Archive for the 'war' Category

Back in August, I wrote a diary noting the "Iran-Contrafication of Iraq." The subject that day was the technicality that let one of the most disgusting and widely-reviled innocent and otherwise wonderful Iraq war profiteers -- contractor Custer Battles -- escape enjoy justice. Do you remember what it was?

The verdict reached $10 million because the law calls for triple damages, plus penalties fines and legal costs.

But U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, in a ruling made public Friday, ruled that Custer Battles' accusers failed to prove that the U.S. government was ever defrauded. Any fraud that occurred was perpetrated instead against the Coalition Provisional Authority, formed shortly after the war to run Iraq during the occupation until an Iraqi government was established.

Ellis ruled that the trial evidence failed to show that the U.S. government was the actual victim, even though U.S. taxpayers ultimately footed the bill.

That's right. If you defrauded American taxpayers through the cut-out of the Coalition Provisional Authority -- and let's face it, just about everyone did -- you're off the hook. Because although the CPA paid you with money provided by the American government, and was almost entirely staffed by the American government, and acted at the behest of the American government, technically speaking it wasn't the American government. So those bricks of taxpayer cash are yours to keep. Hooray for you!

Even better, Judge Ellis recently threw out the remaining charges against Custer Battles.

Yesterday's ruling involved a second case brought under a federal whistle-blower statute by Robert Isakson, who worked for a Custer Battles subcontractor, and William D. Baldwin, who worked for Custer Battles. They alleged that the company failed to make good on a commitment to provide 138 people as part of its airport security contract. Instead, Alan Grayson, an attorney for Isakson and Baldwin, said Custer Battles moved airport personnel to other contracts and illegally double-billed for their work.

Ellis, however, ruled that the contract didn't call for a specific number of security personnel, and he found that Custer Battles did not knowingly commit fraud.

Of course, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the contract didn't call for a specific number of security personnel. Why not? Well, according to former Army inspector general Col. Richard Ballard:

Custer Battles should not have charged the CPA for security services because they were not needed; the airport terminal had already been secured by about 21,000 allied troops.

Your tax dollars at work.

Froomkin, WaPo:

It seems almost inconceivable: The White House actually invites the press corps to hold it accountable -- but when the time comes, and a key benchmark is missed, the press is silent.

And yet that's exactly what has happened.

Back in January, when President Bush announced that in spite of the public opinion against the war in Iraq he was going to send in more troops, he repeatedly insisted that what was different this time was that the Iraqis were finally serious about stepping up.

"You're going to have to -- you're going to have some opportunities to judge very quickly," one senior administration official said at an official background briefing on January 10, a few hours before Bush's prime-time announcement.

"The Iraqis are going to have three brigades within Baghdad within a little more than a month. They have committed to trying to get one brigade in, I think, by the first of February, and two more by the 15th," the official said.

"So people are going to be able to see pretty quickly that the Iraqis are or are not stepping up. And that provides the ability to judge."

But at a Pentagon press conference yesterday, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace acknowledged that only two of those three Iraqi brigades are there: "You've got two of the Iraqi brigades in -- that were going to plussed up in Baghdad in Baghdad now. The third one is moving this month," Pace said.

Other press reports suggest that even those two brigades are not anywhere near full strength.

And action in Baghdad seems thus far to be almost entirely led by Americans, in stark contrast to what was promised.

Why do so many Americans, across the political spectrum, oppose this escalation?

Some oppose it because they opposed the war from the beginning. Others oppose it only now, because they know the "administration" is lying to them, and cannot be trusted to deliver anything, anywhere as promised, and they're damn well tired of it.

And yet...

Invite the press to follow you around, as Gary Hart famously did, to see if you're having an affair, and they'll pull an all-night stakeout to hold you accountable.

Invite the press to hold you accountable for your four-year-old abomination of a war and the possible deaths of hundreds if not thousands more American troops, then give them specific benchmarks with which to do it, and you get... crickets.

Sound familiar?

Clinton's zipper? "Yes, please!"

Domestic spying? Torture? Intentional destruction of America's intelligence community? "No thanks, moonbats."

Tell us again why Serious and Important People trust your product, and aren't defecting in record numbers to online sources?

