Digging In Deeper

CNN reminds us President Bill

Clinton signed into law an omnibus crime bill in 1994 that included the federal "three strikes" provision, mandating life sentences for criminals convicted of a violent felony after two or more prior convictions, including drug crimes. On Wednesday, Clinton acknowledged that policy's role in over-incarceration in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

"The problem is the way it was written and implemented is we cast too wide a net and we had too many people in prison," Clinton said Wednesday. "And we wound up...putting so many people in prison that there wasn't enough money left to educate them, train them for new jobs and increase the chances when they came out so they could live productive lives."

Clinton's comments come on the heels of protests in Baltimore over policing and the death of a young black man there and a week after Hillary Clinton delivered one of the first policy addressees of her presidential campaign on criminal justice reform, saying that the system focuses too much on incarceration.

The problem wasn't that putting people in prison left insufficient money to educate and train them for new jobs.  There money always was there; what was lacking was will, with Clinton having a fetish for balancing the budget and the GOP (as usual) uninterested in spending on human capital. Combine that with the job-killing NAFTA, Clinton would have had us train and educate individuals for jobs which no longer existed or, with the tech boom were relatively-low paying and offered few benefits.

Of course, the President did balance the budget, largely with a bold, huge tax increase in 1993, for which he apologized to a wealthy group of contributors in 1995. Soon afterward, he reversed himself- sort of- stating "If I said anything which implies that I think we didn't do what we should have done, given the choices we faced at that time, I shouldn't have said that," which (roughly translated) means "Ohmigosh, that didn't sound right!"

Then there was the time, in July of 1993, that President Clinton signed the bill- which he cited as "a major step forward"-  establishing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military.  In 2010, he told Katie Couric that he regretted generating DADT, though he added "keep in mind, I didn't choose this policy."   Similarly, in 2013, he wrote that he had come to believe the Defense of Marriage Act, which he signed in in 1996, is unconstitutional, though he argued it was a response to the likelihood of more draconian initiatives, perhaps including even a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

The former President has not stated that he regrets a 1998 bombing raid in Sudan, ordered partly in retaliation for bombing of three U.S. embassies. The target is now commonly believed to have been merely a pharmaceutical factory, which at the time US intelligence believed was involved with both the processing of a nerve agent and Al-Qaeda. Three years after the event, The Guardian reported the facility was

one of only three medium-sized pharmaceutical factories in Sudan, and the only one producing TB drugs - for more than 100,000 patients, at about £1 a month. Costlier imported versions are not an option for most of them - or for their husbands, wives and children, who will have been infected since. Al-Shifa was also the only factory making veterinary drugs in this vast, mostly pastoralist, country. Its speciality was drugs to kill the parasites which pass from herds to herders, one of Sudan's principal causes of infant mortality.

Although  it would be helpful- and far more meaningful- were the former president to acknowledge his role in the financial calamity the nation has mostly (though not fully; graph from Pew Research Center) climbed its way out of.   that's probably asking too much. However, Clinton's flexibility and willingness to call into question some past actions bespeak an awareness of self or of reality that is lacking elsewhere.

At least President Clinton's  decision on Al-Shifa did not unleash the forces turned against Middle Eastern nations and the West as did the invasion in 2003 ordered by President George W. Bush.  That has not, however, deterred one of  the three major GOP presidential candidates who, one can hope, is gradually being unmasked as a right-wing extremist.  We now learn 

After spending months distancing himself from his family’s political legacy, Jeb Bush surprised a group of Manhattan financiers this week by naming his brother, former president George W. Bush, as his most influential counselor on U.S.-Israel policy.

“If you want to know who I listen to for advice, it’s him,” Bush said Tuesday, speaking to a crowd of high-powered investors at the Metropolitan Club, according to four people present. The Republicans in the room spoke on the condition of anonymity to divulge information about the private meeting.

Strategically, it's probably a smart move. Steve M. believes "Republican voters want a candidate who'll say things that please conservatives and make non-conservatives furious. Jeb just did that -- furtively." However, that probably is mere "gravy" to the main dish, that of pleasing mega-billionaire Repub donor Sheldon Adelson, who loves Israel almost as much as he hates unions, and couldn't have been pleased to find that the candidate had considered former Secretary of State James Baker (of "f_ _ _ the Jews" notoriety) a foreign policy adviser.

John Ellis Bush might have been content with "I love my brother and served well the country he loves so much."  Obviously, the second part of those three claims would have been untrue, but everyone would have understood and given him a pass.  It's one thing to have made the mistakes President 43 made but adding him as part of your foreign policy team is fairly contemptuous, suggesting the third Bush believes the American electorate will swallow just about anything.

Share |

Clinton Off The Mark

To be fair to him, Bill Clinton has a point.  Almost.

This would not be when he told Senator John McCain (R-AZ) during an event for the McCain Institute for International Leadership (hat tip to outsidethebeltway.com) "'Okay, see what a big mess it is? Stay out!' I think that's a big mistake.  I agree with you about this. Sometimes it's just best to get caught trying, as long as you don't overcommitt- like, as long as you don't make an improvident commitment."  Informants have assured us that the former President was not referring to avoiding over-commitment and detection when befriending female interns..

According to Politico's Maggie Haberman, Clinton maintained that as President, if "there was a poll in the morning paper that said 80 percent of you were against it … you’d look like a total wuss."  He contended additionally

Nobody is asking for American soldiers in Syria. The only question is now that the Russians, the Iranians and the Hezbollah are in there head over heels, 90 miles to nothing, should we try to do something to try to slow their gains and rebalance the power so that these rebel groups have a decent chance, if they’re supported by a majority of the people, to prevail?...

My view is that we shouldn’t over-learn the lessons of the past,” Clinton said. “I don’t think Syria is necessarily Iraq or Afghanistan — no one has asked us to send any soldiers in there. I think it’s more like Afghanistan was in the ’80s when they were fighting the Soviet Union … when President Reagan was in office [and] got an enormous amount of influence and gratitude by helping to topple the Soviet-backed regime and then made the error of not hanging around in Afghanistan” to try to cash in on the gains.

President Obama has been unnecessarily passive, as Tom Rogan argues here. But to suggest his approach has been motivated largely by public sentiment is sheer speculation on the part of the husband of Senator Obama's primary (pun intended) Democratic rival of 2008.  

You might have noticed that the Big Dog avoided advocating a particular course of action, which would have been helpful, though exposing him (and perhaps his wife) to some hard questions if the recommendations were adopted and failed.  You might also have recognized a former President knocking a current President for allegedly subjecting his policy to popular sentiment while arguing that "rebel groups" must be given "a decent chance, if they're supported by a majority of the people, to prevail."

Dismayed by a Democratic President who considers the will of the people, Clinton commends a (former) Republican president who chose a politically popular position (alliteration intentional) by opposing those nasty Russian commies or, as Clinton put it, aiding "rebel groups" in Afghanistan "in the '80s when they were fighting the Soviet Union... when President Reagan was in office (and) got an enormous amount of influence and gratitude by helping to topple the Soviet-backed regime and then made the error of not hanging around in Afghanistan."

It is common wisdom, as Clinton clearly displayed, that the biggest mistake the U.S.A. made in that era in Afghanistan was not "hanging around," taking some of the credit for defeat of the Soviets and helping effect a pro-American, democratic regime in Kabul.   In this case, common wisdom is wrong.

As the former President should have learned by now, victory by the most powerful military in world history is the relatively easy part.  Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and Muammar Khadafi can be removed from power, but the aftermath is exceedingly treacherous.

Clinton demonstrates the common perception that aiding the rebels in Afghanistan was a slam-dunk.  (And at the time it seemed so.) Maybe so, but hardly in the way he believes. Casey Gane-McCalla of NewsOne gives us a history lesson, the broad outline of which seems to be generally lost to history.  He explains

During in the 1970s, when the Russia was the biggest threat to America and radical Islam was not as a concern of the USA’s, the USA began funding and training Islamic militants to fight our Russian enemies in Afghanistan.

These militants, known as the mujahideen would rebel the Russians out of Afghanistan and later become the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

One of the most prominent members of he mujahideen was a wealthy son of a Saudi Arabian businessman named Osama Bin Laden.

National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski visited Afganistan in 1979 and met with Bin Laden and even took a picture with him. Brzezinski would tell the mujahideen

We know of their deep belief in God, and we are confident their struggle will succeed. That land over there is yours, you’ll go back to it one day because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes and your mosques back again. Because your cause is right and God is on your side.

The BBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Russian journal Demokratizatsiya have all written that the CIA and U.S.A. funded and supported Bin Laden during the Afghan war.

Former British Foreign secretary, Robin Cook said:

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

Several other authors, journalists and statesmen have all made the claim that Bin Laden was funded, armed and trained by the CIA to fight off the Russians.

After Ronald Reagan was elected in 1981, U.S. funding of the mujahideen increased significantly and CIA Paramilitary Officers played a big role in training, arming and sometimes even leading mujahideen forces.

The CIA trained the mujahideen in many of the tactics Al Qaeda is known for today, such as car bombs, assassinations and other acts that would be considered terrorism today.

The U.S.A. would fund Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a mujahideen leader and alleged heroin dealer who worked closely with Bin Laden. Hekmaytyar and his political party/paramilitary group would receive more than $600 million from the USA. Author, Alfred McCoy, would claim that the CIA supported Hekmatyar in his illicit heroin trade to allow him to fund the mujahideen.Like Bin Laden, Hekmatyar has also become an enemy of the U.S., waging a war against coalition forces in Afghanistan after 2001.

The mujahideen was a forerunner of Al Qaeda and morphed into the deadly terrorist group. But, as Brzezinski's remark reflected, the USA in Afghanistan opposed an overrated enemy and ignored the threat posed by an up-and-coming one because the officially atheist Soviet Unionwas a godless nation fought b people convinced God was on their side.   There is a moral to that story (perhaps more than one) which Bill Clinton, with his famously superior intellect, ought to understand.
 



Share |

Not Only Economics


Where is the hawkish U.S. Representative Pete King (R-NY) when we need him?  

In May, 2010 the hawkish Mr. King, then the ranking member (now chairperson) of the Committee on Homeland Security, wrote

While I am heartened that this first Obama Administration National Security Strategy addresses the growing problem of al-Qaeda recruiting American citizens and those in the country legally, perhaps most notable about the Strategy is what it fails to say. 

I have serious concerns about this Strategy. The Obama Administration refuses to even identify head-on the threat our nation faces. Even though we have been at war against radical Islamic jihadists since they killed almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11, the Obama Administration fails to even mention such terms. By his own account, assistant to the President John Brennan stated in a speech yesterday, “nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists,’” even after these terrorists we are fighting continue to commit their slaughter in the name of “jihad.” The Administration is ignoring the quintessential rule of war: ‘Know Your Enemy.’ Failing to acknowledge the enemy we face will not make the enemy disappear.

Who now is "failing to acknowledge the enemy"- or American heroes?    Surprisingly, neo-con William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, a few days ago observed

The United States has some 68,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan. Over two thousand Americans have died in the more than ten years of that war, a war Mitt Romney has supported. Yet in his speech accepting his party's nomination to be commander in chief, Mitt Romney said not a word about the war in Afghanistan. Nor did he utter a word of appreciation to the troops fighting there, or to those who have fought there. Nor for that matter were there thanks for those who fought in Iraq, another conflict that went unmentioned.

Leave aside the question of the political wisdom of Romney's silence, and the opportunities it opens up for President Obama next week. What about the civic propriety of a presidential nominee failing even to mention, in his acceptance speech, a war we're fighting and our young men and women who are fighting it? Has it ever happened that we've been at war and a presidential nominee has ignored, in this kind of major and formal speech, the war and our warriors? 

The candidate's omission,though far less likely oversight than tactical positioning, may be more significant than meets the eye.   Once Mitt Romney, yearning for journalists and pundits everywhere to compare him to Ronald Reagan, parenthetically asked during his nomination acceptance speech whether Americans are "better off" than they were four years ago, the media jumped on board.    Rush Limbaugh, George Stepanopoulos, pollsters, and others were quick to ask the question, or answer it in the negative.

