The Benghazi scandal that isn't: How Republicans and the media are distorting a tragedy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Another day, another breathless report of something supposedly "new" in the whole Benghazi saga, which really just amounts to a media-enabled Republican assault on the the Obama Administration -- first the president himself as the target, now, with Republicans looking ahead to 2016, Hillary Clinton.

Today it's from Jonathan Karl of ABC News, who "reports" the following:

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

Okay... and? 

As ThinkProgress notes:

[T]he ABC report suggests the State Department "scrubbed" the talking points of terror references as some sort of nefarious cover-up of what really happened in Benghazi for political reasons. This, of course, playing into the GOP's conspiracy theory that President Obama was trying to preserve his campaign theme that his policies has significantly crippled the terror network. 

And I would note that Karl's piece seems to be written from the perspective of those conspiracy theories. At the very least, Karl is playing right along with the right's obsessions. ThinkProgress continues:

The story soon set reporters and Twitter alight. "Scrubbing the truth from Benghazi," a National Journal headline read. Even the BBC speculated that "heads will roll."

But absent in ABC's report is the key point that Obama and various members of his administration referred to the Benghazi assault as a terror attack on numerous occasions shortly after the incident (thereby negating the need to "scrub" any references in the talking points) and that then-CIA Director David Petraeus said the terrorist references were taken out to, as the New York Times reported, "avoid tipping off the groups" that may have been involved.

Basically, the State Department -- specifically former Cheney advisor Victoria Nuland -- was more involved in the development of the talking points than previously reported.

Republicans and their various enablers in the media -- who may think they're digging for the truth but are really just doing the Republicans' bidding -- seem to think this rises to the level of, well, something possibly worse than Watergate.

Read more »

Benghazi again

By Mustang Bobby

Republicans never run out of dead horses to whip: 

Republican lawmakers, who have spent months seeking to tie President Obama to last year's deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, are increasingly focusing their probe on a new target: former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The GOP-led investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others now centers heavily on the State Department and whether officials there deliberately misled the public about the nature of the assault.

Three State Department officials are scheduled to testify before a House committee on Wednesday about the Benghazi attack and its aftermath.

"I think the dam is about to break on Benghazi," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) wrote on his Facebook page Tuesday. “...We're going to find people asleep at the switch when it comes to the State Department, including Hillary Clinton."

On Monday, a Fox News anchor asked Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) how damaging the issue is for Clinton. "I think it's damaging because it happened under her watch," replied Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding Wednesday's hearing.

It's pretty obvious that this is a preemptive attack on Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, and the Republicans are going all in on it; Mike Huckabee said this will be worse than Watergate. (Note: Watergate is the Godwin's Law of scandals: the longer the discussion goes on, the chances that someone will compare a scandal to Watergate increase to a factor of dead certainty.)

It was terrible that people were killed in the attack in Libya last September. But it's worse that the Republicans are exploiting it for no other reason than politics, and their crocodile tears over the death of Ambassador Stevens wouldn't seem so craven if they had bothered to look into the lies and deceptions that killed and wounded several thousand American soldiers in Iraq.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Torture and the truth in Obama's America

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There's a lot to like, I suppose, about Obama's America, or, at least, about Obama's high-falutin' (and idealistic, if not delusional) rhetoric about America. It would seem to be a better place, than, say, Bush's America.

But not by much.

Sure, Obama deserves much of the credit for health-care reform (even if he didn't ever push for a public option and, on this as on pretty much every other issue, gave in to Republican demands without much of a fight and certainly without ever using his bully pulpit to achieve more progressive ends) and for pulling the economy back from the brink of utter catastrophe and for improving the country's standing around the world, but otherwise, as we look back over his first two-plus years, he has extended Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, protected Wall Street from being held accountable for the financial meltdown, and, much to his and the country's discredit, continued Bush's anti-democratic and illiberal national security state.

