Friday, September 21, 2007

Saddam Lives! A Case of Body-Snatching!!

Well, at the very least, he's trying to stage a comeback...

Patrick Graham is a Canadian freelance journalist who worked in Iraq from November 2002 until August 2004 for the Observer, Harper's and the New York Times. He's reputed to be working on a book which chronicles his experiences. In the meantime, he's turned in to Maclean's a very well-written piece on Iraq. I can only find one base not covered.

Graham never mentions the word OIL. At least I don't recall mention of it in my first read. But there are a number of well-turned and accurate passages which are worth re-reading.

It's a case of body-snatching! Saddam is inhabiting the corporeal bodies of Bush and his Panglossian General, David Potemkin Petraeus:
Gen. Petraeus: I was struck by how familiar his words sounded. The general talked like every Sunni I’ve ever met in Iraq—hell, he sounded a bit like Saddam. The old tyrant would have had one of his characteristic chest-heaving guffaws watching Petraeus as he intoned the old Baathist mantra about the dangers to Iraq: Iran, Iran, Iran. Bush took up Gen. Petraeus’s views a few days later in a nationally televised speech about Iraq, in which he talked about the threat Tehran posed. It seems that Petraeus and Bush have come to the same conclusion as Saddam: the main enemy is Iran, and you can’t govern Iraq without the Sunni Arab tribes, even as you encourage anti-Iranian nationalism among the Shia. This is what Saddam did during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and what Washington is trying to do now. One of the main problems with this strategy is that both the Sunni tribes and Shia nationalists are profoundly anti-American and don’t trust each other—a potential recipe for further disaster.
Karl Rove is co-habiting the corporeal entity of Maliki:
Maliki has been accused of running an “ethno-sectarian” government, but accusing him of running a pro-Shia government is like accusing Bush of running a pro-Republican administration. Like Karl Rove, who hoped to make the Republican party supreme, Maliki seems to want to set up Shia-dominated rule that will control Iraq for generations. And like Rove, he focuses on his base, with little regard for any other point of view unless the U.S. pressures him (even then he pouts and makes vague threats about looking for other allies—by which he obviously means Iran).
But Maliki is also Saddam's current host:
The great irony of Maliki is that under other circumstances a government like his—one that is: a) accused by the U.S. of close relations with an American enemy (Iran); b) running a strategically important country (like Iraq); c) involved in the oppression and murder of one of its minorities (the Sunnis), which is closely linked to an important U.S. ally (the Saudis)—is an administration that many Americans would want to eliminate. There is a good chance that if the U.S. Army wasn’t there already, Washington would have invaded to get rid of Maliki.
One final insight: Iran has learned from Bush.
Iraq, Iran’s neighbour to the west, is Tehran’s self-declared security zone. Iran has already been attacked once from Iraq—by a then-American ally, Saddam—and won’t let it happen again. Nor do the Iranians want, as the West does, a secular Iraqi government that could destabilize their own theocracy. For them, Iraq is a survival issue. U.S.-led invasions have conquered not only Iraq but Afghanistan on Iran’s eastern flank. The U.S. Navy is floating off Iranian shores. Every few weeks, Washington debates whether to bomb Iran. How could Iran afford not to be involved in Iraq? Following the American example, the Iranians have learned that it’s bet­­­ter to fight the U.S. on the streets of Baghdad than the streets of Tehran.
In a real sense, ever since George Bush occupied Baghdad Washington after his judiciary coup in 2000, invading and occupying Iraq has been a solution looking for a problem. I won't bore any remaining readers by reciting this trail of tears. Actually, it's a circular path: the latest permutation of Mesopotamia's 'problem-definition' has returned to its original formulation: Iran is the anvil of evil.

Republican of the Week: Jack Goldsmith

Vigilante is inconsolably enraged at Republican behavior and voting in Congress this week, and has convinced both of us that he better not mention the words Republican or G.O.P. inside this site because whatever he said would bring down Google's "Objectional Content!" rating. So, I'm offering to pick up the slack.

I'm nominating Jack Goldsmith for the redeemable Republican-of-the-week.

Goldsmith is a Harvard Law School professor, the author of numerous learned texts on international law and the Internet. He served the Bush administration as an Assistant United States Attorney General from Oct-03 to Jul-04, under Attorney General John Ashcroft and Assistant Attorney General James Comey. He was the head of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, the division of the United States Department of Justice that advises the president on the limits of executive power. It is critical to note that in this capacity he lasted a mere eight months.

I am taking liberally from Tim Rutten's recent review in the L.A. Times, Inside the Administration's Legal Deliberations:

On the long shelf of books written from inside President George W. Bush's administration, none is more fundamentally significant, nor as challenging to the preconceptions of left and right, as Jack Goldsmith's The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration.

Goldsmith . . . is one of those rare legal scholars who write with unforced clarity. He is also a committed philosophical conservative in the American tradition, deferential to precedent and custom, reverential toward democratic institutions as expressed in the Constitution and deeply learned in the history of presidential power exercised in the face of wartime exigencies.

That such a man could survive only eight months inside the Bush administration is the most severe indictment of this government's conduct yet leveled.

. . . . Goldsmith was a surprise choice for the post, and his name surfaced only after conservative legal scholar John Yoo's nomination was vetoed by then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, who distrusted Yoo as too close to the White House and, particularly, to Vice President Dick Cheney's staff.

At the time of his own nomination, the administration's inner circle knew little of Goldsmith beyond that he was a conservative. . . .

There were, however, significant differences in their legal analysis of presidential wartime powers, an issue that preoccupies this administration. Yoo believes the chief executive's wartime powers derive from a so-called "unitary theory" of executive powers and are inherent in the office. There are no serious scholars of the Founders and their era who share Yoo's views on this issue.

Goldsmith, by contrast, has long been concerned -- from a conservative perspective -- with the potential infringements of international agreements on American popular sovereignty. He also has read and reflected deeply on the wartime presidencies of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. While readers may differ from the conclusions he draws concerning those presidents and their wartime conduct, his arguments are clear, formidable and authoritative.

All of this quickly made Goldsmith anathema inside the Bush White House. By the time he resigned as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, he had withdrawn more legal opinions rendered by his predecessors than all previous counsels combined. Among those were Yoo's now-infamous memos justifying the use of torture to interrogate suspected terrorists. As Goldsmith writes, he came to believe those opinions rested on legal foundations
sloppily reasoned, overboard, and incautious in asserting extraordinary constitutional authorities on behalf of the president.
In his new book, Goldsmith describes,
the role the Bush administration and, particularly, Cheney have found for a relatively small cadre of zealots, who have acted as enablers for an unprecedented expansion of presidential powers that has been characterized as conservative but is in fact authoritarian. Yoo, of course, is one of these, and so too is Cheney's former legal counsel, now chief of staff, David Addington.

When Goldsmith went to the White House to deliver his first opinion as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, he argued that the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the conduct of occupying powers, did in fact cover the U.S. treatment of Iraqi insurgents. Addington exploded,
The president has already decided that terrorists do not receive Geneva Convention protections. You cannot question his decision.
On another occasion, in spring 2004, Goldsmith was asked to evaluate an "important counterterrorism initiative." When he told the White House that "the Justice Department could not support the initiative's legality," Addington reacted '"in disgust," snapping,
If you rule that way, the blood of the hundred thousand people who die in the next attack will be on your hands."
Still, in his entirely measured way, Goldsmith muses that
Addington was. . . not on entirely thin ice in thinking that President Bush, like Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, had the power under the Constitution to do what was necessary to save the country in an emergency. But Addington took this idea further than Roosevelt and Lincoln
in his categorical assertion that Congress never need be consulted by the executive:
Lincoln claimed and exercised similar emergency powers, but he too was sensitive to Congress' prerogatives and constitutional propriety. He invoked the emergency power to exercise powers reserved for Congress. But he did so only until Congress could meet in session and, at Lincoln's invitation, either ratify or reject his actions.

Addington had no such instincts. To the contrary, long before 9/11 he and his boss had set out to reverse what they saw as Congress' illegitimate decades-long intrusions on 'unitary' executive power. . . . This underlying commitment to expanding presidential power distinguishes the Bush Administration from the Lincoln and Roosevelt administrations. . . . Vice President Cheney and David Addington -- and through their influence, President Bush and Alberto Gonzales --. . . shared a commitment to expanding presidential power that they had long been anxious to implement.
Goldsmith quotes Arthur Schlesinger's observation that Lincoln and Roosevelt regarded
executive aggrandizement as but a means to a great end, the survival of liberty and law, of government by, for, and of the people,' and that 'they used emergency power, on the whole, with discrimination and restraint. . . .'
Goldsmith concludes:
We are unlikely to come to think of President Bush in this way, for he has not embraced Lincoln's and Roosevelt's tenets of democratic leadership in crisis.
Jack Goldsmith personally witnessed the infamous occasion when Andrew Card and Alfred Gonzales called on critically ill Attorney-General Ashcroft in his hospital room: