The New York Times reported yesterday on a confidential January 2003 memo that showed President Bush “was determined to invade Iraq” even without a second UN resolution. Yesterday on Hardball, the source of that memo, British scholar Philippe Sands, revealed the existence of yet another revealing pre-war memo:

SANDS: Another memo which records a conversation between Colin Powell and his counterpart in the United Kingdom, Jack Straw, which makes it clear that in Colin Powell’s eyes if there wasn’t enough evidence for a second Security Council resolution, then there wasn’t enough evidence to justify the U.S. going it alone.

Watch it:

As Tiny Revolution notes, a May 2003 UK Guardian article reported on a transcript of a meeting between Powell and Straw in which the two discussed their doubts that WMDs existed in Iraq. The paper later agreed to retract portions of the story after Straw “made it clear that no such meeting took place.” It seems the Guardian was right after all.

Full transcript below: Read more

Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man threatened with execution because he converted to Christianity, is reportedly set to be released. On Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice claimed that Rahman was being freed not over legal technicalities, but because “the case itself” violated Afghanistan’s “constitutional expectations.” Watch it:

WALLACE: If [the case] is dropped, but not dropped because it’s just wrong to prosecute somebody for exercising freedom of religion, but rather because of technical flaws, lack of information, he’s mentally incompetent, does that end the controversy? Are you satisfied with that outcome?

RICE: Well, I think the question of mental incompetence, as far as I understand, has not been raised here. That this is really about the case itself. This is a complicated situation. We have been very clear with the Afghan government that the freedom of religion and the freedom of religious conscience is at the core of democratic development. They have constitutional expectations that have been written in that they will, in fact, live up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which protects individual conscience on religion.

Actually, according to officials, Rahman is being released merely due to a “lack of evidence,” not because of any constitutional objections to religious persecution. In fact, Afghan prosecutors are still investigating the case:

The Associated Press quoted an official as saying an Afghan court had dismissed the case against Rahman because of a lack of evidence. The official told AP the case had been returned to prosecutors for more investigation and that Rahman would be released in the meantime.

For years, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a government entity, has warned that Afghanistan’s constitution contained “no guarantee of the right to religious freedom for all individuals.” Bush and other U.S. officials claimed otherwise, denying reality so they could promote the constitution as a diplomatic success. Clearly they haven’t learned their lesson.

Our guest blogger is Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), a member of the House International Relations Committee.

Last Tuesday, the House took an important first step regarding the war in Iraq. It voted in favor of an important amendment to the Iraq supplemental spending bill that I introduced, along with my colleagues, Reps. Tom Allen (D-ME), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). (Watch it here.)

The amendment we offered was very simple: it stated that no funds from this spending bill will be used to enter into military base agreements between the United States and Iraq. Stating this will clearly indicate that the U.S. has no intention of maintaining a permanent military presence in Iraq. I’m pleased to say that the House unanimously approved this amendment.

While differences exist over how and when we should leave Iraq, we should all agree that U.S. forces should not be in Iraq forever. The House is now on record as supporting that position. Unfortunately, the administration’s position is unclear.

On April 13, 2004, President Bush said, “As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation, and neither does America.” But last week, General John Abizaid, the Army general in charge of the U.S. troops in Iraq, told the House defense appropriations subcommittee that the U.S. could end up having permanent bases in Iraq. And today, the Los Angeles Times reports that Bush “continues to request hundreds of millions of dollars for large bases” in Iraq.
Read more

President Bush, 9/16/05:

We’ve got a strong ally in Russia in fighting the war on terror….we understand we have a duty to protect our citizens, and to work together and to do everything we can to stop the killing.

AP, 3/24/06:

The Russian government provided Saddam Hussein with intelligence on U.S. military movements and plans during the opening days of the war in 2003, according to a Pentagon report released Friday.

Saddam’s regime never had any meaningful relationship with al-Qaeda, despite repeated suggestions to the contrary by President Bush and others. The same can’t be said, apparently, about Saddam’s relationship to the Russian government.

At today’s White House press briefing, Scott McClellan – parroting President Bush – claimed that Afghan constitution protected freedom of religion:

McCLELLAN: Well, I think you should look at the Afghan constitution. It was a constitution that was widely praised for how forward-looking it was and the values that are enshrined in that constitution. And it’s important for the government of Afghanistan to reaffirm the bedrock principles in that constitution, one of which is freedom of religion.

