Telling Stories

More on Panetta & the CIA

I mentioned here that I thought Leon Panetta for CIA Director was not a good idea given his relative lack of experience on intelligence matters.  I haven't changed my mind.  But some Leon supporters really have a funny way of framing their argument:

Former CIA officer and Time columnist Bob Baer sharply disagrees. He told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Tuesday, "She's wrong. We need an adult in charge."

"We need somebody with political influence in Washington, a player, an advocate for the CIA," Baer explained. "We had George Tenet all these years. He was essentially a staffer and went along with the torture, went along with the WMD -- the false reporting on that. We need a player, a former cabinet member who can deal with the president. He's a good pick."

Hmmm.  And all this time I thought the main qualification to be CIA Director was to know something about "intelligence."  Actually, to know a lot about intelligence.  But it gets better.

"He can go into the Oval Office, put his legs up on the desk, and say, "Mr. President, we can't do it this way,'" Baer said of Panetta. "A professional could never do that. And number two is he can stand up to Hillary Clinton ... and stand up to Bob Gates at the Pentagon."

So, what's the point supposed to be here?  That there's no "I" in "team" but there is an "I" in "CIA"?  If your job is to gather intelligence and inform the President and others of what you're finding so he can make an informed decision, why shouldn't you do it just that way - minus the legs on the desk - regardless of who you are?  What are they going to do?  Fire you?  If the last eight years have shown is that a firm, earnest approach as opposed to having a bunch of "yes men (or women)" around is the way to go.

But it also sheds some light on where Baer is coming from:

Panetta is experienced enough to understand that the CIA was the victim of political manipulation under the Bush Administration. It was the Bush White House that cherry-picked the intelligence on Iraq, not the CIA. Panetta will have the ear of the new President to walk him through all of this and to make the case that there is no point in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Emphasis added.  And there's the key flaw in his argument:  if the problem - allegedly - was that the CIA was manipulated by the Bush White House, how does hiring Leon Panetta address that problem?  If his point is that he will convince Obama that not all is wrong with the CIA, well, you don't need an intelligence novice to do that.  If the problem was the White House, the solution has to be the White House, namely, how Obama and others treat the CIA in terms of the Agency's area of expertise.

Rather than making an argument for Panetta, the Times article underscores precisely why Panetta is a bad pick.

Consider Me Underwhelmed

The news just broke out that Leon Panetta will be nominated to head the CIA and that Dennis Blair will be nominated to become Director of National Intelligence.

Now, on Panetta, the key line is right here:

Mr. Panetta has a reputation in Washington as a competent manager with strong background in budget issues, but has little hands-on intelligence experience. If confirmed by the Senate, he will take control of the agency most directly responsible for hunting senior Al Qaeda leaders around the globe, but one that has been buffeted since the Sept. 11 attacks by leadership changes and morale problems.

Emphasis added.  So, now we'll get as the head of the CIA a fabulous and capable . . . manager.

Great.

It doesn't get any better with Dennis Blair either:

Would bring to the job: Intimate experience with intelligence during a 34-year Navy career. A brainy retired four-star admiral whose jobs included commander of the United States Pacific Command, he is also an Asia expert who is considered adept at running sprawling organizations, seemingly a prerequisite for heading an office that is still grappling with the task of fusing 16 spy agencies.

Doesn't sound too bad, right?  Well, then there's this:

Carries as baggage: Had to step down as president of the Institute for Defense Analyses amid concerns that his positions on several corporate boards constituted a conflict of interest. The Pentagon’s inspector general later concluded that he had violated the institute’s conflict-of-interest standards by serving on the board of a military contractor working on the Air Force F-22 jet while the institute was evaluating the program for the Pentagon. The inspector general found, however, that Mr. Blair did not influence the organization’s analysis of the F-22 program. Another possible hindrance: The selection of a retired admiral to the national intelligence post could fuel worries about the militarization of intelligence.

