PostWatch

Iraq's Untlold Story: Basra's Future

This is one massive investment, as reported via the Iraqi Press Monitor from Oct. 27:

60 Billion Dollars Allotted to Build Iraq's Biggest Port
        (Al-Sabah) Salam al-Maliki, minister of transportation, announced that 60 billion dollars is being allocated for Iraq's largest port project. The port, in Basra, will consist of 100 docks that will be built over a period of seven years. Fifteen docks will be built in the first two years. Al-Maliki explained to an al-Sabah reporter that Arab companies submitted their bids, which will continue to be accepted over the next few days. The port is located in Ras al-Besha in the Fao district on the eastern cost of Khor Abdullah. The project will help Fao re-establish its prominence that it lost during Iraq's wars.
        (Al-Sabah is issued daily by the Iraqi Media Network.)

And, Via Insta, this from Strategy Page:

After two years of fighting, the Iraqi Sunni Arabs are seeing their worst nightmare come true. And that is an Iraqi army and police force that can do the job, and is not led by Sunni Arabs....

Their numbers are growing, as the full post details. Strategy Page concludes:

The Iraqi battalions are able to make terrorist attacks much more costly, for the terrorists. Thus the recent terrorist attack on the Palestinian hotel, resulted in over a dozen terrorist personnel killed or captured because of prompt action by Iraqi soldiers and police. As a result of this, two more trends are in evidence. First, more and more of the terrorist activity is moving outside of heavily policed Baghdad, to smaller towns where there are fewer security personnel. Second, more Sunni Arabs are giving up on plans for any quick take over of the government. These Kurdish and Shia Arab police and army officers were not supposed to show up so quickly, if ever. But there they are.

Iraq in the Post Today

'They Tell Me They've Assassinated My Brother, A13

Related in PostWatch: Iraq's Untold Story

If You Know What I Mean

From today's live chat with Howard Kurtz:

Memphis, Tenn.: On Larry King, Bob Woodward said:

"They did a -Plame outing damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage..."

In Saturday's Washington Post, Dafna Linzer said:

"The CIA has not conducted a formal damage assessment, as is routinely done in cases of espionage and after any legal proceedings have been exhausted."

Which is it? Did they, or did they not? If not, how do we reconscile with an ex-CIA operative's assertion (and good common sense) that the CIA always does a damage assessment in these cases, if only for the protection of their their people and assets?

Or do either of these writers really know what they're talking about?

Finally, a comment. Is Bob Woodward really a journalist? Or is he someone who writes books, needs to stay on good terms with his inside White House contacts, and for that reason passes spin on to his readers and viewers, seemingly without guilt or remorse?

Howard Kurtz: Woodward doesn't need me to defend him on journalistic grounds, but even his detractors would say he's extremely well sourced at agencies like the CIA. I suspect the difference may lie in The Post saying the agency hasn't done a "formal" assessment, while Woodward is talking about a review that lacks official status. But that's just an educated guess.

I don't want to say which reporter I'd bet on, if I had to choose, when trying to understand what's going on at the CIA. But let's just say it wouldn't be Linzer.

Anyway, like others in the blogosphere, I have a hard time believing the CIA was overly concerned with Valerie Plame's cover, considering the agency let her husband publish an Op-Ed in the New York Times attacking the Bush Administration.

Back It Up

Howard Kurtz wonders if reporters might be enjoying the indictment of Scooter Libby just a little too much in his Media Notes column today, so credit where due. But he loses all bonus points by accepting two major sections of the flawed MSM (and, yes, liberal) narrative:

The press deserves some of the blame because, as editors at the New York Times, Washington Post and other news organizations have acknowledged, journalists were not nearly aggressive enough in questioning administration claims about Saddam Hussein during the run-up to war. And although Miller was a particularly prominent offender, she was hardly the only one.

But it wasn't just "administration claims" that argued in favor of the belief that Saddam had an active WMD program (not to mention active WMDs) before the war. Intelligence agencies around the globe believed the same thing, as did many leading Democrats, including those with access to intelligence briefings, as did even some opponents of the war, who warned of the massive casualties that would result from attacking Saddam Hussein. To cast this as an "administration claim" completely mischaracterizes what happened. This is a good example of how much damage can be inflicted on the truth by just a few words. Here's another. Kurtz continues:

Some leaks, of course, are important. In this case, reporters, led by columnist Robert Novak, were the conduits for what the indictment makes clear was an administration smear campaign against Wilson.

Evidence, please. What did the Administration, leaking or otherwise, say about Joe Wilson or his wife that was tawdry or untrue? Since when is it a smear to point out that Wilson's wife played a role in his being dispatched to Niger, or that Wilson himself was an administration critic? I don't know what else Kurtz has in mind, and neither do you, since he doesn't tell us.

Update: Online version here with some Libby and Harriet Miers commentary links.

Iraq's Untold Story: Powering Up

Another story (my last one was on Monday, which included different news about Ninewa) on gains in electricity generation from PortAl Iraq, with a handy summary at the end:

Inhabitants of central Ninewa will soon receive more reliable electricity with the installation of 12 new underground power cables. The new cables will improve electrical services for approximately 500 to 1,000 local homes or businesses and provide additional connections between the substations that supply electricity to overhead power lines.

Management oversight for the project was provided by the Project & Contracting Office’s (PCO) Electricity Sector, with quality control supplied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gulf Region Division (USACE, GRD).

