Buck Naked Politics

Dueling Videos Emerge from U.S.-Iran Boat Incident

Posted by D. Cupples (photo from U.S. DoD) |  Four days ago, U.S. military officials told the media that small Iranian boats had threatened two U.S. Navy destroyers and a Frigate.  Two days later, the Navy released a video of the indicent, including audio of someone saying "I am coming to you. You will explode in a few minutes."

The Iranian government denied having made a threat and released its own video of the incident -- only the voices on that tape said: "'Coalition warship No. 73 this is an Iranian navy patrol boat."  Yesterday, the U.S. military softened its original message.  ABC News reports:

updated: [Formerly] Secret Operations in Turkey! Progress or "Progress" in Iraq!

posted by Damozel | A SECRET STRATEGY!  Like most bloggers who comment on the war, I've really very little---as in "no"--- knowledge of military matters.  But here is one thing I do know:  I don't know what the US (the president or the Congress) should do about Iraq.  With the issue so politicized, I trust neither the Administration nor Congress (whether Republican or Democrat) and therefore am inclined to defer to the Brits, who at least have recently studied the question.

My kneejerk reaction to this revelation by Robert Novak in The Washington Post is: "....oh christ; a covert operation?"

The morass in Iraq and deepening difficulties in Afghanistan have not deterred the Bush administration from taking on a dangerous and questionable new secret operation. High-level U.S. officials are working with their Turkish counterparts on a joint military operation to suppress Kurdish guerrillas and capture their leaders. Through covert activity, their goal is to forestall Turkey from invading Iraq.

While detailed operational plans are necessarily concealed, the broad outlines have been presented to select members of Congress as required by law. U.S. Special Forces are to work with the Turkish army to suppress the Kurds' guerrilla campaign. The Bush administration is trying to prevent another front from opening in Iraq, which would have disastrous consequences. But this gamble risks major exposure and failure. (Washington Post; links in original).

My second reaction was "...which "select members of Congress"?"  My third was "Does Gordon Brown know?"  My fourth was "...risks major exposure?"  But since I know I don't know anything about the ramifications, I'm in the (for a blogger) invidious position of having to wait to hear what people who at least seem to know have to say.

Joe Biden Takes on Giuliani....

posted by Damozel |      ...as.quoted here at The Politicker by Jason Horowitz (statement released by the Biden campaign):

"Rudy Giuliani just doesn't get it. Tough talk and cheap shots won't make America any safer or get mine resistant vehicles to our troops any faster. It is absurd for Rudy Giuliani to call Democrats ‘losers' after five years of failed Republican policies in Iraq.

"It is outrageous that three years after the 9/11 Commission made its recommendations virtually nothing has been funded by this White House and yet Giuliani continues to make the pathetic case that his party has provided leadership fighting terrorism. As everyone knows, until we end the war in Iraq, we are distracted from the main agenda of combating terrorism in Afghanistan and strengthening our homeland security. Giuliani and the rest of the Republican candidates continue to cling to this Administration's failed policy that a strong central government can be propped up in Iraq. If these are the positions he wants to defend, I invite him to debate me on these important topics."  (Press release)

Contractors Offering Bribes & Kickbacks to Army Personnel?

It's not just contractors who are pocketing mega-money from U.S. war spending -- even some military personnel and their families are allegedly sharing in the loot through kickbacks or bribery schemes.  Friday's Washington Post said

"Maj. John L. Cockerham, a contracting officer, took up to $9.6 million in bribes from at least eight military contractors, according to court documents, and he expected to get at least another $5.4 million for giving them favorable contracts.

"'This is the largest bribery case that has come out of Iraq to date,'" said Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general.

A couple things surprise me, here.  First, the mid-level officer's name (along with that of his wife and sister, who were allegedly involved) have been plastered all over the media -- yet the Special Inspector General and the Justice Department have not publicly named the companies involved.  Last time I checked, offering a bribe is as much a crime as taking one.

Yes, the investigation is ongoing, but chances are that the contractor-employees allegedly involved in the alleged bribery schemes know that the "feds" have their eye on them, precisely because the Army officer's name is out there.

Second, I'm surprised that a $15 million scheme is "the largest bribery case" to come out of Iraq to date....

