Classified US military secrets for sale in Afghan bazaar

I saw this story earlier this week and thought it was a hoax. This is ridiculous.

But hey, Iran will be different. Read the rest of this post...

Make that 6 generals calling for Rumsfeld to be fired

While Rummy needs to go for the good of the country, I hate to see a good foil leave.

Even a better story in the NYT about this. Read the rest of this post...

Immigration reform is now tied to the "power of the presidency"

Uh-oh....it's bad enough that the GOP is calling the shots on immigration reform. If getting a half-way decent bill out of the Senate is left to Bush's power, there won't be any:

The White House is fast at work recalibrating how best to use the power of the presidency to save immigration legislation from languishing for the rest of the year, eager for a victory in what has been a difficult political season for President Bush.

Looks like it will be languishing. So far, the only tactic Bush has is to attack Harry Reid. Not a winning strategy. (see post below)

This passage is classic:

When White House aides alerted Mr. Bush that last-minute parliamentary procedures had scuttled Senate approval of compromise legislation late Thursday, he met them with disbelief.

Impatient with explanations of the technicalities, he wondered aloud how an agreement announced just that morning was suddenly dead, according to a meeting participant who was granted anonymity to speak freely about the encounter.

He wondered aloud? After all these years, Bush still doesn't understand how the legislative process works. It's too hard.

He wondered aloud. The man truly is an idiot. If the "participant who was granted anonymity" thought they were making the Prez look good with this little anecdote -- they were wrong. He looks like the fool that he is. The guy can't be trusted with anything -- even the basics. Read the rest of this post...

Hey W: Don't mess with Harry

Bush is getting in to the ring with the wrong Democrat when he takes on Harry Reid. Reid fights back. Hard:

"President Bush has as much credibility on immigration as he does on Iraq and national security. If he were actually committed to comprehensive immigration reform he would have stopped his own party from filibustering it twice last week.

"If the president is serious about moving forward, then he should join me in calling on Senator Frist to bring immigration reform back to the Senate Floor when we return. Hopefully by then, President Bush and his Majority Leader will have found the backbone to stop the extreme elements of the Republican Party from blocking improvements to America's security."

Bush has no cred. And, he has no backbone when it comes to the right wingers. That pretty much sums it up.

We need to see more of this...from more Democrats. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Off to grab a late dinner. Anything up? Read the rest of this post...

Bush administration tells ABC Iran could move quickly to a nuclear weapon. Gee, lying about WMD in order to spark a war. Sound familiar?

An anonymous US official told ABC today that "It is a very big deal [that Iran is enriching Uranium], and we fear they could try to move quickly to a nuclear weapon."

No offense to my mother, but that's a bit like saying my mom may move quickly to running the marathon. Yes, she may, but by the end of 8 blocks we'd probably need to carry her the rest of the way. Just because you say you're gonna try, doesn't mean you can do it. THE LATEST US INTELLIGENCE BEST ESTIMATE says Iran is 10 years away from being able to develop a nuke, period.

Radditz, to her credit, pointed out that the actual experts she talked to say Iran is 3 to 5 years away from producing a nuke. While she didn't bother mentioning that the best estimate from the US intelligence community, the folks who actually have access to the real info, is ten years.

Then ABC concludes with a great quote from a, yes anonymous, Bush official:

"What we're really scared of is what we don't know about the Iranians."

As BC wrote in the comments to this post,"I know so little about that hornets' nest... I must kick it!"

I am scared, really scared. Scared of an incompetent president rushing us into yet another unnecessary and dangerous war based on phony and/or incomplete evidence.

Does any of this sound familiar to anyone?

Mark my words, this is all about politics and Bush's falling approval ratings. Bush will send to congress, BEFORE the fall elections, a resolution authorizing the use of force agaist Iran. The resolution won't be necessary for years, probably like ten years, but then again, that's not really the point now is it. Read the rest of this post...

Missing link in human evolution found

There goes God again with that sick sense of humor, burying more bones in Africa and making them look 4 million years old when we all know the universe was created 6,000 years ago.

Silly God. Read the rest of this post...

5th retired general calls for Rumsfeld's resignation

Per CNN, via ThinkProgress. Read the rest of this post...

