Off Limits

Digby is absolutely and completely right about the hissy fit that the Village is getting ready to throw over MoveOn's hard-hitting but completely fair and vital ad about John McCain wanting to consign our children to perpetual wars:

Geist: It might be fair, it might be effective, I just opposed dangling babies.

Todd: I think it was a borderline shameless ad, using a baby like that. It just seemed like a sledge hammer on the message…

What's shameless, actually, is using a baby as cannon fodder because his commander in chief doesn't want to admit a mistake. What's shameless is using a baby as infantry because you never met a problem that didn't have a military solution.

Chuck Todd is a squishy Village protégé who has nothing to add to the larger debate but numbers-crunching. He's sadly probably the best we'll get out of these clowns. The bloggers who hailed Todd in the past because he hewed to the numbers that promoted an Obama candidacy are seeing it from the other side now. It was totally obvious that they would try to set the boundaries of debate as they always have.

War costs lives. We don't want to talk about it because it makes us feel all icky, but those statistics that flash across the TV screens represent somebody's kid. It's immoral to discuss invasions and military actions WITHOUT thinking of those babies who will grow up and perhaps become another statistic in a catastrophic mistake. And if the kid is lucky enough to survive his tour of duty, he'll come back home and have suicide drugs tested on him.

We know that both the current President and his would-be Republican successor want to stay in Iraq for a long, long time. There are soldiers fighting there right now who were 12 or 13 when war was declared. Under the McCain-Bush plan babies will be fighting there, and to set that outside the lines of the political debate is unacceptable.

But it's very acceptable to the Village, who wants to wash the blood from this debacle off their hands and never let their beautiful minds wander to thinking about someone's son or daughter giving up his life for nothing. They're culpable and that's why they want this off limits.

Death To America! No no no, VIOLENT Death To America!

Kevin Drum is right, the fact that Nouri al-Maliki and Muqtada al-Sadr are both trying to prove who the most anti-American Iraqi politician is makes it, shall we say, difficult to continue having a presence in Iraq.

"All the politicians are trying to prove that they care more about Iraqis than they do about Americans -- otherwise they know the people and the voters will not support them," said Ala Maaki, a senior lawmaker with Iraqi's largest Sunni political party. "I think we could see al-Maliki and Moqtada Sadr trying to one-up the other today and see who can take the strongest stand against the Americans."

All of this would vanish if we simply, you know, left Iraq, instead of demanding permanent bases.

I Didn't Say What I Just Said

This was so obvious that we might need to start calling John McCain what they used to say about George Romney, that the most prevalent line in stories written about him was "he later clarified his remarks."

Here's the statement from McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds blasting Dems -- and, presumably, us, since we posted shorter vid -- for ignoring the fuller context here:

"The Obama campaign is embarking on a false attack on John McCain to hide their own candidate's willingness to disregard facts on the ground in pursuit of withdrawal no matter what the costs. John McCain was asked if he had a 'better estimate' for a timeline for withdrawal. As John McCain has always said, that is not as important as conditions on the ground and the recommendations of commanders in the field. Any reasonable person who reads the full transcript would see this and reject the Obama campaign's attempt to manipulate, twist and distort the truth."

Well, it's always a distortion, isn't it.

Look, this isn't that hard. McCain was asked about withdrawal and he said that wasn't as important as making sure there weren't any casualties. He was asked the day before about conditions on sending troops back in to reduce casualties and he said that he would do whatever it takes. Put the two statements together and it's a prescription for endless war. He will keep troops in there forever until casualties stop, and he'd keep troops there afterwards in a support role. He thinks withdrawal means losing as opposed to the only hope in Iraq for stability and reconciliation between the factions. To quote Gov. Dean:

"Senator McCain is wrong. One of the most important questions in this campaign is when and how Senator McCain would bring our troops home from Iraq. Senator McCain stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that the American people do not want our brave troops in Iraq for 100 years under any circumstances. They want a president who will end the war responsibly."

The Iraqis don't even want American troops in Iraq for longer than absolutely necessary. They are rejecting a permanent commitment. The only two people in the world who want it are John McCain and George Bush.

UPDATE: McCain doesn't know what he's talking about with respect to Iraq. Period. He wants troops to stay so he can never have to admit that he was wrong.

UPDATE II: Shorter Joe Lieberman: McCain was in the shit, maaan!

UPDATE III: The DNC sums it up:

Bush blackmailing Iraqis into signing security agreement?

When I read Patrick Cockburn's article yesterday about the "secret" agreement for the US military to remain in Iraq indefinitely I thought he was a little bit behind the story. The only place where the discovery that the US wanted permanent basing rights and air superiority and immunity from prosecution for their personnel was HERE, where we've all been dazzled by the election. The Iraqis have been fighting this agreement and making direct signals of moving away from it, calling for a national referendum on any agreement and demanding national sovereignty within it.

Now, the follow-up article shows what may be the Cheney Administration's strategy to get the Iraqis to sign it:

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

Unbelievable.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.

This is the very point that Bush used to hold up the defense bill with that pocket veto last winter. He claimed that the claims against the Iraqi government would bankrupt a young country on the road to democracy. Now we know why he vetoed that provision - he wanted to make sure he could use those lawsuits as a bargaining chip instead of having the money get paid out to the plaintiffs.

Iraq's foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq's funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new "strategic alliance" with the United States.

Read this entire article. This is blackmail, plain and simple. Bush and Cheney are demanding a permanent agreement that would basically turn Iraq into a client state of the US and corporate interests.

