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
Page Two
- December 19: Former secretary of state Colin Powell says the United States is losing a "civil war" in Iraq and does not believe that an increase in troops will reverse the situation.
Iraq war and occupation
Instead, he calls for a new strategy that would relinquish responsibility for Iraqi security to the Baghdad government sooner rather than later, with US troop reductions to begin by the middle of next year. Bush is considering options for a new military strategy, among them a "surge" of 15,000 to 30,000 troops added to the current 140,000 in Iraq, to secure Baghdad and to accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, as Republican senator John McCain and others have proposed. Bush is also considering a redirection of the US military away from the insurgency to focus mainly on hunting al-Qaeda terrorists. Bush has rejected the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group and its recommendations to set parameters for a phased withdrawal to begin next year, and he has insisted that the violence in Iraq is not a civil war. - Powell, who attempted to persuade the United Nations of the need to invade Iraq, has made it clear he agreed with the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group. The situation in Iraq is "grave and deteriorating," he says on CBS, "and we're not winning, we are losing. We haven't lost. And this is the time, now, to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around." The summer's surge of US troops to try to stabilize Baghdad failed, he said, and any new attempt is unlikely to succeed. "If somebody proposes that additional troops be sent, if I was still chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my first question...is what mission is it these troops are supposed to accomplish? ...Is it something that is really accomplishable? ...Do we have enough troops to accomplish it? ...[S]ooner or later you have to begin the baton pass, passing it off to the Iraqis for their security and to begin the drawdown of US forces. I think that's got to happen some time before the middle of next year." He adds, "And let's be clear about something else.... There really are 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."
- Powell also agrees with the ISG's recommendation that the administration open talks with Syria and Iran as it gropes for a solution to the Iraq problem. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have rejected talks until Syria ends its destabilizing influence in Lebanon and until Iran suspends its nuclear enrichment program.
- While Bush officials have repeatedly charged both Iran and Syria with aiding the Iraqi insurgents, Powell calls such support "marginal." (The Age)
- December 19: A new report by Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, documents the most pessimistic assessments of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq during the past 10 months.
Iraq war and occupation
Ever since Shi'ite militias across Iraq erupted into a frenzy of retaliatory random killings of Sunnis following the bombing of the al-Askariya Mosque in Samarra, a cherished Shiite shrine, on February 22, 2006, Iraq has descended into chaos. The new report, entitled "Iraq's Sectarian and Ethnic Violence and Evolving Insurgency: Developments through mid-December 2006," has so far received little media attention, which is focused primarily on the far more modest Iraq Study Group report and Bush's refusal to consider its recommendations. The CSIS report acknowledges that the US-led Operation Together Forward II in Baghdad had only made "slow progress in clearing the volatile neighborhoods, and the initiative lacked sufficient forces to maintain peace in cleared areas" Cordesman writes, "Baghdad was the center of the sectarian conflict, but violence spread to surrounding towns -- particularly Baquba, Balad, and Amara -- as the civil war threatened to engulf the entire country." Cordesman notes that the United Nations had concluded that by mid-December, sectarian violence was killing 120 Iraqis a day. Cordesman has now confirmed things have gotten far worse. The UN figures he cites mean that even if the current levels of violence in Iraq do not deteriorate further, 43,800 people will die next year there at the current rates of carnage. And those rates are expected to rise. - Cordesman also confirms that the violence in Iraq cannot be seen a a simple matter of Sunnis vs. Shi'ites, or Sunni-led insurgents vs. US and Iraqi armed forces, but instead reflects a badly splintered country where every neighborhood or district has its own different groups at odds with their geographical neighbors as well as their immediate ethnic rivals. Cordesman writes, "Sectarian fighting, led by the growth of some 23 militias around Baghdad, formed the foundation of the civil war." Among the Shi'ite militias, the Badr Brigades and the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr are locked in what promises to be an extremely bloody internecine struggle for supremacy within the Shi'ite camp. But plenty of smaller allied and independent Shiite militias are vying for power and survival too. And even the biggest militias are not monolithic or well-disciplined, coherent entities. Instead, they are full of violent, semi-independent factions endlessly vying for supremacy over each other as well as their wider enemies. "Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army developed rogue components that acted outside of his command. Sunnis formed loosely organized neighborhood death squads in the urban areas, some with ties to al-Qaida or ex-Ba'athist groups," he writes. "Baghdad and other major cities were almost completely divided into sectarian strongholds as both Sunnis and Shi'a fled neighborhoods in which they were a minority. Soft ethnic cleansing forced upwards of 400,000 Iraqis to relocate within Iraq since the February Samarra mosque bombing." Cordesman also notes that the Sunni Arab insurgency "remained focused in the western Anbar Province and benefited from the relocation of US troops to quell sectarian violence in Baghdad."
- Perhaps the most troubling conclusion Cordesman draws is that, far from creating a stable political basis for an effective democratic government in Iraq, the free democratic elections and the cumbersome parliamentary system that was created by them have made sectarian tensions far worse, not better. By mid-December, "[t]ensions between Sunni and Shi'ite legislators reached an all-time high as both sects accused each other of propagating sectarian killings by supporting death squads," he writes.
- United Press International reporter Martin Sieff observes, "Cordesman is no alarmist, defeatist, or amateur. He is one of the most respected, traditionally cautious and respected military analysts in Washington. His assessment reflects a sober, new mainstream consensus in the US capital. The new secretary of defense, Robert Gates, who was sworn in on Monday, appears to privately share it. About the last person who doesn't is the president of the United States." (UPI)
- December 19: Bush uses another legally impermissable "signing statement" to abrogate binding Congressional legislation, this time involving a pact between the US and India on civilian nuclear technology.
"Unitary executive"
After a year of difficult negotiations with Congress, Bush signs the "Henry Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act," which allows India to obtain larger supplies of nuclear fuel for use in its civilian nuclear plants; critics warn that such a deal frees up India's small existing uranium stockpile for military use. But Bush says he supports the agreement because it strengthens the relationship between the US and India, and because "the bill will help keep America safe by paving the way for India to join the global effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons." However, the signing statement makes it unclear just how much Bush is committed to actually carrying through with the parameters of the legislation. - In the statement, Bush says that his "approval of the Act does not constitute my adoption of the statements of policy as US foreign policy." The statements of policy include opposition to nuclear weapons production by all non-nuclear weapons states, as well as promoting India's commitments to control the proliferation of nuclear fuel cycle technology, cooperate in preventing Iran's development of nuclear weapons, and limit expansion of existing nuclear arsenals in South Asia. Bush also says that since controls placed by Congress on transfers to India of items that would run afoul of Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines "unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to an international body," he therefore considers the section "advisory" in nature. He also declares that eight sections of the bill in total have to be construed "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to protect and control information that could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."
- Chris Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University of Ohio who has studied presidential signing statements closely, writes that "All of the attention that the signing received was directed precisely where the administration wanted, and away from the sections of the bill that the President has undermined." Kelley adds, "With today's challenges, President Bush has issued a total of 137 signing statements and has made 1097 separate and distinct challenges to the provisions of the laws he has signed."
