored an immediate withdrawal. Eight-five percent of Sunnis in that poll supported an immediate withdrawal, a number virtually unchanged in the past two years, except for the two months after the Samarra bombing, when the number fell to about 70 percent, the poll director said.

"The very fact that there is such a low support for American forces has to do with the American failure to do basically anything for Iraqis," said Mansoor Moaddel, a professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University, who commissioned a poll earlier this year that also found widespread support for a withdrawal. "It's part of human nature. People respect authority and power. But the U.S. so far has been unable to establish any real authority."

Interviews with two dozen Baghdad residents in recent weeks suggest one central cause for Iraqi distrust of the Americans: They believe the U.S. government has deliberately thrown the country into chaos.

The most common theory heard on the streets of Baghdad is that the American military is creating a civil war to create an excuse to keep its forces here.

"Do you really think it's possible that America -- the greatest country in the world -- cannot manage a small country like this?" Mohammad Ali, 42, an unemployed construction worker, said as he sat in his friend's electronics shop on a recent afternoon. "No! They have not made any mistakes. They brought people here to destroy Iraq, not to build Iraq."

As he drew on a cigarette and two other men in the store nodded in agreement, Ali said the U.S. government was purposely depriving the Iraqi people of electricity, water, gasoline and security, to name just some of the things that most people in this country often lack.

"They could fix everything in one hour if they wanted!" he said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis.

Mohammed Kadhem al-Dulaimi, 54, a Sunni Arab who used to be a professional soccer player, said he thought the United States was creating chaos in the country as a pretext to stay in Iraq as long as it has stayed in Germany.

"All bad things that are happening in Iraq are just because of the Americans," he said, sipping a tiny cup of sweet tea in a cafe. "When should they leave? As soon as possible. Every Iraqi will tell you this."

Many Iraqi political leaders, on the other hand, have been begging the Americans to stay, especially since the February bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra, which touched off the current round of sectarian reprisal killings between Sunnis and Shiites.

The most dramatic about-face came from Sunni leaders, initially some of the staunchest opponents to the U.S. occupation, who said coalition forces were the only buffer preventing Shiite militias from slaughtering Sunnis.

Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the outspoken Sunni speaker of parliament who this summer said that "the U.S. occupation is the work of butchers," now supports the U.S. military staying in Iraq for as long as a decade.

"Don't let them go before they have corrected what they have done," he said in an interview this month. "They should stay for four years. This is the minimum. Maybe 10 years."

Particularly in mixed neighborhoods here in the capital, some Sunnis say the departure of U.S. forces could trigger a genocide. Hameed al-Kassi, 24, a recent college graduate who lives in the Yarmouk district of Baghdad, worried that rampages by Shiite militias could cause "maybe 60 to 70 percent of the Sunnis to be killed, even the women, old and the young."

"There will be lakes of blood," Kassi said. "Of course we want the Americans to leave, but if they do, it will be a great disaster for us."

In a barbershop in the capital's Karrada district Tuesday afternoon, a group of men discussed some of the paradoxical Iraqi opinions of coalition troops. They recognized that the departure of U.S.-led forces could trigger more violence, and yet they harbored deep-rooted anger toward the Americans.

"I really don't like the Americans who patrol on the street. They should all go away," said a young boy as he swept up hair on the shop's floor. "But I do like the one who guards my church. He should stay!"

Sitting in a neon-orange chair as he waited for a haircut, Firas Adnan, a 27-year-old music student, said: "I really don't know what I want. If the Americans leave right now, there is going to be a massacre in Iraq. But if they don't leave, there will be more problems. From my point of view, though, it would be better for them to go out today than tomorrow."

He paused for a moment, then said, "We just want to go back and live like we did before."



Breakdown of Iraqi Responses
A majority of Iraqis across the country say they want U.S.-led coalition forces to leave immediately, according to a new poll conducted by the U.S. State Department.
Breakdown of Iraqi Responses
SOURCE: State Department | The Washington Post - September 27, 2006


Wednesday, September 27, 2006

 

Daily Telegraph: Omar role in truce reinforces fears that Pakistan 'caved in' to Taliban


Omar role in truce reinforces fears that Pakistan 'caved in' to Taliban
By Massoud Ansari in Peshawar and Colin Freeman

(Filed: 24/09/2006)

The fugitive Taliban commander Mullah Omar has emerged as the key player behind the movement's controversial peace deal with Pakistan.

The Taliban's one-eyed spiritual leader, who has a $10 million price on his head for refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden after the September 11 attacks, signed a letter explicitly endorsing the truce announced this month. The deal between the Pakistani authorities and pro-Taliban militants in the tribal provinces bordering Afghanistan was designed to end five years of bloodshed in the area.

 
Mullah Omar
Mullah Omar brokered the controversial peace deal

In return for an end to the US-backed government campaign in Waziristan, the tribal leaders - who have harboured Taliban and al-Qaeda units for more than five years - agreed to halt attacks on Pakistani troops, more than 500 of whom have been killed. The deal has been widely criticised as over-generous, with no way to enforce the Taliban's promise not to enter Afghanistan to attack coalition troops.