Krugman on Bush's Enablers

Here's an excerpt from Paul Krugman's July 20th column:

"Remember, Mr. Bush was confident six years ago when he promised to bring in Osama, dead or alive. He was confident four years ago, when he told the insurgents to bring it on. He was confident two years ago, when he told Brownie that he was doing a heckuva job.

.

"Now Iraq is a bloody quagmire, Afghanistan is deteriorating and the Bush administration's own National Intelligence Estimate admits, in effect, that thanks to Mr. Bush's poor leadership America is losing the struggle with Al Qaeda. Yet Mr. Bush remains confident.

.

"Sorry, but that's not reassuring; it's terrifying. It doesn't demonstrate Mr. Bush's strength of character; it shows that he has lost touch with reality." (Truthout)

Krugman gave two "enablers" honorable mention: Sen. Richard Lugar and Gen. David Petraeus.  Krugman's take on Petraeus unnerved me, as we await Petraeus' September report on Iraq, which is perceived as the key to determining our nation's course in the questionable war.

.

Petraeus has reached oracle status, with most of us expecting his report to be accurate and non-politically-motivated.  Krugman raises doubts about Petraeus' objectivity, citing a September 2004 op-ed by Petraeus, in which:

"Kristol's War" Redux: Cockney Robin Explains it All.

posted by Damozel | At The Washington Post, Howard Kurz muses about William Kristol and Kristol's recent WaPo piece,"Why Bush will be a Winner". W liked it, which is nice for Mr. Kristol (The Washington Post).  And which probably made up for the fact that many other people didn't:

Arianna Huffington called it "the single most deceptive piece of the entire war" and said Kristol had "officially surpassed Dick Cheney as the most intellectually dishonest member of the neocon establishment." David Corn of the Nation dismissed Kristol's "Bush boosterism." And 260 pages of comments on The Post's Web site called him everything from an "uninformed, partisan fool" to a "Bush sycophant" to a "menace to America" (The Washington Post). 

Mr. Kristol agitated for years for a war in Iraq and "no pundit is more closely identified with the war."  Naturally he feels invested in the outcome. 

"What has driven his detractors crazy is that he has never acknowledged error in a serious way, instead brushing aside his botched predictions to lecture the country on the right course of action. Even as other conservative columnists have broken with the president, Kristol has stood his ground....""Obviously I wish the war had gone better," he allows, but "I'm not going to say something I don't believe to make my critics happier"" (The Washington Post). 

Here at Buck Naked Politics, we don't pretend to know what the president or anyone else should do about Iraq, and we avoid name-calling as much as possible---but we do know a magnificent piece of ratiocination when we see it.  Our guest author Cockney Robin was much struck by Mr Kristol's reasoning and we commend his piece to your attention:  Cockney Robin Deconstructs William Kristol's "Why Bush Will be a Success.

President Unwisely Plays bin Laden Card Again

In the face plummeting approval of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war, Bush's focus yesterday was on Osama bin Laden:

"Some will tell you al-Qaeda in Iraq isn't really al-Qaeda -- and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun, and saying he's probably just there to cash a check. We are fighting bin Laden's al-Qaeda in Iraq" (Washington Post)

Why do White House speechwriters think this tactic still works? Just after September 11th, the mere mention of bin Laden terrified us and sent Bush's approval ratings up, but that was almost six years ago.

Given all we've learned about the White House's tactics -- starting with the massively flawed intelligence on which it persuaded the public to support the Iraq war -- even if Bush is right this time, will most Americans believe him?

As well as ineffective, the bring-up-bin-Laden tactic seems counter-productive, as it only reminds us taxpayers that Bush failed to capture our archenemy -- despite considerable time and resources at his disposal.

The Christian Science Monitor stated: "scant intelligence, poorly chosen allies, and dubious military tactics fumbled a golden opportunity to capture bin Laden as well as many senior Al Qaeda commanders."  I don't know if that assessment is accurate, but the article is worth a read.

Cindy Sheehan Needs A New Hobby.

I can't stand Cindy Sheehan.  There, I said it.  I circled round and round this point in my two previous postings addressing her initial attempt to intimidate or antagonize Nancy Pelosi into doing her bidding by threatening to take her Congressional seat away from her; and her "big announcement." 

As a grieving mother, she had my unqualified sympathy.  As a petulant attention-begging activist....well, Neil Stanage in the antiwar British paper, The Guardian, pretty much summed up my thoughts.

