Hannah's Blog

One Fine Man--or is that two?

Speaking Truth to Power

Deep Throat II?

The mainstream media widely reported last week on speculation in high places that George Herbert Walker Bush was perhaps Deep Throat, of Watergate fame, the insider who tipped off BobWoodward and Carl Bernstein about the wrongdoings of the Nixon Administration. That?s yet to be seen.
However, if it is true, will Gannongate provide another like-father, like-son phenomenon, with George W. Bush as the current-day Deep Throat who provided particular information to a ?member? of the Washington Press Corps, namely Jeff Gannon, also known as James Guckert?
For the past two years, Gannon, representing Talon News, has apparently been awarded special Bush Administration media privileges and news flashes before they broke to the other media. He has worked ?very closely? with the Administration to proclaim, on his Website, that the only way for America to reach heaven is through Bush?s definition of neo-conservatism.
The credibility of both Gannon and his apparent Skull and Bones leader fell from grace this past week when it was learned, first of all, that Gannon, a double agent with an alias, was ostensibly planted inside the press corps ?briefing? room to deflect hard questions asked of the White House. Now it has been learned that Gannon?s eerie past?including his associations with , , and ? has stripped the Bush Administration of any claim to traditional Bible Belt ethics.
The Washington Post reported that a Web designer in California had posted naked pictures of Gannon at the client?s request and had designed a gay escort site for him.
Where were Bush and Karl Rove? Ouch! Is there any intelligence at the White House? What did they know? Or, dare we ask, ?who? did they know?
The ghost of the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates has stirred from his sleep and is smirking at an exposed White House, not only for Gannon?s supposed eruption from the closet, but for the Administration allegedly harboring a propaganda operative as a mouthpiece to denounce gays while touting the edicts of the supposedly moral right-wingers.
It?s enough to make some red states blush a deeper shade with embarrassment.
The White House has skewed the honest efforts of the real press and, with the creation of a fake media sponsored by the Federal government to shamelessly exploit the public, has cast a shadow on the integrity of the motives of this Administration and the inbred secrecy that is its idol.
President Bush has always been adversarial to the news media, for he cannot stomach that which it represents ? the morality of truth and the exposition of dark yet relevant secrets. Take the caskets in Iraq, or the sexual tortures of Abu Ghraib that are unique to this Administration.
We see, even in Crawford, Texas, attacks on the press when RTL Broadcasting in Denmark broadcasts a story throughout Europe that depicts Crawford school children proudly stating that a free press does not exist in that city. Or check out the website (under ?multimedia?) to view Chris Hume?s Red State Road Trip, where members of the Crawford community proclaim that people who do not think pro-Republican should leave town.
But take it a step further. Crawfordites claim blind allegiance to Bush over country. That?s a given. Most in this rural suburb of Waco consider him a deity, of sorts. Yet if you bring a local merchant the head of George Washington on a greenish paper background (times 10), you can walk away with a quasi-pornographic paper-doll book that flaunts President Bush clad only in his underwear and cowboy boots. Neo-conservative values run deep, you see.
Of course, you cannot find a copy of The Lone Star Iconoclast on the merchants? shelves, for it has been banned. The town?s businessmen got together and with ambivalence to anti-trust laws and allegiance to the values of old-time Nazi Germany decided to boycott its existence.
Their venom, however, does not extend to stopping the sale of the Bush paper-dolls in boots and briefs. He must feel honored. And let?s not forget, paper dolls are generally the playthings of impressionable five-year-old girls. What kinky Presidential messages are the parents attempting to teach their children, anyway? This is scary.
To the new world order, there is nothing wrong with this, for it fits perfectly into their re-definition of the Bible. How can you argue with people who believe that putting their children on the sacrificial rock of Iraq befits Genesis and where bashing gays yet engaging their influences merges with Freud?
No, their values have departed the shores of truth as a voyage en route to an island of false idolatry and bald-faced greed.
One must wonder what really goes on behind the closed doors of the hideout, a.k.a. the Western White House. How many potential ?fake journalists? did Rove wade through to find the perfect one to converge upon the Presidency? How many other Gannons have been christened to deceive the American public, and on whose behalf?
This Administration has not only ruptured the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution and shredded portions as no longer relevant, no longer American, we have allowed it to likewise desecrate the Ten Commandments. Read it. How many ?thou shall nots? has our country willingly violated. Does God speak to Bush or does Bush speak to God? That is the question.
When it comes to weapons of mass debauchery and the likes of Jeff Gannon, it appears that President Bush found what he was looking for. Now the world is awaiting his explanation.

Copyright ©2004 The Lone Star Iconoclast

The nature of Destruction

Oscar wrote:
In America, all that we truly have in common is geography - we were all born or naturalized on this piece of land - we have no common purpose, at least not since the end of the Cold War. Thus, as a group, we have no choice but to devolve into the destructive community of which you speak.

Well, destruction may be "natural" in the sense that things are destroyed by nature in the process of creation. But that doesn't mean the destruction has to be intentional. The very essence of human intelligence is to observe the processes of nature and re-create them. Why choose to mimic the easy part, the destruction, rather than the more intricate process of putting things together in new configurations?
The argument that creation will occur spontaneously as a consequence of destruction is just a lazy man's way of thinking.
Besides, these processes only apply to the material world. The world of the spirit and the community in which it thrives is potentially never-ending because of the fact that ideas can be passed on from generation to generation.
That communities get into the habit of organizing themselves around their antagonisms is correct. From the organizers' point of view antagonism has the advantage of being cheap, untestable (under ideal conditions of exclusion) and relatively permanent. Also, it's easy because most people would like to believe that their clan is interested in their own welfare and the exclusivity is meant to be protective. That the real reason is control and the ability to exploit the enthusiasm, energy and strength of the progeny tends to be hidden.
Which explanation is likely to be more readily accepted: "I want you to stay home and do the housework and look after your siblings" or "I want you to stay home because that way you'll be safe from the rapists and drug-dealers who are waiting to attack you?" "Oh, and by the way, since you're here anyway, don't forget the dishes and look after your little sister."
The reason public education is mandatory is because many parents want THEIR children at home working for them. If they have to send them to school, then they at least want them to earn some money for their keep after school and on weekends.
Since our society expects parents to provide for the upkeep and care of children, it's only natural that they expect to get something back. Even during slavery days, there were standards, established by contract about the age at which children would be available to work on the plantation. I think for girls the age was about eleven. Until then, they were available to help the family. I expect that one reason the objection to families being broken up was because this was a violation of the contract, explicit or implicit, under which the Africans had been working.
You do know that some of the first court challenges to slavery were initiated by African who were just off the boat, if you will. That's because they had no difficulty recognizing that an implicit contract was being violated and they had no difficulty resorting to a court of law.

One reason I'm rambling on so is because I am struck by the persistent ignorance on the part of Americans (and the hubris) most recently being exhibited by our attitude towards Iraq, based on the assumption that they are ignorant of the principles of self-government. Perhaps it's because of the belief that each human is a tabula rasa and has to invent civilization all over again.
I don't agree with that. I think that humans have evolved certain intellectual capacities, one of which is to make them creative, or at least transformative, naturally. Consequently, from where I sit, giving in to the destructive urge is a perversion of what it means to be human. Which, of course, is what the devil exemplifies.

The nature of Destruction

Well, destruction may be "natural" in the sense that things are destroyed by nature in the process of creation. But that doesn't mean the destruction has to be intentional. The very essence of human intelligence is to observe the processes of nature and re-create them. Why choose to mimic the easy part, the destruction, rather than the more intricate process of putting things together in new configurations?
The argument that creation will occur spontaneously as a consequence of destruction is just a lazy man's way of thinking.
Besides, these processes only apply to the material world. The world of the spirit and the community in which it thrives is potentially never-ending because of the fact that ideas can be passed on from generation to generation.
That communities get into the habit of organizing themselves around their antagonisms is correct. From the organizers' point of view antagonism has the advantage of being cheap, untestable (under ideal conditions of exclusion) and relatively permanent. Also, it's easy because most people would like to believe that their clan is interested in their own welfare and the exclusivity is meant to be protective. That the real reason is control and the ability to exploit the enthusiasm, energy and strength of the progeny tends to be hidden.
Which explanation is likely to be more readily accepted: "I want you to stay home and do the housework and look after your siblings" or "I want you to stay home because that way you'll be safe from the rapists and drug-dealers who are waiting to attack you?" "Oh, and by the way, since you're here anyway, don't forget the dishes and look after your little sister."
The reason public education is mandatory is because many parents want THEIR children at home working for them. If they have to send them to school, then they at least want them to earn some money for their keep after school and on weekends.
Since our society expects parents to provide for the upkeep and care of children, it's only natural that they expect to get something back. Even during slavery days, there were standards, established by contract about the age at which children would be available to work on the plantation. I think for girls the age was about eleven. Until then, they were available to help the family. I expect that one reason the objection to families being broken up was because this was a violation of the contract, explicit or implicit, under which the Africans had been working.
You do know that some of the first court challenges to slavery were initiated by African who were just off the boat, if you will. That's because they had no difficulty recognizing that an implicit contract was being violated and they had no difficulty resorting to a court of law.

One reason I'm rambling on so is because I am struck by the persistent ignorance on the part of Americans (and the hubris) most recently being exhibited by our attitude towards Iraq, based on the assumption that they are ignorant of the principles of self-government. Perhaps it's because of the belief that each human is a tabula rasa and has to invent civilization all over again.
I don't agree with that. I think that humans have evolved certain intellectual capacities, one of which is to make them creative, or at least transformative, naturally. Consequently, from where I sit, giving in to the destructive urge is a perversion of what it means to be human. Which, of course, is what the devil exemplifies.

Do-over

CNP--not catnip

Compiled by Steven D on Kos

Ever wonder how the right always seems so coordinated in the strategy. How all the multitude of organizations they've created all seem to use the same playbook? How they all manage to focus on the same talking points each day, day after day, year after year. Well it's no accident. But how do they do it?

The answer my friends lies in a little known organization with the innocuous sounding name The Council for National Policy. Don't go looking for an official website because you won't find one. In fact this "think tank" goes out of its way to avoid publicity:

When a top U.S. senator receives a major award from a national advocacy organization, it's standard procedure for both the politician and the group to eagerly tell as many people about it as possible.

Press releases spew from fax machines and e-mails clog reporters' in-boxes. The news media are summoned in the hope that favorable stories will appear in the newspapers, on radio and on television.

It was odd, therefore, that when U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) accepted a "Thomas Jefferson Award" from a national group at the Plaza Hotel in New York City in August, the media weren't notified. In fact, they weren't welcome to attend.

"The media should not know when or where we meet or who takes part in our programs, before or after a meeting," reads one of the cardinal rules of the organization that honored Frist. The membership list of this group is "strictly confidential." Guests can attend only with the unanimous approval of the organization's executive committee. The group's leadership is so secretive that members are told not to refer to it by name in e-mail messages. Anyone who breaks the rules can be tossed out.

What is this group, and why is it so determined to avoid the public spotlight?

That answer is the Council for National Policy (CNP). And if the name isn't familiar to you, don't be surprised. That's just what the Council wants.

The CNP was founded in 1981 as an umbrella organization of right-wing leaders who would gather regularly to plot strategy, share ideas and fund causes and candidates to advance the far-right agenda. Twenty-three years later, it is still secretly pursuing those goals with amazing success.

Since its founding, the tax-exempt organization has been meeting three times a year. Members have come and gone, but all share something in common: They are powerful figures, drawn from both the Religious Right and the anti-government, anti-tax wing of the ultra-conservative movement.

It may sound like a far-left conspiracy theory, but the CNP is all too real and, its critics would argue, all too influential.

What amazes most CNP opponents is the group's ability to avoid widespread public scrutiny. Despite nearly a quarter century of existence and involvement by wealthy and influential political figures, the CNP remains unknown to most Americans. Operating out of a non-descript office building in the Washington, D.C., suburb of Fairfax, Va., the organization has managed to keep an extremely low profile an amazing feat when one considers the people the CNP courts.

Sounds a little tin foil hattish to you? Trust me it gets worse. Founded in 1981, its first president was Tim LaHaye famed millenialist preacher and writer of the Left Behind series of

popular books about the "end-times" and the Second Coming of Christ. He was also a co-founder of the Moral Majority. In the 1980s he headed the American Coalition for Traditional Values. While heading that group, LaHaye said, "If every Bible-believing, Christ-loving church would trust God to raise up an average of just one person over the next 10 years who would get elected, we would have more Christian candidates than there are offices."

A list of former and past members reads like a who's who of conservative Christian Right activists, anti-tax and anti-government activists, billionaire right wing philanthropists and GOP office holders, past and present: Here's a partial list (as of 1998) assembled from this website:

Right Wing Religious Leaders:

Dr. Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Howard Ahmanson (Christian Reconstructionist), Rev. Donald Wildmon (American Family Association), David W. Breese (Christian Identity), William R. Bright (International Christian Leadership University), Robert P. Dugan Jr. (National Association of Evangelicals), Robert Grant (Christian Voice), Haldeman "Hal" W. Guffey (International Ministries Fellowship), Sara DiVito Hardman (Christian Coalition of California), Seamus Hasson (Becket Fund for Religious Liberty), Donald Paul Hodel (Christian Coalition), James B. Jacobson (Christian Solidarity International), Bob Jones III (Bob Jones University), Ed McAteer (Religious Roundtable, Inc.), Dal Shealy (Fellowship of Christian Athletes), John A. Stormer (I Chronicles 12:32 Ministries and authour of None Dare Call it Treason famous McCarthyite anti-communist screed), Jay Strack (Christian motivational speaker, former appointee to "Just say no" drug task force).

Right Wing Media and Communications:

L. Brent Bozell III (Media Research Center), Stuart W. Epperson (Salem Communications Corporation), Tracy Freeny (AmeriVision Communications, Inc.),Reed Irvine (Accuracy in Media), Mark Maddoux (USA Radio Network), Pat Matrisciana (Jeremiah Films), James D. McCotter (Media Management Group, Inc.), Liz McCotter (Channel 26 Orlando), Patrick B. McGuigan (The Daily Oklahoman), Sam Moore (Thomas Nelson Publishers), Thomas L. Phillips (Phillips Publishing International), Larry W. Poland (Mastermedia International, Inc.) , Gerry Snyder (member of editorial board, Valley Views, a conservative weekly newspaper), Bill Tierney (Capital Communications, Inc.), George Uribe II (Uribe Communications and former political director of Alan Keyes for President).

Businessmen, Lobbyists, Lawyers and Political Consultants:

Gary Jarmin (Jar-Mon Consultants), David Keene (American Conservative Union), Larry Klayman (Judicial Watch), Mark R. Levin (Landmark Legal Foundation), Christopher Long (Friess Assoc.), Edward A. Lozick (Nerts, Inc.), Edith D. Hakola (National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation), Carolyn Malenick (Triad Management Services, Inc.), Thomas E. McCabe (Killion McCabe & Associates), Dana Meese (Deloitte & Tousche Consulting Group), Eugene Meyer(Federalist Society), Ralph Reed (Century Strategies), William Bradford Reynolds, Jay A. Sekulow (American Center for Law and Justice), Kyle Stallings (Permian Basin Acquisition Fund), Allen Stevens (Capital Insurance Services of Mississippi), Christine Vollmer (Aragua Services - K Street lobbyist), Jack Webb (Jack Webb & Assoc.), Somers White (Somers White Co.).

Funders of Conservative Causes:

Nelson Bunker Hunt (of the famed Texas based family of oil tycoons), Various members of the Coors' family (Beer Barons), Richard DeVos (Amway founder), Pierre S. duPont IV.

GOP Politicos:

Former Sen. Jesse Helms; Dick Armey and Tom Delay (GOP Congressional leaders); Gary Bauer, Ed Meese, William G. Batchelder III (Congressman), Dan Burton (Congressman), John Doolittle (Congressman), Robert K. Dornan, Sen. D. M. "Lauch" Faircloth, Ernest J. Istook (Congressman), Sen. Jon Kyl, Sen. Trent Lott, Sen. Don Nickles, Tom Patterson (AZ State Sen.), Tony Perkins (La. State Rep.), H. L. Richardson (CA State Sen.), Tom Riner Jr. (KY State Sen.), David C. Schultheis (CO State Rep.), Gov. John H. Sununu, Gov. Tommy G. Thompson.

Conservative apparatchiks:

Paul Weyrich (Free Congress Foundation, etc.), Howard Phillip (Conservative Caucus), Larry Pratt (Gun Owners of America ); Oliver North; Richard Viguerie (direct mail wizard), Morton C. Blackwell (Leadership Institute), Henry F. Cooper (High Frontier), Edwin J. Feulner Jr. (Heritage Foundation), Peter Flaherty (National Legal and Policy Center), Stephen Goodrick (National Right to Work Committee), Lon Mabon (U.S. Citizen's Alliance), Raymond Moore (Moore Foundation), Henry M. Morris (Institute for Creation Science), Grover Norquist, Phillip Olsen (Family Research Council), Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum), John K. Singlaub, LaNeil Wright Spivy (Eagle Forum), Lt. General Gordon Sumner Jr. (Connected to various org. associated with Rev. Moon).

And what was the ultimate goals of this organization? Well, they stated them pretty clearly early on:

In the summer of 1981, Woody Jenkins, a former Louisiana state lawmaker who served as the group's first executive director, told Newsweek bluntly, "One day before the end of this century, the Council will be so influential that no president, regardless of party or philosophy, will be able to ignore us or our concerns or shut us out of the highest levels of government."

From the beginning, the CNP sought to merge two strains of far-right thought: the theocratic Religious Right with the low-tax, anti-government wing of the GOP. The theory was that the Religious Right would provide the grassroots activism and the muscle. The other faction would put up the money.

The CNP has always reflected this two-barreled approach. The group's first president was LaHaye, then president of Family Life Seminars in El Cajon Calif. LaHaye, a fundamentalist Baptist preacher who went on in the 1990s to launch the popular "Left Behind" series of apocalyptic potboilers, was an early anti-gay crusader and frequent basher of public education and he still is today.