The disclosure that Mullah Omar personally backed the deal will come as a fresh embarrassment to Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, who met President Bush in Washington on Friday to discuss security in the region.

While officially a US ally in the war on terror, Pakistan has been repeatedly accused by Afghanistan of not doing enough to clear Taliban militants out of its border regions, allegations it denies. However, Mullah Omar clearly felt that the deal benefited the Taliban, adding force to criticisms that it was in effect a cave-in. Tribal elders in south Waziristan said that Mullah Omar had sent one of his most trusted and feared commanders, Mullah Dadullah, to ask local militants to sign the truce. Dadullah, a one-legged fighter known for his fondness for beheading his enemies, is believed to be the man leading the campaign in southern Afghanistan in which 18 British troops have been killed.

"Had they been not asked by Mullah Omar, none of them were willing to sign an agreement," said Lateef Afridi, a tribal elder and former national assembly member. "This is no peace agreement, it is accepting Taliban rule in Pakistan's territory."

Waziristan has a 50-mile border with Afghanistan's Paktika province, long a trouble spot for US and Afghan forces in their battle against al-Qaeda and Taliban renegades. It is home to three tiers of Islamists who operate freely. Of greatest security concern is the al-Qaeda element, followed by Afghani Taliban and then local Taliban.

In return for a reduction in the Pakistani army's 80,000-strong presence and the release of about 165 hardcore militants arrested for attacks on Pakistani armed forces, local Taliban agreed to stop supporting the foreign militants in their midst, and promised not to set up their own fundamentalist administrations.

The government also agreed to compensate tribal leaders for the loss of life and property, and to return all weapons and vehicles seized during army operations.

Critics say the deal is a dangerous climb-down by Gen Musharraf, who is under huge pressure from religious conservatives in his own country to curb his US-backed fight against militant Islam.



Tuesday, September 26, 2006

 

TomPaine.com: The Cost Of Conservatism In Iraq



The Cost Of Conservatism In Iraq

Robert L. Borosage

September 25, 2006

Robert L. Borosage is co-director of the Campaign For America's Future.

The intelligence agencies have now officially acknowledged the inescapable reality: The failed occupation in Iraq has stoked the global terrorist threat, generating recruits for increasing acts of terror across the globe. That conclusion is in the latest classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, portions of which were leaked to the media  this past weekend.

Likewise, the premiere of Robert Greenwald’s stunning documentary, "Iraq for Sale," along with the publication of books ripping the cover off the Iraq occupation—Thomas Ricks’ Fiasco, T. Christian Miller’s Blood Money, and Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s Imperial Life in the Emerald City —expose the sordid reality behind the failure in Iraq—the mélange of conservative ideological idiocy, incompetence, cronyism and corruption that is the hallmark of this administration. In the midst of this is the abject failure of a supine conservative Congress to enforce any form of accountability on the administration, as so-called moderate Republicans marched in lockstep with their conservative leaders to deep-six every effort to investigate the pervasive corruption and profiteering.

If progressives had an echo chamber to match conservatives, the basic facts would create a drumbeat—far beyond partisanship—for cleaning out the stables in Washington. The ideologues of the administration and their facilitators in Congress have not simply wasted billions of dollars and squandered the sacrifice of thousands of lives. They have undermined our security, while generating recruits for terror across the globe.

The administration fiasco in Iraq mirrors its catastrophic failures in the wake of Katrina. Once more, the public mission—in this case reconstruction and nation building—was scorned. Rumsfeld and his neocons made it clear—the U.S. military fights war, it doesn’t do school patrols.

The result was an utter, incomprehensible failure to plan. Tommy Franks, the general in charge of the Iraq invasion, didn’t think the aftermath was his responsibility. He assumed the troops would be out in 30 days. General Garner, the first head of the reconstruction, assumed that his task would be done in two months. American soldiers—with neither training nor guidance—stood idly by as Iraqis looted ministries, destroying essential records and making off with everything from guns to historic treasures to the electrical wiring.

Once the president decided that since there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found, we were really in Iraq to create democracy, ideology once more outlawed common sense. Instead of sending in experts on reconstruction, the administration consciously recruited conservative ideologues, those who avidly embraced the new cause. Interns and job applicants to the Heritage Foundation provided a core list of young zealots, who would come to Iraq for three months to get their resumes stamped. A 27-year-old daughter of neocon Michael Ledeen was put in charge of the Iraqi budget. A 28-year-old was put in charge of reopening the stock exchange. They lived in the Green Zone—Chandrasekaran’s “Emerald City”—ignorant of the language, the culture, the day-to-day reality of the country they ruled.

Not surprisingly, conservative ideology drove the reconstruction fiasco. Seeking to display his authority, Viceroy Paul Bremer ignored expert advice and disbanded the Iraqi army and purged the Iraqi ministries of experienced leadership. That provided the Sunni insurgency with hundreds of thousands of experienced and angry recruits, with guns. He pushed for privatization of Iraqi industries, for the elimination of fuel and food supports in a country with 50 percent unemployment. Private investment, not public enterprise, would rebuild Iraq.

