Locomotive Mule

Q Before the war, there were estimates coming from the administration that it would cost about $50 billion. Today, if you add everything up, including the amount that we’re going to likely see soon, it will be about $300 billion. What is the White House perspective on why the cost is so much higher than originally anticipated?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, you’re talking about a briefing that will be held later today, so I’m not going to get into specific numbers. But we’ve made it very clear from the beginning that we’re going to do everything we can to support our troops as they work to win the war on terrorism. Our troops are on the front lines of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we are going to do everything we can to make sure that they have the resources they need to complete their mission. And we’ve been very clear that those assessments will be based on the circumstances on the ground.

Q My question is why – even if you take the – whatever it is you’re going to give – don’t even talk about a specific number because no one talks about that – but, just in general, why was it that the idea and the planning seems to be so different than what it actually is now? What do you ascribe that to?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President has talked about that before, Dana. He talked about it on your network just last week in an interview with one of your correspondents. And he’s talked about what we expected would happen and some of the changing circumstances on the ground. War – in a time of war, you have to be prepared for the unexpected and you have to be flexible enough to adapt to circumstances on the ground. And it’s important that you give the commanders on the ground the flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances. And that’s what we will always do. That’s how you are able to succeed and complete the mission.

Q So you didn’t anticipate the insurgency? That’s just the bottom line?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President talked about how, when we went into Iraq, that we didn’t expect that the Iraqi army, under Saddam Hussein, would flee the battlefield like they did and come back to fight another day – they did in large numbers.

Q If you’re talking about a briefing –

MR. McCLELLAN: Hold on, let me go to Terry.

Flee the battlefield? I’m sure they did but Scott fails to mention that we FIRED the entire military and the government apparatus putting 1/2 a million people out of work. As usual when any question gets remotely close to pointing out a mistake or a blatant fuckup, the topic is changed - quickly.

You’d think that a 250 billion dollar discrpency would be worth some discussion, some explanation. Something. All we get is, “well, ya know, things didn’t go exactly to plan….” Yeah, yeah, yah - things seldom go to plan. If I screwed up a budgetary projection this badly (percentage wise) I’d be out in the street. Instead these bastards are rewarded with another term, a bigger job…..

Q Let me try it this way: The changing circumstances you’ve just described have meant the men and women of the American military have had to sacrifice a lot, as has just been pointed out –

MR. McCLELLAN: They have, and their families have, as well.

Q Absolutely. We’re now looking at $300 billion and counting for the cost of this war and operations in Afghanistan. What sacrifice is the President asking the rest of us to make, especially those at the upper-income levels, perhaps, to make, to help shoulder the burden of paying for this war?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, the families of those who are on the front line in the war on terrorism are making tremendous sacrifices –

Q Amen.

MR. McCLELLAN: – and we talk about that on a regular basis, and our thoughts and prayers always remain with the families of those who are in harm’s way.

This is about fighting and winning the war on terrorism. We do that by taking the fight to the enemy and staying on the offensive. We also do it by what the President talked about last week in his inaugural address. Advancing freedom is essential to our long-term security. And the broader Middle East has been a dangerous region in the world for too long. We are committed to doing all we can to support efforts in the region to move forward on – to move forward toward a free and peaceful future. That’s why what we’re working to achieve in Iraq is so critical. The stakes are high there. The terrorists recognize how high the stakes are. When you have someone like Zarqawi come out in an audio tape and say that this is an all-out war on democracy, that states how high the stakes are in Iraq.

This is a struggle of ideologies. And there are two very different ideologies, the ideology of hatred and fear and oppression, and the ideology of hope and freedom and opportunity. That’s what we’re working to achieve. And when we have a free and peaceful Iraq, that will be a significant blow to the ambitions of people like Zarqawi.

It’s very curious that the ideology of fear and hatred is not attributed to those in this country that choose to oppress those that have differing points of view. Hope freedom and opportunity? There are millions of Americans who live everyday under oppression and despair.

Q The cost of that struggle, though, it seems the President is willing just to throw onto the debt of the United States, just to increase the debt of the United States, and increase – make permanent tax cuts for the very wealthiest among us –

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let’s separate this out, because these are two different matters.

These are not different matters. $300 billion (off budget) for a war is very relevant to all Americans, wealthy or not. And the fact that the lowest economic classes are bearing the “sacrifices” is unacceptable.
No I don’t want to pay more taxes, nobody does. But those who stand to benefit financially from this should also be the ones to pay for it.

Q Well, money is money.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President – first of all, this is about the safety and security of the American people. And we will do what it takes to win the struggle of ideologies that we are in. This is a struggle of historic proportions. And the terrorists recognize how high the stakes are. You see that every day with what is going on in Iraq. You see that through messages from a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is doing everything he can to try to disrupt the transition to democracy, because he knows that it will be a major defeat for the – his ambitions and the ambitions of those who want tyranny and oppression and fear and chaos.

I thought this was a war over WMDs? When did it turn into an idealogical war?

And in terms of – you’re talking – you brought up the issue of tax cuts. The tax cuts were key to get our economy growing and creating jobs here at home. And that is one of the President’s top priorities here at home. And look at the results. We’ve seen 2.6 million some jobs created over the last year or so here in America because of the policies that we’re pursuing.

And in terms of the deficit, the President has a deficit reduction plan. It’s based on strong economic growth and spending restraint. By taking steps that we have to get our economy growing stronger and creating jobs, we’re also seeing increased revenues coming in. And by working with Congress to exercise responsible spending restraint, we’ve got a plan to cut the deficit in half over the next five years. And we are –

Q That includes the cost of the war and of the Social Security package –

MR. McCLELLAN: – we are on track to meet that goal.

And we’re to believe this?

Q Scott, is Tony Blair right when he says the U.S. has to get on board with the agenda of countries who see climate control as a major priority?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I’m not sure that that’s an accurate way to describe what he’s saying. First of all –

Q How do you interpret it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, climate change is an issue we take very seriously. And in terms of discussing it at the G8, we welcome a discussion of climate change at the G8. For the past two years, the G8 has acted on concrete proposals to address the long-term challenge we face when it comes to climate change. And the President – the President looks forward to working with Prime Minister Blair and other G8 nations to continue to advance the science so that we have a better understanding of climate change, as well as to develop new, cleaner technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And so we have a number of multilateral and bilateral agreements that we are pursuing on climate change to advance the research and better understand the challenges that it poses. We are also working with a number of those countries to advance technologies, cleaner technologies. Carbon sequestration is something that we have been leading the way on. So –

Q Don’t you think Prime Minister Blair was telling the U.S. that it should change its approach –

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think that there are many areas where we agree on how to move forward on climate change. In terms of the Kyoto Protocol, I mean, our position is very well-known, and it was also a position that was taken in a unanimous vote by the United States Senate, I might point out.

But we are doing a lot to advance the science of climate change, working with the international community and to develop new technologies that will help address the long-term challenge of climate change.

Here’s what Mr. Blair said: “If America wants the rest of the world to be part of the agenda it has set, it must be part of their agenda, too.”

Q Senator Kennedy said that the U.S. should pull back from Iraq and let the U.N. take more of a lead role. What’s your response?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think his views are well-known, Holly. The President’s views are well known, as well.

Q But what about specifically the idea of the U.N. taking a larger role?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President talked with Secretary General Annan last night and the two leaders discussed the importance of the United Nations continuing to play a role in Iraq after the elections. I think our views have been well-known when it comes to the United Nations – and they discussed that last night in their phone call.

Q Just to follow up on that, does the President envision, post-election, a larger role for the U.N. in Iraq than it currently has?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we want – I think that the international community recognizes the importance of doing everything they can to help the Iraqi people move forward as they continue on the path to democracy and a stable and secure future. And I think you see comments coming out of European Union officials talking about how they want to be more involved in helping the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people are going to continue assuming more and more responsibility for their future. They have a sovereign government in place right now. They’re choosing their new government. The Iraqi security forces are continuing to be trained to take more responsibility for providing for their security, and that’s part of our strategy to complete the mission. But, yes, we believe the United Nations has an important role to continue playing in Iraq’s future.

SSDD. Ol’ Scotty just can’t answer the question. I’m very surprised though that he didn’t refer them to the Pentagon or somewhere else.

