The reality in Iraq, as the L.A. Times reported this morning, is that the U.S. military is distributing misleading “covert propaganda” in Iraqi media outlets:

As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq. … The storyboards, several of which were obtained by The Times, read more like press releases than news stories. They often contain anonymous quotes from U.S. military officials; it is unclear whether the quotes are authentic. “Absolute truth was not an essential element of these stories,” said the senior military official who spent this year in Iraq.

Of course, in the public relations-driven “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq,” the Bush administration condemns the exact same behavior:

Isolate enemy elements from those who can be won over to the political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to all Iraqis that they have a stake in a democratic Iraq [National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, 11/30/05]

It’s Bush’s Iraq strategy vs. Bush’s PR strategy.

After two-and-a-half years and 2,110 U.S. troop fatalities, the Bush administration released what it calls a “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” (NSVI). The problem is, it’s not a new strategy for success in Iraq; it’s a public relations document. The strategy describes what has transpired in Iraq to date as a resounding success and stubbornly refuses to establish any standards for accountability. It dismisses serious problems such as the dramatic increase in bombings as “metrics that the terrorists and insurgents want the world to use.” Americans understand it’s time for a new course in Iraq. Unfortunately, this document is little more than an extended justification for a President “determined to stay his course.”

NO STANDARDS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY: Two weeks ago, the Senate overwhelmingly endorsed an amendment calling on the Bush administration to provide a “schedule” for meeting U.S. objectives in Iraq, “information regarding variables that could alter that schedule, and the reasons for any subsequent changes to that schedule.” The NSVI completely rejects this call. “We will not put a date certain on when each stage of success will be reached,” the document states in bold and italicized print, “because the timing of success depends upon meeting certain conditions, not arbitrary timetables.” The only time frames proposed for achieving U.S. objectives are virtually meaningless phrases: “short term,” “medium term,” and “longer term.” The goals for these time frames are equally ambiguous; the so-called “short term” goals, for instance, are listed as “making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.” Read more

In an attempt to regain the support of his right-wing base, Bush delivered a speech on immigration yesterday described as a “rhetorical pound of flesh.” Last year, Bush’s support was more secure, and his rhetoric was more moderate. Here’s a look at how Bush’s approach and rhetoric on immigration has changed with the political winds:

On Wednesday, President Bush will deliver an address at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, in which, he is “expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.” The speech appears to be an effort by the Bush administration to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals of troops in 2006 and 2007.

While Bush and critics of his Iraq policy may agree that a drawdown could be the proper action to take, they differ in one key respect — the rationale for why such a withdrawal is necessary. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) recently argued that pulling out of Iraq is necessary because “the war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.” Bush, on the other hand, is trying to suggest that a drawdown is the fruits of “good progress” being made in Iraq.

A review of the situation on the ground in Iraq demonstrates clearly that things are getting worse, not better:

- Approximately 100 Attacks Per Day; All-Time High. “Pentagon officials said that in October there were about 100 attacks a day in Iraq compared with 85 to 90 attacks a day in September — and about half of all attacks involve homemade bombs.” That is the highest recorded level since the Iraq war began. By comparison, in January, nationwide figures hovered around 50 to 70 attacks per day. [CNN, 11/3/05; Boston Globe, 1/21/05; Brookings Iraq Index, p. 20]

- One of the Deadliest Attacks In Iraq Occurred Less Ten Days Ago. “Suicide bombers killed nearly 100 people Friday in one of the deadliest days of Iraq’s insurgency, bringing houses down on sleeping families in Baghdad and shredding Shiite Muslim worshipers in two mosques in the eastern part of the country just as the victims turned their faces up to the preachers to hear their Friday sermons”¦ Nationwide, the attacks were the deadliest since Sept. 14, when at least 14 insurgent bombings in Baghdad killed more than 160 people.” [Washington Post, 11/19/05]

- Unemployment Rates At 40 Percent. [Biden speech, 11/21/05] Read more

Writing this morning in the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) claims Iraqi leaders want a commitment that U.S. troops will stay until whenever “the Iraqi military is capable of security the country”:

And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

The leaders of Iraq’s duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America’s commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this.

