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
February 2007:
Week Four
Due to size considerations, this page has been divided into subpages.
Use the menu below to navigate the week's contents.
SubMenu
- February 22: In the years after 9/11, federal prosecutors have routinely inflated and even fabricated terror cases in order to fraudulently inflate their statistics, according to a Justice Department audit.
Anti-terrorism and homeland security
Federal prosecutors counted immigration violations, marriage fraud and drug trafficking among anti-terror cases in the four years after 9/11 even though no evidence linked them to terror activity. Overall, nearly all of the terrorism-related statistics on investigations, referrals and cases examined by department Inspector General Glenn Fine were either diminished or inflated, according to the audit. Only two of 26 sets of department data reported between 2001 and 2005 were accurate. A DOJ spokesman disputes the audit's conclusions, and even claims that prosecutors often underreported their terror-related prosecutions. The numbers, used to monitor the department's progress in battling terrorists, are reported to Congress and the public and help, in part, shape the department's budget. "For these and other reasons, it is essential that the department report accurate terrorism-related statistics," the audit concludes. - Democratic senator Charles Schumer says the audit leads him to question whether the department had exaggerated the number of terror cases. "If the Department of Justice can't even get their own books in order, how are we supposed to have any confidence they are doing the job they should be?" he asks. Schumer sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the department. "Whether this is just an accounting error or an attempt to pad terror prosecution statistics for some other reason, the Department of Justice of all places should be classifying cases for what they are, not what they want us to think them to be."
- The audit finds that data from the Executive Office of US Attorneys were the most severely flawed. Auditors say the office, which compiles statistics from the 94 federal prosecutors' districts nationwide, both under- and over-counted the number of terror-related cases during a four-year period. The office has since agreed to change the way it counts and classifies anti-terrorism cases.
- Examples of fraudulent terror reports are rife. A November 2001 federal crackdown on security breaches at airports, for example, yielded arrests on immigration and false document charges, but no evidence of terrorist activity. Nonetheless, the attorneys' office lumped them in with other anti-terror cases since they were investigated by federal Joint Terrorism Task Forces or with other counterterror measures. Other examples, according to the audit, included, among others: charges against a marriage-broker for being paid to arrange six fraudulent marriages between Tunisians and US citizens; prosecution of a Mexican citizen who falsely identified himself as another person in a passport application; and charges against a suspect for dealing firearms without a license.
- The audit itself can be found (in PDF format) at the following link. (AP/Yahoo! News)
- February 22: Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of US troops in Iraq and effectively revoke the broad authority Congress granted in October 2002 -- the next step in the Democrats' multi-step process of forcing a change in Bush's strategy and eventually force an end to the US presence in Iraq.
Iraq war and occupation
The precise wording remains unsettled, but one draft would restrict the soldiers in Iraq to combating al-Qaeda, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces. The plan is to attempt to add the measure to anti-terrorism legislation that scheduled to be on the Senate floor next week and the week following. Any such attempt to limit Bush's powers will undoubtedly would likely face strong opposition from Republican allies of the administration in the Senate and could also face a veto threat from Bush; earlier attempts to pass legislation that criticized Bush's foreign policies ended in gridlock after Senate Republicans blocked debate on two separate measures. - The House, which has already passed a nonbinding resolution critical of the escalation of 21,500 troops into Iraq, plans to pass legislation sponsored by House Democrats John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, and others, forcing the Pentagon to adhere to strict training and readiness standards in the case of troops ticketed for the war zone. Murtha says the legislation will effectively deny Bush the ability to proceed with the troop buildup that has been partially implemented since he announced it in January. But some Senate Democrats are privately critical of that approach, saying it would have virtually no chance of passing and could easily backfire politically in the face of Republican arguments that it would deny reinforcements to troops already in the war zone. (AP/Yahoo! News)
- February 22: Dick Cheney once again accuses Democrats of indirectly supporting terrorism by their efforts to curb Bush's wanton push for escalation in Iraq, but Democrats, tired of Cheney's accusations, fire back.
