Posts by Satyam Khanna

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

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 »

McCain Rated as America’s Worst Senator for Children
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on February 28, 2008 at 6:17 AM.

Yesterday the Children's Defense Fund Action Council released its 2007 Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard. CDF reports some positive news, particularly that average scores for members of Congress "improved from the previous three years with more Members scoring 100 percent than in 2004, 2005 or 2006."

Many, however, did not fare so well. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) received a 10 percent rating -- the worst in the U.S. Senate.

CDF ranked members on 10 votes affecting children:

1. Increase minimum wage (H.R. 2)

2. Increase funding for children with disabilities (S. Con. Res. 21)

3. Protect children from unsafe medications (S. 1082)

4. 2008 Budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 21)

5. SCHIP Reauthorization (H.R. 976)

6. College Cost Reduction and Access Act (H.R. 2669)

7. SCHIP (H.R. 976 - motion to concur)

8. DREAM Act (S. 2205)

9. Funding child health and education (H.R. 3043)

10. Improving Head Start programs (H.R. 1429)

McCain has missed 57 percent of Senate votes this session, being absent or voting "present"8 out of 10-related votes. McCain voted "yes" to increase the minimum wage; his only other vote was voting "no" on SCHIP reauthorization on Aug. 2, 2007:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

White House Claims Congress Is Caving to "Left Wing Bloggers" by Opposing Torture
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on February 15, 2008 at 6:43 AM.

The White House has experienced difficulties moving its ill-conceived national security priorities through Congress. Yesterday, the Senate passed legislation banning waterboarding, defying a Bush veto threat. Also, House leaders have said they will not approve the Protect America Act with immunity for telecom companies.

After the Senate banned waterboarding yesterday, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino claimed the "left wing" was trying to overtake the intelligence community:

They'll have to ask themselves, 'Do you trust the intelligence community more than you trust Democrats who are beholden to their left-wing?' And that's the debate that this country is going to have.

Perino also attacked Congress for holding a contempt of Congress vote on White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers instead of expanding Bush's surveillance powers:

The American people will find it baffling that on a day that House leaders are trying to put off passing critical legislation to keep us safer from the threat of foreign terrorists overseas, they are spending scarce time to become the first congress in history to bring contempt charges against a president's chief of staff and lawyer. ... The 'people's House' should reflect the priorities of the American people, not the fantasies of left-wing bloggers.

The line is a familiar one. When the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington revealed that the White House had destroyed millions of e-mails, Perino shrugged them off as the accusations of a "left-wing" group -- but she later backtracked.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

John Bolton Supports McCain Because He's More Hawkish Than Bush on Iraq and Iran
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on February 9, 2008 at 8:20 AM.

In remarks yesterday to CPAC, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attacked Democrats for allegedly not recognizing "the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions," claiming to know that Iran is pledging to "possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions."

Speaking at CPAC today, notorious Iran war hawk John Bolton emphasized his support for McCain, saying McCain proved he is "stronger" than the Bush administration with the senator's statement on Iran. Bolton claims Bush is too "moderate" and has a foreign policy in "freefall" because he has yet to bomb Iran:

I think Senator McCain's statement here yesterday on how he would handle the Iranian program is stronger than the current Bush administration policy. And thank goodness, because the Bush administration policy now lies on the ocean floor. ... I didn't think the policy the administration was pursuing was robust enough.

Echoing Bolton, this morning, McCain revealed that he was "skeptical" of the recent National Intelligence Estimate, which said that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons production in 2003. "I continue to worry about...Persian domination of the region," he said.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

White House: We "Definitely Want To Consider" Using Waterboarding Again
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on February 6, 2008 at 1:10 PM.

In congressional testimony yesterday, CIA director Michael Hayden confirmed that his agency used waterboarding on three al Qaeda suspects. In 2006, Hayden banned the use of waterboarding in CIA interrogations. The Pentagon also banned its employees from using it, and the FBI said its investigators do not use coercive tactics in interviewing terror suspects.

But in today's gaggle, White House said that it may approve the use of waterboarding again "depend[ing] upon circumstances":

"It will depend upon circumstances," spokesman Tony Fratto said, adding "the belief that an attack might be imminent, that could be a circumstance that you would definitely want to consider."

Later, in a press briefing, Fratto tried to distance himself from these remarks, claiming that he only was talking about "the process" of approving waterboarding. "I'm not speculating," he declared.

Fratto said this morning that if used again, waterboarding would "need the president's approval" and would notify "appropriate members of Congress."

Last week, Attorney General Michael Mukasey repeatedly refused to declare the practice illegal. Yesterday, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and CIA Director Michael Hayden "left open the option of reinstating it."

Despite its hedging, the White House made clear today it very well may commit illegal torture again.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Olbermann: I’d Sacrifice My Success for a "Responsible Presidency"
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on January 27, 2008 at 1:14 PM.

This morning on CNN's Reliable Sources, Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz interviewed Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's Countdown.

Kurtz tried to press Olbermann into conceding that he is thankful for Bush's unpopularity because his show's success is due to his criticisms of the Bush administration. Olbermann responded that if given the choice between his current success and a new President, he would choose the latter:

KURTZ: But in a sense, the Bush administration has been very, very good for Keith Olbermann.

OLBERMANN: Honestly? No. I'm an American citizen, I think this has been a disastrous presidential administration. I would have given what I have, in terms broadcasting success in the nature of this newscast, I would have easily said...if I were given the choice of this or some responsible presidency in the last four years or eight years? I would have taken a responsible presidency.

Kurtz then accused Olbermann of making criticisms of Fox News' Bill O'Reilly as an attempt to boost his ratings. "This is a clever way you get some ratings, the guy who dominates the ratings," Kurtz said. Olbermann said that he is just trying to hold O'Reilly accountable:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Puts 'Immunity' for Iraqi Government Ahead of Bonuses for American Troops
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on January 4, 2008 at 8:47 AM.

In November, the Bush administration threatened that if Congress didn't pass the Defense Authorization Bill, it would have to issue furlough notices for up to 150,000 civilian workers at military bases. The Pentagon distributed a document warning that the Army may cease to function if it did not receive the funds.

Congress eventually passed the defense authorization bill before winter recess and President Bush raised no concerns at the time. But over the break, the White House threatened a veto because of language that would expose the Iraqi government "to massive liability in lawsuits concerning the misdeeds of the Saddam Hussein regime."

Ironically, Bush's refusal to sign the bill is leading to the very damaging effects that he was fearmongering about back in November. The Air Force Times reports that Bush's veto is holding up re-enlistments and causing "some bonus programs for airmen" to expire:

All re-enlistments for airmen in Air Force Specialty Codes with a selective re-enlistment bonus or those with a critical skills retention bonus are suspended until further notice, the Air Force Personnel Center announced Monday. Instead, airmen can stay in the service by signing a "30-day best interest of the Air Force extension" as needed until the defense bill is signed into law.

Those career fields include security forces, air traffic controllers, explosive ordnance disposal and a host of other positions that are undermanned or require exceptional skills.

It is expected that the bonuses will be paid retroactive to Jan. 1 once the bill is signed into law, but there's no guarantee. According to the personnel center, bonus programs are dependent upon congressional authorization and enactment into law.

While Bush vetoed the defense bill to protect the Iraqi government from liability, the Times notes that "[a]mong the people expected to seek a financial claim against Iraq were former U.S. servicemen held as prisoners of war during Desert Storm in 1991." The bill Bush vetoed upgrades military health care and provides a 3.5 percent pay raise for service members.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »