Iraq Death Toll Rivals Rwanda Genocide, Cambodian Killing Fields

Joshua Holland, AlterNet

War on Iraq: A new study estimates that 1.2 million Iraqis have met violent deaths since Bush and Cheney chose to invade.

Who Is Michael Mukasey and Should He Be Attorney General?
Steve Benen: Among other things, he's a conservative Republican, playing an active role in Giuliani's nutty presidential campaign.


Election '08: Watch Out, Here Comes Alan Keyes
Pam Spaulding: The infamous nutcase says he's running for president to "save" the GOP and strengthen their allegiance to God.


Greenspan Slams Bush's Fiscal Policy, Several Years Too Late
Ian Welsh: Alan Greenspan's new book says nasty things about Bush, but that doesn't mean he's redeemed himself.

A rate cut with a shoeshine and a smile

The US Federal Reserve will cut the Fed Funds rate by 25 basis points on Tuesday. Anything less will see Fed chairman Ben Bernanke beset by a ravening horde of his true employers - the financial services industry and the upper- and middle-class American investors who will see their portfolios plummet. So Bernanke will present his phony sales pitch with a shoeshine and a smile, rather than die as an honorable salesman. - Julian Delasantellis (Sep 17, '07)

Either way, it could be an unkind cut
Whether the Fed lowers the Fed Funds rate depends on whether it sees 6% unemployment on the horizon. Yet a cut in short-term rates may do more harm than good by not helping to sustain a liquidity boom, yet fueling accelerated inflation; not to mention leading to a loss of confidence on the part of the market in the Fed's ability to manage a monetary and financial crisis. - Henry C K Liu (Sep 17, '07)


Perils of the debt-propelled economy
- Henry C K Liu (Sep 14, '02)

Growing need for US-Iran confidence steps
As Iran and the United States dish out the rhetoric with equal venom, the US is reframing the Iraq debate less in terms of Iraq's nation-building and more in terms of anti-terrorism and anti-Iran priorities. This dangerously increases the chances of flash points between the countries going off, prompting calls for an "incident-at-sea agreement" as one step toward restoring some confidence to the relationship. - Kaveh L Afrasiabi (Sep 17, '07)

INTERVIEW
Withdrawal is the solution to the mess
Tariq Ali, historian and filmmaker
The main beneficiary of the US-led "war on terror" has been Iran, says Tariq Ali. The Iranians, who regarded the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq as enemies, kept silent over the US invasions of these countries. They had their own agenda, but Tehran's state interests are now clashing with those of the US. (Sep 17, '07)

COMMENT
The cowboy learns some finesse
Those who regarded George W Bush's early policy as manifesting America's diplomatic culture - or lack of it: calling Bush and the entire nation "cowboys" happened quite frequently in the foreign press - ignored the fact that Americans are extremely skillful diplomats. America's dealing with China is a good illustration. - Dmitry Shlapentokh (Sep 17, '07)

SPENGLER
It's easy for the Jews
to talk about life
Life as such is not that likable, yet the standard Jewish toast states, "To life!" The Jews' love of life is a product of the Covenant, which they see as having kept this tiny people alive despite the onslaught of empires, and later the enmity of the Jewish state's Muslim neighbors. In effect the Jews' - and the State of Israel's - success is a driver for Christian evangelism in the global South. (Sep 17, '07)

Mohamed ElBaradei of IAEA: The man at the center of the West's confrontation with Iran

Military Drills - False Flag Provocation, Attack On Iran?

Israeli Syrian Overflight was 'rehearsal' for attack on Iran

French FM Kouchner Warns: War with Iran

Iran slams French nuclear war warning

Iran's Ahmadinejad defiant amid nuclear warnings: Iranian president says Iran has mastered nuclear technology and will never yield in face of international pressure to halt enrichment

Bush setting America up for war with Iran

Enriched uranium fuel is ready to be shipped from Russia to Iran's first nuclear power plant: Iran's Foreign Minister

Defense Secretary Gates Insists: US favors diplomacy with Iran

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates rejected today former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's statement the Iraq war "is largely about oil"

Bush signals beginning of the end in Iraq: Telling sceptical Americans the US military role there will stretch beyond his presidency

U.S. troop surge in Iraq ultimately ineffective

Iraq troop withdrawal was inevitable

Gates warns against Webb Iraq plan to force withdrawal earlier

Instability is the bane of Iraq

Ramadan television series makes light of morbid reality in Iraq

Iraq war, low expectations bedevil Senator McCain

Iraq Sunni insurgent leader: Iran more dangerous than US

Third 9/11 Jihadist Video Calls For Attacks on West

By Jeffrey Imm


Media reports state that a third 9/11 Jihadist video, reportedly by Al Qaeda, has been released via Islamist web sites today, calling for Jihadist terror acts on the West to be a daily occurrence and calling for "acts of mass extermination".
AKI and AFP have thus far provided the primary reporting on this new Al Qaeda video.

