Giuliani Uses Petraeus in Attack Ad
Images of Gen. David Petraeus appeared in an ad the Giuliani campaign began running yesterday attacking Hillary Clinton. The Pentagon says the use of the Petraeus images was done without Petraeus' consent. Military personnel are barred by Pentagon regulations from appearing in political ads in uniform. Greg has more at Election Central.
--David Kurtz
The Historians Are Coming! Quick, Salvage Your Legacies!
Retiring Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace:
Offering a blunt assessment of the decisions and recommendations he made back in early 2003, an introspective Pace told Pentagon reporters that with the aid of 20-20 hindsight, it's clear he made "errors in assumption.""One of the mistakes I made in my assumptions going in was that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi army would welcome liberation, that the Iraqi army, given the opportunity, would stand together for the Iraqi people and be available to them to help serve the new nation," said Pace, who will leave the chairman's job on Oct. 1. "If I knew that the Iraqi army was not going to be available, then I probably would have made a different recommendation about the total size force going in."
In retrospect, he said, "you say you wish you knew, but you didn't know on the way in."
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan:
In a withering critique of his fellow Republicans, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoir that the party to which he has belonged all his life deserved to lose power last year for forsaking its small-government principles. . . .Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."
--David Kurtz
Goodbye, Fredo
It was Alberto Gonzales' last day as attorney general. So what better way to end his embarrassing tenure than with a DOJ inspector general audit. From the AP (thanks to TPM Reader HL for the tip):
An internal Justice audit, released Friday, showed the department spent nearly $7 million to plan, host or send employees to 10 conferences over the last two years. This included paying $4 per meatball at one lavish dinner and spreading an average of $25 worth of snacks around to each participant at a movie-themed party. . . .The report, which looked at the 10 priciest Justice Department conferences between October 2004 and September 2006, was ordered by the Senate Appropriations Committee. It also found that three-quarters of the employees who attended the conferences demanded daily reimbursement for the cost of meals while traveling -- effectively double-dipping into government funds. . . .
Six of the 10 conferences were approved by the department's Office of Justice Programs, whose assistant attorney general, Regina Schofield, resigned this week. It could not immediately be determined whether the report had anything to do with that, but Carr said Schofield left to take a job with a nonprofit child welfare services organization.
An audit ordered by Senate Democrats. A suspiciously timed resignation by an assistant attorney general. Gonzo was under siege until the bitter end. Just for old times' sake, here's one last look at the Top 10 Moments of Alberto Gonzales Ridiculousness.
--David Kurtz
Big Blowback for 'Small Price'
The fallout over Minority Leader John Boehner's "small price" comment about the Iraq War continues. Two House Democratic leaders have raised their objections to the comment, and CNN has picked up the story, or more precisely, returned to it. Boehner's remarks were made earlier in the week in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer but gained attention after being flagged by TPM's Greg Sargent.
--David Kurtz
The President's Math
The White House has provided us with the list of 36 nations the President was referring to last night in his speech when he said, "We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy. "
The key phrase there is "troops on the ground."
If you take a look at the list we were provided, by a National Security Council official, the first heading is "Countries with troops on ground in Iraq." Only 26 countries appear in that category. The remaining 10 countries are assigned to either United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq or to NATO Training NTM-I.
So by the President's own accounting, the math is wrong. As Spencer Ackerman points out, there are other problems with the numbers. Canada is listed, for example, among the 36, but it pulled out its one and only person in Iraq months ago. The numbers, in short, are a sham.
Now, whether it's 36 countries or 106, shouldn't distract from the larger shams, such as the implication that there remains international support for the U.S. mission in Iraq or the suggestion that anyone other than the U.S. is doing virtually all of the heavy lifting there.
But after the famous 16 words on Niger in his State of the Union speech, after 4 1/2 years of duck and cover on Iraq, after all of the lies, deceptions, and falsehoods, it plumbs news depths of dishonesty to include such a bogus number as "36 nations" in a speech that begins with the following lines: "In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people. We are now at such a moment."
The President once again revealed his character. Were that it was of the same quality as that of the people he leads.
