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

Everything I know, and then some

So many neglected stories, so little time to comment. Let me point you toward some links you might want to check out:

For starters, here’s the White House’s “fact sheet” on Michael Mukasey, newly confirmed by the Senate as Attorney General. Half of the “facts” here consist of statements in praise of the man by people or groups whose favorable opinion is scarcely surprising and in any case not worth having.

The remaining facts fall into two categories: (a) summaries of his judicial experience; (b) excerpts from his op-eds. Notice that both categories highlight Mukasey’s views on terrorism and national security, and really nothing else. It’s as if the job of the US Attorney General involved cases only in those areas. What this lopsided “fact sheet” really shows us is that Mukasey was selected by Bush on the basis of his willingness to take the hardest possible (Bush/Cheney) line on any matters of national security. His viewpoint on any other law-enforcement issues? Whatever…

If by chance you never understood why so many have described Mukasey’s national-security views as horrifying, here are his responses to written questions from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (large PDF). You might start with the fourth question submitted by Sen. Durbin (about two-thirds of the way into the PDF). Durbin asks whether foreign powers might be permitted to abuse American citizens in the ways that captives at Gitmo and elsewhere have been treated (waterboarding; forced nudity; mock executions; etc.). Mukasey, in response, hemms and haws and refuses to rule out the possibility. In that respect, at least, Mukasey is almost indistinguishable from Alberto Gonzales.

No doubt that explains why several Democrats in the Senate voted to confirm Mukasey yesterday. If Gonzales was good enough for the job, then whyever would Democrats object to Mukasey?

First, let’s be crystal clear about how the Democrats threw a vote they would have won on Michael Mukasey and torture -- and let’s be clear why this happened…

At a minimum the filibuster could have forced President Bush to accept a ban on waterboarding and torture as a condition of Mukasey's confirmation.

Democrats had 40 votes against confirmation on Thursday night plus the four presidential candidates who did not vote. In other words, Democrats had 43 or 44 “no” votes, if you add the presidential candidates. If the Democratic senators had the conviction to filibuster, they would have won…

Thursday was a new low for Democrats, who surrendered the fight they would have won and were morally obligated to make, on torture

Ah, but Democrats always have an explanation when they cave in:

Senate Democrats on Friday downplayed their decision not to wage a filibuster to derail the nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, arguing it would have been a fruitless endeavor that would have set a dangerous precedent if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008…

Democrats on Friday argued that votes on a procedural motion, like cutting off a filibuster, should not be equated with a vote on an underlying nomination or bill. A Democratic leadership aide said there likely would have been enough support to cut off a filibuster, making it frivolous to schedule a time-consuming procedural vote to end debate. The aide also said that “filibustering a Cabinet nominee is a bad precedent,” given that there is a possibility a Democrat may occupy the White House in 2009.

More graphically, from Democracy in Action:




Want to give vent to your frustration by doing something useful? No, don’t commiserate with the cowards of Congress. Donate to Secrecy News. Steve Aftergood is a dynamo and we’d be much more poorly informed as a nation without him.

Speaking of Secrecy News, Steve has posted quite a few new PDFs of Congressional Research Service reports (which CRS declines to make public as a matter of policy). This report in particular caught my eye: "Renditions: Constraints Imposed by Laws on Torture". Unfortunately, it’s going to continue to be relevant. Might as well link to this one too, just in case it should become relevant: National Emergency Powers

Also, this post ought to be mulled over by the actual lawyers among you: AIPAC Court Adopts Silent Witness Rule

Last week, Judge Ellis approved limited use at trial of the so-called "silent witness rule," an unconventional tactic that permits prosecutors to withhold evidence from the public and to disclose it only to the parties, the witnesses and the jury. Because this amounts to closing the trial, it runs the risk of infringing on constitutional guarantees that trials will be public.

The cone of silence slowly descends over our system of justice, all in the name of national security.

This morning WH spokesman Gordon Johndroe held a press conference in which he insinuated that Pervez Musharraf was no more responsible for the political/judicial crisis in Pakistan than were the thousands of people he’s been arresting.

Q Why is your statement not putting the onus on General Musharraf? It seems fairly even-handed, when it's General Musharraf who is the one who is arresting all the lawyers, who's arresting the human rights activists. He's the one who's caused the current crisis, so I'm just kind of curious why the statement does not take some more even-handed, balanced approach to what's causing the problem there.

MR. JOHNDROE: Well, I would say that our position with regards to President Musharraf has been very clear. We've talked to him about having elections soon, ending the state of emergency, removing the -- removing his uniform. So our position is clear to him and to everyone in Pakistan.

But I would also say there are a lot more people involved on the ground than just one person, and the point is that all of these people need to work together. There needs to be a dialogue among all the various political parties, and that is the best way to end this situation.

Q You don't agree then that he is the cause of the current crisis?

MR. JOHNDROE: I believe that there are a lot of factors on the ground.

Just when you thought the Bush administration’s response to Musharraf’s declaration of martial law couldn’t get any more bizarre.

Q Gordon, what does it say about the President's phone call to Musharraf if, the day after, or is it two days after that, Benazir Bhutto is basically in house arrest? I mean, so what impact did President Bush's phone call actually have?

MR. JOHNDROE: You know, I don't think it's for me to be the political scientist or the pundit on what impact the President's phone call had. I read in the papers this morning it had a particular impact that led to an announcement, and now I hear this afternoon that perhaps it's led to another impact.

Peggy Noonan is daffy and makes things up. Cernig at Newshoggers has the goods on her latest nonsense. If you’re a fan of the old British show “Spitting Image”, you’ll want to take a look.

Marc Lynch at Abu Aardvark is always worth a read. Today he discusses the triumphalists who are desperate to declare victory in Iraq…but don’t seem to have any workable ideas about how to achieve reconciliation among Iraqis or how to get American troops out of the country. Predictably, the more Nuri al Maliki thinks his position is secure, the more abrasive he becomes to fellow Iraqis.

Those who study colonial empires will recognize the phenomenon.

crossposted from unbossed.com

Is the Iraqi Prime Minister an American puppet?

As President Bush opined on August 22, there should be no confusion on this issue:

Prime Minister Maliki is a good guy, a good man with a difficult job, and I support him. And it's not up to politicians in Washington, D.C. to say whether he will remain in his position -- that is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship.

Nearly a year and a half ago, Bush said virtually the same thing about the Prime Minister's predecessor:

The US ambassador to Iraq has told Shia leaders that the US government does not want Ibrahim Jaafari to remain prime minister, senior Shia politicians say.

Zalmay Khalilzad said President George W Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" the retention of Mr Jaafari, Rida Jawad al-Takki said.

Mr Jaafari's spokesman accused the US of trying to subvert Iraqi sovereignty.

In the past I have had my suspicions that decisions about the Iraqi leadership were being made by politicians in Washington, D.C.. But now things are much clearer.