THIS FAR AND NO FURTHER
A Timeline of Events Surrounding the Radical Right's Attempt to Subvert American Democracy
Written and Compiled by Black Max
December 2006
Week Three
Due to size considerations, this page has been divided into subpages.
Use the menu below to navigate the week's contents.
SubMenu
Suppressed evidence showing that Blair lied about Iraq's WMDs revealed
- December 15: Evidence previously suppressed by the Blair administration provides what may be the final proof that the entire US-British case for going to war with Iraq was built on fabrications and lies about Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq war and occupation
A harsh attack on Blair's use of the tale of WMDs to justify going to war was written in 2004 by Carne Ross, Britain's chief negotiator at the UN, but until now has been kept hidden, with Ross threatened with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. Ross had testified, in secret, that Blair knew Hussein had no WMDs. "[A]at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests," Ross testified, adding that it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained." Ross also revealed that British officials repeatedly warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said. "At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos." Ross claimed "inertia" in the Foreign Office and the "inattention of key ministers" combined to stop the UK carrying out any co-ordinated and sustained attempt to address sanction-busting by Iraq, an approach which could have provided an alternative to war. - Ross testified as part of the Butler inquiry, which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the conflict. The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act. It shows Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by Hussein before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added. Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by Blair, and echoed by Bush, that the war was legally justified because Iraq possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a direct threat to British and American interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Ross. Ross says he questioned colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defense working on Iraq and none said that any new evidence had emerged to change their assessment. "What had changed was the government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he added.
- Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly," the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had "sexed up" the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Blair and Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence casts fresh doubts on its findings. Ross was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act. "Mr Ross hasn't had any approach to tell him that he is still not liable to be prosecuted," says one ally. But he has told friends that he is "glad it is out in the open" and he told MPs it had been "on my conscience for years." One member of the Foreign Affairs committee says, "There was blood on the carpet over this. I think it's pretty clear the Foreign Office used the Official Secrets Act to suppress this evidence, by hanging it like a Sword of Damacles over Mr Ross, but we have called their bluff." Yesterday, Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons who was Foreign Secretary during the war and Ross's supervisor, announced the Commons will have a debate on the possible change of strategy heralded by the Iraqi Study Group report in the new year. (Independent)
- December 15: Iraq Study Group member Leon Panetta, the former Clinton chief of staff, is dismayed to see how quickly Bush has been to refuse the core recommendations of the ISG report.
Iraq war and occupation
Panetta figured that his panel's recommendations would give Bush the political cover he needed for a dramatic policy shift. Instead, while Bush has adopted the panel's slogan -- "A New Way Forward" -- he has rejected almost all of the panel's recommendations. Bush has even criticized the idea that the group was providing a "graceful exit" from the war, which is what Panetta and other panel members figured Bush most wanted. "I think he has been trapped by his own rhetoric," Panetta says. "His ratings are so low now that he has got to do something to pull this country together." But Panetta doesn't know Bush very well. One man who does, former Bush chief of staff Andrew Card, says he isn't surprised by Bush's reaction. Card says that Bush hears many opinions and thus believes that "his knowledge is more complete than anyone who is advising him." Bush's ignorance of the most basic foreign policy tenets and issues is widely documented, as is his vaunted predilection to rely on his "gut instinct" over facts and analysis. So far, the only recommendation of any real impact Bush has endorsed is to speed up the training of Iraqi troops and security forces. Instead, after meeting with a number of conservative advisors who roundly rejected the ISG's recommendations for diplomacy with Iran and Syria and for planned withdrawals, Bush said belligerently, "I've heard some ideas that would lead to defeat, and I reject those ideas -- ideas such as leaving before the job is done." (Press secretary Tony Snow said after that comment that Bush wasn't talking about the ISG report.) (Boston Globe) - December 15: Middle East analyst Flynt Leverett, who served under Bush on the National Security Council and is now a fellow at the New America Foundation, reveals today that the White House has been blocking the publication of an op-ed he wrote for the New York Times.