--David Kurtz
VECO Briber Gives Feds Evidence on Stevens
Oh my, not looking good for the Tubester, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK).
Under cross-examination, VECO CEO Bill Allen is now admitting that included in the $400,000 in bribes he's admitted to giving legislators was labor for the home renovation of Stevens' home.
That would seem to put the onus pretty heavily on Stevens. The briber turning evidence on the bribee is usually real bad news for the guy who took the bribes.
--Josh Marshall
The Icelandic 'Contingent'
It just about epitomizes the President's speech last night. One of the purported 36 coalition nations is Iceland, whose "contingent" to Iraq consists of a single soldier in Baghdad whose primary responsibility is as a media representative. To NATO's disappointment, Iceland is pulling that one soldier as of October 1. You can't make this stuff up.
We still haven't managed to figure out how the President's math gets him to 36 nations in the coalition. But whatever the number, it will be minus one when a single Icelander heads home in a couple of weeks.
Late Update: TPM Reader EF points out that Iceland doesn't even have a formally constituted military, which the CIA World Fact Book confirms. The lone Icelander is a member of the Icelandic Crisis Response Unit. Calling him a soldier may be overstating matters.
--David Kurtz
Charlie Savage wraps up his stint this week over at TPMCafe. His last post is on the subversion of American democracy. Our thanks to Charlie for sitting down at the Table for One.
--David Kurtz
Whatever ...
Let's start by stipulating that the arguments for our Iraq policy have been a pretty big crock for a really long time. We want to calm the place down so they can have democracy. As long as we can also get all the terrorists there so we can fight them in one place of our choosing. Or we need to fight in Iraq because the real threat is Iran. Etc. etc. etc.
We know all the rationales. I've even made something of a career of chronicling them. But as we saw in President Bush's speech last night things have gotten to a point where the White House spinmeisters hardly seem even to have their heart in it anymore. And the president just seems to be living in some sort of alternative universe populated by the failed gods of his narcissism and vainglory.
As the president lays out in the second paragraph of his speech, there are first our allies the Iraqis who are battling the extremists who want to take away their freedom and democracy. And we cannot abandon them in this fight. Indeed they are asking us to build an "enduring relationship" (i.e., long-term presence of American troops) with them.
This seems not to take into account that a sizable majority of Iraqis believe it is acceptable to kill our troops in the country. And there is virtual unanimity within the Iraqi population against any permanent American troop presence in the country -- with the exception of the Iraqi Kurds who now enjoy de facto independence under our protection.
The only reasonable argument that I can see for our continued occupation of Iraq (though on balance I find it unpersuasive and disagree with it) is that we have screwed things up so badly and made the place such a powder keg that we need to stay there to try to undo or at least ameliorate what a disaster we've created -- to paraphrase Woody Allen's famous line from Annie Hall to get Iraq safely back from horror to mere misery.
But with respect to the president's cartoonish babble, like I said, whatever. I know this reads like an expression of cynicism or disengagement. But while the president's chatter, with its brainlessness and brazenness, drives many to distraction, I think this is the only appropriate response. Anyone watching what's happening can see that what the president is talking about bears no relation to what's actually happening in Iraq -- a fact well confirmed by the fact that polls show no change in the public's take on what's happening in response to the president's speech. Primitive animals will sometimes keep chattering or twitching their muscles even after their heads have been cut off. And that's probably the best analogy today to the president's continuing enunciation of his policies.
The president's continuing power as commander-in-chief, behind a wall of 1/3+ support in the Congress, is key. His arguments aren't. They have simply predeceased his presidency.
--Josh Marshall
Coalition of the Barely Willing
There was so much crap in the president's speech last night that analyzing requires a fairly aggressive form of crap triage to distinguish the merely bogus from the bogus and hilarious or the bogus and unconscionable. So let me focus in again on the president's reference to the "the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq."
One way the president comes up with this number is to rope in something called the NATO Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-1).
As Spencer Ackerman notes here, most of the countries involved in this initiative have agreed to let Iraqis come to their countries for training, not the other way around. So for instance, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report, Spain "plans to train groups of 25 Iraqis in mine clearance at a center outside Madrid."
