Posts by Satyam Khanna

Satyam Khanna is a Research Associate for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress.

McCain Jokes About Killing Iranians With American Tobacco Exports
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on July 9, 2008 at 7:57 AM.

Last year, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) joked about bombing Iran to the theme of the Beach Boy’s “Barbara Ann.” McCain was widely criticized for the remark, but simply told critics to “lighten up and get a life.” The Washington Post notes that McCain tried joking about “killing” Iranians again today:

Responding to a question about a survey that shows increased exports to Iran, mainly from cigarettes, McCain said, “Maybe thats a way of killing them.” He quickly caught himself, saying “I meant that as a joke” as his wife, Cindy, poked him in the back.

According to a report released today, U.S. exports to Iran “grew more than tenfold during President Bush’s years in office even as he accused Iran of nuclear ambitions and helping terrorists. America sent more cigarettes to Iran, at least $158 million worth under Bush, than any other products.”

Rep. Waxman Threatens to Hold Contempt Vote on AG Mukasey
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on July 8, 2008 at 12:24 PM.

On June 16, the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Michael Mukasey for documents related to the CIA leak scandal. In a letter today, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) notes that Mukasey has not yet “complied with this subpoena” and threatened to hold him in contempt unless he produces a key FBI interview with Vice President Cheney:

I regret that your failure to produce responsive documents has created this impasse, but Congress has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Therefore, unless all responsive documents, with the exception of the FBI interview report of President Bush, are provided to the Committee or a valid assertion of executive privilege is made, the Committee will meet on July 16 to consider a resolution citing you in contempt. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and comply with the duly issued subpoena.

McCain Advisor Charlie Black Defended Infamous Racist Ad
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on July 7, 2008 at 6:54 AM.

As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, the late-Sen. Jesse Helms’ ran an ad in his 1990 Senate campaign that preyed on people’s fears about affirmative action. The Politico reports that Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) senior adviser Charlie Black, who was advising Helms at the time, strongly defended the ad. When asked if there was anything improper about the ad on the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, Black said, “Of course not.” “Do you approve of that ad, Charlie,” a guest pressed. Black responded, “I advised Jesse Helms to do what he’s always done.” “[T]here is nothing racial about the campaign,” Black added.

Sy Hersh: U.S. Escalating Covert Ops in Iran
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on June 30, 2008 at 7:26 AM.

The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh reports that late last year, “Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran.” The “Presidential Finding” was designed to destabilize religious leadership and gather “intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program“:

But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.

“The Finding was focused on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.”

Update: U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, reacting to Hersh's story on CNN's Late Edition, said: "I can tell you flatly that U.S. forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran."

Today in Chutzpah: Rove Rips NYT for Outing CIA Agent!
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on June 25, 2008 at 11:34 AM.

On Sunday, the New York Times published an extensive article examining the CIA’s interrogation of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM). The article identified the name of the CIA agent who interrogated KSM, Deuce Martinez.

Yesterday, on The O’Reilly Factor, Karl Rove slammed the New York Times for supposedly leaking the name of a CIA agent. “[T]hey’ve got a very callous view about our nation’s security and interests,” Rove charged:

ROVE: Well, I read their explanation. And basically, it sounded to me like they were saying we put his name out there because we decided we could. And I mean, they didn’t have a good explanation for it.

Rove claimed the United States is put at risk when a CIA agent’s identity is leaked. “Look, they put our country at risk when they reveal the details of a program that saved America from attacks.” Watch it.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Only 7% of Americans Support Invading Iran
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on June 6, 2008 at 4:59 AM.

According to a new poll from Public Agenda, nearly 50 percent of those who follow the situation in Iran say “the one” best way to deal with Iran is through using diplomacy “to establish better relations.” Only five percent favor threatening military action, down from nine percent in fall 2007. Seven percent support taking military action:

118 Days Later, Fox News Finally Identifies Rove As Informal Adviser To McCain
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on June 3, 2008 at 10:00 AM.

Originally posted by Satyam Khanna at Think Progress.

As ThinkProgress has noted with our repeated use of the “The Rove Watch” clock, Fox News has failed to properly identify Karl Rove as an informal adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Since signing on as a “Fox News contributor” in February, Rove, a maxed-out donor to McCain, has provided electoral maps to the campaign, admitted learning about insider information in a “private gathering” with the senator, and repeatedly shilled for McCain on the network.

But yesterday on Hannity & Colmes — after almost four months of silence — a Fox anchor finally gave Rove his proper title. While Rove was slamming Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as a “weak” candidate, Alan Colmes, the liberal co-host of the show, interrupted and noted that Rove was a McCain supporter who informally advises the senator:

ROVE: And I repeat. He [Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)] does not have 50 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary. If you look at it all, he has less than half a tenth, half of one percent lead.

