Here’s what the New York Times is reporting from Afghanistan today:

The loss of a military helicopter with 17 Americans aboard in eastern Afghanistan on Tuesday comes at a time of growing insecurity here. For the first time since the United States overthrew the Taliban government three and a half years ago, Afghans say they are feeling uneasy about the future.

Violence has increased sharply in recent months, with a resurgent Taliban movement mounting daily attacks in southern Afghanistan, gangs kidnapping foreigners here in the capital and radical Islamists orchestrating violent demonstrations against the government and foreign-financed organizations.

VERSUS

Bush: “Working with a fine coalition, our military went to Afghanistan, destroyed the training camps of Al Qaida, and put the Taliban out of business forever.” [11/24/03]

Bush: “Because of American soldiers and our brave allies and friends, who have fought beside them, the Taliban is out of business.” [3/15/02]

Bush: “Our first objective in the first theater against the war against terror has been achieved: The Taliban are out of business.” [2/4/02]

Bush: “Now thanks to the United States and our fine allies, Afghanistan is no longer a haven for terror, the Taliban is history, and the Afghan people are free.” [8/14/03]

Bush: “Today, Afghanistan is a world away from the nightmare of the Taliban.” [7/12/04]

Seems to conjure up memories of Mission Accomplished

“I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy.” — President Bush, on his friend Russian President Vladmir Putin

VERSUS

“Putin Pockets Pats Owner’s Super Bowl Ring – Following a meeting of American business executives and Putin at Konstantinovsky Palace near St. Petersburg on Saturday, [New England Patriot's owner Robert] Kraft showed the [diamond-encrusted Super Bowl] ring to Putin — who tried it on, put it in his pocket and left, said Russian news reports.” — AP, 6/29/05

UPDATE: Kraft says ring was a gift.

The central thrust of Bush’s argument last night for the war in Iraq was that “Iraq is the latest battlefield” in the war on terror. He stated the same case later in the speech: “Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate.”

The fact that Iraq has BECOME a terrorist training ground is true. It wasn’t one before the invasion of Iraq. And Bush admitted as much in November 2002. Before the war, Bush claimed we needed to attack Iraq to PREVENT it from becoming a terrorist training ground. Here’s what he said:

Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use his shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. [Bush, 11/4/02]

We don’t have to imagine any longer. Bush’s miscalculations in his handling of Iraq have unified the terrorists and have allowed Iraqi territory to become the terrorist training ground that the extremists desired.

Time Magazine Reported the “goal” of the militants in a July 2004 article:

A “Time investigation of the insurgency today — based on meetings with insurgents, tribal leaders, religious clerics and U.S. intelligence officials — reveals that the militants are turning the resistance into an international jihadist movement. … Their goal now, say the militants interviewed, is broader than simply forcing the U.S. to leave. They want to transform Iraq into what Afghanistan was in the 1980s: a training ground for young jihadists who will form the next wave of recruits for al-Qaeda and like-minded groups.”

Nearly a year later and with little headway having been made against the insurgents, the CIA recently reported the results:

“A new classified assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency says Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda’s early days, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat.”

In tonight’s speech Bush misleads on the nature of the challenge we face in Iraq. Consider the following excerpt:

We are fighting against men with blind hatred – and armed with lethal weapons – who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq – just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001.

We know that there are foreign fighters in Iraq who are only interested in creating chaos, but we also know that a good piece of the insurgency are in fact people who do not act out of “blind hatred,” but instead out of a very calculated political motive to gain power.

The administration clearly knows this because they are negotiating with the Sunni insurgents to bring them back into the power structure.

This just in from the Hill. On the same day President Bush will use the soldiers at Fort Bragg as a backdrop for his address on Iraq, conservatives in the House have voted to underfund veterans’ health care by at least $1 billion.

The backstory: Last week, the Washington Post revealed that the budget for veterans’ health care was suffering a billion dollar shortfall this year, a fact unearthed “only during lengthy questioning” of a Veterans Affairs undersecretary.

The Bush administration had claimed on multiple occassions that the current budget was enough to provide full care. Back in February, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson testified that he was “satisfied that we can get the job done with this budget.” Later, when Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) tried to add funds into the VA budget, Nicholson wrote her a letter assuring that the VA did not “need emergency supplemental funds in FY2005 to continue to provide timely, quality service that is always our goal.”

