Life With the Liars

The strategy of the Libby defense team has been taking shape this fall. A central strategy involved having a "memory expert" attempt to convince the jury that not only could a busy bee like our Scooter simply forget conversations with VP Cheney about Valerie Wilson’s CIA employment, but he might remember a conversation with Tim Russert that never took place. Sad for Scooter, Judge Walton tossed that concept out of the trial.

Next, Team Libby has listed VP Dick Cheney on the list of witnesses it plans to call in the trial, which starts in January. Those who follow the pre-trial hearings and court filings suspect that Cheney will be used in part to counter one or more of the prosecution witnesses who are or were employed by the White House in 2003. Let’s take a moment to look closer at one of the court filings that is of interest.

On November 13, Team Libby filed a 12-page document, # 179-1. It is the "Libby Response to the Government’s Motion In Limine to Preclude Evidence, Comment, and Argument Regarding the Government’s Charging Decision." In the Government’s Motion, Mr. Fitzgerald noted that the defense should not be allowed to urge the jury to acquit Libby because he is the only one charged thus far, or because he isn’t charged with leaking Plame’s identity. Team Libby notes that these factors alone are not in dispute, but raises three related issues.

The first is that they want to clarify for the jury that Libby has not been charged with leaking classified information. The second concerns information concerning possible conflicts involving other witnesses who faced possible indictment. And third, they want to draw a distinction between Libby and Bob Novak’s sources. In a future essay, we will examine their cause for concern with issue #1. We need not bother expanding upon #3, which Mr. Fitzgerald has called a "strawman," considering the criminal investigation was not restricted to Novak’s sources.

In Section II (pages 4-8), Team Libby notes: "The jury is entitled to know what the case is and is not about. …. The Court may very well provide the jurors with a similar instruction. But on this crucial point, Mr. Libby is entitled to both the Court’s dispassionate admonition and his counsel’s emphatic advocacy. ….

" The government concedes that evidence concerning its charging decisions is relevant in certain circumstances. Specifically, the government admits that ‘information relating to its discussions with prospective witnesses, for example, is relevant on the issue of the witnesses’ motivantion(s).’ … The government is absolutely correct. But the relevance of that information is not limited to situations involving an immunity agreement. In situations where a witness faced potential criminal liability, the government’s decision not to charge that witness may be just as relevant as the government’s discussion with that witness. In the same manner, the fact that a witness has not been charged, but has reason to fear he or she could be charged, is also relevant. The defense should be permitted to cross-examine witnesses at trial about whether, for example, they testified in the grand jury or gave other information to the government in a manner calculated to curry favor with prosecutors and avoid prosecution. In such circumstances, it is undoubtedly pertinent that the witness in question was never charged by the government. …

"Further, even though the defense has not yet received any Jencks material, we are aware that certain potential witnesses have admitted they gave inaccurate information to the grand jury. We are also aware, based on information provided by the government in discovery, that potential witnesses gave testimony that directly conflicts with the testimony of other potential witnesses. The fact that these witnesses have not been charged, but have reason to fear charges, is undoubtedly admissible evidence because it bears on their motives to please the prosecution, which in turn reflects possible bias."

Who exactly does Team Libby have in mind? Catherine Martin? Ari Fleischer? Dick Armitage? Judith Miller? John Hannah? David Wurmser? Or possible Karl Rove?

The Plame Cases

In the past 48 hours, there have been reports on VP Dick Cheney and Ambassador Joseph Wilson being called upon by defense attorneys to testify during the upcoming criminal trial of disgraced former White House senior official I. Lewis Libby. The media reports have raised a number of questions that are worth our taking a closer look.

{1} Will VP Dick Cheney take the witness stand in the Libby trial?

(a) Possibly. It is also likely that he will attempt to avoid appearing in court in person. The 12-19 Reuters article by James Vicini ("Cheney to be called to testify in CIA leak case") notes: "Defense attorneys did not say whether Cheney would testify in the courtroom or would give videotaped testimony."

Likewise, the LA Times 12-20 article ("Libby’s defense will call Cheney to testify") notes: "The lawyers did not say whether they expected Cheney would appear in court or give his testimony through a deposition, although their statements indicated that they believe the vice president would appear in person and voluntarily without a subpoena."

In the past, I have stated that Cheney would attempt to testify by videotape if Mr. Fitzgerald called upon him to testify. Considering it is the defense calling him, this may well change.


{2} Will Cheney be considered a "hostile witness"?

(a) No. If by chance Ambassador Wilson were to testify, he might be. But VP Cheney is going to try to help Scooter.


{3} What will Cheney say that could possibly help Scooter?

(a) Team Libby is hoping to have Dick reinforce how busy Libby was during the time in question. The defense is attempting to say Libby was so busy, he simply forgot about Valerie Plame’s status. When we think back to Libby’s September 15, 2005 letter to inmate Judith Miller, we see the defense strategy beginning to jell: "You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover – Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work – and life." It is clear that Libby is saying the cluster of OVP/WHIG friends were going to take the position that Scooter and Dick were so concerned with Iraq, terrorists, Iran, and national security, that they paid little attention to Wilson and Plame.


{4} Will Fitzgerald be able to address this issue?

(a) Yes. If we look at page 7 of Mr. Fitzgerald’s Response to Defendant’s Third Motion to Compel Discovery (4-5-06), we read: "Some documents produced to defendant could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson."

