Heal thyself, twit

God I get sick of stupid articles like this from journalists, wherein they wring their hands and cringe and craw about the limited attention span of the poor stupid public, and go on and on with metaconversations about how we're not really interested in substance and easily distracted by frippery, all the while apparently oblvious to the fact that it's not the public who decide which issues are covered and which ones aren't, but they, the bloody media.

Hey, Mr Carney. Instead of filling up your alloted space with pious guff like "[t]he truth appears to be that many, many Australians are underwhelmed by what at other times might have been regarded as big, defining issues," why don't you put some effort into making those "defining issues" interesting and accessible to us poor idiots out here in ordinary-people land if that's what you think the problem is? Isn't that what your bosses pay you for?

Really, try not to laugh

So here's what the President said when he accepted the 9/11 report:

THE PRESIDENT: It's been my honor to welcome Chairman Kean, Vice Chairman Hamilton to the Oval Office. We just had a good discussion about the 9/11 Commission Report. I want to thank these two gentlemen for serving their country so well and so admirably. They've done a really good job of learning about our country, learning about what went wrong prior to September the 11th and making very solid, sound recommendations about how to move forward. I assured them that where government needs to act, we will.

I want to thank the Commission members, as well. These people worked really hard, long hours. They took time out of their private lives to serve America, and have left their mark in a very constructive and positive way.

These two men bring a common-sense approach to how to move forward. They recognize what I recognize, and America recognizes, that there's still a threat, and that we in government have an obligation to do everything in our power to safeguard the American people. And the report that they are about to present to me puts out some very constructive recommendations. And I look forward to studying their recommendations, and look forward to working with responsible parties within my administration to move forward on those recommendations.

As well, we look forward to working with the Congress on the implementation of ways to do our duty. And the most important duty we have is the security of our fellow countrymen.

So, thank you, men, for your service. I'm proud you're here. You did a wonderful job.

He then added, "And I'm sorry I ever tried to oppose this commission and refused for a time to meet with it. I regret that I was still unwilling to testify alone and under oath before you and that I failed to make all relevant documents available."

Well, I'm sure he meant to add something along those lines.

UPDATE: Incidentally, if this is what the President really thinks, shouldn't he let Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert know?

Imagine that

This is a pretty interesting speech in light of the 9/11 Commission report and given the fact that it doesn't seem to differentiate between the Bush and Clinton administrations in terms of their preparedness and recognition of the threat of terrorism.

The speech in question is Bill Clinton's speech to the 1996 Democratic Convention:

We have made investments, new investments, in our most important defense asset -- our magnificent men and women in uniform. (Applause.) By the year 2000 we also will have increased funding to modernize our weapons systems by 40 percent. These commitments will make sure that our military remains the best-trained, best-equipped fighting force in the entire world. (Applause.)

We are developing a sensible national missile defense, but we must not -- not now, not by the year 2000 -- squander $60 billion on an unproved, ineffective Star Wars program that could be obsolete tomorrow. (Applause.)

We are fighting terrorism on all fronts with a three-pronged strategy. First, we are working to rally a world coalition with zero tolerance for terrorism. Just this month I signed a law imposing harsh sanctions on foreign companies that invest in key sectors of the Iranian and Libyan economies. As long as Iran trains, supports and protects terrorists, as long as Libya refuses to give up the people who blew up Pan Am 103, they will pay a price from the United States. (Applause.)

Second, we must give law enforcement the tools they need to take the fight to terrorists. We need new laws to crack down on money laundering and to prosecute and punish those who commit violent acts against American citizens abroad; to add chemical markers or taggents to gunpowder used in bombs so we can crack the bomb makers; to extend the same power police now have against organized crime to save lives by tapping all the phones that terrorists use. Terrorists are as big a threat to our future, perhaps bigger, than organized crime. Why should we have two different standards for a common threat to the safety of America and our children? (Applause.)

We need, in short, the laws that Congress refused to pass. And I ask them again, please, as an American, not a partisan matter, pass these laws now. (Applause.)

Third, we will improve airport and air travel security. I have asked the Vice President to establish a commission and report back to me on ways to do this. But now we will install the most sophisticated bomb-detection equipment in all our major airports. We will search every airplane flying to or from America from another nation -- every flight, every cargo hold, every cabin, every time. (Applause.)

Sure sounds like he had an inkling about the threat of terrorism.

(Via Liberal Oasis.)

And the winner is

Nominate someone for the "The 2004 Blog Comments Award".

Please try not to laugh

As you are watching that honest, solid-Christian man, George W. Bush announce today how important he believes the work of the 9/11 Commission to be, here's a list of things you'll have to pretend never happened so that you can keep a straight face:

Flooding the zone

So the Flood inquiry into how Australia's intelligence agencies (mis)handled information that led to our involvement in the Iraq invasion is out and no-one is to blame and the government-appointed friend who was in charge of the report reports that there was no political pressure brought to bear--and he should know because being a friend of the prime minister's, and therefore understanding what was required of such a report, he is well aware that such pressure is superfluous--and John Howard is happy and everything goes on as normal.

Feeling safer?

UPDATE: Ken notes an upside; Allan outlines a few anomalies; Chris summarises.

UPDATE 2: Imagine the shake-up that would be currently happening in Australia's intelligence agencies if the government applied the same standards of accountability to them as it did to ATSIC. Then again, ATSIC wasted a lot of money; the intelligence agencies just provided intelligence that was "thin, ambiguous and incomplete" that was used to justify involving the country in a war. Could happen to anyone.

UPDATE 3: What a load of crap:

No-one would be treated as a scapegoat following the critical findings of the Flood report into intelligence agencies, Prime Minister John Howard said today.

Mr Howard said the current head of the Office of National Assessment (ONA), Peter Varghese, would stay and his predecessor Kim Jones had done a good job.

"In the end, I am the person who gets it in the neck from the electorate if they don't like the way I have run the country and I accept that," he told ABC radio in Brisbane. .

"I am certainly not going to make scapegoats. I am not going to say well because something went wrong I am going to fire you. I am not going to do that."

It's not a matter of finding scapegoats. It's a matter of finding who is actually at fault. It's a matter of doing your job as a manager. Or as an investigator (if you're Phillip Flood). To say you are not going to find scapegoats is just another way of saying, I can't really blame others when it's my fault. It's another way of saying, if I actually sacked somebody I might piss them off and god knows what they'd then say in public. It's a way of avoiding responsibility and glossing over the facts. "Scapegoat" is a strawman term. Who ever said they wanted scapegoats? This is all about containment. He can't assign blame because it invites people to assign blame. Containment. No-one is to blame.

And did I mention Labor suck on all this?

Party cancelled

As Atrios points out, the latest rumour of found nuclear weapons in Iraq took but minutes to dismiss. Those on the right were following the story, which is fair enough, but explain this comment over at Tacitus:

The Washington Times link now says that "a U.S. military spokesman in Tikrit told United Press International that the report was untrue." The finding of nuclear WMDs sounded too good to be true.

Explain this to me. In what sense would it have been good to find nuclear weapons in Iraq? Surely we are all glad that Iraq didn't have WMD, especially of the nuclear variety, and we're not just hanging out for an opportunity to score political points. Right?

Stone the crows

Even his one-line reviews are generally pretty good, but Eric Alterman is way off-beam with this comment on the most recent episode of Six Feet Under:

Worst TV show I've seen in a long time, "Six Feet Under," this week, HBO.

(There's enough gratuitous sadism in life without rubbing our noses in it, in a show that is supposed to be about its smart, sophisticated writing.)

Well, there's enough everything in life without art rubbing our noses in it, if you want to take that approach.

