Setting the Iraq stage

September 4, 2007 – 1:26 pm

For all of the slightly odd talk about this being the start of the campaign season, it is clear that candidates are setting their messages for the next 3 months, and the press is going to take things more seriously now.

One of the things that is clear is that, to the extent that Iraq is one of the major issues in the primaries, the policy and tone of the Iraq debate will be set over the next 3-4 weeks. Congress is gearing up for a major fight. The Petraeus report will drop over the weekend. John McCain starts to lay out his argument for being the leading (credible) voice on Iraq.

So it is interesting to see how the candidates are handling this issue. And the answer is, with the exception of John McCain, they are running from Iraq.

Rudy Giuliani is talking Homeland Security by rolling out a Homeland Security Advisory list and making promises about emergency preparedness in … New Orleans.

Mitt Romney, in response to another perhaps less-than-spontaneous "Ask Mitt Anything" question, calls the Iraq situation "a mess." This is,of course, right at the beginning of the discussion of Iraq, and that he called Iraq "a mess" will get inserted in stories and blog posts over the next couple of weeks. Romney is cleverly continuing his distancing himself from Iraq.

The interesting question is what the other top candidates are going to do? Fred Thompson has never had a clear message or position, but after Thursday he will. Mike Huckabee will need a set of answers to this and other questions much beyond what he had August 10th.

All in all, the statements made in the next couple of weeks about Iraq are going to be what these candidates carry through the primary, unless some major event occurs on the ground in Iraq or in Congress. And, unless there is some natural pivot, the position taken by the eventual nominee will be one that he is accountable through November of 2008.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Total-ing Romney’s investments in terror

August 15, 2007 – 9:28 am

Mitt Romney released his financial records on Monday. These are neat. You don’t get too many opportunities to see where people with $250m put their money. (BTW, I think that he probably has more. How much is in his foundation?)

I didn’t expect to write on this because I find the whole issue of blind trusts a little obscure and without a clear moral or ethical direction to it. Furthermore, I view it to be a real feature of capitalism that you don’t have to know all the details of things that you make money off of. However, I was shocked by some of the stuff I found in Romney’s financials that, surprise, surprise, do not jive with his public stances or statements.

Now, Romney has recently divested from a number of companies, but two jumped out at me:

  • Total SA (formerly Totalfina and Totalfina Elf), which Romney recently sold stock resulting in capital gains of $15-50k.
  • Lukoil, which Romney recently sold with a cap gains of $50-100k

The Oil for Food scandal was a live issue when I was on the Hill, and I read a lot of documents about it at the time. And, simply put, Total and Lukoil are the bad guys. They have been, repeatedly, vehicles for corruption in their countries and they are both tools of the French and Russian governments, respectively. But back to Iraq for a moment. From a Heritage document about the Oil for Food scandal:

Prior to the regime change in April 2003, French and Russian oil companies possessed oil contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime that covered roughly 40 percent of the country’s oil wealth. French oil giant Total Fina Elf had won contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq, which contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil (25 percent of Iraq’s oil reserves). Russian company Lukoil had won the contract to develop the West Qurna field, also in southern Iraq, which has an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil.

An April 2005 National Review article had this to say about Total, "which NRO readers may remember for its sweetheart deals with Saddam Hussein, also holds major concessions in Sudan." And the Scotsman had this to say about Lukoil:

"Iraqi attempts to use oil gifts to influence Russian policy-makers were on a lavish and almost indiscriminate scale," it says. He targeted a "new oligarch class" and also bribed Lukoil, the oil giant, with oil-for-food vouchers worth $10 million.

These companies are also invested in the Sudan and have been since the mid-80s. They are also deeply invested in Iran. Here are some sample quotes. First, Lukoil and Iran, from Forbes:

Iran and Russia said they plan to step up economic cooperation and are seeking energy deals involving Russian oil and gas giants Lukoil and Gazprom.

Total’s own website says:

With the South Pars project, TotalFinaElf has become the foremost oil company in partnership with Iran

One Congressional Research Service report lists $1.3b in investments by Total in Iran.

Incidentally, another oil company, China Petroleum and Chemicals, (aka Sinopec) that Romney has not divested from is still active in Iran. From an April 2007 article:

Iran is close to a deal with Sinopec of China on developing the Yadavaran oil field, the Iranian oil minister, Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh, said Monday.

