Archive for the 'White House' Category
Jan 9, 2008 at 4:32 PM by Political Chase
The imperialistic president loses a battle.
White House Told to Answer E-Mail Query
A federal magistrate has ordered the White House to reveal whether copies of missing e-mail messages written from 2003 to 2005 during an investigation into the disclosure of the name of a C.I.A. operative are stored in computer backup files.
The order was issued Tuesday as the White House tried to win dismissal of lawsuits by two private groups that are seeking the missing messages.
Two federal laws require the White House to preserve all records, including e-mail; but, in asking that the two lawsuits be dismissed, the White House asserts that the president’s record-keeping practices under the Presidential Records Act are not subject to review by the courts.
The administration also asserts that the Federal Records Act does not allow such far-reaching action as demanded in the suits by the two private groups, the National Security Archive and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
The federal magistrate, John Facciola, gave the White House five business days to say whether computer backup files contained the missing e-mail.
It will be interesting to see what stonewalling tactics the White House comes up with by Tuesday of next week.
Dec 19, 2007 at 12:36 PM by Political Chase
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino issued a statement strongly rebuking the New York Times’ report of substantial involvement by the White House in the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes. In her statement, Perino described the piece as “”pernicious and troubling” and demanded the Times issue a correction.
The New York Times today implies that the White House has been misleading in publicly acknowledging or discussing details related to the CIA’s decision to destroy interrogation tapes.
The sub-headline of the story inaccurately says that the “White House Role Was Wider Than It Said”, and the story states that “…the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes…was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged.”
Under direction from the White House General Counsel while the Department of Justice and the CIA Inspector General conduct a preliminary inquiry, we have not publicly commented on facts relating to this issue, except to note President Bush’s immediate reaction upon being briefed on the matter. Furthermore, we have not described - neither to highlight, nor to minimize — the role or deliberations of White House officials in this matter.
The New York Times’ inference that there is an effort to mislead in this matter is pernicious and troubling, and we are formally requesting that NYT correct the sub-headline of this story.
It will not be surprising that this matter will be reported with a reliance on un-named sources and individuals lacking a full availability of the facts — and, as the New York Times story itself acknowledges, some of these sources will have wildly conflicting accounts of the facts. We will instead focus our efforts on supporting the preliminary inquiry underway, where facts can be gathered without bias or influence and later disseminated in an appropriate fashion.
We will continue to decline to comment on this issue, and in response to misleading press reports.
(emphasis added)
Perino’s statements focus on the White House not misleading the public in its statements, and was accompanied by a long list of “no comments” issued by the White House, but Perino makes no attempt to deny involvement by the White House.
Moreover, Perino flat out lied in her statement, “we have not publicly commented on facts relating to this issue, except to note President Bush’s immediate reaction upon being briefed on the matter.” But in her December 10th press briefing she specifically stated she was not allowed to comment on the matter including the president’s reaction.
QUESTION: Dana, is the President concerned about the impact on the CIA’s reputation and its integrity, not just here but around the world…
MS. PERINO: Well, one, I haven’t – I’m not allowed to characterize the President’s reaction to this, but what I can tell you is that he — as I said Friday, he has complete confidence in General Hayden, and that remains.
QUESTION: But why can’t you characterize his concern, if there is one, about the integrity of a key governmental agency that operates around the world?
MS. PERINO: Well, I think I — pressed on that, I would say that I think the President feels very highly about all of the members of the intelligence community, and at the CIA. He knows that they work extremely hard in order to keep all of us protected, that they try to do everything that they possibly can. There’s — in regards to this specific issue, regarding these tapes, that the President said that he does not recall being made aware of their existence or their destruction until last Thursday’s briefing. There’s not much more I can say.
QUESTION: But he’s not concerned about the facts as we know them now?
MS. PERINO: In terms of — I can’t talk about that particular — I can’t characterize the President’s thinking on that.
It is patently obvious nothing the White House Press Secretary says can be taken as credible. The current Press Secretary is lying as have her predecessors.
Dec 17, 2007 at 7:35 PM by Political Chase
Following up on the federal judge’s ruling today that the White House must turn over its visitors log, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth…ordered the Secret Service to produce records within 20 days. However, there may be nothing to produce.
The judge, in a separate ruling Monday, said he lacked the authority to order the Secret Service to stop destroying its visitor records once copies were turned over to White House officials. But Lamberth noted the National Archives had to approve any destruction of the logs.
And the outlook could get bleaker. considering the administration’s spending on paper shredding has increased more than 600 percent since Bush took office, and as illustrated, it dramatically increased during the second term.
 |
| Graph by John Cook |
John Cook reports the federal government spent $452,807 in 2000 for paper-shredding related costs. By 2006, the costs increased to $2.9 million, and by “halfway through 2007, the feds almost matched that number, with $2.7 million and counting.”
If the administration does not appeal today’s ruling, well…let’s just say maybe they didn’t feel like it was worth the effort — kind of like Scooter Libby’s appeal.
On a side note, look at the chart and consider the timing of these events. Invade Iraq in March 2003. By early 2004 it was pretty well established there were no WMD’s in Iraq. In July 2003, Bob Novak outed Valerie Wilson, prompting the CIA Leak Case. In 2005, the CIA Leak Case investigation exploded, culminating with Libby’s indictment in October. Also, in December 2005, the New York Times exposed the warrantless wiretapping. But there’s no correlation I’m sure. All just fun facts to know and tell.
Thanks to John Cook and Radar for the chart and metrics. Also h/t to Campus Progress.
Dec 17, 2007 at 4:04 PM by Political Chase
For seven years the White House has managed to successfully use one of its most powerful tools, the fabled invisible cloak, to keep its visitors from the public’s eyes. Their fairy tale may be coming to an end. A federal judge ruled today the cloak must be removed by declaring that visitors logs for the White House and Dick Cheney’s residence are subject to public records requests.
White House visitor logs are public documents, a federal judge ruled Monday, rejecting a legal strategy that the Bush administration had hoped would get around public records laws.
The ruling is a blow to the Bush administration, which is fighting the release of records showing visits by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and prominent religious conservatives.
The records are created by the Secret Service, which is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. But the Bush administration has ordered the data turned over to the White House, where they are treated as presidential records outside the scope of the public records law.
We may finally learn about Dick Cheney’s secret energy-policy meetings and how frequently felons, such as disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, had crumpets and tea with the president.
In January of this year, I noted that the White House had taken the unprecedented step of ordering the Secret Service to keep visitor’s logs secret. Their intention was to thwart investigators from learning how frequently Abramoff had visited the White House and to fight lawsuits seeking information about Dick Cheney’s secret energy policy meetings.
Maybe we’ll learn about the president’s wiretapping activities in 2015.
Oct 4, 2007 at 6:05 PM by Political Chase
In today’s White House press briefing, Dana Perino made it abundantly clear the administration’s interpretation and definition of torture is the sole authority, and the White House wants no input from the international community.
Perino wrongly stated all parties to the Geneva Conventions were supposed to apply their interpretations of the Conventions. When challenged that interpretation of the Conventions was the responsibility of the International Crimes Court, Perino said, “I don’t think we’re seeking their help.”
Oct 4, 2007 at 2:52 PM by Political Chase
The White House has acknowledged the existence of legal opinions authorizing “enhanced interrogation techniques,” that were issued in early 2005 and in late 2005. However the existence of those opinions would surely not taint the pristine Bush-Cheney administration — Dana Perino has the chutzpah to still assert, just like her boss, they do not employ torture.
Perino did a soft-shoe shuffle over the whole issue at today’s White House Press Briefing. Paul Kiel has the details.
Oct 4, 2007 at 10:29 AM by Political Chase
The Decider is getting closer to achieving his self-fulfilling prophecy that Laura and Barney may be the only supporters he has left. In yet another example of “its my way or the highway,” President Bush has now turned on the best ally of his entire administration — Great Britain.