Iraq war and occupation
Cheney says that Democrats' opposition to Bush's escalation of troops in Iraq would "validate the al-Qaeda strategy." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fires back that Cheney is questioning critics' patriotism. "I hope the president will repudiate and distance himself from the vice president's remarks," she says. Pelosi says she tried to complain about Cheney to Bush but could not reach him. "You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," Pelosi says. - Cheney, conveniently on the other side of the globe in Tokyo, criticizes Pelosi and House Democrat John Murtha, who want to place restrictions on Bush's request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq war to make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq. "I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy," Cheney tells an ABC News reporter. "The al-Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people...try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit." Cheney then flip-flops, saying that Britain's recent announcement of a large troop withdrawal of their troops from Iraq is a positive step: "I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well." Pelosi responds to Cheney's comment by saying, "If it's going so well, we'd like to withdraw our troops as well."
- Pelosi, like many Democrats, has had enough of Cheney's accusations of treason and support for terrorists. She calls his comments "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support. And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said. It has no place in our debate." Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats' patriotism, she says. But Bush is "unavailable" to speak to Pelosi, the third-highest ranking lawmaker in the country. She does speak to White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, who attempts to soothe her by assuring her that Cheney isn't questioning her patriotism or her commitment to national security. Pelosi isn't so easily mollified. "I said to him perhaps when he saw what the vice president said he might have another comment." White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Cheney "was not questioning anyone's patriotism." but both Bush and Cheney believe that Pelosi and Murtha's "position to immediately pull out our troops would be harmful to our national security and that it is the wrong strategy to pursue." (AP/Yahoo! News)
- February 22: The Pentagon announces it is abandoning plans to conduct tests of the massive explosive devices, codenamed "Divine Strake," at the Nevada Test Site.
US nuclear program
The tests have generated a flood of public opposition, most strongly from area residents in Utah and Nevada who worry that detonation of 700 tons of explosives could spew debris into the air, carrying radiation left over from Cold War nuclear weapons tests at the test site. "I have become convinced that it's time to look at alternative methods that obviate the need for this type of large-scale test," Defense Threat Reduction Agency Director James Tegnelia says in a statement announcing the cancellation of the test. "DTRA remains committed to help develop non-nuclear means to defeat underground targets. I am optimistic that we will succeed." The agency maintains the decision was not a result of any information that indicated the test might harm workers or the public. - Many Utah and Nevada residents are still deeply distrustful of government assurances on testing at the Nevada Test Site. Thousands of Utahns suffered from cancer and other illnesses as a result of the radioactive fallout. The test has been opposed by members of Utah's congressional delegation, the state Legislature, the governor, activists and others. Divine Strake entailed detonating 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil -- the same mixture used to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building, but 280 times more of it. Monitors were to measure the ground-shaking to a tunnel under the blast site and the data would help develop computer models to predict damage to underground bunkers.
- Early planning documents said it was intended to help "improve the warfighter's confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage." The Pentagon later said the reference to nuclear yield was in error, and it would help with conventional weaponry as well. The test is needed, the Pentagon argues, because potential US enemies use buried bunkers to protect command facilities and weapons caches and the military needs the ability to destroy those hardened targets. Divine Strake was scheduled to take place last June, but opposition from Republican senator Orrin Hatch and Republican House member Jim Matheson, along with a lawsuit filed by two American Indian tribes and several Utah "Downwinders," delayed the test while the National Nuclear Security Administration did further environmental analyses. "I couldn't be more relieved," Hatch says. "Everybody in Utah can rest easier tonight knowing that the government listened. No one's going to be harmed by this test. This decision is a result of so many people standing firm to ensure that we didn't repeat the mistakes of the past. I'm so glad that DTRA did the right thing in the end." Matheson adds, "I have stood in the way of this test from day one. I have opposed it based on both its purpose and its potential ill affects. The prospect of even a non-nuclear 'mushroom cloud' over the Nevada Test Site brings back bitter memories of how the government lied when it said that there was no danger." (Salt Lake Tribune)
- February 22: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she wants tighter ethics rules for federal agencies after learning that Bush officials approved the purchase of a $980,000 vacation home by a top Justice Department lawyer with an oil company lobbyist.