Secrecy of Bush administration
The column is critical of the administration's refusal to engage Iran. Leverett's op-ed has already been cleared by the CIA, where he was a senior analyst. Leverett explains, "I've been doing this for three and a half years since leaving government, and I've never had to go to the White House to get clearance for something that I was publishing as long as the CIA said, 'Yeah, you're not putting classified information.'" Leverett says the op-ed is "all based on stuff that Secretary [Colin] Powell, Secretary [Condoleezza] Rice, Deputy Secretary [Richard] Armitage have talked about publicly. It's been extensively reported in the media." Leverett says the incident shows "just how low people like Elliot Abrams at the NSC [National Security Council] will stoop to try and limit the dissemination of arguments critical of the administration's policy." - During a panel at the Center for American Progress, Leverett says of his op-ed, "I wanted to say something briefly about the administration, and where it is. I have been extremely pessimistic that this administration is inclined or capable of genuinely rethinking its approach to Iran in the way that we need it to at this point, and I've had an unfortunate experience this week that has only confirmed that for me. As I do with all of my publications...I showed to the CIA, for whom I used to work, to verify that I was not revealing classified information. They did so, as they have with 30 other things that I've published since leaving government. Didn't ask to change a word. ...But the White House has intervened, claiming that there is classified information in the op-ed, even though it's already been cleared. It's all published. It's all based on stuff that Secretary Powell, Secretary Rice, Deputy Secretary Armitage have talked about publicly. It's been extensively reported in the media. But the White House is saying I can't publish an op-ed in the New York Times that lays out the argument. I've been doing this for three and a half years since leaving government, and I've never had to go to the White House to get clearance for something that I was publishing as long as the CIA said, 'Yeah, you're not putting classified information.' Why this week --after the Baker study group, when pressure is on them to rethink their position on Iran -- why do they not want this op-ed, based on my experiences in government, my experience dealing with Iran, with Iranian officials, after I left government? Why do they not want this op-ed going in the New York Times this week? I think it says something, and I think it says something about just how low people like Elliot Abrams at the NSC will stoop to try and limit the dissemination of arguments critical of the administration's policy."
- Leverett has published a previous paper on Iran for the Century Foundation, which can be read here and contains much of the same information as in the op-ed intended for the Times.
- Leverett fires back the next day, releasing a statement that reads in part, "Since leaving government service in 2003, I have been publicly critical of the Bush administration's mishandling of America's Iran policy -- in two op-eds published in the New York Times, another published in the Los Angeles Times, an article published earlier this year in The American Prospect, and a monograph just published by the Century Foundation, as well as in numerous public statements, television appearances, and press interviews. All of my publications on Iran -- and, indeed, on any other policy matter on which I have written since leaving government -- were cleared beforehand by the CIA's Publication Review Board to confirm that I would not be disclosing classified information. Until last week, the Publication Review Board had never sought to remove or change a single word in any of my drafts, including in all of my publications about the Bush administration's handling of Iran policy. However, last week, the White House inserted itself into the prepublication review process for an op-ed on the administration's bungling of the Iran portfolio that I had prepared for the New York Times, blocking publication of the piece on the grounds that it would reveal classified information. This claim is false and, I have come to believe, fabricated by White House officials to silence an established critic of the administration's foreign policy incompetence at a moment when the White House is working hard to fend off political pressure to take a different approach to Iran and the Middle East more generally. ...Officials with the CIA's Publication Review Board have told me that, in their judgment, the draft op-ed does not contain classified material, but that they must bow to the preferences of the White House.
- "The White House is demanding, before it will consider clearing the op-ed for publication, that I excise entire paragraphs dealing with matters that I have written about (and received clearance from the CIA to do so) in several other pieces, that have been publicly acknowledged by Secretary Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and that have been extensively covered in the media. These matters include Iran's dialogue and cooperation with the United States concerning Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and Iran's offer to negotiate a comprehensive "grand bargain" with the United States in the spring of 2003. There is no basis for claiming that these issues are classified and not already in the public domain. For the White House to make this claim, with regard to my op-ed and at this particular moment, is nothing more than a crass effort to politicize a prepublication review process -- a process that is supposed to be about the protection of classified information, and nothing else -- to limit the dissemination of views critical of administration policy.
- "Within the last two week, the CIA found the wherewithal to approve an op-ed -- published in the New York Times on December 8, 2006 -- by Kenneth Pollack, another former CIA employee. This op-ed includes the statement that "Iran provided us with extensive assistance on intelligence, logistics, diplomacy, and Afghan internal politics." Similar statements by me have been deleted from my draft op-ed by the White House. But Kenneth Pollack is someone who presented unfounded assessments of the Iraqi WMD threat -- the same assessments expounded by the Bush White House -- to make a high-profile public case for going to war in Iraq. Mr. Pollack also supports the administration's reluctance to engage with Iran, in contrast to my consistent and sharp criticism of that position. It would seem that, if one is expounding views congenial to the White House, it does not intervene in prepublication censorship, but, if one is a critic, White House officials will use fraudulent charges of revealing classified information to keep critical views from being heard.
- My understanding is that the White House staffers who have injected themselves into this process are working for Elliott Abrams and Meg[h]an O'Sullivan, both politically appointed deputies to President Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley. Their conduct in this matter is despicable and un-American in the profoundest sense of that term. I am also deeply disappointed that former colleagues at the Central Intelligence Agency have proven so supine in the face of tawdry political pressure. Intelligence officers are supposed to act better than that." (Think Progress [link to audio], Washington Note)
- December 15: Disgraced former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, forced to resign in 1998 amid a maze of ethical violations and admitted extramarital affairs, defends his November 27 call for draconian limits on freedom of speech in order to battle terrorism.
Attack on civil liberties
Gingrich, a possible presidential candidate for the GOP in 2008, says the threat of biological or nuclear attack requires America to consider curbs to speech to fight terrorists, if it is to protect the society that makes the First Amendment possible. He derides those who have criticized his calls to roll back the First Amendment, telling a Republican audience, "Our friends at the 'ACLU left,' of course, were staggered at this concept. How could we talk about anything less than 100 percent free speech? How could we consider in any way thinking about this issue?" Gingrich cites last month's ejection of six Muslim scholars from a plane in Minneapolis for suspicious behavior, which included reports they prayed before the flight and had sat in the same seats as the 9/11 hijackers (this portion of the report is believed to be false). "Those six people should have been arrested and prosecuted for pretending to be terrorists," Gingrich says, though the six Muslims have not been shown to have done anything except pray before their flight. "And the crew of the US airplane should have been invited to the White House and congratulated for being correct in the protection of citizens." On November 27, he said the First Amendment may require a "different set of rules" for terrorists, comments made while he addressed a free speech award dinner hosted by the Loeb School of Communications. He said in a subsequent interview, "If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you're a terrorist, I'd say the burden of proof was on you." (Manchester Union Leader)
Hundreds of Guantanamo detainees released without charge; classified evidence proves innocence
- December 16: Hundreds of former detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, many called by the Pentagon "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth," have been set free or transferred to other countries for continued detention and then released.
Terrorism detainees and "enemy combatants"
Decisions by more than a dozen countries in the Middle East, Europe and South Asia to release the former detainees raise questions about whether they were really as dangerous as the United States claimed, or whether some of America's staunchest allies have set terrorists and militants free. Around 360 former prisoners have been released since the facility opened in January 2002; since the US doesn't bother to keep track of these supposed "vicious killers" who were once deemed so dangerous to the US that they couldn't be allowed to even stand trial, according to the State Department, there is no way to know exactly who was released and when. The Associated Press has managed to track 245 of the released detainees. - The AP has found that once the detainees arrived in the 17 other countries that were part of the AP's probe, 205 of the 245 were either freed without being charged or were cleared of charges related to their detention at Guantanamo. 40 either stand charged with crimes or continue to be detained. ONly 14 of the freed detainees have been tried on charges in other countries. Eight of those were acquitted of any wrongdoing, and four await verdicts. The Afghan government has freed every one of the more than 83 Afghans sent home. Lawmaker Sibghatullah Mujaddedi, the head of Afghanistan's reconciliation commission, said many were innocent and wound up at Guantanamo because of tribal or personal rivalries. At least 67 of 70 repatriated Pakistanis are free after spending a year in Adiala Jail. A senior Pakistani Interior Ministry official said investigators determined that most had been "sold" for bounties to US forces by Afghan warlords who invented links between the men and al-Qaida. "We consider them innocent," says the official. All 29 detainees who were repatriated to Britain, Spain, Germany, Russia, Australia, Turkey, Denmark, Bahrain and the Maldives were freed, some within hours after being sent home for "continued detention." Around 420 remain in detention at the Guantanamo facility, Camp Delta.
- Some former detainees say they never intended to harm the United States and are bitter. "I can't wash the three long years of pain, trouble and humiliation from my memory," says Badarzaman Badar, an Afghan who was freed in Pakistan. "It is like a cancer in my mind that makes me disturbed every time I think of those terrible days." Clive Stafford Smith, a British-American attorney representing several detainees, says the AP's findings indicate that innocent men were jailed and that the term "continued detention" is part of "a politically motivated farce." Stafford Smith says, "The Bush administration wants to be able to say that these are dangerous terrorists who are going to be confined upon their release...although there is no evidence against many of them." One prime example is Murat Kurnaz, a German-born Turkish citizen, who was freed after over four years of confinement at Guantanamo after he was flown to Germany, bound hand and foot, in August. US officials maintained he was a member of al-Qaeda, based on what they said was secret evidence. But his New Jersey-based lawyer, Baher Azmy, says he was shown the classified evidence and was shocked to find how unpersuasive it was. "It contains five or six statements exonerating him," says Azmy. In October, German prosecutors said they found no evidence that Kurnaz had links to Islamic radicals in Pakistan or Afghanistan and formally dropped their investigation.