More, if we look at Scooter’s March 5, 2004 testimony to the Grand Jury, we find he was asked if the Wilson case "was discussed on a daily basis?"
Libby: Yes, sir.
Q: And was it discussed on multiple occasions each day in fact?
Libby: Yes, sir. ….
Q: And do you recall what it is that the Vice-President said?
Libby: I recall that he was very keen to get the truth out. …He was very keen on that, and said it frequently. Let’s get everything out. …..
Q: And is it fair to say that he had told you back in June, June 12 or before, prior to the Pincus article, that his wife worked in the functional office of the Counterproliferation of the CIA. Correct?
Libby: Yes, sir. ….
Q: And are you telling us under oath that from July 6th to July 14th you never discussed with Vice-President Cheney whether Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA?
Libby: No, no, I’m not saying that. …I had just forgotten it.
It will be interesting to hear VP Cheney explain how a topic that he discussed daily with Libby was of so little significance that Scooter could easily have forgotten it.


{5} What will Tim Russert be questioned about?

(a) First, Libby told both the FBI investigators and the Grand Jury that it was Russert who disclosed Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA employee to him. Russert has made clear that he did not. First, he did not know about Plame until he read the Novak article. But more importantly, he and other NBC/MSNBC employees have a documented record of why Libby had called Russert.

This is best told in Michael Isikoff and David Corn’s book "Hubris," on pages 264-67. Libby and Cheney were furious at Chris Matthews’ reporting on Hardball. Matthews had stated, "It sounds to me (like) a hawk in the vice president’s office, probably from Scooter Libby ‘ had placed the Niger lie in Bush’s State of the Union speech. Libby called Adam Levine to complain; when this failed to get the results he wanted, Libby called Russert to complain. Russert called NBC president Neal Shapiro, who took the complaint as coming from VP Cheney.

Clearly, both Libby and Cheney were active in the operation to discredit Wilson and Plame in the media.


{6} Will the Team Libby strategy to make Scooter appear so overworked change Mr. Fitzgerald’s approach?

(a) No. In the Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Reciprocal Disclosure Under CIPA (11-28-06), Mr. Fitzgerald made clear that he does not intend to contest the fact that Mr. Libby was busy with his work on a variety of other important issues involving national security. Rather, he will prove that the Wilson issue was something that occupied a lot of space in Scooter’s universe, and that he was actively involved in an attempt to discredit him. And Libby lied to investigators about this.

In their 12-4-06 Reply in Support of (their) Motion for Reciprocal Disclosure, Team Libby makes clear that they are frustrated that Mr. Fitzgerald will not attempt to say the Wilson matter was of greater significance to Scooter than the national security issues. Mr. Fitzgerald did not fall into that trap.


{7} Why is Ambassador Wilson attempting to avoid testifying at Libby’s trial?

(a) Team Libby is attempting to distract attention from the charges against Scooter. On October 28, 2005 he was indicted on five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to federal investigators. He is not on trial for exposing a CIA agent’s identity. The trial is not about the infamous "16 words" in Bush’s State of the Union address. The war in Iraq is not on trial. And nothing that Wilson has said or done bears any direct relationship to the trial of Scooter Libby.

This issue was addressed in part during the May 5, 2006 pre-trial motion hearing. When attorney Wells told the Court that he planned to discuss Wilson’s trip to Niger and similar issues during the trial, Judge Walton responded, "I don’t know if I’d let that in. …. I don’t see how that has anything to do with this case." When Wells continued to speak about Wilson, Judge Walton asked, "How does that have anything to do with whether Mr. Libby made the statements to these various people?"

Judge Walton asked Mr. Fitzgerald about the Niger trip, and about the the INR report? Mr. Fitzgerald responds, "But we are not going down the road of trying the case of whether or not Mr. Wilson is right or Mr. Libby right or whose view of this. It is simply whether or not Mr. Libby told the truth."


{8} Where does the Wilson civil trial stand?

(a) On 12-17, Aaron Kinney of the MediaNews Staff had an article posted on Contra Costa Times, titled "Burlingame attorney prepares for CIA leak case." He noted that last week, high-profile attroney Joe "Crotchett picked up a 5-inch thick binder that he had just received from the denfendants in the case. It contained motions to dismiss the lawsuit based on executive privilege. Leaning forward in his chair, Cotchett assessed the magnitude of the case. ‘It’s going to be the case of the next year,’ Cotchett said. ‘It’s going to be the case that everyone watches because it involves fundamental constitutional issues. It goes right to the heart of our national security’."

That is the court case where it will be appropriate for Ambassador Wilson to testify in. And he might also be an important witness in Congressional investigations.


{9} Is there any evidence that any democrats in Congress might be interested in VP Cheney’s role in the Plame Scandal?

(a) Yes, there certainly is. The Nation’s blog had a 12-19 essay by John Nichols, the author of the important new book "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founder’s Cure for Royalism." His essay is titled, "If Cheney’s Talking, He Should Talk to Congress." He points out that the VP’s testimony might open doors to something that all progressive democrats should support.

"A little more than a year ago, three key members of the House (John Conyers, Henry Waxman, and Maurice Hinchey) sent a letter to the Vice President’a office in which they asked the (sic) Cheney to ‘make yourself available to appear before Congress to explain the details and reasons for yur office’s involvement – and your personal involvement – in the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s identity as a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative’."