AKI reports that the new 26 minute video is entitled "The attacks in New York and Washington - reasons and motives".
AFP reports that the video "features a montage of images of the burning World Trade Center towers and scenes from Islamist training camps."

AFP reports that a voiceover on the video states:
"We must take Islamist terrorism to Western countries so that it becomes a normal part of life like natural disasters" and "n that way, we will have acts of mass extermination in which people will feel that their affluence also brings death... and we will have created a balance of deterrence between us and them".

AKI reports that the new video begins with a message from Abu Yahya al-Libi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. On the new video, Al-Libi is reported to praise the role of Al Qaeda in defending the principles of Islam

AKI reports that the new video includes a montage of audio and video footage of previous messages Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri on the rationale behind the 9/11 attacks. AFP reports that the video also includes a clip by Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, also known as Sheikh Said, the group's commander in Afghanistan.

AKI reports that:
"[a] voice on the video also gives an account of the war in Chechnya, blames the West for having committed a mass extermination and calls for revenge for this action. Also included is footage of interviews carried out by the Arab satellite TV network, Al Jazeera, with university professors, Arab commentators and editor of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper. The entire video describes various events that occured before the 9/11 attacks, in particular the conflict in Chechnya, and tries to explain the reasons behind the terror attacks."

AKI reports that the video ends with a speech by Abdullah Azzam. Abdullah Azzam, who died in 1989, was an inspiration to Osama Bin Laden and countless other Jihadists.

AKI reports that the new video does not the logo of al-Sahab, Al Qaeda's communications arm, but carries the new logo of "al-Tanzim". AFP reports: "A third release had been trailed by Al-Qaeda's media arm, As-Sahab. In the event the new video was issued in the name of Al-Tanzem, prompting suggestions the network has launched a new media arm."


[i]This posting will be updated as new information is released.

Sources:

September 17, 2007 -- AKI: Terrorism: Al-Qaeda releases third 9/11 video

September 17, 2007 -- AFP: Qaeda urges Islamic terror in West in third 9/11 video

September 17, 2007 -- Agenzia Giornalistica Italia -- Terror: Third Al Qaeda's video, attacks must be normal

April 16, 2002 - Slate: Abdullah Azzam - The godfather of jihad


September 17, 2007 01:00 PM Link

A Look at the Hamas (Muslim Brotherhood) Government

By Douglas Farah


Today's Washington Post carries a fascinating look at the way Hamas, the West Bank branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, runs its government.

The two trends that have made Islamist governments both accepted and disliked are clearly on display. The first thing the Hamas government seems to have done is get rid of the perpetual insecurity, crime and endemic corruption. This is a pattern repeated from Afghanistan to Somalia, and one that is often at the top of the list of priorities of civilian populations.

These actions, as they did elsewhere, buy an enormous amount of goodwill among the general public, and is a facet that is usually sorely lacking in U.S.-led efforts to win hearts and minds.

The second trend is the imposition of Islamist behavior. The article notes that "Gaza's streets have taken on an increasingly Islamic cast in recent months. The improved everyday security has brought people back to the markets, beaches and parks, many of them women wearing for the first time the full black gown, gloves and face covering favored by the most conservative Muslims." My full blog is here.

September 17, 2007 11:40 AM Link

Clinton and Obama on the Same Page as MoveOn.orgby Jed BabbinMichael Dukakis was stuck with Willie Horton. Hillary and Obama should be stuck with the "Betray Us" ad.

It’s Time to Draw the Line by Sen. John CornynThe now-infamous Moveon.org ad -- "General Petraeus or General Betray Us" -- marks a potential watershed in U.S. political discourse

Will Iraq's Blackwater Ban Raise Troop Levels in Baghdad? [b]By Rob Kall After a firefight, allegedly involving blackwater, which produced 8 civilian deaths and 14 wounded, Iraq has "withdrawn Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq. Will the ban have teeth? and, if thousands of blackwater security and mercenary workers have to leave, or can't work, will General Petraeus have to INCREASE troop deployments to Baghdad?[/b]

Pakistan Heading Towards Total Anarchy [b]By Muhammad Khurshid Pakistan has been succumbing to the pressure being built by the Taliban and terrorists. In other words, Pakistan has been losing the war on terrorism. But now the present leaders ruling the country have no other option, but eliminate terrorism. They have to finish off the terrorists, otherwise they will vanish.[/b]

Mumia Abu-Jamal: The 9-11 Moment As the ashes began to cool from the embers of what was once the World Trade Center, allies and enemies alike expressed solidarity with the U.S., and shed tears of sympathy. What a difference six years makes. What was once solidarity has cooled to bitter toleration, and barely disguised anger. Remember the so-called "Coalition of the Willing?"