- But for US officials, apparently evidence and facts don't matter. "They were part of Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," says Pentagon spokesman Jeffrey Gordon. Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, a lawyer representing several detainees, says the fact that hundreds of men have been released into freedom belies their characterization by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth." Colangelo-Bryan observes, "After all, it would simply be incredible to suggest that the United States has voluntarily released such 'vicious killers' or that such men had been miraculously reformed at Guantanamo." Detainees are held at Guantanamo Bay because a military panel classifies them as an "enemy combatant," which refers not only to armed fighters but to anyone who aids enemy forces. Every year, each gets a hearing to determine whether he remains a security threat to the United States or has intelligence value. Using those hearings as guidance, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England decides whether to keep the detainee at Guantanamo, release him, or send him to another country for detention. For 2006, so far England has ruled on 149 prisoners, saying that 106 should be held, 43 should be transferred to custody of other countries and none should be released outright. Azmy says the distinction between release and transfer is largely a fiction because recipient countries are under no obligation to imprison the returnees. The United States doesn't even ask them to.
- Some former detainees still face the justice systems of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and France. In France, the trial of six transferred Guantanamo detainees has focused as much on the US prison camp as on their prosecution on charges of "criminal association with a terrorist enterprise." Prosecutor Sonya Djemni-Wagner has requested light sentences, saying she took into account the defendants' "arbitrary detention...at a facility outside all legal frameworks." She is seeking one year in prison plus suspended sentences for five suspects and no sentence for the sixth, all of whom are currently free. Their time already served behind bars in France should be counted toward their sentences, she said, meaning that even if convicted, none would be locked up.
- One of the proprietors of the liberal blog Corrente asks a very simple question: "We know that we're holding thousands of prisoners (estimates range from 7,000 to 35,000). Gitmo holds only 500. So, where are the missing thousands? ...Where are the bodies in the Bush gulag? Have they been released? Are they still in jail? Or have they been disappeared?" The media isn't asking, the blog diary notes. (AP/Editor and Publisher, Corrente)
- December 17: Incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates has signaled Congress that he intends to release some of the intelligence-gathering powers taken for Defense by his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, giving them over instead to the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Partisan Bush appointees
Gates says that he will ensure DCI John Negroponte "has the authority that he needs to fulfill his responsibilities," and notes that one key power Negroponte lacks is the ability to hire and fire agency heads. John Gannon, who held several senior CIA posts under Gates, says that Gates will limit the Pentagon's role to gathering information needed for tactical decisions on the ground and leave the rest to CIA and other agencies that have traditionally conducted human spying. "Bob will rein in the Department of Defense," says Gannon. In written responses to questions prior to his nomination hearing, Gates acknowledged his previous statements that "intelligence authority has been quietly leaching from the CIA and to the Pentagon." He said that this was "clearly" an issue he would confront as defense secretary, so that he could strengthen "coordination and cooperation" between the Pentagon and intelligence agencies. Rumsfeld's blatant power-grabbing of intelligence functions created a great deal of tension between the Pentagon and US intelligence agencies such as the CIA. After Bush directed the CIA to lead the 2001 Afghanistan invasion, Rumsfeld vowed never to let the CIA upstage the military again. Rumsfeld launched a controversial expansion of the Defense Department's role in intelligence collection and analysis, including the creation, in 2003, of a new position, undersecretary for intelligence, which he gave to trusted aide Stephen Cambone. From that post, Cambone launched a number of new projects that boosted the Pentagon's human spying capacity, traditionally the purview of the CIA. Rumsfeld also established the Counterintelligence Field Activity, a domestic intelligence collection operation that has come under fire for illegally gathering information on peace activists. "He's got to be aggressive about undoing the damage that Don Rumsfeld did, not only with regard to Iraq but with what the Pentagon has done with intelligence," says UCLA professor Amy Zegart, who advised the 2000 Bush campaign on security issues. "It is going to be hard to do that and deal with Iraq at the same time." (Baltimore Sun/Contra Costa Times) - December 17: Former secretary of state Colin Powell tells CBS's Bob Scheiffer, host of Face the Nation, that the idea of a "surge" of troops into Iraq to help shore up that country's plunge into civil war won't work.
Iraq war and occupation
The last surge the US had was an utter failure, Powell says, so he isn't persuaded that another one will work any better; the US Army, Powell says, is "about broken." Powell says in part, "There are really no additional troops. All we would be doing is keeping some of the troops who were there there longer and escalating or accelerating the arrival of other troops. ...[T]he active army is about broken. General Shoemaker [Peter Shoemaker, deputy chief of staff for the Army] is absolutely right. All of my contacts within the Army suggest that the Army has a serious problem in the active force." (CBS/Crooks and Liars [link to video])
- December 18: An anonymous Bush administration official says that Bush is likely to send around 25,000 more US troops to Iraq early next year.
Iraq war and occupation
The statement comes a day after Republican senator and presidential hopeful John McCain called for up to 30,000 more troops to be sent to Iraq. Bush says he will not announce any new changes in US policy until January, and is holding a series of meetings with US and Iraqi officials, and with a variety of conservative advisors, on what his next moves should be. The goals of the new troops in Iraq would be to secure Baghdad from the escalating violence that has all but shattered the city, to quell the insurgency in the western province of Anbar, and to neutralize the militias responsible for much of the sectarian violence in Baghdad and other locales. There are currently 140,000 US troops in Iraq. No senior US military commanders have asked for such a "surge" in troops; most agree with recent conclusions by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that say the only solution for Iraq's civil war will be a political one. (BBC) - December 18: The CIA and the Pentagon intend to rein in the operations of a number of US Special Forces units conducting secret spying and assassination programs in several overseas nations.