And who has boots on the ground in country? One example from the president's list of 36 is Iceland which has sent a single public information officer to serve in the NATO mission in Baghdad. More robustly, Italy has 8 officers on the NTM-I mission in Baghdad, Portugal is considering sending "up to 10."
--Josh Marshall
Boehner's Boneheaded Remark
Add Democrat Joe Biden and Republican John McCain to the growing list of people blasting Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) for saying that America has paid a "small price" in Iraq.
--David Kurtz
Gonzo's Last Day
You can almost hear the collective sigh of relief coming out of Main Justice as the reign of Alberto Gonzales officially ends.
--David Kurtz
The President's Happy Talk
From The Politico:
In his testimony, Petraeus used the military science term “battlefield geometry” in describing how he figured out the number of troops he could afford to release. A top GOP Senate adviser complained after the speech: “The president needs better 'communication geometry' to prevent overreaching with happy talk."
--David Kurtz
Not with a Bang But A Whimper
Criminal charges against former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) appear unlikely.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
The latest benchmark report on Iraq is out from the White House this morning. And it glows.
--David Kurtz
Who is the Real Alexis Debat? Part Deux
Laura Rozen has more on the curious case of Alexis Debat, which we mentioned briefly the other day. In particular, she looks at the sometime conflicting roles Debat played at ABC News. Meanwhile, the network continues to investigate Debat and reported yesterday:
Former President Bill Clinton, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan have added their names to the list of people who say they were the subjects of fake interviews published in a French foreign affairs journal under the name of Alexis Debat, a former ABC News consultant.
Will Bunch also takes a closer look.
All very strange.
--David Kurtz
36 Nations
ThinkProgress caught Chris Matthews' reaction to President Bush's claim that there are 36 nations with troops on the ground today in Iraq. And we're curious too. What the hell is the president talking about? Which countries are these? There are two countries with a real troop presence in Iraq: the US and the UK. And the Brits make up only a tiny fraction of the overall 'coalition' force. Early on there were Spanish, Italians, Poles and a lot of other countries -- not with a lot of troops but with enough to give some token international participation. But pretty much all of those countries have left now.
I know in the past the White House used to inflate these numbers by including token commitments from former US Pacific Islands protectorates. Ten guys from Micronesia. Three mechanics from the Solomon Islands.
In a lot of cases the administration has just opened up the diplomatic cookie jar to bargain for a few soldiers from countries with acute need for American help in order to puff up these numbers.
But again, this is 2007. I doubt the White House just came up with this number out of the blue. I'm sure there's some very strained and feeble argument and data behind. But I'd really like to hear it. Anyone know who these 36 counties are?
Late Update: This is the best the AP could come up with ...
There may well be 36 nations contributing to the cause, but the overwhelming majority of troops come from the United States. For example, Albania has 120 soldiers there and Bulgaria has 150 non-combat troops in Iraq. Bush visited both nations this summer as a thank you.
Okay, that's four. 32 to go.
--Josh Marshall
Doing to History What He Did to Iraq
With the president's speech tonight it appears we are back to the supposed 'Korea analogy' for the occupation of Iraq. We've been in Korea for more than a half century, as we have been in Japan and Germany. And for all the commitment of troops and money, we now have three highly prosperous allied democracies where in two of the cases we had ardent foes.
Forgive me for saying the obvious. Because it is obvious. But sometimes, apparently, the obvious needs saying.
We garrisoned troops in these three countries for half a century, as we did in Saudi Arabia for about a decade. The periods of military government in Japan and Germany were relatively brief. And most importantly we never mounted counter-insurgency operations in any of these countries.
This simple fact tells you that all these Korean, Japan, Germany analogies are bogus.
And fundamentally why was this sustainable? Because the US troop presence was a defense against a perceived greater threat -- either the Soviet Union or the Soviet Union and China. We might add that this is also the premise of our military presence in the Balkans.
On neither count is anything remotely like this in Iraq. The premise is an indefinite period of counter-insurgency and military occupation. And if things calmed down, who would we be defending Iraq against? The question answers itself. No one. If Iraq could get its act together it could certainly defend itself as it did for many decades. We are defending Iraq against itself.
Anyone with a bit of sense can see these comparisons are ridiculous.