McClellan added that the prosecution of Abdul Rahman for converting to Christianity “clearly violates the Afghan constitution.” It’s not true. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an government entity, explained in a letter it sent to President Bush yesterday:

On several previous occasions, the Commission has raised concern that the Afghan constitution’s failure to include adequate guarantees of freedom of religion and expression for members of the country’s majority Muslim community could lead to unjust criminal accusations of apostasy and blasphemy. With no guarantee of the right to religious freedom for all individuals, together with a judicial system instructed to enforce Islamic principles and Islamic law, the door is open for a harsh, unfair, or even abusive interpretation of religious orthodoxy to be officially imposed…

This is an extremely important distinction. If the Afghan constitution protected freedom of religion, the entire issue could be resolved by convincing the Afghan government to drop the case against Rahman. Actually, it’s a systemic problem, rooted in the constitution, that requires the United States to pressure the Afghan government to make fundamental reforms.

The USCIRF has been encouraging the Bush administration to do just that for years, to no avail.

In Afghanistan, a man named Abdul Rahman has been put on trial for converting to Christianity. For his crime, he could be put to death. The incident, which has caused an international uproar, has its roots in the Afghan constitution.

Shortly after its passage, however, President Bush praised the Afghan constitution as protecting freedom of religion. President Bush, 1/23/04:

We’re making good progress, we really are, in parts of the world. Afghanistan has now got a constitution which talks about freedom of religion and talks about women’s rights.

But President Bush was warned by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom — an independent government entity – that the Afghan constitution failed to protect freedom of religion. In November 2003 press release called “Constitution Threatens to Institutionalize ‘Taliban-lite’” the USCIRF expressed concern that the proposed constitution:

Since the passage of the constitution, several individuals have been persecuted in Afghanistan on account of their religion and the USCIRF have repeatedly urged the administration to act. Today, the USCIRF sent a letter to President Bush reiterating their concerns and their recommendations for action.

Of course, now that the right wing is up in arms, President Bush is pretending this has always been a priority. It’s simply not true.

At this morning’s press conference, President Bush said that U.S. troops would remain in Iraq through the end of his presidency. According to Bush, the question of whether U.S. troops will ever leave Iraq will be one for “future presidents.” Watch it:

Transcript:

REPORTER: Will there come a day, and I’m not asking you when — I’m not asking for a timetable — will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?

BUSH: That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq.

UPDATE: The AP has picked up the story.

In April 2004, President Bush rejected analogies between Iraq and Vietnam, saying such a comparison “sends the wrong message to our troops“:

QUESTION: What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy.

But the Wall Street Journal reports today that America’s military commanders are looking to Vietnam for lessons on how to deal with violence in Iraq:

The last time Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Baghdad, back in December, the top U.S. military commander there gave him an unusual gift.

Gen. George Casey passed him a copy of “Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam,” written by Lt. Col. John Nagl. Initially published in 2002, the book is brutal in its criticism of the Vietnam-era Army as an organization that failed to learn from its mistakes and tried vainly to fight guerrilla insurgents the same way it fought World War II. ["¦]

Col. Nagl’s book is one of a half dozen Vietnam histories — most of them highly critical of the U.S. military in Vietnam — that are changing the military’s views on how to fight guerrilla wars. ["¦]

The embrace of these Vietnam histories reflects an emerging consensus in the Army that in order to move forward in Iraq, it must better understand the mistakes of Vietnam.

Rumsfeld should read Col. Nagl’s book carefully. Maybe then he’d stop making false comparisons between Iraq and post-WWII Germany.

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said today that Iraq is in a civil war:

It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is”¦We are in a terrible civil conflict now.

In 2004, Bush said it was unacceptable to question the credibility of Allawi’s assessment of Iraq:

Well, Prime Minister Allawi was here; he is the leader of that country. He’s a brave, brave man. When he came, after giving a speech to the Congress, my opponent questioned his credibility. You can’t change the dynamics on the ground if you’ve criticized the brave leader of Iraq.

Does that only apply when Allawi says what Bush wants to hear?

Yesterday was Freedom of Information Day, celebrating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a law passed 40 years ago that gives ordinary citizens the power scrutinize government documents. Among the most vocal supporters of the FOIA bill in 1966? Freshman congressman Donald Rumsfeld of Illinois, an original co-sponsor of the legislation. Rumsfeld’s call for the new FOIA bill, 1966:

Disclosure of government information is particularly important today because government is becoming involved in more and more of aspects of every citizen’s personal and business life, and so access to government information about how government is exercising its trust becomes increasingly important.