Anti-terrorism and homeland security
While government officials say the units have better enabled the US to track terrorist networks and capture or kill enemy operatives in regions such as the Horn of Africa, where weak governments are unable to respond to emerging threats, several of these operations have "gone rogue," sometimes without the knowledge of the CIA, exposing sensitive intelligence operations in East Africa and jeopardizing existing operations, and offending friendly nations, including several European allies, who had no idea US teams were working inside their borders. To date, the operations have not led to the capture of a single terror suspect. The program was approved by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, and is expected to get close scrutiny by his successor, Robert Gates, who takes over today and has been critical of the expansion of the military's intelligence operations. "We are at war out there and frankly we need all the help that we can get," says Marine General Michael Ennis, who since February has served as a senior CIA official in charge of coordinating human intelligence operations with the military. "But at the same time we have to be very careful that we don't disrupt established relationships with other governments, with their liaison services, or [do] anything that would embarrass the United States." Ennis acknowledges "really egregious mistakes" in the program, but said collaboration had improved between the CIA and the military. - After 9/11, the Bush administration gave expanded authority to the Special Operations Command, which oversees the Army Green Berets, Navy SEALs and other elite units, in the fight against terrorism. At the same time, Rumsfeld, who held the CIA in contempt and was jealous of the CIA's success in Afghanistan, directed a major expansion of the military's involvement in intelligence gathering to make the Pentagon less dependent on the agency (see September 17 item above). Officials say this led to the secret deployment of small teams of Special Forces troops, known as military liaison elements, or MLEs, to American embassies to serve as intelligence operatives. Members of the teams undergo special training in espionage at Fort Bragg and other facilities. The troops typically work in civilian clothes and function much like CIA case officers, cultivating sources in other governments or Islamic organizations. One objective is to generate information that could be used to plan clandestine operations such as capturing or killing terrorism suspects.
- In 2004, members of an MLE team operating in Paraguay shot and killed an armed assailant who tried to rob them outside a bar. US officials removed the members of the team from the country. In another incident, members of a team in East Africa were arrested by the local government after their espionage activity was discovered. "It was a compromised surveillance activity," says a former senior CIA official familiar with the incident. The official says members of the unit "got rolled up by locals and we got them out." The former official refuses to name the country or provide other details. "They're pretty freewheeling," the former CIA official says of the military teams. He adds that it is not uncommon for CIA station chiefs to learn of military intelligence operations only after they were underway, and that many conflict with existing operations being carried out by the CIA or the foreign country's intelligence service. Such problems "really are quite costly," saysJohn Brennan, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center. "It can cost peoples' lives, can cost sensitive programs and can set back foreign policy interests." There have also been questions about where teams have been sent. Although conceived to bolster the US presence in global trouble spots, the units have carried out operations in friendly nations in Europe and Southeast Asia where it is more difficult to justify. On at least one occasion, a team tracked an Islamic militant in Europe. "They were trying to acquire certain information about a certain individual," says a former high-ranking US intelligence official. The official declines to name the country, but says it was a NATO ally and that the host government was unaware of the mission.
- At a time when the military is stretched thin, the official questioned the priority of using Special Forces for espionage, noting that the MLE program has not produced a significant success in terms of disrupting a plot or capturing a terrorist suspect. "These are a highly trained, short-supply resource of the U.S. government," the official says. "What...are they doing there instead of Pakistan or Afghanistan?" (Los Angeles Times)
- December 18: The Pentagon reports that violence in Iraq is worse than ever, and the insurgency has achieved what the Pentagon terms "strategic success" by unleashing a spiral of sectarian killings by Sunni and Shi'ite death squads that threatens Iraq's political institutions.
