Another lie from the McCarthyites at Keep America Safe

This week Keep America Safe released a video broadly impugning the loyalty of several lawyers hired by Obama’s Justice Department. The lawyers had represented or otherwise contributed to court filings on behalf of several prisoners held at Gitmo. Keep America Safe, led by Liz Cheney and William Kristol, demanded that DOJ release their names and dubbed them ‘the al Qaeda 7’. The video asked “Just whose side are they on?”, implying clearly that the lawyers cannot be trusted to place the interest of the US above those of the ‘terrorists’ they once advocated for. Said KAS spokesman Michael Goldfarb:

“They have propagandized on behalf of our enemies, engaging in a worldwide smear campaign against the CIA, the U.S. military and the United States itself while we are at war.”

After this crude smear campaign by KAS caused widespread revulsion, another spokesman, Aaron Harison, and Cheney herself tried to deny that the ad “question(s) anybody’s loyalty”. But of course McCarthyism is exactly the game that KAS is up to. Harison drove that point home today by adding a shiny new lie to the gross innuendo and fear-mongering that KAS specializes in.

The DOJ lawyers in question, Harison said, had chosen to defend “terrorists, many of whom killed Americans”. No matter how you look at it, that allegation is false.

The DOJ lawyers represented or contributed to filings for various Guantanamo prisoners, but none of them have been convicted of killing anybody.

Only one of those prisoners, Omar Khadr, even faces such an allegation. But Khadr hasn’t been proven to be a terrorist – and he’s certainly not “many” terrorists. The allegation is that while a boy he killed a single US soldier, not multiple “Americans”. Furthermore, the unproven allegation is based on flimsy evidence and a seemingly coerced confession.

So even if you assume that each and every Gitmo prisoner is indisputably and most definitely a terrorist and that all allegations are true (as Dick Cheney and his brood have tried to train us to do), you still can’t back up the claim that “many” of the men represented by these DOJ lawyers “killed Americans”. It’s a lie.

Not a simple lie. There’s nothing simple about the elaborate smear campaign that KAS is orchestrating. Just a damned lie.

crossposted at unbossed.com

Politico points fingers

At Politico, Michael Calderone is wringing his hands over journalists’ failure to properly vet presidential candidates. John Edwards, he complains, was allowed to get away with lies and indulge in a “compulsive vanity that left some people close to him questioning his judgment and even his grip on reality”. And “that failure is worrisome in a changed political world” in which politicians can quickly gain a lot of popular support without necessarily having much credibility or substance. He goes on to quote Marc Ambinder on those who helped to shield Edwards’ bizarre obsessions and manipulative behavior from scrutiny: “If you enable it, you are responsible in some ways for the fallout.”

This is the same Politico that made itself utterly notorious during 2009 by serving as an uncritical mouthpiece for the dishonest, vacuous, and tendentious ravings leveled by Dick Cheney against the new administration. The former vice president’s disdain for the truth has been exposed so many times over the years that you’d think no journalists would grant him much credibility on anything, least of all any topic where he has an axe to grind. And yet, even when exposed to withering criticism from all sides for serving as Cheney’s stenographers, Politico continues to try to defend their news judgment and, yes, even Cheney’s grip on reality.

Last month Jason Linkins put his finger on the main reason why Politico has persisted in this tawdry love affair with Cheney:

If it were possible to, say, hog-tie [Politico editor] John Harris with Wonder Woman's truth-compelling Golden Lasso, here's what he'd say about the Politico and Dick Cheney: the paper and the former vice president are in a co-dependent, enabling relationship. Cheney is willing to provide the paper with exclusive commentary on topics of his choosing, that Politico can then use to garner page views and attention from other media outlets, who deem the things Cheney says to be newsworthy. The cost that Cheney exacts from Politico is the promise to not apply any sort of critical thought to his ramblings. And so, the two combine to create mutually beneficial, journalism-like word salsa, contrived and calibrated for maximum attention-getting.

Then, Cheney goes back to his hidey-hole, where he can avoid confrontation.

Lies, compulsive vanity, poor judgment, weak grip on reality, lack of credibility and substance. If only they could fit all that on the masthead over at Politico, they’d really be cooking.

David Addington did approve of cruel CIA interrogation techniques

So far Dick Cheney’s notorious former legal counsel and confidant, David Addington, has managed to maintain the pretense that he was not directly involved in authorizing the use of torture and cruel or degrading treatment of prisoners under the Bush administration. Now we have documentary evidence of his direct involvement.

The very right-wing Judicial Watch has just released a batch of CIA documents it obtained through a FOIA request. Judicial Watch is seeking to embarrass congressional Democrats by showing that the CIA briefed them under Bush about the abusive interrogation methods. Whether or not the documents actually manage to embarrass those Democrats, one of them does embarrass Addington.

Here they are (PDF). One formerly classified memo from February 4, 2003 summarizes a CIA briefing given to Sen. Roberts and the staffers for Sen. Rockefeller regarding the ongoing abusive CIA interrogations of terrorism suspects. It reads in part (my emphasis):

The enhanced [interrogation] techniques were described in considerable detail, including how the water board was used. The [CIA] General Counsel described the process by which the techniques were approved by a bevy of lawyers from the NSC, the Vice President’s office and the Justice Department, including the Criminal Division and the Attorney General, who opined that the techniques were legal under U.S. law.

The Vice President’s lawyer is almost certainly Cheney’s eminence gris, David Addington.

In the past Addington has frequently been linked to the development of torture and abusive techniques. But none of these allegations have been documented and Addington has denied or evaded the charges.

In 2004 Newsweek’s Daniel Klaidman reported (the original link evidently is defunct) that aides to presidential counsel Alberto Gonzales said that it was Addington, not Gonzales, who drafted the January 25, 2002 memo that argued some provisions of the Geneva Conventions were “quaint” and “obsolete”. Addington continued for years to lead the fight in denigrating the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, so he may well have been involved in drafting the January 25, 2002 memo.

Addington also reportedly played a key role in shaping the August 1, 2002 Bybee Memo authorizing a list of abusive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding - which plainly was treated as torture under established US law. The recently released OPR final report into misconduct by the DOJ torture memo authors (especially John Yoo and Jay Bybee), focuses at length upon revisions to the draft Bybee memo that seemed to be requested in July 2002 by Addington and Gonzales. The OPR report highlights what appears to be an elaborate attempt by Yoo, Bybee, Jennifer Koester (another unindicted torture memo author), and others in the Bush administration to cover the tracks that led back to the direct involvement of Gonzales and Addington in shaping the Bybee Memo. I’ll write more later about this episode because it is critical, I believe, to understanding why David Margolis rejected the OPR’s finding that Yoo and Bybee engaged in misconduct. Suffice it to say here that the apparent attempt by Yoo and others to shield Gonzales and Addington from any direct responsibility for the Bybee Memo involves a series of bizarre and incredible assertions, laid out by OPR at pp. 46-53. Among other oddities, nobody from DOJ or the White House who attended a critical July 16, 2002 meeting to discuss the draft memo can remember what Gonzales or Addington said about it, even though that meeting immediately preceded the most controversial additions to the memo.