The MoveOn.org Mess

Tom Bevan

Some notes on the MoveOn.org mess:

How big of a political blunder was MoveOn's ad? Even Frank Rich of the New York Times thinks the group went too far and - more importantly - that Hillary and Barack were stupid not to smack them down:

Americans are looking for leadership, somewhere, anywhere. At least one of the Democratic presidential contenders might have shown the guts to soundly slap the "General Betray-Us" headline on the ad placed by MoveOn.org in The Times, if only to deflate a counterproductive distraction.

Yesterday on Meet the Press, Chuck Todd described MoveOn.org this way:

MoveOn is sort of like this old friend of the Democratic Party. It's as if it's, you know, your, your teen - your - a friend of yours from high school, and you don't mind hanging out with them back in high school, and then they keep showing up at your parties, and they get a little drunk and obnoxious, but you'll still - you're afraid to criticize them because they know too much about you or something.

Meanwhile, John McCain made a bit of news by calling for MoveOn.org to be "thrown out of the country" (his campaign later qualified the Senator's comment saying he "expressed his outrage in words that did not convey his intended meaning.") Here is the video:

Finally, I was on Bruce DuMont's nationally-syndicated radio show, Beyond the Beltway, last night along with Dan Johnson-Weinberger, a "progressive" lobbyist who also happens to be a member of MoveOn.org. Dan started the show by defending the ad as "cute" and saying that he had no knowledge of General Petraeus' personal integrity and thought the General had exhibited "hack-like behavior" by "collaborating" with the hacks in the Bush administration. (view the first hour of the program here)

Later Dan said he thought it was "healthy" and "good" that Democrats were challenging General Petraeus and his report, and that it would be a display of "bad judgment" for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to denounce or distance themselves from the MoveOn ad.

I relate all of this because it shows what an overinflated sense of confidence MoveOn and its members have about the current state of affairs. They see public opinion polls showing an unpopular president and frustration with the war and naturally assume those numbers mean a majority of the country shares their utter contempt for Bush and their willingness to use any tactic necessary - including disparaging a distinguished member of the military - as a means to end the war.

It's been a textbook case of political tone deafness, a gift to Republican presidential candidates, and an issue that will almost certainly come back to be a thorn in the side of Democratic nominee in the general election next year.

Copyright © 2007 RealClearPolitics
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Kolbert, Elizabeth. "The Lady Vanishes.(A Woman in Charge)(Book review). ." The New Yorker. 83.16 (June 11, 2007): 130. General Reference Center Gold. Gale. Montgomery County Public Library (MD). 17 Sept. 2007
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?...version=1.0>;.

Full Text:COPYRIGHT 2007 All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission of The Condé Nast Publications Inc.
In August, 1995, Carolyn Huber, an aide to Bill and Hillary Clinton, was doing a little tidying up around the White House when, in the so-called book room, she noticed a sheaf of computer printouts lying on a table. Without looking at them too closely, Huber picked up the papers and shoved them, along with a stray coat hanger, into a box, which she then pushed underneath a table in her office. The printouts--and the coat hanger--sat there, undisturbed, for five months, until Huber finally got around to cleaning her office and discovered what a mess she had got into.

The printouts were old billing records from the Rose Law Firm. They detailed work that Hillary Clinton had performed in the nineteen-eighties for Madison Guaranty, a failing Arkansas savings and loan, and they had been subpoenaed back in 1994 as part of the Whitewater investigation. The records had been searched for but, investigators were told, were nowhere to be found. Huber realized that she needed to report the discovery of the documents right away. When she delivered the papers to the Clintons' lawyers, her hands were shaking.

As Carl Bernstein tells us in his new biography of Hillary, "A Woman in Charge" (Knopf; $27.95), the appearance of the billing records presented a challenge even to the First Lady's staunchest allies. The White House book room was off-limits to almost everyone except Huber, the Clintons, house guests, and Mrs. Clinton's grooming staff, and it was hard to imagine the First Lady's makeup assistant taking much interest in them. (When investigators examined the records later, they found Mrs. Clinton's fingerprints, literally, on them.) Hillary offered no explanation for what had happened--"I do not know how the billing records came to be found where they were found," she told reporters--but was nonetheless angry that so few in her party rallied to her defense. She questioned her aides, one of whom tried to explain the awkwardness of the situation.

