MoveOn has a hot new ad in today’s NYT pointing out that Petraeus’ statements differ from all the known metrics out there. And boy has it made Sanctimonious Joe pissed. Not surprisingly, Joe is trying to call in those chits he got for agreeing to caucus with the Democrats in January.

The personal attack on Gen. David Petraeus launched today byMoveon.org is an outrageous and despicable act of slander that everymember of the Congress — Democrat and Republican — has a solemnresponsibility to condemn.

General Petraeus has served hiscountry honorably and selflessly for over thirty-five years. He hasrisked his life in combat and accepted lengthy deployments away fromhis family to defend our nation and its citizens from its enemies. Forthis, he deserves the respect, admiration, and gratitude of everyAmerican — not the disgraceful slander of Moveon.org.

Ithas been widely reported that Moveon.org has worked closely over thepast months with many members of the Democratic Party in coordinatingtheir efforts to derail the strategy that General Petraeus has beenleading in Iraq.

[snip]

As a member of the Senate Democratic caucus, I therefore call on SenateMajority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi todenounce Moveon.org in no uncertain terms for its vile attack on Gen.Petraeus. General Petraeus deserves no less.

Mind you, Joe doesn’t address the central allegation that MoveOn makes–that Petraeus is lying to Congress. Which he’d have to do to prove his own accusations about slander. Rather, Sanctimonious Joe says we’ve got to honor Generals, even if they lie to us.

If I were MoveOn, I’d lodge a legal complaint against Joe for alleging that MoveOn and the Democrats are violating restrictions on 527s and PACs.

BushCo says that–since they haven’t seen Petraeus in a week–they clearly couldn’t have given him a script for today’s hearing.

The White House and its allies on Capitol Hill have pushed back hard atthis critique. Administration officials said they are not directing orreviewing the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker. A senior militaryofficial close to Petraeus said the general’s congressional testimonyhas not been provided to the White House or the Pentagon "and the first time all will hear it will be in the hearing Monday."

White House officials acknowledge that they know the key elements ofthe Petraeus-Crocker assessment and recommendations. President Bushheard Petraeus and Crocker outline their main points in two lengthysessions — one by videoconference on Aug. 31, the other when he metthe two at an air base in Anbar province on Labor Day. Bush and Petraeus have not spoken since then.

"We’re not by any means in the dark," said one senior administration official, who would only speak on background. [my emphasis]

To which I’ll just recall what Pat Lang had to say about the trip to Anbar.

I note that the president’s travel party to AssadAir base in Anbar Province includes; Gates, Rice, Pace, Fallon, Lute,Hadley.  There, he will, of course, see Petraeus and Crocker as well. Anyone else of note? Any AEIers? Sounds like a council of war to me. Nice and isolated, minimal press interference and possibility ofoperational security planning breach.  Well thought out.  This will bea good place to get everyone "on board" and to coordinate tactics forthe Petraeus/Crocker show to come.

So all it means is that BushCo went to Anbar to decide on a plan before they heard all the other reports.

No, not to the seniors enrolled in Medicare, silly! To the private insurance companies. Yet another GAO report has found yet another contracting scam that BushCo is ignoring.

Private insurance companies participating in Medicarehave been allowed to keep tens of millions of dollars that should havegone to consumers, and the Bush administration did not properly auditthe companies or try to recover money paid in error, Congressionalinvestigators say in a new report.

What’s remarkable about this though, is it is at least the third incidence where–when faced with accounting improprieties from a corporation working with the government–the Bush Administration refuses to ask for the money back.

Does it surprise you that the first company to sign an oil deal with Iraqi Kurds is Hunt Oil, a company with very close ties to Bush and our country’s intelligence infrastructure?

Texas’ Hunt Oil Co. and Kurdistan’s regional government saidSaturday they’ve signed a production-sharing contract for petroleumexploration in northern Iraq, the first such deal since the Kurdspassed their own oil and gas law in August.A Hunt subsidiary,Hunt Oil Co. of the Kurdistan Region, will begin geological survey andseismic work by the end of 2007 and hopes to drill an exploration wellin 2008, the parties said in a news release.

