

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Despite covering questions regarding
what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) knew about the Bush administration's
interrogation policies, none of five major newspapers -- The New
York Times, The Washington
Post, the Los Angeles Times,
The Wall Street Journal, and
USA Today -- has reported on a May 13 Daily Beast article reporting that Vice President Dick Cheney's
office "suggested waterboarding an Iraqi prisoner, a former intelligence
official for Saddam Hussein, who was suspected to have knowledge of a Saddam-al
Qaeda connection." On the May 17 edition of ABC's This Week, Cheney's daughter Liz, a former State
Department official, was
specifically asked
twice about the report and dodged both questions.
Moreover, those same newspapers have
yet to report on a May 15 McClatchy Newspapers article by Jonathan S. Landay highlighting comments made
by Dick Cheney in 2004 that detainees at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, provided
information confirming Iraq's involvement in giving chemical
and biological weapons
training to Al
Qaeda.
In the Daily Beast article, former
NBC News investigative producer Robert Windrem reported: "Two U.S. intelligence officers confirm
that Vice President Cheney's office suggested waterboarding an Iraqi prisoner
... who was suspected to have knowledge of a Saddam-al Qaeda connection." As
Media Matters for America noted, MSNBC hosts covered Windrem's
report at least twice on May 14, and at one point hosted Windrem to discuss it.
From Windrem's report:
At the end of April 2003, not long
after the fall of Baghdad,
U.S. forces
captured an Iraqi who Bush White House officials suspected might provide
information of a relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime.
Muhammed Khudayr al-Dulaymi was the head of the M-14 section of Mukhabarat, one
of Saddam's secret police organizations. His responsibilities included chemical
weapons and contacts with terrorist groups."To those who wanted or suspected a
relationship, he would have been a guy who would know, so [White House
officials] had particular interest," Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraqi Survey
Group and the man in charge of interrogations of Iraqi officials, told me. So
much so that the officials, according to Duelfer, inquired how the interrogation
was proceeding.In his new book, Hide and Seek: The Search for
Truth in Iraq, and in an interview with The Daily
Beast, Duelfer says he heard from "some in Washington at very senior levels (not
in the CIA)," who thought Khudayr's interrogation had been "too gentle" and
suggested another route, one that they believed has proven effective elsewhere.
"They asked if enhanced measures, such as waterboarding, should be used,"
Duelfer writes. "The executive authorities addressing those measures made clear
that such techniques could legally be applied only to terrorism cases, and our
debriefings were not as yet terrorism-related. The debriefings were just
debriefings, even for this creature."Duelfer will not disclose who in
Washington had
proposed the use of waterboarding, saying only: "The language I can use is what
has been cleared." In fact, two senior U.S. intelligence officials at the
time tell The Daily Beast that the suggestion to waterboard came from the Office
of Vice President Cheney. Cheney, of course, has vehemently defended
waterboarding and other harsh techniques, insisting they elicited valuable
intelligence and saved lives. He has also asked that several memoranda be
declassified to prove his case. (The Daily Beast placed a call to Cheney's
office and will post a response if we get one.)Without admitting where the
suggestion came from, Duelfer revealed that he considered it reprehensible and
understood the rationale as political -- and ultimately counterproductive to the
overall mission of the Iraq Survey Group, which was assigned the mission of
finding Saddam Hussein's WMD after the invasion.