* * *

Bringing together the two strains of the far right gave the CNP enormous leverage. The group, for example, could pick a candidate for public office and ply him or her with individual donations and PAC money from its well-endowed, business wing.

The goals of the CNP, then, are similarly two-pronged. Activists like Norquist, who once said he wanted to shrink the federal government to a size where it could be drowned in a bathtub, are drawn to the group for its exaltation of unfettered capitalism, hostility toward social-service spending and low (or no) tax ideology.

Dramatically scaling back the size of the federal government and abolishing the last remnants of the New Deal may be one goal of the CNP, but many of the foot soldiers of the Religious Right sign on for a different crusade: a desire to remake America in a Christian fundamentalist image.

Since 1981, CNP members have worked assiduously to pack government bodies with ultra-conservative lawmakers who agree that the nation needs a major shift to the right economically and socially. They rail against popular culture and progressive lawmakers, calling them the culprits of the nation's moral decay. Laws must be passed and enforced, the group argues, that will bring organized prayer back to the public schools, outlaw abortion, prevent gays from achieving full civil rights and fund private religious schools with tax funds.

And what kind of conservatives are these? Run of the mill, regular folks? Or something else?

Alongside figures like LaHaye and leaders of the anti-abortion movement, the nascent CNP also included Joseph Coors, the wealthy beer magnate; Herbert and Nelson Bunker Hunt, two billionaire investors and energy company executives known for their advocacy of right-wing causes, and William Cies, another wealthy businessman.

Interestingly, the Hunts, Cies and LaHaye all were affiliated with the John Birch Society, the conspiracy-obsessed anti-communist group founded in 1959. LaHaye had lectured and conducted training seminars frequently for the Society during the 1960s and '70s a time when the group was known for its campaign against the civil rights movement.

* * *

In 1988, writer Russ Bellant noted in his book The Coors Connection . . . that many CNP members have been associated with the outer reaches of the conservative movement.
* * *

Tom Ellis, a top political operative of the ultra-conservative Jesse Helms, followed LaHaye as the CNP president in 1982. Ellis had a checkered past, having served as a director of a foundation called the Pioneer Fund, which has a long history of subsidizing efforts to prove blacks are genetically inferior to whites.

* * *

In addition to obsessing over communist threats and buttressing white supremacist ideology, the CNP has included many members bent on replacing American democracy with theocracy.

LaHaye, like the whole of the nation's Religious Right leaders, nurtures a strong contempt for the First Amendment principle of church-state separation, because it seriously complicates their goal of installing fundamentalist Christianity as the nation's officially recognized religion. LaHaye has worked within the CNP and other groups to replace American law with "biblical law."

* * *

For many years, the late leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement, Rousas J. Rushdoony, was a member. Reconstructionists espouse a radical theology that calls for trashing the U.S. Constitution and replacing it with the harsh legal code of the Old Testament. They advocate the death penalty for adulterers, blasphemers, incorrigible teenagers, gay people, "witches" and those who worship "false gods."

Another CNP-Reconstructionist tie comes through Howard Phillips, the Constitution Party leader. Phillips, a longtime CNP member, is a disciple of Rushdoony and uses rhetoric that strikes a distinctly Reconstructionist tone. In a 2003 Constitution Party gathering in Clackamas, Oregon, Phillips told party members and guests, "We've got to be ready when God chooses to let us restore our once-great Republic." A report by the Southern Poverty Law Center said that Phillips proclaimed that his party was "raising up an army" to "take back this nation!"

* * *

The CNP's current executive director, a former California lawmaker named Steve Baldwin, has tried to downplay the organization's influence on powerful state and national lawmakers. He has remained cagey about the CNP's goals, insisting it is merely a group that counters liberal policy arguments.

In many ways, Baldwin himself exemplifies the CNP's operate-in-secret strategy. As a political strategist in California in the early 1990s, Baldwin was one of the key architects of the "stealth strategy" that led to Religious Right activists being elected to school boards and other local offices.

"Stealth candidates" were trained to emphasize pocketbook issues such as taxes and spending. But once elected, they would pursue a Religious Right agenda, such as demanding creationism in public schools.

* * *

In the spring of 2002, while working at the CNP, he penned a controversial article for the law review at TV preacher Pat Robertson's Regent University. The piece, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," linked pedophilia to homosexuality.

The article went on to become a staple in the Religious Right's anti-gay canon, despite the fact that its claims were challenged by legitimate researchers.

"It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh," wrote Baldwin. "However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization the nuclear family."

And who do these folks honor with their most prestigious awards (even though they don't publicize them? Why the most conservative leaders, judges and politicians, of course. Here are some of their honorees:

Thomas Jefferson Award
for Servant Leadership

2004 Bill Frist
1997 Ward Connelly
1996 Paul Weyrich
1995 Edwin J. Feulner Jr.
1994 Phyllis Schlafly
1993 Daniel O. Graham
1992 Clarence Thomas
1991 Robert H. Krieble
1990 James Dobson
1989 Ellen St. John Garwood
1988 William Armstrong
1987 Fred Schwarz
1986 Edwin Meese III
1985 William J. Bennett
1984 John F. Lehman
1983 Jesse Helms
1982 Jeane J. Kirkpatrick

The New York Times in a 2004 article (link) reported that Bush attended a 1999 CNP function, and Rumsfeld and Cheney have both been speakers since the Iraq war was initiated. So clearly the Bush administration takes these folks very seriously. Other speakers at the August 2004 event included Arnold Schwartzenegger and Rudy Guiliani, two supposedly "moderate" Republicans.

Fellow Kossacks, these are the people who should go on our enemies list. I urge you to read the full article at the American United for Separation of Church and State website. It's daunting but well worth the time and effort. We're way behind, but better late than never.

Otherwise:

"The destiny of our nation is on the shoulders of the conservative movement," the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, told the gathering as he accepted its Thomas Jefferson award . . . according to an attendee's notes"

It's past time to relieve Senator Frist and these other conservative nut jobs of that burden, don't you agree? Other good links for information about CNP are:

http://www.buildingequality.us/ifas/cnp/index.html

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/cnp.php

http://newsletters.cephasministry.com/ncp8.html

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/cnp.php

http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/prophecy/cnp-1.htm

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Council_for_National_Policy

http://prosocs.tripod.com/cnp.html

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=1006

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/clinton/Clintonculwar8-27.html

Check-mate Swifties

The attack on Social Security generated some amusing retorts:

Real State of the Union

Mon, Feb. 14, 2005

The real state of the union

by Celeste Zappala, MFSO Member and Co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace. Celeste's son Sgt. Sherwood Baker, age 30, was killed in Baghdad on April 26, 2004.

MY SON Dante and I watched the State of the Union with the sound low, trying to discern some truth amidst the choreography of clapping and fawning.

I listened closely to the misleading diatribe on Social Security. No, the system does not go bankrupt in 2042, but right now Medicare is in a crisis and Medicaid has become the most expensive budget item in many states. All the while a growing number of Americans become uninsured, including 11 million kids.

We listened to Mr. Bush dance with the truth: the environment, energy, education.

Then the heartbreak. When fallen soldier Bryan Norwood's parents - who had written to the president - stood to be recognized, I wept with them. I know the agonized look in that woman's face, it is in my mirror. I too lost a son in Iraq.

I too have written and called the White House, yet there has been no response. On Jan. 19, five members of the Gold Star Families for Peace tried to see Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon; we were turned away by armed guards.

Is my family's loss any less valuable because I oppose the war? Why are our voices ignored? Why were our children called up to protect their homeland from imminent threats that have all dissipated in the sandstorm of deceptions?

When we buried my son in May, I vowed to tell the truth for him: The war is a betrayal, the justification for it a moving target.

Since the last hurrahs of the evening, more American soldiers have died, and the deaths of Iraqis are purposefully uncounted. My son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, died performing his duty looking for the weapons of mass destruction many months after everyone agreed there were none.

The fact remains that this president who is loath to count the American dead, and refuses to allow their coffins to be pictured, was willing to display the parents of a fallen soldier- and following the teary ovation, he laid the groundwork for the next war.

Celeste Zappala
Philadelphia

Gannon Connections

UPDATED-Outside the Beltway for WH Gannon-Connections
by roseeriter
[Subscribe]

Mon Feb 21st, 2005 at 02:23:07 PST

This site is a treasure trove of information!
TBRNews.org

At the bottom of his site he lists his News Sources- They are across the board-mainstream and Right wing.

It connects to a 'personal diary' kind of reporting. Whoever this guy is (Walter Storch)he KNOWS lots of the players.

What is TBRnews?

TBRnews is a compendium of political articles, many gathered from prestigious foreign sources as well as from American news web postings. The name, TBRnews, originally came from the Barnes Review magazine and the site began as a listing of historical books.

Under different management, it eventually progressed to a twice-weekly posting covering national and international news.

We have been accused of being neo-Nazis, Communists, anti-Semites, Christian haters, certainly not Bush friendly and guilty of treason, aggravated mopery, theft of mattress tags from cheap motels, chronic jaywalking and disturbers of the political peace.

I run this site all by myself with a little help from various friends, both inside and outside of the Beltway.

The articles not otherwise credited are usually written by myself although I do not take credit for them. The articles speak for themselves and I do not believe in beating my own drum as so many other journalists seem to enjoy doing. The message is always important; not so the messenger.

I try to answer reasonable mail and encourage the reading public to submit articles of interest. I am known to publish pieces that I do not personally agree with but which I feel are well-written and worth reading.

Contrary to the hysterical views of rabid trailer park Bush supporters, I was not suckled by a werewolf and I am not a member of the far left. In point of fact, I am a very disillusioned moderate Republican whose family were bankers, brokers and CEOs of various nice companies.

There does not seem to be much moderation left after the Bush people finished polarizing the electorate.

The conclusions are obvious here.

Walter Storch
The Truth Seeker

This guy is telling us everything. The clues are enormous. We need to read between the lines and connect the dots.

He seems to know the closeted gays in the WH and GOP party.

This isn't meant to out anyone, but could give us many links to Gannon and Rove and the rest of the LIES.
A Snippet:

SOME BACKGROUND Walter Storch - TBRNews.org

During the middle of March, 2003, tbrnews received an email from a man who claimed to be a mid-level executive with a major American television network. He stated in this, and subsequent, emails that he was in possession of ?thousands? of pages of in-house memos sent from his corporate headquarters in New York City to the head of the network?s television news department. He went on to say that these memos set forth directives about what material was, and was not, to be aired on the various outlets of the network.

This individual claimed he was developing serious doubts about the strict control of media events and decided that he would pass this material along to someone who might make use of it.

There was the question of his job security. If someone published his name, it would be certain he was not only fired but blackballed throughout his profession.

If tbrnews.org would agree to protect his identity, he would send us these alleged thousands of pages of notes, going back to 2001.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating so we accepted his caveats and he then sent to us by disk the pages he spoke of. All are on corporate stationary, signed or initialed by the senders and again, signed or initialed by the recipients in the news division.
LINK Another Snippet

"At some time in the past, according to both [redacted] and [redacted] the President suffered what one of his aides called "a very minor seizure" and as a result of this, the President has a very difficult time following any unscripted conversations.

"The President takes oral medication at least twice a day according to [redacted] because of an unspecified "indisposition' and this subject is strictly off limits for any casual staff conversation."

"At one point during a staff conference, the President stood up and began to speak in an unknown language. Mr. Rove was able to stop the President and get him to resume his seat. It was reported by [redacted] that for a period of time (about fifteen minutes) after this incident, the President appeared to be 'somewhat confused and very inarticulate.'"
I remember lots of us wondering about a stroke during one of the debates. Another snippet:

I have seen a partial list and it reads like the DC social register, believe me! This enterprising young man is very liable to end up at the bottom of the Potomac River just like ex-CIA chief Bill Colby who was terminated by his former employees because he just couldn?t keep his mouth shut about certain things. I won?t have old Bill?s problem because I am not a Princeton man and even you don?t know who I am. You had the intestinal fortitude to print the material about the planned Iranian attack and maybe you will do the same with this one. I know a number of people inside the Beltway read your site?and loathe you?and if they read this and are closet queens, the sale of dignity pants will soar in the next few weeks. My, my, such lovely names! The Washington Times did a front page story on this joker some time back, by the way, but no one dared to touch him because of what, and whom, he knew?and serviced??

In my second-to-last communication I talked about a male ?escort service? [read gay brothel] operating in DC for the edification of the very senior Beltway people. I have, locked up in my office safe, copies of the credit card receipts with names, card numbers and signatures of: two Supreme Court and one Appellate Court judges {Have you heard about the two judges who tried each other?} eight Senators, five Congressmen, two former and one current White House aides, [the latter a very senior policy-maker] a number of very prominent DC lawyers, several senior members of the RNC, four general officers and one Admiral, three of whom are still on active duty [one in the Pentagon], five local newspapermen, eight ministers, high level employees of: State Department, Commerce Department, Justice Department, HEW Department, DC police department, NSA, DIA, and most especially, a number of pundits from Georgetown University and a nice collection of CIA people. The proprietor of this stud farm was one Todd Blodgett and there was a front-page story on one of his male whore establishments in the Washington Times. Blodgett was a Reagan White House aide, was fired from both the WH and later, the RNC, for aggressive homosexual behavior and then tossed out of the University Club in DC.

Information that has been kept very quiet at the highest levels would indicate that George W. Bush was heavily involved with gay groups while at Yale, had a significant affair with another man while at HBS, was a "very close friend" of a black drag queen and, according to three different inside sources, is no more a Pentecostal Christian than Saddam Hussein.

The sex material about our pure, God-intoxicated President, comes from one arrest report and several "counseling" reports now sequestered (by order of Karl Rove) at Yale (Bush's records there have been sealed) There is the temptation to run with this but there at least has to be something factual here. The Republicans are trying to plant obvious lies on everyone in the hopes that others like the nutty Rather will take them up and make Bush look like a wonderful but persecuted man. According to one report, made long before Bush was Governor of Texas, he could not have any kind of sex with women unless at least half drunk and was a practicing advocate of physical abuse. He likes to beat people, according to this. But not be beaten in return. Some of this is not only difficult to believe but downright repulsive. ?Caligula? is not that far off the mark when applied to our sainted leader. You can see small traces of these accusations if you talk with Bush for any length of time. He has succumbed entirely to the outrageous flattery his staff smears him with and he now really believes that he is always right and that anyone who dares to contradict him is guilty of treason! Or sedition! I have actually heard him say that and, of course, his nodding and sucking staff goes right along with him. ?Oh yes, Mr. President! How wonderfully clear, Mr. President! You are always right, Mr. President! Certainly, Mr. President; your enemies are enemies of America!? Bush cannot, or will not, read any current news, not even well-crafted intelligence reports, and refuses to listen to any kind of criticism and the White House has assumed the oppressive, hothouse atmosphere of a Byzantine imperial court at its worst.
LINK and this Link

Lose Your Mind

"Lose Your Mind"

Look, if you had one shot, one opportunity
To give the people the Power they need - one Movement
Would you grab the Power - or give it away?

His friends are greasy, NeoCon freaks - all are sleazy
Oil and blood on his hands already, and Condolezzy
He's an idiot, but fools folks to thinkin' he's brave and steady
To drop bombs - he's just way too ready
Statue comes down, But the crowd is Photoshop
He opens his mouth, and the lies they just won't stop
Was chokin. Now everybody's jokin - How
A pretzel took him out. But John Kerry couldn't. Wow.
How 'bout a reality check - the depravity!
Oh, the pink slip that we hoped
He'd be packin'. But he won't give up that
Easy, no
He won't have it. Diebold's got his back on these votes.
It don't matter. The dope?
That old story. It broke.
He's so whacked but he knows
Order us into Iraq from his Crawford home. That's him. He'll
Attack on false evidence, Oh
This War President
He'd better go after Osama and hope we can stop him.

[Hook 1:]
You really lose your mind in the boozin', this moment
You've shown it. We should have never let you go
You should have had one shot. You never miss a chance to blow.
But all you Daddy's friends hand you a lifeline. Oh!
(repeat hook)

Party's soul's escaping, too many Democrats are faking
Nomination is ripe for the taking
Anybody but Dean, as we move farther away from our charter
But if you pardon - the advice that I'd give's work smarter not harder
Iowa grows closer. Folks say "No, sir"
Money goes. It's over. This blows like these ads we see.
Cable News screams - play 800 times or more
Front loaded - Feel railroaded
He still wins the state that's his home, where they know him
Works hard for a party that won't admit what they owe him
Hold your nose. Get to the Party Line. Toe in.
But some folks just won't take any more and they're goin'
Lots more folks just stay home and don't vote.
We lost credibility
Another candidate's a footnote
I hope we quit bein' silly and learn that you've gotta stand up
and E-lect Ability

[Hook 2:]
You're gonna lose the folks tryin' to be, GOP
You clone it. But you better let it go
You'd better pick one side. Prepare to take a stand and show
Your constituents you have a backbone, D'oh!
(repeat hook)

No more games. Gonna reframe what they call rage
Pull back the curtain on your Wizard - turn the page.
The game you're playing isn't winning. The rules have changed
We've been chewed up and spit out and laughed off stage
But we kept building and funding the Dean movement
Best believe over you it's a vast improvement
And the gains we make illustrate the fact
That we won't just get on with our lives
Knowing that we have the Power to bring this Party back
Cuz man, these rubber stamps don't win elections
And, it's no joke. Our fights. Our selections. There's no punch line.
And these times are so hard and it's getting even harder
But this year we planted a seed, plus
Had the honor of seeing the Gov take on NeoCons mano a mano
Cable News' channels screamin' on
Tune 'em out if you want to
Find a new news spot. Log in to the Blogosphere
Unfiltered and to the point. Or in e-mail.
Get yourself informed and help us foil their evil plot
Progressive is the way of the future, Bush-lite is not
Lil' donkey, we love you, but this failure's got to go
With Chairman Dean we cast our lot.
Striking while the iron's hot
The Gov won't fail us. He'll always give everything he's got.

