Unpopular Essays

Unpopular Essays: The Neocon/AIPAC Spy Scandal
In the past couple of years, I have contributed essays to a few internet sites regarding what I call the three leaf clover of scandals: the Plame, the neocon/AIPAC spy, and the Niger document forgery scandals. These closely related crimes, which are largely ignored by the "mainstream" corporate media, are among the root causes of the United States being at war in Iraq, and at risk of being involved in a larger conflict in Iran. Today, I think it might be interesting to take a closer look at the neocon/AIPAC spy scandal.
Even among progressive and liberal democrats, this case is capable of causing strong reactions, emotional debates, and harsh conflicts. This is, in part, because such discussions often move away from a focused examination of US policy, and how the criminal conduct of some US citizens has impacted our foreign policy, to debates on Israel and its relationship with its Muslim neighbors.
My goal is to stick with US policy. I will, however, note that I am a supporter of nation of Israel, and recognize it as being one of the United State's best friends. Yet that does not translate into my favoring the right-wing extremists in Israel, or among their supporters in the US, any more than my love for the United States would imply that I support Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, or Dick Cheney. In fact, my beliefs about Israel and the USA are among the reasons that I am convinced that this country needs to focus our attention onto the neocon/AIPAC spy scandal.
At this time, the legal cases that involve this scandal include Pentagon Iranian analyst Larry Franklin, and former AIPAC representatives Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. In January, Franklin was sentenced to 12 years and 7 months, as a result of his guilty plea. Franklin had passed classified military intelligence to the AIPAC lobbyists, and to an Israeli diplomat. He will not begin to serve his sentence until after the AIPAC case is completed, at which time his attorney will ask the court to reduce his sentence, due to his cooperating with the government.
Many citizens are unaware of these cases. On reason may be that the media is not covering them adequately. For example, the Franklin sentencing was covered by the New York Times in a scanty article on page 30 of its January 21st edition.
At a March 24 pre-trial hearing for Rosen and Weissman, US District Court Judge T.S. Ellis stated that he believed the law the two were charged under may be unconstitutional. This was in response to defense motions to dismiss the case, in which the defense attorneys claimed the case involved "freedom of speech," and that the sharing of classified information between lobbyists, reporters, and government officials was a common practice. For a transcript of hearing, see:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/rosen032406.html
The neocon/AIPAC spy scandal, however, involves far more than issues of freedom of speech and the press. To imply otherwise would be like saying the most important issue in the Plame scandal was Judith Miller's integrity. Prosecutor Kevin DiGregory noted the case is about conduct, not speech, and about "the national security interests of the United States." (Matthew Barakat; Constitutional Questions Show in AIPAC Case; AP; March 24, '06) And, as former ambassador Andrew Killgore wrote, "The question, of course, is whether these practices are common to American friends of all foreign governments, or to those of one in particular." (The Pro-Israel Part Line:"Common Practice"; Washington Report; April '06 - Vol. XXV, No.3; page 14)
The Institute for Research:Middle Eastern Policy attempted to file an amicus curiae brief with the court on this case. Their brief intended to present evidence that indicates:
{1} That AIPAC's organizational structure has become a "quasi intelligence service" that exercises significant influence over the Executive Branch and Congress;
{2} AIPAC's operations on behalf of Israel make it an agent of foreign influence; and
{3} AIPAC's operations in the US promote policies in the Middle East that increase the potential for terrorist attacks against Americans.
Judge Ellis denied the Institute for Research's motion to file their brief. Those interested in his 5-page February 27 decision can find it by googling "Case No. 1:05cr225." It strikes me as curious that Judge Ellis, who feels that AIPAC's influence on the executive and legislative branches may be constitutionally protected free speech, even when it violates laws protecting classified military intelligence, rejected this well-reasoned brief.
Equally puzzling were Judge Ellis's comments in January, that Mr. Franklin was motivated by his patriotic beliefs to leak classified intelligence to the AIPAC lobbyists. In fact, the prosecution has tapes of Franklin and his friends discussing career promotion as one of the potential benefits of his illegal activities.
We should not forget that the fruits of their activities were part of the neoconservatives' promoting the "preemptive" war in Iraq. Ambassador Killgore's special report in the current edition of Washington Report ties this case of espionage to the work of Bush administration officials Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and John Bolton. It is worth noting that this case is not simply of interest to the "far left" in American politics. Though largely ignored by the corporate media, there have been numerous thoughtful reports on the case by individuals such as Robert Dreyfuss on TomPaine.common sense, and by Patrick Buchanan and Karen Kwiatkowski on LewRockwell.com.
These people, along with others not identified by the indictments returned by the Grand Jury in Alexandria last August, engaged in "overt acts" that were part of a large "conspiracy" to illegally pass classified intelligence material to people who were not legally entitled to it. As the indictment details, both Franklin and Rosen had backgrounds that included signing classified information nondisclosure agreements. They were fully aware that they were violating the law.
People interested in this case, and how it relates to the neoconservative movement, should access the court records made public on the internet; read Washington Report, which is published by the non-profit American Educational Trust (retired US foreign service officers who attempt to provide the American public with balanced, accurate information on US policy in the Middle East), which has a web site: http://www.wrmea.com ; and the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy.
Of particular interest is Grant Smith's new book, "Deadly Dogma: How Neoconservatives Broke the Law to Deceive America." It can be previewed at the IRmep site:
http://www.irmep.org/

Karl Rove & the missing e-mails

{1} "He gave me a little lecture about breaking a conspiracy like Watergate. 'You build convincingly from the outer edges in, you get ten times the evidence you need against the Hunts and Liddys. They feel hopelessly finished -- they may not talk right away, but the grip is on them. Then you move up and do the same thing at the next level. If you shoot too high and miss, then everyone feels more secure. Lawyers work this way. I'm sure smart reporters must too.' I recall he gave me a look as if to sayI did not belong in the category of smart reporters. 'You put the investigation back months. It puts everyone on the defensive -- editors, FBI agents, everybody has to go into a crouch after this'."
-- Bob Woodward; The Secret Man; 2005; page 91.
This description Mark Felt telling Bob Woodward how an error he and Carl Bernstein made in reporting on Bob Haldeman had hurt the Watergate investigation might help us process a report from RawStory today. Journalist Larisa Alexandrovna provided readers with information that indicates that Karl Rove is cooperating with Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Plame scandal.
Most of the responses that I read on sites such as the Democratic Underground and Daily Kos were positive. The majority of those participating in discussions on the report were obviously well-informed. Many of these people asked intelligent, insightful questions. I thought it might be fun to review some of the information reported from the time of Scooter Libby's indictment through the past week, to see if it fits with what Ms. Alexandrovna reported today.
Readers may recall in late October, '05, the New York Times carried an article by Richard Stevenson and Anne Kornblut, "Leak Counsel Is Said to Press on Rove's Role." It was accompanied by two photos: one of a grinning Karl Rove driving his car; the other of a grim Scooter Libby in the back seat of a car.
After Libby was indicted, a good deal of attention was focused on Rove's attorney having convinced Fitzgerald to conduct a further investigation of Karl's reported "forgetting" his conversation with Matt Cooper. The NY Daily News had a full-page article titled "Rove not out of trouble as new grand jury may convene," (10-29-05; page 5) But attention was soon shifted by a report that none other than Bob Woodward had played a role in the Plame scandal.
But by November 28, attention was back on Karl Rove. The MSNBC blog's Hardball section carried a report, "Rove still in danger of indictment." The article noted that "..today, new clues suggest the investigation is still focused on Rove. Legal experts say the development means prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is still considering obstruction of justice or perjury charges against Bush's top advisor. Time Magazine reporter Vivica Novak -- no relation to Bob Novak -- has agreed to testify about a series of discussions with Rove's lawyer Bob Luskin that began in May 2004."
On December 15, Tucker Carlson interviewed David Schuster on "The Situation" on MSNBC. In his introduction, Carlson noted, "It also looks like an indictment decision on advisor Karl Rove could come at any minute. People in Washington are talking, really, about nothing else." He tells David that he has had "four phone calls today from friends in Washington informing me that Karl Rove is about to be indicted .... Is there any truth to it?"
Schuster answered, " "Yes, I do believe he's going to be indicted. I'm not sure whether it's going to happen soon .... there are two clues that perhaps Fitzgerald is actually moving to an indictment. First of all, it was a week ago today when he impaneled a new grand jury, presented new information, and again, prosecutors don't use new grand juries unless they want the panel to consider possible charges.
"And the other thing that was so intriguing is that Vivica Novak .... when she first talked to prosecutor Fitzgerald, at the urging of Bob Luskin, Karl's lawyer, she talked ... on an informal basis .... After that, at a certain point, the prosecutor said, 'You know what? I want your testimony on the record, under oath.' And you don't put somebody's testimony under oath unless you expect that they may be used in a criminal trial in the future."
{2} "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; 2004; page 444.
Team Libby is comprised of four of the most capable attorneys in the country. Theodore Wells, Jr., Joseph Tate, William Jeffress, Jr., and John Cline could accurately be called a "dream team." In reading through several of their discovery motions, it is clear that these men are looking to represent Scooter Libby to the best of their ability. That does not include putting the needs of any other person involved in the Plame scandal before Libby's.
Thus, as detailed in several previous essays, Team Libby has filed motions requesting documents from the Office of the Vice President, and from the Central Intelligence Agency. In fact, there is an overlap, as some of the disputed documents are the President's Daily Briefings; the PDBs in question were also reviewed by VP Cheney and Scooter Libby.
The dispute between Team Libby and Fitzgerald and the CIA has been reviewed by Judge Reggie Walton. There has been a lot of back-and-forth, with Judge Walton suggesting some limits on what the defense may be entitled. Team Libby noted in a March 7 response to the CIA that they would be willing to "withdraw our request for the items in category (3) -- the materials provided only to Mr. Libby. Thus, the CIA need only produce the Vice President's morning briefing notebook for the dates at issue..." (pages 5-6)
Last Friday, March 24, Judge Walton filed a "Proposed Consent Order," (Doc. 70), that appears to outline common ground agreed to by Team Libby and Patrick Fitzgerald. While it is obvious that Mr. Fitzgerald is extremely well-prepared to try and convict Mr. Libby, I would suggest that Team Libby is looking to focus attention on the Vice President. Readers may recall a month ago, when the media reported that Team Libby has suggested that the VP told Mr. Libby to share information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate with reporters. Libby shared this with Judith Miller and Bob Woodward; Karl Rove spoke to Time's Matt Cooper in general terms about it.
Karl Rove and his attorney have been in communication with Mr. Fitzgerald between last December, when Vivica Novak gave her statement, and this past week. Fitzgerald has not simply dropped his investigation's focus on Rove's role.
On February 15, 2006, Jason Leopold reported on TruthOut that "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had not turned over emails to the special prosecutor's office..." In a January 23 motion, Fitzgerald had informed Judge Walton that he was told that some White House e-mails had been lost. Leopold reported that Gonzales cited executive privilege and national security concerns for withholding others.
Nine days later, Leopold reported that the White House had "discovered" 250 e-mails that were believed to be lost. Ms. Alexandrovna's article today, which states that Karl Rove helped identify where "lost e-mails" might be found, makes sense in this context. While many of the motions and court orders in the Libby case are sealed, it seems likely that those lost e-mails are discussed in them, as well.