See for yourself (and thank Think Progress in the process):

During today’s House debate on Iraq, virulently anti-Muslim Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) said supporting the anti-escalation resolution would “aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country.” Moreover, he said, “I fear that radical Muslims who want to control the Middle East and ultimately the world would love to see ‘In God We Trust’ stricken from our money and replaced with ‘In Muhammad We Trust.’”

They've got the video, too, in case you just can't believe it.

And so it is revealed at last. It's all about the money. Er, what the money says on it, that is.

Which is why Virgil probably keeps it wrapped in tin foil in his crawlspace.

Remember when Sen. Dick Durbin was forced to issue an apology for the mere mention of the word "Nazi" back in June 2005? The Washington Post summed up the situation pretty well, I think:

It prompted yet another episode in what has become a familiar Kabuki in American political discourse: Someone invokes the behavior of Nazis in some non-genocidal context. This is followed by an outcry (in which members of the opposing party are "saddened"), condemnation from the Anti-Defamation League, futile attempts by the speaker to "clarify" his remarks, repeated calls for him to apologize and, inevitably, some acknowledgment of regret, often tearful.

Joining in the condemnation at the time...

Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell and John Warner condemned Durbin on the floor two days later. They were followed by about two dozen Republican senators (in news releases), Majority Leader Bill Frist (who called on Durbin to apologize on the Senate floor), Vice President Cheney, White House press secretary Scott McClellan and a host of veterans groups and conservative commentators.

The latest entry in the Nazi invocation sweepstakes: John Warner's Virginia colleague, Rep. Frank Wolf.

This is the answer! This is part of the solution to bring the country together! It can not wait! This is like, '37 to '38 in Nazi Germany coming. We cannot wait for other months and other times and other things!

What the hell is he talking about? Good question. I'm not even sure he knows.

But apparently, noted human rights champion torture voter Wolf has decided to perform The Forbidden Dance in order to highlight the inhuman atrocity of... denying him a vote on a non-germane amendment to the straight upperdownvote^TM on the escalation.

See, Wolf believes that instead of voting on the escalation itself, we should be voting on whether we think the Iraq Study Group's report was a nice thing or not. And if we don't, well, it's just Nazi Germany all over again.

But thanks to a leaked Republican talking points memo, we now have a clearer idea (as if we didn't already) of why Republicans feel it's so important that we not-see (heh) a straight up vote on the question: "If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge^* or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."

So let's all just hold our breath and wait for Mitch McConnell, John Warner, Dick Cheney, et al. to demand Wolf's apology, shall we?

Yeah, right. IOKIYAR.

^*N.B.: The "surge" is what idiots who like to fool themselves call the "escalation."

Update [2007-2-14 17:26:38 by Kagro X]: Here's Frank Wolf's stab at taking the discussion into our territory, at The Hill's Congress Blog:

Democrats Set Dangerous Precedent With CR
February 1st, 2007

The Democrats are setting a precedent that is very dangerous. We should have been able to add amendments...I introduced legislation last month based on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group’s recommendations. Am I going to be shut out because I can’t offer any amendments? That’s been the story for the last month.

Permalink | Comment on this story

Posted by Va. GOP Rep. Frank Wolf

Aww. That's been the story for the last month, huh? How tragic.

It was the story for the previous 12 years. With your help, Frank.

Steny Hoyer's gotten hold of a wayward "Dear Colleague" letter from GOP Reps. John Shadegg and Peter Hoekstra that shows a little too much leg (PDF):

We are writing to urge you not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution on their terms, but rather on ours.  

Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.

We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.

The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.

I've decided to help you find the key nugget, with a little bolding. Didja catch it?

If we have an upperdownvote ^TM on the escalation, Republicans lose.

Because nearly everyone in America opposes it, including a significant number of the Republicans who received this letter. And if there's a straight-up vote on it, they lose.

So naturally, the Republican plan is: try to make the vote about something else.

News flash, fellas. There is nothing else. The war is everything, and piece by piece we will have our votes, and you will lose them.

"Elections have consequences."

Watch this play.

WaPo:

A "very damning" report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, says the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee....

The investigation by acting inspector general Thomas F. Gimble found that prewar intelligence work at the Pentagon, including a contention that the CIA had underplayed the likelihood of an al-Qaida connection, was inappropriate but not illegal.....

Feith called "bizarre" the inspector general's conclusion that some intelligence activities by the Office of Special Plans, which was created while Feith served as the undersecretary of defense for policy the top policy position under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld were inappropriate but not unauthorized.

"Clearly, the inspector general's office was willing to challenge the policy office and even stretch some points to be able to criticize it," Feith said, adding that he felt this amounted to subjective "quibbling" by the IG.

It should be obvious what Feith's motive is, especially with the Libby trial looming in the background. His primary interest, of course, is that the activities of his OSP be deemed at least not unlawful. And he's managed to get the IG's cooperation on that score. But he wants more than that. He wants to scotch their designation of his activities as inappropriate even if not unauthorized.

But what does that mean? Or more importantly, what's the difference between what it means and what Feith and the rest of the "administration" want you to think it means?

When this "administration" makes an argument that its activities were legal because they were "not unauthorized," you need to be thinking of how Attorney General Alberto Gonzales regards the nexus between legality and authorization.

Back in February 2006, Gonzales clashed (in)famously with Sen. Russ Feingold, in a hearing before the Senate Judiciary committee. In Feingold's own discussion of the hearing, he told us:

I reminded the Attorney General about his testimonyduring his confirmation hearings in January 2005, when I asked him [18.4MB video file] whether the President had the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of the criminal law.  We didn't know it then, but the President had authorized the NSA program three years before, when the Attorney General was White House Counsel.  At his confirmation hearing, the Attorney General first tried to dismiss my question as "hypothetical" before stating "it's not the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes."  Yesterday, he tried to claim [25.6MB video file] that he had told the truth at that hearing, bringing the parsing of words to new lows.  I think it is clear that the Attorney General misled the Committee and the public not only about the NSA wiretapping program but about his views on presidential power.

But I don't think it was parsing. I think it was misleading, but not parsing. Here's how I saw it:

Not only is he saying that no law can be passed that infringes upon the president's "inherent authority," he is saying that he told the truth in his confirmation hearings because he believes the surveillance programs do not violate the law because they cannot violate the law.

That's why he regarded Senator Feingold's question as a hypothetical. Because it was and is his assumption that no program initiated by the president in furtherance of the national security could be in violation of the law.

That is, it is a resurrection of the infamous Nixon doctrine, revealed in Nixon's 1977 interview with David Frost:

Frost: "So ... what ... you're saying is that there are certain situations ... where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal."

Nixon: "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

Frost: " By definition."

Nixon: "Exactly, exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security ... then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law."

The "administration's" gambit here is that we'll all fall back on the presumption that the government is "entitled" to this kind of deference. Either that the "Commander in Chief" can get away with certain methods of circumventing the law, and that if he "breaks" it, it's really not breaking it, precisely because he's the president. Or failing that, they hope at the very least that we'll accept their view that the sort of "not illegal" activities which Feith pursued at the behest of the "administration" ought to be beyond the reach of the criminal law, because otherwise we're "criminalizing politics."

At bottom, though, this report makes clear that the "administration's" presumption rests on the willingness of the American people to believe that the purposeful dismantling and circumvention of our legal and authorized intelligence channels -- up to and including the outing of critical undercover non-proliferation agents and the insanely dishonest selling of a war that turned out to be the worst foreign policy disaster in American history -- is "just politics."

It's time we all asked ourselves a question I posed early in the Plame investigation:

What I'm asking is, what's bigger? The lies the administration used to convince the country to go to war? Or the lie that the administration only fought the intelligence community after the fact, to cover its tracks when caught?

Is the administration covering up the lengths to which it went to prevent the exposure of its mistaken reliance on bad intelligence? Or is the administration covering up the lengths to which it went to promote intelligence developed by its own, parallel intelligence structure, a plan which required the simultaneous undermining and the destruction of the credibility of the country's established (read: authorized and legitimate) intelligence structure, which refused to give them what they wanted?

The answer to that question is the difference between "just politics," and "we're not kidding when we whisper the word 'treason.'"