reflectivepundit

Beyond Iraq: Cheney versus Rice on U.S. Iran Policy

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Speaking to nearly one thousand graduates of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Richard Cheney stuck with pushing the administration’s Iraq war rationale. According to the Washington Post, the vice president claimed that the war on terrorism centers on Iraq because “that is where the enemy has massed.” Once again conveniently ignoring that, as Maureen Dowd puts it, “The terrorists moved into George Bush’s Iraq, not Saddam Hussein’s. W.’s ranting about Al Qaeda there is like planting fleurs du mal and then complaining your garden is toxic.” Of course, the mess in Iraq is also Dick Cheney’s, Don Rumsfeld’s, Paul Wolfowitz’s, George Tenet’s, and Colin Powell’s. But unlike the last four and some of the other architects of the Iraq policy who are no longer part of the administration, the vice president continues to wield a great deal of power. It is therefore all the more alarming that he now focuses on Iran as much as on Iraq--or more so. According to an editorial in today’s Washington Post, “Some U.S. officials seem to take their cue from Vice President Cheney's recent visit to one of the aircraft carriers cruising the Persian Gulf; military action against Iranian nuclear facilities, they say, cannot be ruled out. Others press for an expansion of the contacts that have begun between U.S.and Iranian officials on Iraq, which will continue with a meeting of ambassadors in Baghdad tomorrow.”

On his blog The Washington Note, the well connected Steve Clemons posts a far more telling account about an intra-administration battle between those advocating a diplomacy-centered Iran policy--led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice--and those who support Cheney’s hardliner approach. According to Clemens:

Bush Promotes Al Qaeda as Most Formidable Enemy in Iraq

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Osama bin Laden and his right-hand man Ayman al-Zawahiri could not have paid for a better promotional coup than the one they landed the other day—free of charge, when President Bush characterized the war in Iraq as a fight between the United States and Al Qaeda. “Hear the words of Osama bin Laden,” Bush said in his commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. He told his audience that bin Laden had proclaimed that this “war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever.” And he insisted that therefore victory in Iraq is vital in the war against terrorism. It might well be, as Michael Abramowitz of the Washington Post suggests, that “Bush's speech was part of a White House effort in recent weeks to portray the violence in Iraq as primarily a function of al-Qaeda, deemphasizing the internal divisions within Iraq in the apparent hope of regaining political support for an endeavor that has become deeply unpopular with the U.S. public.” While it is far from certain that a president with the low approval rating of George W. Bush can influence public opinion, there is no doubt that bin Laden and his supporters welcome the president’s description of Al Qaeda as a formidable enemy in Iraq that inflicts day-in and day-out enormous pain on the superpower U.S.A. A day before the president’s speech, Presidential contender John Edwards attacked the administration’s war on terrorism as “a bumper sticker” and “a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe.” He has a point in that the so-called war on terrorism slogan is a sound bite that has been used to justify all kinds of policies without making the hunt for the real culprits of the 9/11 attacks the centerpiece of the U.S. response to terrorism.

There is no doubt that the terrorist threat is real and that bin Laden and like-minded people plan to strike Americans and America again. These intentions were alive and well before the Iraq war began. And they would not disappear, if the Iraq war would end tomorrow or in six months with an American victory—whatever that means for those who talk about succeeding and winning there. The fact is that sectarian violence is the greatest problem.