- Reuters reports India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as responding to domestic critics of the agreement that "India would not be bound by 'extraneous' conditions attached to the deal when it was passed by the US Congress this month, rejecting efforts to constrain New Delhi's policy towards Iran or its own nuclear weapons program." (Raw Story)
- December 19: Republican House member Virgil Goode of Virginia sends a bigoted, reactionary letter to select supporters that uses the election of Democrat Keith Ellison, a Muslim, to the House as a jumping-off point to decry the influence of Muslims in American life and recommend that the US close off its borders to any further Muslim immigrants.
Conservative hate speech and intolerance
The letter, which was accidentally sent to the chairman of the local Sierra Club chapter, reads in part, "[I]f American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped." - Goode uses the fiction that Ellison intends to be sworn into office on the Koran (there is no religious text of any kind used in the actual swearing-in ceremony, though candidates often use a Bible or other religious text in photo-ops afterwards; Ellison intends to use a Koran in that) to attack both Ellison and Islam. "When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand." Goode writes. "I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped." Goode finishes the letter by bragging about an ugly comment he recently made to a Muslim student: "The Ten Commandments and 'In God We Trust' are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, 'As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, the Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office.'"
- Ellison, who by all reports is a gracious and soft-spoken man, gives a characteristic reply to Goode. Ellison tells CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he is not angry about the letter, and says, "I think the diversity of our country is a great strength. It's a good thing that we have people from all faiths and all cultures to come here." Ellison says he would like to meet with Goode and find some "common ground." He tells Blitzer, "We all support one Constitution, one Constitution that upholds our right to equal protection, one Constitution that guarantees us due process under the law, one Constitution which says there is no religious test for elective office in America." Blitzer asks if Ellison will characterize Goode as a "bigot," but Ellison refuses to take the bait, saying he will not take part in "name calling. I don't know the fellow and I'd rather just say he has a lot to learn about Islam. ...What I'd tell him is that there might be a few things about Muslims that he might want to know. He might want to know that Muslims -- there are about 5 million in the country -- that they are here to support and strengthen America. They are nurses, doctors, husbands, wives, kids, who just want to live and prosper in the American way and that there's really nothing to fear. And that all of us are steadfastly opposed to the same people he is opposed to, which is the terrorists, so there is nothing to be afraid of. And, that what we should do is to tell our constituents -- we should reach to each other and not be against each other and we should find ways for common ground."
- On the same day as Ellison's reply, December 21, Goode continues to vent his hatred of Ellison and Islam in general. "I will not be putting my hand on the Koran," he says of his own swearing-in ceremony. But Goode is receiving little support from lawmakers from either party. The senior Republican from Virginia, John Warner, says in a statement that he respects the right of congressional members to freely "exercise the religion of their choice, including those of the Islamic faith utilizing the Quran." Democrat Rahm Emanuel, who is Jewish, says he hopes Goode will meet with Ellison. Emanuel says he would "see what I saw: a good American with good values of a different faith who's trying to do right by the people he represents." The Council on American-Islamic Relations has asked Goode to apologize, saying the remarks sent "a message of intolerance that is unworthy of anyone elected to public office. ...Rep. Goode's Islamophobic remarks send a message of intolerance that is unworthy of anyone elected to public office. There can be no reasonable defense for such bigotry." Ellison was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college.
- Conservative Republicans such as Goode and a number of extremist talk-show pundits are focusing on Ellison and likely Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who is a Christian but has an "un-American" name, to attempt to whip up fears among Americans that the Democratic Party is poised to become overrun with Islamic supporters and terrorist sympathizers. (TPM Muckraker, CNN)
- December 19: Journalist Eric Boehlert discusses the lie promulgated by right-wing commentators and bloggers (whom he calls "warbloggers") that the Associated Press is working in sympathy, or perhaps collusion, with Iraq's insurgents.
Conservative media slant
Their theory is, collusion is the only explanation why the AP isn't reporting how well the occupation is going. On December 12, AP Television News cameraman Ahmed Lutfallah was murdered by insurgents while filming a gun battle in Mosul. Boehlert writes, "According to warblogger logic, the insurgents should have made sure Lutfallah got the best film of the gun fight with police; in fact, insurgents might have even tipped him off that a battle was going to take place. That's how the drill is supposed to work. Yet insurgents in Mosul, after seeing the AP cameraman filming and then identifying him, approached the father of two and emptied five bullets into his body, took his equipment, cell phone, and press ID. They shot him like a dog in the street. So much for the AP and insurgents working in concert." - So instead, the bloggers and columnists, led by Michelle Malkin, chose to ignore Lutfallah's death, being as how it flew in the face of their theories. Before and after Lutfallah's death, Malkin, and "warbloggers" at Little Green Footballs, Powerline, Wizbang, Confederate Yankee, Flying Aces, and others have, in Boehlert's words, "been in high dudgeon, eviscerating the global wire service for producing allegedly pro-terrorist reporting from Iraq." These blogs, many of which are very influential not only among rank-and-file conservatives but among conservative lawmakers and mainstream reporters, accuse the AP of "spread[ing] terrorist propaganda" in order to dupe readers that there is a civil war raging in Baghdad. The conspiracy theory goes, in Boehlert's words: "Iraqi insurgents like the AP; they have friendly contacts with the AP; and they use the AP as a conduit to advance their propaganda war. Indeed, insurgents badly want for the AP to broadcast images and write stories about bloodshed in order to create the illusion of chaos in Iraq." The obvious conclusion is that it is the AP's fault that the US is losing in Iraq. "For warbloggers who have been chronically wrong about Iraq for nearly 50 straight months," Boehlert writes, "the AP conspiracy theory represents a cure-all so important that Malkin herself has vowed to travel to Iraq to wander around the bombed-out streets of Baghdad in order to prove her AP allegations." Malkin goes so far as to label the AP the "Associated (with terrorists) Press."
- Boehlert writes, "You can be sure that if Lutfallah had been killed by Iraqi police during the gun battle and warbloggers in any way could have portrayed him as an enemy, they would have howled about Lutfallah's death for days, smearing his name with all sorts of terrorist innuendos and demanding that the AP explain itself. But when word came that an AP journalist had been executed by Iraqi insurgents, the warbloggers knew to keep quiet." The hypocrisy is staggering. And unfortunately, Lutfallah is only the latest in a long line of journalists kidnapped, beheaded, and murdered by Iraqi insurgents. As CNN international correspondent Michael Ware recently noted, "In terms of the insurgency, [journalists] are seen as legitimate targets: part of the problem, not the solution." Boehlert adds, "Specifically, insurgents have often targeted local Iraqi journalists working for Western-friendly news outlets for execution; the same Iraqi journalists warbloggers insist have such chummy relationships with Baghdad terrorists. ...Something doesn't add up here, and I assume it's something warbloggers don't want to address, as they cling to their anti-press fantasy to explain the Iraq debacle. Namely, if insurgents view journalists as their allies -- weapons in their sophisticated propaganda war against the United States -- then why are insurgents killing journalists at an alarming rate? The entire premise of the warblogger theory makes no sense."