As to it being gratutitous: in what sense? It was certainly violent, but surely that was justified by the context? And sure, in terms of the plot, it came out of nowhere, as is noted here, but that just gave it added impact. The fact that at this stage it seems unrelated to the storylines that have built so far in the new series hardly matters: presumably it will inform the following episodes as David copes with what happened to him.

If you want to talk about gratutitous in this show, then let's talk about the character of Lisa. Blerkkkk!. Seems to me they've been trying to get rid of her ever since they first introduced her and still can't do it, not even by killing her off! She keeps hanging round like, um, a bad smell.

Anyway, if that's the worst program you've seen on telly in a long time you must be an incredibly discerning or hellishly lucky viewer.

I always preferred the other Amphlett anyway, but

This isn't right, is it?:

Little Pattie, the singer of the original "It's Time" jingle, will host the fundraiser in Sydney on August 5.

It wasn't Little Pattie, was it? Can't remember who it was, but it wasn't her. She was in the ad, but didn't do lead vocal.

Berger takeout

I'd echo comments and questions by Bird Dog over at Tacitus:

In the most non-sexual way possible, I ask this: What was in Sandy's pants, and what was so important that he to steal them? And one other thing. Is this how National Security Advisors conduct themselves? How can a person whose very job title contains National Security be so stupid, or worse, criminal? This is a man John Kerry has retained to counsel him on matters of national security and foreign policy.

Laura Rozen notes that "Berger should not get any position in any Kerry administration. He was an awful national security advisor, reflecting all that was lawyerly and slow to acquire a real national security vision for the president he was advising."

Whether Berger was this bad I'm not really sure, but I'm willing to take Laura's word for it. Nonetheless, this brings us to another comment that Bird Dog makes--one common to many of the commentaries on Berger's alleged actions--and one that I think it probably needs a fairly major clarification:

What was in those documents? The AP reported that they were "critical assessments about the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium terror threats as well as identification of America's terror vulnerabilities at airports to sea ports." Berger may have been caught doing something "inadvertent", but it smells more like he was engaging in some major CYA, especially considering he was caught red-handed sticking stuff in his pants.

The clarification is this: it seems weird that there would be any need for Berger to "CYA" anything about the millennium terror threats. Why? Because the millennium terror threats were thwarted.

Unlike some other terror attacks I can think of.

Anyway, Berger is now, rightly, subject to criminal investigation and that will obviously run its course.

UPDATE: Berger has now quit as a Kerry adviser. Apparently Bush is still President.

UPDATE 2: Two things. It seems there is next to nothing in this story, given that the documents in question were copies. For all the inneundo about subverting an investigation or trying to cover-up Clinton-era errors to hold any water, we would need to see that he was trying to remove complete records, that is, original documents and all copies. On the other hand, Berger is playing into the hands of the outrage confection machine, providing a stick for their swirling cotton candy. His explanation that it was an "honest mistake" sounds lame in the absence of a full explanation. He should just tell us how and why he came to make this honest mistake and then take his punishment.

The redoubtable right

Can I just say that it really is a thrill to see so many on the right and/or in the pro-war camp--from humble bloggers to the mighty New York Times--reembracing their sense of scepticism and casting legitimate doubt all over the story about Iraqi prime minister Allawai allegedly having shot a number of prisoners. This new willingness to question eyewitness intelligence of a given event, to scoff at unsubstantiated claims, and to demand that journalists produce solid evidence is a healthy, healthy development.

Mind your "Ns" and "Qs"

This has got to be the best quote of the year so far:

Mr. Bush noted in a brief Oval Office meeting with reporters that the Central Intelligence Agency had found "no direct connection between Iran and the attacks of Sept.11,"...

He just wanted to make that perfectly clear. Like, he wouldn't want anyone to jump to the wrong conclusion or anything.

Mysterious way and means 2

There was a little piece in this morning's WaPo noting that the White House was denying that Mr Bush had said, "God speaks through me", something I made fun of in a post below:

The Misquotable Bush

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job."

-- statement attributed to President Bush in the Lancaster (Pa.) New Era from a private meeting with Amish families on July 9. The White House said Bush said no such thing.

The lying Amish, apparently. And when you think about it, it doesn't sound remotely like something the president would say.

ELSEWHERE: Fred investigates further.

Pearls before swine

Neale wonders who's to bless and who's to blame and in so doing relaunches his blog.

Lest we remember

Well, I never thought I'd see the day, but the prime minister has announced that we should dump ANZAC Day:

I say let's forget the past, start again, and just concentrate on making things better....

See? You can teach an old dog new tricks.

UPDATE: Okay, those who've clicked the link have discovered that the prime minister was actually suggesting we forget the history of European/Aboriginal interaction and the dispossession that went with it. It really is quite an extraordinary statement. It's one thing to argue that we shouldn't enact treaties between the original inhabitants and those who came later, but it is something else entirely to suggest that we should just forget about what happened.

I guess it is just the logical extension of the rightwing project of misinformation propagated by the likes of the magazine Quadrant and the writer Keith Windschuttle (Australian history's Michael Moore). What they propose is a form of forgetting too, though they couch it as revisionist history and dress it up with the garb of academic seriousness.

Still, the for the prime minister to come out and say we should just forget about it borders on the unbelieable. I mean, it's not like it was just a football match that turned a bit nasty, some silly little thing that we might prefer to sweep under the carpet. This is a key moment in the formation of the nation; a defining event. As my original comment suggests, can anyone imagine him offering a similar take on any other aspect of Australian history? That we just forget about something so important?

The fact that he singles out that aspect of Australian history that involves Abroiginal people is revealing if not actually a revelation given his own history. In fact, there's a word for people who single out certain other groups, not their own, for this sort of neglect, for those who seek to diminish the worth of other peoples and pretend they don't exist. I can't quite think of what it is. It's on the tip on my tongue....

IOU

I'm reading an Iain Banks novel at the moment called The Business. Only about 120 pages in so no real comment on it yet, except to say that I'm enjoying it without being blown away - but I like most of Bank's stuff, whether he's in SF mode or not. Anyway, there was just this nice line:

We headed along the bottom of a small dry creek towards the jumbled shape of a sprawling stone-and-log-built cabin, which looked like it owed something to Frank Lloyd Wright. Probably an apology.

I'm not entirely convinced by his female protagonist, but as I say, so far the book is pretty good.

The cactus where your heart should be

I've spent the last three weeks listening to the album 69 Love Songs by the band The Magnetic Fields. I don't really know much about them except that they are one of the projects of one Stephin Merritt. You can read a Salon feature on him here.

The album is a three-CD set, with 23 songs on each disc, and it comes with lyrics, and a pretty nice booklet that includes a long interview with Merritt in which he discusses every song on the album. If pop music is your thing then you really should have this album, and that's whether you just like snappy tunes to have on in the background or are some sort of forensic pop-song musicologist who likes listening for references and musical quotes from the archeology of the genre.

The album is somethere between homage, parody and original contribution, the latter characteristic largely achieved by providing a lyical update to the standard three-minute pop love song. Contemporary context is provided to traditional angst via lyrics that are sometimes brilliant and nearly always above averge. How many people do you know, for instance, who would consider the meaning of 'love' via a song about the French linguist Ferdinand de Saussure that also manages to rhyme his name with that of Motown songwriters Holland-Dozier-Holland all within a catchy sing-a-long melody?