--Josh Marshall
Bean-Countin' Boehner
The Politico's John Bresnahan finally got a response from Rep. John "Small Price" Boehner (R-OH) in his comments about the bargain we're getting occupying Iraq. His comeback is pretty feeble. In so many words, Boehner's spokesman says he didn't mean all the Americans who had died. He meant the cost in dollar amount. But a look at his actual words and their context shows pretty clearly that doesn't add up. Bresnahan's got the details. Check it out.
--Josh Marshall
Minds Made Up
One of the more remarkable things about the enormous effort put into this week full of Petraeus hearings, White House spin and assorted PR from all sides is how little movement any of it has generated in public opinion. I am mindful of making that conclusion a bit prematurely, before the week is over and before the President's speech tonight. So we'll just have to wait and see the final results. But I had the sense last week as we were gearing up for this Washington spectacle that for most Americans, who made up their minds on Iraq quite some time ago, the events of this week would be of little consequence.
American public opinion on Iraq and the Bush policies on Iraq has been locked in place for an unusually long period of time, especially considering how strongly negative the polling is. I am not a polling expert and statistics are not my strong suit but my intuitive sense is that after public opinion turns strongly negative you would tend to see a softening of that opinion over time. I believe the term of art in statistics is reversion to the mean. The folksy truism is people don't stay mad for long.
In this case, people are not so much mad as they are very dissatisfied, and consistently so. There have been some small dips and bumps in the polling data over the last many months, but they have for the most part been negligible. Just today, AP polling begun during the Petraeus hearings showed little movement in opinion on Iraq and the president. CNN shows the President today still mired at 36% approval. One poll out did show considerable movement, but I not sure it can be said to undermine the point I'm making here. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows an 8 point jump in the President's approval rating--to a whopping 30%. That poll's respondents went from enraged to merely pissed off.
The day's most remarkable poll may be from Fox News, which asked whether respondents thought the Petraeus report was truthful and objective or slanted toward Bush Administration policies. More people thought it was slanted (40%) than that it was truthful (35%). The distinguished general's reputation notwithstanding, people we're not buying what he had to say.
Given the immovable numbers, it's all the more apparent that the target audience this week has not been voters but congressional Republicans. They are the key to President Bush being able to continue a terribly unpopular war until he leaves office. So long as they stand by him, he can maintain his grip on Iraq policy in the face of longstanding and deep public dissatisfaction.
Late Update: To clarify, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll number above is Bush's job approval on Iraq.
--David Kurtz
Iraqi Economics 101
With the help of Brian Beutler, Spencer Ackerman crunches the economic numbers on Iraq presented this week by Amb. Ryan Crocker. Funny, they don't quite add up.
--David Kurtz
But The Surge Just Got Up to Full Strength!
Tonight at 9 p.m. ET President Bush will address the nation in response to this week's congressional testimony by Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker and triumphantly announce the withdrawal of some 30,000 U.S. troops from Iraq by next summer. Call it a cold hunch, but we have a feeling he will link the drawdown directly to "progress on the ground," or "facts on the ground," possibly "signs of success on the ground." Something to do with the ground. But what's the real story behind the troop withdrawal?
In today's episode of TPMtv we attempt to preemptively inoculate you against the President's spin by showing you the administration getting its story straight in real time, with a little help from Press Secretary Tony Snow, who delivered a magisterial performance in his final televised press briefing ...
--Ben Craw
The Looking Glass?
So Abu Risha, our new ally in al Anbar, was helping us turn the tide on al Qaeda. But now al Qaeda has killed him in an explosion near his home in Ramadi. So they're fighting back. And it's a major setback in the progress we've made in the province.
That at least is the narrative you'll read in most of the US press.
But is any of it true? As Spencer Ackerman reports here, a lot of people who know a lot about the region and the people involved say that AQI ("al Qaida in Iraq") remains a miniscule part of the Sunni insurgency. Perhaps a disproportionately lethal part of it, but so small as to make any equation of the Sunni insurgency and 'al Qaeda' deeply misleading. Indeed, many experts express doubt that al Qaeda is even responsible for Abu Risha's death. At least as likely, says Marc Lynch, it was "one of the nationalist insurgency groups, the ones which current American rhetoric pretends don't exist."
