Category Archives: National Security

Want to Know What’s Wrong With US Intelligence?

Here's a little item deep inside Barton Gellman's story on Richard Clarke that encapsulates so much of what's wrong with the Bush administration:

On the same broadcast, deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said, “We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred.” In interviews for this story, two people who were present confirmed Clarke's account. They said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice witnessed the exchange.

So either unless Clarke and two other anonymous witnesses are lying, the folks in charge of our intelligence and national security apparatus are either (A) completely incompetent, or (B) complete liars. Does it really matter which?

Posted in National Security, Politics: US: GW Bush Scandals | 3 Comments

Richard Clarke Goes for the Bush Jugular

Richard Clarke is going to get his 15 minutes, and more, before he either falls into the Memory Hole, or holes the Bush Administration below the waterline.

In reading him, and about him, please keep a few things in mind:

  1. Clarke's a Scoop Jackson Democrcat — that is, the right-wing kind;
  2. He's served both Deomcratic and Republican Presidents, and very ably by all accounts
  3. He's a smart man, and a patriot, and widely considered one of the best nuts and bolts guys around on national security.

That doesn't make what he says true, but it ought to buy him a respectful hearing.

Correction: According to this Washington Post article by Barton Gellman, Clarke says he was registered as a Republican in 2000. Relevant only to Republican claims that he's 'auditioning for the Kerry campaign'.

Posted in National Security, Politics: US: GW Bush Scandals | Comments Off on Richard Clarke Goes for the Bush Jugular

Grunts Don’t Expect Pre-Election Osama Capture

INTEL DUMP reports on a survey of army soldiers on when/whether they think Osam bin Laden will be captured. The majority says soon, but not real soon. Of course, if there really were a Secret Plot to capture him in October — an article of faith in conspiracy-minded circles — then presumably almost no one would know about it…

Posted in National Security | 2 Comments

Move Over Doctor Draft, Meet the Geek Draft

Well, there's no danger of this before the election…

'Special skills draft' on drawing board / Computer experts, foreign language specialists lead list of military's needs

The government is taking the first steps toward a targeted military draft of Americans with special skills in computers and foreign languages.

The Selective Service System has begun the process of creating the procedures and policies to conduct such a targeted draft in case military officials ask Congress to authorize it and the lawmakers agree to such a request.

Richard Flahavan, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, said planning for a possible draft of linguists and computer experts had begun last fall after Pentagon personnel officials said the military needed more people with skills in those areas.

Spotted via Brian Leiter

Posted in National Security | 3 Comments

Bush Flip-Flops (Again) on 9/11 Commission

This zinger:

“If the president of the United States can find time to go to a rodeo, he can find the time to do more than one hour in front of a commission that is investigating what happened to America's intelligence,” Mr. Kerry told hundreds of supporters at a rally in West Palm Beach on Monday afternoon.

Produced this:

White House: Bush will take all questions of 9/11 panel: President Bush will privately answer all questions raised by a federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House said Tuesday, apparently dropping a one-hour limit on the president's testimony.

The shift came on the heels of accusations by presumed Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry that Bush was “stonewalling” investigations of the terrorist attacks and U.S. intelligence failures.

This is Bush's second flip-flop on the 9/11 commission issue alone. And you wonder why — when faced with such a strong, resolute negotiator — the North Koreans are suddenly saying they have a new condition for scrapping their nukes?

North Korea's government said it will make the pullout of U.S. forces from South Korea a condition of a nuclear agreement, unless the U.S. stops insisting that an accord require the North to dismantle its weapons program first.

North Korea also will demand a “complete, verifiable, irreversible security assurance'' from the U.S. in exchange for American insistence the nuclear program be dismantled on those terms, the official Korea Central News Agency said in a release.

Of course, the two situations are not parallel: the Bush position on the 9/11 commission was absurd, while taking a tough line with North Korea is not. But will the North Koreans understand the difference? I think this Adminstration is starting to look weak abroad. I trust this doesn't mean we are in for a new round of foreign adventurism, if only because there are no ground troops left to spare to conduct it.

Update: Well, is it a flip-flop or not? The NYT version of the story suggests an administration artfullly trying to have it both ways:

He's going to answer all the questions they want to raise,” the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters today. When pressed, Mr. McClellan repeated this statement but did not clarify whether the time restriction had been dropped.

“That's what it's scheduled for, an hour, but look, he's going to answer all the questions that they want to raise,” Mr. McClellan said.

The spokesman said the president still planned to meet only with the panel's top two officials.

Whassamater, he's afraid of witnesses?

Another update: Actually, if this press gaggle is the source of the story quoted above, then it seems like the adminstration is not able to bring itself to say it will answer all the questions. Presumably, after about 68 minutes Bush will leave, and announce he answered an unprecedented number of questions. And the Republican chair won't contradict him.

Posted in 9/11 & Aftermath, National Security | Comments Off on Bush Flip-Flops (Again) on 9/11 Commission

Independent Commissions Come In Many Flavors

Bush to Seek Intelligence Failures Probe. AP reports that faced with pressure from his own party, Bush is going to try to head off a real independent commission with statutory oomph by setting up his own via executive order.

Things to look out for:

  • Terms of reference. Is the mandate stacked to pin blame on the CIA's conclusions, or do the terms of reference allow the commission to include what almost every report suggests was a major part of the problem—the rogue intelligence-massaging operation run out of the Vice President's office, with the connivance of the civilians in the Pentagon.
  • Powers. Will it have subpoena power? The power to get what it needs regardless of classification level?
  • Timing. Is the commission going to conveniently report after the election?
  • Membership. Is it bi-partisan? Is the chair or co-chairs really independent of the White House and the Republican establishment (e.g. NOT Henry Kissinger, but maybe someone like Richard Clarke)?
  • Staffing. Do Democrats get to have a say in hiring the staff or are they just window-dressing?
  • Track Record/Baggage. To the extent that there are politicians rather than technocrats, how many opposed the war?
  • Public Report Details. How much control does the White House get over the final report? Assuming there will be both public and classified versions, is there a mechanism by which the Commission can contest decisions to keep certain things classified?
  • Spin Preservation. Does the White House get to look at a draft report and append its reply? How much more warning does the White House get about the contents/final draft than Clinton got from Ken Starr?

I bet I know the answer to most of these questions already….

Posted in National Security | 1 Comment