LA Times poll: Only 42% of Americans trust Bush on Iran

54% do not, per CNN.

Trust. It's about trust and competence, or the lack thereof.

More from the LA Times:

In a telling reflection of Bush's erosion in public support, 54% said they did not trust him to "make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran," while 42% of respondents said they trusted him to do so.

Public isn't per se against military action

Asked whether they would support military action if Iran continued to produce material that could be used to develop nuclear weapons, 48% of the poll's respondents, or almost half, said yes; 40% said no.

Air strikes might get public support, but not use of ground troops

In this month's Times/Bloomberg poll, when respondents were asked what kind of military action against Iran they would support if President Bush chose to act, 44% said they would support airstrikes but oppose the use of ground troops; 19% said they would support both airstrikes and ground troops; and 6% said they would support the use of ground troops alone.

I wonder what the poll numbers would do if you explained to the public exactly what kind of international terror network Iran has and what the consequences might be for every shopping mall, restaurant and bus in America. Then see how willing they are to have the US attack Iran. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Anything up? Read the rest of this post...

"16 Days" is the new "16 Words"

The Bush administration is trying to ratchet up the public perception of a “crisis” in Iran in order to divert attention from the president’s other problems and to create a wedge issue to divide Democrats before the upcoming congressional elections.

As with Iraq and Social Security, the administration is now outright lying about how urgent a crisis we face in Iran, and the question is whether we respond to this particular allegation and how.

BACKGROUND

Yesterday (Wednesday April 12), Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters in Moscow that Iran would only need 16 days to produce a nuclear weapon.

What Rademaker said is patently false. One defense specialist told me, "Yes, any American could become 70 years old in JUST ONE DAY - assuming of course that you're already 69 years and 364 days old."

The US intelligence community’s best and most-recent estimate is that Iran could possibly build a nuclear weapon in ten years, not 16 days.

Last year (2005), the US intelligence community did a top to bottom review (a National Intelligence Estimate) of Iran’s nuclear program. According to public reports, that review concluded that the previous estimate of Iran’s nuclear ability, which said that Iran could build a nuke in five years, was incorrect. The new study concluded that it would take Iran A MINIMUM of ten years (until 2015) to build a nuclear weapon, and even then only if everything went right. (Democrats need to request a copy of that NIE to see what it actually says.)

(Note: The Washington Post incorrectly stated in its editorial today that the minimum estimate in the most recent study is five years – that is untrue, according to the Post’s own reporting on this issue. The Post appears to be confusing the now-discredited five year timeline with the current best estimate of ten years.)

ANALYSIS

The Bush administration is doing with Iran exactly what they did with Iraq – selectively leaking incorrect intelligence to create the appearance of a crisis where there is none. The question remains whether we should ignore these falsehoods or attack them head on.

One could argue that by attacking the lie that Iran could have nukes in 16 days we play into the administration’s hands by, first, helping them make Iran the issue of the day, and second, by helping them spread the message that “some experts” think Iran could have a nuke in 16 days. While both are valid points, I believe we face a far greater danger by NOT responding to this allegation – the Republican noise-machine will most certainly repeat the “16 days” mantra until it becomes an accepted part of the debate (“some experts say…”).

Rather than ignore the lie, we should attack it head on and turn the issue around on Bush.

MESSAGE

1. Here we go again: The Bush administration is again lying about WMD.

The latest greatest determination of when Iran could acquire nukes is last year’s National Intelligence Estimate, period. There is no debate. A lone official at the State Department cannot reverse on a whim the findings of a massive review conducted by all the US intelligence agencies just last year. The Bush administration has taken a page out of their Iraq playbook. Selectively leak incorrect intelligence to convince the American people of an impending crisis.

We should capitalize on the current media interest in Bush having authorized the Libby leak (in which Libby leaked already-discredited intelligence about Iraq), and their interest in Bush having declared that we discovered “biological labs in Iraq” when in fact our intelligence had already determined that we found nothing. And let’s not forget the now-infamous “16 Words” in the State of the Union. “16 Days” is yet another example of the administration trying to trick the American public by selectively leaking intelligence assessments that they know to be of questionable truth.