Republican corruption
DOJ officials allowed Sue Ellen Wooldridge, then head of the environment division, to buy a South Carolina beach house in conjunction with Donald Duncan, the top Washington lobbyist for ConocoPhillips. "If in fact Ms. Wooldridge got such a pass from the ethics committee of the executive branch, then certainly the executive branch ethics process needs a look as well," says Pelosi. Nine months after the purchase, Wooldridge approved an agreement that allowed ConocoPhillips an extension of pollution cleanup requirements at some of the company's refineries. The company says Duncan was not part of those negotiations. Department officials and a lawyer for Wooldridge, who resigned from the job in January, said the department's ethics office approved the arrangement and told her she did not need to withdraw from dealings with ConocoPhillips. The third buyer of the Kiawah Island home was Wooldridge's companion, former Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles. He is the highest-ranking Bush administration official facing possible criminal charges in the Jack Abramoff corruption probe. (Griles will plead guilty to obstruction of justice charges in late March 2007.) The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is looking into the home purchase and consent decrees. (AP/Guardian) - February 22: Legendary Israeli reporter Uri Dan's posthumous biography, Ariel Sharon: An Intimate Portrait,
George W. Bush
features the following interesting, and quite questionable, remark by Bush to Sharon regarding Osama bin Laden. If the Americans ever caught bin Laden, Bush reportedly said to Sharon, "I will screw him in the *ss!" (Ha'aretz)
- February 23: Columnist Doug Bandow points out the incredible hypocrisy of the Republicans in their efforts to shout down the Democrats and others who are critical of the Iraq war and demanding a withdrawal.
Iraq war and occupation
On December 13, 1995, the House Republican Caucus, in opposition to Clinton's ultimately successful peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia, voted 108-64 to cut off funding for Clinton's efforts and repudiated Clinton as commander in chief. The Republican Senate Minority Leader complained that the proposed resolution opposing the mission while supporting the troops sent "a dangerous, duplicitous message." Republican House member Sam Johnson said on the floor of the Congress, "Mr. Speaker, this is not about peace and war. That is what is going on over there, and they are not going to stop fighting just because we go in there. I wholeheartedly support withholding funds.... Although it is a drastic step and ties the president's hands, I do not feel like we have any other choice. The president has tied our hands, gone against the wishes of the American people, and this is the last best way I know how to show my respect for our American servicemen and women. They are helpless, following orders. But we, we are in a position to stop this terrible mistake before it happens. I know what those soldiers are feeling. I was in the military for 29 years.... Thirty years ago when I was sent to Vietnam in a similar situation, Vietnam started out as a peace type mission, no defined goal, no exit strategy, no idea whose side we were on, and a created incident to gain support of the Congress. A peacekeeping mission? Come on. Does this not sound just like a carbon copy? I think it is. What is going to happen when our guys get over there, and if the rules of engagement apply, and they get shot at, and we start shooting back, what are their people going to say when we start killing them...? We will do it, and we will get chastised for it." - In 1995, the tables were turned, with Republicans openly challenging Clinton's authority to wage a war they personally disapproved of (though unlike Iraq, the war had wide support across the globe, and was widely seen as necessary to keep the peace in the Balkans). Bandow writes, "Shameless inconsistency is hardly unusual for Congress. But Rep. Johnson has turned hypocrisy into an art form. The former POW attacks a Democratic president for sending US forces into a messy, ill-formed, unnecessary conflict. He attacks a Democratic Congress for attacking a Republican president for sending US forces into a messy, ill-formed, unnecessary conflict. It's not clear whose side he is on, but it doesn't appear to be that of the troops. Yet the pro-war caucus brays on. Everything that it said about the existence of WMDs, which supposedly made Iraq so dangerous to America, was wrong. Everything that it said about Iraq being involved in 9/11 or working with al-Qaeda was wrong. Everything that it said about how easy the war would be was wrong. Everything that it said about how quickly American troops could come home was wrong. Everything that it said about how the war would transform the region was wrong. Everything that it said about how the war would combat terrorism was wrong."
