It can only be a matter of time before the Bush administration blocks military and Executive Branch employees from telling Santa Claus what they want for Christmas.
The Department of Defense (DOD) and "the administration" refused to allow the DOD’s chief prosecutor to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee today regarding the "politicization of… military tribunals," prosecutorial intervention, and detainees’ rights at Guantanamo.
In an opening statement to the Committee, Chairwoman Diane Feinstein said, "I invited Colonel Davis to testify at this hearing…the Defense Department has ordered him not to appear… Unfortunately, I have to conclude…the administration is trying to stop a fair and open discussion about the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo."
After listening to Feinstein’s statement, you may be convinced the Bush administration made a duplicate copy of Alberto Gonzales’ operating model and policies at the Justice Department and implemented them all at Guantanamo.
Watch the highlights of Feinstein’s opening statement:
Partial transcript:
SEN. FEINSTEIN: "The defense department’s chief prosecutor, Colonel Morris Davis, has recently resigned over his concerns about how the military commission’s process has been politicized…On October 4th of this year, Colonel Davis resigned from his position after concluding that full, fair, and open trials were unlikely at Guantanamo."
"Colonel Davis has stated to me, yesterday, that the convening authority…has been compromised and politicized…"
"Colonel Davis has stated to DoD and publicly that the prosecution process has been politicized. That the convening authority and its legal adviser would direct the prosecution’s pre-trial preparation, including directing the office about what evidence to use, what charges to file, and that his efforts to ensure that the military commissions would be open and fair were being overridden by administration officials, who believed it was more important to get convictions before the 2008 elections.
"As Colonel Davis told the Washington Post on October 20…"There was a big concern that the election of 2008 is coming up. There was a rush to get high interest cases into court at the expense of openness."
"I invited Colonel Davis to testify at this hearing; however, The Defense Department has ordered him not to appear. That, indeed, is very disappointing.
"We assured the administration that Colonel Davis would not be asked about pending and open cases, but we were told simply that Colonel Davis was active-duty military, and because he was active-duty military, they could issue an order that he had to follow."
"…Unfortunately, I have to conclude that by prohibiting Colonel Davis from testifying, the administration is trying to stop a fair and open discussion about the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo."
I continue to get the impression that Gates and Bush (better said Cheney) disagree on multiple fronts and Gates is usually the loser. Also, I’ve noticed on several occasions that Gates is apparently left out of the loop on discussions/decisions he should be involved in. Why else would Gates make a significant policy statement to only be overturned by the Decider publicly within hours?
Hours after Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested a possible delay of a missile defense system in Europe, President Bush said Tuesday he plans to move ahead — hopefully with the help of an objecting Russia.
"The need for missile defense in Europe is real, and I believe it is urgent," Bush said during a speech at National Defense University devoted mainly to his planned project in Poland and the Czech Republic.
After a meeting earlier in the day in Prague, Gates said there could be a delay in deployment until the U.S. determines when Iran and other rogue nations are verifiably compliant.
Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were rebuffed earlier this month by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said planned defense system in Eastern Europe would encourage more weapons development by his country. Putin later traveled to Iran, where he questioned whether that country is truly seeking nuclear weapons.
Bush did not cite Gates’ comments Tuesday, instead emphasizing the potential threat from Iran. "We need to take it seriously now," he said. "Now."
Maybe it’s due to the late hour or the fact that I’ve been running well below par physically for the past several days, but I’m having trouble grasping what the real substance is in a piece the Times has headlined today. The piece is about the alleged advantages of shuffling the Marines and the Army around from their current positions in Iraq and Afghanistan. My best guesses now are: (1) the changes are strategic, but more realistically administrative shuffling due to a new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; (2) a tactical shell game to obfuscate the number of troops in Iraq; (3) or a more sinister plot to enhance flank positions around Iran. Iran is directly between Iraq (east of Iraq) and Afghanistan (west of Afghanistan). See a map here.
There is another possible scenario — positioning more troops in Afghanistan to support an escalated effort to attack al-Qaeda along the Afghan-Pakistani border. President Bush actually focusing on Public Enemy No. 1? That makes too much sense and thereby could not possibly coexist in George Bush’s strategy to dominating the world. There is too much oil in Iran and Iraq for the Decider to be distracted with less trivial items such as Osama bin Laden.