COLMES: Look, Karl, I know you’re supporting McCain. But how do you know — and I know you informally advise McCain — but how do you know that he’s a weak general election candidate?

As Newshounds observed, Rove did not deny this label.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Government May Have Massive Surveillance Program for Use in "National Emergency"
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on May 20, 2008 at 3:32 PM.

Last year, former deputy attorney general James Comey revealed that in 2004, he refused to “certify” the legality of certain aspects of the National Security Agency (NSA) spy program. Comey witnessed Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card try to force a bed-ridden John Ashcroft to approve the program. Comey, however, did not publicly give specifics as to what program he opposed.

CAP’s Peter Swire wrote on ThinkProgress at the time that Comey’s testimony implied that “other programs exist for domestic spying” outside of the NSA program. Radar’s Christopher Ketcham suggests that another spy program does exist: “Main Core,” a program that authorizes “computer searches through massive [unspecified] electronic databases” in order to discover “potential threats” in the event of a “national emergency”:

According to a senior government official…”There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously.” … One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Former Head of Iraqi Anti-Corruption Agency Now an Undocumented Immigrant
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on May 14, 2008 at 10:00 AM.

After the 2003 Iraq invasion, Coalition Provisional Authority chief Paul Bremer created a major anti-corruption ministry in Iraq, the Public Integrity Commission (CPI). Last October, former CPI commissioner Judge Radhi al-Radhi, who was appointed by Bremer and whose work has been praised by top U.S. officials, told Congress about the “rampant” corruption in Iraqi ministries that had cost Iraq as much as $18 billion.

Radhi’s gripping account detailed how Prime Minister Maliki tried to subvert his commission and how nearly four dozen of his staff members were killed. Subsequently, he was forced to seek asylum in the United States.

But today, Radhi is living as an undocumented immigrant in Virginia. In a Democratic Policy Committee hearing yesterday, former State Department official James Mattil told Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) that Radhi has no “official status” in the U.S. Currently, only a group of Quakers and Arthur Brennan, the former head of the department’s Office of Accountability and Transparency, are funding Radhi, he said:

DORGAN: And where is Judge al-Radhi at the moment?

MATTIL: Living in an apartment in Springfield, maybe for the rest of the month if they can get it worked out that somebody is going to pay for it. But he’s not allowed to work. He has no official status, so he’s not — he’s undocumented — I don’t know what he is. I mean, he’s lost. He’s a person without a country.

Watch it.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Rumsfeld Blames the Generals for Poor Pre-War Planning
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on May 9, 2008 at 10:57 AM.

In February 2003, Gen. Eric Shinseki famously predicted that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed for post-war hostilities in Iraq. According to documents recently released by the Pentagon in response to The New York Times's expose on its propaganda program, however, Donald Rumsfeld claimed in a 2006 briefing that the reason why he did not support a larger invasion force was because commanders did not request it:

RUMSFELD: Now, it turns out he [Shinkseki] was right. The commanders - you guys ended up wanting roughly the same as you had for the major combat operation, and that's what we have. There is no damned guidebook that says what the number ought to be. We were queued up to go up to what, 400-plus thousand.

Q: Yes, they were already in queue.

RUMSFELD: They were in the queue. We would have gone right on if they'd wanted them, but they didn't, so life goes on.

In reality, Rumsfeld fought back when generals like Shinseki requested more troops. He said in 2003 that Shinseki was "far from the mark." As McClatchy reported in 2004, "Central Command originally proposed a force of 380,000 to attack and occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld's opening bid was about 40,000. ... By September 2003, Rumsfeld and his aides thought, there would be very few American troops left in Iraq."

Pentagon Backs Plan to Build "Zone of Influence" in Iraq
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on May 5, 2008 at 2:15 PM.

The White House has repeatedly insisted that the United States has “no desire for permanent bases” in Iraq. Nevertheless, the Bush administration is seeking to leave its footprint on Iraq through other means. The AP reports that the Pentagon is backing a $5 billion dollar plan to “transform the U.S.-protected Green Zone” into a “centerpiece for Baghdad’s future,” resulting in “big paydays for early investors:“

For Washington, the driving motivation is to create a “zone of influence” around the new $700 million U.S. Embassy to serve as a kind of high-end buffer for the compound, whose total price tag will reach about $1 billion after all the workers and offices are relocated over the next year.

“When you have $1 billion hanging out there and 1,000 employees lying around, you kind of want to know who your neighbors are. You want to influence what happens in your neighborhood over time,” said Navy Capt. Thomas Karnowski, who led the team that created the development plan.

An incentive for the project, which would include hotels, resorts, and commercial development in the Green Zone, appears to be lining the pockets of investors and allies rather than re-building Iraq’s economy. In fact, Karnowski acknowledged that American officials would vet potential investors because of a “vested interest” — mirroring the cronyism of Saddam’s Hussein’s regime.