- He continues, "The Bush administration and its supportive Greek chorus have been deceitful and manipulative in rhetoric, and ignorant and incompetent in operation. They turned a problem, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, into a catastrophe: continuing American casualties, massive Iraqi losses, worsening sectarian war, growing regional instability, and a cause celebre for terrorists worldwide. But now Americans are to trust the president. Or they are traitors and appeasers, aiding and abetting terrorists, jihadists, and Islamofascists. Naturally, the war enthusiasts use every [epithet] they can think of, many unprintable, to denounce Democratic opponents of the war. Disaster in Lebanon caused conservative icon President Ronald Reagan to recognize his mistake and get America out. Disaster in Iraq, and the consequent prospect of being utterly discredited, has made the neocon caucus ever more frenzied. The armchair warriors now are on the march, more insistent than ever, demanding escalation and tagging GOP dissenters as 'White Flag Republicans.'"
- "It is not antiwar politicians who these dead-enders really hate, however. It is the antiwar American people. Average Americans have tired of administration deceits and blunders. Average Americans voted to defenestrate the GOP from Capitol Hill. Average Americans want to get US troops out of Iraq. ...No wonder congressional Republicans have been desperate to avoid debating Iraq. As [Republicans] John Shadegg and Pete Hoekstra wrote to members of the GOP caucus: 'The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.' The sedentary samurai who seem to be the strongest hawks and the most insistent advocates of 'sacrifice' are right that there no longer are any good options. Having pushed the president to plunge America into an unnecessary war, they have made it extraordinarily difficult for the country to escape. The best thing the rest of us can do is stop listening to their 'advice.' As the old adage goes, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
- An increasingly incensed Bandow continues, "In particular, it is time to dismiss with contempt the arguments that recognizing the reality they have created is equivalent to 'surrender' and that 'supporting the troops' requires backing the administration's failed policies. One does not 'support the troops' by tossing servicemen and women into an unnecessary war. One does not 'support the troops' by expecting them to clean up someone else's sectarian fight. One does not 'support the troops' by making them fight without adequate equipment, such as body armor and armored humvees. One does not 'support the troops' by thrusting them into a conflict in which no one knows what victory is, let alone whether it is attainable. The warhawks might be perfectly charming people. But supporting the troops is not one of their virtues."
- Bandow quotes Nazi war criminal Hermann Goering, during the Nuremberg Trials: "Why, of course the people don't want war. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship.... [V]oice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Bandow concludes, "The American people must act to prove Goering wrong." (Antiwar.com)
- February 24: The Justice Department fires an eighth US attorney, Margaret Chiara of Grand Rapids, Michigan.
US Attorney firings
Chiara, who has held her post for more than five years, was asked to leave December 7, along with a number of other US attorneys who have clashed with the Justice Department. She will be replaced on an "interim" basis by Russell Stoddard, who just joined the Grand Rapids office. While Chiara refuses to comment, Robert Holmes Bell, the chief judge in Michigan's Western District, says that Chiara has an excellent reputation in Grand Rapids. "This is a very classy, distinguished, highly regarded public servant," says Bell, who was appointed to the bench during the Reagan administration. "She's one of the best United States attorneys we've had in this district, and all of my colleagues agree.... To have her suddenly disappear without warning catches us all flat-footed." - Preliminary indications are that Chiara clashed with DOJ officials over her reluctance to seek the death penalty in some cases. Chiara is personally opposed to capital punishment, but in 2002 she presided over the first death penalty case in Michigan in more than 60 years. A year later, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft rejected a plea agreement proposed by Chiara's office in a separate murder case. Another of the fired US attorneys, Paul Charlton of Phoenix, also clashed with Washington over the death penalty. (Washington Post)
- February 24: An audit of touch-screen voting machines at the center of a dispute in a Florida congressional election found no evidence of malfunction, according to Florida's secretary of state.
Election fraud
The results are not surprising, considering the partisan Republicans who led the audit (see earlier items). The audit was conducted after more than 18,000 ballots were cast in Sarasota County without a selection in the District 13 congressional race in November between Republican Vern Buchanan and Democrat Christine Jennings. Buchanan was the certified winner by 369 votes, but Jennings sued, alleging that the machines malfunctioned. Third-party voter advocate groups, along with Jennings, have been asking to examine the machines' source code or programming chips to find out whether they malfunctioned. The audit report released Friday said an independent study of the source code of the machines used in the election found no evidence of malfunction, but they refuse to release the source code for public examination. Buchanan was seated in Congress in January, but Jennings has yet to concede the race. Her spokesman David Kochman says that the audit was flawed. (Washington Post) - February 24: The White House is again resorting to Orwellian tactics to eradicate embarrassing statements made by its officials, by scrubbing the White House Web site of statements made in the recent past that have hung around to haunt its officials today.
