Condi Rice criticizes Obama's leadership, proves she lacks anything resembling self-awareness or perspective

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Condi and Dubya. Sort of.

So Condi Rice is on the anti-Obama bandwagon, just like her pals Cheney and Rummy and rest of the detritus of the Bush II presidency:

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Barack Obama of dramatically weakening the United States' position in the world, drawing a straight line between Obama's ever-yielding foreign policy and the increasing troubles around the world.

"Right now, there's a vacuum," she told a crowd of more than two thousand attending the National Republican Congressional Committee's annual dinner last night in Washington, D.C. "There's a vacuum because we've decided to lower our voice. We've decided to step back. We've decided that if we step back and lower our voice, others will lead, other things will fill that vacuum." Citing Bashar al Assad's slaughter in Syria, Vladimir Putin's aggression in Ukraine, al Qaeda's triumphant return to Fallujah, Iraq, and China's nationalist fervor, she concluded: "When America steps back and there is a vacuum, trouble will fill that vacuum."

Oh, the sheer stupidity of the everything-is-Obama's-fault crowd, which is pretty much the same as the America-as-imperial-global-hegemon crowd, as if the president of the United States, any which one, can just snap his, or her, fingers and make the world bow before America's overwhelming might. That sort of worldview, connected to neoconservative ideological fervor, is as ignorant and childish as it is astoundingly dangerous and self-destructive.

And if you're looking to find fault for weakening America's standing in the world, how about, oh, throwing some blame at those who ignored a pre-9/11 CIA memo called "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," launched a second war on false pretenses (i.e., lies) while a first was still going on, and grossly mismanaged that second war while ignoring the first, turning Iraq into a chaotic vacuum and failing to do the job in Afghanistan, allowing al Qaeda and others to continue to thrive while also creating the conditions for terrorism as a movement and threat to grow in strength, all the while weakening America's core alliances, thoroughly obliterating its credibility and moral standing in the world as well as its capacity to engage militarily beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, and making the American people even more isolationist than ever.

And by the way, included among those who deserve that blame is not the president who rebuilt America's alliances, credibilty, and moral standing in the world, put an end to the bloody quagmire of a war in Iraq and the going-nowhere war in Afghanistan, shifted America's military resources to target al Qaeda, against enormous risk gave the green light to the operation to take out bin Laden, directly as a result of the new focus on al Qaeda, opened up diplomatic relations with Iran so as to work towards long-term peace and stability in the Middle East and to turn that country away from its nuclear ambitions, helped put an end to the brutal Qaddafi regime in Libya, and has otherwise carefully guided the U.S. through delicate international crises, from the Arab Spring to Syria to the current situation in the Ukraine, at a time when the American people want nothing of intervention and when there's really only so much even the president of the United States can do to achieve America's foreign policy goals.

So you said what, Condi? And you're blaming whom? Huh.

Rice burners

By Carl 

It strikes me that the Republicans are being a little disingenuous in their efforts to derail the not-even-announced nomination of UN Ambassador Susan Rice to Secretary of State, replacing the resigning Hillary Clinton.

Her CV, for one, suggests an intelligent and gifted person who would be adept at managing foreign affairs for the Obama administration, perfect for the job. In this, she would outshine the presumptive second choice, Senator John Kerry, which is no easy feat.

The controversy, as you know doubt know ad nauseam, is Rice's comments in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the Benghazi compound of the American ambassador there.

The facts are pretty clear: an organized attack occured on the compound on September 11. Either coincidentally or in a coordinated misdirection, there was also a protest in Egypt over some bloody idiot's idea of a prank on the same day. It doesn't really matter how Egypt played into this, except it also made a convenient excuse to buy a little time if needed.

Rice went on the Sunday talk shows, and implied that the Egypt attack may have been a part of the Libyan massacre, even if tangentially. This was the talking point the CIA had handed up to the administration, which greenlighted it as an interim explanation, even though it was clear from the get-go this was a terrorist attack.

Why the deception? The CIA had assets on the ground in Libya that would have been exposed if their information had been made public.

Read more »

Annals of asshattery: John McCain and Lindsey Graham

By Mustang Bobby

I've always thought that Sen. John McCain has a mean streak to him, proven time and again by his intemperate outbursts, and that Sen. Lindsey Graham is his wimpy little me-too sycophantic sidekick.  They're proving it again by their incomprehensible attack on U.N. ambassador Susan Rice over the attack on Benghazi and her response to it.

President Obama is having none of it, and he's letting us know it:

Bristling with evident indignation during a news conference, Obama said Rice has "done exemplary work" with "skill, professionalism and toughness and grace."

He then made a pointedly and almost personal challenge to Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) who earlier Wednesday said Rice is unqualified to lead the State Department because she appeared either misinformed or ill-prepared to discuss the attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, on national political talk shows a few days after the attack.

"If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me," Obama said. "For them to go after the UN ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi... to besmirch her reputation is outrageous."

Ironically, as Crooks and Liars reminds us, the last time there was a person named Rice up for Senate consideration, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham were all over defending her from unwarranted attacks on her character:

Just for some memory refreshes, here is McCain and Graham's vigorous defense of Condoleeza Rice and her false claim that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But in 2005, Graham was fiercely protective of Rice as she faced confirmation to take over the State Department, chaffing at terms used by Democratic lawmakers to describe her testimony.

"The words like 'misleading' and 'disingenuous,' I think, were very unfair," Graham said on Fox News.

Asked if then-Sen. Mark Dayton's use of the word "liar" was justified, Graham pounced.

"Yes, that's even more unfair. Because it was all in terms of weapons of mass destruction and misleading us about the war and what was in Iraq. Well, every intelligence agency in the world was misled. And to connect those two to say that she's a liar is very unfair, over the line."

Before the vote, McCain noted from the Senate floor that the chamber had enough votes to confirm Rice to the job, questioning why Democrats wanted to debate her nomination.

"So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion," he said, adding that Rice is qualified for the job. "I can only conclude that we are doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness over the outcome of the election."

Yeah, speaking of lingering bitterness….

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Bush-Cheney ignored CIA warnings about al Qaeda, failed to go after bin Laden prior to 9/11

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yet more evidence that the Bush Administration, for all its self-aggrandizing post-9/11 bluster, did little to nothing to root out America enemies before the attack:

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida's relationship with America's ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn't get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. "I don't think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn't get the institutional support they needed," says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

So Bush-Cheney pushed the CIA around in the lead-up to the Iraq War, politicizing intelligence and fabricating a case for war, but basically ignored the CIA's efforts and warnings about a very real threat to the country's security before 9/11.