Nope. It doesn’t surprise me, either. But I am interested in what it portends for long-term plans in Iraq.

First, some background. The Hunt family that owns Hunt Oil (it’s privately held, so we don’t get to scrutinize financial statements) is one of the big money Texas donors behind the Bush family political empire. Ray Hunt, the current chair of the company, is also on the board of Halliburton and the King Ranch, meaning he probably knows to duck when he goes quail hunting with Dick Cheney. Hunt is also on the board of trustees for Shrub’s new presidential library, which has just announced its plans for a wacky democracy institute that will give cover for more imperialism around the world. Oh, and Hunt is also on PFIAB, which means he gets to review a huge amount of intelligence information and then refuse to reveal its classification and declassification activities–not to mention weigh in on whether or not the President’s illegal intelligence activities are illegal or not.

It’s also worth noting that one of Hunt Oil Company’s planes has been spotted taking off and landing at a CIA training facility.

In short, Hunt Oil Company is as wired in as oil companies get–which is saying something.

Now do you see why I find it interesting that Hunt Oil Company is the first company into Kurdistan’s oil fields?

What I don’t know is how to interpret the deal. Perhaps it means nothing more than that Ray Hunt, having reviewed BushCo’s plans and the real underlying intelligence personally, is sufficiently comfortable that Kurdistan will exist as a viable entity, with the oil laws in Iraq remaining as they are, with sufficient security, to conduct oil exploration over the long term (and this is oil exploration, so we are talking a long term indeed). Or perhaps Hunt has signed this deal as a favor to Bush, to push other, publicly held oil companies (which might–out of concern for shareholder value–hesitate before signing such a deal) to invest in Iraqi oil. The NYT article suggests both may be factors in this deal.

Despite Iraq’s vast oil reserves, major international companies havesat on the sidelines, not only for security reasons but because of theabsence of legislation governing the industry and offering protectionfor investments.

A draft oil law for all of Iraq has been bogged down for months, in part because of disputes over who will control the proceeds.

InAugust, however, the Kurdish self-governing region in northern Iraqenacted its own law governing foreign oil investments. The move angeredthe central government in Baghdad, but the Kurds are determined to pushahead with oil exploration.

Most interestingly, this deal suggests those close to Bush believe the US will retain its ties with Kurdistan, as a distinct entity, for some time. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that recent developments in Iraq reflect a slow, but irreversible, split into three countries. If that happens, Turkey, Iran, and Syria are sure to be mightily involved in attempts to destabilize Kurdistan. But never fear, because Hunt Oil will be there, looking for oil. Among other things, I’m sure.

If I had to guess, I’d suggest this is pretty solid evidence that BushCo has grown comfortable with the idea of Iraq splitting apart.

This Eric Lichtblau article provides a lot of dots that have been, heretofore, missing in our picture of the surveillance they’ve got us under. It’s no surprise the government has been using data mining on not just suspects themselves, but also on their friends and associates–a virtual "Friends and Families" plan of surveillance.

The documents indicate that the Federal Bureau of Investigation usedsecret demands for records to obtain data not only on individuals itsaw as targets but also details on their “community of interest” — thenetwork of people that the target in turn was in contact with.

But given the description, it’s more clear now why the Administration refused all meaningful oversight of the minimization they’re doing on their warrantless wiretapping. You can’t really collect a "community of interest" and at the same time be claiming you’re eliminating all data on those not directly targeted.

Further, the article explains why Alberto Gonzales got all squirmyearly this year when SJC asked him for information on National SecurityLetters. They were still trying to hide these communities of interest,so Gonzales didn’t want to provide much information on the program. Andmeanwhile, they were trying to bury the program.

The government official who spoke on condition of anonymity said theF.B.I. recently stopped asking the telecommunications companies for thecommunity of interest data. The exact time of and reason for thesuspension is unclear, but it appears to have been set off in part bythe questions raised earlier this year by the inspector general’sinitial review into abuses in the use of national security letters.

