Situation in Iraq

This week Joe Klein authors Time’s front cover story on Iran, titled, “Iran’s Nukes: Now They Tell Us,” in reference to the recent intelligence revelations that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Klein cheered President Bush’s response to the NIE, stating that it was “an amazing moment of candor by the United States”:

The Bush reaction to this — he didn’t try to block it. He didn’t try to postpone it. He didn’t spend weeks, he didn’t ask the intelligence community ‘give me a couple of weeks, let’s see if we can figure out some kind of negotiating initiative or some way to respond to this.’ He didn’t try to spin it to our advantage. This is an amazing moment of candor by the United States.

Watch it:

Contrary to Klein’s assertion that the White House “didn’t try to block it,” the NIE was completed a year ago but stalled by the White House in an effort to “make the document more supportive of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s militarily aggressive policy toward Iran.”

Moreover, the White House confirmed that Bush lied to the public, as he was told in August that Iran’s nuclear weapons program “may be suspended.” (Bush previously said he was never told what information the intelligence community possessed.) A skeptical Joe Scarborough responded to Klein’s cheerleading for the administration, stating, “Well that’s one way to look at it,” then explained that Bush continued to warn of World War III with Iran despite knowing better. Klein chuckled, “There is that…”

In Joe Klein’s world, once White House deception and deceit is revealed to the public, it becomes “amazing candor.”

Digg It!

Atrios reminds us that it was “just one year ago today that the Iraq Study Group report was released. What would we do without bipartisan commissions of elder Villagers to save us? Or a media to tell us what it all means. Approximately 980 US troops have been killed since the world-changing report was released.”

View key recommendations of the ISG report HERE.

Gracing the Washington Post’s opinion page today are two former Bush administration officials, two movement conservatives and a journalist-turned-columnist warning that “47 million uninsured” isn’t “our biggest health-care problem.” Hardly anyone’s idea of balance. Here’s how the page is advertised on the frontpage of the Post’s website:

Today, President Bush will announce a freeze on some subprime mortgages in an effort to stop a wave of foreclosures. Bloomberg writes, “Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s success in crafting agreement on a five-year fix of subprime mortgage rates owes a debt to an unlikely source: congressional Democrats.” Atrios has more. The NIE’s conclusion that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program came about after intelligence agencies obtained notes last summer of Iranian military officials complaining “bitterly” about the “decision by their superiors in late 2003 to shut down” a central part of the program. One in three Americans “want to deny social services, including public schooling and emergency room healthcare,” to undocumented immigrants, according to a LAT/Bloomberg poll. However, 60 percent still favor creating a pathway to citizenship for law-abiding individuals.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) yesterday took offense at being described as a “puppet” of President Bush by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman, “said it’s understandable that Republicans are sensitive about being associated with Bush.” The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday blocked a Bush administration rule under the “Healthy Forests Initiative” that “allowed logging and burning projects in national forests without first analyzing their effects on the environment.” (more…)

On Tuesday, President Bush said he was never forewarned by the intelligence community that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003:

In August, I think it was John — Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was.

Now the White House is revealing that wasn’t true. In fact, Bush did know what the information was. CNN reports:

President Bush was told in August that Iran’s nuclear weapons program ‘may be suspended,’ the White House said Wednesday, which seemingly contradicts the account of the meeting given by Bush Tuesday.”

The White House statement released by Dana Perino tonight also states McConnell told Bush “the new information might cause the intelligence community to change its assessment of Iran’s covert nuclear program.”

On Tuesday, Bush said “nobody ever told me” to back down from his hawkish rhetoric on Iran. No, maybe not. But Bush knew Iran “may have suspended” its nuclear weapons program and that the intelligence community was in the process of “changing its assessment.” And yet, he continued to warn of “World War III” and a “nuclear holocaust” because nobody told him specifically to stop.

UPDATE: Dan Froomkin reported today that Bush deceptively “changed the way he talked about Iran” starting in August. “Instead of directly condemning Iranian leaders for pursuing nuclear weapons, he started more vaguely accusing them of seeking the knowledge necessary to make such a weapon. Even as he did that, however, he and the vice president accelerated their rhetorical efforts to persuade the public that the nuclear threat posed by Iran was grave and urgent.”

Digg It!

Further to my post of last week, it turns out Riverbend was one of the last Iraqis able to escape to Syria without a visa. Syria used to allow any Iraqi to stay six months without a visa, but in the last few days imposed restrictions which mean that most Iraqis must apply to the Syrian embassy in Baghdad for visas before crossing the border. Jordan imposed similar restrictions two years ago. Syria is struggling to cope with the estimated Iraqi 1.4 million refugees living there. Puts the UK’s ‘refugee problem’ into perspective.

Riverbend, author of the Baghdad Burning blog, has left Iraq. Astonishing that she stayed so long, I guess. Goodbye Riverbend, and good luck in Syria.

Sami - Iraqi Thoughts:

I am still shocked even after watching hours of TV. Its funny how as I grew up this was the man I hated most in my life and have always wanted him killed but for some reason the feelings of joy were not what I expected. There are many reasons for that but I think mainly the fact that this ended up being an Al Dawa political party fight versus Saddam is what saddens me. Al Dawa where the political party involved in Dujail, the first case Saddam was tried on was Dujail (in my eyes a big mistake) but that was on the orders of former Iraqi PM Ibrahim Al-Ja’afari who comes from the Al Dawa party. Coincidentally the warrant was signed by Al-Maliki again from the Al Dawa party and finally exclusive footage of Saddam’s dead corpse was shown on Al Dawa’s TV channel Baladi. I just wish that he could have faced all the charges against him, but I am no politician and maybe they couldn’t wait any longer. Finally I don’t think the situation will change in Iraq much because the people who hate Saddam or love him are all still going to have the same deep hatred and divisons towards each other. Unity isn’t about being the same but about accepting each other’s differences and the way Iraqis act that does not look like happening any time soon.