This is a hardball move. And a President Obama would not be able to extricate himself from such an agreement so easily. The neocons in the White House are laying the groundwork for a permanent presence, and using the tactics of an economic hitman to do it.

Amazing.

Secret Agreement is Not So Secret

Two big news stories out today regarding Iraq, one about the past and one about the future. The long-awaited release of the Phase II report showing that the Administration intentionally lied and deceived and misused intelligence in the run-up to the war comes off as kind of obvious, but I suppose it's nice to see in print. PDF's of the report are here:

"Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information"

"Report on Intelligence Activities Relating to Iraq Conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans Within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy"

Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

The other report, from Patrick Cockburn in The Independent, discusses the negotiations for a new status of forces agreement that would keep Iraq under indefinite occupation by the United States military.

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country [...]

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

I respect Cockburn's journalism here, but I think he's a little bit behind the story. In fact, this is the American side of the story and their demands for what they want out of a security agreement, which as I mentioned a couple days ago is already well-known inside Iraq. In fact, in a fascinating session yesterday in front of a House Foreign Relations Subcommitte, two members of the Iraqi Parliament, one Sunni and one Shiite (a member of the Al-Fadhila Party (unaffiliated with Prime Minister Maliki or Muqtada al-Sadr) rejected the US-Iraqi arrangement, demanded a referendum on it from the Iraqi Parliament or the people, and explained to Congress that a timetable for withdrawal would end the violence plaguing the country. They rejected that the surge was in any way responsible for the drop in violence and attributed it to local control, and they insisted that an end to the occupation is the only way for reconciliation to take place.

This is completely in line with the majority of the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people. In fact, Reuters is reporting that they are essentially demanding that we leave.

A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday.

Rep. William Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat and Iraq war opponent, released excerpts from a letter he was handed by Iraqi parliamentarians laying down conditions for the security pact that the Bush administration seeks with Iraq.

The proposed pact has become increasingly controversial in Iraq, where there have been protests against it. It has also drawn criticism from Democrats on the presidential election campaign trail in the United States, who say President George W. Bush is trying to dictate war policy after he leaves office.

"The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq," the letter to the leaders of Congress said.

There is nothing "secret" about this "secret deal" from the standpoint of the Iraqis. They are well aware of it and committed to stopping its progress, protesting it and demanding it be put to a popular vote. Where the Independent article is valuable is if it can bring attention to this issue in the United States (God forbid it winds up in the American media - it's only the confirmation of the 100-year presence John McCain seeks). Members of Congress have already demanded that they be given the opportunity to ratify any agreement made between the US and Iraq. What they can do in addition is stand with the Iraqi people as the Bush Administration tries to bully the deal into place in Baghdad. The only ones doing the heavy lifting on ending the occupation right now are the Iraqis. And they're actually mobilizing almost all factions against this agreement. We can do the same here at home, and it's not enough to wait for a "referendum" on the war in November.

Can The Iraqis Save Iraq?

A unified front is forming in Iraq among Sunnis and Shiites, opposed to the terms of the draft of a long-term security agreement to keep US forces in the country. Muqtada al-Sadr tapped into a populist rejection of the US occupation and the Iraqi government, for now, is playing hardball.

Iraq's chief spokesman acknowledged differences with the United States over a proposed long-term security agreement and pledged yesterday that the government will protect Iraqi sovereignty in ongoing talks with the Americans.

Chief government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said that the Iraqi negotiators have a "vision and a draft that is different" from the Americans' but that the talks, which began in March, were still in an early stage.

"There is great emphasis by the Iraqi government on fully preserving the sovereignty of Iraq in its lands, skies, waters and its internal and external relations," Dabbagh said. "The Iraqi government will not accept any article that infringes on sovereignty and does not guarantee Iraqi interests."

If we reach December without an agreement, the US presence in Iraq would actually be illegal. And this is not just a Sadrist movement - Shiite clerics from Maliki's own party are publicly opposing the agreement.

While US negotiators claim that they have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq, the contract proposals that have been signed in recent weeks show the desire for a continuing presence, and it's not too hard for the Iraqis to catch on to this.

The contracts call for new spending, from supplying mentors to officials with Iraq's Defense and Interior ministries to establishing a U.S.-marshal-type system to protect Iraqi courts. Contractors would provide more than 100 linguists with secret clearances and deliver food to Iraqi detainees at a new, U.S.-run prison.

The proposals reflect multiyear commitments. The mentor contract notes that the U.S. military "desires for both Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Defense to become mostly self-sufficient within two years," a time outside some proposals for U.S. combat troop withdrawal. The mentors sought would "advise, train [and] assist . . . particular Iraqi officials" who work in the Ministry of Defense, which runs the Iraqi army, or the Ministry of Interior, which runs the police and other security units.

The mentors will assist an U.S. military group that previously began to implement what are described as "core processes and systems," such as procurement, contracting, force development, management and budgeting, and public affairs.

Mentors would have to make a one-year commitment, with options for two one-year contracts after that. As a reminder of what they are getting into, the mentors must supply their helmets, protective body armor and gas masks, according to the announcement.

The marshals service would be organized by the State Department's bureau responsible for developing rule of law programs in Iraq. It "has plans to create an Iraqi service to be known as the Judicial Protection Service (JPS), modeled to some degree after the U.S. Marshals Service, that will ensure the safe conduct of judicial proceedings and protect judges, witnesses, court staff, and court facilities," a notice published last month said.

State's plan is to hire a contractor as a judicial security program manager, who would work out details of how such a service could be put together for the Iraqis. That person or group would develop not only the mission, size and structure of an Iraqi JPS service, but also the personnel, budgeting and training materials necessary, plus "all other aspects of creating the new organization so that the project can be contracted out."

In short, State wants a contractor to put together all the elements so the department can contract the project to another contractor.

The occupation is big money. All these middlemen and contractors and sub-contractors are getting rich. Byron Dorgan is running a one-man crusade to try and put an end to the waste and the profiteering, but if the United States remains in Iraq, there will be big pots of money to be had by corporate interests. And in addition, there's clearly an effort to pry open Iraq's natural resources and allow the oil companies to come in and add to their fortunes. The only entity committed to putting a halt to this seems to be the Iraqi people.

US officials still expect to wrap up the negotiations by July, and I'm sure the cheerleader-in-chief is whispering entreaties like "Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!" in their ears. It's kind of sad that the Iraqis are standing in their way instead of the supposed opposition party in this country, which has slightly more ability to oppose.

Sistani Offers Fatwas Allowing For Armed Resistance To US Troops

We have the potential for a major problem in Iraq. As Shiites jockey for power, the most prestigious cleric in the country is sensing the value among the population of fighting the US-led occupation, and very quietly permitting the targeting of US troops. It may have as much to do with internal politics as anything else, but it makes Iraq incredibly dangerous for any American, and reinforces the need to take our men and women off the front lines and out of gun sights and back home where they belong.

The AP story, based on information from Shiite officials, suggests that the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has been out of the spotlight of late, is issuing under-the-radar fatwas to his followers:

Iraq’s most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible - a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad.

The edicts, or fatwas, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani suggest he seeks to sharpen his long-held opposition to American troops and counter the populist appeal of his main rivals, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

So far, al-Sistani’s fatwas have been limited to a handful of people. They also were issued verbally and in private - rather than a blanket proclamation to the general Shiite population - according to three prominent Shiite officials in regular contact with al-Sistani as well as two followers who received the edicts in Najaf.

There is a lot at work here.

• Sistani is ill and has been out of the public spotlight for many years. In the meantime, popular resistance to the occupation from the Shiite community has been led by Muqtada al-Sadr. So there may be some reassertion of control here in the wake of attacks on Sadrist strongholds in Basra and Sadr City. However, Sadr and Sistani are essentially on the same side here, and this may be a signal to top deputies of the Sadrist movement that Sistani is behind them and just waiting for the right moment to call for, as Sadr put it, "open war."

• It would be hard for Prime Minister Maliki to continue to legitimately work with the US government if such a fatwa were made more public. After the 2006 sectarian violence it was Sistani who was most instrumental in keeping order and turning the situation around from the Shiite perspective. It would be hard for US troops to maintain safe havens inside Iraq under a Sistani edict to leave, and much harder for them to have any kind of visible role in maintaining security. This is already being shown to be the case - in the Sadr City offensive, US troops were put to the sidelines and even the Sadrists appreciated it. This begs the question of how, in such an environment, there could possibly be a role for US troops at all.

• However, this could be more like a "sense of the Senate" resolution than a call to murder - essentially putting a nail in the coffin of the idea that any permanent bases would be tolerated by the Iraqi population. I think this is ultimately about the SOFA agreement that Iraq and the US are currently negotiating. Today Barbara Lee (D-CA) got her amendment demanding Congressional authorization over any agreement passed the House, and basically Sistani just vetoed the whole thing.

• Maliki is acknowledging, through aides, that there's nothing he can do about this, and in the end he'll side with the will of the Iraq people:

A senior aide to the prime minister, al-Maliki, said he was not aware of the fatwas, but added that the “rejection of the occupation is a legal and religious principle” and that top Shiite clerics were free to make their own decisions. The aide also spoke on condition of anonymity.

As Cernig says, "Sadr now has a free hand from Sistani as long as he plays nice with Maliki. He won't shoot himself in the foot by openly opposing Sadr." Conservative gasbags may be gloating about Sadr's imminent demise, but he still holds all the cards and the support of a substantial part of the Shiite community. Maliki knows this and will not get in the way of resistance against Americans. That's because he understands that the occupation is massively unpopular and opposing resistance to it would be a death sentence.

This makes me extremely uneasy. I feel like there's a Beirut bombing in the future if we don't start planning an exit. We don't have much time:

“(Al-Sistani) rejects the American presence,” he told the AP, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment to media. “He believes they (the Americans) will at the end pay a heavy price for the damage they inflicted on Iraq.”

Juan Cole, a U.S. expert on Shiites in the Middle East, speculated that “al-Sistani clearly will give a fatwa against the occupation by a year or two.” But he said it would be “premature” for the cleric to do so now [...]

“Changing the tyrannical (Saddam Hussein) regime by invasion and occupation was not what we wished for because of the many tragedies they have created,” al-Sistani said in reply to a question on his Web site.

“We are extremely worried about their intentions,” he wrote in response to another question on his views about the U.S. military presence.

Matthew Duss, Eric Martin and Kevin Drum have more. The occupation has always been unsustainable. But Sistani's rulings appear to make that even more obvious. If he acts soon, our troops could be in a horrible situation over there. And I certainly don't think the White House is paying nearly enough attention to this growing crisis.

