The New York Times, Sunday, wrote that the Bush Administration has decided that the benchmarks that were set by the US earlier last year to mark definable progress in Iraq are too hard to meet and has eliminated them.

U.S. Scales Back Political Goals for Iraqi Unity

By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ALISSA J. RUBIN

Published: November 25, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 — With American military successes outpacing political gains in Iraq, the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections.

Instead, administration officials say they are focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals in the hope of convincing Iraqis, foreign governments and Americans that progress is being made toward the political breakthroughs that the military campaign of the past 10 months was supposed to promote.

The short-term American targets include passage of a $48 billion Iraqi budget, something the Iraqis say they are on their way to doing anyway; renewing the United Nations mandate that authorizes an American presence in the country, which the Iraqis have done repeatedly before; and passing legislation to allow thousands of Baath Party members from Saddam Hussein’s era to rejoin the government. A senior Bush administration official described that goal as largely symbolic since rehirings have been quietly taking place already.

Bush administration officials have not abandoned their larger goals and emphasize the importance of reaching them eventually. They say that even modest steps, taken soon, could set the stage for more progress, in the same manner that this year’s troop “surge” opened the way, unexpectedly, for drawing Sunni tribesmen to the American side.

Sen. Kerry has been pushing to the Bush Administration to set deadlines in Iraq. These are some of the remarks that John Kerry has made on the floor of the Senate just since January of this year, asking for accountability for the US policy in Iraq:

The Administration says these men and women are giving their lives because the purpose of this escalation is to allow the Iraqis “space” to make the political deals that we all agree are the only hope for ending the civil war. But if the violence is going down in Baghdad, where is the political progress? We keep hearing that the Iraqis are getting closer to a deal on sharing oil revenues — but every time, hopes for a final deal turn out to be an illusion.

— Sen. John Kerry, April 12, 2007

It’s been over a year since the Maliki government took power: What have we asked of them? What have they agreed to do? What have they accomplished? Virtually nothing. And to make matters worse, this isn’t the first time that the Iraqis have failed to meet the very political benchmarks that they’re failing to meet today.

* Nine months ago was the deadline for Iraqis to approve a new oil law and a provincial election law. Neither one has been approved.

* Eight months ago was the deadline for a new de-Ba’athification law to help bring Sunnis into the government. Guess what? It hasn’t happened.

* Seven months ago was the deadline for Iraqis to approve legislation to disarm the militias. Absolutely no progress has been made on this crucial legislation and the militias continue to wreak havoc.

* Six months ago was the deadline for Iraqis to complete a constitutional review process. The Constitutional committee hasn’t even drafted the proposed amendments, and the Iraqis remain far apart on basic issues such as federalism and the fate of the divided city of Kirkuk.

So we find ourselves no closer to a political solution today than we were when the Maliki government took power over one year ago — but over 1,100 American troops have given their lives since then.

— Sen. John Kerry, July 12, 2007

The open-ended, seemingly endless commitment of massive numbers of American troops in Iraq has done nothing to create political progress. George Bush told us that “reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible” — it has not done it. He promised to hold the Iraqis accountable for meeting the benchmarks that they themselves agreed to — he did not.

The result? While Americans fight and die to give Iraqis “breathing room,” Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve the political issues that matter the most. No progress on the linchpin issue of sharing oil revenues. No de-Ba’athification law, no provincial elections, and no amnesty.

By any measure, that’s a failing grade for a purported new strategy that is really more of the same that has failed in forging the political reconciliation that is the last, best hope for ending a bloody civil war over age-old sectarian differences.

Those who support the status quo in Iraq claim we have changed the strategy. They’re wrong. We have changed tactics — resulting in some hard-won and welcome gains by our troops. But these tactical changes have not addressed the core Sunni-Shiite conflict that is driving the civil war. They will not bring peace and long-term stability to Iraq. Only Iraqis can do that. No, what we have today is a strategy for staying — not a strategy for winning. Rather than “no surrender,” the policy today is “no way out.”

— Sen. John Kerry, Sept 20, 2007

So, what does progress in Iraq mean? Is the Bush Administration equating the recent and welcome reduction in violence as the only benchmark that has to be met in Iraq? I thought the purpose of the escalation was to buy time for the Iraqi politicians to negotiate on the political problems that are keeping the country’s factions apart. That was what the escalation was about, getting the political problems solved so that the Iraqis could take over and US troops could begin to withdraw.