Forty years later, Rumsfeld seems to have forgotten his calls for open government:

Now, is there a tendency to overclassify in government? You bet! It’s a human instinct when you’re involved with sensitive materials to err on the side of — well, you know this; we’re in the business — to err on the side of classification.

Today, Rumsfeld’s Department of Defense has one of the worst records responding to FOIA requests. Just this week, the Pentagon refused a request by the Associated Press to release information about the identities of Guantanamo detainees.

Somewhere along the line, Rumsfeld became what he fought against in 1966: a government official with “a vested interest in the machinery of their agencies and bureaus” who resent “any attempt to oversee their activities, either by the public, the Congress or appointed department heads.”

– Mike Darner

Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that right-wing members of the House of Representatives defeated an amendment by Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN) that would have provided $1.25 billion in desperately-needed funding for port security and disaster preparedness. Today, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked if the President was disappointed. Watch it:

McClellan claimed “we are doing everything we can to protect our ports.” That’s just not true. For example, one of the programs McClellan touted today – the Container Security Initiative – is only in operation at 43 of the 140 overseas ports that ship directly to the United States due to chronic underfunding. The Sabo amendment would have provided an additional $300 million in funding, enough to extend the program to all 140 ports.

Full Transcript: Read more

Yesterday, former National Security Advisor Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski gave a speech on the Iraq war at the Center for American Progress. Some choice excerpts –

On the politics of fear:

But it is a part of this atmosphere of Manichean polarization which is being bred by a phony definition of reality. Neither President Truman nor Eisenhower – Democrat and Republican – ever spoke of America being a “nation at war” during the Korean War. Neither President Johnson nor Nixon ever spoke of America being a “nation at war” during the Vietnam War. Yes we have a serious challenge from the potential threat of terrorism and we have to wage an unrelenting struggle against it. But to describe America repeatedly as a nation at war – implicitly of course with a commander and chief in charge – is to contribute to a view of the world by America that stimulates fear and isolates us from others. Other nations have suffered more from terrorism than America. None of them has embraced that definition of reality.

On the Bush administration’s Iran policy:

We are not negotiating with the Iranians. … We will not touch the Iranians. Why not? Are we perhaps trying to prevent a compromise? Do we really want Iran to desist, or do we want to drive it into extremism? It surely cannot be our deliberate intention to fuse Iranian nationalism with Iranian fundamentalism. But that is precisely what we are doing.

On the costs of the Iraq war: Read more

Moments ago, the House of Representatives narrowly defeated an amendment proposed by Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN) that would have provided $1.25 billion in desperately needed funding for port security and disaster preparedness. The Sabo amendment included:

– $300 million to enable U.S. customs agents to inspect high-risk containers at all 140 overseas ports that ship directly to the United States. Current funding only allows U.S. customs agents to operate at 43 of these ports.

– $400 million to place radiation monitors at all U.S. ports of entry. Currently, less than half of U.S. ports have radiation monitors.

– $300 million to provide backup emergency communications equipment for the Gulf Coast.

Meanwhile, the Bush budget – which most of the members who voted against this bill will likely support – contains an increase of $1.7 billion for missile defense, a program that doesn’t even work.

Today, the White House released its long-overdue National Security Strategy (NSS). Like the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq before it, the NSS is a pure public relations stunt that has little basis in reality. Here is a quick fact-check of the document:

NSS: “A multinational coalition joined by the Iraqis is aggressively prosecuting the war against the terrorists in Iraq.”

FACT: “The past two weeks have changed the war in Iraq, shifting its focus from a U.S.-driven fight against Sunni insurgents to a direct battle for power and survival between Iraq’s empowered Shiite majority and disempowered Sunni minority.” [Washington Post, 3/13/06]

NSS: “The al-Qaida network has been significantly degraded.”

FACT: “Al Qaeda terrorism remains the most serious threat to U.S. national security, and the insurgency in Iraq shows no sign of abating, the nation’s top intelligence official told the Senate yesterday. “¦ The merger of al Qaeda with the Iraq-based terror group headed by Abu Musab al Zarqawi has extended the reach of the group and broadened its ideological appeal.” [Washington Times, 2/3/06]

NSS: “Terrorism is not simply a result of hostility to U.S. policy in Iraq.”