In the McClatchy article, Landay wrote that "Cheney,
defending the invasion of Iraq, asserted in 2004 that detainees
interrogated at the Guantanamo
Bay prison camp had revealed that
Iraq had trained al Qaida operatives
in chemical and biological warfare, an assertion that wasn't true." According to
Landay, Cheney asserted in an interview with The Rocky Mountain News, "We know for example from
interrogating detainees in Guantanamo that al Qaida sent individuals to Baghdad
to be trained in C.W. and B.W. technology, chemical and biological weapons
technology." Cheney biographer Stephen Hayes reported on the interview,
including those comments, in a January 13, 2004, Weekly Standard article (retrieved from the Nexis
database). Landay reported: "No evidence of such training or of any
operational links between Iraq and al Qaida has ever been
found, according to several official inquiries." From Landay's article:
The Rocky Mountain News asked Cheney
in a Jan. 9, 2004, interview if he stood by his claims that Saddam's regime had
maintained a "relationship" with al Qaida, raising the danger that
Iraq might give the group
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to attack the U.S."Absolutely. Absolutely," Cheney
replied.A Cheney spokeswoman said a response
to an e-mail requesting clarification of the former vice president's remarks
would be forthcoming next week."The (al Qaida-Iraq) links go back,"
he said. "We know for example from interrogating detainees in Guantanamo that al
Qaida sent individuals to Baghdad to be trained in C.W. and B.W. technology,
chemical and biological weapons technology. These are all matters that are there
for anybody who wants to look at it."No evidence of such training or of
any operational links between Iraq and al Qaida has ever been
found, according to several official inquiries.It's not apparent which Guantanamo detainees
Cheney was referring to in the interview.One al Qaida detainee, Ibn al Sheikh
al Libi, claimed that terrorist operatives were sent to Iraq for chemical and biological weapons
training, but he was in CIA custody, not at Guantanamo.Moreover, he recanted his
assertions, some of them allegedly made under torture while he was being
interrogated in Egypt."No postwar information has been
found that indicates CBW training occurred, and the detainee who provided the
key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war," a
September 2006 Senate Intelligence Committee report said.
Indeed, according to the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence's September 2006 report on postwar findings about
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, al-Libi, who was "the source of
reports on al-Qa'ida's efforts to obtain CBW [chemical and biological weapons] training, recanted the information he
provided." The report found that al-Libi recanted in January 2004, claiming he
had "fabricated information since his capture. ... Al-Libi claimed that to the best of his
knowledge al-Qa'ida never sent any individuals into Iraq for any
kind of support in chemical or biological weapons, as he had claimed
previously." The report concluded: "The other reports of
possible al-Qa'ida CBW training from Iraq were never considered credible
by the Intelligence Community. No other information has been uncovered in
Iraq or from detainees that confirms
this reporting." According to the
report, as early as 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency had expressed
skepticism about al-Libi's claims, at one point stating
that while his story was "possible," "it is more likely this individual is
intentionally misleading the debriefers."
Media
Matters searched the Nexis database for
The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today since May 12 for the following
terms:
Media
Matters searched the Factiva database for
The Wall Street Journal since May
12 for the following terms:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
"It should come as no surprise by now that the president who campaigned on keeping the US out of wars and then promptly bombed Iran has now found another conflict in which to embroil the country."
New survey results show that Americans strongly oppose US military action against Venezuela as the Trump administration privately weighs options for land strikes against the South American country—as well as possible covert action targeting the government of President Nicolás Maduro.
The CBS News/YouGov survey, published on Sunday, found that 70% of Americans—including 91% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans—are against the "US taking military action in Venezuela," and a majority don't believe a direct attack on Venezuela would even achieve the Trump administration's stated goal of reducing the flow of drugs to the United States.
The poll also found that a slim majority, 53%, support "using military force to attack boats suspected of bringing drugs into" the US, even as human rights groups and United Nations experts say such attacks—which have killed more than 80 people since early September—are grave violations of US and international law.
The survey data came amid reports that the Trump administration is set to launch "a potentially deadly new phase" of its campaign against Maduro's government, which has responded to the US president's threats and military buildup in the Caribbean with a large mobilization of troops and weaponry.
Citing two unnamed US officials, Reuters reported on Sunday that "covert operations would likely be the first part of the new action against Maduro." The outlet quoted one anonymous official as saying Trump is "prepared to use every element of American power" to achieve his stated goals in the region.
On Monday, as the New York Times reported, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff is set to visit "Puerto Rico and one of the several Navy warships dispatched to the Caribbean Sea to combat drug trafficking as the Trump administration weighs the possibility of a broader military campaign against Venezuela."
Gen. Dan Caine, the top US military officer, has "been a major architect of what the Pentagon calls Operation Southern Spear, the largest buildup of American naval forces in the Caribbean since the Cuban Missile Crisis and the blockade of Cuba in 1962," the Times added.
Also on Monday, the Trump administration formally designated Maduro and top officials in his government members of a foreign terrorist organization, a move that the White House believes expands US military options in Venezuela.
While polling data has consistently shown that the US public opposes military intervention in Venezuela by significant margins, Republicans in Congress have thus far blocked action to prevent the Trump administration from attacking the country and bombing vessels in international waters without lawmakers' approval.
Al Jazeera columnist Belén Fernández wrote Sunday that "it should come as no surprise by now that the president who campaigned on keeping the US out of wars and then promptly bombed Iran has now found another conflict in which to embroil the country."
"And as is par for the course in US imperial belligerence, the rationale for aggression against Venezuela doesn’t hold water," Fernández added. "For example, the Trump administration has strived to pin the blame for the fentanyl crisis in the US on Maduro. But there’s a slight problem—which is that Venezuela doesn’t even produce the synthetic opioid in question."
Late last week, a group of House Democrats led by Seth Moulton of Massachusetts announced a new legislative effort aimed at preventing the Trump administration from attacking Venezuela without congressional authorization.
The bill, titled the No Unauthorized Force in Venezuela Act, would bar the White House from spending federal funds on military action against Venezuela absent specific congressional approval.
"We owe our service members clarity, legality, and leadership—not threats, not chaos, and not another unnecessary conflict," said Moulton. "This legislation draws the line the president refuses to draw. It protects our troops, reasserts Congress' constitutional role, and ensures we do not sleepwalk into another ill-advised war."
"This decision, fueled by harmful misinformation campaigns that we believe have external political motives, will tear families apart and send individuals to a country they have not known for over 20 years," one campaigner said.
President Donald Trump's Friday announcement that he was ending Temporary Protected Status for Somali immigrants in Minnesota prompted outrage and fear from Minnesota Somalis and their allies over the weekend.
In a Truth Social Post, Trump said that he was terminating the TPS program for Somalis in Minnesota "effective immediately," citing concerns about money laundering and gang activity.
“We are deeply disappointed that the administration has chosen to end the Somali TPS program in Minnesota, a legal lifeline for families who have built their lives here for decades," Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Minnesota, said in response. "This decision, fueled by harmful misinformation campaigns that we believe have external political motives, will tear families apart and send individuals to a country they have not known for over 20 years."
"This is not just a bureaucratic change; it is a political attack on the Somali and Muslim community driven by Islamophobic and hateful rhetoric. We strongly urge President Trump to reverse this misguided decision," Hussein continued.
"In a typical move, Donald Trump attacks our Somali community because he can’t think of anything else to do on a Friday night."
Minnesota has the nation's largest Somali population at over 26,000. Many have become citizens or are permanent residents, and only around 430 are in the Minnesota TPS program. Further, immigration law experts say that it would be difficult legally to revoke protections before they are already set to expire in March of next year.
"There is literally no legal means by which he can do this. It’s not a presidential power," wrote Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council advocacy group, on social media. "TPS by law cannot be terminated early. Somali TPS is not set to expire until March 17, 2026."
He added that while the Department of Homeland Security "may make an attempt to do this... it would be immediately struck down."
Further, TPS would have to be revoked nationally, and not for a single state.
“There’s no legal mechanism that allows the president to terminate protected status for a particular community or state that he has beef with,” Heidi Altman, policy director at the National Immigrant Justice Center, told the Associated Press.
“This is Trump doing what he always does: demagoguing immigrants without justification or evidence and using that demagoguery in an attempt to take away important life-saving protections,” she said.
Despite this, the remarks sent many in the community into a "panic," local immigration attorney Abdiqani Jabane told the Minnesota Star Tribune.
People “are afraid that ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents may start rounding up Somalis. These are people who have lived and worked in the community for more than 20 years," Jabane said.
Somalis were first granted TPS status in the US in 1991 when civil war broke out following the removal of leader Said Barre. Since then, it has been renewed 27 times. Today, the militant group al-Shabab still controls parts of the country.
“Sending anyone back to Somalia today is unsafe because al-Shabab remains active, terrorist attacks continue, and the [Somali] government today is unable to protect anyone,” Jabane said.
Minnesota leaders took to social media to speak out against Trump's edict and stand up for the state's Somali community.