Finally a Chance for the Iraq Study Group’s Proposals?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
If news reports are correct, the administration and congress are willing to take another look at the Iraq Study Group’s Report that was praised, when released in December, but ignored by decision-makers in the White House. It would be good news for a change. Perhaps the scheduled talks of American officials with Syria and Iran on finding cooperative ways to pacify Iraq are the first signs that the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group has belatedly some impact on actual policies concerning Iraq and the Middle East. Different approaches along the lines of the Iraq Study Group are long overdue. The old strategy including the so-called surge in troop deployment has not improved the situation in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq; instead, every single day has witnessed more lethal attacks on coalition soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and Iraqi security forces. As the Washington Post reports today, “Military deaths have been rising since last fall, and the first half of this year has already been deadlier than any six-month period since the war began more than four years ago. According to iCasualties.org, 531 U.S. service members have been killed since Dec. 1, an average of more than three deaths a day, while 3,422 have died since the war began in March 2003.” According to the Iraq Coalition Casualty count, the total number of fatalities among coalition forces and Iraqi security forces and civilians is much higher. Given this dismal picture, one can only hope that former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who along with former Secretary of State James Baker chaired the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group, is right, when he said recently, "They [administration officials] are coming our way.” For Democrats and Republicans in Congress getting behind a bill in favor of an Iraq policy based on the Study Group’s specific proposals would be a good move—although far from guaranteeing acceptance by the president and his team.

After Bush: New Ideas and Strategies Needed to Fight Terrorism

By Brigitte L. Nacos
According to New York Times columnist David Brooks, “The war on terror has shredded the reputation of the Bush administration. It’s destroyed the reputation of Tony Blair’s government in Britain, Ehud Olmert’s government in Israel and Nuri al-Maliki’s government in Iraq. And here’s a prediction: It will destroy future American administrations, and future Israeli, European and world governments as well.” While it is far more difficult to fight and defeat terrorists or guerrillas rather than nation states, there is no reason to believe that terrorist victories are inevitable—unless the next president continues his predecessor’s failed policies. Given the current cast of Republicans vying to succeed President Bush, this is a possibility. In today’s New York Times, columnist Paul Krugman writes that “Mr. Bush has degraded our government and undermined the rule of law; he has led us into strategic disaster and moral squalor. But the leading contenders for the Republican nomination have given us little reason to believe they would behave differently.” Whether elected as Republican, Democrat, or Independent, the next president of the United States and his or her team must sack the Bush post-9/11 doctrine and formulate and implement fundamentally new strategies to counter the very real terrorist threat—especially from people like bin Laden, organizations like Al Qaeda, and similar individuals, networks, groups, and cells. The Third Way National Security Project’s new report, “Security First: A Strategy for Defending America,” is an excellent contribution to pinpointing the failures in the post-9/11 struggle against terrorism, and (2) and more importantly, identifying the pillars of a comprehensive and realistic new strategic concept tailored to the needs of the post-9/11 world-(dis)order.

NSA Wiretapping -- Who Did What To Whom, When?

By David Epstein
Kudos to the NY Times for bringing the dramatic events of March 10, 2004 to life in this article. The key action is described as follows:

Mr. Comey said that on the evening of March 10, 2004, Mr. Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr., then Mr. Bush’s chief of staff, tried to bypass him by secretly visiting Mr. Ashcroft. Mr. Ashcroft was extremely ill and disoriented, Mr. Comey said, and his wife had forbidden any visitors.

Mr. Comey said that when a top aide to Mr. Ashcroft alerted him about the pending visit, he ordered his driver to rush him to George Washington University Hospital with emergency lights flashing and a siren blaring, to intercept the pair. They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day.

Mr. Comey said he phoned Mr. Mueller, who agreed to meet him at the hospital. Once there, Mr. Comey said he “literally ran up the stairs.” At his request, Mr. Mueller ordered the F.B.I. agents on Mr. Ashcroft’s security detail not to evict Mr. Comey from the room if Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card objected to his presence.

Mr. Comey said he arrived first in the darkened room, in time to brief Mr. Ashcroft, who he said seemed barely conscious. Before Mr. Ashcroft became ill, Mr. Comey said the two men had talked and agreed that the program should not be renewed.

When the White House officials appeared minutes later, Mr. Gonzales began to explain to Mr. Ashcroft why they were there. Mr. Comey said Mr. Ashcroft rose weakly from his hospital bed, but in strong and unequivocal terms, refused to approve the eavesdropping program.

