A Bench With A View (Part #2)

A Bench With A View (Part #2)
Section #1 – The Indictments

{A} "9. On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."
-- USA v. I. Lewis Libby; Indictment 05-394; 10-28-05; page 5

In order to consider the significance of the February '06 events in the Scooter Libby case, including documentation of motions filed in court by both Team Libby and Patrick Fitzgerald, it might be beneficial to review the five indictments that "Scooter" faces. First, we will examine the highlights of the "time line" Fitzgerald included in the indictments, and then a brief review of each of the five charges.

The Time Line

1-28-03: President Bush includes the infamous "16 words" in his State of the Union address, claiming that there is evidence that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was seeking to purchase yellow cake uranium for WMD production. This claim was the single most important factor in the Bush administration's bringing the nation to war in Iraq.

5-6-03: New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof ‘s column noted that an unnamed former ambassador had been sent to Niger to investigate the yellow cake charges, and that he had reported back to the CIA and State Department in early 2002 that “the allegations were unequivocally wrong …”

5-29-03: Libby asks an Under Secretary of State about the former ambassador’s trip to Niger; oral reports on Joseph Wilson are made to Libby.

6-9-03: The CIA faxes reports to the Office of the Vice President, to the attention of Libby and one other person, regarding the Niger trip. The reports are clearly marked “classified.” They do not mention Wilson by name; however, Libby and the other official write “Wilson” and “Joe Wilson” in the margins.

6-11-03: The Under Secretary of State tells Libby that Plame is CIA.

6-11-03: Libby then talks to a senior CIA official about Wilson and Plame.

6-12-03: VP Cheney tells Libby that Plame is from the CIA’s Counterproliferation Division.

6-14-03: Libby meets with a CIA briefer to express his displeasure at reports the CIA did not support all of VP Cheney’s claims on Iraqi WMD programs. Libby also discuses Wilson and Plame.

6-19-03: The New Republic publishes an article “The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War.” It quotes a former ambassador as saying the administration “knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie.”

6-13-03: Libby meets with Judith Miller. They discuss Wilson and Plame.

7-6-03: Wilson’s op-ed appears in the NY Times; Wilson appears on Meet the Press, and says that he believes VP Cheney was aware of his Niger report.

7-7-03: Libby meets with Ari Fleischer and tells him that Plame is CIA.

7-8-03: Libby speaks with Miller about Plame; he requests that she refer to him as a “former Hill staffer,” rather than senior White House official, in order to hide his identity.

7-8-03: Libby meets with the Council to the Vice President to discuss Plame and Wilson.

7-8-03: The Assistantto the Vice President for Public Affairs tells Libby that Plame is CIA.

7-10-03: Libby calls Tim Russert to complain about Chris Matthew’s reporting on the Plame case.

7-11-03: Libby talks to Rove about Karl’s conversation with Robert Novak about Plame.

7-12-03: Libby flies to Norfolk, VA on AF2; on the ride back, Cheney and Libby discuss their Plame-media strategy. Later that day, Libby talks to both Matt Cooper and Judith Miller about Plame.

9-26-03: The FBI begins investigating the leak of Plame’s identity.

10-14-03 and 11-26-03: Libby talks to FBI investigators.

3-5-04 and 3-24-04: Libby testifies to the grand jury.

{B} “13. Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. The official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.”
-- Libby Indictment; page 6

Patrick Fitzgerald filed 5 indictments against I. Lewis Libby. Count #1 is Obstruction of Justice; counts #2 and #3 are for making False Statements; and counts #4 and #5 are for Perjury. The first three are for lying to the FBI investigators, while the last two are for lying to the grand jury. The lies include his denying that he spoke to Miller or Cooper about Valerie Plame, and for making up a conversation with Russert in which he claims Russert told him that most of the Washington DC area reporters were aware of Plame’s role at the CIA.