The reconstruction—and the war—was privatized to an unprecedented degree. The second largest army in Iraq after the Americans was made up of private contractors. Contractors did everything from guarding the bases to providing the food. Most of the large contracts were no-bid, sole source, cost-plus agreements. Not surprisingly, cronyism ran rampant. Wired corporations like Halliburton lapped up contracts worth billions. Republican operatives invented companies and used their political connections to land multimillion-dollar contracts.

In this cesspool, there was no accountability. The Pentagon didn’t even have a representative from the Inspector General’s office on the ground for the first two-and-a-half years. The Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. authority in Iraq, had neither the staff nor the expertise to stem the corruption. The conservative majority in Congress not only repeatedly blocked efforts to create a bipartisan investigative committee—along the lines of the Truman Committee that policed contracts in World War II—it refused to hold hearings exposing the scope of the fraud and abuse to the public eye.

The harsh result was a catastrophic conservative fiasco. As Robert Greenwald’s stunning documentary shows, not only were billions lost, lives of patriotic workers were callously squandered. The profiteers made out like bandits. The politicians were succored with campaign contributions and lobbying junkets. But in Iraq, failure fueled civil war. And across the world, the occupation fueled fury, and provided al-Qaida with a new generation of recruits.

The incompetence, cronyism and corruption that led to this fiasco are hallmarks of modern-day conservatism. Accountability, expertise, planning, good management are not partisan issues. But the administration, blinded by its own ideological certitude, scorned even common sense. And the lapdog conservative majority in Congress chose partisanship over patriotism, protecting the administration rather than the nation’s security.

The Greenwald film will be shown in thousands of house parties across the country. (To join a house party or to host one, go to www.bravenewfilms.org.) Fiasco, Blood Money and Emerald City deserve a wide audience. The Campaign for America’s Future has published a report detailing the fiasco  and detailing how individual legislators voted on efforts to establish some accountability.

With the press already into reporting on the elections as a horse race, the vast majority of voters are likely to have no clue about the depths of the failure this fall. But if Democrats can win back the House, the resulting hearings will be explosive—as patriotic American soldiers and workers are able finally to tell their story. No wonder the White House and its conservative allies are desperate to keep the majority that is their only hope for keeping the lid on the truth.



Monday, September 25, 2006

 

TomPaine.com: Doing The Moral Limbo


Doing The Moral Limbo

Paul Waldman

September 20, 2006




Paul Waldman is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America and the author of the new book, Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Can Learn From Conservative Success, just released by John Wiley & Sons. The views expressed here are his own.

Before we hail Colin Powell, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and their Republican colleagues as some kind of heroes of liberty for standing up to President Bush’s proposals for interrogating terrorist suspects, let’s recall what their brave position on this issue is: The United States of America shouldn’t torture people. It is a testament to how ethically diseased today’s GOP—those guardians of “moral values,” remember—has become that this is a minority position within their party.

Bush’s September 15 soliloquy on “flawed logic”—a topic he knows something about—was prompted by the willingness of the former secretary of state and the two prominent Republican senators (as well as at least six other Republican senators and another former secretary of state) to oppose him on a matter of national security. “If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. I simply can't accept that,” Bush said. “It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.”

In other words, if you object to kangaroo courts and the use of “alternative interrogation methods,” you must think we’re no better than terrorists, a logical double-twisting back flip worthy of Greg Louganis.

Bush and most of his followers continue to dance their moral limbo, their backs arched as they descend lower every time the chorus begins again. They would turn America into a country that tortures prisoners on the off chance that doing so might yield some useful information (even though it almost never does). They excused the abuse of innocent Iraqis and Afghans in detention facilities on the grounds that, well, at least our soldiers didn’t behead anyone. They enthusiastically embrace the administration’s argument that the president can pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore, simply because he’s the commander in chief. Call me crazy, but I doubt that if the president making that argument was Bill Clinton, they’d feel quite the same way.

And they now rally around Bush’s effort to set up modern star chambers in which people can be tried, convicted and eventually executed without ever being permitted to see the evidence against them.

The justification is always that we’re dealing with terrorists, who are really, really bad people. So why should they deserve due process? The answer that the twisted conservative mind seems incapable of grasping is that a nation committed to liberty, justice and the rule of law does not have one set of procedures for nice people and another set for mean people. It sets up procedures that reflect its values.

That’s called “principle,” and it is something that Bush’s supporters don’t talk much about these days. For them it is always about good guys and bad guys, and if we’re dealing with bad guys, then nothing we do can be wrong. Their spinning has grown so desperate that any appreciation of even the most rudimentary facts of history has, from the sheer centrifugal force, flown off from their brains.

At the end of World War II, confronted with the most monstrous crime in human history, America did not establish kangaroo courts to dispense swiftly with the perpetrators and sate our thirst for vengeance. Along with our allies, we constructed the Nuremberg trials to be as open and fair as possible, in no small part to show the world how democracies act and what makes us different from our enemies.