2. If we believe the Administration that the “16 days” is true, then:

a. This is a bigger Bush intelligence failure than Iraq.

Just last year the entire Bush intelligence infrastructure determined that Iran was at a minimum of ten years away from building nukes. Now they realize they were wrong and Iran is only 16 days away? If that is true, then we have a catastrophic crisis of intelligence in this administration, a crisis that Bush failed to fix even after September 11 AND the Iraq WMD debacle. Why wasn’t it fixed? What is Bush waiting for? A mushroom cloud?

b. What has Bush been doing these past 5 years?

If Iran is 16 days away from building a nuclear weapon, and we’re only finding out now, five years into Bush’s term, then Bush has a lot of explaining to do as to why he waited five years to address this enormous crisis.

c. Where is the Republican Congress?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times… How many times does Bush have to get the facts wrong on a major threat to our national security before the Republican Congress provides sufficient oversight of this administration.

(And for the record, I didn't come up with the "16 words is the new 16 days." Though I'm not sure who did, it was one of those things you hear people saying.) Read the rest of this post...

Gay parents to show up with their kids at White House Easter egg roll next week

Good. And the religious right Republicans are flipping out. Double good. I'm sure they didn't like blacks making political statements in their swimming pools either. Too bad. Read the rest of this post...

Go see bloggers Markos and Jerome in your hometown

Markos and Jerome are currently on a book tour promoting their new book, Crashing the Gate - FYI they're in Phoenix and Tempe today.

They're hitting a LOT of towns, you guys should really go see them if they're in your town. I went to the book signing in DC, and it was packed. The audience was great, good question, lively, it was quite a good political discussion. I think you guys would enjoy it, and it's always good to show support for our own.

Today they're in Arizona, then next week in Boulder and Denver, then all over California, Utah, Tennessee, MN, WI, etc. Check out the list of book tour visits, you might find one in your state. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

News? Read the rest of this post...

Here is the Democratic message on Iran

[BUMP: I posted this late last night, but didn't want anyone to miss it since we post so often. If you've already read it, then scroll on down. Otherwise, I think this is important. Thanks, JOHN]

George Bush has decided to use Iran as a foil to help his sagging poll numbers and to help Republicans in the fall congressional elections. I'm going to discuss why this is true, and what the Dems should do about it.

Iran is ten years away from developing nukes.

I'll say it again, TEN YEARS away. That would be TEN YEARS at the earliest, according to the best estimate we have. And that's not according to some peacenik liberal, it's according to the best estimate of US intelligence.

From the US State Department's own Web site:

Iran is likely years away from producing weapons-grade plutonium or highly enriched uranium. Vice Adm. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2005 that Iran is expected to be able to produce a weapon early next decade. According to one report, the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran assesses that it will be ten years before Iran has a bomb.

What the report didn't bother mentioning is that the five year "sometime early next decade" estimate has now been overruled by this ten year estimate. Yes, the "according to one report" reference would be THE definitive federal government report on this issue, not just "one" report.

From the Washington Post's coverage of the new NIE estimate:

Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be "within five years" from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not.

The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before "early to mid-next decade," according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures.

Got a give a lying, corrupt and incompetent administration points for trying. And one more thing, that ten year estimate, that's the QUICKEST Iran could get nukes, not the estimate of when we EXPECT them to get nukes ("The timeline is portrayed as a minimum designed to reflect a program moving full speed ahead without major technical obstacles.")

So why, suddenly, in the second week of April, 2006, have we found ourselves in a media feeding frenzy of speculation over whether the US will be soon be launching a massive (possibly nuclear) attack on Iran to eliminate an "impending" nuclear threat that won't appear until 2015?

Iran is a convenient way to change the subject

The answer is that Iran is a convenient way for the Bush administration to get America's attention off of the Iraq debacle, rising gas prices, Valerie Plame, New Orleans lost, Republican corruption, the massive budget deficit, and a growing number of revelations of how Bush lied to the American people in trying to sell them on the Iraq war.

Start saber-rattling about how Iran is going to nuke America's babies, and people may very well forget all the other problems on their plate.

