IRAQ
Called Onto the Carpet

The Senate Foreign Relations Committees, concerned with the rising death toll and mounting questions "that the United States lacks an effective plan for success in Iraq," will hold hearings beginning today "in which some hope to talk about how America got into the dangerous predicament and how it will get out." Concern about the situation crosses party lines, especially with Spain's announcement that it will be removing its troops from Iraq. But while there are many, many unanswered questions, the administration has been slow to commit its members to appear before the committee. The Senate and House armed services committees also `will hear about current Iraq operations from top administration officials. As of yesterday, however, the Pentagon had not agreed to testify at a hearing Thursday "on how it intends to transfer political power June 30 to an as-yet unnamed Iraqi government." The Senate Foreign Relations Committee had hoped to hear from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers on the issue; "Pentagon officials acknowledged Monday that Wolfowitz and Myers would not go to that hearing, but had no immediate comment on why." American Progress' Lawrence J. Korb discusses five steps the United States can take to ensure a more stable Iraq.

FACING THE MUSIC: According to AP, some of the criticisms the administration faces in the Iraq hearings include: "too few troops sent over in the first place; a lack of planning for postwar operations; unilateral action that has left the United States bearing the bulk of the financial and human toll; and overly optimistic predictions on what it would take to oust Saddam Hussein and build a new democratic government in his place."

CASUALTIES OF WAR: According to Newsweek, "Soldiers killed in Iraq are announced, incident by incident, in terse press releases that give the scantest of details." Also, "in addition to the minimalist announcements, the military avoids keeping any sort of running tallies, particularly when things are going badly. The Pentagon has also studiously refused to release estimates of enemy casualties, although these are indeed detailed in every after-action report." In this week's issue, in an attempt to keep Americans informed, Newsweek calculates the numbers. For example, "150,000: The estimated number of all coalition forces in Iraq, of which about 124,000 are Americans and 26,000 are others. A total of 35 countries contribute forces, but most number less than 1,000. Some, like Mongolia, are in the low two digits." Other numbers Newsweek calculated: "3,466: The total of American soldiers wounded in action in Iraq through April 17, 2004; 793: Total coalition soldiers killed in Iraq since the war began. 20, 70, 50: The numbers of daily resistance attacks against coalition forces in Iraq a month ago, a week ago, and on April 17 respectively."

LOSING THE COALITION: At a time when the United States is attempting to shore up international support as the clock for the transfer of power in Iraq ticks down, pieces of the international coalition are instead withdrawing support and troops. The new leader of Spain, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, announced Spanish troops would be removed from Iraq "in the shortest possible time." The withdrawal has escalated fears in the United States that other coalition members could follow suit. Already, the announcement triggered a similar one by the leader of Honduras, President Ricardo Maduro, that his country would also remove its deployment from Iraq as soon as possible instead of waiting until the previously scheduled July end date. (Honduran troops are currently under Spanish command in Iraq.) Yesterday, Thailand announced it also will withdraw its medical and engineering troops from Iraq if they are attacked.

BURDEN ON THE TROOPS: Unless the White House steps up efforts to bring in additional troops from other countries – increasingly challenging as the situation grows more tumultuous and dangerous – the lack of international support could place an added burden on U.S. troops. Recently, about 20,000 American soldiers "who had been due to return from Iraq to their home bases this month and next will have their tours extended." The decision to keep them in place "breaks a Pentagon commitment last autumn to limit troop assignments in Iraq to 12 months."

ROAD TO RUIN: The LA Times writes, "Of all the sudden changes in Iraq during the last month, control of the roads is among the most striking. The U.S.-led coalition has been unable to hold on to all of its supply and communication lines on vital routes leading from the capital. Insurgents have blown up key bridges, rocketed fuel convoys and seized hostages." Over the weekend, in an attempt to get the ongoing violence under control, the Coalition Provisional Authority announced it would close two of the main Iraqi highways; the chaos has disrupted the transport of necessary military supplies, food and medicine. According to a senior analyst at Jane's Consulting, it's indicative of a larger problem: "It's a good measure of how the coalition is doing when you can get in a car and drive to the Jordanian border and down to Najaf [two of the routes that are occasionally under insurgent control] without worrying about it." The fact that one cannot take those roads "is not a good sign."

IRAQ
Echoes of Iran-Contra

Imagine that the U.S. administration deliberately hid money from Congress to invest in a war in the Middle East, potentially crafted secret deals with an oil-rich Middle Eastern country that has ties to terrorism, and appointed ideologues to be the key diplomatic emissaries to a war-torn region. Think you are back in the 1980s living through the Iran-Contra scandal? Think again. Over the last two days, new revelations by journalist Bob Woodward and actions by President Bush have evoked memories of a previous scandal and an old foreign policy/national security strategy gone wrong. Yesterday, new details emerged about the Bush administration's deliberate circumvention of Congress to divert $700 million into a secret war plan, and about the potential manipulation of U.S. elections by the Saudi Arabian government. Meanwhile, President Bush nominated key Iran-Contra figure John Negroponte as the new Ambassador to Iraq.