But some would have us believe that the Third Reich was nothing compared to the threat posed by radical Islamists. The ultra-right Manchester Union-Leader recently called the war on terror “the most difficult and challenging war we have ever faced.”

And it’s not just World War II that was small peanuts. Recently, Bush told a group of conservative writers brought to the White House to meet with him, “It's impossible for someone to have grown up in the ’50s and ’60s to envision a conflict with people that just kill mercilessly, using techniques that are kind of foreign to modern warfare,” as right-wing talking head Fred Barnes reported. Those who grew up during the Cold War, like their namby-pamby Greatest Generation parents, just aren’t capable of understanding the sheer apocalyptic nightmare we’re up against. (Although it’s good to see Bush reaching out this way—he also recently had a 90-minute Oval Office rap session with a group of right-wing radio hosts including Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Neal Boortz. Keep your friends close and your sycophants closer, I suppose.)

And if we’re not just involved in a war but fighting the most dangerous, difficult war in our history against the most super-evil enemy any country has ever faced, then who has time for the Constitution? As John Yoo, the former Justice Department official responsible for much of the administration’s rethinking of our entire system of laws, recently said, “We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch.” Silly us for getting “used to” a system in which Congress enacts the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. Time to revise all those Schoolhouse Rock songs.

It is impossible to see Yoo’s sentiment—one he shares with an administration devoted to the “unitary executive”—as anything other than deeply anti-American. We could call it “conservo-fascist,” but that would just be name-calling. The fact is, however, that of late conservatives have not only demonstrated their contempt for fundamental American values, they have embraced the most reprehensible tactics with a disturbing glee.

In the latest Weekly Standard, William Kristol—fierce advocate of not only the war in Iraq but another war against Iran, so you know he knows what he’s talking about—enthuses that Republicans are becoming the pro-torture party, and therefore they’re bound to do well in November’s elections.

If this truly is a clash of civilizations, the conservatives have chosen to engage it by getting in touch with their inner barbarian.

And when progressives (and the occasional conservative) question whether such actions betray our values, the answer from Bush and his supporters is that we should be measured not by our principles—or by any principles at all—but by the actions of our enemies. The moral high ground is to be found no more than one step above the worst thing terrorists have done lately. The president may order the use of sleep deprivation and “stress positions” to induce mental and physical agony in prisoners—but hey, he hasn’t personally chopped anyone’s head off, so you know he’s on the side of the angels.

But it is moral poison to measure yourself by the worst acts of your enemies. This is what conservatives have brought to America; the time since 9/11 has seen a moral descent—if not an outright moral deadening—on the part of the right.

Republicans are fond of questioning Democrats’ loyalty whenever they oppose a Republican president, as though he and the nation were one. But one must ask whether their loyalty is to a nation and to the ideals on which it was founded, or to a political movement and those who lead it.

This is hardly the first time that the American political right (whichever party it inhabited at the time) has argued for casting off such inconvenient notions as justice, freedom, democracy or the rule of law because they quavered with fear at external threats. Nor will it be the last. But every time history has judged them wrong, and this time will be no different.



Sunday, September 24, 2006

 

NYT: Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

finally, a statement of the obvious



September 24, 2006

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on United States soil. The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism, and the question of whether the United States is safer, have been subjects of persistent debate since the war began in 2003.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

Analysts began working on the estimate in 2004, but it was not finalized until this year. Part of the reason was that some government officials were unhappy with the structure and focus of earlier versions of the document, according to officials involved in the discussion.

Previous drafts described actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, and some policy makers argued that the intelligence estimate should be more focused on specific steps to mitigate the terror threat. It is unclear whether the final draft of the intelligence estimate criticizes individual policies of the United States, but intelligence officials involved in preparing the document said its conclusions were not softened or massaged for political purposes.

Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, said the White House “played no role in drafting or reviewing the judgments expressed in the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism.” The estimate’s judgments confirm some predictions of a National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives.

Documents released by the White House timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks emphasized the successes that the United States had made in dismantling the top tier of Al Qaeda.

“Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America and its allies are safer, but we are not yet safe,” concludes one, a report titled “9/11 Five Years Later: Success and Challenges.” “We have done much to degrade Al Qaeda and its affiliates and to undercut the perceived legitimacy of terrorism.”

That document makes only passing mention of the impact the Iraq war has had on the global jihad movement. “The ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry,” it states.

The report mentions the possibility that Islamic militants who fought in Iraq could return to their home countries, “exacerbating domestic conflicts or fomenting radical ideologies.”

On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee released a more ominous report about the terrorist threat. That assessment, based entirely on unclassified documents, details a growing jihad movement and says, “Al Qaeda leaders wait patiently for the right opportunity to attack.”

The new National Intelligence Estimate was overseen by David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, who commissioned it in 2004 after he took up his post at the National Intelligence Council. Mr. Low declined to be interviewed for this article.

The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of “self-generating” cells inspired by Al Qaeda’s leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants.

It also examines how the Internet has helped spread jihadist ideology, and how cyberspace has become a haven for terrorist operatives who no longer have geographical refuges in countries like Afghanistan.