Yet today, even after the administration’s misleading claims had been exposed, and despite brand new data showing that demand for veterans health programs had grown twice as fast as the VA predicted earlier this year, House conservatives still voted to block any additional funding for veterans’ care.

Moments ago, Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX), the ranking minority member on the House Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, proposed making up the shortfall for vets’ care in a foreign aid bill that is still being considered. According to the AP, conservatives shot down the measure on a 217-189 vote.

The message the President will deliver tonight is that persistent violence in Iraq does not mean that we aren’t making progress. (Rather, we should focus on the “political track.”) Of course, when it appeared violence was abating, the administration cited it as evidence of success against the insurgency.

Here is Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita on 3/3/05:

Q: Can I ask you about the fact that the casualty rate in Iraq for U.S. troops for February was apparently the lowest that it’s been since last July? I wonder how significant you think that is and what’s your analysis of why the number has gone down. Does it — what does it represent?

MR. DI RITA: Well, the commanders have spoken about their — the fact that the insurgencies are becoming — their capability is becoming somewhat cruder in its — in their ability to anticipate and target, because their — the coalition’s intelligence is getting better. And one of the reasons it’s getting better is because there are more and more Iraqi security forces directly involved in counterinsurgency activities….So I think you’re seeing also a growing public opposition to — and more — and people more willing to make public their opposition to the insurgency. And that’s almost certainly having an effect on the ability of the insurgents to operate with some — with impunity…

So, in March, the fact that violence went down was a sign that the insurgency was weakening, security forces were strengthening and Iraqi opposition was increasing. Now, as violence increases, we are told these issues are unrelated.

In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

And on the specific need for a timetable, here’s what Bush said then and what he says now:

George W. Bush, 6/5/99

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

[ed. note: article originally ran in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on 6/5/99]

VERSUS

George W. Bush, 6/24/05:

“It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”

It wasn’t all that long ago when a young conservative congressman from Illinois named Donald Rumsfeld spoke eloquently on the floor of the House of Representatives during the Vietnam War about the need for the Johnson administration to speak more truthfully about that conflict.

A 1966 article in the Chicago Tribune quoted Rumsfeld as saying the following: “The administration should clarify its intent in Viet Nam,’ he said. ‘People lack confidence in the credibility of our government.’ Even our allies are beginning to suspect what we say, he charged. ‘It’s a difficult thing today to be informed about our government even without all the secrecy,’ he said. ‘With the secrecy, it’s impossible. The American people will do what’s right when they have the information they need.” [Chicago Tribune, 4/13/66]

Rusmfeld entered into the Congressional Record an article from the Chicago Sun-Times entitled “Why U.S. Viet Policy Lacks Friends–Our Credibility Destroyed” Rumsfeld stated: “I do, however, believe it is important to the future of our Nation to recognize that there is a problem of credibility today.” [Congressional Record, 89th Cong. Pg. A1454, 3/15/66; Chicago Sun-Times, 12/5/65]

In entering a New York Times editorial into the Congressional Record, Rumsfeld said, “I believe the following significant and timely editorial which appeared in today’s issue of the New York Times and which discusses our involvement in Vietnam merits wide attention. I concur in the conclusion expressed therein that the people of the United States must know not only how their country became involved but where we are heading.” [Congressional Record, 89th Cong. Pg. 21081, 8/19/65; New York Times, 8/19/65]

Rumsfeld said the following in a speech on the House floor: “Accurate judgment is predicated on accurate information. Government has an obligation to present information to the public promptly and accurately so that the public’s evaluation of Government activities is not distorted. Political pundits speak of the ‘credibility gap’ in the present administration. Indeed, this appellation is so widespread that it has become a household word.” [Congressional Record, 90th Cong. pg A792, 2/21/67]

Don’t look now Rumsfeld, but “credibility gap” is becoming a household word again, and it’s directly related to your actions.