Section #2 – Team Libby

{A} “The government’s argument … is entirely unconvincing.”
-- Libby Defense Brief; 2-21-06; page 1

In examining the Team Libby defense, it may be beneficial to break it down into three segments. The first of these three is weak. It is an effort to avoid the serious issues involved by way of attacks on the integrity of Fitzgerald and his case. Most people who read newspapers or watch tv are aware, for example, that one of the more curious motions to dismiss the case claimed that Fitzgerald’s role was unconstitutional. One suspects that this could not have come from the attorneys that comprise Team Libby, for all are intelligent, capable lawyers. It sounds more like the ranting of people who are {a} unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution, and {b} very angry that Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed to the case. That sounds like those connected to the Vice President’s office, who did not realize that after Attorney General Ashcroft decided to recuse himself, and James Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald, that the case would become this generation’s Watergate. More, they likely did not realize that Comey was friends with Wilson, and hence their feeling betrayed by Fitzgerald’s being appointed.

Team Libby’s 2-21-06 brief betrays their need to resort to insults, rather than argue the merits of the case. After calling Fitzgerald’s case “entirely unconvincing,” they make the following references:

--“three phantom concerns” p.1
-- “insulting”p.1
-- “the prosecution baldly asserts” p.1
-- “fundamentally inconsistent with basic principles of fairness” p.3
--“straw man” p.3
--“weaknesses of the government’s case” p.3
--“the government merely rehashes the same unpersuasive arguments” p.4
-- “it is astounding for the government to assert” p.8
-- “transparent attempt to force the defense” p.9
--“This is unreasonable” p.9
--“If the government were truly concerned” p.11
--“That argument is puzzling” p.12
--“unfairly penalizes” p.19
--“presents no conceivable threat to national security” p.19
--“The government also relies on a mistaken application” p.19

{B} “….penalizing Mr. Libby for serving in a position that required him to address urgent national security matters every day.”
-- Team Libby; 2-21-06 defense brief; page 2

The next goal of the defense attorneys appears to be to portray “Scooter” as a victim. This will be the strategy, should the case ever go to trial. It is also a strategy that will be used for appeals of the convictions that will certainly result from a trial.

On page 2, Team Libby claims that the “prosecution’s attempt to limit the defenses available” to Scooter. On page 8, they note “the information Mr. Libby seeks is necessary to prepare the defense based not only upon the state of mind, but also on the truth …” On page 12, the defense claims any lies Scooter told the FBI or grand jury were the “result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory.” Team Libby notes on page 14 that Scooter held three positions in the White House, thus he was “so focused on urgent national security matters, it is hardly surprising that he would later confuse, forget or misremember …. Less important topics (e.g., Ms. Wilson’s identity and employment status).”

On page 18, Team Libby says Fitzgerald “knows that a jury will likely understand that seeking to counter a terrorist threat that may kill tens of thousands of Americans” was Libby’s only goal. Yet this prosecutor has taken Scooter from this task – making Americans like those very jurors and their families safe from terrorists – simply because “he recalled certain events incorrectly or forgot snippets of conversation months after they occurred.” (page 22)

{C} “In a case that essentially pits Mr. Libby’s memory of certain conversations against the recollections of three reporters…”
--Team Libby; 2-21-06 defense brief; page 8

The Libby defense strategy goes beyond his selection of Theodore Wells, Jr. to appeal to the anticipated Washington DC jury. “Scooter Dogg” will become the dedicated public servant, who was overworked and underpaid, working 16-hour days to make America safe for the jurors and their families.

Team Libby has stated that they will bring experts on memory and cognition to explain how Scooter may have made innocent errors in his conversations with the FBI and the grand jury. Of course, every juror will know that anyone can honestly err and forget a detail or an entire conversation. Yet no expert can make a sincere case that a person, no matter how busy, will recall a conversation that never took place – and that is exactly what Scooter has done in regard to Tim Russert.

Thus, the defense is seeking to bring numerous journalists to court, to try to confuse the issues involved. This includes an attempt to call journalists who did not speak to Libby about the case. Again, Team Libby looks to use smoke and mirrors to take the focus off of Scooter. It will not work.

Section #3 – Fitzgerald’s Case

“(T)here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case. ..To the contrary, discovery in a criminal case is limited to that provided by statute, rule, or case law.”
--Fitzgerald; 2-16-06 motion; page 3.

Patrick Fitzgerald avoids personalizing the responses to the Team Libby motions. Instead, he keeps his Consolidated Response focused on the charges against Scooter Libby. A good example of this is found in his response to the defense request for information regarding Fitzgerald’s larger investigation of the role played by reporters who had no contact with Libby: “…information regarding reporters with whom the defendant had no contact, and reporters’ sources other than the defendant, is unlikely to ‘play an important role in uncovering admissible evidence, aiding witness preparation, corroborating testimony, or assisting impeachment or rebuttal.’ See Marshall, 132 F.3d at 68. The defendant is not charged with falsely characterizing what journalists knew prior to the July 14, 2003, as he contends. Instead, the indictment charges the defendant with lying about what he knew and did not know about Ms. Wilson, what reporters said and did not say to him, and what he said and did not say to reporters, prior to July 14, 2003. Given the nature of the charges, defendant’s legitimate defense must necessarily focus on the defendant’s state of mind, rather than that of others.” (pages 11-12)

Fitzgerald continues to tighten the noose on Libby by doing away with the defense claim that he is obligated to show that the act of exposing Plame’s identity caused damage to the CIA. Team Libby wanted to debate an “informal” damage assessment. The actual damage assessment is, of course, highly classified. More, it is irrelevant. Libby is not facing charges that he violated either the Espionage Act or the Intelligence Identities Act – at least not yet. But, even if he were, the prosecution has no burden to “prove actual damages, much less obtain, or produce, a damage assessment prior to trial. Actual damage is not an element of either substantive offense.” (pages 26-7)

Fitzgerald’s document demonstrates that Team Libby is attempting to take the focus off of their client’s lying to FBI investigators and the grand jury. He strips away not only their hope to expand the scope of the trial to include other non-related issues, but he closes the door on many of the attempts by the defense to interject issues to appeal, post conviction.

The only time Fitzgerald comments on the defense efforts quality is found on pages 24-5: “The defendant’s request to compel the production of approximately 277 PDBs from May 6, 2003 through March 24, 2004 to establish his ‘preoccupation defense’ is nothing short of breathtaking.” He makes pointed comments on the effort at “greymail,” which are a tactic used to derail sensitive cases by demanding classified documents.

Fitzgerald notes that the charges are not about a wider conspiracy, with other journalists or White House officials looking to discredit Ms. Plame. It is only about Scooter’s lying to the FBI and grand jury. It is not about WMD in Iraq, or about terrorist plots to kill thousands of American citizens, including potential jurors anmd their families. It is only about Scooter lying to the FBI and grand jury.

At the same time, Fitzgerald makes clear the need to protect the on-going grand jury investigation, that appears to be investigating the possibility that there was a larger conspiracy to out Plame in order to damage Joe Wilson.

Part #4: Conclusion

“According to my sources, between March 2003 and the appearance of my article in July, the workup on me that turned up the information on Valerie was shared with Karl Rove, who then circulated it in administration and neoconservative circles. That would explain the assertion later advanced by Clifford May, the neocon fellow traveler, who wrote that Valerie’s employment was supposedly widely known. Oh, really? I am not reassured by his statement. Indeed, if what May wrote was accurate, it is a damning admission, because it could have been widely known by virtue of leaks among his crowd.”
--Wilson; The Politics of Truth; pages 443-4

The court ruled that Fitzgerald must turn over more of Libby’s handwritten notes. However, the judge ruled that the defense is not entitled to information documenting another administration official who has testified to the grand jury about his role, including possibly discussing Plame’s identity with Bob Woodward and Robert Novak. This official is reportedly Steven Hadley.

Further, the judge delayed deciding on the PDB request, although his comments indicate he is unlikely to allow the defense to derail the trial in a long, drawn out conflict with the office of the president.

Team Libby has until 4-7 to subpoena journalists directly involved in the case; the journalists will have until 4-21 to file objections.

The single most important “update” was reported by TruthOut’s Jason Leopold on 2-24-06, in an article that indicated the White House turned over 250 previously missing “e-mails” which demonstrate the role VP Cheney may have played in the wider conspiracy to destroy Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame.