The question is assumed to pertain to the economic state of the nation which, as Paul Krugman explains, is better now than it was in November 2008, though worse than it would have been had Obama governed like the progressive he campaigned as.   Housing permits and retail sales generally are rising; the civilian employment-population ratio is gradually rising and is slightly higher than at the depth of the recession; the stock market is up, inflation low, and interest rates even lower; private sector employment has increased for the past 29 months; the average total tax burden is lower than it has been in decades while corporate profits are higher than in decades.   (We should acknowledge that government jobs are down and good and bad jobs alike still are leaving the country for abroad, but we wouldn't want to make Republicans giddy.)

However, the query is never posed so specifically as to specify the "economy" or the economic status of the average American family.   It is always framed in very general terms, as to being "better off" period.   And for that, Joe Biden says it best: "bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive."

Not only is bin Laden dead, but Al Qaeda seems to be on the run, though determining definitively is nearly impossible.   While drone attacks have been instrumental in destroying much of the terrorist group's leadership, "signature strikes" probably have improved Al Qaeda's recruiting more than they have impeded the group's capacity for violence.  But the likelihood that Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan will question the Administration's aggressive use of drones- or rendition, military commissions, or indefinite detention- is slight or nonexistent, and slight is on a train heading out-of-town.

So expect President Obama, when asked whether we are "better off" than four years ago- and when pre-empting the question in his acceptance speech- not to say definitively that Americans are basking in the lap of economic security.   That would be not only an exaggeration, but invite criticism for insensitivity to suffering.   He will note some improvement since the last Administration, during which the economy collapsed.  But he will argue also that America is more secure than she was a few years ago and tick off his administration's success fighting Al Qaeda, ratcheting down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, implementing health care reform, and in other areas.   And he will demonstrate a better understanding of the enemy abroad than most leading Republicans, including Mr. Romney, Mr. Ryan, and Mr. King.

Share |

A Con Job On Afghanistan

It is not ignorance with Rush Limbaugh. Rush knew enough in one of his rambling discourses on October 4 to explain "McChrystal wants to shift troops away from those remote outposts that are difficult to defend and move them into more heavily populated areas as part of a new strategy to focus on protecting Afghan civilians and this is what Obama's waiting on."

Limbaugh, apparently, has some idea of what the issues are in Afghanistan. But this didn't stop him from telling a caller a few minutes later

We were there before he got there but he ramped this up and I'm wondering how much of it was genuine or because he thought he had to just because during the campaign the Democrats say we should never have been in Iraq, we should have been in Afghanistan. That's where we needed to be. Bush distracted us from the real problem. That's where Osama is. We need to going after Osama. Now they couldn't care less about Osama

Never mind that Limbaugh won't acknowledge that President Bush had no policy toward Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Gates is only the latest individual to notice "that the strategy the president put forward in late March, is the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s. And that strategy was more about [the] Soviet Union that it was about Afghanistan" (a strategically disastrous policy at that).

The manipulative nonsense Limbaugh is spewing here is the implication that President Obama is reluctant to provide the 40,000 additional soldiers requested by General McChrystal because "they (presumably the administration's doves but, as usual, Limbaugh cowardly avoids specificity) couldn't care less about Osama." But as someone with a decent knowledge about the war there, Limbaugh is intentionally misrepresenting the policy issue.

McChrystal is urging a counterinsurgency strategy (COIN), which would

underscore how much the mission in Afghanistan has shifted from the narrow focus of "get Al Qaeda" that prevailed at the start of the war to one where US soldiers and civilian aid workers are expected to reduce corruption at the local and national levels, train Afghan cops and soldiers, improve local economies, and aid in building a democratic central government.

In contrast, V.P. Biden wants to

Scale back the overall American military footprint in Afghanistan, drop the mission of rescuing the country from the Taliban, focus on strikes against Al Qaeda along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border -- the real threat to U.S. national security -- using special forces and Predator missile attacks.

Does this sound like "now they couldn't care less about Osama?" Of course not, and Limbaugh realizes it. He could inform his listening audience of those facts in the public domain, as Trudy Heller did on Sunday in The Philadelphia Inquirer upon noting

Only 16 percent of Pakistanis expressed a favorable view of the United States in a recent Pew Research Center survey. Only 13 percent had confidence in President Obama - a mere bump of 6 percentage points over former President George W. Bush.

And, critically, 76 percent are opposed to Pakistan's partnering with the United States in drone attacks against al-Qaeda and other extremists - even though those drones killed the man accused of murdering former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

And then he could make a reasonable observation, such as

Unless the United States develops a strategy for reaching Pakistanis, with real stories of U.S. aid - not fake "public diplomacy" - the local population will continue to view us with hostility, no matter how much aid money we send there. That hostility translates into gains for al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Rush Limbaugh could reverse course and occasionally provide his audience with information. Understandably, though, he finds it more productive to proceed on his course of deception and disinformation in his pursuit of re-creating a Republican majority.

Not So Fast

No one can accuse Maureen Dowd of mincing words, fence-sitting, or ambivalence. She wrote in her Saturday column in The New York Times:

The normally nonchalant Barack Obama looked nonplussed, as Nancy Pelosi glowered behind.

Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!

....Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.

There is far, far more to it than that. In making another point(s), a "driftglass," at crooksandliars.com reminds us:

Once upon a time, there was a President named Bill Clinton, who was, by most historical standards, a typical Centrist Republican, although by a fluke of geography and circumstances he ran for public office with a "(D)" after his name.

Under his Administration, many Conservative ideas which had long gathered dust on the shelf -- ideas such as welfare reform, a balanced budget, debt reduction, a strict “Pay as You Go” fiscal regime, a boom in technology jobs, budget surpluses, NAFTA, GATT, official bans on gay marriage, etc. -- were finally realized.

And for all of his good work on behalf of their ideology, Conservatives spent eight, long years treating Bill Clinton -- a Southern, White, Christian man -- as if he were a case of flesh eating nuclear syphilis.

Because he did not run for office with an "(R)" after his name.

And because he did not run for office with an "(R)" after his name, according to the leading voices in the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement, Bill Clinton was, in no particular order, Hitler, a Socialist, a rapist, a warmonger, a serial murderer, and a drug dealer, whose Presidency was somehow vaguely illegitimate.

