Blogs

After reading through the WMD Commission's recent report on intelligence failures in Iraq, Larry Johnson of the Counterterrorism Blog asks a good question: Why haven't more administration officials been held accountable for their screw-ups?

It is astonishing at this juncture that there has not been a major shake up at the [National Intelligence Council]. In fact, those responsible for the sections with the most errors are still on the job and, in one instance, given more authority. The principal drafters of the October 2002 NIE were Robert Walpole, National Intelligence Officer for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Proliferation; Lawrence K. Gershwin, the National Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology; retired Army Maj. Gen. John R. Landry, National Intelligence Officer for Conventional Military Issues, and Paul R. Pillar, NIO for the Near East and South Asia. Walpole oversaw the entire effort but had specific responsibility for nuclear issues. Gershwin handled issues related to biological weapons, Gordon focused on chemical weapons, and Pillar dealt with the issues pertaining to international terrorism.

Of the four, the one who got it right in the estimate was Paul Pillar. Yet, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have continued to insist that Pillar's judgments on terrorism were wrong.

Ah yes, the old "promote the folks who screwed up" trick. How familiar this is all becoming.

One other note: The commission's report lay blame almost entirely at the CIA's feet; quite predictably, given that the commission wasn't authorized to look at how the Bush administration handled those intelligence reports. Now on the one hand, yes, the CIA screwed up and overestimated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. But on the other hand, at the time the CIA had been far more reluctant to push this line than many in the administration, as neoconservatives like Jim Hoagland were whining back in October 2002. Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith set up their own intelligence shop, the Office of Special Plans, because they thought the CIA was downplaying the Iraqi threat. As Josh Marshall wrote last fall: "Sometimes the intel folks were wrong… but when that was so, the appointees were always more wrong."

Nevertheless, if the administration is going to foist the blame on intelligence officials, it would be nice if they actually held those intelligence officials responsible.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Nathan Newman has an interesting take on the GOP effort to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate. Noting that some conservative groups like the NRA are actually opposed to Bill Frist's "nuclear option," Nathan argues that in the long run, the filibuster is far, far more useful to conservatives than liberals. That seems about right. Many progressive policies—expanding health care, progressive tax reform, environmental protections—are, almost by definition, fairly expansive, and can be easily stopped up in Congress. The current conservative agenda, by contrast, is essentially a dismantling project, and can be done more or less incrementally: erode labor laws here, strike down a few abortion provisions there, slash revenue and create a deficit, chip away at health care spending, etc. etc. It's pretty clear that Republicans have a structural advantage in the sluggish and veto-heavy Senate. (Indeed, Social Security privatization proves the exception to the rule.)

It's no coincidence that the only two big eras of progressive gains—the New Deal and the Great Society—came when Democrats had juggernaut-sized and mostly filibuster-proof majorities in Congress. It's simply impossible to pass drastic reform otherwise, as Bill Clinton discovered in 1994 with his attempt at health care reform, which was indirectly shot down by a Senate filibuster. Meanwhile, as Nathan points out, liberals lose longer-term ideological battle by relying too heavily on obstructionism: "Blocking conservative action through filibusters has short-term gains, but it feeds the long-term cynicism of voters that government cannot accomplish anything."

Of course, the big catch here is that if Frist does succeed in going nuclear, the GOP will be able to stack the judiciary with a new generation of radical activist judges, most of whom will spend their time rolling back the New Deal economic consensus and returning us to the glory days of Warren G. Harding and Herbert Hoover. That would be a very high price indeed for the loss of the filibuster.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists got his hands on a new National Security Council organizational chart (pdf), which establishes "five deputy National Security Advisers to focus on the president's priorities" for the second term. Those priorities:

1. Winning the war on terror
   
2. Succeeding in Iraq and Afghanistan
   
3. Advancing the President's freedom agenda, particularly in the Middle East
   
4. Advancing the President's prosperity agenda; and
   
5. Explaining the President's strategy at home and abroad.

Nothing too shocking, I suppose—though I'd like to know what this "prosperity agenda" is, exactly—but there seems to be at least one notable and rather scary omission. Can't find it? Just hark back to the first presidential debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry:

LEHRER: If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States?

KERRY: Nuclear proliferation...

BUSH: ...first of all, I agree with my opponent that the biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network.

Right. So, um, any chance we might get a deputy National Security Adviser to work on nuclear proliferation?

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Here's a bad idea: get a group of thrill-seeking armed volunteers to scour the Arizona-Mexico border for illegal immigrants. That's the premise behind the "Minuteman Project." You have to admit, they have a killer slogan: "Americans doing the jobs Congress won't do." But for some reason the concept doesn't seem to be sitting well with too many people.

Mexican President Vicente Fox as well as President Bush have already condemned the vigilantes, the ACLU has volunteers out monitoring the project, and the press is on the watch for a showdown. The New York Times writes of one Minuteman volunteer: "People like Mr. McCarty, the retired marine, say they are here for the distraction, and the thrill. 'I'm restless,' Mr. McCarty said, leaning against an adobe fence in the midday sun. 'I needed something to do before I drove my wife crazy.'"

The situation might seem funny until one considers the potential for ugliness. The founder of the Minuteman Project insists that the volunteers will simply "inform" border patrol officials if they find an illegal immigrant, and not handle the immigrants themselves. However, the fact that many of the volunteers will be carrying concealed firearms is cause for alarm. Human rights groups have also expressed concern that some white supremacist groups have endorsed the Minuteman Project. Even more troubling is the fact that the volunteers have come from all across the country and may be unfamiliar with the Arizona border. The areas they plan to patrol have large Hispanic populations, leading some to worry that the wrong people will be targeted as "illegals."

Meanwhile, the "minutemen" may get a visit from members of the violent Central American-based gang, Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS-13. One of the organizers of the Minuteman Project has been told that California and Texas leaders of MS-13 "have issued orders to teach 'a lesson' to the Minutemen volunteers." According to the organizer, James Gilchrist, he's "not worried because half of our recruits are retired trained combat soldiers and those guys are just a bunch of punks."

• Print
• Email
• Tweet