Gen. Barry McCaffrey (Ret.), U.S. Army: “People are skeptical of what they’re hearing out of the Pentagon. I think Secretary Rumsfeld’s credibility has been damaged by serious misjudgments.” [MSNBC, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, 6/23/05]

“Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said it was obvious why public opinion polls were down. ‘We have a credibility gap here with the American people,’ he said.” [AP, 6/24/05]

Headline: “Bush’s Credibility Takes a Direct Hit From Friendly Fire” [LAT, 6/26/05]

Headline: “Bush’s Credibility on Iraq Undercut by Violence, Slow Progress” [Bloomberg, 6/27/05]

It’s time for Rumsfeld to follow his own advice.

Today, the Houston Chronicle reported that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay believes Iraq is actually going quite well. The problem, as DeLay sees it, is not that Iraq has become a “real-world laboratory for urban combat,” but rather how the media is covering Iraq. DeLay suggested that the violence in Houston is no different than the violence going on in Iraq. You would think DeLay would be speaking from first-hand observations, but in fact, he last visited Iraq in AUGUST 2003 — that’s right, almost two years ago. By the end of August 2003, only 289 U.S. troops had died in combat. The toll stands at over 1700 today.

Despite the fact that DeLay has not witnessed the recent upsurge in violence first-hand, that didn’t stop him from scolding the media:

Go to Iraq. And see what’s actually happening there. Everybody that comes from Iraq is amazed at the difference of what they see on the ground and what they see on the television set.

The difference between what’s going on on the ground versus what is seen on the television sets was made clear to DeLay when he visited Iraq in August 2003. Recounting the trip later with fellow voyager Congressman Ander Crenshaw, DeLay wrote:

This was a war zone. This is a burgeoning democracy. A soldier with his hands on an M16 and eyes aimed out the window greeted us, “Sirs, welcome to free Iraq.”

I didn’t realize travelers who arrive at George Bush Intercontinental/Houston airport are greeting with soldiers carrying M16s.

A headline in the Washington Post today declares “Bush Defends Strategy In Iraq, Pledges to ‘Complete the Mission’.” The trouble is that Bush has changed the definition of “mission” so many times, it’s hard to have any confidence in his most recent declarations.

THE PRE-WAR MISSION WAS TO RID IRAQ OF WMD

Bush: “Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.” [3/6/03]

AFTER THE WAR BEGAN, THE MISSION EXPANDED

Bush: “Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” [3/22/03]

Bush: “Our forces have been given a clear mission: to end a regime that threatened its neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction and to free a people that had suffered far too long.” [4/14/03]

THEN THE MISSION WAS COMPLETE

Bush: “On Thursday, I visited the USS Abraham Lincoln, now headed home after the longest carrier deployment in recent history. I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: Their mission is complete, and major combat operations in Iraq have ended..” [5/3/03]

BUT THEN IT CONTINUED AGAIN

Bush: “The United States and our allies will complete our mission in Iraq.” [7/30/03]

THEN THE MISSION WAS TO DEVELOP A FREE IRAQ

Bush: “That has been our mission all along, to develop the conditions such that a free Iraq will emerge, run by the Iraqi citizens.” [11/4/03]

Bush: “We will see that Iraq is free and self-governing and democratic. We will accomplish our mission.”
[5/4/04]

AND TO TRAIN THE IRAQI TROOPS

Bush: “And our mission is clear there, as well, and that is to train the Iraqis so they can do the fighting; make sure they can stand up to defend their freedoms, which they want to do.” [6/2/05]

NOW, COMPLETION OF THE MISSION IS FAR FROM CLEAR

Bush: “We’re making progress toward the goal, which is, on the one hand, a political process moving forward in Iraq, and on the other hand, the Iraqis capable of defending themselves And we will — we will complete this mission for the sake of world peace.” [6/20/05]

President Bush continues to dangle the possibility of a recess appointment for John Bolton over our heads. (According to Steve Clemons, the next opportunity for such an appointment would be the July 4th recess).

But in today’s Washington Post, Pat Roberts (R-KS), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says President Bush would be harming American interests if he heads down that path:

Recess appointments allow a president to temporarily seat a nominee while Congress is out of session. They invariably ignite charges of partisan abuse, and Democrats complained bitterly when Bush used recess appointments to place nominees on federal courts in his first term.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a Bolton supporter, said a recess appointment “would weaken not only Mr. Bolton but also the United States” because the international community would see the new ambassador as lacking bipartisan support.