Not to excuse the CIA entirely, of course, but this certainly adds to the view many of us have had for a long time now -- not least given that notorious "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US" brief of August 6, 2001, as well as Richard Clarke's January 2001 memo to Condi Rice about the al Qaeda threat, as well as George Tenet's briefing of Condi Rice on July 10, 2001 about an imminent threat -- that Bush & Co. had no interest in dealing with terrorism (and was largely isolationist) before 9/11 and only later used 9/11 as an excuse to go into Afghanistan (justifiably, perhaps, but certainly without focus and a clear long-term purpose) and then to launch the bloody misadventure in Iraq that directed America's resources against a supposed "enemy" that had nothing at all to do with 9/11.

Perhaps there's nothing all that new here, but it's compelling nonetheless, additional confirmation that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and their various minions and cronies were utterly negligent with respect to their national security responsibilities.

Make sure to read the whole piece.

And yet no one went to jail

By Edward Copeland 

Reliving the Valerie Plame affair in Fair Game, based on the books written by Plame herself and her husband Joe Wilson, if you didn't have any anger before over what the Bush White House did to a loyal CIA agent in the name of politics and a war they wanted no matter what the facts were, that old rage will well up once again. In Doug Liman's film, it comes up even more so because before we get to the events of the leak of Plame's covert status itself, we actually see what her job entailed and what the Bush politicos callously threw away for their own warped reasons and the cost it took in American lives, those of other intelligence sources and, of course, the truth. Still, no one who committed crimes (and crimes were committed) went to jail for their roles. It's outrageous and the film will make that outrage feel fresh again.

Naomi Watts stars as Plame and Sean Penn plays Wilson (in one of his least-mannered performances) and while many of the details of the film will be familiar to anyone who watched the episode unfold in the media, what makes director Doug Liman's film most interesting are the details that were left by the wayside.

Fair Game begins by showing us Plame at work for the agency, making frequent secret trips overseas making contacts and protecting sources in the battle against weapons proliferation. Her husband knows her real job, but her friends believe she works for a phony business service. Early on, at the behest of the Defense Department, her section gets contacted to check out stories on aluminum tubes supposedly sought by Saddam Hussein and the possibility that Saddam had tried to acquire yellowcake uranium from Niger.

Never mind that the aluminum tube story had been investigated and disputed long before since the equipment was horribly outdated and unacceptable for uranium enrichment, the Bush White House pressures the CIA to check it out again. As it happens, Wilson, the last American to meet Saddam face-to-face and someone who had strong contacts with high-ranking officials in Niger, is suggested as someone who could check out the African side of the story. Plame admits her husband's expertise in the area, but that's the extent of her involvement in his getting the assignment.

Wilson takes the trip to Niger and finds that it would be logistically impossible to remove that large an amount of yellowcake from the country without leaving physical or written evidence. He returns, issues his report that the story is a nonstarter and believes that it's the end of it. Unfortunately, the Bush gang, represented especially by the unctuous Scooter Libby (played to smarmy perfection by David Andrews) are ghouls who can't say no and, much to Wilson's surprise, President Bush says those 16 words that mean so much in his 2002 State of the Union speech about Saddam attempting to acquire quantities of uranium from Africa.

Just to be certain, Wilson calls a source of his to make certain that Bush isn't referring to a different African country than Niger, but no, that's the lie that's being spun, followed by the big p.r. push from Cheney, Rice and the gang about not letting the "smoking gun be a mushroom cloud." An outraged Wilson pens the infamous op-ed in The New York Times about what he didn't find in Niger and the White House declares war on him and his wife, including outing her identity as a CIA operative in Robert Novak's column, which still is a crime.

The rest of the story should be fairly familiar to anyone who followed it, but if you've forgotten some of the details, you are certain to get riled once again (and to question the wisdom of the Obama Administration letting sleeping liars sleep free for the crimes they committed).

Still, as well known as the tale is, Fair Game proves quite compelling thanks to a solid cast and Liman's solid direction. Of course, the true Bush believers will have no interest and partisans already will have been converted, but those who are fuzzy on the facts owe it to themselves to see this film. A little history never hurt anybody. 

(Cross-posted at Edward Copeland on Film.)

Let's start a conspiracy theory!

By Edward Copeland 

The first two times Wikileaks unloaded their document dumps, there seemed to be a clear motivation: Uncovering untold facts about what the U.S. did or still is doing during both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. There seemed to be an overriding public service in the publishing of the classified documents, not that it seemed as if many paid any attention. The part that bothered me about that was how piss-poor our nation's cybersecurity must be if, as they expect us to believe, a single Army intelligence officer was able to download hundreds of thousands of documents, if not millions, and pass them on to Wikileaks.

The case with the latest Wikileaks document dump though is murky. What purpose can be served by telling world leaders what our various diplomats and leaders in the State Department say about other world leaders behind their backs. What is this high school? Given what is being revealed in the lustiest batch of leaks, it is difficult to discern a political agenda other than to ruin our relations with various nations and leaders around the world, and not just the Obama Administration since some of the leaks date back to actions taken in previous administrations, with particular mention of actions taken by both Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice.

The part of the story that immediately makes me smell a rat is that they are again attributing this leak to Bradley Manning, the same 23-year-old Army intelligence analyst who was based in Iraq but who has been held in a prison cell in Quantico, Va., for the past few weeks. Was he able to find time to download what could have amounted to millions of documented without getting caught? Even if he did do the Iraq and Afghanistan ones, what possible interest would he have had in snooping into the State Department to find out what we were saying about world leaders and other things? Could this be another case as when they tried to say that Abu Ghraib was because of a couple of low-ranking "bad apples" and they didn't go higher up?

Now here comes my conspiracy theory. Who hates everybody, in this administration, most of the Bush administration and especially foreign leaders? Someone who would have had access to a lot of this older information and I'm sure could find his way in to find stuff since he left office.

Dick Cheney, that's who. Sure, I have no proof. I'm making pure speculation, but there has to be one for this latest document dump. Otherwise, the true story is that Wikileaks has no sense of what really matters and doesn't care about repercussions. The other leaks were important. These are mostly trivial and, more importantly, could prove hurtful to U.S. foreign policy for who knows how long just as Obama and his team were making strides to repair the damage that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the gang left.

