Why exactly is it that fake forgeries keep turning up in the world of G.W. Bush?
First there were the fake National Guard records, which actually contained accurate information. Then there were the fake invoices from the country of Niger for yellow cake uranium that wasn't bought.
Could it be because spreading false information is not a crime?
The brain woke up this morning just percolating with ideas. I don't even know where to start.
OK, maybe this. Read an op-ed the other day, by I can't remember who, in which the columnist apologized for having gotten it wrong on Rove. But that's not what caught my attention. What struck me was his promise that in the future he would do his reporting first before writing up an opinion piece.
Now, the question I am left with is was it just a slip of the tongue--that what he really meant to say was that he would do research and investigate BEFORE coming to an opinion in the future--or does this journalist not know the difference between report and research?
More and more I'm really inclined to the latter. The common pattern now seems to be for reporters to get "tips" and then "verify" what they've been told by checking with two other people to see if they can get the same story from them. Then that's the truth that they write up and publish, usually with lots of supporting quotes because that someone told them something of greater or lesser importance can't be challenged. Whether one or all of the "sources" are lying doesn't ever come up.
Anyway, that's the pattern that's brought us Rovegate. You can see why we have a problem that's a lot bigger than Rove vs. Plame.
[..]
The other thing that's bubbling in my brain is the snippet of Harry Reid on the Senate floor yesterday. It made the evening news. As did Susan Collins schoolmarmish rebuke of the nasty boys threatening to strip security clearances from officials who leak secrets and from each other. The ammendments failed.
But, the whole thing got me to thinking why Reid and Dean and other Democrats are so into the Rove thing. And I think I've finally figured it out. It doesn't have anything to do with the particulars of Rove vs. Plame. Rather, it has to do with how "official secrecy," referred to as "classified information" on the federal level is being used to undermine the foundations of our government.
Let me back up just a minute. During the many years that I served as a volunteer guardian ad litem and interacted with the child welfare and juvenile justice systems I eventually came to the conclusion that "confidentiality," as it is called there, serves mainly to protect various government personnel from having their poor performance exposed. The children, whose privacy is supposed to be protected from public scrutiny, know full well when they have been abused and neglected and the people who do it to them know it too. The only thing that secrecy accomplishes is that the citizenry, who actually pay for all these programs, are kept in the dark about how often the money is misspent and how frequently the responsible "welfare system" isn't.
Now, while it is undoubtedly true that SOME information and plans should not be bruted about, the enormous increase in "classified information" in the federal government cannot possibly be justified on the basis of national security. Not to mention that our enemies are likely to know our secrets anyway, just as we know most of theirs.
That said, classifying information is not our biggest problem. Our biggest problem is that by making it a crime to reveal accurate information, we have made it possible for government officials to lie WITHOUT BEING REFUTED. Rove and George the Lesser (George the First probably invented the strategy) have become experts at spreading lies because they know that those who know the truth can't speak up without risking arrest for treason.
Or actually, since the passage of the Patriot Act, giving out ACCURATE information can be defined as aiding terrorists and the person can just be disappeared without a hearing.
See, that's what makes Rove vs. Plame important. It's an unimportant example of a very serious pattern. People who tell the truth can be arrested. People who tell lies get off scott free, even if it ends up killing tens of thousands needlessly.
Talk about being between a rock and a hard place!!!
Kerry knows all about it first hand. Having been on the Foreign Affairs Committee and gotten all the "classified briefings" that the President gets, he knew that George the Lesser was lying about all kinds of things, but there wasn't any way for him to provide proof, without putting himself in jeopardy for revealing information he had sworn to keep secret.
Wilson came forward on a really insignificant matter--the yellow cake uranium--in part, I would argue, because it would have looked really bad to arrest a former ambassador for telling the truth about something that wasn't. Now, of course, it's beginning to dawn on Rove and his merry men that their lying is being exposed.
I mean, ask yourself why George the Lesser insisted on putting known false information into his SOTUS. He did it because it WAS false. He lied on purpose because even the President can't reveal classified information. Besides, "yellow cake uranium from Africa" is such an evocative subject. Think of the yellow peril. Think of darkest Africa. Think of uranium poisoning leading to cancer. Think of how many terror buttons are contained in that little phrase.
[...]
So, why was Harry Reid jumping up and down on the Senate floor like Rumplestiltskin (that's what the clip on ABC looked like)? I think I know the answer to that. It's because Senators cannot be arrested for what they say on the senate floor. Of course, they purchase that immunity, supposedly, by maintaining a certain level of decorum (of which Susan Collins reminded everyone) and, presumably, by being honorable and not violating their oath to keep secret the secrets they've been told.