Summarizing, the Marines have about 25,000 troops in Iraq (current total U.S. troops = 160,000) and none in Afghanistan (current total U.S. troops = 26,000). The idea is to move many, if not all, redeploy the Marine troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and maybe move the existing troops in Afghanistan (Army & Air Force) to Iraq, although that’s not specifically stated in the piece. According to the Times, the Marines are self-sustaining (air, ground, logistics, support, etc.), whereas the Army is co-dependent on other branches of the military for air support, logistics, etc.
The Marines are reportedly pressing for the pea-shell-game-move, but it is “still under review.” Those supporting the change (no clear buy-in from the Army yet), have said the “realignment could allow the Army and Marines each to operate more efficiently in sustaining troop levels for two wars that have put a strain on their forces.”
Oddly enough, in one paragraph of the piece there is an implication Defense Secretary Gates and other high military muckity-mucks may be supportive of the move and discussed the plan “in a session last week convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders.” However, a few paragraphs later a somewhat contrasting statement is made.
Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have not spoken publicly about the Marine concept, and aides to both officials said no formal proposal had been presented by the Marines. But the idea has been the focus of intense discussions between senior Marine Corps officers and other officials within the Defense Department.
Further confusing the matter, the Times stirs the mix with these statements regarding Gates, his knowledge, and what has been presented.
The Marine Corps concept was raised last week during a Defense Senior Leadership Conference convened by Mr. Gates just hours after Admiral Mullen was sworn in as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
During that session, the idea of assigning the Afghan mission to the Marines was described by Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant. Details of the discussion were provided by military officers and Pentagon civilian officials briefed on the session and who requested anonymity to summarize portions of the private talks.
I presume that is more detail on the earlier statement about a meeting on the proposed changes that was “convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders.” The salient point may be that the meeting was called by Gates “just hours after” Mullen, the new Chairman of the JCS was sworn in.
OK, so maybe it’s just a bit of administrative shuffling due to Gen. Peter Pace’s demise and the subsequent rise of Mullen, but if that’s the case, it seems quite weak for a top of the fold story.
There is a lot of fudging with respect to what Gates and other high muckity-mucks are doing, have been told, various meetings being called, and implicit approvals accompanied by somewhat conflicting denials. I’m a cynic, therefore I don’t put much credence to the administrative shuffle notion. There is one passage that may support it, but it’s far too ambiguous to limit it’s scope to administrative shuffle.
[T]he idea represents the first tangible new thinking to emerge since the White House last month endorsed a plan to begin gradual troop withdrawals from Iraq, but also signals that American forces likely will be in Iraq for years to come.
Washington: Bush Wants $190B to Fund War; Judge Strikes Patriot Act Provisions
Congress: Senate Approves Biden Plan to Petition Iraq
Iraq: Bombing Waves Continue
Nation: GAO Finds Northern US Border Vulnerable
World: Israelis Kill Seven Palestinians
WASHINGTON
“Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates asked Congress” on Wednesday “to approve an additional $42.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the Bush administration’s 2008 war funding request to nearly $190 billion — the largest single-year total for the wars so far,” the Washington Post reports. “The move came as Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff and former top U.S. commander in Iraq, warned lawmakers that the Army is stretched dangerously thin because of current war operations and would probably have trouble responding to a major conflict elsewhere.”
“A federal judge in Oregon ruled Wednesday that crucial parts of the USA Patriot Act were not constitutional because they allowed federal surveillance and searches of Americans without demonstrating probable cause,” the New York Times reports. “The ruling by Judge Anne L. Aiken of Federal District Court in Portland was in the case of Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer in Portland who was arrested and jailed after the Federal Bureau of Investigation mistakenly linked him to the Madrid train bombings in March 2004.”
“President Bush said Wednesday that Afghanistan is becoming a safer, more stable country, thanks to the efforts of President Hamid Karzai,” AP reports. “‘Mr. President, you have strong friends here,’ Bush told Karzai after they met for about an hour at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel” in New York City. “‘I expect progress and you expect progress and I appreciate the report you have given me today.’”
Bush and Karzai “agreed Wednesday on the need to work jointly to fight narcotics trafficking, terrorism and a resurgent Taliban, and on the necessity of international help with energy needs,” the Los Angeles Times reports.
“Seeking to counter international pressure to adopt binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions, the Bush administration has been touting the success of three mandatory programs to curb U.S. energy consumption: gas mileage standards for vehicles, efficiency standards for home appliances and state laws requiring utilities to increase their use of renewable energy sources,” the Washington Post reports. “But for most of the Bush presidency, the White House has either done little to promote these measures or, in some cases, has actively fought against them.”
“Despite signaling that he wants to see the controversial military prison at Guantanamo Bay shuttered, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he has been unable to reach agreement within the executive branch on how to proceed with the closure,” The Hill reports. “In response to questions by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) during a Senate hearing, Gates said that disagreement is focused on where the United States should send the prisoners and what kind of legislation would be required to guarantee the rights of the most dangerous prisoners while protecting Americans.”
CONGRESS
“The Senate found its first bipartisan consensus on the Iraq war Wednesday, dealing a minor rebuke to the Bush administration and a major boost to the long-shot White House run of Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.),” The Hill reports. “Biden’s amendment calling for a decentralized Iraqi government passed 75-23 and won over 26 Republicans, giving the Foreign Relations Committee chairman a shot in the arm as he headed to Wednesday night’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire.”
“The Senate approved a resolution on Wednesday urging the Bush administration to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization,” the New York Times reports. “Since last month, the White House has been weighing whether to declare the Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group or to take a narrower step focusing on only the Guard’s elite Quds Force.”
“Deferring a showdown with President Bush, the House on Wednesday approved a stopgap spending bill to finance the operations of the federal government, including the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, through mid-November,” the New York Times reports. “Lawmakers of both parties said the step was necessary because Congress had not finished work on any of the 12 annual appropriations bills for the fiscal year that starts Monday.”
“House and Senate Democratic leaders insisted Wednesday that no final decision has been made on the timing of the next supplemental spending bill to fund the Iraq War, one day after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told liberal lawmakers that the measure is not likely to reach the House floor until 2008,” Roll Call (sub. req.) reports. “‘While there has been discussion, there is no decision on that,’ Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said of the supplemental’s timing.”
“Rep. Terry Everett, an eight-term Republican from an Alabama district with a focus on farming and military bases, said Wednesday he will retire when his current term expires,” AP reports. “Everett, 70, of Rehobeth, a former newspaper publisher and farmer, cited health reasons.”
“Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho on Wednesday backed away from his earlier decision to resign on Sept. 30 and said he would await a judge’s ruling on a motion to reverse his guilty plea in an undercover sex sting,” the New York Times reports. “Mr. Craig, a Republican, made the announcement after a court hearing on the motion.
“Senate Democrats are trying to force President Bush to sign hate crimes legislation he has threatened to veto by attaching it to a massive bill funding the Defense Department and the Iraq war,” AP reports. “Writing violent attacks on gays into federal hate crime laws is related to the war because both are strikes against terrorism, according to a Republican senator and other supporters of the measure.”
IRAQ
“Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki warned the U.N. General Assembly Wednesday that the continued flow of weapons, suicide bombers and terrorism funding into his country would result in ‘disastrous consequences’ for the region and the world,” AP reports. “Al-Maliki, who met with President Bush Tuesday, urged the international community and countries in the region to support Iraq’s national reconciliation process to rid terrorism from the country and bring peace to the region.”
“A wave of bombings and shootings swept Iraq on Wednesday, killing at least 50 people and raising fears that al-Qaida had launched a promised new offensive,” AP reports. “The U.S. military acknowledged that violence was on the upswing and blamed it on the terror movement.”
Gates “has ordered U.S. military commanders in Iraq to crack down on any abuses they uncover by private security contractors in the aftermath of a deadly shooting involving American guards that infuriated Iraqis,” the Los Angeles Times reports. “Gates took the step after concluding that the thousands of heavily armed private guards in Iraq who work for the Pentagon may not be adequately supervised by military officers.”
