ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Bolton: Regime Change In Iran ‘Would Lead To Greater Stability In The Region’

Continuing his long-running advocacy for a war against Iran, John Bolton said on Fox News today, “Diplomacy is finished.” Bolton said there are only two options: targeted military strikes or full-scale regime change. He added:

I think regime change would be preferable because I think that would lead to greater stability in the region as a whole.

Watch it:

Justin Logan comments, “I have an eerie feeling that I’ve heard this somewhere before, but I just can’t place it…” How about just a few reminders:

President Bush, 2/26/03:

Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world.

Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02:

Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace.

John McCain, 2/14/03:

[O]nly a change of regime will make Iraq a state that does not threaten us and others, and where a liberated people assume the rights and responsibilities of freedom. … Not only would deterrence condemn the Iraqi people to more unspeakable tyranny, it would condemn Saddam’s neighbors to perpetual instability.

Despite his unceasing advocacy for war, Bolton is always quick to remind his audience that he finds war detestable and “deeply unattractive.”

GAO: Iraqi Budget Surplus Of $79 Billion By Year’s End

As reported in this morning’s New York Times and Washington Post, a new report from the Government Accountability Office states that the Iraqi government could have “a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end”:

For 2008, GAO estimates that Iraq could generate between $73.5 billion and $86.2 billion in total revenues, with oil exports accounting for between $66.5 billion to $79.2 billion. Projected 2008 oil revenues could be more than twice the average annual amount Iraq generated from 2005 through 2007.[...]

From 2005 through 2007, the Iraqi government spent an estimated $67 billion on operating and investment activities. Ninety percent was spent on operating expenses, such as salaries and goods and services, and the remaining 10 percent on investments, such as structures and vehicles. The Iraqi government spent only 1 percent of total expenditures to maintain Iraq- and U.S.-funded investments such as buildings, water and electricity installations, and weapons. While total expenditures grew from 2005 through 2007, Iraq was unable to spend all its budgeted funds.

While I think there’s no escaping the financial responsibility that Americans have incurred by invading and occupying Iraq, American taxpayers have a right to ask why, given its substantial oil revenues, the Iraqi government isn’t dedicating more of that money to rebuilding its country.

The answer is that billions of dollars in Iraqi oil wealth is effectively being held hostage to the stalled Iraqi political process. Notwithstanding the incessant claims of “breakthrough!” from the Iraq war’s surge-emboldened cheerleaders, the GAO report is evidence that political progress in Iraq has been ephemeral. Among other divisive issues on which Iraqis have failed to achieve any sort of consensus, Iraqi political factions still have not agreed on a acceptable formula for the distribution of resources. Read more

Hamdan: After 7 Years, Found Guilty Of A Crime He Never Denied

Our guest blogger is Ken Gude, Associate Director of the International Rights and Responsibility Program at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

hamdan-sketch.jpgSalim Hamdan was found guilty of providing material support for terrorism at a Guantanamo military commission today, but acquitted of the more serious charge of conspiracy to commit terrorist attacks and murder American soldiers. So let me get this straight: After seven years and numerous court challenges including two Supreme Court rulings, the Bush administration finally stumbled its way to its first conviction in a military commission for a crime that is routinely handled in federal courts. Is this is the best they can do?

Hamdan was Osama bin Laden’s driver, not Osama bin Laden. He never denied that he was bin Laden’s driver. It would have been an open and shut case of material support for terrorism in federal court. Hamdan could have been securely locked away years ago, but the Bush administration chose to pursue the risky path of an untested military commissions system. The judge in Hamdan’s case was put in the unprecedented position of deciding how much torture was too much in determining which of Hamdan’s statements made during “coercive” interrogations would be allowed into evidence. No U.S. court has yet to decide if the entire military commissions system is lawful, and a negative verdict like the two others already handed down on military commissions by the Supreme Court could invalidate Hamdan’s conviction putting us back at square one.

Even more disturbing is that revelations at the commission point to the Bush administration squandering a real chance to capture senior al Qaeda figures, perhaps even bin Laden himself. Some testimony from government witnesses at the commission about Hamdan’s interrogation was kept secret, but statements by the defense during the closing argument show that according to government witnesses, Hamdan, who was Osama bin Laden’s driver, made a serious offer of assistance that the government failed to pursue. Hmmm. Now what kind of offer would Osama bin Laden’s driver make that would be worth the defense reminding the jurors about?

The worst aspect of this whole episode is that the Bush administration has completely devalued the concept of a war criminal. War crimes should be reserved for the most serious offenses and war crimes trials are extraordinary. Charles Taylor is a war criminal. Radovan Karazdic is a war criminal. Salim Hamdan is a chauffer. He is clearly guilty of the crime of material support for terrorism. But now he has been elevated to the status of warrior, legitimizing al Qaeda terrorists’ belief that they are waging a holy war against the United States and our allies.

We waited seven years to convict a low-level al Qaeda figure of a crime he never denied. In the process, the Bush administration passed up the chance to get bin Laden and squandered, perhaps forever, the hard-fought credibility and legitimacy of the United States. All this to give al Qaeda terrorists exactly what they wanted—confirmed status as holy warriors.

Great job, guys.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up