World's shortest meeting

By Carl

Headline today: Bush Prepares Crisis Briefings to Aid Obama:

WASHINGTON — The White House has prepared more than a dozen contingency plans to help guide President-elect Barack Obama if an international crisis erupts in the opening days of his administration, part of an elaborate operation devised to smooth the first transition of power since Sept. 11, 2001.

*****

Mr. Bush said Tuesday that a top priority in his final days in office is to help Mr. Obama get ready to govern. "We care about him," he said in an interview with CNN. "We want him to be successful, and we want the transition to work."

The subtitle should read "Everything I Know About What's Going On In The World." It should be written on a fucking gum wrapper.

Seriously, can anyone think of a President who, after eight fucking years in office, is so embarrassingly unprepared for the job???

When Bill Clinton handed the reins of power over to George W. Bush, his staff spent weeks alerting Bush's staff to the troubles they perceived in the world: Al Qaeda, a coming recession, Korea, China, the rise of Russia.

Bush played golf. He cleared brush. And his staff took their cues from the Moron-In-Chief and likewise ignored nearly every single warning -- rumour has it that Condi Rice perked up only when Russia and China were mentioned. The hubris exhibited in the following eight years was on display before the Oval Office phone was cold.

We could play the "if only" game for years with Bush: if only he had listened to warnings about Al Qaeda, if only he had listened to his dad about Iraq, if only he had realized that Saddam Hussein was contained under the embargo, if only...

If only 8,000 Americans, roughly half of them civilians, could be alive today, and another 100,000 soldiers uninjured, rather than providing an object lesson in the foolishness of war in general and invasions in particular.

If only the SCOTUS had selected Al Gore.

If I were Barack Obama, I'd give Chimpy fifteen minutes... squeeze him in between smokes and a game of hoops...to let him explain what he thinks the consequences of what he has wrought upon the world will be. Yes, he publicly says that, in the end, a free and democratic Iraq will yaddayaddayadda, but I call bullshit. I suspect Bush has sat up nights in the second term thinking, "Holy shit, what have I done?"

Maybe not many, but even if he did that even once, it would be enough for me.

It seems clear from Obama's picks and the rapidity of them that he's aware that he has to hit the ground running. It's a scary world out there and the economic crisis is a megaphone for terrorists and unrest, which means the violence in the world is only going to increase.

In case the lesson of Mumbai was lost on you. Poverty breeds contempt and fear and anger. Imagine what famine and pestilence will breed.

So goodbye, George. You are the weakest link.

(Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)

Al Qaeda, Obama, and "House Negroes"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you missed it, Al Qaeda's #2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has issued a video statement directed at President-elect Obama:

You have reached the position of president, and a heavy legacy of failure and crimes awaits you. A failure in Iraq to which you have admitted, and a failure in Afghanistan to which the commanders of your army have admitted.

The statement, as you might expect, also criticizes Obama for his support for Israel and for being "captive to the same criminal American mentality towards the world and towards the Muslims." (Fox News has the full English translation here.)

Indeed, Zawahiri claims that Obama is the "direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, and that, using Malcolm X's own words, Obama, Rice, and Powell are "house slaves," or servants -- abayd al bayt in Arabic and translated by al Qaeda as "House Negroes":

You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand in the ranks of the enemies of the Muslims, and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim to be Christian, in order to climb the rungs of leadership in America. And so you promised to back Israel, and you threatened to strike the tribal regions in Pakistan, and to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, in order for the crimes of the American crusade in it to continue.

Obviously, this is both bigoted and stupid, suggesting a lack of understanding of, well, pretty much everything. It indicates a regressive mindset rooted in the divisions of the past -- which of course is what al Qaeda, longing for the caliphate, wants to return to -- one that cannot, or refuses to, comprehend, the world as it is now, a world in which identity is far more complex than black and white. There are many reasons to be critical of the U.S. and its policies toward the Muslim world over the years, policies that led to a good deal of bloodshed and that, like it or not, contributed to 9/11, but attacking Obama as a traitor to his race (whatever race that is) and engaging in anti-Semitism and hatemongering generally is just reprehensible -- and just what you'd expect from al Qaeda.

Still, there's more to this, as Democracy Arsenal's Ilan Goldenberg explains:

More than anything [the statement] demonstrates that Al Qaeda is genuinely concerned about an Obama presidency and views it as a strategic threat to its existence... Al Qaeda's narrative is now under siege and it's clearly uncertain about how to react. The election of the first African American President, one with a Muslim father, flies in the face of this narrative. It shows America as an open and tolerant society -- not the oppressive empire Al Qaeda would like to portray. In fact, the overwhelmingly positive international reaction to Obama's election is proof of the the threat Al Qaeda faces.

In short, al Qaeda is afraid of Obama -- both because of who he is and because of what he represents, which is, I believe, America at its best, the America seeking to achieve its promise, its perfection.

That, and a much-needed change of course in the war on terror. Bush gave up on Afghanistan and entangled the U.S. in a disastrous war in Iraq. With Obama, the war will be waged as it ought to be, with a renewed emphasis on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, on international diplomacy, and, generally, on a sensible use of both hard and soft power to achieve America's objectives -- one of which is the resurrection of America's standing in the world, another of which is the destruction of al Qaeda and other such terrorist networks.

And so al Qaeda, with Zawahiri its supposedly erudite spokesman, can only, and pathetically, spew more of the same old propaganda, making the ridiculous claim that Obama is just like all who came before him, that nothing has changed, and that nothing will, that America is still just the devil its enemies make it out to be.

Al Qaeda remains a threat to America, and to its friends, and to freedom and democracy generally, but it is now up against stronger opposition. And it knows it.

Memos reveal Bush Administration approved torture

By Michael J.W. Stickings

WaPo:

The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects -- documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public.

The memos themselves remain classified. All that has been confirmed is their existence.

But let's be clear about something: We're not talking about questionable legal approval from Yoo-like Justice Department lawyers here, we're talking about actual "policy approval" from administration officials, likely from Rice and the National Security Council, if not from higher up, on behalf of the entire Bush Administration itself. (Ultimately, it is Bush himself who must be held accountable, whether he was in on it or not at the time.)

Now, of course, it may be claimed that waterboarding and other such "interrogation techniques" are not torture. But then let Bush and Rice and the rest of them make that case. Those in the know know that it is.

Bush himself has said that "we don't torture" -- namely, the United States. But evidently it does, and with the ultimate approval of Bush himself.

This is an important story. Make sure to read the WaPo article in full.

Russia -- we need to listen.

By Carol Gee

Section 1 -- What should we hear?

Russia and the United States are exchanging growls. How dangerous is it between the two powers? Will the Russian bear really bite? Today's post explores that question.

First we learn that Russia will cut all military ties with NATO. To quote a bit of insight from Survival Acres -- One step closer to war* (9/18/08):

The truth is, Russia is in a great position for all of Europe, who will come to heavily depend upon Russian oil to keep from freezing to death. But the US keeps acting like it can dictate whatever it wants to whoever it wants, despite it’s own gross violations of human rights and national sovereignty.

"Visiting Georgia, Dick Cheney assails Russia" -- The U.S. growler-in-chief, Vice President Dick Cheney made a trip to Georgia on Thursday, the LA Times reported. The U.S is set to provide $1 billion in nonmilitary aid, but has not yet committed to rebuilding Georgia's army. To quote:

Cheney's visit to Tbilisi was the highlight of a quick swing through the Western-friendly nations of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine, all former Soviet republics. The trip apparently was designed to shore up the morale of national leaders rattled by Russia's rout of U.S.-trained Georgian forces. . . In Washington, the White House said the conflict had strengthened U.S. determination to bring Georgia and Ukraine into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Cheney's visit, said Georgian political expert Alexander Rondeli, demonstrated "the United States' full support of Georgia and its president.

"The vice president marked the big importance of the energy corridor that runs on the Georgian territory," he said, "and the corridor remains in the sphere of interests of America and Western countries."

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates urges middle ground with Russia," was the LA Times headline this morning. We can be grateful that cooler heads are prevailing over mere growling. Gates did not directly address the issue extending membership in NATO to Georgia, but did talk about lessons learned after World War I. And he said the West should not enter alliances lightly, but also emphasized that the U.S. would live up to its NATO obligation. Listen to this:

As NATO ministers disagree on Georgia, Gates says the next U.S. administration needs a balanced approach to contain Russian aggression without resorting to military force.

. . . By seeking a middle ground in relations with Russia, Gates appeared to be sounding a warning to politicians such as Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who have pushed for the United States to isolate Russia after its military confrontation with Georgia, and back the small former Soviet republic at all costs.

. . . McCain has pushed hard for the United States to support Georgia and other "struggling democracies" in their conflicts with Russia, and has turned to the much-used 1938 analogy. In an op-ed article that ran a week after the Russian invasion of Georgia, McCain wrote that "the world has learned at great cost the price of allowing aggression against free nations to go unchecked."

[Gates concluded] . . . "For much of the past century, Western psychology, rhetoric and policymaking on matters of war and peace has been framed by, and often lurched between, these two poles: between excessive pressures to take military action and excessive restraint, between a too eager embrace of the use of military force and an extreme aversion to it," Gates said.

We must listen to this old friend -- "Mikhail Gorbachev harshly criticizes Condoleezza Rice for her political rudeness," from Pravda, 9/19/08. To quote:

The ex-president of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, stated that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should “use more caution in her call for the West to stand up against Russia, which she said has become "increasingly authoritarian at home and aggressive abroad."

"I believe that the secretary of state should be more careful and should show greater calm and responsibility for her judgment in calling for the West to unite against Russia," Gorbachev said through an interpreter at a press conference held before the Liberty Medal ceremony at the National Constitution Center, the AP reports. . .

Gorbachev received the Liberty Medal, which comes with a $100,000 prize, from former President George H.W. Bush, who was commander in chief at the time of the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. . . The Liberty Medal was established in 1988 to honor individuals and organizations whose actions represent the founding principles of the United States.

"Russia says trade with U.S. must not depend on politics," is the statement from an authoritative voice of Russia, RIA Novosti -- 9/20/08. A Russian deputy said that, "ties with the U.S. have been "among Russia's major priorities irrespective of the political weather." To quote further:

Political squabbles between Russia and the United States should not affect their trade, Russia's deputy foreign minister said on Saturday.

Speaking at a roundtable meeting with American businessmen on the sidelines of an investment forum in the Black Sea resort Sochi, Andrei Denisov said: "We hope the pragmatism and common sense of the current and future U.S. administrations will prevail, and we will continue cooperation in all areas."

Relations between the two former Cold War foes strained over the Georgia conflict last month. Washington said it might scrap a civil nuclear deal with Russia as punishment for its invasion of Georgia and recognition of breakaway South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

"Hydrocarbons - the formula of war" is an analytical piece by military commentator Ilya Kramnik from RIA Novosti -- 9/19/08. Hear his closing words; they are some from which we can learn a great deal. "Energy is not only a great divider, it is also a gap bridger." To quote what led to his conclusion:

Hydrocarbon prices, new nuclear and hydro-power plants, oil blackmail - energy is now one of the central issues discussed in the world. Even the defense sector is not immune: many analysts tend to view most 20th century wars as wars for energy. . . . Control over energy production was not the ultimate goal for Germany, Italy or Japan - the aggressor countries in World War II - but it was one of the overriding objectives.

. . . The situation did not change much after the war. Oil-bearing regions have become the scene of rivalry between leading nations of the world which rushed to seek allies with the holders of the black stuff. The attractiveness of oil among other energy resources is easy to explain: it is a very calorie-rich fuel (a small amount yields a large volume of energy), its production, transportation and storage are simpler than that of other resources, and it is these advantages that have ultimately led oil and petroleum products to become the main resource of our machine-based civilization. Soon natural gas joined oil to become a near ideal source of energy for thermal power plants.

. . . Within the next few years, the Arctic is likely to become another area of conflict in the drive for energy. Global warming, which is opening up long-term access to the Arctic shelf, combined with large proven hydrocarbon resources, is bound to make the leading world powers challenge neighbors' rights to some parts of the shelf.

. . . Awareness of these factors lends to one's understanding as to why the European countries worry over fuel supplies from Russia. The hydrocarbons from the North Sea, the Persian Gulf and elsewhere are running out and cannot meet the needs of the European economy. Such interdependence of the sides works well in bringing them closer together and softening their stance over disputes - regardless of the fine words in which politicians and diplomats couch the description of the process.