[Hook 3:]
Not going to lose the rein of the Party, this moment
We own it. We're gonna never let it go
It's finally our turn, we finally got a chance to show
With Grassroots Power we're getting up to go!
(repeat hook)

You have the Power to change anything you want to, People.
Posted by Demetrius at February 21, 2005 03:49 AM

Musing on Demand

The other day when I was looking up Scott McClellan and his brother Mark, who's now head of the Medicare/Medicaid Administration, I came across an article written by the latter about the difference between for-profit and community/charity hospitals. His finding was that community and non-profit hospitals fail to respond to a drop in demand as quickly as the for-profit kind. From the perspective of a believer in classical economics, this failure is obviousl a significant negative. What's interesting to me, though, is that there is no perception on the authors' part that a reduction in "demand" may not be a consequence of the service not being asked for, but rather a consequence of it being too expensive to pay for (either by the patient or the payment program).

DEMAND is a funny word, very central to economic theories, and freighted with different meaning. First, it provides the basis for the perception of economics as the "dismal" science because it implies the expression of desires that can never be entirely satisfied--as in the "demanding child" or the "demanding lover."

On the other hand, the notion of demand provides a cover for those who presumably try to satisfy the market for leaving it unsatisfied--the customer is bound to be dissatisfied by something (quantity, price, quality, durability, etc), so why even try?

Then there's the perspective of a decline in demand being an excuse for simply cutting out the good or service that was being provided. If a purveyor simply perceives himself as responding to an external prompt, then he doesn't have to be concerned with WHY that prompt is no longer arriving. Which, of course, is another explanation for why improved quality is not a natural consequence of competition. In fact, when there is competition, it's possible to respond to complaint about quality with the rationalization that "if you don't like it, just go somewhere else." If we were into linear thinking like economists are wont to engage in, we might conclude that "the more competition, the more junk."

But, when one applies the concept of DEMAND to hospital beds, one is double mistaken. That's because the basic assumption, that demand is an expression of what someone WANTS, is wrong. Being sick or injured and in need of hospitalization is not a desideratum (desired item). Rather, it is the lesser of many other even less desirable alternatives (expiring in a ditch, languishing at home in bed waiting for a slow death, being nibbled on inside and out by microscopic predators, being crippled for life by a broken bone in the foot or leg). Trying to decide how much DEMAND there is for such services by counting how many dollars people are willing to exchange or even the number of times they access the services doesn't make any sense.

Granted, the providers of such services do have a problem. They find it difficult to anticipate how many customers/users will show up in a given year and they are totally unable to account for when they are truly not needed because nobody's gotten sick or injured. ( I realize that's a stretch, but I do remember a year back in the sixties when the fire department in our town was not called out even once in a whole year).

But, it's exactly because there are some services that people would rather not have, but nevertheless need from time to time, that we organize ourselves as a community to provide them. Trying to subject these services to the "laws of supply and demand" makes no sense. But that's exactly what's being done. Because economics has a long history of deciding that when the facts don't fit the theory, the facts need to be adjusted. And that's what they are constantly about doing--fitting reality to their models.

Something similar seems to be happening in public education. If children aren't learning the most basic facts of life, the answer is to adjust the programatic structure.
The current President of course argues that if schools are not providing the expected results (another way of saying "satisfying demand"), just shut them down.

Primary education, of course, is different from both hospital care and an ice cream cone. There is demand for it, but not on the part of the recipient of the service. So, the demand/supply model doesn't work there either.

You may be wondering why they haven't developed a model that works, in the sense of accurately representing how our transactions progress. The answer is quite simple. They've tried, but like the human brain, our economic transactions are just too complex for accurate modelling.

Journalism under Fire

What happened to the Providence Journal when the Belo Corporation came on the scene.

What's Become of the PROJO's Mojo?
Why I Quit
A prize-winning ex-reporter for The Providence Journal
charges that the paper traded journalistic ambition for the bottom line. Its editor sees a daily still doing strong work in a complicated world

BY D. MORGAN MCVICAR

O
ne sunny fall day almost two years ago, I found myself in a courtroom in Providence, Rhode Island, testifying against The Providence Journal, where I had worked for sixteen years. It was a bleak occasion, another unhappy chapter in a tale that has caused me to wonder how I could have so badly misjudged what my longtime employer had become and one that, it turns out, is ripe with lessons about the power of leadership.

I wrote much of what follows for a class at Harvard and, later, shared it with a few fellow journalists. They said it is a story that should be heard, that while it focuses on the decline of one daily it really is emblematic of what has happened to American newspaper journalism. In May, after submitting a draft to cjr, I tried to contact my former executive editor, explaining in messages what I was trying to write and requesting an interview. In response, the Journal?s publisher and lawyer called cjr, dismissing me as a disgruntled former employee and union activist. I was neither. I loved The Providence Journal. And the paper?s initial response says as much about the atmosphere at 75 Fountain Street today as anything you are about to read. (The editor?s response, an interview with cjr, is on page 41.)

As a student at Harvard?s Kennedy School of Government last year, immersed in the study of leadership and corporate culture, I thought and wrote about the role of the leader in the newsroom. In so doing, I came to see how great leadership had created a newspaper I could not have been more proud of, and, later, how its absence helped create a newsroom I had no choice but to leave. When I arrived in Providence, in 1985, the Journal had a consummate leader, an editor who mobilized, animated, motivated, and, above all, inspired his troops to follow his moral compass, one we would come to adopt as our own. Working for the ProJo, as the locals call it, became not merely what we did, but helped define who we were. That the same leader who had lifted us to great heights played Nero as it all fell apart is one of this tale?s melancholy mysteries.

By the late 1980s, The Providence Journal was riding high: big budget, big news staff, big stories, and a growing reputation. Bruce DeSilva, then Hartford Courant associate editor (a former Providence Journal reporter and now the news features editor for AP), wrote in 1989, in Rhode Island Monthly, the ProJo was an ?outlandishly influential newspaper? with ?a statewide dominance unmatched in the newspaper industry . . . . Reporters and editors who leave Providence for larger newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times and The Boston Globe say their new papers may have bigger reputations, but have far less influence over public policy and public opinion in the communities they serve.?

The collaboration of three men in particular ? publisher Michael Metcalf and editors Charles McCorkle Hauser and Joel Rawson ? created the culture that would give rise to the glory years of the 1980s and 1990s. Metcalf, whose family had been a major share owner since the early twentieth century, provided the money. He gave executive editor Hauser the power and the mandate to make the Journal great. Hauser enlisted Rawson to do the job. Rawson soon built a journalistic citadel, one reporters from across the country lined up to join.

To realize what Rawson created, one must know what he had inherited. The Providence Journal of the 1970s was, in DeSilva?s words, ?less a newspaper than the state stenographer . . . . Day after day, the paper was crammed with local trivia . . . . Probing stories seemed to be unwanted.?

In the late 1970s, Hauser plucked Rawson off the copy desk and promoted him, in rapid-fire order, from night metro editor to editor of the Sunday Journal to managing editor, of the Evening Bulletin, the Journal?s p.m. counterpart, to what the Journal calls metropolitan managing editor, in charge of the whole show. Rawson, a Vietnam veteran and airplane pilot full of swagger, temper, and self-confidence, showed quickly at each post that he had a plan. The Journal under Rawson would continue to be a government watchdog, protector and advocate for those most disenfranchised, and the state?s paper of record, the standard for a respectable newspaper. But Rawson believed the paper could aspire to significantly more. Namely, the Journal could engage, absorb, and rivet its readers. To accomplish that, reporters under Rawson were to approach a story as a novelist or playwright might. Forget the inverted pyramid, Rawson said. Just tell a story, like Ernest Hemingway. He held weekly meetings, where reporters and editors talked about writing the news differently. He had his reporters read Didion, Wolfe, Catton.

Rawson borrowed from drama, too. One day, in the mid-1980s, he sat a group of us down in the editorial boardroom and played the movie, Witness. Afterward, he talked about the way the story had been crafted, even how the barn was erected in a barn-raising scene, and how we could apply such storytelling and barn-building techniques to our reporting/writing. We left the room electrified.

Writers flourished in this atmosphere, and mega-projects became the order of the day. Carol McCabe, the newspaper?s talented national writer, produced a succession of series that took months to report and write. Another reporter, Randy Richard, was assigned to write about Central and South America. His stunning five-part series on Americans buying babies from impoverished South Americans began on my first day on the job.

Rawson also emphasized investigative reporting, turning loose reporters who, over the years, would fell two Rhode Island Supreme Court chief justices, take on the mob, and generally leave big footprints in both the public and private sectors. The news those reporters produced was as hard as the indictments they begat. But true to the Rawson-ProJo culture, they presented their work as novellas: Puzo meets The New York Times. The Journal won a Pulitzer in 1994, and was a finalist seven times between 1981 and 1991. By the early ?80s, many in journalism circles were calling it one of the best writer?s papers in the country.

This was all brought about by a confluence of leadership, talent, and a publisher who took pride in the newspaper and was willing to spend well beyond the newspaper norm. Metcalf paid for a staff of about 340, almost twice the average for newspapers of similar size, and a very generous travel budget and newshole.

But it was also about a culture, a we-can-do-anything feeling that percolated across the news operation, from the reporter-star network downtown to the ten bureaus across the state, two in Massachusetts, and one in Washington. It was a culture nurtured by Hauser and Metcalf, but they operated behind the scenes. Rawson was the news general, commanding and inspiring the troops.

P
rone to screaming in the newsroom, in anger and in glee, Rawson kicked wastebaskets and bellowed, he shouted over phones loud enough to be heard across the newsroom, he stomped around muttering obscenities. He was the leader as performing artist.

In the early 1980s, the paper began bringing in writing coaches and holding weekly writing contests. Winners were asked to contribute essays explaining their methods, compilations of which were published in 1983, 1986, and 1996, as books titled How I Wrote the Story.

The work that ProJo writers produced during those years was remarkable. Carol McCabe produced a powerful series on hunger across America. Irene Wielawski took us, with an intimacy seldom seen in newspapers, into emergency and operating rooms and the living rooms of first-year residents at Rhode Island Hospital. Bruce Butterfield brought readers into the sweatshop conditions in Rhode Island?s jewelry factories. G. Wayne Miller spent a year with a family living in poverty and examined the many and deep-seated reasons behind the near-hopelessness of breaking the welfare cycle. Journal writers sought out the great tales that would touch the soul and affect public policy.

In addition to writing essays for the Journal?s Sunday magazine, I was the newspaper?s education writer for more than a decade, contributing analytical pieces on topics ranging from date rape at Brown University to inequities in state funding of public education. During this period, there was intense competition at the paper, yet there was also remarkable group support, both at the daily brown-bag lunches and at our almost weekly reporter parties where we talked mostly about writing ? and Joel Rawson.

In the late 1980s, a series of changes occurred that would eventually dictate the newspaper?s fate. Publisher Michael Metcalf was killed in a bicycle accident. Stephen Hamblett, who had worked under Metcalf, was named to succeed him. Hauser and Rawson left, Rawson to be number two editor at the Lexington Herald-Leader in Kentucky. In his absence, the newsroom and bureaus hummed, but they seemed to lose some of their roar.

Then, three years later, Rawson returned ? this time as deputy executive editor. Veteran reporters reacted like Parisians at the sight of the liberating allies. Newer staff members wanted to know the source of all the excitement: Who was this guy Joel Rawson, anyway? Joel, however, returned to a changing newspaper environment. And what lay ahead for The Providence Journal would really be determined in the executive suites.

For a time the newspaper continued to turn out strong work, and the Metcalfs and other old Rhode Island families continued to support it. In 1995, however, another series of ominous changes began. Over the next two years, the Evening Bulletin was killed, along with the Sunday magazine, the showcase for the personal essays and developed stories and photographs of our most talented staff. The science beat was eliminated and religion was cut to half a beat. A buyout sent some of the paper?s best writers out the door. The editors required several city-staff veterans to write for the local editions, and the paper instituted a reporter-intern program, hiring inexperienced reporters to man the state staff.

The staff became younger and cheaper. Though the paper denied it for a time, for anyone inclined to read the tea leaves, it was obvious we were being readied for sale.

In 1997 the Providence Journal Company was sold for $1.5 billion to the Belo corporation, the Dallas-based media company. Thirteen Journal executives, through stock options and special retirement plans that were cashed out after the sale, reaped more than $24 million.

When Robert Decherd, the ceo of Belo, visited the newsroom, he told us that Belo had great respect for the journalistic tradition in Providence and planned to build on the ProJo?s greatness, not deplete it. We applauded. And we had some cause to be optimistic. Belo was not a chain in the Gannett mold ? the company owned just a handful of substantive television stations and newspapers, including the highly regarded Dallas Morning News.

But over the next few years, many reporters who left the city staff for other papers were not replaced. The Washington bureau staff was reduced from three reporters to two. The statehouse bureau, which once had as many as five reporters, was cut to three. Since 1996, the paper has never had more than a single daily courts reporter; in previous years two or three reporters were on the beat. With a depleted staff, the long-term projects that had so distinguished the newspaper became far less frequent. In the halcyon days, reporters had traveled across New England, the country, the globe. In the new order, getting approval to travel thirty miles could prove a chore.

In 1999 the paper?s labor contract with 500 employees, including the diminished reporting staff, expired, and the screws began to turn: hiring freezes, closure of the Newport bureau, and rapidly deteriorating management-union relations drove out many reporters and editors, some through buyouts, others just to escape.

I
n all fairness, its decline notwithstanding, The Providence Journal then, as now, produced some fine work. It is a decent newspaper, a cut above by today?s standards. The paper was a finalist in the public service category for a Pulitzer this year for its coverage of the Station nightclub fire, and in two of the previous three years was a finalist for deadline photo and editorial writing.

The occasional excellence notwithstanding, that the newspaper is a shadow of its former self is clear to anyone who reads it regularly. ?Overall, it?s still a good newspaper compared to other papers its size,? says Hauser, who now lives in North Carolina but continues to receive and read the Journal daily. ?But there?s a big difference in the things we could accomplish with the big budget and the big staff Michael Metcalf let us have. There?s much less staff-written and developed material.

?And the biggest difference is the way people are treated,? Hauser says. ?When Carol McCabe and others took the buyout and left, nobody said one word. It?s very sad the way people have been treated in recent years.? McCabe, who now lives in Virginia, confirms that no one in management said thank you or goodbye when she ended her award-studded twenty-three-year Journal career.

Still, even as late as 2001, a core group of veteran reporters clung to the shreds of the Rawson culture, holding out hope that things would get better ? with a contract settlement, with a healthier economy, with what we hoped would eventually happen, a more forceful Joel Rawson. He indeed became more forceful, but not in the way we had hoped.

In July 2001, the reporter Karen Lee Ziner, a twenty-two-year veteran who was as skillful with a fanciful feature as with breaking news, returned from vacation to learn that she was being removed from a continuing story she had covered from the outset. She was told that the subject of the story, a woman who had been beaten by her husband, had complained to the publisher.

Ziner, who was perceived by some in the newsroom as one of Rawson?s favorite writers during his days as managing editor, later that day ran into Rawson in the middle of the newsroom. She questioned the decision to take her off the story, as well as the editors? request that she sign off on a correction that she believed was clearly unwarranted (she had relied on a police report that was later amended in a detail). Rawson had no beef with her reporting, but thought that the story was over. Ziner persisted, elaborating on why she felt it was important that she remain on it. An assistant city editor seconded her argument.

As Ziner recalls it, Rawson summoned her into his office, where, at the end of a heated conversation, they came to a standoff. Ziner said she thought the paper should stand by her.

?Well, Miss Ziner,? Rawson said, ?you do not count.?

Two days later, I sat down and typed out a letter to Joel, explaining why we were upset ? the message sent to reporters was that the newspaper will not back them up, the implication to subjects of our stories was that complaints get results. More than seventy reporters and non-management editors and photographers signed the letter, and it was delivered to Joel.

About two weeks later, The New York Times ran a story in its media section about the incident and our protest. Shortly thereafter, Rawson called a handful of reporters into his office and quizzed them about the letter. It became clear that he considered himself the betrayed, not the betrayer. And to be fair, there was some truth to that, though the culprits were in suits up on the fourth floor, not in the newsroom.

A few weeks later, managing editor Tom Heslin called me into his office and informed me I was being assigned to the night shift ? 4 p.m. to midnight. It was a one-person shift, manned for as long as anyone could remember by the newest reporter on the city staff, and for good reason: the position entailed rewriting press releases, listening to police and fire scanners, and calling local police stations.

I was among the last of Rawson?s one-time Golden Boys, winner of half a dozen awards and a two-time Pulitzer nominee. ?You and Joel should be ashamed of yourselves,? I said. And I quit.

Ziner, the subject of our protest, was subsequently assigned to the night beat, and it was at a hearing on an unfair-labor-practice complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board on her behalf that I testified last fall. Sitting in an Indian restaurant the day of Ziner?s hearing, a group of former ProJo reporters marveled at our inability to appreciate what was happening at the paper as it unfolded.

We agreed that the most significant cultural change had not been the loss of staff, the demise of the magazine, or any of the other telltale signs. Rather, it had been the way reporters were viewed and treated by the managers in our midst. For years, the Journal had been about empowering, unleashing, even exalting reporters. Everything that was done ? from the weekly writing awards to the monthly writing workshops to the publication of two How I Wrote the Story volumes ? had been about celebrating the work of reporters/writers.

In the 1980s and early ?90s, editors asked reporters what they were working on. By the end of the decade, editors were telling reporters what to do. In sum, the atmosphere evolved from one of collegiality and collaboration to rigid hierarchy. And we, who are paid for our powers of observation, for so long did not see what was happening, perhaps because the architects of the changes were those with whom we had worked so long in harmonious, often joyous, collaboration.

I
look back through the prism of what I learned last year, and can understand the importance ? as well as the fragility ? of organizational culture. I see how an organization?s culture can be shaped by a leader, reinforcing that leader?s ability to lead. I can also see how that leader can be betrayed, and turn around and play the betrayer. I can see that no matter how institutionalized a culture may be, when there is no one in power left willing to fight for its preservation, the situation is hopeless.

Last spring, Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol ruled that Ziner?s assignment to the night shift constituted a violation of federal labor law. Referring to the letter I wrote to Rawson protesting Ziner?s removal from a story, Kocol wrote that the Journal ?had an opportunity to assign virtually anyone from its staff to the night shift, but it selected first the leader of the petition drive and then the subject of the petition. I cannot conclude that this is mere coincidence.??

Kocol wrote, ?No credible, lawful reason exists to explain why [the Journal] took a veteran, award-winning reporter from the day shift and put her on the night shift covering mostly mundane matters.?

The judge ordered the Journal to return Ziner to days. The Journal appealed. A few months ago, a four-year contract dispute between the newspaper guild and management was resolved. As part of the settlement, Ziner was returned to day duty.

She called to tell me the news, and we both sighed.

Enjoy this piece? Consider a CJR trial subscription.

Perle's Match

Gannongate

PSEUDO-JOURNALISTS IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Durbin Speaks Truth to Power

Thank you for your message regarding the nomination of Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General. I appreciate knowing your thoughts.

On February 3, 2005, the Senate voted to confirm Judge Gonzales by a vote of 60-36. After meeting with Mr. Gonzales, listening to his hearing
testimony, reviewing his record, and carefully considering his nomination, I concluded that I could not support him for Attorney General.

Alberto Gonzales is a skilled lawyer. His life story is nothing short of inspiring. I have the greatest respect for his success, for what he has
achieved, and for the obstacles he has overcome.

However, the debate surrounding the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General of the United States is not about his life story.
Instead, it is about whether America will continue to be a nation based on the rule of law, or whether we, out of fear, will abandon our time-tested values.

History is written after every war, including stories of courage, compassion, and glory. Sadly, when the history of the war on terrorism is
written, it will also tell the story of how some felt we could no longer afford to live by some of the principles that are at the foundation of
what America stands for.

The horrible acts that occurred at Abu Ghraib cannot be dismissed as the conduct of only a few. They must be viewed as a foreseeable result of a process initiated in Washington. As Counsel to President Bush, Alberto Gonzales was at the center of that process, at the center of the
Administration's effort to redefine what is legal and acceptable in the treatment of prisoners and detainees. He and Assistant Attorney General
Jay Bybee found loopholes in the law to rationalize torture and inhumane treatment. At the very least, this helped create a permissive environment that made it more likely that abuses would occur.

Mr. Gonzales recommended to the President that the Geneva Conventions should not apply to the war on terrorism. The President accepted this
view and issued a memo concluding that "new thinking in the law of war" was needed and that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the war on
terrorism. Mr. Gonzales then requested, approved, and disseminated the Justice Department torture memo, which adopted a new, very restrictive definition of torture and concluded that the torture statute, which makes torture a crime, does not apply to interrogations conducted under the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief.

Relying on this "new thinking" and the Justice Department's definition of torture, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld approved numerous abusive
interrogation tactics for use against prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Senior officials in Iraq heard of the tactics, and commanders and troops at Abu Ghraib were sent the signal that the "law of war" is an obstacle to overcome, not a bright line that cannot be crossed.

For decades, the United States led the world in ensuring the care of enemy prisoners. We knew that torture, in addition to being inhumane,
produces unreliable information, makes it more difficult to win wars, and places our troops at risk. Now we are seeing the effects of redefining
torture, as pictures from Abu Ghraib become recruiting posters for Al-Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission correctly concluded that the prisoner abuse scandal has damaged our ability to combat the terrorist threat. The message we send regarding our commitment to basic human rights affects the safety of our troops in the field and our citizens at home.

We can win the war on terrorism while respecting the values our nation represents. If we are to lead the world by example, we must not compromise the principles upon which our country was founded - the rule of law and a respect for human rights.

I could not in good conscience vote to elevate to the highest law enforcement position in the nation a man who ignored the rule of law and
the demands of human decency and created the permissive environment that made Abu Ghraib possible.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

Dinky has a Point

Representative Nancy Pelosi
House Democratic Leader
PO Box 96139
Washington, DC 20077-7243

Re: Disappointing Survey, Angry American

Dear Representative Pelosi,

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. It was also nice of you to send the survey on as an opportunity to respond as to how I am feeling about the state of the Union.

I find, however, that the survey does not allow me to adequately express how I am feeling. I am, therefore, taking this opportunity to respond in more detail.

Part I Survey Mission
This is a critical moment in history for American and the Democratic Party. We must hold the line against the radical, mean-spirited agenda of GW and forcefully assert positive policies to improve the lives of all Americans. This is your opportunity to let the Democratic leadership know your priorities for the future.

Usually I wait until an election comes up to let you know how I am feeling. But since you asked....

Part II Personal Information
Age 18-35, 36-50,51-65,65+
Do you consider yourself liberal, moderate, conservative
Did you vote on November 2?
How often do you vote for Democratic candidates? Always, Most of the Time, Rarely, Never

I am 36-50. So is my husband. My son is 18-35 and my mother is 65+. All the co-workers in my office are 51-65. I am personally interested in the government's impact on all of our lives.

I am classified as a liberal due to my association with that end of the democratic spectrum when it comes to taking care of the poor, although I am an extremely conservative fiscally. My religious beliefs are moderate.

Did I vote? I canvassed, I registered voters, I became a precinct committee person, I attended local Dem. Meetings. I stayed connected on the Web. And YES I voted.

I vote most of the time for Democrats. BUT, and this is a big BUT, I vote by policy decisions and promises and not by party.

Part III The state of the Union
What is your outlook for the state of the union during the second term of GW? Positive Negative Uncertain
How important is the role of Democrats in Congress to achieving a positive state of the union? Crucial, Important, Uncertain
How important is the support of people like you to the efforts of Democrats in Congress to block GW's radical agenda? Crucial, Important, Uncertain
Do you approve of Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert's pronouncement that he will block all legislation that is not supported by a majority of the majority? Approve, Disapprove, Not Sure
What is the most important priority affecting the state of the union? Terrorism, Affordable Health Care, New Jobs, Better Schools.

My outlook is very negative. I would consider job offers over-seas. I would consider foreign residency.

To tell you the truth, I have had a hard time picking out who the Democrats are in congress. It appears to me that, based on voting records, most Democrats are looking rather Republican these days.

When you ask how important my support is, I suspect you are suggesting that my money would be helpful in seeing you all through another term. I don't really want to support that. I want some change and I want it now. I want strong voices shouting some truth, whether or not it will get lobby money, conservative southern folks or fence sitters to assist you in the next election. I want some representatives who think about the public good and the right course more than they think about whether they will be in Washington long enough to pay off the Georgetown apartment.

Who cares what Dennis Hastert says? I don't.

You barely remembered to asked what the most important priority is effecting the nation. I have given lots of thought to this and would encourage you to do so as well. The time is better spent here than in worrying about the "majority of the majority".

Here is the big issue... the standard of living in the US is falling behind that of every other developed nation. We are becoming a two class system; the rich and the poor. The vast majority are the poor. Our government representatives hear primarily from special interest groups representing the very rich. The rest of us get these poorly constructed surveys as the means to inform you as to our thoughts. We also get a bucket-load of half truths and sometime blatant fabrications from our government through carefully crafted sound bites.

Part IV The Economy
How would you rate the current state of the American Economy? Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor.
A balanced budget is more important than a federal tax cut. Agree, Disagree, Not Sure
Do you support the Republican-led Congress giving President Bush the authorization to increase America's debt levels and run us further into the red? Yes, No, Undecided
I am most concerned about: Retirement Savings, Daily Expenses, College Savings.

The American economy is failing to provide the same standard of living as other developed nations.

I am not particularly interested in seeing more tax cuts to anyone. I should point out that my taxes have been going up for the last four years. The federal tax went down and the state and local taxes went up. I will pay more in taxes for 2004 than in prior years. I am not earning more. The only winners in the tax game are the very rich who can afford to locate themselves and their business in states that give them tax concessions. The rest of us are paying more. If you are paying less in taxes then you may want to ask some serious questions about which group you fall into.

I am not as interested in the red vs black lines or any other color scheme that you select for the budget. I am interested in diverting spending to address the needs of the majority of the American people. That plan also needs to be fiscally sound.

I am not "most concerned about retirement, daily expenses or college saving". I am interested in the fact that whole classes of the US are falling in their standard of living and that there are fewer opportunities for most Americans to reverse that trend. I am sickened by the lack of basic standards in health, housing, education, safety, and security of the American public. I would be better off living in any other developed country at this point in history.

Part V Social Security
Do you favor or oppose efforts to privatize Social Security? Favor, Oppose
Protecting Social Security retirement benefits promised to America's seniors is more important than keeping the tax cuts promised to America's wealthiest. Agree, Disagree, Not Sure

The US has over two hundred years of history and the only federal program worth its weight is the social security program. I am disgusted that the reserve fund that we worked so hard to build over the last 20 years was not segregated from the general budget. I am disgusted that we did not insist on loan documents and bonds when we "loaned" this money to the government. I am sick that after all our sacrifice, YES SACRIFICE, there are some who would suggest that the money is gone and will not be repaid.

I think that the first priority of congress this year should be to segregate every last dime that was to be in reserve and to formally write the loan or bond documents that clearly identify the intended use for these funds. THAT IS A SOCIAL CONTRACT that was made to us when we agreed to the high tax rate.

There are three features to Social Security. The most famous is the retirement benefit. I don't hear anyone talking about the other two. I think that if young Americans priced the cost for disability and death annuities, they would find that the other two benefits are the most important to them. They certainly were to me while I was raising a family. My calculations in the 1980's indicated that I was saving 50% by paying the extra social security tax. Where is the Democratic Party on this? I have not heard a sound from any of you in leadership roles.

After you have segregated social security from the general fund, I would suggest that you beef up the plan by taxing every American's full wages. Yes, I said tax every American and all of the wages. I can't think of a single reason why someone making $350,000 should be allowed to opt out of his/her civic duty to contribute to this wonderful program. In fact, the executive making $1,000,000 should be filled with pride that they have the luck and fortune to be able to make a substantial donation to the well being of Americans less fortunate. I think removing the tax cap would fix the regressive tax feature (only the poor support the poor) and would begin to address the shortfall in Medicare funding as well.

Part VI Education
Do you think the Republicans in Congress are committed to improving public schools? Yes, No, Undecided
The future of our nation depends upon all children having the opportunity to learn in safe, well-equipped public schools. Agree, Disagree, Not Sure.

The last time I checked, the federal government did not fund our public schools in any meaningful way. That includes all of the many Democrats who voted for "No Child Left Behind." On the other hand, I think that the Oregon state government is very committed to public schools. Who cares what the Republicans in DC want? My guess is that they don't have school age children and if they do all of them are in private schools.

The future of our nation depends on the incentive that we provide our citizens to train to the best of their ability to contribute to the society. I would say that our nation depends on the children of India and China more than on the children of the US. I am also guessing that it only takes a 6th grade education to be a Walmart greeter. I don't think that it takes any education to work at a fast food restaurant. Employees there don't even have to calculate change.

Part VII The Environment
How do you feel about Republican calls to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other public lands to oil drilling? Strongly Opposed, In Favor, Undecided.

We need clean energy. The way to achieve it is to take the profit out of dirty energy. If the rich want to pay the cost for their pollution then have them pay. The money can go to public programs to abate the damage. If they want to reduce their cost then have them invest in clean energy. The rest of us are car pooling and riding public transportation. We can't afford our electric bills and our thermostats are already turned as low as they go.

It looks to me that both political party leaders are accepting large contributions from the worst polluters. Why would I trust a party leader who does not put words and actions together. I would rather send my check to the congressman who refuses to accept the lobby money. I would trust what they say, too.

Part VIII Health Care
Should Medicare benefits be extended to cover the true cost of prescription drugs for senior citizens? Yes, No, Undecided
How important is it to you for Congress to find more money in the budget to extend healthcare to low-income Americans who can't afford health insurance? Very important, Somewhat Important, not Important.

Listen, no one can afford the cost of healthcare. Why are you still talking about the poor as if it is a small group of unfortunates that could be easily covered with Medicaid. One in six people in my state has no coverage. All of them need it. Most of the rest of us have substandard policies that shift the risk to us in levels that we cannot afford. The hot tip that I just heard is that a tube of super glue can paste together an open wound almost as well as sutures. American families are at Home Depot buying what they will use to handle the injuries of their family members.

We need a nationalized plan now. We need it more than a war, more than military hardware, more than a new Air Force I, more than a $100,000 tax deduction for an SUV, more than a congressional visitors center, more than corn subsidies, more than just about any line item in the budget. We really needed it four years ago. The need is more urgent today. More people in this country have died from a lack of healthcare than have died from acts of terrorism. The cost of healthcare is the number one reason for bankruptcy.

The substandard reimbursement of Medicare only makes the problem worse. We must subsidize the cost of that care by paying higher charges. That is a tax that no one seems to be measuring. Some doctors are now refusing to allow Medicare patients into their practice for fear that they will not be able to pass on the uncompensated cost to the rest of their patients. This is because the rest of the patients don't have great health care benefits any more either. We are all out of money and energy on this one, although most of us can still afford the superglue.

If congress wants to take on something big that is really broken, take on healthcare. I don't have a lot of hope, however. I see that the majority of you are receiving lobby money from the insurance industry. When you give that up and decide to represent us instead, then I will be sending buckets of money to help you along.

Part IX Foreign Policy
How would you rate the job President Bush has done combating terrorism and protecting America against future attacks? Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor
Is the US on target to meet its objectives in Iraq?

We don't know whether Bush has protected our future. In the future we will have the information we need to answer that question.

We also don't truly know what objectives Bush has for Iraq. Do you?

I do have some strong suggestions as to what we should be doing with our foreign policy.
The first step should be to apologize. We should be sorry for using the Taliban and Al Qaida ( in their former groupings) to fight the war with the Soviet Union. We should also be sorry for opening those training schools in Pakistan.

We should apologize to the subjects of Saudi Arabia for making deals with corrupt and controlling rulers. We should be sorry that we used their land to attack other subjects of other corrupt rulers. We should apologize to the Iraqis for funding their corrupt ruler in order to fight Iran. We should also apologize for using bunker busters on their homes when we decided to attack them.

We should also apologize for blocking every UN resolution in that last 30 years that addressed Palestinians grievances. We should apologize to third world countries for sending more money to Israel to prop up that government than we sent to all of Africa over that same 30 years. I last calculated that we were spending over $1,000 per Israeli citizen per year.

Finally, we should spend some time in introspection within our country coming to terms with the shabby way that we have treated Arab and Muslim Americans. We should begin our ideological mission of bringing democracy to the world by reviewing our sense of justice here. It was just three years ago that two congressmen stood in the chambers of DC to suggest that we should intern all Arabs in the US.

When it is suggested that we imprison persons on American soil based on their religious belief or ethnicity it indicates to me that we are not yet in a position to spread the notion of constitutional law, freedom, and democracy over-seas. Incidentally, I do not recall anything more than faint distaste from the democratic leaders during the whole episode. THAT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS LEADERSHIP.

Part X Additional Comments

You only left me five blank lines here. As you can see, I actually have plenty to say. Let me summarize though by addressing your initial request for a donation.

Usually, after a fund raising drive, I receive a form letter thanking me for my support. I would like to suggest that this year the Democratic leadership turn this around. This year let's see if the leadership can lead. If this occurs I will be the first to send my letter thanking you for your support in making my life and the life of those in my community and across the nation a little bit better. Yes, a check will be enclosed.

Picture Perfect

Dean for Jones

http://www.jonessoda.com/gallery/view.php?ID=342710&offset=99

Jesse Speaks Truth to Howard

Howard Dean & The Moral Center

By Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

Now that Governor Dean has successfully out-campaigned his opponents for the DNC Chair, the cries of those who never supported him fill the air: "He must move to the center."

At the National Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, we agree?it is long past time for the Democratic Party to get back to the moral center. During slavery, conservatives wanted to maintain slavery. Liberals wanted a kinder, friendlier face on slavery. But the moral center sought the abolition of slavery. Conservatives did not fight legal segregation. They did not march in Selma for the right to vote.

The moral center always comes from outside the system, from the bottom, up, or from some leader with a vision willing to challenge the status quo.

The political center often chooses short term expediency over long term principles. Vanity asked, is it popular; politics asked, will it work; morality and conscience asks, is it right. To get our nation back on the course of its promise, we must answer the "is it right" question?that the moral center, one much more profound than the political center.

In August, 1996, I gave a speech entitled "The Moral Center" to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. I pointed out that as we gathered in the United Center that night, the following facts ring as true today as ever:

? 1/5 of all American children will go to bed in poverty;
? 1/2 of all African American children, growing up amidst broken sidewalks, broken families, broken cities, broken dreams;
? the #1 growth industry in urban America?jails;
? 1/2 of all the public housing built in this nation during the last decade?jails;
? the top 1% wealthiest Americans own as much as the bottom 95%?the greatest inequality since the 1920s.

During Bill Clinton's second term, our booming economy eased some of these pains. Employment went up, poverty went down, the growing gap between rich and poor slightly narrowed. Then came an election in Florida, where the fundamental flaws in our voting system were exposed?the loser won, and the winner lost, and voter irregularities?and collusion between partisan Florida elected officials and the Supreme Court?fundamentally crippled democracy.

Under the Bush administration, all domestic public policy has been tilted towards the already rich and powerful. The canyon between rich and poor has gotten larger and larger. Poverty has again increased. More Americans are without health insurance. Wages are stagnant, jobs are stagnant, pensions are declining?and now Social Security is on the chopping block. Repeated tax cuts for the upper class of our society have vastly increased the deficit, while the Bush Administration has left its "compassion" on the campaign trail.