“The American security contractor Blackwater USA has been involved in a far higher rate of shootings while guarding American diplomats in Iraq than other security firms providing similar services to the State Department, according to Bush administration officials and industry officials,” the New York Times reports. “Blackwater is now the focus of investigations in both Baghdad and Washington over a Sept. 16 shooting in which at least 11 Iraqis were killed.”
“Pentagon officials suggested” on Wednesday “that U.S. civilian security contractors in Iraq fall under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and could be prosecuted in military courts for offenses against Iraqis,” the Washington Times reports. “Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters that while U.S. civilians working in Iraq under Department of Defense contracts were not subject to Iraqi law, they could be held accountable under U.S. law.”
“Iraqi and U.S. special forces have arrested at least 59 army officers and enlisted men accused in killings, bombings and kidnappings in the latest case linking elements of the Iraqi army to sectarian militias and criminal gangs, authorities announced Wednesday,” the Los Angeles Times reports.
NATION
“A smuggler could easily carry radioactive material or other contraband across the northern border into the United States, government investigators have found,” AP reports. “The Government Accountability Office sent out investigators to test how easily they could transfer large red duffel bags at unguarded and unmonitored spots along the more than 5,000 miles of U.S.-Canada border.”
“Facing pressure from religious groups, civil libertarians and members of Congress, the federal Bureau of Prisons has decided to return religious materials that had been purged from prison chapel libraries because they were not on the bureau’s lists of approved resources,” the New York Times reports. “The bureau had said it was prompted to remove the materials after a 2004 Department of Justice report mentioned that religious books that incite violence could infiltrate chapel libraries.”
“More than half a year after disclosures of systemic problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other military hospitals, the Pentagon’s promised fixes are threatened by staff shortages and uncertainty about how best to improve long-term care for wounded troops, according to a congressional report issued” on Wednesday, the Washington Post reports. “Army units developed to shepherd recovering soldiers lack enough nurses and social workers, and proposals to streamline the military’s disability evaluation system and to provide ‘recovery coordinators’ are behind schedule, according to the Government Accountability Office report.”
WORLD
“Israeli forces killed seven Palestinians in an airstrike and ground assault Wednesday in the Gaza Strip, retaliating for a barrage of mortar and rocket fire into southern Israel,” the Los Angeles Times reports. “On the bloodiest day in Gaza since Israel declared it a ‘hostile territory’ last week, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that the military was ‘moving closer to a broad and complex operation’ in the enclave ruled by the Islamic movement Hamas.”
“A year and a half after President Bush told top aides that he feared he might be forced someday to choose between acquiescing to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and ordering military action, the struggle to find an effective alternative — sanctions with real bite — is entering a new phase,” the New York Times reports. “The speech at the United Nations on Tuesday by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is already being used by American officials in an effort to convince European allies that Iran’s leadership will respond only to a sharp new wave of economic pressure, far greater than anything it has endured so far.”
“Pakistan’s top judge has ordered the immediate release of dozens of detained opposition supporters who have been taken into custody since the weekend,” BBC News reports. “Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry made the ruling after summoning police and government officials to court. He did so shortly after papers were filed naming” President Pervez Musharraf “to contest presidential elections on 6 October.”
The Pentagon is preparing to wage its own media war to support the Bush administration’s September troop surge report (formerly known as the Petraeus Report). The campaign war room, officially referred to as the Iraq Communications Desk, will be a 24-hours-per-day, seven-days-per-week operation that will “pump out data from Baghdad.
Of course, the Pentagon denies it will be a propaganda machine, instead the Pentagon describe is a “high priority effort to distribute Defense Department information on Iraq.” They see it as a “smarter way of doing business” with an an object to ?create a central clearinghouse of information so we can pull in all that is coming out of Baghdad and Iraq and have it come into one point, so we can better be able to share it with people who are interested.?
It sounds much more like FOX News on steroids.
Isn’t it a bit suspect that now after almost five years of failure after failure, the Pentagon decides it needs to undertake a massive effort to keep the public informed about what’s going on in Iraq?
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld submitted his letter of resignation on November 6, one day prior to the 2006 mid-term elections.