A Bench With A View (part 1 of 3)

{1} "After my appearance on CNN in early March 2003, when I first asserted that the U.S. government knew more about the Niger uranium matter than it was letting on, I am told by a source close to the House Judiciary Committee that the Office of the Vice President -- either the vice president himself or, more likely, his chief of staff, Lewis ('Scooter') Libby -- chaired a meeting at which a decision was made to do a 'workup' on me. As I understand it, this meant they were going to take a close look at who I was and what my agenda might be.

"...That time frame, from my CNN appearance in early March ... to the first week in July, makes sense, as it allows time for all the necessary sleuthing to have been done on us, including the discovery of Valerie's name and employment.

"The immediate effect of the workup, I am told by a member of the press, citing White House sources, was a long harangue against the two of us within the White House walls. Over a period of several months, Libby evidently seized opportunities to rail openly against me as an 'asshole playboy' who went on a boondoggle 'arranged by his CIA wife' -- and was a Democratic Gore supporter to boot."
-- Ambassador Joseph Wilson; The Politics of Truth; pages 441-2

At a time when the White House seems to be confronted with a number of serious problems, it might be worth our while to take a few minutes to review some of the newest information being reported on the Plame scandal. It seems likely that as the seasons turn, the aspens in Washington DC will begin to bloom. We might benefit from putting those potential budding issues into context. Let's take a few moments, then, and begin on the first of a three-part series on the view from a park bench.

On 2-9-06, The National Journal carried an article by Murray Wass, "Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information." Within a week, some corporate media source -- for example, Don Imus on his MSNBC morning show -- began saying that Libby claimed Cheney authorized him to expose Valerie Plame's identity. That is not accurate, and so for the first part of our review of the Plame case, let's look at what our friend Scooter really said. Then, in part #2, we can examine Patrick Fitzgerald's response to Libby's attorneys, in the form of his 32-page document filed in federal court on 2-16-06. Then, in part #3, we can take a look at how the chess board is now set for the spring game between Fitzgerald and those who participated in a criminal conspiracy to "out" Valerie Plame.

{2} "...In a January 23 letter, related to discovery issues for Libby's upcoming trial, Fitzgerald wrote to Libby's attorneys: 'Mr. Libby testified in the grand jury that he had contact with reporters in which he discussed the content of the National Intelligence Estimate ('NIE') ... in the course of his interaction with reporters in June and July 2003 ... We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors. ....

"Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons .....

"In an account of her grand jury testimony, Miller has written that Libby discussed the NIE with her: 'Mr. Libby also cited a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced by American intelligence agencies in October 2002 ... which he said had firmly concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium.' Portions of the NIE were later declassified, but the material in it related to Niger was still classified at the time."
--Murray Waas; The National Journal; 2-9-06

Waas makes clear that the classified information that Libby testified that Cheney had authorized him to reveal to the media was the NIE, not Valerie Plame's identity. Twice in the article he makes it very clear that "Libby has never claimed that Cheney encouraged him to disclose informationabout Plame to the media." Why, then, is this information about the NIE so significant?

Wass identifies two important things. First, it "significantly adds to a mounting body of information" that VP Cheney was deeply involved in directing the operation against Wilson and Plame. Second, it lends evidence to the theory that Libby has a motive to conceal both his and Cheney's true role in exposing Plame's identity. Let's see if we can find any interesting information that indicates there was an operation similar to that noted in the quote from Ambassador Wilson's book found at the beginning of this essay. Let's start with Judith Miller's story about her testimony to the grand jury, and pick it up just after the part quoted by Waas.

{3} "An unclassified version of that estimate had been made public before my interview with Mr. Libby. I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I had pressed Mr. Libby to discuss additional information that was in the more detail, classified version of the estimate. I said I had told Mr. Libby that if The Times was going to do an article, the newspaper needed more than a recap of the administration's weapons arguments. According to my interview notes, though, it appears that Mr. Libby said little more than that the assessments of the classified estimate were even stronger than those in the unclassified version. ....

"Before the grand jury, Mr. Fitzgerald asked me questions about Mr. Cheney. He asked, for example, if Mr. Libby ever indicated whether Mr. Cheney had approved of his interviews with me or was aware of them. The answer was no.