This administration is one of the most ideologically driven administrations in history?they believe there should be no roof of opportunities for the rich and powerful, no safety net or floor for the poor.

This week's smoke and mirrors budget?one that does not even account for the massive war spending Iraq and the new $80 billion appropriation request?makes the hypocrisy, the disparities, very clear. All the gains go to those who already have a lot; all the pain goes to those who are already hurting.

And, of course, the war in Iraq continues. Bush's pretext for rushing to war?WMD's, imminent threat?have now been exposed as false. None of it was true. Several commandments were broken. President and Vice-President would like us to focus on the Iraqis who came out to vote, and they are deserving of praise. But some of us can also focus on the outcome of that vote?did we really invade Iraq in order to vote Iran's religious allies into power?

The aggressive, pre-emptive invasion of Iraq besmirched the reputation of the United States, violated our own rules and laws, and transgressed the moral center. Some of us still remember.

Where's the moral center in the Bush/Cheney Iraq policy?

So we do call on our new DNC Chairman to move our party to the center?the moral center. We call on Howard Dean to do what he does best?to tell the truth, to stand up and fight for the defenseless and the weak, to point out the corrupt and biased priorities by which this Administration, this Congress, and this GOP are pushing.

Howard Dean knows how to deliver health care to children?that's fighting for the moral center.

Howard Dean knows how to involve more Americans in their party and their democracy?that's the best of our nation's history, its moral center.

Howard Dean had enough gumption to stand up and oppose the war in Iraq?and that opposition was, and still is, the moral center.

Howard Dean understands that we cannot continue to boost the already wealthy, cut the thin budgets of the poor, and outsource the jobs that sustain the middle class?that's not the moral center.

Howard Dean knows that using false terminology like "personal accounts" to try to hide the destruction of FDR's greatest legacy, our sacred trust with the Greatest Generation, Social Security, is just plain wrong. Dr. Dean's view is the moral center. Does anyone truly believe that Jesus would be scheming to move our Social Security program from the elderly on Main Street to investment firms on Wall Street?

Howard Dean knows that it's time for reform inside the Democratic Party; it's time to air out the ethical stench of the DeLay Congress; it's time to open up the secret books and closed-door schemes of the Bush Administration?it's time to open up our political system to real people and small donors again, and clear out the special interests, the big-fee lobbyists, the corporate corrupters from the halls of government once again. That fight is in the moral center.

Howard Dean knows that the air waves belong to the public. That fight's the moral center.

Howard Dean knows that until the right to vote is guaranteed, and the right to organize is respected, our democracy and our economy will be in jeopardy. So we encourage him to keep fighting to move the Democratic Party to the moral center.

America at its best is not the private playground of the mean-spirited, the war-mongers, the greedy, the hypocrites; America at its best is the nation that enlarges its democracy, shares its wealth, fights only to defend itself, tries to make life easier for those Jesus called "the least of these."

That's the moral center. That's where the Democratic Party belongs.

Conservative Humor

What's so hard?

What's hard to understand?

Dear Editor,
What is it that George W. Bush doesn't understand about Social Security?
It's a commitment we've made to our elders that, no matter how long they
live and no matter their health, we will see to it that they live out their
days in dignity.
How hard is that? After all, it's not very different from the commitment
we make when we choose a life partner--to honor and to protect, in sickness
and in health, until death do us part.

Of course, there's an increasing number of us who prefer not to honor their
commitments. It's hard to stick it out through the good times and the bad.
And some people are so nasty to live with that they leave us no choice.
But that's exactly why society makes commitments that won't be broken.
Individuals come and go, but a society can go on for ever (over two hundred
years in the case of the United States, two thousand in the case of
Christianity and over seven thousand and counting in China), as long as it
honors its commitments and its values.
Social programs don't go bankrupt as long as the people in charge of
carrying them out are truthful and honest in doing the job they've take on.
Why is it that George W. Bush doesn't get that?

L'Afaire Plame

The timeline and analysis/ conclusions below the fold (warning... long)

Diaries :: spiderleaf's diary ::

March 29, 2003 - Talon News website registered

April 3, 2003 - Gannon is credentialed and appears in the WH press room

May 6, 2003 - Kristof in NY Times mentions Wilson trip to Niger (no names mentioned) and that the fabled 16 words in the SOTU came from forged documents
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0506missing.htm

June 8, 2003 - Rice on Meet the Press refutes Kristofs claim

June 13, 2003 - Kristof responds and sticks by his claim. Still Wilson's name not revealed
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/13/nyt.kristof/

June 23, 2003 - Jeff Gannon registers as a user with FreeRepublic.com (originally registered on January 19, 2003 as "The Conservative Guy", but only posted twice)

July 6, 2003 - Wilson writes NY Times Op-Ed criticizing Bush remarks on Iraq yellowcake purchase in Niger as relying on forged documents. He states the CIA provided this intelligence to the WH prior to the SOTU in Jan '03.
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/070903_wilson.htm

July 7, 2003 The White House retracted the Niger allegation, which is its sole admission to date of a flaw in the case for war, which was built on charges of an illegal Iraqi arsenal that has not been found.

July 11, 2003 - Tenet responds and says the decision to send him was the CIA's

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2003/intell-030711-cia01.htm

July 14, 2003 - Novak outs Plame: first mention of her name and that she allegedly recommended Wilson for the post.

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. "

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

July 15, 2003 - Gannon posts for the first time on FreeRepublic.com as "Jeff Gannon"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?more=13252770;name=jeff%20gannon

July 22, 2003 - Newsday reports that their Intelligence Sources confirmed that Plame was undercover until Novak outed her.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4190.htm

Novak - `I didn't dig it out. It was given to me. They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, and I used it.'

July 24, 2003 - jeffgannon.com debuts online

July 24, 2003 - Joe Wilson appears on The Daily Show and says he was asked to be part of the Bush/ Cheney reelection effort prior to his Op-Ed article. http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/tds/celeb/celeb_8011.html

Late July, 2003 - The CIA files a "crime report" with the Department of Justice (DOJ), suggesting the leak of Wilson's wife's name and covert status might entail criminal acts.

September 23, 2003 - The CIA submits a standard 11 part questionnaire used by the Department of Justice to determine whether an investigation is warranted. (Milbank and Schmidt, "Justice Department Launches Criminal Probe of Leak, Wash. Post, Oct. 1, 2003 at A01).

September 26, 2003 - John Dion, Director of the DOJ's Counterespionage section decides to pursue a criminal investigation.

September 28, 2003 - A source in the administration confirms that two senior administration officials contacted at least 6 reporters about the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. The source claims that, "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge." He stated that he was sharing the information because the disclosure was "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility." (Allen and Priest, "Bush Administration is Focus of Inquiry," Wash. Post. Sept. 28, 2003 at A01.)

President Bush's aides promise to cooperate with any DOJ inquiries, but admit that "Bush has no plans to ask his staff members whether they played a role" in the leak. (Allen, "Bush Aides Say They'll Cooperate With Probe Into Intelligence Leak," Wash. Post. Sept. 29, 2003 at A01).

September 29, 2003 - On CNN's Crossfire, Novak explains, "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. ... They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives. So what is the fuss about, pure Bush-bashing?" ("Crossfire," CNN, Sept. 29, 2003).

Wilson responds: "Bob Novak called me before he went to print with the report. And he said, a CIA source had told him that my wife was an operative. He was trying to get a second source...After the article appeared, I called him and I said, `You told me it was a CIA source. You wrote senior administration officials. What was it, CIA or senior administration?' He said to me, `I misspoke the first time I spoke to you.' That makes it senior administration sources" ("Paula Zahn Now," CNN, Sept. 29, 2003)

About his partisanship, Wilson responds, "...Novak also said that I was a Clinton appointee. In actual fact, my first political appointment was as ambassador. And I was appointed by George H.W. Bush, the first President Bush. So I really am apolitical in all of this. (Id.)

Sept 29, 2003 - Clifford D. May in the National Review Online tries to provide cover for Novak by stating that Plame's identity was common knowledge and openly questions Wilson's motivations due to his partisan activities.
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp

On July 11, I wrote a piece for NRO arguing that Mr. Wilson had no basis for that conclusion -- and that his political leanings and associations (not disclosed by the Times and others journalists interviewing him) cast serious doubt on his objectivity.

On July 14, Robert Novak wrote a column in the Post and other newspapers naming Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative.

That wasn't news to me. I had been told that -- but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.

However, the fact that someone not working in the WH told May does not erase the sources Novak claims and if May really did think it was common knowledge, he would have no reason not to disclose it in his July 11 column. In fact, contrary to what he writes below, it could have bolstered his claims against the credibility of Wilson, as Novak made clear in his articles, since according to the WH the CIA bungled the intelligence and made the President look foolish (at the least) in the SOTU. So, revealing that Wilson was `handpicked' by his wife, a CIA operative, would have shown that the CIA chose to send a former ambassador vs. an intelligence operative for patronage reasons... which is what we can assume Novak was trying to plant.

May says:

I chose not to include it (I wrote a second NRO piece on this issue on July 18) because it didn't seem particularly relevant to the question of whether or not Mr. Wilson should be regarded as a disinterested professional who had done a thorough investigation into Saddam's alleged attempts to purchase uranium in Africa.

Sept. 30, 2003 Another journalist confirms receiving a call from an administration official divulging Wilson's wife's name and occupation. (Allen and Millbank, Wash. Post, Sept. 30, 2003).

Questions about Karl Rove's involvement are raised by numerous news sources. "Sources close to the former president say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak." ("Countdown with Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, Sept. 29, 2003, citing Ron Suskind, "Why Are These Men Laughing," Esquire, Jan. 2003).

Torie Clark, former spokesperson for the Pentagon said people are "Constantly aware of [classified information]. If you are in a position that you're going to be the recipient of classified information, you have gotten briefings, you get repeated briefings, depending on how long you are in there. You sign papers that say you are fully aware of the consequences if you leak classified information. Secretary Rumsfeld made it a point to regularly and frequently speak about the problems of leaking classified information." ("Paula Zahn Now," CNN Sept. 29, 2003).

September 30, 2003 - Text of an e-mail to White House staff Tuesday from counsel Alberto R. Gonzales about the Justice Department's investigation about the leak of a CIA officer's identity:

"We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee. ...you must preserve all materials that might in any way be related to the department's investigation."

A follow up email was sent asking staff to save all records of any kind relating to the Ambassadors trip to Niger, his wife's relationship with the CIA, any contact with the press about these topics, and any contact at all with journalists Robert Novak, Knut Royce, Timothy M. Phelps

Eleven hours pass between when the White House is notified of the investigation and when administration officials asked staff to preserve records. (Editorial, "Investigating Leaks," NYT, Oct. 2, 2003).

Sept. 30, 2003 USA Today says of Karl Rove, "[he] has a reputation for the behind-the-scenes maneuvering and political shenanigans that are part of the portfolio of most political operatives -- but not necessarily top White House officials." (Judy Keen, "Finger-pointing finds a familiar target in Rove, USA Today, Sept. 30, 2003)

Wilson explains that he received phone calls from journalists, stating `I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He tells me your wife is fair game.' ("Nightline," ABC, Sept. 30, 2003)

October 1, 2003 - Ex-CIA analyst Larry Johnson confirms that Wilson's wife was an undercover operative: "I worked with this woman... She has been undercover for three decades, she is not, as Bob Novak suggested, a CIA analyst...people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst, fine, let them go undercover." ("Newshour," PBS, Sept. 30, 2003)

Oct 1, 2003 - Novak writes another column and contradicts his earlier statements.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml

"This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment."

- July column: "That's where Joe Wilson came in. His first public notice had come in 1991 after 15 years as a Foreign Service officer when, as U.S. charge in Baghdad, he risked his life to shelter in the embassy some 800 Americans from Saddam Hussein's wrath. My partner Rowland Evans reported from the Iraqi capital in our column that Wilson showed "the stuff of heroism." President George H.W. Bush the next year named him ambassador to Gabon, and President Bill Clinton put him in charge of African affairs at the National Security Council until his retirement in 1998."

So right off the bat, Novak misinforms. Wilson was a hero in the H.W. Bush administration, had worked almost his entire career to that point under the Reagan administration and was then rewarded with a higher level position in the Clinton administration.

"During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name."

July story: Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.

What a bunch of weasel words. The CIA official asked Novak not to use her name and said it would cause difficulties... that meaning is quite clear if you know anything about undercover CIA operations. So which is it? Why would the CIA official deny to Novak that Plame had suggested Wilson be chosen while the two Senior administration officials stated she had? The only explanation that makes sense now is that the Administration officials leaked the Feb 2002 classified document to Novak but the CIA official refused to do so, or to even confirm it.

Oct. 1, 2003 - Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) Says that Bush needs to be proactive: "He has that main responsibility to see this through and see it through quickly, and that would include, if I was president, sitting down with my vice president and asking what he knows about it" ("Capital Report," CNBC, Oct. 1, 2003)

Oct. 1, 2003 - Wayne Slater, a Karl Rove biographer notes a patter of unethical behavior: "I don't know who leaked what to whom. Most people don't know the facts here. And both Bob Novak and Karl Rove have it didn't happen. But I have to say that it certainly was consistent with the Karl Rove that I know. If he didn't do this, he certainly has a pattern of activity over the 15 years, 20 years that I've known him where he has done similar things." ("Paula Zahn Now," CNN, Oct. 1, 2003).

James Moore, another Rove biographer thinks he must have known: "After having watched Mr. Rove for all of these years, I know full well, and anybody who knows the way he works, that something of this nature does not happen without Karl checking the yes box...I'm saying that if Mr. Rove is not involved, I'll eat the paperback copy of my own book because this is a guy who controls everything, and he has a history of putting a layer of protection between himself and other people, using other operatives to get things done." ("Buchanan & Press," MSNBC, Oct. 1, 2003)

Oct 2, 2003 - The White House begins changing its tone: "Bush aides began to adjust their response to the expanding probe. They reigned in earlier, broad portrayals of innocence in favor of more technical arguments that it is possible the disclosure was made without knowledge that a covert operative was being exposed and therefore might not have been a crime." (Milbank and Allen, "Outside Probe of Leaks Is Favored," Wash. Post, Oct 2, 2003).

Aha. And this is why they needed Gannon too. Novak and NRO are well known "conservative" mouthpieces and therefore their claims to have known all about Plame can be questioned. But if a new, fresh off the boat journalist at an unknown news organization knew about her too... well, then it was common knowledge and therefore no crime was committed by leaking her identity. But it takes a bit of time to get him up to speed on the plan... and boy do they need to do damage control, and soon.

The Washington Post-ABC News Poll reveals that:

81% believe the leak to be a serious matter

72% believe the leak came from the White House

69% believe the investigation should be handled by a special investigator

Oct. 2, 2003 - John Dion assembles a half-dozen FBI agents from the counterintelligence and inspections division to conduct the investigation. (Anderson, "FBI Creates Team to Investigate CIA Leak, AP Online, Oct.2, 2003). However, questions of bias arise again when it is revealed that Dion will report to Robert McCallum, Assistant Attorney General, who is an old friend of the President's from Yale. Both were members of the Skull and Bones Society. ("Schmitt and Chen, "Leak Inquiry Embarks on a Long Road," L.A. Times, Oct. 2, 2003 at 14)

October 2, 2003 - The investigation is extended to the Departments of Defense and State. The DOJ sends letters to ask that any relevant information be preserved. ("Leak Inquiry Extends to Defense and State Departments, AP, Oct. 3, 2003)

The Washington Post reveals that Rove worked on three of Ashcroft's campaigns in the 1980's and 1990's. Further, Jack Oliver, Ashcroft's former chief of staff is now the deputy finance chairman of President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. (Bumiller and Lichtblau, "Attorney General Is Closely Linked to Inquiry Figures," NYT, Oct. 2, 2003)

A Republican aide on Capitol Hill described the White House's efforts as "slime and defend...There's nervousness on the part of the party leadership, but no defections in the sense of calling for an independent counsel." An F.B.I. official commented that "It wouldn't surprise me if we went a little bit slower on this one just because it is so high-profile. This will get scrutinized at our headquarters and at Justice in a way that lesser, routine investigations wouldn't." (Stevensen and Lichtblau, "White House Looks to Manage Fallout Over CIA Leak Inquiry," NYT, Oct. 2, 2003)

October 3, 2003 - The White House gives its staff until 5pm on Tuesday, October 7 to turn over documents, phone logs, etc. relating to the leak. White House counsel estimates that it will take two weeks to review the collection and turn it over to the DOJ. ("Bush Unsure if Leaker Will Be Caught," AP, Oct. 7, 2003).

October 4, 2003 - The Washington Post reports that the leak may have exposed numerous other undercover CIA agents and their sources. The disclosure of her name and undercover status blew the cover of her CIA front company -it has not been confirmed whether other agents were using the same front company, and therefore have been outed too. (Pincus and Allen, "Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm, Wash. Post, Oct. 4, 2003).

Enter Novak again... to broadcast to the world the name of that front company while trying to push the partisan politics story on Wilson.

October 4, 2003 - Novak "reveals" that Plame gave $1000 to Gore's campaign and Wilson gave $2000.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031004.shtml

On the same day in 1999 that retired diplomat Joseph Wilson was returned $1,000 of $2,000 he contributed to Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore a month earlier because it exceeded the federal limit, his CIA-employee wife gave $1,000 to Gore using a fictitious identification for herself.

He then slips up in his own story and confirms that he knows Plame was working under official cover, i.e. she was undercover.

In making her April 22, 1999, contribution, Valerie E. Wilson identified herself as an "analyst" with "Brewster-Jennings & Associates." No such firm is listed anywhere, but the late Brewster Jennings was president of Socony-Vacuum oil company a half-century ago. Any CIA employee working under "non-official cover" always is listed with a real firm, but never an imaginary one.

October 5, 2003 - Time reveals that Attorney General Ashcroft paid Karl Rove $746,000 for his work on three campaigns in the late 1980's and early 1990's. (Duffy, "Leaking With a Vengeance," Time, Oct. 5, 2003.)