Iraq war and occupation
The report, the most pessimistic yet from the Defense Department, describes a nation locked in the throes of civil war, though the report doesn't use the term, with violence at record highs of 959 attacks per week, declining public confidence in government and "little progress" toward political reconciliation. "The violence has escalated at an unbelievably rapid pace," says Marine General John Sattler, director of strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "We have to get ahead of that violent cycle, break that continuous chain of sectarian violence. ...That is the premier challenge facing us now." According to Peter Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, the February 22 bombing of the Askariya Mosque, a holy Shi'ite shrine in the ethnically diverse city of Samarra, "achieved what one could call a partial strategic success [for the insurgents,] namely, to trigger what we've been dealing with ever since, which is a cycle of sectarian violence, that indeed is shaking the institutions." The 50-page Pentagon report, mandated quarterly by Congress, also states for the first time that the Shi'ite militia of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has replaced al-Qaeda as "the most dangerous" force propelling Iraq toward civil war, as Shi'ite militants kill more civilians than do terrorists. - For the first time, this report does not explictly claim that Iraq is not in a civil war. "The situation in Iraq is far more complex than the term 'civil war' implies," reads the report. "Conditions that could lead to civil war do exist," it says, but adds that the Iraqi government, backed by the US-led coalition, "could mitigate further movement toward civil war and curb sectarian violence." The number of US and coalition casualties surged 32% from mid-August to mid-November, compared with the previous three months, the report says. Over the same period, the number of attacks per week rose 22%, from 784 to 959. Iraqi civilian casualties also increased, "almost entirely the result of murders and executions," the report says. Since January, before the mosque bombing, ethno-sectarian executions rose from 180 to 1,028 in October; ethno-sectarian incidents rose from 63 to 996 over the same period. The escalation of violence in Iraq comes despite increased troop levels -- including a higher-than-anticipated U.S. force level of 140,000 troops and a growing contingent of Iraqi security forces, which this month are projected to reach the goal of 325,000 who are, at least on paper, trained and equipped. The report says the number of Iraqi soldiers and police actually "present for duty" is far lower than the number trained and equipped. Iraqi police forces in particular are increasingly corrupt, according to the report, which says that some police in Baghdad have supported Shi'ite death squads. The police "facilitated freedom of movement and provided advance warning of upcoming operations," it says. "This is a major reason for the increased levels of murders and executions."
- Sattler implies that no number of US or Iraqi troops would be great enough to quash the revenge killings. "I don't know how many forces you could push into a country, either US or coalition or Iraqi forces, that could cover the entire country, where these death squads wouldn't find somebody," he says. The report documents that major US and Iraqi military operations in the fall did not quell sectarian violence in Baghdad. Attacks dipped in August, but rebounded strongly in September after death squads adapted to the increased US and Iraqi presence. The report says the US military plans to steadily pull out of cities and consolidate its bases. Meanwhile, the remaining 16 of Iraq's 18 provinces are expected to be placed under Iraqi government control in 2007.
- Iraqi public concern about a civil war has grown, while confidence in the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has dropped significantly as his efforts at political reconciliation have shown "little progress," the report says. Nationwide, 60% of Iraqis expressed a perception of worsening security conditions. The sectarian violence has also led to an increasing number of internal refugees, as about 460,000 people have been displaced since February, the report says, citing Iraqi statistics. The United Nations estimates that more than 3,000 Iraqis are leaving the country each day. (Washington Post)
- December 18: The idea of a "surge" of troops in Iraq, a short-term deployment of between 15,000 and 30,000 soldiers to contain the violence, is splitting the Bush administration, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Iraq war and occupation
The "surge" seems to be the central idea of the "revamping" of the Bush policy towards Iraq. But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission, and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military. The "surge" is also considered the most viable political solution to the firestorm of controversy surrounding Iraq, and the plummeting poll numbers for Bush. The chiefs are taking a firm stand because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion. The Pentagon has frequently warned in the last weeks that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the US military mission or to the Iraqi army. Pentagon advisors believe that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents, and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack US troops. As for the large, well-armed Shi'ite militias, they may just melot back into society until the "surge" troops are withdrawn, then re-emerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities. Even the announcement of a time frame and mission -- such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad -- could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new US strategy, the chiefs warn. - The discussion comes on top of the expected release of a report on Iraq by the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based crisis monitoring group that includes several former US officials. The ICG report calls for more far-reaching policy revisions and reversals than did even the Iraq Study Group report, the bipartisan report issued two weeks ago. The new report calls the study group's recommendations "not nearly radical enough" and says that "its prescriptions are no match for its diagnosis." It continues: "What is needed today is a clean break both in the way the US and other international actors deal with the Iraqi government, and in the way the US deals with the region." The Iraqi government and military should not be treated as "privileged allies" because they are not partners in efforts to stem the violence but rather parties to the conflict, it says. Trying to strengthen the fragile government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will not contribute to Iraq's stability, it adds. Iraq's escalating crisis cannot be resolved militarily, the report says, and can be solved only with a major political effort.
- The ICG proposes three broad steps: First, it calls for creation of an international support group, including the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Iraq's six neighbors, to press Iraq's constituents to accept political compromise. Second, it urges a conference of all Iraqi players, including militias and insurgent groups, with support from the international community, to forge a political compact on controversial issues such as federalism, distribution of oil revenue, an amnesty, the status of Ba'ath Party members and a timetable for US withdrawal. Finally, it suggests a new regional strategy that would include engagement with Syria and Iran and jump-starting the moribund Arab-Israeli peace process. (Washington Post)
- December 18: As Bush continues to "ponder" the various options for dealing with the Iraq debacle, press secretary Tony Snow continues to dodge and weave.
