I have questions

Something is bugging me about the story that the 9/11 commission is going to report that several of the hijackers had connections with Iran. Consider this: the 9/11 commission has no intelligence gathering operation of its own. It is solely dependent upon the product of other intelligence organizations (CIA, DOD, foreign services, etc.). Whatever it reports has to be based on information that is already available to those who should be able to do something about it.

The thing that bugs me is this: why is it only now that we are hearing about these connections between Iran and the hijackers? Didn't the CIA already know about these connections? Certainly the evidence suggests that Iran had much closer ties to al Qaeda and the hijackers than Saddam ever did. Yet, other than a brief inclusion of Iran in Bush's "Axis of Evil", there hasn't been that much talk about this. Instead, we have devoted a major portion of our offensive capability against Iraq. Was it all just a typo?

Why did it take the 9/11 commission to figure this out?

Hello?

Allawi personally executes six insurgents

There is a story this morning out of Australia that the Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, performed a summary execution of six insurgents just a week before the handover. The report comes from Australian journalist Paul McGeough. The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age both have the same report and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has an interview with McGeough about the story here.

This is a pretty explosive story as it indicates a return to Saddam style rule in Iraq. But it is important to remember that there are a lot of ugly rumors flying around these days and McGeough admits as much in the ABC interview. He went with this story because he found two witnesses to the event that he tracked down independently and who gave almost the exact same story. I say "almost" because of two small details: (1) neither witness could identify the exact day of the event and (2) they give conflicting accounts of injuries received by a seventh prisoner who was allegedly shot by Allawi but did not die. The latter could be excused as simple confusion, but I am troubled by the fact that neither of them can recall the exact day of the event.

Now maybe this kind of thing is not so shocking to these witnesses that the day of the event wouldn't stick in their minds. McGeough said that they seemed pretty blas� about the whole matter and may have even supported Allawi's actions. But it is precisely this kind of confusion about minor details that our establishment news organizations would use as an excuse not to report this story.

I hope this story doesn't drop into the memory hole. Even despite my misgivings about it, the fact that McGeough was able to find two witnesses who closely matched in their stories yet appeared not to know about each other is significant.

Update:   Oh wait, I forgot. Martha Stewart was sentenced today. Where are my priorities?

Rumors about rumors about rumors

Jesse Taylor on the Cheney rumors:

You know, I want to see Cheney gone as much as anyone. But this Elisabeth Bumiller article in the Times is just ridiculous.

Privately, Democrats are talking about Cheney leaving the ticket. And, in the finest sense of "I'm not really spreading a rumor", Bumiller writes about the rumor's existence, rather than the rumor itself, which lends the rumor a strange kind of credibility (it's worthy of being reported, but I'll weasel out of actually repeating it). I can see why Democrats would do this, if for no other reason than that if it latches on, the ticket looks like it's sticking with a wounded duck, and if it doesn't - all they had to do was just bring it up for a few days in "private" conversations.

But just as the media shouldn't traffic in rumors without validation, I kind of fail to see the use in trafficking in reports of rumors. "Person X says that Group Y is talking about Bush's potential drug use in the Oval Office" is actually a dumber and less responsible story than "Does Bush use drugs in the Oval Office?", because by the time you've crafted the former story, you already know you shouldn't be reporting it with any credibility.

You know, Jesse is right. The media are obsessed with trivialities. They are very susceptible to the temptation to raise cocktail hour gossip into serious topics of national discussion. All it takes is one or two less diligent members of the press to do the elevating (that Bumiller wrote about it in the Times just adds institutional weight to the rumor) and the press will be off and running with the story for days and weeks (and sometimes years).

But there is a delicious irony in seeing the Republicans having to fend off "rumors about a rumor". They have become the masters when it comes to manipulating the media into spreading this kind of crap about Democrats. It's probably the one of the major reasons they have achieved any level of national success. That and the fact that the Democrats have been so long in waking up to what they were doing.

The Democrats are no longer asleep at the switch. I, naturally, give the credit for waking them up to equal parts Howard Dean and the influx of prominent bloggers into the upper echelons of the party (Internet denizens have long been aware of what was going on). They are getting better at dealing with the problem and, as this story indicates, they are not above using it against the Republicans.

We can argue about whether the ultimate result is a further eroding of the political dialog in this country. But I have my doubts that we can ever eliminate the problem. Barring that, I for one am glad to see a little balance being restored to the process. Indeed, it may be that this kind of "live by the sword, die by the sword" payback is necessary to get the Republicans to behave. When one side unilaterally disarms, is it any surprise when the other side picks up the sword and uses it to their benefit?

The President who cried "Wolf!"