The musical allusions are endless, with songs that early The Who would have been proud of ('When my boy walks down the street') to ones that effortlessly reference (rip-off) the likes of Human League, Jonathon Richmond and Elvis Costello. Even the much underworked genre of cheerleader pop (think Toni Basil) gets a cite in the form of 'Washington D.C.'. The inventiveness over the course of 69 tracks is impressive and although the variation is vast, there is still enough similarity for them to be recognisable as part of a consistent whole. Not surprising I guess, as they were all written by Merritt.

My biggest criticism is that there is little evidence of sparkling musicianship. Only one track--'Acoustic Guitar'--really shows some virtuoso playing. The rest suffers in this respect from being heavy on electronic keyboard instrumentation (washes and one-finger synth) probably the result of a low budget and having been recorded in Merritt's lounge room. Though also, it's true, because that's sometimes what pop is.

Inevitably there are some duds, especially those like 'Punk Love' that cross the line and simply become parody. But even if you thought 25% of what's on offer here was crap, that still leaves more than 40 pretty fantastic tracks. Personally, I'd say less than 5% are duds, so I'm happy. If anyone wants to recommend others from the Merritt catalogue, I'd be interested to hear it.

ELSEWHERE: The Believer magazine provides this extensive article on 69 Love Songs. The Believer, by the way, is a magazine worth checking out. I was planning a review of it in the near future, but thanks to Mark in comments for pointing out the 69 Love Songs article.

How Bush makes us less safe Part 154

Since the invasion of Iraq we have often been told that one of its benefits is that it "teaches" those who would harbour terrorists or involve themselves in such activities that the US is serious about pursuing them, that they are willing to "take the fight to them" and that this is one of the defining features of the Bush approach to the war on terror.

But as usual with the Bush administration reality and rhetoric don't always make a perfect match. The 9/11 Commission's revelation that Iran gave aid and comfort the 9/11 hijackers is a clear illustration of how Bush's bluster sends the wrong message and makes us all less safe:

People familiar with the report, expected to be released Thursday, say it will detail evidence that Iran instructed its border guards in late 2000 to allow al Qaeda operatives to pass freely from Afghanistan into Iran, and back, and that at least eight of the Sept. 11 hijackers passed through Iran from late 2000 through February 2001. At least some were allowed to pass without having their passports stamped, allowing them to conceal trips to training camps in Afghanistan.

The eight to 10 hijackers who crossed through are said to have been among the so-called muscle hijackers whose job was to overcome resistance by flight crews and passengers during the hijackings.

The panel's findings are also said to note that Iranian officials contacted al Qaeda leaders after the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and proposed a collaboration on terrorist attacks. But Osama bin Laden spurned the offer because of fear of a backlash by supporters in Saudi Arabia. The commission information is based on reports of statements by al Qaeda detainees during interrogations, and numerous electronic intercepts by the National Security Agency.

The report will say, however, that there isn't any evidence that Iran knew in advance of the Sept. 11 plot. Details of the commission's findings on Iran and al Qaeda were reported earlier on Time magazine's Web site.

So rather than "send a message" that we are coming to get you for this sort of activity, by invading Iraq, the Bush administration sent precisely opposite message; that you can engage in this sort of terrorist activity and we will not come and get you.

Now, we can argue about whether it would have been a good idea to invade Iran or not. But the point is, on the Bush administration's logic, not only was Iran a more righteous target than Iraq, they were almost honor-bound to do it. That is, if you put any faith in all their tough talk.

In reality, president Bush has basically told Iran that, despite what he has said about "coming after" those who harbour and aid terrorists, he actually has no intention of doing so. People mock Spain and, more recently the Phillipines, for supposedly "giving into" terrorist demands, but can anyone think of anything more likely to embolden a terrorist-aiding state, let alone a terrorist group, than the Bush administration not only deciding to not go after the country with the closest ties to those who perpetrated 9/11 but to actually instead invade and remove that state's most bitter enemy?

No wonder Iran feels like it can pursue its nuclear weapons program with impunity.

And so does the Bush administration makes us all less safe. Tell me again: why do you want to vote for them?

Bliar

You would think that finding graves with 5,000 bodies of political prisoners in it would be sufficent reason to condemn somebody for their barbarity. Why then would Tony Blair feel the need to lie about it and increase the number by a factor of eighty?:

Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves.

In that publication - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.'

On 14 December Blair repeated the claim in a statement issued by Downing Street in response to the arrest of Saddam Hussein and posted on the Labour party website that: 'The remains of 400,000 human beings [have] already [been] found in mass graves.'

Still, I'm sure Tony Blair feels in his heart that he acted in good faith.

Follow the yellowcake road

Laura Rozen is slowly and methodically unravelling who might have been responsible for the "other intelligence" the British claim to have as evidence in the Iraq-Niger story. It's fascinating to follow the endless backtracking and double referencing of the same material and finding out what remains. Laura's latest information is here.

DoD daycare

The Pentagon is closing down its childcare centre. Why? Because America is much safer now, obviously.

See the new boss 2

Former British Minister, Robin Cook, makes a useful suggestion in regard to the allegations of murder made against Iraqi prime minister Allawai by Australian journalist, Paul McGeough:

The former British foreign secretary, Robin Cook, has urged the International Committee for the Red Cross to investigate witness claims that the new Iraqi prime minister, Iyad Allawi, shot dead six insurgents last month.

..."These are dreadful allegations. It is vital that they are cleared up one way or another, and that needs an independent inquiry," Mr Cook, who quit the Blair cabinet over the Iraq war, told the British newspaper the Sunday Herald. "An international body such as the Red Cross would be best able to give authority to the investigation that the situation now demands."

Part of the problem is that the Red Cross haven't had access to Iraqi-run prisons.

Meanwhile, in other Allawi news, the prime minister has lifted the ban on the Hawza newspaper that was imposed by Paul Bremer and that is cited as the trigger for the uprising by the Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army:

"The Hawza newspaper was allowed to be published again pursuant to an order by the US appointed Prime Minister, who has expressed his absolute belief in free press," according to an official statement.

...The prime minister said he was "confident his decision would open the way for all currents and movements in Iraq to take part in the country's march towards liberty, democracy, peace and prosperity".

Rumours that Allawi's love of a free press doesn't extend to The Sydney Morning Herald are believed to be exaggerated.

UPDATE: "Iraq's Human Rights Minister Bakhtiar Amin says he will investigate allegations that Iraq's interim Prime Minister personally executed suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station last month."

Given this development, it seems surprising that the US media is refusing to mention the story. But they are.

UPDATE 2: Newsweek and The Washington Times are now mentioning it.

The war that started itself

The idea that false, incorrect or phoney intelligence is to blame for the all the ills that ail Iraq, the US occupation and the post-war, post-Saddam situation is rapidly becoming the excuse-of-choice for the Bush adminsitration and their coaltion partners.

We know, for instance, that the State Department provided quite extensive planning for dealing with post-Saddam Iraq and we know that the Pentagon ignored their reports. Increasingly, the reason for these decisions that is given is that the powers that be relied on incorrect intelligence reporting and the blame, therefore, is, implicitly and explcitly, laid at the feet of the intelligence gatherers and analysts, while those who relied on the intelligence are somehow absolved of responsibility.

The latests example is testimony given by Army Gen. Jack Keane, the recently retired acting Army chief of staff. He testified before the House Armed Services Committee last Thursday:

“When I look back on it myself, having participated and contributed to [the war planning], one of the things that happened to us … is many of us got seduced by the Iraqi exiles in terms of what the outcome would be” after the war, Keane said.

“‘We’re all going to be treated as liberators,’” interjected Rep. Ike Skelton, the committee’s ranking minority member.

“That’s correct,” Keane replied. “So therefore the intellectual capital to prepare ourselves properly for an insurgency was not there.”