The Iraqi leaders, however, have said publicly that they want the United States to set a firm timetable for withdrawal immediately. From the AP, 11/22/05:

Leaders of Iraq’s sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq’s opposition had a “legitimate right” of resistance.

The real position of the Iraqi leadership is they want a definitive timetable for withdrawal from the U.S. The question is whether Joe Lieberman will ever understand this.

In recent weeks, President Bush has used the October 2002 Iraq war vote to deflect criticism of his conduct in the lead-up to war. Today’s Los Angeles Times reports that, in September 2002, Sen. Tom Daschle asked President Bush to delay the vote on the Iraq war:

“I asked directly if we could delay this so we could depoliticize it. I said: ‘Mr. President, I know this is urgent, but why the rush? Why do we have to do this now?’ He looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: ‘We just have to do this now.’ “

In so doing, President Bush departed from the example of his father, who waited until after the 1990 midterm elections to call for a vote on the first Iraq war. Bush’s decision to rush the vote had two important effects:

1. Members did not have adequate time to review the National Intelligence Estimate.The 90-page unclassified document was delivered to Congress on October 1, the night the hearings began and less than 10 days before the vote. Members “could look at it only under tight security on-site. They could not take a copy with them for review.”

2. The vote was overly politicized. E.J. Dionne noted recently that Bush “forced the war vote to take place under circumstances that guaranteed the minimum amount of reflection and debate, and that opened anyone who dared question his policies to charges, right before an election, that they were soft on Hussein.”

Vice President Cheney, 11/21/05:

A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations, and a terrible blow to the future security of the United States of America.

LA Times, 11/26/05:

President Bush will give a major speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces”¦The developments seemed to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals in 2006 and 2007…

Remember: bringing the troops home is only a bad idea if someone other than Bush suggests it.

A report earlier this week by ThinkProgress about a declassified Pentagon document that describes White Phosphorus as a “chemical weapon” has provoked outrage by the right-wing blogosphere. A blog called Balloon Juice accused ThinkProgress of “doing opposition research against our troops, digging through declassified intel, hoping to find anything they can use to portray our troops as monsters”¦” (The Pentagon has acknowledged using White Phosphorus in Fallujah as a weapon against enemy combatants.)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about this blog, but let’s get the facts straight:

1. Balloon Juice says “no matter how many times Think Progress says it, WP is not a chemical weapon.” ThinkProgress never claimed that White Phosphorus is properly categorized as a chemical weapon. The first paragraph of the orignial post states White Phosphorus rounds “aren’t technically ‘chemical weapons.’”

2. Balloon Juice claims that the declassified Pentagon document is “a transcription of two Kurdish brothers speaking to each other on the phone.” The Pentagon document is not a transcription of a phone conversation, it a summary of intelligence. The subject line of the cable is “POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS BY IRAQ.” This a description by the author of the Pentagon cable, not Kurdish brothers.

The purpose of exposing that the Pentagon cable described White Phosphorous as a “chemical weapon” is not to dispute its technical classification. The point is to demonstrate that the debate doesn’t end there. What the Pentagon cable helps illustrate is that White Phosphorus is nasty stuff and the use of White Phosphorus as an offensive weapon has the potential to further compromise America’s moral authority.

As was noted in the original post, paraphrasing President Bush, “this isn’t a question about what is legal, it’s about what is right.”

UPDATE: Balloon Juice responds to our response.

In recent days, the Bush administration has tried to have it both ways on Iraq. On the one hand, the White House has said those who advocate a drawdown of troops are calling for “surrender to the terrorists.” On the other hand, the adminstration — in the face of polls showing the American people favor a drawdown — has repeatedly sent signals that it too wants to pull out troops. Yesterday, Secretary Rice became the latest member of the administration to send mixed signals.

