Red Letter Day

Mark it on your calendars, folks. September 12, 2005. W actually uttered the words, "I take responsibility." Not only that, but the thing for which he accepted the golden turd was his administration's failed response to Hurricane Katrina.

His handlers are truly amazing to me--good work, guys. Allowing W his usual blank-eyed response to questions of failure would have shown him to be completely disconnected from reality. To deny responsibility would have shown him to be literally nuts. So, they screw up their resolve, convince him to say "the words" and viola! He's absolved.

Here's what will happen in the next couple days: his base will rally behind a "stand up guy." He'll be praised, yes, praised for his action and the right will all hold hands and sing cumbya. On the other hand, progressives in a knee jerk response of civility will do what they do when some jerk yammers his way through a movie--they say, "That's ok" as they do when the jerk mumbles "Sorry" when someone finally has had enough and tells him to shut it.

W's folks know what they're doing, I'll tell you what. Three little words and one of the greatest failures of leadership in our history will be washed away just like the crud in New Orleans.

This One's for Bubba

On June 16, former President Clinton was on Late Show with David Letterman. When Letterman asked him about the Downing Street Memo, Clinton said he'd heard of it but didn't know what it was. Now, for an information hog like Clinton, that is either amazing or Bubba was dissembling.

For anyone else wondering what the DSM is about, it provides documentation that the Bushies were planning to invade Iraq a year before Bush claims the need arose. That is, well before the UN's WMD inspections were completed, the Bush and Blair axis were "fixing" the intelligence so when they went public, everyone had their story straight and Saddam was the target.

I've reproduced the memo below. It is interesting reading.

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY


DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
Published May 1, 2005




Send comments to stoner1@csus.edu

A Bass-ackwards World

Schwarzenegger, an immigrant, doesn't like others--at least if they are not Aryan, I suppose. He's consistently opposed Mexican immigration as an echo of his mentor, Pete Wilson. During is campaign, he was upfront about it, but at the time, the voters of California were too self-involved to care.

Recently, he recommended that we "close the borders." That's not what one would expect of an immigrant, but Schwarzenegger sees himself as a man apart in every respect. His arrogance is amazing.

On the international scene, one amazing turn: Ahmad Chalabi has been named interim oil minister in Iraq. Interim--right. He's got control of the oil and the Cheney cabal is set to exploit oil as much as possible. They'll strain our economy as much as possible, trying to wring every dollar possible out of our pockets while blaming the lack of oil on Chinese or Indian consumption, or those damn insurgents, while filling the coffers of big oil. The chutzpah of these folks is amazing!

What can we say to make a difference?

I haven't written recently for two reasons. One, I've not been feeling well. But that 's past. The more significant problem is I feel increasingly silent. What's to say when the Bushies whitewash their own investigations (the Abu Grahib report skewering Karpinski while letting the old boys up the chain of command who in Bush's "culture of
personal responsibility" take exactly none) and the have a literal echo chamber for their lies in Fox News and CNN. What can we say when much of what passes as news is now admittedly produced by the Bushies (listen to this NPR report on the agriculture department)?

Now, what can we say when there is still a good possibility that a true nut case in John Bolton will be confirmed as the Ambassador to the UN? Listen to his comments linked below. I admit they are edited (so what's new, George?), but they are on the record and can be contextualized. Nevertheless, listen to what he says, and watch how he says it. He's disturbed, and certainly not qualified as a diplomat. If he is confirmed, the system must be certainly broken.
http://websrvr20.audiovideoweb.com/avwebdswebsrvr2143/news_video/boltonun_300k.mov

Treason?

I naively thought Tom Delay would realize how improper his response was to final decisions on the Shiavo case. After all, the Speaker of the House of Representatives was calling for an end to the checks and balances central to our form of government--literally threatening the future of those judges who did their jobs as they should. I thought he realized how radical his vituperative speech appeared and let it drop. Given all his other problems, this seemed to be an ephemeral fit of pique. But no, he's persisted. I can only hope it becomes clear to all that he's lost touch completely.

Yesterday, he was reported to have said, "The judiciary branch of our government has overstepped its authority on countless occasions, overturning and in some cases just ignoring the legitimate will of the people," But I also believe the executive and legislative branches have neglected the proper checks and balances on this behavior. ... Our next step, whatever it is, must be more than rhetoric."

Don't you think this statement is treasonous--really, I mean it--treasonous? He says the judiciary has "overstepped its authority on countless occasions." (He must have been coached by someone from Fox News about the wild accusation presented as fact.) However, what got my attention is that he went on to suggest that the executive and legislative branches haven't done enough to make the judiciary do what they want. There is no government in existence, that I know of, that has a legislature that controls the executive branch if there is a division of power. Historically, the only re-organization Delay could be pointing to would be establishment of a monarchy or dictatorship (which Bush once jokingly (?) said he'd prefer.)

Delay's ideas are treasonous, I think, by virtue of the fact that he is calling for a radical change in governmental power, excising the ability of one entire branch now extant because it has not done what he wants. I'm curious how he'd have responded about seventeen years ago when he agreed with his family to pull the plug on his father. What if the courts had ruled, as he now demands, that such an option could not be exercised by family?

Delay's persistent call to remove the balancing power of the judiciary is a direct attack on this government. He should be made to account for his behavior as any traitor would be.

Texans Against Checks and Balances

I guess for Rep. Tom Delay and, now, Sen. John Cornyn from Texas feel these pesky judges are getting in the way of their agendas. The solution, for them, is to call the judges bad things like "activist" and call for their removal. That's an excellent solution given our Constitution and tradition of an independent judiciary.

The fact is that the judges are performing their roles as designed. If Tom "The Hammer" Delay had his way the judiciary would be his lapdog there to do his bidding. He's not used to folks saying no, so his response is to threaten those who do with impeachment.

Now Cornyn comes late to the issue. I'm paranoid enough to assume that he got a call from Karl or W telling him to get on board to give more muscle to the attack. Who cares about what is legal or moral as long as it moves the ultra-conservative
agenda forward.

I don't like the fact that a CA judge recently gave Schwarzenegger permission to raise unlimited private dollars to push his public agenda, but impeachment of that judge is not the way to deal with the situation. There is a larger principle of government restraint that has to be allowed to play itself out.

But restraint is not a word that W and company like.

A Good Poke in the Eye Makes Angry Neighbors

Mixing metaphors is about the only way to talk about the Bush administration's scrambled thinking.

First Bolton is assigned to the United Nations--the Archie Bunker of international diplomacy; now Wolfowitz to the World Bank--a guy who was wrong about EVERYTHING in Iraq and with no credentials for the job.

The Financial Times is reporting the the Europeans are unhappy with W2, but they don't have much of a choice but to go along; the World Bank is our show.