Top Intel Republicans are leaking classified information! Posted by Moira Whelan

First of all, lets clarify. It is not okay. Ever.

Peter Hoekstra in the New York Post told the world that the US intel budget cut human intelligence. Hat tip: Raw Story. Justin Rood develops the story a bit.

Rood also points out that:

   On July 31, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio said: "There's been a ruling, over     the last four or five months, that prohibits the ability of our intelligence services and our counterintelligence people from listening in to two terrorists in other parts of the world where the communication could come through the United States."

    Government officials have since confirmed to reporters that Boehner was discussing classified information, although the GOP leader denies it.

In his defense, Boehner only told one person: Neil Cavuto. He is after all, on their team. The problem was the live television camera that was rolling at the time.

So yes, we are all outraged. Lets take a step back, however, and realize that these are two top Republicans in the House capable of learning the super-double top secret information. (Some is so classified, only the leaders and the intel chairs learn about it). They are then choosing to talk about these issues in a political setting and to push political agendas.

So the question of the day...which is more detrimental to our intelligence...the actual leaking of the information so our enemies can use it, or the use of the information by the leaker to manipulate it for a particular political agenda?

As a bonus (and a shout out to Gonzo and the entire White House staff), what about NOT providing classified information when it is requested?

"Wreckless" simply isn't strong enough to describe this.

Another 9/11 Posted by Shadi Hamid

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but is Stu Bykofsky really hoping for another terrorist attack on U.S. soil? Unlike most things, this is actually, all at once, shocking, genuinely offensive, and internally incoherent. And I thought the Corner was bad. Well, I won't say much more, since you already probably saw it on Drudge. In any case, fast forward to the end of Stu Byofsky's piece, and you get to the worst part, which most people probably won't have the patience to get to:

America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater. What would sew us back together? Another 9/11 attack.The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda. Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again? If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail. The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever. The first 9/11 proved that.

Places Not to Go on Your Iraq Tour Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

I wonder if Ken Pollack and Mike O'hanlon went here.

"We're fighting in multiple directions," said Col. Michael Garrett... "We are in the middle of it.  I'm not fighting one sect or the other. I'm fighting both. And not only am I fighting both, but at certain points I have to put my forces in between the Sunni and Shi’a groups to protect the populace."

Hillary's Hypocrisy Posted by Michael Cohen

On the heels of my last post - this is truly classic. Here's what Hillary had to say about Obama's recent comment regarding nukes in Pakistan:

I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.

Yet, here's what she said in April 2006 in regard to a question about using nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from developing its own nuke program:

I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table.

Clear and unambiguous hypocrisy you might think, but not so says HRC spokesperson, Phil Singer:

Singer said the circumstances for her remarks last year were different than the situation Obama faced.

She was asked to respond to specific reports that the Bush-Cheney administration was actively considering nuclear strikes on Iran even as it refused to engage diplomatically . . .She wasn't talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to respond to that report and call it the wrong policy.

Hmm. That sure sounds like a distinction without a difference. But actually, Singer is right there is a difference . . . using nukes to stop Iran from developing a bomb is a but nutty, but at least defensible; using a nuclear bomb to kill Osama Bin Laden . . . not so much.

Taking Exception . . . Posted by Michael Cohen

I generally think Kevin Drum is one of the best bloggers out there, but I have to take major exception with a posting he offered today. Read this passage from Obama advisor, Samantha Power, about her candidate and nukes:

For years, Washington's conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway. When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use - inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.

This seems pretty straightforward to me, but here's Kevin's take:

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the diplomatic convention that says it's best for presidents (and wannabes) to stay quietly ambiguous about nuclear doctrine, the point scoring here is breathtaking. None of Obama's opponents — absolutely none of them — made "gratuitous threats" about using nuclear weapons against Pakistan.

Not to be overly nitpicky, but Kevin really misses the strawman on this one - it's not Republicans or even fellow Democrats that Ms. Power is attacking, it's conventional wisdom! It's not that other candidates are making gratuitous statements, it's that there is a generally accepted position by VSPs (Very Serious People) on how politicians should talk about nuclear weapons - and Obama has seemingly violated that principle.

Don't believe me; here's what Hillary had to say:

Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.

And Chris Dodd:

Over the past several days, Senator Obama's assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options

All this reaction from a statement, that basically said when it comes to Afghanistan and Pakistan "nukes are off the table." I'm at a loss to even understand how this is controversial. The idea of using nukes in Pakistan with the threat of civilian deaths is well . . . insane. Is there any other word for it? Maybe, just maybe, you could make the argument for nukes in Tora Bora when OBL was cornered (and it would be a huge stretch) but in Pakistan? Considering our toxic image in the Muslim world, I would generally say it's a good thing for an American presidential candidate to make a statement like that. Of course, if you do think we should be nuking Muslims, you have a candidate to choose from:

On foreign policy, there is an annoying tendency for presidential candidates to stick to an accepted rhetorical nomenclature (my favorite being the "war on terror" which thankfully Obama and Edwards have stopped using). When Bush (rightly) said in 2004 that we may not win the war on terror the Kerry campaign jumped all over him (wrongly). When Kerry said the war on terror needed to be reduced to a law enforcement issue (rightly) he got crucified (wrongly). But neither of what these candidates said was wrong - they were just being realistic about a serious and complex foreign policy challenge, which is never an easy thing to do on the campaign trail. I think we could use a bit more of this type of honesty about Iraq and terrorism in our political debates.

While I understand the need for ambiguousness on nuclear doctrine during the Cold War is it really necessary today to be "ambiguous" about using nukes to attack a terrorist group living in the hinterlands of Pakistan?

Kevin argues "once you start answering hypotheticals, it's hard to stop. And when you do stop, people are going to draw conclusions about where you've apparently drawn the line." I don't know what everyone else things, thinks but to me - this seems like a pretty good place to draw a line. Of course, if the situation arises where President Obama is forced to use nuclear weapons . . . well I think most Americans will forgive him for breaking his campaign promise.

Summer Reading List Posted by Heather Hurlburt

As I head off into the Great Lakes woods for a week, I've filled my bookbag far too full, and thought I'd share -- and maybe learn what others are reading as well.

Capital S "Serious:"  The Blair Years: The Alastair Campbell Diaries  Only expurgated extracts, apparently, of the diaries kept by Tony Blair's long-time press secretary; and yet, according to the Washington Post reviewer, " this is beyond question the most important and revelatory book so far written about the inner workings of Blair's government. "  Do diaries really count as "serious?"  Maybe not, but what serious points the book loses in format it makes up in sheer length.

Why am I reading it?  Leftover Anglophilia, curiosity, and, as the Post reviewer put it:

As with so much of Blair's career, the big question raised by this book is whether Blair's approach to politics was a paradigm for others to follow or an aberration for others to avoid.

I think I've found the perfect book to read in tandem with it, but to discover that, you'll have to click through.

Musharraf, the Shah and Total Paralysis in Washington Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

With the entire mess going on in Pakistan I can’t help but get a sense that the American reaction to what is going on there today is very similar to what we did with Iran in 1979. 

In the 1970s the U.S. armed Iran to the teeth, and counted on it to keep the peace in the Persian Gulf, guarantee shipping lanes for oil and balance the Soviets in the region.  All of our eggs were in that basket and when the Shah started to teeter Washington went into full policy paralysis.  Some in the Carter Administration, most notably Zbig Brzezinski, argued that the consequences of the Shah’s fall were so detrimental to American interests that we had to buck him up and encourage him to take firm steps to quell the rebellion.  Meanwhile, the State Department argued for engaging the Iranian opposition so that we would be well positioned if the Shah fell.  Carter did neither.  Supporting a crackdown was too morally reprehensible, but talking to the opposition was seen as giving up on the Shah and making him look even weaker.  In the end, the U.S. did nothing:  slowly watching the situation deteriorate; giving the Shah its official support; doing little to actually keep him in power; and doing even less to prepare for the possibility that his government would collapse.  Worst of both worlds.

The situation today in Pakistan is eerily similar.  The Administration is completely dependent on the Musharraf government to contain extremism in Pakistan and act as a central ally in the “war on terror.”  If the government were to fall you could see massive instability in a nuclear armed state and the possible rise of an Islamist government.  Nobody wants to advocate for a violent crackdown, which may not even be possible and would certainly be awful, but nobody has any idea what to do if the Musharraf government were to fall.

As a result the current policy consensus seems to be “don’t rock the boat and hope for the best.”  So for example, Barack Obama makes a very rational statement that if the opportunity presents itself we should carefully take out senior Al Qaeda operatives in the tribal areas of Northwest Pakistan if the opportunity presents itself.  Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd respond that somehow his statements are destabilizing the Pakistani government.  Their reaction is just another indicator of the total paralysis on this issue.  Outside of not rocking a boat that might be about to capsize anyway, does anyone have any idea what we are supposed to do?