On Fox News this morning, conservative editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol called out the administration for this game they’re playing:

What message does this send here at home? Here in Washington, policymakers, congressional staff, opinion leaders pick up the two Washington papers this morning and there in the Washington Times, ‘General Calls Iraqi Pullout Destabilizing.’ So you think, well, that’s good, that’s the administration’s line. You can’t pull out too fast. Then you pick up the Washington Post. ‘Three Brigades May Be Cut In Iraq Early In 2006′ based on a Pentagon briefing by a different general. It looks confusing, it looks weak in my opinion. Dick Cheney just gave a major speech warning against this kind of talk. Everyone knows that we want to pull out troops when we can, but to sort of go out on a P.R. offensive, I think, on the part of the administration looks weak right now.

On Monday, Iraqi political leaders called on the U.S. to set a timetable for withdrawal. In January, President Bush said that if asked by the Iraqis, U.S. forces would leave the country:

President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq’s first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers.

Bush has now been asked to withdraw. Will he stick to his word?

(Thanks to reader chill for the tip.)

On June 28, 2005, President Bush explained why we can’t set a timetable for withdrawal. According to Bush, it would send the wrong message to Iraqis:

Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done.

Now, in an unusual show of unity, the Iraqis sent a message to President Bush:

Leaders of Iraq’s sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq’s opposition had a “legitimate right” of resistance.

Looks like President Bush needs a new excuse. Much more on this story at AmericaBlog.

UPDATE: From the Washington Post, 5/15/04:

Secretary of State Colin Powell emphatically said yesterday that if the incoming Iraqi interim government ordered the departure of foreign troops after June 30, they would pack up without protest, but emphasized he doubted such a request would be made.

… “If the provisional government asks us to leave, we will leave,” Bremer said, referring to an Iraqi administration due to take power June 30. “I don’t think that will happen, but obviously we don’t stay in countries where we’re not welcome.”

To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren’t technically “chemical weapons.”

The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are “incendiary muntions” that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons.”

But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature. A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical” describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. [...]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.

In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they’re used by our enemies. Read more

Vice President Cheney made a striking claim a few minutes ago at the American Enterprise Institute:

Those who advocate a sudden withdraw from Iraq should answer a couple simple questions. Would the United States and other free nations be better off or worse off with Zarqawi, Bin Laden and Zawahiri in control Iraq? Would we be safer or less safe with Iraq ruled by men intent upon the destruction of our country.

Cheney didn’t provide any evidence supporting his claim. The suggestion is that if the U.S. leaves, Iraqi forces would be completely incapable of defending the country against terrorists. Yesterday on ABC, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said people who doubted the capabilities of Iraqi security forces were “flat wrong”:

People who denigrate their competence and capability are flat wrong. They’re making a mistake. They either don’t understand the situation or they’re trying to confuse it, but the Iraqi security forces are well respected by the Iraqi people. They’re doing a very good job.

So Cheney either doesn’t understand the situation or is trying to confuse it. Take your pick.

[UPDATE: Video of Cheney at Crooks & Liars.]

Bush’s recent trip to China underscored his waning influence over the Chinese government, and that waning influence is a direct outgrowth of Iraq. China now has a better image in world opinion than does the United States. The South China Morning Post (6/26/05) editorialized that these poll results served as a “cautionary tale” for China:

It was President George W. Bush’s unilateral and belligerent foreign policy that poisoned the wellspring of global sympathy for America after the September 11 terrorist attacks. “¦ Through its rash actions, the Bush administration squandered, in just a couple of years, half a century of America’s hard-earned reputation as a responsible, generally benevolent, superpower. “¦ Chinese leaders, to their credit, seem well aware of the lesson in all this: that a distrusted superpower runs the risk of being ganged up on by the rest of the world.

The way the Bush administration went to war in Iraq has cost the administration a great deal of moral authority and respect in the world. As a result, the administration now has less ability to convince China to extrend greater freedoms to all its citizens. China remains a blind spot in Bush’s 2005 Inaugural pledge to “encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.”

One example of Bush’s lack of influence can be seen in the administration’s inability to successfully address the issue of China’s treatment of dissidents. Read more

The AP reports that President Bush, speaking from South Korea, is rejecting calls for a troop drawdown in Iraq:

President Bush on Saturday swatted down calls in Congress for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, saying that American military leaders believe that retreat now would be “a recipe for disaster.”

