Recently in Dubya Diplomacy Category

"Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes...Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want." While much of the nation watched The Dark Knight, Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki shook up our election considerably, perhaps even decisively, over the weekend by publicly backing Obama's troop withdrawal plan in the German magazine Der Spiegel.

The Dubya White House immediately tried to lean on Al-Maliki to get him to walk back his remarks, but some hemming and hawing aside, they would seem to stand. In fact, they were reinforced today by Ali al-Dabbagh, Iraq's government spokesman, upon Sen. Obama's arrival to the region: "We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq."

In other words, even the Iraqis believe Obama is right and McCain is wrong on our future in Iraq. Which means the McCain campaign has just lost one of their critical tentpole issues, and has no place to go now except scream "surge, surge, surge." "Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, 'We're f**ked.'"

Of course, McCain's bleeding on the Iraq issue might be better staunched if he didn't publicly refer to the non-existent Iraq-Pakistan border...

"Just as it had on the day before 9/11, Al Qaeda now has a band of terror camps from which to plan and train for attacks against Western targets, including the United States...'The United States faces a threat from Al Qaeda today that is comparable to what it faced on Sept. 11, 2001,' said Seth Jones, a Pentagon consultant and a terrorism expert at the RAND Corporation."

In the NYT, Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde explore how, despite all their endless bluster and unconstitutional behavior, the Dubya administration is losing the war against Al Qaeda, and has apparently given up on catching Bin Laden. "By late 2005, many inside the CIA headquarters in Virginia had reached the conclusion that their hunt for Bin Laden had reached a dead end...'You had a very finite number' of experienced officers, said one former senior intelligence official. 'Those people all went to Iraq. We were all hurting because of Iraq.'"

"The Democratic leadership’s agreement to commit hundreds of millions of dollars for more secret operations in Iran was remarkable, given the general concerns of officials like Gates, Fallon, and many others. 'The oversight process has not kept pace -- it’s been coöpted' by the Administration, the person familiar with the contents of the Finding said. 'The process is broken, and this is dangerous stuff we’re authorizing.'"

In related news, The New Yorker's venerable Sy Hersh reports that the Dubya administration has been stepping up covert activities in Iran...and Congress is once again going along for the ride. "In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership...were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy."

"This can be a moment of opportunity for North Korea. If North Korea continues to make the right choices, it can repair its relationship with the international community -- much as Libya has done over the past few years. If North Korea makes the wrong choices, the United States and our partners in the six-party talks will respond accordingly." In a Rose Garden statement yesterday, Dubya announces the lifting of trading sanctions against North Korea, on account of Pyongyang seemingly agreeing to nuclear disarmament as outlined in recent multilateral talks. But don't get the wrong idea, folks: Talking to our enemies is still an act of horrible, dirty appeasement. Update: Slate's Fred Kaplan surveys the deal.

"'The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11, 2001) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,' intelligence committee Chairman John Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report. 'Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false pretenses.'"

In the stating-the-obvious department, the "Phase II" report by the Senate Intelligence Committee -- delayed by the GOP since before the 2004 election -- finds once again that the Dubya administration lied us into war. Y'know, back in the day, this would be considered an impeachable offense.

"'Over that summer of 2002,' he writes, 'top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war...In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage ...What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.'" The other big political story of my move week: In a new political tell-all, former Dubya Press Secretary Scott McClellan turns on his former White House masters, accusing them of ginning up the case for war and lying outright to him about the Plamegate affair. "'Over time, as you leave the White House and leave the bubble, you're able to take off your partisan hat and take a clear-eyed look at things...I don't know that I can say when I started the book that it would end up where it was, but I felt at the end it had to be as honest and forthright as possible.'"

Welcome to the reality-based community, Scott. In the meantime, the White House is claiming McClellan was motivated by "sour grapes" (whatever that means -- why would he want to keep a gig he seemed to hate?) while other Dubya stalwarts, blindsided by the tome, have also gone on the attack. (But, don't fret -- of all people, McClellan knew what was coming.)