P.S. Pushing elections as the answer to all of our problems is really a mistake. Maliki's operations in Basra and Sadr City were political in nature - he wanted to crush the Sadrists and make it easier for his groups to win the elections - but it's taking too long, and elections already have been postponed until after our Election Day in November, we learned today in Senate hearings. If Bush pushes them to coincide with our political cycle, the Sadrists will win. The only way they don't is if Maliki rigs the election, and the result of that would be chaos.

Iraq 4-Evah

When Bush vetoed the Defense Authorization Bill because he was so concerned about this abstract issue of reparations for those who were tortured and killed at the hands of Saddam Hussein, I wondered if the real issue was a ban on permanent bases in Iraq, which was also in the bill. Well, it turns out that the Prez dusted off his signing statement pen to take care of that bit of unpleasantness:

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for national security-related energy programs.

Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

These provisions include: 1) the establishment of a "Truman Commission" to look into war profiteering, 2) protection for contractors who become whistleblowers by disclosing information about profiteering and contracting abuse, 3) the need to share information with Congress (in particular the Armed Services Committee) about intelligence assessments, and finally:

SEC. 1222. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES RELATING TO IRAQ.

No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:

(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.

(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.

In the end, this relates to the setting of a long-term "status of forces agreement" between the United States and Iraq. Obviously there will be some permanent long-term installations for troops associated with that. But I'm trying to figure out how this works. The President is nullifying restrictions on funds for permanent bases and control of oil. But Congress provides the funding. So it would be illegal to use Iraq funds in the appropriations process toward these ends, as long as they are expressly given other functions in those bills. Otherwise, it's an illegal appropriation. However, I suspect that there are enough loopholes in those funding bills that voiding this ban is enough for the executive to impose his will on the process.

Of course, that's only true for another year. So the Democratic candidates need to make statements about whether they would uphold or repudiate this signing statement and commit to a total ban on permanent bases in Iraq and control of Iraqi oil. We know that George Bush is never going to change in his megalomania. But we deserve to know whether this will spill over into the next Administration.

Republicans Run Headlong Into The Brick Wall Of Iraq

I didn't see last night's Republican debate, but this was obviously the big takeaway:



Years and years later, they still want their lovely little war. They don't care if it bankrupts the country. They don't care if it lowers the standards of those serving in the Army, and fundamentally breaks our military. They don't care if they wage it at the expense of Afghanistan, which is getting worse. They don't care if we're still launching major offensives five years after we announced "mission accomplished," and how invariably these offensives yield nothing, as the insurgents just slip off to the next city over. They don't care if no benchmarks are met and we continue to flail around, at times getting so angry at a population that doesn't want us there that we willingly commit war crimes.

These Republicans just don't care. They want their lovely little war. And they want their President to get his lovely little bases, which would be unprecedented:

President Bush's plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could commit the US military to defending Iraq's security would be the first time such a sweeping mutual defense compact has been enacted without congressional approval, according to legal specialists.

After World War II, for example - when the United States gave security commitments to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO members - Presidents Truman and Eisenhower designated the agreements as treaties requiring Senate ratification. In 1985, when President Ronald Reagan guaranteed that the US military would defend the Marshall Islands and Micronesia if they were attacked, the compacts were put to a vote by both chambers of Congress.

By contrast, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have already agreed that a coming compact will include the United States providing "security assurances and commitments" to Iraq to deter any foreign invasion or internal terrorism by "outlaw groups." But a top White House official has also said that Bush does not intend to submit the deal to Congress.

This absolutely would tie the next President's hands, which is why Democrats are fighting it so much. Even Republicans are displeased by the lack of consultation with Congress. But of course this is the Bush plan. They want to enact a status of forces agreement, include permanent bases in the deal, leave office without having fully funded the war for fiscal year 2008, and dare the next President to pull the plug, knowing full well that the Iraqis have become completely dependent on the US military.

This war fetishism, along with the stumbling economy, is going to bring down the Republicans in the next election. But it's also going to set a trap for a Democratic President. It's all about Bush avoiding responsibility for a shameful legacy.

The Big Non-Furor In Congress

This is kind of interesting. The House gave in to Bush's demands and passed a defense authorization bill which fixes the one stated reason for veto in the first place, the opportunity for Americans to sue foreign governments for reparations in state-sponsored abuse. As far as I can tell they didn't change anything else in the bill, other than making the soldier's pay raise retroactive to January 1.

So, does this mean that the part of the bill banning funding for permanent military bases in Iraq is intact? And if so, how can a permanent status of forces agreement be funded?

In addition, let me say that it's an old story to call the Democrats weak and soft and unwilling to stand up to an unpopular President, but this is ridiculous. The President didn't even veto the bill properly. But instead of taking the opportunity to discuss a commander-in-chief vetoing a pay raise for men and women in battle, they just cede to his wishes as quickly as possible. Not only that, they're going to not raise a finger about billions in arms sales to the Saudis, including precision-guided bombs, as an opportunity to rake back in cash for the defense industry. You really have to believe that the Democrats aren't afraid of scary Bush, but think they're going to win by a mile this year, and just don't want to make waves. That, and that this leadership by and large shares the same goals of global hegemony as the Republicans.

UPDATE: In addition this absolves a torturer like Saddam Hussein for his crimes, which might be a nice thing to bring up if you ever get into an argument about "removing that brutal dictator".

And We'll Be Having This Argument In 2018

Does this sound like someone interested in reconciliation to you?

[Al-Arab al-Yawm] You talk about terrorism while you are under occupation. What does this mean?