The letter was dated Nov. 6, the day before voters, angered by Iraq, went to the polls and swept Republicans from power in Congress. According to a stamp on the letter, President George W. Bush saw it on election day.
Bush, however, did not announce that Rumsfeld would leave until the day after the election.
That infuriated some Republicans, who said their party might have kept more seats in Congress and perhaps kept control of the Senate if Rumsfeld had left before the election.
The U.S. strategy in Iraq has changed again (or has it), which lessens the feasibility of the idea Secretary Robert Gates suggested and I expounded upon. The New York Times reports the surge of U.S. troops has facilitated a new “offensive against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.” Therefore, Al Qaeda must have been the undefined new focus Bob Gates commented on yesterday.
The decision to mount more attacks in the Sunni belts is a trade-off in a military sense as it will limit the number of American forces that are available to secure neighborhoods inside the capital.
I’m a cynic, so bear with me a minute. Okay, so now we’re off fighting al Qaeda, who we should have been fighting all along. That’s just great, but after six years of George Bush, I question everything. Should this new strategy (how many is that now) be trusted and accepted at face value? It’s easy to accept this equation: Fighting Al Qaeda = Right Thing To Do. I want to play devil’s advocate for a moment.
This is a pseudo-redeployment. What will be affect on the civil war we’ve been battling? Are the warring factions just going to rip each other apart now?
It is an established fact that al Qaeda is by far a minor problem in Iraq.
The greatest concentration of al Qaeda (publicly known) is in Afghanistan and western Pakistan.
By initiating a major offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq, whose national interest are we placing a priority on, Iraq or the U.S.?
Based on polling and media resources, I perceive the majority of Americans support fighting al Qaeda wherever the are, but do not support the status quo war in Iraq.
Approximately 70 percent of Americans disapprove of the way George Bush is managing the war in Iraq.
Considering the noted items and the history of President Bush’s deception, is it possible that this new offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq is more of a political maneuver than it is a military strategy?
Most reports and Congressional testimony indicate the highly anticipated report from Gen. Petraeus in September will not be as positive as the administration wants and needs. Consequently, if Petraeus issues a dismal report, the backlash and outcry will be overwhelming. However, if in September the military reports it is prosecuting an alleged offensive against al Qaeda, but still in Iraq, the historical elements of Petraeus’ report will be moot, and for the wrong reasons.
If the President’s message to the people in September is that we are fighting al Qaeda, albeit a potentially distorted message, the message will be accepted at face value because it’s al Qaeda. Bush may tactically employ what is his greatest fault - tell Americans what they want to hear and the discontent subsides, at least until he can escape from the White House.
I hope we are pursuing an appropriate offensive against al Qaeda, but any Bush sanctioned strategy or reporting must be verified.
Switching course, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Friday he has recommended Adm. Mike Mullen, currently chief of naval operations, to replace Gen. Peter Pace as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Gates said he had originally intended to seek another two-year term for Pace, but concluded that would have resulted in a divisive Senate confirmation focusing on the Iraq War.
One of the first things Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wanted to do as part of cleaning up Donald Rumsfeld’s mess was to close Gitmo. But, it appears Mr. Gates does not have the influence Rummy had over W., and the old inner circle still runs the White House. Even though Gates had the support of Condoleezza Rice, his proposal was rejected by George Bush based largely on objections received from Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales.
In his first weeks as defense secretary, Robert M. Gates repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantanamo would be viewed as illegitimate, according to senior administration officials. He told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.
Mr. Gates’s arguments were rejected after Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and some other government lawyers expressed strong objections to moving detainees to the United States, a stance that was backed by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, administration officials said.
Although we know Abu Gonzales has enjoyed the power associated with W.’s inner sanctum, especially recently, it looks like Gonzales took the reigns of power Rumsfeld left behind. So, let’s review the new White House org chart.
It is commonly accepted that the Bush administration lied about the evidence justifying the war in Iraq. Last week, a Defense Department inspector general formally spilled the beans that former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith played a substantial role in trumping up “evidence” suitable to the administration’s objectives. In short, he may have broken a couple of substantial laws by doing so — providing false information and failure to inform Congress about intelligence activities.