And counterpointing the 24/7 slime campaign, there were those endless, endless hearings. Whitewater. Travel office. Christmas Card lists. Lincoln bedroom. Etc ad nauseum.

Or don’t you remember?

He was “Not my President!” (Ollie North: War criminal, terrorist arms dealer, GOP Senate Candidate [1994] and FoxNews Contributor.)

He was warned “not to set foot in my state.” (Jesse Helms: Professional Bigot, Confederate Senator, 1820-2003)

His picture was used for target practice by G. Gordon Liddy. (Watergate felon, would-be assassin, radio 'personality' and Republican hero.)

From "The American Prospect":

...it's worth remembering just how virulent the opposition to Clinton's presidency was. Republicans began plotting to impeach Clinton long before anyone had ever heard the name "Lewinsky," and many on the right simply refused to accept that he legitimately occupied the office he held. Then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, when talking to Democrats, used to refer to Clinton as "your president."

It was a warped, hysterical campaign funded by wealthy Right Wing thugs like Richard Mellon Scaife and propagated by wealthy Right Wing thugs like Rupert Murdoch who made sure the lies were jack-hammered into the headlines day after day, year after year.

It didn't begin with Barack Obama and it has continued to the present day, sinking with help of the mainstream media, including Maureen Dowd (described here and here), the candidacy of Al Gore. Attacks on President Clinton were routine, as these quotes indicate:

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.”
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

And my personal favorite, uttered in the days when Tom DeLay and other prominent Republicans thought Al Qaeda was a minor nuisance and Osama bin Laden a mere annoyance:

“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

There are reasons for the remarkable and despicable (but not extraordinary) and irrational hatred directed against President Obama. One of them is the disturbing influence of the self-serving antics of the second most popular radio talk show host in the nation, who has described himself as "a rodeo clown;" and of the nation's most popular radio talk show host and loyal corporate apologist. Race is a factor but easily overrated and making the charge without powerful evidence that it is the prime catalyst behind the right-wing assault on the presidency denies recent GOP history and obscures more complex motivation, preventing a full exploration of the extremist mind of the early 21st century. And it is a backlash waiting to happen.

Torture And False Confessions

As early as January 22, 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney was hard at work trying to convince the American people of a link between Sadaam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The Center for American Progress quotes him as claiming

There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there.

CAP notes the following sources as refutation of this central claim of the war:

"According to documents, "Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle U.S. troops. The document provides another piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda terrorists." [NY Times, 1/15/04]

"CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam." [NY Times, 1/15/04]

"Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04]

“Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.” [National Journal, 8/9/03]

Declassified documents “undercut Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda.” [LA Times, 7/19/03].

“The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.” [NY Times, 6/27/03]

"U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.'We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' said Europe's top investigator. 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.’" [LA Times, 11/4/02]

But sometimes a lie dies a slow death, and fictitious claims of a connection may be at the heart of the current controversy over the torture regime established by the CIA. According to this article in the New York Times, the enhanced interrogation tactics taught to the U.S. military and the Central Intelligence Agency were based on a chart which in turn "had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners."

Torture as a means to obtain false confessions. Now here is investigative journalist Ron Suskind, author of The Way of the World, explaining on Rachel Maddow on 4/22:

I heard some of that back when I was reporting the book, but I really couldn‘t confirm it and you need, you know, several sources confirming to put it in the book.

And what‘s fascinating here, if you run the timeline side by side, you see, really, for the first time from that report that the key thing being sent down in terms of the request by the policymakers, by the White House, is find a link between Saddam and al Qaeda so that we essentially can link Saddam to the 9/11 attacks and then march into Iraq with the anger of 9/11 behind us. That was the goal and that was being passed down as the directive.

It‘s, you know, it‘s often called the requirement inside the CIA for both agents with their sources and interrogators with their captives. “Here‘s what we‘re interested in, here‘s what we, the duly elected leaders, want to hear about. Tell us what you can find.”

What‘s fascinating, in the Senate report, is finally clear confirmation that that specific thing was driving many of the activities, and mind you, the frustration inside of the White House that was actually driving action. The quote, in fact, inside of the Senate report from a major said that as frustration built inside of the White House, that there was no link that was established—because the CIA told the White House from the very start there is no Saddam/al Qaeda link. We checked it out. We did every which way. Sorry.

The White House simply wouldn‘t take no for an answer and it went with another method. Torture was the method. “Get me a confession, I don‘t care how you do it.” And that bled all the way through the government, both on the CIA side and the Army side. It‘s extraordinary.

Mind you, Rachel, this is important. This is not about an impetus to foil an upcoming potential al Qaeda attacks. The impetus here is largely political diplomatic. The White House had a political diplomatic problem. It wanted it solved in the run-up to the war....

My question, the question for investigators now: Is how many of these interrogations were driven specifically by a desire to come up with the Saddam/al Qaeda link? It‘s essentially rivers coming together.

Perhaps this is what Dick Cheney means when he refers to the "success" of the "enhanced interrogation" tactics. The scheme was borrowed from the (Chinese) Communists who got false confessions out of it, and the Administration needed someone on the other side, a terrorist, an enemy combatant, somebody to say there was a connection between the guy the U.S. military deposed and the architects of the worst attack ever on American soil. This may seem nefarious, but for the crew who ran things, their way, into the ground the last eight years, pretty standard fare.

Caution On The Surge

It has been nearly two years now that political correctness has demanded that all bow to the success of The Surge in Iraq. The mainstream media, Republican (and most Democratic) politicians, and most military analysts have readily complied.

Someone forgot to tell Thomas Ricks, who covered the United States military for The Washington Post until recently and has written extensively, for the paper and otherwise, about Iraq. Here in his blog, Ricks questions the staying power of the Anbar Awakening, the "mainly Sunni group of about 100,000 people, many of them former insurgents, who in late 2006 and 2007 arrived at ceasefires with the U.S. military presence in Iraq." He explains:

The American plan was to integrate about 20,000 members of Awakening groups into Iraqi security forces, and help the rest find other work. Meantime, the Baghdad government was supposed to take over the payments to the groups, which when I last checked totaled about $30 million a month.

