When Idiots Speak

Dean Barnett outdoes himself, trying to gin up enough phony outrage to look like a person of great import and seriousness.

If we had a “Most Offensive Quote of the Day” every day, Joe Biden would probably come to own the prize. But even by the senator’s lofty standards of chronic obtuseness, he outdid himself this afternoon:

“If John (McCain) wants to know where the bad guys live, come back with me to Afghanistan. We know where they reside. And it's not in Iraq.”

I know Democrats get a certain tingling in their thighs when their politicos talk butch in such a manner. Still, this comment is so over the top, somewhere in America Wesley Clark is probably feeling much better about his public relations acumen. What’s more, Biden’s comment turns what ought to be a serious conversation about two vital foreign theatres into a juvenile schoolyard taunt.

Barnett isn't upset that this was unfair or untrue--Barnett is upset because this is the accurate observation of a man who knows what he's talking about and has the facts on his side. Now, of course there are "bad guys" in Iraq. They're not the "bad guys" who attacked America though, are they? There are "bad guys" in Baltimore--when do we invade? There are "bad guys" in Myanmar--are we just going to sanction them or do we invade and bog down several dozen combat brigades? Leave it to a childish wingnut to think his phony outrage is enough to make a difference in an argument beyond his comprehension.

The people who gave aid and comfort and planned and carried out the attacks on 9/11 and on targets throughout the world ARE in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. They never were in Iraq. What is in Iraq are a completely different group of people who now oppose us and want to kill us. And the Bush Administration went into Iraq and caused us to lose focus, lose our military, and lose our way. They committed the greatest tactical and foreign policy blunder in the history of this nation.

Senator Biden is guilty of articulating that fact, nothing more.

And as more and more Americans wake up to that fact, the relevance of people like Barnett dissipates into nothing.

--WS

Why is Hagel Getting Time With Obama?

I can see one side of this--Obama is bipartisan and can work with Republicans! But I can also see a side of this that makes more sense to me--who cares what Chuck Hagel thinks about anything? He's a lame duck, he's got a pro-Bush voting record a mile long, and he takes up a space that a better Republican Senator could have taken. By better I mean, not quite so taken with the forces of evil--someone Obama can work with. He's proven he can work with Dick Lugar--so why not take the occasionally sane Susan Collins, semi-reasonable Chuck Grassley, a lost cause like John McCain's other BFF Thad Cochran, or surprise the hell out of everyone and take the wretched Lindsey Graham and humiliate him by letting him speak?

The buzz this week that Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is planning to join Sen. Barack Obama on an up-coming visit to Iraq is correct, two sources with knowledge of the trip confirmed Friday.

Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, center, is joined by Democratic Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware, left, and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, right, in a news conference on Capitol Hill on January 17, 2007 in Washington, D.C., to oppose the president’s troop increase in Iraq. (Getty)
A spokesman for Sen. Obama declined to comment on any details or even confirm the date uncertain trip, citing security concerns. A spokesman for Sen. Hagel did not respond to requests for comment.

While it is standard practice for such trips—known as CODELS, or congressional delegations—to be bipartisan, in this highly charged election year it is likely to raise eyebrows that the retiring Nebraskan senator—a prominent Iraq War critic—is the Republican expected to join the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee on what is sure to be a closely watched visit to the region.

Chuck Hagel might tell you he's with you, but the record shows that he's just going to vote with Bush anyway.

Come to think of it, quite a few Democrats do, too. Never mind.

--WS

Senator Graham's Stock Sinks Into Nothing

If this video has an annoying ad in it, blame MSNBC.Com. I thought I would try embedding one of their videos, and if it works, maybe we can use more of them. The quality seems better than the standard fare from YouTube.

Basically, Senator Lindsey Graham gets schooled by Joe Biden. If Graham isn't getting beaten senseless by James Webb, he's getting it from Biden. Is there a Senator that hasn't humiliated Huckleberry Graham on national teevee?

Biden debunks some of the debate about offshore drilling, at Graham's expense. Graham seems like a liability to McCain at this point, not an asset.

--WS

The "Strategic Alliance" Between the US and Iraq

When the United States deploys its troops to a foreign country, the framework of the relationship between the two countries is stretched across what is called a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that codifies the particulars of the relationship.

It should come as no surprise that the SOFA between the US and Iraq is a political document, split into two parts, that is being crafted to achieve two goals--to make as permanent as possible the involvement of US troops in Iraq in order to ensure the legacy of George Bush does NOT hinge completely on Iraq and to help John McCain get elected President.

Alexander Cockburn explains:

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 destabili[z]e Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

There is no basis to declare victory in Iraq--the government cannot stand without US assistance and US assistance is killing Americans virtually every day. There is simply no reason to honor any agreement Bush makes with Iraq. There should be a Senate vote on this treaty, but because the administration refuses to call it a treaty there won't be. It avoids the necessary review in the Senate that would ensure that the American people have a say in what is decided.

And what's sad is that the Grand Ayatollah of Iraq has more say in the matter than the US Senate:

Al-Hayat writing in Arabic reports that Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (the leading bloc in parliament and keystone of the government of Nuri al-Maliki) is saying he spoke to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani about the security agreement with Washington. He says that Sistani laid out four points to which any such agreement must adhere:

-National sovereignty
-Transparency
-National consensus
-Parliamentary approval of it

Al-Hakim met with Sistani Wednesday evening, along with some journalists. The journalists reported that the grand ayatollah stressed national Iraqi unity in the face of challenges, expressed his concern about the lack of services for citizens, including electricity and water, and said the water shortage was especially harming farmers. He also urged haste in the rebuilding of the Askariya Shrine in Samarra.

Al-Hakim said that his own party felt the current American draft detracts too much from Iraq's sovereignty and fails to protect Iraqi wealth. He said that Sistani did not go into details but stressed general principles. He maintained that in general Sistani shared the concerns of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

As usual, Joe Biden was all over this from get go:

“Last November, the President of the United States and Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq signed a ‘Declaration of Principles,’ which set out a framework for our countries to negotiate, by the end of July of this year, agreements governing cooperation in political, economic and security spheres. Among other things, the Declaration contemplates ‘providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq’ and supporting Iraq ‘in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups,’ including Al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and ‘all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation.’ In other words, all the folks fighting in Iraq and killing each other.

“This sends up not just one, but many red flags with me and many other Americans. We’ve pledged we’re not only going to consult when there is an outside threat, but also when there is an inside threat. We’ve just witnessed when Mr. Maliki engaged in the use of force against another Shia group in the south, is this an inside threat?

“We will hear today about the two agreements that the Administration is negotiating with Iraq which were anticipated in the November Declaration. On Tuesday, Ambassador Crocker told us that these agreements would set forth the ‘vision’ – his phrase – of our bilateral relationship with Iraq.

“One agreement is a ‘strategic framework agreement’ that will include the economic, political and security issues outlined in the Declaration of Principles. The document might be better titled ‘What the United States will do for Iraq,’ because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction – promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to have a stable country.

“We’re told that the reason why we’re not continuing under the UN umbrella is because the Iraqis say they have a sovereign country. But they don’t want a Status of Forces Agreement because that flows two ways. The Administration tells us it’s not binding, but the Iraqi parliament is going to think it is.

“The second agreement is what Administration officials call a ‘standard’ Status of Forces Agreement, which will govern the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. Unlike most SOFAs, however, it would permit U.S. forces – for the purposes of Iraqi law – to engage in combat operations and detain insurgents. In other words, to detain people that we think are bad guys. I don’t know any of the other nearly 90 Status of Forces Agreements that would allow a U.S. commander to arrest anyone he believes is a bad guy.

The American people don't have a say, and, apparently, the Iraqi people won't have much of a say either. Ali Allawi, the former Finance Minister of Iraq, writes:

In 1930 the Anglo-Iraqi treaty was signed as a prelude to Iraq gaining full independence. Britain had occupied Iraq after defeating the Turks in the First World War, and was granted a mandate over the country. The treaty gave Britain military and economic privileges in exchange for Britain's promise to end its mandate. The treaty was ratified by a docile Iraqi parliament, but was bitterly resented by nationalists. Iraq's dependency on Britain poisoned Iraqi politics for the next quarter of a century. Riots, civil disturbances, uprisings and coups were all a feature of Iraq's political landscape, prompted in no small measure by the bitter disputations over the treaty with Britain.

Iraq is now faced with a reprise of that treaty, but this time with the US, rather than Britain, as the dominant foreign partner. The US is pushing for the enactment of a "strategic alliance" with Iraq, partly as a precondition for supporting Iraq's removal from its sanctioned status under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. It is a treaty under any other name. It has been structured as an alliance partly to avoid subjecting its terms to the approval of the US Senate, and partly to obfuscate its significance. Although the draft has not been circulated outside official circles, the leaks raise serious alarm about its long-term significance for Iraq's sovereignty and independence. Of course the terms of the alliance for Iraq will be sweetened with promises of military and economic aid, but these are no different in essence from the commitments made in Iraq's previous disastrous treaty entanglements.

