The Political Chase

The Most Foolish War of the Last 2,014 Years

This is must reading. Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the world’s foremost military historians has a remarkable article in Forward. Several of his books have influenced modern military theory and he is the only non-American author on the US Army’s list of required reading for officers.

The renowned professor says the American invasion of Iraq is the most foolish war of the last 2,014 years.

For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president’s men.

As often done, he compares the Iraq war to Vietnam, but concludes there is no real comparison and America has no suitable options. He points out, with qualification, that a withdrawal at any time and under any circumstances will “require several months and incur a sizable number of casualties.”

On the state of Iraq upon withdrawal:

As the pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge — if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice like it or not.

The professor says (1) Iran has become a far greater risk and is “the big winner” of Bush’s war; (2) the entire region is less stable due to the war and the situation will worsen as America withdraws from Iraq; and (3) the US may pull out of Iraq, but must maintain a substantial presence in the region to protect other countries from the now out of control, terrorist breeding ground of Iraq and the newly gained power of Iran.

Maintaining an American security presence in the region, not to mention withdrawing forces from Iraq, will involve many complicated problems, military as well as political. Such an endeavor, one would hope, will be handled by a team different from — and more competent than — the one presently in charge of the White House and Pentagon.

The Guardian commenting on Professor Van Crevald’s plan (article):

The inescapable fact is that the processes Mr Bush unleashed on March 20 2003 (and imagined he had ended with his “mission accomplished” speech six weeks later) will take a decade or more to run their course and there is little that anyone, even the US, can do now to halt them.

In his eagerness for regime change in Iraq, Mr Bush blundered into a trap from which in the short term there is no way out: the Americans will be damned if they stay and damned if they leave.

Abramoff and the Interior Department

The background on Jack Abramoff’s relationship with the Department of the Interior is here.

Hat tip to Josh Marshall.

—–

U.S. Lacks Plan to Curb Terror Funds

The president delivers speech after speech on how important the war on terror is and what great progress has been made. Great rhetoric, but where’s the beef?

Bush takes more vacation than any president in history and over the past several months he jets around the country delivering speeches to counter his critics, generate support for programs doomed for failure (Social Security), and has choreographed conversations with the troops in Iraq. Managing his administration is in his job description, but that doesn’t seem to be a priority, nor does staying focused on his all important war on terror.

Knocking out the flow of finances to terrorists was identified as a key element to fight the war on terror. In fact, I believe it was the first procedure, outside the Transportation Department, that was put in place after 9/11.

According to the New York Times, stopping the financial flow to terrorists is failing miserably and is attributable to mismanagement and turf wars occurring directly under the president’s nose.

[O]fficials at the State and Treasury Departments cannot even agree on who is supposed to be in charge of the effort to shore up defenses in vulnerable countries…

In at least one case, the State Department refused to allow a Treasury official to enter an unidentified foreign country last year to help with strategies to fight terrorist financing because of turf battles, investigators found. Because the country had recently been upgraded to a priority, State Department officials wanted to do their own assessment first before allowing the Treasury Department to conduct its work, causing a delay of several months.

Are we better off now than we were four years ago?

Cheney’s Undisclosed Locations and Finances

The Center for Public Integrity may have shed some light on Vice President Dick Cheney’s numerous undisclosed locations. The WP reports Cheny and his staff refuse to report, as required by law, travel expenses and the associated locations.

[T]he nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity said Cheney and his staff have sidestepped regulations that require annual reporting of travel expenses of more than $250 received from outside groups. The center, which focuses on ethics and public service issues, said previous vice presidents routinely disclosed such payments for lodging, travel and food when the veep and his staff made appearances at colleges, think tanks and trade associations.

"The private sector reimburses elected officials and bureaucrats for such trips, but laws require officials to disclose where they went, how much it costs and who paid for it," the report said, citing provisions found in Section 1353 of Title 13 of the U.S. Code.

 In keeping with Cheney’s policy to provide no information about meetings and prohibiting the release of documents requested by Congress, the Vice President has an excuse for why he is not required to adhere to US laws or serve the public’s interest. In 2003, then Counsel to the Veep, and currently his Chief of Staff, David Addington formally responded to requests from the Office of Government Ethics that Cheney did not meet the reporting requirement, which applies to head of each agency of the Executive Branch.

"The Office of the Vice President is not an ‘agency of the executive branch,’ and hence the reporting requirement does not apply,"

Imagine that. I suppose it depends upon what the definition of “agency” is.

Cheney has given 23 speeches to think tanks and trade organizations and 16 at academic institutions, all at taxpayer expense, since he became Vice President in 2001.

—–

Democrats Catch Abramoff Pandemic Bribery

The Los Angeles Times alleges Jack Abramoff’s pandemic bribery crossed the aisle to Sen. Bryon Dorgan (D-ND) and other Senators and Representatives. Sen. Dorgan is on the committee currently investigating Jack Abramoff

A lawyer for the Louisiana Coushatta Indians revealed that Jack Abramoff instructed the tribe send $5,000 to Sen. Dorgan’s political group three weeks after Sen. Dorgan solicited support to fund a Coushatta school program. Dorgan sent a letter to other Senators requesting their support for the program.

Sen. Bryan Dorgan (D-ND)

There were additional contributions made by the tribe to Dorgan. During the spring of 2002, Dorgan purportedly received a total of $20,000 from Abramoff’s client.

Dorgan was not alone in receiving contributions. The tribe issued checks to Senators Trent Lott (R-MS), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), John Breaux (D-LA), Minority Leader Harry Reid and Representatives Tom DeLay (R-TX), Charles Taylor (R-NC), and Pete Session (R-TX). Each Senator and Representative wrote letters supporting the Coushatta tribe’s causes.

As expected, all Representatives and Senators denied any connection between the contributions and their support for Abramoff’s client.

What’s the magic number…

The Washington Post reported in its Saturday edition (11/26) that the DOJ is focused on “at least a half dozen members of Congress lawyers, and others.” in the Abramoff, Scanlon et al matter.

Ratcheting it up a notch, the U.S. News & World Report reported in its 12/5/05 edition (available 11/26/05) much higher numbers.

U.S. News has learned that the conduct of at least a dozen representatives and senators is now being scrutinized by a small army of federal prosecutors and FBI agents. According to sources familiar with the inquiry, a federal task force, which includes investigators from the Interior Department—which has authority to regulate Indian reservations—is examining the relationships between lawmakers and Scanlon and Abramoff.

While Scanlon started singing on the way to the jailhouse after his indictment, Abramoff apparently has not flipped yet. Which obviously says the DOJ has a ton of charges standing ready for him, but both parties are at a stand-off to see who can squeeze the better deal. The DOJ probably has a burning desire to plunder through the Capitol.

—–

Tragic

What a tragedy.

From CNN:

15-year-old girl with a peanut allergy died after kissing her boyfriend, who had just eaten a peanut butter snack.

—–

Crooks and Liars

Add ice, stir and make your own jokes.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton urged the United Nations and governments on Monday to crack down on corruption and mismanagement turned up by a probe of the U.N. oil-for-food program for Iraq.

—–

Wilkerson Blisters Bush Adminstration Again

Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Secretary Colin Powell is on a roll. I don’t doubt what Wilkerson says, but I do have an issue with all of this. If things were as bad as Wilkerson says, then why did he not pop the top a long time ago?

According to Wilkerson… 

[W]rongheaded ideas for the handling of foreign detainees arose from White House and Pentagon officials who argued that "the president of the United States is all-powerful" and the Geneva Conventions irrelevant.

President Bush was "too aloof, too distant from the details" of postwar planning. Underlings exploited Bush’s detachment and made poor decisions.

Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."

I would have a hard time deciding which one to choose.

—–

Raw Story: Rove May Go Down Soon

Things are not look very well for Karl Rove according to Raw Story. Probably not the best time to be playing "I’ll Be Home for Christmas" at the Rove house.

[…]According to sources, Rove withheld crucial facts on three separate occasions and allegedly misled investigators about conversations he had with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.

[…]Attorneys say that Rove’s former personal assistant, Susan B. Ralston — who was also a special assistant to President Bush — testified in August about why Cooper’s call to Rove was not logged. Ralston said it occurred because Cooper had phoned in through the White House switchboard and was then transferred to Rove’s office as opposed to calling Rove’s office directly. As Rove’s assistant, Ralston screened Rove’s calls.

[…]Fitzgerald obtained documentary evidence showing that other unrelated calls transferred to Rove’s office by the switchboard were logged. He then called Ralston back to testify.