[Al-Abdallah] There are two types of occupation now in Iraq, the American and the Iranian; both are using groups from outside Iraq under the names of Al-Qa'idah or terrorism. Sometimes, these sides are managed by both parties and conduct activities inside Iraq. For this reason, the Iraqis are confronting them, because the features of the third party are not known. It tries to kill Iraqis, nothing more. It is not actually resisting the Americans or the Iranians, but targeting the Iraqis only [...]

[Al-Arab al-Yawm] Is Iraq heading towards division?

[Al-Abdallah] We are against division, and we have great hopes that division will not be the ultimate fate of Iraq. But, so long as there is a sectarian government in Iraq, it is highly likely that it will seek to divide the country. However, we have pledged to our God and people that we will oppose this scheme.

This guy's the head of Al-Anbar reconstruction and close to the Awakening Council. We may be paying him off not to kill us, but he doesn't exactly seem ready to head into a unity government. But this doesn't stop useful idiots like Bill Kristol from continuing to push the same myth of progress in Iraq he's been pushing for the last five years, despite the fact that his own paper contradicted him on this propaganda.

Kristol relies on an uninformed public, particularly about international relations, to spread his nonsense. Those who wish to scratch the surface find the real anger between the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. They find the ongoing extermination of intellectuals, which is crippling to a civil society that needs to rebuild. They find people still dying. They find that Iraqi government spending on reconstruction has slowed to a crawl, and that the saintly Gen. Petraeus and the Administration falsified records to Congress highlighting the opposite. They find a real mess in Kirkuk, which threatens to open another front in the civil war:

The president of Iraq's Kurdish region warned Monday that Kurdish leaders would resist efforts to scrap plans for a referendum on the fate of the multiethnic city of Kirkuk. His tough comments came a day after nearly a dozen political parties in Baghdad challenged Kurdish designs by calling for the central government to impose a solution.

Iraqi Kurdistan leader Massoud Barzani fired back at his Arab opponents who argued that Kirkuk -- a home to Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens -- is no longer subject to an article in the Iraqi Constitution calling for a general referendum on disputed territories to be held by the end of 2007.

"There is no turning back," Barzani said in Irbil. "The referendum must be conducted in the next six months."

The oil-rich city of Kirkuk is too important to the Kurds to be papered over with some kind of fig leaf. There's going to be a deep fight for Kirkuk and it has a strong chance of being violent.

As a blogger on the Internets, I really can only take this so far. Until the Democratic Presidential candidates and the Congress end their silence on Iraq, the country will only get the wrong side of the story. Apparently, yesterday Hillary Clinton had Barack Obama sign on to her bill to stop a permanent status of forces agreement from being signed between Bush and the Iraqis. That's a defensive move at best, and a half-hearted one at that (I'll bet they'd love to have Iraq forced off the table for them).

Our Man In Baghdad

Earlier today I wrote about the comments from the Iraqi defense minister Abdul Qadir, who claimed that a US presence would be needed in Iraq until 2018 at the earliest. Swopa informs us that Qadir is kind of the "player to be named later" in the Iraqi government:

A quick Googling expedition reveals that the minister's full name is Abdul Qadir Muhammed Jasim (why the NYT refers to him only by the first half of his name, I don't know), and he was appointed defense minister at the end of the wrangling over security ministries between the Bushites and Iraq's Shiite-dominated government in 2006.

The odds are good that Jasim was imposed on Team Shiite in much the same manner as the U.S. has kept its preferred intelligence chief in place for the past couple of years, viewing the position as too important to let the supposedly sovereign Iraqi government control it. Of course, in the case of the intelligence director, the Iraqi government simply developed a separate spy service to circumvent him.

Swopa seems to be saying that nothing Abdul Qadir says should be believed, and his influence in the Iraqi government is minimal at best. However, it's undeniable that the US is negotiating a status of forces agreement with the Iraqis, and the defense ministry would conceivably have something to do with that. And we know that the Administration desires to cut the Congress out of the deal. And unless there's a separate Army we don't know about, Qadir at least will have some say in that agreement. Being a virtual puppet of the Americans probably smooths the negotiations, too.

A lot of people questioned whether or not Bush could lock in a permanent military presence in Iraq through such an agreement. One thing I know for sure is that these bills, which would "require the administration to consult with Congress on the agreement and withhold funds for the agreement if it did not come in the form of a formal treaty," aren't likely to help. Bush wouldn't sign anything that would give up his own power, so obviously this would require Republican support. And these are the people who obstructed S-CHIP, I don't think they'll bat an eyelash obstructing this one.

Funding for permanent military bases in Iraq was banned by the Congress... in the defense authorization bill that Bush pocket-vetoed in late December. Eventually a defense authorization bill needs to be passed; Nancy Pelosi should simply seek to override it, since Bush's pocket veto wasn't an actual pocket veto. Watch and see if that rider suddenly flies the coop. If you want to stop a permanent military presence in Iraq, banning the funding would be the best way to do it.

Signing Statements Are Back, But With A Twist

Attached to the military appropriations bill signed by the President last month included the first signing statement since the new Congress came into power, and the details of it should cheer those who think that the Democratic takeover have achieved absolutely nothing. Because this is a kinder and gentler signing statement, a less unitary executive, who just allowed through a provision against permanent bases in Iraq which a Democratic successor would surely be pressured to enforce.

Pulitzer Prize winner Charlie Savage has the report.

In the statement, which the White House filed in the Federal Register on Nov. 13 but which initially attracted little attention, Bush challenged several requirements to provide information to Congress.