Scooter and the Munchkins

Part One: "A people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." -- James Madison; quoted by Judge Tatel, US Court of Appeals; re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller; 4-19-05
Earlier this week, Patrick Fitzgerald informed Judge Reggie Walton that the CIA has estimated it will take 12 weeks to produce the information outlined in the judge's 2-27 recommendations to narrow the scope of discovery. It is expected that Judge Walton will make a decision soon on what information that Team Libby is entitled to from the CIA, in regard to the PDBs (President's Daily Briefings). These documents, described as "the most important current intelligence on critical issues relating to the national security of the United States" (Declaration of Marilyn Dorn; CIA Information Review Officer; 3-2-06), are provided to the president and vice president at the beginning of every day.
In the period between Judge Walton's recommendations and Fitzgerald's response, Team Libby filed several motions that are available on various internet sites. These include: {1} "Response of I. Lewis Libby to March 2, 2006 CIA Declaration and Court's February 27 Order," filed on 3-7; {2} "Reply in Support of Motion of I. Lewis Libby to bar Ex Parte Submissions Under CIPA 4 Without A Particularized Showing of Exceptional Circumstances," filed 3-15; and {3} "Third Motion of I. Lewis Libby to Compel Discovery Under Rule 16 and Brady," filed 3-17-06.
These documents give us some hints of what Team Libby is planning for the January '07 trial of Mr. Libby. Let's take a closer look at some of the things his team of lawyers is focusing upon.
Mr. Libby's defense team has requested an enormous amount of information they say is needed to prove that Scooter was so busy in the summer of 2003, that he plum forgot about all of his conversations with reporters Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, and Tim Russert when he spoke to FBI investigators and testified to the grand jury. Team Libby is fighting restrictions on access to such information, and claim that the "government distorts Mr. Libby's defense when it suggests Mr. Libby does not need the PDBs because the government will 'agree he was important and he was a busy person'." (3-7; page 2)
They ask for access to requests in three categories: the PDBs and accompanying material; records of Libby's questions made to the CIA; and the CIA responses to Scooter's questions. The Agency had said it would take 9 months to produce everything requested by the defense attorneys, or 3 months to produce the smaller amount Judge Walton recommended. Team Libby questions "how many people it assumes will work on the production and for how many hours per week." They suggest that Judge Walton "might well conclude that the CIA is engaged in unjustified foot-dragging," which they attribute to the Agency's lacking "an entirely objective and impartial perspective." (3-7; page 3) They note that they "strongly suspect that the CIA has exaggerated the difficulty of obtaining the responses to Mr. Libby's inquiries." (3-7; page 4)
Team Libby goes on to "withdraw our request for the items .... provided only to Mr. Libby. Thus, the CIA need only produce the Vice President's morning briefing notebook for the dates at issue..." They offer to review these documents, without "copying the materials in question," at a site "maintained by the Department of Justice at the Department of Homeland Security in Washington, DC," with only Libby and the four attorneys reading them. (3-7; pages 6-7)
Team Libby takes great offense that Fitzgerald would attempt to limit their access to highly classified information. They note that he "relies extensively on cases involving alleged terrorists (and) spies ..... But there is obviously no such risk here. Mr. Libby -- like the defendants in the North, Poindexter, and George cases .... -- has diligently protected some of this country's most sensitive secrets throughout his many years of public service.
"In an unseemly attempt to avoid the force of the Iran-Contra cases, the government asserts that '(u)nderlying the crimes charged in this case is the failure by a senior national security official' -- presumably Mr. Libby -- 'to adequately safeguard sensitive classified information'." Team Libby again questions if there isevidence that Scooter's actions were "irresponsible .... even if it turns out Ms. Wilson's status was classified. .... In any event, the government cannot seriously contend that disclosure of even the most sensitive intelligence information to Mr. Libby or his defense team poses a risk to national security. Such a reckless accusation dishonors Mr. Libby''s loyal service to this country. ... The government's false suggestion that Mr. Libby cannot be trusted with classified information is a foul blow." (3-15; pages 3-5)
In the 3-17 motion, Team Libby continues the fiction that Fitzgerald "has an interest in continuing to overstate the significance of Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA." They claim that Scooter "viewed Ms. Wilson's identity as at most a peripheral issue,(page 3); that in the context of the controversy over the 16 words, "the role of Ms. Plame was peripheral," (page 4); and that while the "indictment that to Mr. Libby and other government officials, Ms. Wilson's role in sending her husband to Africa was important. But in reality, Ms. Wilson was not important." (page 27)
This motion also notes that "the government informed the defense that it intends to introduce all of Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony at trial. ... The two transcripts collectively total 389 pages. .....(W)e reserve the right to object to the admission of the entire transcript of Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony at the appropriate time." (pages 10-11)
Part Two: "Furthermore, there is intense anger over the White House's revealing the identity of Plame, who may have been active in a sting operation involving the trafficing of WMD components. ... 'Only a very high-ranking official could have had access to the knowledge that Plame was on the payroll' of the CIA, an intelligence source told me." -- Joe Klein; Plenty to wear About; Time; 7-5-04
Team Libby's continued efforts to question if Valerie Plame Wilson was covert seems curious. On page 28 of Judge Tatel's decision on the Miller appeal (4-19-05), he notes, "Her exposure, therefore, not only may have jeopardized any covert activities of her own, but also may have endangered friends and associates from whom she might have gathered information in the past." (Also see: "The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert" by Michael Isikoff; Newsweek; 2-13-06)
In their efforts to deny the significance of Plame's work with the CIA, Team Libby goes beyond the bounds of decency. On pages 9- 10 of their 3-7 document, they attempt to "illustrate" the "urgency" of the PDBs that "might well have still consumed (Scooter's) attention on June 23 or July 12, or even later," by using the August 6, 2001 PDB as an example. That was, of course, the PDB released in redacted form by the 9-11 Commission, "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Team Libby notes that a "summary of the general subject matter of the item does not accurately convey its urgency. To make that assessment, the details are necessary -- the number and sophistication of the Al-Qaeda members allegedly planning the attacks, the state of that planning, the current ability of the terrorists to carry out a planned attack, and -- perhaps most important -- the source of the intelligence community's information about the planned attacks, the reliability of those sources, and the extent which other intelligence corroborates their information. In short, Mr. Libby needs what the Supreme Court call the 'persuasive power of the concrete and particular' to convince the jury that in a welter of more urgent matters, he confused or forgot the snippets of conversations concerning Ms. Wilson."
It appears that Mr. Libby's attorneys wish to present Scooter as a public servant dedicated to protecting the public from Usama bin Laden, despite the difficulties created by the CIA and Joseph Wilson. Scooter was so busy protecting us, that he simply forgot a few details about conversations with journalists. His grand jury testimony? Forget that, too. Concentrate on VP Cheney's PDBs. Even if Patrick Fitzgerald is correct about Plame being a covert agent of the CIA, she was not important to Scooter. This fine man was too busy protecting you from terrorists.
I don't think that it will play too well against his grand jury testimony. Just look at this clip quoted in the the 10-31-05 indictment (pages 21-22):
Q: And let me ask you this directly. Did the fact that you knew the law could turn, the law as to whether a crime was committed, could turn on where you learned the information from, affect your account for the FBI when you told them that you were telling reporters Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather than the Vice-President?
A: No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told the reporters.
Q: And you're, you're certain as you sit here today that every reporter you told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to other reporters?
A: Yes, sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because it was -- that's what -- that's how I did it.
....
Q: The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are -- concerning this fact. If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why were you so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as something you knew?
A: I want -- I didn't want to -- I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want people -- I didn't want reporters to think it was true because I said it. I -- all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand that it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know if it was true and I wanted them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr. Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report.Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know if he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us."