"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I'm happy to have any time, any place, and that is a debate I will win, because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for." Looks like Sen. Borah will get another news cycle from beyond the grave...Given a golden opportunity to further tie McCain to Dubya, Sen. Obama pushes back hard on Borahgate. "They're trying to fool you, trying to scare you, and they're not telling you the truth because they can't win a foreign policy debate on the merits. It's not going to work this time."

Meanwhile, deeming Obama's wry, measured remarks a "hysterical diatribe," Sen. McCain is now trying to claim that Dubya wasn't even talking about Obama. He is, of course, lying.

And, hey, don't look now, but -- at long last -- the general election has begun!

A busy day traffic-wise here at GitM: In a speech before the Knesset today, Dubya compared Obama to Sen. William Borah of Idaho (and not in complimentary fashion, although that case could be made too.) Here's GWB: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Now, as it turns out, Sen. Borah was the subject of my undergraduate thesis and features prominently in my dissertation. So, notwithstanding the self-serving idiocy and sad invoking of Godwin's Law in Dubya's words, I do want to take a moment to defend Sen. Borah, before -- just as Philip Roth Cheneyed up Burton Wheeler -- he disappears down the memory hole and is reinvented as simply a kneejerk reactionary. (I know Dubya brought him up to bash as a weak-kneed surrender-monkey, but I've also read several left-leaning comments out and about today that make note that Borah was a Republican, and thus belongs in Dubya's camp. He really doesn't.)

However wrong he was about Hitler in his final years, and obviously he was very, very wrong (although not perhaps as wrong as George Prescott Bush), Sen. Borah is neither the apostle of appeasement nor the GOP stooge that Dubya and folks pushing back would respectively make him out to be today. With La Follette and Johnson, Borah was one of the leading progressives in the Senate for decades, and one of its strongest civil liberties advocates in the years after World War I. In fact, if Dubya wants to ponder aloud the words of Borah, may I suggest the following?

"The aging Vito Corleone, emblematic of cold-war American power, is struck down suddenly and violently by forces he did not expect and does not understand, much as America was on September 11. Even more intriguingly, each of his three 'heirs' embraces a very different vision of how the family should move forward following this wrenching moment. Tom Hagen, Sonny and Michael approximate the three American foreign-policy schools of thought—liberal institutionalism, neoconservatism and realism—vying for control in today’s disarranged world order." In The National Interest, John C. Hulsman and A. Wess Mitchell compare America's post-9/11 foreign policy to The Godfather. What they neglect to mention is that Dubya diplomacy in practice has been Sonny by way of Fredo.

"Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Do you remember the Iraq War of 2003? Remember those heady days of euphoria when it ended two months later, with only 139 American lives lost? Journey back with me -- TIME-LIFE style, if you will -- to the scene of our triumph: "Chris Matthews on MSNBC called Bush a 'hero' and boomed, 'He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.' PBS' Gwen Ifill said Bush was 'part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan.' On NBC, Brian Williams gushed, 'The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing. This must be very meaningful to the United States military.'"

Well, today marks the five-year anniversary of our glorious victory, the day that "splendid little war" came to a close. Among those honoring the day, and the remarkable achievement of our Commander-in-Chief:

"Judging from Gen. David Petraeus' Senate testimony today, our military commitment to Iraq is open-ended and unconditional...Their unwavering stance amounted to this: Further pullouts might trigger defeat; the costs of defeat are too horrible to ponder; therefore, we shouldn't ponder further pullouts." Slate's Fred Kaplan takes the measure of yesterday's Petraeus hearings, and the performances of Senators Obama [transcript | video], Clinton and McCain respectively. "Near the end of the afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrats' likely presidential nominee but a junior member of the foreign relations committee, finally got his turn to ask questions -- and he homed in on one of the administration's key conceptual failures...'I'm trying to get to an end point,' he said. 'That's what all of us are trying to do.' This is what many critics and thoughtful supporters of the war have been trying to do for five years now. The Bush administration hasn't addressed the issue. And, ultimately, neither did Petraeus or Crocker today."

The first family set, Oliver Stone's W picks up some Dubya admin hangers-on: namely, Thandie Newton as Condi Rice and Ioan Gruffudd as Tony Blair. Those are both solid. "Among the key "W" roles yet to be cast are those of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove."