In early 2005, the National Intelligence Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary training ground for the next generation of terrorists, and that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake Al Qaeda’s current leadership in the constellation of the global jihad leadership.

But the new intelligence estimate is the first report since the war began to present a comprehensive picture about the trends in global terrorism.

In recent months, some senior American intelligence officials have offered glimpses into the estimate’s conclusions in public speeches.

“New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-Western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge,” said Gen. Michael V. Hayden, during a speech in San Antonio in April, the month that the new estimate was completed. “If this trend continues, threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide,” said the general, who was then Mr. Negroponte’s top deputy and is now director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

For more than two years, there has been tension between the Bush administration and American spy agencies over the violence in Iraq and the prospects for a stable democracy in the country. Some intelligence officials have said the White House has consistently presented a more optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq than justified by intelligence reports from the field.

Spy agencies usually produce several national intelligence estimates each year on a variety of subjects. The most controversial of these in recent years was an October 2002 document assessing Iraq’s illicit weapons programs. Several government investigations have discredited that report, and the intelligence community is overhauling how it analyzes data, largely as a result of those investigations.

The broad judgments of the new intelligence estimate are consistent with assessments of global terrorist threats by American allies and independent terrorism experts.

The panel investigating the London terrorist bombings of July 2005 reported in May that the leaders of Britain’s domestic and international intelligence services, MI5 and MI6, “emphasized to the committee the growing scale of the Islamist terrorist threat.”

More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”





Saturday, September 23, 2006

 

The Independent: New terror that stalks Iraq's republic of fear


"The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it had been in the times of Saddam Hussein."

"One US Army major was quoted as saying that Baghdad is now a Hobbesian world where everybody is at war with everybody else and the only protection is self-protection."

The bodies in Baghdad's morgue " often bear signs of severe torture including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances, missing skin, broken bones (back, hands and legs), missing eyes and wounds caused by power drills or nails"

New terror that stalks Iraq's republic of fear

By Patrick Cockburn in Arbil

Published: 22 September 2006

The republic of fear is born again. The state of terror now gripping Iraq is as bad as it was under Saddam Hussein. Torture in the country may even be worse than it was during his rule, the United Nation's special investigator on torture said yesterday.

"The situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand," said Manfred Nowak. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it had been in the times of Saddam Hussein."

The report, from an even-handed senior UN official, is in sharp contrast with the hopes of George Bush and Tony Blair, when in 2003 they promised to bring democracy and respect for human rights to the people of Iraq. The brutal tortures committed in the prisons of the regime overthrown in 2003 are being emulated and surpassed in the detention centres of the present US- and British-backed Iraqi government. "Detainees' bodies show signs of beating using electric cables, wounds in different parts of their bodies including in the head and genitals, broken bones of legs and hands, electric and cigarette burns," the human rights office of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq says in a new report.

The horrors of the torture chamber that led to Saddam Hussein's Iraq being labelled "The Republic of Fear", after the book of that title by Kanan Makiya, have again become commonplace. The bodies in Baghdad's morgue " often bear signs of severe torture including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances, missing skin, broken bones (back, hands and legs), missing eyes and wounds caused by power drills or nails", the UN report said. Those not killed by these abuses are shot in the head.

Human rights groups say torture is practised in prisons run by the US as well as those run by theInterior and Defence ministries and the numerous Sunni and Shia militias.

The pervasive use of torture is only one aspect of the utter breakdown of government across Iraq outside the three Kurdish provinces in the north. In July and August alone, 6,599 civilians were killed, the UN says.

One US Army major was quoted as saying that Baghdad is now a Hobbesian world where everybody is at war with everybody else and the only protection is self-protection.

Iraq is in a state of primal anarchy. Paradoxically, the final collapse of security this summer is masked from the outside world because the country is too dangerous for journalists to report what is happening. Some 134 journalists, mostly Iraqi, have been killed since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The continuing rise in the number of civilians killed violently in Iraq underlines the failure of the new Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki installed in May after intense US and British pressure. The new government shows no signs of being more effective than the old. "It is just a government of the Green Zone," said an Iraqi official, referring to the fortified zone in central Baghdad housing the Iraqi government as well as the US and British embassies.

In an attempt to regain control of the capital and reduce sectarian violence, government and US troops launched "Operation Together Forward" in mid-July, but it seems to have had only marginal impact for a couple of weeks. The number of civilians killed in July was 3,590 and fell to 3,009 in August but was on the rise again at the end of the month.

The bi-monthly UN report on Iraq is almost the only neutral and objective survey of conditions in the country. The real number of civilians killed in Iraq is probably much higher because, outside Baghdad, deaths are not recorded. The Health Ministry claims, for instance, that in July nobody died violently in al-Anbar province in western Iraq, traditionally the most violent region, but this probably means the violence was so intense that casualty figures could not be collected from the hospitals.