Sheehan's overarching trait: her apparently boundless hubris. Her basic position appears to be that, since she has lost a son in the war in Iraq, every pronouncement she makes about that war, or about the wider world, must axiomatically be correct....

Presumptuousness....is yet another signature Sheehan trait. Like so many people at both ends of the political spectrum, she apparently believes that centrist positions can only be arrived at through cowardice, ideological corruption or bad faith.

Polls: More Disapproval of Bush, Less Trust in His Ability to Fix Iraq, Fear is Key to Higher Numbers?

A new Washington Post/ABC poll indicates that 55% of survey participants trust Congressional Democrats to fix the Iraq war problem, while only 32% trust President Bush to do it. Why?  According to the poll, 80% of Americans see Bush's stance on Iraq as too rigid: this includes a majority of Republicans, as well as Democrats and Independents.

Damozel's mother (aka The Southern Lady) -- who voted for Bush twice and venerates his father-- now perceives the younger Bush as a "stubborn jack ass."  (Genteel belles of her age use such words excruciatingly sparingly, if at all).

Another interesting tidbit: "Even among those Americans who said they had served or had a close personal friend or relative who served in Iraq, just 38 percent approve of Bush's handling of the war" (WaPo).

I don't put much faith in isolated polls. Even with error-margin calculations (which are based on heavy assumptions), how can we know whether the opinions of 1,500 people truly reflect those of tens-of millions of people?

What might indicate something (trends, perhaps) is tracking changes in answers to survey questions over time. Compare some of President Bush's job-approval numbers over the last six years (below):

All Along the Watchtower: Notes from the Centrosphere.

posted by Damozel | I tend statistically to prefer reading centrist or moderate blogs.  I'm surprised that more people don't.  Whereas blogs that lean right or left tend to be pretty predictable, centrist/moderate bloggers are full of surprises.  Furthermore, they generally feel some sort of commitment to giving reasons for their opinions. They also tend to split hairs and insist on making their bricks from at least a modicum of straw.  Finally, though some adopt what you might call an astringent or brisk tone, most refrain from getting worked up to the point of shrillness or icy loathing.  They're moderate in their tone as well as in their politics; I like that.

Sometimes I just am not in the mood to get ranted at; or to see my own opinions delivered with a burst of bile or dissolved in vitriol.  I want to read blogs whose authors don't automatically assume I already know their position or necessarily agree with them. 

Welcome to the Centrophere:.

Annoying Former Antiwar/Current Impeachment Activist Challenges Pelosi as Promised.

posted by Damozel | UPDATED [CLICK HERE]  It's like Bush and Cheney are just deliberately crossing lines, daring Congress to respond.  If enough people from both parties decide that somewhere in all of this there's a "high crime or misdemeanor" and they want to initiate proceedings, it could happen, I guess.  The proceeding against Clinton definitely lowered the bar.  But as a Democrat, the prospect isn't particularly appealing to me.  Unless Cheney and Bush were both impeached ; otherwise, it would be---in the immortal words of The Who--- "Meet the new boss, just like the old boss."  Or worse, even. 

And is it likely that Republicans would EVER vote to hand the presidency to the person who is third in the order of succession?  I'm thinking not. Which is one of many reasons why impeachment isn't really an option.   

Now Cindy Sheehan has decided to "punish" Pelosi for not doing her bidding by running against her. She says things like this:

Meanwhile, in the UK, One of the Iraq Commission Chairs Offers the PM This Guidance...

Posted by Cockney Robin | Damozel expects me to believe that she is "surprised" that there has been little discussion in the U.S. press of Britain's Iraq Commission Report, released last week. As I've had ample opportunity to notice that the American press quite frequently takes little notice of what's happening anywhere else, I am less surprised, though I suppose it is a bit odd that there is so little apparent attention to recommendations being offered to the US's ally-in-chief.  Perhaps the US media doesn't consider it a story unless and until it begins to have a clear effect on US policy(?)

As BN-Politics discussed in some depth last week, this cross-party report was designed to offer guidance to Gordon Brown on how the UK should proceed in Iraq.  Many of its recommendations were similar to those of the US Iraq Study Group.  Co-chair Margaret Jay published an opinion piece in The Independent on Sunday last week which discussed some of the findings, with particular emphasis on the importance of providing Iraq with initial support (and with launching "a diplomatic offensive" while preparing to withdraw British troops as soon as feasible, though the report didn't recommend setting a definite withdrawal date.  (Margaret Jay;  BN-Politics) 

So: while your Democrats and Republicans while away the lazy days of summer bickering over when---or whether---to vote on the withdrawal of troops in Iraq (BN-Politics), the new PM is receiving advice that this is exactly what he must do, for the sake of Britain and for the sake of Iraq.