Bush and Iraq: Image vs Anti-Image

There were two press conferences yesterday with a common theme: both George W. Bush and Debra Lafave went in front of the cameras to tell reporters that the media was largely responsible for the suffering their poor choices had caused others.
In President Bush's case, it is clear that he is attempting to change the public image of his administration, the war in Iraq, and indeed himself. Recent polls indicate that he enjoys the lowest approval of any recent president, except Richard Nixon shortly before he resigned in disgrace. Because of the "mid-term" elections, Bush is being pressured to take on a public role which he clearly would not take were he popular.
It is important to note that in politics, whether local, state, or national, there are always three groups to consider. The first is those who will always support you; the second is those who will always oppose you; and the third is the "undecided" group that generally determines the outcome of an election.
Those who successfully run political campaigns know that they usually will not need to invest a great deal of resources in the first group. The second group is either ignored or baited in hopes of causing a negative reaction. But it's the third group that is the focus: if your base is significantly larger than the opposition's, your strategy is based on not needing a big turn-out. If the election is highly contested, you attempt to create a good image of your candidate, and an "anti-image" for the opposition.
When we look back at the commercials, sound bites, debates, and press conferences associated with the Bush2 administration, a couple obvious examples stand out. President Bush strutting on the air craft carrier with the "Mission Accomplished" banner was to create an image of Bush as a tough soldier. The "swift boat liars" were used to create an anti-image for John Kerry. This image making is distinct, of course, from the reality of each of their experience in the Vietnam War era.
To fully appreciate Bush's curious press conference yesterday, it must be viewed in the context of his drop in popularity among both republicans and conservatives in the past two months. Much of his unfavorable numbers are tied to his Iraqi policy, which is failing on a military level, and which has erased any claim to his being a fiscal conservative.
Polls indicate that there are very few Americans who are undecided on Iraq right now. The Bush administration is not investing a great amount of energy in attempting the anti-war people to come around to Bush's school of thought. They are trying to get those who are generally uninformed about Iraq, and who base their opposition on CNN film clips, to have an emotional reaction to the media. But their primary focus is to reach out to their base, in preparation for the 2006 elections.
When presidents are reduced to fighting for their crumbling base, it signals that there are serious problems. President Bush surely remembers his father's experience. In his attempt to blame his woes on the journalists in front of him, he may have offered his opposition to define him in classic anti-image terms. While the Nixon comparisons are entertaining for our "group one," we have an opportunity to use another president's image to reach "group three."
On August 7, 1967, New York Times Saigon bureau chief R.W. Apple, Jr., wrote one of the most important stories about the Vietnam war, which he noted was "not going well. Victory is not close at hand. It may be beyond reach. It is clearly unlikely in the next year or even in the next two years, and American officers talk somberly about fighting here for decades. ... 'Stalemate' is a fighting word in Washington. President Johnson rejects it as a description of the situation in Vietnam. But it is the word used by almost all Americans here, except the top officials, to characterize what is happening."
In his book "Flawed Giant," Robert Dallek tells of how LBJ reacted angrily, calling numerous people to say that Apple was a "communist," and to threaten other journalists. Yet as Dallek notes, "LBJ was mistaken. It was not the reporters who were describing the sorry state of the US war effort in Vietnam" who were to blame for the president's problems. Rather, "the administration simply lacked compelling information to convince most Americans that the war was going well. A Gallup poll at the end of July showed 52 percent of the country disapproving the President's handling of the war, his highest negative rating to date. Only 54 percent thought we were making progress in the fighting." (pages 474-5)
Dallek later notes that "(e)ven less flattering to LBJ is the reality that he also pursued the war for selfish motives. To admit failure on so big an issue as Vietnam would have been too jarring to Johnson's self-image as a can-do leader. .... Plaguing Johnson as well was an irrational conviction that his domestic opponents were subversives or the dupes of subversives intent on undermining national institutions." (page 627)
In his classic book "Robert Kennedy and his times," Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., tells of how Johnson tried to distract the country from negative media coverage by making -- in one day -- two unscheduled speeches in Washington, held an unscheduled press conference on his plans to reduce nuclear weapons, invited all the governors to the White House, had Senator Henry Jackson read a letter on the necessity of bombing in Vietnam, and confirmed the rumor his daughter Luci was pregnant. (page 831)
Schlesinger details how this manic energy was offset by bouts of depression, and tells of a conversation in which Bill Moyers expressed his concerns that LBJ had cut himself away from reality. Moyers noted that LBJ had become "paranoid" in his beliefs that those who opposed his policies in Vietnam were enemies of the state.
In her book "Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream," Doris Kearns Goodwin tells of how people around the president became frightened by his mental state, highlighted by what Schlesinger described as LBJ's compulsive monologues, puncuated by irrelevant laughter:
"Two or three intellectuals started it all you know. They produced all the doubt .... And it spread and spread ... Then Bobby began taking it up as his cause and with Martin Luther King on his payroll he went around stirring up the Negroes .... Then the communists stepped in. They control the three major networks, you know, and the forty major outlets of communication. Walter Lippman is a communist and so is Teddy White. It's in all the FBI reports .... Isn't it funny that I always receive a piece of advice from my top advisers right after each of them has been in contact with someone in the communist world? And isn't it funny that you could always find Dobrynin's car in front of Reston's house the night before Reston delivered a blast on Vietnam?"
I think that democrats and progressives need to point out the growing similarities between LBJ's Vietnam policy, and President Bush's Iraqi policy.

A Pawn in the Game

"The government clearly included these conversations in the indictments to create an impression of a world in which, during the period leading up to his conversations with Matthew Cooper, Tim Russert, and Judith Miller, Mr. Libby was very focused on Mr. Wilson, his trip to Niger, and most of all, Mr. Wilson's wife. .... The indictment suggests that to Mr. Libby and other government officials, Ms. Wilson's role in sending her husband to Africa was important. But in reality, Ms. Wilson was not important."
--Third Motion of I. Lewis Libby to Compel Discovery Under Rule 16 and Brady; March 17, 2006
Team Libby's motion to the court to compel Patrick Fitzgerald to provide them with an extensive amount of information, apparently to help them prepare to cross examine numerous government witnesses prepared to testify in the January '07 trial, is a fascinating read. Libby's talented legal team is clearly prepared to call into question the roles that other White House and administration officials may have played, in the outing of Valerie Plame; their motives for cooperating with Fitzgerald; and the entire controversy over the administration's case for going to war in Iraq.
Team Libby's motion lists a number of people that they believe the government will call to testify, as well as those they may call to the stand. These include, among others: Dick Cheney, Dick Armitage, Ari Fleischer, Marc Grossman, Steve Hadley, Bill Harlow, Colin Powell, Karl Rove, George Tenet, Craig Schmall, Peter Clement, Matt Barrett, Robert Grenier, John McLaughlin, Joseph Wilson, and Valerie Plame Wilson.
Each of these individuals may be seen as players on the chess board that I described in my February 4, 2006 essay, "Your Move." See:
http://h2oman.blogspot.com/2006/02/your-move.html
Team Libby is also planning to call numerous journalists from the corporate media. Today, I thought it would be interesting to take a closer look at one of the players that might best be described as an incidental pawn on the board, Catherine Martin. I refer to Ms. Martin as a pawn, not in the common incidental sense (ie, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, "just a pawn in their game"), but rather in the legal sense of being dependaent on or relating to another issue in the case.
On pages 8-9 of the Libby motion, his lawyers note, "The indictment goes on to describe numerous additional conversations: ....a conversation between Mr. Libby and the 'Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs,' who we believe is Cathie Martin, in which she told Mr. Libby that she had 'learned from another government official that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA,' whom we believe to be Bill Harlow. .... We believe that Mr.Addington, Ms. Martin, Mr. Rove and the Vice President will all testify at the trial."
While Team Libby continues to focus on Libby not being Bob Novak or Bob Woodward's source on Valerie Plame's employment at the Agency, Catherine Martin appears to be an important link that ties him to the WHIG campaign to discredit Joseph Wilson among journalists. In her 11-26-04 Washington Post article ("The When and How of Leak Being Probed"), Susan Schmidt noted, "It was in the ensueing days that television reporters Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell would tell Wilson that they heard from administration aides that the real story was not what Wilson found in Niger, but his wife's role in selecting him for the trip."
We know, from pages 7 and 8 of the Office of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's October 28, 2005 press release, that "no earlier than June 2003 but on or before July 8, 2003, (Martin) learned from another government official that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and advised Libby of this information; .... (and) on or about July 12, 2003, Libby flew with the Vice President and others to and from Norfolk, Va., on Air Force Two. On his return trip, Libby discussed with other officials aboard the plane what Libby should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time's Cooper."
In his October 30, 2005 Washington Post article ("A Leak, Then a Deluge"), Barton Gellman notes that on the 7-12-03 AF2 plane ride, in which Libby was discussing his media strategy fo dealing with the Wilson issue with "other officials," the only press aide on board was Catherine Martin.
In his 7-25-05 article in Time ("What I Told the Grand Jury"), Matthew Cooper told of how he had viewed the administration's attack on Wilson. "The grand jurors wanted to know what was on my mind, and I told them .... I was interested in an ancillary question about why the government officials, publicly and privately, seemed to be disparaging Wilson. It struck me, as I told the grand jury, as odd and unnecessary, especially after their saying the President's address should not have included the 16-word claim about Saddam and African uranium." Cooper goes on to discuss his discussions about Wilson and Plame with both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. And, of course, it was at this same time period that we know Scooter was discussing Valerie Plame with New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
Martin herself played a role in attempting to distance Libby and Cheney from the Plame scandal. In the October 20, 2003 edition of The New Yorker, she is quoted as saying, "The vice president doesn't know Joe Wilson and did not know about his trip until he read about it in the press." And in the October 8, 2003 Newsweek, when asked if Libby had any involvement in leaking Plame's identity to Bob Novak, she responded, "I don't know the answer."
It is known that Patrick Fitzgerald was interested in communications made "to and from Martin's cell phone in July of 2003." (New York Times; 2-10-03) The FBI had interviewed Martin early on about what she knew about the leaks to the media. (Newsday; 2-24-04) It was believed that she had testified to the grand jury. (Washington Post; 2-10-03)
Catherine Martin will be able to detail the conversation between Libby and others on the plans to deal with Wilson, which took place on AF2 on 7-12-03. More, she will be able to verify the details of communications between other prosecution witnesses, including Steve Hadley, which will expose the extent of Libby's preoccupation with damaging Joseph Wilson's reputation. And, as Jason Leopold reported in his February 24, 2006 article in TruthOut, the recently "discovered" 250 e-mails from VP Dick Cheneys office, "are said to be explosive." These e-mails will support Martin's testimony.

The War on Dissent

"And the federal government has a long history of using domestic intelligence for just such purposes. J. Edgar Hoover, the first director of the FBI, was adept at using information so acquired not only to pursue those he suspected of Communist or 'un-American' activisties, but also to maintain his power and influence for 47 years over presidents, members of congress and other power brokers. The FBI's COINTELPRO activity's use of such information to harass and discredit Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is a particularly glaring example of such abuse. And Nixon's access to such information gave him the inside track on how to neutralize those on his long 'enemies list.'
Would you trust a Karl Rove, a Dick Cheney, an Eliot Abrams, a Roberto Gonzales, an I. Lewis Libby, a David Addington or a John Bolton with such information?"
-- Ray McGovern; "High Tech, Low Legality: The NSA Spies on American Citizens"; Washington Report on Middle East Affars; March 2006 - Vol. XXV, No.2; pages 26-7.
Ray McGovern, a CIA employee for 27 years who is today a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), has an interesting article in the current edition of Washington Report. This non-partison publication, which is produced by retired US foreign service officers, attempts to provide US citizens with a balanced look at US- Middle Eastern affairs. It has offered a series of articles on both the Plame and neocon/AIPAC spy scandals that I think people would enjoy reading. ( See http://www.wrmea.com )
McGovern notes that two of the groups most likely to be "sucked up" by the NSA domestic spying program include members of Congress and journalists. This is because of the nature of their work, including their international calls and contacts. He makes clear that with hundreds of phone calls and e-mails being monitored daily, it poses the risk that government officials will be tempted to use "intelligence" for political advantage.
One need look no farther than the White House Iraq Group's use of Valerie Plames Wilson's identity for a "particularly glaring example of such abuse." The news about TSA attorney Carla J. Martin's behavior in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui should also raise questions about the judgement of individuals in government, even in case involving terrorists. More, when NY Times reporter James Risen explains that "roughly 500 people in the U.S. every day over the past three or four years" are targets of the domestic spying, it seems obvious that a wide net is being thrown.
In questions of civil liberties, it is important to remember that, according to even conservative Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex), neoconservatives "view civil liberties with suspicion, as unnecessary restrictions on the federal government." (John Dean; "Worse Than Watergate"; page 104) Irving Kristol puts this neoconservative belief in the context of "a set of attitudes derived from historical experience." (ibid) Perhaps we should look at some related historical experiences.
My favorite book on the history of the executive branch using the tensions associated with "war" to accumulate power beyond what the US Constitution intends is Arthur Schlesinger, Jr's 1973 classic, "The Imperial Presidency." He notes how the infamous "enemies list" began, including John Dean's August 16, 1971 memo that has been described as the classicexpression of the Nixon administration's philosophy: "This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration. Stated a bit more bluntly -- how can we use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies."
The "enemies list," Schlesinger points out, "pretty much ignored the bomb-throwers of the New Left and concentrated on what the White House plainly saw as the real Enemies -- the eastern 'establishment' with its attendant politicians, lawyers, journalists, television commentators, professors and preachers." (Schlesinger; page 258) Nixon himself demanded "proof" that the New Left was "receiving foreign support" for disruptive activities. The CIA , as Seymour Hersch reported in the NY Times on May 23, 1973, conducted extensive investigations that proved this was groundless. The administration continued to, as Haldeman told Dean, "put out the story" that there was evidence that foreign communist interests were donating funds which were tied to George McGovern (Schlesinger; page 259)
Many of the most dangerous policies advocated by the Nixon administration were part of what was known as the Huston Plan. This was a proposed coordinated effort, involving national, state, and local intelligence and police agencies, which threatened to institute a police state in America. There are a number of chilling accounts of the Huston Plan available for those not familiar with that bit of our history. I am particularly impressed with the works of David Wise, the co-author of "The Invisible Government," which was widely credited with documenting the need to re-examine the role of the Agency in a democratic society. His 1976 book "The American Police State" examines the Huston Plan, and also offers a fascinating warning: "Since technology has outpaced efforts at political control of the intelligence agencies -- indeed until quite recently there were virtually no efforts at all -- the prospects for the future are not pleasant. The super-sophisticated techniques developed by the National Security Agency to intercept telephone and other conversations, or to tap, uninvited, into computers, may mean that in the not too distant future those who dissent from established policy may literally have no plce to hide." (page 407)
Two of the best recent books that deal with the current threats to democracy are John Dean's "Worse Than Watergate," and Senator Robert Byrd's "Losing America." While both of these gentlemen have at earlier times been involved on the wrong side of the struggle -- Dean in the above-quoted memo, and Byrd in his March 29, 1968 call on the Senate floor for Rev. King's constitutional rights to be denied -- both provide wonderful evidence of the ability to grow, and to represent an evolutionary "set of attitudes derived from historical experiences."
I'll close with a recent family experience. My nephew and a friend were driving three blocks from one of their homes to pick up a pizza. The local police pulled them over. They had done nothing illegal: both are the type of young men that every community should want. But they both have brown skin. They were held for three hours, while the local police "checked up" on them. I realize that this is not as bad as being sent to Guantanamo Bay. But I am alarmed at people who believe that this represents a small inconvenience for the sake of our freedoms. I would hope that picking up a pizza would be one of those freedoms.
When I told my friend Rubin Carter about this -- and Rubin has some historical experience with being pulled over for skin color -- he said, "It's time to move out." I told my nephew, and he esponded, "No, this is our country. It's worth fighting for the Constitution." I hope that thinking that way doesn't get young people pulled over more often.

Dick Armitage vs Stephen Hadley

{1} "That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption"
-- quote attributed to Ben Bradlee by Marie Brenner, Vanity Fair, 3-14-06
There was an interesting response to the "news" that Ben Bradlee had revealed the secret identity of Bob Woodward's source of Valerie Plame's identity to a Vanity Fair reporter. Even on progressive internet sites, I noted that some who are sincerely interested in the case stated that Bradlee had confirmed that Woodward's source was Dick Armitage. While it is certainly possible that Armitage did tell Woodward about Valerie Plame, it may be worth our taking a closer look.
First, we should note that this is at best a distraction from the actual grand jury investigation and the court case of Scooter Libby. On February 24, 2006, Jason Leopold reported, "In another development in the leak case Friday, U.S. Judge Reggie B. Walton said another administration official, who does not work at the White House, also spoke to reporters about Plame Wilson. This individual, according to sources close to the case, works at the National Security Council.
"Walton said that Libby's defense team is not entitled to be told of the individual's identity because the person is not charged with a crime in the leak. However, the person is said to be one of several people in the administration who is cooperating with the probe." ("White House 'Discovers' 250 Emails Related to Plame Leak"; TruthOut; 2-24-06)
On February 25, 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported, "Walton also said Fitzgerald could keep secret the identity of another government official who allegedly revealed the identity of Plame to journalists before Robert Novak first disclosed it July 14, 2003, in a syndicated column. .... Libby's lawyers apparently were targeting a third official who talked with reporters during that period, including Washington Post reporter and editor Bob Woodward." ("Libby's Team Plans to Subpoena Media" by Richard Schmitt)
Also, in his article yesterday, Jim VandeHei noted, "Fitzgerald has not concluded his investigation, but people involved in the case said he has not shown interest in Woodward or his source since Woodward testified last year." ("Magazine: Bradlee Knows Woodward's Source on Plame"; Washington Post; 3-14-06)
While the identity of Woodward's source is not at issue in the grand jury investigation or in Libby's case, it is apparently one of the things the supporters of Libby want to use to distract the public. Thus, let us introduce some "evidence" of interest into the court of public opinion.
{2} "The basis for this was an unsubstantiated report from British intelligence that Iraq had recently attempted to buy uranium oxide, known as 'yellowcake,' from Niger. The CIA was unsure of this for a number of reasons and had shared its concerns with the British. A former ambassador, Joseph Wilson IV, had been sent to Niger to check out the report and had found nothing to substantiate it. The CIA memo recommended that any reference be dropped from the Cincinnati speech, and it was."
-- Bob Woodward; "Plan of Attack; page 202
Soon after Patrick Fitzgerald announced that he had indicted Scooter Libby on five offenses related to the Plame scandal, and stated that Libby was the "first known" administration official to leak Plame's identity to journalists, Bob Woodward remembered something important. An administration official had told him in a " 'casual' and off-handed manner that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA." ("CIA Leak Path: Cheney, Libby, Woodward"; Jason Leopold; TruthOut; 3-6-06)
In a November, 2005 appearance on Larry King Live, Woodward went into more detail: "I went, 'Whoa,' because I knew I'd learned this in mid-June, a week, ten days before. I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week," and the source said to Woodward at least three times "I have to go to the prosecutor." ("Woodward Provides Clues about His Source"; Jason Leopold; TruthOut; 11-22-05)
Leopold's article later notes that Woodward "made a stunning announcement last week when he revealed that he was told about Plame Wilson in mid-June 2003 by 'current or former administration officials'." Hence, from Woodward's earliest accounts, it is clear that he was less than honest with his audience when he "publicly discounted the importance of the Plame Wilson leak and had referred to Fitzgerald as a 'junkyard dog' prosecutor." (Leopold; 3-6-06)
It is worth our noting that in his 468-page book, "Plan of Attack," the #1 national bestseller described by the New York Times Book Review as, "Instantly essential ... By far the most intimate glimpse we have been granted of the Bush White House, and the administration's defining moment," Mr. Woodward's entire examination of the Wilson/Plame/yellowcake scandal is found in the single paragraph quoted above. Some "incredibly aggressive reporting mode," there! If Mr. Fitzgerald is a "junkyard dog," I suppose it is fair to describe Mr. Woodward as a "lap dog" for the administration.
{3} "I don't think I said it."
-- Ben Bradlee; Washington Post; March 14, 2006
According to Jim VandeHei's article yesterday, Bob Woodward did not tell Ben Bradlee who his source -- or perhaps sources, if "current or former administration officials" is accurate. Bradlee was told by someone else. Woodward is quoted in the article as saying, "He is not in the management loop on this. Maybe he was alerted from somebody else, if in fact he did learn" the identity. Bradlee is quoted as saying, "I know who his source is, and I don't want to get into it ... I have not told a soul who it is."
Thus, Ben Bradlee could not "confirm" the identity of Woodward's source. At very most, he could confirm that someone other than Woodward had told them who they believed the source was. There is a fair amount of interest in this, in part because of Judge Walton's recent ruling, and in part because of friends of Libby and Judith Miller are attempting to make it an issue.
Last night on MSNBC, Norah O'Donnell reported on CountDown that numerous people "know" who the source actually is, but none will tell her, even off the record, who it is.
Yesterday, on The Huffington Post, Larisa Alexandrovna, ripped the Vanity Fair article, and told readers abouther work on the team that had identified Woodward's source as Steve Hadley. She noted that the Vanity Fair articcle "was written by Judy Miller's best friend, Marie Brenner," and in a wonderful line said, "In Brenner's 'I love Judy please believe her' article" had misrepresented Bradlee's "it is reasonable to assume" as an eye-witness identification.
{4} "A few days after Rice's interview, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees announced that they were going to look into the prewar intelligence, including the uranium claim. I called the staffs of both committees and volunteered to brief them about my trip and findings. I ended up briefing them separately within a few days of each other in mid-June, disclosing what I knew to the appropriate oversight bodies."
-- Joseph Wilson; "The Politics of Truth"; page 419
In his article "Woodward Provides Clues about His Source" (TruthOut; 11-22-05), Jason Leopold quotes from a Washington Post article that identifies Stephen Hadley as serving as the liaison between the White House and Senate Intelligence Committee. Hadley was helping to "sift through intelligence with the help of the CIA," and attempting to identify what classified information could be released without damaging the agency or national security. One can conclude that it is likely that the administration, which had begun its "work up" on Wilson in March, was aware that he had briefed the congressional agencies.
In "Plame Whistleblowers Targeted by Administration" (TruthOut; 2-24-06), Leopold notes that sources said witnesses in the grand jury investigation had testified that "Stephen Hadley had worked directly with senior officials from Vice President Cheney's office -- including Libby, Cheney's National Security Adviser John Hannah, and White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove --during the month of June to coordinate a response to reporters who had phoned the vice president's office and the NSC about the administration's use of the Niger documents."
In his article, Leopold wrote that Woodward, by narrowing the dates of his conversation with his "source," helped boil down the list of potential suspects "to two: National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage." A Time magazine article (7-31) had provided information that appears to create a time frame that reduces the chances of Armitage being the source. But, more importantly, Leopold notes, "However, attorneys close to Fitzgerald's probe have fingered Hadley as Woodward's source."
Larisa Alexandrovna also noted, "Hadley as Woodward's source was also confirmed by The Sunday London Times." ("Karl Shoots Blanks at Plame"; 3-15-06)
{5} "I've also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources. It is what it is."
--Steve Hadley; response to reporters' asking if he was Woodward's source
Neither of these "suspects" has either confirmed or denied that they were Woodward's source. I think that it is interesting to consider if Stephen Hadley, Dick Armitage, or someone else told Woodward about Wilson's wife working at the CIA. Could it be both? Neither? Someone else? And was the source (or one of them) also Bob Novak's source?
I believe Larisa Alexandrovna and Jason Leopold's reports are accurate. Of course, their sources could be mistaken. But they seem to have far better information that a quote Ben Bradlee may have made, but which appears to have been -- at very best -- taken out of context by Judith Miller's friend.
Finally, as Judge Reggie Walton ruled, it is of no significance in Scooter Libby's trial.."