Sinopec Group, the state-owned parent of Sinopec Corp., agreed in October 2004 to take the lead in developing the Iranian oil field and to buy 10 million metric tons of liquefied natural gas every year for 25 years in a deal worth as much as $100 billion.

So Romney is extracting income from a state-owned Chinese government oil company investing in Iran. Nice…

Why does this matter?

Well, first Romney is a big advocate of divesting from Iran. At least in the case of Sinopec, it hasn’t happened yet. Now, Romney will argue, somewhat correctly, that this was in a blind trust, and therefore he isn’t accountable for it. Of course, back in 1994, Romney attacked the credibility of this argument, calling it an "age-old ruse:"

You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don’t invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they’re going to get an advantage from me.

How about "Don’t invest in companies that are investing in state sponsors of terrorism?"  At the very least, these investments raise questions about the rules that Romney used. What were the rules? And they raise timing questions. Did Romney invest in Total, Sinopec, and Lukoil prior to the blind trust?

It seems that similar questions could apply to his investments in companies that do embryonic stem-cell research, although the political hypocrisy there would have more to do with his actual positions, not his investments.

While he’s at it, why doesn’t he release his tax returns (and Clinton and McCain could do that too), along with the tax returns of his foundation. (which gave the $15k to Mass. Citizens for Life, right?)

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Hint to Romney: Baghdad is not Ames

August 8, 2007 – 12:23 pm

Now, I don’t buy all this Yellow Elephant junk, but Mitt Romney doesn’t understand something fundamental:

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended his five sons’ decision not to enlist in the military, saying they’re showing their support for the country by "helping me get elected."

Tooling around Iowa farmland in a Winebago trying to get their dad a job is not comparable to defending their country and spreading freedom in Baghdad.

Also, this reminds us that Romney changed his story about why he didn’t serve in Vietnam.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

McCain blogger conference call

August 2, 2007 – 2:45 pm

McCain calls the ethics bill a "sham and a joke".  "It is just the same as it was before." "There are some good things it" but "it was an opportunity because of the dissatisfaction of the American people… and I’m sorry that we have failed. … it will further contribute to the cynicism of the American people."

Iraq. Lots of words about the need to address defense authorization and Iraq. McCain says again that he will not pull out of Iraq.

Ryan Sager, NYSun. Asks about media consolidation and the Rupert Murdoch. McCain responds that this phone call (blogger only) is evidence that the media is not consolidating.

Jennifer Rubin, Human Events. What about Senator Stevens on the Appropriations Committee? McCain responded that Stevens should have the opportunity to defend himself.What does he think about the Judge Southwick situation? He thinks that his record is fine. The guy has served in Iraq, etc. McCain also says that he is even more proud of the Gang of 14. McCain says that the Gang of 14 deal no longer functions because Republicans aren’t in the majority. Says Southwick deserves an up or down vote.

Philip Klein, American Spectator. Al Qaeda in Pakistan. What is McCain’s response to Obama’s statements about Pakistan. There are a lot of ways of achieving military/political goals without bombing a sovereign country. That’s why we have the CIA, etc. "It would be catastrophic if we somehow destabilized Musharraf by encouraging radical extremists."

James Joyner, Outside the Beltway. Ethics Reform Bill. "Why didn’t we do something [about ethics] when we had the majority?" Are you seeing signs of progress, especially vis-a-vis Maliki? McCain says ethics is why we lost in 2006.  Saudis getting more concerned and involved. The real problem is that they are not sure that we are going to stay in the neighborhood. … "Some of the stirrings and more cooperation have been achieved because of some of the success that we have had militarily on the ground."   McCain thinks Patraeus will come back with a "small progress" report. "Placing political parties and political ambitions ahead of national interest," referring to Clyburn’s recent comment.

Betsy Newmark. Betsy’s Page. Increasing price of food products, what of subsidies for ethanol. Ethanol makes sense at this point economically, and pork and chickens are being effected. She follows up with a question on protectionism and China. McCain says that he is opposed to protectionism. Calls protectionism "one of the great dangers."

Paul Mirengoff of Powerline. (His daughter is a Romney staffer) How can McCain galvanize moderates? "Honesty and integrity," "views are honestly held and well-informed." Immigration was as damaging to him as any issue that he has ever encountered. Takes credit for failure to convince the American people that we are serious about securing the borders.