For example, one law Bush targeted requires him to give oversight committees notice before transferring US military equipment to United Nations peacekeepers.

Bush also challenged a new law that limits his ability to transfer funds lawmakers approved for one purpose to start a different program, as well as a law requiring him to keep in place an existing command structure for the Navy's Pacific fleet.

Obviously, it's distressing that Bush has reverted to the practice of trying to nullify Congressionally-mandated statutes. But look at the language that he has used to reject these portions of the law.

"The Act contains certain provisions identical to those found in prior bills passed by the Congress that might be construed to be inconsistent with my Constitutional responsibilities," Bush's statement says.

"To avoid such potential infirmities, I will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to those provisions."

This is not the "I am the commander in chief and the unitary executive and what I say goes" President of years past. This is a meeker statement, simply claiming that there are inconsistencies in the record between these and other statutes. This seems to me like something fully within the purview of the judiciary to determine which language takes precedent. And in addition, it's far less confrontational and far easier to be challenged.

And this is the real surprise:

In a further sign that the White House adopted a muted tone, the new signing statement also said nothing about two higher-profile provisions in the bill that limit presidential power: One law prohibits the military from using foreign intelligence information that was collected illegally, and the other forbids expending funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq.

As lawmakers drafted the bill earlier this year, the White House warned Congress that the illegal intelligence and Iraq-base provisions "impermissibly" infringed "on the president's constitutional authority" over national security and foreign affairs.

The complaints about constraining executive power are gone. The reign of President as emperor, picking and choosing the laws he likes, are gone.

Now, this is not to say that the President has suddenly decided to follow the Constitution. If he wants to appropriate funds toward building permanent bases in Iraq, he very well might. He probably doesn't have to, since most of them are already built. But the statute is now official US law. Same with preventing the military from using "illegally collected" intelligence information. And so it will not only be applied to this President, but most importantly the NEXT President.

The Democratic Congress has obviously been something of a disappointment. But you have to put this in perspective. Change in Washington moves at a glacial pace. Despite this, they have passed the first minimum wage increase in a decade, the largest student loan reform maybe ever, implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations, instituted needed ethics reforms, and more. This coming week they will take up an energy bill that will raise fuel efficiency by 40% and add a renewable energy standard for electricity.

Now, we're seeing that the focus on Constitutional issues has actually backed up the most radical Administration in history from further destruction. We've seen that in the resignation of all the government officials engaged in some of the most horrific practices. We've seen that in the reinstitution of Senate oversight in the US Attorney process. And now, we've seen it in the tempering of signing statements. Maybe the dark legacy of increasing executive power will be stalled, after all.

This is in no way redeems the Democratic Congress for all their missteps; if anything, the man most responsible for this backtrack on signing statements is the author Charlie Savage, who did a great deal to put this in public view. But it should be a reminder that elections actually do have consequences.

An Enduring Relationship

Today was the day that we committed to staying in Iraq for the rest of most of all of our lives. It happened with hardly a whisper, but the result is devastating.

President Bush on Monday signed a deal setting the foundation for a potential long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq, with details to be negotiated over matters that have defined the war debate at home — how many U.S. forces will stay in the country, and for how long.

The agreement between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confirms that the United States and Iraq will hash out an "enduring" relationship in military, economic and political terms. Details of that relationship will be negotiated in 2008, with a completion goal of July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence.

So while Bush is a lame duck, with a Presidential election fought largely over Iraq raging in the background, he's going to commit the United States to a long-term relationship with permanent bases as what amounts to an occupying force in the heart of the Middle East, with the goal of forcing his successor to honor the agreement.

And he made this deal with a sectarian Shiite theocracy which only a couple days earlier he accused of killing American soldiers in a bombing in Baghdad. Not only that, but we'll be propping up that government as a part of this deal, defending it against coups (does that also mean the peaceful transfer of power?).

This new "enduring relationship" would begin after the renewal of the UN mandate peters out at the end of 2008. In other words, it would start at the very beginning of the next President's term.

None of this is surprising. He told us this in countless addresses to the nation and off-the-record comments. We knew that his goal was not only to pass this mess on to the next President, but to make it nearly impossible for the next President to leave. As Spencer Ackerman notes:

Even if Bush doesn't take the audacious step of signing a so-called Status of Forces Agreement -- the basic document for garrisoning U.S. forces on foreign soil -- while he's a lame duck, the simple fact of negotiations will create a diplomatic expectation that his successor will find difficult to reverse [...]

Here's the "principle" behind future U.S.-Iraq security ties:

"To support the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis; support the Iraqi government in contributing to the international fight against terrorism by confronting terrorists such as Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, other terrorist groups, as well as all other outlaw groups, such as criminal remnants of the former regime; and to provide security assurances to the Iraqi Government to deter any external aggression and to ensure the integrity of Iraq's territory."

In other words, we're staying in Iraq to defend Nouri al-Maliki against all enemies, foreign and domestic. What will the presidential candidates say about this?

Today Iraq became the 51st state. And there's also this:

The two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive, said U.S. military and diplomatic representatives appeared generally favorable, subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments.

Preferential treatment for U.S. investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran's nuclear aspirations.

This is about forcing open another market and raping resources, on the US side. On the Iraqi side, this is about an unpopular government getting force protection.

On the side of human beings, it's a catastrophe.