I did an interview yesterday with Juan Cole -- which we're going to try to bring you soon on TPMtv -- and his take was broadly similar to Lynch's. There really is something changing in al Anbar. Attacks are down substantially. But the 'turning against al Qaeda' storyline is at best deeply misleading. More accurate would be to say that we're getting a bit more savvy about using patronage/bribery to recruit a tribal clientage willing to act as our proxies in the region. And in itself that's probably a very shrewd move. Cole makes the point that a lot of these tribes tried to do business with us years ago, only to get sent packing after a quick pat-down and weapons search. And it is worth keeping in mind that some of what we're calling 'tribes' here are more aptly termed gangs.
For me, the fog of war is compounded by my relative ignorance of the players involved and the thousands of miles between me and Iraq. But I know enough to be deeply skeptical when the news of the day conforms so tightly to the expectations of policies and storylines we know to be based on misdirection, lies and questionable ideology.
So maybe this small extremist group, AQI, really did kill Abu Risha.. But there's enough evidence out there to suggest that everything we're hearing really is through the looking glass, a highly distorted version of events designed to keep us locked in our ratcheting vise of policy catastrophe.
--Josh Marshall
Public Opinion Unmoved by Petraeus
The new AP poll shows little movement on the key questions involving Iraq and President Bush.
--David Kurtz
Who Are We Fighting?
With the death in Anbar today of a member of the Sunni leadership who was among the key figures in the recent rapprochement with U.S. troops there, it bears returning to the issue of what constitutes the Sunni insurgency. Gen. Petraeus downplayed the non-al-Qaeda Sunni insurgency in his testimony this week, but al Qaeda in Iraq is a tiny proportion of the overall Sunni insurgency.
--David Kurtz
Former Giuliani Advisor Backs Hillary
Fran Reiter was Giuliani's campaign manager in 1997, but says Rudy has "backed away from" his former "progressive views."
--David Kurtz
McConnell Retracts False Statement
In touting the powers of the new FISA law, the intelligence chief falsely told Congress that it was instrumental in a terrorism investigation in Germany that led to multiple arrests.
--David Kurtz
Boehner Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot
The House minority leader's remark calling the war in Iraq a "small price" to pay is earning him the wrath of Democrat John Kerry. Greg Sargent has more on the blowback.
--David Kurtz
Strange Timing
Or maybe not so strange.
In the midst of surge week and in advance of the President's speech tonight, the Pentagon has released tapes of the combatant status review tribunal of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
And Fox News is running hard with them.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
Petraeus' command finally explains the method behind their numbers on sectarian violence in Iraq -- the numbers that show plummeting totals due to the surge. Now we just need them to explain their explanation.
--Paul Kiel
Oil Buddies
An article in tomorrow's Times reports that the long-negotiated compromise which seemed to be leading towards an Iraqi oil law -- a key 'progress' benchmark -- has apparently collapsed. All gone down the drain.
The story though connects up with another one we told you about just a couple days ago -- the decision of the Kurdistan regional government to sign an oil exploration deal with Dallas-based Hunt Oil, run by Mr. Ray L. Hunt.
The Shia and Sunni leaders believe the Kurds are opting for a sort of oil secession that puts them outside the whole concept of a law to share the country's oil resources. And the Hunt deal is apparently the straw that broke the camel's back, shall we say.
But remember, Hunt, in addition to being the son of legendary Texas John Birch Society extremist H.L. Hunt, is also a pal of the president's. Indeed, President Bush has twice appointed Hunt to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. So while the president is striving to get the Iraqis to meet these benchmarks one of his own pals -- and more importantly, political appointees -- is busy helping to tear the whole thing apart.
--Josh Marshall
Encore Presentation
There's been so much news with the Petraeus festival over the last few days and so many posts because of that that some of our stuff just zips right down the page. So in case you missed them, we wanted to bring you parts one and two of our interview with fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D)
--Josh Marshall
President?
From the UK Independent ...
The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq's Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05.
"I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, 'No, that would be too soon'," Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said.