At the time, VP Cheney regarded Congressional attempts to provide oversight with utter contempt. He may find that things are going to change starting in January.


{10} Can we expect Conyers, Waxman, and/or Hinchey to examine the OVP’s role in the Plame scandal?

(a) Nichols quoted Hinchey as saying, "We are going to do everything we can to force this administration and this Congress to face up to the truth and to face up to their responsibility under the Constitution. … The people who wrote the Constitution that set up this government knew what they were doing. They knew what would happen if you let a regime go its own way without oversight. That’s why they set up the system of checks and balances. This Congress has shunned its responsibility, tossed its obligations under the Constitution aside – allowing the administration to do whatever it chooses, even to the point of looking aside when the administration lies to Congress and violates federal laws. That’s got to stop. We cannot have a monolithic government. We have to restore some of the balance, where the legislative branch is part of the process. And we think that one way to do this is by asking the vice president, in light of the questions that have arisen with regards to his actions, to come to Congress and answer the questions that are on the minds of the American people and their representatives."

I would suggest that people write to representative Maurice Hinchey at his Ithaca Office (123 S. Cayuga Street; #201; Ithaca, NY, 14850) and to request that John Conyers, Henery Waxman, and he make sure that VP Cheney comes to meet with Congress about his role in the Plame Scandal.

Boxing's Alphabet Syndrome

Boxing’s Alphabet Syndrome


{1} The Heavyweight Confusion

During Muhammad Ali’s first reign as champion, and especially when that reign was interrupted by the draft, there were circumstances that were similar to the confusion that defines today’s heavyweight division. And, although the issues in the 1960s were primarily political in nature, while today’s are more economic, the strange experience of replacing an unbeatable champion may hold some value for this generation.

After the great Rocky Marciano retired on April27, 1956, Floyd Patterson won the crown by defeating Archie Moore. Patterson was guided by Cus D’Amato, who had the young champion engage in a series of exhibitions, with a few defenses against relatively easy competition. Then, in the 22 months between June, 1959 and March, 1961, he fought the series with Ingemar Johansson.

Ingemar had been disqualified in the 1952 Olympics for refusing to fight, and Americans tended to overlook his achievements as a pro. However, he had won the Scandinavian heavyweight title in his 4th pro fight, and the European title in his 15th. In 1958, Eddie Machen traveled to Gothenburg for what he expected to be an easy fight to show-case his skills before challenging Patterson. Ingo flattened Eddie in the first round. His series with Patterson were exciting, historic fights.

Shortly after this series, Floyd split from D’Amato, and signed to fight Charles "Sonny" Liston. Cus wasn’t the only person concerned about this fight. President John Kennedy had given Floyd a pep talk, because he knew that the Heavyweight Champion was the sports figure that youngsters most looked up to. Though Liston was fighting more of the top contenders than Patterson, his criminal past and reputed ties to mobsters made him, in Howard Cosell’s words, "pugilism’s gift to literacy and culture …. He was a cheap and ugly bully without morality…"

Liston was also one of the most talented heavyweights in boxing’s history, and after easily destroying Patterson twice in one round, it seemed he would have a long and brutal reign as champion. After going on a two-month exhibition tour in Europe, Liston signed for a defense against an undefeated contender named Cassius Clay.

{2} Cassius Clay Becomes Muhammad Ali

Few boxing experts believed that Cassius Clay would last longer with Liston than Floyd Patterson had. But on February 25, 1964, Clay upset Sonny in one of boxing’s greatest upsets. Shortly after the fight, the young champion announced that he belonged to the Nation of Islam, and soon changed his name to Muhammad Ali. His first title defense would be a return match against Liston.

The return match with Liston was delayed when Ali had surgery for a hernia. In the period between his two Liston fights, the WBA would strip him of his title. In explaining the move, the WBA claimed that it was because Ali had signed for a return match with Liston. But most boxing fans knew that return matches were common, and that the WBA had taken the action because Ali was an outspoken member of the "Black Muslims."

On March 5, 1965, the WBA sanctioned a "championship" elimination bout between Eddie Machen and Ernie Terrell. At the time, Ernie had a 12-win streak, and some Chicago interests remembered that he had done well a few years before when sparring Ali. Terrell was 6’6" tall, and weighed 199 pounds. The WBA was confident they had an answer to Ali.

However, Terrell was not an exciting fighter to watch. After he decisioned Machen, AP wrote "the boos rolled out long and loudly… It (was) a miserable show, constantly marred by holding and spinning. Both were on the deck from shoves, pushes and slips but there were no knockdowns and nothing close to one."

The article ("Hollow Crown to Ernie") noted that few boxing fans took the WBA title seriously. The WBA was pushing Terrell to defend against Floyd Patterson, who had recently defeated George Chuvalo. However, Terrell stated, "We’ll fight anybody except Patterson. He’s an out-and-out bum. He’s never given anybody a chance."

Terrell would go on to defend his paper title against contenders Doug Jones and George Chuvalo. Ali, in the mean time, would defend the real title against Liston, Patterson, Chuvalo, Henry Cooper, Brian London, Karl Mildenberger, and Cleveland "Big Cat" Williams. A show-down between Ali and Terrell seemed inevitable, although the Heavyweight Champion’s conflict with Uncle Sam seemed to get in the way.

Finally, on February 6, 1967, the two met in Houston. Although he was otherwise a good and decent man outside the ring, Terrell decided to try to find favor with some segments of America by calling the Champ "Cassius Clay" and by questioning Ali’s stance on the draft. He paid for it in the ring. Ali taunted Terrell by asking, "What’s my name?" before delivering punishing combinations. Cosell wrote, "It was a mean game that Ali played that night. I felt there was a lust in the way he tortured and humiliated Ernie Terrell for 15 rounds. At times he laughed out loud."

Ali would defend the title once more before he appeared before the draft board in Houston on April 29, 1967, and refused to take a step forward. Literally within minutes, New York State’s boxing commissioner Edwin Dooley would announce that he had stripped Ali of both his license to box and of the heavyweight title. Others would follow suit. In time, only The Ring boxing magazine and Howard Cosell would be brave enough to take the correct stance on the political attempts to take Ali’s title.

{3} The Alphabet Syndrome

In the months following Ali’s refusal to be drafted, though he participated in two exhibitions in Detroit, he was stripped of his license to box in the US, and of his passport, which meant he could not defend his title. During this forced exile, the heavyweight division suffered from a confusion not unlike that which has resulted since Lennox Lewis retired.

The WBA decided to hold an elimination tournament to crown a new champion. At first, they considered including their "top ten" contenders. But one of them, an undefeated contender named Joe Frazier, declined to participate in the tournament. His trainer, Yancey Durham, recognized that styles make fights. Joe was a slow starter, and had been decked twice in one round by tough contender Oscar Bonavena on September 23, 1966. Yank’s top assistant at the time was Willie Reddish, who had helped train Liston in the past. Durham wanted to avoid putting Joe in with Sonny Liston until he had some more experience. (For a fascinating look at Durham and Reddish’s efforts in those days, read Anthonu Molock’s "Gypsy Joe Harris: Son of Philadelphia"; Authorhouse; 2006.)

Sonny Liston might have been the best fighter in the division. He had begun a European tour in 1966, and by the time Ali was forced out of competition, he had recorded four straight knockouts. Still, he had not regained the respect of the American public for his loses to Ali, especially the second one. The WBA decided to keep Liston out of the tournament, and to instead limit it to eight men.

The tournament, which was carried live on ABC, would have purses of $50,000 for the first round; $75,000 for each of the four participants in the second round; and $125,000 for the two men in the finals.

The first two fights of the "first round" of the tournament took place in Houston on August 5, 1967. The WBA had matched Terrell with Ali’s former sparring partner, Jimmy Ellis, but Terrell complained that this was an insult to a fighter of his status. Thus, Terrell was matched against Thad Spencer. And Spencer, a smooth fighter who was actually one of the better fighters in the division, upset Terrell in 12 rounds.

Jimmy Ellis fought Leotis Martin, who like Ellis had served as a sparring partner for better known heavyweights. However Martin, one of the two toughest heavyweights from Philadelphia, was considered among the favorites to win the tournament. Ellis had not been an impressive middleweight contender, and his performances as a heavyweight – including some surprising pop in his punch --were unappreciated. Ellis stopped the favored Martin in 9 rounds.

The next fight took place in Frankfurt, Germany on September 15. Karl Mildenberger, who had given Ali his toughest fight in the Champ’s title defenses, was matched with Argentina’s powerful Oscar Bonavena. Oscar decked Karl twice on his way to an upset decision.

Then, on October 28, former two-time champion Floyd Patterson fought Jerry Quarry. The two had fought a disputed draw on June 9, and although many blamed the curious California scoring system for denying Floyd the victory, the re-match was also held in Los Angeles. Though Quarry was the underdog, he was able to deck Patterson twice, and although Floyd appeared stronger in the later rounds, Quarry took the decision.

Thus, the four underdogs from the first round of the WBA tournament were set to advance to the second round of the tournament. And while boxing’s experts might not have considered Spencer, Ellis, Bonavena, and Quarry as the "most likely to succeed" Ali, ABC found that the three cards had been their most-watched sporting events so far in 1967. A real tournament attracted the public’s attention.

{4} The Second Round

Oscar Bonavena was scheduled to fight Jimmy Ellis on December 2, 1967 in Louisville, Kentucky. The 25 year old Buenos Aires powerhouse had won nine in a row since his close loss to Frazier, including 7 by knockout. He confidently predicted that he would kayo Ellis within two rounds. But it was not to be.

This was not the skinny kid who lost to middleweights like Rubin "Hurricane" Carter in 1964. Jimmy Ellis had matured into a strong, fast heavyweight, and he decked Oscar twice – once in the 3rd, and again in the 10th – on his way to a unanimous upset decision. Although the fans saw a close grueling fight, referee Herman Duttreix had it 59-53, judge Sid Baer scored it 55-54, and judge Hector Chaumont of Buenos Aries had it 59-53.

Ellis told reporters that even he was surprised when he decked Oscar with a left hand in the 10th. "I thought it was all over when he went down," Jimmy said. "I tried to get back to finish it, but there was only about 5 seconds left."

At this point, the "winners" were ABC’s Wide World of Sports, and the boxing fans watching a very entertaining tournament. The fights were exciting enough to draw the attention of sports fans beyond the normal fight fans, too. The WBA was letting cities bid on holding the fights, and the interest was reaching far beyond the Madison Square Garden and Houston Forum. Those being shut out by the WBA tournament decided to fight back.

Ed Dooley decided to take another bold move. In order to draw attention to the new Madison Square Garden, promoters were putting on a double-header: In the first 15 rounder, Emile Griffith and Nino Benvenuti would have a "rubber match" for Emile’s Middleweight crown. The match would have been a "main event’ in and of itself. But to top the card off, Joe Frazier was scheduled to meet Buster Mathis in another 15-rounder. Dooley announced that the winner would be recognized as the Heavyweight Champion of New York. More, Dooley got Massachusetts boxing commissioner Eddie Urbec to agree to recognize the winner as "interim" champion, until Ali’s status was resolved.

Buster Mathis is often remembered as the amateur who beat Frazier in the Olympic trials, but who pulled out with a broken hand. Frazier replaced him, and won the Gold with a broken thumb. But Buster Mathis deserves to be remembered as far more than a footnote in heavyweight history. He was an enormous young man, who was a gifted athlete. But he also was a gentle giant with a sometimes fragile ego. In a Sports Illustrated article before the fight, Mark Kram wrote about Mathis’ previous relationship with Cus D’Amato.

The Old Master had tried to instill a discipline that would have allowed Mathis to reach his potential. But Buster refused to accept the level of self-control D’Amato demanded. He had defeated Frazier twice in the amateurs, and was confident he would beat him in the professional ranks as well. Cus’ assistant Jimmy Iselin split with D’Amato to train Mathis.

The Garden match-makers had at first tried to put Frazier, then Mathis, against Floyd Patterson, but the ex-champ turned both fights down. Then the Frazier vs Mathis match was set for March 4, 1968.Kram noted that although it was for a "phony heavyweight title," it was the most interesting match – at least on paper – since the first Liston vs Clay match.

Meanwhile, Thad Spencer was scheduled to fight Jerry Quarry on February 3 in Oakland. Spencer was favored to beat the younger Irishman, who had a reputation for finding excuses for the fights he had failed to win. But Thad, who had separated from his wife after the Terrell fight, was seen out late , entertaining the ladies at nightclubs. And Quarry was training harder than he ever had before.

There was tremendous interest in this fight. Jimmy Ellis sat at ringside. Angelo Dundee was interested in not only who Ellis would fight in the finals, but – like Yank Durham – he recognized the loser would likely be a future opponent for his fighter.

Spencer was prepared to pressure Quarry, who was known to tire out in the middle rounds. Thad, who entered the ring a 7-5 favorite, had told reporters that he would knock Jerry out around the 4th. But at the end of that round, when he went after Quarry, he was decked by an overhand left. By the time Thad arose at the count of three, the round had ended.

Quarry’s counter-punches and his body attack wore Spencer down. In the 10th round, Jerry again floored Spencer, this time with a short right-hand. There were only 3 seconds left in the round. Jerry would continue to out-punch Spencer through the 11th round, and was ahead on all three scorecards going into the last round. Quarry again hurt Spencer, and the referee stopped the fight with 3 seconds left.

Yank Durham told reporters that Quarry reminded him of the former lightheavyweight champion Harold Johnson: he tended to fight the hardest when someone pressed him, and he was dangerous when hurt. But other than that, like Johnson, Quarry was easily lulled into a slow pace.

The finals of the WBA tournament would fight in late April.

{5} The Winner, but not quite "Champion"

1968 is a year that defined an American generation. Boxing, more so than any other sport, reflected the conflicts within our society. Almost as soon as he stopped Thad Spencer, a segment of sports fans identified Jerry Quarry as the new "Great White Hope." And at the same time, a growing number of Americans were making it clear that they were strongly opposed to both the WBA tournament and the Doolry attempt to name a new heavyweight champion.

Jerry Quarry did not welcome attempts to label him as The Great White Hope. His father, Jack, who was his co-manager, had instilled a sense of Irish-identity in his children. Promoters found Jack a stubborn, demanding fellow to deal with. The journalists who found Jerry an attractive figure also noted that both the father and son could be frustrating to deal with. Numerous articles from that time refer to the Irish clan mentality of the Quarry family. Jack was a crafty man, and he figured out a way to help Jerry deal with the "White Hope" business: Jerry would say he planned to be the first Irish-American heavyweight champion since Jimmy Braddock.

A group known as the W.E.B. DuBois Club, headed by Harry Edwards of San Jose State University, led protests of the up-coming Frazier vs Mathis fight. He wrote a message given to both Joe and Buster at their weigh-in, which read, "We are sure you recognize, as much as we do, that Muhammad Ali is still the heavyweight champion of the world – until somebody beats him in the ring."

At a press conference, Edwards stated, "We want anyone to know, who tries to pass himself off as champ, that we will mark this person as a traitor. There will be no black youths running to get autographs …. More like garbage from a fourth-floor window instead."

On March 4, Joe Frazier showed that he was a force to be reckoned with in the heavyweight division. Though Buster was tough in the early rounds, Frazier wore him down, and flattened Mathis in the 11th round. Many sports writers did not give Frazier the credit that he deserved, in part because Mathis was not considered a worthy opponent for a title elimination bout, and in part because the "title" was –according to Sport’s Illustrated’s Mark Kram, "no better than a Woolworth trinket."

Almost immediately, boxing fans began to look ahead to Frazier fighting the winner of the WBA tournament. Frazier said he wanted to fight Quarry, because "he has a big mouth." Boxing writers recognized that both Quarry and Ellis could prove to be a tough match for Frazier.

