Twelfth Bough

i run my own damn think tank

Archive for November, 2007

Exciting Stuff

Nov 19

Posted by Marlena in Bush/Cheney, Language & Meaning, Media, Pakistan, Unreality | No Comments

About Pakistan…

As Condi might ask, who could have predicted that pouring billions of military aid, without oversight, into an unstable country could lead to a crisis? Surely, nobody could have predicted that.

What should we do about this? Let’s ask the people who helped bring us the Iraq war, shall we?

AS the government of Pakistan totters, we must face a fact: the United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss. Nor would it be strategically prudent to withdraw our forces from an improving situation in Iraq to cope with a deteriorating one in Pakistan. We need to think — now — about our feasible military options in Pakistan, should it really come to that.

We do not intend to be fear mongers. Pakistan’s officer corps and ruling elites remain largely moderate and more interested in building a strong, modern state than in exporting terrorism or nuclear weapons to the highest bidder. But then again, Americans felt similarly about the shah’s regime in Iran until it was too late.

After “not intending” to fear monger for another dozen paragraphs of breathless military strategizing about how to save the world from this menacing threat, which we have been funding without oversight, they roll over and light a cigarette.

Middle East strife is neo-con porn.

I apologize for being so crude, but it’s true. They get off on this stuff. It’s really a problem.

Can you do me a little favor?

Nov 18

Posted by Marlena in Bush/Cheney, Corruption & Crime, Media, Military, Nuclear Weapons, Pakistan | No Comments

Don’t report this information for a couple of years. Thanks. You’re a real pal.

The United States is helping Pakistan keep its nuclear weapons secure in a top-secret program that has cost Washington [don't you mean US taxpayers?] almost 100 million dollars, the New York Times reported.

But Pakistan still refuses to allow US experts into its nuclear sites, the newspaper said, revealing information it first obtained three years ago but, due to a White House request, had not reported until now.

On its website late Saturday, the Times said that “debate is intensifying” here about whether the US administration has done enough to help protect Pakistani warheads, and whether Pakistan’s reluctance to reveal “critical details” about its arsenal has undercut the cooperation’s effectiveness.

[snip]

The Times report came as US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte warned Musharraf in Islamabad that Washington will review its 10-billion-dollar military aid to his regime unless he lifts the emergency.

[snip]

The New York Times, citing unnamed current and former senior officials, said that for six years, the United States has provided high-tech equipment and trained Pakistani personnel to ensure that security remains tight.

“I am confident of two things,” former CIA deputy director John McLaughlin told the paper, “that the Pakistanis are very serious about securing this material, but also that someone in Pakistan is very intent on getting their hands on it.”

The sites where Pakistan keeps its ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads remain off-limits to US experts, the Times said.

It said Musharraf’s government has also been unwilling to inform Washington about how or where the US equipment — including helicopters, night-vision goggles and detection sensors — is being used.

And US experts have little information on laboratories where weapons-grade uranium is produced — including one named after disgraced chief scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

So if I understand this correctly, the US has been giving Pakistan billions of dollars in military aid, plus high-tech equipment and trained personnel to keep their nuclear weapons secure. In exchange, Pakistan has taken the money and told us to, um, buzz off.

The New York Times said the nuclear aid program was buried in secret portions of the federal budget.

It said it had known about it for more than three years but had held off publication on a request from the Bush administration, which feared repercussions for national security.

But Pakistani media reports had shed light on the program and the White House had withdrawn its demand against publication last week, while remaining unwilling to discuss details of the program, the paper said.

I don’t know people. I’m speechless.

Thanksgiving Meme

Nov 18

Posted by Marlena in Bush/Cheney, Iraq, Language & Meaning, Media | No Comments

Driving around today and listening to NPR (for lack of anything better), I heard a story about media fairness. The gist was, does the liberal media downplay good news about the totally illegal war we were lied into? As part of this intriguing story, they played a tape of Rush Limbaugh vituperously complaining about the liberal media and their “narratives”. He actually said narratives. Rush claims that good news doesn’t fit the liberal media narrative, so therefore it doesn’t get reported. Aside from the blatant projection, I thought hmmm, here we go again with the Liberal Bias meme. I suppose they had to shelve this one for a while, what with all the actual killing in Iraq, but maybe they’re polishing that silver platter up again.