And there's this little tidbit from about ten years ago or so:

US officials say that this past April, as militia terror escalated, a top US officer was dispatched to give a message to Jakarta. Adm. Dennis Blair, the US Commander in Chief of the Pacific, leader of all US military forces in the Pacific region, was sent to meet with General Wiranto, the Indonesian armed forces commander, on April 8. Blair's mission, as one senior US official told me, was to tell Wiranto that the time had come to shut the militia operation down. The gravity of the meeting was heightened by the fact that two days before, the militias had committed a horrific machete massacre at the Catholic church in Liquiça, Timor. YAYASAN HAK, a Timorese human rights group, estimated that many dozens of civilians were murdered. Some of the victims' flesh was reportedly stuck to the walls of the church and a pastor's house. But Admiral Blair, fully briefed on Liquiça, quickly made clear at the meeting with Wiranto that he was there to reassure the TNI chief. According to a classified cable on the meeting, circulating at Pacific Command headquarters in Hawaii, Blair, rather than telling Wiranto to shut the militias down, instead offered him a series of promises of new US assistance.

According to the cable, which was drafted by Col. Joseph Daves, US military attaché in Jakarta, Admiral Blair "told the armed forces chief that he looks forward to the time when [the army will] resume its proper role as a leader in the region. He invited General Wiranto to come to Hawaii as his guest in conjunction with the next round of bilateral defense discussions in the July-August '99 time frame. He said Pacific command is prepared to support a subject matter expert exchange for doctrinal development. He expects that approval will be granted to send a small team to provide technical assistance to police and...selected TNI personnel on crowd control measures."

Admiral Blair at no point told Wiranto to stop the militia operation, going the other way by inviting him to be his personal guest in Hawaii. Blair told Wiranto that the United States would initiate this new riot-control training for the Indonesian armed forces. This was quite significant, because it would be the first new US training program for the Indonesian military since 1992. Although State Department officials had been assured in writing that only police and no soldiers would be part of this training, Blair told Wiranto that, yes, soldiers could be included. So although Blair was sent in with the mission of telling Wiranto to shut the militias down, he did the opposite.

Indonesian officers I spoke to said Wiranto was delighted by the meeting. They took this as a green light to proceed with the militia operation. The only reference in the classified cable to the militias was the following: "Wiranto was emphatic: as long as East Timor is an integral part of the territory of Indonesia, Armed Forces have responsibility to maintain peace and stability in the region. Wiranto said the military will take steps to disarm FALINTIL pro-independence group concurrently with the WANRA militia force. Admiral Blair reminded Wiranto that fairly or unfairly the international community looks at East Timor as a barometer of progress for Indonesian reform. Most importantly, the process of change in East Timor could proceed peacefully, he said."

So that was it. No admonition. When Wiranto referred to disarming the WANRA force, he was talking about another militia force, different from the one that was staging attacks on Timorese civilians. When word got back to the State Department that Blair had said these things in a meeting, an "eyes only" cable was dispatched from the State Department to Ambassador Stapleton Roy at the embassy in Jakarta. The thrust of this cable was that what Blair had done was unacceptable and that it must be reversed. As a result of that cable from Washington to Roy, a corrective phone call was arranged between General Wiranto and Admiral Blair. That call took place on April 18.

I have the official report on that phone call, which was written by Blair's aide, Lieut. Col. Tom Sidwell. According to the account of the call and according to US military officials I spoke to, once again Blair failed to tell Wiranto to shut the militias down. In fact, Blair instead permitted Wiranto to make, in essence, a political speech saying the same thing he had said before. Here is one passage from the account: "General Wiranto denies that TNI and the police supported any one group during the incidents"--meaning during the military attacks. "General Wiranto will go to East Timor tomorrow to emphasize three things:...Timorese, especially the two disputing groups, to solve the problem peacefully with dialogue; 2) encourage the militia to disarm; 3) make the situation peaceful and solve the problem." At no point did Blair demand that the militias be shut down, and in fact this call was followed by escalating militia violence and increases in concrete, new US military assistance to Indonesia, including the sending in of a US Air Force trainer just weeks ago to train the Indonesian Air Force.

Emphasis added.  Panetta has no experience and Blair has ethical conflicts, can't/doesn't know how to follow directions, and somehow manages to convey the opposite of what he's supposed to be saying.

I'm not saying I'm worried about our intelligence, but somehow, I don't see the capture of OBL or the dismantling of Al Qaeda in the near future either.

