Deep Blade Journal

President still peddling Saddam disarmament

While reading through the President’s speech from Friday March 10, cited in the last post, I note that he is still promoting the obviously false notion that Saddam Hussein failed to “disarm” in late 2002 and early 2003.

PRESIDENT BUSH (Mar. 10, 2006): First choice of any president ought to be to deal with issues diplomatically. And we dealt with the issue of Iraq diplomatically: Security Council resolution after Security Council resolution after Security Council resolution, until 1441, when the world spoke with a united voice that said to Iraq, “Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.”

Saddam Hussein chose otherwise. He was removed from power. And there’s no doubt in my mind that the United States is more secure and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

But Saddam Hussein clearly told the truth in Iraq’s December 2002 declaration on weapons of mass destruction–Iraq had none. All subsequent pre-war hype on the subject from the president, Colin Powell, and other officials was hyperbolic pure crap. The president’s second hand-picked inspector threw in the towel in December 2004.

More recently, it has been reported that President Bush knew as early as January 2003 that Iraq was void of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, in a January 31, 2003 White House meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush proposed flying US spy planes painted with UN colors over Iraq in order to provoke war. Bush reportedly told Blair that the “diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning”. The case for war over WMD was non-existent and other rationale were sought.

In the end, the British Parliament authorized military action in Iraq on a bizarre legal theory concerning the post-Gulf-War resolution from 1991, in the absence of genuine authority from the UN Security Council. Contrary to the word of President Bush, UNSCR 1441 did not confer automatic authority for war without further Security Council action. All members’ comments at the time on UNSCR 1441, save for some ludicrous unilateralism from then US Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte, “welcomed the lack of `automaticity’ in the final resolution.”

Of course, there is a good reason President Bush promulgates this mythology–it may one day become his post-office defense in a war crimes trial, against the charge of the supreme crime of Aggression.

PRESIDENT BUSH (3/10/2006): “We’re at war. I wish I could report to you we weren’t at war. We are. There’s an enemy that still lurks, that would like to do serious harm to the United States.”

There he goes again, laying out familiar ground in the post-911 mode. But the Dubai Ports deal brought out for all to see a fundamental contradiction in Bush doctrine–that the international investor class operates without restriction while this “new kind” of post-911 Terror War rages against lurkers seeking harm to the US.

Bush politics have since 911 focused around smashing over the head of its political opponents unbridled national-security fearmongering while creating a state of panic over the “murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals”, blowing up the threat (which is real) into mythic ogre on par with the Cold-War USSR.

In a comment about a Nation piece on this by William Greider, Kevin Drum put it succinctly a couple of weeks ago:

George Bush has used war and terror as a partisan cudgel for the past five years, and the culture of fear he’s nurtured so cynically has been the cornerstone of his political success.

The flip side of the coin of unchallengeble right to wage war at will under a doctrine of anticipatory self-defense is unbrideled freedom of capital investment. In the doctrinal Friday speech to newspaper editors cited above, Bush relayed his new-found “concern” about the “message” derailment of the ports deal sends to the world capital class

I’m concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East.

In order to win the war on terror, we have got to strengthen our relationships and friendships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East.

UAE is a committed ally in the war on terror. They are a key partner for our military in a critical region. And outside of our own country, Dubai services more of our military ships than any country in the world.

They’re sharing intelligence so we can hunt down the terrorists. They’ve helped us shut down a worldwide nuclear proliferation network run by A.Q. Khan.

UAE is a valued and strategic partner. I’m committed to strengthening our relationship with UAE and explaining why it’s important to Congress and the American people.

And here is how Paula Stern, Former Chair of the International Trade Commission posed these questions on the PBS Newshour last Friday.

PAULA STERN: Well, I think it’s going to make them hesitate. I think it’s going to make them look at what they had thought they wanted to buy here in the United States and think again, go and see what their portfolio of future investments are and say is this going to be too sensitive? Is there going to be some political fallout that will embarrass me as it has embarrassed those who invested in the — from Dubai in the ports here in the U.S.?…

STERN: We get the goods, but we still owe them. We’ve got to pay back for that and we have amassed enormous debt. And we are acting, frankly, in this Dubai signal that the president said was such a bad signal to the world, we’re acting as if we don’t need the rest of the world’s money, nor do we need the rest of the world to trade or invest with us. And right now we need it more than ever.

So there are real worries that interruption of capital flow back into the US could become a bad thing if Terror War concerns begin to impinge.

A News Hour regular, often-insufferable New York Time columnist David Brooks was just flummoxed on Friday that people may think that the ports deal could have some sort of relationship to the Terror War:

BROOKS: And a lot of people heard “Arab ports.” They’re nervous. They think we’re in a war. A lot of them think we’re in a war against Arabs, apparently. And they were — they were concerned…. So, I would say there’s anxiety about where we are in the war on terror. There’s a lot of things blowing up around the world. Iraq is unstable, the Danish cartoons. There’s just a sense that we’re at war, and that we’re at war with a part of the world that — where a lot of things are going wrong.

And I think people heard United Arab Emirates, ports, where they know we’re vulnerable. The two together didn’t seem like a good idea. I think, if you had enough political leaders who would say, listen, I agree with you, if this was the Taliban taking over the ports, but the UAE has done everything we have requested of them. They have risked their lives. They have incurred the wrath of al-Qaida. They’re serving 700 ships, where you have UAE citizens, our military ships. And they’re taking care of it themselves.

Frankly, I bristle at the suggestion that genuine concerns over this ports deal is based on some sort of unreasonable lack of faith in the UAE, or even racism. Bull. There is a stack of unanswered questions about 911, many of them centered squack in the UAE. The 911 Commission Monograph on Terrorist Financing reads like a Dubai travel log:

Upon their arrival in the United States, the hijackers received a total of approximately $130,000 from overseas facilitators via wire or bank-to-bank transfers. Most of the transfers originated from the Persian Gulf financial center of Dubai, UAE, and were sent by plot facilitator Ali. Ali is the nephew of KSM, the plot’s leader, and his sister is married to convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef. He lived in the UAE for several years before the September 11 attacks, working for a computer wholesaler in a free trade zone in Dubai. According to Ali, KSM gave him the assignment and provided him with some of the necessary funds at a meeting in Pakistan in early 2000. KSM provided the bulk of the money later in 2000 via a courier. Although Ali had two bank accounts in the UAE, he kept most of the funds for the hijackers in a laundry bag at home. Ali transferred a total of $119,500 to the hijackers in the United States in six transactions…

But, even though I do not concur with the “xenophobia” notion promoted, I suppose the level-headed piece in Newsweek by Christopher Dickey explains the real nature of Dubai quite well as

a place where people from all over the world can come to do business with maximum comfort and minimum hassles.

To be sure, Al-Maktoum had a useful tradition to build on. Dubai was, is, and ever has been a place for traders, entrepreneurs, moneymen, intriguers, smugglers and spies. In a region of notorious bureaucracy and protectionism, Dubai looked quite lawless because its rulers wanted, well, less law. Even before independence in the 1970s, when the British were supposed to be running the show in what were then called “The Trucial States,” Dubai’s big industry was shipping contraband gold to India so brides there could avoid the heavy taxes on their glittering dowries.

For President Bush and free traders, it seems the wild-west aspect of the Dubai is a terribly useful feature. Too bad, terrorists feel this way too.

If you can wade through the anti-liberal snark, Michelle Malkin actually has some useful research on the aspects of the UAE unbridled free-traders like Bush and Brooks would rather ignore, Terror War or not.

Iraq war profiteering is wrong? Unbelievable!

Last spring, Deep Blade Journal had a couple of posts referring to the extensive wrongdoing and theft by Iraq contractors being paid with Iraqi and US-taxpayer funds. See here and here for details.

Now a federal jury has found that Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) contractor Custer Battles LLC “committed fraud in 37 instances in connection with a $9 million contract to help distribute new currency in Iraq,” according to a story published in USA Today’s weekend edition.

The principles in Custer-Battles, Scott Custer and Michael Battles, deny having committed fraud. I am curious about what happens next as the case winds its way through appeals courts. The judgement is based on the Civil-War era False Claims Act in an action brought by former Custer-Battles employees. So far, there is no mention that Executive Order 13303 could be a basis for immunity from fraud on the part of a CPA contractor. And so far, the Bush administration is not a participant in prosecuting fraud against US taxpayers and Iraqis alike. According to USA Today, “The Justice Department declined to participate. Charles Miller, a department spokesman, declined to comment.”

Dreary but warming

Backyard losing its bit of snow, again

Tulips have activated along the foundation

Light rain has moved in and the temperature has shot up to near 10°C, after two weeks of mostly freezing or below. The cover from recent small snows will be gone entirely by this time tomorrow. Is this yet another false spring? Maybe the tulip bulbs that started pushing up shoots along the sunny side of the house this week say differently.

Glenn Greenwald has an excellent piece on the non-action by the Senate Select Commiittee on Intelligence concerning illegal warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration, and so-called “moderate” Republican legislation to legalize it:

In lieu of fulfilling their pledge to discover the scope of the Administration’s warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, Sens. Hagel and Snowe decided instead that they would support legislation which would create a 7-member Subcommittee (4 Republicans and 3 Democrats) to which the Administration is required to report all warrantless eavesdropping activities…The Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings are still ongoing and, when he was last heard from a day or so ago, Sen. Specter was still squawking about being angry that Gonazles lied to the Committee and insisting that the Committee would at least find out whether there were other warrantless eavesdropping programs in place…Sen. Specter is, of course, of the same rancid strain as Sens. Snowe and Hagel — the group that struts around self-lovingly preening as some sort of “independent Republicans” only invariably to fall in line, meekly and without exception, with White House commands.

Snowe on December 21, 2005:

SNOWE, BIPARTISAN GROUP OF SENATORS SEEK JOINT JUDICIARY-INTELLIGENCE INQUIRY INTO DOMESTIC SPYING

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME) and a bipartisan group of Senate Intelligence Committee members today called for a joint inquiry by the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees into the President’s authorization of domestic electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens.

“Revelations that the U.S. government has conducted domestic electronic surveillance without express legal authority indeed warrants Congressional examination. I believe the Congress – as a coequal branch of government – must immediately and expeditiously review the use of this practice,” said Snowe.

Joining Senator Snowe on the letter to Senators Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the chairman and vice chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence were Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

The following is the text of the letter:

The Honorable Arlen Specter, Chairman Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Pat Roberts, Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV, Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Dear Senators,

We write to express our profound concern about recent revelations that the United States Government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority. These allegations, which the President, at least in part, confirmed this weekend require immediate inquiry and action by the Senate.

We respectfully request that the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on the Judiciary, which share jurisdiction and oversight of this issue, jointly undertake an inquiry into the facts and law surrounding these allegations. The overlapping jurisdiction of these two Committees is particularly critical where civil liberties and the rule of law hang in the balance.

On Saturday the President stated that he “authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.” It is critical that Congress determine, as quickly as possible, exactly what collection activities were authorized, what were actually undertaken, how many names and numbers were involved over what period, and what was the asserted legal authority for such activities. In sum, we must determine the facts.

Both the Judiciary and the Intelligence Committee have had numerous hearings and briefings on the authorities provided to the nation’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies in their effort to defend against terrorism. We have extensively debated these issues. At no time, to our knowledge, did any Administration representative ask the Congress to consider amending existing law to permit electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists without a warrant such as outlined in the New York Times article.

We strongly believe that the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees should immediately seek to answer the factual and legal questions which surround these revelations, and recommend appropriate action to the Senate….

Snowe today:

Several moderate Senate Republicans including Olympia Snowe are collecting support for a bill that would give President Bush’s domestic surveillance program the force of law.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The prospects are far from certain for the draft legislation circulated by Snowe, Ohio’s Mike DeWine, Nebraska’s Chuck Hagel and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham.

The legislation that has the general approval of the Senate’s Republican and intelligence leadership. But Democrats expressed outrage yesterday after the Intelligence Committee voted along party lines to reject an investigation of the surveillance program.

West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, the committee’s top Democrat, complained that the committee is “in the control of the White House.”

Cold war in South Asia

The Alliance? (doctored White House photo)

The more I look at the White House photo of Cheney before AIPAC with the entwined flags, the more frightened I become. The Chakra is added, signifying last week’s developments in India, where Bush and Singh declared the 1967 Non-proliferation Treaty a dead letter.

Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz (AP file photo)

MOFAZ: If Hamas Â… presents us with the challenge of having to confront a terror organization, then no one there will be immune. Not just [Hamas leader] Ismail Haniyeh. No one will be immune.

Vice President before AIPAC on Tuesday

CHENEY: The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences. (Applause.) For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. (Applause.) And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

Funny, I would’ve thought that reaching across borders to assassinate at will while killing eight-year-olds fell within the definition of terror. And I don’t see anything in the veep’s speech about the advanced nuclear arsenal Israel has pointed at Iran.

Peak oil in 2005? 2006?

Can world oil keep up supply increases of the last 4 years during 2006? (Graphic posted at The Oil Drum, click for complete explanation)

Jonathan at Past Peak alerts me to the annual 2006 Energy Outlook column by analyst Matthew Simmons in World Oil:

Also, 2005 will go down in history books as perhaps the poorest year for exploration success for both oil and gas since World War II. This dismal success was not for lack of effort. Record amounts of funds are being plowed into E&P [exploration & production] capital spending, which is why all the world’s rigs are now in use.

So, new oil discovery is petering out worldwide while the industry is utilizing its drilling capacity at nearly 100%. Couple these facts with the important observation at The Oil Drum that May & December 2005 appear to be tied for highest world oil production, with December edging out May because the “Russians had a very good month”. But the bottom line is that international figures show world oil production roughly at a plateau.

What happens if neither Russia nor Saudi Arabia can increase production much from this point? Maybe there will be a month in 2006 that makes the all-time high. But going forward, this level is precariously perched and a significant fall cannot be ruled out.

Late winter bluster

Early signs of mud season

March has been a lion so far. Early in the week it was downright ugly, with windchills feeling a lot more like mid January. Four inches of snow yesterday. Cold remains today, though just a bit better–just warm enough to melt over the tar. But the wind keeps blowing. Good news is a warm-up is on the way…