We Will Know Them By Their Incompetence

The New York Times has a story about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and, sure enough, there's another reason to condemn the Bush administration buried in the details:

In the Hollywood cliché of Fox’s “24,” a torturer shouts questions at a bound terrorist while inflicting excruciating pain. The C.I.A. program worked differently. A paramilitary team put on the pressure, using cold temperatures, sleeplessness, pain and fear to force a prisoner to talk. When the prisoner signaled assent, the tormentors stepped aside. After a break that could be a day or even longer, Mr. Martinez or another interrogator took up the questioning.

Mr. Martinez’s success at building a rapport with the most ruthless of terrorists goes to the heart of the interrogation debate. Did it suggest that traditional methods alone might have obtained the same information or more? Or did Mr. Mohammed talk so expansively because he feared more of the brutal treatment he had already endured?

A definitive answer is unlikely under the Bush administration, which has insisted in court that not a single page of 7,000 documents on the program can be made public. The C.I.A. declined to provide information for this article, in part, a spokesman said, because the agency did not want to interfere with the military trials planned for Mr. Mohammed and four other Qaeda suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The two dozen current and former American and foreign intelligence officials interviewed for this article offered a tantalizing but incomplete description of the C.I.A. detention program. Most would speak of the highly classified program only on the condition of anonymity.

Mr. Martinez declined to be interviewed; his role was described by colleagues. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the C.I.A., and a lawyer representing Mr. Martinez asked that he not be named in this article, saying that the former interrogator believed that the use of his name would invade his privacy and might jeopardize his safety. The New York Times, noting that Mr. Martinez had never worked undercover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news articles and books, declined the request...

The very fact that Mr. Martinez, a career narcotics analyst who did not speak the terrorists’ native languages and had no interrogation experience, would end up as a crucial player captures the ad-hoc nature of the program. Officials acknowledge that it was cobbled together under enormous pressure in 2002 by an agency nearly devoid of expertise in detention and interrogation.

“I asked, ‘What are we going to do with these guys when we get them?’ ” recalled A. B. Krongard, the No. 3 official at the C.I.A. from March 2001 until 2004. “I said, ‘We’ve never run a prison. We don’t have the languages. We don’t have the interrogators.’ ”

In its scramble, the agency made the momentous decision to use harsh methods the United States had long condemned. With little research or reflection, it borrowed its techniques from an American military training program modeled on the torture repertories of the Soviet Union and other cold-war adversaries, a lineage that would come to haunt the agency.

We kind of suspected this all along--when faced with the question of what to do when it came time to do what was necessary to defend America, the Bush Administration went with the Soviet option. Oh, and they videotaped it. And lost the videos, of course. But it was legal. Except it wasn't.

The fact that Condoleeza Rice was the National Security Advisor at the time--and is heralded by anyone who still believes it as an "expert" on the former Soviet Union--do you think she was the one who suggested that they go with the Soviet techniques? Do you think someone like Bob Woodward or David Broder would ask that question? Do you think anyone in the elite media is going to make that connection?

Is anyone paying attention when these little details emerge?

--WS

The Hostages No One Talks About

US citizens have been held hostage in Colombia for five years, and aside from very casual mentions in the media, they have largely been forgotten. Speaking their names isn't even something this government can do when it is on Colombian soil--it would draw attention to another diplomatic failure.

Don't be surprised if you have never heard of Marc Gonsalves, Thomas Howes and Keith Stansell; The [Washington] Post has published only three substantial stories about them in the past five years. All three are U.S. citizens who were working for Pentagon contractor Northrop Grumman when their surveillance plane crashed in a remote Colombian jungle on Feb. 13, 2003. Since then, they have been hostages of the FARC, confined with chains and forced to endure a nightmarish life of isolation, disease and brutality.

The three men were taken hostage after their plane crashed into the remote Colombian jungle. This was certainly not the first or only time the US has lost aircraft and personnel in Colombia:

In July 1999, an American spy plane monitoring the skies and intercepting communications traffic crashed into a mountainside in Colombia, killing the seven men on board - five of them US military personnel.

It's difficult to specify what, if anything, the Bush Administration has done to secure their release. By antagonizing the government of Hugo Chavez, the United States cannot expect any help from the Venezuelan allies of the FARC.

Even worse, from the perspective of the captives, their government and media rarely even speak about them. It's not just The Post: Both President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have visited Colombia in the past year, but neither mentioned Gonsalves, Howes and Stansell in their prepared public statements.

[Luis Eladio] Pérez, a former Colombian senator, could not help but feel the men's distress. At the time Bush visited, Pérez was chained by the neck to Howe. Taken hostage himself in June 2001, Pérez lived with the Americans from late 2003 to late 2004, and then again from October 2006 until his release in February. The 55-year-old politician was freed in a deal orchestrated by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and appears to be in remarkably good health now. But he is anguished about those he left behind. "It hurts me to be here enjoying coffee and knowing that they are there in the jungle chained to each other," Pérez told me. "I'm not happy to think of them rotting. I haven't stopped one day trying to help them."

Pérez came to Washington in part because the men gave him letters addressed to President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the presidential candidates and The Post, among others. FARC guards confiscated the letters, so Pérez is trying to deliver their messages himself. "They are asking the country to please not abandon them," he said. "They are saying that they love their country, they love the flag, that they are rotting in the jungle and please do something for them."

What could be done? Pérez wishes that Bush would consider the FARC's demand that two of its members imprisoned in the United States -- including one sentenced in January to 60 years for conspiring to hold the Americans hostage -- be exchanged for the three men. He points out that Colombian President Álvaro Uribe has expressed a willingness to exchange FARC prisoners for hostages and that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has promised to accept FARC detainees temporarily in France if it will lead to the release of Ingrid Betancourt, a former Colombian presidential candidate who holds French citizenship.

Taking care of our own and doing the difficult work of diplomacy is the Achilles heel of the Bush State Department. Letting a few narco-terrorists go would do what in the war on drugs? Set us back a decade or more? We're so far behind in the war on drugs that it wouldn't make a lick of difference if we let a few of them go. Good luck to them--anyone we let go would be ostracized by their former associates anyway. Keeping them in prison does what for us when we could let them go and get our personnel back?