Keane said that despite continued violence against U.S. troops, U.S. military leaders “did not recognize that we were dealing with an insurgency [in Iraq] until midsummer” 2003.

...Keane did not criticize operations in war on Wednesday. But he was frank in his assessment of what he said was lack of planning for the war’s aftermath.

“There were very few people who actually envisioned, honestly, before the war what we are dealing with now after the regime went down,” Keane said.

“We did not see [the insurgency] coming, and we were not properly prepared to deal with it.”

Keane offered insight into what military planners were thinking as they prepared for the Iraq campaign.

“The conventional wisdom was that we would have a stability operation that would be more akin to what we were doing in Kosovo, but on a larger scale,” Keane said. “And we would be very much involved in political and physical reconstruction, and maybe some law and order, in the absence of a competent police.”

...Keane credited Army commanders on the ground last year as being “quality leaders” who proved to be “enormously flexible and adaptable” in reorganizing and equipping themselves to deal with the unexpected revolt.

“But we could have done far better for them if we had properly prepared for the reality,” Keane said.

Skelton said that he did “not want to belabor the point, but there were a lot of young folks who paid the price for that lack of foresight.”

“Yes, sir,” Keane replied.

I'm not sure why Representative Skelton doesn't want to "belabor" the point. It seems to me it could do with a bit of "belaboring." There are a lot of dead "young folks" because of such mistakes.

Saying "we just relied on bad intelligence" may be true but it's not an excuse. It was a decision.

In the case of post-invasion planning, the Bush administation, particularly the leadership within the Pentagon, had a choice between taking seriously the work done by the State Department or believing the intelligence coming from the likes of Ahmed Chalabi. Common-sense and best practice suggests that, even if you believed the INC "intelligence", then you still prepare for the worst. Isn't that what "seeing it through" actually means?

Instead, the Pentagon left the planning documents unread. They chose to rely on the word of various informants. Bad call as it turns out.

The bottom line is, the fact that that intelligence was faulty doesn't relieve anyone of any responsibility for the decisions they took.

The war didn't start itself.

Mysterious ways and means

Sorry, but this just ain't the sort of mindset I want in the White House:

President Bush met privately with a group of Old Order Amish during his visit to Lancaster County last Friday. He discussed their farms and their hats and his religion.

He asked them to vote for him in November.

The Amish told the president that not all members of the church vote but they would pray for him.

Bush had tears in his eyes when he replied. He said the president needs their prayers. He also said that having a strong belief in God is the only way he can do his job.

...At the end of the session, Bush reportedly told the group, “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.’’

"Lower taxes on the rich, George," the Lord whispered into the President's ear. "Invade Iraq. Install Allawi. Say flip-flop a lot. Don't talk with the NAACP. Have your lawyers carefully define torture and how you don't have to obey the constitution or the Geneva conventions. Never admit your mistakes. And George, under no circumstances go to any funerals for those who've died in Iraq."

ELSEHWERE: Omnium has further discussion.

Iraqn

Give or take a letter--that is, a mere one twenty-sixth of the entire alphabet--the Bush administration's ongoing insistence that there was active cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda is about to be vindicated by the 9/11 Commission report:

Next week's much anticipated final report by a bipartisan commission on the origins of the 9/11 attacks will contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran-just weeks after the Administration has come under fire for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

A senior U.S. official told TIME that the Commission has uncovered evidence suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackers-that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengers-passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001. Sources also tell TIME that Commission investigators found that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guards-in some cases not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnel-and otherwise not harass them and to facilitate their travel across the frontier. The report does not, however, offer evidence that Iran was aware of the plans for the 9/11 attacks.

DICK CHENEY T-SHIRT: They change one lousy letter and try and pass it off as a whole other country.

Project for an old American century

A little while ago I suggested that:

...the biggest risk to the Bush administration is the following scenario: that there are sufficent conservatives throughout the country who are put off by his (Bush's) policies in a number of areas...that while they will not vote for Kerry, they will also not vote for Bush; that is, they'll stay home. On the other hand...there seem to be an enormous number of Democrats who are so appalled at Bush that they are not only going to vote for Kerry, they are going to organise for him and contribute and generally help to get out the vote. It is feasible, therefore, that the Dems will simply have a much better turnout than the GOP.

It's hardly vindication of this basically obvious suggestion, but given his credentials, it is interesting to note that Francis Fukuyama is one of those breaking ranks:

Famous academic Francis Fukuyama, one of the founding fathers of the neo-conservative movement that underlies the policies of US President George W. Bush's administration, said on July 13 that he would not vote for the incumbent in the November 2 US Presidential election.

In addition to distancing himself from the current administration, Fukuyama told TIME magazine that his old friend, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, should resign.

In 1997, Fukuyama together with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush, signed a declaration entitled 'The New American Century Project'. That declaration set the groundwork for the neo-conservative movement.

Fukuyama began to distance himself from the administration during the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. The tension between the two came to a head prior to the invasion of Iraq. Fukuyama opposed the war.

Fukuyama is still angry at the Bush administration since they refuse to admit to the mistakes they have made. Fukuyama had warned that after the war, Iraq would be dragged into an internal conflict and would export terror to the world.

Fukuyama said that because of those reasons he could not vote for Bush in the upcoming elections.

The Serpico factor

In these trying times, it's good to know your security is in the hands of minds such as these:

Beards are out. So are jeans and athletic shoes. Suit coats are in, even on the steamiest summer days.

That dress code, imposed by the Department of Homeland Security, makes federal air marshals uneasy - and not just because casual clothes are more comfortable in cramped airline seats. The marshals fear that their appearance makes it easier for terrorists to identify them, according to a professional group representing more than 1,300 air marshals.

...Federal air marshals must have neatly trimmed hair and men must be clean-shaven, the documents say. Some of the service's 21 field offices have mandated that male officers wear suits, ties and dress shoes while on duty, even in summer heat. Women are required to wear blouses and skirts or dress slacks. Jeans, athletic shoes and noncollared shirts are prohibited.

....Documents and memorandums issued by the Department of Homeland Security and field offices of the Federal Air Marshal Service say air marshals must "present a professional image" and "blend unnoticed into their environment." Some air marshals have argued that the two requirements are contradictory.

It's not the suits that worry me so much. It's the badges that say I'm an air marshal ask me how that I think could be a bit of a giveaway.

Housekeeping

Seem to have had another bunch of spam attacks over the last few days, including this evening. MT Blacklist is helping, but I managed to delete a few comments that weren't spam. If yours was amongst them, apologies. All I can do is suggest that you repost.

Movement at the station

I guess I should've mentioned this earlier, but in an incredible display of his commitment to a free Iraq, the US alliance, and the war on terror, Australian prime minister John Howard has committed another 30 personnel to Iraq.

Go, man of steel.

(Oh yeah, and Russia is thinking of sending a few too.)

COMPLETELY UNRELATEDLY: Good point

Joseph Wilson 10

As I was one of those who criticised Joseph Wilson for what appears to be lying, let me link to his rebuttal of the accusations levelled at him via the Senate Intelligence Committee report into pre-war intelligence. I haven't read it yet (only skimmed), but I'll tell you if I still think he has a case to answer once I get through it and get a chance to post.

There's also this summary of the case for the defence.

Meanwhile, can I point out that even if the charges against Wilson are ultimately found to false or exaggerated that Michael Moore is still fat.

See the new boss

Same as the old boss?:

Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad major crimes unit just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim Government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the executions.

I think we can safely expect to see more, one way or another, on this.

Here's an interview with journalist Paul McGeough about his story.