On this last point, here's yet another shameful case in point, via Glenn Greenwald:

On Friday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley denounced the conditions of Bradley Manning's detention as "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid," forcing President Obama to address those comments in a Press Conference and defend the treatment of Manning. [Yesterday], CNN report[ed], Crowley... "abruptly resigned" under "pressure from White House officials because of controversial comments he made last week about the Bradley Manning case." In other words, he was forced to "resign" -- i.e., fired.

So, in Barack Obama's administration, it's perfectly acceptable to abuse an American citizen in detention who has been convicted of nothing by consigning him to 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement, barring him from exercising in his cell, punitively imposing "suicide watch" restrictions on him against the recommendations of brig psychiatrists, and subjecting him to prolonged, forced nudity designed to humiliate and degrade. But speaking out against that abuse is a firing offense...

Of course, it's also the case in Barack Obama's world that those who instituted a worldwide torture and illegal eavesdropping regime are entitled to full-scale presidential immunity, while powerless individuals who blow the whistle on high-level wrongdoing and illegality are subjected to the most aggressive campaign of prosecution and persecution the country has ever seen. So protecting those who are abusing Manning, while firing Crowley for condemning the abuse, is perfectly consistent with the President's sense of justice.

As always, here's the problem? What's the alternative? This, but even worse, under Republican rule.

And so we who abhor what is going on -- the government's authority to invade privacy, among other things, under the Patriot Act; the treatment of Bradley Manning; Gitmo remaining open with detainees kept indefinitely and subjected to military "trials"; etc. -- end up backing Obama (and his Democratic enablers) just because the other side is worse. Which is hardly much of an endorsement of the president.

That's my pragmatism speaking. Ultimately, the choice is clear.

But that doesn't make this any better.

Whatever good it will do, if any at all, we must keep up the pressure on Obama and expose the injustices that are being committed under his rule, injustices for which he himself must be held accountable.

Hillary extends equal benefits to same-sex partners in diplomatic corps

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the NYT:

The State Department will offer equal benefits and protections to same-sex partners of American diplomats, according to an internal memorandum Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sent last week to an association of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers.

Mrs. Clinton said the policy change addressed an inequity in the treatment of domestic partners and would help the State Department recruit diplomats, since many international employers already offered such benefits.

"Like all families, our Foreign Service families come in different configurations; all are part of the common fabric of our post communities abroad," Mrs. Clinton said in the memorandum, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times by a member of the gay and lesbian association.

"At bottom," she said, "the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex partners because it is the right thing to do."

Yes, it is. Very well done, Mrs. Clinton.

(And how about putting an end to that egregious don't-ask-don't-tell policy in the military, President Obama? Is it not time to end bigotry there, too?)

Obama leads out in early days

By Carol Gee

We have seen a great deal of purposeful activity by the Obama administration since the start of business on Tuesday. What can we take from what we see and hear, both explicitly and implicitly? How is our new President doing, so far?

Calm -- One of the best newspapers in the business, The Financial Times, described President Barack Obama's "calm authority of a born leader." Speaking about his Inauguration day speech:

He was politically encompassing, reaching out to sceptics and opponents. He touched admiringly on US history and traditions, but without vainglory and not without reminding his listeners of its errors. Addressing his nation’s enemies, he was measured but stern. He did not disguise the difficulties that face the country; he addressed them with quiet confidence.

There is no bombast or chauvinism or phony sentiment in Mr Obama’s oratory. He inspires, yet his appeal is always to the intellect; still he holds an audience of this size spellbound. It was the performance of a born leader.

Decisive -- In a move designed to reinforce a commitment to governmental openness and transparency, it was reported in ProPublica that, "Obama Reverses Bush Executive Privilege Claim Over Documents" (1/21/09). To quote:

. . . President Obama issued an order rolling back the former administration's restrictive FOIA policies. And now, we learn President Obama has signed another order reversing President George W. Bush's controversial order that gave ex-presidents and their heirs broad authority to stop release of White House records. . .