How long does Donald Rumsfeld think the American public can remember something? Only about eight months.

Last October, the LA Times reported Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was itching to promote Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the man who had been in charge of American troops in Iraq. Rumsfeld, however, realized Sanchez was politically “radioactive.” The American public was still too steamed about Sanchez’s role in the torture at Abu Ghraib prison. Rumsfeld, counting on the short attention span of the American public, decided to “wait until after the Nov. 2 presidential election and investigations of the Abu Ghraib scandal have faded” to hand Sanchez his promotion.

Well, that day came yesterday. The New York Times reported Gen. Ricardo Sanchez is now being considered for a new, top-level position: the head of American military operations in Latin America. It would be a big promotion.

In case you actually have forgotten what made Sanchez so “radioactive,” here’s a refresher:

First, there was the 9/14/03 classified memo signed by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez which authorized prisoner interrogation tactics that were harsher than accepted Army practice. These tactics ended up setting the scene for the subsequent abuse at Abu Ghraib and included sleep “management,” the inducement of fear at two levels of severity, loud music and sensory agitation, and the use of canine units to “exploit [the] Arab fear of dogs.”

Sanchez also issued an order on 10/12/03, shortly before the most publicized abuses occurred at Abu Ghraib, “explicitly calling for interrogators to assume control over the ‘lighting, heating…food, clothing, and shelter’ of those being questioned there.” Sanchez directed intelligence officers to work with the military police to “manipulate an internee’s emotions and weaknesses.” Many in Congress believe the “language in the memo helped set the stage for the abuses and were part of a Washington-inspired effort to squeeze more information from Iraqis.”

Sanchez also was involved in the development of “‘wish lists’ of harsh interrogation techniques” which included tactics such as “low-voltage electrocution, blows with phone books and using dogs and snakes.”

Finally, when Department of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wanted to secretly hold a prisoner in Iraq away from the eyes of the Red Cross (which was monitoring prisoner abuse at the time), he told Sanchez not to assign the prisoner a serial number and not to “acknowledge that we are detaining him to any international organization.” A Pentagon official acknowledged Sanchez’s decision to comply with Rumsfeld’s order was in violation of international law.

Prove Rumsfeld wrong. Remember why Sanchez does not deserve a promotion.

Early 2004: CIA Warns Bush About the Potential of a Civil War in Iraq

“CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war, current and former U.S. officials said Wednesday, starkly contradicting the upbeat assessment that President Bush gave in his State of the Union address.”

Mid-September 2004: Leaked National Intelligence Council Report Warns of Possible Civil War In Iraq

“A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday. The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.”

Mid-September 2004: Bush, White House Downplay Significance of Civil War Possibility in Iraq

Bush: “The CIA laid out a — several scenarios that said, life could be lousy, like could be okay, life could be better. And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like.”

McClellan’s response: White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the intelligence assessment “states the obvious,” and he dismissed skeptics of the Iraq policy as “pessimists and naysayers.”

Late-September 2004: CIA Reacts With Indignation at Bush’s Resistance to Change Course

“People at the CIA ‘are mad at the policy in Iraq because it’s a disaster, and they’re digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper,’ said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA officials.”

Now: Bush Administration Desperately Seeking Help In Confronting Threat of Iraq Civil War

“The Bush administration, seeking to close the continuing rift between Shiite and dissident Sunni Arab leaders in Iraq, is enlisting Europe, the Arab world and the United Nations to pressure the Baghdad government to include minorities in the political process, administration and other diplomats say.”

Tales of abuse, torture and humiliation at the prison at Guantanamo Bay are well-known. Last year, internal FBI memos showed methods used at the camp included leaving prisoners “in their own feces,” chaining them “in ice-cold or super-hot cells” and exposing them to sensory deprivation, beatings and terrifying dogs.

In its recent issue, Time Magazine obtained a log kept at Guantanamo Bay detailing the treatment of Detainee 063, Mohammed al-Qahtani. One military official described it as the “kind of document that was never meant to leave Gitmo.” It describes various forms of humiliation and abuse:

“They strip-search him and briefly make him stand nude. They tell him to bark like a dog and growl at pictures of terrorists. They hang pictures of scantily clad women around his neck.” In another instance, “a dog was used ‘in an aggressive manner to intimidate Detainee #63.” By the end of his “interrogation” period, “al-Qahtani had been ‘subjected to intense isolation for over three months’ and ‘was evidencing behavior consistent with extreme psychological trauma (talking to non existent people, reporting hearing voices, crouching in a cell covered with a sheet for hours on end).”

