Search and Replace: Q, N

/in /by

Summary: In this post I look at the report released by the House Intelligence Committee. It serves two purposes, in my opinion: To present the first "case" against Iran, under the guise of calling for better intelligence on Iran. And to suggest that, since we don’t have good intelligence on Iran, we can’t negotiate with them, because we’d have no way of verifying any agreement.

I’ve been pondering two questions of late. First, why did the Neocons move Fred Fleitz to a staff position on the House Intelligence Committee. And second, how they hell do they plan to lie us into war in Iran when, this time, the public and the intelligence community have their guard up?

Fred Fleitz, as you’ll recall, was the guy John Bolton hand-picked to serve as his enforcer while Bolton was at State. He was instrumental in end-running the State Department’s INR, by insisting that WINPAC do the vetting that INR normally would have; as a result, he made it possible for Bolton to say all manner of inflammatory things that the intelligence community didn’t back. Fleitz was also involved in Bolton’s attempt to get those who didn’t back his hawkish views fired. There were accusations that Fleitz and Bolton’s other minions were breaking the rules regarding Secure Compartmentalized Intelligence (that is, they were circulating super-secret documents in ways they shouldn’t have), with who knows what aim. And Fleitz is an odds-on favorite to the be the source of Valerie Plame’s NOC identity for Dick and his minions when they outed Plame’s identity. Fleitz was moved to the House Intelligence Committee back in the spring, and I’ve wondered ever since whether it meant he was cooperating with Fitzgerald (and therefore needed a different job) or whether they had designs to bulldoze crappy intelligence through the House Intelligence Committee. It appears the latter is the correct guess (big surprise).

Why Didn't Judy Flog the Purported Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection?

/in , /by

President Bush’s claim the other day that no one ever claimed a connection between Iraq and 9/11 got me thinking. Judy Miller reported extensively on Al Qaeda before 9/11–both the previous World Trade Center bombing and on terrorist financing. We know she tried to report on imminent threats from Al Qaeda in summer 2001. She did some of the most celebrated reporting on Al Qaeda just after the attack. And even in fall 2002, she continued to report on Al Qaeda threats that had nothing to do with Iraq–the discovery of possible weapons lap in Kandahar and a report on Saudi financial ties to Al Qaeda. But she never made the claim of an Al Qaeda-Iraq link.

That’s particularly remarkable considering her famous September 8, 2002 article on aluminum tubes (actually her article co-author Michael Gordon apparently got the aluminum tube leak first) included every other complaint the US had against Iraq. That article describes Iraq’s purported nuclear program, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its missiles capabilities. In the article, she listed almost exactly the same things administration officials (Condi, Rummy, Dick, and Powell all appeared) did on the Sunday shows the morning her article appeared and almost exactly the Read more →

Chronological Jujitsu with the Bioweapons White Paper

/in , /by

Back in April, I speculated that Judy Miller had been leaked the CIA/DIA White Paper on the purported mobile bioweapons labs (MBL) to pre-empt the report of an expert team, the "Jefferson Team," sent to Iraq to investigate the trailers. Via Steve Aftergood and this report on the trailers (which I will follow-up with shortly and which lukery is busy working on as well), I found the White Paper itself. Based on the White Paper and a review of the evidence, I’m going to fine tune my theory.

Here’s the theory–this is speculative, but I wouldn’t even call it "outtamyarse" at this point, based on the evidence.

  • For some reason (because they knew the trailers were crap?) they sat on the story of them for up to 2 weeks (mid to late April to May 11–it took them 4 days to review the trailer)
  • They created the White Paper and briefed the White House on it–and leaked it to Judy–to pre-empt the Jefferson Team
  • They re-issued the White Paper, now dated after the Jefferson Team report, to justify ongoing administration use of the claim

One thing appears to be clear, though. The SAO quoted in Judy’s "balanced" June article claims the objections raised about the trailers were considered and dismissed. They may have been. But they weren’t considered in the analysis of the White Paper. In other words, the SAO dismissing objections about the MBL claims may have lied about having considered those objections. Go figure.

I Wonder How Dick Annotated THIS Hersh Article?

/in /by

We know that Dick reads–and probably annotates–Sy Hersh’s articles. No lesser source than Patrick Fitzgerald suggested as much in his filing describing which newspaper articles he’ll submit as evidence during Libby’s trial. You remember–the filing where he showed us Dick’s annotated copy of Wilson’s op-ed? Well, in the same filing, he revealed that a copy of Sy Hersh’s famous Stovepipe article circulated around OVP, and Libby and "others" had annotated the article.

Finally, the government notes in the interest of completeness that it may offer annotated copies of an October 2003 article by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker if it appears that the defendant will pursue the defense that he was too focused on other urgent national security matters to remember accurately what took place during his conversations with reporters. The government received from the OVP multiple copies of the same article bearing handwritten annotations, apparently by the defendant and others in his office. However, it is not the government’s present intention to offer those annotated copies.

Which leads me to wonder whether Dick and Libby Addington annotated this most recent Hersh article, describing Lebanon as a dry run for the bombing campaign against Iran.

Republican Foreign Policy: Make a Profit on Destruction, Make a Profit on Reconstruction

/in , /by

I can’t remember where I asked it, but several weeks ago I asked who was going to pay for Lebanon’s reconstruction. Some in the thread mused that we, the American taxpayers, would pay for it. Well, wouldn’t you know:

The Bush administration is scrambling to assemble a plan to helprebuild Lebanon, hoping that by competing with Hezbollah for thepublic’s favor it can undo the damage the war has inflicted on itsimage and goals for the Middle East.

Administration officials fear that unless they move quickly todemonstrate U.S. commitment, the Lebanese will turn more fully to themilitant group, which has begun rolling out an ambitious reconstructionprogram that Washington believes is bankrolled by Iran.

"Scrambling to assemble a plan to helprebuild." Those Lebanese who watched Katrina on the TV or who have heard from cousins in Iraq are no doubt reading those words with dread. And any number of campaign donors probably just heard the lovely ring of "Ka ching!"

Judy and Johnny

/in , /by

It seems Arianna hasn’t disbanded her impressive network of Judy Miller sources. She reports:

At 7:30 this morning, John Bolton was having breakfast at Oscar’s at the Waldorf with Judy Miller.

Arianna wonders whether Bolton’s nomination battle to be reappointed came up. But I’m not convinced. After all, we have good reason to believe that John Bolton is the only Neocon who has availed himself of Judy’s particular talent for WMD porn since she was ousted form the NYT. And while Judy has been instrumental in the past in helping Bolton get someone fired, drumming up political support in Congress to get someone hired isn’t really her forte. That would take rational argument, after all.

Perhaps this news from Steve Clemons offers some clues as to what Judy and Johnny were doing this morning at 7:30 am.

The Question They Didn't Ask and Bush's New Plan C

/in /by

You don’t need me to tell you things are not going well in Iraq. The NYT surveys the state of affairs this morning, and the news is not good.

The number of roadside bombs planted in Iraqrose in July to the highest monthly total of the war, offering moreevidence that the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthendespite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Alongwith a sharp increase in sectarian attacks, the number of daily strikesagainst American and Iraqi security forces has doubled since January.The deadliest means of attack, roadside bombs, made up much of thatincrease. In July, of 2,625 explosive devices, 1,666 exploded and 959were discovered before they went off. In January, 1,454 bombs explodedor were found. [my emphasis]

The article then goes goes onto discuss two studies–an August 3 DIA study entitled "Iraq Update" and the upcoming NIE–that tell more of that same story.

But what struck me about this article is the way they seem to be measuring whether Zarqawi’s death has led to a decrease in attacks. In spite of the many reports that told us the bulk of Sunni violence came from Baathist "Dead-Enders" rather than Al Qaeda, they seem to have taken seriously the proposition that Zarqawi’s death would lead to a decrease in attacks.

NeoCon Joe, the Failed Lebanese Campaign, and Losing by Winning

/in , /by

This is going to be a bit of a wandering post. But I’m going to cover the following and hopefully finish in enough time to go can peaches:

  • Taking Joe at his word
  • Hersh’s portrayal of failure
  • On how the Neocons may become winners out of losing

How to Lose

/in , /by

About one thing the squalling Neocon Democrats are consistent. They claim that their positions–centrism and hawkishness–are the winning positions. But they ignore that in both recent elections and recent wars, those "winning" policies brought Democrats and the US only failure.

Which is about all you need to know about Marty Peretz’ latest straw man op-ed, beyond the fact that is filled with nasty name-calling. Here is Peretz’ little bit of wisdom:

Buthe does have one issue, and it is Iraq. He grasps little of thecomplexities of his issue, but then this, too, is true of the genus ofthe peace candidate. Peace candidates know only one thing, and that iswhy people vote for them.

[snip]

NowMr. Lamont’s views are also not camouflaged. They are justsimpleminded. Here, for instance, is his take on what should be doneabout Iran’s nuclear-weapons venture: "We should work diplomaticallyand aggressively to give them reasons why they don’t need to build abomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressivediplomacy. I’d like to bring in allies when we can. I’d like to usecarrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of thedebate." Oh, I see. He thinks the problem is that they do notunderstand, and so we should explain things to them, and then they willdo the right thing. It is a fortunate world that Mr. Lamont lives in,but it is not the real one. Anyway, this sort of plying is preciselywhat has been going on for years, and to no good effect. Mr. Lamontcontinues that "Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keepingthe military option on the table." And what is so plainly wrong withthat? Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that wehad disposed of the military option in favor of more country clubbehavior?

Let’s see. I’m sure Peretz would consider me a "peace" Democrat, even though I’m against stupid wars rather than all wars. But here’s what this "simple-minded" peace Democrat who "grasps little of the complexities" of the issues in the Middle East knew, before the war in Iraq.

Pat Lang's Four Questions and Hezbollah

/in , , /by

What a dirty trick Pat Lang played, sending his friends a list of four issues with the US-French peace plan, but not addressing those four issues himself.

  1. France and the United States are not at war with each other.  They cannot agree to end the fighting.
  2. Hizbullah thinks it is winning both tactically and strategically.Why will it agree to anything other than a cease-fire in place?
  3. Such a cease-fire will be a victory for Hizbullah.
  4. Who will disarm Hizbullah if it accepts such a cease-fire?

I’m with Pat in doubting the feasability of the peace plan, as far as I understand it, and for some of the same reasons. I mean, Condi can’t even get Olmert (much less Peretz) to keep a straight face when she makes requests of them. Presumably Bolton was closely involved in this, and presumably he has more sway with Israel. But thus far the US has seemed unwilling and possibly unable to pressure Israel to play nice.

And France, as a stand-in for Hezbollah? I could see Chirac speaking with and for Rafiq Hariri’s Lebanon before his death. But Lebanon’s government has been all but castrated by the Israeli assault. So unless you’ve got a surrogate for Hezbollah, or preferably Hezbollah itself, you’ll be left with the problem of getting Hezbollah to agree to a plan it had no part in. Until Hezbollah is brought into the process, I assume they will answer, as they seem to be already, "Yeah, who’s going to disarm us? You and whose army?"