Campaign Songs from Coldplay Posted by Shadi Hamid

I was driving home last night, and my IPod was mercifully set on shuffle, making my life even more unpredictable than it already is. And then Coldplay's "Everything's Not Lost" came on. I sat back, relaxed my grip on the steering wheel, reclined my seat (don't worry, just a little bit), and listened. It's a beautiful, moving song, providing yet more evidence that Coldplay was better circa-Parachutes, before the bloated mess that was X&Y, one of the more dissapointing albums in recent memory.

Anyway, as I was listening, the song made me think about hope and the need for hope in the face the Bush administration's heedless assault on our reputation, our crediblity, and, more importantly, our constitution. It made me think about 2008. And how this is both a depressing time for America, but also one full of promise. After all, everything's not lost, and when one of our three great front-runners (sorry Richardson) becomes president, we will begin the work of rebuilding, and starting anew. The Bush administration has set the bar so low, that even a moderately satisfactory performance from a Democratic president will seem like a godsend. Even better, if the next president is actually good, he or she will have the opportunity to change course in dramatic fashion, and redefine America's role in the world, and our role in America. So, no, everything's not lost.

Oh, and by the way, you remember the first time you heard "Yellow"? Yea, that was when Clinton was still president.

Joke’s on Us: the National Emergency Response “Framework” Posted by Moira Whelan

It would be laughable, if not for the fact that the Bush Administration has pulled another stunt that will cause people to die. This time, it's the new National Emergency Response "Framework" that had too many acronyms for Fran Townsend, and therefore needed to be rewritten.

First of all, it was written in secret. No joke. The plan for all of us to be safe...is a secret. It's out now, and I'd share it with you, but alas, it's been reported on, but it's still the old one up on the DHS website. Shocker.

So we skip to the punchline:
--The debate about whether or not the New Orleans levees were  “breached” or “over-topped”? ---that would still happen. This DC discussion delayed response for days.
--The lack of communication about the humanitarian crisis at the Convention Center? It  actually could be worse than before.

Why? Because DHS didn’t talk to any of the people who would likely be involved a disaster, namely the state and local officials, to write the new plan.

Yeah. I can’t say I’m shocked to hear that either, but I am absolutely disgusted.

From the director of NEMA, Albert Ashwood, the Oklahoma chief of Emergency Management before Congress last week:

“Consider the National Response Plan, excuse me, the now called National Response Framework.. You will be told this is a national document, developed over many hours of collaboration between all levels of government and all disciplines. Let me be the first to say you should have a shovel nearby when you hear this.  I’ve queried my colleagues at both the state and local level and realize that no one knows what information this document contains and we won’t until we read it like everyone else in this room.”

The notion that they’ve changed the National Response “Plan” to a “Framework.” is my favorite part. If there’s no plan to fail to implement or follow, one has not failed. A “framework” gives you wiggle room to always claim it’s a work in progress, that you aren’t required to do something, etc. It’s also nice because it’s still a weapon. You can accuse states of not following the “framework” that they never saw. Perfect.

By coming up with this, and wiggling out of even TALKING to people, let alone accountability, the Bush Administration has basically told us all we’re on our own in a disaster.

Joke's on us.

The "Eternal Hatreds" of the Arabs Posted by Shadi Hamid

I don’t like reading Camille Paglia, and I was reminded why this morning. Exhibit one:

The 2008 presidential sweepstakes have hit the doldrums as the pack of eager candidates of both parties dutifully make their rounds and tread water like tar. Whoever survives this corrida-by-boredom will presumably have the brass cojones to run the government. By what national curse must we suffer another year of this?

I don’t even know where to begin. It’s as if someone was trying to do an imitation of Chris Hitchens with only two shots of vodka and failed miserably. “Tread water like tar.” I have never heard this before (and apparently no one else on the planet has either. If you search for the phrase on google, you'll find that it has never actually been used before). And what the heck is “corrida-by-boredom”? The only “national curse” we must suffer another year of is the most egregiously bad administration in modern American history. Paglia might be bored, but most democrats are actually quite excited. We have three excellent candidates in the top tier to choose from, each of whom would make a great president. Even no-shots like Biden and Richardson are pretty damn good. So, those of us who are Democrats – and proud ones – are enjoying this campaign season, and are looking forward to seeing how the candidates handle difficult issues as the race heats up.

However, that is all nothing compared to this graf:

Meanwhile, the war drags on in Iraq, where the worthless Baghdad government has fled the blistering summer heat while American soldiers, laden with their battle gear, suffer and die. When will this fruitless exercise in nation building end? No one will ever resolve the eternal hatreds and ethnic rivalries of the Middle East, which have been churning and festering for 5,000 years. The extremist Muslim drama is only half the story.