On CNN’s Late Edition today, Mr. Feith boldly and vehemently asserted he was merely critiquing “the intelligence community’s consensus.” From books I had previously read, my recollection of Mr. Feith’s activities was well beyond commentary on other agencies’ reports.
The real story is, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz did not like the information the CIA provided (it was reasonably accurate), so Rumsfeld assumed the responsibility of creating reports that contained information they liked to read. As Rumsfeld’s lieutenant, Feith established and managed a group of creative writers. (Risen, 2006, pp. 70-72).
James Risen of the New York Times dispels the notion of critiquing in his book State of War. The last paragraph quoted is the money paragraph.
A wing of the Defense Intelligence Agency, had for years done some limited clandestine intelligence work, but it had never been involved in the kind of high-risk operations that Rumsfeld had in mind for the secret units that he created. Unlike the clandestine service of the CIA, Rumsfeld’s new covert units — given the benign-sounding name of “operational support elements” — didn’t fall under the government’s existing rules governing covert action, rules that required explicit presidential authorization and congressional notification. In fact, the Defense Department didn’t seem to believe its special teams needed to tell anyone else in the government what they were doing…Rumsfeld was creating his own private spy service, buried deep within the Pentagon’s vast black budget, with little or no accountability.
…
They believed that the opportunity for war with Iraq presented by the attacks on New York and Washington could best be exploited by linking Baghdad to 9/11. Failing that, it might be possible to tie Iraq more generally to al Qaeda.
The problem for the hard-liners was that the CIA was the keeper of the vast majority of classified intelligence on al Qaeda, and the agency’s analysts had seen no evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 and had no conclusive proof of a terrorist alliance between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Those answers did not satisfy Wolfowitz, or his equally certain lieutenant, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith.
Wolfowitz had [decided] that the [CIA] had not been sufficiently hawkish, and now, in the aftermath of 9/11, he once again found that the CIA was being soft, this time on the possibility that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks on the United States. Wolfowitz felt there “was intellectual dishonesty in the intelligence community,” recalled one former Pentagon official. As Wolfowitz listened to intelligence briefings from CIA analysts on al Qaeda after 9/11, he angrily concluded that they were not even considering alternative possibilities that included Iraqi involvement. The CIA was an arrogant, rogue institution, he believed, unwilling to support administration policy makers.
Wolfowitz and the like-minded Feith created a special intelligence unit, known as the Counter-Terrorism Evaluation Group, to sift through raw intelligence reports, searching for ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. The group was set up in Feith’s office; it’s real purpose was to serve as a Team B for the neoconservatives at the Pentagon, a counterweight and rival to the CIA in the struggle to shape intelligence on Iraq. (Risen, pp. 70-72).
Sifting through raw intelligence reports searching for ties between Iraq and al Qaeda seems a bit more involved than writing a review of somebody’s formally submitted report, don’t you think? Furthermore, Feith was not qualified to critique or create intelligence reports. He had no prior experience in analyzing intelligence information.
Reference:
Risen, J. (2006). State of war : the secret history of the CIA and the Bush administration. New York: Free Press.
President Bush is overhauling his top diplomatic and military team in Iraq, as the White House scrambles to complete its new war policy package in time for the president to unveil it in a speech to the nation next week, officials said.
But the White House is struggling to overcome deep differences among advisers over both the deployment of additional U.S. troops and whether the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki can deliver long-delayed political and military actions, according to officials familiar with the debate. (Emphasis added.)
Another top general that publicly opposed President Bush’s strategy in Iraq gets the boot. Bush has decided General George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, will be replaced by General David H. Petraeus.
Additionally, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is the top American military officer in the Pacific, will replace retiring Gen. John P. Abizaid as the head of Central Command (CENTCOM).
Casey and Abizaid are retiring, but Casey’s retirement appears to be hastened by several months from his previously planned schedule.
Officially, Casey’s dismissal was said to be part of the Commander in Chief’s “broader effort to change almost all of the top American officials in Iraq.” However realistic that may or may not be, every active General that has disagreed publicly with the Bush administration has been fired. Furthermore, Rumsfeld is not around to take the heat for this decision.