After British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the withdrawal of significantly more than 1,000 troops from Iraq, the White House retaliated with a terse statement saying, “there’s concern about Brown.”
ThinkProgress has the details.
Oct 4, 2007 at 1:03 AM by Political Chase
Earlier tonight I began writing a reflective post about the failure of Congress to effectively investigate the Justice Department and the White House, and hold them accountable for the various and sundry malfeasance they have committed. After working on it for about an hour, I stopped, deciding to finish later. Moments ago, I just finished reading an incredibly disturbing piece in the Times that reveals more about the abyss Alberto Gonzales, the White House, and many at the DOJ reside in. I regret not completing and publishing the reflective post.
As a POW in World War II, my father was tortured and imprisoned in inhumane conditions. When he died at the age of 81, he still could not talk about many of the horrific experiences he encountered. There is little goodness one can find in the death of their father, but I’m glad he doesn’t have to read or hear about this on the evening news.
An excerpt from the six-page piece.
When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.
But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.
The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.
Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.
Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.
The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil.
Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened repeatedly in the last two years to impose limits on interrogations, and the administration has responded as a policy matter by dropping the most extreme techniques. But the 2005 Justice Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent memorandums, officials said. They show how the White House has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal latitude for harsh tactics.
Dick Cheney and his invertebrate minions (includes GWB) must be stopped and held accountable.
Oct 3, 2007 at 2:24 PM by Political Chase
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) seems to be frustrated over the lack of response or communication from Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey. Leahy made it clear when President Bush nominated Mukasey that he wanted specific answers to address outstanding issues and concerns, and that Mukasey’s confirmation was contingent upon Mukasey’s and the White House’s cooperation. Apparently, Leahy’s initial request has gone unanswered — like everything else he has sent the Bush-Cheney administration — based on a letter he sent (html, pdf) Mukasey today.
Leahy’s questions and concerns are valid and appropriate. He wants to know who Mukasey’s master will be, George Bush or the Constitution.
I have emphasized most of the salient points of Leahy’s letter below.
October 2, 2007
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Dear Judge Mukasey:
I look forward to scheduling and chairing the confirmation hearing on your nomination to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. I also look forward to your response to the Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire, and we may have additional requests for background information that would be helpful to the Committee in preparation for the hearing.
As I told you when we met the day after your designation, I look forward to meeting with you and having a substantive discussion before the hearing. I propose that we meet on Tuesday, October 16, at 10 a.m., if that is convenient for you.
I also mentioned when we first met that I would provide you with some of the topics that concern me. Regrettably the White House has chosen not to clear the decks of past concerns and not to produce the information and material it should have and could have about the ongoing scandals that have shaken the Department of Justice and led to the exodus of its former leadership. Those matters now encumber your nomination and, if confirmed, your tenure.
We will need to explore with you how you would ensure the independence of federal law enforcement from political pressure, what steps you would take to restore morale at the Department and the public’s trust in the Department, and whether you would uphold constitutional checks on Executive power.
The mass firings of the U.S. Attorneys appointed by this President were unprecedented. I will inquire whether you share my view that the integrity and independence of federal law enforcement should not be compromised by political operatives from the White House. I will ask for your assurance that the Department of Justice and, in particular, our U.S. Attorneys, will not be employed in upcoming elections to seek to affect the outcome. The Department of Justice should be working to protect Americans’ right to vote and have their vote count, not seeking to swing close elections into a partisan column by leaking allegations of corruption or bringing last minute legal actions alleging voter fraud.
