Written by veteran investigative reporter Bob Dreyfuss , The Dreyfuss Report offers readers the story behind daily headlines and policies pursued on behalf of national security.
August 11, 2004
Ayatollah Sistani, the scowly fatwa man who’s probably been on the Pentagon payroll, scuttled off to London this week, but it might not be because of heart problems. It now seems as if the old ayatollah just didn’t want to be in Najaf, Iraq’s “holy city,” while it being blown apart by U.S. soldiers. If that’s true, it means that Sistani ought to resign as Shiite-fundamentalist-in-chief, for sheer hypocrisy. It seems that Sistani’s mysterious departure gave the “green light” to U.S. forces to wipe out Muqtada Sadr’s rag-tag army, hidden in, of all places, the Najaf cemetery. Here’s a clip from the Washington Post this morning :
To close observers, the final signal for decisive battle came with the departure of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the senior Shiite cleric in Iran and a longtime opponent of Sadr, who is widely regard as an upstart. Sistani, who is famous for not having left his Najaf house in six years, traveled to London last week, just as the fighting with Sadr's militia erupted. The official explanation—treatment for a heart condition—brings a smile to the lips of U.S. commanders here.
"A lot of people think it's the green light for us to do what we have to do," said Maj. David Holahan, executive officer of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which has responsibility for Najaf.
By the way, does anyone really believe that massive offensives like the one in Najaf are being carried out by “sovereign” Iraq? It’s the U.S. occupation, continued—period. And as much as I delight in seeing Ahmed Chalabi trying to squirm away from the arrest warrant against him, it’s clear that it too is (as Chalabi says) a U.S. decision. That doesn’t mean that Chalabi isn’t close to his original patrons—the Pentacons, the Mossad and their Iranian friends. It only means that the current Iraqi bosses are listening a little more closely than before to the CIA-State Department axis that considered Chalabi a joke 10 years ago.
P.S. A lot more attention needs to be paid to Iraq-Iran relations. It’s a complicated tangle, overlaid by the neocons’ threats to make Iran “next.” Iran and Chalabi are in bed—well, more than in bed, they’re being “intimate” with each other—and various Iraqi officials are sending different signals about Baghdad-Teheran ties. In the latest twist, BBC reports that Iraq’s foreign minister has apologized to Iran for comments made by the Iraqi defense minister, who said that Iran was arming militias in the Najaf fighting. Here’s an excerpt from BBC :
The latest disagreement began on Monday when Mr Shalaan, Iraq's interim defence minister, told Dubai-based al-Arabiya television that Mr Sadr's militia was receiving weapons from Iran.
"Iran has left a fingerprint in Najaf. There are weapons made inside Iran that were found in Najaf in the hands of these criminals which have received these arms through the Iranian borders," he said. "Facts about what has happened to the Iraqi people show... that [Iran] is the number one enemy."
His Iranian counterpart Ali Shamkhani hit back on Tuesday, saying Mr Shalaan's comments showed he lacked the minimum qualifications for knowing the truth.
Later on Tuesday, Mr Kharrazi said he had discussed the matter with his own counterpart, Hoshyar Zebari, by telephone.
"The Iraqi foreign minister expressed regret and said [Mr Shalaan's comments] were not the official stance of the Iraqi government," he told the official IRNA news agency.
"Such remarks are designed to create an atmosphere of animosity between the Iraqi and Iranian nations... The Iraqi government must prudently stop this," he added.
Mr Kharrazi also said Tehran had invited interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to visit Iran.
August 10, 2004
The appointment of Porter Goss to head the CIA comes as no surprise, but if reform is on the agenda, Goss isn’t the man. During his tenure as head of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Goss shredded any last iota of oversight by the committee, turning it into a cheerleader for the agency were Goss once worked. Goss virtually pulled HPSCI out of the oversight business, repeatedly saying that he sees the committee’s role as a partner with the U.S. intelligence community, not as its overseer and watchdog. (The contrast with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is especially stark.) In my opinion, Goss has the potential to be the worst, most adventurous CIA chief since Bill Casey.
The sad thing is that the CIA didn’t really need a chieftain to get it through the elections, since its acting director, John McLaughlin, seems quite capable of getting us there. And it raises a question of tenure, since, if Kerry wins in November, he’ll have to decide whether to oust Goss or keep him on. Goss’ appointment could be one the shortest ever atop the agency, shorter even than James Schlesinger’s ill-fated months-long tour there in 1973.