Now, we have no real benchmarks. The Bush Administration has decided that this accountability stuff is just too hard to do. So, they have ‘disappeared’ the benchmarks. According to the Bush Administration, we are making progress in Iraq solely because the violence is down. That was not the point of the escalation, it was not what the Administration said nearly a year ago when it put the policy forward and this is not what various Administration officials and US military officials have told the US Congress. We are there because, ahm, we are there. No way out indeed.

Last Friday, Senator Kerry responded to an offer made by T. Boone Pickens to give one million dollars to anyone who could disprove any of the charges made by the SBVT group against him by taking him up on his bet. Mr. Pickens responded by trying to retroactively change the terms of his original offer to limit its scope and impose additional conditions.

Below is the text of a letter Senator Kerry sent to Mr. Pickens this afternoon in reply.

Dear Mr. Pickens,

Thank you for your response to my acceptance of your challenge.

I’m grateful that you are prepared to make good on your word and fulfill the offer you made publicly at the American Spectator Dinner in Washington, D.C. on November 6th.

I must remind you, however, that this was and is your “challenge,” not mine. You are, after all, the one who said explicitly at the dinner — in a way that was calculated to challenge any naysayer — that you would give one million dollars “to anyone who could show that anything the SBVT said was false.” (RedState.Com) These were your words — and nowhere did you ever suggest, as you are now trying to, that your challenge referred specifically and exclusively to any advertising by the SBVT.

As you know, the lies of the SBVT were not confined just to their ads; they were a constant barrage of television, radio, Internet, speeches, and forums in which — significantly bankrolled by you — they launched and repeated lie after lie. Your challenge expressly stood behind all of their allegations.

It is disturbing that in reaffirming the challenge you issued, your parsing and backtracking seems eerily reminiscent of the entire approach of the SBVT — say one thing, put out an allegation, then duck and weave, hedge and bob when your words catch up with you. I want to believe that this was not your intent because I am told that you are a man of your word, not “all hat and no cattle.”

Honor and duty, which you purport to defend, demand that you not selectively back away from your original challenge. Your offer clearly said — boldly, unequivocally — to an audience of your friends and supporters — that you would give “a million dollars to anyone who could prove wrong anything the Swiftboat Veterans charged about Kerry.” (AmericanThinker.com) In my letter, that is the offer which I accepted.

I was interested to read in your response that you don’t want to see the SBVT “maligned,” and that you aim “to prevent this important part of American history from being unfairly portrayed.” I accepted your offer precisely because I want to prevent the honorable records of the courageous men who served with me from being maligned by the repeated lies of this organization. I want to see the word “Swiftboat” restored to its original meaning — synonymous with honorable service to country, not political lies aimed to distort and divide. I would hope that your interests should also be in protecting the record of all those who served our country.

As I’ve said to you before, I am prepared to prove the lie and marshal all the evidence, the question is whether you are prepared to fulfill your obligation — no variations, no back pedaling, no retreat, no new bets, no changing the subject.

The only thing remaining now is to set the date for our meeting in an appropriate forum, after which I look forward to you keeping your word and writing a check for one million dollars payable to the Paralyzed Veterans of America so that we can put your money to good work for veterans who have returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry
United States Senator

On Friday, Senator Kerry challenged Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens to stand behind a bragging boast that he’d made while speaking at a Washington gala event on November 6.

According to accounts posted by a couple of conservative bloggers who attended the event and subsequently confirmed by other sources, Pickens was so sure of the smear machine that he’d bankrolled to the tune of some $3,000,000 over the previous three years that he flatly offered “a million dollars to anyone who could prove wrong anything the Swiftboat Veterans charged about Kerry.”

Not coincidentally, Pickens made his boast the day after an article published in a Massachusetts newspaper included this reply from Senator Kerry to an interviewer’s questions about the 2004 swiftboating smear campaign:

“Kerry, whose service as a U.S. Navy Swift boat skipper during the Vietnam War came under attack in his race against President Bush, said he has compiled a dossier on his war record critics that he wishes he had as the Democratic presidential nominee.