Somewhere over the Mushroom Cloud

Somewhere Over the Mushroom Cloud
{1} "Now, however, her role in the Plame scandal cannot be ignored or excused. She alone among senior officials was knowing and complicitous at every successive stage of the great half-baked yellow cake fraud. She alone was the White House peer -- and in national security matters the superior -- to Rove and Libby, who never could have acted without her collusion in peddling Plame's identity. She as much as anyone had a stake in smearing Wilson by any and all means at hand. If Rove and Libby are to be held criminally or at least politically accountable for a breach of national security, our 'mushroom cloud' secretary of state should certainly be in the dock with the."
-- Roger Morris; The Source beyond Rove: Condoleeza Rice at the Center of the Plame Scandal; from Commondreams.com and TruthOut; July 28, 2005
Mr. Morris, who was a senior staff member on the NSC during the Johnson and Nixon administrations, wrote a fascinating article about the role Condi Rice has played in the Plame scandal. His sense of "right and wrong" was documented years ago, when he quit the Nixon administration to protest the illegal invasion of Cambodia. His is a valued voice in any serious discussion of American foreign policy. I find his article about Rice to be important, and I think that it will serve as a good foundation for the discussions of Condi's participation in the Plame and the neocon/AIPAC spy scandals in the next couple of months.
One of my goals in my series of essays on the Plame scandal is to show that interested people can use a combination of progressive media sources (including the internet), along with the corporate media, and books, to come to a fair understanding of what the Plame scandal is about. In a recent essay on my blog ( http://h2oman.blogspot.com ), I had an essay "Your Move," which described the grand jury investigation of the Plame scandal in terms of a chess match. Let's take a moment today to examine Ms. Rice in the context of one of the Bush administration's bishops, and see what we can piece together. I think we will have some fun today.
We will start with a brief background of Ms. Rice.In "American Dynasty," Kevin Phillips (who like Morris, served in the Nixon administration), notes that she had "a specialty in what had been Soviet Central Asia and a particularly strong oil industry background. A former Chevron director, Rice even had a company oil tanker named after her..." (page 150)
Richard Clarke, in "Against All Enemies," noted that "Condi's previous government experience had been as an NSC staffer for three years worrying about the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union during the Cold War." (page 230)
"When it came to Bush presidencies, she was, in a sense, present at the creation," James Mann notes. "Scowcroft had kept in touch with her ever since first meeting her at Stanford three years earlier, making sure she was brought into elite groups, such as the Aspen Strategy Group, that serve as training grounds for future leaders." (Rise of the Vulcans; page 171)
In January, 2000, Ms. Rice had a policy article featured in "Foreign Affairs" (Vol. 79; No.1; Jan/Feb 2000; pages 45-62). The article, "Promoting the National Interest," also promoted Ms. Rice as part of candidate George W. Bush's foreign policy staff. In it, she noted that nations like Iraq and North Korea "are living on borrowed time, so there need be no sense of panic about them. Rather the first line of defense should be a clear and classical statement of deterence -- if they do acquire weapons of mass destruction, that weapon will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration." (See Mann, page 254, for more.)
Ms. Rice was one of the 2000 Republican National Convention's featured speakers. Phillips notes that, "Cynics bemoaned what they saw as new heights of orchestration-cum-artifiality, and the mere 8 percent of the national black vote that Bush received in 2000 -- down from Dole's 14 percent in 1996 and his father's 12 percent in 1992 -- suggested that the happy talk and camera focus on advisors Powell and Rice counted for little with the constituency at which it was directed." (page 143)
Is it possible that Condi was valued for reasons other than her insight on the late Soviet Union, and her leadership in the black community? While the mere thought may be shocking on the surface, let's take a closer look at her career in the Bush2 administration.
{2} "Now Condi Rice was in charge. She appeared to have a closer relationship with the second President Bush than any of her predecessors had with the presidents they reported to."
-- Richard Clarke; Against All Enemies; page 229.
Richard Clarke goes on to describe how Sandy Berger and he attempted to help in the transition from the Clinton to Bush administrations, by informing Rice and others of the threat posed by terrorists in general, especially by al Qaeda. "As I briefed Rice on al Qaeda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before..." (page 229)
Joseph Wilson quotes Paul O'Neill's book "The Price of Loyalty," in which the former Treasury Secretary tells how Ms. Rice ran the first NSC meeting in January, 2001. Rice announced the topic would be "How Iraq is destabilizing the region..." This was where President Bush announced, "We're going to correct the imbalances of the previous administration on the Mideast conflict. We're going to tilt it back toward Israel." When Colin Powell questioned the consequences of what Bush was advocating, the president said, "Maybe that's the best way to get things back in balance." O'Neill noted that "Powell seemed startled." (Wilson; The Politics of Truth; pages 438-9)
Ms. Rice part of what Patrick Buchanan described thusly: "...into his entourage there had already been insinuated a cabal that called itself 'the Vulcans.' Recruited by Condoleezza Rice, the best known were Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. ... Thus began the tutoring of George W. Bush in Kristol's 'new find of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy,' ...." (Where the Right Went Wrong; page 42)
John Dean notes much the same: Bush "was, for all practical purposes, a blank slate to be wrirren on. The group of tutors was headed by Condoleezza Rice, and she named her team 'the Vulcans'..." Dean lists others on the team, including Richard Armitage, Robert Blackwill, and Stephen Hadley. (Worse Than Watergate; pages 143 and 227)
In "Chain of Command," Seymour Hersh documents Ms. Rice's connections with the scandals at Guantanamo Bay. (pages 3,6,8,9,11 and 50). In "American Dynasty," Kevin Phillips ties her directly to the scandal with Enron .(page 168; also see: "Chronology of Administration Dealings with Enron," Washington Post, Januaryy 22,2002.)
{3} "July 29, 2001: 'We have been able to keep his (Saddam's) arms from him,' NSC advisor Rice tells the media. 'His military forces have not been rebuilt."
-- Roger Morris; Condoleezza Rice at the Center of the Plame Scandal; July 28, 2005
Let's look at Ms. Rice's involvement with the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). This group "was established in August 2002 by Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card, Jr., at the same time the OSP was established in Feith's office. Made up of high-level administration officials, its job was to sell the war to the general public, largely through televised addresses and by selectively leaking the intelligence to the media." (James Bamford; A Pretext for War; page 318)
Besides Rice, the WHIG includes Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Steve Hadley, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, James Wilkinson, and Nicholas Calio. In the summer of 2002, their goal was to convince the American public that there was a direct connection between Saddam and al Qaeda (and hence between Saddam and 9-11), and that Saddam posed a threat to US security with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In August, VP Cheney told tv audiences on three occassions that there was "no doubt" that Saddam had WMD, and was attempting to build nuclear weapons.
On Sunday, September 9, 2002, the NY Times ran a front page story co-authored by Judith Miller, that claimed there was solid evidence that Saddam was attempting to build nuclear weapons. Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice appeared on four major Sunday morning news shows, claiming the Times' story proved that Saddam posed a risk to US security. Rice, on CNN, delivered a line that Mary Matalin wrote for her: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." (Bob Woodward; Plan of Attack; page 179// Wilson; The Politics of Truth; page 231)
As the campaign for war gathered strength, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson writes an op-ed for the San Jose Mercury News ("How Saddam Thinks," October 13, 2002). Brent Scowcroft calls Wilson to ask if he can "take it over to the White House" to show to senior officials. It is believed that Scowcroft brought the article to show to Rice and Hadley. (Wilson; The Politics of Truth; page 296)
Still, the claims that there may be a Niger yellow cake uranium connection to Iraq continues to be in the President's Daily Briefing (PDB) in December, 2002. And, in January, both Rice and Hadley will be among those who approve the presidents State of the Union address. (Morris; Condoleezza Rice...; 7-28-05)
In January, French leader Jacques Chirac sends a top aide to warn Rice that the planned US invasion of Iraq will destabilize the Middle East, and increase recruitment for al Qaeda. ( James Mann; Rise of the Vulcans; page 349)
Still, on January 23, 2003, Rice has an op-ed in the NY Times, titled "Why We Know Iraq is Lying." In it, she claims that Iraq's "...false declaration ... fails to account for or explain Iraq's effort to get uranium abroad. Let's take a closer look, and see why we know Condi was lying.
{4} "..I could not understand what Rice thought she was accomplishing by leaving interviewers with the impression that she had no idea who I was. Perhaps she had a poor memory, although I find that as improbable as her claim later that she had simply forgotten about the CIA memoranda dealing with the vital question of purported uranium sales from Niger to Iraq."
--Joseph Wilson; The Politics of Truth; page 297.
How did Condi react when no WMDs were found in Iraq, and when the media began to speak of an unnamed source who had investigated the Niger claims for the CIA, and found them to be false?
"Maybe someone in the bowels of the Agency knew something about this, but nobody in my circles," Condi told Tim Russert on Meet the Press. (June 8, 2003)
"If there were any doubts about the underlying intelligence to that National Intelligence Estimate, those doubts were not communicated to the president, the vice president, or to me," Condi said during a July 11, 2003 press briefing.
On Fox News on July 13, 2002, Rice said, "Had there ever been even a peep that the Agency did not want that sentence in or that George Tenent did not want that sentence -- it would have been gone. .... It is ludicrous to suggest that the president of the UnitedStates went to war on the question of whether Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Africa. This was part of a very broad case that the president laid out in the State of the Union and other places."
On July 27, 2003, a front page Washington Post article, "Iraq Flap Shakes Rice's Image," addressed her responsibility for the "faulty intelligence." Three days later, in an interview with PBS's Gwen Ifill, Ms. Rice attempted to blame others for her errors: " What we learned later, and I did not know at the time, and certainly did not know until just before Steve Hadley went out to say what he did last week, was the director had also sent over to the White House a set of clearance comments that explained why he wanted this out of the speech. I can tell you, I either didn't see the memo, or I don't remember seeing the memo." ( Also see Wilson, pages 352-3)
On October 12, 2003, the Washington Post ran a story "Rice Fails to Repair Rifts." Woodward tells how Rice tried to blame Richard Armitage for "leaks" that hurt the administration. (Plan of Attack; pages 414-5) This is a tactic which continues. (See "The Unknown Soldier" on my blog.)
{5) "March 5, 2004: Newsday's Tom Brune reports that the grand jury has issued subpoenas summoning phone logs of Air Force One from July 7-12, from the July 12 press gaggle, and records of the White House Iraq Group from July 6-30."
-- Joseph Wilson; The Politics of Truth; page 454.
"Rice was aboard Air Force One: Rice was one of several senior administration officials on a July 2003 flight to Africa, during which it was decided that she would appear on the Sunday shows to 'protect Cheney by explaining that he had nothing to do with sending Wilson to Niger, and dismiss the yellowcake issue.' (Think Progress.Org; quoting Newsweek, 7-17-05)
"... Condi Rice, the ultimate good soldier ... was on the Africa trip with the president, and wouldn't be getting back until Saturday night. To allow her to prepare on the long flight home to D.C., White House officials assembled a briefing book, which they faxed to the Bush entourage in Africa. The book was primarily prepared by her National Security staff. It contained classified information -- perhaps including all or part of the memo from State. The entire binder was labled TOP SECRET." (Newsweek; 7-25-05)
"Powell discusses the memo with Rice and other presidential aides on board, including press secretery Ari Fleischer. Witnesses later see Fleischer 'perusing' the memo. .... Rice and Fleischer both call contacts at the Washington Post and New York Times 'to make it clear,' the Times will report, 'that they no longer stood behind Mr. Bush's statement about the uranium -- the first such official concession on the sensitive issue of the intelligence that led to war."
--Roger Morris; Condaleezza Rice at the Center....; July 28, 2005.
"Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser, was as cogent as he was concise. Since the Bush people never backed down, he pointed out, the fact that they had been so quick to admit their error this time meant that they must have something more important to protect." (Joseph Wilson; The Politics of Truth; page 4.)
{6} "How does somebody whose job it is to track nuclear weapons development, especially in rogue states, receive such critical information and then proceed to forget it? This was not a grade school homework assignment. The short answer is that they don't forget, unless they are derelict. Regrettably, disingenuousness is another possibility. Condoleezza Rice may be many things, but she is hardly derelict."
-- Joseph Wilson; The Politics of Truth; pages 331-2.
"I know nothing of any such White House effort to reveal any of this," Rice told Fox News on September 28, 2003. "And it certainly would not be the way the president would expect his White House to operate."
On July 11, 2003, Rice stated, "On Ambassador Wilson's going out to Niger, I learned of that when I was on whatever TV show it was, because that mission was not known to anybody in the White House." (Think Progress; 3-3-2006)
"I have, like everybody else, cooperated with Prosecutor Fitzgerald and I'm quite certain that he will make his report," she told Fox News on October 16, 2005.
"As the WMD controversy grew in 2004, the president expressed his concerns to Rice. To air all of the CIA's problems could have two negatives that he wanted to avoid. First, the controversy would lead to congressional investigations like the Church and Pike Committees in 1975-76 that revealed CIA spying on U.S. citizens ..." (Bob Woodward; Plan of Attack; page 442)
Perhaps it is time for that congressional investigation.

Fitzgerald's Pot of Gold

"The defendant's defense must necessarily be predicated upon what the defendant believed to be the pressing and time sensitive national security and intelligence issues that dominated his work day." - US District Judge Reggie B. White; Memorandum Opinion; March 10, 2006.