"You know, we don't have answers for people," the aide said to her, according to Bernstein. "We can't tell them where these things were. We can't tell them why it took two years to find them." Clinton still didn't see the problem. "Yeah, but people should know that if I wanted to destroy these things I would have destroyed them," she said. "And they never would have been found."

There are two kinds of books about Clinton. The first tries to prove that she's really much worse than you think she is, the second that she's really no worse than you think she is. Bernstein has apparently mellowed since his Watergate days, and his book belongs squarely in the latter camp. Even as he chronicles one fabulous misstep after another, he describes the former First Lady as "well-intentioned" and "principled," motivated by deep religious faith and a passionate sense of caring. He characterizes the "so-called Whitewater matter" as "overblown almost from the moment the New York Times first wrote about it," and relates Clinton's various self-justifying comments--"If I wanted to destroy these things, I would have"--with no apparent irony.

Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, Jr.,'s "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton" (Little, Brown; $29.99) is the other kind of Clinton book. Van Natta is a Times reporter and Gerth a former Times reporter. Indeed, it was Gerth who broke the "so-called Whitewater matter," back in 1992, and then, more than any other journalist, kept the story alive. The tantalizing promise of "Her Way," which is appearing simultaneously with "A Woman in Charge," is that there is still a book's worth of dirt about Hillary out there. But, thanks in part to Gerth's earlier diligence, this is a promise that's tough to make good on. Take the hitherto untold story of Lee Telega, a Cornell University extension employee who worked in Clinton's Washington office for six months, guiding the new senator on agricultural policy. Gerth and Van Natta go to great lengths to prove that Clinton's office never filed the required paperwork for Telega. The result? Apparently, Senator Clinton is guilty of receiving unauthorized dairy-farming advice.

"A Woman in Charge" and "Her Way" join what is, by now, a veritable library of Clinton biographies, including Donnie Radcliffe's "Hillary Rodham Clinton: A First Lady for Our Time," Gail Sheehy's "Hillary's Choice," David Brock's "The Seduction of Hillary Rodham," and Edward Klein's "The Truth About Hillary." The pace of publication has quickened recently, so that the book lists this spring and summer include at least five new Clinton volumes--six if you count the paperback that accompanies "The Hillary Clinton Voodoo Kit: Stick It to Her, Before She Sticks It to You!"

Just about every biography--and this includes the two latest entries--begins with a description of Clinton's formative years: her middle-class childhood in Park Ridge, Illinois; her stint as a Goldwater Girl in high school; her arrival, in thick glasses and bell-bottoms, at Wellesley College. Most then rush through her years at Yale Law School, a romantic interlude whose unromantic climax is seventeen years in Arkansas. There follows a discussion of the 1992 campaign, Hillary's critical role in saving Bill from Gennifer Flowers, and the requisite reflection on the complex nature of their marriage. Sympathetic and unsympathetic biographers alike tend to tell Clinton's more recent history as a sequence of spectacular humiliations--first Gennifer, then health care, then Monica--followed by even more spectacular recoveries: an office in the West Wing, a seat in the United States Senate, a shot at the Presidency. Along the way, they offer some never before disclosed documents or factoids. As the end approaches, they try to come up with an account of what matters to Hillary and what doesn't--an explanation of who she truly is. Then, in the very last pages, they acknowledge that the effort probably hasn't quite succeeded and that the reader is still feeling at sea. As the historian Gil Troy observes in his 2006 biography, "Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady," the "literature regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton is vast but unsatisfying." Or, as Gerth and Van Natta put it at the close of their book, "So, who is the real Hillary?" So many pages, so little progress.

The repeated failure to get at the "real" Hillary can itself be variously interpreted. It can be taken as a reason to abandon the project or, alternatively, to rethink the question. On the face of it, one would be hard pressed to maintain that the public doesn't yet know enough of the relevant facts. By now, even those who have been only half paying attention possess more information--much of it intimate--about Hillary Clinton than they do about their neighbors, their co-workers, and, quite possibly, their parents. If many Americans, including many of Clinton's biographers, still feel that they don't know the real Hillary, then surely that must say something about who Hillary really is.