Patrick Curley, Brainster Blog. McCain voted against cloture and the bill. "This is a sham, this is a joke." Curley follows up with a question about whether it is really possible. McCain responds that transparency is the only option. Earmarks should be subject to a 51-vote challenge on the floor of the Senate.

Doug Lambert, GraniteGrok. DoD changed the status of two soldiers from unknown to "missing/captured." (formerly POW/MIA) Should our soldiers be classified as POW/MIA? McCain responds that POW status is important because it bounds the DoD to treat the family in certain ways. McCain is "strongly in favor of the presumption of POW status."

I asked about Obama’s statement about nukes and Romney’s about withdrawal. Obama, never preclude the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. If you believe that, save the taxpayers a bunch of money and get rid of all of our nuclear weapons. "Regard the use of nuclear weapons as the last resort." "What Patraeus would say is not that we can begin the withdrawal. He is going to say that we are seeing progress. That the Iraqi military will be able to take over gradually."

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Romney: Peace candidate

August 2, 2007 – 1:08 pm

I have been saying for a while that Mitt Romney’s campaign wants to run away from Iraq as fast as possible. Well, he said it again, according to Green Mountain Politics. Except this time, he said that he wants to withdraw if Patreaus says that our plan is succeeding.

That is shocking. Green Mountain points out the obvious follow up:

Mitt Romney: If the surge is working, let’s get the hell out.

Huh?

GreenMountainPolitics1 follow-up question for Mr. Romney: What if the surge isn’t working?

Doesn’t this put Mitt Romney to the left of Hillary Clinton, at least?

Hasn’t Romney joined Ron Paul, Chuck Hagel, and Dennis Kucinich as the peace candidates?

I have my own follow up. Rep James. Clyburn (D-SC) thought that success in Iraq would be "a real big problem" for the Democrats. Does Romney agree? Clyburn’s problem was that would mean that the Democrats would have to support staying in Iraq. Has Romney found a way out of Clyburn’s problem?

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (2)

McCain blogger conference call

July 13, 2007 – 2:32 pm

Getting in at the tail end of McCain’s opening. He sounds very, very tired.

Jennifer Rubin asks about Sens. Lugar and Warner re-authorizing the war under different conditions. McCain says that once you authorize a war, you either win the war or lose it. Says we can still win.

James Joyner asks why McCain has any optimism at all about Iraq. McCain is very disappointed, but says that they still have an opportunity to move forward. Joyner follows up and McCain says that there are no good options. However, he agrees that the political situation is very bad.

AmSpec’s Phil Klein asks about debt. McCain says that there will be debt but that the doesn’t have the numbers.

Michael Goldfarb comes on. McCain says it is always darkest before the black. Goldfarb asks about the Senate bill and the legislation. McCain says that the real test is next week with the Levin and Reid amendments.

Jim Addison asks about Sen. Domenici’s shift in position on Iraq. McCain says he wants more people like Domenici to go over to Iraq. He thinks that Domenici would have a different perspective if he would go to Iraq. "Guardedly optimistic that we can maintain 41 votes."

Hinderocker asks about the September cut-off. McCain says that timeframes are bad. For example, the bad guys could start dropping bombs at the beginning of September.

Jeff Emanuel, who is going to Iraq next week, from Redstate asks if McCain would take time off from his campaign. McCain asks for an update from the trip.  And he says that the war is his highest priority.

Jim Geraghty. Asks if there are any issues on which McCain would be to the right of this administration. Spending, spending, spending. Dispirited the base with spending and corruption.

Ana Marie Cox asks about Iraq. What happens if the other three candidates back off Iraq? McCain says that immigration and the war have damaged his campaign. And McCain says that Iraq is his highest priority.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Romney continues to back away from Iraq

June 8, 2007 – 10:56 am

From the AP:

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Thursday rejected the Bush administration’s vision of a decades-long U.S. troop presence in Iraq akin to South Korea and suggested a need for public benchmarks to gauge progress.

"Our objective would not be a Korea-type setting with 25-50,000 troops on a near permanent basis remaining in bases in Iraq," the former Massachusetts governor told the Associated Press.

"I think we would hope to turn Iraq security over to their own military and their own security forces, and if presence in the region is important for us than we have other options that are nearby," Romney said.

As I indicated earlier in the week, this is a political strategy with an eye on the general.