Team-style governance -- The second day emphasis on the diplomatic side of the house is an effort to return balance to U.S. foreign policy. By enlisting a number of well-know, competent and high profile people to help with foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, it brings up the possibility of confusion about who is heading that enhanced emphasis. Typically, Politico asked Thursday, "who is in charge of foreign policy?" Author Ben Smith concluded, at least in the Middle East, "all of them," meaning Obama, Clinton, Biden, Mitchell and Holbrook. Each of these people understands who the leader is, and how much trust President Obama has in all. Every one of them has the capacity to know what the policy positions are and sit at the table with the authority to handle negotiations, to communicate policy and to bring back the views of the foreign leaders.

After a good Transition, what then -- Will the same things that worked well before the President was sworn in be effective during actual governance? The Democratic Strategist (1/16/09) spoke to some of these same questions recently:

Note: this is a special guest post from Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute. . . .

We’ll find out soon enough whether President-elect Obama is as adept at governing as he is at campaigning. But this much is already certain: Barack Obama has presided over a spectacular presidential transition – maybe the best in modern times.

In picking a crew of political heavyweights to run his administration, Obama has radiated both self-confidence and seriousness about governing. And in recent weeks, he has crystallized the key dilemmas facing the country with greater candor and specificity than ever before.

But, wait a minute -- How do we know it will be successful? Given the financial crisis, two wars, energy issues, global warming, etc., etc., what are the realistic chances? The following piece is recommended reading on this: Yahoo! News & Politico.com: "Seven reasons for healthy skepticism"# (1/21/09). To quote:

Here are seven reasons to be skeptical of Obama’s chances — and the Washington establishment he now leads: 1) The genius fallacy. . . 2) The herd instinct . . . 3) We are broke . . . 4) Words, words, words . . . 5) He rarely challenges the home team . . . 6) Everyone is winging it . . . 7) The watchdogs are dozing.

Perhaps not everyone will dutifully fall in line -- Another Politico list includes "Ten Dems Obama should look out for." To summarize (the full story is a good read): Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich), Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), VP Joe Biden, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif), Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla), Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont), Rep Barbara Lee (D-Calif), Senator Jim Webb (D-Va), and Michelle Obama.

Press relations not all roses -- Politico.com (1/22/09) reveals more information about what President Obama's relating style with the press could be. Headlined, "Obama flashes irritation in press room," The vignette describes the inevitable tension between Press, wanting individual access to the president and the President wanting to make information public as he chooses.

Trivia -- It has only been a few days since power changed hands. On balance the leadership looks good. It feels nice to the adults back in charge. In conclusion here are a few miscellaneous fun facts, just to keep things light.

• ProPublica: "Who Runs Departments Before Heads Are Confirmed?" (1/22/09)


• Many Americans are still unable to spell "Barack," according to John Brooks Pounders, CEO of gooseGrade.com


• McClatchy: "Obama photographer got started at K-state"* (1/16/09)

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Clinton confirmed, Holder held back

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you missed it, Hillary Clinton was confirmed by the Senate, 94-2, and sworn in as the new secretary of state this evening.

One of her biggest boosters was John McCain. The two who voted against her? -- David Vitter and Jim DeMint, two of the more loathsome Republicans in that august body.

Meanwhile, with Specter and the Republicans looking to make a show of it all, a committee vote on AG nominee Eric Holder won't take place until next week at the earliest. (He'll be confirmed eventually.)

An emotional choice

By Carl

If this story is true, then I will never vote for Hillary Clinton for Senator again:

WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton passed on becoming boss of the superpowerful Senate Appropriations Committee to pursue the more prestigious secretary of state job with President-elect Barack Obama, the Daily News has learned.

As chairwoman of the panel that controls the nation's purse strings, Clinton could have pumped billions in federal dollars into the Empire State.

Instead, as Obama continues to piece together his cabinet, Clinton is poised to become the third female secretary of state, following Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice.

Of course, I make that threat tongue-in-cheek.

This offer was made in part because, as the article goes on to state, Sen. Edward Kennedy did not want Hillary on his health care task force.

I guess his ego was a bit too large to fit in the same room as Hillary's.

Not to begrudge Kennedy a thing. I would have done the same thing if nearly all of my adult life I had been pursuing an agenda on a signature piece of legislation, and, after all, this is likely his last turn as the Liberal Lion of the Senate. Why share the spotlight?