The Bush administration has set 31 July as the deadline for the signing of the agreement. Under the present plan, the draft of the agreement will have to be brought to Iraq's parliament for approval. Parliament, however, is beholden to the political parties that dominate the present coalition, and there is unlikely to be substantive debate on the matter. The Shia religious leadership in Najaf, especially Grand Ayatollah Sistani, has not clearly come out against the agreement, although his spokesmen have set out markers that must be respected by the negotiators. The Najaf religious hierarchy is probably the only remaining institution that can block the agreement. But it is unclear whether the political or religious leadership are prepared to confront the US. President Bush, with an eye on history, is seeking to salvage his Iraq expedition by claiming that Iraq is now pacified and is a loyal American ally in the Middle East and the War on Terror.

It is only now that Iraqis have woken up to the possibility that Iraq might be a signatory on a long-term security treaty with the US, as a price for regaining its full sovereignty. Iraqis must know its details and implications. How would such an alliance constrain Iraq's freedom in choosing its commercial, military and political partners? Will Iraq be obliged to openly or covertly support all of America's policies in the Middle East? These are issues of a vital nature that cannot be brushed aside with the Iraqi government's platitudes about "protecting Iraqi interests". A treaty of such singular significance to Iraq cannot be rammed through with less than a few weeks of debate. Otherwise, the proposed strategic alliance will most certainly be a divisive element in Iraqi politics. It will have the same disastrous effect as the treaty with Britain nearly eighty years ago.

The late Steve Gilliard wrote at length about the historical precedents, but here's a great excerpt from the history of the British occupation of Iraq that rings true today:

Above all, reliance was being placed on the new military technology to magnify manpower. It had been pushed forward rapidly by the Great War, which in this way fortified imperialism as much as in other ways it weakened it. During its course electrified as well as barbed wire was made use of on a turbulent section of the north-west frontier. The armoured car showed its paces in the Afghan war, though only available in limited numbers, `It possessed great fire power and mobility’, the army reported, `while offering a small and almost invulnerable target to the enemy.’ `Motor machine-gun batteries’ were also now in service. A grander chariot of wrath was the tank, an avatar of the elephant of older Indian warfare. But the true deus ex machina was the aviator, who had made his appearance in various colonial theatres during the Great War. . . .

To empire men of [General L.C.] Dunsterville’s generation, aviation promised, as his book makes clear, to be the trump card, the perfect means of keeping colonial peoples on the strait and narrow path. In the government this view had champions in [Colonial Secretary Lord] Milner and [Secretary for War and Air Winston] Churchill. . . The aim was to turn Iraq, whose defence was being entrusted to the RAF, into a showpiece of the new philosophy

It was in new territories where colonial rule had as yet no infrastructure that air forces could be looked on most of all as a short cut to control. In Iraq the British Mandate found few welcomers, and there were complications both in the north, where oil was expected, with Kurdish rebels, and in the south with Wahhabis, Muslim zealots raiding across the nebulous border from the new neighbouring kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A variety of operations were soon being undertaken by the RAF, on its own or in conjunction with ground forces under its direction. They were breeding a new type of soldier, a technician in uniform. A good specimen was the L.A. Simmons who joined the RAF as a 'skilled driver' in 1923, and spent 'two and a half quite unforgettable years' with armoured car units in Iraq, before moving on to Egypt. He rose to flight lieutenant. The army was not concerned to notice that it had some enquiring minds now in the fold. No one told Simmons and his friends that they would be getting out of a train at Ur of the Chaldees. 'There was little or no "Briefing" in those days, eveyone was kept in the dark about what was going on.' He arranged to have newspaper cuttings sent out from home, in order to get some clue to what he was doing.

His No.4 company of armoured cars had its base at Hinaidi, close to the capital of Baghdad. Far-ranging patrols were carried out, by sections each of four cars, four Fords with Lewis guns, and a tender with radio and provisions. A car had a crew of five, all of whom had to be able to drive it and to handle any of its weapons. 'Our "armoureds" were greatly respected everywhere', he wrote. When men on the ground spotted the enemy in too much strength for them to tackle they radioed for planes to come and bonb him.

Airstrikes--the best way to make sure one does NOT win the hearts and minds of the people. It was true in the 1920s and it is true today.

The legacy of the Iraq War must be something entirely belonging to President Bush and none of the decisions, agreements or documents he has signed should be honored--a break with precedent, of course, but, then again, the Bush Presidency has never honored precedent. NONE of the things that were decided or negotiated were done under legitimate Congressional oversight and nothing was done in the best interests of the American people.

Joe Biden Unleashed

Senator Joseph Biden reacts to President Bush:

“This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement.”

“He is the guy who has weakened us,” he said. “He has increased the number of terrorists in the world. It is his policies that have produced this vulnerability that the U.S. has. It’s his [own] intelligence community [that] has pointed this out, not me.”