What exactly is an “eternal hatred”? What is she referring to? These “hatreds” have been “churning” for 5000 years. Really? I would love to know what incident could have possibly set off those pesky Arabs 5000 years ago. What event is Paglia thinking of? In the following sentence, she hints at an answer (although the wrong one), making a vague reference to the “extremist Muslim drama.” Islam was founded 1400 years ago, so there seems to be a mathematics issue here.

Speaking of situations that could get out of control Posted by Moira Whelan

Now without taking sides in the debate as to whether or not Russia has something against Georgian corn and potatoes and therefore may or may not have decided to bomb some poor farmer’s field, this does not look good.

A walk down memory lane provided by Reuters (abridged here):

-- Georgia's uneasy post-Soviet relations become openly hostile after the 2003 "Rose Revolution" which propels President Mikhail Saakashvili to power. Saakashvili … pursues close relations with the United States.

-- Moscow and Tbilisi bicker over Georgia's restive breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

--Moscow considers the United States is encroaching on its traditional influence in Georgia and the Caucasus.

--Georgia is dependent on gas from Russia but this dependence will decline in years to come when a BP-led pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey opens.

-- Russia has banned imports of Georgian wine, fruit and even mineral waters such as Borjomi, one of Georgia's biggest revenue earners.

-- Transport and trade links were cut after Georgia paraded Russian military officers on TV who it said were spies, in September 2006. Although some communications since resumed, there are still no direct flights between the capitals.

Let’s put this in the current context of US relations. I don't think any Black Sea specialist would dispute that the region is in some ways a powder keg, but would the United States really be in a position to do anything about it? SHOULD the United States be trying to do something about it. Afterall, the United States loves democracy and therefore has some affinity from the break-away from our former nemesis, Georgia. There are major challenges with Russia’s oil dominance. The United States has a major concern about the pipeline that is going through Georgia, which is certainly complicated by the ethnic challenges that exist in Odessa and Abkhazia, not to mention the long-standing tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan. But now, let’s be realistic: what kind of brokerage power would the United States have to assist in this situation? What could be realistically brought to the table?

I’m sure Black Sea watchers will correct me, but it appears that this is a situation in which the United States would take tremendous interest, yet unlike the past, are there real opportunities that exist to make a difference that come with being the world's superpower, or will Europe’s influence surpass ours, and is this a sign of the times or just a regional reality?
   

The GOP and Iraq Posted by Michael Cohen

In my effort to get past my earlier self-masochism, I slept in on Sunday morning and skipped the GOP debate from Iowa. From what I can tell I didn't miss too much! However, I've been struck by one key aspect of the post-debate press coverage - with the sole exception of Ron Paul, no Republican candidate has dared issue a position on Iraq that runs counter to the President.

Am I the only person who finds this a bit mindboggling? I understand that the GOP base is generally supportive of the war, but you know one of these guys is going to have to run in a general election at some point. And when you have 70% of the country who disapproves of the way Bush is managing the war well you would think that one of the candidates would make some effort to put light between themselves and Bush, if even tepidly.

Of course, it's not just on Iraq. Not one of the candidates in the debate on Sunday even came out in support of the SCHIP bill on children's health insurance that Bush is threatening to veto. That seems like a no-brainer from a political standpoint, particularly since Iowa Senator Grassley is the guy pushing the bill. But again, the GOP walks with the President. The only issue on which GOPers are attacking the President is on immigration - and only because of the xenophobic base of the Party.

What a sad moment for a once great political party. It used to be that Republicans actually had serious debates on the presidential campaign. In 1912, you had progressives vs. conservatives; in the 30s and 40, it was the internationalists vs, the isolationists, culminating in the Taft/Eisenhower battle in 1952. In 1964 and 76 and even 92 it was the Eastern Establishment vs. the conservatives. Now, it's just a question of who can pander more aggressively to the social conservatives. The similarity of views among the major GOP candidates is a sad statement on the extraordinary power that this narrow segment of the American populace has on the Republican Party. We've become so used to GOP uniformity that it doesn't even surprise us any more or spark real attention.

Now I know some will argue that the pro-choice Guiliani represents a moderate option for Republicans, but aside from abortion try finding one specific policy position, particularly related to Iraq and the "war on terror," where he disagrees with the President. I couldn't do it; maybe you can, here's his website:

The paucity of views in the GOP is even more stark when you look at the Democratic side of the equation. There you have a really healthy debate with a number of the candidates making innovative policy proposals. You have Biden's confederation strategy; if you support immediate withdrawal, Richardson is your man; if you want to refocus on Al Qaeda and take the war to Pakistan if need be, Obama has a good speech you should read; and if you want to start bringing the troops home, but don't necessarily want to set a specific withdrawal date than Hillary Clinton is your candidate.

