Some interesting news broke today that has been buried amid the orgy of convention coverage: Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said -- apparently in a speech to tribal leaders in the Green Zone -- that the U.S. and Iraq had agreed that all "foreign soldiers" would leave Iraq by the end of 2011. Maliki was promptly shot down by the White House, which maintained there is no pullout date.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have been working toward an agreement for months, with the U.S. seeking a legal basis for stationing troops in Iraq when U.N. authority expires at the end of this year.

Here's how Campbell Robertson of the International Herald Tribune reported Maliki's comments today:

Iraq and the United States have agreed on a date for the departure of all American troops as part of a broader security pact they are negotiating, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, said Monday.

"There is actually an agreement concluded between the two parties over the definite date, which is 2011, to end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil," Maliki said.

Maliki made the comments in a speech to tribal leaders in the Green Zone in Baghdad, but it was far from clear that the issue had been settled.

In its own version of the story, Agence France-Presse runs a slightly different Maliki quote:

"There is an agreement between the two sides that there will be no foreign soldiers in Iraq after 2011," Maliki said in a statement issued by his office.

AFP also includes a stern denial from Bush Administration spokesman Tony Fratto, who maintains that "we have not yet finalized an agreement." Fratto even seems to back away from Condoleezza Rice's recent endorsement -- however mushy -- of a "timetable" for withdrawal. Fratto's comment, after the jump:

Read more »

Today private military contractors supporting the U.S. occupation in Iraq far outnumber U.S. troops inside the country.

All together, these non-uniformed workers have cost nearly $100 billion, accounting for roughly 20 percent of the total U.S. budget for the five-year war.

That's according to the most comprehensive study to date (.pdf) of private contractors in Iraq, released today by the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO estimates that more than 190,000 contractors were working on U.S.-funded contracts in the Iraq theater as of early 2008. This is somewhat higher than past estimates and far outnumbers the roughly 150,000 U.S. troops inside the country.

The report provides the first reliable breakdown of who these contractors are and where they come from.

Only about 20 percent are U.S. citizens, who work jobs such as armed security or logistical services for firms such as Blackwater or KBR.

Under 40 percent of contractors are citizens of the country where they work, mainly Iraq, some Kuwait and Jordan. (Surrounding countries such as Kuwait and others are considered part of the "Iraq theater" where logistical services essential to the occupation are provided.)

And the report for the first time estimates that about half are from other countries, mostly poor, unskilled workers from places like India or the Philippines These migrant workers are paid far less than Americans yet are critical to the day-to-day operations of the occupation.

The full cost -- in both money and lives -- related to these contractors has gone largely unreported. There are no reliable estimates on non-Americans who have been injured or died working for the U.S. military.

Working as bodyguards, engineers, translators, drivers, construction workers cooks, janitors and laundry operators, these workers have helped the Pentagon hold down the number of military personnel sent to Iraq and avoid public discussion of a draft.

The CBO study notes that U.S. dependence on contractors is radically higher than during prior conflicts. Contractors in Iraq are proportionally about 5 times higher than in Vietnam.

After pundits have commented about the muted reaction to author Ron Suskind's explosive allegations last week, the House Judiciary Committee said today it will "review" the reports of White House and CIA misconduct.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) didn't mention anything about hearings or subpoenas in his press release this afternoon. But the committee chairman did say he instructed his staff to look into the report that former CIA Director George Tenet in late 2003 ordered agents to concoct a letter showing false evidence linking Saddam to 9/11.

"Mr. Suskind reports that the Bush Administration, in its pursuit of war, created and promoted forged documents about Iraq," Conyers said in the press release. "I am particularly troubled that the decision to disseminate this fabricated intelligence is alleged to have come from the highest reaches of the administration."

After Suskind's new book was released last week, the White House promptly denied the accusation and two of Suskind's key CIA sources criticized the report, claiming Suskind misrepresented their remarks. Suskind responded by releasing a partial transcript of one taped interview with a key CIA source.

While that allegedly forged letter got all the press attention last week, Conyers indicated he would review several other questions raised in the book, "The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism."

A number of issues raised in Mr. Suskind's book to be reviewed include:

· The origin of the allegedly forged document that formed the basis for Bush's 2003 State of the Union assertion that Iraq sought yellowcake uranium from Niger;

· The role of this document in creating the false impression that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had a working relationship with Iraq;

· The relationship between this document and other reported examples of the Bush Administration considering other deceptive schemes to justify or provoke war with Iraq, such as the reported consideration of painting a U.S. aircraft with UN colors in order to provoke Iraq into military confrontation;

· Allegations that the Bush Administration deliberately ignored information from Iraq's chief intelligence officer that Iraq possessed no WMDs;

· The payment of $5 million to Iraq's chief intelligence officer and his secret settlement in Jordan, beyond the reach of investigators;

· The September 2007 detainment and interrogation of Mr. Suskind's research assistant, Greg Jackson, by federal agents in Manhattan. Jackson's notes were also confiscated.

Ron Suskind's bombshell report -- that the CIA essentially forged a letter in late 2003 linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and nuclear weapons -- has been getting knocked around all week.

And so far, it's holding up well under scrutiny.

The specific allegations first reported on Monday say former CIA Director George Tenet ordered a former Marine and CIA agent to create a letter indicating that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta was trained in Iraq and also that Iraq was receiving suspicious shipments from Niger (the implication being the now infamous "yellowcake uranium").

The assignment for the agent, Rob Richer, the former number-two in command at the Operations Directorate, was to track down Saddam's former intel chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush, in Jordan and convince him to write the letter in his own handwriting on Iraqi government letterhead, backdated to July 2001.

The order to concoct the letter was drawn up on White House stationary, Richer told Suskind. The book says the CIA ultimately carried out the order, but it does not say how.

The fake letter became public in December 2003 and fueled global media speculation about an Iraq-al Qaeda link. At that time, the U.S. military had failed to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and American domestic support for the war was fading.

The story's veracity took a hit early in the week when Richer, who is now retired, issued a public statement Monday denying any involvement. Well, actually, the White House issued that statement for him, along with its own vague denial that Suskind's report was "absurd."

Today Suskind took the unusual step of publishing a transcript of his taped interview with Richer in June. Richer left the agency in 2005, saying that he lacked confidence in the agency's leadership.

Also today the story got new legs -- and additional details -- from Joe Conason's column in Salon. Conason takes us back to the time of the bogus letter's first appearance.

That letter first popped up in a credulous report in London's Sunday Telegraph, where the reporter cites a key source as Ayad Allawi. You might remember him, the CIA lackey who was propped up as Iraq's interim prime minister in 2004, only to see his political career end when Iraqis held elections a year later.

Conason also notes that Allawi was visiting CIA headquarters just a few days before that story broke in the Telegraph.

The most interesting question raised about Suskind's accuracy came yesterday from Philip Giraldi, a former CIA agent, writing in the American Conservative. According to him, the Bush Administration did order up a forged letter, but did it through the Pentagon and Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans. Giraldi notes the the military has its own false documents center used to draw up fake papers for special ops officers traveling under cover as businessmen.

That does sound plausible, given that the CIA was always more circumspect of the Saddam-al Qaeda links that were popular with the neocons in Feith's office across the river.

Looking back at all the aftershocks this week, what stands out for us is the narrow, legalistic denials that the White House and others coughed up this week.

Take a close look at what Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary, told Politico:

"The allegation that the White House directed anyone to forge a document from Habbush to Saddam is just absurd."

Is it false, or just absurd? Did they direct anyone to forge any documents? From Habbush to someone else? Or from someone else to Saddam? Sounds like an attorney wrote that one.

And here's what Tenet said in a statement also issued by the White House.

"There was no such order from the White House to me nor, to the best of my knowledge, was anyone from CIA ever involved in any such effort."

In the transcript Suskind released today, he asked Richer about what kind of paper trail is created when setting an operation like this in motion. Richer said there was only one, closely guarded, piece of paper that originated from the White House.

Rob: It probably passed through five or six people. George probably showed it to me, but then passed it probably to Jim Pavitt, the DDO, who then passed it down to his chief of staff who passed it to me. Cause that's how--you know, so I saw the original. I got a copy of it. But it was, there probably was--

Ron: Right. You saw the original with the White House stationery, but you didn't--down the ranks, then it creates other paper.

Rob: Yeah, no, exactly."