Consider the apparently simple but, it turns out, unanswerable question of her name. When she married Bill, at the age of twenty-seven, Clinton pointedly decided to remain Hillary Rodham. According to Bernstein, she had resolved to do this "as a young girl, even before the practice was encouraged by a nascent women's movement." He quotes Clinton telling a friend that the choice was a matter of principle: it affirmed that she would continue to be "a person in my own right." Seven years later, when Bill was in a tough campaign to regain the Arkansas governorship, Hillary changed her mind. Except, she insisted, it wasn't a change at all.

"I don't have to change my name," she declared. "I've been Mrs. Bill Clinton. I kept the professional name Hillary Rodham in my law practice, but now I'm going to be taking a leave of absence from the law firm to campaign full-time for Bill and I'll be Mrs. Bill Clinton." Hillary remained Mrs. Bill Clinton all the way up to the eve of her husband's Inauguration as President, at which point she suddenly began introducing herself as Hillary Rodham Clinton. This change, too, she insisted, wasn't one. "Hillary Rodham Clinton has been the First Lady's name all along, since 1982," her press secretary, Lisa Caputo, told the Times, in what was described as a tone of exasperation. "We're at a loss as to why people think this is something that we're just trying to change now." A few weeks ago, the Albany Times-Union reported that Clinton has now dropped "Rodham" from her Presidential-campaign literature, though it still appears on communications from her Senate office. Even the one apparent constant in this history--Hillary--turns out to be dodgy. During a 1995 trip to Nepal, Clinton said to reporters that she had been told that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the first climber to reach the top of Mt. Everest. This is why, she explained, her name has two "l"s. But, since Clinton was born in 1947 and Edmund Hillary, a New Zealander, was unknown outside his own country until his summit, in 1953, the account, as many noted, was implausible. (Questioned about the tale during the 2006 Senate campaign, a Clinton aide called it a "sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter.")

In a political culture like ours, where character supposedly is all, this sort of fuzziness is obviously a problem. And yet even here it's possible to look for an advantage. Clinton's Presidential campaign is explicitly premised on the idea that no one really knows her. The day before the formal announcement of her candidacy, on January 20th, Clinton told NPR's Steve Inskeep, "I may be the most famous person you know very little about." Two days after the announcement, she told NBC's Brian Williams, "I'm probably the most famous person you don't really know." The day after that, she told the "Today" show's Meredith Vieira, "I may be the most famous person you really don't know." Speaking to potential supporters in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the following weekend, she said, "I may be the most famous woman you don't really know."

In the fifteen years since Hillary became First Lady, she has made news for almost everything she's done. (Her hair styles alone have probably generated more headlines than most congressmen.) Two episodes, however, stand out, because they were so consequential and, in different ways, so disastrous. "A Woman in Charge" is especially good on what's generally referred to as the health-care debacle; "Her Way" offers genuinely new insights into Clinton's vote on Iraq.

Bernstein makes several things clear about the health-care debacle, one of which is that it didn't have to happen. As he reports the story, the first critical misstep was Bill's. Many of the new President's advisers, including Lloyd Bentsen, the Treasury Secretary, and Donna Shalala, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, opposed the choice of Hillary to lead what was formally known as the President's Task Force on National Health Care Reform. They doubted her qualifications and advised the President to keep his distance. Shalala tells Bernstein that she warned the President, "You can't run a major policy like this out of the White House. You've got to have some insulation from it, in case it falls on its face." But he wouldn't--or couldn't--listen. As an anonymous deputy explains to Bernstein, it was a matter of politics in the most domestic sense. Hillary had "stood by him in the Gennifer Flowers mess. And he had to pay her back. This is what she wanted."

The next mistakes were Hillary's, and Bernstein documents them in rich detail. Clinton and the task force's staff coordinator, Ira Magaziner, assembled five hundred members for the group, then decided to organize them--if that's the right word--into thirty-four committees. Not surprisingly, work quickly fell behind schedule. The committees were required to meet under near-military conditions of secrecy: members were forbidden to photocopy documents under discussion or even bring pens and pencils to some sessions. Their meetings were closed to the press and, indeed, to all outsiders, an arrangement that was soon challenged--successfully--in court.

Clinton's biggest blunder, as Bernstein tells it, was to offend the very legislators whose support she needed most. At a retreat for Democratic senators in the spring of 1993, Clinton was asked whether it was realistic to pursue such an ambitious health-care program, given her husband's many other legislative initiatives. She responded that the Administration was prepared to "demonize" those who opposed the task force's recommendations.