A related matter of significant concern to a number of Members of the Committee is the recent rewriting of the Department of Justice’s guidebook on “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses.” It not only changed from the “red book” to the “green book,” but the traditional practice of not bringing last-minute investigations and actions was turned on its head. The traditional version of the protocol, part of which I read to former Department of Justice official Bradley Schlozman at our June 5 hearing, provided: “In investigating election fraud matters, the Justice Department must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself. . . Thus, most, if not all, investigation of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates.” As recently revised under the outgoing, discredited leadership group, it provides great latitude for the Department of Justice to influence the outcomes of elections. Will you reassure us that under your leadership that these guidelines will be changed back to the time-honored rules? That is a concrete step you can take at the outset to set a new tone.
Another aspect of this concern is your close association with a candidate for the Republican nomination for President. Given that longstanding relationship, what assurances can you give the Committee, the Senate and the American people, should he be the Republican nominee, that you will not improperly use your position? The White House press operation suggested last weekend that you would recuse yourself from matters involving Mr. Guiliani. Is that true, and would that recusal include the Republican presidential campaign if he is the Republican nominee?
From our earlier meeting I know that you knew and worked with Judge Harold Tyler. I have admired Judge Tyler. He, too, was faced with restoring the Department of Justice when he served as the Deputy Attorney General in 1975, following the Watergate scandal and the resignation of President Nixon. Likewise, I think we both view Attorney General Robert Jackson’s 1941 speech to U. S. Attorneys as striking the right chord on the role of the Department of Justice and the independence of federal prosecutors. If they, Elliot Richardson and Edward Levi are your models, I will look forward to working with you to restore the Department.
In that connection, I note that as the House Judiciary Committee was considering contempt citations for former White House officials this summer, a senior Administration official said that a U.S. Attorney “would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case” and that a U.S. Attorney would not be “permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that Department of Justice provided.”
Under applicable statutes and practices, contempt citations against Administration officials by the House and Senate would be certified to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to bring before a grand jury for its action. If the House or Senate certified a contempt citation against current or former White House officials arising from the U.S. Attorney investigation, would you permit the U.S. Attorney to carry out the law and refer the matter to a grand jury as required by 2 U.S.C. § 194? If the White House sought to prevent the U.S. Attorney from bringing contempt charges to a grand jury as required by law, would you take any action to prevent the U.S. Attorney from doing so?
More generally, what would you do as Attorney General if you learned that a White House official had called a U.S. Attorney asking for information about an on-going criminal investigation? What would you do as Attorney General if you learned that a Member of Congress had called a U.S. Attorney asking for information about an on-going criminal investigation?
What will you do to ensure that legal advice from the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is independent and protected from political influence?
While you can set an example and a tone at the Department of Justice, you cannot effectively manage it by yourself. Who will be the members of your team to help turn the Department around?
Other key issues arise from this Administration’s abuse of secrecy and expansion of executive power. Policies enacted by this Administration have encouraged Department of Justice officers to withhold information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the bedrock statute that opens our government to its citizens. Will you commit to review and consider overturning these policies, and supporting legislation Senator Cornyn and I have sponsored to reform FOIA, so that the presumption of openness which is at the heart of FOIA is restored for the American people?
The Attorney General who recently resigned apparently believed that the President has a commander-in-chief override of the laws of this country, which contributed to his violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), his signing statement reservations, and other overreaching. We must explore those topics. For example, do you believe that the President has authority to override legal requirements and immunize acts of torture contrary to our treaty obligations and laws? Do you believe that before Congress amended the FISA this summer, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in the days following September 11, or Article II of the Constitution gave this President authority to override the requirements of that law with respect to wiretapping Americans?
In connection with these matters the Judiciary Committee has been seeking the historical legal analysis of the Department of Justice and this Administration. We have made numerous requests and have even had to subpoena the FISA documents. I want to know whether you will work with us and provide those materials so that we can examine the legal justifications that have been utilized by this Administration to excuse its conduct.
Similarly, in light of the failure of the White House Counsel to provide even a privilege log to substantiate his blanket claim of executive privilege for all information relating to the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, we need to consider that matter together. I want to know your view of executive privilege. Do you view it as a communications privilege or something else? Do you think it extends to the actions and emails of political operatives in matters in which the President was not personally involved?
