Author: Jonathan Schwarz

Sure, America’s intelligence agencies concluded last year December that Iran no longer has a nuclear weapons program. But what do they know? Surely the Democratic Party is far more informed about the situation than them, which is why the Democrats refer to Iran’s “nuclear weapons program” in their just-finalized 2008 platform:

Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons

The world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. That starts with tougher sanctions and aggressive, principled, and direct high-level diplomacy, without preconditions. We will pursue this strengthened diplomacy alongside our European allies, and with no illusions about the Iranian regime. We will present Iran with a clear choice: if you abandon your nuclear weapons program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, you will receive meaningful incentives; so long as you refuse, the United States and the international community will further ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions inside and outside the U.N. Security Council, and sustained action to isolate the Iranian regime. The Iranian people and the international community must know that it is Iran, not the United States, choosing isolation over cooperation. By going the extra diplomatic mile, while keeping all options on the table, we make it more likely the rest of the world will stand with us to increase pressure on Iran, if diplomacy is failing.

Note also that the Democrats are going to be “keeping all options on the table.” I’ve always wondered whether this phrase includes the possibility of America and Israel giving up all their nuclear weapons. I mean, that’s an option—surely if all options on the table, that means our complete nuclear disarmament is there on the table with all the rest of them.

YUP: According to Steve Clemons, the Democratic platform was mostly written by Obama’s Senate office policy director Karen Kornbluh.

(Thanks to Don Bacon for pointing this out. Also, this would be a good time for you to check out Dennis Perrin’s Savage Mules: The Democrats and Endless War.)

Matt Stoller makes some extremely important points about how Al Gore’s DC-centric, centrist instincts cause him to continue to suck at creating any progress on global warming.

Meanwhile, it looks like the summer melt in the arctic may meet or exceed last year’s, putting us on path to an ice-free summer arctic within five years. Not so long ago, it was believed this wouldn’t happen until 2070.

With Ron Suskind’s revelation about the CIA apparently forging a December, 2003 letter from Iraqi intelligence’s Tahir Jalil Habbush, Emptywheel wonders: were there any other forged Habbush letters? The answer appears to be yes.

Interestingly, there’s some suggestive material about this in the transcript Suskind released of one of his interviews with CIA Near East Division chief Rob Richer:

RICHER: …[Y]ou know, we got so much garbage that first couple—that year.

SUSKIND: Were there other things like this where we were creating product?

RICHER: You know, I don’t remember that.

He doesn’t remember? That doesn’t sound too convincing. But maybe he wouldn’t, if forging letters wasn’t a notable event at the CIA:

RICHER: Let me tell you what I know, just so before you color any of it. Is that when you first asked me about it I remember just really telling you that it was a non-event, and if you were to ask me today I would tell you it was a non-event. It came down from the seventh floor. It was part of–as I remember it, it wasn’t so much to influence America–that’s illegal–but it was kinda like a covert, a way to influence Iraqis…

To characterize it right, I would say, right: it came to us, George had a raised eyebrow, and basically we passed it on–it was to–and passed this on into the organization. You know, it was: ‘Okay, we gotta do this, but make it go away.’To be honest with you, I don’t want to make it sound–I for sure don’t want to portray this as George jumping: ‘Okay, this has gotta happen.’ As I remember it–and, again, it’s still vague, so I’ll be very straight with you on this…it wasn’t that important.

AND: This is a good example of why we should thank Jeebus every day for the internet. Without it, how would anyone be able to go back and research the other Habbush letters? And even if someone did, how would they ever tell anyone else about it?

Dean Baker: is there anything he doesn’t know?

Here’s email Baker sent out on August 10, 2006, talking about the UK Airline Bomber Plot:

So, do you think the British airplane plot is the response to Lieberman’s defeat? It certainly is conveniently timed, and we know that we are dealing with people who would have no qualms whatsoever about pulling a stunt like this. Having it down in Britain also is helpful to bush, since it removes his crew from the direct line of fire, while still providing the same benefits in terms of hyping terrorist paranoia. Needless to say, lapdog Tony would gladly do as told, if the orders were given.