October 6, 2003 - Newsweek reports that Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball" was the journalist who called Mr. Wilson and said, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove who said your wife is fair game." At the very least, those familiar with the conversation said "it was reasonable to discuss who sent Wilson to Niger." (Newsweek, Oct. 13, 2003 issue)

Oct 6, 2003 - Gannon (Talon News) writes an article about Wilson

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/october/1006_wilson_blasts.shtml

It was after his article appeared that columnist Robert Novak revealed his wife's name, calling her a "CIA operative." Novak discussed the possibility that Wilson was selected for the assignment in Africa because of the position and influence of his wife at the CIA.

It is still unknown as to the reason Wilson was sent on the February 2002 mission to Niger, but allowed that it could have been at his wife's suggestion. Some have suggested that his clear partisanship cast doubt on the findings in his report.

Gannon makes clear that he doesn't know anything other than what is in official reports as of Oct. 6th... yet 22 days later his interview with Wilson is published where he states definitively the existence of the CIA memo and the reason Wilson was sent to Niger. But he is in the loop enough to know he needs to push the partisan politics aspect in his article.

October 7, 2003 - President Bush says that he is not sure if the Justice Department will determine source of leak. (Stevenson and Lichtblau, "Leaker May Remain Elusive, Bush Suggests," New York Times, Oct. 8, 2003.)

October 7, 2003 - White House officials turn in investigation documents to meet 5 PM deadline. Administration officials said the White House counsel's office would review investigation materials before submitting them to the Justice Department to determine relevancy. Officials also left open the possibility that the counsel's office might assert executive privilege on some or withhold all or parts of others for national security reasons. Senator Schumer said, "I am very troubled by the fact that the White House counsel seems to be a gatekeeper, and I want to know what precautions Justice is taking to ensure that it gets all relevant information from the administration." (Stevenson and Lichtblau, "Leaker May Remain Elusive, Bush Suggests," New York Times, Oct. 8, 2003.)

October 7, 2003 - Before an internal investigation is conducted, the White House rules out Karl Rove, vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby, and National Security Council senior director Elliott Abrams as possible sources for the news leak. (Mikkelsen, "White House Says Three Senior Aids Innocent In Leak," Reuters, October 7, 2003)

The Washington Post reports that the current controversy is not the first time that Novak has used classified information from foreign policy hardliners. In December 1975, Novak got a classified leak, that President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger were ready to make concessions to the Soviet Union to save the SALT II treaty. Donald Rumsfeld, then, as now, the secretary of defense, intervened to block Kissinger. The main leak suspect then was Richard Perle, then an influential aid to Senator Henry Jackson (D-Wash.) and now a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board and a confident of neoconservatives in the Bush Administration. (Milbank, "Novak Leak Column Has Familiar Sound," Washington Post, October 7, 2003)

October 8, 2003 - Steve Gilliard at OpEdNews.com reports that Robert Novak not only exposed an active CIA officer, but the cover firm that she used, to prove that she is a Democrat who gave money to Al Gore. The firm's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential campaign.

October 9, 2003 - Senators Daschle, Levin, Biden and Schumer call for appointment of a special counsel and note five missteps of the Administration/DOJ: 1) the DOJ waited three days before notifying the WH of the investigation, 2) the WH waited 11 hours before asking its staff to preserve any evidence, 3) the State and Defense Departments were tipped off that the investigation was coming to their divisions, 4) WH spokesperson Scott McClellan publicly ruled out Karl Rove, Lewis Libby and Elliot Abrams as suspects, and 5) the Attorney General's conflicts of interest.

October 14, 2003 - Senator Tom Daschle asked CIA director George Tenet to conduct a damage assessment for the leak. (Reuters, Oct. 14, 2003.)

October 15, 2003 - The New York Times reports that senior criminal prosecutors and FBI officials criticized the Attorney General's failure to recuse himself or appoint a special counsel. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that whether the Attorney General should step aside has been discussed in the department and by his own senior advisors. They "fear Mr. Ashcroft could be damaged by continuing accusations that as an attorney general with a long career in Republican partisan politics, he could not credibly lead a criminal investigation that centered on the aides to a Republican president." (Johnston and Lichtblau, "Senior Federal Prosecutors and FBI Officials Fault Ashcroft Over Leak Inquiry," NYT, October 16, 2003)

White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales claims that Congressional suggestions about how to handle the leak are unconstitutional: "We believe it is inconsistent with the constitution's separation-of-powers principles for members of Congress to direct the president's management of White House employees..." (Reuters, Oct. 15, 2003)

October 17, 2003 - David S. Cloud from the Wall Street Journal is the first to mention (other than Novak) the existence of the 2002 CIA memo that purports to show that Plame recommended Wilson for the Niger mission.

http://www.cryptome.org/plame-memo.htm

An internal government memo addresses some of the mysteries at the center of the White House leak investigation and could help investigators in the search for who disclosed the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, according to two people familiar with the memo.

The memo, prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel, details a meeting in early 2002 where CIA officer Valerie Plame and other intelligence officials gathered to brainstorm about how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium yellowcake from Niger.

Ms. Plame, a member of the agency's clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested at the meeting that her husband, Africa expert and former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson, could be sent to Niger to investigate the reports, according to current and former government officials familiar with the meeting at the CIA's Virginia headquarters. Soon after, midlevel CIA officials decided to send him, say intelligence officials.

Classified memos, like the one describing Ms. Plame's role, have limited circulation and investigators are likely to question all those known to have received it. Intelligence officials haven't denied Ms. Plame was involved in the decision to send Mr. Wilson, but they have said she was not "responsible" for the decision.

So Cloud is relying on "two people" who had seen the memo, but presumably not himself. And the intelligence officials he spoke with subsequently did not deny (which also means would not go on the record to confirm) she was involved, but would go on the record to say she was not responsible for the decision.

He then goes on...

According to current and former officials familiar with the memo, it describes interagency discussions of the yellowcake mystery: whether the reports of Iraq's uranium purchases were credible; which agency should pay for any further investigation; and the suggestion that Mr. Wilson could be sent to check out the allegations. Other officials with knowledge of the memo wouldn't say if it mentions Ms. Plame by name as the one who suggested Mr. Wilson, or if her identity is shielded but obvious because of what is known now about the mission. Operations officers like Ms. Plame are sometimes identified only by their first names even in interagency meetings.

My interpretation of this is that Cloud was told of the memo by "two people" who had seen it and then tried to get confirmation from sources at the CIA who would not confirm that Plame was even mentioned by name in said memo.

October 21, 2003 - Associate Deputy Attorney General Christopher Wray testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he regularly briefs the Attorney General about the progress of the investigation. This includes the names of the people being interviewed, and enough detail "for him to understand meaningfully what's going on in the investigation." (Lichtblau, NYT, Oct. 22, 2003).

October 22, 2003 - The Associated Press reports that two former CIA officers are asking the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate the leak. Jim Marcinkowski, a case officer in the late 1980's and Larry Johnson, former State Department Deputy Chief of Counterterrorism, are concerned with the appearance of impropriety. Mr. Johnson said, "there's a lot they can do without undermining the criminal investigation."(AP, NYT, Oct. 22, 2003).

October 28, 2003 - During a press conference, the President is asked why he has not requested his staff to sign affidavits denying involvement. He responds, "the best group of people to do that so that you believe the answer is the professionals at the Justice Department."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031028-2.html

October 28, 2003 - Gannon publishes his interview with Wilson.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/talonnews/1003/102803-wilson.htm

TN: An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?

Gannon also continues to push the partisan politics meme.

TN: You have mentioned that you are not partisan. Doesn't that appear to be the case considering the candidates you've supported?

Wilson: Including Bush. When Ed Gillespie was running around doing his little schpiel, he knew that I contributed to the Bush campaign but decided he would selectively use information on candidates I have supported to bolster a case that simply cannot be made. I contributed to the Bush campaign, the Gore campaign, and I contributed to the campaign of Ed Royce on several occasions. He is a conservative Republican from Orange County, California, and I have contributed to a number of other candidates. I contributed to the Kerry campaign after I made my trip out to Niger -- well after that. Almost a year and a half after that. But I will tell you this: I reserve the right to participate in the political process of my country just like any other citizen.

I was named ambassador to Gabon by George Herbert Walker Bush. One of the highlights of my professional career was serving a charges d'affair in Baghdad in the run up to the gulf war. When I came back to Washington and was introduced to the war cabinet, President Bush introduced me as a true American hero, and I take great pride in that.

TN: Your activities of late have some suggesting that there's certainly a partisan motivation.

....

TN: The so-called neo-cons, who do you think that they are?

And if you recall, from his October 6, 2003 article he says this:

Some have suggested that his clear partisanship cast doubt on the findings in his report.

As detailed by Cloud above, the CIA (presumably, because he just says "intelligence" officials) would not confirm that Plame suggested this or even that she was identified by name. Neither would Novak's CIA source. So how is Gannon able to make this claim definitively... he may not have seen the memo, but someone definitely told him about it. It is possible that he just decided to use the info from Novak and Cloud to paint Wilson into a corner, but there is no way he would have known that this was indeed accurate and then his "gotcha" moment (i.e. Wilson lied to me) would have been for naught since no one went on the record (other than Novak's "two senior administration officials") to verify the claim. This is also the first time Gannon drops all qualifiers - i.e according to reports, some say, etc.

Except, once Gannon thought the storm had passed, he reveals that he was leaked the memo, or at least told of its contents... (sometime last year in an article on his website "Joe Wilson Lied and Owes George W. Bush and America (and Me) an Apology". There is no date stamp on the article)

http://www.jeffgannon.com/Jeff%20Gannon's%20Washington/joe_wilson_lied_and_owes_bush_an.htm

A memo written by an INR (Intelligence and Research) analyst who made notes of the meeting at which Wilson was asked to go to Niger sensed that something fishy was going on. That report made it to the outside world courtesy of some patriotic whistleblower that realized that a bag job was underway.

....

The classified document that slipped out sometime after the meeting put her name before the public, albeit a small group of inside-the-beltway types, but effectively ended the notion that she was still covert.

....

I raised all of these questions with Wilson in October 2003 in an interview for Talon News. Since I was aware of the INR report, I confronted him about it.

What is difficult to understand is the reason that the CIA would want to discredit this report. The first clue came when the agents from the FBI came to my home in March 2003 to question me in connection to the leak probe. I was flattered to think that I was important enough to be included among the luminaries like Andrea Mitchell, Tim Russert and Chris Matthews who were also named in a Justice Department subpoena of records from the White House. But most of the questions were about the INR report. They wanted to know where I got it and what I knew about it. Of course, as a journalist there wasn't much I could say without revealing my sources. I'm sure they were not satisfied, but it made me wonder why they were so interested in a document the CIA said was false.

So how is it that a journalist who only set up shop in March 2003 and received WH press credentials on April 3, 2003 and posts regularly on the FreeRepublic.com bulletin boards, was "in the loop" enough to have knowledge of a classified CIA memo by October 2003, that supposedly only "inside-the-beltway types" knew about and no one at the CIA would confirm? There is only one conclusion. He was planted by, and used to help, the administration.

October 29, 2003 - The New York Times reports that Michael Mason, head of the FBI's Washington field office has been removed from the list of officials with access to the case. It is unclear whether Mr. Mason asked to be removed, or whether he was determined to be someone without "a need to know." (Johnston and Litchblau, NYT, 10/29/03)

November 3, 2003 - Part III of the Wilson/ Gannon interview is posted. And now the agenda is to discredit the CIA and push the story that Plame's name was already known so there was no crime in disclosing it.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/november/1103_wilson_interview.shtml

TN: Nicholas Kristoff wrote in the New York Times recently that the CIA believes that Aldrich Ames may have betrayed your wife to the Russians prior to his arrest in 1994. That would make her not an undercover operative for the CIA in effect.

Wilson: I don't know where Kristoff got that. I think that there is a fair amount of material in the public record to suggest that there is a lot of concern that Mr. Ames betrayed a number of American operatives during his spying.

TN: Including your wife?

Wilson: I don't know about that. I can't tell you anything about that.

TN: But if that is in fact true, then the leak is not necessarily a leak.

Wilson: Let me put it to you this way, I don't believe that the CIA would refer this to the Justice Department frivolously, if they thought it was a frivolous matter or if it was not a leak that might be a violation of the Intelligence Agents Identification Act.

TN: There are some who are skeptical that the CIA is fully on board with our actions in Iraq.

Wilson: Well, the CIA is not a policy organization, the CIA is paid to provide the best intelligence information it can.

TN: So you don't believe the CIA has an agenda that's different from that of the White House?

Wilson: Well in the particular piece of this that I own, the trip to Niger, the CIA produced my report, but there were two other reports produced that said that "Gee this story of uranium going to Iraq is just bogus." Subsequent to that we now know this particular "16 words" were the subject of a number of telephone conversations and a couple of memoranda that somehow were lost in the system or forgotten about. But the two uncontested facts in this matter are the following: The 16 words in the State of the Union did not rise to inclusion in the State of the Union, that's the White House's statement. Had my report or the other two reports been accepted instead of this information that was based as we know on forgeries and even at the time didn't pass the smell test for an Italian weekly tabloid, then the President would not have found himself in this predicament. That is not a CIA betrayal of the political system, that is if anything a political betrayal of the intelligence assessment process.
And the second uncontested fact is that a national security asset's name was leaked to the American public in what may have been a crime but certainly is considered to be of sufficient concern to the CIA that they referred the matter to the Justice Department. Now in neither of those it seems to me do you have nefarious CIA involvement unless you are prepared to make the argument that the CIA would have "outed" one of its own, which seems to me to be highly, highly unlikely.

Gannon is definitely being the good soldier here. Call into question the patriotism and partisan politics of the CIA and help to build the case that Rummy needs a new spy agency (which he formed at some point in 2003) and keep pushing the case that there was no crime in the leak because Plame's name was common knowledge.

December 26, 2003 - The leak to Talon News is mentioned in the Washington Post in an article by By Mike Allen and Dana Milbank...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A30842-2003Dec25¬Foun d=true

Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.

CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting.

"It has been circulated around," one official said. CIA and State Department officials have refused to discuss the document.

On Oct. 28, Talon News, a news company tied to a group called GOP USA, posted on the Internet an interview with Wilson in which the Talon News questioner asks: "An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?"

Interestingly, these reporters weren't leaked the memo either... just relied on a "senior administration official" who had seen it to provide all the background. And once again, the CIA would not discuss the document.

December 30, 2003 - Attorney General Ashcroft recuses himself from the leak investigation. James Comey, Deputy Attorney General, appoints Patrick Fitzgerald, a U.S. Attorney, as "special" counsel.

December 30, 2003 - USAToday reports that GOPUSA.com head Bobby Eberle had landed an interview with Karl Rove at some point in the last year.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-12-30-blogging-usat_x.htm

GOPUSA.com, a Web site run by Bobby Eberle, a Houston engineer with no previous journalism experience, scored an interview with President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove.

December 31, 2003 - While Deputy AG Comey would not comment on the progress of the investigation, he stated that "It's fair to say that an accumulation of facts throughout the course of the investigation over the last several months has led us to this point [Ashcroft's recusal and the appointment of Fitzgerald]." Legal experts surmise that the investigation is honing in on those close to the AG and/ or the President. (Eggen and Allen, "Ashcroft Recuses Self From Leak Case," Wash. Post, Dec. 31, 2003)

Some point in 2003 Rumsfeld sets up his own spy agency so as not to rely on the CIA (which the administration has been trying to discredit because they won't follow orders and just make things up to suit the neo-cons agendas)

The previously undisclosed organization, called the Strategic Support Branch, arose from Rumsfeld's written order to end his "near total dependence on CIA" for what is known as human intelligence. Designed to operate without detection and under the defense secretary's direct control, the Strategic Support Branch deploys small teams of case officers, linguists, interrogators and technical specialists alongside newly empowered special operations forces.

....

Two longtime members of the House Intelligence Committee, a Democrat and a Republican, said they knew no details before being interviewed for this article.

Pentagon officials said they established the Strategic Support Branch using "reprogrammed" funds, without explicit congressional authority or appropriation. Defense intelligence missions, they said, are subject to less stringent congressional oversight than comparable operations by the CIA. Rumsfeld's dissatisfaction with the CIA's operations directorate, and his determination to build what amounts in some respects to a rival service, follows struggles with then-CIA Director George J. Tenet over intelligence collection priorities in Afghanistan and Iraq. Pentagon officials said the CIA naturally has interests that differ from those of military commanders, but they also criticized its operations directorate as understaffed, slow-moving and risk-averse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29414-2005Jan22.html

January 1, 2004 - The Washington Post divulges the connection between Deputy AG Comey and Fitzgerald: "...Fitzgerald's personal friendship with No. 2 Department of Justice official James B. Comey Jr. - he is the godfather of one of Comey's children - leaves some critics complaining that top administration officials still have too much control over an investigation that is centered on the White House." (Von Drehle and Eggen, "Head of Leak Probe is Called Relentless," Wash. Post, Jan. 1, 2004)

January 2, 2004 - The Washington Post reports that Bush aides whose names have come up in FBI interviews will be asked to sign a one page form waiving their right to journalistic privilege. (Allen, "Bush Aides Face Request To Free Media To Give Names," Wash. Post, Jan. 3, 2004)

January 6, 2004 - White House spokesman Scott McClellan refuses to comment on whether the President will ask his staff to sign forms releasing the press from promises of confidentiality. As one government official put it, the forms are a "`quintessential cover-your-rear-end' move by investigators. `It provides political cover, because you can say you tried everything, and this is a very politically charged environment... There's no other value to it." (Allen, "No Word From Bush On Forms in Leak Probe," Wash. Post, Jan. 6, 2004)

January 22, 2004 - Time magazine reports that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has begun presenting evidence to a grand jury and White House staff have been notified that they may be subpoenaed for their information. Sources say that some staff have been asked to meet informally with Fitzgerald to discuss offers of immunity in exchange for their knowledge. (Lichtblau and Johnston, "Jury Said to Hear Evidence in CIA Leak," NY Times, Jan. 24, 2004)

Also, 10 ex-CIA officers write a letter to House leadership demanding a congressional investigation. The letter said it was time to "send an unambiguous message that the intelligence officers tasked with collecting or analyzing intelligence must never be turned into political punching bags." (Jehl, Ex-CIA Officers Seek Congressional Inquiry Into Leak of Undercover Officer's Name, Jan.22, 2004)

January 26, 2004 - Congressman Conyers, along with Congresswoman Pelosi, Congressman Waxman and Senators Daschle, Lieberman and Rockefeller ask the GAO to investigate whether the White House's response to the leak conforms with administrative security requirements.