Yesterday, Judge Reggie Walton ruled on several of the extensive arguments he heard on February 24, regarding the defense team for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's Motion to Compel Discovery. As those who follow the case will recall, at that time Judge Walton resolved several key issues. He granted Team Libby access to Scooter's personal notes, but denied their request for documents concerning journalists beyond those Libby dealt with (Miller, Russert, and Cooper).
Walton had also reserved the right to determine if Team Libby had the right to another set of documents; he held a private session "in camera" regarding these, and ruled in Fitzgerald's favor. Further, Walton has reserved judgement on two other Team Libby requests, regarding any damage assessment concerning the disclosure of Valerie Plame, and any documentation regarding her employment status at the CIA. (It should be noted that in the 2-13-06 edition of Newsweek, Michael Isikoff reported in "The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert" that "according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion," the CIA had verified that Plame was indeed a covert agent at the time the administration exposed her. This includes having traveled overseas to work on counterproliferation issues.)
In yesterday's ruling, Judge Walton was primarily concerned with the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. This rule involves pre-trial discovery in five areas: {1} the defendant's statements, including oral, written, or otherwise recorded; {2} his prior criminal record; {3} certain document's the government has in their "possession, custody, or control"; {4} reports of examinations or tests; an {5} any summary of testimony of expert witnesses the prosecution anticipates using. Yesterday's ruling focused on #3.
Team Libby requested: {1} all documents provided to Libby in connection to his morning intelligence briefings from 5-6-03 through 3-24-04 in their entirety, including materials from the Vice President's daily briefing; and {2} all documents relating to inquiries Libby made as a result of those daily briefings, and all documents provided in response to his inquiries.
Judge Walton had to make his decisions based upon rules of discovery for classified information as government by Section 4 of the Classified Information Procedres Act (CIPA). Thus, he ruled that Team Libby was only entitled to a set of documents from a limited time period, and to only to "documents reflecting the defendant's inquiries he made during the morning intelligence briefings, and not the responses he received to those inquiries." Significantly, Judge Walton notes that Team Libby "appears to agree, in large part" to Walton's restrictions. (page 10)
The controversy over what documents Team Libby is requesting is limited to those from the CIA and the Office of the Vice President. There is no dispute over any evidence the Department of Justice, including the FBI, has. Thus, Walton focuses on "the first question for the Court to answer," which is what CIA and OVP evidence Fitzgerald has within his possession, custody, or control.
Fitzgerald had noted the CIA had not participate in the investigation, other than in the status of a witness. More, he "argues that the President's directive for White House employees to cooperate with the investigation does not align the OVP with the prosecution, but merely provided responsive documents to the Office of Special Counsel upon request."
Judge Walton ruled that the inquiry must be "fact-intensive and must be resolved on a case by case basis. He noted that then-White House Counsel Albert Gonzales had "declared that '(t)he president has directed full cooperation with the investigation'," and said there "is no indication the White House denied" Fitzgerald's requests. Thus, while he notes "the exact contours of the roles played by the OVP and the CIA are not entirely clear to this Court," and that the "CIA's involvement in this investigation is less transparent," Judge Walton will allow Team Libby access to some of the information they requested regarding Fitzgerald's investigation.
Still, he notes that, "In this case, the question of materiality is much more difficult, and closer question," than in ordinary criminal cases. He puts this into the context of what Libby's defense must be, which is "necessarily predicated upon what the defendant believed." Thus, while the government must provide summaries of information from the period in question to Team Libby, it will be up to Scooter to use them to "refresh" his memory. And Judge Walton reduced the amount of time in question from Team Libby's original request for 321 days' worth of specific documents, to 58 days' worth of summaries.
Other issues remain unresolved. Thus, Judge Walton has ordered both sides to be prepared for a March 17th hearing to try to find common ground on other motions. It may be that Patrick Fitzgerald is prepared to show us the "pot of gold" at the end of this rainbow.

Attacking the Press & Pressing the Attack

Attacking the Press & Pressing the Attack

{1} "According to Advertising Age, about 75 percent of commercial network television time is paid for by the 100 largest corporations in the country. Many people do not react to this statistic as being important. But consider that there are presently 450,000 corporations in the United States, and some 250 million people, representing extremely diverse viewpoints about lifestyle, politics, and personal and national priorities. Only 100 corporations get to decide what will appear on television and what will not. These corporations do not overtly announce their refusal to finance programs that contain views disconsanant with their own; their control is far more subtle. It works in the minds of television producers who, when thinking about what programs to produce, have to mitigate their desires by their need to sell the programs to corporate backers. An effective censorship results."
--Jerry Mander; In the Absence of the Sacred; Sierra Club Books; 1991; page 78.

In yesterday's essay on the role of the media in the Plame scandal, I noted that individual journalists were playing significant roles in a case about national security. Today, I would like to further examine how corporations which often represent the interests of the government, tend to exercise an "effective censorship" over the corporate media.

In many ways, this is part of an on-going conflict in the corporate media. Reporters have tended to be liberal, while editors tend to be conservative. More, the owners of the media sources, whether a television station or a newspaper, are interested in the capital made on their investment. That means they are interested in selling ads by producing "news" that corporations will invest in, and which the public will consume.

Thus, while there have been some significant changes in the 15 years since Mander published his book, in most ways, the corporate media remains the same. The 24-hour, 7-days a week cable news channels, such as CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, make minor adjustments in programming. Tucker Carlson goes from CNN at 5 pm/est to MSNBC at 11 pm/est, and Bob Novak goes to Fox. But, in general, these shows serve the same basic corporate news menu, with no more variety than the menu of McDonalds and Burger King.

{2} "I told Mr. Fitzgerald that Mr. Libby might have thought I still had security clearance, given my special embedded status in Iraq. At the same time, I told the grand jury I thought that at our July 8 meeting I might have expressed frustration to Mr. Libby that I was not permitted to discuss with editors some of the more sensitive information about Iraq."
-- Judith Miller; My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room; NY Times; 10-16-05.

Judith Miller is the best example of the prostitution of journalism that I can think of. Her feelings of pride at having a security clearance, and her frustration at not being able to share information with her editors, makes it quite clear that Judith was not working primarily as a journalist in Iraq -- nor in the build-up to the war, or in her part in the Plame scandal. Yet the confusion in loyalties, between the art of journalism and intelligence, is nothing new.

People would do well to read books by author David Wise from the 1970s. He was the White House correspondent for the Herald Tribune during the Kennedy administration, and a Fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. He wrote “The Politics of Lying,” and co-wrote “The Invisible Government”; these books about the intelligence agencies role in the corporate media, which were best-sellers, were widely credited with “bringing about a reappraisal of the role of the CIA in a democratic society.” (Random House)

On page 200 of his 1976 book “The American Police State,” Wise tells of how William F. Buckley Jr. “did not reveal to his readers that he was a former CIA agent, and that the column was based on a memorandum he had received from his former boss in the CIA, then still working for the Agency, but later to become famous – E. Howard Hunt, Jr. …. Hunt and Buckley became close friends and Buckley was the godfather of Hunt’s children.”

Older readers will likely remember how intelligence agencies in the 1960s used an art known as “perception management” to mold the public’s view of issues such as the civil rights struggle, and the anti-war movement. Likewise, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover attempted to manipulate media sources to discredit progressive leaders like Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

{3} “ ‘Sixty-one percent, Ed,’ Buchanan responded. ‘Sixty-one percent. Just the biggest landslide in recent history, and if it hadn’t been for Watergate, it would have been more.’

“ ‘You did it dirty.’

“ ‘A little spying, Ed. That’s politics. I’ll bet you guys had the binoculars on Shula (the Miami Dolphin football coach) at the Super Bowl. You had the glasses out on the other side of the stadium and you didn’t even win.’ “
--Patrick Buchanan to Edward Bennett Williams; All the President’s Men; Pocket Books; 1974; page 286.

It should come as no surprise that a discussion of the media, dirty politics, and the Plame scandal should include a mention of Watergate and Bob Woodward. The above quote is particularly interesting, in light of the fact that Patrick Buchanan led many of the efforts to manipulate the national media in the Nixon administration. He had a small group of well disciplined people who would respond to any article that was considered offensive to Nixon, by either writing letters to the editor, signing and sending letters Buchanan wrote for them, or calling editors to complain about journalists considered to be administration enemies.

While Buchanan’s group was not considered to be tied directly to other White House intelligence operations, it is easy to see how it helped to coordinate the administration’s media goals. It has also served as the model used by the republican administrations that followed in the 1980s to the present time. What is interesting is that democrats have rarely put similar operations into play – a small group of disciplined citizens can have an impact on how the corporate media sells its product. That may be an interesting topic for a later essay.

{4} “How do you publicly counter a guy like that? As ‘senior advisor,’ Rove would be involved in finding out. Technically, Rove was in charge of politics, not ‘communications.’ But, as he saw it, the two were one and the same – and he used his heavyweight status to push the message machine run by his Texas protégé and friend, Dan Bartlett. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was sent out to trash the Wilson op-ed. ‘Zero, nada, nothing new here,’ he said. Then, on a long Bush trip to Africa, Fleischer and Bartlett prompted clusters of reporters to look into the bureaucratic orgins of the Wilson trip. How did the spin doctors know to cast that lure? ….”
-- Howard Fineman; Rove At War; Newsweek; 7-25-05; page 30.

The Plame scandal has given the American public good reason to examine the relationship between the Bush2 administration, the intelligence agencies, and the corporate media. A brief look at the names of the journalists involved supports that claim: Bob Novak, Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Walter Pincus, Clifford May, and Bob Woodward. Not to mention CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.

Just as David Wise questioned famous journalist William Buckley’s failure to inform his readers of his status in the intelligence community, we have good reason to question – for but two examples – why Bob Woodward failed to tell the public, or his bosses, about his role in the Plame scandal, or why Judith Miller failed to be frank with her readers or her editors. Who are these “journalists” really representing?

I do not think that it follows that ALL the corporate media is without value. On MSNBC, both Hardball and Countdown have had valuable information on the Plame case. David Schuster’s reporting has been of high quality in recent months in particular. But we need to find a balance between ignoring it totally, or accepting it without question.

{5} “Two top Bush administration officials who played an active role in the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, have been removed from their jobs, career State Department weapons experts who have spoken to investigators during the past two years about the officials role in the leak, according to a half-dozen State Department officials.”
-- Jason Leopold; Plame Whistleblowers Targeted by Administration; TruthOut; 2-24-06

There are a couple of questions that I believe we need to consider. The first is, in light of the fact that progressive media sources – such as TruthOut and Raw Story – cover stories that document the administration’s targeting it’s opponents, is it realistic to think there may be efforts to compromise or damage the reputation of these progressive news sources? And, second, how might concerned citizens best access and balance the news they receive, from both corporate and progressive media sources?

On some of the progressive/democratic internet sites I participate on, there are calls to boycott or ignore the corporate media. There are also conflicts between some representatives of progressive media sources, which range from petty to serious. I am convinced that the corporate media is of value. And I am concerned that as we approach the 2006 election season, there will be increasingly sophisticated attempts to damage progressive media sources.

In upcoming essays, I will go into greater detail about my opinions and concerns. At this time, I am hoping that readers will share their thoughts. I would remind people that this is a topic where there are not black and white, right or wrong answers. A variety of opinions is a good thing.

Thank you.

The Meda, Journalists, and the Plame Scandal

{1} "I think this White House made a tactical error. ...I think politically they did the wrong thing by saying nice things about Patrick Fitzgerald some months ago -- 'he's a man of integrity,' 'he's a good guy,' 'we have complete confidence he's doing the right thing,' etc -- making it now almost impossible for the White House, even on background, to attack the guy .... I think they should have at least kept the option open to attack him, and I just don't see they have that."
-- Tucker Carlson; MSNBC; Oct. 24, 2005

Tucker Carlson's response to Chris Matthews' question, about if President Bush should have attempted to minimize the significance of the Plame scandal by calling it a mid-level leak, is interesting. It has recently been reported that Carlson's father is one of the contributors to the Libby defense fund. Likewise, Fox News' Brit Hume is reportedly one of the "big name" Libby supporters. Surely no Washington scandal has involved members of the corporate news media to the extent that the plot to expose CIA covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson's identity has.

The two administration officials who have been identified as being among those who leaked Plame's identity to journalists in 2003 are Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Both were part of what was known as the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). This group met weekly to conduct the media campaign necessary to sell the Iraq war to the American public. They came up with the infamous "we can't wait until the 'smoking gun' turns out to be a mushroom cloud," which borrowed the emotional punch of the infamous "daisy chain" commercial from the 1964 presidential campaign.

When in March of 2003, when Ambassador Joseph Wilson began to be viewed as a threat with the potential to expose the "16 words" from the president's state of the union address, the WHIG began to consider options to discredit Wilson. This included conducting a "work-up" on Wilson, which involved using intelligence resources that resulted in VP Cheney finding out that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

In Jason Leopold's 3-6-06 article, "CIA Leak Path: Cheney, Libby, Woodward," (part of his excellent series found on "TruthOut"), we find that in response to Wilson's information exposing the Niger yellow cake report as fiction, the vice president authorized Scooter Libby to share highly classified National Intelligence Estimate information with journalists including Bob Woodward and Judith Miller.

Shortly after this, Robert Novak authored the article which revealed that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent involved in investigating weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The roles played by a number of reporters is now going to become part of Mr. Libby's defense against the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald filed against him last fall.

{2} "In his signature staccato, Matthews was blunt: 'I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He says, and I quote, "Wilson's wife is fair game".' Before abruptly hanging up, Matthews added: 'I will confirm that if asked'."
-- Joseph Wilson; The Politics of Truth; Avalon; 2004; page 1.

Ambassador Wilson likely expected administration officials would be angry when he exposed the "16 words" as untrue. But, on July 8, 2003, when Robert Novak told a stranger on a Washington, DC street that, "Wilson's an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She's a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him," the former ambassador found it unsettling. (ibid; page 343) Likewise, he must have been concerned when he found out that Scooter Libby "seized opportunities to rail openly against me as an 'asshole playboy' who went on a boondoggle 'arranged by his CIA wife'." (ibid; page 442) Wilson had good reason to be concerned: his wife was a covert agent, and revealing her identity put her and many other people's safety at risk.

From the October 28, 2005 indictment filed against Scooter Libby, we find that he had been sharing information from the NIE and about Valerie Plame with Judith Miller, of the New York Times. Further, we know that Karl Rove was one of the two senior administration officials who told Novak about Plame, and that Rove also discussed Plame with Time's Matthew Cooper. These three and at least four other journalists from the coporate media were given information about Plame in order to try to discredit Wilson's trip to Niger.

The CIA contacted the Counterespionage Section of the Department of Justice in July, August, and September of 2003, requesting that they investigate the possibility that a crime was committed when Plame's identity was revealed. As late as December of 2003, the media was reporting that White House officials were confident that nothing would come of the investigation; "we have rolled earthmovers in over this one," an unidentified "senior White House official" told a Financial Times reporter. (Wilson; page 360) Things changed on December 30, 2003.

{3} "By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, .... and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General .... , I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unathorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision of any officer of the Department."
-- James B. Comey; letter to Patrick Fitzgerald; December 30, 2003

The grand jury investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity included Patrick Fitzgerald's calling upon several journalists to testify about their sources. This was, of course, an action that created some degree of tension. In theory, journalism is a noble profession, which relies upon unidentified sources known as "whistle-blowers," to expose government corruption. Many sincere people, including some journalists on the left, were concerned that Fitzgerald was attempting to violate rights they felt were outlined in the Constitution.

Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court, in an attempt to avoid testifying. They lost. Cooper obeyed the law, and reported in the 7-25-05 edition of Time about his testimony to the grand jury. Miller opted to go to jail. Her case, which appeared on the surface to be based on her journalistic ethics, soon was exposed as something entirely different.

In his memorandum in opposition to Miller's motion for reconsideration on the issue of incarceration, Patrick Fitzgerald informed Judge Thomas Hagan that dispite Miller's claim that she enjoyed the "strong and public support of her employer, colleagues, political and opinion leaders" in her refusal to cooperate with the grand jury, there were many who did not share in her "principled motive."

Fitzgerald quoted Norman Pearlstine, the editor-in-chief of Time: "The same constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgements ....The Supreme Court made its ruling ...Once it made its ruling there was no other choice but to comply. I feel we are not above the law." (AP; 6-30-05)

While those connected to the White House, including Bob Woodward, had compared this case to Watergate, and twisted Novak and Miller's roles into Woodward and Bernstein's, Pearlstine noted that it was quite the opposite. He considered the example of Nixon, and concluded, "But if Presidents are not above the law, how is it that journalists are? .... Thinking we're above the law rings wrong to me." (NYTimes; 7-1-05)

Fitzgerald also quotes from Steve Chapman, of the editorial board of the Chicago Times: "... Judith Miller, who claims the prerogative of deciding for herself what information the grand jury is entitled to hear .... Journalists like nothing better than exposing self-seeking behavior by special interests who care nothing for the public good. In this case, they can find it by looking in the mirror."(7-3-05)

Fitzgerald goes on to quote from numerous other journalists who rejected Miller's claims. Eventually, poor Judith tired of her incarceration, and agreed to testify to the grand jury. She would then write a "self-seeking" article for the New York Times, pointing to Mr. Libby as the source of her information on Plame and the NIE.

{4} "Lawyers for I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby said Friday that they soon planned to subpoena reporters and news organizations, and a federal judge set the stage for a showdown in late April on whether the media would have to comply with the subpoenas in order to afford the former White House aide a fair trial."
--Richard Schmitt; Libby's Team Plans to Subpoena Media; Los Angeles Times; 2-25-06.

Scooter Libby's defense team plans to attempt to distract attention from his lying to investigators and to the grand jury about his disclosing of Valerie Plame's identity, by focusing attention onto reporters that he in many cases had no contact with. In one case, however, Libby's legal team appears to be preparing to challenge NBC's Tim Russert. Libby claims that Russert revealed Plame's identity to him. Russert denies this. Fitzgerald has ample evidence that dcuments other administration sources, including VP Cheney, first told Libby about Plame's CIA employment.

As the grand jury investigation continues, the corporate media has not been reporting many of the things that the progressive media sources, such as TruthOut and RawStory, have revealed. Among the most interesting is that Fitzgerald noted in a February court hearing that the White House had turned over approximately 250 e-mails they previously had withheld from him. These are reportedly from VP Cheney's office and help detail how the WHIG planned to discredit Joseph Wilson.

In future essays, I will combine information from both the corporate and progressive media, to give readers a better picture of where the grand jury investigation into the Plame scandal now stands.