It all comes down to the State Department. It used to work pretty well. It used to be something to be proud of. Good people led astray and held back and forced to retire is the best way to describe what we have right now. We have eviscerated our diplomatic corps. We have hundreds of empty positions and a desperate need to engage our friends, enemies, and neutral partners on every level.

Jackson Diehl goes on to say:

Among other things, the release of convicted FARC terrorists would undermine what has been a successful extradition program between Colombia and the United States and give a political boost to a crumbling movement. The implosion of the FARC has been a huge setback to Chávez, who was trying to rehabilitate it and use it as a vehicle to export his "Bolivarian revolution" to Colombia.

Therein may lie the Americans' best hope. Pérez confirms that the FARC "is looking for a political solution" in conjunction with Chávez. He's hoping its leaders can be convinced that such an end must begin with a unilateral release of the remaining hostages. "The FARC must make a decision," Pérez said. If Betancourt or other hostages die, he added, "it will be the end of the FARC." That would be a triumph for Colombia and for the Bush administration -- but not much consolation for three American families.

Perhaps the next President will solve the problem. Sad to say, we're just running out the clock.

The Incompetent Diplomat Strikes Again

In a moment of unusual stupidity, gall, and otherwise idiocy, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice plays to the base and makes America look bad again:

BAGHDAD — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward on Sunday, hours after the radical leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers.

Rice, in the Iraqi capital to tout security gains and what she calls an emerging political consensus, said al-Sadr is content to issue threats and edicts from the safety of Iran, where he is studying. Al-Sadr heads an unruly militia that was the main target of an Iraqi government assault in the oil-rich city of Basra last month, and his future role as a spoiler is an open question.

"I know he's sitting in Iran," Rice said dismissively, when asked about al-Sadr's latest threat to lift a self-imposed cease-fire with government and U.S. forces. "I guess it's all-out war for anybody but him," Rice said. "I guess that's the message; his followers can go too their deaths and he's in Iran."

Was it too cute to just say "bring 'em on!" or did you just think, hmmm...I'll make juvenile remarks about a sworn enemy of the United States who just happens to hold a sword over the head of thousands of vulnerable, exhausted US troops who are going to be in harms way if the Mahdi Army comes out of hibernation and resumes attacking our forces?

The schoolyard taunt doesn't work when you consider that Sadr is not a military man in any way, shape or form--he is a religious figure, a cleric. He is a spiritual leader and organizer, and his followers do not follow him because he risks death. They follow him because they have a far more sophisticated view of who is a leader and who is not a leader than anyone in the Bush Administration can fathom right now.

I mean, really. How fucking stupid can you be?

UPDATE I - Blue Girl - 0230 4/21

Pale Rider hits the nail on the head when he stresses that Sadr is not a military man, but a cleric, and that fear of death is unlikely to dissuade his followers and cause them to lay down arms. Quite the opposite is the case, in fact.

Last May, when Sadr emerged from hiding after four months of laying low, he emerged wearing a funeral shroud, signifying that he is willing to die, and indeed, expects to be martyred.

Within months, Shi'ite militants were wearing shrouds during street demonstrations.

Consider that most militia fighters are anonymous, the stereotypical black-clad, masked gunman.

Now look at the followers of Sadr. They show their faces and they wear funeral shrouds:

These are not actions to be taunted, mocked and ridiculed. Just the opposite, in fact. This should be taken quite seriously.

Condi Must Go

She is not merely the worst Secretary of State since John Foster Dulles, she is a war criminal, and she has perjured herself before Congress repeatedly.

As the National Security Adviser, she didn't just condone torture - she told the CIA "This is your baby, go do it."

She is a war criminal.

We used to hang people for the sort of crimes we have her dead to rights on.

I don't want revenge, I want JUSTICE, and there is only one path to achieve that end. Bush has to be impeached, because otherwise he retains the power to pardon this whole criminal enterprise.



After you watch the video, go to condimustgo.com and sign the petition. When they hit 100,000 signatures, they will deliver copies to all three of the Senators who would be President.

Unspooled

In the last five days, the security situation in Iraq has collapsed like the house of cards it ever 'twas. You might even say the insurgency was resurrected on Easter, and it came back like something out of Pet Cemetary.

As mortars and rockets rain down on the green zone (twelve in four hours just yesterday) the State Department has warned personnel not to leave "reinforced structures."

In a memo sent Thursday to embassy staff and obtained by The Associated Press, the department says employees are required to wear helmets, body armor and other protective gear if they must venture outside and strongly advises them to sleep in blast-resistant locations instead of the less secure trailers that most occupy.

"Due to the continuing threat of indirect fire in the International Zone, all personnel are advised to remain under hard cover at all times," it says. "Personnel should only move outside of hard cover for essential reasons."

"Essential outdoor movements should be sharply limited in duration," the memo says, adding that personal protective equipment "is mandatory for all outside movements."

"We strongly recommend personnel do not sleep in their trailers," it goes on to say, offering space inside the Saddam Hussein-era palace that is the embassy's temporary home as well as room at an as-yet uncompleted new embassy compound and a limited supply of cots.

In a separate public notice to American citizens in Iraq, the embassy said the restrictions would remain in place "until further notice."

And what does the (worst) Secretary of State (ever) have to day about it? "Iraq was harder than I thought." Seriously. She said that. Then she went on to blame the Iraqis for the turmoil and chaos in their country, but to her minimal credit, she stopped short of calling them a bunch of ungrateful wogs who don't know their place.

Do We Even HAVE a Secretary of State?

The always excellent Anne Applebaum (who should be on the Op-Ed page of the NYTimes instead of MoDo) writes about the ongoing unrest in Tibet:

And like all of its predecessors, the Chinese imperial class cares deeply about the pacification of the imperial periphery, more so than one might think.

For proof of this, look no further than the biography of Hu Jintao, the current Chinese president -- and former Communist Party boss of Tibet. In 1988 and 1989, the time of the last major riots, Hu was responsible for the brutal repression of dissident Tibetan monks and for what the Dalai Lama has called China's policy of "cultural genocide": the importing of thousands of ethnic Han Chinese into Tibet's cities, to dilute and eventually outbreed the ethnic Tibetan population.