But what if the secrets are harmful to the nation?
If the bureaucrats who know them can be whisked off to prison immediately if they speak up, how are they to be protected? Can they leak the information to the press and be sure they won't be fingered and prosecuted later? We'll see, won't we? It's why Judith Miller is in jail. Do you think she is happy that she was lied to in the run-up to the war and there's no way to punish the liars because it's OK to tell lies, but a crime to tell the truth?
Yes, this is way bigger than Watergate and I think the press has just caught on.
But, back to Kerry. On the day George the Lesser made his speech on Iraq, June 28th, I think, Kerry prepared a speech to deliver on the floor of the Senate and provided a preview copy to rawstory. It didn't get much coverage and rawstory didn't help by putting in the headline the now common knowledge that Iraq is now breeding terrorists.
The important part was the sentence half way down in which Kerry urged George the Lesser to announce that the US has no intention of building permanent bases in Iraq--a position that would be consistent with what China and Russia have called for and which a faction of the Iraqi "government" has been promoting--without any coverage in our MSM, by the way.
Since the construction of the permanent bases (a dozen out of the hundred or more we already have) is probably "classified," a statement from George the Lesser that we have no intent to build them would be a lie, but that would be OK. It's admitting that they are being built that's verboten.
[...]
Strategy to counteract government secrecy and deception. What should we do?
Well, first of all, Dean's and the Dem's focus on the lying of Rove needs all the support we can give them. That yet another political wife was recklessly targeted to get back at her spouse is not as important as the fact that false information was fed to the people of the US. Nor is it all that important that her "cover" was exposed. What's important is that the dissemination of the truth can be punished under the cover of "national security secrets" while the national security is being undermined by lies--and has been for a long time.
More emphasis on the historical parallels is needed. We can get out a lot of truth by making reference to history, by throwing the light on what "being out of the loop" actually means. If the loop is a noose around someone's neck, then the fellow outside is the one holding it.
No more jokes about George the Lesser being dumb or incompetent. If George the First was a master crook, then George the Lesser being a little behind doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Especially if George the First is still calling the shots and keeping a short leash on Clinton to make sure he doesn't head off the reservation. A promise of support for Hillary may well be a sweetener for his going along with the plan. Support is often provided so the rug can be pulled out at the last minute. I'm sure Dean could tell us a lot about that if he weren't busy moving on.
Don't get me wrong. What Dean is doing is a good thing. But, if we recognize that some traditional supporters, especially the money bags, are likely to end up as turn-coats, then we have got to make sure that the revenue stream is constant. That means monthly donations of dollars to the DNC.
P.S.
The fellow mistaking reporting for research also got me to thinking about what people mean when they complain about the liberal media. Perhaps they are mistaking "liberal" for "lazy" as opposed to "conservatives" being committed to "hard work." If so, then they've obviously got a point. The media are liberal with the truth in the sense that they are content to report what people tell them and fail to check the facts.
Ordinary people, when they discover they've been lied to, generally make an effort not to be taken in again, unless they are the lazy sort and just don't care. But, "lazy" being an impolite word, they probably prefer to call others who exhibit this lax behavior, liberal.
By the same token, referring to the press as conservative in this context means that the press is doing what it is presumed to have done traditionally--i.e. work hard to uncover the truth. If that's your perspective, then accusing the press of being conservative isn't interpreted as the accusers intend.
Perhaps a better word for what's going on is "prejudice." Much of the press is driven by prejudice--a perspective on the world that they seek to validate with their stories. News has to be stuffed into an old frame.
I think where we make a mistake is in defining the press in terms of their presumed attitude TOWARDS their audience or the issues they cover, instead of how they do their work. If liberal=lazy, then we can all agree that many people in the MSM are liberal sons of b!tches.
P.P.S.
I still think that the reason G.W.Bush didn't complete his National Guard commitment was because he was flying around Central America collecting information (not ferns) for the CIA (not the landscaper who hired him). If so, wouldn't it be poetic justice if Valerie Plame were avenged by blowing the cover of that short-term operative?
Addendum----
The Intelligence Challenge: Can We Trust Our President?