But the Shiite-dominated Baghdad government never really liked the idea. Indeed, the first deals were cut by U.S. officials behind the back of the Iraqi government. So Maliki's guys are:

Arresting some leaders of the "Sons of Iraq" (the American term for Awakening forces)
Attacking others
Bringing only 5,000 of the ex-insurgents into the Iraqi security forces
And stiffing others on pay, with some complaining they haven't been paid in weeks or even months

I think Maliki's gambit is to crack down on the Sunnis while American forces are still available in sufficient numbers to back him up. This is a turning into a test of strength, Sunni vs. Shiite.

There's more. If the Awakening fighting spreads, I wouldn't be surprised to see Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia re-emerge. I've always thought the Sunni Awakening forced him to go to ground, because he didn't want to be the only guy taking on American forces.

Ricks is unsure whether the surge, which has played a role in reducing American casualties but was implemented to achieve not military but strategic objectives, has worked.

It has always struck me as odd that (Senator and President) Barack Obama has been one of the few politicians who appear to understand that Iraq is not an isolated country but part of a region. This recognition is one of the reasons (political strategy being another) that he has consistently emphasized the rather obvious, but largely unstated, central reality of American foreign policy of the last seven-and-a-half years: while we have been fighting a war in Iraq, we have "taken our eye off the ball" in Afghanistan. The latter is not only another nation in the Gulf, but a more important nation than Iraq, at least given the threat posed by Al-Qaeda.

The surge has been a tactical success. Determining, however, whether it will have been a strategic success awaits- at a minimum- the outcome of the war(s) over there.

Al Qaeda Concerned

Did Al Qaeda want Barack Obama to be elected President of the United States?

Evidently, the McCain-Palin campaign thought so. A comment posted in October on a website linked to Al Qaeda called for the election of John McCain. ABC's Jake Tapper reported on his blog on 10/23 that Randy Scheunemann and former CIA chief James Woolsey and Randy Schuenemann responded by suggesting that Al Qaeda preferred Obama. Woolsey asserted "it is ridiculous to believe that in its heart of hearts Al Qaeda wants John McCain to be the President. And it is ludicrous." Scheunemann, one of McCain's foreign policy advisers, claimed "only Senator Obama has advocated withdrawal and surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq when Al Qaeda was at the peak of its power."

On November 19, Al Qaeda's no. 2 leader posted a statement on numerous militant web sites. In his 11 minute, 23 second video, Ayman al-Zawahiri emphasized "America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed, and spirit, which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always." He called Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and President-elect Obama "house negroes" and claimed

You represent the direct opposite of honorable black Americans like Malik al-Shabazz, or Malcolm X (may Allah have mercy on him). You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand in the ranks of the enemies of the Muslims, and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim to be Christian, in order to climb the rungs of leadership in America. And so you promised to back Israel, and you threatened to strike the tribal regions in Pakistan, and to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, in order for the crimes of the American Crusade in it to continue.

Al Zawahiri appears to fear his "brothers" will not understand that Americans "continue to be captive to the same criminal American mentality towards the world and towards the Muslims." He finds a need to explain the "criminal, trespassing Crusader, continues to be the same as ever." He seems to be angry that the U.S.A. has chosen as its leader someone who will not incur the enmity in the Muslim world as President Bush and that his co-religionists throughout the world now have a more benign view of our nation.

And what if an Al Qaeda official had delivered this vicious, hateful, bigoted message prior to the election? Almost certainly it would have evoked great sympathy- and empathy- for Barack Obama, a sense that the mission of the Illinois senator is the same as ours. Referring to the Democratic nominee as a supporter of Israel, a Christian, and, especially, as among "the enemies of the Muslims" would have allayed a few of the concerns of voters. His victory would have been almost assured and his winning margin of 6.8% enhanced. It's likely Al Qaeda understood the likely impact of such an attack and wisely (though without avail) held off its denunciation until the election of Barack Obama, an event which appears to have alarmed the terrorist organization.

Debate- Pakistan, Afghanistan



In the relatively boring presidential debate on Friday evening (9/26/08) that most objective observers would consider roughly a "draw," there were a few issues raised which give me the opportunity to demonstrate my bias- or, rather, incisive analysis.

One of these was Pakistan/Afghanistan. A question from Jim Lehrer about Afghanistan elicited these responses:

(McCain) Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you’re going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger.
I’m not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I’m not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.... And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I’m going to attack them.

(Obama) Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here’s what I said.
And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has Al Qaida, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.,,, And the problem, John, with the strategy that’s been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, “Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he’s our dictator.”
And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren’t going after Al Qaida, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.

There are a few points that ought to be made:

1) Al Qaida is more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan, as this New York Times article of 6/30/08 suggests;

2) Obama never said, even figuratively, that he would "aim a gun" at Pakistan, nor did he publicly state that he would "attack them." At most, the Democratic candidate said that he would attack Al Qaeda. Here is exactly what Obama has said:

(8/1/07) As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan. I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

(7/15/08) The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.
Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.

3) The Associated Press reported on 8/2/07: "McCain said the situation in Pakistan is "very delicate," since the country's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is an American ally with a tenuous hold on power. The Arizona senator said a direct American attack on the country could cause a backlash that might topple Musharraf." 9/27/08: Al Qaeda apparently resurgent in the border area of Pakistan/Afghanistan and Musharraf, disgraced, is gone anyway, no longer army chief of staff or president. United States policy toward Pakistan was in fact shaped by the ethos of the foreign policy establishment "well, you know, he's a dictator, but he's our dictator."

The Repub nominee may have confused Pakistan with Afghanistan (about which he had been asked), inasmuch as Obama said also on 7/15/08 "I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions - with fewer restrictions - from NATO allies." Or McCain may intentionally have been misrepresenting Obama's policy toward Pakistan. Dishonesty or mental confusion- it's getting difficult to differentiate between the two with John McCain.

Pakistan: Obama, Bush, McCain, Palin

It's a fair question. What do our national leader(s) and those who want to be national leaders think about "hot pursuit"- not by police of suspects trying to escape, but by United States armed forces of Al Qaeda in northwestern Pakistan?