- But facts have never gotten in the way of a good right-wing conspiracy and smear campaign, with bloggers routinely echoing the words of one poster at The Junkyard Blog: "The Western press is negligently or carelessly (I'm not ready to believe knowingly) passing along terrorist propaganda disguised as news." Boehlert responds to that claim, "Talk about hubris -- stateside warbloggers claim they have a better handle on what's happening in Iraq than reporters who are actually there The warbloggers' deliberate and daily condemnation of wartime correspondents as being cowardly, unethical, and un-American is likely unprecedented in American history, as the dwindling number of Bush defenders online try desperately to pin the blame for Iraq on the media. ...Warbloggers, stressing their contempt for the First Amendment -- 'The government needs to slap down the press,' urged The Anchoress -- would prefer that information about the war in Iraq be disseminated only by the United States military, despite the fact the bipartisan Iraq Study Group just concluded that for years the US military wildly underreported violence inside Iraq. But that's the version of history the warbloggers want Americans to embrace." (AP/MediaMatters)
- December 19: Conservative radio host Mike Gallagher appears on Fox News to vent his anger at The View host Joy Behar, who in a recent broadcast compared former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Adolf Hitler.
Conservative hate speech and intolerance
Gallagher shows his own affinity with Nazi tactics by spluttering that Behar, actor Matt Damon, and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann should be arrested, and the government should "take the whole bunch of them and put them in a detention camp until this war is over, because they're a bunch of traitors." Gallagher says to fellow guest Rob Thompson, another radio host, "You know, it's a little bit ridiculous that we continue to watch these TV stars and movie stars who smear our leaders. I just wonder, Rob, if you'll think for a moment, what our enemies think of seeing TV personalities compare the outgoing defense secretary to Adolph Hitler. I mean, you know, conservatives never get a pass. Strom Thurmond is wished a happy birthday by Trent Lott and the sky falls in on Trent Lott. But Joy Behar goes on national TV and compares a good man like Rumsfeld to the evilest in the world and nobody, you know, there's no repercussions for Joy Behar. I think we should round up all of these folks. Round up Joy Behar. Round up Matt Damon, who last night on MSNBC attacked George Bush and Dick Cheney. Round up Olbermann. Take the whole bunch of them and put them in a detention camp until this war is over, because they're a bunch of traitors." Thompson retorts, "They're not traitors, they're Americans. And you know what the great thing about America is, you get to say what you like and you don't get thrown into detention camps." Gallagher, who apparently is unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights, comes back smartly: "No, you don't." Thompson says, "And that's what the rest of the world sees. They see free Americans say what they like without having any fear of going to jail. So, if I wanted to compare someone to Hitler or anybody else, Pol Pot, whatever it might be, I have no fear of going to jail, because that is what an America is." Gallagher intones, "There's such a thing as treason, Rob," to which Thompson replies, "That's not treason. That's just political talk and satire...." (Think Progress/Truthdig [link to video])
- December 20: The Pentagon plans to ask the White House to request an additional $99.7 billion in funding for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraq war and occupation
The request would raise this year's funding to around $170 billion. Military planners have assembled the proposal at a time when Bush is developing new strategies for Iraq, such as sending thousands of more US troops there, although it was put together before the president said the troop escalation was under consideration. Overall, the war in Iraq has cost about $350 billion. Combined with the conflict in Afghanistan and operations against terrorism elsewhere, the cost has topped $500 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The 2006 funding would be about $50 billion over 2005 spending. In September, Congress approved an initial $70 billion for the current budget year, which began October 1. The cost of the war has risen dramatically as the security situation has deteriorated and more equipment is destroyed or worn out in harsh conditions. The Army, which has borne the brunt of the fighting, would receive about half of the request, a reflection of the wear and tear that the war has had on soldiers and their equipment. An additional $9.8 billion is being sought for training and equipping Iraq's and Afghanistan's security forces. The administration's request for more Iraq money will be submitted along with Bush's budget in February for the 2008 budget year, which starts next October 1. The White House can add or subtract from the Pentagon request as it sees fit, and the total could grow if money is added for reconstruction costs. Initial Pentagon requests were even higher than the $99.7 billion. - The budget increase includes $41.5 billion to cover the costs of ongoing military operations, $26.7 billion for replacing and repairing equipment damaged or destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan, $10 billion for body armor and other equipment to protect US troops from attack, $2.5 billion to combat roadside bombs and other improvised explosive devices, and $2.7 billion for intelligence activities. Whatever request emerges from the Bush administration will go to a new Congress controlled by Democrats highly critical of the Iraq war and Bush's handling of it. However, Democrats have repeatedly declared that they will not cut funding for US soldiers on the ground. "Democrats are committed to ensuring our troops have all that they need, but we're going to return oversight to spending on the war," says a spokesman for incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Our troops must have everything they need, but Halliburton shouldn't get everything it wants." Democrats such as incoming Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota have grown increasingly critical of the fact that Iraq spending is kept on a set of books separate from the rest of government operations.
- The Vietnam War cost an inflation-adjusted $121 billion at its height in 1968, according to the Congressional Research Service. The overall tally for Vietnam is $663 billion, adjusted for inflation, and Iraq costs are rapidly catching up. (AP/Yahoo! News)
- December 20: General John Abizaid, the commander of US forces in the Middle East, plans to retire and leave his post in March 2007.
Iraq war and occupation
Abizaid's upcoming retirement is likely part of the Bush administration's plans to retrench its military strategy for Iraq. Abizaid, the primary architect of US military strategy in Iraq since his ascension to command in 2003, has been a strong private critic of Bush administration strategies in Iraq, and has strongly resisted calls to deploy more troops in the war-torn country, saying the Iraqis must become more self-reliant. But Abizaid's retirement is another signal that the Bush administration is planning just such a "surge." A former senior Pentagon official says, "If you're going to change the strategy, in fairness to [Abizaid], let him go. He's given it all he's got, in terms of personal sacrifice." Abizaid submitted his resignation in November, shortly after then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was forced out, but the news is just now being released. It is unclear who new defense secretary Robert Gates will select to replace Abizaid. One recently retired Army general says Abizaid had wanted to retire earlier but that Rumsfeld blocked the move, insisting his war commanders stay in place. In Gates' search for a successor, the candidate most closely associated with Abizaid's strategy is Army General George Casey, the commander of US forces in Iraq, who is also expected to leave his current assignment early next year. Although Casey was considered the favorite to become the next Army chief of staff under Rumsfeld, Gates could decide to move him to the Central Command for continuity. Critics of the war effort say making Casey either chief of staff or Centcom commander would send the wrong signal -- essentially endorsing a strategy that the president acknowledges has failed. "It would be a terrible thing," says one military analyst with close ties to the Pentagon. "He's the guy who's losing the war." Under Rumsfeld, commanders were most often chosen for their willingness to submit to his authority and not their independence or creativity. (Los Angeles Times) - December 20: At midnight on December 31, hundreds of millions of pages of secret documents will be instantly declassified by the federal government, including many FBI Cold War files on investigations of people suspected of being Communist sympathizers.