I Guess McCain Must Change His Tune Now

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution on July 7:

McCain and his top foreign policy advisers, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman, have stressed the military approach to Iran and condemned attempts at dialogue advocated by Obama.

From the New York Times on July 15, 2008:

We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy – diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.

From Reuters wire services today:

With just six months left in office, the Bush administration has done an about-face in joining talks with Tehran over its nuclear program, a move analysts say is driven partly by a desire to avoid war with Iran.

When your President's administration is starting to pursue an approach closer to your opponent's, you know you just can't buy a break!!

You Know McCain is Desperate When . . .

. . . his advisers consider the political benefits of another terrorist attack in the U.S.

"The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an 'unfortunate event,' says [McCain adviser Charlie] Black. 'But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.' As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. 'Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,' says Black."

Of course, McCain disagreed with this take.

"I cannot imagine why he would say it," McCain said. "It’s not true. I’ve worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear. The Armed Services Committee, and pieces of legislation. Sponsoring with Joe Lieberman the 9/11 Commission so we could find out the causes and how to fix the challenges that we face to fix the security of our nation. I cannot imagine it. And, uh. So, I would … If he said that, and I do not know the context, I strenuously disagree."

But if he's so "surprised," why did he raise this issue in the actual interview?

[W]e were asking McCain to rise above the news and look ahead to the day seven months from now when, he hopes, he'll be sitting in the Oval Office. We wanted to know what single economic threat he perceives above all others. . . "Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against radical Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences."

Sorry Charlie - and Johnnie - but when your mantra is the boogey-man of so-called "Islamic extremist" and you suggest that another attack could be devastating, and when you're running a campaign based on so-called "National security," isn't Black's comments an inevitable conclusion?  He was just cocky or stupid to say it out loud.

That's why I cannot vote for McCain.  There's no way I'm voting out of fear anymore.

We Won't Get Fooled Again . . . Right?

President Bush, October 7, 2002:

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. . . . It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

President Bush on October 17, 2007:

I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

We know how the first one turned out.  And if we let ourselves get dragged towards another senseless war, this time with Iran, the results will make the mess we have with Iraq seem like a small error.  Particularly when you read stuff like this:

Despite President Bush's claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons that could trigger "World War III," experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program.

Even his own administration appears divided about the immediacy of the threat. While Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney speak of an Iranian weapons program as a fact, Bush's point man on Iran, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, has attempted to ratchet down the rhetoric. . .

If conclusive proof exists, however, Bush hasn't revealed it. Nor have four years of IAEA inspections.

It's like watching a remake.  Like the "new" Psycho or Halloween.  And they are alike in that this time will be worse than the first one.  But they are not alike in that here, the terror is real.

Tags: Foreign Policy, Iraq,  BUFU, War

The End is Near, Part II

One thing I missed here yesterday was pointed out today by the always-insightful Dr. Juan Cole in his blog:

King Abdullah followed up on these harsh criticisms of the US by cancelling his planned appearance at a White House dinner in April. The Saudi royal family is fit to be tied that Bush gave Iraq away to fundamentalist Shiite parties that have close ties to Iran.

Although the Saudi statement is remarkable for its brutal frankness and coldness toward the United States, its real significance is its slam of the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Abdullah has not only said that the US presence is an illegal occupation, he has said that the al-Maliki government is nothing more than Shiite sectarian hegemony. The Saudis are known for their behind the scenes diplomacy and their public discretion. King Abdullah is hopping mad, to talk this way. It augurs ill for US-Saudi relations. Abdullah is also angry that Bush is letting the Palestine issue fester and that he pushed for open Palestinian elections but then cut off the Hamas government once it was elected. Abdullah thinks Bush is pursuing irrational policies, the effect of which is to destabilize the Middle East.

Link in original.  Emphasis added.

Tags: War, Iraq, Foreign Policy, BUFU

The End is Near

Not that I have any kind of crystal ball to forecast the future here, but this is very telling.

RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah told a summit of Arab leaders that Sunni-Shi'ite violence in Iraq threatened the stability of the oil-producing Gulf region and he called for an end to the international blockade on the Palestinian people.