Barack Obama has made his position clear. In a speech on August 1, 2007 he declared:

There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

In a foreign-policy speech delivered on July 15, 2008 Obama argued

The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.

John McCain has been almost as clear. The Associated Press on August 2, 2007 described the Arizona senator's response at Stanford University to Obama's remarks of the previous day:

McCain said the situation in Pakistan is "very delicate," since the country's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is an American ally with a tenuous hold on power. The Arizona senator said a direct American attack on the country could cause a backlash that might topple Musharraf.
"I think it's kind of a simplistic view of a very complex situation."

Sarah Palin is less clear. In the portion of her interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson that was aired on 9/11/08, Palin first advocated a policy at odds with the guy at the top of the ticket, then said "we have got to have all options out there on the table," which only means we should never say never. Here is the transcript:

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

And George W. Bush? In 2005 (according to The New York Times in July, 2007)

The decision to halt the planned “snatch and grab” operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military’s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.
Their frustration has only grown over the past two years, they said, as Al Qaeda has improved its abilities to plan global attacks and build new training compounds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, which have become virtual havens for the terrorist network.

And now? The Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau (in their blog, "The Swamp") reports

The helicopter-borne U.S. Special Operations raid in Pakistan last week was not an isolated incident "but part of a three-phase plan, approved by President Bush, to strike at Osama bin Laden and top al-Qaeda leadership'' at the end of Bush's term, National Public Radio is reporting, citing well-placed sources.
"The plan calls for a much more aggressive military campaign, said one source, familiar with the presidential order, which gives the green light for the military to take part in the operations,'' NPR reports.

The bad news is that the plan may have been undertaken only because of the upcoming election and "represents an 11th-hour effort by the Bush administration to hammer al-Qaeda before leaving office,'' according to NPR. The good news? Bush seems to have adopted Obama's approach, reminiscent of Nouri al -Maliki adopting Obama's approach to a timeline when he declared in early July "the current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal;” and the announcement approximately two weeks later (7/18/08) of a long-term security pact between the U.S. and Iraq including "horizons" for withdrawal.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flatter, Barack Obama should be flattered that the Administration seems to value his judgement.... as long as the Democratic nominee doesn't expect any admissions: from Bush that his primary motive is political; from McCain that he's out of step; or from Palin that she hasn't a clue as to what she's saying.

Iraq Viewed In Isolation

Is this so difficult to understand?

Of course, Repubs don't understand it, or at least pretend not to. Ditto the news media, unsurprising because it has virtually throughout been cheerleaders for the war. Neither, though, do most of the supporters of Obama (though Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state is an exception), which is hard to figure out.

The candidate himself says it over and over. Here Katie Couric in her exclusive interview (with the candidate everyone else has interviewed) tries six times to get Barack Obama to say that the "surge" was successful, apparently because she is one of the many not to understand. The Illinois senator explains that the surge

doesn't meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term. If that means that we're detracting from our efforts in Afghanistan, where conditions are deteriorating, if it means that we are distracted from going after Osama bin Laden who is still sending out audio tapes and is operating training camps where we know terrorists' actions are being plotted.

If we have shifted away from the central front of terrorism as a consequence of enormous and continuing investments in Iraq, then that's a poor strategic choice. And ultimately, what we've got to do is - we have to recognize that Iraq is just one of our … security problems. It's not the only one

What I'm saying is it does not solve the broader strategic question that we have been dealing with over the last five, six, seven years. And that is how do we take the limited resources we have, both militarily and financially, and apply them in such a way that we are making America as safe as possible?

A few questions, inasmuch that Obama understands what very few others do:

-When did the goal of American foreign policy become victory in Iraq- Wasn't the Administration at one point concerned about terrorism (or at least pretend to be)?

-Doesn't the surging strenth of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan concern anyone besides the junior Senator from Illinois (and radio talk show host Michael Smerconish, wrong about most things but consistently right about this)?

-Why must we hear only about the surge, as if there is no connection between the improving situation in Iraq and the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, where our nation is involved in a more critical war?

-Why does the other major party candidate believe Iraq and Pakistan share a border? (O.K., that one is a cheap shot.)

Of Afghanistan And The Surge

There is something about the mess in the Persian Gulf I don't understand.

On tonight's (7/17/08) episode of MSNBC's "Hardball," guest host Mike Barnicle led a discussion with public relations consultant and Repub strategist Mike Paul and Democratic strategist Steve McMahon. Recent ads by Barack Obama and John McCain were shown, followed by comments by Paul and McMahon. One such ad was put up by "Vets For Freedom," a third-party endorsement of Mccain in which various individuals emphatically asserted that the "surge is working." McMahon argued soldiers "on their fourth tour" are not anxious to remain in Iraq and "there's a political situation over there that hasn't improved very much."

True enough, and kudos to McMahon for asserting what is, or at least was before the presumptive Democratic nominee's obfuscation, the party's position on the war.

But in reports of 6/30/08 and 7/2/08 The New York Times noted:

the White House shifted its sights, beginning in 2002, from counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan to preparations for the war in Iraq.... Current and former military and intelligence officials said that the war in Iraq consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the tribal areas (of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan). (Now, there is) a strengthening Taliban insurgency that has menaced NATO forces and reclaimed control over some southern and eastern parts of the country.... (and) more American and coalition troops died in Afghanistan last month (i.e., June) than during any other month since the American-led invasion began in 2001.


So has the "surge" diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq? And if so, why haven't opponents of the Bush-Rice-McCain war policy (especially with Obama's emphasis on Afghanistan) not argued that: 1)the military success has resulted from diversion of resources from Afghanistan and 2)the Pakistan/Afghanistan front- not Iraq- is home to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda?

Failure In Pakistan

The report in yesterday's (6/30/08) New York Times, "Amid Policy Disputes, Qaeda Grows in Pakistan," reveals much about the Bush policy in the Persian Gulf.

We read of the plan devised by administration officials in late 2007 to enable American commando forces to operate more smoothly in the tribal areas of northwestern Pakistan, headquarters of al Qaeda, where peace agreements brokered by President Pervez Musharaff have allowed militants to operate increasingly freely. The plan, however, has stalled amidst bureaucratic in-fighting, a risk-averse attitude in Washington, and excessive concern about imperiling Musharraf's standing among Pakistanis.