Wesley Powell, a bartcop nation poster, makes an interesting point:

There may come a time in the next term when America will truly need to use military force somewhere for national security reasons. If that case was to arise, ANYONE would be better to have in there than Bush. Bush, in military terms, is now officially a lame duck. And would be next term as well. Can you picture Bush trying to make the case for any further military action anywhere, for any reason? It would be a catastrophe. The international community would totally line up against us. Wouldn't even get Tony Blair next time. Even a substantial element of the republican party would balk, thinking Bush may be leading the entire party off the cliff, similar to post Watergate. So in case our military may have to be used for serious, legitimate purposes sometime between 2004 and 2008, the only logical choice is Kerry. For our national security.

this is a gud book

Reviews of "My Pet Goat".

Republican Veepstakes

There's nothing the Washington press corps loves more than gabbing about rumors of political intrigue. The Democractic Veepstakes provided them with a lot of material to work with (Gephardt! Edwards! Gephardt! Hillary?! Edwards! Hillary?! Villsack! Dean?? Gephardt! GEPHARDT! GEPHARDT! ... Edwards!) but that is over now. So why not run with a little Republican Veepstakes?

Hear the Rumor on Cheney? Capital Buzzes, Denials Aside
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON, July 14 - In the annals of Washington conspiracy theories, the latest one, about Vice President Dick Cheney's future on the Republican ticket, is as ingenious as it is far-fetched. But that has not stopped it from racing through Republican and Democratic circles like the latest low-carb diet.

The newest theory - advanced privately by prominent Democrats, including members of Congress - holds that Mr. Cheney recently dismissed his personal doctor so that he could see a new one, who will conveniently tell him in August that his heart problems make him unfit to run with Mr. Bush. The dismissed physician, Dr. Gary Malakoff, who four years ago declared that Mr. Cheney was "up to the task of the most sensitive public office" despite a history of heart disease, was dropped from Mr. Cheney's medical team because of an addiction to prescription drugs.

From the sound of it, the Democrats are deliberately feeding the press frenzy while trying to stay above the fray:

Democrats, as part of their campaign to discredit the competition, are energetically promoting the idea that Mr. Cheney is a drag on the ticket. But none of them are suggesting that Mr. Bush should drop him.

"He has come to be a polarizing figure who repels voters," said Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Senator John Kerry. But asked if that did not make Mr. Cheney a dream candidate to run against, Mr. Devine demurred. "I'm not going to lob one in that direction," he said. "I don't want to be the Kerry guy who says 'We want Cheney.' "

Of course we want Cheney on the ticket. But even if Bush were to drop him it would still be a good thing because it would be Bush's McGovern-Eagleton moment. It would feed the impression of a campaign in chaos while putting Bush in the untenable position of naming an acceptable replacement in a very short period of time. Even though a Powell, McCain or Giulliani might otherwise be a boost to the ticket, their pro-choice position would make them unacceptable to Bush's base. His campaign, up till now, has been based almost entirely on getting out the base (thus his support of the FMA) and trying to drag down Kerry's favorables.

It doesn't happen very often, but right now we are in a moment where Democrats are doing a good job of driving the political news. Enjoy it while it lasts.

A pretty attractive page

The following comes from an LA Times' article on John Kerry's attempts to reach out to a broader political spectrum:

[...] On Wednesday, the two made their first joint appearance outside the Pennsylvania estate of Kerry's wife, flanked by their spouses and seven of their families' children, ages 4 to 34.

A GOP media strategist who watched the event on a television with the sound off was struck by the ticket's "very wholesome" image. "If America wants to turn the page, it's a pretty attractive page to turn to," the strategist said on condition of anonymity.

We are entering the 2nd phase of the general election campaign. The 1st phase was the assessment period of Bush's presidency. During that phase the electorate has spent most of its time thinking about whether George W. Bush deserves re-election or not. The results have not been good for Bush. His approval ratings have plummeted 10-20 points, including significant drops in approval on his signature issue: fighting terrorism. This has created the necessary opening for the 2nd phase.

The 2nd phase is the assessment of the opposition. Kerry's handling of the Veepstakes has given him about as good a launch into that phase as could be hoped for. The unnamed GOP media strategist has it right. If the people come to the conclusion that it is time for a change, then the alternative has to at least look attractive; especially in a time of war.

The 3rd and final phase of the general election will start after the Republican convention and peak during the debates. It will be then that the electorate will decide whether their assessments during the 1st and 2nd phases hold up.

Right now, label me "cautiously optimistic".

The soul of man

Music may be the most visible expression of popular sentiment in this or any other country. It speaks to us on a level beneath our conscious rationalizations and gives voice to feelings that we may not otherwise be comfortable expressing in ordinary conversation. This is especially true during times of national crisis (depression, war, etc.). Which is why the following Daily News article provides a fascinating insight into the underlying zeitgeist of the American public:

In the even broader picture, Sean Ross of Edison Media Research says that over the last 15 months, songs addressing the Iraqi war on the radio have shifted dramatically from endorsing it to questioning it.

[...]