At least Goss wants to go slow on implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which is one good thing to say about him.
|
 |
What you shouldn’t miss from today’s progressive blogosphere. We read the top political blogs and give you our choice of the day’s best entries.
Political Wire
August 11, 2004
From Political Wire:
Bush's Challenge
"President Bush must have a change in the dynamics and the fundamentals of this race if he is to win a second term," Charlie Cook writes. "The sluggishly recovering economy and renewed violence in Iraq don't seem likely to positively affect this race, but something needs to happen. It is extremely unlikely that President Bush will get much more than one-fourth of the undecided vote, and if that is the case, he will need to be walking into Election Day with a clear lead of perhaps three percentage points."
"This election is certainly not over, but for me, it will be a matter of watching for events or circumstances that will fundamentally change the existing equation — one that for now favors a challenger over an incumbent."
The Left Coaster
August 11, 2004
From The Left Coaster:
Bush And The Goss Trap
Pat Roberts then:
“Porter Goss? That trial balloon went up, and Sen. [John] Rockefeller [D-W.Va.] got out his BB gun and popped it out of the sky…We do not want a partisan fight right before the election…. Apparently, if you have the vice chairman firmly opposed to the nominee, I don’t think that’s a very good starting point.”
--July 14, 2004
Pat Roberts now:
"I don't think we can afford to wait…We have a known quantity. He has experience. He has expertise. I've known him for 16 years. I think he is a good pick."August 11, 2004
My, my, what a month makes, eh Pat?
Lis Bumiller runs a good piece in the Times this morning that shows several things:
First, when it all comes down to it, all GOP Senators are really toadies for the White House in an election year. Despite Roberts’ concerns of a month ago, he now suddenly wants Goss confirmed. Furthermore, GOP moderates like Olympia Snowe want him confirmed as well.
Second, Rove has found a way to use the 9/11 Commission report to be this year’s Department of Homeland Security political hammer against the Democrats. As Chuck Schumer of New York correctly observes, Democrats should not get drawn into a delaying tactic like they did in 2002 and be bludgeoned for allegedly being unconcerned about intelligence and national security by delaying or filibustering the Goss pick. In addition, the White House has created this environment of continual terror warnings and fear leading up to the elections, and Bush will use this for a variety of purposes. And the Post’s Mike Allen and Walter Pincus confirm that Bush made the pick for purely political reasons because Kerry had caught up to Bush in voters’ minds on the issue of national security, and Bush was more concerned with looking like he “was moving ahead” than with getting into a long debate about reform. And Slate’s Fred Kaplan notes that Goss will be little more than a political hack for Bush at the Agency, who cares very little about the curtailing of civil liberties in the alleged war on terror.
What should Democrats do? Despite the well-reasoned but politically tone-deaf advice from the New York Time editorial page, wherein they call for the confirmation to be put off until after the election, the Democrats should ask Goss all the tough questions about his past statements in the confirmation hearings, and get that on the record. What does Goss think about the 9/11 Commission recommendations? Does he think the White House misused the pre-war Iraq intelligence? Does he think the Agency should take the full blame for that? Does he want to retract some of the things he has said about Kerry? In light of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s recent whitewashed report on the Iraqi WMD intelligence, what assurances does Congress have that Goss won't politicize intelligence to serve Bush’s agenda? Would he knowingly shade, distort, or withhold intelligence from Congress to serve the President’s agenda? Why has reform legislation nearly identical to the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations been languishing in his committee for months?
More...
David Corn
August 10, 2004
From Capital Games:
Bush Jokes About Tax Dodgers
Does George W. Bush believe it's okay for rich people to avoid paying for taxes? Or does he think that it's just one of those inevitable facts of life that cannot be changed? At one of his "Ask President Bush" events--the faux townhall meetings his campaign arranges--Bush on Monday was talking about tax policy with a businesswoman who had been planted at the event. In fact, he asked her more questions than she asked him. During his exchange with her, he said,
"That's why you've got to be careful about this rhetoric, we're only going to tax the rich. You know who the--the rich in America happen to be the small business owners. That's what that means. Just remember, when you're talking about, oh, we're just going to run up the taxes on a certain number of people -- first of all, real rich people figure out how to dodge taxes. [Laughter.] And the small business owners end up paying a lot of the burden of this taxation."