A personal plug: Also out in stores this week, my fourth collaboration with Democratic pundit Bill Press (1, 2, 3): Trainwreck: The End of the Conservative Revolution (and not a moment too soon). If you couldn't guess from the title, it basically argues that, just as the New Deal era lasted from 1932-1968, the Age of Conservatism that began in '64 with Goldwater, hit its stride in the 70's and 80's, and gave us the likes of Reagan, Gingrich, and, of course, Dubya, has now hit the proverbial, inevitable, historical brick wall. So let's survey the wreckage: On one hand, from Katrina to Abramoff and Ed Meese to Alberto Gonzales, right-wing attempts at governance over the past thirty years have usually degenerated into dismal experiments in cronyism and/or incompetence. On the other, conservatism has strayed so far from its ideological roots in the Reagan and particularly Dubya eras that the likes of Robert Taft, Russell Kirk, and William F. Buckley would never even recognize it. (Case in point, the Ron Paul candidacy, wherein a traditional Taft conservative ended up being treated by his esteemed Republican contemporaries in every debate as either a fringe joke or a terrorist-sympathizing dupe.) Either way, the right-wing ascendancy is over, and it's our time again now (and, though it's not reflected in this tome, I think y'all know who I'd prefer to be carrying our progressive standard into battle in 2009 and beyond...)

"It's not a case of good vs. evil. It's just another crevice in the widening earthquake called Iraq." As violence flares up in Iraq once more, Slate's Fred Kaplan summarizes the current situation: "[I]t is 'a power struggle' between rival 'Shiite party mafias' for control of the oil-rich south and other Shiite sections of the country. Both sides in this struggle are essentially militias. Both sides have ties to Iran. And as for protecting 'the Iraqi people,' the side backed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (and by U.S. air power) has, ironically, less support -- at least in many Shiite areas, including Basra -- than the side that he (and we) are attacking."

"President Bush believes that every life is precious, and he spends time every day thinking about those who've lost their lives on the battlefield." And well he should: Following soon after our fifth anniversary in Iraq, a roadside bomb kills four soldiers on Easter Sunday, and the American death toll in Iraq reaches 4000, 3863 of which were killed after Dubya's declaration of "Mission Accomplished" in May 2003.

I said when the death toll hit 2,000 in October 2005 that " [t]wo thousand US men and women have been killed in the line of duty, and this blatantly amateurish administration still has no plan either to win or to disengage from a conflict they orchestrated, other than 'stay the course.'" Two and half years and 2000 lives later, it's sadly still true. Worse still, Dubya's heir apparent, John McCain, now advocates extending this administration's catastrophic incompetence into another presidential term. This is not a good idea.

"To my close compatriots...I say that I will not aspire to nor accept -- I repeat, I will not aspire to nor accept -- the office of President of the Council of State or Commander in Chief." After nearly fifty years in power, Fidel Castro steps down in Cuba. Hopefully, this will encourage our leaders to begin advocating a more reasonable and sane policy towards our neighbor in the Caribbean.

So, as you may have heard, George W. Bush delivered his final (a lovely word, isn't it?) State of the Union address last night. [Transcript.] I actually saw it two and a half times, as I had CNN running in the background while I websurfed well into the evening. And, maybe I've been getting ruined by the recent slew of memorable Obama-related speeches but, for the life of me, it didn't make an impression at all. Right around the time Dubya made that goofy and somewhat undignified joke about the IRS accepting checks and money orders, something in my brain went *click*, and all I could hear was a lame duck quacking. So, if Dubya actually managed to say anything of substance, or discuss a program that might actually happen this year, please let me know. Update: Sen. Obama's response. Update 2: James Fallows offers his usual worthwhile post-mortem.

"Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005." Uh, y'know that whole Iran is the new face of evil, imminent-WWIII thing we've been hearing about? Well, never mind. It's time to update those lyrics, Senator McCain: A new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report -- which, it seems, Cheney may have held up for a year -- finds that Iran actually stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. "Even if Iran were to restart its program now, the country probably could not produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single weapon before the middle of the next decade, the assessment stated. It also expressed doubt about whether Iran 'currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.'"

This happy piece of information obviously puts our Saber-Rattler in Chief in a bit of a bind -- In a news conference this morning, he was reduced to spluttering, "'What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?'" What indeed...perhaps we should bomb them anyway, is that your point? Well, probably not. Says Slate's Fred Kaplan of the NIE: "If there was ever a possibility that President George W. Bush would drop bombs on Iran, the chances have now shrunk to nearly zero....Skeptics of war have rarely been so legitimized. Vice President Cheney has never been so isolated." Still, just to keep the timeline in perspective, Dubya made that dubious WWIII comment months after being apprised of this information. So, in effect, he was lying to us yet again.

As for the 2008 contenders, the campaigns are all taking the news pretty much in stride, although Chris Dodd got off a pretty good zinger on Clinton: "It's easy to say 'fool me once, shame on George Bush,' but when she's been fooled twice, shame on her."

"All told, the United States has spent an estimated $500 billion to fight drugs - with very little to show for it. Cocaine is now as cheap as it was when Escobar died and more heavily used. Methamphetamine, barely a presence in 1993, is now used by 1.5 million Americans and may be more addictive than crack. We have nearly 500,000 people behind bars for drug crimes - a twelvefold increase since 1980 - with no discernible effect on the drug traffic. Virtually the only success the government can claim is the decline in the number of Americans who smoke marijuana - and even on that count, it is not clear that federal prevention programs are responsible. In the course of fighting this war, we have allowed our military to become pawns in a civil war in Colombia and our drug agents to be used by the cartels for their own ends. Those we are paying to wage the drug war have been accused of ­human-rights abuses in Peru, Bolivia and Colombia. In Mexico, we are now ­repeating many of the same mistakes we have made in the Andes."

To their credit, those left-wing hippie radicals at National Review said as much way back in 1996, and HBO's The Wire has dramatized the dismal consequences of the conflict for several years now. Now, coming to the same dour conclusion in 2007, Rolling Stone's Ben Wallace-Wells explains how America lost the War on Drugs, and argues that continuing to perpetuate it in its current fashion -- with its "law and order" emphases of crushing supply, international interdiction, and mandatory minimum sentencing -- is tantamount to flushing money and lives down the toilet. "Even by conservative estimates, the War on Drugs now costs the United States $50 billion each year and has overcrowded prisons to the breaking point - all with little discernible impact on the drug trade...The real radicals of the War on Drugs are not the legalization advocates, earnestly preaching from the fringes, but the bureaucrats -- the cops and judges and federal agents who are forced into a growing acceptance that rendering a popular commodity illegal, and punishing those who sell it and use it, has simply overwhelmed the capacity of government." (Found via Jack Shafer's endorsement at Slate.)

"The consequences of Bush and Rice's passivity were disastrous. Israel didn't lose the war, but it didn't win, either, and that's what it had to do to maintain its image of invincibility, which has long deterred hostile neighbors from contemplating aggression. Hezbollah didn't win, but all it had to do was not lose, and it clearly achieved that goal, enhancing its reputation as the power that had stood up to the Zionists and faced them down." In his discussion of the recent Mideast summit in Annapolis (which publicly aimed to kickstart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and privately aimed to pry Syria further away from Iran), Slate's Fred Kaplan brings up a crucial -- and missed -- opportunity for diplomacy last year, during the Israel-Lebanon crisis. "(By the way, this may have been the genesis of a new Israeli verb, lecondel—in Hebrew, 'to Condel,' short for 'to Condoleezza' -- meaning, as the New York Times' Steven Erlanger has explained, to come and go for meetings that produce few results.)" And, speaking of political linguistics, it turns out that Annapolis, however picturesque, might not have been the best place to hold the summit -- In Arabic, "Annapolis" roughly translates to "I am the Police."

"'I hear you're looking for me,' he said. 'You wanna go mano a mano right here?'" In excerpts from his new book, Fall of the House of Bush, published in Salon, Craig Unger examines the ideological divide between Bush father and son and tells the true story of Dubya's coming to Jesus. "One way of examining the growing crisis could be found in the prism of the elder Bush's relationship with his son, a relationship fraught with ancient conflicts, ideological differences, and their profound failure to communicate with each other...According to the Bushes' conservative biographers, Peter and Rochelle Schweizer, family members could see [Bush 41's] torment. When his sister, Nancy Ellis, asked him what he thought about his son's plan for the war, Bush 41 replied, 'But do they have an exit strategy?'" This goes a long way toward explaining the elder Bush's recent spate of (really depressing and hard to watch) public crying jags. (See also Joan Walsh.)

"'The train is derailed and off the tracks,' said Stephen P. Cohen, author of 'The Idea of Pakistan.' 'We have to give ourselves a share of the responsibility for this. We placed all of our chips on Musharraf.' At this point, Cohen added: 'I don't think there is anything we can do. We are not big players in this anymore.'" Dubya diplomacy takes another huge hit as a power-hungry President Musharraf declares martial law in Pakistan to ensure his continued reign, sparking nationwide protests and leaving the Bushies between a rock and a hard place. "One adviser traveling with Rice saw a silver lining in the rapid turn of events. 'Thank heavens for small favors,' the official said. Compared to Pakistan, 'Iraq looks pretty good.'" Oh, joy.

Update: Slate's Fred Kaplan weighs in. "The state of emergency in Pakistan signals yet another low point in President George W. Bush's foreign policy -- a stark demonstration of his paltry influence and his bankrupt principles. More than that, the crackdown locks us in a crisis -- a potentially dangerous dynamic -- from which there appears to be no escape route...The Bush foreign policy was neither shrewd enough to play self-interested power politics nor truly principled enough to enforce its ideals."

"Service in Iraq is 'a potential death sentence,' said one man who identified himself as a 46-year Foreign Service veteran. 'Any other embassy in the world would be closed by now,' he said to sustained applause." Want to join the Foreign Service? Here's your chance...US diplomats appear to be on the verge of mutiny over forced postings in Baghdad. "Foreign Service officers swear an oath to serve wherever the secretary of state sends them, but no directed assignments have been ordered since the late 1960s, during the Vietnam War...A poll conducted this month by the American Foreign Service Association found that only 12 percent of officers 'believe that [Secretary of State Condaleeza] Rice is fighting for them'."

"'We screwed up and left Saddam Hussein in power. The president [then George H.W. Bush] believes he'll be overthrown by his own people, but I rather doubt it,' he quotes Wolfowitz lamenting [in 1991]. 'But we did learn one thing that's very important. With the end of the Cold War, we can now use our military with impunity. The Soviets won't come in to block us. And we've got five, maybe 10, years to clean up these old Soviet surrogate regimes like Iraq and Syria before the next superpower emerges to challenge us ... We could have a little more time, but no one really knows.'" According to Salon's Joe Conason, Wesley Clark's new book suggests the existence of a smoking-gun 2001 memo that outlined in full the neo-cons' delusional ambitions for the Middle East before the Iraq War. "'Six weeks later, Clark returned to Washington to see the same general and inquired whether the plan to strike Iraq was still under consideration..."Oh, it's worse than that," he said, holding up a memo on his desk. "Here's the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We're going to take out seven countries in five years." And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.' While Clark doesn't name the other four countries, he has mentioned in televised interviews that the hit list included Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan."

"In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran...The President’s position, and its corollary -- that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians -- have taken firm hold in the Administration." With that in mind, and with Secretary of State Rice citing Iranian "lying" about their nuclear program, here's one from a week or so ago: The New Yorker's Sy Hersh evaluates the current prospects in the administration for a war with Iran. "I was repeatedly cautioned, in interviews, that the President has yet to issue the 'execute order' that would be required for a military operation inside Iran, and such an order may never be issued. But there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning...'They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,' one recently retired C.I.A. official said."