It is easy to bluster -- It is harder to listen in an authentic and engaged way. Communications between nations are carried on between actual people, or with written words. It is the communicator's responsibility to be understood. It is the listener's responsibility to try to hear and act in good faith.

Section 2 -- Bonus read

"Insight: Who runs Russia?" is an article by Bridget Kendall in the 9/15/08 BBC News. The first key question is - who is really in charge? The first key message is that neither is willing to compromise with the West. The second message was that any move to extend NATO to Russia's borders by seeking to incorporate Georgia or Ukraine - is Russia's red line that still stands. The third message was that Russia would like to think a major East-West confrontation can still be avoided. To quote rather extensively from this fascinating in-depth piece:

The standard answer is President Medvedev as Commander in Chief. He, and only he, ordered Russian troops across the border to hit back when Georgia attacked on South Ossetia. But presidential power is now the tip of an iceberg. What murky currents swirl beneath the surface is less clear. . . . what about Russia's ex-president, now his prime minister, who was also at the conference?

"However much authority I have, whoever I may be talking to, none of the troops or tanks would have moved an inch until President Medvedev's order," was Vladimir Putin's attempt to deny his own importance when we asked about his role, thereby indicating that his clout and involvement were considerable.

. . . All to signal, perhaps, that their status is equal - a dual leadership exercising power in tandem. . . The aim, it seemed, was to send a signal to the West that Dmitry Medvedev is indeed more flexible and reformist than Putin himself - and was forced to act tough because the crisis left him no option.

. . . So what, then, at this juncture does Russia want from the West? The first message is that the Russian government is in no mood to compromise. . . That conviction was echoed from top to bottom in our discussions with government officials, mainstream academics and journalists, all of them insisting Russia had no choice but to respond militarily and take South Ossetia and Abkhazia under its wing. Any suspicion that Russia cunningly laid a trap that Georgia rashly walked into was dismissed as an outrageous lie.

. . . Curiously both Mr Putin and President Medvedev were carefully respectful when it came to President Bush.

"He's a good politician, I think I have a better opinion of George than most Americans," said Mr Putin, at the same time complaining that he had twice tried to get the US president to intervene.

Instead it was Vice-President Cheney and the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, with their Soviet expertise, who were targeted as villains, suspected of fuelling anti-Russian sentiment in the US administration and egging Georgia on.

. . . So the hints of a threat, but not exactly - and that is interesting. [other causes] . . . They denied that the loss of nearly 50% of Russia's stock market value from its all time high in May had much to do with the Georgia crisis. A far more likely cause, they argued - with some justification, given what is happening on Wall Street - was the impact of global financial instability.

[Conclusion] But behind all the moral outrage, I felt there was also a nervousness, a worry that if Russia's bluff is called and further tensions with the West ensue, it might force a stand-off from which neither side could back down.

"There is a chill in the air and a loss of trust," said Dmitry Medvedev, "but I don't think this is a corner turn that will lead to a long confrontation. This is not what we want. And it's not what you want either."

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributor of links to leads: "betmo*".

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Unrest in the world -- a Bush Legacy

By Carol Gee

U.S. in push for foreign arms deals: report," a story from Reuters (9/14/08), lays out a very unpleasant reality. The Bush Doctrine is at the center of a "military-industrial complex" that seems to have no boundaries. Eight years after the terrorist attacks on the United States, this administration seems to know only conflict, military arms and business as usual. Rather that focusing on peace, the budget goes largely for an interminable war. Congress and the president prop up military contractors, who often manufacture cold war systems. And diplomatic gross ineptitude results in uneasy relationships with countries all around the world. To quote:

The Bush administration is pushing through a wide range of foreign weapons deals in a bid to rearm Iraq and Afghanistan and contain North Korea and Iran, The New York Times reported.

The deals range from tanks, helicopters and fighter jets to missiles, remotely piloted aircraft and warships, the Times said in its Sunday editions. The weapons and other military equipment foreign sales have totaled more than $32 billion this year, compared with $12 billion in 2005.

While the focus has been on the Middle East, sales extend to northern Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe and Canada, the Times said.

"This is not about being gunrunners," the Times quoted Bruce Lemkin, the Air Force deputy undersecretary who has coordinated many of the largest sales, as saying. "This is about building a more secure world."

The reality is that since 9/11/01, terrorism has been on the rise. And the unfortunate myopic Middle East regional bias means neglect of other places where the U.S. might be helpful. India for example has a large problem, of which we are seemingly unaware. About all that interests the U.S. regarding India right now is a questionable nuclear deal. Another Reuters article details: "India police raid slums, relatives angry after bombs," (9/14/08). To quote: "The National Counterterrorism Centre in Washington says 3,674 people had been killed in militant attacks in India between January 2004 and March 2007, a death toll second only to that in Iraq."

Meanwhile much of the world does not have enough to eat. Global warming is on the rise, threatening farming, particularly in Africa. A recent e-mail from David Lane from One.org, reminded me that the unpleasant reality of starvation is, at times, the direct result of lack of a decent U.S. development effort, conflict and war. Again, the U.S. budget figures attest to administration priorities. To quote:

High food and fuel prices continue to have a catastrophic impact on the world's poorest people and threaten to roll back some of the great progress we've made alleviating poverty in areas including AIDS, malaria, and education.

Later this month, world leaders are going to the United Nations in NYC. They’ll be discussing the world's progress toward the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs)—critical issues like health, education and water. They must also act on the food and hunger crisis. There are 30 countries in immediate need of emergency food assistance and essential seeds and fertilizer. These countries have created specific plans to feed the hungry and prevent future crises by enabling people to provide for themselves. Meeting these emergency needs requires $1 billion in funding by the end of this year.

Here is where you can sign a petition, the letter reads: "As world leaders come together for the United Nations summit, please ask them to close the book on the hunger crisis. Please click the link to add your name to our petition asking them to do so:" Petition link The petition reads:

Please provide life-saving food and essential seeds and fertilizer to the 30 countries that need it most by filling the 2008 food and agriculture funding gap of $1 billion without delay.

Condi travels to Libya for a historic meeting, as well as several other places abroad. The definition of enemy has undergone an amazing transformation under the Bush administration. They are able to have a set of conflicting standards for who is favored or unfavored. Syria is still out of favor. The "Damascus Spring" in Syria has faded into memory, according to the Financial Times. To quote [regarding Syria]:

. . . activists point to other Middle East states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which have poor human rights records but enjoy strong ties with the west – even adding Libya to the list after Condoleezza Rice’s visit to the north African state last week – to argue that international relations are one thing, internal reform another.