“We have put together a documented portfolio that frankly puts their lies in such a total light of absurdity and indecency, that should they ever rear their ugly heads again, we have every single ‘t’ crossed and ‘i’ dotted, and I welcome that in a sense,’’ Kerry said following a morning address to the South Shore Chamber of Commerce. “It’s a shame we weren’t able to produce all that at the time.’‘

“I have no doubt at all that some of the people involved on the other side don’t care about the truth, think nothing about distorting it, will not hesitate to say and do whatever they think is necessary to win,’’ Kerry said. “But I think we are now much more prepared and savvy about those kind of things, and certainly in my own involvement, I will make certain that people don’t get away with that.’‘

Also not coincidentally, the day after Pickens made that boast at the American Spectator dinner in Washington, right-wing talk radio host Rush Limbaugh led the carefully coordinated charge of right-wing pundits in repeating the same set of bogus talking points. As Media Matters noted in the lead to a detailed story refuting Limbaugh’s claims,

On his radio show, Limbaugh claimed that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth “were right on the money, and nobody has disproven anything they claimed in any of their ads, statements, written commentaries, or anything of the sort.” In fact, most of the allegations the Swift Boat Veterans made about Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam War service during the 2004 presidential campaign have been thoroughly discredited, often by official military records, but also by the Swift Boat accusers themselves, who struggled to keep their stories straight.

Needless to say, no matter how many times the Republican noise machine tries to whitewash the facts and re-brand old lies as supposed truth in attempt to reposition the swiftboaters and their ilk as renewed attack dogs for the 2008 campaign season, old lies are still lies and they’ve already been debunked over and over again.

So when word got around of Pickens’ bragging boast to lay a million dollars on the line for anyone who could disprove anything the swiftboaters had charged regarding JK’s service record, Senator Kerry decided it was the time for him to pick up that gauntlet and call Pickens’ bluff in public.

Pickens’ boast had been very clear and to the point, as was the Senator’s response to his challenge in the letter that he sent to the smear-funding Texan on Friday. Pickens had made a bet he couldn’t back up because he thought no one was listening at the time except more supporters of swiftboating like himself. But then Senator Kerry called him on it.

So, naturally, since Pickens already knew he couldn’t win the bet that he himself had made, he did the classic right-wing thing instead: he rewrote it retroactively so he could get out of having to live up to it.

When someone wants to renege on an offer by unilaterally changing the terms after the fact, there are plenty of things to call that kind of behavior. “Moving the goalposts.” “Weaseling the words.” “Breaking the rules.” “Cheating.” (Or, if you’re President Bush, you just call it “adding a signing statement” instead.)

Here at johnkerry.com, though, we have another word for it: Calvinball.

The game of Calvinball, as famously practiced by the comic strip characters Calvin and Hobbes, is pretty simple, really: there are no rules except the ones you make up as you go, and any player can change any rule at any time without having to inform any of the other players.

No wonder the right wing Republican noise machine and its newly refitted swiftboating smear squads love playing Calvinball with the truth so much.

At an anniversary dinner event for the American Spectator magazine last week, Texas oil magnate and longtime funder of right-wing causes T. Boone Pickens opted to repeat a false claim in the form of a fresh challenge to re-brand old lies as the alleged truth.

Below is the text of a letter that Senator Kerry sent to Mr. Pickens this morning:

Mr. Pickens,

It has come to my attention through the accounts of individuals who were in attendance at the American Spectator’s Robert L. Bartley Dinner & 40th Anniversary Gala as well as through the public accounts, that you personally “staked one million dollars” that “no one” could “prove anything the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said in 2004 was false” and offered “a million dollars to anyone who could prove wrong anything the Swiftboat Veterans charged about Kerry.”

I welcome the opportunity to prove that you are a man of your word and that the so-called “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” lied. While I am prepared to show they lied on allegation after allegation, you have generously offered to pay one million dollars for just one thing that can be proven false. I am prepared to prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt.

As noted in the previous blog post, Senator Kerry made time between his scheduled committee hearings and Senate votes yesterday afternoon to answer some questions about small business and entrepreneurship as part of Slate.com’s and OPEN Forum’s “BizBox—Ask the Experts” live web Q&A series. The whole transcript is posted on their website, but here are some selected excerpts from the discussion:

Taxes often come up when I’m talking to small business owners. You know, raising the capital gains rate and the top marginal income tax rate would have little impact on the majority of small businesses. Only 0.6 percent of households with small business income have income that exceeds $1 million. And 74 percent of households with small business income have income less than $100,000.

