Did Bush’s Chief Spook Say W. Misled the Nation?

Stephanie Condon reports:

… George W. Bush’s top intelligence aide essentially said that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had recently misled the public about the ground reality in Iraq.

Citing a recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, Vice Adm. John McConnell, the newly appointed Director of National Intelligence, said, "Current sectarian and political trends are moving in a negative direction." He added that "sectarian violence has become self-sustaining" and reported that the U.S. intelligence community has concluded "the sectarian situation will continue to deteriorate." Noting that suppressing sectarian violence and creating political unity is necessary for progress in Iraq, McConnell said, "Iraqi political leaders have a close to impossible task."

Those words struck a chord with Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, who came back to them later in the hearing." If theirs is close to impossible," the senator asked, "then how would you characterize our task?" At first McConnell didn’t know how to respond. After a fair bit of hesitation, he said, "Our task is similar in that it is very, very difficult."

Bayh continued to press McConnell, forcing McConnell to acknowledge that the situation in Iraq has been deteriorating for some time. "So if someone indicated four months ago we were ‘absolutely winning’ in Iraq, that is a mistaken assessment?" Bayh asked.

"I wouldn’t agree that we were winning," McConnell replied, explaining that it became clear in 2006 that conditions were worsening. Bayh then noted that comment was made by the president and vice president four months earlier. McConnell response? A very long pause. Then Bayh’s time for questions expired.

Of course that’s what Admiral McConnell was saying. We all know it’s deteriorating, and we all know that sending more troops isn’t going to make a bit of difference, no matter what happens in the short term. Do they really think they can use a little muscle and get our Iraqi antagonists to just quit it? It’s an amazingly naive thought – certainly something a professional soldier would never think.

But what’s amazing to me about this exchange is that it’s like if it’s not said aloud, then it’s not the truth. Bayh was being really cagey, getting the Admiral to contradict the President and Vice President. But how silly can you get? It reminds me of small boy hiding in a game of hide-and-seek by covering his eyes.

Winning in Iraq has never been possible!

Yesterday, I wandered into the room where the little man in the t.v. box, Dr. Phil, had on some lady with a web-site, lets pretend it was www.revenge.com, where women who had been screwed over by guys could plot revenge together. He didn’t think it was a such a healthy idea – "stuck in the problem not the solution," said Dr. Phil [but I’ll bet they got a jillion hits yesterday].

In a Democracy, we share the glory and the horror. We elected Nixon. It was our Watergate. We elected the current Administration, not once, but twice. We covered our cars with patriotic stickers and marched our kids off to Iraq. Those of us who applauded what was happening should feel ashamed. Those of us who knew decried what was happening, yet went on with our lives. We share the shame as well. If an old German guy sits in a bar and says, "but we didn’t know what Hitler was doing," he won’t get much sympathy. Even if he says, "I hated it, but you have to understand, it wasn’t safe to criticize the Nazis," while we might feel more sympathetic, we still might well think about our fathers or grandfathers who died on the Normandy beaches. If he says, "It’s hard to be a German and realize that we actually did something like that. I think about it every day. All we can do is move forward in spite of what happened and learn from our mistakes," we’ll buy him another round.

We were wrong. Even those of us who knew aren’t off the hook. Our President and his cohorts are stuck forever in that wrongness and need to go [yesterday], but Dr. Phil is correct. As much as I’d love to blame and get revenge, it’s not the solution. The blogs have been a powerful force in getting the truth on the table, but the blogosphere is moving towards a time of a new challenge. Now what?

And what of the religious people who listened to the demagogues, or the conservatives who followed the Neocons? There has to be some way to reach out to them and find a some commonality. As we’re learning in Iraq, trying to make things right in the midst of a civil war is impossible.

Many of our old-timers were part of the Civil Rights Movement, or the Antiwar Movement [Viet Nam], or the Peace Movement, or the Feminist Movement, or the Gay Pride Movement. In lots of ways, we old guys won, but our post-war planning wasn’t so hot. The "insurgency" [A.K.A. what we’ve got right now] didn’t go away, or give up, it just went underground and got sicker and stronger. Our postwar planning wasn’t much better than that of the Bush Administration.

I’m just thinking about post-war planning. The fat lady hasn’t sung yet. For today, on with fighting the good fight… 

I usually try to reference things I read when I talk about them, but this time, I’m going it on my own. There are multiple foci of activity within the Democratic Party, particularly in the House of Representatives, trying to figure out a way to go around President Bush on Iraq and begin to get us out of there. And Bush and Cheney are ignoring all of them. The mantras vary, but always include "winning," "completing the mission," "supporting the troops," "freeing the Iraqi people," and "not constraining our commanders." Their mantras never mention "occupation."