Some Iraqi leaders even have drawn parallels to the U.S.-backed development plan and what Saddam Hussein did in the area — known by its Iraqi name of Tashri during his regime. Hussein stocked the neighborhood with family and tribal allies, political loyalists and members of his elite Republican Guard. Karnowski called the accusation “partially true.”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush: Iraq's Resurging Violence "a Very Positive Moment"
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on March 27, 2008 at 10:13 AM.

Violence continues across southern Iraq today, as radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is threatening to end his crucial cease-fire by calling for the “downfall of the U.S.-backed government.”

In response, the administration has gone on a desperate PR blitz to label renewed violence in Iraq as “byproduct of the success of the surge.” “It's "what critics have wanted to see," said White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, calling it a struggle led by Iraqi security forces.

Today — as rockets rain down on the Green Zone and two American soldiers died — Bush cast the activity as a “very positive moment” in an interview with the Times of U.K.:

[Bush] backed the Iraqi Government's decision to “respond forcefully” to the spiralling violence by "criminal elements" and Shia extremists in Basra. "It was a very positive moment in the development of a sovereign nation that is willing to take on elements that believe they are beyond the law," the President said.

It's hard to see what Bush sees as positive. The explosion that burst an oil pipeline in Basra today? Tens of thousands of Shiite protesters in Baghad? A kidnapped “civilian spokesman for the Baghdad security operation?”

In reality, the violence is undoing the very goals of Bush’s surge. Iraqi forces aren’t trying to restore “the law,” as Bush thinks, but are trying to do the opposite — suppress its political enemies before the October elections, historian Reidar Vissar noted. Most ironically, if U.S.-backed efforts “succeed,” Iran's hand in Iraq will be strengthened. IPS’ Gareth Porter explains:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

1/3 of Military Women Sexually Harrassed
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on March 15, 2008 at 9:31 AM.

The AP reports that one-third of women in the military and six percent of men said they were sexually harassed, according to the latest Pentagon survey:

The figure for women was worse than the previous finding several years ago but better than a similar survey taken in 1995, the Defense Department said in a report Friday. […]

There were 2,688 sexual assaults reported last year by people in uniform, the figures showed. That was down about 9 percent from the 2,947 reported the year before. […]

Reports of sexual assault reports had jumped by about 24 percent in 2006 and nearly 40 percent in 2005. Officials attributed the increases partly to more aggressive efforts to encourage victims to come forward.

Fox’s Oliver North Blames Times Square Bombing on Pelosi and House Democrats
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on March 7, 2008 at 11:14 AM.

Yesterday, a “shadowy figure on a bicycle” planted a small bomb that shattered the glass facade of the military recruiting station in Times Square in New York City. An investigation into the incident has begun.

Fox News’ Ollie North, however, has found his scapegoat. This morning, he said the incident may have been prevented had the House and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) granted a renewal of the Protect America Act:

Last month, of course, the U.S. House of Representatives under the direction of Nancy Pelosi went on vacation rather than voting on the Protect America Act, which provided for wiretapping of terrorists making phone calls into and out of the United States to foreign places.

And I note that it would have been a lot easier, perhaps, to find out who did this, or even to know that they were planning it, had we been able to intercept those communications.

North’s comments are a sad attempt to politicize a tragic bombing. In reality, surveillance that began under the law will be able to continue, and intelligence officials can initiate new surveillance against suspected terrorists by simply getting a warrant through the FISA court. The warrants can even be obtained after the surveillance has begun. North, however, conveniently failed to mention this.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Perino: "Don’t Know" If White House Will Seek Congress' OK for Permanent Iraq Occupation
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on March 6, 2008 at 1:11 PM.

Earlier this week, State Dept. Coordinator for Iraq David Satterfield refused to say whether it was “a constitutional requirement” for the administration to “consult with Congress” on a long-term agreement with Iraq.

This morning on Fox News, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino echoed Satterfield, saying that “we don’t know” whether Congress has any constitutional role in authorizing such treaties:

The negotiations on it have just started. In fact, there was a hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday. And members will be fully briefed. We don’t know if this is going to result in something that Congress will need to approve or not. But they are going to be fully consulted all along the way.

But the administration does know it will bypass Congress. In a follow-up letter to Satterfield’s testimony obtained by ThinkProgress, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Bergner said the President does have “constitutional authority” to “continue combat operations” in Iraq without Congress’s authorization.

As justification, Bergner cited the 2002 authorization of force against Saddam Hussein and the resolution passed after 9/11:

[T]he U.S. military has the authority to conduct operations in Iraq beyond the end of the year under the laws passed by Congress and the President’s authority as Commander in Chief under the Constitution.

“I don’t think anybody argues today that Saddam Hussein is a threat,” said Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) in response. “Is it the government of Iraq that’s a threat?”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »