Benchmarks! Get your benchmarks right here!

According to a letter sent yesterday by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, the Iraqi government has something of a problem meeting benchmarks. You can read the letter here.

The letter was a response to repeated requests from Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to disclose the details of an agreement that had reportedly been made between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government last fall. Bush had made a number of public references to the agreeement, but the full details of the agreement remained unknown.

And it's no wonder. It's quite a little list of unfulfilled promises (you can read the complete list here). From the AP:

Iraq has passed target dates to make laws establishing provincial elections, regulating distribution of the country's oil wealth and reversing measures that have excluded many Sunnis from jobs and government positions because of Baath party membership, according to the list Rice provided.

The Iraq government had also agreed to approve a law governing political amnesty and the charged question of sectarian militias by Dec. 31 and to finish a review of the constitution, seen as unfair to minority Sunnis, by Wednesday.

"Although the Iraqi parliament and Cabinet have done intermittent work on some elements of the list, including the symbolic oil law, it appeared that none of the targets have been fully met," the AP reports.

Meanwhile, some Senate Republicans (Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and well, Joe Lieberman (I-CT)) are busy pushing a resolution to counter the nonbinding resolutions against the president's troop increase -- by proposing more benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

The dark reign of experts and regulatory officials is over!

From The New York Times:

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

That's right, each agency (like, for instance, the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration) will now have a politically appointed babysitter to make sure that regulations aren't too onerous for corporations. In fact, the directive ensures that regulation is the absolute last resort: "in deciding whether to issue regulations, federal agencies must identify 'the specific market failure' or problem that justifies government intervention."

"Business groups welcomed the executive order," the Times notes, in a terrific understatement.

The Iran-U.S. PR battle is in full swing.

With word that the U.S. plans to offer public proof of Iran's hostile role in Iraq sometime this week, Iran's ambassador to Iraq suddenly agreed to an interview with The New York Times. Call it pre-emption:

[Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qumi] ridiculed the evidence that the American military has said it collected, including maps of Baghdad delineating Sunni, Shiite and mixed neighborhoods — the kind of maps, American officials have said, that would be useful for militias engaged in ethnic slaughter. Mr. Qumi said the maps were so common and easily obtainable that they proved nothing.

He declined to say whether he believed the maps bore sectarian markings or address other pieces of evidence the Americans said they had found, like manifests of weapons and material relating to the technology of sophisticated roadside bombs. But that is not why the Iranians were in the compound, he said.

And Qumi had something else up his sleeve for the U.S. -- following quickly on the Bush administration's confirmation Friday of their new strategy of "kill or capture" for Iranian agents in Iraq --: news that Iran planned to open a national bank in Iraq, "in effect creating a new Iranian financial institution right under the Americans’ noses," and that Iran had made offers of "military assistance" to Iraq.

All this was news to the U.S., it seemed, who would not respond to Qumi's statements until they'd made their way through "official routes."

Last summer, the administration decided to make an aggressive shift against Iran in Iraq, The Washington Post reveals this morning. Commanders, the paper reports, are now under orders to "kill or capture" Iranian operatives in Iraq, a strategy calculated to make Iran "back down" by "[hitting them] hard."

The change came because the administration decided that their policy of "catch and release" of Iranian agents in Iraq wasn't aggressive enough. The U.S. has detained and then released "dozens of suspected Iranian agents" in the past year, the Post reports.

But the policy is meant to reach beyond Iraq:

Advocates of the new policy -- some of whom are in the NSC, the vice president's office, the Pentagon and the State Department -- said that only direct and aggressive efforts can shatter Iran's growing influence. A less confident Iran, with fewer cards, may be more willing to cut the kind of deal the Bush administration is hoping for on its nuclear program. "The Iranians respond to the international community only when they are under pressure, not when they are feeling strong," one official said.

It's a policy with a long list of potential consequences, especially "if Iran responds with escalation," putting "U.S. citizens and national interests at greater risk in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere."

But perhaps that's the point?

A senior intelligence officer was more wary of the ambitions of the strategy.

"This has little to do with Iraq. It's all about pushing Iran's buttons. It is purely political," the official said. The official expressed similar views about other new efforts aimed at Iran, suggesting that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States' increasing inability to stanch the violence there.

Note: In a second must read today, The New York Times provides yet another unflattering portrait of the Iraqi parliament, this one featuring the parliament's speaker yelling "shut up" to quiet the din caused by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's (a Shiite) accusation that a Sunni leader in parliament had been involved in Shiite kidnappings.

He was scapegoated! The powers that be were protecting the president's right hand!