"What Is Condeleeza Rice REALLY Doing Over There?" asks my regular contributor, "betmo," who sent me this link to Bluebloggin (9/7/08) Security was very high. Dick Cheney was traveling in other parts. A good deal of it has to do with AFRICACOM, the strange strategic hybrid of military melded with diplomacy. To quote:

Rice arrived in (staunch US ally) Morocco late on Saturday after visiting Algeria and Tunisia and holding a historic meeting with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli.

Rice’s visit is her first as secretary of state to this region of increasing strategic importance in terms of oil resources, emigration and terrorism.

The Bush Doctrine had no meaning for Republican Veep candidate, Governor Sarah Palin, until it was explained to Palin incorrectly by ABC's Charles Gibson, during their interview. The doctrine of preventive war is at the center of a Bush-military-industrial complex that has no boundaries. Bush business as usual means an interminable "preventive" war in Iraq, certainly a contradiction in terms. Uneasy relationships all around the world -- what a legacy!

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Russian roulette?

By Carol Gee

Russia, actually as part of the former Soviet Union, was once the nemesis of the United States. Do the Russians see us as their nemesis? This RIA Novosti U.S National Security Expo video hints at that idea (9/4/08):

Ultra-modern mobile complexes for U.S. secret services. (Look for the RIA Novosti "most popular" video box). This weekend, Washington hosted the Government Security Expo featuring the newest secret service equipment and technologies. Video by RIA Novosti correspondent Alexei Berezin.

Do we see still Russia as our nemesis? Soon to be ex-president Vladimir Putin, became much more confrontational with the U.S. in recent years. There are several reasons, but one of the main ones was George Bush's seemingly absolute determination to position U.S. missiles next door to Russia.

Is that nemesis view the current case, given that Russia is now in transition to perhaps new leadership? Vladimir Putin will be leaving the office of President on May 7, when Dmitry Medvedev is inaugurated. Putin will become premier and also moving into leading the ruling political party in Russia, United Russia, on May 7. In an excellent Financial Times Report (4/18/08): "Riddle over who steers the tandem," by Neil Buckley, what is likely to happen is very well laid out. After an interview with the Times, in article's concluding material, Medvedev's thoughts on the situation are detailed .

. . . relief among many Russians that the popular Vladimir Putin has found a way of retaining influence as likely next prime minister under President Dmitry Medvedev is tempered by uncertainty.

. . . Mr Medvedev answered a question on who would have the last word by making heavy reference to Russia's 1993 constitution, adopted after Mr Yeltsin's bloody clash with the parliament.

"It's all simple," he said. "Russia is a presidential republic with a strong executive authority." The president sets the main policies, he added, is commander in chief, and makes key decisions on forming the executive.

The government, headed by the prime minister, implements policy. "This is perfectly normal. We're not surprised to see former heads of government in European countries subsequently holding posts of vice premiers or foreign ministers, despite their considerable personal popularity," Mr Medvedev said. "I'm confident that our tandem will prove to be absolutely effective." But even supporters of both men believe one will inevitably call the shots.

. . . Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs magazine, believes as soon as Mr Putin decided not to change the constitution, "he started to leave". The internal logic of Russia's political system now means Mr Medvedev will inevitably emerge as number one.

"In more than 1,000 years of Russian history, maybe 50 people have ruled this enormous country," he says. "It's a job which is very, very hard to get. Once you've got it, there's no sense being anybody's puppet."

[see "Thoughts of a new president"] . . .

The breakup of the Soviet Union is still producing fallout. Georgia broke away to independence, and subsequently two pro-Russia parts of Georgia are determined to separate to join Russia. Russia seems prepared to intervene militarily in Georgia, in a response to Kosovo's independence and an implied U.S. allied promise to let Georgia and Ukraine join Nato at some point. Aljazeera concludes its article with this:

Leri Guchua, a 20 year-old internally displaced person from Abkhazia, who lives in the village of Rukhi, near the Georgian-Abkhazian border, says he sees Russia sending more troops to Abkhazia every day.

"I live on the coastline and see how Russians are bringing their troops to Abkhazia," he said. "Instead of withdrawing they are bringing troops in. If Russia starts the war I will serve my duties in the Georgian army."

However, residents of Sukhumi, Abkhazia's capital, welcomed the convoy of Russian armoured personnel carriers as they arrived.

"It gives us hope and confidence in the future when such a strong power as Russia declares it will protect the people of Abkhazia," Lyobov Shersheria, a 72-year-old resident, told the AFP news agency.

Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia are seeking either independence or the opportunity to join with Russia. European and Nato officials have urged both Georgia and Russia to back off from their heated words and to seek talks to resolve their disputes.

It is probably a safe bet to say that U.S./Russian relations are still a bit of a game of Russian Roulette. As President-elect George W. Bush's transitioned to the White House in 2000, (now) Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came into her role as foreign policy adviser with Soviet Union expertise. In my opinion, her advice has always seemed to come out of that out-dated portfolio. Russia remains a risky mystery to us.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Nelson Mandela... terrorist?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, the U.S. says so:

Nobel Peace Prize winner and international symbol of freedom Nelson Mandela is flagged on U.S. terrorist watch lists and needs special permission to visit the USA. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls the situation "embarrassing," and some members of Congress vow to fix it.

The requirement applies to former South African leader Mandela and other members of South Africa's governing African National Congress (ANC), the once-banned anti-Apartheid organization. In the 1970s and '80s, the ANC was officially designated a terrorist group by the country's ruling white minority. Other countries, including the United States, followed suit.

Yes, countries that supported the apartheid regime, or that did little or nothing to oppose it, let alone to try to bring it down.

Now, to be fair, the ANC wasn't exactly the most peace-loving organization in the world back then, and Desmond Tutu, among others, was a vocal critic of its efforts at violent resistance, but, lest we forget, it was fighting South Africa's brutal regime. And it was that brutal regime that called it a terrorist group and that imprisoned Mandela for 27 years.

If anything, the ANC is now far more corrupt than violent, but it is South Africa's ruling party, and has been since 1994. Condi Rice is right that "it's frankly a rather embarrassing matter" that current South African officials, such as its foreign minister, are on the terrorist list. It's worse, however, that Mandela is on it.