Bringing up Iran now is a convenient way to help Republicans in the fall congressional elections

There's a second benefit to this strategy as well. Bush can again look presidential - the strong leader taking on more evil dark-skinned false-god worshippers. Bush's hope is that all of this will help the Republicans sagging poll numbers, and thus help them retain the House and Senate in the fall.

Bush is also hoping that going to war in Iran, like the war in Iraq, will divide Democrats. Some Dems will have the courage to say publicly that the Bush administration can't be trusted with a war in Iran, while other Dems will fear looking too dove-ish if they take on Bush. All Bush and the congressional Republicans need to do is bring up the Iran war resolution in September, right before the elections, and hope the Democrats fall apart.

So how should Democrats respond to the issue of Iran's nuclear threat?

Let me suggestion a number of possible talking points and positions.

1. George Bush is the wrong man to be launching yet another war.

The same president who made a disaster out of the Iraq war now wants to launch another war with Iraq's neighbor, Iran. Bush has already proven he is incompetent at running an effective war. America simply cannot afford another rash Bush misadventure.

2) Slow down, we've got ten years.

America's intelligence community estimates that Iran is still ten years away from building a nuclear weapon. There is no reason we need to prepare for war in the next few months, or even before Bush's term runs out in 2008. Give diplomacy and the international community a chance. We've got years, not months.

3) Since we have ten years, we can at the very least wait seven months until the congressional elections this fall.

America needs a Congress that is going to look into Bush's claims about Iran's nuclear program and determine if those claims are even credible. The Republican-controled Congress has already shown that it is unwilling to provide any oversight on any matters involving the Bush administration. We need someone who isn't on George Bush's team to use their subpoena power to get administration officials under oath, review the evidence, and see if Bush is right this time around. That someone is a Democratically-controled Congress.

4) It is ridiculous to consider any congressional resolution on Iran until after the fall elections.

George Bush proved with Iraq that he has no intention of using diplomacy to avoid war. His first option is always to declare war, then ask questions later. It would be foolhardy and naive not to think that Bush would take any congressional Iran resolution and immediately use it to declare war prematurely. The resolution comes ONLY after we know the intelligence is right, that Bush is telling the truth, that we have exhausted ALL other options to avoid war.

And finally, NO resolution is considered until Congress has verified that our military has been given a real plan for victory and sufficien resources to achieve it. Such a verification will NEVER happen under a Republican Congress - they simply cannot politically oversee their own president. It can only happen with a Congress run by the other political party - and that means a Democratic Congress.

5) There is no reason we need to even go to war until Bush has left office.

George Bush has proven that he is unable to wage war effectively. We will have new presidential elections in 2008, a good eight years before Iran will have nukes according to our best estimates. We should wait until Bush leaves office before considering any possible military action against Iran. There is simply no reason to rush things and permit this administration to prove its incompetence in foreign and military policy once again.

6) Bush is the not the president we want exercising the nuclear option.

There are credible news reports that President Bush isn't just considering using nuclear weapons against Iran, but that he is strongly leaning towards that option. Regardless of one's opinion on such an option, George Bush has already proven that he is not competent to run a conventional war. It would be insane to trust him to run a nuclear war.

7) Bush either lied to us, or was unable to determine the truth, about Iraq's WMD program (which we now know didn't exist). Why should we believe claims from the same president and same intelligence agencies about Iran's WMD program? We need more than President Bush's assurances.

8) What military and what money are we going to use to launch a war against Iran?

Our troops are stuck in Iraq, and Bush says he refuses to withdraw them. So what troops are we going to use to invade Iran? And is America truly prepared to fight 3 wars at the same time? That has never been US military policy, at least not in the past several decades, to be able to fight a three-front war. Our military simply is not made to fight three wars simultaneously.

Just as importantly, Iraq has cost us over $300 billion, and the estimates of the total cost of the Iraq war is in the trillions. George Bush inherited a budget surplus when he came to office, he has now put the budget into a massive deficit. We simply no longer have the money, so how is Bush going to finance a massive invasion of Iran?

Incompetence comes at a cost. George Bush has run our military into the ground our and bankrupted our government, and now wants us to give him permission to do it all over again?

9) Why is it always us?

If Iran is such a threat, then why not let the Europeans and the Russians and the Chinese take care of it? Clearly none of those countries wants a nuclear Iran on their back porch. So why is it always America that has to give our money, our soldiers' lives, and our goodwill?

Conclusion

Having explained all of that, I think the Democrats' message and policy needs to be distilled into one single point. The Democrats always have ten pages of talking points, while the Republicans have a one-liner. We need a one-line, clear answer to the question: "Congressman, will you vote for or against the congressional resolution to authorize all necessary force against Iran?"

Here's a perhaps not short enough attempt:

Iran is ten years away from developing nuclear weapons. There is no discussion of America rushing into another premature war until either Bush leaves office, or Congress is able to provide effective oversight of, and can serve as a counter-balance to, the Bush administration's incompetence.

Your suggestions? Read the rest of this post...

Powell criticizes Bush/Rummy's handling of Iraq

Chicago Sun-Times:

"We made some serious mistakes in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad," Powell told a crowd of thousands at the McCormick Place conference. "We didn't have enough troops on the ground. We didn't impose our will. And as a result, an insurgency got started, and . . . it got out of control."

There are only three people who had a say in these matters. Bush, Rumsfeld and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. If things are a disaster now, it's their fault. Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

So much to discuss...take it away... Read the rest of this post...

Washington Post's Fred Hiatt fails to read his own newspaper, again

What must have been yet another Fred Hiatt editorial in Thursday morning's Washington Post tries to strike fear in the heart of every American over Iran getting nukes in MAYBE JUST A YEAR!!!!!!

Of course, Iran getting nukes in a year is not what the experts in our government say - they say it's gonna take ten years, and that's if Iran gets lucky - but far be it for Hiatt to rely on a sane analysis when we can scare people into yet another unnecessary disaster of a war.

My favorite part of the editorial is the following:

Some in Washington cite a U.S. intelligence estimate that an Iranian bomb is 10 years away. In fact the low end of that same estimate is five years, and some independent experts say three.

Uh, not according to your own newspaper, Fred.

In fact, the Washington Post reported that the low end of the estimate is TEN YEARS, not five years. The Post also reported that the estimate in question says it's unlikely Iran will even be able to develop nukes in ten years - ten years is only if EVERYTHING goes right and if Iran goes full blast towards building nukes, and everything reportedly never goes right in these cases.

So where did Hiatt get this ridiculous notion that the "same estimate" says five years? He's probably confusing the previous - now discredited (gee Fred, who did you learn that trick from?) - estimate of five years that the US government had long believed was the time necessary for Iran to develop a nuke. That five year estimate was superseded by the ten year estimate just last year when the entire US intelligence community prepared a new National Intelligence Estimate - the NIE is the US intelligence communities BEST ESTIMATE, period.

Fred would have known all of this had he simply read his own newspaper, and I quote:

Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be "within five years" from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not.

The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before "early to mid-next decade," according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures.... The timeline is portrayed as a minimum designed to reflect a program moving full speed ahead without major technical obstacles.

As for Hiatt's contention that "some experts" say it could be only 3 years, or even ONE YEAR before Iran gets nukes, I'd like to know why we should trust "some" experts when even the hawkish we-really-want-to-blow-up-Iran Bush administration can only muster a best estimate that says Iran won't be able to produce nukes for at least ten years?

Oh Fred, you're such a bore (and that rhymes with whore). Read the rest of this post...

Scalia's Proud

Proud, yet also increasingly bizarre:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday called his 2004 decision not to recuse himself from a case involving Vice President Cheney, who is a friend of his, the "proudest thing" he has done on the court.

The conservative justice's remarks came as he took questions from law students during a lecture at the University of Connecticut.

Scalia's not exactly the model of judicial temperament these days. Read the rest of this post...

US secret information for sale in Afghan bazaar

Yet another security lapse. This time it is memory sticks with information about Afghan politicians and Pakistani security forces which are for sale on the open market. I would have thought that IT security for such information would be restricted and locked down since there are so many solutions out there that prevent users from downloading critical information, but that is obviously not the case. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Off to bed. Read the rest of this post...