That's what should be happening on the campaign trail. Even though the Democratic base is increasingly liberal, it's hard to argue that primary voters are not being presented with some real options for the direction of the party.

On the other hand, if you're a Republican who thinks America needs to begin drawing down troops from Iraq; if you think the war on terror is being waged poorly; if you think the government has an ever so slight responsibility to provide health care to its citizens, you're pretty much up a creek.

That's only bad for Republicans, it's bad for the country.

Free Friedman Posted by Shadi Hamid

Thank god - the end of TimeSelect has come. It's about time. The NY Times decision to lock Friedman and Krugman behind a subscription wall struck me, at the time, as a rather bizarre decision. The Times columnists, for better and worse, supplied a good chunk of the morning-coffee water-cooler talk which provided another justification for actually waking up. Then the announcement came, and almost no one could understand how it made any sense - certainly not for the columnists themselves whose readership would be cut drastically, particularly abroad. Thankfully, bad decisions can be undone. I am now re-incorporating Friedman as part of my normal reading schedule. I wonder what he's been writing about lately.

To Engage or Not to Engage? Posted by Shadi Hamid

So, there’s been a little back-and-forth between me and Stanley Kurtz on the question of what to do about political Islam. He wrote a two-part series “Doc Jihad,” and “Doc Jihad, Part II,” where he, among other things, criticized the recent policy report I wrote for PPI (full version, summary), where I advocate engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood and other nonviolent Islamist groups. Kurtz did a follow-up post last week, where he again criticizes me for wanting “the United States to cozy up to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Unfortunately, he at no point explains why engaging with the Brotherhood and other mainstream Islamist parties is a bad idea. I lay the case for engagement not only in the PPI report, but also in a similarly long piece for Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. Taken together, these two articles attempt to address many of the mistaken assumptions about political Islam and explain how engagement can actually help us deflate extremism and win the war on terrorism. In the Democracy piece, in particular, I move from narrative to nuts-and-bolts and lay out the five components of a pro-engagement policy. I would be interested to see  Kurtz’s critique of these policy recommendations. Instead of simply saying that dealing with the MB is a bad idea, I wish he would tell me why it’s a bad idea.

Would Kurtz like us to continue supporting the brutal, repressive Mubarak regime which has imprisoned and tortured thousands of opposition activists, Islamist and secularist alike? Ayman Nour, as close to a pro-Western liberal as you’ll find in the Middle East, is currently languishing in jail, and the Bush administration has failed to do or say anything of note. Now, I imagine that Kurtz’s argument will be that even if the Egyptian regime is bad, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the MB is good. And, in this, he is correct.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not an ideal ally. They are far from liberal, something which I’ve noted in nearly every piece I’ve written on this topic. (It’s a different issue, but I don’t think the Republican party is liberal either, as they refuse to ban torture, have little respect for separation of powers, have stacked our bureaucracy with people who put party over country, and believe in something called the “unitary executive” which is more frightening than anything I’ve seen the MB put out in their election programs).

But while mainstream Islamists aren't exactly liberals, they have come a long away in recent years, and, yes, they have moderated in both rhetoric and practice. Kurtz cites one incident in the early 1990s, which he uses to make the broader claim that the MB is a dangerous group intent on forcefully imposing its will on Egyptians. While I am not familiar with this particular incident – that the MB when in control of the Doctors Syndicate “forced union members to sign a pledge to be pious Muslims” – I am fairly certain that no comparable incident has occurred in recent years. In any case, it was in the mid-1990s, and not really until then, that the Brotherhood began to evolve toward a more explicit commitment to the foundational components of democracy. The MB in 1991 is different than the MB in 2007.

Brangelina vs. Bernard Posted by Shadi Hamid

At the CVS newstand the other day, I found myself captivated by this week's cover of In Touch magazine. In big letters, I saw the words "What Went Wrong?" (about Brad and Angelina's impending breakup) the same title, perhaps not coincidentally, of Bernard Lewis's 2001 book What Went Wrong?

Who is to blame?

More interestingly, perhaps, we find this tidbit about Brangelina's most recent tiff, the tiff that might set off a national tragedy of unknown proportions. And the cause? Probably George W. Bush, or maybe those pesky Democrats who allowed an egregious wiretap bill to pass in the House? Tell us more, please:

The couple allegedly got into a heated political debate while on holiday in France which culminated in Angelina hurling a glass of wine over her lover. A source said: "They got into a huge fight about politics. Angie was cursing at him and ended up throwing a glass of wine in his face."