General Petraeus has a reputation in the US Army for being a man of great ambition. If he succeeds in reversing America's apparent failure in Iraq, he would be a natural candidate for the White House in the presidential election in 2012.
I pass this on with the caveat that Mr. Khadim may have various axes to grind against Petraeus. I don't know one way or another. It's just an important possibility to keep in mind. Khadim was in the Interior Ministry during Allawi's prime ministership, how that might fit in I do not know.
--Josh Marshall
An Offer He Couldn't Refuse?
Remember that unrehearsed flash of candor where Gen. Petraeus said he didn't know whether being in Iraq was making America safer? And then later he 'set the record straight'?
Joe Klein told Chris Matthews that he thought that during the recess in testimony Petraeus got an angry call from the White House telling him to set the record straight. Take a look ...
It sounds like this was an inference on Klein's part. But it sounds like a sound one.
--Josh Marshall
GOP Senate Woes-2008 Version
Robert Novak reports the GOP could lose at least 5 Senate seats next year. One of the more hotly contested races will be to replace retiring Sen. John Warner (R-VA). The AP reports that former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (no relation) will enter that race. An official announcement is expected tomorrow.
--David Kurtz
The Cellphone Revolution
Reed Hundt on "the largest, fastest, and most important extension of communications capability ever seen."
--David Kurtz
One Friedman = One McCain
Atrios discovers that the two units of measure are interchangeable, and each is equivalent to about six months, give or take.
--David Kurtz
Romney Denounces "Phoney Fred" Website
Calling the attack website "juvenile and offensive," Mitt Romney tried to further distance himself from the site created by Romney supporters to mock Fred Thompson.
--David Kurtz
Dems Would Block Olson Nomination
A Ted Olson nomination for attorney general will run into stiff resistance from Senate Democrats. "I intend to do everything I can to prevent him from being confirmed as the next attorney general," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today.
--David Kurtz
The Cost of War
House Minority Leader John Boehner: War in Iraq is a "small price" for the U.S. to pay.
--David Kurtz
Insurgency? What Insurgency?
It came late in the final day of hearings yesterday so you may have missed it. Gen. Petraeus was asked by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) to rank the enemies the U.S. is fighting in Iraq. Petraeus ran through the list of threats, then, as an afterthought, said, "There are certainly still some Sunni insurgents out there."
You don't say?
As Spencer Ackerman notes, the non-al-Qaeda Sunni insurgents have accounted for most of the U.S. military casualties in Iraq. There likely has been some reduction in Sunni insurgent violence against U.S. troops in Anbar this year, and in fact the U.S. strategy of joining with the Anbar Sunnis against al Qaeda in Iraq is probably part of the reason Petraeus is downplayng the Sunni insurgency at the moment.
But whatever the short-term exigency, this has been a conflict marked by our inability, unwillingness, or ideological aversion toward accurately identifying our enemies. Even the use of the blanket term "enemy" is misleading in a conflict with multiple competing interests, where alliances come and go, and in which the enemy of thy enemy is not necessarily thy friend.
There's a convincing argument to be made that the U.S. effort in Iraq was doomed from the start, but the strategic and tactical miscalculations arising from the misidentification, to put it charitably, of the competing groups there crippled whatever chance there was of the U.S. effort succeeding.
In today's New York Observer, an interview with the noted counterinsurgency expert Bard E. O’Neill reminded me how this myopic view of the Sunni insurgency has been paralyzing us since shortly after the U.S. invasion, if not even earlier, during pre-invasion planning:
What’s most striking, Bard says, is how his students in his counterinsurgency and terrorism classes at Washington’s National War College, freshly returned from Iraq, testified to the paucity of strategic thinking on the ground.“This was a Special Forces colonel, a really sharp guy, he’s a guy who knew all this stuff on counterinsurgency. He said to me, ‘Let me give you a specific example: I’m on the tarmac at an airbase in Iraq, and up walks [then Deputy Secretary of Defense] Paul Wolfowitz. He says, “How’s everything going, Colonel?” And I say, “This is a pretty tenacious insurgency, Mr. Wolfowitz.” And Wolfowitz looks back and says, “This is not an insurgency.”’”
At which point, Mr. O’Neill relates, his student “rolled his eyes, and said, ‘What can you say to someone like that?’”
--David Kurtz
Savage on the Supreme Court
Over at TPMCafe's Table for One, Charlie Savage has a very interesting post on the strategy behind the Bush Administration's selection of Supreme Court nominees. He argues, pretty persuasively, that nominees were vetted more for their adherence to a philosophy of expansive presidential power than for their positions on the social issues that dominate the Supreme Court confirmation process.
--David Kurtz
Another Bad Day for Ted Stevens
The federal criminal investigation of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) apparently continues, and although Stevens has yet to be charged, his name is popping up in two corruption-related trials this week in Alaska.
--David Kurtz
Sinking Like a Stone
Rudy Guiliani has seen some of his poll numbers drop precipitously over the course of 2007.
--David Kurtz
The Petraeus Methodology
Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker appeared this morning at the National Press Club and gave out a little more information on what methodology is used by the U.S. military to calculate "ethno-sectarian" violence but no illumination on the broader question of how Iraqi civilian casualties are tabulated. We're still trying to run that information to ground.
--David Kurtz
Volz Gets Probation
The former chief of staff to jailed congressman Bob Ney (R-OH) gets rewarded for his cooperation in the Jack Abramoff investigation: no jail time, two years of probation, and a $2,000 fine.
--David Kurtz
A Very Public Appearance
Clarence Thomas will be on 60 Minutes later this month, according to Legal Times. No word on who is conducting the interview.
--David Kurtz
Internecine Blood-letting Ahead?
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), speaking to anti-war activists (via The Hill):
“You folks should go after the Democrats. . . . I’d hate to lose the majority, but I’m telling you, if we don’t stand up to our responsibility, maybe that’s the lesson to be learned.”
--David Kurtz
TPMtv Interviews John Edwards, Pt. II
Yesterday we brought you part I of our interview with 2008 Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. We caught up with the former Senator following a major policy address on counterterrorism that he delivered in New York City last Friday, September 7. In today's episode of TPMtv we bring you Part II of our interview, in which we talk to the former Senator about how soon he would drawn down US troops in Iraq, what he thinks of the Petraeus progress report, and how he has evolved as a presidential candidate ...
--Ben Craw
Today's Must Read
Conservative super-lawyer Ted Olson is the front-runner to be President Bush's pick for attorney general. Senate Dems are less than thrilled, but if last week's 4th Circuit nominee is any indication (oh, and the last 6 1/2 years), the White House will not be offering a consensus-building nominee. We already know that Senate Democrats are threatening to slow down the nomination until they get responses from the Department of Justice and White House to some of their oversight requests, but will Senate Dems fight this nomination on its merits?
--David Kurtz
The Times Goes Man-on-the-Street in Iraq on the Petraeus Report
From the Times ...
A city employee in Baquba, the capital of Diyala Province, vividly described his ambivalence.“The withdrawal of the occupation forces is a must because they have caused the destruction of Iraq, they committed massacres against the innocents, they have double-crossed the Iraqis with dreams,” said the worker, Ahmad Umar al Esawi, a Sunni. “I want them to withdraw all their troops in one day.”
Dropping his voice, he continued: “There is something that I want to say although I hate to say it. The American forces, which are an ugly occupation force, have become something important to us, the Sunnis. We are a minority and we do not have a force to face the militias. If the Americans leave, it will mean a total elimination of the Sunnis in Iraq.”
Mr. Esawi added, “I know I said I want them to leave, but if we think about it, then I have to say I want them to stay for a while until we end all the suspicions we have of each other and have a strong national government.”
Check out the rest of the article. It's worth your time to read.
--Josh Marshall
Pants Down
Ex-prostitute spills the beans on Sen. Vitter (R) in press conference outside senator's DC office.
In case you're keeping track, this was a NOLA based hooker, not the one the DC madam hooked him up with.
--Josh Marshall
Cuttin' It Close
Sen. Craig's I'm-not-guilty-after-all court date set for September 26th -- four days before his self-imposed resignation deadline.
--Josh Marshall
Hearts & Minds
Public Approval numbers in Pakistan for a few international political figures ...