• There is a general consensus that we should never have undertaken this war in the first place. It was sold to us as a war of national defense based on falsehoods, and the dire weapons we went to destroy were not there.
• The conversion of this war into a war of liberation [Operation Iraqi Freedom] was a disguise for the real reasons – "regime change" and "oil." The "regime change" has been accomplished, albeit in the middle of a religious civil war as old as Islam – a civil war we unleashed.
• It then became a war against the insurgency – which has turned out to be something else, a civil war and a war against our being there.
• This is a war of occupation – always has been.

So back to my point. The Democrats need to carry on with the end of this war with no thought about what the President, the Vice President, or the Secretary of State say or do – up to and including impeachment of the entire Executive Branch of our government. Appeasing them, or negotiating with them is a waste of time. Their goals, whatever they are, have nothing to do with our national goals. Dr. Rice said Sunday that Congress shouldn’t micromanage the War in Iraq. I agree. Congress should end this war immediately. And if that means ending the reign of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Dr. Rice, so be it.

We shouldn’t have gone to Iraq. We shouldn’t have stayed in Iraq. We shouldn’t be in Iraq now. Supporting Our Troops only means bringing them home or redeploying them to Afghanistan where we do have a mission. We’ve ignored and sacraficed our troops and supported our Administration. It’s time to reverse that equation – ignore and sacrafice our Administration and support our troops. Stop even listening to Bush or Cheney or Rice. They’re still crazy after all these years…

Nancy Pelosi is kinder than I am:

PELOSI: I think he believes he is on the right course even though the facts on the ground speak to a different reality. And I just don’t know, but I don’t think he’s getting good advice. I think that he is receiving advice that is wrong, has been from the start. I think they thought when they went in the first day, that it was going to end in one strike — they take out Saddam Hussein and they would have a great victory.

The fact is, even if they had, they would still be faced with all of this civil strife in Iraq that they have now. They did not know what they were getting into. They do not know the damage that they have caused. And I think the judge — his judgment is severely impaired on this war, with all due respect to the president and his good intentions.

Reading all the blogs with the lawyers’ comments about the Libby Trial gave me a headache. It’s a mixture of their own personal bias plus punditing based on the history of American Juries plus a kind of divination that’s unfamiliar to me. Probably more interesting is my reactions to their spectulations. Two feelings predominate: "Oh no!" and "Yeah!" So after six days [Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed], the subjectivity of the law is getting to me a bit. It seems like the Jury must be trying hard to do their job. I wish them my best. It’s easier out here where I have an immutable opinion that I’m sure is correct [probably accounting for the fact that I’ve never been chosen to be on a Jury].

But my summation of what I read is that the Cooper Charges, 3 and 5, are the most up-in-the-air. What Libby says he said versus what Cooper says he said. The Obstruction Charge, 1, hinges on their belief about the Russert Charges, 2 and 4. So, it’s all resting on their assessment of Tim Russert’s Testimony. I say, "What about all that other stuff?" But the commentors don’t talk about it very much.

New "Baker-Christopher Commission" to Probe Constitutional Power Allocations on War-Starting, War-Waging, and War-Ending

The University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs — of which Philip Zelikow used to serve as Director before becoming Condi Rice’s Counselor — has announced the creation of a bipartisan commission that "will examine how the Constitution allocates the powers of beginning, conducting, and ending war." Former Secretaries of State James A. Baker III and Warren Christopher will co-chair this enterprise.

On the Commission will be:

Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III co-chair

Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher co-chair

Former U.S. Senator Slade Gorton

Former Member of Congress Lee Hamilton

Former US Trade Representative Carla Hills

Former Secretary of the Army John O. Marsh Jr.

Former US Attorney General Edwin Meese III

Former Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals Abner Mikva

Former Commander-in-Chief of the US Atlantic Fleet J. Paul Reason

Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft

Woodrow Wilson School/Princeton University Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter

Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott

[How about Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore?] 

Testimony from the Libby Trial by David Addington, Libby’s replacement as Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff and the legal guru [along with John Yoo] of their Unitary Executive mythology:

Patrick Fitzgerald: Conversation about paperwork related to CIA employee spouse trip. Did you ever have a later occasion to discuss this?

David Addington: Yes, right before investigation started.

Patrick Fitzgerald: Describe what you recall.

David Addington: Larger office in OEOB, I knew it would have to do with the case. I reminded them that I was employee for the govt, our conversation wouldn’t be privileged.  He said, "I just want to tell you I didn’t do it."