“So we will fight the terrorists in Iraq and we will stay in the fight until we have achieved the victory our brave troops have fought and bled for,” said Bush, facing mounting criticism from home about his war policy.

But these White House attacks are hypocritical in light of new information that the administration itself is preparing for withdrawal. Here’s what NBC Nightly News reported tonight:

There’s word now that the Pentagon, where planning, after all, is everything, has drawn up a plan to draw down the number of U.S. troops in Iraq”¦ Pentagon and military officials tell NBC news the plan calls for the substantial withdrawal of more than 60,000 American troops from Iraq. The plan was drafted by Generals John Abizaid and George Casey, the top two U.S. commanders of the war. If Iraqi elections are successful in December, and a new parliament seated in January, the withdrawal could begin almost immediately. Military officials say it would be an incremental or phased withdrawal.

So it appears the administration is now trying to have it both ways — attacking those who advocate a troop drawdown while leaking a potential exit strategy. President Bush previously said, “Setting an artificial timetable would… send the wrong message to our troops.” Will Bush put a stop to these “mixed messages” being sent to the troops by his own administration?

Where President Bush leads…

Bush Defends CIA’s Clandestine Prisons; ‘We Do Not Torture,’ President Says

President Bush, defending a clandestine U.S. prison system abroad for terrorism suspects, said Monday that his administration would continue to aggressively battle terrorism in sometimes unconventional but always lawful ways. [Washington Post, 11/8/05]

…Iraq follows.

Iraq defends secret prison, denies torture

Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said Thursday a secret prison near Baghdad was used only for the worst criminals, and claims of torture are exaggerated. [UPI, 11/17/05]

Yesterday was the deadline for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to report its progress on Phase II of the investigation into the administration’s use of pre-war intelligence. The prognosis is not good, according to Senators Rockefeller, Levin and Feinstein. They have released a letter, and here is its main finding:

At this time, we are unable to provide an estimated completion date of the Phase II investigation given the substantial amount of work that remains to be done.

This assessment differs greatly from the one offered by Sen. Pat Roberts on November 1st: “It isn’t like it’s been delayed. As a matter of fact, it’s been ongoing. As a matter of fact, we have been doing our work on Phase 2.” In reality, as the letter makes clear at various points, the work of the committee has been stonewalled by an unwillingness on the part of conservatives to investigate the administration. The Senators report that the investigation has been unable to proceed due to the following issues:

(1) Chairman Roberts is unwilling to investigate the “Cabal” inside the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans because he is deferring to the administration to investigate itself.

(2) Roberts has been unwilling to allow for “additional interviews and documents” to conduct a thorough inquiry.

Also, it is important to note that while Bush continues to falsely claim that the Senate Intelligence Committee found the administration had not “manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war,” the Intel Committee Senators say just the opposite:

The Committee staff work on two other sections of the investigation is not finished: whether public statements were substantiated by intelligence information and the use of intelligence information provided by the Iraqi National Congress.

Copy of Rockefeller, Levin, and Feinstein letter here.

How does serial fabricator Ahmad Chalabi manage to still open the most exclusive doors at the White House and the Pentagon? According to National Review’s Byron York, it’s because numerous Bush administration officials still believe (despite all the evidence) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

From last night’s Hardball:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Why is the Vice President and other administration officials like Rumsfeld seeming to reject the notion that this guy [Chalabi] is full of it?

BYRON YORK: A couple of reasons. One, he is now a high ranking Iraqi official.

MATTHEWS: Thanks to us.

YORK: We do recognize his position. And the other thing is, look, I think there are a lot of people in the administration who still believe that there were weapons of mass destruction somewhere that they were spirited away or in some way not found.

MATTHEWS: Who would — who do you know believes that?

YORK: I’m not going to say any brand names, but they do believe that — it was not possible that all of the intelligence was totally wrong.

We can’t figure out which is worse: the fact that Bush officials are still clinging to the myth of WMDs in Iraq, or that they’re still turning to Chalabi to help confirm their misconceptions.