UPDATE: With no further confirmation to the story in sight, the usual suspects are already spinning this, just in case:

Watch for Western media to seize on this as the next big scandal out of Iraq.

Yep. Damn media. Trust them to turn this into a "scandal." Won't they ever learn? A scandal is when Joseph Wilson is accused of lying. But when the person the US installed as the leader of Iraq as part of their efforts to get rid of the previous murderous leader and their much-self-vaunted project of "bringing democracy to the Middle East" is alleged to have lined up some prisoners and shot them dead, then that's just a beat up.

Still:

But the story, if true, is not surprising.

Well, it's a little surprising, isn't it? It's not every day the person we laud as the great democratic hope of a the first reverse domino in the democratisation of the Middle East gets accused of summarily executing prisoners. Not a tad surprised?

Anyway, let's look on the bright side:

By yanking out a gun and personally executing these holy warriors on the spot, he sent two important messages: 1) he is not an American, and 2) he is not to be messed with. If true, it was a smart move. He’s not going to stay in power by acting like a delicate Westerner, asking the captured mujahideen if they need extra pillows for their cells.

Oh, I think he sent a few more messages than that if that's what he did. But let's make something absolutely clear:

Does this mean I approve? No, of course not. But I don’t live in Iraq.

Okay. "If true, it was a smart move/I do not approve." Got it. I do not approve of smart moves.

Look out kid, it's something you did

Tony Blair is right to note that the invasion he joined on the basis of faulty intelligence meant the end of Saddam Hussein (and that's a good thing^TM). What he is less keen to admit is that it also meant the rise and rise of the terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi and his ilk.

As the Butler report notes, Zaqawi was ready and waiting for the invasion and saw it for the opportunity it was (p.134):

482. Following the expulsion of Al Qaida from Afghanistan and their arrival in northern Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi (a senior Al Qaida figure) was relatively free to travel within Iraq proper and to stay in Baghdad for some time. Several of his colleagues visited him there. In October 2002, the JIC said that:

Although Saddam’s attitude to Al Qaida has not always been consistent, he has generally rejected suggestions of cooperation. Intelligence nonetheless indicates that . . . meetings have taken place between senior Iraqi representatives and senior Al Qaida operatives. Some reports also suggest that Iraq may have trained some Al Qaida terrorists since 1998. Al Qaida has shown interest in gaining chemical and biological (CB) expertise from Iraq,but we do not know whether any such training was provided. We have no intelligence of current cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaida and do not believe that Al Qaida plans to conduct terrorist attacks under Iraqi direction. [JIC, 10 October 2002]

483. By March 2003, the JIC was able to add further information that al Zarqawi’s activities might be of military significance:

Reporting since [February] suggests that senior Al Qaida associate Abu Musab al Zarqawi has established sleeper cells in Baghdad, to be activated during a US occupation of the city. These cells apparently intend to attack US targets using car bombs and other weapons. (It is also possible that they have received CB materials from terrorists in the KAZ.) Al Qaida-associated terrorists continued to arrive in Baghdad in early March. [JIC, 12 March 2003]

Butler also inserts, with his own empahsis, what we'll call the Dick Cheney clause:

484. We conclude that the JIC made clear that, although there were contacts between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaida, there was no evidence of cooperation. It did warn of the possibility of terrorist attacks on coalition forces in Baghdad.

It is information like this that makes Tony Blair's response to the Butler report so disingenous. On the one hand "he defends himself against an accusation which no one makes, that he acted in bad faith," as Douglas Hurd puts it; while on the other, he willfully ignores the actual consequences of his actions.

The irony is, this was one bit of decent intelligence the coaltion had but they didn't act on it, as is evidenced by their failure to adequately prepare for the sort of attacks Zaqawi was known to be planning.

(This on a tip-off from Julia.)

Seen and Hurd

Pretty devastating account of Tony Blair from former British Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd:

We should be used to it by now. The prime minister stands at the despatch box, radiating his personal brand of righteousness, using every trick of the trade to justify what cannot now be justified. He defends himself against an accusation which no one makes, that he acted in bad faith. We all know that he deceived himself first. He says that he accepts the Butler report, but at the same time holds to the decision to invade Iraq; but the report finally knocks away the main argument he gave us for that decision.

We all now bring our own baggage to the argument. I have opposed the war all the way through. But I have combined this with some personal admiration for the prime minister and support for what he is attempting in Europe. But after yesterday, I do not see how anyone who cares for the good name of this country can support a party that he leads.

Let us look at the scene as coolly as we can....

I'm sure some will say, oh well, as a former Conservative politician he would say that, wouldn't he? and that might be true. But it misses the point. Have a read of the whole article and see what you make of it. My take on Blair's culpability is below.

UPDATE: There was also the fact of the by-elections in Britain yesterday which some are taking as a test of Blair's current standing:

A good hour before the first by-election result came through last night it was clear that Labour was heading for defeat in a previously rock solid Leicester seat and had hung on the narrowest of margins in Birmingham.

For Labour to lose nearly all of its 11,618 majority in Birmingham Hodge Hill, by a mere 460 votes, was a near disaster. But the defeat in Leicester South was a bigger bodyblow. The Lib Dems, claiming a narrow victory before the result had been declared, made a powerful build on their strong local election performance by turning over the substantial 13,000 Labour majority.

Tony Blair appeared to have avoided the worst outcome of all, the loss of two seats in these critical twin by-elections. But it was also evident that disaffection with Labour has become rooted in the public mind and, after suffering a severe kicking in the local and European elections, the prime minister cannot claim to have put his troubles behind him.

The significance of the result, at the end of a difficult week for Mr Blair, cannot be understated. Voters going to the polls yesterday would have had plenty of time to digest the findings of Lord Butler's inquiry into Iraqi weapons intelligence - and the newspaper headlines that slated the prime minis ter over the now familiar issue of trust.

The question of Mr Blair's credibility, which ever since Britain joined the US-led invasion of Iraq has bubbled beneath the surface of political debate, is once again at the fore of public consciousness. And those people in Hodge Hill and Leicester South who were already inclined to reject Labour may have found more reason to switch to Liberal Democrat after Butler.

The interesting thing, I think, is that no matter how badly people think of Blair, they still basically prefer his Labor government to that of the alternative, the Conservatives, and so are maybe caught between a rock and a hard place: a desire to punish Blair for his role in the Iraq invasion--which a majority of Brits opposed before we ever discovered the, um, problems with the intelligence--and a complete lack of faith in the Tories as an alternative government.

Like his counterparts in the US and Australia, Blair is therefore partially insulated from the consequences of his actions by people's pragmatic judgement that the alternatives aren't up to the job.

This perception may well be changing in Australia and the US, but these British by-election results show that the Tories are still on the nose in Britain (Margaret Thatcher's real legacy). People seem to be turning to the Liberal-Democrats as an alternative to Labour, but whether they can be a viable force in a general election as opposed to a by-election, is still difficult to judge. Seems unlikely, I must say.

Anyway, it's a pretty sad state of affairs when we are constantly in the position of choosing between the lesser of x evils.

UPDATE 2: It raises the question as to why oppositions and alternative governments in these Western democracies are so weak (or why they have tended to be so weak over the last decade).

On the surface at least, it seems to that the advantages of incumbency are vast in modern, media driven electorates. Having the resources of government at your disposal in order to "shape" and "get out" your message and to have the overwhelming access to media that incumbency brings is such that it is increasingly difficult for oppositions to compete.

In such an environment, the role of an independent media is crucial but, given the parasitic relationship that almost inevitably develops between the source of the news and the disseminator of it, it is almost impossible for them not to be coopted by whomever is in power.