By Larry Johnson
From: TPMCafe Special Guests
By Brent Cavan, Jim Marcinkowski, Larry Johnson, and Jane Doe
We trained and worked at the CIA with Valerie Plame. We presented the following statement at a hearing on Capitol Hill in October 2003. In light of the latest White House sanctioned assault on Valerie Plame and her character, our testimony remains relevant and accurate.
Jul 15, 2005 -- 10:59:46 PM EST
We slogged through the same swamps on patrols, passed clandestine messages to each other, survived a simulated terrorist kidnapping and interrogation, kicked pallets from cargo planes, completed parachute jumps, and literally helped picked ticks off each other after weeks in the woods at a CIA training facility. We knew each other's secrets. We shared our fears, failures, and successes. We came to rely on each other in a way you do not find in normal civilian life. We understood that a slip of the tongue could end in death for those close to us or for people we didn't even know. We were trained by the best, to be the best. We were trained by the Central Intelligence Agency. They may not appreciate what they have created.
Our joint training experience forged a bond of trust and a sense of duty that continues some eighteen years later. It is because of this bond of trust that the authors of this piece and two other colleagues, all former intelligence officers, appeared on ABC's Nightline to speakout on behalf of the wife Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a sensitive undercover operative outed by columnist Robert Novak. The Ambassador's wife (we decline to use her name) is a friend who went through the same training with us. We acknowledge our obligation to protect each other and the intelligence community and the information we used to do our jobs. We are speaking out because someone in the Bush Administration seemingly does not understand this, although they signed the same oaths of allegiance and confidentiality that we did.
Many of us have moved on into the private sector, where this Agency aspect of our lives means little, but we have not forgotten our initial oaths to support the Constitution, our government, and to protect the secrets we learned and to protect each other. We still have friends who serve. We protect them literally by keeping our mouths shut unless we are speaking amongst ourselves. We understand what this bond or the lack of it means.
Clearly some in the Bush Administration do not understand the requirement to protect and shield national security assets. Based on published information we can only conclude that partisan politics by people in the Bush Administration overrode the moral and legal obligations to protect clandestine officers and security assets.
Beyond supporting Mrs. Wilson with our moral support and prayers we want to send a clear message to the political operatives responsible for this. You are a traitor and you are our enemy. You should lose your job and probably should go to jail for blowing the cover of a clandestine intelligence officer.
You have set a sickening precedent. You have warned all U.S. intelligence officers that you may be compromised if you are providing information the White House does not like. A precedent, as one colleague pointed out during our brief appearances, allows you to build out a case based on previous legal actions and court decisions. It's a slippery slope if it lowers the bar.
Ambassador Wilson's political affiliations are irrelevant. Political differences serve as the basis for the give and take of representative government. What is relevant is the damage caused by the exposure that Ambassador Wilson's wife as a political act intended to undermine Wilson's view.
It is shameful on one level that the White House uses the news media, its own leaks, and junior Congressmen from Georgia, among others, to levy attacks on Ambassador Wilson. Moreover they discount what he has to say, his value in the Niger investigation, and suggest his wife's cover is of little value because she was "a low-level CIA employee". If Wilson's comments or analysis have no merit, why does the White House feel the need to launch such a coordinated attack? Why drag his wife into it?
Not only have the Bush Administration leakers damaged the career of our friend but they have put many other people potentially in harm's way. If left unpunished this outing has lowered the bar for official behavior. Further, who in their right mind would ever agree to become a spy for the United States? If we won't protect our own officers how can we reassure foreigners that we will safeguard them? Better human intelligence could prevent any number of terror incidents in the future, but we are unlikely to get foreign recruits to supply it if their safety cannot be somewhat assured. If more cases like Mrs. Wilson's occur, assurances of CIA protection will mean nothing to potential spies.
Politicians must not politicize the intelligence community. President Bush has been a decisive leader in the war on terrorism, at least initially. What about decisiveness now? Where is the accountability he promised us in the wake of Clinton Administration scandals? We find it hard to believe the President lacks the wherewithal to get to bottom of this travesty. It is up to the President to restore the bonds of trust with the intelligence community that have been shattered by this tawdry incident.
We joined the CIA to fight against foreign tyrants who used the threat of incarceration, torture, and murder to achieve their ends. They followed the rule of force, not the rule of law. We now find ourselves with an administration in the United States where some of its members have chosen to act like foreign tyrants. As loyal Americans and registered Republicans we implore President Bush to move quickly and decisively against those who, if not apprehended, will leave his Administration with the legacy of being the first to allow political operatives to out clandestine officers.
Posted by Hannah at July 16, 2005 10:24 AM