Philippe Sands has also reported that Addington was part of a high-level delegation (which also included Gonzales) that visited Guantanamo prison in September of 2002 and pressured the military there to introduce more abusive interrogation techniques.

With the help of friends over the years, Addington issued dismissive and vague denials that he was directly involved in drafting or shaping any torture memos or advocating for specific abusive practices. When called to testify before Congress about his activities, Addington was snidely dismissive of questions and frequently evasive. He did however deny that he pressured anybody at Gitmo in 2002 to adopt abusive techniques. Addington also insinuated that he made no suggestions to the OLC lawyers at the July 16, 2002 meeting. In response to their briefing about the draft Bybee Memo, Addington claims, he said nothing more than “Good” before sending them on their way.

In short, until now David Addington has managed to bob and weave, obfuscate and deny every time he has been implicated in direct involvement in shaping or authorizing torture and abuse of prisoners. Now however we have a CIA document that says the Vice President’s lawyer approved of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” being used by the CIA at the start of 2003.

Say so long to plausible deniability, David.

crossposted at unbossed.com

Shining light on CIA torturers cum whiners

This report by Walter Pincus and Joby Warrick is already generating criticism as yet another installment in the Washington Post's repulsive effort to build public support for Dick Cheney's defense of abusive interrogations (regarding which see this satirical commentary on yesterday's installment). I think something more subtle is going on in today's piece. Pincus and Warrick are airing Cheney's argument that the investigation of CIA abuses damage morale at the Agency, only to cut it down by showing repeatedly that any complaints at the CIA are limited to those few officials who took part in the abuse and now stand to be held accountable for it.

Not only does the current article not align itself with Cheney's position, it provides ammunition against Cheney's argument that we should be concerned about the mental anguish of torturers who now have to suffer through an investigation of their conduct. In fact, some of that ammunition is new and will prove useful in rebutting Cheney's talking points.

For example, the article highlights the outrage that was felt by many CIA officials at the reports that were trickling back about the abuse of prisoners. Here it quotes CIA Inspector General John Helgerson saying that he was cheered on by the rank and file officer when he began his investigation into CIA wrongdoing:

Helgerson now says he received a steady flow of information, questions and encouragement during his inquiry. "Frankly, I could not walk through the cafeteria without people walking up to me, not to complain but to say, 'More power to you.' "

Former senior officials say that they were concerned with what was an unprecedented program and that as reports came in from secret sites alleging improper activities, they took action, including sending reports to Helgerson.

The article's central point is made right at the outset, in the last clause of the report's first sentence – which hangs there as a rather pointed rebuke of the torturers' self-serving whining:

Morale has sagged at the CIA following the release of additional portions of an inspector general's review of the agency's interrogation program and the announcement that the Justice Department would investigate possible abuses by interrogators, according to former intelligence officials, especially those associated with the program.

From there Pincus and Warrick go on to quote one of the lead advocates for abusive CIA programs, Alvin Krongard (who retired and went to work for Blackwater), to the effect that the release of Helgerson's report and hence the prospect of investigations means that morale at the CIA has dropped "down to minus 50". That's an assertion that the rest of the article proceeds to show is grossly inaccurate, so Krongard is exposed as an alarmist at best. In any case, Krongard's complaint is directly juxtaposed to a comment by Helgerson:

At the same time, former inspector general John L. Helgerson, whose review of the program was largely declassified Monday, said that the release, though painful, would ensure that the agency confronts difficult issues head on, instead of ignoring or trying to bury them.

As every complaint is aired, the reporters undercut it by showing that it isn't necessarily representative of the views held throughout the Agency. Indeed, they also point out that nobody can reasonably claim to know what all CIA officers think (a rhetorical trick that is essential to the arguments advanced by the Cheney/Krongard faction that claims to speak for the poor put-upon CIA officer):

It is impossible to extrapolate from the small sample contacted by Washington Post reporters about the effect the varied inquiries are having on the thousands of agency employees, more than one-third of whom are spread around the world. But among the dozens of officials who were part of the program and either remain active or have retired, feelings run high about how the White House and the Justice Department have handled the issue.

It's primarily those who are implicated in torture who are raising a fuss about investigations and the release of information about their activities.

The article also points out that CIA officers were wary of the abusive interrogation program from the start and had immediately anticipated that there would be legal problems in the future when the program was exposed...despite Bush administration lawyers' attempts to reassure the CIA that it had been indemnified and was free to torture away.

Read in this light, the Pincus/Warrick column does a public service by dismantling one of Cheney's most emotive talking points.

crossposted at unbossed.com

Cheney is afraid of the DoJ torture investigation

You might reasonably have surmised that Dick Cheney fears where an investigation into the torture and mistreatment of terrorist suspects could eventually lead. Until now Cheney has restricted himself to lying about the effectiveness of the CIA and DoD interrogation programs, claiming to know decisive information that remains classified, and denouncing those who seek to investigate the government officials who abused prisoners under the color of law. But now we have some direct evidence of how rattled Cheney has become by Attorney General Holder's decision to initiate what is after all an extremely limited investigation. Its scope currently is limited to the CIA interrogations that employed even more abuse than the torture memos had actually authorized.

In an interview that will be aired on Sunday, Cheney made a couple of really remarkable statements according to McClatchy's Warren Strobel. First, Cheney endorsed the behavior of CIA officers who blatantly ignored the restrictions placed upon interrogators by government lawyers. This only a few days after the release of a 2004 CIA Inspector General report that revealed lurid details of prisoner abuse! Cheney had to know that he would be derided and denounced for coming out in favor of such things as mock executions, promises to rape and murder the family members of suspects, and threats with a gun and electric drill.

And secondly, Cheney rather transparently tried to build distance for himself with regard to the use of waterboarding, for which he has been the most vocal public advocate since at least 2006 (his original endorsement of waterboarding was a story broken here at unbossed). Cheney wants us to believe that though he was aware of the existence of the practice in general, he wasn't informed about any particular applications of waterboarding to specific prisoners. This even though reams of evidence have accumulated that interrogators who employed waterboarding were in very regular contact with CIA headquarters, and that the White House was deeply interested in the progress of those particular interrogations to the point of asking for multiple updates for days on end!

Here is how Strobel describes the Cheney interview:

Cheney, who strongly opposes the Obama administration's new probe into alleged detainee abuse, was asked in the Fox News interview whether he was "OK" with interrogations that went beyond Justice's specific legal authorization.

"I am," the former vice president replied.

"My sort of overwhelming view is that the enhanced interrogation techniques were absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks," he said. "It was good policy. It was properly carried out. It worked very, very well."

[...]

Cheney said in the interview with Fox's Chris Wallace, according to a transcript, that he was aware of the waterboarding, "not specifically in any one particular case, but as a general policy that we had approved."