You know you're in some sort of Twilight Zone when John Ashcroft is the last bastion of rectitude standing against an administration dedicated to trashing the public's rights. The episode reads almost exactly like the scene from the Godfather where Michael Corleone rushes to the hospital to head off the assassins who want to kill his father. (In fact, the actual events would do nicely as a scene from "24," and I now expect to receive writer's credit if they use it.)

The Washington Post also covers the event, losing a bit of the drama but giving more context than the NYT, especially noting the crucial fact that the program had already been in use for two years before this incident occurred.

And here's my beef with part of the press coverage of this story. Many sources cite the fact that the program has now been changed as evidence that Congress and the Courts can't/won't/shouldn't do anything more, since the problem has been solved. Where's the logic in this? If a guy robs a series of banks, is caught and brought to trial, can he tell the judge "Oh, don't worry about all that. I'll stop."??? If there were violations of the law -- and the constitution -- for two or more years prior to this incident, and perhaps after as well, those should be grounds for impeachment, pure and simple.

But why aren't the Republicans making this case, let alone the Democrats? Aren't they supposed to be the law and order party? Do they really want to stand for the proposition that you can violate the Constitution and take away people's most basic rights, as long as you stop when you're caught?

Before this administration leaves, my prediction is that any Republican unlucky enough to be in office will have to renounce every conservative value they hold dear defending the indefensible.

No “New” Cold War but still Remnants of the Old

By Brigitte L. Nacos
When Russian president Vladimir Putin and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met in the Kremlin the other day, they agreed to tone down the recently hostile rhetoric. More important, Dr. Rice “dismissed talk of a new Cold War despite unease in Washington about Putin's criticism of U.S.foreign policy” according to reports from Moscow. Relations between Moscow and Washington may be at a low point, but certainly much warmer than the icy Cuban-American relationship. After all, Americans can freely travel to and do business with Russia while the 45-year old travel ban as well as trade sanctions against
Cuba remain in place. As provocative filmmaker Michael Moore learned recently, these restrictions are enforced—certainly if the violator is relentless in his attacks on President Bush and his supporters in big politics and big business. Thus, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control notified Moore that he was the target of an investigation for possibly violating the trade embargo against Cuba that also bans unauthorized travel to the island. Why did Moore travel to Cuba? According to one account, “to get treatment for ailing Sept. 11 rescue workers for a segment in his upcoming health-care expose, "Sicko." Whatever one thinks of Moore’s inflammatory work, the idea of showing movie-goers that the universal health system in Castro’s communist Cuba works far better than the proponents of the existing American system want us to believe, should be a wake up call for many Americans—especially those millions without health insurance and others who have increasingly trouble to pay for it. 

Why Cheney may have followed up Rice’s Middle East Trip

By Brigitte L. Nacos
It seems that Vice President Dick Cheney didn’t like the diplomatic efforts by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a recent conference on Iraq in the Egyptian capital—although her public statements were not exactly soft. Nevertheless, according to Rice, during her meeting with her Syrian counterpart, she did not lecture him and he did not lecture her. Perhaps that meant more progress on the diplomatic front than the hawkish Cheney was able to stomach. He must have figured that is was time to talk tough. And while he did not speak directly to Syrian or Iranian representatives, he used the backdrop of the mighty aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis in the Gulf for an explicit warning in the direction of.Iraq. According to one report Cheney, on Friday, "addressing U.S. forces on an aircraft carrier about 150 miles from the Iranian coast, warned Iran that the United States and its allies would prevent the country from developing nuclear weapons and dominating the region." Not exactly an approach to win Iran along with other neighbors over to help pacify and rebuilt Iraq at a time, when it becomes clearer every day that nothing else but broad, regional political cooperation has a chance. Indeed, various Iranian government officials charged that the U.S. was engaging in psychological warfare and tried to spread fear and create a crisis in the region.