"In my grand jury testimony, Mr. Fitzgerald repeatedly turned to the subject of how Mr. Libby handled the classified information with me. He asked, for example, whether I had discussed my security status with Mr. Libby. .... Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I had discussed classified information with Mr. Libby. I said I believed so, but could not be sure. He asked how Mr. Libby treated classified information. I said, Very carefully."
-- Judith Miller; My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room; New York Times, 10-16-05

Does this sound consistent with Scooter's story? Did Cheney authorize him to disclose classified information, or not? Would our VP authorize Libby to disclose the NIE, but not be aware that he had done so?

Fitzgerald showed Miller a series of documents, which she said "seemed familiar" and were most likely were the NIE Libby talked to her about. In fact, Miller said, Libby had removed a "piece of paper" from his pocket. Fitzgerald asked if Libby showed her the actual documents? Miller testified "no, I didn't think so."

Many suspect that Judith Miller's role in the Plame scandal was not that of a journalist. It seems that her reported testimony does not square up with Libby's. Might we find another source? Could Karl Rove play a role? Let's look.

{4} "Much of my grand jury session revolved around my notes and my e-mails. (Those e-mails and notes were given to the special counsel when Time Inc., over my objections, complied with a court order.) Owing to my typing, some words were a jumble. For instance, I wrote 'don't get too war out on Wilson,' when I clearly meant 'far out.' There were some words in my notes that I could not account for -- at one point they read '...notable ...' I didn't know if that was Rove's word or mine, and one grand juror asked if it might mean 'not able,' as in 'Wilson was not an able person.' I said it was possible, but I just didn't recall that. The notes, and my subsequent e-mails, go on to indicate that Rove told me material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings."
-- Matthew Cooper; What I Told the Grand Jury"; Time, 7-25-05; page 40

On 10-16-05, Viveca Novak and Mike Allen of Time, in an article "Contingency plan," reported that, "Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald appears to be seriously weighing a perjury charge for Rove's failure to tell grand jurors that he talked to Time correspondent Matthew Cooper about Plame, according to a person close to Rove." Of course, that brings up Ms. Novak's relationship to that source "close to Rove." But the Rove discussion with Cooper about the material that was going to be declassified indicates that the Cheney to Libby authorization to share classified information with reporters was part of a larger plan, which included Rove.

{5} "Apparently, according to two journalist sources of mine, when Rove learned that he might have violated the law, he turned on Cheney and Libby and made it clear that he held them responsible for the problem they had created for the administration,"
--Joseph Wilson; The Politics of Truth; page 444.

The above sentence refers to Rove's exposing Valerie Plame's identity to journalists, not his sharing the NIE. But, again, it indicates that numerous people in Washington DC were aware that Cheney, Libby, and Rove were three players involved in the effort to harm Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. And Patrick Fitzgerald is aware now, too.

"Your Move"

"...Take a straight and stronger course
to the corner of your life
Make the white queen run so fast
she hasn't got time to make you wise
'Cause it's time it's time in time
with your time and its news is captured
For the queen to use
Move me on to any black square
Use me any time you want,
Just remember that the gold
'Sfor us to capture all we want,
anywhere, yea, yea, yea.
Don't surround yourself with yourself
Move on back two squares
Send an instant comment to me,
Initial it with loving care
Don't surround yourself
'Cause it's time, it's time in time
with your time
and its news is captured
For the queen to use ....."
-- I've Seen All Good People:Your Move, by Yes

The news about the Plame scandal investigation, including yesterday's scheduling of the Libby trial for January, 2007, has had a number of progressive democrats questioning if this is a case of justice delayed equalling justice denied. On a thread on the Democratic Underground discussion forum, I compared the contest between Patrick Fitzgerald and the Bush administration to a game of chess. Chess is not a game that appeals to people who want great excitement and instant results, nor is it a game won by those who focus on one or two pieces to the exclusion of the others.

The comparison to chess might appeal to some in the administration, because of the images of feudal kingdoms in medieval Europe. Many of the "modern" chess pieces have European names. It's interesting to note that the game actually is believed to have originated in India in about 500 ad, and to have spread to Europe around 1300 ad through Byzantium by way of the Moors. But that is probably of keen interest to a limited audience, and I risk losing readers if I try to connect the Scooter Libby trial with Columbus.

