rumsfeld Posts

Reports are in that link up the US torture program and the hunt for the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Jonathan S Landay in McClatchy News quotes a "former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue":

"The main [reason for the torture] is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."

"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.

All this is not really a surprise; I covered it in real time over on Nonviolence.org. There were numerous reports that the Vice President and Secretary of Defense were pushing the intelligence agencies to come up with evidence that would back their flawed theories.

The United States is supposed to be the champion of freedom but we resorted to the most brutal of communist-era torture techniques because our highest officials were more interested in their cartoon view of the world than the complex reality (and not so complex: anyone who's taken an "Intro to Islam" class would know that an alliance between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden would be have been very unlikely). When facts and ideological theories don't match up, it's time to dig for more facts and revisit the ideologies. 

World headlines for the hanging of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. He was executed for the mass killing of civilians in the small village of Dujail in 1982. An assassination attempt had been made as his motorcade went through town; he wanted revenge against the Shiite militia behind the attack. All accounts point to his crackdown as being particularly horrific and brutal.

Yet the next year, President Ronald Reagan sent aid Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to talk with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz about ways that the United States and Iraq could work together. As Z Magazine reported recently, the Reagan Administration went on provide billions of dollars of credit to Saddam's regime, along with US military intelligence to help it in its war against Iran. The US knew about Saddam's cruelty and despotism but didn't care until Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened US oil interests in the Persian Gulf.

This is such old news. I've been talking about the hypocrisies of the 1980s Baghdad/Washington alliance for the entire eleven year history of Nonviolence.org. But yet... Hussein was tried and convicted for this kind of old news. If Ronald Reagan didn't mind his despotism back in the 1980s, then why all the self-righteousness now? Reagan's aid Rumsfeld just stepped down from the Bush Administration as the long-serving Secretary of Defense this country has ever seen: the history and the actors who cozied up to Saddam then are still in Washington.

What has the world gained by the killing? President Bush thought the hanging so trivial that he told his aids that they shouldn't even bother to wake him up with the news. The reality is that Saddam has been a footnote since the fall of Baghdad in 2003. While his death may serve as some sort of catharsis for Iraqis, it hardly matters. Hanging him is merely political theater. It does nothing to stem the bloodletting of the civil war that now rages in Iraq.

It's worth pulling this site out of the semi-retirement of the last few months to happily report that Bush has finally fired Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It should have happened years ago. Like his boss, Rumsfeld is a man of big ideas but little experience. He has let half-baked ideology trump expertise. For six years he's over-ruled generals to wage a foolish war in Iraq. He famously thought that Iraq could be won with a minimum of ground troops, that high tech wizardry could win a dirty insurgency.

Yesterday's election were a clear message to President Bush that his Iraq policy is unpopular, wrong, and just plain stupid. What's surprising is that our stonewalling president reacted so swiftly by sacking Rumsfeld. He must be terribly afraid of the consequences of a Democratic House of Representatives. Finally he will be accountable to the American people. This war has been immoral and badly-fought. It's time that it ends.

It's gotten so messy that even a pacifist like me can't insist on immediate withdrawal. Like Rumsfeld I'm an ideologue; unlike him I know I'm not qualified to decide on the right mix of diplomacy and military policing needed to keep Iraq and Afghanistan from falling into even greater chaos. A number of top U.S. generals have spoken out in the war, both directly and indirectly and I suspect they have some good ideas--ones that will protect our troops and serve the clear national interest we have in keeping Iraq from civil war. Let's hope they get to speak and that the president and next secretary of defense start to listen.

The current war talk against Iran is hopelessly short-sighted. A successful US military action would only delay Iran's getting nuclear weapons by another ten years or so but it would greatly increase the chance that they'd want to use them. A war would justify Tehran's paranoia and legitimize a strike-back against the US or our allies when they finally do perfect the bomb.

It is widely rumored that the top US civilian leadership wants to use "tactical" nuclear weapons to destroy the underground labs where Iranian scientists are refining the uranium. The US military is reportedly very against this, and this is most likely why we're seeing all of these retired US generals calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Although a dozen-or-so countries have nuclear weapons, no one has used them since the US bombed Japan fifty years ago. No country wants to be the first to use them again, knowing there would be an incredible international backlash against them. If the US did launch even a limited nuclear attack against Iran, it would make the use of atomic weapontry more acceptable.

Nuclear weapons are a fact of life now. Iran is going to get them, sooner or later. Many of the countries in the region have bombs--Pakistan, India, Israel, China. The US can't put this genie back in the bottle. We need to build an international consensus that their use in unacceptable in any circumstance. Which means we need to stop planning on using them ourselves.

Seymour Hersh's article on US war preparations has a great quote in it from an unnamed "European official":

Iran is no longer living in the Stone Age, and the young people there have access to U.S. movies and books, and they love it. If there was a charm offensive with Iran, the mullahs would be in trouble in the long run.

We have two choices: bomb Iran now, which would possibly hold off the threat another ten years but would certainly turn younger Iranians against us for generations to come. Or we could manage the situation as best we can, using international inspectors to delay atomic weapons if possible but launching not bombs but the "charm offensive." We need to think about what the Iranian-US relationship will look like ten and twenty and fifty years from now. Even a "small" war now would lead to a huge war then.

All wars start decades before the bullets start flying. The seeds of World War II were in the debilitating reparations the victorious allies forced on a defeated German twenty years before at the end of World War I. By 1938 the war was all-but-inevitable. We can only stop wars if we look to the future and build friends of our enemies now. Iran will change. United States actions now will shape the future of Iran. Let's not muck it up.

Apparently the U.S. is pressuring Qatar to sell the Al Jazeera TV network The best line in the New York Times article:

Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other Bush administration officials have complained heatedly to Qatari leaders that Al Jazeera's broadcasts have been inflammatory, misleading and occasionally false, especially on iraq.

So I suppose Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell have never given out misleading or occasionally false information about iraq?

Al Jazeera is watched by 30 million to 50 million viewers. It's coverage has been inflammatory and I'm not going to defend that, but it's the most important media source in the Middle East and should not be shut down by American pressure. Qatar is only considering selling it, but potential buyers for the financially-strapped network are few. And the Cheney team wouldn't be involved if they weren't interested in making it's content more U.S. friendly.

Over at the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh is reporting that forces in the Bush Administration are looking at war with Iran now.

"This is a war against terrorism, and iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone," the former high-level intelligence official told me. "Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign."

Preparations include new war plans and fairly open hints by the Vice President that Israel start the Iran War by attacking its weapons productions facilities.

Hersh also reports that the Pentagon is now doing the secret "special ops" operations that used to be performed by the CIA. This isn't just a change in uniform: after the CIA was caught trying to overthrow governments and assasinating world leaders, the agency was put under congressional oversight. The Pentagon doesn't have that oversight. Followup in today's New York Times:

Among the C.I.A.'s concerns, former intelligence officials have said, are that an expanded Pentagon role in intelligence-gathering could, by design or effect, escape the strict Congressional oversight imposed by law on such operations when they are carried out by intelligence agencies.

This isn't a war on terrorism (neither iraq or Iran have conducted terrorist operations against the United States). This is a war against Muslim nations that threaten to have too much power.

When I posted the Slate article last night I missed that the New York Times' From the Editor piece had been published

Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into iraq... It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves.

In the last year we've become accustomed to reading newspaper apologies. The medium itself is shifting, in response to 24-hour cable news programs and innumerable news websites. The old newspapers themselves are less about detail and more about context. There's more of an editorial voice coming in and more attention to good writing and story-telling. Papers like the Times are becoming daily magazines. The pressures for good stories has led editors to overlook lapses in the work of star reporters like Jayson Blair and Judith Miller. This new era of apologies is a correction of sorts, and the major papers' reaffirmation of their strict accuracy standards perhaps signals a commitment to hold the line of newspaper transformation right here.

Perhaps. "From the Editors" doesn't feel honest to me. It's full of details and reads more like an combined "Corrections" piece for the last two years. By nitpicking on each error with such diligence, the message is that the mistakes have been one of details. "From the Editors" talk about the "critics of our coverage" in a way that makes it clear that this piece is a defense, not a mea culpa. The editor's unstated message is that anyone who would critique them is overly obsessed with details.

But we're not talking details. Most Americans have had their post-9/11 worldviews shaped by news organizations that had decided that critical thinking was unpatriotic. The Times coverage has actually been better than most. Watch the unsubstantiated hyped-up garbage that runs of most local TV news and you'll see scare-mongering continuing every night. Even as Americans slowly rethink this war and even as President Bush's polls drop, we can't undo that two major wars have been fought with faulty information.

The mainstream media still aren't asking the right questions, following up the details, asking critical questions or putting the news into larger context. At this point, the Bush Administration's national security credibility has been used up. There were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq, Saddam Hussein had no hand in 9/11, opposition iraqi "leader" (and Bush favorite) Ahmed Chalabi is not a trustworthy fellow. Add to that the mess that is the Afghanistan and iraq occupations. The U.S news media shouldn't publish anything coming from the offices of the Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, or Attorney General Ashcroft without collaborating evidence from at least three independent sources. The national news media needs more of apology than this if it's going to mollify the critics.

Update May 28:

Today's column by the New York Times' Paul Krugman, To Tell the Truth, also talks about how the news media protected President Bush and his administration's war claims from any serious questioning:

People who get their news by skimming the front page, or by watching TV, must be feeling confused by the sudden change in Mr. Bush's character. For more than two years after 9/11, he was a straight shooter, all moral clarity and righteousness... But now those people hear about a president who won't tell a straight story about why he took us to war in iraq or how that war is going, who can't admit to and learn from mistakes, and who won't hold himself or anyone else accountable. What happened?