What Cheney fears is pretty obvious. First, he believes that the investigation into a few CIA officers who scandalously flouted the torture memos' rules for coercive interrogations could provide the sharp edge that might pry open the whole sordid program of systematized abuse and expose it to judicial and public scrutiny. It was a program that Cheney apparently sponsored and helped to design.

Secondly, Cheney fears that he could then become a target of investigation. He is especially vulnerable to prosecution because of the close interest he took in the most abusive interrogations. One might be able to persuade a slightly gullible grand jury that the "conditioning" or "exploitation" of prisoners (hypothermia, for example) does not constitute torture. But waterboarding universally has been considered torture since at least the times of the Great Inquisition. Cheney seems to think now that he needs to build a case that he was no more aware of actual instances of waterboarding than anybody else who was briefed on the CIA program.

Cheney may also be aware that his likeness has now been put on one of the "Torture Team" playing cards that the Center for Constitutional Rights has created ("Collect and prosecute them all"). He's in the big leagues now.

crossposted at unbossed.com

IG report on Bush's warrantless surveillance program

The shameful FISA 'modernization' law passed by Congress last July, which retroactively legalized the egregiously illegal (and still mysterious) electronic surveillance of Americans instituted by George Bush, had at least one modestly useful provision: It required the inspectors general of the DoD, DoJ, NSA, CIA, and ODNI to produce a report on the history and scope of the secret Bush surveillance. The unclassified version of the IG report has now been made public (PDF).

It tells us few details about the surveillance programs and its conclusions are so tame as to be risible. On the other hand, it does contain some food for thought.

First, very strikingly, several top Bush administration officials refused to be interviewed by the inspectors general for this report. The IG investigation was mandated by Congress in exchange (it was a terrible 'bargain') for permitting the lawlessness of the Bush surveillance programs to be swept under the carpet permanently. But the following key figures in the White House, the DoJ, and the CIA gave the inspectors general the brush off: Andrew Card (Bush's Chief of Staff); David Addington (Cheney's CoS and Counsel); John Ashcroft (AG); John Yoo (DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel); and George Tenet (CIA).

Second, the report acknowledges what many of us surmised in 2007 from circumlocutions used by Alberto Gonzales in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee - that what Bush termed the 'Terrorist Surveillance Program' (the interception of international communications into the US by suspected Al Qaeda operatives) constituted only one of the warrantless surveillance programs that Bush was authorizing without seeking permission from the FISA Court. The IG report lumps all of Bush's other warrantless programs, essentially mysterious to us, under the rubric "Other Intelligence Activities". Together the TSP and the OIA are termed the "President's Surveillance Program" (PSP).

The inspectors general tell us nothing substantive about these "Other Intelligence Activities". Their report does however note that when John Yoo's legal memos (see below) were reviewed in 2003 by DoJ officials Jack Goldsmith, Patrick Philbin, and James Comey, they were found to be particularly weak in regard to justifying the "Other Intelligence Activities".

Third, it's worth emphasizing that the repeated presidential authorizations for warrantless surveillance programs, for years on end, were made under a presidential assertion that a more or less permanent state of emergency existed. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel did its part in undermining the Constitution by holding, again and again, that the existence of a threat of terrorism within the United States made warrantless surveillance "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. The 'evidence' for such a permanent threat, assembled regularly by the CIA, consisted in part of the surveillance that had already been conducted without warrant. In other words, it was a self-perpetuating cycle.

The Presidential Authorizations were issued at intervals of approximately every 45 days. As described in the next section, with each reauthorization the CIA and later the NCTGC prepared an assessment of current potential terrorist threats and a summary of intelligence gathered through the PSP and other means during the previous authorization period. The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel reviewed this information to assess whether there was "a sufficient factual basis demonstrating a threat of terrorist attacks in the United States for it to continue to be reasonable under the standards of the Fourth Amendment for the President to [continue] to authorize the warrantless searches involved" in the program. The Office of Legal Counsel then advised the Attorney General whether the constitutional standard of reasonableness had been met and whether the Presidential Authorization could be certified "as to form and legality." Each of the Presidential Authorizations included a finding to the effect that an extraordinary emergency continued to exist, and that the circumstances "constitute an urgent and compelling governmental interest" justifying the activities being authorized without a court order.

Fourth, Alberto Gonzales opined to the inspectors general that the involvement of the Justice Department in this legal sham every 45 days was important because (a) it helped to convince the private telecoms to go along with programs that violated the clear letter of the law, and (b) it would help in the event of future investigations into those involved in implementing the illegal programs.

[Alberto Gonzales] also stated that it was important that the cooperating private sector personnel know that the Attorney General had approved the program. In addition, Gonzales said that for "purely political considerations" the Attorney General's approval of the program would have value "prospectively" in the event of congressional or inspector general reviews of the program.

Fifth, from 2001 to May 2003 John Yoo was the only person at the Office of Legal Counsel, and one of only three non-FBI personnel at the Justice Department, to be read into the warrantless surveillance programs. Yoo's nominal supervisor at OLC, Jay Bybee, was kept out of the loop and had "no idea" how his deputy John Yoo drafted the OLC memos that (according to Gonzales) gave "a sense of legitimacy" to the programs. Those memos were of course scandalously incompetent, a fact that caused consternation at OLC after Yoo's departure.

Sixth, the lawyers got involved in generating opinions in support of the legality of the programs only after Bush had begun authorizing them in October 2001. That was when Attorney General Ashcroft was read into the program, and the same day he authorized it. At OLC, John Yoo did not produce his first memo supporting the legality of these warrantless surveillance programs until November 2, 2001. The NSA lawyers as well were kept out of the loop until after Bush authorized the program in consultation with NSA Director Hayden – at which time the NSA lawyers dutifully "supported the lawfulness of the resulting program".

Seventh, George Bush's account of the genesis of the warrantless surveillance is definitively shown to be false (as I had surmised here two years ago). After the controversial programs became public, Bush tried to portray himself as an innocent bystander in their development. Bush wanted voters to believe that he'd merely implemented something that the NSA Director had wanted to do.

The spying that would become such a divisive issue for the White House and for General Hayden grew out of a meeting days after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush gathered his senior intelligence aides to brainstorm about ways to head off another attack.

"Is there anything more we could be doing, given the current laws?" the president later recalled asking.

General Hayden stepped forward. "There is," he said, according to Mr. Bush's recounting of the conversation in March during a town-hall-style meeting in Cleveland.

By all accounts, General Hayden was the principal architect of the plan. He saw the opportunity to use the N.S.A.'s enormous technological capabilities by loosening restrictions on the agency's operations inside the United States.

Well, not quite all accounts. At the time this NYT report appeared, I commented that it was incoherent because its sources tried to portray Cheney –improbably - as doing little more than cheerleading on behalf of Hayden's initiative. More likely, I thought, the pressure for warrantless surveillance programs came from Cheney first, and Hayden eventually bowed to the pressure.