No wonder things like blogs spring up as a sort of adaptive mutation as the democratic system tries to protect itself.

See it while you can

A dog-bites-man website. More information here. Brilliant detective work here discovers a Labor connection! Imagine. Apparently some Howard supporters are behind this site.

Free trade R us 2

The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement just went through the US Senate, 80 votes in favour to 16 against. Another overwhelming result, much better than the Howard government would have anticipated, I'm guessing. Senator Clinton voted in favour; not entirely surprising. Senators Kerry and Edwards were absent thus avoiding a potential schism. Kerry has come out in favour of the FTA, while Edwards has spoken against it.

It will be signed into law by President Bush in the next few days. Wonder if the PM will do a quick visit? Probably should given this is the biggest bilateral event since ANZUS. Maybe after the Australian Senate passes it? Which I'm presuming they will. The "relationship" being what it is in the current pre-election environment, I think Mark Latham might be snookered on this one.

A rumour of war

I have to come back to Tony Blair and his speech yesterday in response to the Butler report (pdf).

The prime minister's speech is a dishonest and shifty parsing of the arguments that should break the heart of anyone who believes that the war on terror is in part a battle of ideas. I do not buy into the proposition that such a war is a "clash of civilisations", but I do definitely believe that the threat posed by international terrorism of the al-Qaeda variety provides the sort of test of democratic values that will determine how seriously we take the values that we claim to be fighting for in that war. Tony Blair's response to the Butler report is simply proof that, in the face of a such a threat, our political leaders and their apologists are all too ready to surrender those values in the name of some probably genuine, but to my mind misplaced, notion of security. I'm not even sure secuity is the right word here. Mr Blair is hiding behind and exploiting the sort of "what if" argumentation that only works when people feel that "everything has changed." This in turn is a mere trundle down the slippery slope to the place where "anything goes."

Well, plenty has changed, but not everything.

Making Whoopi pay

So Slim Fast has sacked Whoopi Goldberg for using the lamest pun in politics. The headline should read: Comedian tells joke. Loses job. Anyway, speaking of headlines, I hope Slime Fast pull all their advertsing from this station after they produced this headline on their website:

Rosie Takes Shot At Bush During Gay-Friendly Cruise

As MelbourneLefty says, for shame.

From here to fraternity

Good news for those who like to make light of the abuses and torture at Abu Ghraib! Just when you thought there were no more jokes to make about it, it seems Seymour Hersh has given speech claiming that the Pentagon has videos of boys being sodomized. If true, that's gotta be good for a bunch of one-liners and a whole lot of comments about how its all just an attempt to make Bush look bad, that it doesn't really matter, and that it isn't as bad as Saddam anyway.

GEE: All the usual apologists have gone awfully quiet.

UPDATE: Sean-Paul makes a suggestion as to why the story has started up again, apart from Hersh's speech. While you're there, he also has a longer post up a possible new Director for the CIA. Some people are making incredible suggestions.

Who cares?

With the Bush twins on the campaign trail, I hope we don't have to put up with too many "stories" like this. Good grief.

Free trade R us

The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement has just passed the House of Representatives in the US Congress. It received 314 votes in favour; 109 against, a huge margin by any standard and a big victory for the Howard government.

The Senate Finance Committee also voted 17-4 in favor of the agreement.

The US Senate vote on the bill has been brought forward to tomorrow and it will almost certainly be passed.

That means it will now be up to the Australian parliament as to whether they pass it, or more specifically, the Australian Senate, as it is bound to get through our House of Reps on a party-line vote. I guess the pressure is right on the Labor Party to now announce what they are going to do.

I watched it on C-Span so no links, but this search will bring up the necessary.

Accountability 101

Prime Minister Tony Blair
Statement on the Butler Report
14 July 2004

Everyone genuinely tried to do their best in good faith for the country in circumstances of acute difficulty.

Oh, well, that's all right then. You went to war on the basis of intelligence that was completely wrong and you therefore misled the entire country but you did it in good faith. As long as you tried to do your best. That's all that matters. Good for you. Carry on.

Let's put that another way: al Qaeda "do their best in good faith" as far as they're concerned. It ain't an excuse.

Or to put it yet another way.

ELSEWHERE: Ken Parish brings some novelty to the discussion. I like the bit where he calls me a Labor "barracker" in order to suggest I'm being partisan for suggesting Tony Blair be held accountable for going to war on the back on bad intelligence. Just have a quiet giggle to yourself about that logic. Other than that, Ken offers an interesting discussion of the "evolving" concept of Westminster responsibility, though again, "evolution" is pretty funny word to use to describe a process of wilful destruction by the political equivalent of a Jurassic meteor shower.

And don't miss Chris's post on the same subject.

Election 2004 Part 4

We've joked before about John Howard waiting for "another Tampa" before calling the election, but one realistic scenario that doesn't bear thinking about and that doesn't bear not thinking about is that there might be a terrorist attack in Australia or a nearby country sometime between now and the election. None of us want that, obviously, but Madrid shows it is possible and recent warnings from the US government indicate they think it likely to happen in the US. So if the unthinkable eventuates, how does the politics play out? Do people figure this is no time to change governments, or do they blame the Howard for government for failing to protect them? I must admit I have no idea what the answer might be, so any thoughts are welcome.

AND ALSO: A Cabinet shuffle on the eve of an election? Way to promote a sense of stability. And the prime minister has started doing stand-up:

"These changes will further invigorate the government and demonstrate the depth of talent available to the coalition," Mr Howard said.

"These changes will maintain the sense of forward-looking and continuity of the government," Mr Howard said.

The changes would not spell any marked difference in policy for the government.

"In areas like communication, our policy is well settled," he said.

"As long as the captain is tried and true and experienced and knows where he is going."

An "invigoration" that means absolutely no change because the "captain" decides everything anyway. Thankyou very much, you've been a wonderful audience.

Entrails

Paul Kelly's assessment of the significance of the move of Kim Beazley back to the Labor frontbench in the Defence portfolio is pretty good:

It is folly to think all Latham's foreign policy problems are solved. The Coalition will argue that Latham as leader, not Beazley as defence spokesman, is the issue. But this week Latham has made a basic change of direction. It assists Labor's national security standing; it alters the internal power balance within a future ALP government; it reassures the US and gives Labor fresh clout in Asia. And, by the way, it helps Labor in Western Australia, where it has been looking fragile. Overall, this is one of the smartest things Latham has done - just in the nick of time.

And this raises a further point. The head-to-head in the area of defence-security is now Latham/Howard; Rudd/Downer; Beazley/Hill. Given that a Coaliton victory means a Costello challenge and a likely victory for Costello (I'm presuming the Libs aren't going to want to risk a protracted leadership battle between the pretender and a man who will be 70-odd at the following election), then you are feasibly looking at Latham/Costello; Rudd/Downer; and Beazley/Hill. Even if you allow for the fact of a Costello reshuffle (thus the end of Downer and Hill), who have the Libs got to match Rudd and Beazley, both of whom really are specialists in their areas? Is there anyone coming through? If defence-security really is a key concern for voters, they might just want to consider such potential scenarios.

PS: Is it just my imagination or has the campaign finlly settled down after having got all the silly "personal" stuff out of its system, or do you think there is just a bit of a lull after the overkill of the Latham "revelations" and his now-famous press conference? I mean, I guess we continue to have the nonsense of not knowing when the election is and we can expect ongoing bouts of Howard-fed speculation about that, but other than that, are we back onto relatively serious topics?