Secrecy of Bush administration
(One of many reasons why this site chooses not to link to official White House Web pages -- they are unreliable in their content.) - There is no link to the transcript from Dick Cheney's March 16, 2003 appearance on Meet the Press, where he told listeners, "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." In fact, most links to interviews by Cheney before 2006 are no longer available. Blogger "Smintheus" of Unbossed, who has been tracking the scrubbing process, calls the procedure "uneven...but aggressive."
- No evidence exists on the White House site of Cheney's infamous May 30, 2005 claim about Iraq on CNN's Larry King Live that "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." No evidence exists of Cheney's claim on Meet the Press on September 14, 2003, where he said of Iraq's putative WMD program, "I think in the final analysis, we will find that the Iraqis did have a robust program."
- Most of what has been deleted from the White House Web site are links to transcripts of interviews from a variety of outside news sources.
- On the White House Radio page, where the site stores links to Bush's weekly radio addresses and to radio interviews given by officials, the links to Bush's own addresses are there, but the links to the radio interviews by officials has been thoroughly scrubbed. There are no archived interviews whatsoever since August 2006, except for one link to a January 20, 2007 interview. (Cheney's own interviews are available, to an extent, on his own "Speeches and News Releases" page. And no radio interviews from before March 2004 are available.
- On Cheney's own "Speeches and News Releases" page, a similar scrubbing has been taking place. Little is available from before December 2005. Nothing is available from between March 2002 and 2004. "Smintheus" observes, "This is of course the most controversial period for the Bush administration. It is a period in which Cheney made frequent appearances to talk up the grounds for attacking Iraq. After the invasion, Cheney continued to be the most vociferous defender of the invasion. His claims about alleged WMD became an object of derision for many Americans. His strident attacks upon administration critics became unusually repellent. His high profile in the outing of a CIA agent, utterly loathsome. I'd venture that if I were to set about scrubbing the WH website of politically embarrassing interviews, I'd begin with the Vice President's and I'd concentrate on exactly the period for which we now see the fewest interview-links on Cheney's page. In fact I would be particularly thorough in scrubbing any and all interviews by the Great Man during 2002 and 2003 -- the period in which there are no links whatever now."
- Throughout the site, links to controversial interviews which have sparked public controversy have been scrubbed. Even links to interviews by the usually less controversial Condoleezza Rice have been weeded. No interviews whatsoever from Harriet Miers are linked. And some transcripts, including the infamous May 1, 2003 "Mission Accomplished" speech, have been moved, and cannot be found by a search. (Unbossed)
- February 25: Some of the highest-ranking US military commanders will resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defense and intelligence sources.
War with Iran
Up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack. "There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran," says a source close to British intelligence. "There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible." A source within the British defense ministry adds, "All the generals are perfectly clear that they don't have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them. There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations." A generals' revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. "American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired," says a Pentagon source. Defense secretary Robert Gates has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders. - While threats and belligerent comments are common from Bush officials and even some military commanders, including a warning that "The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack," according to Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, recently said there is "zero chance" of a war with Iran and downplayed claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq. Hillary Mann, the National Security Council's main Iran expert until 2004, says Pace's repudiation of the administration's claims is a sign of grave discontent at the top. "He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier," she says. "It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon." Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US Navy is well aware of the risks of confrontation and is being "seriously careful" in the Gulf. The US Air Force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the Air Force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month. But Army commanders fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war. (London Sunday Times)
- February 25: A group of UN diplomats, all members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), say that the evidence shared with the agency by the United States to accuse Iran of developing a nuclear weapon is thin and unreliable.