And then I see this big fat turkey, ready to go in the oven.

With an intensifying White House race drawing attention to his legacy, President George W. Bush could leave office without the baggage of complete failure in Iraq thanks to new U.S. military gains, some analysts say.

Really? Which analysts?

American success at quelling sectarian and insurgent violence has raised hopes that the relatively calmer conditions of the past few months in Iraq might last into early 2009, when the next U.S. president takes over.

“The overall prediction has to be that George Bush will escape this without an obviously visible abject failure. It may become that again over time. But right now, it looks like Bush will escape by the skin of his teeth,” said Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution.

It “has to be” that Bush will “escape” without an “obviously visible abject failure”. You got that? This war is an abject failure, among other things, but Bush will escape without that fact being obviously visible. And this “Has To Be”. Even if it’s by the “skin of his teeth”.

O’Hanlon, who drew attention last July when he expressed optimism about the U.S. mission in Iraq in a New York Times column, estimates the odds of a major deterioration during Bush’s remaining 14 months in office at less than 50 percent.

O’Hanlon, the focus of Glenn Greenwald’s withering attention last summer, is a longtime supporter of the Iraq War. His fortunes are tied to the war’s “success”. I got your narrative right here.

It is good that violence has died down in Iraq. We have a family member serving there, and we want her home in one happy, living piece. But it was still immoral to invade Iraq in the first place, and nothing will ever change that fact. It’s like Original Sin: it doesn’t just wash away, no matter how great our soldiers do their jobs. Honest people seek justice before success.

Who’s on the High Road?

Nov 18

Posted by Marlena in Bush/Cheney, Corruption & Crime, Iran, Military, Nuclear Weapons | No Comments

On the one hand, we have this:

“We never want any war in this region, but from another front, we have made all preparations, and if there is any suspicion on this matter, then we are ready,” said Ahmadinejad, speaking through an interpreter.

“I want to confirm again that we don’t think there will be a war in the region,” he told reporters, without giving reasons.

Ahmadinejad earlier told Al Arabiya television that the United States had no political, economic or military grounds for attack, and dismissed the U.S. military as “shabby”.

The West accuses Iran of trying to build a nuclear bomb, but Iran says its nuclear ambitions are to generate electricity.

[snip]

“We do not feel there is a crisis in this region … or do countries in the region … We think the crisis is in Washington,” he said.

[snip]

Ahmadinejad called for greater cooperation with Gulf states to work together against what he said were U.S. plans to foster tension in the region. He later left Bahrain to attend an OPEC heads of state summit in the Saudi capital Riyadh.

A little snippy, but overall, he’s not escalating the situation.

On the other hand we have this:

US military officials are putting huge pressure on interrogators who question Iraqi insurgents to find incriminating evidence pointing to Iran, it was claimed last night.Micah Brose, a privately contracted interrogator working for American forces in Iraq, near the Iranian border, told The Observer that information on Iran is ‘gold’. The claim comes after Washington imposed sanctions on Iran last month, citing both its nuclear ambitions and its Revolutionary Guards’ alleged support of Shia insurgents in Iraq. Last week the US military freed nine Iranians held in Iraq, including two it had accused of links to the Revolutionary Guards’ Qods Force.

Brose, 30, who extracts information from detainees in Iraq, said: ‘They push a lot for us to establish a link with Iran. They have pre-categories for us to go through, and by the sheer volume of categories there’s clearly a lot more for Iran than there is for other stuff. Of all the recent requests I’ve had, I’d say 60 to 70 per cent are about Iran.

[snip]

Brose said that reports about Washington’s increasingly hawkish stance towards Tehran, including possible military action, chimed with his experience. ‘My impression is they’re just trying to get every little bit of ammunition possible. If we get something here it fits the overall picture. The engine needs impetus and they’re looking for us to find the fuel - a particular type of fuel.