"That was it for me in terms of Hillary Clinton," Senator Bill Bradley, of New Jersey, told Bernstein. "You don't tell members of the Senate you are going to demonize them. It was obviously so basic to who she is. The arrogance. The assumption that people with questions are enemies. The disdain. The hypocrisy."

When the task force finally finished its proposal, months after it had promised to do so, the bill was one thousand three hundred and twenty-four pages long and so complex that, Bernstein writes, "even Hillary's closest allies on the Hill could not fathom its contents." In the meantime, Clinton all but assured a poor reception for the bill by allowing it to be leaked to the Washington Post before formally briefing lawmakers. Still, there was hope for some kind of health-care reform. As the task force's plan was dying, key senators and congressmen of both parties proposed simpler alternatives. Had Clinton thrown her support behind any one of these, millions of Americans who lack health insurance might now be covered. But she refused.

"I find her to be among the most self-righteous people I've ever known in my life," Bob Boorstin, the task force's deputy for media relations, told Bernstein. "And it's her great flaw, it's what killed health care."

The Senate voted on the Iraq war resolution on October 11, 2002. On October 10th, Clinton delivered a speech on the Senate floor explaining her position. She called her vote "very difficult"--"This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make," she said--but she would "cast it with conviction," she added.

"The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt," she said. "Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members." All these so-called facts, of course, turned out to be very much in doubt.

A great deal has been written about the intelligence gathered before the war and about the extent to which it was manipulated. It now seems clear that the White House presented to the public information that it knew, or at least should have known, to be false. But senators had access to information that the public never saw. Ten days before the vote authorizing the war, the Bush Administration delivered to Congress a classified, ninety-page report entitled "National Intelligence Estimate: Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction." The document, most of which to this day has not been released, detailed what was known and, just as important, what was not known about Saddam's capabilities. On the basis of the report and other information, Senator Bob Graham, of Florida, then the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, decided that evidence of W.M.D.s in Iraq was weak. He repeatedly urged his colleagues to read the full report and not to rely on the unclassified--and highly selective--summary that the Administration had made public. (Graham was one of the twenty-three senators who ultimately voted against the war.)

Did Clinton take the trouble to read the intelligence estimate before casting her vote? All the evidence that Gerth and Van Natta review indicates that she didn't. Clinton would have had to go to a secure room in the Capitol to get access to the document. Meanwhile, as Gerth and Van Natta point out, her aides could not have seen the intelligence estimate, because they lacked the necessary security clearances. Her spokesperson recently told the Washington Post that Clinton was briefed on the report "multiple times" by several members of the Administration.

No one, except perhaps Clinton, can know whether reading the intelligence estimate would have influenced her decision to authorize the war. Gerth and Van Natta argue, plausibly, that her vote was all but predetermined by her need to appear "tough" and by her husband's 1998 bombing campaign against suspected W.M.D. sites in Iraq. They also argue, plausibly, that her failure to consult the report undermines recent statements she has made. At a candidates' forum in February, Clinton declared, "My vote was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that I had at that time." Also in February, she said, "If I had known then what we know now, there would never have been a vote and I never would have voted to give the President the authority." At a campaign stop in New Hampshire the same month, she pointedly refused to label her vote a mistake, saying, "The mistakes were made by this President, who misled this country and this Congress." But can you really be misled by a report you've never read?

Neither Bernstein nor Gerth and Van Natta talked to Clinton directly for their books. (Bernstein reports that when he started work on his book, in 1999, both Hillary and Bill indicated that they would be happy to speak to him; later, they changed their minds, on the ground that they didn't want to favor one book over all the others.) As a result, "A Woman in Charge" and "Her Way" are forced to fall back on Clinton's largely ghostwritten, highly sanitized account of her life, "Living History," published in 2003. Then again, Hillary being Hillary, it's not clear how much the authors would have gained by spending time with her.

I covered Mrs. Clinton sporadically from the day she began her first campaign for the Senate, on Daniel Patrick Moynihan's farm, through her early years in office. In that period, I saw her in dozens of settings--working the state fairgrounds in Syracuse, nodding attentively during her "listening tour," chatting with aides in Washington, signing books in Westchester County, taking a call from her husband on her cell phone. I also interviewed her a few times. When the subject was policy, she was always smart and engaged; when the topic was personal, it was like talking to someone through several layers of Plexiglas. Of course, I was trying to get at the "real" Hillary. (In the interest of full disclosure, I never even came close.)

History is full of politicians who have sacrificed other people to their ambitions. A willingness to do so might even be called a precondition of power. Clinton is unusual in that she seems, above all, to have sacrificed herself. Whether you follow her around for months or just read a book about her, you can't help admiring her extraordinary discipline. When her husband was accused of creating a "slush fund" to manage his extramarital affairs, she organized a legal team to protect him--that's the kind of person she is. (Bernstein reports that, in 1990, the team interviewed five women, in one case with Hillary in the room, to obtain statements from them that they had never had sex with Bill.) In January, 2000, I accompanied Clinton on a campaign swing through western New York. The first morning began with what was expected to be a friendly radio interview. Instead, the host asked Clinton whether she had ever slept with Vince Foster. No matter what else she did or said that day, it was clear that this story was going to dominate the news cycle. Her press secretary looked as if he wanted to vomit. But Clinton managed to smile and shake hands through the next ten hours of campaign events, as if the whole incident had never happened.

As soon as Clinton indicated that she was going to run for President, it was inevitable that books like Bernstein's and Gerth and Van Natta's would appear. It was also inevitable that, whether or not anything truly new was revealed, other journalists would use these volumes as an excuse to trot out their own favorite Clinton stories--the billing records, the name changes, the absurd extravaganza on the Moynihan farm, and, oh, have I mentioned "I've always been a Yankees fan"? The Clinton camp's official response to the books has been dismissive. "Is it possible to quote someone yawning?" the Senator's press secretary, Philippe Reines, said to the Washington Post. Perhaps Clinton is, at this point, hardened enough to be bored by the efforts of Bernstein et al. Or perhaps she is pained by them. It would be interesting to know what she really feels, and it is possible to argue that such information is relevant to the electorate. How a chief executive regards his (or her) mistakes is, after all, a matter of importance. (See President George W. Bush.) But, as "A Woman in Charge" and "Her Way" make clear, this is precisely the sort of question about Hillary that cannot be answered.

Gale Document Number:A164764690




© 2007 Gale, a part of The Thomson Corporation. Thomson and Star Logo are trademarks and are registered trademarks used herein under license=

It Was Right To Dissolve the Iraqi Army: We broke America's terrible habit of ruling by proxy through military regimes. By: Christopher Hitchens http://www.slate.com/id/2174047/

Congress Hears Some, But Not All, of Jones Commission Report

Skeptics might call it a typical congressional hearing: it involved commissioners of a prestigious report who appear not to have read and fully understood it contents and members of Congress who invent evidence and pile onto it. It also showed an understanding of Iraqi sovereignty that some might find a little curious. Straus Military Reform Project Research Associate Valerie Reed describes the hearing in her latest report.



The House Armed Services Committee convened last Thursday afternoon to hear testimony on the Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq. The Independent Commission (also called the Jones Commission) was established by Congress to assess the progress and capabilities of Iraq’s security forces; it was given a 120-day mandate, but the commission was able to complete its report in 90 days. The commission was made up of 20 retired senior military officials, chiefs of police, and a former deputy secretary of defense. Four members of the commission served as witnesses at the hearing: Chairman Gen. James Jones, USMC (ret.); Hon. John Hamre (former deputy secretary of defense); Gen. George Joulwan, USA (ret.); and former D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey.

Last week, many media outlets reported that the Jones Commission found the Iraqi Army was making significant progress toward handling internal security independently, but that sectarianism had bred corruption in the Shiite-dominated Ministry of the Interior. Because the National Police Force is under the Ministry of the Interior, this force has become weak and ineffective as an arm of law enforcement, and is often involved in sectarian violence. According to media reports, this led the commission to recommend disbanding and remaking the National Police Force.

The Department of Defense (DOD) rejected this recommendation, arguing that the National Police Force is improving and that disbanding it would create a dangerous security vacuum. Jones’s opening testimony confirmed the report’s recommendation to disband. However, when questioned by Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. (who suggested that the media skewed the story), if the commission recommended disbanding the police, former D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey was adamant that disbandment was not recommended. Rather, he asserted that “redefining the mission” was proposed. Ramsey’s assertion could be interpreted as his effort to minimize the divergence between the DOD and the Jones Commission report, the facts notwithstanding.

It is very unclear why any discrepancy between the report’s contents and Ramsey’s testimony could exist as the report’s text is very clear; an excerpt from it reads:

The National Police have proven operationally ineffective. Sectarianism in its units undermines its ability to provide security; the force is not viable in its current form. The National Police should be disbanded and reorganized.

One possible explanation was offered by Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., who suggested that the George W. Bush administration had an influence on the commissioners. Shea-Porter cited a Los Angeles Times article as corroboration for her contention. However, when contacted, the Times’ Pentagon correspondent Julian Barnes stated that his article was “mis-referenced.” Moreover, Shea-Porter’s office did not respond to a request for a citation of any other article. Therefore, this line of argument cannot be confirmed.