Colour blind

More evidence that the Bush administration would rather play politics and window-dress than do something useful:

The federal government's color-coded threat system is too vague and confusing to help many local and state law enforcement officials prepare for possible terrorist attacks, congressional investigators found Monday in a report that prompted leading members of Congress to call for an overhaul.

The report by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, cited widespread concern among federal, state and local officials about the quality and timing of threat information they received from the Homeland Security Department. A survey sent to 84 agencies, states and U.S. territories as part of the study found that vague and inadequate warnings had "hindered their ability to determine whether they were at risk" and what protective measures to take in response, the report said.

But other than hindering "their ability to determine whether they were at risk" it's apparently a really great system.

(You can read the whole report here as a pdf file, or here as a text file. The summary is here.)

Bin and gone

Remember the other day when Homeland Security guy Tom Ridge was warning us about slightly imminent attacks?:

A plot to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States in the near future is being directed by Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda members, senior intelligence officials said Thursday.

Bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are overseeing the attack plans from their remote hideouts somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, according to senior intelligence officials.

"This type of plotting, this type of operational activity, is being done with the direct direction and authorization of that senior leadership," said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

So the plans are being hatched by bin Laden on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

And here's the President yesterday talking about what a good job his administration is doing:

First, we are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy. We will confront them overseas so we do not have to confront them here at home.

Let's forget for a moment how offensive it is for the President to say he's glad all the fighting is going on in other people's countries and just consider his claim that this means they are "taking the fight to the enemy." No you're not, Mr President. You have the vast bulk of your military force in Iraq as part of an ongoing effort that has merely encouraged terrorists, not deterred or stopped them. You are not taking the fight to them; you are creating the conditions in which they can thrive. They are taking the fight to you.

What's more, you specifically withdrew your troops from Afghanistan where the murderers of 3,000 people were located to go after someone who was not an immediate threat to anyone and thus you left in place the very people you now say are planning to launch further 9/11-style attacks on the US (and who knows where else). How is this a good outcome, something to boast about?

Someone is either lying about the location and operations of bin Laden and co. or the whole "war on terror" is being run by a bunch of incredible incompetents.

Let Bob Herbert explain:

If we know that bin Laden and his top leadership are somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and that they're plotting an attack against the United States, why are we not zeroing in on them with overwhelming force? Why is there not a sense of emergency in the land, with the entire country pulling together to stop another Sept. 11 from occurring?

Why are we not more serious about this?

Well?

BTW: Conspiracy theorists like to speculate on the chance of an "October surprise", that the administration has bin Laden on ice somewhere and is waiting for a expedient moment to wheel him out. Given a choice between this (that he's on ice somewhere) and the possibility that they simply don't know where is and aren't really expending a full effort in finding him, we should all be hoping for the October surprise. Capturing bin Laden is an unalloyed good whenever it happens.

UPDATE: This is good news if it pans out:

A confidant of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden surrendered to Saudi diplomats in Iran and was flown to the kingdom Tuesday, a potentially valuable asset in the war on terrorism because of his closeness to bin Laden.

The man, Khaled bin Ouda bin Mohammed al-Harby, also known as Abu Suleiman al-Makky, was shown on Saudi TV being pushed in a wheelchair through the Riyadh airport. He is the most important figure to surface under a Saudi amnesty promising to spare the lives of militants who turn themselves in.

...A senior U.S. official who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity described al-Harby as “part of the bin Laden posse, a confidant and sounding board, but not an operational player.” He is not likely to have current information about al-Qaida plans, the source added.

No pressure, just write another report

You cannot read the Senate intelligence report into the CIA failures that led to the invasion of Iraq without scratching your head that the committee could conclude that no political pressure was brought to bear on intelligence officers. There a number of times within the report (and I haven't read it all) where it is clear that officers were encouraged to re-examine their conclusions to see if they couldn't come up with something else. As one of the committee members explains:

Regrettably, the report paints an incomplete picture of what occurred during this period of time. The Committee set out to examine ten areas of investigation relating to pre-war intelligence on Iraq and we completed only five in this report. The scope of our investigation was divided in a way so as to prevent a complete examination of all the matters within the Committee's jurisdiction at one time.

The central issue of how intelligence on Iraq was used or misused by Administration officials in public statements and reports was relegated to the second phase of the Committee's investigation, along with other issues related to the intelligence activities of Pentagon policy officials, pre-war intelligence assessments about post-war Iraq, and the role played by the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmad Chalabi, which claims to have passed "raw intelligence" and defector information directly to the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President.

As a result, the Committee's phase one report fails to fully explain the environment of intense pressure in which Intelligence Community officials were asked to render judgments on matters relating to Iraq when policy officials had already forcefully stated their own conclusions in public.

So anyone who is jumping up and down saying that the report proves there was no pressure from the administration on intelligence officers, or that it exonerates the administration from applying such pressure, or that it places all the blame on the CIA is being patently dishonest.

Welcome home

This will no doubt outrage all those fine conservatives who cheered the turning away of the Tampa:

Thousands of refugees on temporary protection visas will be allowed to stay permanently in Australia, after federal cabinet agreed to a radical overhaul of the Government's asylum seeker rules yesterday.

It is understood the Government will announce as early as today that most of the 9000 temporary protection visa holders, many of whom have been living in the community for more than three years, will be able to apply for permanent residency.

The dramatic softening of the temporary protection rules comes after intense lobbying from the backbench and from within cabinet.

I also love this line at the end of the article:

The change of heart has been made possible, however, by the reduction in the number of boat people arriving over the last three years.

But, but, but......if I remember the propaganda correctly, this "change of heart" will send a message to the people smugglers that we are soft on "illegals." Oh no, what are we going to do? John Howard has gone soft on border control.

Actually, the reduction in numbers probably has little to do with the "change of heart" - that's just face-saving spin for a government that has just executed an enormous backflip. This is probably closer to the truth:

According to some Coalition backbenchers, the temporary protection issue has become a sticky one for the Government in marginal electorates in Victoria, where the Coalition is polling poorly in the countdown to the federal election.

How cynical!

I think it also highlights the disgusting capitulation of the Labor Party during the last election. It shows that the case could've been made that the government was overreacting and merely trying to use the issue as a wedge. Had Beazley held his nerve and had a higher opinion of the average Australian's common sense and sense of decency, he could have called the prime minister's bluff. Just as Bob Brown and Peter Andren did.

Both parties should apologise, especially to those they demonised--overtly or covertly--as "illegals."

Afghanistan, mon amour

Further evidence that the decision to prematurely invade Iraq left Afghanistan vulnerable, this time the information coming straight from the mouth of the man the US installed as the leader of that country, a leadership that clearly extends no further than the the city of Kabul:

President Hamid Karzai said Sunday that Afghanistan's private militias had become the country's greatest danger — greater than the Taliban insurgency — and that new action was required to disarm them.

...Asked to rate his government on how well it had achieved its goals, Mr. Karzai offered the barely passing grade of D. He said that corruption remained rampant and that the failure of the disarmament program was a source of keen anxiety among the people.

Out of the 60,000 armed militiamen, only 10,000 have been disarmed and demobilized, and the program has stalled rather than accelerated in recent months. The hope now is to disarm 60 percent to 70 percent of the militias before the new parliamentary elections in April 2005, the leader of the joint election commission, Zakim Shah, said Saturday.

Mr. Karzai said the struggle with the warlords would be decisive, suggesting that his government and society were at a turning point.