A Degrading Policy

Washington Post Wednesday, January 26, 2005; Page A20
ALBERTO R. GONZALES was vague, unresponsive and misleading in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Bush administration’s detention of foreign prisoners. In his written answers to questions from the committee, prepared in anticipation of today’s vote on his nomination as attorney general, Mr. Gonzales was clearer – disturbingly so, as it turns out. According to President Bush’s closest legal adviser, this administration continues to assert its right to indefinitely hold foreigners in secret locations without any legal process; to deny them access to the International Red Cross; to transport them to countries where torture is practiced; and to subject them to treatment that is “cruel, inhumane or degrading,” even though such abuse is banned by an international treaty that the United States has ratified. In effect, Mr. Gonzales has confirmed that the Bush administration is violating human rights as a matter of policy.

Mr. Gonzales stated at his hearing that he and Mr. Bush oppose “torture and abuse.” But his written testimony to the committee makes clear that “abuse” is, in fact, permissible – provided that it is practiced by the Central Intelligence Agency on foreigners held outside the United States. The Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified in 1994, prohibits not only torture but “cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.” The Senate defined such treatment as abuse that would violate the Fifth, Eighth or 14th amendments to the Constitution – a standard that the Bush administration formally accepted in 2003.

But Mr. Gonzales revealed that during his tenure as White House counsel, the administration twisted this straightforward standard to make it possible for the CIA to subject detainees to such practices as sensory deprivation, mock execution and simulated drowning. The constitutional amendments, he told the committee, technically do not apply to foreigners held abroad; therefore, in the administration’s view the torture treaty does not bind intelligence interrogators operating on foreign soil. “The Department of Justice has concluded,” he wrote, that “there is no legal prohibition under the Convention Against Torture on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with respect to aliens overseas.”

According to most legal experts, this is a gross distortion of the law. The Senate cited the constitutional amendments in ratifying the treaty precisely to set a clear standard that could be applied to foreigners. Nevertheless, Mr. Gonzales uses this false loophole to justify practices that contravene fundamental American standards. He was asked if there were any legal prohibition against U.S. personnel using simulated drowning and mock executions as well as sleep deprivation, dogs to inspire fear, hooding, forced nudity, the forced injection of mood-altering drugs and the threat of sending a detainee to another country for torture, among other abuses. He answered: “Some might . . . be permissible in certain circumstances.”

This is not a theoretical matter. The CIA today is holding an undetermined number of prisoners, believed to be in the dozens, in secret facilities in foreign countries. It has provided no account of them or their treatment to any outside body, and it has allowed no visits by the Red Cross. According to numerous media reports, it has subjected the prisoners to many of the abuses Mr. Gonzales said “might be permissible.” It has practiced such mistreatment in Iraq, even though detainees there are covered by the Geneva Conventions; according to official investigations by the Pentagon, CIA treatment of prisoners there and in Afghanistan contributed to the adoption of illegal methods by military interrogators.

In an attempt to close the loophole, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) sought to attach an amendment to the intelligence reform legislation last fall specifying that “no prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” The Senate adopted the provision unanimously. Later, however, it was stripped from the bill at the request of the White House. In his written testimony, Mr. Gonzales affirmed that the provision would have “provided legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled.” Senators who supported the amendment consequently face a critical question: If they vote to confirm Mr. Gonzales as the government’s chief legal authority, will they not be endorsing the systematic use of “cruel, inhumane and degrading” practices by the United States?

The administration is right. It’s just a few “bad apples” that are responsible for the humiliating way in which the U.S. has been treating prisoners and “detainees”. It’s just a few, like the President, his cabinet and his close circle of ‘advisors’. The rest of the ‘em are just following orders or at least principles which have been laid out by these bad apples.

The mere fact that this man is nominated for such a powerful post is repulsive. The fact that he’ll be accepted and actually take office is “unprecedented”.

Are we going to stand by and allow this group of idealogues to continue to shred our civil liberties? Are we going to allow them to lead us into another world war? The rest of the world is not going to stand for it for much longer.

And can Ms. Rice bring some of those allies back into the fold? Will Toni continue to distance himself from George?

Stay tuned. It’s getting more “interesting” by the day…..