Another possible but completely unconfirmed and theoretical explanation is that Ramsey’s comments were directed toward the development of the Iraqi Police Force, as opposed to the Iraqi National Police Force. In this case, there would be no discrepancy, as the commission did not recommend disbanding this organization. Concerning the Iraqi Police Service, the report states:

To be effective in combating the threats they face, including sectarian violence, the Iraqi Police Service must be better trained and equipped. The Commission believes that the Iraqi Police Service can improve rapidly should the Ministry of Interior become a more functional institution.

Republicans at the hearing seized on the incongruity, declaring it evidence that, according to Rep. John McHugh, R.-N.Y., some “imposters” in the media had undermined and skewed the report’s recommendations. They contended the media was to blame for giving an impression the report was more critical of Iraqi progress than it actually was.

However, the reality is that the media reports are substantiated by the actual contents of the Jones report and charges of the media’s skewing the story with a presumed agenda appear to be based on a failure on the part of the accusers to actually read the report or listen to Jones’ testimony.

To understand other issues addressed at the hearing, it is important to comprehend the overall mandate of the Jones Commission, which was to grade Iraqi security forces on their readiness to provide four things:

1. an ability to resume responsibility for maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq;
2. the ability to deny international terrorists safe haven;
3. the ability to bring greater security to Iraq’s 18 provinces in the next 12-18 months; and
4. the ability to bring an end to sectarian violence and to achieve national reconciliation

The commission reported that though Iraqis are improving internal security missions (such as denying terrorists safe haven), they are not able to provide security against external threats. They can make progress on bringing greater security, but likely not for at least two more years. Also, the commission stressed that an end to sectarian violence can only be achieved if the Iraqi Central Government initiates actions to end to sectarianism. Overall, Iraq was assessed to have made “measurable, though uneven progress.”

Though the commission’s mandate was fairly limited in scope, and generally the witnesses declined to speculate about future policy, they did make some specific recommendations and prognostications. The commission reported there could potentially be a “strategic shift” in 2008. This shift could mean a reassessment of strategy and a larger level of troop reductions. Also, they proposed:

1. creating an Iraqi transition headquarters to track a broad spectrum of progress and goals;
2. transferring all 18 provinces to Iraqi provincial control (only seven provinces currently have political control); and
3. engaging a status-of-forces agreement with the Iraqis.

A status-of-forces agreement would define the legal status of U.S. personnel and property in Iraq, and would set forth rights and responsibilities for the United States and Iraq on issues such as civil and criminal jurisdiction, the wearing of uniforms, carrying of arms, and resolving damage claims. It would also allow U.S. military bases to fly both American and Iraqi flags, which would be of symbolic significance to the Iraqis.

Many members’ queries addressed the issues of troop reductions and withdrawal. Similar to the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) Comptroller-General David Walker’s testimony, however, the commissioners steered clear of specifics, Hamre arguing, “Our charter was narrowly defined – we should stay at that.” There seemed to be some frustration from the members that both the GAO and the Jones Commission only regurgitated facts from their respective reports and did not offer strategic policy advice. However, though the commissioners would not give a time frame or reduction estimate, they agreed that the magnitude of U.S. troop commitment was essential for the present. Gen. Joulwan adamantly declared, “This is not May of ’75.” In other words, this is not the time to be formulating an immediate exit strategy, as occurred in Vietnam in 1975.

Joulwan also stressed the consequences on the international community if a stable Iraq is not achieved, and added, “We haven’t found anyone who wants us to leave soon.” Curiously, this is in direct contrast to a recent poll by ABC News and the BBC which reports that 65 percent of Iraqis say the surge is not working and 72 percent of Iraqis say that U.S. presence is making Iraq’s security worse.

Another theme of the Jones report, which echoed the GAO’s, was the necessity of political reconciliation. The commissioners asserted that this was an objective that must be achieved before any security goals can be met. Following this argument, Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., speculated that “we’re asking the wrong question.” In other words, is the United States focusing on military strategies instead of facilitating essential political reform?

To the question of how to achieve that political progress, Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., inquired if the Iraqis understand “this cannot go on forever.” His concern was that U.S. protection was being used as a crutch to help Iraqis avoid making the necessary effort to solve their political and military problems. In response, Joulwan argued that more integration is evident, intelligence and security procedures are improving, and that the Iraqis understand the magnitude of Ame