Clearly, the repression of Tibet matters enormously to China's ruling clique, or members would not have promoted Hu, its mastermind, so far. The pacification of Tibet must also be considered a major political and propaganda success, or it would not have been copied by the Chinese-backed Burmese regime last year and repeated by the Chinese themselves in Tibet last week. Tibet is to China what Algeria once was to France, what India once was to imperial Britain, what Poland was to czarist Russia: the most unreliable, most intransigent and at the same time most symbolically significant province of the empire.

Keep that in mind over the next few days and months, as China tries once again to belittle Tibet, to explain away a nationalist uprising as a bit of vandalism. The riots of the past week began as a religious protest. Tibet's monks were demonstrating against laws that, among other things, require them to renounce the Dalai Lama. The monks' marches then escalated into generalized, unplanned, anti-Chinese violence, culminating in attacks on Han Chinese shops and businesses, among them -- as you can see on the cellphone videos -- the Lhasa branch of the Bank of China.

However the official version evolves, in other words, make no mistake about it: This was not merely vandalism, it could not have been organized solely by outsiders, it was not only about the Olympics, and it was not the work of a tiny minority. It was a significant political event, proof that the Tibetans still identify themselves as Tibetan, not Chinese. As such, it must have significant reverberations in Beijing. The war in Algeria brought down France's Fourth Republic. The dissident movements on its periphery helped weaken the Soviet Union. Right now, I'd wager that Hu Jintao's Tibet policy is causing a lot of consternation among his colleagues.

And if they aren't worried, they should be. After all, the past two centuries were filled with tales of strong, stable empires brought down by their subjects, undermined by their client states, overwhelmed by the national aspirations of small, subordinate countries. Why should the 21st century be any different? Watching a blurry cellphone video of tear gas rolling over the streets of Lhasa yesterday, I couldn't help but wonder when -- maybe not in this decade, this generation or even this century -- Tibet and its monks will have their revenge.

So if we were to ever get a handle on this Tibet thing, and properly support an oppressed people against the Chinese regime, could we do so in a way that doesn't antagonize them? Probably not--but if we were to back Tibet in such a way as to convince China to pressure North Korea, who knows? For purely moral reasons, yes, we should be concerned about Tibet. For purely political reasons, why shouldn't we cause the Chinese a little pain over this issue?

We are never going to get back our moral authority in the world if we take a pass on issues like Tibet. We need to consistently speak about human rights and champion the cause of people who are being oppressed. It is in our best long-term interests to find a way to connect with the world on issues like human rights again. We cannot go around talking tough to the Chinese while our own people waterboard mentally ill people and while our own state security apparatus rivals the Chinese one at spying on the innocent.

So do we even have a functioning State Department? Secretary Rice wows us with this:

Statement by Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
March 15, 2008
I am deeply saddened to learn that the turmoil that erupted yesterday in Lhasa following what began as peaceful protests has resulted in the loss of lives, and I am concerned that the violence appears to be continuing. I also am concerned by reports of a sharply increased police and military presence in and around Lhasa. We call on the Chinese government to exercise restraint in dealing with these protests, and we strongly urge all sides to refrain from violence.

President Bush has consistently encouraged the Chinese government to engage in substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama directly and through his representatives so that long-standing issues with regard to Tibet may be resolved. We urge China to respect the fundamental and universally recognized right of all of its citizens to peacefully express their political and religious views, and we call on China to release monks and others who have been detained solely for the peaceful expression of their views. We also urge China to address policies in Tibetan areas that have created tensions due to their impact on Tibetan religion, culture, and livelihoods.

All that, when what we should say is this:

The United States condemns the actions of the Chinese government and calls on other nations to join it in this condemnation and to express support for the oppressed people of Tibet.

See, that wasn't so hard was it? Instead of urging them to stop slaughtering people, let's condemn them for it. And then let's start stripping them of trade agreements and question whether they can even host the Olympics.

Priorities

Given our current problems in the world--you know, the Middle East in turmoil, tensions in South America, the Iraq War, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Pakistan, and a whole host of others--is this really the best place for the Secretary of State to be?

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stands for the National Anthem before the Georgetown Louisville college basketball game, Saturday, March 8, 2008, in Washington. (AP Photo/Nick Wass)

You know, when you have a handle on your job and things are going pretty well for you, take in all the ballgames you want. When things are tough, sure, it's a good idea to unwind for a bit and recharge your batteries. I won't begrudge someone a little downtime. Take a week off if you need it.

But when you are proven to be the worst Secretary of State in the history of this country, perhaps you ought to get a skybox and try not to be noticed when you waste a perfectly good Saturday instead of trying to do something, anything even remotely related to doing your job.

Maybe we should be grateful she does things like this, rather than try to talk to world leaders who don't want to listen to her repeat whatever she was told to try to accomplish.

UPDATE I - PALE RIDER

Wow.

WASHINGTON - President Bush said an early farewell to political Washington on Saturday night, making his first appearance on the stage of the Gridiron Club of Washington journalists.

Bush surprised the white-tie audience of more than 600, including Supreme Court justices, Cabinet members and lawmakers, by appearing as the final act of the club's annual revue. To the tune of "Green Green Grass of Home," he sang about looking forward to his return to Texas.

"As I step down from the plane and there to meet me is my mama and my papa, down the lane I look and here comes Barney, heart of gold and breath like honey," the president warbled.

Your Secretary of State in all her incompetent glory

What I wouldn't give for a competent State Department right now.

Condoleeza Rice is still parroting the party line, that Annapolis was the beginning of a grand lasting peace, and the Bush administration can broker a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians - even as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rebuffed her, refusing to publicly commit to restarting peace talks with Israel.

This annoyed the Bush administration no end. The official Bush position is that his refusal to agree to return to the table lends credence to Hamas, whose political arm took control of Gaza after a brief civil war that deposed the Palestinian Authority to the West Bank last June. They accuse Abbas of handing Hamas a "tactical victory" by "allowing it to hijack Arab-Israeli peace negotiations."