Biden noted that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have both suggested that the United States ought to find a way to talk more with its enemies.

"If he thinks this is appeasement, is he going to come back and fire his own cabinet?” Biden asked. “Is he going to fire Condi Rice?”

Biden was reacting to this speech, given earlier in the Israeli Knesset.

Wilkes Doesn't Get Enough Time In Jail

The "Duke Stir"
Americans never pay attention to what matters. Corruption during wartime? Hey, that matters. People end up dead or maimed for life because of contracting fraud. It ain't sexy, but it's real. And it matters. It matters what gear the troops get and it matters how that money is spent.

Today, something that matters happened and I doubt you could find more than a handful of people who get the significance of it.

SAN DIEGO - A defense contractor was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison Tuesday for bribing former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham with cash, trips, the services of prostitutes and other gifts in exchange for nearly $90 million in Pentagon work.

Brent Wilkes was labeled "a predatory wolf (in) self-styled patriot's clothing" and a "poster boy for war profiteering" by prosecutor Phillip Halpern. U.S. District Judge Larry Burns said he was troubled that Wilkes continued to maintain his innocence.

"If you were to do the right thing about this, today is the day to own up," Burns told Wilkes at the sentencing hearing.

Well, of course, there's no way in hell Wilkes is ever going to own up to being a world class sleaze. Isn't there a war on? Wouldn't Wilkes qualify for the Death Penalty if somehow, somewhere, there was just an ounce of shame left in the US Justice system? Twelve years for a slam dunk case like this? What do you want to bet that a whole lot of prominent people wrote the judge nice letters about Wilkes?

This is what it was all about:

Prosecutors argued during a three-week trial that Wilkes lavished Cunningham with more than $700,000 in perks, including cash, submachine gun shooting lessons and the services of prostitutes. In return, they said, Cunningham helped Wilkes secure $87 million in Pentagon contracts, mainly for scanning paper documents.

Wilkes' attorney asked for a sentence less than the eight years and four months Cunningham received. Prosecutors asked for a "significantly higher punishment," and federal probation officials had recommended 60 years.

Wilkes acknowledged no wrongdoing in a brief statement in which he asked the judge to look beyond his dealings with Cunningham.

"I am a man who cares deeply for this community, for my family, for my country," Wilkes said.

Bullshit. Wilkes cared about that contract, and nothing else. This country was at war and he profited from it by bribing a Congressman. AND THAT DOESN'T GET YOU THE DEATH PENALTY IN THIS COUNTRY? I mean, what the hell?

This war has been a massive transfer of spending from social programs and entitlements to a defense contracting world that is stuffed full of contracts like the one Wilkes got Cunningham to send his way. Was he the lowest bidder? Probably not. Was it rigged? Obviously. So scanning paper documents probably isn't a sexy, glamorous contract. Not like, say, providing Marines with Mine Resistant Vehicles. Except that instead of money going to something that would save lives, here's a classic case of a bullshit contract eating up tens of millions of dollars that should have gone somewhere else. Isn't it weird to see Kit Bond actually doing something decent for once? Gotta take note of that.

Anyway, this contract also went into the Homeland Security realm, including a link to a limosine company. Nice to see how that money was pissed away, too.

This is what set me off tonight, though:

Authorities said Wilkes bribed Cunningham to win work for ADCS Inc., a data and document storage company he owned.

"Wilkes coldly and successfully exploited the simplemindedness of one of this country's war heroes, now a tortured shadow of his former self," prosecutors wrote in a pre-sentencing court filing last week. "Wilkes stands now revealed as a war profiteer, a thug, a bully, a lecherous old man who preyed on his young female staffers and hired prostitutes."

BULLSHIT! How loud can I scream it. Bull fucking shit.

Cunningham was not duped--Cunningham made a fucking list of what he wanted! He wrote it out on his office stationery! He knew exactly what he wanted, including spending time doing weird shit with women on the Duke Stir.

This went back years, for crying out loud. And Cunningham was always the bully in the room, NOT the one being bullied:

In the case of Cunningham, Stern remembers an incident he witnessed in 1996 between Duke and Congressman Barney Frank, the gay congressman from Massachusetts, embroiled at the time in his own scandal involving a former male companion who had been caught running a prostitution ring from the congressman's basement. The exchange happened at a meeting on immigration during which Republicans were maneuvering to prevent Democrats from commenting on a related bill. Frank objected to being steamrolled.

“When Barney started to make his plea, Cunningham cut him off and said, ‘Well, would you like to talk about prostitutes and basements,'” Stern remembered. “The room just fell silent.”

Yeah, so good riddance to you, Mr. Wilkes. May you rot in prison and then find a way to rot in hell as well.

Cunningham gets to rot with you...