Gonzales Won't Investigate Partisan Tilt of DOJ Investigations

By David Epstein

One of the most jaw-dropping moments in today's testimony came when the AG was asked about a study of prosecutions of local officials by the Bush Justice Department showing that 85% of the targets of prosecution were Democrats. (For the record, 50% of local elected officials are Democrats, 41% Republican, and 9% Independent.) I had seen reference to this study in an earlier Krugman column titled Department of Injustice and was wondering when it would get injected into the debate.

Gonzales said that not only did he not know about the study (probably just another bald-faced lie), but that he would never commission such a study himself, apparently arguing that to even collect such data would inject partisan politics into the administration of justice.

I suppose there are few other tacks he could have taken -- when you assert moral umbrage then you can deal with it on a philosophical level and never actually get to the facts of the case. Certainly the questioner didn't pursue it today. But what I'd like to see is the graph of the percent of Democrats prosecuted by each US attorney, with the eight (now nine) fired attorneys indicated, just to see where they fall in the distribution. If they are nearly all at one end of the scale, then this should be Exhibit 1 for the next round of questioning.

Foiled Terror Plot Points to Long-Distance Recruitment of Terrorists

By Brigitte L. Nacos
The arrest of six young men who allegedly plotted a terrorist attack on the Fort Dix military base raises the question of terrorist recruitment. According to the Washington Post, the FBI revealed that “the group has no apparent connection to al-Qaeda or other international terrorist organizations aside from ideology, but appears to be an example of the kind of self-directed sympathizers widely predicted -- and feared -- by counterterrorism specialists. The defendants allegedly passed around and copied images of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and the martyrdom videos of two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers.” The revelation that the suspects had spiritual ties to the al Qaeda leader und the 9/11 terrorists points to the growing role and power of all kinds of media in the long-distance recruitment of autonomous cells and, more generally, in the use of media by extremists to indoctrinate especially the young.

Rudy Giuliani and George W. Bush’s Legacy as Great President

Brigitte L. Nacos
Rudy Giuliani wants to be president badly. At a time, when even some hawkish Republicans prepare to abandoned President Bush’s sinking ship—especially as it continues to anchor in the troubled waters of Iraq--, the former New York mayor aims for the coattails of George W. Bush—just in case they might be worth some votes during next year’s primary. According to the Iowa Register’s Thomas Beaumont, “Giuliani said in Iowa on Friday that President Bush's response to terrorism will ensure his legacy is that of "a great president." "He will be, I believe, a president who will be viewed by history for this one decision as being a great president," the former New York mayor told about 100 Cedar Rapids-area Republicans during a quick campaign stop in eastern Iowa. "He decided in a flash to put our country on offense against terrorism." Decisions about war and peace should not be decided “in a flash” but if this is what Giuliani applauds, he ought not to be president and commander in chief. At his stop in Iowa, Giuliani repeated his support to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan as long as needed to succeed. Never mind that it is next to impossible to define success and victory in those countries and, just as important, that the president has lost the American public’s support on Iraq. It seems that Rudy G. wants to protect his electoral interest just in case of a dramatic Iraqi turn-around in favor of the administration’s policies.

In his address to graduates at the Citadel, Giuliani called the cadets “the leaders of the 9/11 generation” and told them: “The reality is that in this world today, there are terrorists, Islamic radical terrorists, who are planning as we sit here at this graduation, who are planning to come here and kill us.” The 9/11 generation? Terrorists are striving to take over the U.S and take our place?! This is the kind of rhetoric and reasoning that upholds this candidate’s claim to fame and his push for riding his 9/11 gravy train to 1600   Pennsylvania Avenue. “Final victory will take time,” he said at the Citadel. “The cold war took years, but we prevailed. And it will happen, and on that day your generation will take its place beside the greatest generations in our nation’s history.” Better yet, let the generation of candidate Giuliani and his nine fellow-contenders plus the likely presidential hopefuls Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich and some of their enthusiastic supporters fight personally for victory in this so-called war on terrorism—in Iraq and Afghanistan and who knows where next.