So how did Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) respond to the ongoing tales of serious abuse at Guantanamo Bay?

Now, how do we treat these people? I sent down yesterday for the menu from Guantanamo, so that the average American could understand how we’re brutalizing people in Guantanamo, and I’ve got it right here. For Sunday they’re going to be having — let me see — orange-glazed chicken, fresh fruit groupe, steamed peas and mushrooms, rice pilaf, another form of torture for the hijackers. We treat them very well.

Warning to Rep. Hunter: Denial leaves a bitter aftertaste.

We’ve heard the following justification for the Iraq war from President Bush: “We’re stopping the terrorists from achieving ideological victories they seek by spreading hope and freedom and reform across the broader Middle East.”

In reality, the Iraq war is spawning a new generation of foreign insurgent fighters who are taking the skills and expertise in bomb-making that they learned in Iraq back home and spreading them all over the globe, including the continent of Africa. The New York Times reports:

About 25 percent of the nearly 400 foreign fighters captured in Iraq come from Africa, according to the military’s European Command, which oversees military operations in most of the African continent

A small vanguard of veterans are also returning home to countries like Morocco and Algeria, poised to use skills they learned on the battlefield in Iraq, from bomb making to battle planning, against their native governments, the officials said

“They’re getting to use those training skills, hone them and eventually go somewhere else and use them,” one defense official said. “The bottom line is you’ve developed a new extremist. It doesn’t paint a pretty picture down the road.”

When Bush says, “We’re taking the fight to the terrorists abroad, so we don’t have to face them here at home,” I wonder whether he knows just how broad a fight he’s created.

Today, President Bush took to the stump to call for the renewal of the Patriot Act. To bolster his case, Bush claimed the Patriot Act helped nab suspected terrorist Iyman Faris. In his speech, Bush said:

Here is what one FBI agent said — he said, “The Faris case would not have happened without sharing information.” That information-sharing was made possible by the Patriot Act.

There’s no doubt that information-sharing was extremely influential in leading to the FBI’s apprehension of Faris, but whether the Patriot Act allowed for greater information sharing is doubtful. Faris’s capture has been politicized before. In June 2004, John Ashcroft took to the microphone in Columbus, Ohio, during the middle of a heated presidential election to announce the “capture” of Faris, who was already in jail serving a 20-year sentence. Many read the Bush administration’s actions on the Faris capture as being a political effort to push for the renewal of the Patriot Act, and they claim the Act is not as influential as Bush would lead us to believe.

The Columbus Dispatch investigated this question and found some skepticism regarding Bush’s claim. Nancy Luque, a prominent defense attorney in Washington, was quoted as saying, “Ashcroft is using this [capture of Faris] as a paid political announcement for the Patriot Act when I see nothing here that required its use. The information-sharing is better, but I doubt that is a result of the Patriot Act, but more to do with 9/11.”

Luque is not the only one who questions whether information-sharing in the Patriot Act is all that it has been billed up to be. An analysis by the Center for Democracy & Technology reported that the Patriot Act did little to change the way information was shared among government agencies:

“The outcry over the PATRIOT Act has little to do with the increased ability of federal agencies to share relevant intelligence or increase their coordination. In fact, there was never a legal bar to intelligence agencies sharing information with prosecutors. Intelligence and law enforcement officials weren’t effectively sharing information and using their existing powers not because of legal barriers, but because of their overly strict interpretation of then-existing law, cultural problems, and turf wars among agencies.”

President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were just questioned on the Downing Street Memo during their joint press conference:

QUESTION: On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street Memo from July, 2002, says “Intelligence and facts remain fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military actions.”

Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?

Read more

Today the American Progress National Security Team released “Integrated Power,” a new progressive national security strategy. The authors of the report will be discussing it here for the next few days, soliciting feedback from the progressive community. — ed.