Hillary's celebrity would have, of course, both assisted the cause and distracted attention from the legislation. That might not have been a bad thing in a nation that may not quite be ready for national health care.

It is interesting that Hillary would turn down a chance to skip way ahead of the crowd in the Senate in order to re-plow ground that's been turned over twice already. I think I know why.

She intends to be the secretary of state credited with ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and bringing peace to that corner of the Middle East. By extension, she could end terrorism as we in America know it.

Let's face facts: she has a certified ace in the hole in husband President Clinton here. He has credibility amongst both the Israelis and Palestinians and her own "cred amongst Jews" is very high. After nearly eight years of intense and delicate negotiations, Bill Clinton set the bar for peace in the Middle East at an attainable level with the Camp David talks with Ehud Barak, who paid a hefty price for not bringing home an accord with Arafat (I won't get into a discussion of the finer points of the talks, other than to say that Arafat was handed the world on a platter and decided he'd rather check out the buffet first).

So certainly Hillary Clinton could make a mark, an indelible mark, on the history of the world and in the same motion, tweak the noses of folks who thought she wouldn't be an effective president because she couldn't bring about change.

Appropriations is a powerful post, and in that seat she could have effectively assisted New York State in overcoming what is amounting to "Ground Zero" of the Bush Depression. She could have been any one of a number of senators who have held that seat (most recently, Sen. Robert Byrd and disgraced Sen. Ted Stevens) and brought home so much pork she would have contracted trichinosis.

Or she could wave goodbye to all that, and move on to bigger and better things.

Now does anyone doubt Hillary's reasons for wanting to be SoS?

(Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)

Vetting Bill, considering Hillary

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to the NYT, "President-elect Barack Obama's advisers have begun reviewing former President Bill Clinton's finances and activities to see whether they would preclude the appointment of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as secretary of state."

I still think Obama is serious about this (and should be) -- and that he and Hillary could form an effective "Team of Allies." It isn't just for show.

And yet...

Questions abound -- and Michael Crowley asked some of them last Friday, including:

-- "How would Joe Biden feel? Presumably he'd feel competitive with a very strong personality at State." That's one I hadn't been thinking much about, but I do wonder about a possible Obama-Biden-Hillary triumvirate (and with Gates as SecDef, perhaps). It's not that Biden and Hillary don't like each other, it's that both are strong and determined figures. Would Biden feel threatened, or insecure, with Hillary at State? It's hard to imagine Biden in such a position, given how self-confident he is, but he did admit during the primaries that Hillary was "as qualified or more qualified" than he was to be vice president. There is already the question of whether Obama and Hillary would be able to work together effectively, given their seemingly tense relationship (in the past, at least) and the specter of Bill looming in the background (and sometimes dominating the foreground). Throw Biden, with his extensive foreign policy experience, into the mix. How would that work?

-- "How does John Kerry feel today?" I'd love to see Kerry at State. On policy grounds, I prefer him to Hillary, not to mention to establishmentarians like Holbrooke. And he's clearly campaigning for the job. If he doesn't get State, wouldn't he make a fine AG?

So... will it be Hillary? The good people at MSNBC's First Read make a good point: "Has the momentum for a Hillary appointment gotten to the point where the only way this doesn't happen is if Clinton says no? Obama can't pull the offer (even if he hasn't officially made it) at this point, right?"

Hmmm... probably right.

Top Ten Cloves: Things about Hillary Clinton becoming Secretary of State

By J. Thomas Duffy

News Item: Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?

10. Despite getting the appointment, Hillary will still expect Obama to pay off her campaign debt .

9. A really, confusing, cumbersome, crazy confirmation hearing if Hillary brings all those voices she heard to testify on her behalf.

8. It will escalate the Hillarylanders-Daily Kos strike.

7. Disaster, if she hires just one certain person for her staff -- Mark Penn.

6. We win every diplomatic crisis, with new negotiation tool - Hillary breaks down, crying.

5. Oh God, that means we'll have to put up with Lanny Davis again!

4. Already has world community intimidated, as they remember what Samantha Powers had to say about Hillary.

3. Doris Kearns Goodwin gets another three-months-plus of making the cable-show rounds, waxing about her book, Team of Rivals.