WTF is the Administration doing, claiming it has briefed members of Congress on the warrantless wiretap program when it hasn’t?

After the domestic surveillance program was revealed in 2005, formerSenate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-FL) said thatWhite House briefings that he attended in the Vice President’s office failed to disclose that the administration was spying on Americans:

There was no reference made to the fact that we weregoing to…begin unwarranted, illegal — and I think unconstitutional —eavesdropping on American citizens.

Shortly thereafter, Cheney fired back at Graham, arguing, “Well that’s not true. [Graham] knew.” The White House accused him of “misremembering the briefings.”

In a recent interview with ThinkProgress, Sen. Graham told us that,after the controversy erupted in late 2005, the White House providedhim with dates when they alleged Graham had been briefed. Graham saidhe consulted his famous spiral bound notebooks and determined he had not been briefed on these dates:

I mean, I’m not surprised they didn’t brief members of Congress fully (or at least, the Democratic MOCs). But why claim you had when you hadn’t? Particularly when one of them (as TP points out) is a notoriously anal note-taker?

Most interesting is the Administration’s claim that Graham was briefed on April 10, 2002, which his spiral notebooks also disprove. That’s because it was purportedly a meeting with just Graham, and no no one else, after they had briefed Pelosi (in her role as ranking member of HPSCI), Goss, and Shelby.

I’d be inclined to get Pelosi on the record to find out how many of these early briefings she attended. Because I find it curious that the current Speaker may have been the only Dem briefed on key aspects of this program in its early days.

Brad Schlozman remains unresponsive on a few of the questions he (finally) returned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Take this question that asks for very specific details about any conversations he had with Mike Elston about indictments in WD MO:

Did you speak with Michael Elston regarding any other indictments filed while you were U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri? If so, which indictments?

Mr. Elston, who is a former federal prosecutor and appellate chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, and I are personal friends and we spoke about various cases from time to time. I am certain that, given his position as chief of staff to the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Elston spoke with many U.S. Attorneys about their cases and other matters affecting U.S. Attorneys’ Offices.

I guess Shorter Schloz doesn’t understand what the question "If so, which indictments" means. Because he sure dodged answering that very specific question.

Unfortunately, when they get around to asking Schloz about indicting Democratic politician Katheryn Shields, they only ask Schloz about whom he consulted on the timing of the indictment–not the indictment in general.

Mcjoan has a post on how the DOJ intervened all of a sudden into the FCC’s consideration of Net Neutrality. As she points out, there’s something unusual about DOJ’s intervention: it came after the comment period had closed.

It was a curious filing, as IP Democracy’s Cynthia Brumfield describes:

What’s curious about the filing is that, first, it’s an ex parte, orlate, submission in the FCC’s Inquiry on Broadband Practices, mostcommonly known as the FCC’s net neutrality proceeding. DOJ could havefiled comments along with the rest of the world by July 16, thedeadline for all submissions, but it didn’t. Why DOJ waited until nowis an interesting, probably unanswerable question.

A number of people in the comments suggest DOJ intervened as pay-off for the telecoms’ help on our NSA spying program. But I don’t think that can explain why DOJ missed the deadline. I can understand not wanting to file anti-net neutrality comments right before Congress debates whether or not to give the telecoms retroactive immunity for helping our government to spy on us illegally. So that might explain why DOJ wouldn’t submit its comments in mid-July, when Congress was busy discussing amendments to FISA.

Except that Congress is again about to discuss amendments to FISA, specifically immunity for the telecoms. And a lot of people in Congress are probably rethinking their vote, having been chewed out by constituents for it while marching in the Labor Day parade. Having the telecoms made out to be worse players right now, just before the debate, isn’t going to help telecom get their immunity and their private Internets.

In other words, the FISA amendment probably doesn’t explain the timing.