IRAN-CONTRA ECHOES - HIDING MONEY FROM CONGRESS: U.S. Rep. David Obey (D-WI) became the first lawmaker to "demand to know whether the Bush administration transferred $700 million to Iraq war planning efforts out of counterterrorism funds without informing Capitol Hill." According to Woodward, the $700 million came out of a supplemental Appropriations bill meant for Afghanistan operations. And a close look at the two supplemental Appropriations bills that passed between 9/11 and July 2002 when the secret transfer took place shows that both bills mandate the White House to inform Congress if money is moved. The Emergency Supplemental Act passed on 9/14/01 specifically instructs the president to "consult with the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer" of any funds. The president actually told the American public that the money would be used for those purposes, saying the bill would be used "to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military" in its operations against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He said nothing about Iraq. Similarly, while the summer 2002 supplemental bill allows the administration to transfer "up to $275 million" in unused money within the Pentagon budget, it requires the president to notify Congress within 15 days of moving money. So far, the administration has not produced a shred of evidence that it followed these laws and informed Congress. As Woodward said, "Congress, which is supposed to control the purse strings, had no real knowledge or involvement, had not even been notified that the Pentagon wanted to reprogram money."

IRAN-CONTRA ECHOES – LYING TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT MILITARY FOCUS: According to a new AP report, "Following an important meeting on Iraq war planning in late 2001, President Bush told the public that the discussions were about Afghanistan. He made no mention afterward about Iraq even though that was the real focus of the session at his ranch." "I'm right now focused on the military operations in Afghanistan," Bush told reporters after talks on Dec. 28, 2001, with top aides and generals.

IRAN-CONTRA ECHOES – SECRET DEALS WITH COUNTRY TIED TO TERROR?: The Saudi Arabian government, which has ties to terrorism yet maintains close ties to the Bush administration, continued to deny Woodward's charges that its U.S. Ambassador Prince Bandar promised an increase in oil supplies to coincide with the November presidential election to help President Bush's campaign. Mounting a Saudi defense, Saudi foreign policy adviser Adel al-Jubeir deflected the questions by claiming, "Over the past 30 years, the kingdom has sought to ensure adequate supplies of crude at moderate price levels." Of course, al-Jubeir did not explain why the Saudis had led the recent charge within OPEC to reduce oil supplies and artificially inflate the price of gasoline in the U.S. to record levels. Woodward remained steadfast in his reporting, saying the Saudi's definitely made a "pledge." He said, "over the summer or as we get closer to the election they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly." Author Craig Unger points to a possible motive for the alleged Saudi pledge. In his book "House of Bush, House of Saud," he says Bush presidencies "strengthen Bandar's position in Saudi Arabia. During the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush era, Bandar had enjoyed unique powers - partly because of his close relationship to Bush...But during the Clinton era, Bandar had lost clout. [He was] never an insider in the Clinton White House."

IRAN-CONTRA ECHOES – THE IMPORTANCE OF NEGROPONTE'S RECORD: Negroponte, who has no prior experience in the Middle East and does not speak Arabic, is sure to face new questions about his Iran-Contra past, given the circumstances of his Iraqi post. As the LA Times reports, human rights advocates charged that during his tenure as Ambassador to Honduras in the 1980s, "Negroponte underplayed human rights abuses by death squads to ensure that the country would continue to serve as a base for U.S.-backed Contras." Negroponte denies this, but according declassified documents, "U.S. officials knew what was happening in Honduras and engaged in a willful deception to avoid confronting Congress with the truth." As Molly Ivins notes, this record is important because Negroponte was a key player in a "plot that sold U.S. arms to Iran" in its war against Iraq. That means "our first ambassador will be a man who armed Iraq's enemy" – a fact that might not be lost on local Iraqis with whom he must work closely. Negroponte will also be charged with convincing U.S. allies to desist from removing troops from Iraq. The problem is some of these key allies are from Central America, where Negroponte's sordid record is well-known and where his name might not be well-received. In fact, just yesterday Honduras – the country where Negroponte made his most indelible mark – said it was planning to remove its troops from Iraq. Finally, Kenneth Roth of Human Rights watch notes the "serious unanswered questions about Negroponte's complicity with the atrocities in Honduras" are important as the issue of "U.S.-sponsored forces avoiding complicity in atrocities" could arise in Baghdad.

PATRIOT ACT
Show Us the Facts

Portions of the Patriot Act, passed in the chaotic days after 9/11, are scheduled to expire in 2005. President Bush hit the road yesterday and grossly distorted the reason some of the provisions are scheduled to "sunset." Bush said that Congress designed some provisions to expire in 2005 because of the belief that "maybe the war on terror won't go on very long." The truth: "Lawmakers of both parties...said at the time the Patriot Acts passed that the sunset provision would allow Congress to ensure that the administration did not abuse its new power." Meanwhile, even as the president asks Congress to make all provisions in the Patriot Act permanent, Attorney General John Ashcroft has failed to disclose critical information necessary to evaluate how the government uses the law.

ROVING FROM THE TRUTH: President Bush touted the use of roving wiretaps, authorized by Section 206 of the Patriot Act, as an "essential tool" for locking up terrorists. Roving wiretaps allow the government to tap not just an individual phone number but any phone that they believe the target of their surveillance might use. The provision raises serious privacy concerns. As explained in an American Progress report, "Section 206 does nothing to require that, as the wiretap 'roves,' the subject is actually present, or even likely to be present at the new location." So if "the location of the surveillance is, for example, a public computer terminal, [roving wire taps] could expose hundreds, even thousands, of innocent people to clandestine surveillance." But last year, when James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and John Conyers (D-MI) asked the Justice Department how roving wiretaps had been used, Acting Assistant Attorney General Jamie Brown responded that the information was classified. How is Congress supposed to decide whether or not to make the roving wiretap provision permanent if it doesn't even know how it is being used?

DELAYED NOTIFICATION OF THE FACTS: President Bush also praised the effectiveness of "delayed notification search warrants," which are authorized by Section 213 of the Patriot Act. A delayed notification search warrant allows the government to search a home or office and not inform the owner as long as the government believes that doing so would have an "adverse result." The president's comments on this topic are somewhat of a red herring because Section 213 is not scheduled to sunset. Nevertheless, serious concerns about the provision persist as the government could argue that disclosing that a search has taken place could have an "adverse result" in nearly every case. The provision has been used hundreds of times – but as of May 13, 2003, it has never been used to combat terrorism.

SO ESSENTIAL IT HAS NEVER BEEN USED: Bush also urged the extension of one of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act – Section 215, which permits the government to more easily obtain "any tangible thing" – a classification so broad it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items." That Bush would single this provision out as essential to the war on terrorism is puzzling since, on September 18, 2003 – after insisting for two years the information was classified – John Ashcroft said that the provision had never been used. The Justice Department is now equivocating, saying that Ashcroft's denial only applies to the period before September 18, 2003. But, before Congress decides to make Section 215 a permanent part of the law, it should know if and how it has been used.

ASKING FOR AN END RUN AROUND THE CONSTITUTION: Bush not only asked for a rubber-stamp approval of all expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, he also asked for certain authorities to be further expanded. His proposal to expand "administrative subpoenas," which allow the government to obtain records and interrogate any witness without any court review. The president claims the government needs this extraordinary power to speed terrorism investigations. But the Department of Justice could not even cite a single instance where the existing rules slowed down their efforts against terrorism. Eliminating the judiciary from its fundamental role as a check on executive branch power runs squarely against the Constitution while doing nothing to further the fight against terrorism.



SECRECY – TOP SECRET T-BALL: The WP reports, "It may come as a surprise to some that the Kremlin, symbol of secrecy and repression, has become more transparent than the White House, symbol of freedom and democracy." After a recent phone conversation between President Bush and Prime Minister Putin, the Kremlin disclosed, "The presidents exchanged ideas on the situations in the crisis areas of the world: Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc. They expressed serious concerns about the lack of progress in the settlement of regional problems and the escalation of the situation in these areas." Meanwhile, the White House refused to comment on the conversation. But the White House's reticence on releasing information extends far beyond presidential conversations with foreign leaders. For example, in April 2002, the Orlando Sentinel reported "that the Apopka Little League team of 11- and 12-year-olds would visit the White House on May 5 to watch a T-ball game." The paper's source was the children's parents – according to the Sentinel "the White House would not confirm the invitation."

SECRECY – HUSH HUSH ARCHIVIST: The NYT reports, "President Bush's nominee to be archivist of the United States — an ordinarily low-profile job that includes overseeing the release of government documents, including presidential papers — is generating an intense controversy among historians, some of whom accuse the White House of trying to push through a candidate who is prone to secrecy." The nominee, Allen Weinstein, has a track record of refusing to share notes and information. One important issue: The papers of Mr. Bush's father, the 41st president, are scheduled for release in January. "Critics of Mr. Weinstein say they fear that he could restrict or delay access to those and other important documents." So far, "nine groups, including the Society of American Archivists, have raised concerns about the selection." According to Timothy A. Slavin, president of the Council of State Historical Records Coordinators, "It's the equivalent of the administration's thumbing its nose at the nation's history."

LEGAL – TAXPAYER MONEY FOR PARTISAN PURPOSES: The IRS is using taxpayer money to promote partisan propaganda. Recently, the Department of Treasury appended the following message to IRS press releases: "America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the president's policies are doing, or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation." Earlier, the "Treasury Department was criticized after its analysis of a tax plan similar to one proposed by Senator John Kerry was used to attack Mr. Kerry."

HEALTH CARE – GRANITE STATE BATTLES OVER KIDS: In a move that could have potentially harmful ramifications for kids in the state, New Hampshire Health and Human Services Commissioner John Stephen is pushing to "privatize Healthy Kids, an insurance program that covers more than 7,000 poor New Hampshire children." The hugely successful program currently "provides low-cost health insurance and dental care to children whose families don't qualify for Medicaid but can't otherwise afford insurance." Privatizing could force some children out of the program. Lawmakers say Stephen has no right: Healthy Kids and the nonprofit corporation that runs it were established by state statute and cannot be put out for a bid without the Legislature's approval.

Read more at CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS.

_______________________________________________________