The Times reports "it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world." In fact, Pentagon consultant and RAND Corporation terrorism expert Seth Jones explains "the United States faces a threat from Al Qaeda today that is comparable to what it faced on Sept. 11, 2001.”

Those who imply that diminished American casualties in Iraq during the "surge" justify continuation, or even launch, of the war should heed this important observation by The Times reporters: "current and former military and intelligence officials said that the war in Iraq consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the tribal areas." Consequently, according to the Times, "leading terrorism experts have warned that it is only a matter of time before a major terrorist attack planned in the mountains of Pakistan is carried out on American soil." Yet another unintended consequence of Bush's folly.

Bush Again In Flight From Reality

Fred Kaplan's piece of 4/8/08 on slate.com picks apart the speech President Bush gave today on the Iraq war- or perhaps it was on Iran, or Al Qaeda, or terrorism. One particularly revealing claim made by Mr. Bush, in his speech replete with distortion and fabrication, is highlighted by Kaplan's question "But what does the war in Iraq have to do with a terrorist attack on the United States? Where is the link?"

We find the President imagining "Today, we face an enemy that is not only expansionist in its aims, but has actually attacked our homeland -- and intends to do so again." He conflates the attack(s) of 9/11/01 ("has actually attacked our homeland") with our war in Iraq ("today, we face an enemy") and throws in an element of fear ("and intends to do so again") for good measure. Then he moves on to claim "Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century -- al Qaeda and Iran," conveniently neglecting to tell us that the attack 6-7 years ago came from Al Qaeda- not from Al Qaeda in Iraq. (Retired Colonel Larry Wilkerson, chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, argues "I don't believe Iraq is a theatre in the war on terror.") He continues by contending "if we fail there" (in Iraq), "the Taliban in Afghanistan and al Qaeda in Pakistan would grow in confidence and boldness." Meanwhile, our effort against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, including any effort to locate bin Laden in northwestern Pakistan, has suffered from this Administration's obsession with its failed war in Iraq.

I could go on and on, but Kaplan already has done that for us. Besides, one could take hours to go into sufficient depth to rebut completely a president who long ago parted company with the truth.

Fear: Thy Name Is McCain

Reuters reported on March 14, 2008 of a curious comment by Senator John McCain:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday he fears that al Qaeda or another extremist group might attempt spectacular attacks in Iraq to try to tilt the U.S. election against him.

McCain, at a town hall meeting in this Philadelphia suburb, was asked if he had concerns that anti-American militants in Iraq might ratchet up their activities in Iraq to try to increase casualties in September or October and tip the November election against him.

"Yes, I worry about it," McCain said. "And I know they pay attention because of the intercepts we have of their communications ... The hardest thing in warfare is to counter someone or a group of individuals who are willing to take their own lives in order to take others."

DHinMI on 3/14/08 at dailykos had an interesting take on this:

McCain isn't president, so why would he think the voters would punish him for failing to prevent another Al Qaeda attack on the United States?
Oh, that's right, because McCain is really running to complete George W. Bush's third term as President, and in that moment of candor, he let slip his greatest fear, that the voters will figure out that by embracing George W. Bush, McCain embraces all of Bush's failures.
(And speaking of embracing Bush's failures, McCain today was in Iraq with Dick Cheney- MSL.)
****************************
Yes, I know that Senator McCain is raising the specter of another terrorist attack so as to plant the idea that Al Qaeda is afraid of him. But McCain may be right. We both worry that Al Qaeda will attack the United States shortly before the presidential election, which would likely inure to the benefit of the more hawkish candidate, the war veteran, John McCain. That could be smart strategy on their part; after all, what could be better for recruitment of Islamic terrorists than election of a President willing to keep American- i.e., western- troops on Muslim land for the next 100 years?

Reflections on the Debate (Myrtle Beach, South Carolina)- No. 2

From Senator John McCain (whom the media have anointed as "the adult" in the GOP race), in the Repub Presidential debate of 1/10/08:

"Could I just make a comment? I'm not interested in trading with Al Qaida. All they want to trade is burkas....."

This was not a response to a question about trade, Al Qaida, or Middle East apparel. This was a response to the following question about the Israeli and Arab Palestininans:
Congressman Paul, can we go back to the Middle East? You have said the United States should not be trying to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Should the president even be there today, sir?

Fill in the blank yourselves: "This cheap shot would have been condemned as bigotry if....." Here are my favorites: This remark would have been identified as bigotry if it hadn't been uttered by Saint McCain; or, perhaps if it had been made by a Democrat. And, by the way, where are those Democrats who have condemned questionable comments by Hillary Clinton or her supporters such as Andrew Cuomo and Bill Clinton? This was not questionable. It was obvious.

Reflections on the Debate (St. Petersburg)- No. 7

The following question, and John McCain's response, indicate both the base of support (such as it is) for the Arizona Senator's bid for the Republican nomination, and his periodic foray into pandering. From the 11/18/07 CNN/YouTube debate:

Hello. My name is Buzz Brockway from Lawrenceville, Georgia. All the talk about the war in Iraq centers around how quickly we can get out. I think that's the wrong question. We need to make a permanent or long-term military commitment to the region.

By staying in Iraq, we provide long-term stability to the region, we provide support for our allies, and we act as a deterrent to the trouble-makers in the region. Which presidential candidate will make a permanent of long-term military commitment to the people of Iraq?

And John McCain's effective, though disingenuous, response:

Well, let me remind you, Congressman, we never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was American public opinion that forced us to lose that conflict.

(Applause)

I think it's important for all Americans to understand the fundamental difference. After we left Vietnam, they didn't want to follow us home. They wanted to build their own workers' paradise. If you read Zarqawi, if you read bin Laden, if you read Zawahiri, read what they say. They want to follow us home. They want Iraq to be a base for Al Qaeda to launch attacks against the United States. Their ultimate destination is not Iraq.

Their ultimate destination is New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Phoenix, Arizona. This is a transcendent challenge of our time.