Thus, I would say that in the Plame scandal, we can identify the Bush administration fairly easily with specific chess pieces. Bush is the king; Cheney is the queen; Rove is the bishop; Libby is the knight; Wolfiwitz a rook; and other neocons are the pawns. In a game of chess, of course, there are two bishops, knights, and rooks, and each are identified as either the king's or queen's, depending on their position when the game begins. This is important in "chess notation," which is simply the manner that chess players keep track of the game.

As most people know, each chess piece has a "value." The queen is more valuable to the king than the others. The bishops and knights are of similar, though not exact, value in the game. Rooks can play an important role, both offensively and defensively, if used correctly. The more skilled the player, the better use the pawns play in the game.

Now, a good chess game can be viewed as having three parts: the opening, the middle game, and the end game. In the opening, each player tries to make strong moves to establish the most powerful position possible on the board. The four center squares are of particular importance; if the corporate media were to focus on a political chess match, those four squares get 99% of their reporter's attention.

Keep in mind that Patrick Fitzgerald was not involved in the opening of this game. Not only was John Ashcroft, the Attorney General who played a dual role as one of king George's rooks, in charge of the opening moves on what would become Fitzgerald's side, but other unseen forces were at play. In a December 5, 2003 edition of the Financial Times, an unidentified senior White House official is quoted as saying, "We have rolled the earthmovers in over this one." So we see that the administration set up the board before Fitzgerald was able to begin the "middle game."

In the "middle game," every single move has a definite objective. The player focuses on three basic things: to build position; to defend or attack; or to threaten and/or capture the opponent's players.

Libby is an interesting chess piece. He is often thought of as VP Cheney's knight. But his position in the administration was far more powerful than most people appreciate. He was the first person in history to hold three "power positions" at one time: he was the chief of staff for VP Cheney; national security advisor to VP Cheney; and assistant to President Bush. He is unique in the role he has played, and it is fair to say that Mr. Fitzgerald has, at very least, isolated Libby, and is about to take him off the board.

At the same time, we need to keep track of Mr. Fitzgerald's "middle game" moves to threaten bishop Rove, and to isolate and capture other rooks and pawns. And that is where we are, folks.

The "end game" in this case is simply to take the opponent's queen, and put the king in checkmate. A number of people are concerned that the opposing player will get frustrated at the way the game is going, and knock the board right off the table. It's a funny game, chess, and it can be full of surprises. But right now, Fitzgerald is controlling the game, and those who are familiar with political chess in general, and Mr. Fitzgerald in particular, know that he is on the move.

Cindy Sheehan, Emile Durkheim's "Disorganized Dust of Individuals," and George Bush's Secondary Narcissism (Part 1)

Cindy Sheehan, Emile Durkheim's "Disorganized Dust of Individuals," and George Bush's Secondary Narcissism (Part One)