David Johnston and Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times take a look at the arguments coming from Scooter Libby's lawyers (that Libby was hung out to dry to protect Karl Rove), and, well, color them unconvinced.

First, despite the fact that reporters (and Patrick Fitzgerald) have been swarming all over Plamegate for almost four years, this supposed White House cabal against Libby escaped detection. And they still can't find anyone to support that idea. In fact, Libby and Rove seemed to have worked pretty closely together. “They didn’t show any ankle — it was always a team effort,” as Lawrence Wilkerson, a former State Department official, puts it.

Second, it's not clear that Libby was really hung out to dry. The only evidence seems to be that it took White House spokesman Scott McClellan a week longer in September of 2003 to lie to the press about whether Libby had been involved in the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity than it did for him to deny Rove's involvement.

And third, "[e]ven if the assertion is shown to be true, it is not clear how it would help refute the charges that Mr. Libby had perjured himself."

Do Libby's lawyers have anything more than smoke up their sleeves?

The New York Times checks in on democracy in Iraq, where "nearly every session" of the parliament has been adjourned since November... because as few as 65 of the 275 members there showed up.

Why? It's irrelevant: "Deals on important legislation, most recently the oil law, now take place largely out of public view, with Parliament — when it meets — rubber-stamping the final decisions." Also, the country is very dangerous, and despite the $120,000 salary, the members say they can't afford adequate protection -- one member says that he uses 40 guards when he's in Iraq, and the salary only buys 20. And, well, there's the fact that the job has inevitably disappointed members who "were here for the game, for prestige, for the money,” as one puts it.

As a result of the rampant truancy, the Speaker is contemplating "fining members $400 for every missed session" and replacing absentees. But... there's a problem. "For the proposals to be put in place, a majority of members in Parliament have to be present to pass them."

Note: Another Must Read from today is The Washington Post's damning breakdown of the president's portrayal of "the enemy."

The Washington Post this morning offers an excellent overview of Democratic prospects for legislation on global warming.

House Speaker Pelosi is pushing hard on the issue, creating a special committee to handle it. Trouble is, that committee tramples on Rep. John Dingell's (D-MI) turf, who heads up the Energy and Commerce Committee, a strong-arm move that even has Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) comparing her tactics to "the way the Republicans did it."

But Pelosi wants to get out front of the issue, something the slow-moving Dingell (the Post points out that "environmentalists dubbed him 'Tailpipe Johnny' during the acid-rain debate" in the late 80's) won't do. Dingell favors a more slow roll approach, holding hearings to "investigate the problem, if in fact it is a problem, and what it might cost to try to address it." And Waxman, who favors very tough emission restrictions, but doesn't think such a bill would have a prayer of passing in this Congress, will spend his time holding hearings on his oversight committee to "expose GOP intransigence" on the issue.

But there's a third camp -- the middle of the road camp that wants something that Bush might actually sign. Trouble is, legislators like Waxman who want strong action aren't likely to support legislation they view as weak.

Meanwhile, big coal, big oil, and other industry power players, aren't too worried:

Industry lobbyists say they expect to endure a lot of unpleasant climate hearings during this Congress, but they are not too worried about draconian legislation. They do not think the House or the Senate can pass anything too stringent, much less override a Bush veto. And they say their focus groups show that the public's eagerness to do something about global warming droops after hearing warnings of serious economic consequences.

With trillions of dollars at stake, it is reasonable to expect industry-funded ads to raise those alarms, in the vein of the "Harry and Louise" spots that helped sink President Bill Clinton's health-care plans.

"If you're a Democrat in a moderate district, this is not the kind of vote you want to take," said Myron Ebell, director of global-warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded think tank. "I think Democrats are really going to disappoint the enviros over the next two years, because all they're going to do is talk."

Unlike the old one, he doesn't ask and answer his own questions or speak in abstract riddles -- yet, at least. But who is the new Secretary of Defense?

"A hawk," answers The New York Times. Behold, Robert Gates' philosophy:

His favorite quotation from history, he told reporters traveling with him this week for meetings with allies and commanders in Europe and the Middle East, is from Frederick the Great, the 18th century Prussian monarch and gifted musician: “Negotiations without arms are like music books without instruments.”

Or, put another way, it takes military power to create the leverage necessary to make negotiations fruitful.

In application, that means more troops in Iraq, more troops in Afghanistan, and, to make the Iranians come around, more troops and aircraft carriers in the region (until that time, Gates has mused, it's just not worth talking to them).

