"Republican
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska lamented Fallon's departure, saying in
an interview with Bloomberg Television that he was 'very concerned to
see him go.'"
Martin: "He also insisted Fallon was not the odd man out when it came to war with Iran."
Gates:
"We've all talked about all options being on the table, but we've also
focused on the importance of pursuing economic and diplomatic pressures
against Iran. So I don't think that there really were differences at
all."
Martin: "Gates has made no secret he, too, is opposed to
war with Iran. But Fallon all but ruled it out, telling Al-Jazeera, 'I
expect there will be no war.' So does Fallon's departure clear the
decks for another war?"
Gates: "The notion that this decision portends anything in terms of a change in Iran policy is . . . ridiculous."
Martin
concludes: "Virtually every senior military officer is opposed to war
with Iran. But from now on they might be more cautious about how they
say it."
Cheney leaves Sunday for a trip to the Middle East. In yesterday's
column, I suggested that reporters try to find out what he tells the
Israelis about Iran. That's even more important today.
The conventional wisdom in Washington is that, ever since December's National Intelligence Estimate
threw cold water on Bush and Cheney's insistence that Iran was on the
brink of nuclear weapons development, a preventative attack on Iran was
no longer in the cards. But Bush has repeatedly brushed off the NIE's
findings. Administration pronouncements blaming Iran for fomenting
attacks in Iraq are on the upswing again. And now Cheney's on his way
to Israel.
It's still not really beyond Bush and Cheney to
order a full-scale preemptive attack on Iran. But the more likely
scenario is that there will be an asymmetrical U.S. response to a
(possibly trumped up) Iranian provocation. And the most likely scenario
is that the U.S. will encourage (or certainly not oppose) an Israeli
attack on Iranian nuclear facilities -- which in turn would lead the
U.S. to come to Israel's defense should Iran strike back.
That's been a favorite Cheney scenario for more than a year. See, for instance, this Steve Clemons blog post from last May, later corroborated by the New York Times. And see my June 4 column, Cheney, By Proxy.
No Torture Override
Thomas Ferraro
writes for Reuters: "President George W. Bush's fellow Republicans in
Congress on Tuesday upheld his veto of a bill to ban the CIA from
subjecting enemy detainees to interrogation methods denounced by
critics as torture.
"A largely party-line vote
of 225-188 in the Democratic-led House of Representatives fell short of
the needed two-thirds majority to override the president."
Seeking Clarity From the CIA
I
had a not particularly fruitful conversation yesterday with CIA
Director of Public Affairs Mark Mansfield. I was trying to get a bit
more clarity about his letter to the editor
in the Sunday New York Times, in which he appeared to suggest that the
interrogation measures banned by the Army Field Manual are now banned
by the CIA, as well. That sounded to me like a big concession -- and
big news.
Mansfield wrote his letter in response to a March 2 Times editorial, which listed the field manual's eight specifically prohibited practices:
* Forcing a prisoner to be naked, perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner.
* Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a prisoner, and using duct tape over the eyes.
* Applying beatings, electric shocks, burns or other forms of physical pain.
* Using military working dogs.
* Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
* Conducting mock executions.
* Depriving a prisoner of necessary food, water or medical care.
Mansfield, who in his letter mentioned only three of the prohibitions
-- forcing prisoners to perform sexual acts, applying electric shocks
and conducting mock executions -- wrote: "The implication [of the
editorial] is that those measures would be used by the Central
Intelligence Agency or other intelligence services if the intelligence
authorization bill is vetoed by the president. They would not. The
C.I.A. neither conducts nor condones torture."
My first
question: Was Mansfield limiting his statement to the three practices
he mentioned -- or was he including all eight listed in the manual,
including waterboarding? He told me he meant all of them. "None of them
would be used," he said. "They're not part of the CIA's program."
Waterboarding,
for instance, "is not a technique that is part of the CIA's current
program. It hasn't been used in five years, and it was used on a total
of three hardened terrorists."
But when I asked him if that
meant these practices were now officially banned by the CIA -- a
statement that I think would be widely welcomed in this country and
across the world -- Mansfield wouldn't say.
He repeated his
language about the practices not being in the current program, and
referred me to CIA Director Michael Hayden's statement last week that "the Army Field Manual does not exhaust the universe of lawful interrogation techniques."
