Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced plans today for 18,000 more National Guard troops to head to Iraq:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ordered on Monday that 18,000 National Guard soldiers be alerted for possible duty in Iraq, beginning this fall or early in 2005.

....The units affected by Monday's order including the headquarters of the 42nd Infantry Division of the New York National Guard in Troy; the 256th Infantry Brigade of the Louisiana National Guard; the 116th Armored Brigade of the Idaho National Guard; and the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment from the Tennessee National Guard.

The Washington Post says it's the biggest deployment of the Guard since WWII.

The Pentagon today announced it had opened a criminal probe of Halliburton:

The investigation was focused on Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root, the U.S. military's biggest contractor in Iraq, which has become a lightning rod of Democratic criticism during this presidential election year.

"The Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the criminal investigative arm of the Inspector General's office is investigating allegations on the part of KBR of fraud, including the potential overpricing of fuel delivered to Baghdad by a KBR subcontractor," said a Pentagon spokeswoman.

Vice President Dick Cheney ran the company from 1995 to 2000.

Aside from military auditors' questions, the U.S. Treasury, the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are all looking into a range of issues, from whether the company paid kickbacks in Nigeria to whether it broke U.S. laws by dealing with Iran via a foreign subsidiary.

The company has consistently said all its dealings have been in line with U.S. laws and has strongly denied wrongdoing, except in the case of one or two former employees who it said may have paid $6.3 million in kickbacks to a Kuwaiti subcontractor. Two former Halliburton employees told Democratic lawmakers earlier this month the vice president's old company "routinely overcharged" for work it did for the U.S. military.

Rumsfeld flew into Iraq today. Tom Paine.com's new blog, The Dreyfus Report, asks and answers an important question..."Does the United States want to have permanent military bases in Iraq? Does a camel sleep in the desert."

Speaking at a Feb. 11 seminar at the Middle East Institute in Washington, Isam Al Khafaji of the Open Society Institute—just returned from Iraq—noted that for the United States, the real issue isn't its oft-proclaimed commitmentto establishing a democratic Iraq. Instead, what's driving U.S. concern, he suggested, was strategic:

"The question is not democracy. The question is: how to develop a formally sovereign Iraq that signs a treaty with the United States, with permanent military bases for the U.S. All of Iraq's political actors are quite aware of the importance of this issue."

by TChris

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on the Bush administration's Department of Defense.

The Defense Department continues to pay millions for information from the former Iraqi opposition group that produced exaggerated intelligence that President Bush used to argue his case for war.

The Pentagon has set aside between $3 million and $4 million this year for the Information Collection Program of the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmed Chalabi, said two senior U.S. officials and a U.S. Defense Department official.

The Defense Department official who anonymously revealed the spending said that it would be "too negative" to call all of the purchased intelligence useless, and contended that it is worth sifting through the rubbish to find an occasional "golden nugget." Still, it seems odd that our government arrests its own citizens every day for providing false information to the government, while it pays known liars in Iraq in the hope that they might occasionally tell the truth.

A "senior administration official" argued that, absent intelligence alternatives, we had little choice before the war but to ignore the self-interest of the Iraqi National Congress. The same official thinks the "evidence now suggests that ... we may have been duped by people who wanted to encourage military action for their own reasons.” The official questioned whether the United States should continue funding the program. Sounds like a good question to ask. Maybe he should ask his boss.

The Red Cross visited Saddam Hussein in Iraq this week. The visit was conducted by an Arabic-speaking delegate and an ICRC doctor in accordance with the ICRC's standard procedures. As of now, Saddam still has POW status. What does that mean? According to the Red Cross:

The ICRC believes that POW status for Mr. Hussein is legally correct as he was commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces. This status does not grant Mr. Hussein immunity from prosecution for crimes allegedly committed before capture, nor does it prevent him from being interrogated. When questioned, however, POWs are not legally obliged to give more than their surname, first names, rank, date of birth and service number (or similar).

If prosecuted by the detaining power, POWs must be tried by the same courts, and according to the same procedure, as for members of the armed forces of the detaining power. Thus, a POW held by US forces must be tried by courts martial operating under the US Uniform Code of Military Justice. In all circumstances the court must offer essential guarantees of independence and impartiality.