Last Thursday, Fox News ran a brief segment on a KFC restaurant opening in Fallujah before segueing into an interview with former CENTCOM Commander Tommy Franks, who was asked to comment on the presence of an American fast food restaurant in the notoriously violent Iraqi city. "Do they have a drive-thru window?" Steve Doocy asks. "They get in and get out. And, so far, they do it safely," answers Brian Kilmeade:

Now, call us cynical, but something about that segment seemed off -- oddly upbeat even. On Friday I put in a call to KFC headquarters to ask if the Fallujah chicken joint is the real deal. KFC told me they were looking into the matter. Today, Yum! Restaurants International spokesman Christophe Lecureuil wrote me back:

I understand you wanted some details about the store in Falluja that looks like a KFC. This store is not approved by KFC International and we have working with the US Military to warn the troops of this situation.

Details are still hard to come by. Lecureuil said that the company doesn't have more information at this stage because "we've just started investigating the matter." Asked how KFC was working with the military, Lecureuil wrote only that: "Concerning the military, we have a long-standing and excellent relationship with them as we have quite a few KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut stores in military bases outside the US."

So where did the Fallujah KFC myth come from?

The story seems to have popped up two weeks ago in a report by a Marine public information officer. Cpl. Chris T. Mann is a PIO for Regimental Combat Team 1, which is part of the 1st Marine Division. The following photo accompanied his post on the regimental website:

And the footage that Fox used can be traced back to a 5-minute clip at LiveLeak.com, which shows scenes of chicken frying amid assorted KFC-branded signage. Another marine, Public Affairs Chief Josh Higgins of Regimental Combat Team 1, referenced the same "KFC" in a recent article for the Greenville, TN, newspaper.

In an email Saturday, 1st Lt Brian Block, a media officer for Multi National Force - West, told me that Cpl. Mann would be out on a mission for the next couple of days. We've also called the number of the faux KFC itself, but no one at the restaurant seems to speak English.

All we know for sure right now is that the original Fox report -- that a KFC franchise opened in Fallujah -- was bogus.

The Department of Justice says it may close its investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks -- and possibly release previously sealed court records -- as early as today.

The move comes as questions and criticisms of the FBI's handling of the case grow more intense and also less than a week after the suicide of the alleged key suspect in the case, government scientist Bruce Ivins.

Closing the investigation would send a signal that Ivins was guilty and acted alone. But last week's suicide has thrust the anthrax investigation back into the spotlight and prompted new questions about the unsolved case as well as public statements and press reports surrounding the attacks in the fall of 2001.

The AP reports:

Among the unanswered questions in the investigation is how Ivins could have created the fine anthrax powder that, distributed in the mail, killed five people and terrorized the nation. Ivins' lab didn't deal with powdered anthrax and there is disagreement over whether he could have created it -- and if he did, how he kept it a secret.

The New York Times reports that investigators lack some key evidence against Ivins, such as anything linking the scientist to the central New Jersey town where the anthrax letters were mailed. An unnamed source calls the case against Ivins "circumstantial" and said at least 10 other people from the lab at Fort Detrick, MD, had access to the same flask containing that anthrax, the Times reports.

In an article on Sunday, The Washington Post wrote that federal prosecutors may disband the grand jury that was hearing evidence against Ivins, adding that no other criminal charges are expected in the case.

A lawyer for Ivins, Paul F. Kemp, has consistently maintained his client's innocence.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon has been working overtime on this story for the past few days and lays out a reconsideration of the anthrax investigation, its press reports and its time line. He bring attention to the mounting pressure on ABC News to disclose the confidential sources behind its report in 2001, which stated that federal agents had evidence that the anthrax came from Iraq.

Greenwald also raises questions about Ivins' therapist, who came forward several days ago describing Ivins's homicidal thoughts.

In a statement today, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD), who was a target in the attacks, criticized the FBI and said he has little faith in its investigation.

Finally, as we noted earlier today, evidence is emerging that White House officials may have pressured the FBI to tag Al Qaeda as a suspect during the initial weeks of the probe.

Late Update: After reports that federal investigators couldn't place Ivins at the New Jersey mailbox where the anthrax letters were dropped, sources at DOJ leaked the AP a new story this afternoon. Their best guess is that Ivins made the seven-hour round trip up to the Princeton area after work one night, possibly because he had a weird obsession with the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority, which has a chapter up there.

That might have been enough to secure a grand jury indictment, but that sounds like a stretch for the jury to buy. We'll never know.