The Sausage Factory

There seems to be a lot of legislation being spitballed in Congress right now, let's do a rundown:

• The House voted to ban all permanent bases in Iraq. There's enough funding, of course, to already build these installations, but it's somewhat significant to the next Administration coming in that the House is on record for this, and that talk of Iraq being the new Korea is being fully rejected. Hopefully the Senate will join them.

• After a farm bill that retained multibillion dollar subsidies to farmers, but lowered the ceiling for payment eligibility and also tried to tighten offshore tax haven loopholes, suddenly faces a veto threat from the President and Republicans who don't want anything bad to happen to those persecuted rich people.

Democrats said the tax proposal would merely close a loophole that the Bush administration itself has decried in the past. "Who is surprised that the administration takes the side of CEOs who hold beachside board meetings at the expense of programs to feed the least fortunate here at home?" asked Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee [...]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has defended the legislation as an important step toward reform. In addition to paying for traditional farm programs, the bill would provide billions of dollars over the next decade for conservation, biofuel research and nutrition programs such as food stamps. There is new money for organic farmers, rural development and fruit-and-vegetable snacks for schoolchildren.

The farm bill is one of those pieces of Congressional sausage that doesn't get a lot of attention, but really sets the priorities for who we are as a society. The Republicans have set theirs, certainly. But this is always a compromise bill where the interests of farm-state lawmakers are foregrounded and a lot of pork is maintained. Democrats probably did the best they could do on this one, and still Republicans can't allow rich people to have to pay their taxes.

• After the report from a Presidential panel on veteran's care, reforms to the system are being recommended. Maybe we won't see the kind of shocking situation that leads Iraq veterans to sue the VA. What's so depressing is that this plan is cheap:

The commission said fully carrying out its recommendations would cost $500 million a year for the time being, and $1 billion annually years from now as the current crop of fresh veterans and active military members ages and new personnel is in place.

Many of the recommendations of the commission were included in a bill that passed the Senate yesterday.

• Looks like the homeland security bill is finally moving forward.

House and Senate negotiators reached accord yesterday on legislation to implement most of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that studied the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The deal could be enacted as early as this week. Agreement on a package of lobbying and ethics rules changes should be done by early next week. And congressional leaders hope to pass a significant expansion of the 10-year-old program to provide health insurance for children of the working poor.

They're finally starting to break the deadlocks on some of this stuff, as Republicans may have understood that low disapproval ratings for Congress means EVERY incumbent is threatened, not just Democrats. And with far more Republicans up in the Senate, I'm sure they are getting nervous. And the Democrats are starting to put moderates in a vice in a smart way. To wit:

But against such philosophical stands, there is a stark political problem: How many Republicans are really going to oppose legislation expanding insurance coverage for children, tightening ethics rules and bolstering homeland security?

"They've had a pretty strong quarter," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who praised the insurance bill as "creative" and suggested the homeland security bill would pass overwhelmingly. "The first quarter was not so good, and that's why they're not looking so good in the polls, but this quarter is looking very good for them. They can send their members home crowing about their accomplishments, and they've done it in a bipartisan way, which is exactly what they promised to do," LaHood said.

I don't know if people are paying enough attention; really only Iraq matters in the big picture. But Democrats are starting to expose the obstructionists and break through the media filter.

Small Glimmers of Hope

In the aftermath of the outrage of the Libby disgrace, there does appear to be a small turnaround in American Iraq policy being negotiated, and this time, it is the White House that is arguing from a position of weakness.

Gates made headlines during a trip to Hawaii a month ago when he called a decades-long U.S. troop presence in Iraq "a great idea." Now, reports the Wall Street Journal, Gates figures the path to Congressional assent for an enduring, South Korea-style stay in Iraq is to come up with near-term troop reductions. It's basically a trade-off: cut the surge short in order to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

In and of itself, this is a terrible idea. Our troops in Iraq permanently would have essentially no mission and would be exposed to a far more chaotic situation than South Korea ever was. Furthermore, the manpower strain on the Army is such that they can't keep up this surge anyway without a draft, and the troops will be drawn down by next spring all by themselves, so why would Congress give up something additional (permanent bases) for something due to happen by default?

But let's look at the big picture. Obviously, support for the war is really cratering on Capitol Hill, and at least the Secretary of Defense understands that. Richard Lugar's call for a drawdown, along similar lines as Gates actually, is a signal that Republicans who want there to be a party for them in this next generation are coalescing around a pullback of troops. And with Gates going hat in hand to Congress to argue for a permanent presence, he's clearly accepting the reality of what's happening in Iraq and trying to salvage something out of it. Whether he has backing in the White House is unclear. But this is a very high-level official in the White House admitting that the surge is essentially doomed. That's important.

Gates is also continuing to push to close Gitmo and change the entire system for trying detainees, before the judicial system, which has agreed to hear a challenge to the Military Commissions Act, changes it for them.

Essentially, the administration would propose legislation that would result in dividing the estimated 375 Guantánamo detainees into three legal categories. The one that would call for legislative action would include detainees like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 2001 attacks, and others whose trials would risk exposing intelligence operations. This group, estimated at two dozen to 50, would be placed indefinitely in military brigs on American soil.

A second group would also be moved to the United States, most likely to face trial in military courts, but perhaps with more legal guarantees than in the current military tribunal system.

The third, and largest, group would consist of detainees to be released to their home countries.

This would still be unacceptable to me, as there would still be an element of denying habeas corpus and indefinite detention without charges involved. It's still worth pursuing because Guantanamo's elimination would send a message of change to the world, and like in the Iraq negotiations, the White House is in the weak position, knowing that Gitmo must go and trying to figure out an acceptable alternative.