Here's how that would work in Iraq: the troop buildup is designed as "a source of leverage over the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki" -- the buildup will halt "if Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government does not deliver on promises to send its own troops to Baghdad and not to interfere with operations against Shiite death squads in Baghdad."

But what if it doesn't work? The real test of Gates' influence in the administration -- one that's been fond of tough talk -- "will be whether the United States follows through on this threat if Mr. Maliki does not comply with those promises."

Last week, the Chinese sent a missile up into orbit and obliterated an old satellite of theirs, creating a speeding debris cloud that will threaten other satellites for years.

Why'd they do that? As The New York Times reports, the Bush administration has been working on a "a powerful ground-based laser weapon that would be used against enemy satellites." And they don't want to give it up:

In late August, President Bush authorized a new national space policy that ignored calls for a global prohibition on such tests. The policy said the United States would “preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space” and “dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so.” It declared the United States would “deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.”

The Chinese test “could be a shot across the bow,” said Theresa Hitchens, director of the Center for Defense Information, a private group in Washington that tracks military programs. “For several years, the Russians and Chinese have been trying to push a treaty to ban space weapons. The concept of exhibiting a hard-power capability to bring somebody to the negotiating table is a classic cold war technique.”

Ah, it's like 1986 all over again.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, during a long interview with journalists, gave the Bush administration a little of their own medicine. From The Washington Post:

Maliki disputed President Bush's remarks broadcast Tuesday that the execution of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein "looked like it was kind of a revenge killing" and took exception to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's Senate testimony last week that Maliki's administration was on "borrowed time."

The prime minister said statements such as Rice's "give morale boosts for the terrorists and push them toward making an extra effort and making them believe they have defeated the American administration," Maliki said. "But I can tell you that they have not defeated the Iraqi government."...

"I know President Bush and I know him as a strong person that does not get affected by the media pressure, but it seems the pressure has gone to a great extent that led to the president giving this statement," Maliki said.

And there was this precious moment:

Maliki spoke slowly and seriously for most of the conversation, but occasionally broke into a smile, such as when he was asked whether Bush needs him more than he needs Bush. "This is an evil question," he said, laughing.

The Times has more, including the audio of the Maliki's interview with journalists.

With people calling for his head, Deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs Charles Stimson wants everybody to know "I'm sorry!"

His letter today in The Washington Post:

During a radio interview last week, I brought up the topic of pro bono work and habeas corpus representation of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo. I do not....

I apologize for what I said and to those lawyers and law firms who are representing clients at Guantanamo. I hope that my record of public service makes clear that those comments do not reflect my core beliefs.

And just as a reminder, here's what he said last week:

I think the news story that you’re really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks is this: As a result of a FOIA request through a major news organization, somebody asked, ‘Who are the lawyers around this country representing detainees down there?’ and you know what, it’s shocking....

I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.

Yesterday, the Iraqi government hanged two of Saddam Hussein's top henchmen, Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, the former head of Hussein’s secret police, and Awad Hamad al-Bandar, the former chief judge of his revolutionary court.

But this time, there was to be no chanting, no yelling, no loyalists of Moktada al-Sadr. Half as many people were allowed into the chamber. And those that were allowed in were forced to sign documents "saying they would behave with dignity and restraint." This time, it would be different.

Alas. From The New York Times:

After executioners in full-face balaclavas pulled black hoods over the two men’s heads, tightened nooses around their necks and pulled the lever opening the trapdoors, both fell like weights. But the hangmen’s calculations of weight, gravity and the momentum needed to snap their necks — a grim science that has produced detailed “drop charts” used for decades in hangings around the world — appeared, in Mr. Ibrahim’s case, to have gone seriously awry....

Iraqi officials who attended the hanging said the calculation in the case of Mr. Ibrahim, a 55-year-old of medium height and build, had allowed for a “drop” of eight feet — too much, according to at least one United States Army manual — and about that amount of thick yellow rope could be seen coiled at Mr. Ibrahim’s feet before the hanging.

The video showed his head being snapped off as the rope went taut, and ending up, still inside the hood, lying in the pit of the gallows about five feet from his headless body.

But... at least this time there was, as an aide to Prime Minister Maliki claimed, "No ethnics, no chanting, everything a very smooth transaction, everyone very well behaved?”

Maybe. As John Burns of the Times notes, reporters were only allowed to see the three-minute video of the hanging once -- and it was soundless.

Bush officials are finally coming to grips with reality in Iraq. Circa 2003.

As The Washington Post reported Sunday, it's out with ideological purity, and in with "a sense of reality," as the administration tries to undo the many errors made handling Iraq's reconstruction (privatizing state factories, de-Baathification, etc.).