"In beloved Iraq, blood flows between brothers in the shadow of illegitimate foreign occupation and hateful sectarianism, threatening a civil war,'' he added.

Emphasis added.  At first I thought it was just bluster for the Arab summit.  But then I came across this.

President Bush enjoys hosting formal state dinners about as much as having a root canal. Or proposing tax increases. So his decision to schedule a mid-April White House gala for Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah signified the president's high regard for an Arab monarch who is also a Bush family friend.

Now the White House ponders what Abdullah's sudden and sparsely explained cancellation of the dinner signifies. Nothing good -- especially for Condoleezza Rice's most important Middle East initiatives -- is the clearest available answer.

Abdullah's bowing out of the April 17 event is, in fact, one more warning sign that the Bush administration's downward spiral at home is undermining its ability to achieve its policy objectives abroad. Friends as well as foes see the need, or the chance, to distance themselves from the politically besieged Bush.

Official versions discount that possibility, of course. Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security adviser, flew to Washington last week to explain to Bush that April 17 posed a scheduling problem. " 'It is not convenient' was the way it was put," says one official.

But administration sources report that Bush and his senior advisers were not convinced by Bandar's vagueness -- especially since it followed Saudi decisions to seek common ground with Iran and the radicals of Hezbollah and Hamas instead of confronting them as part of Rice's proposed "realignment" of the Middle East into moderates and extremists.

Translation: Bush and the Saudis are not running plays from the same playbook.  And if staying in Iraq does not help keep the Saudis happy, well, guess what the alternative is?

Tags: War, Iraq, Foreign Policy, BUFU

"Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave. . .

I was taking a quick break from what I do so I could clear my mind for a while and come back to it later with a different perspective (you wouldn't believe how often the "glorious" document I wrote at 4:00 PM one day somehow morphs overnight into a "piece of utter crap" by 8:30 AM the next morning) and I stopped here at Babalú and an entry about how Argentina hasn't paid back $3 billion it owes the United States before it defaulted on its credit obligations.  Babalú asks its readers to go here and sign a form letter to "hold Argentina accountable for its delinquent debt."

The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that Argentina doesn't owe the U.S. $3 billion.  In fact, ATFA doesn't even state that.

Argentine President Nestor Kirchner has refused to repay nearly $3 billion owed to Americans out of $20 billion owed worldwide, while his country enjoys record growth and more than $35 billion in national reserves.

A recent report by former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce Robert Shapiro found that President Kirchner's position has also contributed to approximately $8 billion in indirect losses for U.S. businesses and some $2.6 billion in costs for American taxpayers.

Emphasis added.  So, at best, it's $2.6 billion to American taxpayers.  And where do those $2.6 billion come from?  Well, this is what the study says:

The direct financial losses incurred by its lenders in the United States, Europe and Latin America come to almost $84 billion ($74 billion net of tax benefits). Moreover, the default and its singular restructuring plan also generated indirect costs for ordinary taxpayers and private shareholders that never held Argentine debt, and which exceed the direct costs to the lenders. For example, the direct costs incurred by U.S. investors holding the defaulted bonds come to $9 billion, including their capital losses, defaulted interest payments and foregone investment returns. Those direct costs also lowered the taxes they ultimately paid to the U.S. and state governments, creating an indirect cost for American taxpayers of some $2.6 billion. The default and restructuring plan also triggered a sharp and sustained devaluation in the Argentine peso, depressing the shareholder value of American companies with significant investments in Argentina by nearly $8 billion. These indirect costs total $10.4 billion, greater than the $8.7 face value of the bonds held by Americans at the time of the default or their $9 billion in direct losses.

Emphasis added.  Hmm.  So, basically, the "direct losses" were not suffered by the "American taxpayer" but rather by investors and investments companies.  And the "indirect losses" are not really "losses" but unrealized profits over which the investors would have paid taxes.  I guess that, for the U.S. government, that's not really a loss, you know?  Because the U.S. government doesn't really make its budget based on what it could have received in revenues, but rather on what it gets.  So this whole "American taxpayers are getting screwed" stuff is pure crap.

The other interesting thing is who ATFA focuses on in support of its arguments.