‘It now really depends on who gets elected President in the US. If nothing changes in the current course, I’d say military action is inevitable. But we have to hope there will be a change of course.’

He denied ever being asked to fabricate evidence, adding: ‘We’re not asked to manufacture information, we’re asked to find it. But if a detainee wants to tell me what I want to hear so he can get out of jail… you know what I’m saying.’

Other military intelligence officials in Iraq refused to comment, but one said: ‘The message is, “Got to find a link with Iran, got to find a link with Iran.” It’s sickening.’

Extrapolate This

Nov 17

Posted by Marlena in Iraq, UK | No Comments

Source:

The British army says violence in Basra has fallen by 90% since it withdrew from the southern Iraqi city earlier this year.

[snip]

Britain is scheduled to return control of Basra province to Iraqi officials next month, officially ending Britain’s combat role in Iraq.

What a great idea. We should try it, too.

Iran Scores a Point with IAEA Assist

Nov 17

Posted by Marlena in Bush/Cheney, Iran, Nuclear Weapons | No Comments

Click here to read an excellent summary of the real issues surrounding Iran’s nuclear activities.

Somewhere along the line, between the blur of sanctions and the threat of war, the world has forgotten what the Iranian nuclear crisis is really all about.

The ‘crisis’ does not revolve around Iranian defiance of the United Nations Security Council’s demand that all uranium enrichment, reprocessing, and heavy water-related activities be suspended immediately. Rather, it is about the underlying question that led to the Iranian file being sent to the UNSC in the first place. And that question is the following: Does Iran have any undeclared nuclear facilities which the world and the International Atomic Energy Agency do not know about and where, presumably, work is being carried out on a secret weapons programme?

He goes on to explain the actual points of contention.

Conclusion:

The language is cautious but the import is clear: there is every likelihood that Iran is telling the truth about not having worked on the P-2 till 2002. If this conclusion is eventually upheld, perhaps by the time the IAEA’s next report on Iran is issued in March 2008, the Agency ought to have no major problem certifying the absence of undeclared nuclear facilities inside the country. In turn, that would render the UNSC’s demand for the suspension of enrichment activity infructuous and irrelevant.

Given the concern President George W. Bush and his colleagues have shown at the prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons, one might imagine the IAEA’s latest report would be seen as good news in Washington. In reality, the war party sees the report as a threat to its plans to up the ante against Iran. The Bush administration has already unveiled tougher unilateral sanctions and the U.S. Congress has pushed a new law, the Iran Counterproliferation Act, which aims to target countries such as Russia for cooperating with Tehran in the nuclear field. Behind closed doors, military planners are also developing scenarios for aggression.

Though the administration is divided on the use of force, both the hawks and ‘doves’ within the system see the IAEA’s pro-activeness as an irritant. That is why the official spin from Washington, London, and Paris will be to downplay Iranian cooperation on the P-2 and uranium casting document issues and emphasise Tehran’s non-compliance with the UNSC demand that enrichment activities be suspended. Dr. el-Baradei’s report notes that close to 3,000 centrifuges are up and running, though not at optimum capacity. But it also stresses that the uranium being enriched is only up to 4 per cent — hardly the stuff bombs are made of — and is fully accounted for within the safeguards system.

No immediate or remote threat is posed by this enrichment. The international community would be foolish to destabilise the work the IAEA and Iran are doing to resolve the “core issue” of the P-2 because of a derivative issue like non-compliance with the suspension fatwa. Indeed, to the extent to which it is in everyone’s interest that Iran resume its voluntary adherence to the Additional Protocol, the UNSC should suspend its sanctions and return the Iranian file to the IAEA in exchange for that adherence.

This news knocks back the war-mongers’ plans a bit, though they will downplay the setback as much as possible. They’ve got to push that rock back uphill and over the top before the next IAEA report in March 2008. Will they get away with it? Let us hope not.