Osama bin Laden (46%)
Pervez Musharraf (38%)
George W. Bush (9%)
--Josh Marshall
Not Lookin' Good for Sen. Stevens ...
From the AP ...
During a secret meeting to discuss what prosecutors say was a dirty deal to keep Alaska oil taxes low, two oil contractors said they had a powerful ally coming to town who could help build support for the plan: Sen. Ted Stevens.The FBI played a videotape of the 2006 meeting Tuesday in a corruption trial against former Alaska House Speaker Pete Kott, who is accused of taking gifts and favors in exchange for supporting oil interests.
In the grainy video, VECO Corp. executives Bill Allen and Rick Smith can be heard talking about how to ensure passage of an oil tax bill. If approved, the bill would increase chances that a natural gas pipeline would be built, a deal that could mean huge profits for VECO.
Now, note that name: Bill Allen. And remember that criminal investigation Stevens is already the subject of? The one where the oil services executive renovated Stevens' home for him? Yeah, same guy: Bill Allen.
Here's our report from early June on the house renovation scandal ...
--Josh Marshall
Lemme Try That Again
In case you missed it, Gen. Petraeus came back later and revised his "I don't know" response to the question of whether being in Iraq had made us safer.
--Josh Marshall
BREAKING: Bush To Announce Possible Troop Cuts to Take Place in a Year
Does my headline pretty much get it right?
The AP is slugging this story: "Officials: Bush to announce troop cut"
You have to read the details to see that it's a troop cut next summer and whether it actually happens will depend on "continued progress."
--Josh Marshall
Coulter and Rudy
You may have seen over at Election Central that among the day's 9/11 commemorations is one hosted by Sean Hannity and featuring, among others, Oliver North, Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, and Ann Coulter. Now, Coulter has had some less than sympathetic things to say about some of the 9/11 widows, at one point remarking, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." So it seemed a little odd that Rudy would be appearing at the same 9/11 event as Coulter given that his links to the attacks have been a featured part of his presidential campaign. Now the DNC is calling out Guiliani, demanding that he denounce Coulter's earlier remarks.
--David Kurtz
Putting Lipstick on a Pig
As part of the surge-week PR offensive, the President will make a primetime address Thursday announcing that he intends to bring the surge to an end next summer. That means 30,000 U.S. troops will be rotated home without replacements. The White House--and most press reports--will describe this as a troop withdrawal, which is true in a very narrow sense. But this can't seem to be repeated often enough, if credulous press reports are any indication: the surge was only ever designed to be temporary and could not be sustained for any longer than next summer without seriously compromising overall U.S. military readiness. So the surge is coming to end, and troop levels will return to late 2006 levels. The White House can tout it as a troop withdrawal. Gen. Petraeus can claim it is his best professional military judgment. But bringing the surge to an end is a hard reality born of an overstretched military. They can smear all the lipstick they want on that pig, but it's still a pig.
--David Kurtz
Listening to Lieberman
For all that's happened, I still have a respect for Gen. Petraeus. Even though he's made himself into a GOP operative in the domestic political fight over Iraq, I think I agree with Juan Cole that over in Iraq I believe he's doing his best as a professional soldier to salvage something from a catastrophic mess. But here just before 4:00 PM I'm listening to Sen. Lieberman's colloquy with the general. And I really don't think I can think of anyone in this debate who is more treacly, sanctimonious and self-serving than Joe.
He's become that bad.
Late Update: Joe still wants to invade Iran and asked Petraeus about it. Take a look.--DK
--Josh Marshall
Off Message
You don't want to put too much emphasis on one response over two days of hearings, but when Sen. John Warner (R-VA) asked Gen. Petraeus a short time ago if victory in Iraq would make America safer, Petraeus hedged before saying, "I don't know." Perhaps it was just a moment of uncharacteristic befuddlement for the general, but if the answer to that question isn't a resounding yes, then, even on the Bush Administration's own terms, it's time to start loading up the troop carriers in Kuwait and bring our people home.
Late Update: In follow-up questioning from Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Petraeus backtracked from his "I don't know" to Sen. Warner.
--David Kurtz