That sounds like Bush was saying that since real rich people know how to duck the tax man, the government shouldn't bother trying to tax them. Now, how is it that Bush knows so much about these tax-dodgers? And if it is true that across the land rich folks are gaming the system, then why doesn't Bush want to change the tax code so that these citizens do not escape the IRS's net and small business owners obtain specific relief (if they need it)? Bush is arguing that since wealthy individuals know how to avoid paying their full share the government shouldn't even bother having higher rates for millionaires because those rates only end up applying to small business owners. But waitaminute: don't small business owners have accountants as good as those retained by well-heeled individual filers? More importantly, why does Bush think it's funny that "real rich people"--who have benefited the most from his tax cuts--dodge taxes? And if he thinks these taxpayers (or nonpayers) are able to escape the burdens of the higher tax rates, why did he give them massive tax breaks?
Political Animal
August 09, 2004
From Political Animal:
BLOWN COVER....According to Condoleezza Rice, U.S. officials released the name of Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan to reporters on background last Sunday. On Monday, his name was printed in the New York Times and Khan's cover as a double agent was blown.
That's obviously bad enough, but there's a second question: did it matter? Or was Khan's usefulness already at an end anyway?
Today Juan Cole has the answer: Khan was in email contact with al-Qaeda agents in Britain on Monday and his exposure forced the premature arrest of an al-Qaeda cell in London:
The British MI5 was forced to have the London cell of 13 arrested immediately on Tuesday, fearing that they would flee now that they knew Khan had been arrested two weeks earlier. The British do not, however, appear to have finished gathering enough evidence to prosecute the 13 in the courts successfully.
It now turns out, according to Neville, that "Reports last week also claimed that five al Qaida militants were on the run in the UK after escaping capture in last Tuesday’s raids." If this is true, it is likely that the 5 went underground on hearing that Khan was in custody. That is, the loose lips of the Bush administration enabled them to flee arrest.
This pretty much answers my questions from Saturday: it was a Bush administration official who blew Khan's cover, no one appears to have seriously asked journalists not to use his name, and yes, Khan was still providing useful information.
These facts don't even appear to be in dispute anymore, and yet the story is still getting only minor attention. Why? What does it take to get the mainstream press interested these days?
Brad DeLong
August 06, 2004
From Brad DeLong:
Oy. Not Good
A bad employment report for July.
It is worth noting that the administration's forecast, made last winter, was that by this time payroll employment would be at 132.8 million--not the 131.3 million that it is actually at. Somebody should ask Bush todaywhat has gone so unexpectedly wrong to put employment 1.5 million lower than expectations in just half a year.
And somebody else should ask Bush today why he adopted a "jobs and growth" program of shifting taxes from the present into the future that got us only about half the bang per buck of deficit that we would have received from a normal Keynesian fiscal stimulus program. He didn't make the lousy labor market. But he and his team sure did pass up a lot of chances to buy insurance against the bizarrely weak job market we now find ourselves in.
Job growth weaker than expected - Aug. 6, 2004: Hiring by U.S. employers slowed significantly in July, according to a government report Friday, as the number of new jobs added to payrolls came in far below Wall Street expectations. The Labor Department report showed only 32,000 new net jobs added to payrolls during the month, down from a revised 78,000 jobs that were added in June. The increase was the smallest since December, when payrolls rose by just 8,000....
This is the second straight month of jobs growth far below economists' forecasts, following three months that showed strong jobs growth starting in March. The June report had initially showed 112,000 jobs added, rather the 250,000 forecast at that time. But Friday's report missed the target by even a wider margin.... Meanwhile bond prices soared and yields, which move in the opposite direction, fell amid expectations that the Federal Reserve will not raise interest rates as fast as previously expected. Several economists said Friday that the report should prompt the Fed to reconsider the widely expected quarter-point increase in interest rates at Tuesday's meeting.
"They would like to raise rates, but right now, keeping rates a little too low would cause the least harm in the economy," said Mark Vitner, senior economist at Wachovia Securities. "If they raise rates after this weak employment report, people will be hollering. George Bush would be hollering the loudest."...
Helena Cobban
August 05, 2004
Ed. Note: We at TP.c are keenly aware that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated significantly, but since the DoD doesn't "own" it anymore, the media doesn't cover it. We're trembling for our nation.
From Just World News
What a serious mea culpa looks like
... It looks like this. (Thanks to Yankeedoodle for signaling it.)
|