War with Iran
Most intelligence given to the IAEA from the US has proved to be inaccurate, and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran. The officials say the CIA and other Western spy services had provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002, when Iran's long-secret nuclear program was exposed. But none of the tips about supposed secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic was developing illicit weapons. "Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," says one IAEA diplomat. Another official describes the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out." American officials privately acknowledge that much of their evidence on Iran's nuclear plans and programs remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult to prove. The IAEA has its own concerns about Iran's nuclear program, although agency officials say they have found no proof that nuclear material has been diverted to a weapons program. "Most of [the US intelligence] has turned out to be incorrect," says one IAEA diplomat. "They gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities. Now [the inspectors] don't go in blindly. Only if it passes a credibility test." - On February 22, the IAEA released a report declaring that Iran had expanded uranium enrichment and defied a Security Council deadline to suspend nuclear activities. In the meantime, the agency is locked in a dispute with Tehran over additional information and access to determine whether the program is peaceful. In November 2005, UN inspectors examining documents in tehran discovered a 15-page document that showed how to form highly enriched uranium into the configuration needed for the core of a nuclear bomb. Iran said the paper came from Pakistan, but has rebuffed IAEA requests to let inspectors take or copy it for further analysis.
- However, IAEA diplomats were less convinced by documents recovered by US intelligence from a laptop computer apparently stolen from Iran. American analysts first briefed senior IAEA officials on the contents of the hard drive at the U.S. mission here in mid-2005. The documents included detailed designs to upgrade ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads, drawings for subterranean testing of high explosives, and two pages describing research on uranium tetrafluoride, known as "green salt," which is used during uranium enrichment. IAEA officials remain suspicious of the information in part because most of the papers are in English rather than Persian, the Iranian language. "We don't know. Are they genuine, are they real?" asks a senior UN official. Another official who was briefed on the documents says he is "very unconvinced." The Iranian representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, calls the laptop documents "fabricated information." Iran, he says, has produced 170 tons of "green salt" at a uranium conversion facility in Esfahan that is monitored by the IAEA. "We are not hiding it," he says. "We make tons of it. These documents are all nonsense." An IAEA diplomat says, "First of all, if you have a clandestine program, you don't put it on laptops which can walk away. The data is all in English which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you'd have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi. So there is some doubt over the provenance of the computer."
- Recently, US officials recently compiled evidence purporting to show that the Iranian Quds Force, an elite unit of the Revolutionary Guard, had supplied Iranian-made weapons to Shi'ite militias that have attacked U.S. forces in Iraq. Those claims have turned out to be unsupported, particularly the claims that the "highest levels" of the tehran government were directly involved. "I don't know if it goes to the highest levels of the government," says Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the officer in charge of daily operations in Iraq. "What we do know is that the Quds Force has had involvement with some extremist groups in Iraq." (Los Angeles Times, Guardian)
- February 25: A secret British intelligence report states that the threat of terrorist attacks from native al-Qaeda agents is higher than at any time since the 9/11 attacks.
Islamist terrorism
The number of British-based Islamic terrorists plotting suicide attacks against "soft" targets in the United Kingdom is far greater than the Security Services had previously believed. Under the heading "International Terrorism in the UK," the document states: "The scale of al-Qaeda's ambitions towards attacking the UK and the number of UK extremists prepared to participate in attacks are even greater than we had previously judged." It warns that terrorist "attack planning" against Britain will increase in 2007, and adds: "We still believe that AQ [al-Qaeda] will continue to seek opportunities for mass casualty attacks against soft targets and key infrastructure. These attacks are likely to involve the use of suicide operatives." The document, which has been circulated across Whitehall to MI5, Scotland Yard's Counter Terrorist Command, the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defense, also reveals that al-Qaeda has grown into a world-wide organisation with a foothold in virtually every Muslim country in North Africa, the Middle East and central Asia. - A senior political source says the picture painted by the document is "particularly bleak and unlikely to improve for several years." He says, "The Security Services have constantly warned that the task of countering Islamist terrorism is a daunting one. There will be more attacks in Britain." Tory Patrick Mercer, the party's spokesman for homeland security, adds, "This document absolutely underlines the threat and makes me wonder why the government still has a counter-terrorist strategy that has been officially declared obsolete. It does make the government's response look hugely complacent."