Is Reid to Blame for Polarizing Congress on Iraq?

Today's Washington Post editorial stated that many Congressional Republicans want to slowly withdraw troops in Iraq, leaving some behind to train the Iraqis and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to force a vote on Iraq was an irresponsible political maneuver that diminished bipartisan cooperation. 

Lacking military expertise, I can't comfortably draw conclusions, but numerous questions are flooding my mind.  First, if we withdraw a significant fraction of the troops, will that make the ones left in Iraq more vulnerable?

Second, we've been in Iraq for 4-plus years: how much longer should it take to train the Iraqis? The Iraqi Parliament seems to want us to leave their country sooner not later (BNPolitics).  Given that, why does the Bush Administration envision staying in Iraq for the long haul -- like Korea? (BNPolitics). 

Four senior Republican senators (Domenici, Lugar, Voinovich and Warner) did publicly criticize the President's Iraq strategies, possibly signifying bipartisan agreement on the war's ending.  Conservative columnist David Brooks said:

"Months ago... Senior Republican senators were anxious to move away from the White House, to move towards some sort of withdrawal. Now they're not talking that way. They're talking, 'We've got to stick with the president.' And why? Two words: Harry Reid." (Online News Hour)

If they'd wanted to break with Bush for months, why did the four outspoken senators withhold their criticism until late June or early July? (BNPolitics)  Did they break with Bush because they want to end the war or because they were terrified by the public's downward spiraling support for both the Iraq war and the President? 

Obsidian Wings responded to Brooks' comments, suggesting that the senior Republicans are also focusing on politics:

Pentagon Aide Dodges Questions and Flips Off Senator

Planning every detail of a Caribbean weekend with one's sweetheart might undermine the fun. No doubt, spontaneity can be good.  I'm no military expert, but it seems obvious that the safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, whenever that occurs, is not one of those situations that would benefit from lack of planning.

After Sen. Hillary Clinton asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates about its plan for the ultimate troop withdrawal (May 2007 letter), Gates' aide Eric Edelman replied to Clinton with a letter last week that not only failed to answer her questions, but also implied that her asking them amounted to aiding our nation's enemies.

Edelman's attack on Clinton's patriotism typifies how many Bush Administration officials have knee-jerk responded to people who've legitimately questioned them over the last six years.  It's like saying, Your momma's a communist, and an ugly one at that, so go to hell!  Oh, okay: guess you won that debate on the merits.

Clinton didn't call for an immediate troop withdrawal.  She simply asked about the Pentagon's exit-strategy planning. Chances are that we will exit Iraq, be it next year or next decade. Whether one likes Clinton or not, her request for information was reasonable -- given that she's an elected official and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Clinton's response to Edelman was equally reasonable:

Iraq War: Time to Take a Stand?

Yesterday, I was breakfasting in Manhattan, reading the complimentary New York Times that my Midtown hotel laid neatly on the floor outside my door every morning (except Sunday -- God forbid they spend a few extra dollars on guests spending $300 a night).

On the front page was a photo of a room full of cots, lined up like grave stones at Arlington cemetery, in case our senators needed rest during the all-night debate that Majority Leader Harry Reid had planned. The NYT headline was "Democrats Lack Support to Force Vote on Pull-Out" (a reference to withdrawing troops from Iraq, not the moronic method of contraception). 

That headline blamed the mostly Democratic senators who are actually trying to end the Iraq war, as though they failed to force their colleagues to support our troops by supporting troop-withdrawal. 

The NYT headline should have been: Certain Senators Talk the Talk, Then Fail to Get it Up at Crunch Time.

Less than four weeks ago, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) publicly blasted President Bush's long-failing Iraq war strategy -- even wrote a letter to Bush. How did Voinovich respond to Reid's attempt to force a troop-withdrawal vote? 

About senate Democrats, Voinovich said: "You wonder if they are more interested in politics than dealing with the substance of this."  Upon reading this, I coughed up orange juice, compelling my teen-aged nephew to laugh up cheese danish. 