"It’s not surprising that the President has chosen to broadly target an entire community. This is what he does to change the subject, wrote Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.
Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) wrote: "In a typical move, Donald Trump attacks our Somali community because he can’t think of anything else to do on a Friday night. That’s who he is, but it’s not who we are."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who is Somali herself, pushed back against people who used Trump's announcement to call for her deportation.
"I am a citizen and so are [a] majority of Somalis in America. Good luck celebrating a policy change that really doesn’t have much impact on the Somalis you love to hate. We are here to stay," she wrote.
"The little bit of spending DOGE cut has already killed hundreds of thousands and will eventually lead to millions of deaths," one expert said.
The Department of Government Efficiency—Elon Musk's much-heralded attempt to take a chainsaw to the federal bureaucracy—has quietly disbanded eight months before its official expiration date, Reuters reported on Sunday.
The news agency received confirmation of DOGE's demise from Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor earlier this month.
"That doesn't exist," Kupor told Reuters, adding that it was "no longer a centralized agency."
Kupor also said that a government hiring freeze implemented by DOGE had ended.
" DOGE is fading away like bank robbery gangs fade away after the robberies are done."
When President Donald Trump first signed the executive order creating DOGE, he said that it would last until July 4, 2026. However, following a public feud with Musk in late spring, Trump and his team had indicated the department was no longer active, often speaking of DOGE in the past tense.
Musk originally set out to save $1 trillion in federal expenditures by cutting what he claimed to be waste. According to the DOGE website, the department has only saved $214 billion of that aim. However, even that number is in dispute, with one Senate report finding the agency wasted over $21 billion.
At the same time, DOGE sowed chaos in the federal government by mass firing workers, hobbling consumer watchdog agencies, and gutting the US Agency for International Development (USAID)—a move that could lead to more than 14 million deaths worldwide by 2030. At the same time, DOGE employees' attempts to gain access to sensitive government data have made the data of millions of Americans less secure. One whistleblower report said the department uploaded Social Security data to a cloud server at risk from hacking.
Several experts reacted to Reuters' report by reflecting on DOGE's destructive legacy.
"Difficult to overstate how profound a failure DOGE was," Bobby Kogan, the senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, wrote on social media. "Spending in FY2025 was not only than in FY2024—but higher than it was projected to be when Trump first took office.* The little bit of spending DOGE cut has already killed hundreds of thousands and will eventually lead to millions of deaths."
Rachel Khan wrote for the New Republic:
DOGE’s legacy is both very stupid and very sad: It decimated the federal workforce, including Social Security personnel at local offices, and made it easier for hackers to access your data. The agency tore apart USAID, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of lives lost globally. And all this for projected savings—numbers which grew smaller and less ambitious every time Musk mentioned them.
While DOGE may fade away into a fever dream of Trump’s first 100 days, its effects—and the suffering it inflicted—will be felt for a long time.
Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, joked, "DOGE seems to be out of business, I guess Elon put our $5k dividend checks in the mail," referring to a promise Musk had made to redistribute DOGE's savings to taxpayers.
However, other commenters argued that DOGE had not failed, but had rather succeeded at its unstated aims.
Georgia State University political scientist Jeff Lazarus wrote that Musk "donated $277 million to Trump so he could steal the federal government’s data, dismantle the nation’s infrastructure, and stop foreign aid from going to nonwhite people. It’s a quid pro quo breathtaking in scope, corruption, and damage, & completely unprecedented in American history."
Bluesky user En Buen Ora wrote: "DOGE did not fail in any way to accomplish its goals. Its goals were never efficiency or saving money. Its goals were to destroy as much of government as possible forever, and to steal data for the Space Nazi. DOGE is fading away like bank robbery gangs fade away after the robberies are done."
While DOGE as an entity may not longer be working, Reuters noted that several of its employees had moved on to other government positions:
ProPublica has compiled a running list of every DOGE staffer it could verify, which now totals 114.
Author Tyler King wrote on social media that “‘DOGE doesn’t exist anymore' is a misleading premise because more than 100 former DOGErs have become deeply embedded in federal agencies to generally fuck around with our data and arbitrarily disrupt budgets."