I was skeptical of this perspective at the time. Yet it was almost exactly correct. Here’s Ron Suskind yesterday on Fresh Air describing what happened:

NPR: I want to talk just a little about this fascinating episode you describe in the summer of 2006, when President Bush is very anxious about some intelligence briefings that he is getting from the British. What are they telling him?

SUSKIND: In late July of 2006, the British are moving forward on a mission they’ve been–an investigation they’ve been at for a year at that point, where they’ve got a group of “plotters,” so-called, in the London area that they’ve been tracking…Bush gets this briefing at the end of July of 2006, and he’s very agitated. When Blair comes at the end of the month, they talk about it and he says, “Look, I want this thing, this trap snapped shut immediately.” Blair’s like, “Well, look, be patient here. What we do in Britain”–Blair describes, and this is something well known to Bush–“is we try to be more patient so they move a bit forward. These guys are not going to breathe without us knowing it. We’ve got them all mapped out so that we can get actual hard evidence, and then prosecute them in public courts of law and get real prosecutions and long prison terms”…

Well, Bush doesn’t get the answer he wants, which is “snap the trap shut.” And the reason he wants that is because he’s getting all sorts of pressure from Republicans in Congress that his ratings are down. These are the worst ratings for a sitting president at this point in his second term, and they’re just wild-eyed about the coming midterm elections. Well, Bush expresses his dissatisfaction to Cheney as to the Blair meeting, and Cheney moves forward.

NPR: So you got the British saying, “Let’s carefully build our case. Let’s get more intelligence.” Bush wants an arrest and a political win. What does he do?

SUSKIND: Absolutely. What happens is that then, oh, a few days later, the CIA operations chief–which is really a senior guy. He’s up there in the one, two, three spots at CIA, guy named Jose Rodriguez ends up slipping quietly into Islamabad, Pakistan, and he meets secretly with the ISI, which is the Pakistani intelligence service. And suddenly a guy in Pakistan named Rashid Rauf, who’s kind of the contact of the British plotters in Pakistan, gets arrested. This, of course, as anyone could expect, triggers a reaction in London, a lot of scurrying. And the Brits have to run through the night wild-eyed and basically round up 25 or 30 people. It’s quite a frenzy. The British are livid about this. They talk to the Americans. The Americans kind of shrug, “Who knows? You know, ISI picked up Rashid Rauf.”

NPR: So the British did not even get a heads-up from the United States that this arrest was going to happen?

SUSKIND: Did not get a heads-up. In fact, the whole point was to mislead the British…The British did not know about it, frankly, until I reported it in the book…

What’s interesting is that the White House already had its media plan already laid out before all of this occurred so that the president and vice president immediately–even, in Cheney’s case, before the arrest, the day before–started to capitalize on the war on terror rhetoric and political harvest, which of course they used for weeks to come, right into the fall, about, “The worst plot since 9/11, that has been foiled, and this is why you want us in power.”

Jeff Stein at Congressional Quarterly:

Author Ron Suskind says he will release transcripts of his interviews with a top CIA official that will confirm his story that in 2003 the White House ordered the agency to fabricate a phony document linking Iraq to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C…

But in a telephone interview this evening, Suskind said he is planning to release transcripts of his on-the-record interviews with Richer to back up his story.

“There are lots of transcripts, lots of tapes,” Suskind told me. “In the next couple days the transcripts will be coming out.”

Suskind said he will probably post them on his own Web site…

Suskind says that Richer had pledged to him that he would not deny his quotes when the book came out…

But Suskind said he would not release transcripts of his “hours and hours” of interviews with [second source on the forgery John] Maguire, “at least at this point, because “he hasn’t had a chance to read the book yet.”

Read it all.