The arrest of Cindy Sheehan at the 2006 "State of the Union" address in Washington, DC has sparked a renewed interest in the tactics and activities of the nation's best known anti-war activist. The debate over Ms. Sheehan was found not only on the corporate media sources, including Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, but also on the internet.
Perhaps the most surprising responses were found on the Democratic Underground, a discussion forum that tends to appeal to progressive democrats and the far left. A small but very vocal minority attempted to discredit Ms. Sheehan's recent efforts, from this week's arrest to her recent meeting with a South American head of state. I read with amusement the "Cindy does NOT speak for me" threads -- as if Ms. Sheehan has ever claimed to speak for anyone but herself -- and with great interest a thread by Will Pitt, which expressed a sense of "awe" that the DU "community" would not be more supportive of Cindy's efforts.
There is really no need to respond to the asinine "anti-Cindy" comments, which may be proof that progressive democrats span the intelligence spectrum and include some disturbed individuals ...... but it might be worth looking closer at Cindy Sheehan in terms of a couple points raised by Mr. Pitt.
Most of the media coverage refers to Sheehan as an "anti-war activist." This is a result of her son Casey being killed in Iraq. Over the summer months, Cindy began a lonely and painful quest to meet with President Bush, to question him on the reasons the US invaded Iraq. Her journey quickly caught the media's attention, and the growing anti-war movement embraced Cindy Sheehan. More, she became the central point in the national discussion, causing those who were undecided and pro-war to question if the war was "just," and if it was worth the cost in human terms.
Since the summer months, the quick "shelf life" of news stories -- which is dramatically different today, with 24-hour-a-day news channels, than in the days of Vietnam -- resulted in Cindy's camping out near the President's Texas ranch to fade from public's consciousness. Thus, Sheehan began to move further into the camp of the progressive left, something that we need not place a value judgement upon, as the Sean Hannitys and DLCers tend to do. What Cindy Sheehan does is entirely her own business, and as an individual, I would agree with Mr. Pitt that democrats should support her ..... even if we do not embrace her every move.
Yet, because she is a symbol of the anti-war movement, and because she does have the potential to do more good for the entire nation, it might be worth our while to examine how she -- or other parents in a similar circumstance -- can approach the issue of the Bush/Cheney aggression in Iraq. I would suggest that we do so in the context of the "community" that Mr. Pitt mentioned, although I would advocate taking an expanded definition of that word.
In political/social campaigns, there is a simple rule that holds true, no matter if one is discussing an election or a policy debate. In each, there are three groups: {1} those who always support you/your idea; {2} those who always oppose you/your idea; and {3} the undecided. In a campaign, one does not invest much time or energy in appealing to group #1; none in appealing to group #2; and instead focus on appealing to group #3, because they are the ones who will determine the outcome of the contest.
Cindy Sheehan's greatest strength last summer was in appealing to group #3 in America: those who were beginning to question why the administration had brought us to war in Iraq .... because the WMD lies were being exposed, and the numbers of dead and injured soldiers was growing at a rate that could not be ignored.
Cindy's strengths in conveying her anti-war message was simply an direct. A mother's pain caused the nation to respond with compassion, which the administration seemed cold and detached from the suffering of a woman who everyone could view as their sister, daughter, niece, or neighbor.
She is not, as Mr. Pitt reminds us, a professional. She did not go to college to study the art of being a mother of a soldier killed in an immoral war. No sane person could think she enjoys her position. Thus, I do not intend for this to be taken as critical of her as an individual. I do think that it would be good for those around her, especially those who are more media-savvy, to discuss her options for advocating the anti-war message. Her choices are to attempt to appeal to group #1 to step up their anti-war activities (thus subjecting herself to the harsh critics on the right and even some on the left), or to re-focus her attention to doing what she did, intentionally or not, last summer -- force the people who are undecided about the war to decide what direction the country will move in.
In his classic book "The Sane Society," Erich Fromm starts with an assumption that individuals in any society can experience sanity or insanity. He expands this basic assumption about individual mental health for societies: if one believes that a group of sane individuals creates a "sane community," then it follows a group of insane individuals creates an insane community. Thus, a group of sane communities creates a sane society, and a group of insane communities creates an insane society.
In the 50 years since Fromm's book was published, the psychiatric community has made great advances in understanding mental health and mental illness. For the sake of this discussion, I am not concerned about the affective and schizophrenic disorders; instead, let's focus on personality and adjustment disorders.
Those familiar with Fromm know that he diagnosed much of the pathology of modern, western society as being the result of "being governed by the fear of the anonymous authority of conformity .... We have ... no convictions of our own, almost no individuality, almost no sense of self." (The Sane Society; page 96)