Iraq war and occupation
Reporters in today's press conference pepper Snow with two major questions: is Bush really going to send a "surge" of new troops to Iraq, and how does Bush react to recent public skepticism about former Secretary of State Colin Powell's apparent skepticism about such a plan? Neither question gets a definitive answer. About the new troops deployments, Snow says, "Everybody -- I know you all want to know surge or no surge, the answer is, no answer." Of Powell, Snow is even more disingenuous, saying that Bush and Powell are essentially in agreement, even though the White House disagrees with Powell's statement that Iraq is locked in a "civil war." Snow also tries to contest the fact that Powell said bluntly that the US is currently "losing" in Iraq, and lacks the troops necessary for a major buildup. Snow also asserts that if the Iraqi government ever asks the US to leave, it would immediately do so. Bush continues to insist that he will make no public announcements of any "modifications" to his Iraq policies until after the New Year. (Editor and Publisher) - December 18: Another senior leader at Colorado Springs's New Life Church has resigned after admitting to sexual misconduct, little more than a month after senior pastor Ted Haggard, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, was fired for the same reasons.
Religious conservatives
Pastor Christopher Beard, who headed a ministry that trained young adults in leadership skills, has stepped down after admitting to "a series of decisions displaying poor judgment, including one incident of sexual misconduct several years ago," according to associate pastor Rob Brendle. Brendle refuses to discuss the nature of the charges, except to say they do not involve Haggard nor any minors. Beard, a New Life employee for nine years, was not married at the time of the incident but is now, Brendle says. After Haggard's fall in a scandal over his homosexual relations with a prostitute and his drug use (see the items about Haggard in the November 2006 page), the senior leadership of New Life asked its outside board of overseers to take a closer look at the "spiritual character" of its 200-member staff as a precaution. Brendle says Beard's disclosures came during a meeting with the board, which is made up of four pastors from other congregations. Brendle says Beard's resignation was voluntary and is another step toward making sure the "disordered moral life" demonstrated in Haggard's fall is "excised from the church." Before his resignation, Beard oversaw a church ministry called twentyfourseven, a nine-month training program for young adults in missionary work and leadership. In 2002, Beard was reprimanded by church officials after he staged a missionary training drill using fake assault weapons. A SWAT team was put on alert after a passing motorist thought the guns were real. (Denver Post) - December 18: NRA head Wayne LaPierre, furious with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's efforts to catch and prosecute rogue gun dealers, has decided to challenge Bloomberg's efforts by falsely smearing Bloomberg as using illegal methods to pursue said gun dealers.
Gun advocacy
LaPierre writes for his organization's magazine, "There's someone out there telling folks to buy guns illegally, and I think it's time we put a stop to it. He's directing contract employees to walk into gun stores, lie on the paperwork about who's buying the gun, and walk out after making a straw purchase. Even worse, he's bragging about what he's doing. He's holding press conferences to tell the world about what he's done, but so far law enforcement doesn't seem to be listening. Well, I think it's time we help out the ATF agents that enforce our nation's gun laws. We need to call their Illegal Gun Hotline...and alert them to this illegal firearms activity. Tell them that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is hiring private investigators to initiate straw purchases in several states, and you want them to enforce the law." - Bloomberg has long been actively trying to reduce gun violence, mostly by chasing and prosecuting illegal gun dealers. Bloomberg, receiving no cooperation from the Republican-led, NRA-sponsored Congress, has been forced to use private detectives, sending them into states like Georgia and Pennsylvania to make "straw purchases" that both the detectives and the dealers knew were illegal. Bloomberg then filed suit against those dealers for allowing their customers to break the law. In many instances, the dealers have settled, and accepted an unprecendented level of monitoring and tracking. LaPierre criticizes Bloomberg: "Oh, I know Bloomberg says he wants to rid New York's streets of illegal guns. But he's not asking for help from local law enforcement agents. He's not asking for the help of the ATF. He's not even using his own police department. ...Have you ever wondered why Bloomberg wants to know who's buying guns in Georgia, Virginia, Pennsylvania and elsewhere? If this were really about stopping a criminal's ability to get a gun, we'd be talking criminal trials, not civil suits." LaPierre is right, but the reason is that Bloomberg is not using law enforcement agents and thusly filing criminal charges is that Bloomberg has been fruitlessly begging for help for years. Long before he began this campaign, Bloomberg appeared before Congress to testify about the ease with which rogue dealers can flaunt the law to sell guns illegally -- selling weapons to felons, selling controlled firearms such as military-style weapons -- and was roundly ignored. Because the laws are not being enforced, and because Bloomberg cannot get the help of federal law enforcement, he has turned to using private detectives and filing civil suits.