Was
Mansfield making some sort of distinction between a practice that is
not currently part of the program and one that is prohibited? And if
so, why? He wouldn't say.
So does that mean they could be part
of the program later? It certainly sounded to me like Mansfield was
keeping that possibility open.
I also asked him if there were
any other restrictions in the manual that troubled the CIA -- for
instance, the requirement that any technique an interrogator is
considering using should pass the following, common-sense test: "If the
proposed approach technique were used by the enemy against one of your
fellow soldiers, would you believe the soldier had been abused?"
Mansfield wouldn't say.
So
I guess all we really know is that at this particular moment -- during
which, I should note, there is some reason to believe the CIA
interrogation program is dormant -- practices such as sexually
humiliating, waterboarding or starving detainees are not being used.
But there are apparently no guarantees, should circumstances change,
going forward.
More Torture Editorials
The
researchers in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office did a much better
job than I did yesterday of finding editorial expressions of outrage
over Bush's veto. Here are editorials from the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Orlando Sentinel, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Tampa Tribune, the Austin American-Statesman, the Waco Tribune, the Barre Montpelier (Vt.) Times Argus, the Fort Wayne (Ind.) Journal-Gazette, the Pocono (Pa.) Record and the Watertown (N.Y.) Daily Times.
FISA Watch
Ellen Nakashima
writes in The Washington Post: "House Democratic leaders announced
yesterday their support for providing some relief to phone companies
that have been sued for assisting the Bush administration's warrantless
surveillance program but reaffirmed their opposition to the legal
immunity sought by the administration. The proposal would allow the
companies, which face nearly 40 civil lawsuits in a federal court in
San Francisco, to defend themselves in secret, in front of a judge but
without the plaintiffs. Leaders intend to organize a floor vote on it
tomorrow. . . .
"The decision not to budge on the immunity
issue reflects an apparent calculation by the Democrats that they can
continue to defy the White House on a security concern in an election
year. . . .
"White House press secretary Dana Perino said the
House Democrats' bill is 'dead on arrival' for several reasons,
including its failure to provide the liability protection that is in
the Senate bill. 'It is clear that House Democratic leaders have once
again bowed to the demands of class-action trial lawyers, MoveOn.org,
and Code Pink and put their ideological interests ahead of the national
interest,' Perino said in a statement.
She criticized the provision calling for the creation of a bipartisan
commission to examine the administration's warrantless surveillance
activities. 'We can only draw one conclusion from this -- House leaders
are more interested in playing politics with past efforts to protect
the country than they are in preventing terrorist attacks in the
future.'"
Does that kind of language stiffen Democrats' spines? Or does it frighten them into submission? Stay tuned.
Iraq Watch
Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times: "President Bush delivered a rousing defense
of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Tuesday, mixing faith and
foreign policy as he told a group of Christian broadcasters that his
policies in the region were predicated on the beliefs that freedom was
a God-given right and 'every human being bears the image of our maker.'
. . .
"The speech, coming a week before the fifth anniversary
of the American invasion of Iraq, is the first of three talks on
terrorism and war policy that Mr. Bush will give before next month's
Congressional testimony by the top American military commander in Iraq,
Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the senior diplomat there, Ambassador Ryan
C. Crocker."
Michael Abramowitz
writes in The Washington Post: "Over the next several months, Bush must
decide how many troops in the two major theaters of U.S. military
operations to leave his successor, a decision that could influence the
fall elections and help shape his legacy. On Iraq, Bush indicated
Tuesday, he will be guided solely by his determination of the troop
strength necessary to maintain stability.
"'The politics of
2008 is not going to enter into my calculation. It is the peace of the
years to come that will enter into my calculation,' Bush told a
friendly audience of religious radio and television broadcasters. . . .
"The president showed little self-doubt about the crucial
choices he has made over the past five years, especially the decision
to overthrow Saddam Hussein. He has made this point before, but on
Tuesday he appeared especially animated in declaring: 'The decision to
remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency; it
is the right decision at this point in my presidency; and it will
forever be the right decision.'"