As for Abbas, he seems to be enjoying standing up to Israel and the United States for a change. So I'm not holding my breath that he is going to be in a rush to comply just cuz Condi sez. And I'm sure not betting the farm on the Bush administration brokering any sort of lasting peace! In fact, the mere notion that these incompetent nincompoops even deign to peddle that line of bullshit makes me snort with derision. They are leaving office with a Middle East legacy, all right. But it most certainly is not the one they envision.

Rice is nothing more than "an errand-girl, sent by grocery clerks"

And Tuesday, when she paid a surprise visit to Iraq, Kurdish President Massoud Barzani, who leads the autonomous Kurdistan region, snubbed her with extreme prejudice. Of course, even a blind man could see the reason for Rice's impromptu Iraq pop-in...She was sent to stem the tide of Kurdish outrage that was unleashed by the Turkish attacks on the Kurdish terrorists in Iraq.

Just hours before her arrival, approximately 500 Turkish troops had crossed the border into northern Iraq to attack PKK terrorists in the safe haven they have enjoyed since the American invasion. On Sunday, the Turkish military conducted airstrikes against Kurdish terrorists hiding out in Iraq, sending a clear signal that the days of coddling Kurdish terrorists in Iraq are drawing to an end. Just as significant as the raids themselves: The United States military provided real-time intelligence to the Turks for the air strikes.

The United States is now firmly wedged between a rock (Iraq?) and a hard spot. On the one hand, the Kurdish autonomous region is the only part of Iraq that isn't an unmitigated disaster, but Turkey is our NATO ally. That alliance with Turkey is of reemerging importance, with Russia thumbing it's collective nose at the United States on a regular schedule these days.

And here is where it gets dicey real quick.

Former Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari is cooperating with Turkey on the fate of Kirkuk (which is home to a large Turkmen population that opposes inclusion of Kirkuk into the emerging Kurdistan) and whether it will be part of the Kurdistan Regional Authority.

The Kirkuk issue was a major contributing factor to the collapse of the Jaafari government and led to his replacement with Nuri Kemal al-Maliki. Maliki has very little support and if the Kurdish deputies start opposing him with their votes, or with a boycott, that would likely spell the end of the Maliki government. At the very least, it offsets the progress made by Sunni politicians that just in the last few days have agreed to call off their boycott of participating in the government.

The United States has, to this point, been reluctant to confront Barzani over the tolerance of PKK terrorists; mostly because of the implications such an action is almost certain to have for the Maliki government. The agreement that brings the Sunni politicians back in is tenuous at best, and a tussle between Kurds and Arabs could tank not just the agreement, but the entire government.

The head of Kurdistan's foreign relations department, Falah Mustafa Bakir, said that the United States support for the Turkish raids represented a nadir in relations between the semi-autonomous Kurds and the United States. "Morally and legally, they are responsible for providing security to the Iraqi people and protecting the sovereignty of Iraqi borders," Bakir said, referring to the U.S. military.

Of course, the inept errand girl backpedaled a bit in Baghdad and downplayed the terrorist threat of the PKK; and the M$M, good little cocktail-weenie waggers that they are, played along, quoting her as saying (Irony Alert!!!) "We have made it clear to the Turkish government that we continue to have concerns about anything that leads to innocent civilian casualties. The United States has constantly counseled that we need an overall, comprehensive approach to this problem."

So let's just do a quick recap of the wacky, mad-cap free-for-all that is Iraq, thanks to the idiot prince: Over 20% of the population has fled their homes, whether taking up refugee status in those vacation wonderlands of Jordan and Syria, or internally displaced. Most of the country has no electricity or potable water. The United States has resorted to arming Sunni militants who comprised the insurgency until they rented out their loyalty temporarily for cash, ammo and guns. This has pissed off the Shi'ite led government that is propped up by the United States, and now we are in the middle of an ethnic struggle that has been brewing since on or about March 6, 983 B.C.

But hey, the most inept and incompetent Secretary of State ever is on the scene and on the case, so it can certainly get worse!

(As always, Juan Cole has a better post on this than I do.)

Your State Department At Work

McClatchy picks up the story and reveals exactly what kind of a State Department we have right now. I don't fault the career diplomats or the civilian employees of the State Department--these are people under siege from insanely corrupt and incompetent political appointees. The fault rests with whoever thought it was a good idea to let criminals run wild with taxpayer dollars in a war zone.

State Dept. retains manager of troubled embassy project
By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — A State Department project manager banished from Iraq by the U.S. ambassador and under scrutiny by the Justice Department continues to oversee the construction of the much-delayed new American embassy in Baghdad from nearby Kuwait, State Department officials disclosed Thursday.

James L. Golden, a contract employee, is still managing the $740 million project, said Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, the department's top management official.

"Mr. Golden is still . . . our project manager, and still is working with the contractor, at their base in Kuwait," Kennedy said.

This is where a little bit spin enters the story. I can't tell whether they're proud or embarrassed. I can't tell whether they're trying to express outrage or just simply flip Waxman the bone and laugh hysterically:

One State Department official with detailed knowledge of the unopened embassy expressed outrage that his superiors haven't replaced Golden.

"I find it absolutely amazing that State senior management doesn't seem to think it a trifle odd that two people under investigation . . . are still making all the management decisions under this same contract," the official said in an e-mail. The official asked for anonymity because he feared retaliation by his superiors.


So it's either a Republican who is tired of waking up in the middle of the night terrified of prosecution or a Republican tired of waking up in a puddle because their conscience won't let them rest. I can't figure out which one it is anymore because, quite frankly, this is just the outrage of the morning, here on December 7, and we have a whole day to get through. We have a whole, entire day of revelations and wrongdoing to shove our way through. When the Pentagon dumps its bad news at 6:30PM, what then? How much outrage can you display in just one day with these people?

Golden and the Baghdad-based embassy construction coordinator, Mary French, have been implicated in a Justice Department criminal investigation into how embassy construction subcontracts were issued, according to current and former U.S. officials and congressional testimony.

Neither Golden nor French has been charged with any wrongdoing.