Patrick Fitzgerald: What else was said?

David Addington: He asked me how you would know if you met someone from CIA if they were undercover. I responded when I worked out there, you’d ask if someone if they were undercover. He asked if they introduced themselves how you’d know. I told him you wouldn’t know unless you asked or saw a piece of paper that said it was classified. I volunteered to him I could get him a copy of IIPA that makes it a crime to reveal identity of covert agent. I took it to his office and gave it to him.

Patrick Fitzgerald: Any further conversation with him about that?

David Addington: No.

But today, some reference to Addington brought it back into my mind and set me thinking. I don’t really care too much about the outcome of this trial in and of itself. What I care about is that Libby blocked the American People knowing that the Office of the Vice President revealed the identity of Valerie Plame, on purpose, and why. It’s the why that matters most. I want the world to know in a way that cannot be denied that what Joseph Wilson said was the gospel truth – this Administration jury-rigged the Intelligence about Iraq to get us to accept invading Iraq, something we would never otherwise have done. Libby himself was a willing pawn, but only a pawn. I want the King checkmated. If this trial gets us a move closer to checkmate, that’s where its importance lies. And by the way, he did perjure himself, in more ways than this trial charges. And he did obstruct justice.

But back to Addington’s testimony. Two things: First, Addington knew exactly what was going on. He essentially gave Libby a Miranda warning. Libby was Cheney’s waterboy, but Addington is his soul-mate. He was saying, "Watch what you say to me, because you’re in some potential big trouble and I may end up on a stand someday repeating this conversation."

• "As long as you’re going to be testifying, I’m asking this question so you can testify that I didn’t know she was undercover."
• "It never occurred to me that she was an undercover C.I.A. Agent."

So, I take back what I said above, "I don’t really care too much about the outcome of this trial in and of itself." I do care. These men shouldn’t have be in a government positions. It’s an ethics thing…

Libby jury vigil: Not like electing a pope

The jury is wearing jeans!

The scuttlebutt raced like a battlefront bulletin Tuesday through the five dozen prosecutors, defense attorneys and reporters camped in the federal courthouse awaiting a verdict in the perjury trial of ex-White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Most trial lawyers and reporters believe jurors dress up when they expect to reach a verdict and don casual clothes if they’ve still got lots of work to do.

The secrecy of jury deliberations provides precious few clues about where juries are headed.

“It isn’t like electing a pope, where there are smoke signals after each ballot,” said Edward B. MacMahon Jr., a Virginia attorney who defended Zacarias Moussaoui against charges related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

So there was this Paul Newman movie, The Verdict. He was an alcoholic lawyer who took a case that reformed him. In the movie, the climactic moment was when the Jury asked a question – something like “Can we award more damages than the plaintiff asked for?”

Until tomorrow morning, I’m going to pretend that the jury is going to ask, “Can we add some perjury charges of our own?” and “Can we include Vice President Cheney in our verdict?”

sitting quietly,

doing nothing.

spring comes,

and the grass grows by itself… 

I worry a lot about how quickly stories move from the front page to the trash. The one I was thinking about today was the IG Report on Douglas Feith. Feith has a Talking Point story that’s completely located in some fantasy land. The evidence against it is so overwhelming, known to anyone who has heard Feith’s now disavowed propoganda lines repeated ad nauseum by Bush and Cheney as "intelligence." And he committed a real crime. He leaked his own Top Secret memo to Kristol’s Weekly Standard.  But the other reason to keep Feith on the front page is that he is a self-justifier who can’t keep his foot out of his mouth [and I really like my book cover graphic].

I was about to write a post – something like, "What happened to the Douglas Feith story?" But then I hear the "you’ve got mail" ding. It was an email from a news-serve that I subscribe to as a way of keeping up with the neoconservatives. And there it was – an email forwarded from you-know-who himself:

Don’t worry, Doug. We’ll definitely "stay tuned"…

But there’s another Talking Point that’s part of their new rhetoric. They insert "Congress" into sentences that should have "the American People" instead. They’re trying to imply that the evil liberal democratic Congress is trying to obstruct their brave courageous brilliant persevering conduct of the war. What they’re ignoring is that the American People oppose what they’re doing more than the Congress does – by a much stronger majority. They’re ignoring the fact that those numbers contain a lot of the Conservative, Christian, Republican people – the people that elected them in the first place, decent people who were manipulated and lied to from the start. And who better to "micromanage" this war than the parents and supporters of the children fighting in it?

It looks to me like the audience for the Administration "spin" is finally catching on…