I can’t attest to Gen. Casey’s performance, but removing all of the experience of the senior command in the Middle East and Iraq specifically does not sound like a wise decision. It’s no different than the CEO firing every senior executive in a major corporation; a recipe made for failure.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates received a warm welcome today. The Pentagon released the “Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq” report. According to the report, for the period mid-August through mid-November, coalition casualties rose 32 percent and weekly attacks increased 20 percent. The percentages of increase are bad, but the real meaning is conveyed by the actual numbers.
As of this post, I have only found the number of attacks. Neither the NYT or WP had casualties in their reports. The DOD said the report was to be published on their web site today after 5:00 PM, but I was not able to find it quickly. The main link is http://www.defenselink.mil/.
Congressional insiders believe the incoming Congress is more likely to send legislation on ethics and lobbying to George Bush than prescription drugs, immigration, alternative minimum tax, and other items. Social Security is expected to be far down the list.
Actions speak louder than words. Only 24% of the people believe President Bush received the message sent by voters in 2006 and is making adjustments.
Security procedures have been tightened. Group activities have been scaled back. With the retrofitting of Camp 6 and the near-emptying of another showcase camp for compliant prisoners, military officials said about three-fourths of the detainees would eventually be held in maximum-security cells.
Florida Gov. Jeb Bushsuspended executions in Florida “to consider the humanity and constitutionality of lethal injections.” That’s a different view than his brother. During George Bush’s reign as Governor of Texas, there were more executions in the state of Texas than all other 49 states combined.
After saying farewell ad nauseam, Donald Rumsfeld made his final farewell to the Pentagon yesterday. George Bush, arguably the worst President in history, declared Rumsfeld the best Secretary of Defense in history. Doesn’t it seem odd the President fired “the best” Defense Secretary in history?
Sen. Tim Johnson’s (D-SD) surgery was “considered a success.” Although, he is showing weakness on his right side.
In stark contrast to President Bush’s 2006 campaign statements of “we’re winning” and “I have a plan for victory,” GAO data says otherwise. The graph of enemy initiated attacks suggests we’re losing quite badly.
Click to Zoom
However, this graph does not include all the data. The Pentagon refuses to release all the data. A clearer graphic and the full report can be found here.
“Former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Iraq Study Group, said Saturday that Iraq could turn into a “quagmire” if the Bush administration fails to change strategy,” the AP reports.
President Bush can’t produce a plan for Iraq, but he has a plan for Congress.
“It’s been three decades since I left the Pentagon at the end of my first tour,” Mr. Rumsfeld said. “Our country was then engaged in a long struggle - the Cold War, a conflict that seemed costly, and it was. It seemed unlimited in duration, and it was, and seemed unclear in its course and its outcome, which was the case. In fact, many then believed and indeed acted as though it was the United States that was the cause of the world’s troubles. We even see a little bit of that today.
We may be on the verge of a situation worse than the Cold War, which three people created - Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush. The first two carry the majority of blame, and the third was stupid enough to tag alone. Stalin and his minions bear the burden for the Cold War and Iraq is not the Cold War. The only parallel that can possibly be drawn between Iraq and the Cold War is to draw analogies between Bush and Stalin. I may be stupid but, GWB is not at the level of Stalin. Cheney? Yeah, he has the potential. That notwithstanding, GWB’s stupidity has put the world on the threshold of a substantial crisis and for what?
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and others in either the Project for the New American Century, or AEI, started this catastrophic road sometime back in ‘92 - ‘94, when they published a neo-con paper urging the then current administration to adopt their foreign policy doctrine. At the moment, I cannot remember the name of the paper or readily find it, but I will. Thesis - USA the only superpower, and it would govern the entire world. Now that I’ve brought this up, I will have to find the paper - I have it somewhere in my archives.
Anyway, back to Rummy’s exit. So long Rummy. Sleep well at night while more than 140,000 honorable soldiers fight your obsession. Sleep well while members of 2,900 families can’t sleep because they mourn their loss. Sleep well while far more than 10,000 people are permanently scarred with battle wounds. Sleep well, you earned it.
Maybe it’s due to the late hour or the fact that I’ve been running well below par physically for the past several days, but I’m having trouble grasping what the real substance is in a piece the Times has 