Meanwhile, James Glanz and Eric Schmitt
write in the New York Times: "Newly declassified statistics on the
frequency of insurgent attacks in Iraq suggest that after major
security gains last fall in the wake of an American troop increase, the
conflict has drifted into a stalemate, with levels of violence
remaining stubbornly constant from November 2007 through early 2008."
About Billy Graham
In
his speech to the religious broadcasters, Bush paid homage to Billy
Graham: "[E]ach of us has had doors opened to us by the same man. He
led the way for America's religious broadcasters. He brought the Gospel
to millions, and many years ago he helped me change my life. And today
this good man is recovering from surgery in North Carolina -- and
please join me in sending our love and prayers to Billy Graham."
Jacob Weisberg,
in a Slate excerpt from his book, writes that Bush's famous story about
"a soul-searching conversation with the Rev. Billy Graham that prompted
him to re-evaluate his life, accept Jesus, and give up drinking" does
not appear to be precisely true. "[O]n closer examination, this story
too turns out to be a parable, crafted to convey an idea about the
subject rather than to relate the literal truth of what happened. Like
almost every other detail about his spiritual life that Bush has chosen
to reveal, it shows evidence of being shaped and packaged."
Signing Statements Watch
One of the most underexplored aspects of Bush's unprecedented use of signing statements has been the practical consequences.
A year ago,
the Government Accountability Office found that, indeed, federal
officials had not complied with at least some of the provisions that
Bush objected to in signing statements.
In testimony to a House committee yesterday, GAO general counsel Gary L. Kepplinger
announced the results of another study, this one of provisions in the
2008 defense authorization, which found more of the same. The GAO
examined how 21 agencies executed 29 different provisions of the law
that Bush asserted his right not to follow -- and found that in nine
cases "the agencies had not executed the provisions as written."
As
with the earlier study, the specific examples are less than compelling
-- the investigation, for instance, avoided "a close examination of
provisions involving national security, intelligence, or foreign
relations matters, because of our limited access to such information
and the time constraints on our work."
Nevertheless, it does
seem like there's some fire under the smoke. And Kepplinger recommended
"careful" Congression oversight of the provisions to which Bush has
objected.
What was the response from the Bush administration at yesterday's hearing? There wasn't any.
Megan Scully
wrote in CongressDaily yesterday that senior Bush administration
officials "refused invitations to testify Tuesday during a House Armed
Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing examining
President Bush's signing statement on the fiscal 2008 defense
authorization bill."
Star Wars Watch
Tom Raum
writes for the Associated Press: "Borrowing a theme from the
presidential contest, Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that the
possibility of a 3 a.m. emergency call to the White House is all the
more reason for the next commander in chief to follow through on
President Bush's plans for a national missile defense.
"'It's plain to see that the world around us gives ample reason to continue working on missile defense,' Cheney told
the conservative Heritage Foundation at a dinner recognizing the 25th
anniversary of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, a
proposed network of rockets capable of shooting down incoming
intercontinental ballistic missiles."
A Cheney Deposition?
George Merrit
writes from Denver for the Associated Press: "A federal magistrate
indicated Tuesday he will order Vice President Dick Cheney to give
sworn testimony in a lawsuit by a man who claims he was wrongly
arrested after approaching Cheney.
"Magistrate Judge Craig B.
Shaffer did not issue an order but said Cheney is a key witness whose
deposition appears to be crucial to the case."
Bush on Tape
Finally, there's audio of Bush's off-tune singing performance at the Gridiron Club dinner on Saturday.
Blogger dday
approvingly quotes MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who said last night of
Bush's performance: "Well, that was quite a hoot. All that joking from
the President about Brownie, that guy in charge of the New Orleans
disaster, and of course Scooter Libby, the guy involved in the CIA
coverup. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's reporters, the best
of them, laughing at events and political acts that warrant anything, I
mean, anything but laughter. There is nothing, nothing funny about
Bush's reference to Brownie, that disastrous appointment followed by
that catastrophic handling of the Katrina horror in New Orleans.
Nothing funny about a war fought for bad intelligence, and a top aide,
Scooter Libby, who committed perjury and obstruction of justice to
cover it up. Nothing funny about a President, who commuted that
sentence to keep the coverup protected. Otherwise, I'm sure it was an
enjoyable get-together between journalists and the people they're
charged with covering."