It also appears that some part of the "secret timetable" reemerged in this:

In a wide-ranging, hourlong interview with AP reporters and editors, Romney said the Bush administration would be wise to publicly disclose some goals for success in Iraq to restore public confidence. Benchmarks that would tip off adversaries, however, should remain private.

Romney suggested this earlier and was attacked by Duncan Hunter.

On a deeper level, it is unclear where this puts Romney on the spectrum. Legislative staffers for Clinton and Obama admit that "the dirty little secret" is that even the most aggressive withdrawal plans result in about 100k troops to do training, force protection, etc. It looks like Romney could be running to the left of Clinton and Obama on Iraq if he is not careful. Or, perhaps, if he is careful.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Romney soft-selling the war?

June 6, 2007 – 10:46 am

This from the NY Sun struck me in the coverage of the debate:

Mayor Giuliani hit his stride early and performed well overall. His succinct and unequivocal response on a question about whether — given what we know now — invading Iraq was a mistake damaged Governor Romney, who gave a glib and intellectually consistent yet unsatisfying answer.

Recall that earlier, Mitt Romney had offered a plan for withdrawal and a very mealy-mouthed statement about the troop surge.

I think that there are two different things going on here, both involving the Romney campaigns concern about how the war will play in the general. First, he wants to run away from the war but can’t. And second, he wants to avoid any quotable statements that can be used against him later.

First, publicly, the Romney campaign has to maintain a position that appears to support the President because this issue is so important to the base. Every time they try to back away from the war, they get beaten up by the base and donors. But privately, they want to back away from the war. They want to run as the outsider, as a sort of anti-Bush, with a positive message about health care. And Bush is defined as Iraq amongst the general electorate. So Romney is trying mightily to have very lukewarm statements about the war while maintaining the appearance of supporting the war. But it is clear — and people inside the campaign have confirmed this to me — that Romney wants to be as far away from this war as he can get.

Second, they want nothing quotable. Romney’s truly bizarre statements about the "null set" were totally uninterpretable to a normal person. That statement could never be put in an ad linking him to the war. And that’s the point. In a general, the Democrats want to tie Romney to the war and to Bush. And statements like this make that very, very hard.

Clever. Wrong, but clever.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Kagan has a different metric of success in Iraq

May 21, 2007 – 9:35 am

I was struck by this piece by Fred Kagan. First, he talks about violence:

Though you may be getting the opposite impression from news reports, the sectarian violence that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had unleashed by destroying the Samarra Mosque in February 2006 has subsided. Measured weekly, sectarian killings are down by almost two-thirds since the start of the Baghdad security plan. Anbar Province, Al Qaeda’s former sanctuary in western Iraq, has turned against the terrorists. Anbaris by the thousands are signing up to fight against Al Qaeda. Violent attacks in the province are down by 50% and combined casualties down by 65% between early January and mid-May.

But the interesting part was this:

The movement is spreading. Sheiks in Diyala, Salah-ad-Din and Babil provinces are reaching out to coalition forces to help us.

This tells me that he is not worried about a political compromise in the capital. He is worried about the "grassroots" violence.

Tag:

By eye | Comments (1)

Funny. That’s not what Obama used to say…

April 12, 2007 – 9:30 am

Barack Obama, my former state senator, has been running to the left as the anti-war candidate in the Democratic primary. Since he wasn’t in the Senate in 2002, he can say that is the only major Democratic candidate to not vote for the war. But when John Kerry offered an amendment in 2006 to pull out, Obama went down to the Senate floor to fight against the Kerry amendment:

For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry Amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.

But having visited Iraq, I’m also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them.

It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.

This guy was pretty articluate in defense of a responsible strategy in Iraq, even recognizing the moral obligation to stay that was so well explained by the Moms of Fury.

We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.

Now that Obama is running for President, he has changed his position, even though he hasn’t been to Iraq since this statement was made. Yesterday he said:

I believe that letting the Iraqi government know America will not be there forever is the best way to pressure the warring factions toward this political settlement, which is why my plan begins a phased withdrawal from Iraq on May 1st, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat troops by March 31st, 2008.

So is Obama contending that the facts have changed, even though he hasn’t been to Iraq since his June 2006 statements? People who have been there recently like John McCain or Max Boot (blogging here and here) disagree. Or is Obama contending that it is ok to have a "withdrawal of our troops… driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground?" Or is he arguing that there will not be a "security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing, and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America?"

Or is he just double-talking for votes?  And so much for "moral … reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way."

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (1)