I can’t say I can explain the timing, mind you. But there are two events that have happened between July 16 and yesterday which might explain the timing. First, Gonzales resigned (though he’s still making trouble at DOJ). Also, Ed Gillespie, the big telecom lobbyist, just assumed most of Karl Rove’s portfolio on Monday morning.

Did the Lobbyist-in-Chief–who until June was working for the US Telecom Association–have any say over whether DOJ supports Net Neutrality?

Well, I guess that’ll make it harder to prosecute General Petraeus for lying to Congress.

In the latest twist to the ongoing saga over the Petraeus White House report, a senior military official tells the Washington Times today that there will actually be no report at all:

A senior military officer said there will be nowritten presentation to the president on security and stability inIraq. “There is no report. It is an assessment provided by them bytestimony,” the officer said.

The only hard copy will be Gen. Petraeus’ opening statement toCongress, scheduled for Monday, along with any charts he will use inexplaining the results of the troop surge in Baghdad over the pastseveral months.

[snip]

While Petraeus’ statement to Congress will be made available,the public will not know what information he is providing to PresidentBush. The lack of transparency over Petraeus’ “report” will onlyintensify the high level of skepticism surrounding his statistics.

UPDATE: In a recent hearing, Sen. Norm Coleman(R-MN) said he recently met with Gen. Petraeus and was shown “thedata.” Coleman said the data is “very clear about a reduction inviolence. General Petraeus has those charts,” Coleman explained. Apparently, those charts will not be for public consumption.

You see, I’m sure if we had those charts, then 1) we’d be able to point out how deceptive they were while Petraeus was in front of Congress and 2) we’d be able to show that Petraeus ignored real data to put together those charts and fake 75% decreases in violence.

At some point Democratic Members of Congress need to start calling this charade what it is: a willful intent to lie to Congress. And leave almost no paperwork that might mean Petraeus would get caught.

I have little wisdom to add to this Abu Aardvark post, but I wanted to make sure people saw it:

It’s kind of lost in the shuffle of the coming battle over thevarious Iraq reports, but I find myself morbidly fascinated by thephotos and reports which have circulated in the Iraqi press aboutBush’s meeting in Anbar with the controversial head of the AnbarSalvation Council Sattar Abu Risha.   The pictures themselves speakvolumes:  look at Bush’s shit-eating grin and Abu Risha’s detachedcontempt, and figure out which is the supplicant in this scenario. 

An hour with Bush was really quite a coup for Sattar Abu Risha.   The head of the Anbar Salvation Council has a rather unsavory reputation as one of the shadiest figures inthe Sunni community, and as recently as June was reportedly on his way out.  As a report in Time described him,

Sheikh Sattar, whose tribe is notorious for highway banditry, is alsobuilding a personal militia, loyal not to the Iraqi government but onlyto him. Other tribes — even those who want no truck with terrorists —complain they are being forced to kowtow to him. Those who refuse riskbeing branded as friends of al-Qaeda and tossed in jail, or worse. InBaghdad, government delight at the Anbar Front’s impact on al-Qaeda istempered by concern that the Marines have unwittingly turned SheikhSattar into a warlord who will turn the province into his personalfiefdom.

In June, Abu Risha’s position in the Anbar Salvation Council came under a fairly intense internal challenge.  As the Washington Post reported at the time, 

Ali Hatem Ali Suleiman, 35, a leader of the Dulaim confederation, thelargest tribal organization in Anbar, said that the Anbar SalvationCouncil would be dissolved because of growing internal dissatisfactionover its cooperation with U.S. soldiers and the behavior of thecouncil’s most prominent member, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha. Suleimancalled Abu Risha a "traitor" who "sells his beliefs, his religion andhis people for money."

That’s our guy.  That’s the pillar of America’s Sunni strategy, and a key player in Fred Kagan’s fantasy life.

The Administration has already played a bait and switch by pointing to growing Sunni opposition to Al Qaeda Iraq in Anbar as proof of the surge’s success, rather than real the political progress in Baghdad that surge backers promised. But if that "progress" in Anbar comes with the price tag of these kinds of bedfellows, it even further diminishes their claims.