The invasion of Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban was a just cause. And as Karzai notes, there have been some improvements over the last few years, though only the sort of moral relativists who argue that the abuse at Abu Ghraib doesn't matter because it "wasn't as bad as Saddam" will want to argue that Afghanistan is doing well because it is better than when the Taliban were in charge. The failure of the Bush administration to finish the job, to withdraw troops for the invasion of Iraq, and thus allow Afghanistan to turn into the sort of failed state that Karzai is describing, is a total indictment of them and further evidence that they (the administration) are not to be trusted to run the "war on terror."

PM in hiding?

The only thing more obvious than the fact that Australian prime minister John Howard should apologise for the intelligence failure that formed the basis of his case for taking the country to war is that he won't apologise. In fact, he sent one of his minions out on the weekend to say that he wouldn't be apologising:

But the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, Mal Brough, said calls for the Government to apologise were ridiculous.

"Every country in the world that signed up to (the United Nations Security Council's) resolution 1441 agreed and was of the belief that there was in fact weapons of mass destruction," Mr Brough told the Seven Network.

"And let's not kid ourselves, there have been - and as recently as this week - rounds found with chemical warheads, there have been programs found and so therefore the Iraq regime, Saddam Hussein, was in direct contravention of these resolutions."

Mr Brough said "at the time the Labor Party fully agreed" about the intelligence produced.

"Now intelligence is just that, it's a gathering of information and making the best of it."

All of which is highly irrelevant. The fact is, the government sent the country to war for a reason that now turns out to be wrong and they should acknowledge that. To refuse to do so is to hold the Australian people in contempt.

The other interesting thing to note here is that it was Mal Brough who was sent out to decline the offer to apologise and argue that there was no need for it. Mal Brough? What happened to the prime minister? The prime minister who made this statement about leaders taking responsibility a mere month ago?:

I think one of the things Mr Latham has got to do is have the courage to actually explain his policies. He’s getting away with this mono-syllabic response, he puts out a statement, he says I’m against the Government, but he never… I mean, he should go into more… he should actually engage the Australian public and try and explain to them. I mean I’ve engaged the Australian public. I made a major speech a couple of weeks ago. I continue to argue the case. I’ll be making another major speech on foreign affairs at the end of next week, in which I will deal again with the Iraqi issue and other issues as well. I think one of Mr Latham’s responsibilities is to actually walk up to the crease and start explaining why he has this attitude, not sort of just think he can slide around it and deal with it by staccato criticisms of the Government.

It'd be nice to hear directly from the prime minister as to why it doesn't matter that the intelligence was wrong. It'd be nice if he would actually "walk up to the crease" and explain his lack of concern instead of wheeling out the "minister assisting the minister for defence."

================================

Incidentally, Mark Latham made a major speech yesterday setting out Labor's policy on dealing with terrorism.

This Is A Test

As you already know, the site will be undergoing a few changes soon. This probably means various disruptions to the posts/archives/trackbacks/comments/everything over the next few weeks.

As such, please feel free to ignore this post, which is designed purely to test out some styles.

• This is a list. A list it is


• This is a list. A list it is


• This is a list. A list it is

1. This is a list. A list it is


2. This is a list. A list it is


3. This is a list. A list it is

Mind if I type something here? Okay, go ahead! No, I don't want to any more! Why not? Because it seems silly! Fine, whatever you say! No, whatever you say. No, whatever you say. Bah!
That was a very silly idea. I agree.

Dude looks like a liberal

Rick Perlestein has a Boston Review essay up about the future of the Democrats and it is well worth a read. It's unfair to extract a single quote from such a major essay, but this is an interesting point:

Here’s a riddle: what is a swing voter? More and more, it is an American who thinks like a Democrat but refuses to identify as one.

There's an elephant of truth in this that is well worth discussing and it holds--with equivalent labels--in Australia too. It is the very riddle Mark Latham is currently trying to solve with his "values" talk and his "ladder of opportunity" stuff.

BTW: Howard Fineman said on telly this morning that Ron Reagan Jr was scheduled to speak at the Democratic Convention. Might be the very way to get some of those swing voters to identify as Democrats.

REPUBLICAN T-SHIRT: The Dems got Ron Jr. for their convention and all we got was this lousy Zell Miller

Joseph Wilson 9

It seems to me that if you call your book The politics of Truth: Inside the lies that led to war and betrayed my wife's CIA identity then you set yourself a pretty high standard for, well, telling the truth. That's what Ambassador Joseph Wilson called his book about his experience investigating the Niger yellowcake claims and the subsequent outing of his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame. And he seems not to have maintained anything like the standard of truth that he expects from others:

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

Well, he can stand by his assertion as much as he likes, but it is far from convincing. Here are the relevant sections from the Senate intelligence committee report that seem to list quite clearly that Wilson's wife did propose his name:

B. Former Ambassador

(BLANKED OUT) Officials from the CIA's DO Counterproliferation Division (CPD) told Committee staff that in response to questions from the Vice President's Office and the Departments of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, CPD officials discussed ways to obtain additional information. (BLANKED OUT) who could make immediate inquiries into the reporting, CPD decided lo contact a former ambassador to Gabon who had a posting early in his career in Niger.

(BLANKED OUT) Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact, the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12.2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, ''my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable (BLANKED OUT) requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

(BLANKED OUT) The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf (BLANKED OUT) The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region (BLANKED OUT). Because the former ambassador did not uncover any information about (BLANKED OUT) during this visit to Niger, CPD did not distribute an intelligence report on the visit.

The thing is, there is nothing wrong, as far as I can see, with his wife putting his name forward: he was a logical and justifiable choice for the job at hand. I think I can see why he might want to deny a connection in that people were suggesting there was something improper about her involvement in the selection. But being able to understand his concerns is not the same as accepting that he seems to have lied about what he knew. As I said, if you want to go on the public record and maintain that you are only after the truth, then you have set your own standards and you need to either justify your subsequent comments very convincingly or apologise for them.

I guess we should also consider the possibility that Wilson's wife lied to him about whether she put his name forward. Presumably she is his source for this assertion? One imagines that the nature of her work called on her to routinely lie about what she was doing, or to pass on information only on a needs-to-know basis, and that she mightn't have thought twice about saying she had nothing to do with it. That she let him go into print with this misinformation, though, seems pretty foolish. After all, there is no particular reason the Senate committee report quoted here would necessarily include the information about who suggested him for the job. Maybe she just decided to play the odds?

Regardless, Wilson should now come clean. That those baying for his blood would demand the same accountability from the administration is probably too much to ask.

ELSEWHERE: And while we're considering the details of the Senate report, I'm finding that in reading it, their conclusion that "no pressure" was bought to bear on intelligence analysts doesn't seem credible. I've got a few examples I'll probably mention later, but in the meantime, Laura Rozen has also collected some.

Public narrowcasting

Sam Ward is objecting to the fact that the ABC is going to show a documentary that includes footage of an abortion, suggesting that such a documentary is an argument against public broadcasting:

Advantages of being a media organisation funded entirely through the theft of other people's money: You can broadcast things that nobody on Earth wants to watch, and still get paid anyway...

It seems to me the complete opposite is true, that this is precisely the sort of show that a public broadcaster could be showing and that it falls well within the charter of public broadcasters likes the ABC and the BBC. Abortion and the arguments that go with it are an important public policy topic and whether you are pro-choice or anti-abortion having a better understanding of the process itself seems like a good idea. If you don't want to watch it, then no-one is forcing you to, but if a public braodcaster can provide this sort of choice then its a strong argument in favour of having a channel that is driven by something other than the goal of selling advertising space.

Incidentally, the woman who made the film, Julie Black, talks about her reasons for including the abortion footage in this article.

============

NOTE: This site has been running slow over the w'end, with comments either not working at all or not working very well. Apologies for that - hopefully it is okay now.