HOST GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Major milestone this week here in Iraq with the American troops pulling out of the cities. And I wonder if you can put the broader American mission in context. Are we in the process of securing victory or cutting our losses to come home?
BIDEN: Securing victory. Look, the president and I laid out a plan in the campaign which was twofold. One, withdraw our troops from Iraq in a rational timetable consistent with what the Iraqis want. And the same time, leave behind a stable and secure country.
And one of the reasons I’m here, George, is to push the last end of that, which is the need for political settlement on some important issues between Arabs and Kurds and among the confessional groups. And I think we’re well on our way. Read the rest of this entry »
Every year, the US Director of National Intelligence is required by law to submit to Congress a report on “the acquisition by foreign countries during the preceding 6 months of dual-use and other technology useful for the development or production of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons) and advanced conventional munitions”.
Last week we reported on the testimony to Congress of Philip Zelikow (pictured), the former State Department officer, on the “enhanced interrogation” programmes of the Bush Administration: “The administration was reserving the right to inflict treatment that might violate the so-called ‘CID’ standard…’cruel, inhuman, or degrading’.”
In that testimony, and in other public statements, Zelikow referred to “an unclassified paper prepared with [State Department Legal Adviser John] Bellinger’s help and circulated in July 2005″. The memorandum had not been made public, but the Federation of American Scientists has now obtained a copy.
Zelikow and Bellinger argue, “We do not adopt legal standards in our behavior as a favor to terrorists. We do it for ourselves, and to be able to exemplify the values that distinguish us from the terrorists.” However, their recommendations are far from a prohibition of “enhanced interrogation”, merely a search for whether it can effectively regulated and administered. Read the rest of this entry »
One of the sharpest, strongest reactions to the withdrawal of the nomination of Charles Freeman (pictured) as head of the US National Intelligence Council has come from Stephen Walt in his blog on the Foreign Policy website. I generally share his views, but a reader offers further useful critique: “All good points, but a bit polemical. You know how this game works: I don’t think Walt does Freeman any favours by framing the appointment as a victory over Zionists or as a balance to [the appointment of the State Department's Dennis] Ross. It would have been better to explain why Freeman was a worthy choice in the first place with his other experience and ability.”
On Chas Freeman’s withdrawal
STEPHEN WALT
First, for all of you out there who may have questioned whether there was a powerful “Israel lobby,” or who admitted that it existed but didn’t think it had much influence, or who thought that the real problem was some supposedly all-powerful “Saudi lobby,” think again. Read the rest of this entry »
For many people, this story will never be known. They will not have heard of the American diplomat, Charles Freeman, or the National Intelligence Council, which he was nominated to lead. The withdrawal of that nomination yesterday will not make CNN Headline News or the front pages of US newspapers.
Make no mistake, however. As a story of how US foreign policy is limited and re-structured — courtesy of Congress, a network of private groups, and American political culture — it offers an essential lesson. “Israel” continues to set limits on the “acceptable” in US foreign policy. Read the rest of this entry »
The Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair (pictured) —- on the same day that the Obama Administration had to withdraw the nomination of Charles Freeman as Chair of the National Intelligence Council — has just set the scene for another political battle in Washington.
The overall situation — and the intelligence community agrees on this — [is] that Iran has not decided to press forward . . . to have a nuclear weapon on top of a ballistic missile. Our current estimate is that the minimum time at which Iran could technically produce the amount of highly enriched uranium for a single weapon is 2010 to 2015.
Blair’s assertion that Israel was envisaging a “worst-case scenario” about Iranian plans for nuclear energy was echoed by the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Michael Maples, “The Israelis are far more concerned about [the Iranian programme].” Read the rest of this entry »
There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States. Read the rest of this entry »
10 p.m. And yet more manoeuvring on Iran. The US State Department has condemned the Iranian Government’s charges of espionage against seven members of the Baha’i religious community.
9:45 p.m. An interesting political twist in Iraq. Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has warned that the country’s fragile political stability could be broken if national elections later this year are as unfair as last month’s provincial polls: “”If we don’t rectify, if the process is not inclusive, and there are not laws in Iraq to clarify the funding and the capabilities of the various groups … then we unfortunately will have a catastrophe in the next elections.”
Evening Update (8:40 p.m): Here comes the Magic Link. The US Government has now tied its suspension of missile defence deployment in Eastern Europe to Russian agreement to end assistance to Iran’s nuclear energy programmes: “”If we are able to work together to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons capability, we would be able to moderate the pace of development of missile defenses in Europe,” said a “senior Administration official”. Read the rest of this entry »
HOST GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Major milestone this week here in Iraq with the American troops pulling out of the cities. And I wonder if you can put the broader American mission in context. Are we in the process of securing victory or cutting our losses to come home?
Comments Off 
Every year, the US Director of National Intelligence is required by law to submit to Congress a report on “the acquisition by foreign countries during the preceding 6 months of dual-use and other technology useful for the development or production of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons) and advanced conventional munitions”.
Last week we reported on the testimony to Congress of Philip Zelikow (pictured), the former State Department officer, on the “enhanced interrogation” programmes of the Bush Administration: “The administration was reserving the right to inflict treatment that might violate the so-called ‘CID’ standard…’cruel, inhuman, or degrading’.”
One of the sharpest, strongest reactions to the withdrawal of the nomination of Charles Freeman (pictured) as head of the US National Intelligence Council has come from Stephen Walt in 
For many people, this story will never be known. They will not have heard of the American diplomat, Charles Freeman, or the National Intelligence Council, which he was nominated to lead. 
The Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair (pictured) —- on the same day that the Obama Administration had to withdraw the nomination of Charles Freeman as Chair of the National Intelligence Council — has just set the scene for another political battle in Washington.
There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.
Entries (RSS)