What a Thug

Nov 17

Posted by Marlena in Bush/Cheney, Corruption & Crime, Iraq | No Comments

You probably know that the US is building an enormous embassy in Iraq, the biggest one in the world. Click here to see some pictures and understand the long-term plans for occupation. The costs have swelled to over $700 million and the project is behind schedule. The person in charge of this boondoggle, Howard “Cookie” Krongard, works for Condoleeza Rice’s State Department as Inspector General. Now the Justice Department has begun looking into the project.

Despite serious questions about the State Department’s choice of contractors, the quality of the work performed and the conditions faced by some of the workers, the State Department’s inspector general, Howard “Cookie” Krongard, has allowed only one inquiry into the project, which he handled personally.

Krongard’s investigation did not substantiate whistle-blowers’ concerns that foreign workers were mistreated and put in dangerous situations. He interviewed only employees pre-selected for him by the company, and did not interview the whistle-blowers themselves, a congressional investigation later revealed.

Krongard said Wednesday he would recuse himself from any investigation into the embassy. He also said he would recuse himself from investigations into Blackwater, on whose advisory board his brother sits. The State Department has paid hundreds of millions of dollars to the controversial private security firm since 2001.

Interesting story on how exactly that recusal came about… On Wednesday Krongard testified before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Henry Waxman. The opening paragraphs of the Executive Summary of the Committee’s Report on Allegations Regarding State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard:

On September 18, the Committee initiated an investigation into the activities of the State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard. The investigation was triggered by seven current and former officials in the Inspector General’s office who expressed concerns about Mr. Krongard’s conduct and his failure to investigate credible reports of wasteful spending and procurement fraud, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.

During the Committee’s investigation, the Committee interviewed or took the deposition of 13 current or former officials, all of whom raised questions about Mr. Krongard or his actions. The officials who criticized Mr. Krongard’s performance included the Deputy Inspector General, the Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, the Assistant Inspector General for Audits, the Counsel to the Inspector General, the Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, and the Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits. Mr. Krongard’s conduct was also criticized by lower-ranking officials, including special agents-in-charge, special agents, and auditors.

The criticisms of Mr. Krongard by these officials were wide-ranging. The officials expressed concerns about (1) Mr. Krongard’s inadequate oversight of the construction of the Baghdad Embassy, (2) his failure to work with the Justice Department on an investigation of Blackwater for arms smuggling, (3) his refusal to pursue charges of procurement fraud relating to a DynCorp contract, (4) his intervention in the investigation of Kenneth Tomlinson, (5) his lack of independence in auditing the State Department’s financial statements; and (6) his abusive management style. In the face of all of these concerns, the Committee was told that the Office of the Inspector General is “bleeding people right and left.”

Mr. Krongard’s actions in investigating allegations of labor trafficking during the construction of the Baghdad Embassy were described as “an embarrassment,” “ludicrous,” and “an affront … to our profession.” His failure to investigate “alleged corruption of a State Department official overseeing contract performance” was called “not a sound and prudent decision.” His investigators told the Committee that his decision to personally interview a “person of interest” and a “subject of investigation” over the objections of his staff and the Justice Department led the Justice Department to ask him to recuse himself from future actions involving the Embassy.

According to information provided to the Committee by the Justice Department, Mr. Krongard’s unusual conduct has “impacted” the Department’s criminal investigation of Blackwater, “added multiple layers to our investigative efforts,” and resulted in “a cumbersome and time-consuming investigative process.” Mr. Krongard’s personal involvement in the Blackwater case is itself suspect, given that his brother serves on Blackwater’s advisory board.

And so on for forty more pages. Ooooooouuuuuch. Now, it being Saturday, I don’t really have time to read all this, much as I would like to, but here’s a great overview of the hearing and especially of the emotional content. Sample:

Howard “Cookie” Krongard’s defense to just about every question can be boiled down to ‘Everyone else is lying’. (For the record, I can’t in good conscience avoid mentioning that Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut shamelessly did everything he could to help Howard “Cookie” Krongard out with his defense. Shays began the hearing by characterizing the allegations made by over a dozen different government employees working for both the State Department and the Justice Department as“water-cooler gossip and personality conflicts”, he threw a mini-fit over whether or not all the whistleblowers were officially under oath, and interjected himself into the conversation in defense of Howard “Cookie” Krongard when Congressman Henry Waxman had him squirming. Christopher Shays did a great job as the ‘Republican Obstructionist of the Day’, but certainly did nothing to help determine if the allegations made against Howard “Cookie” Krongrad were, in fact, true).

Great stuff. Go read the lesson Krongard learned from the whole day. Priceless.

I just have to say, this guy should be hung like a stone around Condoleeza Rice’s neck, and she should be hung like a stone around George W. Bush’s neck along with Alberto Gonzalez, Donald Rumsfeld and every other thug who has actively worked to destroy this country and Iraq with their thievery and depravity.

Crash Dynamics

Nov 16

Posted by Marlena in Economy, Iran, Sustainability | No Comments

This post from LATOC has some interesting nuggets. This guy writing had a long talk with his dad, a GM at a power plant in PA. He’s conveying the dad’s take on what they talk about around the big conference table at work. Come to find out, they’re desperate over the supply/demand issues and looking for solutions. Options to keep the lights on and prices reasonable include playing footsie with the grid, building coal plants and going nuclear.

Here is the catch, for everyone thinking nuclear will save our ass. He said it normally takes about 10 years to get a nuclear plant built. About 3 to go through all the red tape, and 7 to build one.

So I asked him, if the SHTF and they removed all the red tape, we would be looking about 7 years? He said, no… If the SHTF and the red tape is removed, we would be looking at around 15-20 years per plant. Apparently there are only a couple of companies in the US that can build these things. So you would have every utility across america competing for these two companies. You cant just expand operations like making cars, it takes years and years to train the engineers and the construction companies to build a nuke plant.

So I’m not sure how this fits together with this information, but here’s a thought or two…

First of all, whatever the prep work going on in DC, it hasn’t filtered down to the management at this power plant. It must not be common knowledge yet in the energy industry that the plan is “go nuclear”.

Secondly, this nice gentleman is operating under the assumption that highly trained people need to be involved in designing nuclear power plants. (I think this is where ethical people generally get lost in the plot twists. It happens to me all the time at the movies.) It’s a perfectly reasonable assumption, but it won’t hold up. We won’t have years and years to train people. Soon we will be in an emergency situation, and money will be sitting on the table. So whatever hurdles exist (technology, training, regulations, etc.) will be quickly overcome in the hour of need (the need to get that money off the table and into someone’s pockets). Dick Cheney, in his prescience, knew to prepare for this problem. That’s why he’s been working the regulatory piece on the QT. Once they gut the regulations, it will be quick work in a panicked, energy-deprived environment to get around any remaining hurdles.

Of course, this will put people at risk. And your point is??

Here’s the conclusion:

So after our four hour talk, we both came to the conclusion that it will be a hard crash. What we will likely see is a longer peak than alot of us had thought. The peak should last another 1-3 years, oil prices will climb drastically, but home heating will not follow suit at least for a year or two. Gas prices will climb, and force the economy into a deep recession. Once all of the demand has been killed and the less efficient plants are taken offline, and oil prices rise to where the efficient plants no longer offer any benefit, thats when all hell will break loose.

We think 1-3 years, then a hard fast crash.

Better get your preps done quickly.

This is if there are no geo political events. If we attack Iran, he said he expects oil prices to double on the attack and cause a nice fast crash NOW.

For what it’s worth.

Seventh Grade Diplomacy

Nov 16

Posted by Marlena in Bush/Cheney, Iran, Nuclear Weapons, Russia | No Comments

As I mentioned just yesterday, but which you may not have seen splashed across the front pages or blared from the news, Iran has been somewhat vindicated by the IAEA.

The International Atomic Energy Agency did not directly characterize Iran’s nuclear program in its Thursday report. It said Iran had been generally truthful about its past uranium enrichment, which Iran says is intended to generate only fuel for nuclear reactors. But the nuclear watchdog also said that restrictions Iran placed on U.N. inspectors two years ago mean that the agency cannot eliminate the possibility of a secret weapons program.

So naturally, Mr. Ahmadinejad called on the US to apologize.

Addressing the U.S. and its allies, Ahmadinejad said on state television that; “You issued two resolutions based on wrong information … Now that you have found out that this information was wrong, you have to be brave and come forward and tell the Iranian nation, ‘We made a mistake’ and apologize.”

“The whole world saw that their (U.S.) allegations were not true and that Iran’s activities are clean and peaceful,” the hard-line president said.

The IAEA report does not completely exonerate Iran, but it largely does. The Iranians cooperated and provided sufficient and timely access to the relevant people and things.

The agency repeatedly concluded that “Iran’s statements are consistent with … information available to the agency.”

“Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions, and provide (needed) clarifications and amplifications,” the report said.

Here’s the wrinkle:

The IAEA also said, however, that Iran continues to defy U.N. Security Council resolutions that it stop uranium enrichment, confirming that Tehran is now running some 3,000 centrifuges.

A senior U.N. official, who agreed to discuss the Iran situation only if not quoted by name, said that many centrifuges running smoothly could produce enough material for a nuclear bomb within 1 1/2 years.

Now if we were interested in diplomacy and averting war, this report gives our foreign policy community a great opportunity to ratchet down the rhetoric. That would be the responsible thing to do, especially considering the consequences.

Look how we’ve responded so far:

The U.S. responded that the Iranian government should apologize to its own people for isolating them from the world by provoking international sanctions.

and

“The Iranian government should apologize to its people for the fact that they have taken them down a pathway of further isolation from the international community,” U.S. State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday.

Or to put that in laymen’s terms: If you people weren’t such &#^A%$&#, we wouldn’t have had to beat you so hard. You made us do it, you *&#$^*#&$. We’re not apologizing to you, you #$*&^#$*&. [High-fives and ass-slaps back at State Dept.]

Apparently there has also been some name calling between Ahmadinejad and Sarkozy, with Ahmadinejad delivering “veiled threats” and accusations of inexperience in a letter received in France Monday. Who knows what that’s all about.

In any case, when you add that together with this information (h/t Malcontent), one begins to see the full technicolor special effects being spliced onto the Iranian threat. Meanwhile, the person we should be talking to is Vladimir Putin, he of the soulful eyes and rippling pecs.

Her Washington-based nonproliferation organization wants to see the U.S. get a better handle on the material that can be used for bombs — much of it is in Russia — and secure it.

The big problem, she said, is not a fancy suitcase nuke, but rather a terrorist cell with nuclear material that has enough knowledge to make an improvised device.

How big would that be? “Like SUV-sized. Way bigger than a suitcase,” she said.

To recap…Iran: Suitcase-sized problem. Russia: SUV-sized problem.

That Didn’t Take Long

Nov 16

Posted by Marlena in Bush/Cheney, Politics, Surveillance | No Comments

On his second day at the job, Mukasey said he opposes changing the FISA law and will recommend that Bush veto the bill.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on the eve of crucial committee votes to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Mukasey was adamant in opposing Leahy’s plan for changing the law.

Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell co-signed the letter released Wednesday night by the Justice Department.

“We strongly oppose the proposed substitute amendment. If the substitute is part of a bill that is presented to the president, we and the president’s other senior advisers will recommend that he veto the bill,” they said.

Leahy last week introduced his substitute to a FISA modernization bill already approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee. That effort, led by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., won wide bipartisan support and is backed by the administration. It includes retroactive immunity to legally protect the telecommunications companies which cooperated with the administration’s classified warrantless surveillance program.

What do you want to bet he already figured out this torture thing, too?

Perhaps other than Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein, nobody is surprised.

Update: Many updates on this topic at Glenn Greenwald.