The new IG report confirms that my interpretation of events was right (from page 5):

In the days immediately after September 11, 2001, the NSA used its existing authorities to gather intelligence information in response to the terrorist attacks. When Director of Central Intelligence Tenet, on behalf of the White House, asked NSA Director Hayden whether the NSA could do more against terrorism, Hayden replied that nothing more could be done within existing authorities. When asked what he might do with more authority, Hayden said he put together information on what was operationally useful and technologically feasible. This information formed the basis of the PSP [President's Surveillance Program].

Shortly thereafter, the President authorized the NSA to undertake a number of new, highly classified intelligence activities.

So, the IG report has nothing about a dramatic face-to-face meeting between Bush and Hayden. Instead, Tenet was sent to pressure Hayden to have the NSA do more, and we can infer that Hayden responded that he would expand surveillance if he received explicit authorization.

This section of the history of the programs is critical, but notice how briefly and vaguely the inspectors general treat it. In particular, nobody is identified as having sent Tenet to talk to Hayden. Tenet merely chats with Hayden "on behalf of the White House". Who in the 'White House'? We're not told, and that fact speaks volumes I think. It was Cheney, and the inspectors general don't care to say so at least in their unclassified version of the report.

Eighth, much of the declassified IG report is devoted to a detailed narrative of how lawyers at the post-Yoo Justice Department refused to continue backing the surveillance programs in March of 2004. Little here appears to be new, though I do not remember knowing that after Bush reauthorized the programs without DoJ concurrence, FBI Director Mueller told Bush that he would remove the FBI from participation in the programs. Mueller also threatened to resign if Bush required the FBI to continue participating in the program.

Ninth, in 2006 the Justice Department's Inspector General investigated the value to the FBI of the intelligence generated by the warrantless surveillance programs. As referred to in this combined report, the classified 2006 study appears to have found that the programs generated lots of useless 'leads' and relatively little of any value (it "concluded that although PSP-derived information had value in some counterterrorism investigations, it generally played a limited role in the FBI's overall counterterrorism efforts").

Meanwhile Michael Hayden as CIA director, and some of his immediate subordinates, have touted the importance of PSP-derived information in CIA activities. However the Inspector General for the CIA found that the CIA was not tracking the information it received in such a way as to be able to substantiate such claims about its importance. CIA officials also told the Inspector General that much of the PSP-derived information was "vague or without context", rendering it of little use.

Tenth, the DoJ Inspector General's report found that Alberto Gonzales' testimony about the warrantless surveillance programs to the Senate Judiciary Committee was "confusing, inaccurate, and had the effect of misleading" those who hadn't been read into the program. Gonzales falsely told the Committee that the March 2004 dispute between the DoJ and the White House was unrelated to the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" whose existence Bush had acknowledged. Gonzales also falsely said that DoJ lawyers had no concerns about that program's legality.

Rather bizarrely, however, the DoJ Inspector General's report concluded that Gonzales "did not intend to mislead Congress".

crossposted at unbossed.com

Crash McCain

Ralph Vartabedian and Richard A. Serrano of the LA Times have examined unclassified military records concerning John McCain's multiple crashes while he was a naval aviator. It could hardly be clearer that McCain was known as a reckless pilot; he admits that he was clowning around and "flying too low" over Spain in 1961 when he flew into electrical wires. But the thing that stands out the most are the false excuses he gave for two incidents, which McCain blamed on mechanical malfunctions. In each case, investigators subsequently rejected McCain's story. Lying to military investigators is arguably an even more serious offense than screwing around with expensive aircraft. The Times deserves credit for exposing McCain's record.

He was able to get away with such behavior and retain his wings because, as a son and grandson of admirals, he led a charmed life in the Navy. Even as a midshipman at the Naval Academy, the rules simply didn't apply.

His grandfather's name and his father's forbearance brought McCain a charmed existence at Annapolis. On his first trip at sea — to Rio de Janeiro aboard the USS Hunt — the captain was a former student of his father. While McCain's classmates learned the ins and outs of the boiler room, McCain got to pilot the ship to South America and back. In Rio, he hobnobbed with admirals and the president of Brazil.

Back on campus, McCain's short fuse was legend. "We'd hear this thunderous screaming and yelling between him and his roommate — doors slamming — and one of them would go running down the hall," recalls Phil Butler, who lived across the hall from McCain at the academy. "It was a regular occurrence."

When McCain was not shown the pampering to which he was accustomed, he grew petulant — even abusive. He repeatedly blew up in the face of his commanding officer. It was the kind of insubordination that would have gotten any other midshipman kicked out of Annapolis. But his classmates soon realized that McCain was untouchable. Midway though his final year, McCain faced expulsion, about to "bilge out" because of excessive demerits. After his mother intervened, however, the academy's commandant stepped in. Calling McCain "spoiled" to his face, he nonetheless issued a reprieve, scaling back the demerits.

Indeed, McCain finished fifth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy. He should never have received one of the coveted aviation billets because graduating midshipmen get to select among available career paths according to class rank. If he were not born to the naval aristocracy, McCain would have ended up counting machine screws at some supply depot. Instead, he was handed the most prized career path and then permitted for years to carry on with antics that would have gotten another pilot grounded, or worse.

Which brings me back to the lies he told to cover up his crashes. According to the documents reviewed by the Times, McCain blamed his first crash into Corpus Christi Bay in March 1960 on an engine failure that investigators were able to prove didn't occur.

While he has contended that the engine quit, investigators collected extensive evidence indicating otherwise. Cockpit instruments that froze on impact showed the engine was still producing power. When water quenched the exhaust stack, it preserved a bright blue color, showing that the engine was still hot. And an aviator behind McCain reported that the engine was producing the black smoke characteristic of Skyraiders.

Investigators determined that McCain was watching instruments in his cockpit that indicated the position of his landing gear and had lost track of his altitude and speed.

The report concluded: "In the opinion of the board, the pilot's preoccupation in the cockpit . . . coupled with the use of a power setting too low to maintain level flight in a turn were the primary causes of this accident."

McCain's aviation career did not end there, however. A year and a half later he nearly destroyed another plane by flying through electrical wires. We don't know what excuse if any McCain was able to offer. His career did not end.

Then in 1965 he bailed out of a plane over Virginia's eastern shore. He said that there'd been an explosion in the engine and the plane lost power. Investigators found otherwise:

In a report dated Jan. 18, 1966, the Naval Aviation Safety Center said it could not determine the cause of the accident or corroborate McCain's account of an explosion in the engine. A close examination of the engine found "no discrepancies which would have caused or contributed to engine failure or malfunction."

The report found that McCain, then assigned to squadron VT-7 in Meridian, Miss., had made several errors: He failed to switch the plane's power system to battery backup, which "seriously jeopardized his survival chances." ...

Edward M. Morrison, a mechanic for VT-7 who is now retired and living in Washington state, said that the plane McCain checked out that day had just been refurbished and that he knew of no engine problems.