This all possibly runs into a brick wall once Fourthbranch gets his mitts on it, but Democrats who want to end our involvement in Iraq and restore Constitutional rights have an opportunity to drive the debate here if they want it.

UPDATE: Arlen Specter gives another line of attack.

Frustrated by the Bush administration’s continued use of presidential signing statements to challenge or ignore provisions of Congressionally approved legislation, Senate Judiciary ranking member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has reintroduced legislation to rein in President Bush’s ability to use the tactic.

Specter, who has long been a critic of Bush’s use of signing statements, quietly introduced his Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007 on Friday.

“The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can he use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like,” Specter said in a floor statement.

If the Democrats in Congress can't stand up for their own lawmaking powers, they really should pack it up and go home.

Iraq 4-evah

It was a nice head fake in the Washington Post this morning, suggesting that the Bush Administration is considering a reappraisal of the Iraq Study Group report. Actually the head fake didn't even last the full article. The ISG report is a framework (a cover, really) to keep the United States intimately involved in Iraq until all of us are dead.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)... said he is looking to the study group's ideas as a way of ensuring a long-term American commitment to Iraq, albeit with a smaller troop presence. "My sense among Republican senators is we know very well that the current course is not a sustainable course over a longer period of time," he said. "If we drift into September, [the president] may not be able to find a bipartisan basis to support a long-term limited interest in Iraq."

"Long-term limited interest" is the key phrase there. That's why the only benchmark you ever hear about is the oil wealth distriubtion deal (which the Iraqi Parliament is wholesale rejecting). The current American policy is never to leave Iraq, and in fact we're laying the groundwork for the infrastructure that will keep us there forever.

This so-called “lily pad” strategy entails keeping a “series of military installations around Iraq,” with tens of thousands of U.S. troops remaining in the country for as long as a few decades:

[W]hat it essentially envisions is a series of military installations around Iraq, maybe five or six of them, a total of maybe 30-40 thousand U.S. troops in Iraq for a long period of time, lasting, maybe a few decades. And the idea is that these bases will be somewhat hermetically sealed, that U.S. military forces won’t be leaving them, they won’t be conducting presence patrols and the patrols they conduct now. Ground convoys won’t be driving into them.

Airplanes will be essentially landing in to deliver supplies and these sort of lily pads will be in various strategic areas in Iraq … And that will enable the U.S. military to maintain a presence in the country, perhaps…for a few decades.

The Pentagon’s goal with the lily pads is to preserve U.S. interests in Iraq for years to come “in the event that Congress or the administration pushes this [withdrawal plan] forward.” As NPR details, those interests are at least three-fold: 1) Training Iraq forces, 2) Preserving economic interests, as “Iraq obviously [sits] on the second largest reserve of oil in the world,” and 3) Providing a U.S. military “presence” to deter Iran and Turkey from “getting involved” after withdrawal.

This is all coming together for me now. It appears that the Administration is just trying to hold off the critics until these "lily pad" bases are complete. Then they might pull out, although they've worked the base into such a lather that politically they probably can't even do that. But they could make a big show of "the Iraqis are now ready to take over!" and they'd shift all the combat personnel to these huge bases and "redefine the mission." Soldiers would still be at risk, but the permanent presence will be cemented. And they can make it so that it wouldn't be viable for anyone to leave. This is classic neocon crap; make it so that "American interests" supersede sanity, and establish another piece in the dominion.

When people say that the military hasn't planned for "defeat" in Iraq, you can bet your last dollar that they have. This is the plan. It's occupation under a different name.

Bill Richardson Makes His Case - Through Action

I hate to dismiss the big breaking "Don Imus has been fired for being the real father of Anna Nicole's baby" stories, but this Bill Richardson/North Korea deal deserves more scrutiny.

Richardson went over there solely to get the remains of American soldiers who died during the Korean War. In his spare time, he managed to broker a deal with the North Koreans on the dismantling of their nuclear program. They will return to nuclear negotiations, let the inspectors back in, and begin to destroy the Yongbon nuclear reactor.

Here's what Richardson had to say about the deal (via email):

The bottom line is that diplomacy works - there is no other lesson to draw from this monumental breakthrough. And we desperately need someone in the White House who understands this and can restore American international leadership.

In today's world, we have to be willing to engage our adversaries in tough and direct talks that lead to resolution, not more confrontation and isolation. I don't have to tell you that there are trouble spots all over the world that could use some of this tough and smart American diplomacy.

I'm running for President, in part, to keep our country safe and secure. I'm proud that yesterday in North Korea I was able to make a contribution to real progress toward that goal.

It's such an indictment of this Administration that even their successes have to be helped along by Democrats to be implemented.

Richardson also received well-deserved plaudits for affirming his belief in the complete removal of ALL troops from Iraq, without a single exception. That means no permanent bases, no force confined to fighting terrorism, nothing. This is a major difference between him and most of the top candidates. And Markos explains the significance:

Richardson, in just the last couple of months, has brokered landmark deals in Darfur and North Korea -- efforts that had stymied the Bush Administration through two terms. There is no one in American politics today more respected and accomplished on foreign policy than Bill Richardson [...]

Of all the top candidates, Richardson is the only candidate who currently advocates a complete withdrawal from Iraq. That he's also the sharpest mind on foreign policy issues isn't a coincidence.

I don't know if Richardson just vaulted himself into the top tier or not. But he's had an incredibly good week. And his resume is without peer in the Democratic field. He deserves a long look.