There were two other fighters who continued to cast a shadow on the heavyweight division. One was Sonny Liston. Twelve days after Frazier beat Mathis, Liston returned to the ring in the US for the first time since the loss to Ali in Lewiston. Although he was fighting "second tier" contenders, Liston would have a string of 11 knockouts by the end of 1968. But there was little chance that Yank Durham and Willie Reddish were going to put Frazier in with Liston.

The other heavyweight that haunted the division was, of course, Muhammad Ali. The Vietnam war was becoming more controversial, and civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. Had joined in the opposition to the war. It would later be revealed that the FBI had "listened in" to phone conversations between King and Ali. College audiences began to recognize Ali as a folk hero who symbolized their struggle.

A month after Frazier’s victory over Buster, King was shot in Memphis. Muhammad had been scheduled to speak at Colgate University in Hamilton, NY, but his appearance was canceled due to unrest on the campus and to honor Martin’s funeral.

On April 27, Jimmy Ellis met Jerry Quarry in Oakland. Angelo Dundee had taken notice of Yank Durham’s earlier comparison of Quarry to Harold Johnson. This was important, because Dundee had prepared Willie Pastrano for his June 1, 1963 win over Johnson. Pastrano won the boring 15-rounder by lulling Johnson into a slow pace, and not taking any chances.

Dundee told Ellis to keep the fight in the middle of the ring. He said if Quarry backed into the ropes, to "let him talk to himself there." Dundee knew it was better to win a boring decision than to lose a thrilling slugfest. And Jimmy Ellis agreed.

Jack Quarry sensed that his son was going to win the title. Although Jack was the co-manager, he attempted to increase his influence. There are both pros and cons with having a father for a trainer, as Calvin Brock has found. Jerry would have benefited from having someone else come in to help him prepare for Ellis. Instead, he was lulled into a boring 15 round fight. Whenever he attempted to draw Jimmy to the ropes, Dundee would yell for Ellis to stay in the middle of the ring. Quarry, a 7 to 5 favorite, spent much of the fight plodding forward, hoping to engage Ellis in order to counter-punch.

At the end of 15 rounds, Jimmy Lennon announced a split decision: referee Elmer Costa had it 7-6 for Ellis; judge Fred Apostoli had it 10-5 for Ellis; and judge Rudy Ortega scored it a 6-6 draw. Quarry had told Angelo Dundee that he knew Ellis had won the fight. He told reporters that even if the judges had given him the decision, he would have "given it back to Ellis." Ellis was a gracious winner, and Dundee promised boxing fans that Jimmy would be an "active champion."

{6} Unification

Joe Frazier proved to be the more active semi-champion: he had an action-packed two-round fight with Manuel Ramos in June, and a tough 15-rounder with Oscar Bonavena in December. The Ramos fight showed that Frazier was vulnerable to power punches in the early rounds. The Bonavena fight proved that he had great endurance.

During the summer Olympics in Mexico City, at a time when some black athletes were displaying a raised fist that signified Black Power, the winner of the Olympic Heavyweight Title would carry a small American flag around the ring. Behind George Foreman’s charming exterior was an angry young man, who would learn to focus his power in the ring by serving as a sparring partner for Sonny Liston. Boxing fans were confident that Big George would be a force in the heavyweight division’s future, and he did not disappoint.

Ellis would travel to Stockholm to defend against Floyd Patterson on September 15. The ex-champion had only won three of his last six fights since losing to Ali in 1965, but he was a sentimental favorite with many boxing fans. Ellis would decision Patterson in 15 rounds, though many of the American fans watching on ABC were swayed by Howard Cosell’s reporting, and thought Floyd deserved the decision. Cosell had enjoyed a long personal friendship with Floyd, and had difficulty being objective. Ellis had actually won the fight, fair and square.

Neither Ellis nor Patterson would fight again until 1970. While Ellis was inactive, Joe Frazier would make two defenses in 1969: he KOed an overmatched but tough Dave Zyglewicz in 1 round in April; then stop Jerry Quarry in 7 rounds in June.

Sonny Liston won three more fights in ’69, before being flattened by his former sparring partner, Leotis Martin, in 10 rounds. Although Sonny won a last fight the next year, the loss to Martin effectively ended his career. Leotis had been on an unlikely campaign to get Frazier into the ring, and had put together some impressive wins. But he suffered a detached retina against Liston, and was forced to retire.

On February 3, 1970, Muhammad Ali announced his retirement from the ring. On February 16, Joe Frazier met Jimmy Ellis in a bout to decide who the real heavyweight champion of the world would be. Frazier looked as good in that fight as he ever would, and stopped a game Jimmy Ellis in 5 rounds. Finally, there was an undisputed heavyweight champion !

Today, the heavyweight division suffers from the Alphabet Syndrome. There has not been a real champion since Lennox Lewis retired with the title. A number of factors have kept the division in turmoil, because there are forces that capitalize on the confusion. A tournament might not settle every question – it didn’t happen with the WBA elimination tournament in ’67 and ’68. But it brought the division to within one fight of settling who the real champion was. It should happen again.

Requim for a Lightweight

It is likely that yesterday will be remembered as a turning point in the American course in Iraq. What is unclear at this point is what direction our country is preparing to go in. It seemed evident when the public went to the polls in November that the vast majority of Americans reject the Bush-Cheney "vision" for Iraq, and it is safe to say most of us had hoped that the Baker-Hamilton group would put partisan interests on the hold, and advocate for the national good. Did they? It may be too early to say for sure.