Fromm also relied heavily upon the works of pioneer sociologist Emile Durkheim, including his description of anomie, a state where societies' standards of conduct and belief are either weak or lacking, and where individuals are isolated, anxious, and disoriented. Fromm notes that Durkheim, while "neither a political nor a religious radical," makes "one of the most penetrating diagnoses of the capitalist culture .... that in modern industrial society the individual and the group have ceased to function satisfactorily ..." As the social structure breaks down, the individuals follow "a restless movement, a planless self-development, an aim of being which has no criterion of value .... (until that society becomes, in Durkheims's classic description) 'a disorganized dust of individuals'." (The Sane Society; page 191)
Fromm also considers the works of Lewis Munford ("The Conduct of Life") and A.R. Heron ("Why Men Work") on this subject. He looks beyond the mere killing of the body as the definition of suicide. There is a death of the spirit in those "who resign themselves to a life devoid of thinking, ambition, pride, and personal achievement ..... to the death of attributes which are distinctive elements of human life." Finally, this "emptiness is perhaps what made 'Death of a Salesman' so poignant to the metropolitan American audience that witnesses it." (The Sane Society; page 196)
Cindy Sheehan's strength was her refusal to allow her son's death to be meaningless. The emptiness in her life, caused by Casey's death in a meaningless war, became the foundation for her search for meaning .... and that is without question what made her journey so poignant to the American audience that witnessed it.
Cindy became a living, breathing, feeling example of what Fromm defined as the passions of life. Going beyond the obvious and indisputable biological needs that humans share with other animals -- thirst, hunger, and sleep -- and the central need of the Freudian interpretation -- sex -- Fromm focused on two "passions": the need for love, and the need to "attempt to answer the problem of human existence." (The Sane Society; page 35)
An individual's need for love begins at very least by birth, and continues throughout life. Initially, the infant is nurtured by the mother's love, then the family, the extended family/clan (Mr. Pitt's community), and potentially by a sane society.
Fromm agreed with Harry Stack Sullivan (the pioneer American psychiatrist, largely removed from his deserved position in our society because he was gay), that children tend to gain the ability to love others in a mature capacity at about the age of 8 or 9. Until then, children tend to love others in terms of their own needs, rather than as distinct individuals with needs of their own. This is "primary narcissism," which Fromm and Sullivan recognized as a necessary part of healthy human development.
An unhealthy phenomenon occures when this narcissism is carried on to later life. It happens when a child fails to learn that other people's feelings, needs, and indeed lives are just as important to them, as the child's to him/herself. Fromm refers to this as "secondary narcissism," and believes it is at the root of most individual and societal pathology. (The Sane Society; page 40) I would suggest that we are beginning to see the stark contrasts in human potential that the Cindy Sheehan -- George Bush equation brought into focus for America.
Indeed, Fromm noted that the need to comprehend the meaning of life was at the root of the arts and religions of various societies. Again, he recognizes both healthy and unhealthy potentials: individuals and societies can be either creative or destructive in their arts and religions. In essence a person with a healthy ability to love (Cindy) will tend to be creative and productive; while the person who lacks the capacity for healthy love (Bush's secondary narcissism) will tend to be destructive. From notes that destructiveness "is only an alternative to creativeness ... (and that) both answer to the same need for transcendence...." (The Sane Society; pages 40 & 42)
I would suggest that we could apply the "Cindy versus George" equation to one of the more significant factors in Fromm's view on a societies' potential for sanity, which is in his comparison of matriarchal and patriarchal cultures. It is important to keep in mind that each have positive and negative potentials; we should not ask people to believe that these are simple issues. They are indeed complex, but important for us to answer as individuals and as societies.
Fromm compares the aspects of matriarchal and patriarchal societies by examining parents' relationships with their children. Mothers tend to love all of their children equally. Although one child may have a particular talent, and another may suffer from a disabling weakness, the mother tends to love them both "with the same right to love and care." Fromm notes that this aspect of matriarchal society results in individuals with "a sense of affirmation for life, and (a) freedom and equality that pervades the matriarchal society." The negative aspects are "being bound to nature, to blood and soil, ... (and thus) blocked from developing...individuality and ... reason." (The Sane Society; page 48)
Fathers tend to be different. Fromm notes that fathers tend to favor the son that best lives up to his expectations. This results in a competition among siblings for the father's love. Fromm believed the positive aspects of patriarchal society were "reason, discipline, conscience, and individualism," while the negative potentials were "hierachy, oppression, inequality, (and) submission." (The Sane Society; page 50)
Cindy Sheehan has the potential to bring these issues to the national discussion on the Iraqi war, as well as to the other questions that we as a society must discuss and debate in 2006. While the responsibility clearly does not belong to her, alone --- and it is foolish for her critics to believe that it somehow does -- it is true that she is in a unique position to force the debate. I would hope the people around her, especially those with more experience in the arts of public debate, would help her bring her natural strengths foreward