Those close to the investigation say Fitzgerald will present evidence to the grand jury later this week obtained from other witnesses who were interviewed by the Special Prosecutor or testified, showing that Rove made misleading statements to Justice Department and FBI investigators in an attempt to cover-up his role in the leak when he was first interviewed about it in October 2003.

Two things are clear, the sources said: either Rove will agree to enter into a plea deal with Fitzgerald or he will be charged with a crime, but he will not be exonerated for the role he played in the leak.

If Rove does agree to a plea, Fitzgerald is not expected to discuss any aspect of his probe into the President’s senior adviser because Rove may be called to testify as a prosecution witness against I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby was indicted last month on five counts of lying to investigators, perjury and obstruction of justice related to his role in the leak.

—–

Governor Warner is right, but…

This is going to be a controversial debate — set a date for withdrawal or develop the plan for peace that should have been done almost three years ago. I suspect I will be on the minority side of this, but I have to agree with Virginia Governor Mark Warner.

The United States needs to set milestones for progress, not a firm withdrawal date, before it can leave Iraq, Virginia governor and prospective Democratic presidential candidate Mark Warner said on Monday.

“This Democrat doesn’t think we need to re-fight how we got into (the Iraq war). I think we need to focus more on how to finish it,” Warner said.

I will qualify my statement — it’s not just open ended or a blank check.

Call it Monday morning quarterback, or whatever seems appropriate, but we should not have gone to war on the now known basis for the albatross we currently endure. I had serious doubts about supporting Bush when he and what’s his name, Cheney I think, made their public case. With a strong grimace, I said okay based on three elements or facts.

1. Colin Powell presenting his case to the United Nations. I had complete trust in Powell, still do, but unfortunately Powell was being a good soldier and obeying his Commander-in-Chief.
2. Tony Blair. Another person I trusted. If Blair had turned his back on Bush, I would have been right with him. As we all know, the people of Great Britain did not support it then and they definitely do not now; support for Blair is getting worse by the day. I honestly thought Blair was too smart to be duped by George Bush.
3. The historical culture of our nation to stand firmly behind our president (not everybody, but a vast majority) during times of conflict. I did not trust George Bush nor did I believe that he alone possessed the intellect capable of making the right decision. Therefore, go back to 1 and 2. With unprecedented doubt and an absence of complete trust, I took it on faith (very twisted arm actually) and much more on hope, that what he alleged was true. Nobody, except the Cheney inner circle had all the pieces of the puzzle. So, I fell in line with tradition and culture qualified by, “I hope he’s right and God help him and us if he’s wrong.”

While those in Congress were privileged to what we were not, but still not as privileged as the White House, I firmly believe many in Congress (both houses) fell into the unfortunate trap of item number 3. Democrats especially.

What I firmly believed at the time, was an invasion must be done under the guidelines of the Powell Doctrine. Furthermore, anybody who thought we were going to get out in less than five years, even if we encountered nothing but success everyday, was daydreaming. The six month thinkers — well, institutionalization is one way to sum that up.

We invaded Iraq, we created a nightmare, we broke it and it is incumbent upon us to try and fix it. That’s the problem. There has been gross negligence to the point of malpractice in the management of this war. Iraq is in far worse shape today than it was under Saddam Hussein and there is no one to blame but the US.

Assuming credible, qualified civilian management is in place, how can we just drop it? The implications are beyond comprehension. Herein, lies the core issue and maybe this is where many believe it is just not a tenable situation to remain. If we don’t have capable civilian management, which is the current status, then remaining in Iraq is absurd. Congress must take control through some form. There are only a few options for Congress to exercise.

1. Impeach the President and the Vice President.
2. By whatever means necessary, Congress forces the President to clean house in the West Wing, the Pentagon, and at the State Department.
3. Exercise their Constitutional authority and require the troops be removed from Iraq because a declaration of war has not been enacted.

Option number 2 will not happen. No way, no how. Bush will take this country into a complete meltdown before he acquiesces to the second option.

Can you say quagmire? We can’t withdraw from Iraq without suffering substantial consequences and we can’t let George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney drive the bus. Which option(s) is best for this country long term? We must put the proper infrastructure in Iraq and the only way to do that is for Congress to take action. Sensible, non-partisan action.

President Bush must make profound decisions and statements in his speech this week. If he starts delivering another “Bush dream world reality” speech, Congress needs to fire him on Thursday.