I wanted to use this first post to get your thoughts on a question that has fueled heated (sometimes overheated) debate in recent months: how do progressives describe their most basic philosophical differences with conservatives on national security? Integrated Power tries to answer this question. We lay out a new way to explain what distinguishes our strategy to protect the American people from the Bush administration’s approach.

The main concepts: Integrated power and fragmentation. Our notion of integrated power calls for a broader definition of national security. It discards the previous concepts of “hard” and “soft” power, viewing them not as alternatives but as essential partners that cannot be delinked. It aims to wipe away the artificial divisions that previous administrations have created between defense, homeland security, diplomatic, energy, and development assistance policies. For example, when it comes to setting our spending priorities, our report calls for a unified security budget, one that integrates the offensive, defensive, and preventive elements of our national defense spending and replaces the outdated, Cold War structure of divided accounts.

Why? Because we believe the most serious threats to our national security today — terrorist networks, extreme regimes, and weak and failing states — are forces of fragmentation that can only be dealt with using a unified approach that conservatives reject. Four years of the administration’s rejection of integrated power — of alienating allies, failing to counter anti-Americanism abroad, botching diplomacy, doing the bare minimum on economic development and trade, and going backwards on energy policy — have left us weaker and more vulnerable to our most serious threats.

Thoughts? Ideas of your own? I’ll be reading and responding to your comments, so please contribute.

– Robert O. Boorstin, Senior Vice President of National Security, Center for American Progress

Revelations about John Bolton’s unlawful orchestration of the firing of Jose Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, are not entirely new. In fact, the firing of Bustani caught the attention of many individuals who had become wary that the Bush administration was intent on military action against Iraq. In an April 16, 2002, column published by the British newspaper the Guardian, George Monbiot asserted:

On Monday, the U.S. government forced the departure of Jose Bustani, director-general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. These recent attempts to undermine international treaties are being pursued with an eye to the impending war with Iraq. The U.S. justification for war is that Saddam Hussein may possess weapons of mass destruction. So the two foremost obstacles to war were Blix and Bustani, who have proposed nonviolent methods of getting rid of these weapons.

The ousting of Bustani was typical of the smoke and mirror games that the administration played during the run-up to the Iraq war: present a false claim and push ahead before anyone can ask questions. One of the principal justifications for getting rid of Bustani was that the organization had hit financial problems under his reign. However, according to Bustani, “the organization had hit financial problems because its three biggest funders — the US, Germany, and Japan — failed to make their payments on time.” [Press Association, 5/14/02]

As if the treatment of Bustani wasn’t enough, the further emasculation of the entire Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was equally as shameful. According to the 7/1/02 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

The U.S. ambassador to the OPCW told the staff it would be difficult to find a replacement for Bustani, because no one wants ‘to be associated with a dying organization.’ After remarking that the United States also wanted no more Latin American directors because of their ‘sheer incompetence,’ the ambassador then added, ‘If any of this gets out of this room, I’ll kill the person responsible.‘”

John Bolton orchestrated the illegal firing of Jose Bustani, the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), an international arms control agency. AP reports:

A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani “had to go,” particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.

Bolton contacted Bustani directly, and demanded he resign. When that didn’t work, Bolton upped the ante. He called for an unprecedented special session of the OPCW conference and demanded Bustani’s ouster. Bolton threatened to withhold U.S. dues to the organization — which amounted to 22 percent of the total budget — if he didn’t get his way. Bolton’s strong arm tactics scored him a narrow victory:

Only 113 nations were represented the Americans, with British help, got the required two-thirds vote of those present and voting. But that amounted to only 48 in favor of removing Bustani — and seven opposed and 43 abstaining — in an organization then with 145 member states.

Bustani appealed the decision to a U.N tribunal. They didn’t look kindly on Bolton’s conduct:

In a stern rebuke issued in July 2003, the three-member U.N. tribunal said the U.S. allegations were “extremely vague” and the dismissal “unlawful.” It said international civil servants must not be made “vulnerable to pressures and to political change.”

Last week, President Bush said that Bolton has “the votes to get confirmed.” In truth, his nomination remains up in the air. According to Steve Clemons, there are 46 solid votes against Bolton. Ben Nelson (D-FL), John McCain (R-AZ) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) are toss-ups.

There are several moderate, open-minded Senators who are being counted as Bolton supporters. Information like this could very well change some minds and tip the balance.