- And the laws are not commensurate with the problem. The NRA has worked to ensure that only one person can be charged for making "straw purchases:" the person buying the gun. According to the law, even though a straw purchase is clearly an agreement between two parties (Bloomberg's investigators made it clear that the person buying the gun was not the person using it), the dealer bears no responsibility under the law as it is now. With the laws as they are, and enforcement as lax as it is, Bloomberg has few choices. The editors of the gun control organization Gun Guys write, "Of course Bloomberg doesn't want to ban all guys -- the NRA seems to forget that Bloomberg is a Republican who's fighting for his city, not some idealistic platform. And if Wayne thinks this is just about people lying on firearms purchase forms, he's wrong again. It's about holding gun dealers responsible for the weapons they sell to people. Right now, they face no responsibility at all -- they'll sell a gun to anyone with cash and an ID. ...The NRA thinks their gun dealers should get a free ride when someone illegally purchases a gun from them. If there's anyone we should call the cops on for supporting criminals' ability to obtain firearms, it's Wayne LaPierre and the rest of his thugs." (NRA/Gun Guys)
- December 18: Broadcast journalist Cokie Roberts, a longtime supporter of the Bush policies in Iraq and certainly no representative of the "liberal media," has apparently had enough of the lies, prevarications, and marketing strategies that make up Bush's Iraq policies.
Iraq war and occupation
Americans "no longer believe their sons and daughters are dying for a good reason, but President Bush seems in no mood to hear them," she writes. "Yes, he fired Donald Rumsfeld. And yes, he will announce next year 'a new way forward.' But listen carefully. It's clear the president is not really interested in a 'new way' at all. He still firmly believes that his old way is right, that the war was justified, that 'victory' is the only way to keep [America] safe. His own words reflect no doubt or regret: 'Iraq is a central component of defeating the extremists who want to establish a safe haven in the Middle East, extremists who would use their safe haven from which to attack the United States. This is really the calling of our time, that is, to defeat the extremists and radicals.' But the president has not only lost the 'battle for hearts and minds' across the Arab world, he's lost it across the United States. The people of Bapchule and Oxford no longer believe his words or trust his judgment. Virtually everything he ever said to them about the war -- from 'Mission Accomplished' to 'absolutely, we're winning' -- has been wrong. Once, Americans might have shared his vision of a free, self-governing Iraq, but not any more. He has squandered their trust and betrayed their patriotism. The parents of Thibodaux and Cheektowaga no longer want to sacrifice their children to a lost cause." She notes that even Republican lawmakers like Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith have criticized Bush's Iraq policies: "But how can these critics exert any leverage over a president who is not running again and seems detached from reality? GOP hardliners -- like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney, who don't have to stand for office, or send their own children to war -- are still telling Bush to ignore the "surrender monkeys," as one headline put it. ...The nation is facing an enormous tragedy. Bush can't or won't leave Iraq, but staying means [American communities such as] Pflugerville will keep burying its children. Only a new president will be able to stop the dying." (Austin American-Statesman) - December 18: The Washington Post reports that Time magazine has hired two more political commentators, William Kristol and Michael Kinsley.
Conservative media slant
Time recently stated that it wanted to introduce more political diversity within its ranks of commentators; since then, it has hired one conservative after another. The only non-conservatives on Time's staff is the centrist Eleanor Clift, and supposed liberal Joe Klein, who, according to media critic Eric Alterman, "pretends that the message of liberals for the past twenty years has been that they 'hate America,' just as if he were reading from talking points issued by Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter." No other liberals or progressives write comment for Time. Kristol is the editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard and a regular guest commentator for Fox News. Kinsley, a founding editor of Slate and a current editor-at-large for Britain's Guardian newspaper, is not nearly as ideologically purist as Kristol, but has recently used his columns to dismiss evidence that the administration manipulated intelligence to support its case for war, defend the Republican leadership's handling of the Mark Foley scandal, criticize House Democrats, and attack the validity of the Iraq Study Group. (Washington Post/MediaMatters) - December 18: Disney apparently believes that it has a copyright on the concept and image of Santa Claus, according to a recent incident at Disney World reported by the BBC. Visitor James Worley, a portly man with a white beard and wearing a red hat and red shirt, had been entertaining children with some "ho-ho-ho's" when park officials intervened. They told Worley he had to stop "impersonating" Santa or get out of the park. Worley agreed to remove the hat and shirt, but told officials, "I look this way 24/7, 365 days a year. This is me." Worley said children still approached him afterwards, asking if he were Santa Claus. But Disney officials told Worley, Santa was considered a Disney character." Disney officials said that several guests had become "very upset" at Worley's Santa role, though the article cites no specifics, and that since Disney has its own Santa at Epcot, Worley was "confusing" the children. Worley has played Santa at a number of charity events, and sometimes his wife joins him as Mrs. Claus. (BBC)