Secrecy of Bush administration
After years of extensions sought by federal agencies, the end of 2006 marks the government's first automatic declassification of records. Secret documents 25 years old or older will automatically lose their classified status unless agencies have sought exemptions on the ground that the material remains secret. Historians say the deadline, created in the Clinton administration but enforced, to the surprise of some scholars, by the secrecy-prone Bush administration, has had huge effects on public access, despite the large numbers of intelligence documents that have been exempted. Every year from now on, millions of additional documents will be automatically declassified as they reach the 25-year limit, reversing the traditional practice of releasing just what scholars request. Many historians had expected Bush to scrap the deadline. His administration has overseen the reclassification of many historical files and restricted access to presidential papers of past administrations, as well as contemporary records. Practical considerations, including a growing backlog of records at the National Archives, mean that it could take months before the declassified papers are ready for researchers. "Deadlines clarify the mind," says Thomas Blanton, director of the private National Security Archive at George Washington University, which obtains and publishes historical government documents. Agencies have declassified more than one billion pages, shedding light on the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam War and the network of Soviet agents in the American government. - "It is going to take a generation for scholars to go through the material declassified under this process," says Steven Aftergood, who runs a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists. "It represents the classified history of a momentous period, the Cold War," says Aftergood. "Almost every current headline has an echo in the declassified past, whether it's coping with nuclear weapons, understanding the Middle East or dictatorship and democracy in Latin America." Anna Nelson, a historian at American University, says she hopes that the files will shed light on the Central Intelligence Agency role in Iran and deepen the documentation of the Jimmy Carter years, in particular the Camp David accords. "Americans need to know this history, and the history is in those documents," Nelson says. She says the National Archives staff is buried in a 400-million-page backlog that awaits processing and is not publicly available. "They can declassify the records, but the archives don't have the staff to handle them," she adds.
- The first deadline was imposed in an executive order that Bill Clinton signed in 1995, when officials realized that taxpayers were paying billions of dollars to protect a mountain of Cold War documents. The order gave agencies five years to declassify documents or show the need for continued secrecy. When agencies protested that they could not meet the 2000 deadline, it was extended to 2003. Bush then granted another three-year extension, but put out the word that it was the last one, despite the new emphasis on security after the 9/11 attacks and a new war in Iraq. "The Bush administration could have said, 'This is a Clinton thing,' and abandoned it," says Aftergood. "To their credit, they did not." As an enforceable deadline loomed, the intelligence agencies that produce most secret material added workers to plow through files from World War II. The CIA has reviewed more than 100 million pages, released 30 million pages and created a database of documents, Crest, that is accessible from terminals at the National Archives. Although most of the documents are exempt, they can be requested under the Freedom of Information Act. The National Security Agency, the eavesdropping and code-breaking agency, has released 35 million pages, including an extensive collection on the Gulf of Tonkin incident that led to the escalation of the Vietnam War. The agency plans a major release early next year on the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, an American eavesdropping ship, in 1967. The FBI, by contrast, negotiated an exemption from the 1995 executive order and concluded last year that the 2003 executive order ended its special status. It has rushed to review material, seeking exemption for 50 million pages on intelligence, counterintelligence and terrorism, but leaving 270 million pages to be automatically declassified now. Among those files, says David Hardy, the bureau declassification chief, are those on investigations of Americans with suspected ties to the Communist Party. Reviewers will keep working on the exempt material to see what can be released. "The numbers of documents are staggering," Hardy says. (New York Times)
- December 20: Bush names conservative columnist and former sitcom producer and writer Warren Bell to take a vacancy on the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports US public television and radio such as NPR and PBS.
Partisan Bush appointees
Bell's is a recess appointment, made after the Senate Commerce Committee refused to hold confirmation hearings on him because of his extremist views and reports that he has made negative comments about funding public broadcasting. As a contributor to the online edition of the National Review, Bell has made no secret of his political views, writing in one piece that he is "thoroughly conservative in ways that strike horror into the hearts of my Hollywood colleagues." Bell will have his position until Congress adjourns next year, unless a permanent nominee for the seat is confirmed before then. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a federally funded nonprofit corporation and the largest single source of money for US public television and radio programming. It is governed by a presidentially appointed board. The board was the source of political controversy in 2005 when its chairman at the time, Kenneth Tomlinson, was criticized for injecting politics into the organization when Tomlinson recruited a former senior Republican party official -- Patricia Harrison -- as its new president and chief executive. Tomlinson had sought to add more conservative-minded shows to the line-up to counter what many conservatives considered a liberal bias in public broadcasting. He resigned in November 2005 amid the controversy and after an investigation concluded he had broken federal law. The Bush administration has come under fire before for trying to influence news coverage, including paying a conservative commentator to praise its new education law and the production by government agencies of video news releases that some television stations aired without identifying their origin. - Bell's appointment has generated strong criticism among Democrats and public broadcasting advocates, who see little difference between Bell and Tomlinson. "This appointment by the Bush administration makes it clear that they simply don't care about the integrity or quality of our public broadcasting system," says Democratic senator Frank Lautenberg. Lautenberg's fellow Senate Democrat, Byron Dorgan, adds, "The CPB has had some very substantial controversy attached to it recently, and I think especially because of that the president should have paid attention to some of the concerns in Congress." Dorgan calls Bell's appointment "a real serious mistake." A third Senate Democrat, Barbara Boxer, says that Bell's appointment is yet another example of his failure to address any issues in a real bipartisan manner. "The American people made clear on November 7 they wanted bipartisanship from their government, and President Bush once again chose to ignore the concerns of the Senate instead of choosing a consensus nominee," she says. Like so many conservatives before him, Bell says he will separate his own politics from his role as a board member. "I'm a comedy writer," he says. "I'm really not nearly a political person as I've been made out to be. I think once people meet me and speak to me and hear what I'm about, they'll see the concerns that were raised were greatly overblown. I'm not an ideologue and I'm certainly not Ken Tomlinson. I'm not on a crusade, except to maybe make PBS a really great network for people to watch."
- He says he plans on using scripted programming similar to the BBC's to reinvigorate PBS's own lineup. But the system is vastly different than the development system of a commercial network. Local PBS stations, rather than Hollywood studios, produce the bulk of programming, and although CPB provides funding for some shows, it has little influence on what airs. PBS distributes a national slate of programs, which each station then independently decides how to schedule.
- Public television officials express little enthusiasm for Bell's appointment. "It is our hope that Warren Bell will make positive contributions to CPB's mission of strong support for public broadcasting," says PBS spokeswoman Lea Sloan. "However, it is important to remember that PBS is a separate and independent organization that is governed by its own board of directors." John Lawson, president of the Association of Public Television Stations, calls Bell's nomination a victory of "inside-the-Beltway connections and ideology. ...We hope he will live up to his statements...and make a positive contribution to the cause of noncommercial, public service media in the US." Bell has complained that people have made a mistake judging him solely from the content of his National Review columns. "It was almost entirely people attacking me on the basis of having seen the corner of my shadow going down the hall," he said, saying that taking his comments out of context "makes it sound like I'm Rush Limbaugh with a meat cleaver." (Reuters/Washington Post, Los Angeles Times)
- December 20: Over half of the sitting Democrats in the House of Representatives sign a letter written to Bush asking that he replace Eric Keroack as the head of the Office of Population Affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Partisan Bush appointees
Keroack was named to head the office on November 17, where he oversees the $280 million program that provides federal dollars for the provision of birth control to poor women. "We believe the appointment of Dr. Keroack is a horrendous mistake for the safety of women's health in the United States," says the letter, which was signed by 107 Democrats and three Republicans. HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt says the administration has no intention of removing Keroack. Keroack oversees a program that funds birth control, pregnancy tests, breast-cancer screening and other health services for 5 million poor women annually. HHS estimates that the program prevents 1.5 million unwanted pregnancies each year. Keroack previously served as medical director for A Woman's Concern, a chain of Boston-area pregnancy clinics that discourage the use of birth control and advocate abstinence as a way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Keroack has stirred controversy as well with his writings, including one widely cited paper entitled "Bonding Imperative: A Special Report from the Abstinence Medical Council," in which he said women who have more than one sex partner have a diminished neurological capacity to experience loving relationships, using discredited and fictional "science" to prove his claims. HHS has said Keroack will distribute birth control as required by law. "I'm also told that he has regularly prescribed contraception when it was felt appropriate," says Leavitt. Keroack has galvanized Democrats who saw his appointment shortly after the November elections as a defiant move. "We are telling this administration that it needs to get its act together in providing real assistance to low-income families to protect women and children," says Democrat Joseph Crowley, who drafted the letter. House Democratic leaders did not sign the letter but have given it their support, a Crowley staffer says. (Reuters/Scientific American) - December 20: Republican House representative Robin Hayes gives credence to al-Qaeda's contention that the occupation of Iraq is an extension of the medieval Crusades,
Iraq war and occupation
which attempted to forcibly convert Middle Eastern Arabs from Islam to Christianity, when he tells the Concord, North Carolina Rotary Club that "Stability in Iraq ultimately depends on spreading the message of Jesus Christ, the message of peace on earth, good will towards men. Everything depends on everyone learning about the birth of the Savior." Blogger "LiberalNC" writes, "With this kind of talk Hayes just plays into the hands of al-Qaeda by confirming what their leaders have always been saying: those American soldiers are just modern Crusaders. He is thereby strengthening the beliefs of terrorists that want to kill every American soldier they come across." (Concord Standard/Blue NC) - December 20: The pre-emptive strike against possible Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's loyalty to America continues.