With so much to do and so much damage that needs to be repaired, I had hoped that the White House would have taken advantage of the time since the resignations of Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Rove to work with us to fulfill longstanding requests for information so that we could all agree about what went so wrong at the Department of Justice and work together to restore it. Instead, they have left you to answer the unanswered questions and left longstanding disputes unresolved.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman
Sep 22, 2007 at 6:14 PM by Political Chase
The White House and lobbyists from the major telecom companies (e.g. AT&T, Verizon, etc.) are preparing a bill for congressional approval that will provide retroactive immunity to any company or individual that directly or indirectly violated federal wiretapping laws at the direction of President Bush or officials in his administration since September 11, 2001.
Simply stated, If allowed to become law, the slate would be wiped clean for the president and anyone in his administration (past or present), such as Alberto Gonzales, and the telecom companies. They would be absolved of the tons of pending civil lawsuits filed against them and criminal charges that will likely be brought under current law.
The telecom companies knew they were breaking federal laws when they allowed the National Security Agency (NSA) and other agencies to conduct warrantless eavesdropping, as evidenced by the companies that refused to comply with the administration’s secret demands (e.g. Qwest). Furthermore, after the New York Times broke the story about the administration’s illegal wiretapping in 2005, the president admitted he knowingly and willfully broke the law, the most pertinent of which is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, commonly referred to as FISA (see related posts).
Glenn Greenwald has a must-read piece on the sordid details of George Bush’s secret initiative to get himself, his minions, and his major corporation donors out of substantial criminal and civil trouble. According to Glenn, President Bush has more than just his standard Republican Guard in Congress protecting him, Democrats are signing up to help pass the proposed legislation.
If you want to contact Members of Congress about this issue, contact information is available here.
Sep 18, 2007 at 4:55 PM by Political Chase
Patrick Leahy issued this statement after meeting with AG nominee Michael Mukasey. As indicated in this statement and press accounts yesterday, Leahy intends to put Mukasey’s nomination in a holding pattern until the White House provides previously requested/subpoenaed information/documents related to the Committee’s investigation of the Justice Department.
I’m not sure I agree with Leahy’s tactic, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe Leahy would unjustifiably slow the process.
Remarks Of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
After Meeting With
Prospective Attorney General Nominee Judge Michael Mukasey
September 18, 2007
I begin this process of Senate review of the President’s nomination with hope and with optimism. The last thing I or any of us want is to be disappointed in those hopes.
Replacing an Attorney General is part but not all of what needs to be done to restore trust in the Justice Department. The confirmation process can be a catalyst for resolving outstanding issues between the Senate and the Administration. I hope that will happen now.
There are a number of issues that arise from that dark period that still need resolution. Cooperation from the Administration in making progress on our longstanding oversight requests is still needed and will be helpful in moving forward.
I am pleased to report that recent discussions that I have had with Mr. Fielding, the White House Counsel, have been encouraging on that score. I take him at his word that he will work to provide the Judiciary Committee with information and documents that we need. This is relevant to the next nominee and future Attorneys General so that past excesses and mistakes are not repeated.
I met with Judge Mukasey today hoping that after we get cooperation from the Administration and are able to conduct a fair and thorough review process, all Senators will be able to vote in favor of his confirmation. I want to avoid the kind of witch hunt from the Right that scuttled the President’s nomination of Harriet Miers.
I see Judge Mukasey’s nomination as another chance to clear the decks of some important unfinished business that goes to the heart of accountability in government. It is also another chance for a fresh start in the relationship between Congress and the Justice Department headed by a new Attorney General.
The big job of Attorney General of the United States has gotten bigger, with the erosion of public trust and sagging morale throughout the Department of Justice. The next Attorney General will need to begin the process of restoring the Department of Justice to its proper mission so that it is worthy of its name.
Sep 18, 2007 at 10:47 AM by Political Chase
HEADLINES
- Democrats Threaten to Delay Mukasey Confirmation
- Congress Continues Negotiation on Children’s Health Bill
- Clinton Releases Health Care Plan
- Iraq Withdraws Blackwater USA License
- Muslim Charity Trial Ends
- National Foreclosures Up 36%
- Musharraf Military Command in Limbo
TPC MOST POULAR
(updated 11:41 AM ET)
Telegraph: Bush-Cheney Planning War with Iran
Will Wes Clark be Hillary’s VP?
Bush Selects Mukasey for Attorney General
Judge Mukasey and the rule of law
WASHINGTON
- “Two Senate Democrats warned Monday that the Judiciary Committee would delay confirmation of President Bush’s choice for attorney general unless the White House turned over documents that the panel was seeking for several investigations,” the New York Times reports. “Mr. Bush announced the selection of Michael B. Mukasey, a retired federal judge from New York who has presided over several high-profile terrorism trials, during a morning Rose Garden ceremony.”
- “The White House on Monday rejected demands by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that the administration release thousands of documents related to the U.S. attorneys scandal and other Justice Department controversies before hearings begin on” Bush’s nomination of Mukasey, Roll Call (sub. req.) reports. “A showdown between Leahy and President Bush over largely procedural matters could turn what is widely seen as a relatively noncontroversial nomination into a political lightning rod for both parties.”
- “The White House in recent days told nearly a dozen Cabinet secretaries to send letters to Capitol Hill rejecting Democrats’ proposed new funds for their agencies, escalating a confrontation between lawmakers and President Bush over domestic spending priorities,” the Washington Post reports. “The Democratic Congress is considering 2008 spending bills that increase funding for politically popular programs including health care for veterans, education, medical research and infrastructure improvements.”
- “The top U.S. intelligence official is asking Congress for even more changes to a law that he says limited the government’s ability to eavesdrop, not just on terrorists but also on more traditional potential adversaries,” AP reports. “Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, says China and Russia are aggressively spying on sensitive U.S. facilities, intelligence systems and development projects, and their efforts are approaching Cold War levels.”
- “The White House threatened on Monday to veto a bill that would add 15 years to a post-Sept. 11 government insurance program that supporters say is critical for major projects like the new World Trade Center,” the New York Times reports. “The legislation, known as the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, was originally passed by Congress after the 2001 attacks. It is due to expire this year, and the House had planned to vote this week on a 15-year extension.”
CONGRESS
- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday “unveiled a proposal to provide health insurance to all Americans, placing herself at the center of an issue that provided perhaps the greatest setback of her political career,” the Washington Post reports. “In a speech in Des Moines, the Democratic front-runner said she would expand insurance to the 47 million people who do not already have coverage and would attempt to reduce costs for others without spawning a massive new bureaucracy.”
- “Key lawmakers in the House and Senate negotiated into the night” on Monday “on a deal that would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over the next five years,” the Washington Post reports. “That would set up a clash with President Bush, who has promised to veto such a plan.”
- “Three senators who are considered potential swing votes on war policy said Monday that a weekend visit to Iraq left them discouraged about prospects for political reconciliation there and convinced that the United States must quickly shift more responsibility for security to the Iraqi Army,” the New York Times reports. “‘We must take decisive action to force the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to secure the peace for Iraq,’ said Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado, as the Senate opened a pivotal debate on the war.”
- “Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) are among the biggest winners in the 2008 Appropriations defense bill, according to data gathered by The Hill and the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS),” The Hill reports. “Senate appropriators disclosed about 936 earmarks worth a combined $5.1 billion in the 2008 defense-spending bill, with top committee members in both parties securing the highest dollar amounts.”
IRAQ
- “At least 12 people were killed and 37 wounded today after Baghdad was hit by two parked car bombs and two roadside bombs, police said,” the Guardian reports. “A car bomb blew up in the centre of the Iraqi capital at 9.30am in a car park near the health ministry and the so-called Medical City complex of buildings, which includes several hospitals and a forensic institute.”
- “Blackwater USA, an American contractor that provides security to some of the top American officials in Iraq, has been banned from working in the country by the Iraqi government after a shooting that left eight Iraqis dead and involved an American diplomatic convoy,” the New York Times reports. “A spokesman for the Ministry of Interior, Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf, said Monday that authorities had canceled the company’s license and that the government would prosecute the participants.”
- “Despite efforts by U.S. forces to recruit and train women for jobs in the Iraqi security forces, just over 1,000 have been trained, many have quit and those who remain say they are struggling for acceptance,” the LA Times reports. “We’re in our posts because the Americans are here,” the army commander said. “Once they leave, we will all be out.”
NATION
- “As the government’s signature terrorism-financing trial moved toward a close here Monday, federal prosecutors reaffirmed their charge that the largest Muslim charity in the United States was not simply trying to help poor Palestinians but was in fact an arm of the radical Islamic group Hamas,” the New York Times reports. “The charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, and five of its officers have been on trial here since July 16, charged with conspiracy, money laundering and providing financial support to a foreign terrorist organization.”
- “National foreclosure filings in August were up 36 percent from July and 115 percent from August 2006, according to a market forecast out today,” the Boston Globe reports. “Nevada, California, and Florida posted the top state foreclosure rates in August, and Massachusetts was ranked 12th, said RealtyTrac, which defines foreclosure filings as default notices, auction sale notices, and bank repossessions.”
WORLD
- “In a controversial step, election officials Monday announced a rule change under which President Pervez Musharraf would be allowed to stand for reelection while still serving as head of Pakistan’s military,” the LA Times reports. “At the same time, though, the Supreme Court began hearing legal challenges to Musharraf’s plan to remain army chief as he seeks reelection by lawmakers as head of state early next month.”
- “France’s foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, sought Monday to tone down remarks he made in a radio and television interview the day before that the world had to prepare for possible war against Iran,” the New York Times reports. “Attacked verbally by Iran and quietly criticized within his own government, Mr. Kouchner shifted the focus away from the threat of war and back to a call for hard negotiations as the way to force Iran to abandon key nuclear activities.”
- “Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday,” AP reports. “John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.”
- “The Sept. 6 attack by Israeli warplanes inside Syria struck what Israeli intelligence believes was a nuclear-related facility that North Korea was helping to equip, according to current and former American and Israeli officials,” the New York Times reports. “Details about the Israeli assessment emerged as China abruptly canceled planned diplomatic talks in Beijing that were to set a schedule to disband nuclear facilities in North Korea.”
Sep 12, 2007 at 1:59 PM by Political Chase
Based on remarks White House Press Secretary Tony Snow made moments ago, President Bush is turning the current objective in Iraq on its head and redefined victory (tenth version based on my recollection) yet again. Furthermore, the White House initiated a war of words against the Democrats rather than seeking collegial solutions for the catastrophe in Iraq.
When asked to respond to Nancy Pelosi’s comment that “General Petraeus’s strategy amounts to an endless strategy for war — a war without end,” Snow gave a new definition for victory - “”Helping the Iraqis develop the capability of defending themselves and governing themselves.” (Ed. note: quoted remarks for Pelosi are the reporters words, not necessarily Pelosi’s exact words.)
Indeed if you look closely at what Snow said, Pelosi’s comments are on target.
It appears the military strategy is no longer creating a secure environment so that Iraq’s political infrastructure can achieve reconciliation and function. Instead, according to Snow’s remarks, the strategy and objective goes much further.
Snow referenced several “developmental components including: (1) provincial reconstruction teams; (2) seeks greater cooperation and interaction with regional powers and regional allies; and, (3) is a strategy that has expectations in terms of what the neighbors out to do including Iran and Syria.”
Snow also made it clear there are no time parameters.
Taking shots at Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Snow accused Pelosi of attempting to “create a political framework for ignoring the success that has taken place as a result of the surge in recent months and the fact that General Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy has worked in ways that has surprised even the U.S. in terms of the development of strong grass roots of Iraqi action against al-Qaeda…and against other forces.”
I will provide a reference link or video later when it becomes available.
Click To Play
Sep 10, 2007 at 10:23 AM by Political Chase
IRAQ
As noted here at TPC last night, General David Petraeus reported he wants to defer any decisions on major troop withdrawals for six months; may begin a limited withdrawal of 4,000 troops in mid-December; and, might have troop levels in Iraq down to 15 brigades by mid-July.
With respect to congressional hearings today, Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s testimony will likely be more significant than Petraeus’s highly anticipated report. Crocker will be weighing in on most of the political issues, which, in essence, are the keys to the kingdom.
Senior Iraqi officials released statements yesterday that seem oddly coincidental. “Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told lawmakers…that Iraqi forces were not ready to take over security from the U.S. military across the country,” the Washington Post reports. “There have been tangible improvements in security in the recent period in Baghdad and the provinces but it is not enough.”
Additionally, according to the Post, “Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari…called on Iraq’s neighbors to stop interfering in Iraqi affairs and warned that ongoing violence threatens to spread across the region.”
“What will happen in Iraq will decide the future of this region, therefore everybody has a genuine interest in cooperating with the Iraqi government at this stage,” Zebari said. “The failure of Iraq is the failure of the region.”
And if you weren’t quite sure of the Bush administration’s intentions, this little nugget might help. The Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) reports “the Pentagon is preparing to build its first base for U.S. forces near the Iraqi-Iranian border, in a major new effort to curb the flow of advanced Iranian weaponry to Shiite militants across Iraq.”
REPLACING ALBERTO GONZALES
According to Roll Call (sub. req.):
The White House appears to be focusing on former Solicitor General Ted Olson as the next attorney general, Senate Democrats are expected to delay President Bush’s nominee in the hopes of forcing the administration to produce thousands of pages of documents on a variety of issues, including the firing of nine U.S. attorneys last year. (Emphasis added.)
Sources in both parties said that even if Bush nominates an otherwise noncontroversial attorney general, they don’t expect a speedy confirmation. While Alberto Gonzales may no longer serve as the No. 1 target for Justice Department failures, the agency’s problems remain.
The Democrats may want to thoroughly check Olsen’s prior work. My recollection is that Olson wrote an opinion creating the Unitary Executive theory while serving as head of the Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan administration. Vice President Dick Cheney based his recent claim that he is not part of the Executive Branch on Olson’s opinion. Just remember, that’s my recollection and I may have my facts mixed up, but if I am correct, that is a significant issue the Senate will need to address.
OSAMA BIN LADEN
This is a bit surprising considering the source. Frances Townsend, the White House’s chief homeland security adviser, said Osama bin Laden “is a ‘man on the run’ who has demonstrated in his latest videotape release that he is ‘virtually impotent’ and capable of nothing more than threats,” FOX News reports.
This morning MSNBC via the AP is reporting a “new Osama tape will present ‘Last Testament’ of 9/11 hijacker.” (no link available at this time)
Late Update: MSNBC is reporting the tape will be released in the next 24 to 72 hours.
SCANDALS
“Sen. Larry Craig will file court documents Monday asking to withdraw his guilty plea in a sex sting that seems likely to end his career, his attorney said,” the AP reports. However, according to “Attorney William Martin…such requests are rarely granted.”
Sep 10, 2007 at 8:01 AM by Political Chase
In case you missed it, in yesterday’s Washington Post there is a must-read piece detailing strong disagreements between Gen. David Petraeus and his boss, Admiral William J. Fallon, chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), on the Iraq surge strategy. In addition to the Petraeus v. Fallon conflict, the authors (7 on the byline) focus on conflicts and chaos in the White House as a result of Petraeus strategy.
It is well worth reading, especially before Petraeus testifies today at 12:30 PM EDT.