Nobody in Iraq is safe. Buses and cars are stopped at checkpoints and Sunni or Shia are killed after a glance at their identity cards. Many people now carry two sets of identity papers, one Shia and one Sunni. Car number plates showing that it was registered in a Sunni province may be enough to get the driver shot in a Shia neighbourhood. Sectarian civil war is pervasive in Baghdad and central Iraq. Religious processions are frequently attacked. On 19 and 20 August, a Shia religious pilgrimage came under sustained attack that left 20 dead and 300 wounded.

The Iraqi state and much of society have been criminalised. Gangs of gunmen are often described on state television as "wearing police uniforms" . One senior Iraqi minister laughed as he told The Independent: " Of course they wear police uniforms. They are real policemen."

On 31 July, for instance, armed men in police uniforms driving 15 police vehicles kidnapped 26 people in an area of Baghdad known as Arasat that used to be home to several of the capital's better restaurants. Gunmen dressed in police uniforms had also kidnapped the head of Iraq's Olympic Committee, Ammar Jabbar al-Saadi, and 12 others, in the centre of Baghdad. Ransom demands were made. The US military suspected that Baghdad police's serious crime squad may have been responsible and stormed its headquarters to search vainly for the kidnap victims in its basement.

It has long been a matter of amusement and disgust in Iraq that government ministers travel abroad to give press conferences claiming that the insurgency is on its last legs. One former minister said: "I know of ministers who have never been to their ministries but get their officials to bring documents to the Green Zone where they sign them."

Beyond the Green Zone, Iraq has descended into murderous anarchy. For several days this month, the main road between Baghdad and Basra was closed because two families were fighting over ownership of an oilfield.

Government ministries are either Shia or Sunni. In Baghdad this month, a television crew filming the morgue had to cower behind a wall because the Shia guards were fighting a gun battle with the Sunni guards of the Electricity Ministry near by.

Then... and now

1998 "The Commission on Human Rights noted...massive and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq... hundreds of executions, some of which may have been extrajudicial executions... Torture and ill-treatment continued to be widespread."

2006 "The situation as far as torture is concerned is now completely out of hand... many people say that it is worse than in the times of Saddam Hussein. You find bodies with very heavy and serious torture marks. "

1998 In July a group of six people, including one woman, were sentenced to death by hanging on charges of organised prostitution, involvement in the white slave trade and smuggling alcohol to Saudi Arabia.

2006 On 7 September, the Iraqi authorities announced the execution by hanging at Abu Ghraib prison of 27 prisoners, including one woman, convicted of terror and criminal charges. It is the first mass execution since Saddam Hussein's rule.

Jerome Taylor


Friday, September 22, 2006

 

LA Times: U.N. Issues Grim Report on Iraq



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq21sep21,1,3193185.story?coll=la-headlines-world

U.N. Issues Grim Report on Iraq

It says violence targeting civilians 'is challenging the very fabric of the country.' A U.S. general notes a rise in attacks on American troops.
By Louise Roug
Times Staff Writer

September 21, 2006

BAGHDAD — The United Nations issued a somber human rights report Wednesday that focused on recent civilian deaths in Iraq, as at least 75 Iraqis were killed or found slain around the country.

Meanwhile, a top U.S. military spokesman said attacks against American troops had increased recently, as had killings by sectarian death squads that target civilians. He also said that American commanders expected violence to escalate even further during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which begins this weekend.

The report says 3,009 people were killed in Iraq during August, down from 3,590 in July. It warns that although the rate had declined at the beginning of the month, it had escalated again by month's end, especially in Baghdad.

The current level of violence, the report says, "is challenging the very fabric of the country."

The report also touches on other human rights issues. It notes that torture in official detention centers remains widespread; 300,000 people are displaced in Iraq; women are increasingly targets of violence in cases of "honor crimes"; and freedom of expression continues to suffer as a result of killings and intimidation of journalists.

The trend in the national civilian toll echoes recent statements by the Baghdad morgue, whose reports on deaths are often cited in tracking civilian casualties from sectarian fighting and the insurgency against the Iraqi government and the U.S.-led military.

These last few weeks have been even bloodier than usual in the capital, with a torrent of execution-style killings coming despite an American-led crackdown. But as U.S. commanders have focused on Baghdad, attackers have struck in northern and western parts of the country in what appears to be a coordinated campaign.

On Wednesday in Samarra, north of the capital, a suicide car bomber crashed into the home of a tribal leader who had recently denounced the Al Qaeda terrorist network. The blast killed 11 relatives but not the leader. Forty others were injured, authorities said.

In the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, also in the north, gunmen killed a government employee on his way to work, authorities said.

Eleven people were killed in attacks in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad, and two civilians were killed in separate bombings in the south.

Attackers also inflicted heavy casualties in the capital.

A suicide bomber driving a truck detonated his explosives near a checkpoint in the Dora neighborhood in south Baghdad, killing three people and injuring 11. A roadside explosion targeting an American patrol in east Baghdad killed one civilian. Separate mortar attacks on a checkpoint and a house injured eight people, according to police.

Two U.S. soldiers died in the capital in separate accidents Tuesday and Wednesday, and a third was shot and killed in northeast Baghdad on Wednesday, U.S. military statements said.