The piece focuses on one Timothy Carney, exactly the sort of battle seasoned, quick thinking, feet-firm-on-the-ground type you'd want helping with reconstruction, and who left his senior post in disgust only a few months after the U.S. took over in 2003.

Why? For instance:

"This is a big mistake," Carney thought in May 2003, when Bremer told senior CPA officials that he would soon issue an edict prohibiting many former members of Hussein's Baath Party from holding government jobs....

From the moment the order was issued, most of Carney's time was devoted to de-Baathification. He held long meetings with the industry ministry's management, first to explain the policy and then to comb through records to identify people who were ineligible for future employment.

"It was a terrible waste of time," Carney said. "There were so many more important things we should have been doing, like starting factories and paying salaries."

After a few months, the CPA began to receive reports that 10,000 to 15,000 teachers had been fired because of the de-Baathification order. In some Sunni-dominated areas, entire schools were left with just one or two teachers.

Now Carney has been tapped to help roll back those efforts (setting up a clash with Iraq de-Baathification kingpin Ahmad Chalabi) and, as the new Iraqi reconstruction czar, do what he wished he could have done four years ago.

Despite its incompetence and failures, there was one thing that the administration was always good at: the staged event. But, in a sign of how far their fortunes have sunk, they can't even do that right any more.

From The Washington Post:

There are few places the president could go for an unreservedly enthusiastic reception the day after unveiling his decision to order 21,500 more troops to Iraq. A military base has usually been a reliable backdrop for the White House, and so Bush aides chose this venerable Army installation in western Georgia to promote his revised strategy to the nation while his Cabinet secretaries tried to sell it on Capitol Hill.

The president's handlers did all they could to make it go well. Soldiers were prevented from speaking to reporters in order "to ensure that there would be no discordant notes," as the Post puts it. Bush even made an effort to appear low-key, a tactic, according to his aides, designed "to reflect the serious situation." But, still, it didn't go well.

Soldiers being soldiers, those who met the commander in chief Thursday saluted smartly and applauded politely. But it was hardly the boisterous, rock-star reception Bush typically gets at military bases. During his lunchtime speech, the soldiers were attentive but quiet. Not counting the introduction of dignitaries, Bush was interrupted by applause just three times in 30 minutes -- once when he talked about a previous Medal of Honor winner from Fort Benning, again when he pledged to win in Iraq and finally when he repeated his intention to expand the Army.

Note: Despite the fact that The New York Times and LA Times observed the same restrained reaction, the AP went with the headline: "Bush cheered at Fort Benning."

Is Iraqi sovereignty an oxymoron?

The New York Times reports that the president's plan to embed American troops with Iraqi units will provide the twin benefit of providing support to the Iraqis while keeping them on a short leash:

American generals have acknowledged that the twinning of American and Iraqi units, and the sharp increase in American advisers, will serve the dual purpose of stiffening Iraqi combat performance and providing American commanders with early warning of any Iraqi operations that run counter to American objectives. In effect, the advisers will serve as canaries in Mr. Maliki’s mine, ensuring the American command will get early notice if Iraqi operations threaten to abandon the equal pursuit of Sunni and Shiite extremists in favor of a more sectarian emphasis on going after Sunnis alone.

There's a similar tension with regard to Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who, since he's being given more authority, can't be left without babysitters:

The arrangements appeared to suggest that Mr. Maliki would have the power to halt any push into Sadr City, the Mahdi Army stronghold that American commanders have been saying for months will have to be swept of extremist militia elements if there is to be any lasting turn toward stability in Baghdad. But along with more authority for Mr. Maliki, the American plan appeared to have countervailing safeguards to prevent sectarian agendas from gaining the upper hand. Bush administration officials said that Americans would be present in the commander in chief’s office and that an American Army battalion — 400 to 600 soldiers — would be stationed in each of the nine Baghdad military districts.

Yes, we will surge, but surge grudgingly.

The Washington Post goes front page with the president's grand bargain with top generals:

Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq.

The Post details the many reasons why military commanders doubt a troop increase will work ("no backup options," concern the Iraqis won't deliver, concern over "fighting in a political vacuum"), but then, you really can't argue with the reasoning for pushing it through: "In the end, the White House favored the idea of more troops as one visible and dramatic step the administration could take."

What's more, the president's plan also comes with a catchy slogan, the successor to the administration's "As they stand up, we will stand down":

Tonight, this [senior White House official] said, the president will explain "that we have to go up before we go down."

Note: The Must Read is a new daily feature here at TPMm, where we'll scan the day's stories to bring you what we think is today's essential reading.