- The document, entitled "Extremist Threat Assessment," also says that Afghanistan is expected to supersede Iraq as the location for terrorists planning jihad against the West. It says that al-Qaeda's influence extends from North Africa, including Egypt, through to Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan, and into Somalia and Sudan. Al-Qaeda is "resilient and effective" in Iraq, its "operating environment and financial position" in Pakistan has improved and a new group has emerged in Yemen. "With violence in Afghanistan intensifying, and therefore receiving greater media attention, the country may well become more attractive as a venue for foreigners wishing to fulfil their jihad ambitions", the document states. Two years ago, Western intelligence said that al-Qaeda was virtually a spent force, disrupted by counter-terrorist operations around the world. In July 2005 the Pentagon obtained a letter written by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's deputy leader, stating that the organisation had lost many of its leaders and that it had virtually resigned itself to defeat in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda's lines of communication, funding and structure had been severely damaged.
- Jonathan Eyal, the director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute, says that the al-Qaeda revival was down to the West's inability to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq made matters worse. "This document clearly demonstrates a marked shift from the mood of western government only a year or two ago," says Eyal. "It is a clear admission that the organization is re-emerging and the reasons are that none of al-Qaeda's top leaders have been killed or captured." (Daily Telegraph)
- February 25: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says it would be a mistake for Congress to micromanage the Iraq war, and she encourages lawmakers to support Bush's troop increase.
Iraq war and occupation
Accusations that Congressional Democrats are attempting to "micromanage" the war is the latest talking point from the White House. "I would hope that Congress would recognize that it's very important for them to have the oversight role," she says. "But when it comes to the execution of policy in the field, there has to be a clear relationship between the commander in chief and the commanders in the field." She says that Democrats are attempting to disrupt the chain of command. "[Y]ou're going to have the worst of micromanagement of military affairs. And it's always served us badly in the past," she says. Switching talking points, she again insists that the war in Iraq is a key element in the global war against terrorism. "Some of these car bombs may indeed be the work of an organization like al-Qaeda," she says of the civil war that continues to engulf Baghdad and central Iraq. "I think it's best to leave the flexibility of what to do on the ground to commanders on the ground who understand the situation, who understand the intricacies and the relationship among these various tasks that the American armed forces have to do," she says. (AP/CBS News) - February 25: Internal Justice Department performance reports for six of the eight United States attorneys who have been dismissed in recent months rated them "well regarded," "capable" or "very competent," proving Justice Department assertions that the attorneys were fired because of poor performance were lies.
US Attorney firings
The performance reviews, known as Evaluations and Review Staff Reports, show that the ousted prosecutors were routinely praised for playing a leadership role with other law enforcement agencies in their jurisdictions. The reviews, each of them 6 to 12 pages long, were carried out by Justice Department officials from 2003 to 2006. Each report was based on extensive interviews, conducted over several days with judges, other federal law enforcement agencies and staff members in each office. It had been known that the reports were mostly favorable, but the reports themselves had not been made public. - "As we feared, the comprehensive evaluations show these US attorneys did not deserve to be fired," says Democratic senator Charles Schumer. "To the contrary, they reveal they were effective, respected and set appropriate priorities." DOJ officials counter that the performance reviews do not provide a broad or complete picture of the prosecutors' performance. "The reviews don't take into account whether the US attorneys carried out departmental priorities," one anonymous department spokesman says. He adds, "You can't have 94 different sets of priorities," suggesting that the dismissed prosecutors had failed to follow priorities set by the Justice Department in Washington. But, proving that assertion is equally false, each case report included a statement that each of the ousted prosecutors had established strategic goals set by the Justice Department in high priority areas like counterterrorism, narcotics and gun violence. (New York Times)
- February 25: Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell writes of the White House's smear campaign against Joseph Wilson, "Wilson's New York Times op-ed piece, critical of the Bush administration's use of intelligence, set off a chain of events that led to the disclosure of Plame's job."
Conservative smear campaigns
But, as veteran political observer and liberal blogger Margie Burns reminds Howell, it became clear during the Lewis Libby trial -- and from information made public years before -- that the White House smear campaign against Wilson began a month prior to Wilson's July 6, 2003 article. - Burns notes that most journalists and bloggers, and even Wilson himself, have stated the same thing that Howell says. In his book The Politics of Truth, Wilson wrote that the campaign started when the Times printed his op-ed. But when Wilson wrote his book, which came out in April 2004, he had no access to the inside discussions about himself and his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, which have come out in Libby's grand jury testimony from years past, and from the testimony from the trial currently in session. Unfortunately, because the focus of the Patrick Fitzgerald prosecution is on Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice, and not on the actual smear campaign itself, Fitzgerald has been unable to present a coherent narrative of events that outline the details of the Wilson smear campaign and the outing of Plame as a covert CIA agent. However, the testimony clearly indicates that the campaign was well underway a month prior to Wilson's op-ed.