A third crash should have ended McCain's career, particularly after another uncorroborated claim of mechanical failure. It didn't. Instead, somebody intervened to change the investigators' findings:

About two weeks after issuing its report, the safety center revised its findings and said the accident resulted from the failure or malfunction of an "undetermined component of the engine."

The vagueness of the new finding, and the timing of the revision, suggests that an order was sent down the chain of command as McCain faced a potentially devastating review of his performance. So it looks like John McCain lied repeatedly about his failures and in at least one case got others to lie to cover up for his lies.

It's remarkable that McCain now has the gall to run for president on the slogan of 'putting country first'. Even more, that he wants voters to judge him based on his character, honor, and integrity.

Back in the summer of 2000 I wrote an op-ed about how George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had handled the selection of Bush's running mate. I thought it showed decisively that both men believe the normal rules just don't apply to them. And behold, that's exactly the kind of administration they've given us. John McCain's entire record tells me that he has a similar attitude toward following the rules and holding himself accountable. In his military record, that attitude is especially stark.

For all the nonsense that was tossed around four years ago about John Kerry's honorable record of service, it's amazing how little serious investigation we've seen from journalists of John McCain's troubled record in the military.

crossposted at unbossed.com

Today in False Promises

Five years ago today, Dick Cheney promised that Iraqis would greet invading American troops as liberators.

MR. RUSSERT: During the 2000 campaign you were on the program when we were talking about the Persian Gulf War and looking back and I asked whether you had any regrets about taking Saddam out at that time. And you said no. And then you added this, and I want to talk about it. Let’s watch:

(Videotape, August 27, 2000):

MR. CHENEY: Conversations I had with leaders in the region afterwards, they all supported the decision that was made not to go to Baghdad. They were concerned that we not get into a position where we shifted, instead of being the leader of an international coalition to roll back Iraqi aggression, to one in which we were an imperialist power willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world taking down governments.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: “Imperialist power,” “moving willy-nilly,” “taking down governments.” Is that how we’re going to be perceived this time?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I hope not, Tim. Of course, in ’91, there was a general consensus that we’d gone as far as we should...

We’re now faced with a situation, especially in the aftermath of 9/11, where the threat to the United States is increasing. And over time, given Saddam’s posture there, given the fact that he has a significant flow of cash as a result of the oil production of Iraq, it’s only a matter of time until he acquires nuclear weapons. And in light of that, we have to be prepared, I think, to take the action that is being contemplated. Doesn’t insist that he be disarmed and if the U.N. won’t do it, then the United States and other partners of the coalition will have to do that.

Now, 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...

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Dick Cheney promised that the cost of the war would be relatively low, and that hundreds of thousands of troops would not be tied down for years in Iraq.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don’t want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there’s no doubt about the outcome. There’s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.

MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement...

MR. RUSSERT: Every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can’t say that, Tim. There are estimates out there. It’s important, though, to recognize that we’ve got a different set of circumstances than we’ve had in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan you’ve got a nation without significant resources. In Iraq you’ve got a nation that’s got the second-largest oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they get back to their production of roughly three million barrels of oil a day, in the relatively near future.

Dick Cheney promised that Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds could work together in a liberated Iraq:

MR. RUSSERT: And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: They have so far. One of the things that many people forget is that the Kurds in the north have been operating now for over 10 years under a sort of U.S.-provided umbrella with respect to the no-fly zone, and they have established a very strong, viable society with elements of democracy an important part of it. They’ve had significant successes in that regard and they’re eager to work with the rest of Iraq, that portion of it that still governs Saddam Hussein. And if you look at the opposition, they’ve come together, I think, very effectively, with representatives from Shia, Sunni and Kurdish elements in the population. They understand the importance of preserving and building on an Iraqi national identity.

Dick Cheney promised that America's allies would come to see the wisdom of invading Iraq:

MR. RUSSERT: Brent Scowcroft, a man you know well, the national security adviser to former President Bush, when you were secretary of defense, talked to the National Journal and said this, and let me lay it out: “I’m puzzled as to where President Bush stands on the issue of our traditional alliances such as NATO, because during the campaign he made some strong statements about putting more stock in them. Clearly, that hasn’t happened. Part of the Bush administration clearly believes that as a uperpower, we must take advantage of this opportunity to change the world for the better, and we don’t need to go out of our way to accommodate alliances, partnerships or friends in the process, because that would too constraining.

”[This doctrine of continually letting each mission to define the coalition and relying almost solely on ad hoc] coalitions of the willing is fundamentally fatally flawed. As we’ve seen in the debate about Iraq, it’s already given us an image of arrogance and unilateralism, and we’re paying a very high price for that image. If we get to the point where everyone secretly hopes the United States gets a black eye because we’re so obnoxious, then we’ll be totally hamstrung in the war on terror. We’ll be like Gulliver with the Lilliputians.”

Brent Scowcroft, arrogance, black eye. Eighty-five percent of Spain, 86 percent of Germans, 91 percent of Russians, all against this war. What happened? How did we lose a PR battle against Saddam Hussein in the world, and why would Brent Scowcroft say those kinds of things?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I have great affection for Brent. We’ve been friends for a long time. He is occasionally wrong, and this is one of those occasions...

MR. RUSSERT: But a lot of countries, Mr. Vice President, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, the neighbors of Saddam, other than Kuwait, are not supportive.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think we will find, Tim, that if in fact we have to do this with military force that there will be sighs of relief in many quarters in the Middle East that the United States finally followed through and deal effectively with what they all perceive to be a major threat, but they’re all reluctant to stand up if Saddam’s still in power and if there’s a possibility he will survive once again to threaten them and to threaten their region. So for the United States to follow through here, be determined, be decisive, do exactly what we said we were going to do, I think we’ll find we’ve got far more friends out there than many people think.

But American troops were not greeted as liberators.

Today in Iraq 3, 988 American soldiers and marines, 308 coalition soldiers, and untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, are dead as a result of the invasion. There continue to be nearly 160,000 American troops stationed in Iraq. The war has already cost more than $400 billion, and the eventual costs will rise into the trillions of dollars. Iraqi oil production continues to be well below pre-war levels. There is no end in sight to the civil war between Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds. America's allies are even less impressed now with the wisdom of invading Iraq. American politicians, even those who talk of "progress in Iraq", dare to visit the country only under the strictest secrecy.

This has been another Today-in-False-Promises bulletin.

Today in False Promises

Two years ago today, Dick Cheney promised that the US was making steady progress in Iraq and could soon begin drawing down troops.

And our coalition continues to train more Iraqi forces to assume increasing responsibility for their nation's security. As more and more Iraqi security forces complete their training, they're taking on greater responsibility in these efforts. Iraqi troops are increasingly taking the lead in joint operations, conducting independent operations, and expanding the reach and the effectiveness of our own forces.