Police recovered 46 bodies in and around the capital. Some of the victims bore signs of torture. Many were blindfolded, handcuffed and had been shot, authorities said.

Iraqi security forces, especially police and special forces affiliated with the Interior Ministry, are widely believed to have been infiltrated by Shiite Muslim militias and have been accused of being behind many of the execution-style killings. But American commanders on Wednesday said they had scant evidence that ministry personnel were behind the death squads.

"Initially, there were a lot of allegations that death squads were not only coming out of Ministry of Interior forces but also organized by the Ministry of Interior," Army Maj. Gen. Joseph Peterson, who is in charge of training Iraqi police, told reporters during a news briefing.

The U.S. military has "not identified any Ministry of Interior personnel as a part of the death squad members and leaders that we have picked up," Peterson said, adding that "this seems to counter the initial allegations discrediting them."

At the same briefing, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the top military spokesman in Iraq, said the number of bombing attacks against American troops had increased since a Sept. 7 statement by the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub Masri.

Caldwell said the military expected an increased flow of foreign fighters into Iraq during Ramadan, which has been a period of increased violence.

*


louise.roug@latimes.com


Times staff writer Saif Hameed and a special correspondent in Samarra contributed to this report.


Thursday, September 21, 2006

 

(BN ) Frank Rich Recaps How White House Sold the WMDs, Told the Lies



Frank Rich Recaps How White House Sold the WMDs, Told the Lies
2006-09-20 00:07 (New York)


Review by Craig Seligman
     Sept. 20 (Bloomberg) -- It's all here: the fictitious Prague
meeting between Mohamed Atta and an emissary of Saddam Hussein;
the phantom uranium in Niger; the smearing of administration
critic Joseph Wilson and the outing of his wife, Valerie Plame,
as a CIA agent; the planted White House ``reporter'' unmasked as
an escort on hotmilitarystud.com; the orange alerts; the
unphotographed coffins; the half-truths, the flat-out lies and
the whole hard sell that the Bush administration used to mire us
in Iraq.
     It's all here, just as you remember it. And if there's a
problem with ``The Greatest Story Ever Sold,'' Frank Rich's
predictably angry and funny attack on the White House hype
machine, that's it: If you read the papers every day, you
probably do remember it.
     There's nothing new here, nor does Rich pretend there is. He
isn't a reporter but a pit bull of an op-ed columnist for the New
York Times, and although I would happily reread his collected
columns, the new book is more like one 225-page column (bulked up
with a timeline appendix juxtaposing what-they-knew-and-when-
they-knew-it with what-they-said-and-when-they-said-it).
     But Rich has the writerly intelligence to know he can't
sustain the boiling indignation of his Sunday diatribes at such
length. So in ``The Greatest Story Ever Sold'' he mostly simmers.
(Who came up with the cheesy title? The story isn't biblical, it
isn't that great, and it's hardly the first time an
administration has sold a dubious war to a credulous public.)

                          Scare Tactics

     Nor can he mask a sneaking admiration for the brazenness of
the hawks, with their triumphalist narrative of an enslaved and
suffering nation transformed into a bright-eyed new democracy.
     But Rich has a triumphalist narrative of his own to put
across: He thinks the American people have finally wised up. He
writes as though nationwide suckerdom is a thing of the past.
(I'm not convinced.)
     In his concluding chapter, he argues that among the several
reasons the administration landed us in this bewildering conflict
was Karl Rove's conviction that a war would shore up the
president's poll numbers -- and, as the 2004 election proved, he
was right. The electorate, or at least a big enough chunk of it,
bought the snake oil. Or perhaps a better figure of speech, given
the consequences of the war so far -- military humiliation, near-
universal anti-Americanism, the nurture of jihad and the
strengthening of Iran -- is that it drank the Kool-Aid.
     For all the finger-pointing, he handles one party with
curious, even suspicious delicacy: ``the great unwashed American
public that bought the false WMD smoking guns in good faith.''
The administration's post-Sept. 11 scare tactics, he laments,
were ``not all that easy to resist.''

                            False Note

     Yet a lot of people did resist them. Rich doesn't mention
the February 2003 antiwar marches that drew hundreds of thousands
of demonstrators across the nation, or any of the frantic antiwar
activity that preceded the invasion. The skeptics remembered CIA
``intelligence'' about Vietnam and elsewhere, and while they may
have been a minority, they were a noisy one. Nobody who fell into
military lockstep can claim we weren't warned that those WMDs
could be made of smoke.
     Americans have a soft spot for confidence men; it's their
marks we tend to sneer at. The boob who buys the Brooklyn Bridge
from a smooth talker doesn't get much sympathy, and he doesn't
deserve it. So when Rich's heart goes out to those poor, put-upon
Americans who were sold a bill of goods, he strikes his one
jarringly false note. He sounds like a politician.