You'd need a measure of competence, shame, and humility to actually charge someone who's done something illegal with a crime in the Bush Administration. One need not apply if you're not willing to look the other way, shove money in your pants, and let people die because you can't do your job. This is your Republican Party at work, circa 2007.

Construction and safety problems have plagued the Baghdad embassy, originally scheduled to open in September. Kennedy and other top department officials have declined to provide a firm date for when it will be ready to house nearly 1,000 U.S. diplomats and staff.

Kuwaiti-based First Kuwaiti General Trading and Contracting Co. is constructing the embassy, which will be the largest American embassy in the world once it's completed.

Department officials defended the decision to leave Golden in place, saying it was necessary to provide continuity on the project. The department is working to overcome construction flaws that range from questions about the strength of blast walls to a fire-suppression system that failed inspection.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker banished Golden from Iraq after an incident last May in which a mortar round damaged a wall at the new embassy that was supposed to be blast resistant. Golden, along with First Kuwaiti, attempted to repair the damage before an investigation could be conducted, U.S. officials said.

Crocker obviously doesn't matter, does he? Don't look to him for anything more than a polite complaint. Just a hint--you resign, you give a lengthy interview to 24 news outlets, and you go on TV and you say, "these incompetent sons of bitches are pissing US tax dollars away on a project that threatens the safety of US personnel and they're not doing anything about it."

Oh, and you'll laugh, you'll cry:

New details were made public a month later during a congressional hearing, in which it became known that the State Department's inspector general, Howard Krongard, had met personally with Golden and French despite warnings from his staff that such a personal meeting would "taint the investigation," according to a congressional report.

The two embassy project managers weren't mentioned by name in the report by majority Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Golden was referred to as a "person of interest" in the Justice investigation, and French as a "subject of investigation."

But Krongard divulged their names publicly. "I would like to tell you what exactly I was doing, both with Mr. Golden and Ms. French," he told the committee.

According to the committee's report, Golden hasn't returned to the United States or made himself available for a follow-up interview since the August meeting with Krongard. Krongard has since recused himself, at Justice's request, from the embassy investigation.

Many details of the probe remain under wraps.

Thank God Condoleeza Rice is on the job--no snark about her need to shop for shoes is necessary, is it?

Sure Would Be Nice to Have a State Department Right Now

If you lived through the time when we faced the Soviet bear--and it seems like a lifetime ago, I know--then when you see stories like this, it should make your blood boil:

MOSCOW - Former chess champion Garry Kasparov was convicted of leading an opposition protest and sentenced to five days in jail by a Moscow court Saturday.

Kasparov and dozens of other demonstrators were detained hours earlier after riot police clashed with Kremlin opponents following a protest rally that drew several thousand people.

The former chess champion was forced to the ground and beaten, his assistant Marina Litvinovich said in a telephone interview from outside the police station where Kasparov was held."What you've heard is all lies," Kasparov said after the sentence was read. "The testimony is contradictory. There was not a single word of truth."

Two riot police testified in court that they had been given direct orders before the rally to arrest Kasparov, one of President Vladimir Putin's harshest critics. One of the policemen acknowledged that the two reports he had filed were contradictory.

Kasparov was charged with organizing an unsanctioned procession "of at least 1,500 people directed against President Vladimir Putin," of chanting anti-government slogans and of resisting arrest.

It sure would be nice to have a goddamned State Department right now, wouldn't it? Because we need a tough legion of diplomats to start going after the Putin regime on all fronts, in all areas, and in every way possible. We need to start squeezing them and engaging them and putting them in check, pun intended.

Unfortunately, we have a "Soviet" expert who has never gotten one thing right about Russia. We have Secretary Rice, shoe-shopping expert and blame shifting expert. Besides shoes and ducking responsibility for her inept management of the State Department, what is she good at? Piano? Sycophantic statements?

We have a serious problem brewing in Russia--who will succeed Putin? What will Russia continue to morph into?

Kasparov warned the world about Russia earlier this year when he told CBS News:

"We're facing a very dangerous regime that is threatening not only the future of my country but the stability of the whole world," Kasparov says.

And:

"I would probably say that Putin doesn't run the country, he runs a corporation. Call it KGB Incorporated," Kasparov says. "He is working on behalf of the ruling elite that wants to benefit from looting the country."

So--again. What the fuck? Why do we continue to see nothing but incompetence from our State Department? Why are they not seriously engaged on this issue? Why have we not recalled our ambassador or done something-anything-to respond to this type of incident?

People say that if a Democrat is elected next year, that Ambassador Holbrooke will be the next Secretary of State, and that, somehow, that's a bad thing. Well, Holbrooke's worst day as Secretary of State will be better by a mile than Rice's best day.

This round goes to Gates

The Department of Defense and the State Department agreed on Tuesday that the DoD would assume a greater role in the oversight and management of armed security personnel operating in Iraq.

The DoD has wanted greater control over the mercenaries who run in and out of the battle space wreaking havoc since the earliest days of the occupation. Blackwater alone has been involved in over 190 incidents in which they discharged their weapons since 2005, and have earned a reputation as trigger-happy thugs who undermine the mission (whatever it is this week). The most recent incident, on September 16, left 17 Iraqis dead and started a deluge of bad publicity for Blackwater, including charges of weapons smuggling, theft of military aircraft, and tax evasion.

The rate of Blackwater violence is at least twice that of DynCorp International and Triple Canopy, the other security companies operating in Iraq. Blackwater’s hired guns are just that, discharging weapons, on average, twice every convoy. (The other companies frequently escort convoys completely without incident.)

“You can find any number of people, particularly in uniform, who will tell you that they do see Blackwater as a company that promotes a much more aggressive response to things than other main contractors do,” a senior American official said. “Is it the operating environment or something specific about Blackwater?” asked one government official. “My best guess is that it is both.”

While the bloody rampage at the Nissour traffic roundabout was the most shocking in the level of wanton killing, the modern-day Pinkerton's of Blackwater are under investigation in six other episodes that left ten people dead and at least 15 wounded.

Slowly, American officials are accepting the position that Blackwater's behavior in Iraq is counterproductive to the stated 'mission' by fueling resentment among the local population.

