Putin Challenger Goes Missing

CNN reports that Russia's Federal Security Service (the FSB) announced today that it is pulling the plug on the investigation of Ivan Rybkin's disappearance on Thursday. Rybkin is one of six challengers to President Vladimir Putin for elections to be held on March 14. The BBC has this coverage.

Al Qaeda In the Majors Now

The Seattle Times is relaying (via the AP) this story from London-based al-Hayat newspaper that al Qaeda obtained "tactical nuclear weapons" from the Ukraine in 1998. I have been unable to locate the original al-Hayat story, but Reuters is also reporting the story.

This revelation, on top of A.Q. Khan's admission that he was selling nuclear secrets to a number of states throughout the world, spells double-trouble. All nations must now face the strong possibility that non-state actors have nuclear weapons (not just "capacity and intent," as President Bush is recently fond of saying of Saddam). World security strategy must respond by moving from non-proliferation to disarming these terrorist groups--a far more challenging task.

While I cannot claim to know what approach is best under these new circumstances, it is plain to me that the United States cannot act unilaterally to address this threat. Our intelligence community is not up to it, and our diplomatic capital has been drained. Furthermore, capitulation has failed. The former Soviet states, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia must be brought in line with the universally-shared goal of world security. That pressure must come from all nations together, whether under the auspices of the UN or through a summit organized to address world security.

I recognize the sensitive (im)balance of Pakistani governance but that does not argue for capitulation--rather, the fragile nature of Musharraf's regime favors immediate action. If Musharraf is knocked off by his own people it is highly likely the new leadership will be very opposed to the current global power structure. But Musharraf has already displayed how untrustworthy he is--we have lost the strings of our puppet. The longer the world allows the current scenario to continue the greater the threat becomes. That sense of urgency applies equally to Saudi Arabia and the former Soviet states. It should not be left to state sovereigns to patrol threats that permeate well beyond state borders.

The President Who Sees the World the Way It Is

"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them."

President Bush appeared on Meet the Press today (transcript here). I didn't see the show, but from the transcipt, I think this, moreso than the State of the Union address, was the opening salvo of the reelection campaign. He was obviously very well prepared and had good scripted answers for all of the tough questions. In fact, I would go so far as to say he did a great job. I thought he came off much better than in the Dianne Sawyer interview. He was frequently evasive, but smoothly redirected questions he didn't like. Many of the answers would not hold up to intense scrutiny, but would make great 30 second sound bites (classic Rove style). Any Democrats who think this will be a walk-over election (and there are many if you read the forums of the candidates) are in for a surprise.

Scott Ritter Having the Last Laugh

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, much ridiculed before the war, has written an article in the International Herald Tribune, entitled Not everyone got it wrong on Iraq's weapons. Ritter challenges David Kay's assertion that "We were all wrong". He argues that his own article, published in June 2000, titled "The Case for Iraq's Qualitative Disarmament", which claimed "Iraq was qualatatively disarmed at the time inspectors were withdrawn" was, in the end, far more accurate than the CIA's 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. He mentions many other knowledgeable folks who shared his opinions at the time. He also makes the same case that our friend Veritas does, that the "decision to limit the scope of any inquiry to intelligence matters, effectively blocking any critique of [Bush's] administration's use - or abuse - of such intelligence, is absurd". He concludes: "We knew the truth about Iraq's WMD. Sadly, no one listened."

The Democratic Ticket

Here's the way things look right now.

"Independent" Commission on Intelligence

Today President Bush announced the formation of an "independent" commission to investigate certain issues related to intelligence. The Commission has already drawn criticism, including this statement Already there is criticism from some Democrats, including this statement from House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi (the AP has this story).

At first, I did not undertand the criticism because the make-up of the panel brings in several very qualified and open-minded individuals, including Senator McCain, former Senator Robb, and Judge Silberman of the D.C. Circuit. But then I read the executive order.

There are two glaring deficiencies. First, the Commission is empowered to assess the capabilities of the current American intelligence community and to evaluate the intelligence concerning the war on Iraq as it compares to the findings of the Iraqi Survey Group and other "relevant agencies or organizations," but it does not compare that intelligence to the administration's claims. Surely it is necessary to understand where the intelligence community may have been (and continues to be) deficient in assessing the credible threats against America and its allies, but that is only half the story.

Second, the Commission is established within the Executive Office of the President; it is "established for the purpose of advising the President;" it is ordered to report to the President; and it "shall solely advise and assist the President." How, then, can anyone reasonably claim that the Commission is "independent" of the President? The Commission does not evaluate the President's call to war and besides, the President has no obligation to share the contents of the report with Congress or the people. I am little relieved to know that the President will learn that the intelligence simply failed to keep pace with his rhetoric--I could tell him that much.

The Commission may serve some useful purpose, but it quite simply fails to meet my needs. I want to know what role the administration played in accumulating the intelligence, and I want to know who was responsible for vetting this information before it was sold to the public as fact. I want to know when President Bush decided it was in the public interest to invade Iraq, and why. I want to know why the entire world was instructed that it could not wait until the United Nations completed its investigation before invading Iraq. And I want to know why the Administration thought that delay could result in a mushroom cloud.

Congress should not allow the President to escape serious scrutiny. The people should not allow it either.

Special Dreams

There are times when I've seen David Brooks on the News Hour when I thought he was being a dope, but he always has a quick wit and a good sense of humor. He followed up his column on electability (which I posted earlier) with this column on John Kerry's special friends. It's not as if there aren't a ton of stories in the press on the same topics, but I found this one rather more entertaining than all the rest.

Re: The Pakistani Patsy

Well, the Washington Post is advocating a harder line with Musharraf. Not mentioned whatsoever in the story was popular resistance to Musharraf's continuing capitulation to the US. I may be wrong on this, there may be more room for pressuring Musharraf than I think there is. However, any serious analysis of how strongly we address this issue, in my opinion, needs to include some risk assessments as to how far we can push before Musharraf's administration is toppled and assessments of what kind of situation would result if that occurs.

Re: The Pakistani Patsy

If ever there were a country with which the US had a messed up relationship, Pakistan is it. It's a militant Islamic country with nukes and a Western-friendly dictator. The State Department has to walk a very fine line with Musharraf. On the one hand they need to pressure him to help them get Osama, to crack down on Taliban and Al Qaeda militants, and to try to control militant activities in Kashmir. On the other hand, the more he cooperates with us, the less popular he gets. There have already been two assassination attempts on him in the last couple months. Musharraf is desperately trying to hang on to control of his country, and the US is desperately trying to hang on to its control of Musharraf. Being as it's a dictatorship, nobody knows who would succeed him if/when Musharraf gets killed. The nightmare scenario for the US is that an anti-Western Islamic faction takes control of the government (think Iran, 1979) and the nuclear arsenal. My interpretation of Boucher's comments is: "We'd like to beat them bloody for this... but we're really not in a position to be aggressive with these guys."

The Pakistani Patsy

This link from Yahoo News shows the heartfelt apology by Abdul Qadeer Khan--father of the "Islamic bomb"--for "the extremely unfortunate events of the last two months." In his statement, which was broadcast on the official Pakistan Television (PTV) Khan insisted that there was never official authorization for his activities. He also appealed to the people of Pakistan "in the supreme national interest to refrain from any further speculations and not to politicize this extremely sensitive issue of national security." (The full text of his statement may be found here.)

I find it curious that the whole speech was broadcast in English--although it might be the most widely understood language there, I do not know. The official language is Urdu, although according to our Department of State's background note on Pakistan, only 8% of the population speak it. Almost half, however, do speak Punjabi.

In any event, the message seems to have gone over well. The Pakistan Cabinet voted today to pardon Mr. Khan for his activities. Here at home
(this Washington Post article reports) State Department Boucher stated: "We think that the process of investigation that's been undertaken by the Pakistani government does indeed seriously demonstrate that President Musharraf and the government of Pakistan take seriously their commitments, their assurances that they were not going to allow their technology to be used to help other nations that might be trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. . . . The way this has been proceeding is evidence that Pakistan, too, is determined to meet those commitments."

Who Says There's No Quality Programming?

Here's Jon Stewart's take on Tuesday's primaries and Bush's plans to investigate the WMD intel. The Back In Black segment listed there is pretty good too. Makes me wish we hadn't cancelled all our cable channels... Oh, and don't miss this segment on the David Kay statements before the Senate.

Paul Craig Roberts Is Kinda Weird

A while back, Joe posted a very interesting Brookings Institution discussion led by Senator Charles Schumer (D, NY) and columnist Paul Craig Roberts (which I strongly encourage you all to watch--very good). Recently, I stumbled onto some more information about Mr. Roberts. While his bio is pretty impressive, some of the positions he has taken have been--well, extreme. I thought his discussion on globalization was very thought-provoking and in many ways right-on (although I disagree that the mobilization of production capability is inconsistent with Ricardoan economic theory). But I'm not sure I match with him on his many other viewpoints. His archived columns may be accessed here; The Volokh Conspiracy has put together a summary of some his more controversial positions here.

Please understand, this post is not meant to criticize Mr. Roberts for taking wacky positions (as I find myself holding quite a few of those myself at present), but I am just surprised is all. He seemed pretty straight-laced at the discussion.

Rumsfeld: Don't Stop Believin'

Hold on to that feelin', yeah! Donald Rumsfeld is not ready to abandon hope on the WMD search. Rumsfeld claims that the ten months since the invasion have been far too little time to make a determination. This after insisting a year ago that two months for UN inspections was waiting far too long for results.

Smacking the Penguin

Dave I thought you'd be entertained by this picture I happened across:

Update: Trippi as Color Commentator

Reuters has this report confirming that "Ex-Dean Campaign Manager Lands Job at MSNBC."

Trippi as Color Commentator

The Drudge Report claims that "Former Dean manager Joe Trippi joins MSNBC for election analysis starting tonight ... Developing ..."

Re: Colin Powell Questions Case For War

The Washington Post conducted the interview with Secretary Powell and provides these excerpts.

Colin Powell Questions Case For War

Is it too late for Colin Powell to grow a backbone? Let's see, in the last few weeks he has said a) Hussein's regime had no provable connection to Al-Qaeda, b) there are no weapons of mass destruction, c) that the absence of WMD's "changes the political calculus; it changes the answer you get." Rarely is stating the obvious such a mark of high character as it is when you work in the Bush administration.

Spitzer Backs Kerry

CNN/Money has this report.

Electing the Electable

David Brooks (Lehrer Newshour favorite) has written an entertaining column about the idea of electability in the Democratic primaries. Is it too much to ask for a national primary?