This weekend, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts suggested that the President could no longer be unconditionally trusted if he called for future military action.

“I think a lot of us would really stop and think a moment before we would ever vote for war or to go and take military action,” Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Given the White House’s current argument that those who took the President’s pre-war statements about Iraq at face value are equally at fault as the administration, Congress has every right to be weary of trusting the President in the future. Here’s a question every defender of Bush needs to answer: Would you trust the President’s word if he sought a resolution for future military action?

Below are some examples of Bush’s congressional allies who urged critics of the war to trust President Bush on Iraq.

Rep. J.D. Hayworth: “I don’t believe the president is trying to deceive anyone or dissuade anyone. People can trust the word of the president of the United States. He makes a compelling case that we cannot trust Saddam.” [Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, 10/7/02]

Former Rep. Joe Skeen: “Rep. Joe Skeen, a Picacho Republican, said some of the issues involved are necessarily secret. ‘He (Bush) knows more about the situation in Iraq than probably anyone else in the world. And he’s not about to tell Congress everything he knows,’ Skeen said. ‘So you have to know he’s playing some of his cards close to his chest this time. I know him and I trust him. So I support him.‘” [Albuquerque Tribune, 10/11/02]

Former Majority Leader Dick Armey: “The House voted 296-133 in favour of a resolution giving Mr Bush the right to launch a military strike, even without the backing of the United Nations. ‘Mr President, we are about to give you a great trust,’ said the House majority leader, Republican Dick Armey.” [Independent, 10/11/02]

Read more

The defenders of the Bush Iraq policy rolled out a new talking point this morning on the Sunday talk shows. That is: the Bush administration wasn’t the only one to get the pre-war intelligence wrong — rather, this was a global failure of intelligence.

Sen. John McCain: “Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russian, including the French, including the Israeli, all had reached the same conclusion, and that was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.” [Face the Nation]

Sen. Pat Roberts: “Not only ours but the British, not only that but the French, not only that but the Russians, not only that but the Israelis – this was a worldwide intelligence failure.” [Fox News Sunday]

Former White House Political Director Ken Mehlman: “The UN looked at it, the Germans looked at it, the French looked at it”¦ they all agreed that this guy has WMD.” [Meet the Press]

What the right wants you to believe is that because these intelligence agencies may have believed Saddam had WMD, they also believed that the intelligence rose to the necessary level of justifying military force to invade Iraq. That is entirely false. In fact, many of our friends and allies believed the opposite — that based on the intelligence they had, the threat of Iraq did not rise to the level of justifying immediate force.

FRANCE: President Jacques Chirac: “France is not pacifist. We are not anti-American either. We are not just going to use our veto to nag and annoy the U.S. But we just feel that there is another option, another way, a less dramatic way than war, and that we have to go down that path. And we should pursue it until we have come to a dead end, but that is not the case yet.” [CNN, 3/17/03]

GERMANY: Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer: “The Security Council is now meeting for the third time within a month at ministerial level to discuss the Iraq crisis. This shows the urgency we attach to the disarmament of Iraq and to the threat of war. … Are we really in a situation that absolutely necessitates the ‘ultima ratio’, the very last resort? I think not, because the peaceful means are far from exhausted.” [Statement by Fischer to Security Council, 3/7/03]

RUSSIA: Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov: “What is really in the genuine interests of the world community? Continuing the albeit difficult but clearly fruitful results of the inspectors’ work, or resorting to force, which inevitably will result in enormous loss of life and is fraught with serious and unpredictable consequences for regional and international stability? It is our deep conviction that the possibilities for disarming Iraq through political means do exist. And they really exist. And this cannot but be acknowledged.” [Statement by Ivanov, 3/7/03]

CHINA: Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan: “We believe that as long as we stick to the road of political settlement, the goal of destroying Iraq’s WMD could still be obtained. Resolution 1441 did not come by easily. Given the current situation, we need resolve and determination, and more importantly, patience and wisdom.” [Statement by Jiaxuan, 3/7/03]