2. Will save money on security -- Hillary already knows how to duck sniper fire.

1. Maybe it's all a ruse and Obama is implementing Robert Smigel's "The Obama Files".

**********

Bonus HRC To State Riffs

A.J. Liebling: Hillary Clinton's Defining Moment

The Jed Report: HRC For Secretary Of State

Laura Rozen: Will Hillary Clinton Be Taking Those 3:00 am Calls After All?

Al Kamen and Philip Rucker: In the Loop - Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State?




(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Barack and Hillary: Team of Allies?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(A follow-up on my Hillary-to-State post from earlier today.)

Obama and Hillary met in Chicago yesterday and apparently discussed what role she might play in Obama's administration. Secretary of State remains at the top of the rumour mill, and, as I put it earlier today, although I would prefer Kerry for the job, strictly in terms of policy considerations, I am certainly intrigued by the idea of Hillary and Obama working together, if that is possible (and if she wouldn't overshadow him), to chart a new course for U.S. foreign policy.

Steve Clemons has been following this rumour for some time and now thinks it's a serious possibility. And he presents an interesting theory as to what Obama might be up to: "[T]his is EXACTLY what George W. Bush did to his most serious rival in 2000, Colin Powell. He gave Powell Secretary of State and then began to box him up. Barack Obama may be on the same track with Hillary Clinton who is and was his chief rival in the Democratic Party today."

That may very well be the case, but I think Obama is in a much stronger position than Bush was in back in 2000. He also seems to be incredibly confident and sure of himself and what he is doing -- more so now in victory than every before. I doubt he's all that worried about Hillary mounting some sort of challenge to him. True, it is wise to keep your friends close and your enemies closer, but is Hillary really an enemy? And does Obama really think he needs to "box" her in?

Again, maybe. If Obama stumbles, she could indeed emerge as a formidable rival after the 2010 midterms. The case would be made, after all, that it should have been Hillary all along, that things would be different, and better, if only she had won the nomination. And, yes, Obama is certainly a shrewd political operator who knows how to prepare well for future political battles. (Consider that he is set to meet with McCain on Monday, a shrewd move not just to reach out to his recent opponent but to shore up possible support down the road.) But I simply do not think that the motivation for appointing Hillary to State are so entirely self-serving (and, to be fair, Steve may not think so either). Maybe I'm not being cynical enough today, but it could be that Obama thinks that Hillary would actually be a positive addition to his administration, that they actually could work well together, that she would be an excellent secretary of state at this extremely challenging time.

We tend to think of them, coming out of that long and at times bitter and nasty primary season, as rivals, and as the two of them as a possible "Team of Rivals," but what if, with the election over, they are actually, or could actually be, allies -- that is, a Team of Allies?

Possible, no?

**********

UPDATE 1: Of course, it could all be a Clintonite-driven media "freak show." But I suspect there's a bit more to it than that.

**********

UPDATE 2: CNN is reporting that Obama and Hillary did in fact discuss the secretary of state job. Apparently, Obama wanted "to gauge Clinton's interest in the post of Secretary of State, if she were offered it. Senator Clinton's response is unknown, although multiple sources agree that Hillary Clinton was left with the impression that if she were interested in the post, it would be hers."

Note, however, that the CNN piece relies on anonymous "Democratic sources." They could well be pro-Hillary sources.

**********

UPDATE 3: ABC News has more on the meeting: "A source with knowledge of the transition process describes the meeting as not a hard offer. Obama is more cautious than that... Obama does not want to be seen as being rejected by her, but it is 'hers to turn down,' one source put it. They have an agreement to have another meeting or phone conversation about this very soon." Again, we're dealing with anonymous sources here.

Obama also met with Bill Richardson about the secretary of state job.

**********

UPDATE 4: The WaPo is reporting that Hillary and Richardson are on the SoS short list. The source? Once again, anonymous "Democratic sources."

**********

UPDATE 5: The NYT has more: "The prospect of Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state, perhaps the most prestigious cabinet position in any administration, sent people buzzing. But associates to both Democrats cautioned that their conversation included other cabinet possibilities and that no job was offered."

Hillary to Foggy Bottom?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The latest juicy morsel of speculation coming out of The Transition, or at least making its way around Transition watchers, has to do with Hillary being a candidate for Secretary of State. Here's WaPo:

There's increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days and that the field might be expanding somewhat beyond Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and maybe former Democratic senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

There's talk, indeed, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) may now be under consideration for the post. Her office referred any questions to the Obama transition; Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.

Well, okay, though I'd prefer to have Hillary in the Senate working on, say, health care reform.

I still think it'll be Kerry, who clearly wants the job, who would provide progressive leadership on U.S. foreign policy, and who would be an effective counterweight to the more hawkish, Republican-lite Democratic foreign policy establishment with which Obama has surrounded himself (Richard Holbrooke, another possibility for the job, et al.). I don't mind Richardson, but there's just too much of the bumbling fool about him, and Hagel... well, as much as I admire him for his tough stand against the Iraq War, he's still a conservative Republican.

At MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell reports that Tom Daschle could be a "compromise choice." I didn't think much of him when he was Senate majority leader, but his support for Obama, from early on, was impressive, and I think he'd be an asset to the Obama Administration. I just don't think he's right for State.

As for Hillary, I just wonder how effectively she and Obama would be able to work together. At Politico, Mike Allen reports that she may be "the favorite," and that appointing her to State "would create the ultimate 'Team of Rivals' cabinet, according to officials involved in the discussions." Fair enough, and, indeed, there is certainly a lot to recommend her -- not least her foreign and military policy experience, her engagement in world affairs, and her undeniable stature and credibility. And it would certainly be a news-dominating pick, overshadowing the rest of the Transition and Obama's other Cabinet appointments. (For more, see Taylor Marsh, who makes a good case for her.)

I'd be happy with either Kerry or Hillary. I've been leaning towards Kerry, given that I'm closer to him on policy, but the thought of an Obama-Hillary foreign policy team, if it is at all workable, is rather appealing.

Operation Iraqi fiefdom

By Capt. Fogg

So the government of Iraq is sovereign? Well obviously not when it comes to being able to ask an occupying army to leave or to make Iraqi law apply to their actions or being able to tell foreign powers and their carpetbaggers that no, they can't just come in and take their only natural resource.

In case you haven't been reading the papers, one of the architects of our conquest of Iraq, Richard Perle, has been making oil deals which include a venture near the Kurdish city of Erbil . Needless to say Iraq, to which this area allegedly belongs and which is trying to put together legislation affirming its ownership of its resources, is displeased. Of course he's not the first and not the only entity with close ties to President Bush to attempt to circumvent US policy and Iraqi law for private gain. The State Department is investigating, but one expects nothing to come of it as long as the carpetbagger oil men themselves run our country.

Perle, together with Turkish AG Group International, has been talking with Kurdish officials and with Kazakhstan's ruthless and corrupt dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev, who has been involved in a US oil bribery investigation about all kinds of oil deals. Mr. Perle, who began pushing an attack on Iraq nearly 10 years ago and who invented dishonest scenarios including Saddam Hussein dancing around the maypole with Osama bin Laden to justify it all, calls Nazarbayev "visionary and wise," says The Wall Street Journal. Sometimes words fail me.

Will a Department of State under another Republican president continue not to object to such imperial appropriation of another country's resources while continuing to sell that country as an independent nation struggling for freedom against foreign enemies? Who knows, but Mr. McCain has not said much other than to talk about "victory" and "surrender" nor has he any record of maintaining a consistent position for very long.

But unless you're looking for this sort of news, you won't be aware of it and you'll probably buy into the comic opera scenario they've been presenting for 7 years. You'll be made far more aware of the fist bumps and the funny sounding middle name of the other candidate. You'll wave the flag and talk about honor while your country becomes another corrupt and greedy empire pushing its will on the world through fear and force of arms.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)