FACT: Former neocon Francis Fukuyama, author of a new book highly critical of Bush’s handling of Iraq, writes: “By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational basis for jihadists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at.” [Christian Science Monitor, 3/15/06]

Read more

Yesterday, Army Gen. John Abizaid, who runs U.S. operations in Iraq, said the United States may maintain permanent bases in Iraq. Reuters reports:

The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq said on Tuesday.

While the Bush administration has downplayed prospects for permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid told a House of Representatives subcommittee he could not rule that out.

Previously, the Bush administration has said that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq. Under Secretary of State Karen Hughes, 12/8/05:

CHARLIE ROSE: They think we are still there for the oil, or they think the United States wants permanent bases. Does the United States want permanent bases in Iraq?

KAREN HUGHES: We want nothing more than to bring our men and women in uniform home. As soon as possible, but not before they finish the job.

CHARLIE ROSE: And do we not want to keep bases there?

KAREN HUGHES: No, we want to bring our people home as soon as possible.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the Central Command deputy commander for planning and strategy in Iraq, 1/28/06:

We already have handed over significant chunks of territory to the Iraqis…[I]t is not only our plan but our policy that we do not intend to have any permanent bases in Iraq.

Times, apparently, have changed.

Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) announced that he will introduce a resolution tomorrow to censure President Bush for authorizing an illegal warrantless domestic surveillance program. Feingold said President Bush’s actions were “right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors.” Watch it:

UPDATE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist attacks Feingold over censure proposal: “I was hoping deep inside that the leadership in Iran”¦[was] not listening.”

UPDATE II: Feingold has issued a fact sheet on his censure resolution.

Full transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Tomorrow in the Senate you’ll introduce a resolution to censure George W. Bush. Let me show it to our viewers. It says, “Resolved: that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans.” That is a big step. Why are you taking it now?

FEINGOLD: It’s an unusual step. It’s a big step, but what the President did by consciously and intentionally violating the constitutional laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping has to be answered. There can be debate about whether the law should be changed. There can be debate about how best to fight terrorism. We all believe that there should be wiretapping in appropriate cases. But the idea that the President can just make up a law in violation of his oath of office has to be answered.

Read more

Today Dubai Ports World announced it would “transfer fully the U.S. operations…to a United States entity.” This evening on the PBS News Hour, AEI scholar Norm Ornstein said that DP World was considering selling its U.S. operations to Halliburton:

If this is done now through the backdoor, where D.P. [Dubai Ports World] has any role at all, Congress is going to go ballistic, and it’s going to be a disaster, I think, for the administration.

They have got a dilemma now, because there simply aren’t American companies that have the know-how and the breadth to do this. Interestingly, and perhaps ironically, what I had heard earlier in the day, as they were looking at those that have the — the kind of resources, Halliburton was a name that came up.

Very interesting.

UPDATE: Halliburton denies the rumors. Read more

Schumer gave his take on news that Dubai Ports World will transfer operations of U.S. ports to a “U.S. entity.” Watch it:

Transcript:

Let me say this: obviously this is a promising development but, of course, the devil is in the details. I think those of us who feel strongly about this issue believe that the U.S. part of the British company should have no connection to the United Arab Emirates or DP World, which is fully owned by the United Arab Emirates. So therefore, we would have to examine this proposal. The bottom line is, again, if the U.S. operations are fully independent in every way, that could indeed be promising. If on the other hand there is still ultimate control exercised by DP World, I don’t think our goals would be accomplished and obviously we’ll need to study this agreement carefully.

UPDATE: “A source involved in talks between the White House, Congress and DP World told CNN the exact meaning of the UAE firm’s statement is unclear.”

UPDATE II: NBC White House correspondent David Gregory wonders whether the White House coordinated Dubai Ports World’s announcement today: Read more

Sen. John Warner (R-VA) “says a Dubai-owned company has decided to give up its management stake in some U.S. ports,” CBS News reports. More:

The news comes shortly after Republican congressional leaders told President Bush that both the House and Senate appeared ready to block the controversial deal that would have given DP World operational control of several U.S. ports.

It was not immediately clear whether the announcement would be enough to cool widespread sentiment in Congress to pass legislation blocking the deal, which has become an election-year nightmare for Republicans.

UPDATE: CNN says the firm will “transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O ports in North America to a U.S. entity.”