One of the difficulties they face was summed up perfectly by President Bush’s line: "I urge the members of Congress to take this report seriously." No wonder his father broke down when talking about the measure of a person being their ability to deal with defeat. As one of my republican friends e-mailed me yesterday, "10 more servicemen dead today …. So 1 arrogant baby won’t have to admit he’s wrong."

I saw David Gergen on CNN last night. He noted that Bush has been in a bubble, isolated from reality, for three years now. He said that a growing problem is that his administration is inhabiting that same bubble. I thought of Tony Snow, a man who is so invested in that bubble that he has no more contact with reality than the followers of Jim Jones did in their final hours.

George W. Bush is not stable enough to be trusted to fetch a glass of water, much less run the country. He rants about "victory," though he has no concept of what that means. His measure of "victory" is found in the pre-sorted crowds of republican sheep who cheer him on. If he were given the opportunity to prance about in the uniform he has disgraced, in front of the troops he has betrayed, on that same aircraft carrier, George W. Bush would be convinced it was proof of "victory."

Gergen and others are saying that out of respect for the investment our nation has made, and the horrors that we created, we should respect the Baker group’s belief that we should consider giving it one last shot. That may be. It is worth our sincere consideration. But we need to be frank in discussing what that means, because it clearly can mean different things to different people.

The administration has been quietly proposing a "surge" aimed at confronting the Mahdi army of Muqtada al-Sadr. It is believed that this militia, which is 60,000 strong, is the second strongest military force in Iraq. When VP Cheney was beckoned to Saudi Arabia on November 25, it was to hear their concerns on the threat Iranian-backed Shi’ites posed to the Sunnis. This was further detailed in Nawaf Obaid’s op-ed in the Washinton Post last week.

President Bush had planned to push this issue in his meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. But al-Maliki depends on al-Sadr’s support, and the threat of having that support withdrawn was the reason al-Maliki snubbed Bush. The anticipated lack of cooperation on the prime minister’s part was why the Hadley memo was leaked to the New York Times.

The U.S. military would defeat the Mahdi army in a "surge." But that is not the issue. What the price would be is. At this point, most Americans are not interested in having the Saudi "royal family" define US policy. In fact, the public is growing tired of "royal families," foreign or domestic. The November elections were a clear call for a national policy that represents our democratic principles.

I had read some of the reports and positions of the ISG from June on, before reading their final report. I urge people to take the time to carefully examine it. There is a great deal of important information contained in it. And there is evidence that many of the group’s members had diverse and sometimes conflicting opinions.

I’m a bit less impressed by the presentation yesterday. I felt that it was ½ Warren Commission, telling the public that President Bush was the "lone nut" that got us into the war, but that he is really a "good nut," and that we must ignore the systematic criminal activities of the PNAC/necroconservatives that brought our nation to war. And I thought that the other ½ was an updated version of "The Homecoming," where the Walton family deals with a family crisis by the grace of Grandpa Baker and Grandma O’Connor’s wisdom. I half expected Jim Baker to appear wearing bib overalls.

As Tom Friedman – hardly a progressive thinker – stated on the MSNBC Imus mourning show today, we need to end the US occupation of Iraq. It is one of the major causes of the violence. And we are training the "insurgents." Let’s not give any respectful attention to Tony Snow’s mantra that we need to train the Iraqis. They obviously know how to fight. We should quit sacrificing our soldiers to the president’s delusion and Dick Cheney’s lust for oil.

Friedman said that he imagines Bush curling up into a fetal position, under his bed, after being confronted by reality. Imus compared him to LBJ in his unstable phase at the end of his presidency. That reminded me of Gergen last night, saying that if there had been this type of commission in 1967, tens of thousands of American youth would not have had to die for nothing in Vietnam. I wish that the ISG’s report was enough to end the insanity of the war in Iraq. But, alas, it is not. Ten more servicemen died yesterday, because this president and vice president will not admit they are wrong.

How many more people – American and Iraqi – have to die because of Bush and Cheney’s "mistakes"? It seems clear to me that the IRG report can only be meaningful if we pressure Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney.

Awake

Recently I have had the opportunity to take part in a couple of interesting discussions. The longer of the two has to do with progressive democrats advocating that the Congress move towards the impeachment of the president and/or vice president. There have been a variety of opinions about what that means, and how it might best be accomplished. The other conversation of note was about Gandhi consciousness, and the potential benefit that this holds for those who are hoping to end the Bush-Cheney aggression in Iraq. I suspect that these two topics are very closely related.

The issue of impeachment is gaining the interest of a wide range of people. It’s worth noting that conservative republican radio personality Jay Severen has called for President Bush to either resign, or face impeachment, for his present policy in Iraq. While I think that we should start by impeaching VP Cheney for manipulating the intelligence, and lying to the country about the true reasons he helped force the country to war in Iraq, I find Severen’s position interesting. I recognize, however, that a large number of the members of the Democratic Underground make a far stronger case for impeaching Bush.

At the same time, there are people who pose as having the democratic party’s best interests in mind when they say that it will damage our chances to win the White House if we so much as whisper the word "impeachment" in public. Although the Constitution of the United States clearly calls for impeachment, in terms that even Severen grasps, they warn us that now is not the time, and that there are more important things we need to concentrate on.

This reminds me of a part of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech, given in the Bishop Charles Mason Temple in Memphis on April 3, 1968. We know this speech as "I See the Promised Land," and tend to be most familiar with the final few paragraphs., where he predicts his death. But earlier in the presentation, Martin spoke about history, including the Roman Empire.
"Now, what does all this mean in this great period of history? It means that we’ve got to stay together. We’ve got to stay together, and maintain unity. You know, whenever the Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh’s court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that’s the beginning of getting out of slavery. Now let’s maintain unity."
Martin was planning his Poor People’s Campaign for the summer. He had been working to combine the civil rights movement with the anti-war movement. And he came to recognize that both racism and war combined to hold a large group of people in poverty. He knew that he was challenging the power structure in America, and he recognized that was dangerous.

"And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. …. Well, I don’t know what will happen now. … Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. ….And He’s allowed me to go up on the mountain. And I’ve looked over. …" That part of Martin’s final speech still haunts America. Indeed, it should. Yet we should not get stuck on his Gethsemane, and fail to move in the direction he spoke of.

On March 31, 1968, Martin had given his last Sunday sermon. He delivered the Passion Sunday sermon at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC. That speech was titled, "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution." While it is not as famous as his "I Have a Dream," "A Time to Break Silence (Beyond Vietnam)," or "I See the Promised Land" speeches, it remains one of his most important statements.

"Remaining Awake …." speaks to us on many levels. Certainly Martin was speaking of Gandhi consciousness, a level of awareness reflected in his beginning the speak by making reference to the line from the Book of Revelations, Chapter 16: "Behold, I make all things new, former things are passed away." And he compares this awakening to the prolonged sleep described in Washington Irving’s classic, "Rip Van Winkle."

King focused on an important, often forgotten part of the Rip Van Winkle tale. When he went off to sleep, he saw a picture of King George; when he woke up, there was a picture of George Washington. Rip Van Winkle did not recognize the first president, because he had slept through a Great Revolution.

Martin reminded his audience that they were in a time of a Great Revolution, too. He called it a triple revolution, based upon the technology that had made the world a global community; the violence that threatened to destroy the world in a nuclear war; and the human rights campaign that was confronting racism and poverty.

He quoted a John F. Kennedy saying twice: "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind." He also quoted John Donne: "No man is an island entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent – a part of the main." He connected the price of the Vietnam War – the death of each enemy soldier cost the US tax-payers $500,000 – with the inability of the Johnson administration to make real the promise of LBJ’s Great Society.

Great documents always hold that promise of great things to be done, Martin said, but it was up to mankind to accomplish those potentials. And he identified one of the enemies of those who wished to accomplish the good described in the Constitution, the Emancipation Proclamation, and other documents. That enemy "is the myth of time. …There are those who often sincerely say …., "Why don’t you slow up? Stop pushing things so fast. Only time can solve the problem. …..

"There is an answer to that myth. It is that time is neutral. It can be used either constructively or destructively. And I am sorry to say this morning that I am absolutely convinced that the forces of ill will in our nation, the extreme rightists of our nation – the people on the wrong side – have used time much more effectively than the forces of good will. …. Somewhere we must come to see that human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability."

In "Martin Luther King, Jr.: The Making of a Mind" (Orbis Books; Maryknoll, NY; 1990), author John Ansbro focuses on King’s discussing how he combined the teachings of Jesus with the tactics of Gandhi. He quotes Martin as describing the Montgomery Boycott: "Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the loveethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale." In a sermon at The Riverside Church in New York City in 1967, King said, "Christ showed us the way and Gandhi showed us it could work." And in "Stride Toward Freedom," King wrote about the form of Gandhi consciousness known as "satyagraha" – which means "holding on to Truth," or "Truth-force."

Martin was planning to lead a Poor People’s Campaign in Washington, DC during the summer of 1968. He was prepared to challenge the power of the state, and to demand social justice. It was an intense plan, and it made many people nervous. Even some of Martin’s closest associates were opposed to it. They were even arguing about it during Martin’s last 24 hours on earth.

On Passion Sunday, King told of a journalist asking him, "Don’t you think you’re going to have to stop, now, opposing the war and move more in line with the administration’s policy? As I understand it, it has hurt the budget of your organization and people who once respected you, have lost respect for you. Don’t you feel that you’ve really got to change your position?" And King that he was not a "consensus leader," and that he did not take Gallop polls to determine what his beliefs should be. Rather, he looked to be a molder of consensus.

"On some positions," King said, "cowardice asks the question, is it expediant? And then expedience comes along and asks the question – is it politic? Vanity asks the question – is it popular? Conscience asks the question – is it right? There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor polite, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right. … And I submit that nothing will get done until people of good will put their bodies and their souls in motion."

Thirty-eight years later, we are facing many of the same problems that Martin confronted then. We have an immoral war in a distant land that we need to stop. It is keeping this country from becoming a Great Society, and not only because of the financial investments the Bush-Cheney administration has made. We need to be fully awake and fully aware of these connections.

King was prepared to shut Washington down to protest this nation’s policies. Those of us who are advocating that Congress begin the investigations that should lead to impeachment are not looking to shut anything but executive corruption down. In fact, we are asking Americans to take the actions needed to make sure that Washington DC does work properly. We want to bring life to those great documents. We invite you to join us.

Please write to Reps. Waxman and Conyers this week, and request that they investigate the lies that brought this nation to war in Iraq.