Mandela is one of the great moral and political leaders of our time, a statesman of historic grandeur. To the U.S., though, he's officially a terrorist. (Whether he ever was or not is another matter, and a matter of perspective. Is one a terrorist who resists with violence a regime such as the apartheid regime of South Africa? Or is that one not a hero and a patriot? If Mandela was a "terrorist," then so, perhaps, were many of the American revolutionaries. Lest we forget. Lest Americans forget.)

Let's hope this "embarrassing matter" is resolved swiftly.

Which way for U.S. diplomacy?

By Carol Gee

State Dept. under funded and under staffed -- Who gets the money illustrates where the priorities have been placed by our government. National military defense has a far higher value to the country than international relations and peacemaking. The United States Department of State often people to do its work. It has had to hire contractors to provide security for State workers in Iraq and elsewhere. And some of the regular diplomatic worker slots have has to be filled with military personnel. Increased interdependence between State and Defense is more and more a fact of life. There is also a rising transfers of funds between the two agencies.

Interagency partnering with Defense Dept. is new -- Is this the forerunner to a kind of "Goldwater Nichols Act" reorganization of the non-military agencies? Tuesday on C-SPAN, the House Armed Services Committee Hearing on State and Defense Department Interagency Partnership was chaired by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO). Testifying before the committee were Sec. of Defense Robert Gates, Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice, and Adm. Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. To quote The Washington Post story:

Presenting an unusual combined front against skeptical lawmakers, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pressed Congress yesterday to extend and make permanent a set of initiatives to train and equip foreign security forces and deploy civilian experts alongside the U.S. military.

The programs, part of a proposed Building Global Partnerships Act, involve the flexible use of Pentagon funds for traditional State Department activities in foreign assistance -- an arrangement that Gates and Rice praised as an innovation in interagency cooperation but that lawmakers questioned as "ad hoc" and "stopgap."

. . . Gates and Rice said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan underscore the need for more flexible spending authority that blends the strengths of both departments -- emphasizing the disparity between State's responsibilities and its resources.

Rice pointed out that the Foreign Service is about 6,500 strong, about the same as the number of musicians in military bands. Gates castigated Congress for not giving State "the resources or the power to be able to play the role as the lead agency in American foreign policy."

So far swords out-compete plowshares -- There is a huge disparity between what the U.S. currently spends on the military vs. what it spends on diplomacy. To quote the State Department's 2008 budget figures (Total: $11.949 billion):

The FY 2008 budget request for all State Department appropriations totals $10.014 billion, not including additional FY 2008 funding requested for the Global War on Terror. These appropriations fund the programs, operations, and infrastructure essential to conduct U.S. diplomatic and consular relations in more than 180 countries. They also support vigorous U.S. engagement abroad through public diplomacy and international organizations.

. . . For FY 2008, State requirements total $1.935 billion, including $1.882 billion for the full year of the extraordinary costs associated with operating the U.S. Mission in Iraq, including continued expansion of the PRTs.

Defense always wins appropriations competition -- The 2008 Budget of the Defense Department is somewhat larger (98.2%) than that of the State Department (1.8%). The President’s 2008 Budget for Defense (Total: $623.1 billion). To summarize from the OMB:

• Provides $481.4 billion for the Department of Defense’s base budget—a 62-percent increase over 2001—to ensure a high level of military readiness as the Department develops capabilities to meet future threats, defends the homeland, and supports the all-volunteer force and their families;


• Supports operations in the Global War on Terror by providing an additional $93.4 billion in supplemental funds for 2007 and $141.7 billion for 2008, including funds to accelerate efforts to train and equip Iraqi and Afghan Security Forces;

Truth about lack of security laid bare -- Once again, not enough civilians in the diplomatic corps are willing volunteer to go to the most dangerous places in the world. Amanda at Think Progress discussed the personnel dilemma that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been facing. Rice is considering making attendance compulsory. And she feels offended at the reluctance. To quote:

The State Department’s “looming crisis” stands in stark contrast to statements made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a House Armed Services Committee hearing today, during which she took umbrage at the suggestion that foreign service officers don’t want to serve in Iraq. She said that comments by diplomats who protested the forced assignments last fall were “offen[sive]” and “cast a very bad light on the foreign service.”

Culture wars, perhaps -- Is elitism the problem or natural and normal fear for one's own personal safety? Iraq has become the perfect illustration of what happens when military dollars always win out over diplomatic dollars. The areas of strife around the world, and particularly those in the Middle East do not have enough security for unprotected civilians to do their work effectively. TalkRadioNews put a slightly different interpretation on Rice's remarks:

Rep. Hunter caused a bit of tension when he criticized the “culture of the State Department.” Comments that he made were based on a “town hall meeting” where foreign service officers complained about the idea of being forced to accept high risk assignments in Iraq. He said thousands of military members serve willingly in Iraq and Afghanistan, but was disappointed that the State Department had a hard time filling 47 spots in the Green Zone of Baghdad.

This prompted a heated response from Rice who defended the Foreign Service and said that she has had more than enough volunteers to serve in conflict zones and that certain diplomats, already serving in high-risk assignments, were offended at such an attitude.

National security demands both swords and plowshares -- A year ago Foreign Policy in Focus' Lorelei Kelly authored an excellent background piece on the big picture issues regarding this question, "Unbalanced Security: The Divide between State and Defense." She closes with this:

Our nation sits at a crossroads. Today, both human security and state security must be seen as mutually beneficial, not as tradeoffs.

Advocacy organizations, academics and even the military itself have made the case that we must realign our understanding of national security in the post 9/11 world and allocate resources accordingly. Until our elected leaders decide to act, however, all the rhetoric about prevention, peacebuilding and civil society support are just good ideas with lip-service on top.

There needs to be a far better balance between military and diplomatic spending by Congress. Tuesday's hearing is good cause for optimism that, at least people are being forced to think outside the box. The military needs to be freed up to do its thing and the diplomats need the increased clout to do their thing. We do not need to do it this way for another 100 years. That is just crazy.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Torturing from the top

By Michael J.W. Stickings

See, it's not all about John Yoo. The U.S. didn't just start torturing its detainees because a government lawyer said it was okay, or because some executive-branch extremist like David Addington determined that anything and everything was permissible in a time of war, or because some dim-witted troops at Abu Ghraib just didn't know any better. At some point, early on, a decision to allow torture, to enable it, must have been made -- and it must have been made at the highest levels of government. To put it another way, the decision to turn America into a nation that tortures must have been made at the top. The so-called "principals" must have signed off on it and Bush himself must have signed off on it.