The estate tax needs to be reformed in a fiscally responsible manner which provides taxpayers certainty. It can be done in a manner in which most small businesses would be exempted. Only eight-tenths of one percent of deaths in 2004 were impacted by the estate tax. I also support targeted tax relief which fosters small business growth, including tax incentives for investments in small businesses – like increasing the exclusion for small business stock from 50 to 75 percent.

[ ... ]

I know several folks had health care related questions. We are working in the Senate to help more small businesses offer affordable, quality health care and ensure workers aren’t left in the cold when facing cancer or other diseases just when they need help most.

Senator Kerry is Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and he knows that small businesses are the backbone of our economy.

Issues like affordable health care, tax incentives to encourage investments, the SBA Disaster Loan Program, business opportunities for veterans, and entrepreneurial development all impact small businesses, and Senator Kerry wants to make that sure you’re included in the discussions that affect small businesses everywhere.

He will be participating in a special live web chat hosted by Slate.com and OPENforum.com to answer your questions on small business issues this afternoon, Wednesday, Nov. 14, beginning at 4:00 pm ET.

Discover what the Senate and the members of the Committee are doing to promote and protect small businesses in the U.S. — follow this link to submit your questions and follow the conversation live online today!

They’re still there. But we’re working on it. And we’re working on it in all kinds of ways, including one that’s bound to come as a surprise to a lot of folks.

Better get out of the way, all you stubborn GOPachyderms out there — here comes RoadblockRepublicans.com.

And this is not your grandfather’s political action website, that’s for sure.

While the new RoadblockRepublicans.com site has a very serious intent, as you can see from the statement of purpose that we’ve cross-posted for you here, its attitude is anything but reverent.

We’re taking its tone from the words of the late, great Molly Ivins:

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”

OK, enough double-talk and obfuscations from the Republicans. Let’s get it out in the open: who believes the United States should never use torture, and who does not?

No more statements like the typical Republican response, “We won’t comment on specific procedures we may or may not do.” Let’s get specific and show everyone what makes America America: We don’t torture, and waterboarding is torture.

I opposed Judge Mukasey’s nomination because of his refusal to take a stand on whether or not waterboarding is torture.

But he said that if Congress passed a law that made it clear where we stood on this reprehensible practice, he’d enforce it. So, here we go: let’s define waterboarding as torture once and for all.

I’m a cosponsor of S.1943, Sen. Kennedy’s bill that defines a wide variety of specific things as torture, including waterboarding.

It’s another reminder why I am so proud to be Ted’s colleague. But it’s also another reminder that those who suggest there’s nothing we can do to stop a run-away executive are just dead wrong — if we’ve got the courage of our convictions.

But, like everything we try to do, we’re going to have to ram it past the opposition of some Roadblock Republicans, and I’ll probably need your help.

As Mr. Mukasey’s nomination to take over the Attorney General post moves out of committee to an upcoming confirmation vote by the full Senate — triggering a renewed and much-needed public discussion of precisely what is and what isn’t legal when it comes to Americans practicing extreme interrogation techniques these days — it’s worth taking a fresh look at the following letter sent by Army Captain Ian Fishback to Senator John McCain, as subsequently published in the Washington Post:

Dear Senator McCain:

I am a graduate of West Point currently serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. I have served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, one each in Afghanistan and Iraq.

While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq.

On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s testimony that the United States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the “spirit” of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification.

For 17 months, I tried to determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General’s office, multiple government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as honorable and intelligent men.

The neoconservative fearmongers and the imperialistic militarists that dominate the Bush administration appear to be absolutely determined to set off World War III in the Middle East.

An increasingly erratic-sounding Dick Cheney is leading the charge towards the cliff’s edge, practically demanding that he be allowed to bomb Iran into the stone age before he has to give back the keys to the West Wing executive washroom. His protege in power-posturing, George W. Bush, is right there recklessly rattling the rhetorical sabers along with him.

The current President and Vice-President have made it very clear that they intend to duplicate the dubious ‘success’ of their dishonest demand for war in Iraq with an even more disastrous attack on Iran before they have to vacate the premises in January of 2009. And a whole field of would-be successors to the White House throne are doing their best to beat each other to the top of the bomb-it-all bandwagon along the way.

And unilaterally attacking Iran would be the very height of hubris, the essence of insanity, the ultimate madness of King George and his royal court of jingoistic jesters.