- Burns gives an overview of the information proving the smear campaign began in early June 2003. Little of this is new to readers of this site, but Burns does a fine job in organizing the information.
- May 29, 2003 -- Libby calls Marc Grossman, then an Under Secretary in the State Department, asking how and why Joe Wilson was sent to Niger about uranium.
- "[L]ate May and early June, 2003" according to Grossman's testimony -- Grossman gives oral interim reports to Libby that Wilson was the ambassador who went to Niger (mentioned but not named in a May 6 Times piece by Nicholas Kristof, "Missing in Action: Truth").
- June 9, 2003, according to Grossman's testimony -- Grossman had a conversation with Wilson, who was "upset" about Condoleezza Rice's claim the day before on Meet the Press that the White House was unaware of doubts about the Niger uranium story. (In his book, Wilson says this conversation "elicited the suggestion that I might have to write the story myself;" he got in touch with the Times the same day.)
- June 9, 2003 -- classified documents from CIA are faxed to the Office of the Vice President to Libby and colleague John Hannah, mentioning the Wilson trip but not naming Wilson.
- June 10, 2003 -- a classified State Department memo written by State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) gives Grossman the background on Wilson's Niger trip, refers explicitly to Valerie Wilson as Wilson's wife and "a CIA WMD manager." The memo also strongly debunks the Niger uranium story.
- June 11, 2003 -- Robert Grenier, then "Iraq mission manager" and "point person for Iraq," receives a phone call from Libby, then is summoned from a meeting with the CIA Director to talk with Libby about Wilson; tells Libby Wilson's wife is in the CIA. (Grenier is no longer with the CIA.)
- June 11/12, 2003 -- Marc Grossman has a "30-second discussion" about Plame with Libby, according to Grossman's testimony.
- June 12, 2003 -- Libby is informed by Cheney in a phone call that Wilson's wife is in CIA (handwritten note: "CP: his wife works in that div").
- June 12, 2003 -- David Addington, Cheney's government lawyer, receives the same notes from Libby's office mentioning Wilson's wife in CP (typed copy).
- June 13, 2003 -- Richard Armitage tells Bob Woodward, on tape, that Plame works for CIA, suggests that she sent Wilson on the Niger trip.
- June 14, 2003 -- CIA daily briefer Craig Schmall briefing of Libby at Libby's home notes question about Wilson ("ex-amb") and the Niger trip, notes Wilson and Valerie Wilson by name.
- June 23, 2003 -- Libby has a discussion with Judith Miller, mentions Wilson's wife at "bureau" (CIA). (Miller had returned to the US on June 8.)
- July 6, 2003 -- Joseph Wilson's op-ed criticizing the Niger story finally appears in the Times.
- June 20, June 23 and June 27 -- Woodward meets with an unnamed White House official, speaks with Libby on the phone and then meets with Libby. Woodward notes that the discussion included "yellowcake" uranium and "Joe Wilson's wife" with him.
- Burns believes that the trigger may have been, not anything said by Wilson, but a May 2003 piece by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker titled "Iraq Post Mortem." Hersh wrote about the forged Niger documents that generated the false Iraq-Niger claims. Burns asks, "Did the administration simply decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Wilson, convinced that his going public would be the last straw on the 'mushroom cloud?' Did it go for a two-fer, moving to disrupt analysis in the WMD counter-proliferation unit at the CIA where Mrs. Wilson worked? If so, it moved fast: by the time Wilson's column appeared, his wife's name and CIA connection had already been leaked to Bob Woodward of the Post and Judith Miller of the Times -- for 23 days and 13 days, respectively. Note: Armitage, Woodward's source, is another Cheney man and has been since before Bush 41."
- Burns concludes, "Whatever the reasons for the activity and whatever the trial outcome, one point continues to be clear: The man at the top who chose Dick Cheney as his Vice, is ultimately -- and Constitutionally -- responsible." (BradBlog [multiple sources], Washington Post)