And, it seems, they did just that. Here's ABC News:

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.

That's right -- not underlings like Yoo, not lawyers and academics, not bureaucrats and soldiers, but the very top officials in the U.S. government: Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet, and Ashcroft. They signed off on it. They were the enablers of torture. They were the ones who turned America into a nation that tortures.

And they must be held accountable.

The Condi-for-Veep non-story story

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There isn't much to it, but it isn't going away. I wrote about it a couple of weeks ago, thinking that that would, for the time being, be that, but, well, that wasn't that.

Here's what we know: Condi went to Grover Norquist's weekly morning gathering for right-wing crackpots and wowed the head crackpot himself. Over the weekend, pro-Condi flack-hack Dan Senor told George Stephanopoulos that "Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this," a campaign that has included cozying up to the Norquist crowd. In response to Senor, Foggy Bottom mouthpiece Sean McCormack said that "if she's actively seeking the vice presidency, then she's the last one to know about it," a too-cute evasion by far.

For his part, Norquist seems now to be pro-Condi himself: "If her goal was to convince everyone she would be a good president and, therefore, a good vice president -- she hit it out of the ballpark," he told WaPo's Sleuth. "Is she campaigning for it? I don't know. But if she is, she's doing it the right way." Not quite a full-out endorsement, as the misleading headline suggests, but not too shabby.

And what does Condi think: "Let me just say, first of all, that Senator McCain is an extraordinary American, a really outstanding leader, and obviously a great patriot. That said, I'm going back to Stanford or back to California, west of the Mississippi. I very much look forward to watching this campaign and voting as a voter."

Uh-huh. Sure. That's what they all say. Sounds to me like she wants the job.

And like we'll have to put up with more of this non-promotional self-promotion for quite some time to come. After all, she's got the buzz, she'd be a "sexy" pick, and she's got a whole group of Condistas behind her.

But will she get it? WaPo's Fix thinks not: "Putting Rice on the ticket would remind all of those voters about the war -- and McCain's stance on it. It would also provide a tangible link between the Bush administration and McCain's campaign. With Bush's approval numbers as low as they are (and have been for several years), being portrayed as seeking a third Bush term is a stone-cold loser for McCain... McCain is far more likely to opt for a big-state governor with chief executive experience rather than another candidates with strong ties to Washington and a long record of advocacy for an unpopular war."

Plus, she's pro-choice and, in some ways, even more un-Republican than McCain. At least McCain is trying to turn himself into a crackpot -- or to unleash the crackpot within. Even with Norquist's approval, is Condi crackpot enough for the Republicans? I suppose it's possible that she is, or could be. Besides, standing loyally by Bush and being one of the key architects of the Iraq War and Occupation suggest deep-rooted crackpottery within.

Condi may or may not want the job, but crazier things have happened than McCain-Rice '08.

Condi for Veep?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Maybe. As Steve Clemons is reporting, she's certainly cozying up to the right people -- namely, the Grover Norquist crowd.

But is she the right mix of supply-sider and theocrat, libertarian and warmongerer?

Maybe not, but she might just be in the process of reinventing herself to Norquist's liking, the right sort of running mate for McCain.

(Steve has more here. Apparently she gave a "stunningly good" performance, "a tour de force discussion of America's global foreign policy and national security positions," at Norquist's weekly gathering yesterday morning.)

Does he get a new girlfriend with this job too? ... Does the job "pay for itself"?

By J. Thomas Duffy

Maybe it's the clarion call of his old colleague, Donald Rumsfeld, that tugs at his heartstrings of public service.

Wolfowitz Returns to U.S. Government as Adviser:

As we said when the job offer was reported in December, the board meets quarterly to provide advice to the secretary of state and one of her deputies based on classified intelligence on some of the most important issues in United States foreign policy today, from Iran to North Korea."

Egad!

The Wolf Man, back, prowling the corridors of State.

Hmmm, Rumsfeld calling for a new Propaganda Agency... Wolfowitz, back at the State Department, advising, among other things, on Iran ...

Do we smell a build-up here? ... Get the old team together, for the final run down the stretch, putting their considerable prevarication skills to use for a push into Iran?

Does the girlfriend get a gig, too?

Are we gearing up to go after the Filipino Monkey?

Will we soon here the rhetoric, from the Wolf Man, or, perhaps the Madam Secretary herself, that a preemptive, offensive entry into Iran will "pay for itself"?

From The Lede, back in December:

"Another official called the reported appointment “amazing.” That comment alluded to Mr. Wolfowitz’s staunch support for the Iraq War when he was deputy secretary of defense under President George W. Bush. He hasn’t won much good will since then, either during a relatively quick rise and fall as World Bank president, or in his current post at a conservative think tank in Washington.

But if nothing else, Mr. Wolfowitz really needs no introduction, especially to his detractors on the blogs, who are a puzzled, angry lot today:

The Next Hurrah: “Condi, is it a coincidence that so many people responsible for gaming the intelligence to get us into Iraq are on your advisory board?”

The Brad Blog: “In Bushworld, incompetence must be rewarded.”

Arms Control Wonk: “Andrew Sullivan has a better line than I can muster.”

Andrew Sullivan: “He’s advising Condi on WMDs. Curveball wasn’t available?”

So far, The Lede has not turned up any bloggers weighing in to support Mr. Wolfowitz."

On the downside, with the protracted, ugly, almost never-ending saga of his resignation from The World Bank, will the next President be able to get him out of this position?

Stay tuned Wolf Fans, this one is surely to be a ever-giving gift!

**********

Bonus Wolfie Whoppers

Yes, Wolfie, People Will Be Talking, For Years, About You ... The Results - The Garlic Weekly Poll

Larisa Alexandrovna - Scott Ritter: Neocons as Parasites

"Hillary 1984" Video Blogger Takes On Wolfowitz

Andrew Cockburn: The Puppet Who Cleared the Way for Iraq's Destruction

Developing Story! White House Giving World Bank, Wolfowitz Green Light To Blame McNulty; New Strategy Of Leveraging Scandals; Cheney Says Embattled Hero "Definitely In Final Throes" At World Bank

Yeah, it's a head-scratcher for us, too, Wolfie...

(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)