January 30, 2004 - The CIA responds to Mr. Conyers' inquiry about its requests of the DOJ to investigate. CIA - DOJ contact proceeded as follows:

July 24, 2003: a CIA attorney leaves a phone message for the Chief of the Counterespionage Section with concerns about the articles, and noticing that a crimes report would be forthcoming

July 30, 2003: a letter is sent to the Criminal Division reporting a possible crime. It also explains that the CIA's Office of Security would be looking into the matter.

September 5, 2003: the July 30 letter is resent by fax

September 16, 2003: the CIA notifies the DOJ that its investigation is complete and recommends that the FBI undertake a full criminal investigation.

September 29, 2003: the DOJ notifies the CIA that the Counterespionage division has also requested an investigation

February 10, 2004 - It is confirmed that Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove, Scott McClellan, the President's press secretary and Adam Levine, a former press aide, testify before the grand jury. Several members of the Vice President's staff have also testified.

In addition to the grand jury proceedings, "prosecutors have conducted meetings with presidential aides that lawyers in the case described as tense and sometimes combative." Finally, Fitzgerald is conducting these interviews in secret, asking the subjects to sign confidentially agreements, and often staff are refusing to do so.

These lawyers also say that the prosecutors have evidence confirming that White House officials were extremely upset with the Wilson article, and with the CIA for sending him to Africa. (David Johnston, "Top Bush Aide is Questioned in CIA Leak," NY Times, Feb. 10, 2003; Allen and Schmidt, "Bush Aides Testify in Leak Probe," Wash. Post Feb. 10, 2004 at A1.)

March 5, 2004 - The grand jury subpoenas a week's worth of phone logs from Air Force One. (Mike Allen, "Leak Investigators to Get Phone Log," Wash. Post, Mar. 5, 2004)

March 9, 2004 - Gannon gets into a heated exchange with another poster of FreeRepublic.com regarding the Grand Jury subpoena... and Gannon sticks to his talking points - Plame wasn't covert.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1093819/posts

To: Peach

You are kind. What is interesting about this is that I have become ensnared in this matter because I asked questions of my government.

This may a chilling effect on freedom of the press.

All this commotion, but the central question has yet to be answered: At the time that Robert Novak's column was published, was Valerie Plame a "covert operative"?

The CIA has refused to comment on this very important point.

If she was not, then no crime has been committed and all communications between the administration and reporters is just gossip. ---Jeff Gannon

....

To: Jeff Gannon

That is simply not true, Jeff.

You are ensnared because you made reference to a government document, which appears to have been a forgery. You need to tell the Grand Jury who made you privy to that document. ---JohnGalt

To: Jeff Gannon
What was the document you referred to in the interview with Wilson? ---JohnGalt

To: JohnGalt

I disagree with your characterization of the document itself, but that aside, I maintain that I am under no obligation whatsoever to reveal my sources. That is a fundamental element of maintaining a free press. ---Jeff Gannon

Oops. Now that was a sloppy mistake Jeff. How can you disagree with the characterization of a classified document that you hadn't seen? Looks like you were leaked it after all... or you really trust your source...

June 3, 2004 - It is confirmed that the President has "consulted" an attorney to advise him about the investigation. Jim Sharp is a former assistant U.S. attorney and now has his own firm in Washington. While Mr. Sharp has not been retained, Bush says he will do that when it becomes necessary. (Mike Allen, "Bush Consuls Lawyer About CIA Leak," Wash. Post, June 3, 2004)

June 6, 2004 - The Washington Post reports that representatives of special prosecutor Fitzgerald have interviewed Vice President Dick Cheney. (Susan Schmidt and Mike Allen, "Leak Probe Appears to Be In Active Phase," Wash. Post, June 6, 2004)

June 16, 2004 - White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales testifies before the grand jury. (Susan Schmidt, "Bush Aide Testifies in Leak Probes," Wash. Post, June 16, 2004 at A7.)

June 23, 2004 - Washington Post reporter Glen Klesser is interviewed by the leak investigators. Lewis "Scooter" Libby signed a waiver and encouraged Klesser to discuss their conversations. Klesser confirmed that Libby did not refer at any time to uranium in Niger, Ambassador Wilson, or his wife.

June 24, 2004 - President Bush is Questioned by Fitzgerald. The interviewed lasted over an hour, and White House spokesperson confirmed that the President has retained private counsel. (Dana Bash, "Bush Interviewed in CIA Leak Probe" http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cia.leak/)

Conclusion:

Jeff Gannon was planted by the administration to disseminate their talking points unfettered by any journalism ethics or investigation shortly after the Iraq war, when the failure to find WMDs was becoming apparent. He became incredibly useful in L'Affaire Plame to continue to push the dual stories that a) Plame's name was already common knowledge and therefore `outing' her was not a crime and b) to continue to help discredit the CIA and Wilson.

Based on the evidence, I believe the 2002 CIA memo was leaked to Gannon when Novak became unusable and when the `mainstream' reporters with CIA contacts were not pushing the WH's preferred story line. They needed cover, and they got it.

And as is evidenced by his remarkable access to Scott McClellan and President Bush in the White House press room, to this day, he was rewarded handsomely...

And it continues as business as usual.

Gannon or Guckert?

Who is the fellow that accused John Kerry of cavorting with Jane Fonda?

View image

Writing samples follow:

Calls From Hill Get Louder For Annan Ouster
By Jeff Gannon
Talon News
December 9, 2004

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Last week, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), chairman of a Senate committee investigating the growing scandal in the United Nations Oil for Food program called for Secretary-General Kofi Annan to resign. Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign followed Coleman's lead and also asked for Annan to step aside. This week, more Republican members of Congress joined the chorus seeking to oust the man who presided over the largest scandal in world history.

On Monday, Rep. Roger Wicker (R-MS) introduced a nonbinding resolution in the House that calls for Annan to resign. Nearly two dozen of Wicker's colleagues have already signed onto the resolution.

"The Oil for Food program is a scandal of enormous proportions, and it may reach into the highest levels of leadership at the U.N.," said Wicker. "Mr. Annan should step aside to ensure that these serious charges are fully and independently investigated."

Wicker added, "There needs to be an accounting of what happened to the billions of dollars in the Oil for Food Program and whether U.N. officials may have been complicit in helping Saddam Hussein subvert international law. I do not think that is possible as long as Mr. Annan remains as secretary-general."

It is estimated that Saddam Hussein was able to skim over $20 billion from the U.N.-administered program. Some of those funds are believed to have funded payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and weapons now being used against American troops in Iraq.

Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY) likened this situation to the corporate scandals that sent several CEOs to prison.

"Not only did they have to resign, but Congress reacted and implemented laws to ensure good governance at the corporate level," Fossella said. "The same standard, really, should apply to the United Nations, and nothing less."

New Jersey Republican Rep. Scott Garrett suggested criminal charges should be considered.

"To me the question should not be whether Kofi Annan should remain in charge," Garrett said. "To me, the larger question is whether he should be in jail."

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) fears that Annan's removal might end the investigation. He is seeking a thorough examination into the program's administration and full disclosure of its findings.

He expressed a belief that the scandal involves other officials, saying, "It's much deeper than Kofi Annan."

Not all members of Congress think the beleaguered secretary-general should go. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) sent a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell in support of Annan.

Kucinich wrote, "There has been no hint of impropriety on the part of the secretary-general, who on numerous occasions has proven his honesty and integrity."

Independent Vermont Rep. Bernie Sanders joined 19 Democrats who signed the letter.

Democratic Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Donald Payne (D-NJ) sent a "Dear Colleague" letter around the House in support of Annan.

The secretary-general has so far refused to resign, saying, "I have quite a lot of work to do and I'm carrying on with my work. We have a major agenda next year, and the year ahead, trying to reform this organization. So we'll carry on."

Copyright © 2004 Talon News -- All rights reserved.

Lincoln Heritage Institute lhi@wmis.net
620 Hall Street, Eaton Rapids, MI 48827
In Pennsylvania, 603 N. 3rd. St., Harrisburg, Pa.
Box 656 Main St., Pleasant Valley, NY, 12569 Fax (517) 663-5245

Louise Slaughter Speaks

Dear Mr. President:

In light of the mounting evidence that your Administration has, on several occasions, paid members of the media to advocate in favor of Administration policies, I feel compelled to ask you to address a matter brought to my attention by the Niagara Falls Reporter (article attached), a local newspaper in my district, regarding James "JD" Guckert (AKA Jeff Gannon) of Talon News.

According to several credible reports, "Mr. Gannon" has been repeatedly credentialed as a member of the White House press corps by your office and has been regularly called upon in White House press briefings by your Press Secretary Scott McClellan, despite the fact evidence shows that "Mr. Gannon" is a Republican political operative, uses a false name, has phony or questionable journalistic credentials, is known for plagiarizing much of the "news" he reports, and according to several web reports, may have ties to the promotion of the prostitution of military personnel [...]

And just this morning we have learned that "Mr. Gannon" has resigned his post at the, so called, Talon News amid growing concerns over his controversial background and falsified qualifications. In fact, it appears that "Mr. Gannon's" presence in the White House press corps was merely as a tool of propaganda for your Administration.

Joe Wilson for the Truth

I think that in the absence of a responsible national media, the blogs play an important role in trying to shed light on various issues, including the bona fides of so-called White House correspondents as well as tackling questions overlooked or ignored by the national journalists. I also believe that the nature of the profession has changed to the detriment of good investigative journalism. No longer is there a quest for the truth so much as there is this apparent need to present both sides of an issue even if one is nothing but lies and distortions. Giving the same value to fiction as to fact in the interest of so-called fairness is to mislead the American people and the press has become party to that.

Dear Editor,

Howard Dean, the Presumptive Chair of the Democratic Party is not likely to condone the politics of personal destruction which the GOP seems inclined to use against those who oppose their policies.
However, it is unlikely that this will inhibit those who have gotten used to this practice and managed to destroy the career of Senator Daschle and the presidential campaign of John Kerry and are already targeting the new Senate minority Leader, Harry Reid.
So the question for ordinary Americans is how to put a stop to behavior that's protected by law (public persons can't sue for slander) and the right of free speech and freedom of the press. How do they counteract the lying, which all the major media seem determined to promote?
Anyone who's been paying attention has probably noticed that Democracy for America has made a good start in organizing witnesses to the truth. Let's hope that as Dean transitions to the Democratic Party, that organization too will become a potent force in letting Americans know what's really going on in the political arena.

More War Crimes

   February 08, 2005

     Stories from Fallujah

These are the stories that will continue to emerge from the rubble of
Fallujah for years. No, for generations?

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the doctor sits with me in a hotel
room in Amman, where he is now a refugee. He?d spoken about what he saw
in Fallujah in the UK, and now is under threat by the US military if he
returns to Iraq.

?I started speaking about what happened in Fallujah during both sieges
in order to raise awareness, and the Americans raided my house three
times,? he says, talking so fast I can barely keep up. He is driven to
tell what he?s witnessed, and as a doctor working inside Fallujah, he
has video and photographic proof of all that he tells me.

?I entered Fallujah with a British medical and humanitarian convoy at
the end of December, and stayed until the end of January,? he explains,
?But I was in Fallujah before that to work with people and see what
their needs were, so I was in there since the beginning of December.?

When I ask him to explain what he saw when he first entered Fallujah in
December he says it was like a tsunami struck the city.

?Fallujah is surrounded by refugee camps where people are living in
tents and old cars,? he explains, ?It reminded me of Palestinian
refugees. I saw children coughing because of the cold, and there are no
medicines. Most everyone left their houses with nothing, and no money,
so how can they live depending only on humanitarian aid??

The doctors says that in one refugee camp in the northern area of
Fallujah there were 1,200 students living in seven tents.

?The disaster caused by this siege is so much worse than the first one,
which I witnessed first hand,? he says, and then tells me he?ll use one
story as an example.

?One story is of a young girl who is 16 years old,? he says of one of
the testimonies he video taped recently, ?She stayed for three days with
the bodies of her family who were killed in their home. When the
soldiers entered she was in her home with her father, mother, 12
year-old brother and two sisters. She watched the soldiers enter and
shoot her mother and father directly, without saying anything.?

The girl managed to hide behind the refrigerator with her brother and
witnessed the war crimes first-hand.

?They beat her two sisters, then shot them in the head,? he said. After
this her brother was enraged and ran at the soldiers while shouting at
them, so they shot him dead.

?She continued hiding after the soldiers left and stayed with her
sisters because they were bleeding, but still alive. She was too afraid
to call for help because she feared the soldiers would come back and
kill her as well. She stayed for three days, with no water and no food.
Eventually one of the American snipers saw her and took her to the
hospital,? he added before reminding me again that he had all of her
testimony documented on film.

He briefly told me of another story he documented of a mother who was in
her home during the siege. ?On the fifth day of the siege her home was
bombed, and the roof fell on her son, cutting his legs off,? he says
while using his hands to make cutting motions on his legs, ?For hours
she couldn?t go outside because they announced that anyone going in the
street would be shot. So all she could do was wrap his legs and watch
him die before her eyes.?

He pauses for a few deep breaths, then continues, ?All I can say is that
Fallujah is like it was struck by a tsunami. There weren?t many families
in there after the siege, but they had absolutely nothing. The suffering
was beyond what you can imagine. When the Americans finally let us in
people were fighting just for a blanket.?

?One of my colleagues, Dr. Saleh Alsawi, he was speaking so angrily
about them. He was in the main hospital when they raided it at the
beginning of the seige. They entered the theater room when they were
working on a patient?he was there because he?s an anesthesiologist. They
entered with their boots on, beat the doctors and took them out, leaving
the patient on the table to die.?

This story has already been reported in the Arab media.

The doctor tells me of the bombing of the Hay Nazal clinic during the
first week of the siege.

?This contained all the foreign aid and medical instruments we had. All
the US military commanders knew this, because we told them about it so
they wouldn?t bomb it. But this was one of the clinics bombed, and in
the first week of the siege they bombed it two times.?

He then adds, ?Of course they targeted all our ambulances and doctors.
Everyone knows this.?

The doctor tells me he and some other doctors are trying to sue the US
military for the following incident, for which he has the testimonial
evidence on tape.

It is a story I was told by several refugees in Baghdad as well?at the
end of last November while the siege was still in progress.

?During the second week of the siege they entered and announced that all
the families have to leave their homes and meet at an intersection in
the street while carrying a white flag. They gave them 72 hours to leave
and after that they would be considered an enemy,? he says.

?We documented this story with video-a family of 12, including a
relative and his oldest child who was 7 years old. They heard this
instruction, so they left with all their food and money they could
carry, and white flags. When they reached the intersection where the
families were accumulating, they heard someone shouting ?Now!? in
English, and shooting started everywhere.?

The family was all carrying white flags, as instructed, according to the
young man who gave his testimony. Yet he watched his mother and father
shot by snipers-his mother in the head and his father shot in the heart.
His two aunts were shot, then his brother was shot in the neck. The man
stated that when he raised himself from the ground to shout for help, he
was shot in the side.

?After some hours he raised his arm for help and they shot his arm,?
continues the doctor, ?So after awhile he raised his hand and they shot
his hand.?

A six year-old boy of the family was standing over the bodies of his
parents, crying, and he too was then shot.

?Anyone who raised up was shot,? adds the doctor, then added again that
he had photographs of the dead as well as photos of the gunshot wounds
of the survivors.

?Once it grew dark some of them along with this man who spoke with me,
with his child and sister-in-law and sister managed to crawl away after
it got dark. They crawled to a building and stayed for 8 days. They had
one cup of water and gave it to the child. They used cooking oil to put
on their wounds which were of course infected, and found some roots and
dates to eat.?

He stops here. His eyes look around the room as cars pass by outside on
wet streets?water hissing under their tires.

He left Fallujah at the end of January, so I ask him what it was like
when he left recently.

?Now maybe 25% of the people have returned, but there are still no
doctors. The hatred now of Fallujans against every American is
incredible, and you cannot blame them. The humiliation at the
checkpoints is only making people even angrier,? he tells me.

?I?ve been there, and I saw that anyone who even turns their head is
threatened and hit by both American and Iraqi soldiers alike?one man did
this, and when the Iraqi soldier tried to humiliate him, the man took a
gun of a nearby soldier and killed two ING, so then of course he was shot.?

The doctor tells me they are keeping people in the line for several
hours at a time, in addition to the US military making propaganda films
of the situation.

?And I?ve seen them use the media-and on January 2nd at the north
checkpoint in the north part of Fallujah, they were giving people $200
per family to return to Fallujah so they can film them in the line?when
actually, at that time, nobody was returning to Fallujah,? he says. It
reminds me of the story my colleague told me of what he saw in January.
At that time a CNN crew was escorted in by the military to film street
cleaners that were brought in as props, and soldiers handing out candy
to children.

?You must understand the hatred that has been caused?it has gotten more
difficult for Iraqis, including myself, to make the distinction between
the American government and the American people,? he tells me.

His story is like countless others.

?My cousin was a poor man in Fallujah,? he explains, ?He walked from his
house to work and back, while living with his wife and five daughters.
In July of 2003, American soldiers entered his house and woke them all
up. They drug them into the main room of the house, and executed my
cousin in front of his family. Then they simply left.?

He pauses then holds up his hands and asks, ?Now, how are these people
going to feel about Americans??

_______________________________________________
More writing, photos and commentary at http://dahrjamailiraq.com

WhooOOOOOooooOOOoooO

Nite bestest blog in the whole whirl!!

WhooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooOooOoO
..........==========||||||||||..........|""|
..........._|.. D E A N ...|.|.|___|""""""""""|?|[(<
..........|___________|.|__.._.._.._.._.._.._||_
............( + ).....( + ).....( + )( + )( + )( + )..\
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""
??..V....I....C....T....O....R....Y......2....0....0. ...8

Bi-Partisan Mandate

Meant to Fail

I'm still working this idea out, so it's not quite coherent. But, the strategem that's being pursued now is a familiar one.
If you can think back to the sixites and seventies and early eighties, you'll remember that most every community had one or more community hospitals, in addition to public health clinics and nurses in the school. These facilities were publicly owned and they were paid for.
Consequently, they came to be lusted after by people who saw an asset on which money could be borrowed by the owning entity, ostensibly to augment or supplement increasing demands on the budget which resulted from growing populations and population relocation (some communities started losing people).
Then, having capitalized these assets by putting them up as collateral, the financiers persuaded the communities that everyone would be better off if lazy and incompetent public servants didn't have to be in charge of such complex enterprises as hospitals and the communities sold them off. The "benefit" to the local politicos, in addition to having less responsibility for a public service, was that the sudden influx of cash made it possible to temporarily balance budgets without having to raise taxes.
That the community no longer had the assets it had built was masked by the promise of BETTER health care and a national payment program which never materialized because the private providers of health care managed to raise costs much faster than any program could be structured to provide.
The other benefit of this stratagem was that the managers, having been freed of the salary restriction of the public sector, could now take home much more money and even become part owners in their enterprise. And the whole thing was risk free because the new owners hadn't had to put a cent of their own money in--only take the profit out.
**************
The previous post was getting a little long-winded, but I want to make a comparison to the pattern followed in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. All of the assets that had been built and funded by the community were systematically sold off for pennies on the ruble to people who had put together syndicates of investors--i.e. other people's money.
There isn't any question that it is an attractive strategy to let the community start up an enterprise from scratch, work out all the bugs at public expense and then take it over at a fire-sale price, always conveniently discounted on the basis of how long the enterprise has been running successfully. For, instead of considering the longevity of an enterprise as a sign of sucess and an indication of value, finaciers invariably argue that age is an indicator of imminent collapse and so the longest established enterprise is worth least.
The thing about economics we have to understand is that the players always fix the rules to their own advantage. Which suggests that, whatever Bush's instinctive attitude, the "rules" he learned at Harvard obviously reinforced his personality.
Finally, we need to understand and keep repeating that these people consider failure to be a good thing, an opportunity for someone else to make a killing.
So, their antagonism towards Communism had nothing to do with human rights and individual liberty, just as it didn't with their anatagonism towards Iraq. It had to do with social control of assets that they wanted for themselves. Human rights were just a rationale that flew out the window as soon as they got what they wanted.

************
Let me put it this way. If you assume that every enterprise is destined to fail, then when it does, whether it falls apart or is actively destroyed, you can't be blamed for the failure.
This is the assumption Bush and his cronies bring to the table. In addition, they argue that if failure is inevitable, they are doing good to help it along either by undermining the enterprise or institution or through a frontal attack. That's precisely the strategy that's being applied to social security.
What these people don't seem to understand is that while all individuals are destined to die or be destroyed, it is the purpose and goal of social institutions and constructs to persist ad infinitum, and they will, as long as each individual contributes his or her part to keep it going on.
When people become destroyers, instead of creators, the society which bred them will die out. It used to be thought that the dead societies of which we keep finding remnants and ruins collapsed because they were attacked from outside. Not so, the demise of societies resides in their own failure to promote and protect its own values and make sure they are transfered intact to the next generation.

Civilised World

http://www.mrsackroyd.com/thecivilisedworld.mp3

Electable now?

DRIVE BY--DUCK!

Holy crap you guys, 2 dropouts in one freakin' day?! What the hecks goin' on over here? Seriously a little suspicious of this whole "Dean movement" business. Hmmmmmm PECULIAR.

This is B U C K W I L D, Dr Dean!

Why am I so stoked? Im not a Dem. Psssssh like it matters, that's OUR Guv thank you very much. He could be in the lead for best *fry guy* and I would still be this happy ^for him^.

WOW. I'm almost positive it's been said a few times already but this is really incredible. I remember the crappy polls and the flood of endorsements last go around (JUST like everyone else) but I don't knoo oooow this race is lookin' mighty positive for Doc. For his sake I certainly hope it's finally his day, sure does deserve it.

Check this out-HARDCORE insomniac (forever) but for some sucky, lame reason my clock flipped out and I swear I could sleep for a thousand years. I could ^barely^ get out of bed the last two days, no joke! Anyway, not concerned but doesn't it just figure? I mean christ=all the action over here and *now* my body wants to sleep? AY CARUMBA.

Kick rocks-there's no time for sleep!

I hope next time theres whoppin' news like this SOMEONE calls me. Sheesh, whatsa girl gotta do around here, yo?

Welp, check you out Governor! Folks backin'out left and right (better luck nextime) with endorsements here, there and everywhere-hot damn! You are doing a superb job Sir. erhaps our spells and curses aren't a waste afterall? High-five, Doc!

You BETTER not ditch us if you get in there Dr Dean!

Alright, done with all my psychobabble for today. I hope everyone is safe and doing ok. Dr Dean.. you the man. Off to tape my eyelids open.
?
kimmy

p.s.
Does this mean he's like.. electable now?
Posted by ..kimmy.. at February 5, 2005 09:19 AM

Deandem

Way to go, Fargo

Torturer's Six

It may not be fair to single out the Democrats who voted for Alberto Gonzales. But, I have sent letters to the editors of newspapers in each of their states.

(1) Senator Ken Salazar (Colorado). 2011

(2) Senator Joseph Lieberman (Conn.). 2006

(3) Senator Ben Nelson (Neb.). 2006

(4) Senator Mary Landrieu (La.) 2008

(5) Senator Pryor (Ark). 2008

(6) Senator Bill Nelson (Fla.) 2006

Dear Editor,
It's hard to believe that the good people of --------------- want their senator,
Senator -------------------, to endorse torturing a man to within an inch of his
life to get him to talk. But that's what the vote for Alberto Gonzales
as the chief lawman of the country meant.
Maybe the Senator doesn't understand the difference between law and
morality, but I'm sure the people do. They know that forcing someone to
talk, especially when there is no proof he's done anything wrong, isn't
right.
We may not have a right to keep silent and we may not have a right to
privacy, either. But we should. And I hope the next time the Senator is
on the ballot, in 20--, the citizens of----------------make it clear that's
what they expect.

Fargo 42

33 on list connected to F-M democracy group
Forum staff reports, The Forum
Published Thursday, February 03, 2005

The following are names of area people included on a list of those not to be admitted into the Bison Sports Arena for today's visit by President Bush, according to two unnamed officials close to the visit.

A quick search through the Internet and The Forum's archives revealed some information about the people on the list. At least 33 of the 42 people on the list are or have been members of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

The group is a local progressive organization dedicated to electing fiscally responsible, socially progressive candidates in the Fargo/Moorhead area. Their Web site is http://dfa.meetup.com/350/. Wayne Anderson: He is an inactive member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Kristine Anderson: She is an inactive member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

David Bard: The Moorhead man is a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Kristina Berg: The Fargo woman is a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Eric Bobby: The Fargo man wrote a letter to The Forum last fall asking, "Doesn't anyone see how this (Bush) administration is attacking everything we cherish while our country is the most vulnerable?" He is also a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Tim Borchers: The associate professor of communication, film studies and theatre arts at Minnesota State University Moorhead gave Bush "Cs" for clarity and support of his claims in the 2003 State of the Union address. Borchers was asked to rate Bush's speech with two other area speech instructors for a Forum article. He is also a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Linda Coates: The Fargo city commissioner wrote a letter to The Forum in November saying, "When the richest 2 percent of Americans are showered with huge tax cuts during wartime while our children and grandchildren are stuck with the tab - that's morally wrong."

Mike Coates: The Fargo man is the husband of Fargo city commissioner Linda Coates.

Dale Coonry: No information was found for this name. However, a Dale Cooney of Minneapolis is a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Shawn Crowell: No information was found for this name. However, a Shaun Crowell of Fargo is a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Heidi Durand: The Fargo woman is an inactive member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Rebecca Folse:

Mark Folse: The Fargo man wrote a letter to The Forum in November saying Bush has created greater division of the country than ever.

Berrett Gall: The North Dakota State University political science major served as the deputy campaign manager for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Joe Satrom. He also supported Howard Dean in the last presidential race. He is an inactive member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Brian Gibson: Gibson is the transportation planner with the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments. He is also a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Brittney Goodman: The Fargo woman is the interim director of instructional resources at Minnesota State University Moorhead. She is a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Roger Green: The Fargo man is an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at North Dakota State University. He is also a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Amanda Hanson: The Fargo woman is an inactive member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Dolye Heden: No information was available for a Dolye Heden. However, a Doyle Heden of Fargo is a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

James Holm: The Fargo man is the producer of the Ed Schultz radio show. He is also a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Johan Kian: The Fargo North High School student is an inactive member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Edward Killen: The St. Paul, Minn., man is an inactive member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Doug Klammer: The St. Paul, Minn., man is an inactive member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Faith Klauser: The St. Cloud woman is an inactive member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Charles Koesterman: The Fargo District 11 delegate supported Democratic gubernatorial ticket Joe Satrom and Deb Mathern.

Sandy Kraig-Kraft: The Fargo woman is a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Annie Krapu: The Fargo Shanley High School senior helped organize a youth rally in October against the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions.

Carrie Lindberg: The Minnesota State University Moorhead student is a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Sarah Miller: The Minnesota State University Moorhead graduate political science major is a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Justin Norris: The Fargo man is a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Jon Offutt: The Fargo man is a glass artist.

Brian O'Shea: The Minnesota State University Moorhead political science major is the organizer of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Bill Otto: He is an inactive member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Karen Phillips: The Fargo woman is an inactive member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Jon Rasset: The Fargo man is a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Chad Raymond: The Fargo man wrote a letter to The Forum in December saying, "If you think separation of church and state is a bad idea, you've got an ally in that thinking: his name is Osama bin Laden." He is also a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Rob Rock: The Lake Park, Minn., man is an inactive member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Bruce Rovold: No information was found for this name. However, a Bruce Brovold is a former Fargo City Commission candiate and an inactive member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Nathan Schoenack: The Moorhead man wrote a letter to The Forum last spring calling the Bush administration's reasons to go to war "disingenuous at best, if not outright lies." The Moorhead man is a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Danny Sherer

Mark Taggart: The Fargo man is a member of the Fargo-Moorhead Democracy for America Meetup Group.

Cara Taylor: The Fargo woman wrote in a 2002 letter to The Forum saying, "The pursuit of equality for people of all orientations may be considered a more noble calling."

The Torture Memos

by Hunter

If you listened to the debates on the Gonzales nominations today, you probably heard the speeches of Senators Hatch and Specter, in their dual roles both as apologists and deniers of the Administration's policies on torture.

One of their arguments -- that the Geneva Conventions were not being dismissed by Gonzales and the Administration, that it was all just a big misunderstanding -- was decimated by the memo authors themselves today, in an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times. The Geneva Conventions are important, the authors assert -- but they no longer apply. The warping from the first of those phrases to the second is almost poetic, it is done with such astonishing respect for the new principles of Newspeak.

Diaries :: Hunter's diary ::

In listening to their self-absorbed, self-delusional speeches and comments, it is astonishing to watch figures like Specter and Hatch (much less Gonzales and Rumsfeld, before them) balance on the end of this pin. And yet the arguments spiral to ever-greater heights of self-contradiction, non-sequitur, and outright, unapologetic denial.

There is another torture-related essay making the rounds today. Joshua L. Dratel is a lawyer who has been involved with Guantanamo cases. Counterpunch has an excerpt of his writings, and he spells it out in such a way as to make it absolutely self-evident that torture of (uncharged) captives, worldwide, was an explicit goal and end-point for the administration figures involved.

It wasn't after-the-fact ass-covering or mere legalistic masturbation on the part of a few low-level officials that led to these memos. He reiterates his own points:

It is self-evident. If this were a criminal case, these memos would be exhibit one of the conspiracy to commit these acts. Instead, we are listening to Republican Senator after Republican Senator honor the (rather sparse) lifetime achievements of Alberto Gonzales, speaking about him as if he were an Hispanic Abe Lincoln. Gonzales may be assisting in the covering up of international war crimes, in providing a legal cover for an administration both dismissive of international laws and increasingly obsessed with manufacturing legal protections to protect themselves from those laws, but hey -- he's Hispanic, you bastards. Yeah, we'll remember that.

As Seymour Hersh has repeatedly warned anyone bothering to listen (which, since that link was from six months ago, we can assume is precisely nobody), we have barely seen the tip of the iceberg, as far as learning the scope and severity of prisoner torture in Iraq, Guantanamo, and elsewhere.

That's what they're voting to defend. Period. And based on their speeches and their hamfisted denials of even the basic facts and timelines, they know it.

At this point, all possible snark, or even anger, is gone. There's no point to it. I used up all my remaining sense of outrage and emotion in my last two diaries, and it's simply gone. All that is left is to see who lines up on each side of the field. Who, in our own government, signs their name willingly to these things that have been done in our name.

Torture Cover-up

Chertoff buried early evidence of Bush's torture campaign in Afghanistan 

By Dave Lindorff



http://207.44.245.159/article7918.htm

Chertoff buried early evidence of Bush's torture campaign in Afghanistan 

By Dave Lindorff

 01/31/05 "The Nation" -- Back on Friday, June 12, 2002, the Defense Department had a big problem: Its new policy on torture of captives in the "war on terror" was about to be exposed. John Walker Lindh, the young Californian captured in Afghanistan in December 2001 and touted by John Ashcroft as an "American Taliban," was scheduled to take the stand the following Monday in an evidence suppression hearing regarding a confession he had signed. There he would tell, under oath, about how he signed the document only after being tortured for days by US soldiers. Federal District Judge T.S. Ellis had already said he was likely to allow Lindh, at trial, to put on the stand military officers and even Guantánamo detainees who were witnesses to or participants in his alleged abuse. 

 The Defense Department, which we now know had in late 2001 begun a secret, presidentially approved program of torture of Afghan and Al Qaeda captives at Bagram Air Base and other locations, had made it clear to the Justice Department that it wanted the suppression hearing blocked. American torture at that point was still just a troubling rumor, and the Bush Administration clearly wanted to keep it that way. Accordingly, 

 Michael Chertoff, who as head of the Justice Department's criminal division was overseeing all the department's terrorism prosecutions, had his prosecution team offer a deal. All the serious charges against Lindh--terrorism, attempted murder, conspiracy to kill Americans, etc.--would be dropped and he could plead guilty just to the technical charges of "providing assistance" to an "enemy of the U.S." and of "carrying a weapon." Lindh, whose attorneys dreaded his facing trial in one of the most conservative court districts in the country on the first anniversary of 9/11, had to accept a stiff twenty-year sentence, but that was half what he faced if convicted on those two minor charges alone. 

 But Chertoff went further, according to one of Lindh's attorneys, George Harris. Chertoff (now an appeals court judge in New Jersey) demanded--reportedly at Defense Department insistence, according to what defense attorneys were told--that Lindh sign a statement swearing he had "not been intentionally mistreated" by his US captors and waiving any future right to claim mistreatment or torture. Further, Chertoff attached a "special administrative measure," essentially a gag order, barring Lindh from talking about his experience for the duration of his sentence. 

 At the time, few paid attention to this peculiar silencing of Lindh. In retrospect, though, it seems clear that the man coasting toward confirmation as Secretary of Homeland Security effectively prevented early exposure of the Bush/Rumsfeld/Gonzales policy of torture, which we now know began in Afghanistan and later "migrated" to Guantánamo and eventually to Iraq. So anxious was Chertoff to avoid exposure in court of Lindh's torture--which included keeping the seriously wounded and untreated Lindh, who was malnourished and dehydrated, blindfolded and duct-taped to a stretcher for days in an unheated and unlit shipping container, and repeatedly threatening him with death--that defense lawyers say he made the deal a limited-time offer. "It was good only if we accepted it before the suppression hearing," says Harris. "They said if the hearing occurred, all deals were off." He adds, "Chertoff himself was clearly the person at Justice to whom the line prosecutors were reporting. He was directing the whole plea agreement process, and there was at least one phone call involving him." 

 "It is outrageous that Chertoff didn't allow testimony about Lindh's torture by American forces to come out," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "It is off the charts in terms of morality, and it should definitely be a line of questioning at Chertoff's confirmation hearing: What did he know about Lindh's treatment in Afghanistan, and why did he go to such lengths to silence him about it?" But that might never happen at Chertoff's (as yet unscheduled) hearing, since the ranking Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Joe Lieberman, has endorsed the nomination. 

 Chertoff's judicial office is referring all inquires to the White House press office. Calls there and to the Justice Department, asking for comment, were not returned. 

 Ratner says Chertoff's role in the Lindh trial could well have contributed to the torture scandal that has so undermined the US effort to win over Iraqis following the invasion of their country. "Had testimony from witnesses under oath about Lindh's torture come out in court in 2002, we might have learned about the government's torture program earlier, and we might not have had Abu Ghraib and other torture scandals," he says. 

For rights to republish or reuse this or any other articles by Dave Lindorff, contact the author at  dlindorff@yahoo.com   Visit Dave's website http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/

Copyright: Dave Lindorff.  All rights reserved. You may republish under the following conditions: An active link to the original publication must be provided. You must not alter, edit or remove any text within the article, including this copyright notice.
?