Cockney Robin Deconstructs William Kristol's "Why Bush Will be a Success."

  Posted by Cockney Robin | When the blog administror asked me to give "the British perspective" on Mr William Kristol's column, "Why Bush Will be a Success," I wasn't initially sure I was up to the task because I don't actually understand the kind of conservative you have in the US.  Our sort are different.  For example, during this recent Prime Minister's Question Time, David Cameron----the British sort of conservative---gets all up in the newly minted Prime Minister's face to oppose anticipated cutbacks and closures to the financed-by-taxation National Health Service ("socialised medicine"  to you yanks).

FIG.1 [BRITISH CONSERVATIVE]

The column in question is called "Why Bush Will Be A Winner" and is not---repeat, not---either a parody or satire.  It is meant to be taken seriously.  Mark that, please, and bear it firmly in mind as you read my exegesis; otherwise, you might start to think that The Washington Post had published it in a spirit of irony and for the amusement of its readers.

With a crooked smile and ironically lifted brow, Mr Kristol begins, "I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one.  Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration." 

 

Note to Congress and Especially to My Fellow Democrats: There are No Easy Paths Out of Iraq.

posted by Damozel | As the British Iraq Commission has now informed Gordon Brown, there are no easy ways out of Iraq because any rational solution must take into account what the Iraqis need. (See New Roadmaps Out of Iraq).  Sadly---and, in the long term, probably dangerously---Congress as a whole (especially, I'm sorry to say, my fellow Democrats) seems largely unconcerned with the consequences to Iraq of the withdrawal of American troops---or with the impact on Iraq's struggling government of the timetable that Congress has imposed on it.

Yesterday, Prime Minister Maliki's aide Yassin Majid had to explain what the Prime Minister actually meant when he said:   "We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want."  According to his aide, what this actually meant was "that efforts to bolster Iraq's security forces would continue "side-by-side with the withdrawal."  (The Washington Post)   

 

New Roadmaps Out of Iraq.

posted by Damozel | The current situation in Iraq reminds me of a line from a certain novel by Kingsley Amis:  "It's, like, a cat can get his claws stuck into you, you can't get them out and neither can he."   Meanwhile (except of course for the Bush Administration, everyone)---including now perhaps even the Iraqi government---seems to be wishing for a way for the US and the Iraqi government to detach with the minimum amount of damage to either side.

Following the assessment of his government's failure to meet Congressional benchmarks---and  even perhaps with a certain degree of resentment (?)---Prime Minister Maliki announced at a press conference that coalition troops can leave whenever they wish, instead of waiting as the Bush Administration wishes to do until security and stability are achieved. (Washington Post) "The government is serious about increasing the numbers of troops, training them, rehabilitating them and buying weapons so that they can be more capable of holding the security file the moment the multinational forces decide to reduce their numbers or to withdraw from Iraq,"  he said. (Washington Post) He did acknowledge that Iraqi forces need more training and more weapons. (Washington Post) 

Britain pulls away; Bush presses forward---Democrats push back. Should Democrats Give War a Chance? (UPDATED)

Posted by Cockney Robin | Clearly, President Bush is coming under serious pressure to wrap up the war in Iraq.  It's not just the Democrats; Republican Senators Warner and Lugar have now drafted legislation which "represents a sharp challenge to Bush." (The Washington Post)

IS BRITAIN PULLING AWAY FROM THE U.S.?  Now that we don't have Tony to kick around anymore, Gordon Brown's Labour government seems to be positioning itself to reposition itself and its relations with the U.S. In Washington last night, to the Council on Foreign Relations, Brown's International Development Secretary, Douglas Alexander,  said:  ""We must form new alliances, based on common values, ones not just to protect us from the world but ones which reach out to the world." (The Telegraph) 

British papers all consider this a "hint" to the US of an impending foreign policy shift.  A hint, eh? According to the BBC, "Downing Street has denied claims a speech by a Cabinet minister was critical of US foreign policy."  Do they protest too much?   But decide for yourself:

Stephen Colbert: Profiles in Timing

Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert spotlights the courage required to wait to speak out about problems until nothing can be done about them (e.g., President Bush's waiting until after the Iraq invasion to contradict Dick Cheney's implication that Iraq was linked to 9/11). Dick Lugar and George Tenet get honorable mention.