POWs may be transferred out of the country where they were captured. No specific provision is made under the 3rd Geneva Convention for family visits, but when the POWs are held in their own country, it seems logical to grant them the same right to family visits as granted to civilians protected by the 4th Geneva Convention.

The Red Cross is not commenting on Saddam's condition, medical or otherwise. Here's why the Red Cross visits prisoners.

Say hello to TomPaine.com's new blog on Iraq and national security issues: The Dreyfuss Report. It is written by veteran investigative reporter Bob Dreyfuss, and will provide the story behind the headlines and the "Bush administration antics performed in the name of homeland security."

What a welcome site!

The Guardian reports that Saddam's trial is two years away. The delay is due to the Iraq special tribunal for crimes against humanity which will not get underway until October or November. The tribunal will try some Ba'ath party officials first.

"I think it will take two years to get to Saddam being tried," said Salem Chalabi, one of the architects of the court and a nephew of the influential Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress.

The need to select and screen judges, prepare courts and establish well-guarded jails to hold the suspects have led to delays. "There are frustrations," said Mr Chalabi. The court has to balance the demand of most Iraqis for a rapid show trial of Saddam and his deputies with the need to establish an impartial model for the new judiciary.

"It is a balance that we have to work here between trying to protect defendants' rights and meet international standards of due process of law and the wish of the Iraqis for quick vengeance," said Mr Chalabi.

Update: In other Saddam news, the Iraqi Governing Council is seeking to strip Saddam of his POW status.

Check out this column on the Iraq Intelligence Commission - this country needs and deserves an investigation--not a cover-up.

Accounts are cropping up of Iraqi detainees alleging torture and abuse at the hands of the coalition forces. This is disturbing. The accounts are backed up by memos of Amnesty International.

A widower and the father of two young boys, Baha al-Maliki worked as a hotel receptionist in the Iraqi city of Basra until September 14 of last year. That day, British soldiers arrested him and seven other hotel workers, saying they had found a stash of weapons hidden in the hotel. His family learned nothing of his whereabouts until three days later, when British soldiers came to their door to tell them he was dead. When al-Maliki’s father retrieved his body from the hospital, according to Amnesty International’s Khaled Chibane, “it was severely bruised and covered in blood.” The cause of death listed on his death certificate, says Chibane, was asphyxiation, apparently from being hooded during his interrogation. “It was obvious that he had died,” Chibane says, “as a result of torture.”

Al-Maliki is not the only Iraqi to have died under disturbing circumstances while detained by coalition forces. Though they have received minimal attention in the U.S. press, allegations of mistreatment of detainees have been surfacing persistently for at least the last six months. The allegations range from generalized neglect — unsanitary conditions and exposure to the elements — to beatings, electric shock and other forms of torture.

It was not until early this month, though, that the U.S. military’s Central Command released a brief and tersely worded statement announcing, “An investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse at a Coalition Forces detention facility.”

There's lots more, read the whole thing.

by TChris

Before sending troops to Iraq, the Bush administration explained

that it was necessary to topple Saddam because he had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, was trying to build a nuclear weapon and represented a grave danger in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world.

In the absence of any such weapons, the President today said the administration and others thought that Saddam had weapons, but offered a different justification for the war:

"But he had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network," Bush said.

The difference has not gone unnoticed by Democratic front-runner John Kerry.

"This is a far cry from what the president and his administration told the American people through 2002," Kerry said. "Back then President Bush repeatedly told the American people that Saddam Hussein has got chemical weapons."

"They told us they could deploy these weapons within 45 minutes to injure our troops," the four-term senator from Massachusetts added. "It was on that basis that he sent Americans' sons and daughters off to war."

Unless voters have short memories, are easily deceived, or just don't care, the President's growing credibility gap will play a significant role come November.

Don't miss this audio collection from the Mike Malloy Radio Show with one quote after another about the fictitious WMDs. Many are from Bush, but the other culprits are here as well... Rumseld, Colin Powell , Ari, Condi Rice and the rest of the gang. It's near the bottom under the heading "WarGate" (If you have windows and want to save a copy, right click the mp3 fileand select 'save target as')

Another good related flash video is here ...

[thanks to Kelley of Demopower for the tip]

[comments now closed]

President Bush will appoint John McCain to a nine member panel to investigate intelligence failures regarding Iraq.

We've never been particularly fond of McCain. Is this supposed to be good news? Since the results of the panel won't be released until after the November election, does it even matter?