"If you're really worried about Iran, do you want to put your faith in the United States, the country that bungled Iraq? If you really care about Islamic fundamentalism, do you want to be led by the country that, distracted by Iraq, failed to predict the return of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan?" Why has the world soured on America of late? The real reason, argues Slate's Anne Applebaum and the data she surveys, is that, thanks to seven years of Dubya, we're starting to look incompetent. "And even if the surge works, even if the roadside bombs vanish, inept is a word that will always be used about the Iraqi invasion."

Speaking of US-international relations, with Frost/Nixon, The Queen, The Last King of Scotland and rewrites of State of Play and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy under his belt, British writer Peter Morgan now plans a sequel to The Queen "which will examine former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's relationships with U.S. presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush." Michael Sheen is set to reprise his role as the PM, although director Stephen Frears is not returning.

Paging Yuri Orlov: By way of Dangerous Meta, a new Congressional study finds the US atop the leaderboard in terms of selling weaponry to the developing world. "Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia were the top buyers...The study makes clear also that the United States has signed weapons-sales agreements with nations whose records on democracy and human rights are subject to official criticism."

"The problem is that no one seems quite sure what law, if any, would apply to security firm contractors, and any potential applications are untested and would be vigorously challenged." A murky incident involving Blackwater USA over the weekend, which resulted in the deaths of eight alleged Iraqi civilians, raises questions about the legality of private security firms working in Iraq (on whom the well-being of most American diplomats in the region depends.) "Should any Iraqis ever seek redress for the deaths of the civilians in a criminal court, they will be out of luck. Because of an order promulgated by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the now-defunct American occupation government, there appears to be almost no chance that the contractors involved would be, or could be, successfully prosecuted in any court in Iraq." Needed or not, having privately-held American militias operating outside the bounds of the Iraqi legal system isn't going to elicit much respect for the rule of law in the region.

"Since your testimony at the Committee's hearing on July 26,2007, current and former
employees of the Office of Inspector General have contacted my staff with allegations that you
interfered with on-going investigations to protect the State Department and the White House
from political embarassment...The allegations made by these officials are not limited to a single unit or project within your office." In a detailed and damning letter to the suspect, Henry Waxman's House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform announces it is investigating attempts by the Dubya State Department's Inspector General, one Howard J. Krongard, to shield the administration from political trouble. "One consistent element in these allegations is that you believe your foremost mission is
to support the Bush Administration, especially with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than
act as an independent and objective check on waste, fraud, and abuse on behalf of U.S.
taxpayers." Innocent until proven guilty, of course, but this sounds all too plausible, given what we've already seen from this bunch.

Declaring that "the military objectives of the surge are in large measure being met" (an assertion which rests, of course, on how one jukes the stats and skews the benchmarks), Army General David Petraeus, Dubya's most recent man in Iraq, tells Congress he's recommending a drawdown of troop levels in Iraq to pre-surge levels -- around 130,000 troops -- by July of next year. [Transcript.] Not a huge surprise -- As Fred Kaplan noted both a few weeks ago and in his quality preview of today's testimony, the Army would run out of troops by April anyway, so this was a foregone conclusion. Also, obviously, not what you'd call a real withdrawal (although the WP story's cited experts suggest it may be taken as the "beginning of the end" by interested parties in Iraq...and Iran.) So, in effect, Petraeus punted to next July.

For his part, US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker backed Petraeus' "Things are Getting Better" remarks in his own testimony, and intimated that the surge had staved off a near-total collapse. He also warned the nation about the nature of our continuing commitment there: "'There will be no single moment in which we can claim victory,' and any turning point will be recognized only 'in retrospect.'"

"There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle -- those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001." Every time he thinks he's going to wake up back in the jungle...In a fit of self-serving revisionism, Dubya attempts to reinvent the lessons of Vietnam before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, arguing that our problems really began because we withdrew from Southeast Asia too early. (Also, apparently we lost the war because of Graham Greene's The Quiet American. So, on the bright side, it looks like Dubya is progressing along his high-school reading list.) As you might expect, this line of argument is not sitting well with many historians, among them the venerable Robert Dallek: "What is Bush suggesting? That we didn't fight hard enough, stay long enough? That's nonsense. It's a distortion,' he continued. 'We've been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. It's a disaster, and this is a political attempt to lay the blame for the disaster on his opponents. But the disaster is the consequence of going in, not getting out.'"