And as Iraqi security forces grow in size and capability, we're becoming better able to keep urban centers out of the hands of terrorists. One of the challenges we faced was that after clearing out terrorists, there have not always been enough trained Iraqi forces to maintain control. So when coalition forces moved on, terrorists would try to move back in. More and more, however, we're able to leave Iraqi troops in charge because they are increasingly well equipped, properly trained, familiar with the territory, and often can tell who the terrorists are, therefore are able to maintain control. Meanwhile, coalition forces are able to go forward and deal with the threat in other parts of the country, as well as to strengthen security at the borders.

At present, Iraqi personnel are collecting good intelligence, working with civic and religious leaders, and gaining greater confidence among the Iraqi people. This is an ongoing process, obviously, and standing up a capable, effective military requires a patient and a sustained effort. Yet the progress is steady. It is moving in the direction we want, and the people in charge of the effort are doing a superb job. The goal we share with Iraq's government is a full transition to security and to self-reliance, a nation with a constitutionally elected government and capable security forces, an Iraq that is at peace with neighbors and an ally for us in the war on terror.

Going forward, as the Iraqi security forces grow in strength and the political process continues to advance, we'll be able to reduce troop levels without losing our capacity to defeat the terrorists. And in the months ahead, any decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground and the judgment of our commanders -- not by artificial time lines set by politicians in Washington, D.C.

So much for Bush administration promises as of Feb. 28, 2006. Before the end of the year, each of them was inoperative.

It turned out that George Bush (a politician in Washington) was the one who made the decision to change troop levels in Iraq.

It's my responsibility to provide the American people with a candid assessment on the way forward.

It turned out that, far from "moving in the right direction" in 2006, Iraq was actually going to hell.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people...It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq.

It turned out that, far from becoming better able to hold onto urban centers by leaving them in the hands of Iraqi troops, while moving US troops out to the provinces, the American forces needed to be drawn back into the cities and away from the provinces in order to stem uncontrolled ethno-sectarian cleansing.

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis... In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned.

Far from being "able to reduce troop levels" "in the months ahead", Bush decided to send tens of thousands further US troops. And far from being able to leave Iraqi troops in charge of urban areas because they are "increasingly taking the lead" in operations, the US troop "surge" was mainly directed toward securing Baghdad.

America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations.

Predictably, however, the American troops "surging" into Baghdad found that they could not in fact work with unreliable Iraqi units. It just goes to prove again that for Bush and Cheney, Iraq is the graveyard of false promises.

Now, in the midst of the surge, the Bush administration has done an about-face...The U.S. has not only added 30,000 more troops in Iraq — it has essentially bribed the opposition, arming the very Sunni militants who only months ago were waging deadly assaults on American forces. To engineer a fragile peace, the U.S. military has created and backed dozens of new Sunni militias, which now operate beyond the control of Iraq's central government.

This has been another Today-in-False-Promises bulletin.

crossposted from unbossed.com

Dick Cheney's New Year predictions

On Christmas day my old friend Milo came for a visit. He watches the Sunday blabfests so that I don't have to, and usually sends me the good bits right away. But what with one thing and another, he didn't think until this afternoon to mention that the Great Man himself made an appearance on Fox News Sunday. He made some startling predictions for 2008, Milo told me. From Milo's description I knew the interview would make good material, so I went and reviewed the video.

It's not that the man's opinions about anything are worth a damn. He has been wrong more spectacularly about more things than just about any of the other very serious people in DC—consistently, laughably wrong.

Were it not for his lofty position, and his personal standing within the tightly interconnected neocon family running the government, he would have been ditched by the TV producers long ago. On the basis of what he actually has to say, the Great Man is demonstrably useless. But no matter how ridiculous his every appearance turns out to be, he's eagerly sought for further interviews.

And predictably, on Fox News Sunday his forecast for 2008 produced some real good 'uns. The biggest "news" was his prediction that there'll be a brokered Republican convention next summer.

CHRIS WALLACE: Mr. Vice President, I know you've said you don't intend to comment on the presidential race –

MR. VICE PRESIDENT: And I won't.

CHRIS WALLACE: - but if you were -

MR. VICE PRESIDENT: I won't go there. You can ask your questions all you want, Chris, but I just cannot allow myself to be drawn into the politics of this campaign. It's just not something, frankly, I feel comfortable doing.

CHRIS WALLACE: If you had to predict what will happen in one month, two months, down the road who will end up –

MR. VICE PRESIDENT: Look, as much as you'd like me to tell you what's going to happen, we just don't know. This race is wide open at this point, and frankly we don't know how the votes will turn out. We haven't decided, the voters haven't decided that yet. We don't even know at this stage who the vice president will be.

CHRIS WALLACE: You mean who the running mate will be?

MR. VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, but he'll become the next Vice President, I'm certain of that much.

CHRIS WALLACE: The Republican candidates will win the election?

MR. VICE PRESIDENT: Of course. But the decision about the running mate will be mostly up to the nominee, if you will. But we don't have one yet, and it's much too early to talk about that. We have several very strong candidates on the Republican side of things, and any one of them I can see becoming president. So there will be a robust primary campaign, and it will be a tough fight, but fair, and I think it's going to come down to the wire frankly.

CHRIS WALLACE: You think it won't be decided for a few months?

MR. VICE PRESIDENT: I think it will end up as a brokered convention, Chris. All the signs are there, and so it will be up to the delegates to choose the best man for the job. And frankly, I think they will have to look beyond the announced candidates to find a compromise that all factions, all wings of the Party can agree on.

CHRIS WALLACE: The eventual nominee won't be any of the current frontrunners?

MR. VICE PRESIDENT: No I'm pretty certain it won't be.

CHRIS WALLACE: You look like you have an idea who will end up being the candidate.

MR. VICE PRESIDENT: I do. I think it's very likely to be Bill Kristol.

CHRIS WALLACE: No kidding?

MR. VICE PRESIDENT: No kidding. Bill has what it takes to win. He's been consistently right on the war on terror. He's universally admired. He knows that you don't come to this town to make friends. He doesn't need to call in advisors to figure out what to think. He takes a line and sticks to it. You won't see him changing course. That's what we need.

Dick Cheney appears to be positioning himself to be the kingmaker, if not the next VP. After Wallace presses him repeatedly about whether he'd agree to be Kristol's running mate, Cheney concedes that "the Party can do with me what it wills."

His predictions about the Democratic race were if anything less credible:

CHRIS WALLACE: I'm back with Dick Cheney discussing his predictions for 2008. Who will the Democrats nominate?

DICK CHENEY: I'd like to think they'd choose Senator Lieberman, but I'm pretty sure they don't have the sense to see he's their best candidate.

CHRIS WALLACE: Plus he's widely despised.

DICK CHENEY: Yes and it's rare that somebody that reviled, frankly, becomes his party's candidate. So I think they'll end up with that funny little guy. The anti-war one.

CHRIS WALLACE: Kucinich?

DICK CHENEY: No, the other one, Paul.

The Vice President also seemed to predict that Lynne Cheney would be elected to the Senate in New England, but then back-tracked. It was a peculiar moment in the interview.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't want to get ahead of myself on that. Forget I said anything.

Cheney's predictions for Iraq were very much as you'd expect:

• That the Iraqis would discover "new, untapped sources of electricity" in the western deserts



• That "98, 99% of reconstruction projects" would be completed satisfactorily and under budget in 2008



• That NATO would send "an additional 100,000 troops" to take over security in Baghdad



• That "Prime Minister Maliki will convert to Islam" as a good will gesture to the Sunnis



• That Blackwater's image will be restored as it "gradually takes over day to day operations in Fallujah."

Finally, and most surprisingly, the Great Man predicted that the prison at Guantanamo Bay would be closed.

THE GREAT MAN: You'll see, when these guests of the nation are released and they can speak freely about their experiences, it will turn out that they enjoyed the best possible treatment in our care. There will be testimonials to our kindness, frankly a lot of them. All the naysayers will be shown to have exaggerated, if you will, the torture aspect of it.

Milo didn't think the latter was likely to occur, and I have to say I agree with him.

What you won’t find at the WH website today

The White House website is utterly perverse. Normally, what it doesn’t say is much more significant than what it does. The correct way to read Pravda on Pennsylvania Ave. is to look for what is omitted.

Today, for example, there are three gaps each the size of Texas.

First, there’s the story notable by its complete absence. Dick Cheney was hospitalized with a heart condition. The Vice President’s news page and the main White House news page both pretend to be unaware of the incident.

It’s almost as if Cheney had shot somebody else in the face and is hoping to sneak back home unnoticed.

Next there’s Bush talking about the Annapolis peace conference.

I am pleased to welcome Prime Minister Olmert, President Abbas, and representatives of more than forty countries to the United States for the November 27 Annapolis Conference. The broad attendance at this conference by regional states and other key international participants demonstrates the international resolve to seize this important opportunity to advance freedom and peace in the Middle East.

Neither there, nor in his meetings with Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert, does Bush let the term “Hamas” escape across his lips.

Incidentally, in anticipation of the conference the State Department created a chronology of events related to the Palestinian peace process. It, too, excludes any mention of the Hamas government in Palestine, the elections that brought them to power, the unrest between Hamas and Fatah. The timeline even neglects to mention the Israeli bombardment of Palestine and the invasion of Lebanon last year. It does appear that the White House’s forgetfulness is catching.

A permanent presence in Iraq is what Bush and Cheney have been dead set upon from the beginning. Today the WH announced with Nouri al Maliki an agreement to keep US forces in Iraq for a long time to come.

It was all based neatly and cleanly upon a Declaration of Principles, which enunciates what the US eventually will get around to doing to help Iraq protect itself (and to prop up the Maliki government), as well as the Fine Things that will accrue to the US while it does so.

You’ll look in vain among those Principles for the specific phrase “Iraqi air force”. As I’ve commented in the past (Fictional Iraqi military branches are making "progress"), the US hasn’t provided Iraq with anything like an effective air force by means of which it might be able to protect itself.

Absent that, the permanent US presence looks for all the world like a protectorate over Iraq. And indeed you might be hard pressed to tell, at first glance, that this White House Fact Sheet on the Declaration of Principles…

Iraq's leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq. We are ready to build that relationship in a sustainable way that protects our mutual interests, promotes regional stability, and requires fewer Coalition forces.

In response, this Declaration is the first step in a three-step process that will normalize U.S.-Iraqi relations in a way which is consistent with Iraq's sovereignty and will help Iraq regain its rightful status in the international community – something both we and the Iraqis seek. The second step is the renewal of the Multinational Force-Iraq's Chapter VII United Nations mandate for a final year, followed by the third step, the negotiation of the detailed arrangements that will codify our bilateral relationship after the Chapter VII mandate expires.

…does not date to the post World War One era Mandate of Mesopotamia.

Recognizing that the monarchy depended on British support…Faisal maintained a moderate approach in dealing with Britain. The twenty-year treaty, which was ratified in October 1922, stated that the king would heed British advice on all matters affecting British interests and on fiscal policy as long as Iraq had a balance of payments deficit with Britain, and that British officials would be appointed to specified posts in eighteen departments to act as advisers and inspectors. A subsequent financial agreement, which significantly increased the financial burden on Iraq, required Iraq to pay half the cost of supporting British resident officials, among other expenses. British obligations under the new treaty included providing various kinds of aid, notably military assistance, and proposing Iraq for membership in the League of Nations at the earliest moment. In effect, the treaty ensured that Iraq would remain politically and economically dependent on Britain.

crossposted from unbossed.com

More omens of war against Iran

For the past year I’ve been highly skeptical of claims that George Bush had resolved upon attacking Iran. Whatever he may have wanted early last spring, there were signs by June of 2006 that Bush was stepping back from the abyss. It may have been due to push-back by the Pentagon, or the complete collapse of post-election Iraq, or possibly a temporary eclipse of Cheney’s influence. Much of the administration’s saber-rattling since then I put down as the negotiating tactics of those Mayberry Machiavellis in the White House.

But increasingly these days we’re seeing more ominous signs of actual planning.

For example, a recent report suggests that an additional 20% of our operational fleet of U-2 planes was moved this year to bases in the Middle East in order to spy on Iran.

Today brings further news.

First, a curious provision tucked away in an appropriation bill to outfit B-2 “stealth” bombers with “bunker buster” bombs. The WH described this request as an “urgent operational need”.

From Congressional Quarterly:

Some Democrats are worried that President Bush’s funding request to enable B-2 “stealth” bombers to carry a new 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb is a sign of plans for an attack on Iran.

Buried in the $196.4 billion supplemental war spending proposal that Bush submitted to Congress on Oct. 22 is a request for $88 million to modify B-2 bombers so they can drop a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, a conventional bomb still in development that is the most powerful weapon designed to destroy targets deep underground.

A White House summary accompanying the supplemental spending proposal said the request for money to modify ­B-2s to carry the bombs came in response to “an urgent operational need from theater commanders.” The summary provided no further details…

Previous statements by the Defense Department and the program’s contractors, along with interviews with military experts, suggest the weapon is meant for the kind of hardened targets found chiefly in Iran, which Bush suspects of developing nuclear weapons capability, and North Korea, which already has tested a nuclear device.

What is most alarming about the request is that the 15-ton bomb is still in its testing phase (the first test was held only in March). Only in June was the first contract (a small one) awarded to Grumman to retrofit the B-2 to carry the MOP. The current request, then, is a massive and sudden expansion of the operation. To what end?

CQ quotes Rep. James Moran (D-VA) and Jim McDermott (D-WA) as saying they believe the bomb capabilities are intended for use against Iran.

[McDermott] said the funding request was the latest of many signs that indicated Bush was contemplating an attack on Iran. McDermott said such a scenario was his “biggest fear between now and the election.”

“We are not authorizing Bush to use a 30,000-pound bunker buster,” he said. “They’ve been banging the drums the same way as they did in 2002 with Iraq.”