The ATFA also highlights the work of Harvard Professor of International Financial Systems Hal S. Scott. Professor Scott's Washington Legal Foundation-commissioned paper titled "Cry for the United States, Not Argentina," examines the U.S. government position on Argentina's default and restructuring.

Emphasis added.  And what's the Washington Legal Foundation?

The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) was established in 1977 to "fight activist lawyers, regulators, and intrusive government agencies at the federal and state levels, in the courts and regulatory agencies across the country. . ."  The foundation has received donations from the tobacco industry and has run quarter-page ads in the New York Times, opposing what it calls "junk science."

Emphasis added.  Notice the irony?  A group of lawyers advocating for a hands-off governmental approach at the state and federal levels is representing a group that wants "the government" to do something about the fact that people who invested in Argentina got screwed.  I guess it's OK to be an intrusive government agency as long as you're intruding into some other country's business.

Which goes to show a couple of things.  First, like Dr. Gregory House says, "everybody lies."  And when you try to frame botched investments in Argentina as a "betrayal" of the "American taxpayer" you're lying.  If it doesn't say FDIC covered, you risk losing your money.  That's the nature of investments.

Finally, I'm all for going after Argentina's obligations.  After we manage to collect every single penny the "American taxpayer" lost with WorldCom's $104 billion and Enron's $63 billion bankruptcies.

Tags: Foreign Policy, Economics

Hell Freezes Over

Well, the day I thought would never come has come.  I actually have something positive to say about Arbusto.  Not a lot, but bear with me.  That I even acknowledge it is unprecedented.  But, I don't want to be accused of being unfair.

Bush praised [Ford, GM, and Chrysler] for their pledge to double the number of flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on either gasoline or fuel blends made up largely of ethanol by 2010. The Big Three have also said they would be willing to ensure half of the vehicles they make in 2012 would be flex-fuel-capable, as long as there is sufficient infrastructure in place for nationwide delivery of E-85, a blend made up of 85% ethanol.

How can they keep calling them "The Big Three" is beyond me, particularly with Toyota and Honda controlling a larger share of the market out there.  But that's for another post.  What really caught my attention was this:

"If you want to reduce gasoline usage, like I believe we need to do so for national security reasons as well as for environmental concerns, the consumer has got to be in a position to make a rational choice," Bush said in a photo opportunity with the executives after the meeting. "And so I appreciate very much the fact that American automobile manufacturers recognize the reality of the world in which we live and are using new technologies to give the consumers different options."

We can have a completely different discussion regarding whether his words match his deeds (remember the tariff on foreign ethanol?) but that's for another blog.  If he means what he says - and that's a big "if" - he's absolutely right.  Finding alternatives to foreign oil is essential to both national security and for the environment.  And the article also gets it right on the fact that we need a larger infrastructure to deliver ethanol or gasohol to the retail market.

I still don't know how having larger volumes of cheap ethanol is a threat to these goals, but hey, hell just froze over.  Maybe pigs will fly next time?

Tags: Foreign Policy, Environment, Energy

Love Him or Hate Him . . .

He just evokes pretty extreme emotions, doesn't he?

Well, regardless of how you feel about him, it seems he was elected fair and square.  Or at least that's what the EU observers concluded.

Overall, the 2006 Presidential Elections were held in respect of national laws and international standards concerning electoral administration and the electronic voting system. The high turnout, and peaceful atmosphere in which they were held, together with the acceptance of results by all those involved, represent significant progress as compared to the 2005 Parliamentary Elections. Furthermore, these are powerful arguments in favour of continuing to advance the dialog with political parties and civil society organisations to increase the level of trust for future election processes.

For those of you who would rather see him dead, here's a silver lining:

The European Union Election Observation Mission drafted this report, which presents the conclusions of the Mission that observed the Venezuelan Presidential Elections in 2006. These conclusions have not been adopted or approved in any manner whatsoever by the Commission and must therefore not be considered as a declaration of the Commission. The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report nor does it accept any responsibility that could arise from their use.

You draw your own conclusions.  As far as I'm concerned, this country elected Bush twice.  We lost our moral standing to complain about the choices other people make for their own countries.

Tags: Foreign Policy, Politics