Conservative smear campaigns
Obama, a Democratic senator who is of mixed racial heritage and whose father is of Muslim descent, has become the target of right-wing hysteria reminiscent of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and their baseless attacks on 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry. Right-wing pundit Debbie Schlussel, a regular guest on MSNBC, writes in her column that because Obama's middle name is Hussein -- a traditional and extremely common name among Arabs and Muslims -- he must be suspected of being a traitor. Schlussel asks in her column, entitled "Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim," is this "a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?" After her innuendo of treason, she asks if Obama would be an acceptable vice president instead, and answers her own question: NO WAY, JOSE... Or, is that, HUSSEIN?" - Media Matters's Karl Frisch responds, "Schlussel's article is the latest example of the bigoted conservative attacks against Senator Obama. While Schlussel's comments are among the worst, she certainly isn't alone. The public discourse surrounding Senator Obama has devolved into a petty game of who can say his middle name more often or insult his character and ancestry with the most zeal. It's time for this bigotry to stop. News outlets like MSNBC can make the first move. They shouldn't give people like Schlussel airtime to spew their hate-filled conspiracy theories because when they do, they undermine their own reputations as legitimate news organizations."
- Media Matters notes that the pattern of insults to Obama over his name and his heritage have become a fixture on many television news outlets already. A few examples:
- During MSNBC's special election coverage on November 7, co-anchor Chris Matthews remarked that Obama's "middle name is Hussein" and suggested that it would "be interesting down the road."
- On November 27, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson referred to radio host Bill Press as "a true member of the Barack Hussein Obama fan club."
- During the November 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Republican strategist Ed Rogers referred to "Barack Hussein Obama."
- On the December 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, senior political correspondent Carl Cameron told viewers: "Though he's written two books about himself already, most people know very little about Barack Hussein Obama Junior's uncommonly privileged life."
- On the December 11 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, correspondent Jeanne Moos noted that "[o]nly one little consonant differentiates" Obama and Osama, as in Osama bin Laden. She then added, "[A]s if that similarity weren't enough. How about sharing the name of a former dictator? You know his middle name, Hussein."
- On the December 11 edition of The Situation Room, CNN senior political analyst Jeff Greenfield compared the similarity of Obama's "business casual" clothing to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "jacket-and-no-tie look." Greenfield concluded the segment by saying: "Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the axis of evil, why, this could leave his presidential hopes hanging by a thread." He later explained on the CNN website that he was making "a joke."
- On December 13, Matthews teased another interview with Rogers by describing the strategist as "the one who just loves Barack Obama's middle name Hussein."
- On the December 14 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh lowered the political discourse down to a grade school level by announcing his nickname for Obama: "Barack Hussein Odumbo," which he explained was a reference to Obama's "big ears."
- On the December 14 edition of Hardball, NBC's Mike Viqueira announced "a man named Barack Obama, whose middle name, incidentally, is Hussein, running for president."
- December 20: The transformation of MSNBC talk show host Joe Scarborough from a knee-jerk supporter of the Iraq occupation, and of Bush's foreign policy, continues, with Scarborough asking guest commentator Mike Barnicle if Congress wouldn't have impeached Bill Clinton for carrying out a similar policy and Barnicle calling Bush "delusional."
Conservative media slant
Scarborough asks guest Josh Green, of the Atlantic Monthly, "to imagine how would Republicans have responded if President Bill Clinton had ignored the advice of all of his Joint Chiefs, his top general in the war zone, his former secretary of state, and 80 percent of Americans? Is it not a stretch to say that many Republicans would have considered impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton if this situation were identical?" Green responds, "I think they would have launched a coup. It probably would have been -- probably would have been centered at Fox News. They'd be going crazy, the way, you know, frankly, quite a few of them are beginning to get with Bush. You know, we heard yesterday for the first time, you know, at least an admission on Bush's part that this line about how we're winning the war in Iraq is no longer operative. And he admitted to the Washington Post yesterday that while they're not winning the war, they're not losing. So at least he's come a small step down the road toward being where everybody else is, you know, most importantly his top generals." - Scarborough says to Barnicle, "[A]s you know, I supported this war and I supported this man twice for president, and yet I'm growing more disturbed every night by how isolated George W. Bush has become. All the Joint Chiefs oppose his plan for Iraq. His lead general opposes his plan in Iraq, and now he's going to quit because Bush has ignored him. Colin Powell opposes his plan in Iraq. And an L.A. Times poll is showing that only 12 percent of Americans support his plan for more troops in Iraq. Shouldn't more Americans be disturbed at this unprecedented example of a White House that's in -- and you can only call it this -- a bunker mentality?" Barnicle replies, "We have a president of the United States who is isolated. He's delusional. He is stubborn. He has had one intervention that clearly didn't work, the Baker-Hamilton report. He is clearly in need of another intervention. You don't have to be von Clausewitz to figure out that urban warfare in the city of Baghdad, comparably the size of New York City, a tremendously hostile environment now, will become even more hostile with the introduction of more American troops. It will do very little, if nothing, to lessen the level of violence in Baghdad. ...You're going to get more Americans both killed and captured. And the only services that we will have ended up improving in Baghdad are funeral services."
- Scarborough continues by highlighting the poll that shows only 12% of Americans support the idea to escalate US troop numbers in Iraq. "His Joint Chiefs all oppose him. General Abizaid opposes him. Mike, let me ask you, historically, has a president ever been so alone in his determination to fight a war, even when his generals and the American public oppose it? I mean, there's not a more significant decision a president makes than war. ...Have you ever known of any president being this alone?" Barnicle replies, "No. The last great -- the most recent epic that this country has been through, a cultural and social epic that shattered the country, Vietnam, the president of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, as obstinate as he was for as long as he was, going down to the White House Situation Room, monitoring bombing runs, both strategic and tactical bombing runs over North Vietnam and South Vietnam, at least finally, at the end, toward the end, he listened to Clark Clifford and withdrew, withdrew himself from the presidency, a noble gesture in retrospect. This president -- this is dangerously close to a delusion that is going to result in death and carnage for years to come in the Middle East, too many Americans and too many people in the Middle East.
- After running a recent video clip of Bush responding to a question about whether or not he listens to his commanders on the ground in Iraq, where Bush said, "I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters, the sober judgment of our military leaders. ...If they want more troops, they get more troops! If they want less troops, they get less troops! They are bright, capable, smart people whose opinion matters to me a lot," Scarborough asks commentator Michael Crowley, "[I]t's stunning, isn't it? I mean, talking about the advice that he would follow, and now he's just -- just passing it by because they disagree with him." Crowley agrees, and adds, "At the time when he said, I was taking advice from the troops and they set the lead, I think we now see evidence that -- he was taking advice from the commanders -- that people on the ground in Iraq were saying months ago, Send us more troops, we don't have enough guys. And in public, he was saying, No, no, no, we don't need it, they're not asking for it. But I think we're seeing evidence that they were actually asking for it. And so he's been doing this exactly backwards. At a time when they did need more troops, he wasn't giving them. And now they're saying it's too late, the window is closed, we don't need them, we don't want them, he's going to force them on them. And there is just something very alarming about this."
- Scarborough reminds viewers that in February 2003, before the invasion, "Military leaders that claimed we needed more troops over there were mocked and ridiculed. People that said it was going to cost more, mocked and ridiculed by the president, by Dick Cheney, by Don Rumsfeld. So you're exactly right. When our military men and women needed more troops, this administration didn't give it to them, and now that they're saying it's too late, don't send the troops, they're ignoring them again." Crowley says, "[U]nfortunately, it's a tragedy of this administration, but they're just -- you get the feeling that the guy lives in a little bit of a bubble. He's too slow to realize the realities on the ground. He buys into his own rhetoric, which is just too idealistic and too out of touch with what's happening, and he's just too slow to respond. So now he's finally coming around, and it's too late. And it's very sad. ...It's just a very sensitive, scary subject when you start talking about the commander-in-chief and the generals being in conflict. And I have to say, it kind of gives me the heebee-jeebees."
- Of Bush's grudging concession that the US is "not winning" in Iraq, Green says, "Well, you know, I think it's the rare concession to reality. I mean, you know, Bush has been so out of touch for so long. You know, and the important thing in the comparison with Lyndon Johnson is that Bush isn't accountable to voters anymore. He's not going to run for reelection in two years from now, so he really doesn't have to listen to anybody and hasn't been listening to anybody. And I think that part of this concession that we're not winning the war in Iraq is simply admitting the obvious and trying to stanch the tide a little bit of criticism that he's getting for being out of touch, for you know, insisting as recently as a month or two ago that we're winning the war. And I think what he's doing here is trying to tamp down the alarm a little bit and figure out some way to move forward." Barnicle is far more blunt: "Joe, I don't think he knows what he's saying. I don't think he comprehends what he's saying. I don't think...." Scarborough asks, "You really think he is delusional?" Barnicle replies, "I do. I don't think he could explain to us tonight what he meant by what he said today. At one point, he said we're not winning, but at another point, he said, you know, we're going to win a victory there. He can't define victory. The deaths in this war right now, at this stage in our life, our political life, our national life, and especially if there's a surge in troops in Baghdad -- the deaths of American soldiers verges now on the criminal. And I don't think that's too strong a statement. It verges on the criminal. There's no plan. There's only this poppycock that you get from the president of the United States, who says one thing one moment, another thing the next moment, and he can't figure out what he is saying. ...I think you have a president totally isolated from reality, totally delusional, kind of paranoid, figuring that everyone's against him, including his own Joint Chiefs of Staff, figuring that history 30, 40 years from now is going to prove him correct. And he's going to have to weather this storm in the interim. He's going to have to take the abuse, look at the polls plummeting down to 5 and 4 percent. He's going to have to live and endure the casualties, which clearly affect him. Clearly affect him. That's the humanizing aspect of George Bush today. But I think he's intent on riding out this storm, thinking that somewhere down the road, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., 30 or 40 years from now, that that version of Arthur Schlesinger will say he saw it correctly when nobody else did."
- When asked what can be done to combat Bush's delusional, murderous foreign policy, Barnicle says, "I think one of the things that people in Congress on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat -- Michael Crowley alluded to this in terms of troop levels. This president and this Joint Chiefs of Staff were asked to increase troop levels years ago, months ago, from the inception of the war in Iraq—which is no longer the war on terror, it's just a miserable civil war. This is not the war on terror in Iraq. We can have Foreign Relations Committee hearings by Joe Biden, find out exactly who wanted the troops and when they wanted them. And if any commander who has been in Iraq or is in Iraq right now says that he does not need any more troops, there, I would submit, is a commander who needs to be relieved of command." (MSNBC/Crooks and Liars [link to video])
- December 20: While most rational people on all sides of the political spectrum dismiss the right wing's hysteria about the "war on Christmas" as senseless ranting, there is a simple reason why many conservative Christians continue to rage about the non-issue: it is a moneymaker for their organizations.
"Culture Wars"
Donald Wildmon's American Family Association says it has sold more than 500,000 buttons and 125,000 bumper stickers bearing the slogan "Merry Christmas: It's Worth Saying." The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal aid group that boasts a network of some 900 lawyers standing ready to "defend Christmas," says it has moved about 20,000 "Christmas packs." The packs, available for a suggested $29 donation, include a three-page legal memo and two lapel pins. And Liberty Counsel, a conservative law firm affiliated with Jerry Falwell, says it has sold 12,500 legal memos on celebrating Christmas and 8,000 of its own buttons and bumper stickers. All told, the "war on Christmas" is a cash cow for disaffected conservatives, with the three above-mentioned organizations pulling in an estimated $1.4 million. Wildmon's organization is making so much money that Wildmon admits he plans to expand the campaign to cover Easter as well. Blogger Steve Benen writes, "As I see it, we can draw two conclusions from this. One, even these religious right groups probably realize Christmas is not 'under attack,' but cynically exploit the fears of their members in order to pad their budgets. And two, if retailers acceded to right-wing demands and dropped 'Happy Holidays' and 'Seasons Greetings' from their commercial vocabulary altogether, the religious right would probably experience a deep sense of panic." (Carpetbagger) - December 20: One of the most violent video games being promoted for Christmas also sanctions slaughter in the name of Jesus Christ.
Religious conservatives
The video game "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" encourages players, in the words of the advertisement, "to command the tribulation force, uncover the truth about worldwide disappearances, and save as many people as possible from the antichrist. Lead the Tribulation Force from the book series, including Rayford, Chloe, Buck and Bruce against Nicolae Carpathia -- the antichrist. Defend yourselves from the forces of the antichrist. Engage in physical and spiritual warfare! Use Prayer and Special Abilities to boost the Spirit of your forces! Command over 30 unit types through dozens of missions and online player action! Defend against the spiritual influences and physical warfare of the antichrist's army through the power of prayer and worship!" - The "Left Behind" series, co-written by evangelist Tim LaHaye, is an enormously popular series of books and (less popular) movies which depict life on Earth after the "Rapture," when good Christians are taken up to Heaven instantaneously, leaving the rest of us to do battle with -- or join -- the forces of the Antichrist as Armageddon nears. The video game lets the consumer become a member of the Christian "Tribulation Force," roaming the burning streets of New York City and slaughtering the forces of evil, i.e. just about anyone who isn't a self-proclaimed Christian. It features a fairly extreme level of gore, nearly as "splatterific" as the notorious "Mortal Kombat" or "Grand Theft Auto" series.
- The makers of the game have asked Christians to support the game's success with prayer as well as with purchases, as in one e-mail from the company that produces the game, which reads in part, "'Left Behind Eternal Forces' for the PC is getting closer to completion everyday, and we appreciate your prayers! We would ask that you keep the Left Behind Games staff in your continued prayers as we get closer to our release date, from spiritual warfare, and protection for our families. We will be attending the 2006 International Christian Retail Show in Colorado on April 10th to the 13th, please pray that God will bless our presence at his show." A later marketing campaign, mounted in October, made the following prayer requests: "Wisdom as we prepare our promotional strategies. Travel safety as our team attends meetings and interviews. Unity as a team and that our efforts bring glory to our Lord." Later messages asked for prayers requesting that, among other things, "Critics and reviewers will give positive feedback on the game. Church and youth leaders will see the potential of using the game as an outreach tool. Players will multiply as they invite their friends to play with them online. God will bless this game and it will honor Him." Later requests, as the release date neared, became even more specific: "Pray God will put it on the heart of the consumers to purchase our product at select Walamart [sic] Stores (top 100 stores) that have our invetory [sic]. Next weekend is the biggest shopping weekend of the year, pray the game hits record sales for PC Games. The press is still reviewing the game, pray they will be kind in their reviews." Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi writes, in his sarcastic article on the game's release, "I mean, how twisted do you have to be to pray that consumers will buy your product at select Wal-Mart stores? Wouldn't you hesitate and call a psychiatrist before sending that out into cyber-space?"
- Unfortunately, the media focused instead on the gore and religious violence promoted by the game, prompting prayer requests that the media will give the game better reviews: "God will use these interviews to open the hearts and minds of the listeners to the true intentions and purpose of the game. God will bless us as we develop and choose our sales force."
- Taibbi gleefully concludes, "Anyway, if you haven't bought it already, I strongly advise everyone reading this to log on to leftbehind.com and buy the game. It is the perfect American holiday gift. Celebrate the birth of Jesus by wasting dozens of people at a time, using a provocative variety of Christ-sanctioned weapons! You can even operate tanks to destroy whole areas of New York City! Who knows, you might even get to kill Ethan Hawke ('slumming' in a ball cap and dirty jeans) in a Marxist bookstore-coffeeshop on 8th street! Kill, kill, kill!" (Rolling Stone/AlterNet [link to video])
- December 21: Hardline Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has agreed to allow his supporters to rejoin the Iraqi government after a three-week boycott, in an attempt to prevent his political rivals from forming a coalition that excludes him.
Iraq war and occupation
Al-Sadr has been under pressure to rejoin the political process and rein in his Mahdi Army militia, which is blamed for a good bit of the sectarian violence raging through Baghdad and its surrounds. Many believe that al-Sadr agreed to let his followers rejoin the government after consultations with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shi'ite cleric in Iraq, who is believed to support a new governing coalition, mostly made up of Shi'ites and Kurds with a single Sunni party involved. The Sadrist boycott has undercut Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government and prevented it from passing legislation. The new coalition is hoped to govern more efficiently than the current government, which has been criticized for its ties to al-Sadr. Al-Sadr's loyalists -- 30 in the legislature and six in the Cabinet -- walked off the job to protest al-Maliki's meeting with Bush in Jordan. But a new coalition government is not likely to end the threat from al-Sadr's militia. By ending the boycott, al-Sadr will retain some influence in Parliament, and his apparent compromise may help him resist calls to curb his fighters. (AP/Yahoo! News) - December 21: Aiham Alsammarae, the former Iraqi government minister who is the subject of a nationwide manhunt, contributed to the Bush presidential campaigns before and after being appointed by US authorities as Iraq's minister of electricity.
Iraq war and occupation
Alsammarae (or al-Sammarae) is an Iraqi-American who lived in Chicago for 27 years before returning to Iraq and becoming a governmental minister. He was arrested in August on corruption charges and recently escaped from a Baghdad jail inside the Green Zone, with the help of US-financed mercenaries. He is currently a fugitive from justice. After his escape, he participated in telephone interviews with US newspaper reporters, where he taunted Iraqi authorities, said he was fleeing death threats in Iraq, and claimed he had already left the country. Campaign contribution records show Alsammarae donated $1,000 to the Bush campaign in 1999 and, after being appointed by US Iraq administrator Paul Bremer as Iraq's electricity minister in August 2003, donated $250 to the Bush campaign in April 2004. While serving as Iraq's minister of electricity, he donated $1,500 to the US Republican National Committee and $250 to the Illinois Republican Party. Prior to his appointment as an Iraqi government minister, and separate from his Bush presidential campaign and RNC contributions, Alsammarae donated nearly $5,000 to the Illinois Republican party and to Republican US senate candidates. After being appointed by Bremer in 2003, Alsammarae stayed on as the electricity minister in the government of Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi until May 2005. Alsammarae was arrested on corruption charges this August and in October was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison. That verdict was overturned last week, but he faced further corruption charges when he fled jail. (IraqSlogger)
Bush and Alsammarae in a meeting at the White House in September 2003
- December 22: Newly confirmed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, promoted as an "outsider" by both Bush officials and mainstream media pundits, was prepped for his Senate confirmation hearings by aides of Dick Cheney, according to a former highly placed CIA official.
Partisan Bush appointees
The aides who prepared Gates for his testimony include virulent neoconservatives David Addington, chief of staff to the vice president, and David Wurmser, Cheney's Middle East advisor. "Cheney's office prepped Gates for the hearings," says the former CIA official. "His guys Wurmser and Addington got [Gates] ready, not the Pentagon." Gates chose Cheney to swear him into office on December 18 instead of by the president. Democrats in Congress say they were unaware that Gates had been briefed by Cheney's aides. - In recent statements by Gates concerning Iraq, he has come across as far more hardline and neoconservative in his outlook than he was presented when he was named in November to replace the resigning Donald Rumsfeld. In a recent appearance in Baghdad, Gates made remarks that are discouraging to some military and intelligence officials: "We need to make damned sure that the neighbors understand that we're going to be here for a long time -- here being the Persian Gulf." Gates also seems supportive of Bush's plans to escalate US forces in Iraq, and to dramatically increase the size of the US military. Trita Parsi, a Middle East expert at Johns Hopkins University who studied under former neoconservative philosopher and economist Francis Fukuyama, says that he finds these developments very "concerning." Parsi says that he is particularly concerned by the placement of ships in the region as a deterrent, coupled with the already increased activity from the Gulf Corporation Council (GCC) countries. "It is coinciding with increased arms sales to the GCC states, as well as efforts by some of these GCC states to get the US to take sides in the Iraqi civil war," says Parsi. "If Washington chooses to do so, the risk for a regional war will be considerable. The Bush Administration's allergy towards talking to Iran is increasing tensions in the region by the minute at a time when things already are too explosive."
- Many fear that Gates will be a supporter of the as-yet-indeterminate plans for the US to strike at Iran, as embodied by the statement of a CIA official who says that "Cheney has promised that Iran will be taken care of by spring [of 2007]." The biggest problem for the administration's plans to attack Iran, and possibly invade that country, has been in marketing the plans to the American people, who are not as yet buying the argument that Iran has weapons of mass destruction that threaten American security. The Joint Chiefs of Staff warned early last year that nothing could be done on Iran until the spring of 2007, but the Bush administration pushed for action sooner, culminating in a near strike in March 2006. Since the summer, the Bush administration has been pressuring European nations to impose sanctions against Iran, bypassing the UN Security Council. But those EU nations have not supported those sanctions, leaving the administration with few options for forcing a confrontation on Iran. Former CIA officials say they see the plans to build up a US presence in the Gulf starting early next year as a possible last resort to induce Iran to make a first strike against the US. However, strong resistance from the US military is expected, with virtually no generals or Pentagon senior officials supporting any action against Iran. (Raw Story)
- December 22: The New York Times takes the unusual step of printing the government-redacted version of a recent op-ed on Iran by former CIA analyst Flynt Leverett, with the redacted material blacked out.
Secrecy of Bush administration
The original op-ed had been cleared by the CIA's review board, but the CIA was forced to bend to pressure from the White House to censor the editorial. Leverett, with his wife and co-author Hillary Mann, a former foreign service officer who has participated in dialogue with Iran, writes that the Bush administration's apparent aim to force Iran into compliance with its demands for Iran to abandon its nuclear energy program and to end its attempts to influence Iraq, are dangerous and wrong-headed. Leverett and Mann write, "Unfortunately, advocates of limited engagement -- either for short-term gains on specific issues or to 'test' Iran regarding broader rapprochement -- do not seem to understand the 20-year history of United States-Iranian cooperation on discrete issues or appreciate the impact of that history on Iran's strategic outlook. In the current regional context, issue-specific engagement with Iran is bound to fail. The only diplomatic approach that might succeed is a comprehensive one aimed at a 'grand bargain' between the United States and the Islamic Republic." - Leverett and Mann give a thumbnail sketch of the failure of the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations to open significant dialogues with Iran, from the secret arms-for-hostages negotiations of Reagan, to Bush's efforts to gain the release of subsequent American hostages in Lebanon, and Clinton's own acquiesance to Iran's shipping of arms to Bosnian Muslims being shut down by Republican leaks of the secret program and criticism by 1996 presidential candidate Bob Dole. The younger Bush has, for six years, approached Iran with nothing more than demands and threats, and achieved nothing.
- After the 9/11 attacks, Iran offered to help the US topple Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regime. Leverett and Mann write, with government redactions: "But Tehran was profoundly disappointed with the United States response. After the 9/11 attacks, xxx xxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xx set the stage for a November 2001 meeting between Secretary of State Colin Powell and the foreign ministers of Afghanistan's six neighbors and Russia. xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Iran went along, working with the United States to eliminate the Taliban and establish a post-Taliban political order in Afghanistan."
- "In December 2001, xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx x Tehran to keep Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the brutal pro-al-Qaeda warlord, from returning to Afghanistan to lead jihadist resistance there. xxxxx xxxxxxx so long as the Bush administration did not criticize it for harboring terrorists. But, in his January 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush did just that in labeling Iran part of the 'axis of evil.' Unsurprisingly, Mr. Hekmatyar managed to leave Iran in short order after the speech. xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx the Islamic Republic could not be seen to be harboring terrorists.
- "xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxx This demonstrated to Afghan warlords that they could not play America and Iran off one another and prompted Tehran to deport hundreds of suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives who had fled Afghanistan. Those who argue that Iran did not cause Iraq's problems and therefore can be of only limited help in dealing with Iraq's current instability must also acknowledge that Iran did not 'cause' Afghanistan's deterioration into a terrorist-harboring failed state. But, when America and Iran worked together, Afghanistan was much more stable than it is today, al-Qaeda was on the run, the Islamic Republic's Hezbollah protege was comparatively restrained, and Tehran was not spinning centrifuges. Still, the Bush administration conveyed no interest in building on these positive trends.
- An entire paragraph is redacted. Leverett and Mann then write, "From an Iranian perspective, this record shows that Washington will take what it can get from talking to Iran on specific issues but is not prepared for real rapprochement. Yet American proponents of limited engagement anticipate that Tehran will play this fruitless game once more -- even after numerous statements by senior administration figures targeting the Islamic Republic for prospective 'regime change' and by President Bush himself that attacking Iran's nuclear and national security infrastructure is 'on the table.' Our experience dealing with xxxx xxxx Iranian diplomats over Afghanistan and in more recent private conversations in Europe and elsewhere convince us that Iran will not go down such a dead-end road again. Iran will not help the United States in Iraq because it wants to avoid chaos there; Tehran is well positioned to defend its interests in Iraq unilaterally as America flounders. Similarly, Iran will not accept strategically meaningful limits on its nuclear capabilities for a package of economic and technological goodies.
- "Iran will only cooperate with the United States, whether in Iraq or on the nuclear issue, as part of a broader rapprochement addressing its core security concerns. This requires extension of a United States security guarantee -- effectively, an American commitment not to use force to change the borders or form of government of the Islamic Republic -- bolstered by the prospect of lifting United States unilateral sanctions and normalizing bilateral relations. This is something no United States administration has ever offered, and that the Bush administration has explicitly refused to consider. Indeed, no administration would be able to provide a security guarantee unless United States concerns about Iran's nuclear activities, regional role and support for terrorist organizations were definitively addressed. That is why, at this juncture, resolving any of the significant bilateral differences between the United States and Iran inevitably requires resolving all of them. Implementing the reciprocal commitments entailed in a 'grand bargain' would almost certainly play out over time and in phases, but all of the commitments would be agreed up front as a package, so that both sides would know what they were getting.
- "Unfortunately, the window for pursuing a comprehensive settlement with Iran will not be open indefinitely. The Iranian leadership is more radicalized today, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president, than it was three years ago, and could become more radicalized in the future, depending on who ultimately succeeds Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as supreme leader. If President Bush does not move decisively toward strategic engagement with Tehran during his remaining two years in office, his successor will not have the same opportunities that he will have so blithely squandered."
- The editors at Raw Story have given a detailed breakdown of information that they believe might shed light on the redacted parts of the op-ed, at the link below. As Leverett asserted on December 15, when he revealed that his op-ed was going to be censored (see item above), none of the information that he apparently discussed is new or classified, and almost all of it can be found, in one form or another, in the other pages of this site. Leverett and Mann include a companion piece to the redacted op-ed, entitled "What We Wanted to Tell You About Iran," where they write, "Indeed, the deleted portions of the original draft reveal no classified material. These passages go into aspects of American-Iranian relations during the Bush administration's first term that have been publicly discussed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former Secretary of State Colin Powell; former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; a former State Department policy planning director, Richard Haass; and a former special envoy to Afghanistan, James Dobbins. These aspects have been extensively reported in the news media, and one of us, Mr. Leverett, has written about them in the Times and other publications with the explicit permission of the review board." The authors conclude, "National security must be above politics. In a democracy, transparency in government has to be honored and protected. To classify information for reasons other than the safety and security of the United States and its interests is a violation of these principles. It is for this reason that we will continue to press for the release of the article without the material deleted." (New York Times, New York Times, Raw Story)