(Audience booing)

McCain: I believe that we can meet it and we will defeat it.

The Senator's response is essentially "we're fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here" (in New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Phoenix, Arizona; I suppose he forgot Manchester, New Hampshire and Orlando.) And note the twisted logic: it's not what happened in Vietnam ("after we left Vietnam, they didn't want to follow us home"); therefore, it is what will happen in Iraq. Curious, too, that McCain believes our enemies ("read what they say") rather than Western intelligence.

But more appalling is McCain's resort to waiving the "bloody shirt." Vietnam wasn't the wrong war, or fought ineffectively, or a sacrifice of American blood and treasure that we couldn't sustain as a democracy- oh, no, it was those liberals, American public opinion, "that forced us to lose that conflict." It's clearly a way, if Persian Gulf War II ends badly, not to acknowledge mistaken judgement but instead to blame it on the liberal Democrats, who opposed, or at least were skeptical, about the war.

But on a lighter note. What of the booing after McCain referred to "the transcendent challenge of our time?" Did the Repub audience fail to understand McCain? Did it forget when it was supposed to cheer, and boo? Did the audience lose sight of the cue cards?

Right on Pakistan


A little belated credit is due Barack Obama. I wrote at the time that I thought the Illinois Senator was correct, but the passage of (a few months) time has made him seem almost prescient. In a Democratic Presidential debate a few months ago, a- the- point of controversy was the effort of Obama to defend a statement he had made on August 1, 2007. From Reuters on that date:

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.


The reaction? As Fox News reported, from Chris Dodd, opposition: "Frankly, I am not sure what Barack is calling for in his speech this morning. But it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power." From Bill Richardson, opposition: "My international experience tells me that we should address this problem with tough diplomacy with General Musharraf first, leaving the military as a last resort. It is important to reach out to moderate Muslim states and allies to ensure we do not unnecessarily inflame the Muslim world," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, another 2008 Democratic presidential candidate.

ABC News reported two other candidates, both Senators, criticized Obama's comments: "I am concerned about talking about it," she (Clinton) said. "I think everyone agrees that our goal should be to capture or kill bin Laden and his lieutenants but how we do it should not be telegraphed and discussed for obvious reasons." On NPR's "Diane Rehm Show," Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called Obama "naïve" and implied he wasn't experienced enough for the presidency. "Having talking points on foreign policy doesn't get you there," Biden said of Obama. (Note: Biden said also that he had recently wrotten a law conditioning aid to Pakistan on cooperation with the U.S.A. on fighting terrorists but that he first notified President Musharraf and Secretary of State Rice of his intent.)

And qualified support from former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, (who) said he would not hesitate to use force against extremists but said, "I believe we must first use maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to take all necessary actions to stop al Qaeda."

And since then: General Musharaff attempts to fire the chief justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court, spurring political turmoil; Benazhir Bhutto returns to the adulation of multitudes of Pakistanis and is put under house arrest; Musharraf imposes military rule.

So with the return from exile of Bhutto and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, it appears unnecessary or unwise for the Bush Administration to have placed its on the head of state and military strongman Musharraf.

So if Obama was right, with (qualified) support from that "peacenik" Edwards, and Biden seems to know something about the region, what about the guys in power: "Our approach to Pakistan is one that not only respects the sovereignty of Pakistan as a sovereign government, but is also designed to work in a way where we are working in cooperation with the local government," then-White House spokesman Tony Snow said. Let me translate: "We think Musharraf is just fine. But we don't want to criticize a Democratic candidate too much, lest we dilute our message that only we will keep you safe in a post-9/11 world because the Mommy Party wants to coddle terrorists- and, of course, not support the troops."

Our Buddy Musharraf

Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf may have declared a state of emergency throughout Pakistan and, as time.com notes, "suspended the constitution, blacked out domestic TV news broadcasts and arrested lawyers, human rights advocates and opposition political party figures." The U.S. government may be paying him approximately $80 million a month, approximately $1 billion a year, approximately $5.6 billion since payments began in October, 2001. And perhaps Musharraf inked a deal with militants in North Waziristan in northwestern Pakistan, the center of al Qaeda operations, assuring the extremists that his army would no longer conduct operations against them. And suppose Abdul Abdeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, had transferred nuclear technology to libya, Iran, and North Korea (two-thirds of the "axis of evil") from the late 1980's to the late 1990's, was caught, confessed, and pardoned in 2004 by Musharraf, supported by George W. Bush's State Department.

Now suppose all this happened and the President of the United States of America, father of Gulf War II and the man who "looked (Vladimir Putin) in the eye" and "found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy" lectures the American people "Pervez Musharraf has been a strong fighter against extremists and radicals."

This is southcentral Asia, where India and Pakistan face each other across a nuclear chasm. And this could be a nightmare, but instead is the latest indication of the horror Antonin Scalia and four other judge/politicans visited upon our country when they decided seven years ago that the votes of south Floridians were not worthy of being counted.

Reflections on a Presidential press conference- No. 3

Asked in his press conference of October 17, 2007 about "Al Qaeda in Iraq," President Bush responded in part:



Al Qaeda is still dangerous. They're dangerous in Iraq, they're dangerous elsewhere. Al Qaeda is not going to go away anytime soon. That's why it's important for us to be finding out what their intentions are, and what are their plans, so we can respond to them. This is a -- this war against al Qaeda requires actionable intelligence. That's why this FISA bill is important. And they still want to do us harm, Elaine, and they're still active. Yeah, we've hurt them bad in Iraq. We've hurt them bad elsewhere. If you're the number three person in al Qaeda, you've had some rough goes -- you've either been captured or killed. And we're keeping the pressure on them, all the time.


Note Mr. Bush saying "Al Qaeda is still dangerous. They're dangerous in Iraq, they're dangerous elsewhere," "this war against Al Qaeda requires actionable intelligence," and "we've hurt them bad in Iraq. we've hurt them bad elsewhere." He never stops conflating Al Qaeda with Al Qaeda in Iraq ("they're dangerous elsewhere," "actionable intelligence," "hurt them bad in Iraq (and) elsewhere"). Yet one more pathetic instance of this fellow trying to manipulate the media and the American people.