But Ross also says he's noticed a dramatic turnaround among songs of all genres that address the war.

"When I started taping war songs 15 months ago," he says, "at least three-quarters were pro-war or pro-soldier, though the latter weren't always the former.

"Now, it's at least 75% against the war - and even the country songs, which tend to support it, seem more reflective."

(link courtesy AMERICAblog).

Cognitive Dissonance

Thy name is Bush (courtesy Richard Cohen):

[...] Don Rumsfeld assured us nearly two years ago that wherever bin Laden is, "you can be certain that he's having one dickens of a time operating his apparatus." The U.S. ground commander in Afghanistan at the time was even more confident. "We don't have to find him," Lt. Gen. Dan McNeil said of bin Laden, "because we're going to shut down his terrorist apparatus."

But somehow, this terrorist whose capture did not matter all that much, whose apparatus would be shut down by Pentagon apparatchiks, has now caused much of Washington to break out in hives. The election may be interrupted. New York may be attacked. Still, we are safe. Check that: We are safer. In fact, we are both safe and not safe because, as the record makes clear, it is both important to get bin Laden and not important to get him -- depending, of course, on which mistake some nincompoop is trying to excuse.

The most solemn obligation of a president is to keep us safe. This is something Bush has not done. Not only did Sept. 11 occur on his watch but nearly 900 Americans have been killed in Iraq, a war that could have waited . . . maybe forever. [...]

Just because your paranoid ...

Many lightly dismiss the notion of the Bushies canceling (delaying) the election in light of a terrorist attack because they just can't imagine that our leaders would ever do such a thing.

Just like they never imagined our leaders would lie us into a unilateral, pre-emptive war and deliberately feed on our fears of terrorist attacks for partisan political gain.

Now I am not saying I buy into the "cancel the elections" idea. I'm just saying that "they wouldn't go that far" is not a sufficient refutation of the idea.

War before it was to late

Kevin Drum responds to the suggestion that the CIA didn't screw up as badly as some because, after all, it sure looked like Saddam was hiding something(*):

Did the CIA screw up? Probably. Did it matter? No. George Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003 not because he was convinced Iraq had WMD, but because he was becoming scared that Iraq didn't have WMD and that further inspections would prove it beyond any doubt. Facts on the ground have never been allowed to interfere with George Bush's worldview, and he wasn't about to take the chance that they might interfere with his war.

I don't know if Bush was ever on the ball enough to be that calculating. He probably eats his own shit.

But I'm sure that many of the people around him (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) were worried that continued inspections would eventually undermine the case for going to war with Iraq. And it's not simply the case that they knew that the inspectors wouldn't find anything. It's that they didn't believe the inspections could ever be relied on to give a definitive answer on the issue. But they knew that they would eventually undermine the case for war.

They had only a narrow window in which to initiate the operation and, if they missed it, it would probably never come again. That's probably why they aborted the attempt to get a 2nd UN resolution. They knew it would only drag the process out even longer and make it that much harder for them to get their war on their terms.

That was simply unacceptable, so to war we went.

(*) Why did Saddam act like he was hiding something when he didn't? Because he believed the fear that he had something would be sufficient to keep the rest of the world out. It was to his advantage to keep people guessing about his true capabilities.

Listening for only what you want to hear

Courtesy of a poster over on bartcop nation comes this transcript from last Friday's News Hour:

DAVID KAY: Well, first of all, every analyst ought to be asking his own questions. We're overlooking the fact that this show is at the cadre of analysts were writing this were not well-trained themselves. Certainly the managerial layer has a responsibility. The NIC has that-- the National Intelligence Council-- that produced the NIE.

They didn't do contrary analysis; they did the lowest common denominator agreement. I think one thing of the political pressure though that we're overlooking is after 1995, there was only one element of glue that kept us able to keep sanctions in place and have any international allies, and that was Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the presumed weapons of mass destruction. So it meant that there were two levels and two standards that were applied.

Any information that showed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was accepted and reviewed and welcomed with very little scrutiny. Evidence that didn't fit that pattern had a much higher bar to pass, because if the weapons went away, if they weren't there, the U.S. had no Iraq policy and no allies for an Iraq policy. That's a vicious type of pressure.

This is what happens when the intelligence community becomes politicized. When the future prospects of agents and analysts becomes dependent upon how their output matches with the desired result then it is inevitable that the whole process will become corrupt and unreliable. I don't have the link available, but several years back I read an article in either The Atlantic or The American Prospect that discussed how the Reagan administration politicized the analysis wing of the CIA. The Reaganites didn't like it when the analysts would tell them that the Soviet Union wasn't a big threat. So they put in place people who would bring the proper perspective to the job.

The result was an intelligence community that was caught off-guard when the Soviet Union collapsed.

And an intelligence community that didn't see 9/11 coming.

And an intelligence community that vastly over-inflated Saddam Hussein's capabilities.