The $2.24 million project began in June. Presently, work on the power cables is approximately 90 percent complete, and is expected to be finished by December. Cable testing remains to ensure they not only function correctly, but pass rigid international safety standards, according to the PCO.

Once installed, the additional power cables will decrease dependency on generators and provide a more continuous supply of power for local residents. ...

The PCO Electrical Sector is responsible for 434 projects valued at approximately $3.2 billion. This figure includes about $140 million of non-construction funds allocated for equipment and training. To date, the Electricity Sector has completed approximately 82 projects totaling an estimated $660 million. Currently, an estimated $1,300 million is being used on projects that are now in progress, leaving $1,250 million for remaining projects.

The majority of 352 remaining Electricity Sector projects are scheduled for completion by December 2006.

Iraq in the Post Today

U.N. Panel Says 2,400 Firms Paid Bribes to Iraq, A16
3 Iraqi Shiite Groups Form Election Alliance, A18
Death Tally Box, A18

Related in PostWatch: Iraq's Untold Story

Settling Scores

My guess is that Hugh Hewitt was deeply wounded by the defeat of Harriet Miers--he was as amazed as Bush himself at the depth of opposition, which should tell you something, and had a lot invested in Miers' confirmation.

Hewitt never successfully confronted the substance of the claims against Miers. His best argument  was "trust Bush--why would he nominate a weak candidate?" That's not a bad place to start, but it was an inadequate place to finish. The abysmal speeches, the lack of any history of interest in constitutional issues, the constantly shifting positions over time on crucial issues like abortion, the sympathy for affirmative action... these were criticisms, not "neo-Borkings." And Hewitt's attitude toward Bush was one better reserved for loyalty to a King, not a political leader answerable to the people.

After all of that, if you're looking for true irony, check out  this post by Hewitt, where he suggests Jonah Goldberg is a hypocrite (without using that word) for saying Polipundit is being unfair in a criticism about Michael McConnell. Hewitt calls this a "Mierony," and worse, "Mierony #1." This from the guy who said defeating Miers would harm party unity and President Bush. Let's see how many hand grenades he lobs in that direction--and so at himself.

Hit and Run

Here's an example of an accusation that in a fair account would require evidence and a chance for self-defense. In The Rift's Repercussions Could Last Rest of Term, Jonathan Weisman writes:

Some activists said yesterday those divisions will heal quickly, as soon as Bush produces a nominee with unassailable credentials and a proven conservative philosophy. David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter who attacked the choice of Miers in starkly personal terms, said conservatives will be so relieved to get Miers's nomination behind them and so gratified that the president was willing to listen to them that they will provide support he has not seen in months.

That's near the end of the story and we never hear from Frum again. Here's the petition he launched (and which I signed), and I think it's an accurate reflection of his chief objections:

The next justice of the Supreme Court should be a person of clear, consistent, and unashamed conservative judicial philosophy.

The next justice should be a person of unquestioned personal and political independence.

The next justice should be someone who has demonstrated a deep engagement in the constitutional issues that regularly come before the Supreme Court — and an appreciation of the originalist perspective on those issues.

The next justice should be a person of the highest standard of intellectual and legal excellence.

For all Harriet Miers’ many fine qualities and genuine achievements, we the undersigned believe that she is not that person. An attempt to push her nomination through the Senate will only split the Republican party, damage the Bush presidency, and cast doubts upon the Court itself.

Sometimes Americans elect Republican presidents, sometimes we elect Democratic presidents. Whatever the differences between the parties, surely we can at least agree on this: Each party owes America its best. There is a wide range of truly outstanding legal talents who share the president’s judicial philosophy. We believe that on second thought President Bush can do better — for conservatism, for the Supreme Court, for America.

The only section at risk of being described as "personal" is Frum's call for a justice who "should be a person of the highest standard of intellectual and legal excellence."  But I don't believe it's out of bounds to question if that standard has been met when the scant evidence available includes the following from one of her speeches:

"I think the last week of the Senatorial Ads with Senator Krueger's ads for the first time focused upon just Kay Hutchinson was not an accident."

"Politicians who are too concerned about maintaining their jobs."

"The public education issue is racial in overtone."

"The State's poor population grew at a rate three times the national average and in some pockets that statistic is 70% the national average."

"We undeniable still have a justice system that does not provide justice for all as provided by the Pledge of Allegiance."

"Where else do we hear a lot today about the Courts.  The law and religion."

"I have enjoyed my year at the helm which is about to be over."

Ed Morrisey said it well: Mechanically, this speech reveals a mediocrity in composition that is truly disturbing. And in any case, that's Morissey, not Frum, whose criticism was framed by the idea that Miers was qualified for vocations other than being a Supreme Court justice. If Weisman's story is your only source, you'll never know that. 

How Droll

The Post demonstrates that even its justifications for using anonymous sources can be used to jab Bush. From Nomination Was Plagued By Missteps From the Start on A1 by Peter Baker and Amy Goldstein:

"This thing never got off the launching pad very well," said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because public airing of self-criticism is not encouraged in the White House.

Robert Bork Live Chat on Friday

An example of one of washingtonpost.com's major benefits: live chats with people that matter. On Friday at 11 a.m., you too can ask 1987 Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork about Harriet Miers, originalism, and whether he recognizes the country even less these days.

There's a much more politically diverse range of guests on these live chats than among post.com's online columnists and, well, the Washington Post's reporters. Here's to hoping it's a beach head.