Ratcheting up the sabre-rattling, the Dubya administration adds Iran's Revolutionary Guard to its official list of terrorist organizations. "The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization." Hmm. This ought to go over like gangbusters. "'It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue,' said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress...All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change."

"The historic depth of Bush's public standing has whipsawed his White House, sapped his clout, drained his advisers, encouraged his enemies and jeopardized his legacy. Around the White House, aides make gallows-humor jokes about how they can alienate their remaining supporters -- at least those aides not heading for the door." Round the decay of that colossal wreck, nothing beside remains: The WP contextualizes Dubya's dismal presidential approval ratings. "The emerging strategy is to play off a Congress that is also deeply unpopular and to look strong by vetoing spending bills."

"The White House report released today, on how far Iraq has progressed toward 18 political and military benchmarks, is a sham." Well, Dubya may point to the split-decision Iraq interim report as grounds for optimism, but Slate's Fred Kaplan, for one, ain't buying it: "[A] close look at the 25-page report reveals a far more dismal picture and a deliberately distorted assessment...The report card was rigged from the outset by how the White House defined 'satisfactory.'"

"OPEC would like you to believe that it's an international agency dedicated to world peace and economic development, like the United Nations or the World Bank. But of course, OPEC is a cartel." Tim Noah examines a new bill before Congress that would work to bring OPEC's behavior under American antitrust law. "The White House Office of Management and Budget says it opposes the NOPEC bill 'adamantly.' Perhaps this is because, as I've noted before, OPEC is just about the only international organization that President Bush has any regard for."

"Dmitri Trenin, deputy director of the Carnegie Endowment's Moscow center, put it well in an insightful article in Foreign Affairs, published a year ago. 'Until recently,' he wrote, 'Russia saw itself as Pluto in the Western solar system, very far from the center but still fundamentally a part of it. Now it has left that orbit entirely. Russia's leaders have given up on becoming part of the West and have started creating their own Moscow-centered system.'" With Dubya on the road for the G8 summit, Slate's Fred Kaplan surveys the state of US-Russian relations, concluding that "something is happening...[but w]e're not -- or at least there's nothing inevitable about our becoming -- enemies."

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history." Jimmy Carter calls out Dubya's foreign policy as the worst ever. (As noted earlier, several prominent historians have already come to that conclusion.) "Asked how he would judge [Tony] Blair's support of Bush, Carter said: 'Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient.'" Well, maybe he'll do better at the Bank. Update: Or does he? Carter backs down.

"'I disagree with Obama on the war but I don't think it is a test of his patriotism,' Martin says. 'Obama has a message of hope for the country.'" Come on aboard, you won't hurt the horse: Disillusioned Republicans wander over to the Obama bandwagon, including "Power and Weakness" author Robert Kagan. "In an article in the Washington Post, Kagan wrote approvingly that a keynote speech by Obama at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was 'pure John Kennedy', a neocon hero of the cold war...'Personally, I liked it,' Kagan wrote." And, really, after seeing what the Republicans have to offer at the first debate last week, can you blame him or anyone else for defecting?

"Within the next few weeks I won't be the prime minister of this country. In all probability a Scot will become prime minister of this country and that's someone who built one of the strongest economies in the world and who I've always said would make a great prime minister." With recent tough defeats for Labor in Scotland punctuating his closing weeks, Tony Blair announces he will make an announcement tomorrow concerning his forthcoming resignation and likely replacement by Chancellor Gordon Brown. And, across the channel, France elects Nicolas Sarkozy as its new president, a conservative who's seen as both US-friendly and Dubya-friendly. Meanwhile, E.J. Dionne wonders what recent events mean for European -- and American -- progressives. Update: Tony Blair announces his last day: June 27.

"None of those 76 senators, who include the current Republican leader and whip, acted to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia. All of them recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated." In an editorial for Salon, Sen. Russ Feingold invokes GOP behavior on Somalia in 1993 to make the case