“They’re repeat offenders, and yet they continue to prosper in Iraq,” said Representative Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat who has been broadly critical of the role of contractors in Iraq. “It’s really affecting attitudes toward the United States when you have these cowboy guys out there. These guys represent the U.S. to them and there are no rules of the game for them.”

Currently, there are approximately 10,000 armed mercenaries running around Iraq, under contract to various branches of the United States government and NGOs. I know it sounds bizarre, but there is no central oversight authority to which they must answer.

Pragmatically, it just makes sense to bring all armed civilians who are under contract to American government agencies and NGOs, as well as the American military under one authority. It would mean, effectively, that those armed civilians would no longer have multiple bosses at multiple levels and a disparate set of rules. Pentagon officials say it would allow for better coordination and communications between the American military and the private security personnel.

When contractors get in trouble, they call on the US military to bail them out. Fully 30% of the incidents in which the military was called on to save mercenary bacon involved movements and convoys that the military was not even aware had mobilized.

American commanders often perceive the private security personnel in an adversarial light. Civilian casualties, victims of mercenary gunfire, infuriate the Iraqi government and damage the American perception and image among the locals. This frustrates military officers who say the heavy-handed, shoot-first-and-don’t-even-bother-to-ask-questions-later tactics by mercenaries undermine the broader mission.

Also on Tuesday, the Iraqi parliament hammered out draft legislation that would repeal Order 17, the imperialistic, extraterritorial immunity granted to mercenaries by Paul Bremmer on his way out of town when the CPA turned over authority to the Iraqi government. Order 17 exempts mercenaries who commit wanton murder of Iraqi civilians (and any other crimes) from prosecution in Iraqi courts.

It was already a given that State was not going to be of much help to their hired guns. Indeed, it has been known for a while now that Blackwater is on it's way out of Iraq, and State will not be renewing their contracts. But the constant barrage of evidence pointing up the incompetence and fecklessness of the State Department under Condi Rice, including the revelation less than 24 hours before the agreement was made that State Department investigators had sanctioned Blackwater lawlessness by routinely issuing immunity to mercenaries involved in shooting incidents, Gates got less resistance from State than was expected.

Having Condi for Lunch

Condi took a trip up the Hill on Thursday to testify in front of Representative Waxman's Oversight committee about the State Departments massive failures mismanaging Iraq and concealing relevant information from Congress.

Like the fictional five-year-old Alexander, she had a terrible, horrible, no-good, very-bad day.

She was visibly frustrated and on the defensive as she was questioned about the lack of control over the mercenary forces under contract to the State Department, as well as corruption at the highest levels of the Iraqi government. They also grilled her extensively about the myriad problems with the still-unfinished embassy project.

She became visibly frustrated at several points, including one intense exchange with Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) about allegations of corruption that have been leveled against Nuri Kemal al-Maliki, the U.S. Puppet Prime Minister, who kaiboshed corruption investigations in April, when he decreed that all cabinet-level corruption investigations would only proceed with his approval. Critics say this amounts to blanket immunity for al-Maliki and his ministers.)

The most surreal moment of the whole spectacle had to be when Rice, pressed repeatedly to say whether she thought al-Maliki was covering up fraud and abuse, said she would not respond to rumors.

"To assault the prime minister of Iraq or anyone else in Iraq with here-to-date unsubstantiated allegations or lack of corroboration, in a setting that would simply fuel those allegations, I think, would be deeply damaging."

What a difference five years make, I guess.

In the run-up to the invasion, she had no qualms peddling "unsubstantiated allegations" to pave the way to invade the country and overthrow the government and unleash chaos. I'm not sure just how much more deeply the bitch could damage that country.

After it was over, Waxman was blunt in his assessment of her testimony. "I think there was a huge gap between what she said and reality."

I wonder what precipitated this?

After years of blowing off requests by Henry Waxman to appear before the Oversight Committee, which he has chaired since the 110th congress was seated in January, Condi has finally acquiesced.

I noticed this morning when I checked the committee schedule that the following entry had been quietly added:

Upcoming Hearings and Meetings

Hearing with Secretary Rice on Iraq

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Thursday, October 25, 2007, 10:00 AM at 2154 Rayburn House Office Building

I've been on pins and needles, awaiting this with bated breath.

But why the sudden change of heart after all this time? Rice's MO has been blatant contempt for Oversight, refusing to acknowledge that Representative Waxman's committee even has the right to question her.

I wonder if Henry let her now on the sly that he tired of her shenanigans, and if she didn't climb down off her high-horse, she would find herself hauled in front of the committee by the Sergeant of Arms? I can't imagine she had a Constantine-type conversion on a bridge.

Erik Prince can't catch a break...and doesn't deserve one...

Sometimes, when the proverbial chickens start coming home to roost, the truly black-hearted have a moment of reckoning as the sky grows dark and a massive murder of crows begins to descend, seemingly right on your head.

That moment of reckoning has either happened, or is imminent, for Erik Prince, the CEO of Blackwater, the mercenary outfit that murdered 17 civilians in Nissour Square in Baghdad on September 16.

The Iraqi government, desperate to prove that it is relevant in it's own right and not a puppet of the United States, is still insisting on kicking them out of the country, and the State Department isn't going to bat for them. Their current contract expires in May, and it is practically a given that it won't be renewed. "There will be some sort of disengagement process, but it won't be that they're shown the door," said a State Department official. "As one [mercenary outfit] builds down, another builds up."

That is gonna sting the old bottom line. Currently the ratio of State Department dollars that go to Blackwater -vs- all other companies is 8:1.

State isn't gonna be a lot of help to their hired guns. Their inability to control their mercs and Condi's general incompetence are enjoying the unwanted glare of the scrutiny spotlight in the form of two new reports on the State Department and the security situation in Iraq. What it boils down to is this: The idiots in charge could not organize a two-pony parade. They are inept and incompetent to the point of criminal complicity at least, and probably overt criminality.

But the schadenfreude just gets sweeter...Waxman is now on his ass for tax evasion.

Isn't that how they got Al Capone?

It's one thing to commit wanton murder - another entirely to screw Uncle Sam out of his cut.

Jeez - I thought everyone knew that!

Making the Mercenaries Accountable

It is starting to look like Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is leaning heavily toward taking strident steps toward bringing all armed “security personnel” (read: mercenaries) under single authority, most likely the U.S. military, no matter what branch of government they are contracting with.

Currently, there are approximately 10,000 armed mercenaries running around Iraq, under contract to various branches of the United States government and NGOs. I know it sounds bizarre, but there is no central oversight authority to which they must answer.

Pragmatically, it just makes sense to bring all armed civilians who are under contract to American government agencies and NGOs, as well as the American military under one authority. It would mean, effectively, that those armed civilians would no longer have multiple bosses at multiple levels and a disparate set of rules. Pentagon officials say it would allow for better coordination and communications between the American military and the private security personnel.

When contractors get in trouble, they call on the US military to bail them out. Fully 30% of the incidents in which the military was called on to save mercenary bacon involved movements and convoys that the military was not even aware had mobilized.

American commanders often perceive the private security personnel in an adversarial light. Civilian casualties, victims of mercenary gunfire, infuriate the Iraqi government and damage the American perception and image among the locals. This frustrates military officers who say the heavy-handed, shoot-first-and-don’t-even-bother-to-ask-questions-later tactics by mercenaries undermine the broader mission.

As details of the Blackwater shootings have emerged in recent weeks, Mr. Gates has signaled his unease with the existing command and legal authorities governing security contractors.

“Do we have the mechanisms and the means for our commanders to exercise a kind of strategic oversight and assure accountability in terms of the behavior and the conduct of these security contractors?” Mr. Gates asked at the Pentagon on Sept. 27.

“It’s very important that we do everything in our power to make sure that people who are under contract to us are not only abiding by our rules, but are conducting themselves in a way that makes them an asset in this war in Iraq and not a liability,” he added.

Gates is said to feel very strongly about the need to rein in the armed civilians that run around the country and frequently run amok and murder civilians, to the point that he has expressed a willingness to go directly to the president if necessary. Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon’s press secretary, said Mr. Gates “has made clear that he supports his commanders’ assertions that, at the very least, they need greater visibility on the work and movements of armed security contractors in Iraq.”

Gates has been told by senior military commanders in Iraq that there must be a single chain of command, providing oversight for all contract personnel. The commanders argue that the military is the best positioned entity to provide that oversight authority.

No formal proposals have been made, but when they are, they are expected to meet resistance from the State Department, which, while acknowledging that there is a problem, wants to retain authority over their own contract employees.

Gates and Rice enjoy a better relationship than Rumsfeld and Rice did, and Gates is holding off on making sweeping pronouncements and proclamations until he has a chance to sit down face-to-face and discuss the matter with the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor.

But one thing is certain...the issue of contractors and accountability is not going to go away, and there will be oversight.

And it's about damned time, too.

With nary a trace of irony....

The most bumbling and inept Secretary of State in the history of the Republic criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin for consolidating power in his office. Condi, it seems, is wringing her hands and beside herself with concern that Putin's power-grab might undermine Russia's commitment to Democracy. (!)

"In any country, if you don't have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development," Rice told reporters after meeting with human-rights activists.

"I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma," said Rice, referring to the Russian parliament.

Apparently power-grabs by presidents are only of concern when they take place in other countries. When they transpire in Washington D.C., they are A-Okay. (Preferable even!)

Sorry guys...I'm having a "WtF???" moment here...I am going to leave it up to you all to give it the mocking it so richly deserves...

Condi Continues her Contempt for Congress & Oversight

Representative Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, on Tuesday leveled charges that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has interfered with congressional investigations into corruption by the Iraqi government; as well as the activities of the mercenary security outfit Blackwater USA.

State Department officials have repeatedly told the Oversight Committee that details of corruption in the Iraqi government could not be provided to the committee because the information is treated as a “state secret” and can not be revealed to the public (nor, apparently to our elected representatives).

"You are wrong to interfere with the committee's inquiry," Waxman said in a letter to Rice. "The State Department's position on this matter is ludicrous," added Waxman, a vocal opponent of the Bush administration's Iraq policies.

The State Department did not comment on the letter or Waxman’s comments, but in the past, Rice’s State Department has blown off the requests of the committee, and attempted to dismiss Waxman as “partisan” and inconsequential.

In the case of Blackwater, which was involved in an apparently unprovoked attack on civilians that left at least 11 civilians dead, the company insists that, as they contract their mercenaries to provide security for State Department employees in Iraq, they can not hand over documents and cooperate with Congress without prior approval of the State Department, which will not give it.

"Congress has a constitutional prerogative to examine the impacts that corruption within the Iraqi ministries and the activities of Blackwater may have on the prospects for political reconciliation in Iraq," Waxman wrote to Rice.

Along with the latest letter Waxman wrote to Rice and released to the press, a letter from the State Deparment’s Contracting Officer, Kiazan Moneypenny, to Blackwater, which confirms the obstruction Waxman accuses the State Department of engaging in: "I hereby direct Blackwater to make no disclosure of documents or information ... unless such disclosure has been authorized in writing by the contracting officer." Undeterred by the stonewalling, Waxman has scheduled a hearing on the Blackwater matter for October 2.

Rice has been overtly contemptuous of congressional oversight, ignoring requests to appear before committees, answer questions or even acknowledge that Congress indeed has a legitimate oversight role. With her star waning, and her influence in the White House virtually nil, might she find herself escorted before the committee by the Sergeant of Arms of the House?

Desperately Seeking a Legacy

As the end of the bush administration draws near, the players therein are beginning to look toward the beyond. Condoleeza Rice is one of them, and she is looking at a grim horizon.

Late last May, The Stanford Daily, the student newspaper of Stanford University, ran a feature that took up most of the front page, under the headline “Condi Eyes Return, but in What Role?”

Within hours, the letters to the editor were pouring in, and the response was overwhelmingly negative. “Condoleezza Rice serves an administration that has trashed the basic values of academia: reason, science, expertise, and honesty. Stanford should not welcome her back,” wrote an emeritus professor of Mathematics in a letter published a few days later. The comments left on the papers website were scathing. One of the milder ones simply read “Please go away, Rice. We don’t want someone who is responsible for the slaughter of an entire nation teaching at our school.”

How thoroughly and completely the Rice brand has devalued. There was a time, not so very long ago, that there was serious talk of Ms. Rice being the first black and/or female president. Of course, that was before she swilled the dregs from the kool-aid pitcher and sold a war on lies. That was before her public persona becme inscribed as a shrieking fearmonger, before she told CNN – with a straight fact – “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

It was also before a huge banner of her visage, with blood dripping from her lips, was hung from a bridge in the middle of Beirut.

And it was before former colleague David Kay referred to her as “probably the worst national security adviser since the office was created.” in Bob Woodwards “State of Denial.”

The bloom is off the rose now, and some of us are looking around and saying “What took you people so long?” We knew she was an incompetent screw-up when she proved unable to mediate the internal struggles between Rumsfeld and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Now, with the end of the Bush administration in sight, Ms. Rice is stepping double-time, trying desperately to latch onto some sort of legacy that is not a humiliating embarrassment. To that end, she is cooperating with a veritable gaggle of authors who are looking to punch their own tickets have lined up to write books about the worst Secretary of State ever, snatching that dubious honor away from John Foster Dulles.

Rewriting her history will be an epic undertaking, what with the blood of a million Iraqis on her hands and all. She seems to have accepted that she can not shed that part of her legacy in the time remaining in office, no matter how desperately she might want to. Instead, she has turned her focus to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but has proven nearly as big a failure there as she has with Iraq. She engineered the political boycott of the militant Islamist group Hamas after they won parliamentary seats in that too-soon election she pushed for. This tactic blew up in a spectacular way, culminating with a civil war in Gaza that pushed Fatah to the West Bank, and left Gaza crippled and bleeding, cut off from the process.

The passage from the Times article that made me scream and throw the newspaper was this:

In fact, her friends say that she rarely questions whether she is right or wrong, instead choosing to believe in a particular truth with absolute certainty until she doesn’t believe it anymore, at which point she moves on. “Now you’ve got me trying to psycho-analyze myself,” she complained.

Oh, lovely. Just what we want in a diplomat, or an NSA for that fact – rigid, uncompromising “my way or the highway” ideology. That’s a sure-fire way to make friends and influence people…

The Reign of the Incompetents can not end soon enough, and Condi, good little lackey she is, is at least as incompetent as the Resident she serves.

Rice and Gates are off to the Middle East on a Salvage Operation

On Monday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will leave on a highly unusual joint mission to the Middle East. They leave with three objectives, and low expectations.

They need to persuade Iraq’s neighboring states to do more to help stabilize the country, they need to counter the growing influence of Iran in the region, and they hope to get some significant motion going on the development of a peace plan between the Palestinians and Israelis.

Lofty goals, but not likely to be very successful. The United States has little or no credibility in the region. The U.S. has caused massive death and instability in Iraq, and strengthened al Qaeda; they have also failed to calm the strife in Lebanon, bolster the Palestinian Authority, or bring pressure to bear on Syria.

Quite the contrary – U.S. policies have fanned the flames of Sunni extremism, and strengthened Iran. Those are the two things that cause the greatest consternation among the moderate Arab countries, because those are the two entities that threaten their grip on power.

Also not playing well to the locals is U.S. support for the ill-fated Israeli war against Hezbollah last summer. Continued attempts to undermine the popularly-elected Hamas in the Gaza strip. "The strategy is based on the assumption that you could isolate, weaken ... Hamas," while strengthening Abbas and his Fatah faction, said Shibley Telhami, a Middle East expert at the University of Maryland. "It cannot succeed. ... Everybody agrees that you can't simply isolate Hamas." Couple that failed strategy with United States’ continued support for Mubarak in Egypt, it pretty much puts the lie to claims that the United States “fosters Muslim democracy.”

The leaders of friendly states have lost faith in the Bush administration and do not believe he will deliver on his promises. Therefore, they are reluctant to risk anything for Bush. “Our credibility is in tatters. They are not going to commit because they don’t trust us. That doesn’t mean they are not concerned about Iran. It just means they just don’t know what we are going to do,” said one senior State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak to reporters.

One needn’t read Runes to see other signs of discord in the administration.

On the eve of the trip, unnamed U.S. officials told The New York Times that Washington believes Saudi Arabia has been unhelpful in Iraq by not supporting Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's government. The administration publicly disavowed the report, but said that Saudi Arabia could do more to help. The leaked complaint seems unlikely to make life easier for Rice and Gates when they arrive in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, early in the trip.

Pentagon and State Department officials said the trip is intended to reassure Arab leaders that the U.S. will uphold its security commitments in the region, and meanwhile, Arab diplomats in Washington resolutely maintain that they need more than reassurances. They have heard a lot of proposals and reassurances, but they have not seen a clear plan for peace or security in the region. The U.S. promises a more active role, but consistently fails to deliver. Arab diplomats in Washington voiced skepticism – anonymously – that the trip would be fruitful.

More than what Rice and Gates say on the trip, “[P]eople will be monitoring the debate in Washington. Everybody is watching that very closely and then will draw their own conclusions.” said one anonymous diplomat.

“There is no clarity,” another diplomat said on condition of anonymity, because he didn't want to disagree publicly with the administration. “The trip in and of itself is not important. What’s important is that the administration commit to dealing with the substantive issues.”

Rice and Gates have their work cut out for them. With 18 months left in office, it will be difficult to reshape the way the region sees the United States, said William Quandt, a professor of international relations at the University of Virginia, who as an aide to President Jimmy Carter helped craft the 1978 Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt.

“I don’t think they have a real strategy that has much chance of working,” Quandt said. Gates, who joined the administration in December, “may be able to calm things down a little. But that won’t change the course.”

The two Secretaries will attend meetings together in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, then they will part company. Gates will visit “other gulf states” and Rice will head for Israel and the Palestinain territories to meet with Mahmood Abbas and Israeli leaders. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other U.S. allies in the region want the United States to reach out to the popularly-elected Hamas, which now controls Gaza, but Rice has steadfastly maintained that there will be no dealing with the Hamas, which is the U.S. classifies as a terrorist organization.