                          Gutless Twits

     By 2004 the Bush administration's policies were out in the
open. Swift Boaters or no, there have been few presidential
elections in which the issues were more clear-cut. Americans got
the leader they chose, and one who will leave office having
accomplished something few observers thought possible: He's made
life in Iraq worse than it was under Saddam Hussein.
     Any serious ``J'accuse'' has to include, along with
mendacious Republicans and gutless Democrats and a bovine press,
an American public that saw clearly what the president was doing
and voted to keep him in office anyway.
     ``The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of
Truth from 9/11 to Katrina'' is published by Penguin Press (341
pages, $25.95).

     (Craig Seligman is a critic for Bloomberg News. The opinions
expressed are his own.)

--Editors: Gerard (mvh/jjb/smw).

Story illustration: For more cultural news from Bloomberg, see
{MUSE <GO>}. For other book reviews, see
{TNI BOOK REVIEWS <GO>}.

To contact the writer on this story:
Craig Seligman at cseligman@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Manuela Hoelterhoff at (1)(212) 617-3486 or
mhoelterhoff@bloomberg.net.

[TAGINFO]
PSON LN <Equity> CN
NYT US <Equity> CN
NI MUSE
NI BOOK
NI REVIEWS
NI CULTURE
NI TERROR
NI US
NI IRAQ
NI GOV
NI POL



#<545561.500134.1.0.7.4.25>#
-0- Sep/20/2006 04:07 GMT


Wednesday, September 20, 2006

 

The Guardian: European watchdog calls for clampdown on CIA




European watchdog calls for clampdown on CIA

· UK is urged to take lead in monitoring agents
· Scathing attack on Bush, 'the King John of USA'


Nicholas Watt in Brussels and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Friday September 8, 2006
The Guardian


The head of Europe's human rights watchdog yesterday called for monitoring of CIA agents operating in Britain and other European countries, after President George Bush's admission that the US had detained terrorist suspects in secret prisons.

Terry Davis, secretary general of the Council of Europe, said CIA agents operating in Europe should be subject to the same rules as British agents working for MI5 and MI6.

"There is a need to deal with the conduct of allied foreign security services agents active on the territory of a council member state," Terry Davis said. "In the UK there is parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence services but there is no parliamentary scrutiny of friendly foreign services. The UK should be in the lead on this issue."

As part of this process, diplomatic immunity should be reviewed. "Immunity should not mean impunity," he said.

Mr Davis also called for a ban on the transport of suspects in military aircraft. At the moment the prohibition applies only to civil aircraft.

The former British Labour MP was scathing about President Bush. "Why does the US need to keep people in secret prisons? I thought that was settled by Magna Carta. But King John is alive and well and running the USA.

"There is a smoking gun. We know where it is - it is in the hands of George Bush. His fingerprints are on the gun."

Mr Davis's remarks came as the man leading the Council of Europe's investigation into the secret CIA prisons dismissed Mr Bush's admission as "just one piece of the truth". In an attempt to step up pressure on the US and European governments to come clean on the prisons, the Swiss senator Dick Marty said: "There is more, much more, to be revealed."

Mr Bush said on Wednesday he ordered the transfer of 14 al-Qaida suspects from secret CIA jails to Guantánamo as a step to putting the men on trial. That revived concerns about torture and mistreatment of the detainees during their years in CIA custody, and the fairness of the military tribunals sought by the White House.

Human rights activists expect details of the treatment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, said to have been the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, and the other al-Qaida suspects held incommunicado will emerge now that they are at Guantánamo and able to meet their lawyers. Administration officials said yesterday that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, had assured the International Committee of the Red Cross it would have access to the prisoners and that discussions were under way to arrange meetings.

However, the administration also said yesterday it had no intention of satisfying European demands for fuller disclosure about the location of the secret prisons. "If the European countries want to continue to try to find out where the secret sites are, that is up to the Europeans," John Bellinger III, legal adviser to Ms Rice, told reporters.

He also argued, as has Ms Rice, that Europeans were to some extent complicit with the clandestine detention. "Information derived from questioning individuals was shared with European countries, and it was shared in a way that saved European lives." Washington also wants to use such secret jails in the future, Mr Bellinger said. "The president believes there needs to be a special programme if we capture an al-Qaida leader."

Mr Marty said he was not surprised by Mr Bush's disclosures. "This is no news for me," said Mr Marty, who claimed earlier this year that 14 European countries colluded with US intelligence in a "spider's web" of human rights abuses. "I have always been certain that these prisons existed, so I am not surprised."

Other senior figures in the Council of Europe, who plan to intensify their investigations into allegations that Romania and Poland played host to many of the prisoners, also criticised the US. Rene van der Linden, president of the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly, said: "Our work has helped to flush out the dirty nature of this secret war which, we learn at last, has been carried out completely beyond any legal framework.

"Kidnapping people and torturing them in secret, however tempting the short-term gain may appear to be, is what criminals do, not democratic governments. In the long term, such practices create more terrorists and undermine the values we are fighting for."




Special reports
Guantánamo Bay
Al-Qaida
United States

Full text
June 2006 US supreme court ruling on Guantánamo trials (pdf)
Detention in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay: statement by Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed (pdf)
Read the letter from Moazzam Begg (pdf)

Useful links
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights
Centre for Constitutional Rights
Office of Military Commissions


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?