Iraq Pundit:

Saddam has long been a dead man walking, and I don’t care about him or whatever hell he has gone to. My concern is how his well-deserved execution will affect the continuing crisis in Iraq. Most of those around me feel the same way. An older relative who long ago fled Iraq thought of Saddam as the man who signed tens of thousands of death warrants. And even younger relatives who never lived under Saddam regard him as a man undeserving of sympathy. All of us are focused on seeing Iraq’s current agony come to an end.

24 Steps to Liberty:

The scene basically dismissed my life, my emotional sufferings, my sleepless nights under Saddam Hussein’s regime and it dismissed any respect to what I’ve been through. Watching Hussein walking to the gallows was what reassured me that the “liberation” wasn’t for the Iraqis to enjoy, but for an invasion to allow the exiles, especially the Mullahs, to take revenge. What’s next? Does it mean my family will be safe now that Saddam Hussein is dead? Does it mean the Iraqis will stop hating each other and killing each other? There are no more Shiites and Sunnis slaughtering each other? [Ironically Hussein is accused of provoking sectarian conflict in Iraq!] Did they [Iraqi government and their advisors] think killing Saddam Hussein will unite the Iraqis and solve the problem? The answer to those questions is: No. And they don’t care!

Dr Fadhil Badran - Iraq4Ever:

The assassination of Saddam Hussein has killed the last hope of peace in Iraq. I think, this assassination has been planned by Iran, Israel, and Britain; those players used the US as a fire-catcher! Iran chose to assassinate him on the 1st. day of Al-Ad’ha to say that the Eid is not on the 30th of December, which means that Muslims are not unified, and of course because Saddam had stopped the Persian dream to occupy the Arab countries in the gulf area. Israel has chose the way of assassination by Hanging him to make revenge for the Israeli spies who were hanged in Baghdad in 1969. Britain insists on the assassination for the revenge of Saddam Hussein nationalization of the Iraqi petroleum in 1971. The only losers in this event are the Iraqis and the American soldiers in Iraq.

Treasure of Baghdad:

Although I expected it, I was shocked when I heard it. I felt I want to cry but my tears were mixed, tears of happiness and sadness at the same time. Memories of my life under Saddam flashed back in my mind like a train moving fast. An important chapter of our life is finally over. I felt happy because finally the one who suppressed us is gone and forever now. However, I felt sad because his execution is going to increase the blood bath that is already taking place. I felt sad because Saddam was replaced by more tyrants instead of one. Iraq is not a free country yet. Iraq is suffering from Mullahs and Sheikhs who most of them are religious extremists who are trying to take back Iraq to hundreds years back. Sunni and Shiite extremists who are in the government and parliament now are the ones who are imposing their religious ideas on people and in a country where most of its cities were secular. If someone criticizes them, they kill him. So what’s the difference? Saddam is hanged and so should the ones ruling Iraq now.

Trudy Rubin
December 19, 2006

In military parlance, there is a concept known as “the golden hour.” It refers to the window of time within which badly wounded troops have a good chance of surviving if they can be evacuated to medical facilities. But if this window closes, the chance of saving the wounded soldiers drops sharply.

“We have missed the golden hour,” I was told recently by a U.S. officer with extensive combat experience outside Baghdad. He was referring to the chance of stabilizing Iraq.

That’s also the feeling I got when I read the much-awaited report last week of the Iraq Study Group chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton. The recommendations make great sense, but it may be too late to save the patient.

Advertisement
That said, I believe the report largely reflects the direction in which U.S. policy in Iraq is headed. Even though President Bush already has rejected key points, I think events are moving beyond his control.

The report revolves around two key ideas:

First, the need for a new diplomatic initiative in the region, in which the United States would press Iraq’s neighbors, including Syria and Iran, to stop meddling and help stabilize the country.

Second, a change in the main mission of U.S. forces. They would pull back from fighting insurgents but would insert thousands of trainers into Iraqi military units, pushing Iraqis to assume the major combat role. The goal would be to withdraw most U.S. combat units by early 2008, while support troops, special forces and rapid reaction teams would remain.

In the days since the report’s release, Bush has distanced himself from the 2008 date. Some critics of the report, such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have called the withdrawal a prescription for defeat. It’s hard to believe that Iraqi troops, with their checkered record, will be ready in time.

But mistakes of the past limit the possibilities of the present. I believe McCain is right that more U.S. troops could have stabilized Iraq early on, but former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld chose not to send them. Now there are no more U.S. troops to send for any extended period. A temporary “surge” of 20,000 cannot stabilize troubled areas; Sunni insurgents would return when the “surge” leaves.

So we have little choice but to turn more responsibility over to Iraqi forces, however unreliable. Iraqi leaders visiting Washington, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and top Shiite political leader Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, have requested heavier equipment for their military as well as more control of its actions. A stepped-up program for inserting U.S. trainers into Iraqi units already has begun.

As for the 2008 date, it is risky indeed. But events in Iraq won’t wait on our timetable.

If Iraqis haven’t produced a coherent government by 2008 and if Iraqi troops haven’t improved by 2008, the game already will be up. The presence of U.S. troops will have become irrelevant as sectarian conflict surges around them and they retreat to their bases.