Both Moran and McDermott plan to oppose the request in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Others, however, have learned to love the Bomb.

Not all Democratic lawmakers oppose the weapon. Non-nuclear bunker busters have emerged in recent years as favorites of Democrats concerned about Bush administration’s earlier plans to conduct research on nuclear models.

“We need to have this as a conventional weapon,” said Norm Dicks, D-Wash., a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. “It adds to our deterrent.”

That may have been the intended object of all that loose talk of nuclear strikes against Iran—to convince wavering Democrats to view a non-nuclear attack as the best outcome they could hope for from this administration. It’s a game that Bush & Co. have played successfully before: Push Democrats into negotiating with themselves until they arrive at the “compromise” he wanted in the first place.

At a minimum, it’s time to jangle those phones in the offices of members of the Defense Subcommittee, chaired by John Murtha.

The leaking of false information about the Israeli attack in Syria on Sept. 5 is also cause for concern. Ten days ago David Sanger and Mark Mazzetti published a Judith-Milleresque report in the NYT claiming that the Israelis had destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction with North Korean help. Neither Israel nor Syria confirmed the allegation, and few experts have credited it.

But it was clear that the Vice President’s minions were pushing the story hard. They appear to have been behind the related and equally false stories that Syria was disassembling the bombed reactor in order to conceal evidence, and that a Syrian diplomat at the U.N. had admitted the facility was a nuclear reactor. It was a classic whispering campaign; the only insider who would attach his name to the allegations was true-believer John Bolton.

Now Steve Clemons appears to have produced some actual inside dope. His sources confirm that Cheney’s gang was behind the dissemination of false information about Syria:

Then, a journalist friend of mine -- not at the New York Times -- confided to me that they were being pressed by the White House and by fellow travelers of the Cheney gang to pump up the Syria nuclear story. This is one of several people who actually used the term "being Judith Miller'd" to me to describe how they felt in their interactions with the administration. Even the way they were using it, it still doesn't describe properly the kind of interaction going on.

Other sources tell Clemons that the Syrian facility probably was working on retrofitting Scud missiles to take chemical weapons warheads that could burst in the air. Be that as it may (and even though Clemons spills a lot of pixels wringing his hands about his inability to find sources who can back up the nuclear allegations by Sanger and Mazzetti), it looks very likely that the real crazies inside the Bush administration (Cheney & Co.) treated the Israeli attack as agitprop.

At a minimum, if Cheney can convince the serious people in Washington that Israel attacked a nuclear facility in Syria, he’ll have built a partial case for an American attack on the Natanz facility in Iran—before the Israelis take the initiative there as well.

And if the Syrians were playing with chemical weapons, then Cheney could count on their refusal to open up the bombed facility or make an international cause celebre of the attack. His own scenario, then, might well go uncorrected. It would thus “prove” that it’s possible to bomb a nuclear facility in a rogue state without provoking an international crisis.

At long last, it’s time for Congress to pass a resolution prohibiting Bush from attacking Iran without explicit authorization from those with Article I authority to make war.

crossposted from unbossed.com

CIA finally fessing up to waterboarding

Unless I'm mistaken, the CIA and the Bush administration generally have always refused to confirm or deny that they employ the torture technique to which they've applied the euphemism "waterboarding". Even after Dick Cheney endorsed it in a radio interview last October (a story broken at unbossed.com), the administration tried to pretend that he had done no such thing.

This evening, ABC News is reporting that (anonymous) current and former CIA officials have stated that the CIA has now banned the use of waterboarding. It would seem to be the closest thing yet to official confirmation that the Bush White House authorized waterboarding of prisoners.

The controversial interrogation technique known as water-boarding, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex, has been banned by CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden, current and former CIA officials tell ABCNews.com.

The officials say Hayden made the decision at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes, and received approval from the White House to remove water-boarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.

The officials say the decision was made sometime last year but has never been publicly disclosed...

While new legislation reportedly gave the CIA the leeway to use water-boarding, current and former CIA officials said Gen. Hayden decided to take it off the list of about six "enhanced interrogation techniques."

I'm not sure how to reconcile the last two sentences quoted, since the "new legislation" in question dates to 2007 rather than 2006. Perhaps the penultimate sentence should more accurately read "...sometime within the last year..."?

Anyone, one cheer for the CIA torture regime:

While welcoming the move, some critics say the CIA did not go far enough.

"I can say it's a good thing, but the fact remains that the entire program is illegal," John Sifton of Human Rights Watch told ABCNews.com.

As a result of the decision, officials say, the most extreme techniques left available to CIA interrogators would be what is termed "longtime standing," which includes exhaustion and sleep deprivation with prisoners forced to stand, handcuffed with their feet shackled to the floor.

"It is a very severe form of torture which causes tremendous psychic toll to people," said Sifton.

Regarding psychological torture, I'll draw your attention to this excellent opinion piece by James Ross of HRW

The crystal blue waters and bright, hot day begged for a jump in the surf. But my friend, a refugee from Ethiopia, just wouldn't go near the ocean. "I haven't gone swimming for years," he said, shaking his head sadly, "Ever since the regime tortured me when I was a student. They stuck my head in dirty water until I thought I would drown."

People tend to think of torture as physical...

But torture is as likely to be mental as well as physical. The iconic photo of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal -- the hooded man on a box with outstretched arms -- was being subjected to psychological torture. The wires attached to his arms went nowhere -- he merely believed he would be subjected to electric shock.

It's worth noting that today's revelation comes only one day after ABC revealed some other embarrassing information about the use of waterboarding, which likewise appeared to confirm that the CIA has been using that form of torture:

When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was strapped down to the water-board, he felt humiliated -- not by the treatment but by the fact that a woman, a red-headed CIA supervisor, was allowed to witness the spectacle, a former intelligence officer told ABC News...

A current CIA official says that KSM actually told interrogators the only reason he confessed was because of the water-boarding.

So on two consecutive days we see current and former CIA officials confirming in different ways that the CIA has been using waterboarding.

What are we to make of today's revelation? There's a real chance that CIA types decided that yesterday's leak didn't look very good, and they set about trying to reassure the public that all that torture is a thing of the past. I notice, for example, that ABC says the okay to ban waterboarding came from "the White House", rather than from a named official.

Could be true, then, that waterboarding has been banned by somebody or other...but one should never believe anything coming from the CIA without independent evidence. In any case, the CIA did not say that it has ceased contracting out waterboarding or any of the other currently favored forms of torture, whether to free-lancers or to foreign countries. Nor has the CIA necessarily closed down its secret prisons around the globe. It also left most of its preferred list of tortures intact.

So maybe less than one cheer for the CIA's torturers; considerably less than one.

crossposted from unbossed.com

Senate: Give the Quagmire time to Succeed

By a vote of 67 to 29 today, the Senate professed itself happy to leave total control of the Iraq war in the hands of Bush & Co. It's a vote of confidence in the administration's upper level mismanagement.